BF2S Forums New Libertarian In Duh House

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Why are you so quick to put down our style of government? It was the first in the world to have a modern non-violent democratic change in power,

Not entirely true my man. The romans managed this a time or two.

it has survived a brutal civil war, two world wars, and the Cold War intact. In 225 years we have gone from zilch to a major, if not premiere, world power, successfully updating our Constitution along the way. I don't know how much you can complain.

The old powers have never accepted their dethroning. They mock our clumsy imperfections without pausing to ask how this young nation rose to become the power it is today.


FM.. make your point without editing my post you tard. And work on how you word things while you are at it..lol.

Varegg wrote:

That the US is full of people who doesn't care might be that they don't identify themselves with the poor choice of only two parties to choose from that neither fulfills their needs ...

The point that for some reason keeps escaping most of the Euros in this thread is that there are more than two parties to choose from in the US.

There are five for the 2008 election and there were seven for the 2004 election.

Last time I took a math class (granted, it has been a while), both five and seven were GREATER than two.

The fact that only two get the vast majority of votes is due to the other parties' messages simply not resonating with the populace. That is all. Nothing more, nothing less.

RAIMIUS wrote:

How do you expect to ever have a decent, democratic state if people do not voice their dissatisfaction/true views?  If a third party gains support either one of the major parties will shift its positions or it will eventually gain enough power to win elections.

When you can find ten friends and at least two of them would vote for a third party.

As I stated before examples of parties changing radically over short periods of time are much more prevalent than parties losing/gaining power slowly over a period of time, and I attribute this to major parties being able to change their views to satisfy changing needs.

Anything less than 10% in a vote isn't even significant enough to get media attention, much less win a single state.

Kmarion wrote:

FM.. make your point without editing my post you tard. And work on how you word things while you are at it..lol.

Deepest of apologies, I meant to quote and respond to your post, and hit the edit button instead. Sorry.

I meant to emphasize that I said modern elections, and as for wording there were a lot of adjectives that needed to be tagged onto that word. I played with it a little bit, couldn't decide how to be much clearer.

Varegg wrote:

Actually you are when you put down other people for actively supporting a third party, you try to decide for him that he is making a poor choice ...

That the US is full of people who doesn't care might be that they don't identify themselves with the poor choice of only two parties to choose from that neither fulfills their needs ...

I'm not so quick to put down the government system you currently have, i haven't been a fan of it for longer than you have lived my friend

And am i complaining ? ... you are the one bashing other members for their policical view and that they want an alternative to vote for ... you are the one that are telling them that it is hopeless ...

No, I'm telling him it's a worthless choice, not a poor choice. The difference is a worthless choice can be made for the right reasons but is utterly ineffective, while a poor choice has logical fallacies behind it.

The world is painted with shades of gray. No one will ever be able to completely identify with any one party, and to think otherwise is to be living in the land of communism and benevolent monarchies.

I'm not sure what European party you hold so dear you believe would magically fix all our problems and garner support from Americans across the board, but I would love for you to come to a U.S. college full of wealthy kids on mommy and daddy's tab and see how much they care about politics.

I didn't say you haven't been disagreeing with U.S. politics for a long time, I said you are quick to put the U.S. political system down at the first sign of American disagreement. That's how politics work, just like how DAST works here. Debate doesn't breed dissatisfaction, it breeds compromise and solutions. I don't understand why you are taking so many pot shots at our, all things considered, successful government, arguably one of the most successful in the world.

Besides, it's not like aspects aren't modeled after European nations...just what about it is so distasteful?

Varegg wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Varegg wrote:

That the US is full of people who doesn't care might be that they don't identify themselves with the poor choice of only two parties to choose from that neither fulfills their needs ...

The point that for some reason keeps escaping most of the Euros in this thread is that there are more than two parties to choose from in the US.

There are five for the 2008 election and there were seven for the 2004 election.

Last time I took a math class (granted, it has been a while), both five and seven were GREATER than two.

The fact that only two get the vast majority of votes is due to the other parties' messages simply not resonating with the populace. That is all. Nothing more, nothing less.

According to Flaming there is only two parties to choose between!

Besides this is not a quarrel about the number of parties in the US election, it is about why Flaming so right out puts down people that are looking for other options than the Dems or Reps ... if the other parties are so insignificant why does he even bother to to attack the guy that supports the Libertarians so openly - it is his constitutional right to cast his vote to the party of his choice no ?

No, FEOS nailed my point. Other parties exist, and when a current major one trips up and gives support to third party, that one will succeed one of our current giants. As he said, the popularity of the two parties is only a reflection of the popular opinion, no matter what the vocal minority would have you think. The only thing keeping third parties down at the end of the day is their lack of support. They didn't get less than 1% of the vote last election because I went out and told my third party friends to stay home.

I have problems with the OP because he is a bandwagoner. I haven't seen one single post that couldn't just be classified as liberal, but he wants so much to call himself a libertarian and preach everything that is wrong with the current system. At his age you can find a political "rebel" at every turn (I should know), and sometimes it takes more courage to stand up and identify with a popular party. Uselessly throwing your vote to a candidate that has zero chance of winning a single state to be a rebel is a mockery of the democratic process, and should not be taken seriously. If a third party truly reflects the values of Americans today then patience, advertising, and a good candidate will bring about an election that they could actually win, but until then throwing away votes that could have been used to get a viable candidate that agrees with more of your views than the other guy is the best logical action.

Example. 11 people in your class, and you are offered a choice of apple, cherry, or peach pie. You like cherry pie the best, peach pie is okay, but you abhor apple. If you know 5 are going to vote apple and five are going to vote peach, are you really going to vote cherry because, ideally, that is what democracy dictates? You could suck it up and vote for peach because though it might not be your ideal choice, it is better than the alternative, and continue to work to make sure they only have cherry pies next time, but then voting for cherry isn't hopeless is it?

Now, if you truly are voting for cherry because that is the democratic way then you have the moral fiber of high-tension steel cable, but most of us mere mortals are voting because we want some good pie. I would bet that the majority of the people that would vote cherry in that situation are doing it to be a badass.

The sucess of your government FM can be measured by the way it treats its poorest and weakest and by that you are far far away from being amongst the most sucessful governments in the world

I somewhat miss contribution from the author of this thread, where did he go ?

I do get your point FM, my reaction is that you so easily put down the believes of others ... with post #2 in this thread as a very good example.

A more socialistic approach to politics in the US would have to be implemented over many many years, you can't suddenly introduce it to such an egoistic populace - it would have be lured in act by act ... government controlled HMO would be my first suggestion, that can't possibly work well in the hands of profit based companies ... Sicko by Michael Moore may be on the edge but he most certainly have a point when it comes to Nixons legacy about outsourcing medicare to private contractors ...

I'm fully aware of rebel youths having extreme political attractions but it is a phase most have to go through before their believes are based on experience and not just because mom & dad used to vote like this or that ...

I notice you have great skills in debating and have deep knowledge about your interests, what you lack is some insight and wisdom that only age can give you allthough i must admit you are more insightful and wiser than many that are older than you

RAIMIUS wrote:

How do you expect to ever have a decent, democratic state if people do not voice their dissatisfaction/true views?  If a third party gains support either one of the major parties will shift its positions or it will eventually gain enough power to win elections.

Instant Runoff Voting would accelerate this process in favor of third parties, which is exactly why the big 2 won't ever support it.

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

How do you expect to ever have a decent, democratic state if people do not voice their dissatisfaction/true views?  If a third party gains support either one of the major parties will shift its positions or it will eventually gain enough power to win elections.

Instant Runoff Voting would accelerate this process in favor of third parties, which is exactly why the big 2 won't ever support it.

They don't need to support it to get it on the ballot.

I've always wondered...  how exactly does someone get something put on a federal referendum?

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Varegg wrote:

The sucess of your government FM can be measured by the way it treats its poorest and weakest and by that you are far far away from being amongst the most sucessful governments in the world

I somewhat miss contribution from the author of this thread, where did he go ?

I do get your point FM, my reaction is that you so easily put down the believes of others ... with post #2 in this thread as a very good example.

A more socialistic approach to politics in the US would have to be implemented over many many years, you can't suddenly introduce it to such an egoistic populace - it would have be lured in act by act ... government controlled HMO would be my first suggestion, that can't possibly work well in the hands of profit based companies ... Sicko by Michael Moore may be on the edge but he most certainly have a point when it comes to Nixons legacy about outsourcing medicare to private contractors ...

I'm fully aware of rebel youths having extreme political attractions but it is a phase most have to go through before their believes are based on experience and not just because mom & dad used to vote like this or that ...

I notice you have great skills in debating and have deep knowledge about your interests, what you lack is some insight and wisdom that only age can give you allthough i must admit you are more insightful and wiser than many that are older than you

Those are only two measures of a government, and realistically poor ones. Might makes right, like it or not, and what will being the nice guy to the little man get you? A whole bunch of little men scrambling to your borders, demanding the same handouts the ones before them received. There is little technological advancement or room for social advancement in such a culture.

_{dirty commie}

So easily and so appropriately. I stand by my first statement, I continue to defend every aspect of it, I still believe in it, so what's the problem with a man who says what he thinks quickly and concisely?

Yeah, not everyone in the U.S. wants a socialistic approach. Your way is not the only way, and I can tell you it won't be our way for a loooooooong time.

_{dirty commie}

They have to go through a phase of political bad-taste? No, there are no excuses to be made for poor choices when you are over the age of ten, and most certainly not by the time you are eligible to vote. Excusing someone for being an idiot only because of their age is doing nothing but inviting the trend to continue. People are responsible for the results of their actions, no matter what the reasoning behind them.

Socialistic capitalism is actually very far from communism you know  ... seeing as you are so afraid of commies ...

Age often have something to do with it and ignorance can in fact be excused because of age seeing as the old saying wisdom comes with age applies in our time also, when you claim a ten year old is accountable for his choises just proves my point ... but even older people can be idiots so there are exceptions