Two things?

1.The Democratic party; and

2. The Republican party.

+1

There is no provision whatsoever for political parties anywhere in the Constitution.

Yet whenever we get someone like a Ron Paul up there who clearly wants to return us to strict Constitutional law interpretation and get rid of all the B.S. in government, largely the result of two-party politics, they're crushed and not taken seriously.

America today is truly deserving of the imbiciles it's getting. Most people are frankly too stupid to realize that they really DO have the power to change things. . . at least for now - but that power is ebbing away daily.

I suggest you pose that question to the families of those who died in the world trade center. Or on the USS Cole.
We can't count the hundreds or thousands of people who would have died at Los asngeles international airport because the bombers got caught before they could pull it off. Or the muslims who were plotting to blow up JFK. The list goes on and on. Just because they got caught doesn't mean they didn't pose a threat. There are hundreds of cases where terrorists were either planning or getting ready to execute an act of terror and murder in this country, but they got caught before they could do it. Often we don't hear about these guys because they are being used to catch other terrorists.
Pretending that we are safe because we haven't died yet is more than a little naive.
I guess it's no big deal as long as it's someone else who is getting murdered by these evil monsters. They are out there and have made it very clear that they will kill us if they get a chance. Me, you, all of us.

The two party system was designed by the same people who wrote the constitution. It is on purpose, it was by design.

Read the federalist papers, it's all there. IMO no one who hasn't studied the federalist papers has any credibility when arguing what the consitution says and what it doesn't say.

James Madison described in great detail how he envisioned a political balance and stability with the two party system.
He describes how they two party system will work and how it will be good for the country.
Madison is more responsible for what is in the constitution than any other IMO, so saying that we shouldn't have a two party system just because it isn't plainly spelled out in the constition is misleading.

Really, so if I don't want an unending flood of Mexicans to destroy the culture of America and it's viability as a nation, that makes me a racist? I would suggest A. bone up on your English. And B. Get your head out of your ass. We live in a government of laws. One of them concerns the borders of our country denoting sovereign US territory. Sorry if you don't like that. Illegal immigrants are exactly that, illegal! Time to get rid of them & build the fence. Enjoy your vodka. F**k that map! Hasta la vista vato.

Sorry sammy... but that line of reasoning is just plain retarded.

Drunk driving kills far more Americans than Islamic terrorism. By your logic it should be a far greater priority to the administration, no?

Think about the children! :rolleyes:

Hey now! I'm from Toledo. What do you have against the Mud Hens? ;)

And, on that note...I had a great experience at the DMV yesterday. But then, I live in a bubble.

I didn't say it wasn't a big deal, I just don't think it is a huge threat compared to everything else. How many people die each year due to drunk drivers? (16,885 alcohol-related fatalities in 2005 alone). What do you say to those families? Who poses a larger threat to you and your family? Drunk drivers or Muslim terrorists?

The point is, being killed by a Muslim terrorist is way down on the list of things that are going to impact the average American. It's only "terrorism" if you allow yourself to be terrorized by it. Which, apparently, you do. If you want to make a positive impact to the life of the average American, elimination of "Muslim Terrorists" is not the way to do it.

IMHO, of course.

Do you mean our "ham fisted, misdirected, delusional "bring on the rapture for oil," approach to airline security that has disrupted air travel? Or do you mean our "ham fisted, misdirected, delusional "bring on the rapture for oil," approach to national security? Or do you mean our "ham fisted, misdirected, delusional "bring on the rapture for oil," approach to trying to avoid pointing out that the war is against islamic terrorists, as opposed to "terror?"

+1

Matt, I'm trying to keep this remotely believable. To change the current attitude towards "entitlement and personal responsibility" is not believable with the current state of affairs.;)

Brilliant! Is it terrorism if your child is killed by it? Is it terrorism if the cost of dealing with it kicks our economy in the groin? Edited - personal attack removed. -Z-man.

You seem to be the only one on this thread that gets it. Your two simple suggestions would do more to right the course of our country than every one of the issues everyone else has come up with combined.

I have read the Federalist Papers and although it does have some basis in helping with constitutional interpretation, the point remains that there is no specific provision for political parties within the framework of the documents that actually represent the law - the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in particular.

I would agree that Madison thought it might be wise, but it's pretty clear that it is a system which has utterly failed the people. As such, it's time to step back from political parties and allow people to run/vote on issues and individuals rather than what label they have slapped on them. The words "Democrat" and "Republican have become utterly meaningless anyway.

A "Republican" is one who supposedly believes in a republic. Representative government. Or to put it in perhaps a less flattering way, one who believes that the people are too stupid to govern themselves or have direct say in government, so they need the educated/gentlemen to do it for them.

A "Democrat" in historical context is one that believes in straight, majority-vote, by-the-people government. Representation should be minimal, if at all.

Oddly, a "representative" form of government is a lot newer than the "democratic" form. Which sort of implies that the "democrats" should be the status-quo/conservatives and the "republicans" the newer, more innovative, liberal types. . . But I digress.

How have the two words gotten SO far from their original meaning? It's ridiculous. Even now the contemporary interpretations of the words - "republican" to mean "conservative" and "democrat" to mean "liberal" are convoluted. We have a "republican" administration now, but it has created huge new government bureaucracy, larger tax burdens, run up the largest federal deficit in history, etc. The last "Republican" (supposedly "conservative"), G.B. Senior did much the same thing ("read my lips - no new taxes. . ."). The one before him was Reagan, who established the precedent of selling out our childrens' futures to fund short-term spending. . . And so it goes.

Point is, the political parties only obfuscate, confuse, mislead and distort things. If they were abolished tomorrow I don't see how it COULDN'T help things - and it would be closer to the word-for-word provisions of the Constitution.

Obviously. You've figured me out. :rolleyes:

I agree we need more personal responsibility. But we need to agree on a reasonable line we can all live with. We are in an awfully safe, comfortable society. To reduce to the absolute point isn't possible. After all, in a perfectly free society where we are all free to rise and fall completely on our own, our country would resemble something like Somalia - a country ruled by warlords and armed factions. This isn't what we want, is it?

So do we agree then that even as "rugged individualists" we should be "entitled" to the protection of police & lawyers who ensure our ability to own possessions and our persons? To the protection of an army?

And if we agree we are "entitled" to be free from some forms of oppression and/or competition by employing police and lawyers and generals, where do we draw the line? How do we get to the happy middle? Where most people agree we've been fair and thoughtful and charitable, but not profligate and emotional and wasteful?

Sorry but this line of reasoning just doesn't make sense to me. If your assertion is that we should only care about those things that kill the most people, then I guess we should stop prosecuting murders and shut down McDonalds instead, since the leading cause of death in the US is heart disease....

Things don't seem to matter as much until one of those people killed by terrorists is someone you know...then it makes a little more of an impact on you.

PoP ol' chum we have GOT to meet one day and over several flagons. talk some treason . right on.

1) The cure for Rabies
2) Free Ice cream

Actually it makes perfect sense to me. Why would you not want to address the issues that impact the most people? Should we only address "scary" issues and let the other ones (even if they impact more people) slide? I don't understand that logic.

I only used the issue of drunk drivers as a convenient example. To address your second paragraph, though, I personally know many more people whose lives have been impacted by drunk drivers than I do of those impacted by Muslim terrorists. How about you? Which should be more important?

Maybe we should focus on something like rabies? I mean, it's pretty scary and I'm sure the people whose lives have been impacted by it would support goverment efforts to eliminate rabies. I mean, heck, there must be 30 or 40 people a year dying from rabies.

Stop prosecuting murders? Yeah, that's a great idea. Where did that come from?