Political Parties

[Luxury-Yacht]

George Washington warned us not to make political parties. We blatantly ignored him. Now, voting for officials can be biased and candidates sometimes win merely because their party has more members. Without political parties, I think voting could be more accurate.

[DarkCyrstal]

Noo i wish to disagree. Without polital parties the Apocalypse will rise as predicted by St. John in revalation soon the sun we turn to blood and the seas ans lakes will boil and demons will invade the city of Babylon.

In other words... Pollital parties may not be the best solution but... without them there would be a world of Chaos.

You can't have a handful of people representing millions of people, it simply doesn't work.

[DarkCyrstal]

Ohh yes it does... A handful of people that THOSE people have elected to represent them. Shouldn't America be a Republic instead of a democracy?

Individuals have individual thoughts, opinions and views. What the system does is eliminate all individual voices by subdivizing people into groups such as democrats or republicans and those indivuals who are now classified as groups have to vote for one individual that will decide for them, thus making the transition from individual to collective. In other words, mold all invidual thought into a collective thought and ignore the remaining idvividuals, which are known as the minority.

[DarkCyrstal]

Yep, P.S. Why did Republicans get the Elephant and the Democrates get the awesome powerful, majestic ASS?

[Commander-K25]

At 7/9/03 12:19 AM, DarkCyrstal wrote: Yep, P.S. Why did Republicans get the Elephant and the Democrates get the awesome powerful, majestic ASS?

It came from a political cartoon in the early 1900s that depicted the presidential candidates riding animals in the "presidential race".

[Commander-K25]

At 7/8/03 11:30 PM, _crossbreed_ wrote: You can't have a handful of people representing millions of people, it simply doesn't work.

You can't have millions of people all trying to represent themselves, though. That's simply chaos and anarchy.

People will naturally gravitate toward people they agree with and form groups. Political parties are inevitable as long as enough people hold fairly common views.

[DarkCyrstal]

At 7/9/03 12:42 AM, Commander-K25 wrote:
You can't have millions of people all trying to represent themselves, though. That's simply chaos and anarchy.

This reminds me of a great quote...

"If you were to choose between Dictatorship and Anarchy you would choose Dictatorship becouse anarchy is the worst kind of Dictatorship."

At 7/9/03 12:59 AM, DarkCyrstal wrote:

"If you were to choose between Dictatorship and Anarchy you would choose Dictatorship becouse anarchy is the worst kind of Dictatorship."

dic·ta·tor·ship
n.
The office or tenure of a dictator.
A state or government under dictatorial rule.
Absolute or despotic control or power.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

an·ar·chy ( P )
n.
Absence of any form of political authority.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved

Nice quote. Too bad it doesn't make any sense.

[Lyddiechu]

At 7/8/03 06:43 PM, Rancorman wrote: George Washington warned us not to make political parties. We blatantly ignored him. Now, voting for officials can be biased and candidates sometimes win merely because their party has more members. Without political parties, I think voting could be more accurate.

uhhh i hate to break it to you, but it was madison that warned against the dangers of "factions" (political parties). i see your point tho, but, i dont think that would ever happen. most of america jsut doenst care so then no one at all would vote.

[public-enemy1]

At 7/9/03 01:07 AM, _crossbreed_ wrote:

At 7/9/03 12:59 AM, DarkCyrstal wrote:

Nice quote. Too bad it doesn't make any sense.

Ha ha ha

My thoughs exactly

[BWS]

At 7/9/03 01:14 AM, Lyddiechu wrote:

At 7/8/03 06:43 PM, Rancorman wrote:

uhhh i hate to break it to you, but it was madison that warned against the dangers of "factions" (political parties).

Actually, Madison thought that the effects of factions would be delt with best by having congress set up much like it is today. He writes about this in the fereralist #10. Since these factions will never go away, he felt it would be better to harness their effects, instead of doing away with them.

[DarkCyrstal]

At 7/9/03 01:22 AM, BWS wrote:

At 7/9/03 01:14 AM, Lyddiechu wrote:

At 7/8/03 06:43 PM, Rancorman wrote:

uhhh i hate to break it to you, but it was madison that warned against the dangers of "factions" (political parties).

Actually, Madison thought that the effects of factions would be delt with best by having congress set up much like it is today. He writes about this in the fereralist #10. Since these factions will never go away, he felt it would be better to harness their effects, instead of doing away with them.

Times are very different these days. There is no logic in studing the Political Philosohpy of long long ago. It is true the objectives where the same... War was still a threat... But, things are just a taaad bit different

At 7/9/03 01:34 AM, DarkCyrstal wrote:

Times are very different these days. There is no logic in studing the Political Philosohpy of long long ago. It is true the objectives where the same... War was still a threat... But, things are just a taaad bit different

Studying political policies and whatnot from the past prevents us from repeating mistakes. Plus, knowing stuff is great.

[JMHX]

At 7/9/03 01:34 AM, DarkCyrstal wrote:

At 7/9/03 01:22 AM, BWS wrote:

At 7/9/03 01:14 AM, Lyddiechu wrote:

At 7/8/03 06:43 PM, Rancorman wrote:

Times are very different these days. There is no logic in studing the Political Philosohpy of long long ago. It is true the objectives where the same... War was still a threat... But, things are just a taaad bit different

As true as that may be, we can still learn a great deal from what the framers of our nation wrote and thought. However, in response to the question of political parties -- yes, I think it is a good idea. It shows the way things work. Take the 1948 Dixiecrats for example, and their poster boy, the late Strom Thurmond. Since not many people agreed with his views outside of his state, he hardly got any votes at all. The masses believed in Truman, and voted him in. It's all got to do with your message. People will gather behind you if they believe in your cause -- there's no way of preventing that.

[Lyddiechu]

At 7/9/03 01:22 AM, BWS wrote:

At 7/9/03 01:14 AM, Lyddiechu wrote:

At 7/8/03 06:43 PM, Rancorman wrote:

uhhh i hate to break it to you, but it was madison that warned against the dangers of "factions" (political parties).

Actually, Madison thought that the effects of factions would be delt with best by having congress set up much like it is today. He writes about this in the fereralist #10. Since these factions will never go away, he felt it would be better to harness their effects, instead of doing away with them.

damn its been a while since ive taken us history and its really showing. thanks for correcting me. *turns red with embarrassment*

[BWS]

No problem. Its just a little tid-bit thats easy to forget.

[DarkCyrstal]

Nope, my history is always refreshed by south park. The Tivo and and the History channel. Works lickity Split. No shit.

[Lyddiechu]

At 7/9/03 02:01 AM, BWS wrote: No problem. Its just a little tid-bit thats easy to forget.

ja. im amazed i even remember who madison was consdiering i spent the last year doing ap european history (yeah senior year high school geeks w00t!!!) i gotta say frankly i never really got into 1700s-1800s era american history. *yawn*

[DarkCyrstal]

At 7/9/03 02:04 AM, Lyddiechu wrote:

At 7/9/03 02:01 AM, BWS wrote: No problem. Its just a little tid-bit thats easy to forget.

ja. im amazed i even remember who madison was consdiering i spent the last year doing ap european history (yeah senior year high school geeks w00t!!!) i gotta say frankly i never really got into 1700s-1800s era american history. *yawn*

How can you not be interested in The might battle between the British and the US... On sedend though, two radical white guys fighting. One marches into bullets, others hide in trees and run away. Nothing really happened during those years... EXCEPT THE FOUNDING OF THE GREATEST COUNTRY!! over maybe that was a tad bit of an overstatement. But still, they had crappy guns, poorly made, melted cannons, terrible music, ugly pale fat chicks, and poofy white hair... Interesting...

[Lyddiechu]

lol ugly fat white chicks and poofy hair!!! SAHWEEET!!!! i gotta say my historical personal favorite was defenitally the reformation, ahh martin luther, you crazy and wonderful german you.. he almsot would have made it above bismarck on my list of most awesome german historical figures of all time except for the virulent anti semetism.. then again rommel is on that list and we all knew where his political leanings lay. *sigh* ah well no ones perfect eh?

[JMHX]

I don't know about you guys here, but I find the entire era leading up to the Civil War, most of the 1800s and up until the 1940s a very interesting time in the country's history. It's when things began getting industrialized and our nation took its first major strides towards becoming a global superpower. Besides, most of that era is just much better documented than the 1700s.

[Lyddiechu]

you really think so?? well.. i guess the labor movements stuff and the great depression is fascinating, yet anytime between the end of reconstruction and the beginning of the labor troubles im not such a fan. europe was way more interesting then.

[JMHX]

At 7/9/03 06:39 PM, Lyddiechu wrote: you really think so?? well.. i guess the labor movements stuff and the great depression is fascinating, yet anytime between the end of reconstruction and the beginning of the labor troubles im not such a fan. europe was way more interesting then.

Man, as soon as I post it's already been toppled. It's impossible to get a monopoly on the front page of the forums now. Anyway, I've always liked Europe and its history because there always seemed to be something going on, whereas here in the 1700s was simply a struggle to keep things together and get our nation running. Another new place that I've found has a lot of very interesting history around the 1700s? Russia.

[Lyddiechu]

ya i totally agree with that one. usually people just ignore russian history up until the rise of communism, but imperial russia is really fun to read about.

how about the rise and fall of political parties in 18th-19th century britain, are you into that at all?

there is one really obscure british history thing i like, and that was their agricultural revolution since the guy who invented the seed drill was named jethro tull.. i wonder if that is where the band got their name hmmm

[JMHX]

At 7/9/03 06:43 PM, Lyddiechu wrote: ya i totally agree with that one. usually people just ignore russian history up until the rise of communism, but imperial russia is really fun to read about.

how about the rise and fall of political parties in 18th-19th century britain, are you into that at all?

there is one really obscure british history thing i like, and that was their agricultural revolution since the guy who invented the seed drill was named jethro tull.. i wonder if that is where the band got their name hmmm

I've never covered much of British politics until recently with my interest in just how Tony Blair became Prime Minister. However, the History Channel ran that 90 million hour series on Russia (titled, originally enough, "Russia") and it really sparked my interest in the entire line of study.

[Lyddiechu]

i watched that show and was INCREDIBLY dissapointed. it diddnt even scratch the surface of how interesting czarist russia is, plus the footage fucking sucked. they definitally spent all their money on the advertizing budget and NONE on the show. *sigh*

[DarkCyrstal]

At 7/9/03 06:56 PM, Lyddiechu wrote: i watched that show and was INCREDIBLY dissapointed. it diddnt even scratch the surface of how interesting czarist russia is, plus the footage fucking sucked. they definitally spent all their money on the advertizing budget and NONE on the show. *sigh*

It was definitly a waste of time, though, it told me what i wanted to know. Why ivan the 3rd was named, Ivan the Terrible.

[JMHX]

At 7/9/03 06:56 PM, Lyddiechu wrote: i watched that show and was INCREDIBLY dissapointed. it diddnt even scratch the surface of how interesting czarist russia is, plus the footage fucking sucked. they definitally spent all their money on the advertizing budget and NONE on the show. *sigh*

Well, looking back it was trash, but it really got me interested in Russia and its history. Made me want to learn Cyrillic. Then I realized I was just being a fool.