It's been awhile since the last GoddyofOz editorial, so here is one that's about something that is nowhere near discussed enough.

Australia needs a third major party, and I'm not talking about a smaller arbiter like the Greens. I'm talking about a third powerhouse, similar to what the U.K has set up. The diversity of the demographics in this country has grown far too wide for two major parties to handle, especially as both of them continue their drift to the Right.

The toxic and hopeless situation that now encapsulates our politics would be solved with the formation of a new party that is fiscally conservative and socially progressive. If we are to be a truly democratic country, we have to be willing to meet each other half way.

As a Centre-Leftist, I would be willing to allow the Right to have their Fiscal Conservatism if they allowed us to have our Social Liberties. Fair enough deal or what?

It has to be better then the sh*thouse situation we have now, with a PM and Opposition leader nobody wants. We need this third party and we need it to be elected with a strong majority, so we can remind Labor, the labor movement, the Coalition and big business who it is exactly that they answer to.

Not to factions; not to powerbrokers; not to outside organisations; not to shareholders. They answer to US. The voters. The consumers. For without us, none of them would have a job at all.

GoddyofOz wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 6:45pm:

It's been awhile since the last GoddyofOz editorial, so here is one that's about something that is nowhere near discussed enough. Australia needs a third major party, and I'm not talking about a smaller arbiter like the Greens. I'm talking about a third powerhouse, similar to what the U.K has set up. The diversity of the demographics in this country has grown far too wide for two major parties to handle, especially as both of them continue their drift to the Right. The toxic and hopeless situation that now encapsulates our politics would be solved with the formation of a new party that is fiscally conservative and socially progressive. If we are to be a truly democratic country, we have to be willing to meet each other half way. As a Centre-Leftist, I would be willing to allow the Right to have their Fiscal Conservatism if they allowed us to have our Social Liberties. Fair enough deal or what? It has to be better then the sh*thouse situation we have now, with a PM and Opposition leader nobody wants. We need this third party and we need it to be elected with a strong majority, so we can remind Labor, the labor movement, the Coalition and big business who it is exactly that they answer to. Not to factions; not to powerbrokers; not to outside organisations. They answer to US. The voters.

Well if the polls ring true it is a one party system.

You already have all that, you are just after a free lunch.  Socially progressive?  WTF is that? :-/

The problem is THEY dont want a 3rd party so it wont ever be an option. Didnt howard bring in some law about no more new parties starting up?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 7:01pm:

The problem is THEY dont want a 3rd party so it wont ever be an option. Didnt howard bring in some law about no more new parties starting up? SOB

First i heard of that, but thats no biggy. Does anyone have a story on this??

There doesn't have to be this 'system' at all, though. People vote for the government. If people voted for the Greens in all 150 seats, then they would be the governing party, with all the seats in Parliament.

Yes, we always have a Liberal/National or Labor government (or hung with one of these, as is now) but that's because people vote that way. No one forces them to do so.

john_g wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 7:03pm:

There doesn't have to be this 'system' at all, though. People vote for the government. If people voted for the Greens in all 150 seats, then they would be the governing party, with all the seats in Parliament. Yes, we always have a Liberal/National or Labor government (or hung with one of these, as is now) but that's because people vote that way. No one forces them to do so.

That's because they believe the bullshit.

You need only look at the last election; Both parties go into election mode, promise a whole lot of sh!t then as soon as the election is over and they're in the clear, they go back to answering to Ideological factions.

GoddyofOz wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 7:12pm:

john_g wrote on May 2nd, 2012 at 7:03pm: There doesn't have to be this 'system' at all, though. People vote for the government. If people voted for the Greens in all 150 seats, then they would be the governing party, with all the seats in Parliament. Yes, we always have a Liberal/National or Labor government (or hung with one of these, as is now) but that's because people vote that way. No one forces them to do so. That's because they believe the bullshit. You need only look at the last election; Both parties go into election mode, promise a whole lot of sh!t then as soon as the election is over and they're in the clear, they go back to answering to Ideological factions.

IF that's why, and I dispute that it is, it's still the choice of the people, and it's democratic.

Social liberties are the centre piece of my thread on the Nanny State

I would advocate this social liberty if you can guarantee me your social liberty will not impact the rest of society

Maqqa wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 7:16pm:

Social liberties are the centre piece of my thread on the Nanny State I would advocate this social liberty if you can guarantee me your social liberty will not impact the rest of society

And how exactly would what I do in my private life impact you, Maqqa?

The progressive nanny state has had its day.  Joe Hockey said the age of entitlement is over.  You get what you work for.

GoddyofOz wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 6:45pm:

It's been awhile since the last GoddyofOz editorial, so here is one that's about something that is nowhere near discussed enough. Australia needs a third major party, and I'm not talking about a smaller arbiter like the Greens. I'm talking about a third powerhouse, similar to what the U.K has set up. The diversity of the demographics in this country has grown far too wide for two major parties to handle, especially as both of them continue their drift to the Right. The toxic and hopeless situation that now encapsulates our politics would be solved with the formation of a new party that is fiscally conservative and socially progressive. If we are to be a truly democratic country, we have to be willing to meet each other half way. As a Centre-Leftist, I would be willing to allow the Right to have their Fiscal Conservatism if they allowed us to have our Social Liberties. Fair enough deal or what? It has to be better then the sh*thouse situation we have now, with a PM and Opposition leader nobody wants. We need this third party and we need it to be elected with a strong majority, so we can remind Labor, the labor movement, the Coalition and big business who it is exactly that they answer to. Not to factions; not to powerbrokers; not to outside organisations; not to shareholders. They answer to US. The voters. The consumers. For without us, none of them would have a job at all.

To have a true Democracy, it should be compulsory for every politician to answer any correspondence from any citizen.
Questions like this should be answered in a true Democracy.

To
Senator Don Farrell
431-439 King William Street
Adelaide 5000

20.April 2012

Dear Mr.Farrell.
In your residents survey the last question states, “Did you know the government has cut taxes and increased pensions”?
I.am a part pensioner and last year I did not have to pay tax, but had to pay $320.00 Medicare levy, and that on a combined income of $38,000.00, yet an acquaintance of mine who has double my income was surprised that I had to pay the Medicare levy, because he did not have to pay any tax nor Medicare levy, because his income is from a so-called taxed super fund.

Three-pillar retirement policy.

Australia has a three-pillar approach to the provision of retirement incomes, the three pillars comprising a means tested age pension and associated social security arrangements, compulsory superannuation savings through the superannuation guarantee arrangements, and voluntary superannuation and other private savings.(Quotted by Bill Shorten)

This is very convenient for the government to keep the age pensioners which depend to some degree on the age pension as poor as possible by the means testing of the pension, while the voluntary and private savings provide the retirees in this group with huge tax benefits.

When the Howard government introduced the tax-free super for the over sixties, if the income came from a taxed fund, this gave people on high incomes huge tax savings possibilities.

According to OECD, Australian pensioners are the second poorest, after Ireland among the OECD countries, and this is due to the means testing of the age pension.

Australia - OECD
www.oecd.org/dataoecd/8/61/43071222.pdf
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
23 Jun 2009 – More than one in four Australian seniors live in poverty on international measures . This is the fourth highest old-age poverty rate in the OECD ...

Employer funded superannuation costs jobs and is an entitlement that should go. 8-)

The introduction of compulsory-optional preferential voting in some states will make it harder for third parties to compete.


Quote:

To have a true Democracy, it should be compulsory for every politician to answer any correspondence from any citizen.

Is that a joke? Or are you trying to institutionalise the form letter?

john_g wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 7:03pm:

There doesn't have to be this 'system' at all, though. People vote for the government. If people voted for the Greens in all 150 seats, then they would be the governing party, with all the seats in Parliament. Yes, we always have a Liberal/National or Labor government (or hung with one of these, as is now) but that's because people vote that way. No one forces them to do so.

Yep, finally some sense.
These parties are always voted in, and it is we the voter who does it.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 7:01pm:

The problem is THEY dont want a 3rd party so it wont ever be an option. Didnt howard bring in some law about no more new parties starting up? SOB

Seriously? you want to make a claim like that which breaks about a hundred laws and several sections of the constitution?

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 9:41pm:

The introduction of compulsory-optional preferential voting in some states will make it harder for third parties to compete. Quote: To have a true Democracy, it should be compulsory for every politician to answer any correspondence from any citizen. Is that a joke? Or are you trying to institutionalise the form letter?

An interesting observation which may be true. However, (and its a biggie) does it discriminate AGAINST them or does it simply remove and existing favouritism. The voting system must never ever be used to give advantage to any one party. If optional preferential voting removes an advantage to minor parties then it should be implemented.

GoddyofOz wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 6:45pm:

It's been awhile since the last GoddyofOz editorial, so here is one that's about something that is nowhere near discussed enough. Australia needs a third major party, and I'm not talking about a smaller arbiter like the Greens. I'm talking about a third powerhouse, similar to what the U.K has set up. The diversity of the demographics in this country has grown far too wide for two major parties to handle, especially as both of them continue their drift to the Right. The toxic and hopeless situation that now encapsulates our politics would be solved with the formation of a new party that is fiscally conservative and socially progressive. If we are to be a truly democratic country, we have to be willing to meet each other half way. As a Centre-Leftist, I would be willing to allow the Right to have their Fiscal Conservatism if they allowed us to have our Social Liberties. Fair enough deal or what? It has to be better then the sh*thouse situation we have now, with a PM and Opposition leader nobody wants. We need this third party and we need it to be elected with a strong majority, so we can remind Labor, the labor movement, the Coalition and big business who it is exactly that they answer to. Not to factions; not to powerbrokers; not to outside organisations; not to shareholders. They answer to US. The voters. The consumers. For without us, none of them would have a job at all.

How can you say the 'two party system has failed us'? We dont have a two-party 'system'! We have a democratic system that has aggregated into one where three (not two)parties get the vast bulk of the votes. This is how the people vote and therefore is intrinsically fair and right. The voters may one day choose a 5-party system but for now it is three.

Factions and lobbyists and pressure groups etc may dilute the purity of democracy, but it is also true that they are unavoidable. Any group of 6 or more people will aggregate into factions or sub-groups. Thats just how behaviour occurs. Labor is clearly being dominated by outside interest groups and factions.  But at the same time, they re about to be annihilated at the next election. The people (democracy in action) are about to cast judgment on such behaviour and to be re-elected some time in the future, Labor will have to remove some of thes obvious and toxic pressure groups.

Rather than saying that he system doesnt work, I'd say the system is working splendidly. It removed the Howard govt that had lost its way and is about the remove the ALP govt which has done even worse. Thats democracy in action. Ugly, brutal, inexplicable but ultimately, the best option around.

borntorule wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 10:20am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 2nd, 2012 at 7:01pm: The problem is THEY dont want a 3rd party so it wont ever be an option. Didnt howard bring in some law about no more new parties starting up? SOB Seriously? you want to make a claim like that which breaks about a hundred laws and several sections of the constitution?

Have a look. Its not a claim its a question. I remember him trying to bring in some legislation to stop new parties starting up. I dont know if he managed it or not but I expect he might have since I dont see any new parties.

Besides @ what time did Howard care about the constitution?

SOB

"Opposition politics feels like dog poo on the boot of democracy"
-Mark Latham

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 10:34am:

borntorule wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:20am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 2nd, 2012 at 7:01pm: The problem is THEY dont want a 3rd party so it wont ever be an option. Didnt howard bring in some law about no more new parties starting up? SOB Seriously? you want to make a claim like that which breaks about a hundred laws and several sections of the constitution? Have a look. Its not a claim its a question. I remember him trying to bring in some legislation to stop new parties starting up. I dont know if he managed it or not but I expect he might have since I dont see any new parties. Besides @ what time did Howard care about the constitution? SOB

I dont and nor does anyone else. And it doesnt matter if anyone cares about the constitution or not. Teh High Court is there to ensure that it is upheld.

I put just about any party I can ahead of the big two, with the exception of the latest incarnation of the Racist Bogan Party.
The two parties are a problem but at least we have it better than the Americans.

With the wizardry they weave with redistributing and other nonsense parties other than the big two have no stay in any representation. Independents and new movements are all cannibalised and subsumed by their big two parties.

Preferences are the binding glue of real democracy I think. Nothing less will do.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2012 at 9:41pm:

The introduction of compulsory-optional preferential voting in some states will make it harder for third parties to compete. Quote: To have a true Democracy, it should be compulsory for every politician to answer any correspondence from any citizen. Is that a joke? Or are you trying to institutionalise the form letter?

Why do you think that my last comment is a joke?
when the elections are held, there may be no candidate that a citizen wants to vote for, because most, if not all politicians are in politics for their own benefit and the politicians have sufficient resources and staff to answer citizens letters or e-mails.

In the book “Unemployment forever or a Support Income System and Work For All”, by Allan McDonald, on page 142 (h) it is stated: Any means tested welfare system requires extensive and complex state control and regulation. Australia is slowly but surely moving towards the ultimate outcome of a means tested social welfare system-state control over finances, the savings, and the labours of the poorest in the community.

Have the politicians of Australia the know-how and will to change the tax and social system to be more egalitarian, or was the late Professor A.J.Marshall right when he wrote, as quoted in the book “Equality and Authority” by S Encel on page212: “Most Australian politicians, he wrote, aspire to parliamentary seats ‘to better their salary, to inflate their egos and feather their nests’.

John Pilger in his book “The new rulers of the world” wrote on page 175: Like Britain and the US, Australia is a single ideology state with two competing factions, discernible largely by the personalities of their politicians. The difference between Howard’s conservative coalition and the opposition Labor Party is that Howards policies are not veiled. The Labor governments of the 1980s and early 1990s oversaw the greatest distribution of wealth in the country’s history: from bottom to top. They were Thatcherite and Reganite in all but name. Indeed, Tony Blair described then Prime Minister Paul Keating as his
‘inspiration’.

hawil wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 12:16pm:

freediver wrote on May 2nd, 2012 at 9:41pm: The introduction of compulsory-optional preferential voting in some states will make it harder for third parties to compete. Quote: To have a true Democracy, it should be compulsory for every politician to answer any correspondence from any citizen. Is that a joke? Or are you trying to institutionalise the form letter? Why do you think that my last comment is a joke? when the elections are held, there may be no candidate that a citizen wants to vote for, because most, if not all politicians are in politics for their own benefit and the politicians have sufficient resources and staff to answer citizens letters or e-mails. In the book “Unemployment forever or a Support Income System and Work For All”, by Allan McDonald, on page 142 (h) it is stated: Any means tested welfare system requires extensive and complex state control and regulation. Australia is slowly but surely moving towards the ultimate outcome of a means tested social welfare system-state control over finances, the savings, and the labours of the poorest in the community. Have the politicians of Australia the know-how and will to change the tax and social system to be more egalitarian, or was the late Professor A.J.Marshall right when he wrote, as quoted in the book “Equality and Authority” by S Encel on page212: “Most Australian politicians, he wrote, aspire to parliamentary seats ‘to better their salary, to inflate their egos and feather their nests’. John Pilger in his book “The new rulers of the world” wrote on page 175: Like Britain and the US, Australia is a single ideology state with two competing factions, discernible largely by the personalities of their politicians. The difference between Howard’s conservative coalition and the opposition Labor Party is that Howards policies are not veiled. The Labor governments of the 1980s and early 1990s oversaw the greatest distribution of wealth in the country’s history: from bottom to top. They were Thatcherite and Reganite in all but name. Indeed, Tony Blair described then Prime Minister Paul Keating as his ‘inspiration’.

Quoting Pilger is one of the better ways to getting ignored. The other books dont exactly build your credibility either.

borntorule wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 10:56am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:34am: borntorule wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:20am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 2nd, 2012 at 7:01pm: The problem is THEY dont want a 3rd party so it wont ever be an option. Didnt howard bring in some law about no more new parties starting up? SOB Seriously? you want to make a claim like that which breaks about a hundred laws and several sections of the constitution? Have a look. Its not a claim its a question. I remember him trying to bring in some legislation to stop new parties starting up. I dont know if he managed it or not but I expect he might have since I dont see any new parties. Besides @ what time did Howard care about the constitution? SOB I dont and nor does anyone else. And it doesnt matter if anyone cares about the constitution or not. Teh High Court is there to ensure that it is upheld.

Maybe. Maybe someone else does. Hence my question. Thats the way it is though isnt it. Short memories and ppl make the same mistakes over and over. You would think we learned from the howard era. Nooo we let gillard do the same things. And then we will allow abbott to do even worse things.

SOB

Quote:

Quoting Pilger is one of the better ways to getting ignored. The other books dont exactly build your credibility either.

So someone reads a book you disagree with (and prolly havent even read yourself) and that invalidates anything they say? Quoting something someone else says is usually because they said it better than you think you can yourself.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 12:38pm:

borntorule wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:56am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:34am: borntorule wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:20am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 2nd, 2012 at 7:01pm: The problem is THEY dont want a 3rd party so it wont ever be an option. Didnt howard bring in some law about no more new parties starting up? SOB Seriously? you want to make a claim like that which breaks about a hundred laws and several sections of the constitution? Have a look. Its not a claim its a question. I remember him trying to bring in some legislation to stop new parties starting up. I dont know if he managed it or not but I expect he might have since I dont see any new parties. Besides @ what time did Howard care about the constitution? SOB I dont and nor does anyone else. And it doesnt matter if anyone cares about the constitution or not. Teh High Court is there to ensure that it is upheld. Maybe. Maybe someone else does. Hence my question. Thats the way it is though isnt it. Short memories and ppl make the same mistakes over and over. You would think we learned from the howard era. Nooo we let gillard do the same things. And then we will allow abbott to do even worse things. SOB

NOBODY is proposing a limit on the number of political parties nor has anyone ever done so. So what exactly is your point? The closest we got was a proposed ban on the Communist Party under Menzies which was rejected.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 12:41pm:

Quote: Quoting Pilger is one of the better ways to getting ignored. The other books dont exactly build your credibility either. So someone reads a book you disagree with (and prolly havent even read yourself) and that invalidates anything they say? Quoting something someone else says is usually because they said it better than you think you can yourself. SOB

John PIlger has quite the reputation. And on that basis I dont take much notice of people quoting him as do a lot of others. They are outdated rants from the discredited socialism experiements. And it was just the same quotes brought out yet again, from the same person no matter whatthe actual topic is. This thread is about voting systems. Why does  rant on employment have anything to do with it?

Posting ON TOPIC does wonders for credibility.

borntorule wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 12:56pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 12:38pm: borntorule wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:56am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:34am: borntorule wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:20am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 2nd, 2012 at 7:01pm: The problem is THEY dont want a 3rd party so it wont ever be an option. Didnt howard bring in some law about no more new parties starting up? SOB Seriously? you want to make a claim like that which breaks about a hundred laws and several sections of the constitution? Have a look. Its not a claim its a question. I remember him trying to bring in some legislation to stop new parties starting up. I dont know if he managed it or not but I expect he might have since I dont see any new parties. Besides @ what time did Howard care about the constitution? SOB I dont and nor does anyone else. And it doesnt matter if anyone cares about the constitution or not. Teh High Court is there to ensure that it is upheld. Maybe. Maybe someone else does. Hence my question. Thats the way it is though isnt it. Short memories and ppl make the same mistakes over and over. You would think we learned from the howard era. Nooo we let gillard do the same things. And then we will allow abbott to do even worse things. SOB NOBODY is proposing a limit on the number of political parties nor has anyone ever done so. So what exactly is your point? The closest we got was a proposed ban on the Communist Party under Menzies which was rejected.

If you are going to tell me my memory is @ fault then you need to back it up somehow. Just because you dont remember it doesnt mean it didnt happen. I remember him proposing something to stop new parties starting up. You dont.

SOB

borntorule wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 1:00pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 12:41pm: Quote: Quoting Pilger is one of the better ways to getting ignored. The other books dont exactly build your credibility either. So someone reads a book you disagree with (and prolly havent even read yourself) and that invalidates anything they say? Quoting something someone else says is usually because they said it better than you think you can yourself. SOB John PIlger has quite the reputation. And on that basis I dont take much notice of people quoting him as do a lot of others. They are outdated rants from the discredited socialism experiements. And it was just the same quotes brought out yet again, from the same person no matter whatthe actual topic is. This thread is about voting systems. Why does  rant on employment have anything to do with it? Posting ON TOPIC does wonders for credibility.

Well complain about the off topic comments then. Why use the excuse that he quoted someone you have judged on heresay?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 1:15pm:

borntorule wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 12:56pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 12:38pm: borntorule wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:56am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:34am: borntorule wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:20am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 2nd, 2012 at 7:01pm: The problem is THEY dont want a 3rd party so it wont ever be an option. Didnt howard bring in some law about no more new parties starting up? SOB Seriously? you want to make a claim like that which breaks about a hundred laws and several sections of the constitution? Have a look. Its not a claim its a question. I remember him trying to bring in some legislation to stop new parties starting up. I dont know if he managed it or not but I expect he might have since I dont see any new parties. Besides @ what time did Howard care about the constitution? SOB I dont and nor does anyone else. And it doesnt matter if anyone cares about the constitution or not. Teh High Court is there to ensure that it is upheld. Maybe. Maybe someone else does. Hence my question. Thats the way it is though isnt it. Short memories and ppl make the same mistakes over and over. You would think we learned from the howard era. Nooo we let gillard do the same things. And then we will allow abbott to do even worse things. SOB NOBODY is proposing a limit on the number of political parties nor has anyone ever done so. So what exactly is your point? The closest we got was a proposed ban on the Communist Party under Menzies which was rejected. If you are going to tell me my memory is @ fault then you need to back it up somehow. Just because you dont remember it doesnt mean it didnt happen. I remember him proposing something to stop new parties starting up. You dont. SOB

Find a link or some reference other than your flawed memory. It is both illegal and unconstitutional so he most certinaly did NOT try to do so.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 1:17pm:

borntorule wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 1:00pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 12:41pm: Quote: Quoting Pilger is one of the better ways to getting ignored. The other books dont exactly build your credibility either. So someone reads a book you disagree with (and prolly havent even read yourself) and that invalidates anything they say? Quoting something someone else says is usually because they said it better than you think you can yourself. SOB John PIlger has quite the reputation. And on that basis I dont take much notice of people quoting him as do a lot of others. They are outdated rants from the discredited socialism experiements. And it was just the same quotes brought out yet again, from the same person no matter whatthe actual topic is. This thread is about voting systems. Why does  rant on employment have anything to do with it? Posting ON TOPIC does wonders for credibility. Well complain about the off topic comments then. Why use the excuse that he quoted someone you have judged on heresay? SOB

Because Pilger IS an idiot. And while I think you meant 'hearsay', 'heresy' also works.

borntorule wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 3:49pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 1:15pm: borntorule wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 12:56pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 12:38pm: borntorule wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:56am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:34am: borntorule wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:20am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 2nd, 2012 at 7:01pm: The problem is THEY dont want a 3rd party so it wont ever be an option. Didnt howard bring in some law about no more new parties starting up? SOB Seriously? you want to make a claim like that which breaks about a hundred laws and several sections of the constitution? Have a look. Its not a claim its a question. I remember him trying to bring in some legislation to stop new parties starting up. I dont know if he managed it or not but I expect he might have since I dont see any new parties. Besides @ what time did Howard care about the constitution? SOB I dont and nor does anyone else. And it doesnt matter if anyone cares about the constitution or not. Teh High Court is there to ensure that it is upheld. Maybe. Maybe someone else does. Hence my question. Thats the way it is though isnt it. Short memories and ppl make the same mistakes over and over. You would think we learned from the howard era. Nooo we let gillard do the same things. And then we will allow abbott to do even worse things. SOB NOBODY is proposing a limit on the number of political parties nor has anyone ever done so. So what exactly is your point? The closest we got was a proposed ban on the Communist Party under Menzies which was rejected. If you are going to tell me my memory is @ fault then you need to back it up somehow. Just because you dont remember it doesnt mean it didnt happen. I remember him proposing something to stop new parties starting up. You dont. SOB Find a link or some reference other than your flawed memory. It is both illegal and unconstitutional so he most certinaly did NOT try to do so.

This is the only reference i can find right now but ill look later when i have more time:


Quote:

Neither can a heretic be considered as a candidate for preselection by a political party. But just in case new political parties emerged, former PM John Howard had all unsuccessful small parties deregistered; disingenuously aware that all new parties are at first unsuccessful.

Not sure about the heretic thing since I dont remember but the deregistered thing sounds like it. They may have re-registered later I dont remember if he got his thing through.

link

As for pilger I have heard he has some interesting stuff to say. I dont know though because I havent read him. What are you basing your judgement on?

SOB

Quote:

This is the only reference i can find right now but ill look later when i have more time: Quote: Neither can a heretic be considered as a candidate for preselection by a political party. But just in case new political parties emerged, former PM John Howard had all unsuccessful small parties deregistered; disingenuously aware that all new parties are at first unsuccessful. Not sure about the heretic thing since I dont remember but the deregistered thing sounds like it. They may have re-registered later I dont remember if he got his thing through.

If I question your intelligence it is because I am not yet ready to fully question your sanity. Did the word 'heretic' not clue you into this unattributed quote being drivel?

borntorule wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 5:03pm:

Quote: This is the only reference i can find right now but ill look later when i have more time: Quote: Neither can a heretic be considered as a candidate for preselection by a political party. But just in case new political parties emerged, former PM John Howard had all unsuccessful small parties deregistered; disingenuously aware that all new parties are at first unsuccessful. Not sure about the heretic thing since I dont remember but the deregistered thing sounds like it. They may have re-registered later I dont remember if he got his thing through. If I question your intelligence it is because I am not yet ready to fully question your sanity. Did the word 'heretic' not clue you into this unattributed quote being drivel?

Here puss puss

borntorule wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 12:22pm:

hawil wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 12:16pm: freediver wrote on May 2nd, 2012 at 9:41pm: The introduction of compulsory-optional preferential voting in some states will make it harder for third parties to compete. Quote: To have a true Democracy, it should be compulsory for every politician to answer any correspondence from any citizen. Is that a joke? Or are you trying to institutionalise the form letter? Why do you think that my last comment is a joke? when the elections are held, there may be no candidate that a citizen wants to vote for, because most, if not all politicians are in politics for their own benefit and the politicians have sufficient resources and staff to answer citizens letters or e-mails. In the book “Unemployment forever or a Support Income System and Work For All”, by Allan McDonald, on page 142 (h) it is stated: Any means tested welfare system requires extensive and complex state control and regulation. Australia is slowly but surely moving towards the ultimate outcome of a means tested social welfare system-state control over finances, the savings, and the labours of the poorest in the community. Have the politicians of Australia the know-how and will to change the tax and social system to be more egalitarian, or was the late Professor A.J.Marshall right when he wrote, as quoted in the book “Equality and Authority” by S Encel on page212: “Most Australian politicians, he wrote, aspire to parliamentary seats ‘to better their salary, to inflate their egos and feather their nests’. John Pilger in his book “The new rulers of the world” wrote on page 175: Like Britain and the US, Australia is a single ideology state with two competing factions, discernible largely by the personalities of their politicians. The difference between Howard’s conservative coalition and the opposition Labor Party is that Howards policies are not veiled. The Labor governments of the 1980s and early 1990s oversaw the greatest distribution of wealth in the country’s history: from bottom to top. They were Thatcherite and Reganite in all but name. Indeed, Tony Blair described then Prime Minister Paul Keating as his ‘inspiration’. Quoting Pilger is one of the better ways to getting ignored. The other books dont exactly build your credibility either.

Should I quote Murdoch; and he has a lot of influence on politics, not the best.

borntorule wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 5:03pm:

Quote: This is the only reference i can find right now but ill look later when i have more time: Quote: Neither can a heretic be considered as a candidate for preselection by a political party. But just in case new political parties emerged, former PM John Howard had all unsuccessful small parties deregistered; disingenuously aware that all new parties are at first unsuccessful. Not sure about the heretic thing since I dont remember but the deregistered thing sounds like it. They may have re-registered later I dont remember if he got his thing through. If I question your intelligence it is because I am not yet ready to fully question your sanity. Did the word 'heretic' not clue you into this unattributed quote being drivel?

I still dont have much time and will have to search more thoroughly tomorrow but here is mention of it from a party that was deregistered. They supply a link it seems to the actual act itself.

Link

Look I dont know what it was i dont remember but it was something to do with stopping all those little parties starting up. Obviously he wouldnt like this one.

Doesnt anyone else remember this crap? Comon it was in the news and everything! He may not have got it through but he tried.

SOB

I will leave it @ that. It shows that something happened and thats all I said.

SOB

borntorule wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 3:51pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 1:17pm: borntorule wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 1:00pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 12:41pm: Quote: Quoting Pilger is one of the better ways to getting ignored. The other books dont exactly build your credibility either. So someone reads a book you disagree with (and prolly havent even read yourself) and that invalidates anything they say? Quoting something someone else says is usually because they said it better than you think you can yourself. SOB John PIlger has quite the reputation. And on that basis I dont take much notice of people quoting him as do a lot of others. They are outdated rants from the discredited socialism experiements. And it was just the same quotes brought out yet again, from the same person no matter whatthe actual topic is. This thread is about voting systems. Why does  rant on employment have anything to do with it? Posting ON TOPIC does wonders for credibility. Well complain about the off topic comments then. Why use the excuse that he quoted someone you have judged on heresay? SOB Because Pilger IS an idiot. And while I think you meant 'hearsay', 'heresy' also works.

John Pilger has managed to write some books, which you or many others may not agree with, but to call him an idiot, is a bit rich.
You call yourself "borntorule".
Can you please tell me and others of some of your achievements, or what you have written; I,am always prepared to read other people s views.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 6:04pm:

borntorule wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 5:03pm: Quote: This is the only reference i can find right now but ill look later when i have more time: Quote: Neither can a heretic be considered as a candidate for preselection by a political party. But just in case new political parties emerged, former PM John Howard had all unsuccessful small parties deregistered; disingenuously aware that all new parties are at first unsuccessful. Not sure about the heretic thing since I dont remember but the deregistered thing sounds like it. They may have re-registered later I dont remember if he got his thing through. If I question your intelligence it is because I am not yet ready to fully question your sanity. Did the word 'heretic' not clue you into this unattributed quote being drivel? I still dont have much time and will have to search more thoroughly tomorrow but here is mention of it from a party that was deregistered. They supply a link it seems to the actual act itself. Link Look I dont know what it was i dont remember but it was something to do with stopping all those little parties starting up. Obviously he wouldnt like this one. Doesnt anyone else remember this crap? Comon it was in the news and everything! He may not have got it through but he tried. SOB

that link said almost nothing on the topic. I am guessing (because the story doesnt say) that to be a political party that is registered by the Electoral Commission you ahve to have 500 financial members. Been that way for some time. That is all.

hawil wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 5:11pm:

You call yourself "borntorule". Can you please tell me and others of some of your achievements, or what you have written; I,am always prepared to read other people s views.

He's a "published author". He is! Just ask him!!

I think that means he wrote a letter to the editor at the SMH and it got published.

Gist wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 5:32pm:

hawil wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 5:11pm: You call yourself "borntorule". Can you please tell me and others of some of your achievements, or what you have written; I,am always prepared to read other people s views. He's a "published author". He is! Just ask him!! I think that means he wrote a letter to the editor at the SMH and it got published.

Its on amazon and sold world-wide. and no, Im not telling you what it is.

longweekend58 wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 5:40pm:

Its on amazon and sold world-wide. and no, Im not telling you what it is.

Well! Have to admit that that came as a surprise. I'll have to regard you in a new light from now on Veronica:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Long-Weekend-ebook/dp/B007PR36BG/ref=sr_1_23?ie=UTF8&qid=1336117693&sr=8-23

Gist wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 5:51pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 5:40pm: Its on amazon and sold world-wide. and no, Im not telling you what it is. Well! Have to admit that that came as a surprise. I'll have to regard you in a new light from now on Veronica: http://www.amazon.com/The-Long-Weekend-ebook/dp/B007PR36BG/ref=sr_1_23?ie=UTF8&qid=1336117693&sr=8-23

Good try and an entertaining book but by the look of her rank, my kindle version is selling 5 times as many copies. the paperback version is not selling as well.

Quote:

that link said almost nothing on the topic. I am guessing (because the story doesnt say) that to be a political party that is registered by the Electoral Commission you ahve to have 500 financial members. Been that way for some time. That is all.

That may be it - since howard. I dunno i wasnt the one making the big deal about it.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 6:16pm:

Quote: that link said almost nothing on the topic. I am guessing (because the story doesnt say) that to be a political party that is registered by the Electoral Commission you ahve to have 500 financial members. Been that way for some time. That is all. That may be it - since howard. I dunno i wasnt the one making the big deal about it. SOB

then perhaps repeating it wasnt a great idea.

The Neo-Lib globalists in the Labor Party and Greens and the Neo-con globalists in the coalition would eventually like to end their charade and declare Australia a one Party state and eventually be a part of Bob Browns world Parliament.  They are not telling you that, but they sure aint patriots. :) :) :)

longweekend58 wrote on May 5^th, 2012 at 5:27pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 6:16pm: Quote: that link said almost nothing on the topic. I am guessing (because the story doesnt say) that to be a political party that is registered by the Electoral Commission you ahve to have 500 financial members. Been that way for some time. That is all. That may be it - since howard. I dunno i wasnt the one making the big deal about it. SOB then perhaps repeating it wasnt a great idea.

WTF are you talking about?

SOB

longweekend58 wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 5:40pm:

Gist wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 5:32pm: hawil wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 5:11pm: You call yourself "borntorule". Can you please tell me and others of some of your achievements, or what you have written; I,am always prepared to read other people s views. He's a "published author". He is! Just ask him!! I think that means he wrote a letter to the editor at the SMH and it got published. Its on amazon and sold world-wide. and no, Im not telling you what it is.

Are you batting for borntorule; can't she do it herself.
I still do not think much of anybody, who goes about calling other people idiots.
I must admit, that I never heard of her or her books.

hawil wrote on May 5^th, 2012 at 5:42pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 5:40pm: Gist wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 5:32pm: hawil wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 5:11pm: You call yourself "borntorule". Can you please tell me and others of some of your achievements, or what you have written; I,am always prepared to read other people s views. He's a "published author". He is! Just ask him!! I think that means he wrote a letter to the editor at the SMH and it got published. Its on amazon and sold world-wide. and no, Im not telling you what it is. Are you batting for borntorule; can't she do it herself. I still do not think much of anybody, who goes about calling other people idiots. I must admit, that I never heard of her or her books.

Id say there are probably 5 million books of which you are unaware. several thousand of them a mullion sellers. Perhaps 'never heard of..' is not such a great criteria to rely on.

hawil wrote on May 5^th, 2012 at 5:42pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 5:40pm: Gist wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 5:32pm: hawil wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 5:11pm: You call yourself "borntorule". Can you please tell me and others of some of your achievements, or what you have written; I,am always prepared to read other people s views. He's a "published author". He is! Just ask him!! I think that means he wrote a letter to the editor at the SMH and it got published. Its on amazon and sold world-wide. and no, Im not telling you what it is. Are you batting for borntorule; can't she do it herself. I still do not think much of anybody, who goes about calling other people idiots. I must admit, that I never heard of her or her books.

hawil, wrongweekend and borntolose are the same person. I guess that being a born loser with no friends, it has no choice except to make up imaginary friends.

Gist wrote on May 5^th, 2012 at 8:16pm:

hawil wrote on May 5th, 2012 at 5:42pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 5:40pm: Gist wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 5:32pm: hawil wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 5:11pm: You call yourself "borntorule". Can you please tell me and others of some of your achievements, or what you have written; I,am always prepared to read other people s views. He's a "published author". He is! Just ask him!! I think that means he wrote a letter to the editor at the SMH and it got published. Its on amazon and sold world-wide. and no, Im not telling you what it is. Are you batting for borntorule; can't she do it herself. I still do not think much of anybody, who goes about calling other people idiots. I must admit, that I never heard of her or her books. hawil, wrongweekend and borntolose are the same person. I guess that being a born loser with no friends, it has no choice except to make up imaginary friends.

If you are right, I,am surprised that an author of several books will go on forums like this and call people like John Pilger, or anyone else for that matter, idiots.
It does not make a good impression.
When logweekend states that there are millions of books that I never heard of, he is definitely right.

hawil wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 6:22pm:

Gist wrote on May 5th, 2012 at 8:16pm: hawil wrote on May 5th, 2012 at 5:42pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 5:40pm: Gist wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 5:32pm: hawil wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 5:11pm: You call yourself "borntorule". Can you please tell me and others of some of your achievements, or what you have written; I,am always prepared to read other people s views. He's a "published author". He is! Just ask him!! I think that means he wrote a letter to the editor at the SMH and it got published. Its on amazon and sold world-wide. and no, Im not telling you what it is. Are you batting for borntorule; can't she do it herself. I still do not think much of anybody, who goes about calling other people idiots. I must admit, that I never heard of her or her books. hawil, wrongweekend and borntolose are the same person. I guess that being a born loser with no friends, it has no choice except to make up imaginary friends. If you are right, I,am surprised that an author of several books will go on forums like this and call people like John Pilger, or anyone else for that matter, idiots. It does not make a good impression. When logweekend states that there are millions of books that I never heard of, he is definitely right.

People whose books he hasnt even read.

SOB

Pilger's just another left wing hypocrite and nihilist who has absolutely no practical solutions to the problems he points out.
He thinks he's morally superior by whining about America and whatever other authority figure has got his goat on a particular day. All the while provides no solutions to the human rights abuses he goes on about. And at the same time rolling in the money in his comfortable home in the West. His fellow hypocritical nihilist, Chomsky, gets thousands of dollars from universities for speaking: something like $9,000 an appearance. He has a personal fortune in the hundreds of thousands.
Funny how they think capitalism is evil then take full advantage of it.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 9:24pm:

Pilger's just another left wing hypocrite and nihilist who has absolutely no practical solutions to the problems he points out. He thinks he's morally superior by whining about America and whatever other authority figure has got his goat on a particular day. All the while provides no solutions to the human rights abuses he goes on about. And at the same time rolling in the money in his comfortable home in the West. His fellow hypocritical nihilist, Chomsky, gets thousands of dollars from universities for speaking: something like $9,000 an appearance. He has a personal fortune in the hundreds of thousands. Funny how they think capitalism is evil then take full advantage of it.

I will read just about anything. Thing is if you disagree with one thing someone says it doesnt invalidate everything that person says.

Maybe I will read some pilger and in a few weeks ill come and resurrect this thread.

SOB

The two party system no longer works

Nothing has changed.

In some ways the two party system has served us well.

Iin many ways the two party system never worked.

The people have never been willing to vote in sufficient numbers for a third party.

The Democrats had a chance till Meg committed suicide for them.

We do not have a viable third party on the horizon.

THe greens will not fill this void, while they have great value they are hated by most conservatives and seen to far too many as a one policy area group.

You can not gain sufficient numbers without having support accross the middle ground and the greens will never attract the conservative portion in this area.

I hope that I am wrong but doubt it very much.

hawil wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 6:22pm:

Gist wrote on May 5th, 2012 at 8:16pm: hawil wrote on May 5th, 2012 at 5:42pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 5:40pm: Gist wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 5:32pm: hawil wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 5:11pm: You call yourself "borntorule". Can you please tell me and others of some of your achievements, or what you have written; I,am always prepared to read other people s views. He's a "published author". He is! Just ask him!! I think that means he wrote a letter to the editor at the SMH and it got published. Its on amazon and sold world-wide. and no, Im not telling you what it is. Are you batting for borntorule; can't she do it herself. I still do not think much of anybody, who goes about calling other people idiots. I must admit, that I never heard of her or her books. hawil, wrongweekend and borntolose are the same person. I guess that being a born loser with no friends, it has no choice except to make up imaginary friends. If you are right, I,am surprised that an author of several books will go on forums like this and call people like John Pilger, or anyone else for that matter, idiots. It does not make a good impression. When logweekend states that there are millions of books that I never heard of, he is definitely right.

you repeatedly quote from pilger and the same clowns every time. have you only ever read 3 books?

Dnarever wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 9:29am:

The two party system no longer works Nothing has changed. In some ways the two party system has served us well. Iin many ways the two party system never worked. The people have never been willing to vote in sufficient numbers for a third party. The Democrats had a chance till Meg committed suicide for them. We do not have a viable third party on the horizon. THe greens will not fill this void, while they have great value they are hated by most conservatives and seen to far too many as a one policy area group. You can not gain sufficient numbers without having support accross the middle ground and the greens will never attract the conservative portion in this area. I hope that I am wrong but doubt it very much.

so in essence you are saying that there will probably never be a third real party because voters dont want one? Is that not the very ESSENCE of democracy , where the people choose their representatives?

longweekend58 wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 7:24pm:

Dnarever wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 9:29am: The two party system no longer works Nothing has changed. In some ways the two party system has served us well. Iin many ways the two party system never worked. The people have never been willing to vote in sufficient numbers for a third party. The Democrats had a chance till Meg committed suicide for them. We do not have a viable third party on the horizon. THe greens will not fill this void, while they have great value they are hated by most conservatives and seen to far too many as a one policy area group. You can not gain sufficient numbers without having support accross the middle ground and the greens will never attract the conservative portion in this area. I hope that I am wrong but doubt it very much. so in essence you are saying that there will probably never be a third real party because voters dont want one? Is that not the very ESSENCE of democracy , where the people choose their representatives?

So then you do agree our system is not democratic considering that we do not choose who controls the financial system

longweekend58 wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 7:24pm:

Dnarever wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 9:29am: The two party system no longer works Nothing has changed. In some ways the two party system has served us well. Iin many ways the two party system never worked. The people have never been willing to vote in sufficient numbers for a third party. The Democrats had a chance till Meg committed suicide for them. We do not have a viable third party on the horizon. THe greens will not fill this void, while they have great value they are hated by most conservatives and seen to far too many as a one policy area group. You can not gain sufficient numbers without having support accross the middle ground and the greens will never attract the conservative portion in this area. I hope that I am wrong but doubt it very much. so in essence you are saying that there will probably never be a third real party because voters dont want one? Is that not the very ESSENCE of democracy , where the people choose their representatives?

All the parties are real.

I do not see a three sided contest with all more or less equal on the horizon but it could one day happen.

At this time it looks like a popular notion but the people will not vote for it, maybe because there is no third viable option.

Orgasm wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 7:26pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 7:24pm: Dnarever wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 9:29am: The two party system no longer works Nothing has changed. In some ways the two party system has served us well. Iin many ways the two party system never worked. The people have never been willing to vote in sufficient numbers for a third party. The Democrats had a chance till Meg committed suicide for them. We do not have a viable third party on the horizon. THe greens will not fill this void, while they have great value they are hated by most conservatives and seen to far too many as a one policy area group. You can not gain sufficient numbers without having support accross the middle ground and the greens will never attract the conservative portion in this area. I hope that I am wrong but doubt it very much. so in essence you are saying that there will probably never be a third real party because voters dont want one? Is that not the very ESSENCE of democracy , where the people choose their representatives? So then you do agree our system is not democratic considering that we do not choose who controls the financial system

democracy is about GOVERNMENT you twit. government is NOT about controlling every aspect of society - unless you are a socialist/communist or fool. 2 out of 3 for you?

longweekend58 wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 8:00pm:

Orgasm wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 7:26pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 7:24pm: Dnarever wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 9:29am: The two party system no longer works Nothing has changed. In some ways the two party system has served us well. Iin many ways the two party system never worked. The people have never been willing to vote in sufficient numbers for a third party. The Democrats had a chance till Meg committed suicide for them. We do not have a viable third party on the horizon. THe greens will not fill this void, while they have great value they are hated by most conservatives and seen to far too many as a one policy area group. You can not gain sufficient numbers without having support accross the middle ground and the greens will never attract the conservative portion in this area. I hope that I am wrong but doubt it very much. so in essence you are saying that there will probably never be a third real party because voters dont want one? Is that not the very ESSENCE of democracy , where the people choose their representatives? So then you do agree our system is not democratic considering that we do not choose who controls the financial system democracy is about GOVERNMENT you twit. government is NOT about controlling every aspect of society - unless you are a socialist/communist or fool. 2 out of 3 for you?

Idiot government is governed by the financial system not the people

Orgasm wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 8:03pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 8:00pm: Orgasm wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 7:26pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 7:24pm: Dnarever wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 9:29am: The two party system no longer works Nothing has changed. In some ways the two party system has served us well. Iin many ways the two party system never worked. The people have never been willing to vote in sufficient numbers for a third party. The Democrats had a chance till Meg committed suicide for them. We do not have a viable third party on the horizon. THe greens will not fill this void, while they have great value they are hated by most conservatives and seen to far too many as a one policy area group. You can not gain sufficient numbers without having support accross the middle ground and the greens will never attract the conservative portion in this area. I hope that I am wrong but doubt it very much. so in essence you are saying that there will probably never be a third real party because voters dont want one? Is that not the very ESSENCE of democracy , where the people choose their representatives? So then you do agree our system is not democratic considering that we do not choose who controls the financial system democracy is about GOVERNMENT you twit. government is NOT about controlling every aspect of society - unless you are a socialist/communist or fool. 2 out of 3 for you? Idiot government is governed by the financial system not the people

only in your immature teenage mind. us adults know the real story. You are still reading dick and dora.

longweekend58 wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 8:25pm:

Orgasm wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 8:03pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 8:00pm: Orgasm wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 7:26pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 7:24pm: Dnarever wrote on May 7th, 2012 at 9:29am: The two party system no longer works Nothing has changed. In some ways the two party system has served us well. Iin many ways the two party system never worked. The people have never been willing to vote in sufficient numbers for a third party. The Democrats had a chance till Meg committed suicide for them. We do not have a viable third party on the horizon. THe greens will not fill this void, while they have great value they are hated by most conservatives and seen to far too many as a one policy area group. You can not gain sufficient numbers without having support accross the middle ground and the greens will never attract the conservative portion in this area. I hope that I am wrong but doubt it very much. so in essence you are saying that there will probably never be a third real party because voters dont want one? Is that not the very ESSENCE of democracy , where the people choose their representatives? So then you do agree our system is not democratic considering that we do not choose who controls the financial system democracy is about GOVERNMENT you twit. government is NOT about controlling every aspect of society - unless you are a socialist/communist or fool. 2 out of 3 for you? Idiot government is governed by the financial system not the people only in your immature teenage mind. us adults know the real story. You are still reading dick and dora.

Well then prove me wrong dont just say I am wrong