Why did I capitalize gosh?

You are idealistic because you dream that the unknown other must be better than the two party representatives we have. And for that you advocate scraping the system we have and starting over. Its fashionable to be disgruntled and to cynically dismiss. You see it on the idealistic far left and far right. What are the governmental horrors you currently endure? (Can you get a little global perspective on that?) How will this action of yours solve these? (and you better be positive they will because if you take that road, its took.) How will that ensure the quality and honesty and truth you seek? While this is good change is occuring in the legislative branch, how are the executive and judicial branches transformed? How long is this view?

It strikes me as similar to the bold neo-con dream, not dissimilar to Ledeen's call for cleansing destruction and nation building in Iraq. Idealistic. Or Pol pot (what axiom of online discussion calls up that reference? : ) ) reworking his society to erase the evils of Western Influence. He too, thought that the immediate discomfort would eventually, in the long run, birth a new superior civic organization. Not only idealistic, really really tragically so. But those who were inconvienced by this reorganization missed the big picture- it would all be better, some day.

I am not against your idea of direct democracy and multiple candidates. I am voting here for "instant runoff" for city offices, to enable a viable third candidate. I too, am taking the long view. But I am working it realistically, from within what we've got. What we've got is not ALL BAD and change can be worked strategically.

If I am lucky, I have about 30-40 more years before I die. I would like to live them as peacefully and justly as possible. The system is not perfect but the realistic approach is to work within it, shape it slowly, find ways to promote change that do not cut off your nose to spite your face.

The plan needs to be short-term/long-term. Even though the Ds anf rs are similar, the D's are less harmful, in the short run. We have to let the government know that we've had enough shit. When Bush got in with 50.00001% of the popular vote, he could have acknowledged that almost half the country would not be happy with his policies, and lead more as a centrist, as Clinton did. Instead, he fucked us in the ass. Perhaps a Democratic congress will have learned by this election (assuming Ds are voted in), and make the changes in the areas that have gotten the repubicans ousted. Hopefully.

In the meantime, we need to commit to third party options. My "what would a viable third party look like?" didn't get much attention, but it's the first step in developing a party platform that will draw enough voters to win an election.

Assuming the Dems gain control over both the House and Senate, they still don't have much power. Bush will veto anything he doesn't like unless it's so wildly popular with the public he has no choice but to sign it. That means the Dems will only have the power to pass legislation that the public enthusiastically supports. In reality, that may be one or two laws. Mostly all the Dems can do is be place holders, keeping the Republicans from having control of the legislative process. The Dems will act as a brake. That's about it.

No, I don't.

No, I don't.

A dysfunctional two-party system.

This action of mine is called "voting" - the action available to me.

Nothing is sure.
The current parties have no motivation to serve the population, as long as they know that one of them is guaranteed to be elected.

Longer than four years.

Unfortunately your thoughts don't influence elections, only your vote does that.

No amount of voting for two parties will produce a result of more than two parties.

I agree. I am not working outside of our system.

Fine. If your burning voting issue is quantitative- to establish more parties with the hope of increasing, eventually, "quality", --go for it.

I see more pressing issues. I can find democratic candidates that reflect more of my views and concerns than republicans, and will choose a different voting strategy.

Good. Do whatever you want. That's how it works.

And you will continue to rant and rave but not do a goddamn thing.
If you were more than hot air you'd be actually doing something beside throwing away your vote.

If you really wanted better choices you'd be involved with a party, third or otherwise. You'd be on committees, looking for viable candidates and putting your money where your mouth is. I'm betting you don't and never will.
You'll just rant and rave a bunch of hot air on the net, because you don't have the balls to actually get off your ass and work for something better.

You don't hold a candle to the solid citizens that actually support their party. Even if I think they are thinking wrong, I have more respect for them because the actually DO something besides make hot air about a bullshit utopia to avoid doing their share of the work it takes to get the utopia they want. :eyebrow:

Okay, that's cool.

I acknowledge the validity of your opinions; you have yours, I have mine. If you feel that being a dick about it is a good direction for you, then blast away! I accept this as something you feel justified in doing. And, at the end of the day, you still have your same opinions, and I still have mine.

And it's you being the dick, not me. :eyebrow:

Okay, I'm sure you feel that way. I accept that.

Can you cite any instances of this? Typically, caonservatives call liberals "bleeding hearts". Is that because Liberals are nasty? No, it's because conservatives think that they're too nice, giving dead-beats welfare, old folks social security and medicare, minorities the means to compete fairly, and what-not. Where do you get this idea of foul users and liars?

Noodle, this is out of character for you. Can you explain why you feel this way?

Wahhh. :right:
Republicans prefer to trot out and use a brain-dead woman who cannot say her "something".
Comparing Fox's scientific advocacy to Schiavo's privacy intrusion....hmmm... Quien es mas sleazo?!

Wasn't MJ Fox backing the republicans two years ago?:confused: