Figuring Out Your Side of the Fence

[BigBear]

Or does it...?

Seriously? Whew! I thought for sure I was a Nacho Bellgrande - you don't know how relieved I am now.

Darnit... guess I'm just a beans and rice then... lol.

[cowboykjohnson]

Darnit... guess I'm just a beans and rice then... lol.

Red or green sauce?

[Ranger]

I think the OP would be more correct if "Republican" was replaced by "Conservative", and "Democrat" was replaced by "Liberal/progressive"

AMEN! I really don't call myself a republican anymore, I call myself a conservative and I have nothing against democrats really, my fiance is (not really, she just won't admit it), but liberals - now that is a different story.

However, I still support our two party system because, as our forefathers knew, having more parties becomes problematic - you get alliances between parties and problems where a regional party, such as the liberal party, might not have enough steam to beat all conservatives lumped into a republican party but might easily beat out two smaller parties.

So I'm a republican by reference and a conservative by name, with the hope that my party gets more conservative and less liberal (as they are doing now).

[BigBear]

Red or green sauce?

Gotta go with red even though I like a nice green chili sauce.

So I'm a republican by reference and a conservative by name, with the hope that my party gets more conservative and less liberal.

+1 Ranger

[Hoosier]

However, I still support our two party system because, as our forefathers knew, having more parties becomes problematic -

You believe the founding fathers established a two party system? The founders were against the idea of parties.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

George Washington's farewell address.

People wonder why the animosity continues to grow, you need only read these very forums to see the hatred. It's becoming difficult to be a moderate when both sides scream that the other is willfully damaging the country. When you reach the point in political discourse that you aren't willing to believe the other side has what they believe is the best interests of the country in mind, when you accuse them of being traitors, then rational discourse has ended.

The belligerence between the parties has long since reached the point of hurting the US.

Conference call is over, have a good day.

H.

[cowboykjohnson]

The UN told me that fences are for sitting on...

[Ranger]

You believe the founding fathers established a two party system? The founders were against the idea of parties.

Yes, while that is true, there was a general acceptance of two parties, and after Washington they really came into play. The founding fathers knew that factions would naturally develop (federalist paper #10).

Madison said, "There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests." Because neither of these are possible factions must exist. However, the way to maintain a balance of power is through a "multiplicity of faction." If they are all fighting for the same power, factions will give a little to gain a little.