Platt:
If you are suggesting the U.S. needs a viable third party, I agree.
woods:
A third party because, as you said, the two current parties are
inundated with too many interests. We also need to keep in
mind as President Dwight Eisenhower the military industrial complex. I bring
this up to point out these interests that bombard any new president and any
congress person when they take office. Ron Paul was asked in a
recent interview why he decided to run as a Republican, instead
of as a Libertarian this time around, thought last time around he ran
as a Libertarian, I believe. He said the two party system pushes
these other parties out and makes them look extreme, and so
he's going back to the basics of the Republican party when it was first
established and he's trying to run in accord with the original foundation of
what a Republican party is. He says if he can work within the two-party
system he might be able to usurp a problem from the inside-out.
The Democratic party is also caught up in the banking problem and other
interest groups too. Anymore it's difficult to tell the difference between the
two parties. One possible problem, and it's only imaginary at this point, but
Obama could sell to the public stuff the public doesn't even need for he's
such a fresh face. It's hard to tell because Obama hasn't been in power and
Bush has so tainted the Republic Party and McCain after the year 2000 followed
along with Bush so much I don't think McCain could get much done, good or bad.
We know candidates go to the White House and much remains the same and
Obama will with high probably just follow in step with the established giant.
He's not running on any platform to help reestablish the Constitutuion, but
more
of Washington politics.
Platt:
The current two parties have abandoned defense of the Constitution even while
every elected member takes an oath to defend it. When the nation's leaders
commit perjury without a second thought, it's little wonder the concept of
"sacred honor" among the electorate goes down drain...
woods:
That's a very good point. From the very beginning if a President doesn't
go in
accord to the Constitution, then they, he or she, would be committing perjury.
It
is this "sacred honor" that is missing greatly. Presidents go into office and
they
think they have to change this or that, or do this or that, but if they would
just go
back to the Constitution much would change on its' own. What's happening is
the trust of the people is lost. Yes, the other way around too, the people
don't trust
the gov't, but it is the gov't that has lost trust in the people to do what's
best that
has shifted the gov't to find a need to make policy after policy almost daily
for the
gov't is setting up deals in an elitist manner. They think they know what's
best.
Well, many people in this country have been dumbed down, but hardly anybody
is focusing on the root of this problem. The lack of morals - "sacred honor"
would
fit in as a moral art.
Platt:
-- another social pattern protecting us from biological brute force slipping
away. What we
really need to keep our eye on is protecting the intellectual level rights
of free speech, freedom of religion, freedom to bear arms, etc. which have
already suffered attrition, always in the name of "the public good."
woods:
Completely agree.
autumn trees,
woods
Platt
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
