This question came to me while typing on another topic. The Green party, The Natural Law Party (my party BTW), The Worker's World Party, etc. are all referred to as Thrid parties. This doens't make sense to me personally.

Yeah. there are a lot of us ex-democrats/ex-republicans out there.

Personally I'm glad Jeffords DIDN"T become a Democrat. I'm glad he went Indepnednet.

Democrats: Party one
Republicans: Party two
New party: Party three.

Any questions?

Pesti:

Rep: 1
Dem: 2
Green: 3
Reform: 4
Natural law: 5
Worker's World: 6
Dem. Socialist: 7

See where I'm going with this?

Watch me pull a candidate out of my hat.

Dear Dude, although your name should be CAPTIAN ••••••, I can count. However, this isn't High School math class (Though that might count as higher education for you, as your use of English indicates graduation from a American Public School, or you were raised by wolves in Japan, which have more advanced pedology in English), this is political science, where terms are borrowed as they were populized, and are not based on some hardwired human computer's thoughts. Third Parties come from the fact that they arise as a vote splitting enity, amoung two other political parties. If you are the brittle type and feel that every little thing said is a direct insult to yourself, you can substitute minor party for third party, unless you belive the Silent majority of Libertarians is hiding somewhere in the idelogical 50\50 that is America today.

What! I have right of response to personal attacks

I'd like to point out that the "Two-Party System" is an accident of history. The Founding Fathers put no notion of "political party" into the Constitution, and I believe it was Washington who warned against them.

Matt Pesti, are you a private school graduate? If so, you are hardly a rousing endorsement of such a system. Your grammar and your ability to spell words correctly are just as atrocious as many of the public school graduates here. I hardly think you are in any position to criticize the public school system.

Besides, talking and typing are two seperate things. People who've met me face to face after reading my writing general say the same thing; You talk like a professor, and type like a sleestack (Land of the Lost ref).

You are right, an apology is in order.


I apologize to anyone who was raised by Japanese wolves. It's really not your fault, just the system you were educated under In any case, don't read too much into an insult directed at a pseudonym.

I do live in Cleveland, where removing the school board from democratic control was considered a good thing, and Erie where they are still debating whether the water should have Fluoride in it (It will be on the ballot soon.). Welcome to the rust belt

Lincon was a Whig. He dropped out over slavery. The Whigs fell apart over slavery, and never were that great of a party anyways, having only won based on ex-Generals.

And it really wasn't the GOP back then

Huh? I just finished a huge unit on the Civil War era in U.S. History, and Lincoln was only established as a Republican.

Apparently, somewhere in history, Republican and Democratic parties switched names.

From my history book, in the Civil War era and before, the Republicans were the party that was concerned with civil rights, equality, Constitutional rights, etc.

The Democrats, however, didn't give a flying •••• about the people, rights, or equality.

Sounds like they switched somewhere...hmm....


*17-year-old member of the current Democratic party*

Cynical-Chick. You are somewhat correct. Back in the mid 1800s the Republicans were the more federally minded party, while the Democrats were all about 'states rights'. After the Civil War the south became the 'solid south' and elected almost exclusively democrats because they were still pissed about how the republicans handled the war and reconstruction. The Democrats became the party that supported the federal government around the time that FDR got in to office. Over the next few decades southern conservative democrats felt more disenchanted with the party that was all about FDR's 'Big Government' ideas and the republicans became the party of conservative 'state's rights' ideas. With the democrats loosing a good portion of their power base they became the party of minorities. Strom Thurman was once a democrat but switched to the Republican Party during the Civil Rights movement. The one holdover from the old Democratic party is that idiot Robert "White Niggers" Byrd.

To be honest, I've never heard *ANY* party referred to as a "thrid party". "Third Party", yes, but never "thrid".

I'm responding to a post that accuses Libertarians of Social Darwinism in there refusal to see the redistribution of wealth is a justified provenience of the Federal Government.

For the record what I said was "kinda like libertarians". What I meant was that Social Darwinists and Libertarians both wanted the government should stay the hell away from things like redistributing money (which is what welfare is taking money from people who pay income taxes and giving it to people who don't have incomes). I did not mean to imply that they did so for the same reason. From what I get from your post is that what you don't see is a mandate that allows the Feds to do that in the Constitution, which clearly spells out the powers of government. Playing devils advocate I could ask about the "necessary and proper" clause and what that comes down to is what do you see necessary and proper as meaning. Some think it means necessary for our survival others see it as meaning anything that should be done.

kinda like libertarians while discussing racism is asking for a fight.

I was defending darwin's line of thinking by saying that it was not racist.

1) What is the effect of it (welfare)?

Personaly I think it helps people out when they are down on their luck. As for the idea that it creates a generation of non-working slackers who just stay on it their whole lives see below.

2) It has been fixed many times over the years, does it work right yet?

It seems to be working pretty good now, as I understand it you can't be on it for longer than 2 years at a time and 5 years lifetime. I think that the 1990s era reforms got it working pretty good.

3) What did we do before President Johnson's war on poverty?

I was under the impression that the program was started under FDR during the depression.

No, the New Deal was FDR. The Great Society was LBJ. The "War on Poverty" was part of the Great Society.

As for the "necessary and proper" clause can that be construed to reinstate slavery too? (I'm sure I can find some who think it is necessary and proper.)

The diference is that slavery is spacificly banned by an amendment. In order to change that you have to make another amendment. Welfair is not addressed anywhere in the constitution. The wording is:

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Which means stuff that is not addressed in the Constitution but is necessary and proper. Slavery is already addressed in the 14th amendment, so the only way to change that is to make another amendment.

As for the war on poverty. the poverty rate has gone down a good bit since the mid 60s. It went from about 20% to 11.8% in 1999. Check this link http://content.communities.msn.com/isapi/fetch.dll?action=MyPhotos_GetPubPhoto&photoId=nIgD6d1AK9I0Bnezy0juQ9tEMv1QvWHmknbb7E98gpmzrsbjWCFHzNxkgNNpdAHF!ITF*BPLFJZ8

BTW how do you feel about the "war on drugs"?
Their is a loosing battle if I ever saw one.

The diference is that slavery is spacificly banned by an amendment. In order to change that you have to make another amendment

And given the current lackadaisical attitude to the Fourth Amendment in the current political environment (see The War on Drugs™ for another example), what does specifically banning something have to do with it?

And given the current lackadaisical attitude to the Fourth Amendment in the current political environment (see The War on Drugs™ for another example), what does specifically banning something have to do with it?

The fourth amendment covers unreasonable search and seazure. They key word here is "unreasonable" and in the comming years I have no doubt that the courts will see case after case that hinge on what is reasonable and what is unreasonable.

No problem. I try to keep it on the facts and not resort to personal attacks and generalizations about opposing partys. Even though you took my comments on the other board to be an attack on the libertarian party I have a great respect for people with libertarian beliefs, even though I don't agree with all of them. I am closer to them politicaly than I am to republicans, I agree with much of the demcorats platform but I do see lots of problems with the current democratic party as well.

Wouldn't the consequences of this mean the Democrats take over, impose new socialist programs, take away your guns, raise taxes, and eventually come for the rest of your life in exchange for not having to wait six months to die?

Marijuana is a federally controlled substance. Federal laws always override state laws. The drugs used in assistant suicide are also controlled by the FDA, and Congress has passed laws prohibiting the use of Federally controlled substances for assisted suicide. Again, Federal law always overrides state law. I belive the issue of Nullification was resolved over 180 years ago.

'There are two parties - The Evil Party and The $tupid Party. We belong to
The $tupid Party.'

Funny I always though it was the other way around. A buddy of mine always said that the democrats could be dumb (sticking to utopian ideals that we will never reach) but the Republicans are mean, nasty and vindictive.

Such arguments over republicans/democrats believe in federal/state sovernty are irrelevant because it all comes down to this. The the Federal government is on your side you want them to over-ride the states. If the federal government is on the other side you want it left up the the states. Both parties do this all the time.

If you can figure out how they tie into Interstate Commerce, go ahead.

"To Libertarians, the Democratic Party's fealty to the Marxist principle 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need' truly is evil."

Well, that idea actually goes back to Plato, a tad earlier than Marx.

He would surely dispute the notion that the ideal City discussed in the Republic is "evil."

That said, while the Democrats may believe in the role of the state in providing for the general welfare/social good, socialists they are not. (Are they trying to implement 30h work weeks or to nationalize industry? Hardly.)

Yeah, but then you'd need someone around to say "I agree completely" or something to that effect in response to everything you say.

"I agree completely."
- Glaucon, Republic

Everyone seems to forget the best of the third
parties which is the Constitutional Party,which
is really where a lot of Old Style Republicans
go when they are dissatisifed with the GOP.
And by the way:The Republican Party started off
as a Third Party!

The following is a rant that I posted over on SlashDot.

[RANT ON]

Libertarians can be their own worst enemies. The following statement is taken from the California Official Voter Information Guide. It's the statement of the Libertarian candidate for Lt. Governor:

---

Quote:

My message to the people of California is "Don’t take your freedoms for granted!" For the past ten years I have been working to legalize the domestic ferret in California. During this process I have seen how politics works in California. And it only works for those who have political power. Domestic ferrets are legal in 48 states. Our state constitution recognizes our right to own domestic animals. Yet our state government has blocked efforts for this very simple matter. Our freedom does not come from the government; it is our birthright. Elect people who understand that.

---

Sorry, that's "Hell, his website is...".

I may agree with the democrats more than I agree with the Republicans but I am a true Liberal, not one of these Republicrats who would become Republicans if they took just 1 more buck from big business.

Republicrats and Demicans,

How many chances are you going to give your guys? Libertarians have principles. Greens are true believers. Republicrats and Demicans have bucks and incumbency. Reform A has Pat Buchanan (sp?). Reform B has Jesse Ventura. Natural Law has transcendental meditation.

Which one reflects you? (Don't answer. Just think.)

Actually, Jesse ain't so bad. He tells it like he sees it, without regard for political repercussions (his "religion as a crutch" comment, anyone?).

Scott: I liked Jesse too. Sucks he isn't runnng again.

Berry:Why s it that NO ONE but me can bring up anythign but the Meditation thing when mentioning Natural Law? That is GROSSLY unfair! I never only talk about ONE aspect of the Repblicans or the Democrats!

Republicrats and Demicans,

How many chances are you going to give your guys?

For the record I voted Nader in the 2000 election, not Gore.

Apparently it seems that "Increasing Government regulation" dosen't work as a campaign slogan then.

I think you should change your Nom de cyber

---

Quote:

H made his own concoction by electrically charging a couple of silver wires in a glass of water.

---

Rule of law is the idea (I say idea because I don't think it's compleatly true) that the US is a government of laws that are made by the people and not a government of leaders (like Stalin, Mao Komenini); a government where the law is the law and no one is above it.

Berry, you left me out. I'm so hurt. No cookie for you!

Well, Mark, we all know that NOBODY would like your laws!

Hey, I'd have great laws! Can't think of any at the moment but I'd have some!

You're waiting for me, are ya?

Well I'm here.

Don't really have time to get involved in a discussion, though. BF's definition works for now.

Anyone noticed anything different about this thread's title? First correct answer wins a whopping $1 billion cyberdollars, so knock yourselves out!

Hey! You fixed the spelling! But what will all the Thrids do?

By the way, you can find my swiss bank account number here.

Here in GA a 17 year old guy has been convicted under a 169 year old law aginst having sex out of wedlock. He and his girlfriend got busted in her room by her mom at 3AM, even though they had blocked the door with a stool. He has the ACUL appealing his case on the basis of the law violating his right to privacy. The prosicutor is trying to say that he has no right to privacy because he was at someone's house. BTW the age of concent in GA is 16 which means that he was prosicuted for not being married to her, not because of his age. The case disturbes me for several reasons.

1. That such a law exists in the frist place.
2. At no point did anyone suggest that he assulted her or forced himself on her and since it takes to 2 people to have sex why didn't she get prosicuted as well?
3. If you have no right to privacy when at someone elses house behind a closed door than the guy who video taped (with a hidden camera) his daughter's friends changing and showering at a slumber party didn't do anything wrong.
4. A mom catches her daughter in the act (with someone her own age, not a grown man) and decides to call the cops. Even though the paper initalized their names (DK & TW or whatever to indetify them) such things will get around school and the community so now your friends will all know your daughter had sex rather than just mom, the duaghter and her Boyfriend knowing.


K40ge of concent in GA is 16 which means that he was prosicuted for not being married to her, not because of his age.}

What was the *girlfriend's* age? He could potentially be prosecuted for statutory rape if *she* were under the age of consent.

For your sake I hope you never need to use a toilet in Rome.
Assuming I ever get the chance to go there. Anyway, if worse comes to worst I'll just use the Trivi fountain.

Scott, your money's on the way. Don't spend it all in one place. So...any idea what you're gonna spend it on?

Matthew, she was also 16. If she had been 15 they could have prosicuted him under the statutory rape law (even though all you get is a slap on the wrist if you are within 2 years of the other's age) That's why they used the 169 year old seldom used law about sex outside of marrage, he didn't break any other laws.

Sounds like a case of $tupid laws and the donkeys who beleive in the rule of law at any cost.

No because they are trying to use constitutional grounds (the supream law of the land) to overturn the law.

Matthew, she was also 16. If she had been 15 they could have prosicuted him under the statutory rape law (even though all you get is a slap on the wrist if you are within 2 years of the other's age) That's why they used the 169 year old seldom used law about sex outside of marrage, he didn't break any other laws.

Interestingly enough, in Canada she would have to have been *13* for him to be prosecuted. The age of consent here, for reasons unbeknowst to me, is 14.

I think that it is 14 in Alabama too, meaning that you can get married without parental permission while still a freshman.

But if you get married in Alabama and divorced in West Virginia, are you still brother and sister?

The right to privacy only applies to married couples. Oh, I'm sorry, only the supreme court knows who it applies too as they created it out of the "Unwritten constitution".

All, laugh over the fact the ACLU has reduced itself to essentially family affairs. Is nothing safe from the all consuming tyranny of the Federal Constitution.

The "Right to Privacy" is granted by the Ninth Amendment.

The right to privacy only applies to married couples. Oh, I'm sorry, only the supreme court knows who it applies too as they created it out of the "Unwritten constitution".

I'm no expert on US law, but in Canada, the UK, and elsewhere, the "unwritten constitution" refers usually to the Common Law.

However, in CA, the Libertarian party has disowned its candidate after he spit on a radio talk show host.

I know. Captain Loogie makes Ferret Dude look sane.

Too bad the New Jersey Supreme Court doesn't make rulings for CA!

I don't get the above joke.

So that the LP could replace him on the ballot.

How libertarians will vote republican.

Yeah, right. And when the GOP also stops being under the control of the Religious Right.

We don't want government telling us what to do, be it "nannyism", or religion.

It might work. Give you a nickel if it is tried. The religious wing nuts would have a field day.

Excuse me, Berry, but those idiot farmers are breaking the law, pure and simple. They can protest all they want, but so long as the law remains, it must be obeyed, or they can pay the consequences of breaking it. Moreover, you don't seem to understand the politics behind this, which have more to do with inter-governmental conflict and petty bickering than anything else.

Excuse me, Berry, but those idiot farmers are breaking the law, pure and simple. They can protest all they want, but so long as the law remains, it must be obeyed, or they can pay the consequences of breaking it.

One way the common man can attempt to change a st**id law is by civil disobedience. Yes, that means breaking that law, and yes there are consequences for doing so. It is in fact the public perception that the consequences far outway the infraction that leads to changing the law.

When Gandhi made salt in defiance to the British-controlled government's law, he was arrested and jailed -- until the government began to realize that the people were becoming outraged at the law, rather than the lawbreaker.

Just to even the score: the lunch counter sit-ins

(If you require a specific person, I'm sure that Dr. King was arrested once or twice, if not for this, specifically, then for something similar)

It now stands at righteous lawbreakers 3 - evil lawmakers 3

Thanks, Berry. Anything with George Carlin is certainly most welcome on PM!

And why are these guys trying to run for President anyways? How about trying to form a base first? It's a lot easier to run for President when you have your own party machine operating.

A society where people fear the government is dictatorship, a country where the government fears the people is democracy

Look Blue, I'm assuming minor parties actually want to win. They don't (Well, they do, but they don't, just follow me), their loftiest goal is to try to get the major parties to adopt the more popular parts of their platform. If they were aiming for long term party building, then they would focus on developing a platform, forming a populist base that appeals to much of the population, grassroots effort and a party machine. But they are not intrested in winning. Merely spreading their ideas. The Third Party exists because some part of the electorate cared about some issue that election cycle and voted for a single issue minor party that capitalized on it that year. They don't exist to win elections.

(In Case everyone forgot: Third Party: The Party that came in third place during an election in the Two party system, and differs years from year. Minor Party: In the US, a political party smaller than the two major parties parties. Third Parties: Misuse of an expression, sort of like how people say "homophobia" when they mean to say "heterosexism", but really no different than "first year anniversary". )

If they were aiming for long term party building, then they would focus on developing a platform, forming a populist base that appeals to much of the population, grassroots effort and a party machine.

I've got news for you, but American political parties (at least, the two that matter ) are sufficiently weak and disorganized that they rarely are able to present a single, coherent platform. "Party machines" form around specific elections and specific candidates - there's no unified party hierarchy. And this system tends to work against the emergence of strong new parties, especially ideologically "pure" ones like the Libertarians.

Party Machine: You do something for the party, the party rewards you. The more you do for the party, the more the party rewards you.

At it's most basic level, the intern who runs coffie and hangs up signs in fifteen years has support from the people he helped on the way up when he runs for office, at it's most grandiose, it would be the Jacksonian city machines and the bread and circuses.

---

Quote:

Look Blue, I'm assuming minor parties actually want to win. They don't (Well, they do, but they don't, just follow me),

---

Blue: In effect, Taxes are the 40% of the economy the Government claims as it's own. Since you wish to shink the size of the Federal Government, you undobtedly wish to decrease the percentage of the economy claimed by the Federal government for tribute. Unless you want a budget surplus of several trillion for your argarian Jeffersonian Republic.

Party Machines: True. But party machine politics is how parties stay in power, by giving their supporters a real stake in continued party dominance. Power isn't so much about ideas, or principles, but of having friends in the right place when you need them.

What you describe is not a political party, you describe a church. Churches have principles and beliefs and they adhear to them, and the zeitgeist be darned. But churches exist to confess the Truth and Faith, not to elect canidates to office. This has been a major debate amoung Christian evangelicals since the 70's. Politics is corrupt, worldly, and hopelessly lost. Why do we keep getting involved when we know we are going to be betrayed, double crossed, embraced when useful and ignored when convienant. When Brits were dicussing the formaton of a Christian Democrat party in the UK, CS Lewis argued agaist it on pretty much the same grounds. It would have to compromise on principle to hold power, or it would just another minority party. Take what you know about Multi-party systems. Everyone of them has to ally with other large parties in order to govern. Compromise is a way of politics, conviction is a way of religion. As long as you refuse to do it, you will remain as great and powerful as the Mighty Libertarian party. While I agree with you, such convictions would be nice, it's not how reality works.

It's a misconception to confuse compromise and accomodation with a lack of conviction or principle.

I find it disturbing that the Nazi party is still thriving in this country. It's been around in the USA since Hitler came to power. Yes folks, while America was fighting Nazis in Africa and Europe, some Americans in this country embraced Nazism.
General Eisenhower was concerned about the de-Nazification of Germany, which is all fine and good, but what about the de-Nazification of America?

Little thing called the First Amendment, John.

Let's face it, John. "Popular" political speech doesn't need protection, as nobody wants to ban it. "Unpopular" speech such as the Nazis, or porn, or [YOUR CHOICE HERE] is what the First Amendment protects.

Is it really thriving? I know neo-Nazism is a problem in parts of Europe, but I wouldn't exactly call it "thriving" in the U.S.

I've gotta agree with Mike here. The Nazi party exists here in the US but they don't wield any political power.