http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story...=128549125

I guess the "Party of No" would be a fitting moniker in this case.

We are an entire nation of "NO". We don't vote for things. We vote against them. Our politicians aren't for getting people to be for anything. They're for getting the people against the things they're against. Nobody is for anything, except for the extreme lunatics who have their one glorious issue that they pander to anyone who is stupid enough to listen to their tirades...

(07-16-2010 04:32 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  We are an entire nation of "NO". We don't vote for things. We vote against them. Our politicians aren't for getting people to be for anything. They're for getting the people against the things they're against. Nobody is for anything, except for the extreme lunatics who have their one glorious issue that they pander to anyone who is stupid enough to listen to their tirades...

I agree. If the Republicans was in power, we'd be having the same discussions. All these morons do is vote political party lines and don't listen to what the people say. This is an example of what I was saying a few days ago UofL. The people need more power when it comes to voting for key issues. Or we'll continue to have these same discussions over and over again.

(07-16-2010 05:00 PM)animus Wrote:  

(07-16-2010 04:32 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  We are an entire nation of "NO". We don't vote for things. We vote against them. Our politicians aren't for getting people to be for anything. They're for getting the people against the things they're against. Nobody is for anything, except for the extreme lunatics who have their one glorious issue that they pander to anyone who is stupid enough to listen to their tirades...

I agree. If the Republicans was in power, we'd be having the same discussions. All these morons do is vote political party lines and don't listen to what the people say. This is an example of what I was saying a few days ago UofL. The people need more power when it comes to voting for key issues. Or we'll continue to have these same discussions over and over again.

I've often wondered if a new legislative system akin to the Westminster model might be better suited for the nation. The last 10 years has confirmed that that's the case. Proportional representation is a much better idea. Allows the special interests to be downplayed in favor of general interests.

someone said long ago that if voting actually changed things it would be made illegal overnight.

think about that.

this being said, we need another political party. the democratic party has gone to the right where the republicans used to be, the republicans have gone off the deep end on the right, and there are millions of people on the left side of things who really don't have a party that will be taken seriously to get involved in. its why even though i am liberal in my politics, i am never going to join the democratic party because it allows people like rahm emmanuel, ben nelson, blanche lincoln (not democrats, very much republican lite), and harry reid (too weak) to make important legislative decisions. the party has ignored its base and made things worse by replacing howard dean as its chairman. give me more leaders like lyndon johnson or harry truman or franklin roosevelt.

We DO NOT need more Presidents like Lyndon Baines Johnson. Johnson was a control freak, believed that the military option could solve all our problems, and feared the differences of the peoples around the world. We are well rid of men like him...

we need more of johnson in the sense that he imposed his will and got stuff done. i'm not of the mind that the military can fix everything, and this was before 2002.

No. We don't need someone like Johnson to impose their will. Johnson did get things done alright. But many of the things he got done would be illegal these days...