Despicable DC pols' Most OutrageouS Demand Yet

G

gLing

Active Member
2 2 1 1 1
Somewhat Known 15 Year Club
MEMPHIS - Here's why Americans are revolting over the Wall Street rescue plan.
It's not that taxpayers refuse to dig deeper to avoid an even bigger catastrophe.

It's that they're all puking over the notion that it's the same bums in Washington who caused the mess by allowing it to fester who are now demanding their money to fix it.

It's like the criminal who breaks into your house, hurts himself, then sues you for damages.
The reason Americans endure their federal government is that it is so inept and useless that it has little bearing on their everyday lives.

But in an economic meltdown like this, people don't have a choice but to feel the fallout of their government's incompetence. This is especially true in important swing states like Michigan, Ohio, Florida and Wisconsin, where factories are shuttering and neighborhoods are going into foreclosure.
And when taxpayers are suddenly told that the government will clip them for an additional $700 billion to clean up a mess it made, voters tend not to forget.

What is truly staggering is that neither of the presidential candidates has effectively reached voters on this issue. That's why they remain jumbled at 50-50 in the polls.

Obama's envisioned "joint statement" last week and McCain's sniveling attempts to skip Friday's debate were silly political posturing, as if a little handholding would do any good.
All these people do is hold hands, and that's why they've gotten us into such a crisis. When they're not clutching hands with strangers in airport bathroom stalls, they're clutching hands with people even worse - each other.

Or they're playing footsie with lobbyists and selling off America's future for a few bucks and a cushy job after they leave office.

Both sides are equally despicable.

Republicans have never met anything they're not willing to sell - so long as it belongs to someone else.
And Democrats have never met anything they're not willing to give away - again, so long as it belongs to someone else.

That someone else these last few years, of course, has been the American taxpayer. And any poor schlub who thought he was investing in a solid stock market.
Click to expand...
DESPICABLE DC POLS' MOST OUTRAGEOUS DEMAND YET - New York Post
 
I think there shouldn't by a party system at all. Imagine actually being able to vote for the candidate you choose solely...not the one put up by your party...not having to write anyone in...not allowing the party to use its funding to sway voters...and on the flipside, the candidate actually wanting to do the will of the people and not the party.

Next up...the disintegration of the Electoral College...

...and then she woke up. ;)
 
BlackCherry said:
I think there shouldn't by a party system at all. Imagine actually being able to vote for the candidate you choose solely...not the one put up by your party...not having to write anyone in...not allowing the party to use its funding to sway voters...and on the flipside, the candidate actually wanting to do the will of the people and not the party.

Next up...the disintegration of the Electoral College...

...and then she woke up. ;)
Click to expand...

My impression is that parties form when people of like thinking organize their efforts. They could be an official party or they could be an informal party, but the end result in government might be very similar to what we have today.

Does anyone think that limiting terms is a good idea- keep fresh blood flowing through the halls of government? Are there any long term politicians who have been invaluable for holding up what is important to you (anyone)?
 
lumpenstein said:
Of course it won't happen because to North Americans "one party system" implies communism.
Click to expand...

A one-party system is communism (at least as it is was known in the old Soviet Union). I believe what you intended to recommend was a no party system. That is no political parties permitted. If you had only one political party allowed, that would not be a democracy, it would be a dictatorship since the head (or heads) of that one party would control everything.
 
Back
Top