New Political Party

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by CParso, Apr 12, 2005.

  1. CParso

    CParso Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    10,852
    Likes Received:
    368
    All this talk around here about a viable third party got me thinking, if you were to create a new political party, what would be your platform, what issues would you stress and where would you fall on the political spectrum?
     
  2. CParso

    CParso Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    10,852
    Likes Received:
    368
    I'll start this off.

    My political party would stress small government. Actuall small government - not Republican's idea of small government. Lower taxes, especially for entrepreneurs & small business owners (the people who help make this country what it is). However, increased funding to states for public education. Less nationally funded social programs.

    Restricting the role of religion in politics - not the restriction of morals or moral laws, merely the restriction of religious laws, such as things as banning alcohol sales on Sunday.

    Neither pro-choice nor pro-life. Science would be used to determine exactly when life begins and abortions would not be allowed after this point in time. (I'd have to read up on exactly when everything happens to say for sure when this is, but it's not right after conception)

    The constitution was written to guarantee rights to people, especially minorities. No amendment should ever make it in that restricts rights such as marriage. I have no problem with gay people getting married.

    Guarantee of free speech, however the right to free speech doesn't mean that there won't be consequences. A company or university has every right to fire you if you open your mouth and insult the entire nation because it makes them look bad.

    Overall philosophy of, "help people help themselves" No government hand outs. Only help to self-establishment.


    I know I'm leaving some stuff out, so I'll come back later...
     
  3. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    i would join your party.

    however, i dont think science would ever divine where life begins. we would have to just accept that abortion is murder, but it is still ok, because life isnt sacred.

    i like your ideas for education funding and legalizing alcohol sales on sunday. i would vote for the cparsicrats
     
  4. CParso

    CParso Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    10,852
    Likes Received:
    368
    Well chosing when life begins would be an objective decision, but it would be aided by facts & science.

    This is kind of off topic, but...

    Generally before Week 8, the fetus isn't even fully physically developed. However the heart starts beating around Week 3. I'd say that it's not really until Week 12 that the fetus exhibits true signs of consciousness.

    I'd have to go with Week 8, after 2 months after pregnancy - no more abortions (except in extreme cases). After this point, everything starts coming together to form an actual child.
     
  5. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    do you mean "subjective"? i dont understand.


    these arguments will never end, and any point will seem arbitrary. the only real end to the argument is to concede that all life is not sacred, it is only sacred to the extent we say it is, which shouldnt be very much, when dealing with fetuses. really, whats the point of claiming a fetus is sacred. i know i dont miss any of the millions of fetuses that have been aborted. killing them is convenient and has no real negatives.

    besides, i think life begins at conception. after that you are just trying to tie a level of conciousness to sacredness. why not just make that level at a point at birth? birth seems like a slightly less arbitrary nice place to draw the line. and the laine has to be drawn somewhere, i suppose.
     
  6. tntiger6

    tntiger6 Freshman

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2004
    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is a good thread, CParso.
    Back to the 3rd party idea, I agree there should be a reduction of the Federal government and more control to the states-even local governments.
    Education is a must for a strong society. You have proposed a good start to fixing a real problem we face today.
    My ideal party would be as moderate as possible on as many issues as possible. My biggest gripes w/ either party now is extremism, radically Left of Right positions create too many divisive stances, stall or kill any meaningful legislation from being produced and keeps us focused on bickering rather than discussing relavant issues.
    "Moderation is all things" is a good motto IMHO.
     
  7. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,733
    A valid new national party must be moderate on the political spectrum. The polarity between the GOP and the Dems leaves a vacuum in the middle filled with moderates who cannot abide the extreme policies of either major party. There are also moderate members of both parties who would never go to the other side, but just might move to a viable middle party. I do not see a major third party emerging to the left of the Dems or the right of the GOP. The likes of Ross Perot, George Wallace, Jesse Jackson, American communists, etc will never amount to a major party.

    A new party should emphasize proper balance and equilibrium in all things.

    1. It would spend no more money than it takes in. Income and outflow of dollars must be balanced in economic policies. No tax cuts without spending cuts. No tax increases without tangible benefits.

    2. Personal liberties and constitutional freedoms must be balanced against the collective good of the nation. This balance point may need to be shifted occasionally, but never too far to either side.

    3. Military power must be maintained at the highest levels required to defeat any potential enemy. But this power must be used prudently and judiciously. "Speak softly . . and carry a big stick", Teddy Roosevelt said.

    4. The unilateral implementation of international policies that are in the best interests of America must be balanced against those in the best interests of our important friends and allies. Allied with the great powers of Europe, we can ruthlessly pursue policies that give us great influence over our true enemies in Asia.

    5. The government must remain aloof and independent in matters of religion such as "faith-based" programs, family issues such as abortion and euthanasia, and private issues such as the Boy Scouts/ACLU fight.

    6. The borders must be absolutely secured from illegal aliens and immigration/asylum rules must be tightened. This must be balanced with the need for legal foreign workers that are essential to our agricultural industries and for foreign students to study in American Universities who spread more American values internationally than most people realize.
     
  8. NoLimitMD

    NoLimitMD Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2004
    Messages:
    7,551
    Likes Received:
    366
    Education should be funded by the government, but not run by the government.
     
  9. tntiger6

    tntiger6 Freshman

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2004
    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well said, Red55.
    If you continue to pontificate this well, you'll be the new party chair. :hihi: :hihi: :hihi:
     
  10. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,733
    I shall call it . . . The Pragmatic Party. It's symbol shall be the moose . . . because Teddy R. would have wanted it that way. :grin:
     

Share This Page