Political parties, like mobs, gangs, unions are potentially very dangerous. They threaten the life, liberty and property of individuals and make equality and justice nearly impossible to achieve.
In a just soceity everyone is equal and no one has a right to dominate and control others. People have the right to do as they wish as long as they repect the right of others to do the same.
Groups such as unions and political parties are created obtain special benefits or privileges from the government, Their gains come at the expense of other individuals and/or groups.
When an individual or group is granted preferential treatment from the government, you live in an unjusst society. People were born with both individual rights and individual responsibilities.
When people join a group, they collectively seek to exploit other individuals or groups.
Political parties have become extremely powerful and have usurped the power of the people to govern themselves. Political parties do not represent the people, they repreeent the bankers, lawyers and Wall Street corporations.
To create a land where the rights of the people are secure, we must abolish political parties. Candidates should be chosen by the people based on their experience, educatioin and integrity.
Please Support the Constitution Club
Replies
Washington's Farewell Address gave us 4 caveats about how the Constitution must be protected. His very first warning was against political parties. Get out of them, if possible. In California there is little value being a Rep.
Keith Broaders, I suppose you are referring to the Democratic Party and the Republican Party and, perhaps those also with smaller count of individuals expressing affiliation. I would like to see some evidence of the threats to life, liberty and prosperity which you seem to allege is effected by those Parties. I would like to see some evidence of the dominance and control which it seems you are implying is effected by one or some of those parties as suppression of or dominance over the 'equal' nature of others. I have not sensed a suppression of my rights or a making of my rights as less equal by a bunch of people running their mouths as or for or in representation of some label they choose to paste on their expressions.
You wrote this: "When people join a group, they collectively seek to exploit other individuals or groups." and I say that such an exercise is a part of freedom of speech and the right to collectively effect change and affect other's thoughts and actions. How is the opinion of some number of family member any different as offered to others in the family whom are free agree or disagree. Just that some 14 million people ( or whatever the count may be) choose to align themselves with one party or another is neither yours to force change upon nor yours to limit, though you are as free to try to do so as much as are they. In other words, what they choose to believe and act on within the framework of that which is lawful is not subject to your approval or disapproval any more that your beliefs and actions are subject to their approval or disapproval. Yours is the stance which proposes a trespass on the rights of theirs, Your seeking to suppress their freedom of speech is that which smacks of intolerance and undue influence.
Can you provide specific examples, by cite of the Legislation, by which "Groups such as unions and political parties are created obtain special benefits or privileges from the government, To gains they receive come at the expense of other individuals and groups." are granted whatever special benefits you seem to allege they are granted ?
The following statement is utterly preposterous and indefensible for the fact that each and all of the organizations you cite therein are filled out with people from a wide array of party affiliations and union memberships/ other self-identifying 'groups'.
"Political parties have become extremely powerful and have usurped the power of the people to govern themselves. Political parties do not represent the people, they represent the bankers, lawyers and Wall Street corporations."
Political parties, factually ARE the people governing themselves through collective expression of rights, one of their substantive rights to enforce. It was never said that others have to like the rights enforcing efforts of others or the effect thereof. In the end, humans are animals and despite how they color their thoughts and activities as 'civilized" does not make them actually civil or egalitarian. Like the animals which we are, we shall expand our influence to the degree that it is stayed by an equal but different influence. To those who find that offensive I say 'get used to it' because it has always been that way ans always shall be until the next to last human dies. Only the sole survivor shall enjoy absolute rights and power absent opposition.
I this land, the United States of America, Candidates ARE chosen by the people based on their experience, education and integrity. Each voter may write in any name they ELECT to write in. That one is not pleased with the choice of a large group of his fellow citizens is no more than crying over spilt milk. I vote for Pat Paulson. (is he still among the living ?)
Political parties may be abolished in name only, since they do not have power by being named, they have power by the collective mindset of those who identify with and support the particular principles which are represented as in name of the party. The name is nothing but a a generalized indicator of a particular range of beliefs genarally ascribed as shared by some many of those who elect to apply that name, that sign and its symbols, to their personal doctrine, a doctrine which you may try to influence BUT MAY NOT DENY ANOTHER TO EXPRESS to the fullest means of expression. I give a big "Boo-hoo" to those who want to gripe about named groups of people.
X
Reply to Keith or to whomever this reaches. I like the idea of ending political parties. They are the cause of our national divisiveness. My challenge is for people to create an ad hoc group/committee to discuss and speculate about what would happen if we FOLLOWED the Constitution for President and Vice President selection. There would be only one slate of Electors, and they would be NOMINATORS in function. Lets hear some comment on that. A chief reason that talk of ending political parties and the functioning of the Electoral College should be discussed together is because the simplicity of the true(as worded) CONSTITUTIONAL Electoral College would cut the parties out of holding a campaign for President and Vice President.
Do you understand that there is no way to "end political parties" other than by a totalitarian decree enforceable only by fines and imprisonment. Is that what you are promoting ? Chairman Mao #2 ?
I decree that there shall be but two parties in China "The People's Party" and "The Dead People's Party"
Chair: MZ
X
Everyone down on your knees, the Guru has spoken and laid out yet another criticism of someone's posting. I'm sure everyone appreciates being told they are, in so many, many words, stupid for the things they post.
I certainly don't agree with many ideas presented on this forum but I don't go about telling people their ideas are inane or fraught with irrational dribble. "Chairman Mao #2?" How condescending!! If you offered any substance other than the continual criticism and name calling by implication you seem to relish in doling out, perhaps you might be of some help to those who are trying to grasp where we are, how we got here, and what to do about it. Instead, all I can extract from your immature musings is that you apparently have a great need for self aggrandizement at the expense of others.
Wow, DANIEL ALLEN PENDERGAST who died and made you the judge of all mankind ? I attacked no one. I made a simple and truthful statement as follows ," there is no way to end political parties" other than by a totalitarian decree enforceable only by fines and imprisonment. Are you a devout follower of the principles of Mao Zedong ? Is that why you are so upset ? Let us take notice that the record shows you have offered no contravening opinion to the statements I have made thus far, though you have launches on more than this particular personal colored attack on a personality which you most OBNOXIOUSLY work to construct as if relative to me. I reject your presumptuous clawing and reaching at fabricating a personality as the basis on which to heap your baseless claims against it by your efforts at having and abusing a villain. . No, you offer no opinion relative to the topic, but you unhesitatingly you do swing about your figurative leg and attempt a crack at an author's figurative balls. You are not an assigned censor, neither are you any measure of a voice relative to the topic. Flailing on the carpet of the conference room and bitching about those who offer solid ideas by their writing is a despicable manner of behavior. Check your pants. You shall not silence me with your horseshit baseless accusations. How do you defend a stance in favor of the right of freedom of speech on one hand while trying to clasp your hand over the speaker's mouth with the other hand. Your behavior is highly offensive, berating a man's opinion yet offering no opinion of your own other than the berating. You take some sort of offense by my words so, like a petulant child, you flail and call names ? Can you possibly react in any more shallow and offensive manner ? You truly do have an obnoxious and offensive manner of interaction. Not only do you make no observations or contravening statements whatsoever about the SUBSTANCE of my statements but you go out of your way to attempt a personal attach on me by way of my words. That tactic is typical of the machinations of the far left Liberals who also do not offer substance but are constantly honing their knives to take a stab at anybody who ruffles their well preened feathers. Your low skill level attempts at bullying me to silents only drive me to offer more truth. May the blessings of your beloved leader drench you in the light of his words.
X
No, I do NOT "..understand that there is no way to "end political parties" other than by a totalitarian decree enforceable only by fines and imprisonment."--words of Mr. Key Holder. You are quite right that in a free country, any group of persons so wishing, can form a group and call it a party. However, that is not the issue. The issue is having legislators, and similarly, other elected government officials, who operate with a loyalty to what a "party" espouses in preference to holding complete loyalty to what the individual elected official sees as being in the best interests of the long-term health of the USA, within the constraints of the US Constitution. Now, what is so difficult about making known membership in a "party" or a ''group'' that acts similarly to a traditional political party, a disqualification for candidacy, and likewise a disqualification for continuing in any such office as an individual may have been elected to?
Well Lewis E. Bishop, Jr. I really do not know "Now, what is so difficult about making known membership in a "party" or a ''group'' that acts similarly to a traditional political party, a disqualification for candidacy, and likewise a disqualification for continuing in any such office as an individual may have been elected to?", but now that you raise that idea for the first time in this discussion, and that you seem to seek to have my opinion, since you offer it to me inasmuch as you have directed your post to "Mr. Key Holder". . . .here is what Key Holder has to say about you new question:
1. As to the first part of your question, "Now, what is so difficult about making known membership in a "party" or a ''group'' that acts similarly to a traditional political party, a disqualification for candidacy," the answer is A. discrimination based on political beliefs . . something the precepts of our nation finds SO VERY REPUGNANT that asylum is granted even to citizens of nations which are our AVOWED ENEMIES. But I can pretend you did not ask such an offensive question since I believe you ran your mouth before engaging your brain.
2. As for the second half of your question "and likewise a disqualification for continuing in any such office as an individual may have been elected to" It appears to me that perhaps you are the reincarnation of Senator Joseph McCarthy. What authority can you possibly claim or seek to invoke to remove a lawfully seated DULY ELECTED GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL, one whom is a FREELY CHOSEN representative of the PEOPLE from office just because you have a bug up your ass over the broadly expressed beliefs of a party with whom he associates but you happen to disagree?
As for where any legislator's loyalty lies or what the intent of his party affiliates is expressed as, one can never know precisely what they intend to do UNTIL THEY ACTUALLY DO IT, and that is the ONLY measure of their behavior of which the law takes measure as to the legality or illegality of their acts. The voters, likewise take notice of the behavior of the legislators and, presumably use their mental capacities to determine whom they shall or shall not vote for next time. and here is the news flash for this evening . . how they decide to vote is none of your business. Did you vote in this recent mid-term election Lewis E. Bishop, Jr. ?
Did you, Lewis e. Bishop, Jr. vote in the prior National election ? If you did, were you accosted by anybody who forced you to vote one particular way or other than your own conscience guided you? I offer that this talk of punishing people for having a party affiliation is utterly disgrageful and if applicable to party affiliation, is likewise equitably applicable to prejudicing peoples rights based on religion, music preference, shoe size and skin color. YOU HAVE NO SUCH RIGHTS EITHER AS AN INDIVIDUAL OR AS oh, oh, oh . . .i feel it coming . . . . the new "N" word . . . . but now a de facto declared "G" word . . . GROUP. Build more prisons and fill 'em up . . and toss the Non-GMO, hypoallergenic, non-chafing hand laid and oh so considerately tied well intended hemp rope nooses over the strong tree limbs cause here come the new possee . . wif missuh Uncle Lewis E. Bishop, P.T.L ridin high an pointin out dose nassty Party affiliated politikkers ! Yesss lord lord string-'em-up afow de be gettin deh nasty hand on da chillins minds.
X
Lewis,
I smell a troll. I think the only 'Key' he holds is that to the outhouse. Perhaps he should use it instead of spewing his crap on this site.
daniel allan:pendergast , "The Troll Smeller Feller". I see you once again have nothing to offer in contravention of the substance of what I have offered. As for Trolls, I suggest that your behavior is much more aligned with that of a troll than as a peer participant in the topic provided for this thread. discussion, forum or however else it is properly identified, inasmuch as you energetically engage in attacks aimed at character and personality, to the degree that personality is evidenced by a post in this forum.
I ask that you stop acting the victim and stop interacting as a responsible and beneficial peer participant conversing about the subject topic at hand.
Stand up, be a man and directly address the ideas expressed in this discussion rather than slinging insults and criticism having NOTHING to do with the topic of discussion.
Please stop the insulting behavior.
X
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next