As the political discussions on here have increased, so has the partisanship. Liberals call conservatives names, Republicans call Democrats names, but seriously...

How fucking dumb are you?

The two-party system serves NOBODY except itself. Trying to categorize all of the opinions in the country into one of two groups is as limiting as you can get without having only one group. It's like trying to put every song ever written into one of two genres.

The whole "our side against their side" thing the Democrats and the Republicans have going on is just to distract the ignorant from what they're really doing.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As the political discussions on here have
> increased, so has the partisanship. Liberals call
> conservatives names, Republicans call Democrats
> names, but seriously...
>
> How fucking dumb are you?
>
> The two-party system serves NOBODY except itself.
> Trying to categorize all of the opinions in the
> country into one of two groups is as limiting as
> you can get without having only one group. It's
> like trying to put every song ever written into
> one of two genres.
>
> The whole "our side against their side" thing the
> Democrats and the Republicans have going on is
> just to distract the ignorant from what they're
> really doing.


In other words, Fox News!

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As the political discussions on here have
> increased, so has the partisanship. Liberals call
> conservatives names, Republicans call Democrats
> names, but seriously...
>
> How fucking dumb are you?
>
> The two-party system serves NOBODY except itself.
> Trying to categorize all of the opinions in the
> country into one of two groups is as limiting as
> you can get without having only one group. It's
> like trying to put every song ever written into
> one of two genres.
>
> The whole "our side against their side" thing the
> Democrats and the Republicans have going on is
> just to distract the ignorant from what they're
> really doing.

Shut up Communist! I mean Neo-Con! I mean Socialist! I mean Nazi! Damn it, what do I mean?

Revolutionary?

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

A couple of points.

There's some truth to what you're saying.

But, imho, the genius of the American system is that it recognizes that significant numbers of people are partisan - it's just human nature - and our government is specifically designed to accommodate that, through a system of checks and balances, rather than trying to somehow change human nature, which is impossible.

As this op-ed notes, somewhat paradoxically, partisanship is really the glue that holds the whole thing together: http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/commentary/wb/200701

But this is by design, as explained by Madison in Federalist No. 10.

Multi-party systems have problems of their own, and are not necessarily a panacea: http://wiki.idebate.org/index.php/Debate:_Two-party_system


>The two-party system serves NOBODY except itself.<

Despite its inherent limitations and problems, the two-party system (which the US has been for most of its history, in one form or another) has proven to be a remarkably stable form of government. And this stability is the basis for the relative freedom and prosperity enjoyed by many American citizens.

Neutral Third-Party (no pun intended) Observer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A couple of points.
>
> There's some truth to what you're saying.
>
> But, imho, the genius of the American system is
> that it recognizes that significant numbers of
> people are partisan - it's just human nature - and
> our government is specifically designed to
> accommodate that, through a system of checks and
> balances, rather than trying to somehow change
> human nature, which is impossible.
>
> As this op-ed notes, somewhat paradoxically,
> partisanship is really the glue that holds the
> whole thing together:
> http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/commentary/wb/20
> 0701
>
> But this is by design, as explained by Madison in
> Federalist No. 10.
>
> Multi-party systems have problems of their own,
> and are not necessarily a panacea:
> http://wiki.idebate.org/index.php/Debate:_Two-part
> y_system
>
>
> >The two-party system serves NOBODY except
> itself.<
>
> Despite its inherent limitations and problems, the
> two-party system (which the US has been for most
> of its history, in one form or another) has proven
> to be a remarkably stable form of government. And
> this stability is the basis for the relative
> freedom and prosperity enjoyed by many American
> citizens.


tl;dr

Who you calling partisan??
Attachments:

You are the LAST person to complain about politics MISTER Mephisto. You are a racist, and when you are called out you ball up like a FAGGOT BITCH and deny it all.

YOU = FASHIST

He very well may be a faggot bitch.

But it hardly seems fair to call him *ahem* a fascist, except perhaps on the subject of spandex-wearing cyclists.

I had no idea janitors couldn't find common ground with "spandex-wearing cyclists".

______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.

Then you haven't been paying attention, dipshit.

In order...

Neutral Third-Party (no pun intended) Observer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A couple of points...

Someone once said that the bureaucracy that clogs the nation's arteries is what's keeping it afloat. I'm starting to wonder if that's really the case, or whether it's just delaying the inevitable.

Put too many people of extremely opposing viewpoints in the same place together, and it's going to end badly. The population is growing exponentially, and getting dumber with every generation. I think we're sowing the seeds of our own destruction.

Mr. Mephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am a retard without a thought of my own.

in their defense Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> blah blah blah

I see your grasp of the English language has not improved in the past 12 hours.

Mr. Cobblestone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He very well may be a faggot bitch.

Who knows?! Certainly not me.

> But it hardly seems fair to call him *ahem* a
> fascist, except perhaps on the subject of
> spandex-wearing cyclists.

I cleared the virtual air with that Berdhuis (sp?) guy, and actually saw something even more loathesome today:

Some douche was riding a bike, with a numbered biking jersey, cargo shorts, flip flops, bright yellow helmet, and CamelBack.

I almost vomited right then and there.

Mr. Cobblesworth. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Then you haven't been paying attention, dipshit.

What's really funny is, my rat has bigger balls than you.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> What's really funny is, my rat has bigger balls
> than you.





.
Attachments:

Exactly.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Someone once said that the bureaucracy that clogs
> the nation's arteries is what's keeping it afloat.
> I'm starting to wonder if that's really the case,
> or whether it's just delaying the inevitable.
>
> Put too many people of extremely opposing
> viewpoints in the same place together, and it's
> going to end badly. The population is growing
> exponentially, and getting dumber with every
> generation. I think we're sowing the seeds of our
> own destruction.


No question, it could all come tumbling down at any time. But if it does, I don't think it will be because of the two-party system.

Neutral Third-Party (no pun intended) Observer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MrMephisto Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Someone once said that the bureaucracy that
> clogs
> > the nation's arteries is what's keeping it
> afloat.
> > I'm starting to wonder if that's really the
> case,
> > or whether it's just delaying the inevitable.
> >
> > Put too many people of extremely opposing
> > viewpoints in the same place together, and it's
> > going to end badly. The population is growing
> > exponentially, and getting dumber with every
> > generation. I think we're sowing the seeds of
> our
> > own destruction.
>
>
> No question, it could all come tumbling down at
> any time. But if it does, I don't think it will
> be because of the two-party system.

Think of how much more we could accomplish if we elected leaders instead of politicians.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Think of how much more we could accomplish if we
> elected leaders instead of politicians.


Yes, in theory.

But what system, given human nature, will accomplish that?

Most people who strive for positions of leadership are greedy and power-hungry.

The ones who aren't are usually crushed early on by the ones who are.

And if somehow they aren't crushed, and rise to the top, then that familiar principle almost inevitably comes into play -- power corrupts, total power corrupts totally.

What the US system has chiefly going for it is its realism -- its realism about human nature, its realism about partisanship.

The whole thing could come crashing down at any time -- and doubtless someday it will. No political system lasts forever. But I really don't see the two-party system as the cancer that will destroy everything.

Neutral Third-Party (no pun intended) Observer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MrMephisto Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Think of how much more we could accomplish if
> we
> > elected leaders instead of politicians.
>
>
> Yes, in theory.
>
> But what system, given human nature, will
> accomplish that?
>
> Most people who strive for positions of leadership
> are greedy and power-hungry.
>
> The ones who aren't are usually crushed early on
> by the ones who are.
>
> And if somehow they aren't crushed, and rise to
> the top, then that familiar principle almost
> inevitably comes into play -- power corrupts,
> total power corrupts totally.
>
> What the US system has chiefly going for it is its
> realism -- its realism about human nature, its
> realism about partisanship.
>
> The whole thing could come crashing down at any
> time -- and doubtless someday it will. No
> political system lasts forever. But I really
> don't see the two-party system as the cancer that
> will destroy everything.


Stop looking at "the two-party system" as an ideal, and just consider what we have in place, TODAY.

We don't have a "two-party system" in the classic sense, and besides, there is no provision in the US Constitution that stipulates that there should only be two parties.

We have two parties, for sure, but look at who those two parties answer to.

Do they answer to the people? Certainly not, they've got everyone so divided and pissed off about "values" and "issues", while both parties pander to powerful moneyed interests. Whether it is the Defense Contractors, or Bankers, or Big PhRMA, or Agribusiness, or Unions, or the MPAA, or MADD, or Oil, or Trial Lawyers, or the AARP.

Citizens no longer have a say, unless they agree with one of the large special interest groups, and even then you only have a say because you were convinced through extensive media and public relations campaigns to get on board their agenda. As a regular citizen, you are otherwise disenfranchised from our political system.

Think about Divide and Conquer. It's not only used against an enemy force in battle, it can also be used when you wish to maintain control over a population by pitting half your citizens against the other half in distractions and side shows while the government becomes more and more a part of a corporatist, money making regime.

From this week's Time Magazine:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1924494,00.html

If people are so frustrated with a two-party system, why has there been so little success in coming up with another real contender?

Erika Groff, TROY, N.Y.

Ron Paul: Because we don't have a two-party system. We have a one-party system. Both parties endorse the welfare state and corporatism. Both parties support interventionism overseas. But they also write all the campaign laws. So they have made it virtually impossible to break into the monopoly. If I had run on a third-party ticket I wouldn't have been in the debates.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
The function of conservatives is not to meet every liberal program or scheme with a denunciation or a destructive counterscheme, but rather to weigh its advantages and defects, supporting the first and challenging the second. A declaration of ideological warfare against liberalism is by its nature profoundly unconservative. It meets perceived radicalism with a counterradicalism of its own.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/21/2009 11:26PM by Thurston Moore.

Thurston Moore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Stop looking at "the two-party system" as an
> ideal, and just consider what we have in place,
> TODAY.


Actually, I think I do look at "what we have in place," rather seeing the two-party system through rose-colored glasses, or as an ideal.

On a practical level, I think it works fairly well.

Is it subject to the criticisms you raise? Absolutely.

But given human nature, given the way powerful people ALWAYS accrue power to themselves - from the beginning of recorded history - I just don't see that there are any great alternatives out there.

As Churchill said: "Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried."

And, within the context of democracy, I think the same might be said of the two-party system.


>We have two parties, for sure, but look at who those two parties answer to.

Do they answer to the people? Certainly not, they've got everyone so divided and pissed off about "values" and "issues", while both parties pander to powerful moneyed interests.<


There's a good deal of truth to what you're saying here. I'm just not convinced that the GREATER factionalism that would inevitably arise (it seems to me) in a multi-party democratic system would be a substantive improvement on the level of factionalism in our present two-party system.

Eventually it would come down to: meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

And in a limited, haphazard way, I think they parties do answer to the people. Yes, the powers that be do their damndest to manipulate issues, divide and conquer, and behind the scenes it's all very cynical. But so long as politicians need periodically to be reelected, they need to answer to the voters, and so it can't ultimately be reduced to a puppet show. Recall, for example, Rove's musings circa W's first term that the Republican party was on the verge of obtaining permanent majority. At the time, that did not seem implausible. But then vexing reality stepping in, and the vexing voting populace, and that particular fantasy crumbled. So ultimately, I think the politicians do answer to the people, although, again, in a limited, haphazard way.

Just look at all the State laws that have institutionalized the two parties.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Neutral Third-Party (no pun intended) Observer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thurston Moore Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Stop looking at "the two-party system" as an
> > ideal, and just consider what we have in place,
> > TODAY.
>
>
> Actually, I think I do look at "what we have in
> place," rather seeing the two-party system through
> rose-colored glasses, or as an ideal.
>
> On a practical level, I think it works fairly
> well.
>
> Is it subject to the criticisms you raise?
> Absolutely.
>
> But given human nature, given the way powerful
> people ALWAYS accrue power to themselves - from
> the beginning of recorded history - I just don't
> see that there are any great alternatives out
> there.
>
> As Churchill said: "Many forms of Government have
> been tried and will be tried in this world of sin
> and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect
> or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that
> democracy is the worst form of government except
> all those other forms that have been tried."
>
> And, within the context of democracy, I think the
> same might be said of the two-party system.
>
>
> >We have two parties, for sure, but look at who
> those two parties answer to.
>
> Do they answer to the people? Certainly not,
> they've got everyone so divided and pissed off
> about "values" and "issues", while both parties
> pander to powerful moneyed interests.<
>
>
> There's a good deal of truth to what you're saying
> here. I'm just not convinced that the GREATER
> factionalism that would inevitably arise (it seems
> to me) in a multi-party democratic system would be
> a substantive improvement on the level of
> factionalism in our present two-party system.
>
> Eventually it would come down to: meet the new
> boss, same as the old boss.
>
> And in a limited, haphazard way, I think they
> parties do answer to the people. Yes, the powers
> that be do their damndest to manipulate issues,
> divide and conquer, and behind the scenes it's all
> very cynical. But so long as politicians need
> periodically to be reelected, they need to answer
> to the voters, and so it can't ultimately be
> reduced to a puppet show. Recall, for example,
> Rove's musings circa W's first term that the
> Republican party was on the verge of obtaining
> permanent majority. At the time, that did not
> seem implausible. But then vexing reality
> stepping in, and the vexing voting populace, and
> that particular fantasy crumbled. So ultimately,
> I think the politicians do answer to the people,
> although, again, in a limited, haphazard way.


There are many developed countries that have multi-party systems.

Some have designed their democracries to create "coalition" governments, like Germany, Italy, many south american countries.

They might have 3, 6, a dozen or more parties, and they have run-offs and coalition arrangements, but they definitely end up with a system that answers to the people, even if not evenhandedly, rather than being a duopoloy that ends up answering only to the powerful or those special interests who have become powerful through forceful and concerted public relations efforts.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
The function of conservatives is not to meet every liberal program or scheme with a denunciation or a destructive counterscheme, but rather to weigh its advantages and defects, supporting the first and challenging the second. A declaration of ideological warfare against liberalism is by its nature profoundly unconservative. It meets perceived radicalism with a counterradicalism of its own.

there is only one party.

MY party.

Regis-turd Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> there is only one party.
>
> MY party.


shut up dude...