I hate to say this, but Mr. Clinton keeps looking better and better every election since. I still say it would be a crime to let things go on like they are another four years.

<font color = lightgreen>I would agree to giving Bush four more years because I believe America is the new Rome. It isn't wrong to be the best, you know, unless you are one of those people who think that strength is to be found only through plurality.
International politics does not work according to the same principles as interpersonal relationships. On a personal level you may (usually) speak with those who dislike you and acheive a "working relationship". Between nations this is generally not possible due to unresolved conflicts that happened centuries ago or petty jealousies over relative strength. One may always deal with a disruptive neighbor by ignoring said neighbor; one may not ignore a neighboring country. At the end of a failed relationship one may pack one's bags and move into a new apartment; at the end of a failed relationship with another country you have...a failed relationship with another country and nowhere else to go. In short, quit trying to use personal thinking when the topic is international policy.

The neoconservatives don't always have the best answers. I, myself, disagree with some of their policies and agendas. However, the answers proposed by those who are in the political left of our arena will have more damaging long-term fallout than the answers proposed by those on the right.

Although many political scientists argue the benefits of a two-party system, a third party--I mean a real party, not a failed Perot-style shambles or the "I wanna play" attempts by Libertarians and Greens--would really revitalize this country and release a lot of political pressure.</font>

Did you see "Clinton" during the SNL Bash last night? ROFL!!!! He was so funny!!! "Yes, America, I too wish what you wish for: that Bill Clinton could run again." [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

When Clinton got Bush and Kerry together and reminded them of their similarities, it was the best. Clinton reminded them that they both had 2 lovely daughters. I mean, really nice daughters. (At which point Kerry turned and said "Bill..." and Clinton said "Sorry") -- It was great, all around.

It was really cool that they went back and included past SNL debate spoofs as well, including Johnson/Carter, Perot/Clinton/GHWB, Gore/Bush, and Dukakis/GHWB. I'd forgotten how good John Lovett was at playing Dukakis.

Agreed on the need for a 3rd and 4th and more parties, Azred. But, we can't just create one in a day. The Libertarians began in the 70's, and have been building the party the way it has to be done -- from the ground up. There are over 500 Libertarian candidates in local government around the country, and that is how a party starts. This year was the first time the Lib party was not on the ballot in all 50 states since the 1980's -- and they only failed to qualify in 2 this year. So, if you want a real third party, pick one that fits your ideology and go vote for it, volunteer for it, and help build it. It ain't gonna happen on its own.

3rd and 4th parties? Have you lost you everloving mind T.L.? Have you looked at the snivel'n pukes in office, they can't take a dump without argueing about the political ramifications! Now you want to have even more parties where not one party has clear control, That would be a "CHARLIE FOXTROT" if there ever was one. We are not a Paralimentary(sp?) system where coalitions are formed and when the coalition falls the gov't falls, and time for new elections. That will not work here, we have elections every 4 years even if the people don't want to have them. Think of our system as a Football game there is a set amount of time, the UK is a baseball game it can go on for a long time or a short time no time limit.

*EDIT* I'm at work so I type when I can. [img]smile.gif[/img]

The USA has always been a country where opposing forces meet on the field of battle and the winner takes all, to the victor goes the spoils. The field of battle maybe a real battle field ie: the Civil War(War of Northern Agression) or an Idealogical battle field. The rules are simple you win you get to decide how it goes, you lose you remain the loyal opposition and maybe the next time you'll win, after all we are all in this boat together.

[ 11-02-2004, 10:21 AM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

That's fine Timber. Unfortunately today may well prove that many of your fellow Americans do not yet have that understanding.

Parris believes that by abandoning the policy before it is seen to have totally failed may well result in it returning soon. I would liken it to the rewriting of history with regard to Vietnam. Neocons now claim that the US didn't fail there, they just weren't allowed to finish the job.

Sorry, JD, I disagree. Our basically 50/50 two-party split on issues, voters, and ideas creates a stalemate. I actually think more parties competing speed things up. For one, they make us look at the candidates and the issues, rather than just the party. If you think adding parties makes people less likely to speak their mind or take a stance, you need to tune into a session of Parliament someday.

Having more parties has nothing to do with speaking ones mind, in each party now there are wide differances, ie: pro choice and pro life Republicans same for the Democrats. The national psycie is if you win you get to run things until you lose, that has worked for over 200 years, and it ain't broke now. Stalemates are not always a bad thing. During the 30's & 40's there was a two party system, only one party had a clear majority, so having two parties doesn't mean a 50/50 split. we are in a transition period the party that a t one time had a clear majority is losing power, the party that was the minority is gaining power. (Looking at the whole and over time.)

*EDIT*
For the first 30-35 years of my life My party was in the minority, the other side was in the majority. Now that the power is shifting, I ask is the former majority going to follow the rules or try to take their ball and go home? If that is the case (taking them ball and going home) I would suggest we split the country now, before it is done by force of arms.

[ 11-02-2004, 11:04 AM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

Well, a party is supposed to be a group of people supporting a platform of ideas. I don't particularly like the Repug or Democrud platforms, and in this country I'm free to join or establish a party with a different platform of ideas. I'll be voting 3rd Party for President today, and thankfully so, despite the small size of the party.

That is your right, more power to you T.L.!!!! You are the one that has to look themself in the mirror, as do I.