Go get 'em, John!

Oct 18, 2008 09:20

ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK!

Read more... )

Leave a comment

tak178 October 19 2008, 05:19:55 UTC
I disagree with Bush being a "crappy President". I agree that he really has bungled it up over the past 2 years, however.

I have the Voter's Pamphlet as well, and while there is a Socialist Party, Obama is trying to put this agenda across under the nose of unsuspecting Americans. His conversation with "Joe the Plumber" is telling, as Obama freely admitted his Socialist agenda. Taking my tax dollars, and giving to to people who WILL NOT WORK is not the America I want. This country, by far, is centre-right, and we do not want a Socialist government in place. All you have to do is look to Europe and Canada to see the fallacy of that kind of system.

The electoral college works. It doesn't need to be removed. It prevents mob rule, as this country is NOT a democracy. It is a representative Republic, and must remain so to protect our nation.

I would like to see more parties, ala Canada. To give you an idea, here is the list of major parties, and their current politcal philosophies:

Conservative - Centre-Right
Liberal - Centre-Left
NDP (New Democrat Party) - Socialist i.e. Extreme-Left
Bloc Quebecois - Far-Left

In a Parliamentary system, very few times in history does one party hold a mandated majority. Stephen Harper just won 143 seats in the current Federal election last week, but needed 155 seats for a majority. If the US had more parties, you wouldn't have a super-majority in Congress, it never happens.

This is the system that we should move towards, where more representation is possible. Not necessarily Parliamentary, but more parties. Why don't we have a Centrist Party? Why don't we have a Socialist Party? Why don't we have a TRUE Conservative Party? We have let the two Parties become to big and too powerful.

~Dave

Reply

seikojin October 19 2008, 06:55:07 UTC
Yeah, we do disagree with his ability to be a president. I also disagree with how long he has been blundering. I see 8 years at least.

I dunno... I think most of the people on the ballot aren't worth the air to say their names. They always work for money. And as long as their greed fuels their decisions, we will have a shitty country.

I think there needs to be wealth caps. Does that make me some kind of party? I dunno, nor do I really put effort into caring about it. Because it doesn't really affect me. By that I mean, even if this country went to shit, I could take my family and go somewhere and survive happily. And for me, that is what matters. I could be happy if the country went to shit. It would mean a more basic system. Less complication. We can then do it up right. Or better.

I agree on that last sentance. We let two parties get too big.

Reply

tak178 October 19 2008, 07:00:44 UTC
There should not be wealth caps. If you want to do that, go to Cuba.

This country is screaming for change, but not the change coming from Obama, or even McCain. They want a country that allows them to be free from tyranny, and a country that is respected. The last time that happened, Ronald Reagan was in office.

"Lack of government isn't the source of our problems, GOVERNMENT is the problem." - Ronald Reagan

~Dave

Reply


Leave a comment

Up