SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Obama - Clinton Disaster
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: tntpal who wrote (8608)3/6/2009 7:53:58 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Read Replies (1) of 103300
 
The supposed 'differences' you claim to see in our positions might just not be so large as you imagine.

For example: I have LONG agreed with the proposition that 'America has one dominant political party' (I call 'em the "Republi-crat Party")... or, alternately stated: that we have ONE dominant political DUOPOLY.

And that both sides of that political duopoly cooperate with each other to LIMIT political power to themselves... to erect and maintain the high 'ring fence' around the political preserve --- the better to keep ALL OTHER PARTIES off of the turf and out of powrer.

I believe that in the nineteenth century we had a much more VITAL 'free market' in political ideas... and political parties rose and fell, and reformed and renamed and changed all the time. New ones arose, and old ones died when they fell out of favor with the public.

And this was *normal* for our Democracy, and this was GOOD.

But... once the twentieth century dawned, the Democrats and the Republicans soon grabbed so much power to themselves that they have been able to REWRITE the ballot access laws in all the various states so to their liking that they have STRANGLED off the incubation of new political parties (which used to inject new political ideas into our system all the time).

The stranglehold of the duopoly needs to be broken.

(And, to do that LAWS must be changed.)

As far as the Balanced Budget amendment, and proposals for a Presidential Line Item Veto go.... I also STRONGLY BELIEVE that our chronic condition of ever-larger government and ever more intrusive government and ever-more irresponsible spending can *only be broken* by STRUCTURAL CHANGES to our system of government.

Because --- as the history of the past few decades has convincingly proven --- merely electing some Bozo who claims that he is going to 'balance the budget' is just a sad, laughable con-job.

Without changing the LEGAL STRUCTURES that government must operate under you will have next to no real hope at all of doing that.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News