Democrats Prove It's Business Per Usual!

[sanantonio]

It's just one huge real life Monopoly game with us the people as the game pieces. Democrat's, Republican's they are pretty much one and the same changing it up just enough to cause us to choose sides. The reality is that the two party system is exclusionary and is designed moreso to help those in power then "We the people". This is just another example of Democrats once again failing the people :rolleyes:.

http://digg.com/politics/Jim_DeMint_s_amendment_to_audit_Fed_blocked_in_the _Senate#

[Nevada_Ballin]

It's just one huge real life Monopoly game with us the people as the game pieces. Democrat's, Republican's they are pretty much one and the same changing it up just enough to cause us to choose sides. The reality is that the two party system is exclusionary and is designed moreso to help those in power then "We the people". This is just another example of Democrats once again failing the people :rolleyes:.

http://digg.com/politics/Jim_DeMint_s_amendment_to_audit_Fed_blocked_in_the _Senate#

You can't be finding this out just now bro.... lol.


:)


.

[sanantonio]

You can't be finding this out just now bro.... lol.


:)


.

Naw but it gives me an excuse to go on a non-partisan rant every now and then it helps to cleanse the system :D.

[resnor]

I don't buy that the reason that we have a two party system is so that we have an exclusionary system that screws the people. The founders did, in fact, have very good reasons for setting up a two party system. They discussed three party *or more* systems, and decided that the best was the two party system...I believe one of the main reasons being that it's easier to have a majority of people voting in a somewhat sense of agreement on candidates, as opposed to say, Britain, and their system.

Not to say that the parties currently are really that good.

[sanantonio]

I don't buy that the reason that we have a two party system is so that we have an exclusionary system that screws the people. The founders did, in fact, have very good reasons for setting up a two party system. They discussed three party *or more* systems, and decided that the best was the two party system...I believe one of the main reasons being that it's easier to have a majority of people voting in a somewhat sense of agreement on candidates, as opposed to say, Britain, and their system.

Not to say that the parties currently are really that good.

Poor choice of words it wasn't designed to be exclusionary but it has evolved to such..

[sideoutshu]

Wow....terrible.

[theanalogkid]

I don't buy that the reason that we have a two party system is so that we have an exclusionary system that screws the people. The founders did, in fact, have very good reasons for setting up a two party system. They discussed three party *or more* systems, and decided that the best was the two party system...I believe one of the main reasons being that it's easier to have a majority of people voting in a somewhat sense of agreement on candidates, as opposed to say, Britain, and their system.

Not to say that the parties currently are really that good.

There's nothing in the Constitution creating any party system. They did not really expect for parties to be created and it only happened out of disagreement about how to interpret the Constitution.

[Dazed N Confuse]

Oh, Oh, Oh can I be the Hat or the shoe?