Posted on 11/02/2002 5:35:30 AM PST by Pern
There are some things in which I strongly believe. First, our two-party system is a farce, one party with two faces. By today's standards of "Republican" and "Democrat" or liberal and conservative, John F. Kennedy would have been a conservative and Barry Goldwater would have been a right-wing fanatic. Our present charade of two parties fools a lot of people who listen to the differences (few as they are) and then live by the credo of their chosen party as it existed forty years ago.
It only takes some repetition, which the managed media gladly offers to either major party, but not to third parties, to convince the majority of the people that Democrats still represent the interests of the working person and Republicans still represent the interests of big capital.
Anyone who thinks big capital, as represented by the large corporate conglomerates, is beholden to and dependent upon the Republican party better buy some oceanfront property in Arizona before it's all gone. And those who think the Enrons and WorldComs are the only crooked corporations don't understand the situation ... they were crooked and got caught cooking books full of hot air. The corporations with the real money, and the giant foundations with the real world manipulators at the helm, could care less which party is in power or whether the Social Security "trust fund" myth is bankrupt. They could even care less about Enron or WorldCom, because their interests are in oil, water, turf, drugs, and the creation of a "sustainable earth" ... and either party will give US support to their goals.
Their agenda is global governance and to that end, either of the major parties will serve their purpose well. Average American voters simply live in the parties of the 40's like I watch movies of that era. The difference is, I understand that I am not living in the era that I watch on the video screen, although I did live in it then. Party devotees apparently do not.
What's worse, when the Ninth Circuit got ahead of the game by an idiot decision that was guaranteed to put the nation up in arms, the entire administration and Congress got on the bandwagon and acted like leaders of the people rather than pimps for the new world order, grabbing every photo-op available with their hands over their chests, toward the left, where the blood-pump is located. Democrats and Republicans alike expressed their allegiance to our "one nation under God" and then blithely went about the business of federalizing more of America and robbing more Americans of the freedoms of which they are so proud.
People who have never been free do not understand the difference between limited, government-granted license and true freedom. We've seen that occur in "liberated" nations that quickly fall back into dictatorships. It is occurring here because Americans under forty largely have never been given the opportunity to live in an America that was as free as it was in the years prior to 1965-75 when the avalanche began. It takes some work and some study to understand what America was like when its subversion was slow and sub rosa.
I wish Americans would see that it is time to pitch the two-party system and unite behind the minority party of their choice, whether it's Green, Libertarian, Constitution, Socialist, Reform, or Goofball! At least we would know where these folks stand ... the R and the D do not really give us a clue in these times of confusion and mixed messages.
Second, we need Americans who will insist on taking back the government that is constitutionally theirs. The people have "let the bedbugs out" to run not only the White House, but Congress. Yes, it's a huge responsibility to run a government the size of ours over a nation the size of ours, and the size of both needs to be reduced, beginning with kicking out, not legalizing, those who have illegally entered. I don't want to hear about American compassion and then listen to the wailing and moaning over the Twin Towers and the rest of post-9/11 America. Either we take our country and defend our borders, or shut up about believing in our national sovereignty. The system worked well for 200 of our 226-year history as a nation, and all of a sudden it won't work now? The only reason it won't work is that the government in power doesn't want it to work! They want a diluted, diverse population, much of which has no allegiance to America or its roots. That way, many won't care what happens to America like those of us with deep roots here. Notice also, please, that our compassion doesn't appear to extend to the genocide of the Afrikaners and other people of European descent in Africa. If we're going to let in a persecuted people, let's get visas for those people before the Marxist African National Congress (ANC) annihilates more of them ... men, women, children, if they look alive, they die, often horribly and brutally. Most Americans don't even realize what's going on in Africa, or if they do, they don't express themselves on the subject.
Third, something needs to wake up the people of America, most of them are delusional and believe they are still free, in spite of all the laws, rules, regulations, mandates and edicts coming out of Washington, D.C. They have been more than willing to surrender their freedom for "security" when they should have been demanding that the US pull out of foreign nations, stop international meddling and nation-building, and let the rest of the world fight its own battles. If we wish to help someone, let us help the Afrikaners. We quietly ignore the genocide in Africa, our media makes headlines of every suicide bombing in Israel, yet we funnel billions of dollars into Arab nations, possibly to garner support for a vendetta against Iraq. This doesn't make sense? Well, to rational minds, no. But to globalists with global financial interests, it makes perfectly good sense, and it is right in line with their agenda!
We have become the world's greatest blathering supermouth power, bar none. As to military might, we are possibly back up to mediocre after some rebuilding from the feminized military. As to true courage and commitment, we are a nation of comfort-zone wusses who are raising idiot children on federal funds dedicated to making body-piercings socially acceptable.
No, I am not "anti-American." Don't try to hang the label "anti-government" on me either. It is because I love the country in which I was born that I detest what is happening to it. Disliking the actions of government doesn't make me "anti-government" but in strong disagreement with government policy. That is my constitutional right, as well as the right of free speech to express such sentiments. When I must speak only what the government approves, then indeed the last vestige of freedom has been stripped from the people.
There is nothing in our founding documents that says we must be a two-party nation, either Democrat or Republican. When such labels become meaningless to identify what a person really believes, then it is time to chuck the labels and the parties and get to where we can once again stand up and identify.
Of course he was a joke. In my opinion he had no intentin of winning - just getting Clinton in office. When he realized he was coming very close to winning, he dropped out 'because Bush was going to disrupt his daughter's wedding'. Now come on - really. Then got back in when Bush pulled ahead.
We need a third party. A third party does not have to win the election to win. If the REpublican party knew that if they did not adhere to the principles that got them elected, we would vote next time for a third party - you better believe it would change things. As for getting a nutjob in the White House - remember, Carter, Clinton, LBJ, we've had them and I am not at all pleased with the one we have now - I just won't call him names.
The media and the two parties has everyone so tied up with the idea that we must never, never, leave the fold, if we do we will fall of the ends of the earth. Well guess what, you won't.
I don't totally blame the two parties for the lack of success of a third party. But of course they are to blame, of course they are. Do you think theya re actually going to let someone come along that will maybe speak truth. Actually let the serfs realize they can vote for someone other than them.
I blame a lot on the wimpiness of the American people. We are comfortable (for some unfathomable reason) with the two parties we have - indistinguishible from each other when it is all said and done.
I realize third parties, especially when they are small, are dominated by passionate people. But when they find that their message is not gaining popularity, they blame others for that, instead of wondering whether their message simply isn't very attractive.
You blame this on the wimpiness of the American people, or a conspiracy to silence you, when the fact is that you're simply being ignored because your message isn't interesting. Sorry.
Immigration!!!
A third party that ran on the immigration issue would have a lot of support vote wise - but would have to run against both political parties and their power and money. Every left-wing special interest group and their money. Every greedy corporation who wants to keep their laborers with the taxpayer's subsidizing them.
But yes, immigration is a good third party issue that the major parties are just pretending doesn't exist.
Extensive coverage??? Or extensive bashing. There is a difference. Coverage is a word that would suppose there was an an attempt at fairness or at least the attempt to appear to be fair. You know that never happened. The REpublican party and the news media set about destroying him. Most of his coverage came after the Republican party had trounced him and he went to the other party.
I am assuming that you are happy with the status quo and if you weren't YOU could do something about it. It is much easier to just accept what is given you than have to take the hard step of saying, "I have been used, and duped". Now am I doing anything? - no. But at least I am not saying, "I'm fine, I like being lied to, I like being used. Everything's wonderful - no need for change."
Yes, she does. She is speaking from having lived in a time when we actually were relatively free. It is impossible to explain to a younger person just how much freedom has been lost in our lifetime.
A third party is needed (as others have pointed out) to keep the other two in line. Now there was a time int his country when we had a third party - it was called independent thinkers. Radical Republicans that voted for JFK. Yellow Dog Democrats that voted for Eisenhower. In other words, no party could take people for granted. Now they realized that if they just worked together to make everyone 'take sides' like a sports match and be totally loyal to one or the party or the other, they would not have to worry. So now, the Republicans know they have so many people who are totally loyal - no matter what. The only people they campaign for in the elections are the special interest groups. We always talk about the blacks being on the plantation - well I believe the Christian REpublicans are on the plantation. They only need us at election time, but believe me, the next election will be to a large extent conducted in and for the Mexican vote. Now if you don't think a third party would make a difference, just keep in mind the pandering to the Mexicans that is being done now and that is because the Democrats know they have a large percent and the Republicans want to get as many as possible.
Certainly he was bashed by the media, but if that meant anything, there would only be ONE major party in this country.
That's how I see it. There was a difference in the parties 40 years ago. It's all on the margin today. The armies of lobbyists that front for Transnational Corporations, various Liberal Foundations and Socialist PACs have largely ameliorated the big differences between the parties over time.
I would think that any independently minded voter who follows politics would wonder why there is virtually No Debate in the last few elections on the issues of immigration and trade. Isn't it odd that on two very important issues both parties have no real disagreements?
Bump That.
There may be a third party on the horizon and it will serve the the pubbies and rats right. The American Salsa Party...
Helpful hint, dear, do some major research and learn about GREENIES. They're watermelons ... green on the outside and red inside. They won't change. They've been a major disaster in Europe ( where they flourish ) and aren't any better here. Your abject lack of political knowledge is appalling !
Your quote, from the aricle, is so filled with inacuracies, that only a cretin could have written it. American wasn't any more " free ", in 1964, than it is today. The " avalance " , or whatever you want to call it, began 1/2 a century prior to this date. Subversion , likewise, wasn't " sub rosa " ; it was glaringly out in the open and had been, for even longer.
Third parties are worthless, except as spoilers. There aren't enough people, to vote third party and more fringe parties, for voting for them, for them to EVER make a difference; let alone in your lifetime, or those of your grandcchildren's.
And how long do you suggest we wait for this to happen? 10 years? 20 years?
The Republican party will not return to conservatism in my lifetime.
They will just continue to offer us all a slower trip to the New World Order.
And how long do you suggest we wait for this to happen? 10 years? 20 years?
The Republican party will not return to conservatism in my lifetime.
They will just continue to offer us all a slower trip to the New World Order.
I am not suggesting that we WAIT for it to happen... conservatives must get involved and make it happen. To say the fight is impossible before even trying to fight it is to be already defeated.
Look at it this way. If you cannot capture the Republican party, what makes you think you can capture control of the agenda of the US government, which is a far larger and far more complex entity? One thousand people in a small, unknown party, as pure as they may be in their conservatism, have no chance of influencing elections. One thousand people who have worked hard to build up control over a larger political party have far more influence, even if that party is not completely "pure" and requires a few compromises to hold unity.
Clinton was able to radicalize this country to the left because he was willing to make a few "compromises" early on. After doing this, he had enough support to push forward his pure socialist agenda. Compromise is dirty and ugly, but you cannot win the game of politics without using it to some degree. To insist on "pure conservatism" under all circumstances is to hand victory over those who are willing to compromise.
(BTW- I do agree with you that the Republican Party is, at the moment, simply giving us slower movement towards the New World Order. This is part of why we must work to overtake it. But, to split ourside into various factions is to give victory to those on the other side who are both united and willing to move us at a swifter pace towards that which we fear. It is only after we have marginalized our far left socialist opposition that we can afford to split our side.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.