Quote from ATC Quicksilver :

You know in the UK we don't have the right to free protest, we are arrested if we protest without permission from the police.

Often we in America don't either. Anti-Bush protestors at his inaguration were required to stay within designated 'free speech zones'. If any of them stepped outside of those zones holding signs the SS didn't approve of, they were promptly arrested. These zones were carefully chosen to be out-of-the-way and would never be seen on TV. Can't have anyone expressing disapproval of The Leader during his special parade, can we? :rolleyes:

Quote from P5YcHoM4N :

That and keep slaves so everyone can be equal and free.

You do realize that Republican is the party of Lincoln, who freed the slaves. The ideals of a particular party can drift and change over time, which is why I hope there is a chance the current trend of Republican opinion can be changed.

Quote from BrandonAGr :

You do realize that Republican is the party of Lincoln, who freed the slaves. The ideals of a particular party can drift and change over time, which is why I hope there is a chance the current trend of Republican opinion can be changed.

The current Republican party has nothing at all to do with the party of Lincoln's day, except the name.

Note that the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the rebel states, not the Union ones. It was a military move, not a moral one. He deprived the rebel states of millions of laborers and thus hurt their war effort immensely.

Quote from Lateralus :

How would you characterize a "Euro-style government"?

Uhhh. multi party coalition style governments





[/quote] These two statements conflict. First you say that because Ron Paul's views conflict with much of the modern Republican party, support from within the GOP would be minimal and insignificant. But then you say that those same people would be swung toward voting for an independent Paul campaign, which would take votes away from the GOP and cause a Democrat to win.

Either this voter bloc is significant enough to swing the election, or it isn't. Which do you think?[/quote]


Not really, if the republican party has a chance of keeping the presidency, it will be a slim one and the difference Ron Paul as an independent would make would just be enough to nullify that.
just because the machinery in the republican party isn't so supportive of him doesn't mean individual members are as well.
Does that make more sense now? If not....

Hmmm... sorta like what Perot was in the bush/clinton election to the republicans X3. but I think clinton was pretty much going to win anyhow.
So I guess you could say I think he has enough voters in his ranks to swing the election, just not enough to win.

On the dem side, the Clintons were smart in propping up kerry in 04. they knew he didn't stand an iceberg's chance in hell, but it got him and his warche$t out of the way before the 2008 elections. I think obama's rise caught them off guard, but they are smart and they know all the ropes. I figure if he don't pull back, by July they'll get enough mud all over him to ruin him career-wise. of course they'll admonish their underlings that release whatever mud they can sling, but notice they'll do that AFTER the muds been slung.

oh one more thing, I think both parties came from the party of Lincoln didn't they?

And yeah the modern republican party is the same in name only

Quote from Racer Y :

Uhhh. multi party coalition style governments

Well obviously, but you implied negative consequences to such a system were it to be implemented in the US. What do you think they would be?

Quote from Lateralus :

Well obviously, but you implied negative consequences to such a system were it to be implemented in the US. What do you think they would be?

Awww! do I have to answer that?

In this country, if you were to try that instead of having parties like the democratic Christian Social Liberal Party and the Labor Welfare Party, You'd have things like The Insurance Industry Party, The Retail Outlet Party or worse.
There would be more centrist oriented parties, Not exactly like neo nazi parties, but these parties would most certainly have more radical elements.
Like now for example, Say you're a blue collar democrat. You're even in the AFL-CIO. And I'm a .....a "bleeding heart" college professor. I'm going to vote Democrat also. Now culturally, economically and just plain personally, we have NOTHING in common. The party helps unite us and therefore getting a candidate we can compromise on stand a chance of getting them in office. In a multi party system, That most likely wouldn't happen as we would have our own specialised party to try and launch candidates. That may sound good, but the religious nut down the street has one, the repeat sex offender up the block has one too (the EX-Con party got the right to vote). So does the Siamese twins that deliver the newspaper - they each have their own party. See where this is going?

Actually we are a multi-party democracy and we do have other parties to vote from, but with the exception of the Libertarians, they are barely a blip on the radar screen.

You know, breaking it down like that and thinking it over, we really are a coalition style government. Alliances are formed within the parties, much like parties form coalition blocks in the euro style gov'ts

BrandonAGr has his head screwed on straight.