Mojlnir

The two party system in the United States is not stupid. It may be a little outdated, but it's longevity proves it is a workable, stable and effective system. It dates to the Founding Fathers, many of whom (led by James Madison) were radically anti-faction. They felt that factions could gain control of government and enact laws and policies that tyrannized the minority, which would be unable to protect itself. This entire concept stemmed from the treatment of colonial citizens on the part of the British government. Originally the two parties were broken down into those who supported the formantion of a union of states and those who did not. Madison, going back on his previous opinions, formed the Republican party (pro-union) which later became the Democratic Republican Party and would eventually morph into the current Democratic Party. Today's Republican Party followed much the same path, though more convoluted, and stems from those originally opposed to the new union. Today, there is little real difference between the parties because they have come to encompass such a broad range of issues and individual preferrences. A body of law exists in the US that stipulates the requirements a potential party must meet in order to participate in an election. I am not completely familiar with them and so will not discuss them for fear of providing incorrect information, but suffice to say that they are sufficiently complex as to prevent the majority of small parties from participating. There are several third parties that do pull votes from the main parties including the Independents (a catch-all label) and the liberal and green parties, among whom Ralph Nader is a well known leader. The upcoming election (presidential) will see the fielding of a Green Party candidate, who stands absolutely zero chance of winning. Cucinich(sp?) tried to get the Naderites and Greens to join the Democrats, but they are too disenfranchised to sign on. The Republican party has done a much better job of holding a tight ship, keeping the diverse factions within the party on the same track. The common person within the Republican party is not yet disenfranchised with the neo-con movement enough to shift loyalties. I suspect that eventually the ultra-conservative right wing will be cut loose from the Republican party because they will begin to cost the party in elections. So, the two party system is not stupid, it just works for us. Sure, a little more accurate representation would be appreciated, but the Congress really hasn't evolved to handle a more parlimentary system. Our system is not any more corrupt or ineffective than the next, they all work pretty much the same. And we don't have to worry about the government falling apart when the ruling coalition decides it can't get alone anymore.

Intrinsic to the discussion of "Who will be the next President" is a discussion of the candidate's merits as President. Professional performance, not personal peccadillos, are what counts when assessing a president. President Kenndy was by no means a saintly individual, (case in point: Marilyn Monroe) but he was by many accounts a very successful president (redemption for the Bay of Pigs occurred during the Cuban Missle Crisis in my opinion). Bill Clinton was, in addition to being a philandering ninny, a very successful President as well. We were well on our way to improved relations with North Korea, had participated in negotiations concerning the Kyoto Protocol, and managed to run a budgetary surplus (after years of largess on the part of former presidents) among other things. These are not small accomplishments, and should not be outweighed by the fact that Clinton liked to chase particularly ugly women. The current presidential situation is not what I would call ideal. The current administration has managed to reverse all the aformentioned accomplishments in addition to boycotting in the ICC (International Criminal Court), refusing to sign the anti-landmine treaty, botching relations with North Korea, alienating many nations in the world, and (not least of all) running an amazing debt. Oh and, I almost forgot, we waged an essentially pointless war in a state whose political situation is equivalent to a ticking time bomb...leaving us with billions of dollars in projected reconstruction costs, pissed off allies, royally pissed of citizens of the aforementioned country, and a nasty quagmire for our troops. Now, the upcoming election stands to see the reelection of Bush, because the Democractic Party is confused, leaderless, messageless, pedantic, and generally pathetic. The majority of them have attacked the President on things they gave their support to, focused on dead-end issues and generally placed their heads in their arses. Democratic voters are adrift without a solid candidate and often without common ground among themselves. A rudderless party means no presidency in 2004.

The current uproar concerning the monument is only the most recent iteration of this debate. What is really at stake here is the stability of society within a given country. My comments are US is basis, as that is my sphere of experience. In the US today we are less the "melting pot" of old and more of what I would call a "salad bowl." No longer are immigrants expected to shed their cultural backgrounds, rather most groups embrace their differences and incorporate them into our everyday lives. Intrinsic to many of these differences is the variety of religions that we find within our borders today. These different veins of faith do not weaken us, rather they combine to create a fascinating sea of diversity and strength. It is not only wrong, but counter-productive to attempt to paint one religion as being the "national religion" and seek to ignore the others. It is quite right to say that the Framers did not work in a religious vaccum, in fact it was very much the opposite. However, it is not the overtly religious aspects of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that have survived, rather, the ideas of freedom, liberty, equality, and the rights to free speach and religion are what is taught to school kids across the nation. Tradition, and little else, dictates that we say "In God We Trust" and "God Bless America." The government does not exist to purvey a given religion, rather to protect the right of all persons to practice and believe what they will. It is senseless to deny the origins of our laws, but it is just as senseless to push them into everyone's faces as seems to be occurring with this monument issue. Such foolhardiness only breaks us apart, rather than binding us together.

Quite sure. I don't particularly care for him, being convinced that he is greedy, dirty and possed of questionable intentions. Not to mention that he is somewhat dimwitted. It is the people around him who, quite frankly, scare me.

Well said! *cracks knuckles and prepares to duel* Let the games begin! *promptly falls asleep*

I think there is a pretty good chance that the US and the rest of the world will have to live with Bush for another four years. The good thing is that the neo-cons (the far right of the Republican party, not the Republican party as a whole) have not got a jv team to pick up after Bush. Tmons, I don't hate Bush so much as I truly loath the individuals he has surrounded himself with. Carl Rove is an evil man, there is simply no other way to state it. People (I use the term losely) like Donald Rumsfeld, John Poindexter, Paul Wolfowitz, %&$! Cheney and other are nothing more that greed-crazed, souless pigs. They have surrounded themselves with sycophants that bow to their every whim and have corrupted the political life and process of this country. They have terrorized the populace of our nation, forcing thousands to live in needless fear. They have created an amazingly hostile international environment while at the same time loosing us nearly all our friends. And worst of all, they have missused our military for personal gain.

It's the "Pledge of Allegiance" Albareth, though I'll bet you 10-1 that if you asked someone one the street to repeat it they couldn't do it. The separation of church and state is critical for the creation and maintenance of a strong civil society. There is no denying that many Western governments were founded on principles that derive at least in part from Christianity, but that in no way means that such governments must push said religion. Government exists for the people, the people do not exist for the government. Individuals have certain inalienable rights that governments are created to protect. This does not include the pushing of a state religion. Everyone should be free to worship and believe what they will. Government simply does not have the right to dictate or espouse a given vain of religious beliefs.

One word: Fargoth.

My favorite would have to be the Thieves Guild. Sanctioned theft and a way to get out of fines. :D After that, probably the Morag Tong. :ph34r:

Everyone goes off topic Bobb, don't sweat it. It's hard not to sometimes. But, if you want to get something new out there, start a new post. Not only will you not be off topic (it's your topic) but you get credit for posting...which is really great for getting rid of that "newbie" rating.