I actually like the idea.
I also think that any organization which pays for a 30 second ad spot to put forward a political message during the campaign season should be required to pay for a 15 second rebuttal message from the other side to follow immediately after their message.
- Doove
- 06-13-2012, 06:45 PM
- Chica Chaser
- 06-14-2012, 12:50 AM
- JD Barleycorn
- 06-14-2012, 12:55 AM
I caught that...you are forgiven.
- WTF
- 06-14-2012, 06:26 AM
Sorry, couldn't resist Originally Posted by Chica Chaser
Huh? I like JD, but I don't think he's Jesus. However, he is one of the three wise men on this board.LOL....Father forgive me for I have
Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy
I caught that...you are forgiven. Originally Posted by JD BarleycornBless you Lord
- Iaintliein
- 06-14-2012, 07:15 AM
Washington was against the formation of political parties, and foreign entanglements. We've not had as good a man since in the office, not nearly as good.
- Whirlaway
- 06-14-2012, 07:26 AM
The "idea" floated by Ventura was the banning of political parties; not the delisting of their names on the ballot. Big constitutional difference. I would have to agree with the notion of delisting the political affiliation on ballots. But to ban people's right to freely associate or belong to a political organization is anti-American.
And despite what some claim, I doubt if President Washington would ever sign legislation that went counter to an individual's right to freely assoociate with other citizens for the purpose of petitioning the government, expressing addressing greivances, or other wise.
Washington's famous farwell speech on the subject was a "warning" against political parties, not a call to abolishment !
The problem isn't political parties; but a federal government that has gotten so large, so bloated, so intrusive, that it is out of control.
What is a political party but a collection of special interests under one tent. To ban political parties would mean legislators would ban special interests from talking, organizing and coordinating with each other - a scary thought if you are a libertarian.
And despite what some claim, I doubt if President Washington would ever sign legislation that went counter to an individual's right to freely assoociate with other citizens for the purpose of petitioning the government, expressing addressing greivances, or other wise.
Washington's famous farwell speech on the subject was a "warning" against political parties, not a call to abolishment !
The problem isn't political parties; but a federal government that has gotten so large, so bloated, so intrusive, that it is out of control.
What is a political party but a collection of special interests under one tent. To ban political parties would mean legislators would ban special interests from talking, organizing and coordinating with each other - a scary thought if you are a libertarian.
Good question, WTF. I don't think it's unconstitutional. People can still associate, but the names of the parties would not be on the ballot. There's nothing unconstitutional about it. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy