It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help! We dont fit the stereotype!

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Which author was it that implied basically that if we let committees start making decisions about our lives, eventually we would have all our rights to make decisions taken away from us? Ayn Rand maybe? Anyway, it seems to be what's happening to us over time. Incrementalism.




posted on May, 13 2008 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 



Don't worry bro!...

i'm a liberal and a conservative..it depends on the subject...

i love my country,but i don't normally vote...

i do want McCain to win,he's a true american and he took one for the team..he deserves the job if he wants it imo.

[edit on 13-5-2008 by Skipper1975]



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
In the end, I think the only solution is to vote for the lesser evil and PRAY for the best.




[edit on 13-5-2008 by Rigel]



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Malynn, I'm not sure who wrote that (someone else may), but it reminded me of something... didn't Mark Twain state something similar?

reply to post by Blaine91555
 


I have a solution...
Let's let people vote all candidates at once instead of whittling them down for one big showdown... the winner gets Presidency... second place is forced to serve as his Vice Pres, and other candidates are appointed to cabinet positions. Keep it diversified. Like I stated before, I've never been able to get a full grasp on how our government works, but hey... they would be more likely to keep eachother in check... and since more positions are open, and still only a limited number, more people would run from each state, so you wouldn't be putting the yahoos who just want a government job into positions of immediate power... only voting in the ones we feel are competent.

That is if our vote counted, as stated...

[edit on 13-5-2008 by Earthscum]



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 06:49 PM
link   
I have always felt the same as you. I am conservative on some issues, liberal on some and yet even still my idea of conservative and liberal always seem to be different than the standard. I hate that there is so much pigeon holing going on, just because I might believe one way on one particular issue does not make me all conservative or all liberal.

I hate that it takes so much money to be in an election so that sort of rules out the average person who might actually represent the real people in this country. Instead we get these poster children candidates who toss everyone little tid bits so we can 'follow' them, but in reality they don't represent the people.

I think everyone needs to not check the little box and do a write in instead. That or form our own party for the people sort of thing and let the people pick out any candidate from the very get go.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 07:11 PM
link   
I too, feel the same way you do Skyfloating, I am conservative when it comes to certain issues, yet liberal on others...I feel I fit in neither party as well...and certainly am completely disenfranchised with politicians on BOTH sides.

On the other hand I feel that the two party system filters out some of the extreme elements such as fascists, communists, heck who knows what sort of army of different far-out parties would spring up if we gave up on the two party system! My fear is, if we allow say 15 different parties to spring up and the country spreads it's vote among them, some far far left OR far far right group could get their man in ugh, I just can't imagine that here in the good old USA.

Perhaps a 3 party system, "them", the other "them" and the rest of us that aren't buying the party line bull crap that, they never hold to anyway


[edit on 13-5-2008 by LateApexer313]



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 07:25 PM
link   
Fascinating thread.

I am in the belief that the powers that be don't want us to have a real choice. It seems that there is such a confluence between corporations and politics that the results are a political class that promotes issues that would only increase the power and size of the government.

Just look at the three presidential candidates. They all have one thing in common. All three will increase the size and power of the government in one way or another if they get elected. More specifically, they are all on the man-made global warming bandwagon and are all intent on drastically cutting down CO2( don't we exhale that?) to economically paralyzing levels. What better way to increase government power than to start a new war, a war on climate change.

Look at the parties. I thought the democrats were the party of the little guy. How come all I see is rich elites in the media and corporate world (especially lawyers) supporting the democrats? www.opensecrets.org...The dirty secret is that when the democrats spew their "increase corporate tax" lines, they and their corporate handlers know that corporations will just pass the taxes off to the consumer and the end result will be more money in the hands of the government and hardly any effect on corporations themselves.

I thought the republicans were supposed to be the small government, fiscally conservative guys. Instead I see the republicans creating a massive government with massive expenditures that should make any tax and spend liberal proud. I thought that the republicans were for less taxes. Is creating massive debts that have to paid plus interest really lowering taxes or just setting up for a super massive tax bill in the future?

Basically the government isn't really working for the average American. There is a good reason why both the (republican)president and (democrat) congress have horribly low approval ratings.

I have a strong feeling that the OP topic is actually the rule among Americans rather than the exception.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 09:09 PM
link   
I know what you all mean. Before the last two terms I was not as concerned about presidential elections as I am these days. I think we have learned the hard way how important it is to choose wisely. I still believe our votes count as long as it is overwhelming enough. When a race is close it can be manipulated. So I think it is still important to vote.

As far as political parties go, I think a good place to start is to look at what America was founded on and that is Libertarianism. It is the party that gives the most liberty or individual rights and smaller government which you can see on this chart.



This chart compares ideology by personal freedom and economic freedoms and shows that with each party there are pros and cons. The two party system has been pretty good at balancing each other out, but I think we have shifted too far to the right. Until we do have a descent third or fourth choice, I plan on being a counter balance if you will. Yes it is voting for the lesser of two evils, but hopefully after the next election, maybe we can work on building another party for us centrists.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Kupios
 


I actually learned about it in my college Geography class last semester. France has something of the sort; the people there call themselves Flemish and HATE the French (they are also profuse fecalphiliacs). There is also another place between Spain and France that is full of extremely violent hardcore anti-nationalists as well. I cannot remember what they are known as though.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 10:30 PM
link   
There are some questions that I feel get routinely buried right under our noses by those with a vested interest in detracting from them:

When did liberalism become synonymous with the Democratic Party, and when did conservatism become synonymous with the Republican Party? Two of the above terms are sociopolitical ideologies, whereas the other two are the names of political parties. Why is it that those parties have a monopoly on those ideologies? Why do the ideologies have to be perpetually attached to those parties' platforms? And, perhaps most pertinently, why do we "group think" our way into bestowing upon them the status of the veritable avatars and bastions of those two ideologies?

I was taught that this country's political system was conceived with the notion of plurality in mind. In practice today, however, all we have is a duality that I can't even prove to myself is genuine and not artificial in its apparent polarity.

As always, this is only an opinion and not a factual statement or an assumption. I could easily be incorrect in anything that I have said. These are merely my feelings on the issue.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Its not so much as help as help yourselves . The US isnt and most likely will be a democracy so the short of it is that if you are unhappy with the two party system you need to support political reforms to some degree . Just what and how far the reforms go isnt up to me . One thing is for certain the US political system doesn't fit in with my idea of liberty .



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 12:07 AM
link   
Well, it's become awfully silly of late. (Last 50 years) People misunderstand the alleged role of the Feds and the actual role of the Feds.
Most of these problems concerning a two-party system that is NOT representative of the diversity in US society today stem from a bloated, nebulous Federal Government. Many of the issues that are brought to the National/Federal platform should be handled on the State or Community level. People living together are more likely to naturally break down on two sides of an issue, but folks from the West Coast aren't going to have the same values as folks from the deep South. Then you try to jam this huge and diverse population behind a couple candidates and it's silly.

The Feds should relinquish control of several issues. This would allow for more decisive presidential elections and just clear up the garbage.

These issues/responsibilities should be turned over to the States:
Abortion
Health Care
Retirement
Labor (Let the Unions negotiate with the states...)
Gun Control
Education (National Standards for basics, though)
State Militas w/ Federal oversight (reduce the proffessional army loyal only to the Feds/Pres)

Federal Government should still be responsible for National issues like international/interstate commerce, Foreign Relations, and even the macro-level monitoring of Natural Resources. The Feds should be able to say yea or nay on large-scale mining/logging etc. So that insinuates Federal possession/protection of certain sensitive areas such as wilderness areas, regardless of the State. There should be concessions for this as well. A fair deal struck with the State in which the area is located.

Anyway, this would end all this silly bi-partisan crap on the National level. How can you slap 300 million people that come from widely divergent backgrounds (including legions of the clueless) into two categories?
I love hearing the rants of racist Democrats and the uptight lesbian Republican bitch about Christians.

But you know, you can't trust the States either. I think the 1865 or 66 North Carolina State Assembly was famous for voting themselves ". . . ice cream for life."



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull


I seem to remember some of the founding fathers warning about a partisan political system... These labels prevent "outside the box" thought, rather than formulate your own opinions you're expected to jump on a pre-existing platform and immediately hate the other side with a passion...



Very much so. Since when does having one position have to mean hating the other?



I'd vote for Ron Paul if there was any chance of him winning, but the powers that be are too stacked against him, if he was elected chances are he'd be assassinated, but he wouldn't even get that far with a crooked election...


The two-party-system is banking on us not caring or thinking its hopeless. Its banking on your type of apathy.



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Earthscum


BTW, my sourness goes back to when I was 19 and I decided to register and vote. That's when I got the lecture about how if you register democrat, you are voting for a democrat, and same for republican... I learned then that you can't vote Person A(D) because you like him, and also vote Person B(R) because they will stand on your side of the issues. Needless to say, I walked out, told the people running the booth that politics were (BLANKED) up, and tore up my ballot to throw in the trash... I also asked to be UNregistered... they wouldn't do it... bastards. I know a few people that have had a similar expiriences the first time they voted. It's sad.



What a turn-off. This is how they turn the intelligent off of politics.



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Symer
Perhaps this is also the reason for the consistently low voter turnout. The US scores well below Western Europe for example: compare an average of 48.3% since 1945 to Western Europe's 77%. See also See also this comparative list.




Most European nations have strong 3rd and 4th parties which at least get 11-25% of the overall vote.

This makes things a bit less predictable and allows for a higher voter turnout. Good point.



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 02:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


I liked your post.

Imo the PC-type liberals, the poor-me-type socialists and the evangelical and cowboy-type conservatives are the most damaging stereotypes we have.



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by LateApexer313

Perhaps a 3 party system, "them", the other "them" and the rest of us that aren't buying the party line bull crap that, they never hold to anyway




We need the entire spectrum for the system to work. Not just two parts.

I dont think people will still be falling for this in 50 years. Folks here at ATS seem to be ahead of the time.



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 02:54 AM
link   



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Torsten
 

Just to be complete: the country you're talking about is Belgium, not France. Belgium is a bilingual country (Dutch and French) and tensions are indeed rising between Dutch-speaking Flemings and French-speaking Walloons. So much so that they're beginning to talk about splitting the country in half.

The separatist movement / terrorist organization in Southern France & Northern Spain you mention is ETA, fighting for independence of the Basque People by frequently bombing public places in Spain.



posted on May, 14 2008 @ 08:18 AM
link   
I couldn't agree with our poster more. this is the 21st century. i am 25. i am smarter than my parents in that i dont choose a "side". republican, democrat, independant, no, sorry. i believe in right and wrong, good and evil, not being forced to choose between the lesser of 2 evils. sorry folks but my generation's time is fastly approaching. and were getting a little tired of people not using their brains. lying, corrupting, stealing, ect.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join