Let's say I break into your house
 

On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 15:58:31 -0400, jim
wrote:

+++Frank Gilliland wrote:
+++
+++ On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 20:24:29 -0400, jim wrote
+++ in :
+++
+++ snip
+++
+++No arguement from me on that. Independant party(s) are too weak to form
+++any opposition........
+++
+++
+++
+++ I'm not talking an "independent party" because there isn't such a
+++ thing. Personally, I have to side with Ben Franklin and say that
+++ political parties should be illegal. After all, some of the most
+++ infamous dictators rose to power as a member of a political party
+++ within an apparently legitimate and democratic form of government:
+++
+++ From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictators:
+++
+++ "Modern dictators have usually come to power in times of emergency.
+++ Frequently they have seized power by coup, but some, most notably
+++ Benito Mussolini in Italy and Adolf Hitler in Germany, achieved office
+++ by legal means and once in power gradually eroded constitutional
+++ restraints."
+++
+++ Sounds a lot like what Bush is doing, huh?
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++For some reason Ross Perot springs to mind.
+++
+++Agreed about what Bush is up to.
***********

Perot had the money to fund a major portion of his own campaign. Still
the rules for a 3rd party are really stacked against a 3rd party from
gaining any significant ground.

In fact the system is so static that for someone new to get elected on
a national level they either have to resign or die in office.
Something like 95% of all incumbents win reelection. Once in, itis
hard to get them out.

james

Let's say I break into your house
 

On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 02:10:49 GMT, james wrote
in :

snip
Perot had the money to fund a major portion of his own campaign. Still
the rules for a 3rd party are really stacked against a 3rd party from
gaining any significant ground.


Perot was independent when he ran for president. He formed his party
after the election. Regardless, Jesse Ventura won the Governorship of
Minnesota under Perot's party, and Perot managed to get about 10% of
the presidential votes. What did the two big parties do? They whined a
lot. And ever since then they have been working the courts (yes, the
same courts that they are accusing of having "activist" judges that
are "legislating from the bench") to supress any and all independent
and third-party candidates.

All the more reason to vote for candidates that are not backed by the
two major parties.


In fact the system is so static that for someone new to get elected on
a national level they either have to resign or die in office.
Something like 95% of all incumbents win reelection. Once in, itis
hard to get them out.


So we should just throw up our hands and give up?