|
quote:
Originally posted by NyXpun
Creating a third party will not help(which creating a another major party is practically a pipe dream)
Many third parties want to promote legislation like the abolition of the electoral collage, instant runoff voting, proportionate representation, and campaign finance reform that will actually help create a real democracy.
Third parties allow for more people to actually have a voice; most people are against the war yet the two parties are both running pro-war candidates. This is supposed to represent the views of most Americans?
quote:
Third Parties want votes so they can qualify for big Special interest donations given to them
Some do. But that doesn't explain why people like Nader want to push through campaign finance reform that will make private funding of elections illegal.
quote:
If You ever Taken a Socialogy class or pay attention to the world you would know that Government always favors big coroporations
and it will never change it actually has been getting greater as years passed.
It has been like this since the country started
yea even though i am for democrats it doesnt matter what party is in power(and if third party somehow makes it there, it will be the same)
Another reason for voting for a third party, both parties are, in effect, run by the same people then.
And yes, some third parties are not interested in special interest funding. The leftist third party movement that Nader voters are hoping for supports McCain-Feingold, and say that it does not go far enough.
quote:
the Top 20% control more then half of the national income
Cool. And the top 1% controls about 38% of the nation's wealth, more than double the amount controlled by the bottom 80%. Democrats are not helping.
quote:
read something before saying something ignorant(no offense) like special interest spending will go away when the government does so much to make things better for big business/coroporation
i.e. tax breaks law breaks(means bending the law for them)
I didn't say special interest funding would go away. I fully recognize that the current system supports special interest funding. I do not foresee that changing unless we continuously struggle against it.
However, that does not mean we should just give in to these special interests. There are movements that want to put a stop to the privatization of elections, and if we truly despise special interests and soft money, we should support those movements. Voting for Nader is a step in that direction; voting for Kerry does not address the problem (oh my! another position Nader has that's against the status quo, that Kerry and Bush do not. hmm...).
Just because that's the way it is does not make it right.
quote:
also this doesnt matter what party.
how are u guys so sure that things will not be different if Kerry was president? Because that is what people say if they do not know anything or havent made up their minds. u guys are just taking the easy way out by not picking one. Yes most College students are just anti Bush. and yea most of them are ignorant.
I'm so sure because of what you said: "also this doesnt matter what party."
Kerry is a pro-war, pro-Patriot Act candidate. Those are his positions, that's why I do not want to vote for him.
There are other reasons I would not want to vote for him. He will do nothing to help the gay rights movement, though in that he is clearly the "lesser evil" (at least he won't constitutionally ban gay marriage...he just wants to stop gays from marrying on a state-to-state level).
quote:
yea Kerry is going to continue the war. but what u actually thought he was going to pull everything out? is that why u say they are the same? Kerry and Bush have different plans for the war. I am sorry i dont have much information on that but if u read it yourself u can see the difference.
The fact is that they both support an unjust war. People say Bush can't admit his mistakes, but Kerry has not once apologized for authorizing the use of force.
My problem with the war is its imperialistic roots. There is a pattern of imperialism that America has taken since the end of World War 2, where America continues to try to dominate the rest of the world. Democrats and Republicans alike fit this pattern. Kerry rejected it when he spoke out against the Vietnam War. He rejected it when he rejected the first Gulf War. However, he clearly does not reject it in the cases of Afghanistan and Iraq.
quote:
the only real thing that they are the same on is that they both are going to continue the war. look at everything else
Like the Patriot Act.
quote:
u know what war issues isnt the only reason im voting for kerry
actually war is so fucking dumb that i dont give a f*ck
im in a low low middle class family my umma barely makes 25 000
and appa doesnt pay child support.
Bush's policies f*ck me and my family even though both parties do more for corps, Democrats at least do more for us little people
Give them crumbs and take their bread.
quote:
i rather look at other things that kerry is for since he is democrat not the f*ckin war u and the rest of america is focusing on
there are more issues then the god damn war.
Yes. But the most important issue to me is the war. Why? Because foreign policy is the thing I care most about. I believe that the life of an innocent human is equal, regardless of whether you are Iraqi, Palestinian, Israeli, Sudanese, Arab, American, or whatever. Therefore I am outraged at the atrocities in Afghanistan and Iraq.
quote:
and also what with my quotes? u should think about them
how does this quote do anything bad
"The sign of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed views at the same time"-F. Scott Fitzgerald
if u do not know what that means then wow
Don't ever make assumptions about my intelligence.
You've made a lot of assumptions in this post, I just haven't called you out on them before, because this is the biggest one you did.
Now let's see...you've called me ignorant of the way things work. I've read NUMEROUS works about capitalism, American foreign policy, terrorism, and the Islamic mindset (which, of course, will not change very much by bombing the hell out of them). I've read extensively about histories of class struggle in America (which relates to your claims about special interest domination). I've read books written by Ralph Nader (including one that I own, interesting read about how the Democrats have become much more conservative in the last 30 years, Crashing the Party). I've met, in person, Nader's running mate this year, Peter Miguel Camejo, and heard him speak about corporate welfare, the Iraq war, the Patriot Act, and the beginnings of a leftist, grassroots, Green Party movement.
So as far as politics go, I'm far from ignorant.
As for your little quote, sure I'll take a crack at it. First, it might be better to have the full, actual quote:
"The sign of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing views in the mind at the same time and still have the ability to function."
It's just a generic statement on open-mindedness. He's making the point that you SHOULD be able to see multiple perspectives.
Unfortunately, I'm not a Fitzgerald fan.
I am, however, an Orwell fan fan. So I'll quote him:
quote:
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. . . To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while take account of the reality which one denies.
Orwell is not talking about open-mindedness here - he's talking about the system of lying and deception - especially to yourself - in order to believe that the Party (in this case, either party) is doing the right thing.
I refuse to commit doublethink, or crimestop for that matter. I will not believe that what we are doing in Iraq is wrong and vote for someone who believes in that war. I will not believe that the Patriot Act is an infringement upon our rights and vote for someone who supports that law.
Of course there are other issues related to this election. I personally am more interested in foreign policy and civil liberties/civil rights. And Nader's policies reflect my positions the most, though not entirely.
(As an aside, it's interesting to think about the Bush administration in terms of the parameters set by doublethink. Especially the part about telling deliberate lies while believing in them)
Last edited by aaqthree on 10-07-2004 at 04:45 AM
|
09-28-2004 01:08 AM
[Shut up. That doesn't mean I'm not going to.]
