Maybe he didnt kill himself nor was assasinated. I got a different theory.... Was there any kinda Arabic wedding going on nearby, I know they love blowing off a lot of rounds into the air, one hit him in the head :-). Still good.

YatesFan: Haha! I provide you with the wisdom of George Washington warning about the dangers of party loyalty in a free land, and you denigrate him as some sort of obsolete throwback!

Well, fella, these words are as valid today as they were then, and we see his prediction and warning coming true right before our eyes. You see, the world "as it is" is "as it was" because people are not at all fundamentally different creatures than they were in 1790 A.D.

But I suppose you consider yourself and the modern world to be intrinsically different and superior to George Washington and his times, eh? What exactly has transformed us into the Olympian superiors of George Washington? Electricity? Automobiles? Computers?

Haha.

BTW, which amendment to the Constitution was it that made the two party system the law of the land? Did answering that question slip your mind?

YatesFan: Was there any kinda Arabic wedding going on nearby, I know they love blowing off a lot of rounds into the air, one hit him in the head


Sounds like a CSI episode.

Dude its real simple, the progression was to a two party system isnt forced, people dont give a shiat simple as that. That has always been so, except for one or 2 times in the 300 years 3rd party never wins. As far as difference in America, are you farking kidding, we went from voters being white, christian, male, landowners, to a society of pretty much anyone being able to vote. Lets see other difference, slavery, drugs, views on religion, views on the world, etc etc etc. As for George Washington he wasnt a brilliant man, he was a semi-good general nothing else. And as far as his foreign policy, he was a dummy plain and simple. He wasnt a visionary he was just a pretty good President, nothing less nothing more. And no we are not fundamentally different creatures but society is fundamentally different now than it was than. Besides the fact that I preferred the concept of pre George Washington system of each state being its own country and loosely affiliated to the whole. But thats my opinion and I dont go around bashing people over the head because they disagree with your view of freedom, MAAAAAN. Ohh yeah as far Washington because of that asses recomendations USA was ransaked 20 years later by the British because we didnt have any help.

DittyHoper... thanks thats farking funny as hell thank you
:-)

DR. STRANGELOVE, RIDING DOWN THE BOMB...... BEST SUICIDE EVER

YatesFan: "Ohh the argument that people in Europe have more freedom is mute since it varies from country to country..."

I hate to be picky, but I'm going to be anyway. It's MOOT point, not mute.

/"It's like a cow's point of view. You know, it's moo"

Judy Jetson, sorry I am at work so I type really fast without proof reading, I know I got probably far dumber spelling and grammatical mistakes than mute vs moot, but yeah I meant moot. Thnx for the correction.

From reading this article I can conclude that libtards are humorless twats :D

Yeap, its been awhile since I ve seen the movie, I was actually running around the office trying to get the name of the movie right, ofcourse no one here at work knew what I was talking about, guess I am the only 20-something ass here that watches old movies. OHH and DIRTY BASHIR.... genius, line of the day!

Yates Fan, I honestly wasn't trying to be a twat. I just love the Joey line about the moo point. It's one of those things that just makes me giggle.

AfroX... I agree, obvious that it wasnt 12 times. "Suicide" of 3rd world govt officials is like "retirement" in the mafia. I still say it was an Arabic wedding that killed him, nothing better several dozen dirty beards shooting into the air, not realizing its coming back down :-)

Judy its totally kewl with me, unlike some of the other humorless asshats, I dont mind a jab or two. And I actually never noticed the Joey comment or would have corrected myself earlier. N as far as I am concerned twat is reserved only for those who trully deserve the honor of being called that. Like that twat Miers who got nominated for the Supreme Court

Canyoneer, we were't really trying to defend the problems inherent within America's political system, I think it was just that you felt the need to defend poor old Syria, methinks probably because you hate Israel so much or something (stuff I've seen you say on other threads).

Just stop being a douche and don't jump in front to defend a country like frikkin Syria. I mean, c'mon dude, SYRIA! You know, our enemy, the country whose agents are paying $500 bounties for dead US soldiers, that country? The country who sends in countless foreign fighters to help wage war and attack and kill our soldiers?

That Syria, yeah, possibly take your tongue out of their butthole because trust me, just America's butthole tastes bad, it tastes a hell of a lot better than Syria's ass.

YatesFan: "...people dont give a shiat...USA was ransaked (SIC) 20 years later..."

And so on.

Yes, things have indeed changed:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Political_Reform/Third_Parties_America.html

"Ballot Access Restrictions - The Democrats and Republicans have constructed a maze of cumbersome regulations and procedures that make it difficult for minor parties and independent candidates to gain a spot on the general election ballot...Because the states determine their own ballot access laws, minor party candidates wishing to place their names before the voters must overcome fifty-one different sets of bureaucratic hurdles...As a result of the lawsuits initiated by George Wallace in 1968, Eugene McCarthy in 1976, and John Anderson in 1980, ballot access laws are now as lenient as they have ever been in this century. Even Libertarian Ed Clark was able to gain a spot on all fifty-one ballots in 1980...Despite these changes, which for the most part have been at the margins, it is still no easy task for third party candidates to win access to the ballot. All twentieth-century third party presidential candidates have had to struggle to obtain positions on the ballot...Although it is clear that, relative to the Democrats and Republicans, ballot access laws discriminate against independent challengers, we are less certain whether this bias is greater than the one that existed prior to the 1890s when the parties themselves prepared the ballots...The 1974 Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) is the most recent instance of the major parties adopting a 'reform' that freezes out third party challengers. Under the law, the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) provides the major party presidential nominees a lump sum ($29.4 million in 1980) for their campaigns. On top of this, the Democratic and Republican National Committees can raise and spend as much as they need to pay for legal and accounting expenses incurred in complying with the act. State and local party committees can raise and spend an unlimited amount on voter registration, get-out-the-vote drives, and other volunteer activities. 'Independent' committees can also spend freely on behalf of the major parties...Third parties, on the other hand, are eligible to receive public funds only after the November election, and then only if they appear on the ballot in at least ten states and obtain at least 5 percent of the national popular vote...Televised presidential debates also exclude third party candidates...The press does more than simply ignore minor party candidates; at times they are overtly hostile towards them...A second prevalent belief is that the two-party system is a sacred arrangement-as American an institution as the Congress, the Super Bowl, or M*A*S*H. Third party candidates are seen as disrupters of the American two-party system. Thus minor parties do not start out on an equal footing with the Democrats and Republicans; they must first establish their legitimacy-something the voters do not demand...The major parties have employed a full array of dirty tricks against independent challengers...The major parties also do not sit idly by as third party candidates battle state election laws. Instead, they actively fight to prevent minor parties from securing spots on the ballot. As Robert Neumann of the Democratic National Committee candidly boasted in June 1980: 'We don't know how much it's going to cost [to keep Anderson off November ballots] but we'll probably spend what it takes' (Associated Press 1980, p. 30)...Anderson's treatment was not unique..."
------------------------------------------------------------
And so on. I am truly impressed by your casual indifference to this grotesque reality in which a tiny minority of the population in America controls who can be a candidate for public office and for whom the citizens can vote. That you tout the fact that "pretty much anyone [is] able to vote" as a great leap forward, while the candidates for whom they can vote is strictly controlled merely illustrates your functional ignorance of the state of democracy in the United States.

How generous of the parties to allow all those brown people and women to vote (for the pre-determined government of the two party systems' choice)! Society is fundamentally changed!

However, there is some truth in what you say about the stupid cows of America "not giving a shiat about it." That is because they are stupid cows, largely imported from other lands full of stupid cows.

No, fella: things haven't changed, only your perception of things has changed. We still have a system controlled pretty much by "white christian male landowners," and you don't even get it. I reckon the price of admission to this very exclusive club is right around $1 billion in today's dollars. Good luck.

You are evidently an ideal receptor of propaganda, but hardly unique in that regard. Now, be a good tool and rail against the demonic Syrians some more!

Sucker.

bbcrackmonkey: "Just stop being a douche and don't jump in front to defend a country like frikkin Syria."

And where exactly did I "defend Syria?" Nowhere, in fact. I don't give a rat's ass about Syria, just as I don't give a rat's ass about Israel.

BBCRACKMONKEY, I was one of the people harping on Canyoneer. I just wanted to say that ALL polical systems are flawed much like all countries are flawed, but thats only because people are flawed. And I agree with you, Syria sucks monkey ass (no pun intended). I am not saying we should go into Syria but blowing up some of the insurgent camps, that I would not mind. I.E. current US military plans "US News magazine Newsweek claimed that the Washington administration debated the option of launching military strikes inside the Syrian border against the insurgency, I love America starts thinking like Israel :-)

CANYONEER, go get your lil tin foil hat, and head for Montana. I see you biatching a lot, I dont see proposals, I dont see action and what I do see is an annoying lil asshat that just spouts off like some hippie college student, going "the government is bad MAAAAAAN". Go paint flowers on your face... The rich always control everything. It doesnt matter if its democracy, or communism, or facist, or socialist democracy, or theocracy, or monarchy. Its called a fact of life, thats why people strive to be rich in order to have power.... no offense but stop looking at things as black and white and started looking at things by comparing things. Tell me where would you rather live? Beside Moore's "Utopia"

Anyone here said Syria is demonic??? Anyone? Anyone? OK since no one raised their hand. Now than, its not a demon, its just an awful country that doesnt allow people to use the internet, where the Bashir family controls EVERYTHING, and a country that arms and finances groups such as Hamas, and Hizabollah, and Islamic Jihad, you know your kinda people.

Frankly Canyoneer you are coming off as an ass and people will take you less seriously when you speak that way. Yes our system is flawed but what people like YatesFan are trying to say overall our system and our nation as a whole is better than most anywhere else in the world. And it is far superior to a dictatorship like Syria. In the state that I live many third partys make it to the ballot. There are several reasons they don't get elected. Silly notions of party loyalty is only part of it. Many people don't vote for the third partys because many of the main ones either have idiotic view points (constitution party which is the American Taxpayers party in michigan, Natural Law and Workers World for example) or ones that are not really workable in the real world (Libertarian and Green for example). Unfortionately after those are removed all thats generally left is the two main partys whos politics appeal more to most people than any of the smaller partys. The last third party that was able to pull enough people together was the Reform Party and its my hope that someday soon a third party with a sensible platform will be able to pull enough people to make a real break from the two party system.

I hope it's contagious.

Swede? you hope whats contagious?????

Kurland I agree whole heartedly, but most likely the parties will just flip again like they have done in the past, with the Democrats becoming Republicans and vice versa.

Syrian govt. suicide bug.

TheNationalist

You're holding a 20 guage pump behind your head? How? Are you grasping it by the mouth of the barrel and have a string attached to the trigger? That's the only way I can see that happening without an aid of a device or you're some circus freak.

Swede.... absolutely :-).
StarshipPooper, why behind your head, why not put the barrel in the mouth and pull with either a finger or if its an 18+ inch barrel, with a toe?

"I swear to God I'm going to pistol-whip the next person who says 'shenanigans'."

Cause it's more convincing if it was a "suicide" if you're shot in the back of the head, same with being stabbed in the back 100 times. It's got to be a suicide....

YatesFan: "Muss keel Moose and Squeerel, Natasha!"

By all means, if you think it is the proper destiny of the United States to ruin itself by getting embroiled in the ancient, pointless, and eternal feuds of a lot of stupid Middle Eastern religious zealots, just say so.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kurland: Frankly, Kurland, you are coming off as a defender of the indefensible status quo, and people will take you less seriously when you speak that way.

No wonder barely 50% of Americans bother to vote any more. After all, they are simply refusing to waste perfectly good gasoline and time to give legitimacy to an entrenched, corrupt, and incompetent political elite that is presiding over the deterioration of the country.

However, the situation evidently "appeal(s) more to most people," including you.

Actually Canyoneer I am not a defender of the status quo. If you actually took the time to read my post I did point out we need a change. I simply also pointed out the flaws in the existing third partys and I am being a realist not living in a fantasy world like some third party members do. Another big flaw of third partys is most only speak to a small segment of the population. To be successful in politics a party has to speak to many people or has to form a collilition between several partys to gain wide spread acceptance. In many cases its the third partys own fault they fail as aiming to speak for a small group of people, and several speak to a small group of fanatics again the Constitution Party is a big example of that, will cause you to be margenalized and ignored by most people. When a third party finds a sensible platform that can speak to a large segment of Americans it will have a shot at success. The only one to do that reciently is the Reform party and thats pretty much nonexistant now. Will another do so in the future who knows but I certainly hope one will. If you look at other nations who have more than two major partys you will find their partys platforms speak to a decent sized portion of the population if they are successful and if they don't they are little failures with nearly no power.

YatesFan, how can you you tell someone to "... stop looking at things as black and white..." when, faced with someone who is critiquing the USA's status and warning others about the downward spiral it got into, you resort to lowly comment such as "... go get your lil tin foil hat, and head for Montana." or "Go paint flowers on your face... "?

And the other poor soul who is so rapidly drawn into a false dilemma. "Canyoneer is questioning the USA's government, he must therefore be on Syria's side". Do you know what a sophism is?

Canyoneer's words might be upsetting but his demeanour is a lot better than yours and he is making a point using proper argumentation.

Cartmant said... "These damn dirty hippies"
Canyoneer besides your conspiracy theories and paranoia and being a self hating American, do you do anything to change the system, do you do anything besides complaining in pointless postings? Ohh by the way I love your lil jab suggesting I am russian kgb or something, real cute and big of you. Its actually funny since you sound more like Marx anything else.... ohh its the rich people oppressing the poor workers.... hey when or where have rich people not been in charge???? hmmm? You know of a place or time the poor controlled something? Thats the point of becoming rich is to have power. As far as corruption, what government isnt corrupt, whenever people are in power there is the ABILITY to be corrupt so unless we get purely logical robots being in charge of the government you will absolutely have a flawed system. How about answering the real question, where is there a better political system or country to live in? And if you know where it is why are you not answering? Let me guess you are the type of douchebag thats sits with his friends going "LET ME TELL YOU WHATS REALLY GOING ON, MAAAAAAAAN" you farking hippies I swear, you complain and do lil else.

Kurland: And evidently you did not follow the link I provided which explains how and why third parties are marginalized and shut out of the electoral process in America by the "two party system."

This is not a matter of a third party or mutiple parties coming up with an acceptable platform, this is about systematic suppression of any possibility of that happening. This is about the monopolization of power by an entrenched political elite, no matter what the platform is.

Really, I encourage you to read the link in full, and then tell me that the republican/democrat combine does not, in fact, have a stranglehold on the political system.

This might be an unfair question in the context, but do you approve of the way the country has been run, and is being run, by the current political elites?

Finger, first off Canyoneer is a douche that started off this debate with personal insults but that set aside. This guy obviously sounds like a paranoid, self hating American, who sees conspiricies when its really as the world is. Has there ever been a flaw proof political system or politicians or are not corrupt or nepotistic or power hungry???? Ever? Can you maybe answer what political system whether it be current or historic that was better? Or a country that has a better political system that free of corruption, nepotism, and all the stuff that goes with having wealth and power.... Or do you agree with his Marxist like statements that its really the rich controlling, well no shiat rich control it, has it ever been any other way?

Canyoneer are you so blind? Which presidency didnt have some massive scandal? Was in pre 19th century, cause I seem to remember as far back as the Taft Hartley scandal where he was bilking the government or maybe it was in the early 20th century where Hoover farked up royaly, or was it in the 50 n 60's when mafia got JFK elected or was under Nixon, or Carter or Regan or whoever, when has it ever been different, rich people want to be richer just like poor people want to be rich...... its called HUMAN NATURE, we are all greedy, power hungry, self important asses, thats what makes us human

Of course the republicans and democrats have a strangehold on the system. They can get more people behind them so its harder to get the general public to care about that fact. If a third part could get enough people behind them though they would force their way onto the ballot. Remember strength in numbers, the more supporters you have the less likely any one will be able to halt you using these dirty practices. Unfortionately there is no third party that is currently able to do so. Now to answer your question no I do not approve of the way the country is being run by its current group of criminals in office. I semi approved of Clinton but not of everything he did. In the recient election I voted for Kerry not because I think he would be a good president but because i thought he would be the best of the bad choices I was offered. As you may have noticed I am very much against the Constitution Party, I do not support the idea of a theocracy which is also a reason, not the only one or even the most important one, that I will never in a million years vote for some one associated with Bush. I simply vote for who I feel is best for the position based on what they personally stand for and what I can research about them.

YatesFan: You really don't deserve a civil reply, you idiot, but I'll do it anyway. I work for a third party organizing in my local area. I work for it because it has a chance to cut into the power base of the republicrat monopoly, not because I necessarily agree with 100% of its positions. Progress has been slow but sure.

You see, I believe that the "two party" system has long since outlived its usefulness and has become a leech. The two parties spend all of their time and energy on the following:

1. The binary struggle for political power using every means available, including electoral fraud and collusion to pass discriminatory regulation of any possible outside competition.

2. Raising money using every possible means, legal and illegal.

3. Defense of outlandish ideologies that are increasingly being made irrelevant by conditions in the real world.

That these two entities are increasingly out of touch and increasingly unable to govern effectively can be seen every day. That real and worsening problems are not being addressed by this entrenched elite political class is obvious.

As to your "real question," it is actually irrelevant, because I am not a gypsy who travels about in search of whatever country can provide me with a more satisfactory situation. I was born here and intend to stay put and fight for what I think is right for MY country, instead of ditching it if I become disillusioned or dissatisfied. Right now, the best thing for America would be the dissolution of our dated and ineffectual "two-party system."

It is my country and its condition that interest me, and I have no intention of shopping around like some slug looking for better prices on AA batteries at WalMart. I figure people who leave their country because they don't like the conditions are cowards and quitters. Furthermore, I don't think America should be the overflow tank for the scum who don't have the guts to stay and fight for what's right at home.

YatesFan: "...its called HUMAN NATURE, we are all greedy, power hungry, self important asses, thats what makes us human."

Speak for yourself, Fan.

Kurland: Then I recommend you go volunteer for the Greens or the Libertarians, because these are the two parties that have gained some organizational momentum over the last few years.

As I've indicated, at this point you don't have to necessarily agree with their positions on anything. The important thing is to chip away at the entrenched parties. Nothing will ever get better until the two-party system is threatened to its very core by outside powers. Pick a third party and help it.

YatesFan,

"This guy obviously sounds like a paranoid, self hating American, who sees conspiricies when its really as the world is."

"Has there ever been a flaw proof political system or politicians or are not corrupt or nepotistic or power hungry???? Ever? Can you maybe answer what political system whether it be current or historic that was better? Or a country that has a better political system that free of corruption, nepotism, and all the stuff that goes with having wealth and power.... Or do you agree with his Marxist like statements that its really the rich controlling, well no shiat rich control it, has it ever been any other way?"


Yates, guys like you always argue the same way. False dichotomies, ridiculous hyperbole, and never answering the original charge.

It's possible to think that the system here needs fixing, but admitting that it is superior to many others.

Is it the best system it could be? Is it as good as it once was? These are appropriate questions for patriots to be asking, and citizens who care about our freedoms will take them seriously.

Others will decry them as paranoid. Desperate flag wavers can't manage to hold their country or it's politicians to a higher standard, instead becoming defensive at any internal criticism.

I prefer to hold my country to a higher standard.

Carry on canyoneer.

The thing is Canyoneer I do have to agree with their position before I will support them. The way those two partys stand today i do not want them in power unless they reform some of their views. The most important thing isn't just change but the proper change. Alas this will be my last response for several hours as my work now takes me away from the internet to more productive work. I will be back later though.

Umm isnt the whole country made up of people who didnt have the guys to stay and fight for whats right at home? Umm didnt the pilgrims, or the Irish, or the Italians, Germans, Mexicans, Russians, Polish, etc come here for the same reason? Didnt your ancestors come here because of the same reason I did? Ohh and you still didnt answer when has it EVER been different, when have the rich not controlled things, even under Communism the rich controlled the government. And I dont have to speak for myself, humans are humans thats why the world is as it is, and frankly I DONT care about idealism. There is really no difference between blind idealism and fanatisicm, so technically speaking your a fanatic. Who is at the same time a self hating American, and you bear a striking similarity to the ranting of Marx, who was a self hating Jew who spouted off the same kinda bull shiat nonesense about the rich stranglehold of the governments. Yes WEALTH = POWER, so keep diggin Watson.

Ajax...... thank you for a more rational approach and explanation. I actually agree with very much. However, there is a fine line between hoping for a higher standard and expecting that for people. I certainly never heard of America the pure and innocent, and never remember reading about a golden age of ethics and morality in this country. All I am saying is that one shouldnt be surprised about corruption and flawed system, I just dont believe there is or ever could be people who have power and dont use it for their own good or just abuse it in general. And as one of my favorite movie quotes go, from Grumpy Old Men, "You can home and in hand and shiat in the other and see which one fills up faster." I agree with Canyoneers right to say it whatever he feels necessary but that fact is the crap he spouts sounds vaguely familiar from the 19th century, and it doesnt work when poor people take control, shiat falls apart real quick.

this is fun for me? Work is slow so gota do somethin, they block all the porn n game sites here

In other news, man takes 11 shots to the head and lives.

/didn't RTFA