Reply
Mon 7 May, 2007 09:41 am
Does anyone out there believe, like me. That the party system is bunk!
Surely the time has come to discard politics as a ruling force. To pick people for there worth and humanity. Yes they can have ideals, even religious belief.
But their sole aim is work for the better of the country 'world' if you like, but lets keep it national for now. Parliaments, chosen by the people based on the individual worth, and not politics, with no leader. Here in the UK we get 4 years of the same party, and if they get kicked out in the next election we start all over again!
What a load of bollocks! Anyone got any ideas.
I would call it 'The Coalition of Free Politics' although there must be some better word than 'Politics'
@couchp,
i'm a firm believer of "vote the man, not the party" and have voted on both sides in all elections.
@couchp,
Yes I believe you vote for the man, but whats your views on the party system,
@couchp,
I don't believe in it and pretty much ignore it. I'm registered Independent.
@briansol,
Good man, Independence is probably the key. The problem is how do get independent thought to agree, and not form a party.
@couchp,
couchp;15349 wrote:Yes I believe you vote for the man, but whats your views on the party system,
The party system sucks, mainly because you should be loyal, although on some issues this falls down. Independence is probably the key, but keeping like minded people together without forming a party is the problem!
@couchp,
I don't see anything wrong with a party system, just not two parties, more than two, so we can represent the beliefs of everyone equally.
@couchp,
I think we should have parties, but they should best serve simply individual candidates.
@Darkseid,
Darkseid;15641 wrote:I think we should have parties, but they should best serve simply individual candidates.
Yeah......you'd like that, wouldn't you? Hoping to get Farakon or one of his followers elected?
@couchp,
Ron Paul is a perfect example of voting for the man... he is definately NOT your "typical" republican!
@Reagaknight,
Reagaknight;15452 wrote:I don't see anything wrong with a party system, just not two parties, more than two, so we can represent the beliefs of everyone equally.
word, why do I have to pick between the freeloader party and the corperate america party? Where's the party for the adverage joe? He doesn't have one because he's too busy providing for his family...
@couchp,
It's all about money. Repubs want corporate money. Dems want tax-dollars. The media whores itself for ratings, which equal bucks. A rich nation will be ruled by money. Sorry. There is no 'average Joe' in public policy-making. There's only money.:no:
@couchp,
We have a multiple party system here is Brazil, but the lack of political cohesivness makes it hard to pass legislation.
@couchp,
I'm sick of the existence of Democrats. I'm also sick of
fake Republicans, such as GW, who are timid pansies. GW got us into this f----d up war, yet he says next to nothing about it on a daily basis.
WHERE IS HIS INSPIRING LEADERSHIP, dammit? I voted for him twice. I want
MORE.
@Silverchild79,
Silverchild79;15721 wrote:word, why do I have to pick between the freeloader party and the corperate america party? Where's the party for the adverage joe? He doesn't have one because he's too busy providing for his family...
Read the Charter of the Bible Party of the USA again. You'll find it supports the "average Joe."
@markx15,
markx15;15745 wrote:We have a multiple party system here is Brazil, but the lack of political cohesivness makes it hard to pass legislation.
Lack of political cohesiveness is due to a lack of shared values.
@Pinochet73,
Pinochet73;15733 wrote:It's all about money. Repubs want corporate money. Dems want tax-dollars. The media whores itself for ratings, which equal bucks. A rich nation will be ruled by money. Sorry. There is no 'average Joe' in public policy-making. There's only money.:no:
The funding basis for the Bible Party of the USA will be annual membership dues from the members and corporations or organizations that employ them. The maximum amount that can be provided from each member and each member's employer is capped. No other funding source will be allowed.
@Reagaknight,
Reagaknight;15452 wrote:I don't see anything wrong with a party system, just not two parties, more than two, so we can represent the beliefs of everyone equally.
Representing everyone's ideals equally leads to anarchy. Let the marketplace of ideas operate and weed out those that don't work.
@couchp,
I think our system stopped evolving ...whatever the next step is the first step toward improving it is willingness to do so....mini parties....???
@rhopper3,
rhopper3;15800 wrote:I think our system stopped evolving ...whatever the next step is the first step toward improving it is willingness to do so....mini parties....???
The party system is like a big horseshoe. Left and right are at the ends of the horseshoe next to each other with a gap of space that can't be crossed. They are alike, just differ in their desired end state, who will be in charge.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace