On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 18:54:00 -0400, jim wrote
in :

snip
Good post Frank though I'd like to add that Bush is courting the Latino
& Black vote with his choices of Rice, Gonzalez and less recently
Powell. With that its still the rich white male society that makes the
decisions that really matter sorry to say.


Well, Bush isn't the president because he's smart. The real wealth and
power are held by the people in the shadows behind him. Just like
Reagan, he's the charismatic false-front that was used to install the
current power brokers. He was selected, based on his race and gender,
by the same power brokers that selected Powell, Rice, Gonzalez, and a
few others (including a female SCOTUS candidate). It's all a political
dog-and-pony show.

Want to know who holds the -real- power in government? Follow the
money.

Frank Gilliland wrote:

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 18:54:00 -0400, jim wrote
in :

snip

Good post Frank though I'd like to add that Bush is courting the Latino
& Black vote with his choices of Rice, Gonzalez and less recently
Powell. With that its still the rich white male society that makes the
decisions that really matter sorry to say.



Well, Bush isn't the president because he's smart. The real wealth and
power are held by the people in the shadows behind him. Just like
Reagan, he's the charismatic false-front that was used to install the
current power brokers. He was selected, based on his race and gender,
by the same power brokers that selected Powell, Rice, Gonzalez, and a
few others (including a female SCOTUS candidate). It's all a political
dog-and-pony show.

Want to know who holds the -real- power in government? Follow the
money.



No arguement from me on that. Independant party(s) are too weak to form
any opposition and if they did become strong enough they would be
assimilated by special interest groups. Aint democracy grand?

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?

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.

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

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?

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 20:24:29 -0400, jim
wrote:

+++No arguement from me on that. Independant party(s) are too weak to form
+++any opposition and if they did become strong enough they would be
+++assimilated by special interest groups. Aint democracy grand?
************

The rules are stacked against a 3rd party from gaining any serious
power from the main two.

Aint democray grand?

james