Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have heard it said that for all the opposition and conflicting ideals in a two-party system, its biggest flaw is that neither party ever repeals the bad laws passed by the other.
It seems especially the case when it comes to laws infringing upon liberty. Democrats were screaming about the passage of the PATRIOT Act, as they should have been. But now that they have the reigns of congress, why are they not trying to repeal it or amend it? Where is that belief in privacy?
Republicans believe in an individual's right to keep and bear arms, but there weren't many efforts underway while they were in office to repeal the many restrictions on gun ownership. The one law that did go away, had a sunset clause when it was passed, they didn't repeal it.
It seems our only recourse in undoing unjust legislation is the courts. The legislature never seems to undo its own bad laws, even when a different party takes over the reins. Would this be different even if a viable third party were to enter in?
I dont think our party system is the cause of bad laws staying on the books. The legislature exists to pass legislation, its a rare thing for them to repeal a bad law. More often they just complicate it more in attempts to twist it in their favor. Politicians are afraid of offending anyone by repealing their legislation. Bunch of worms.
The SCOTUS is to blame for bad laws staying on the books. They are responsible for deciding the legality of laws and if they infringe upon our freedom & liberty. Its why they exist.
They are the ones who should have tossed out the Patriot act, most gun control and a hundred other incursions into things supposedly protected by the constitution. They are the ones who should have said no to the big bail outs and no to anything giving public funds or aid to those who do not belong in our country. But the sad fact is they too are politicized with each party trying to place a liberal or conservative jurist while they are in office. They are tasked with determining the legality of legislation but are permitted to push their personal views upon us by useing liberal (not in the political sense) interpretations of simple things in the constitution. If the Constitution says that privacy is sacred NOTHING should allow legislation trashing your right to privacy to be infringed, if it says the peple have a right to keep & bear arms then they have no choice but to put down any legislation infringing upon that right.
Now, as to a third party, if the right man/woman were elected it would matter. But your question about party says alot. People today vote for a party, they are too busy to look at the man himself.
If you really wanted reform you should have voted for Ron Paul. As far as I can see he is the ONLY one that was openly letting everyone know that if elected he was going to push real reform. Not pushing things his party wanted, but pushing things to restore our rights & liberties as well as bringing our nations foriegn policy back in step with its origins of minding our own business & taking care of ourselves by ourselves.
The simple fact is our govt in todays world exists to take care of itself, not you & I, we do their bidding instead of them doing ours. Voteing Democrat wont change that & Voteing Republican wont either. Voteing for a man with real principle & values will, sadly they dont make it to the top in todays political world.
If you really wanted reform you should have voted for Ron Paul. As far as I can see he is the ONLY one that was openly letting everyone know that if elected he was going to push real reform. Not pushing things his party wanted, but pushing things to restore our rights & liberties as well as bringing our nations foriegn policy back in step with its origins of minding our own business & taking care of ourselves by ourselves.
.
Ron Paul, who happens to be my congressman, is not in favor of less government regulation. He is in favor of less federal government regulation, but with states empowered to enact all kinds of crazy laws according their own redneck philosophies that would severely restrict rights and liberties, with no Supreme Court oversight to keep them in line with constitutional guarantees.
Ron Paul, who happens to be my congressman, is not in favor of less government regulation. He is in favor of less federal government regulation, but with states empowered to enact all kinds of crazy laws according their own redneck philosophies that would severely restrict rights and liberties, with no Supreme Court oversight to keep them in line with constitutional guarantees.
Ron is a libertarian, he would fight regulation on the state and local level if it infringes on peaceful individuals.
Ron is a libertarian, he would fight regulation on the state and local level if it infringes on peaceful individuals.
I am the most peaceful constituent in his district, and most of what he proposes would allow rednecks to infringe on me, big time. Including trash the environment, further degrade the schools, give the churches free run to control the town, and fill my neighborhood with squawling unwanted babies.
Ron is a libertarian, he would fight regulation on the state and local level if it infringes on peaceful individuals.
No you don't understand his positions. His view is the opposite that the federal government should do nothing to interfere with the states and includes regulation the local government that would infringe on peaceful citizens.
No you don't understand his positions. His view is the opposite that the federal government should do nothing to interfere with the states and includes regulation the local government that would infringe on peaceful citizens.
He wants to trash environmental regulations and leave them up the landowners to do whatever they want. Probably even burning plastic if they want to. That infringes on peaceful citizens. He wants to build a Berlin Wall along the Rio Grande, destroying about a thousand miles of habitat and destroying millions of acres of agriculture, because of some silly idea that it will deter a few Mexicans. I understand his position perfectly---he is MY Congressman.
I have heard it said that for all the opposition and conflicting ideals in a two-party system, its biggest flaw is that neither party ever repeals the bad laws passed by the other.
It seems especially the case when it comes to laws infringing upon liberty. Democrats were screaming about the passage of the PATRIOT Act, as they should have been. But now that they have the reigns of congress, why are they not trying to repeal it or amend it? Where is that belief in privacy?
Republicans believe in an individual's right to keep and bear arms, but there weren't many efforts underway while they were in office to repeal the many restrictions on gun ownership. The one law that did go away, had a sunset clause when it was passed, they didn't repeal it.
It seems our only recourse in undoing unjust legislation is the courts. The legislature never seems to undo its own bad laws, even when a different party takes over the reins. Would this be different even if a viable third party were to enter in?
Canada has a multiparty system. The conservative government made a new national tax on all goods and services of 7% in 1980s, the liberal party claimed to be against it like the socialist and french separtist party. when the liberals got into power they not only did not repeal the tax they ramped it up
Ron is a libertarian, he would fight regulation on the state and local level if it infringes on peaceful individuals.
I think there is some confusion to Libertarian Party Positions. Libertarians are for governing at the smallest level possible. That's is why they don't care for federal intervention, but they support state and local rights to govern themselves. When municipalities govern themselves, then they most certainly infringe upon the rights of peaceful individuals. It's not the federal government that conducts book burnings. It's not the department of Education that says creationism is the one true orgin of our species.
Allowing only locally cultivated ideas, with no outside influence, is not how you build a stong country. What would the South and Midwest look like if every podunk town was able to legally decide to segregate the races, exile gays, and prevent women from voting, just because that was the most popular view held by the church in that town?
Maybe some libertarians are pure in their ideas. Maybe they want the best for the country. But MOST libertarians are just disenfranchised Republicans, who couldn't get a seat at the table when the neo-cons took over the party.
Look at Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate for President in the last election. During his tenure in Congress he was the lead voice in impeaching Bill Clinton for lying about Oral Sex, he was the author and prime advocate of the Defense of Marriage Act, was a fierce advocate of keeping marijuana illegal (calling it a "dangerous and addictive narcotic"), he voted for the patriot act AND voted for the invasion of Iraq, and he voted against the pentagon recognizing Wicca as a legitimate religon.
I mean, with that score card you would think that he is the most evil conservative in the world, definately not a "small government" libertarian. But Libertarians thought enough of his opinions to make him their presedential candidate after 6 rounds of voting. That right there should tell you that Libertarians don't really have the courage of their convictions. To allow someone with such "Big Government" views to be their party leader, when they claim they want less federal government, is laughable.
Anyone who supports pre-emptive wars, supports government spying on it's citizens, denies gay americans their rights to marry, denies the legalization of drugs, denies the recognition of religons that are not his own, and supports congress interfering in private sex acts??? Yeah, sounds really "small government" to me.
But by all means libertarians, please keep telling us how you are socially liberal and fiscally conservative.
BTW, When asked how he could be a Libertarian when his voting history was firmly neo-conservative, Bob Barr always says "Ooooops! I regret that." Yeah, tell all the dead soldier's families and all the gay families you helped to disenfranchise "ooops, my bad". Libertarians don't know which end is up, and that is why they are not taken seriously as a political party.
Polarization of ideals, thought, and solutions to problems. When you participate as a voter or politician you have to agree or be open to accept the opposite of what the opposing candidate stands for.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Libertarians don't know which end is up, and that is why they are not taken seriously as a political party.
