Bush VS. Clinton

At this point I'm thinking the Clinton-Bush rivalry is entirely a massive conspiracy, they've joined forces, and are unstoppable. They will be the downfall of the greatest country in the history of civilization.

Either way, there's no way I'd vote for either of them. I'd vote for Jet before i'd give those two families another shot.

I oppose all democrats but the 2nd to last thing we need is another Bush in the whitehouse. If the Republicans manage to shed off the whole Rhino group the country would be a lot better off.

I don't usually do this, but "RINO" is an acronym coined by Rush Limbaugh (IIRC) that stands for "Republican in name only". What's going on lately?

Screw the content go after the spelling, every person on this entire forum will misspell a word from time to time.

Or was you just trying to get Limbaugh's name thrown in?

There is a difference between a typo and just not knowing, Altima clearly falls in the latter category. Thread was a joke from the start, he posted an article then disagreed with everything it said, rambling a bunch of nonsense. Grats indeed.

Mmmkay...If you're a masochist, then please continue. You shot yourself in the foot with the OP. Grats?

It's not about the spelling. It's the implications, since you didn't know that was an acronym that the far-right spews about the center, which led me to believe, even from the beginning, that this thread was going to be a mess.

It screams Tea Partier waving a placard.

So instead of politics we are worried about spelling. Sounds about right.

God forbid you make a spelling mistake and spell check not catch it.

Spelling is my only weakness that and cheap women.

The government was designed at its inception, to be dysfunctional and only be able to pass laws when the majority of the people elected came together for the common good.

So that's actually the most sensible thing I've seen you write. But I can't seem to figure out where it fits in the scheme of the argument you're trying to make. If you're aware of why the government is inherently crazier than a bag of ferrets, you should also be aware of why it is better to keep it that way.

The government was designed at its inception, to be dysfunctional and only be able to pass laws when the majority of the people elected came together for the common good.
Rino's have been continually jumping from the party lines to side with democrats pushing agenda. John mcCain was censured for it a few months ago.

Despite what jet love's to say, I do not watch fox news and can honestly say never listened to Rush.. I also do not watch any other alphabet news stations, my news comes from reading articles from both sides. Its amazing the difference a point of view slants the same news and facts of the day. Other than people hating on the tea party, I have seen nothing but good intentions come from Rand paul. Both sides bash on him put his popularity is still growing.

It was not, you really need to learn some history, seriously, finish grade school, it would do you some good. The government was intended to be run by statesmen for the better good of the people, not politicians.

You do watch and pretty much absorb fox crap, there's no way in hell anyone is going to believe you don't.

We are both right, but for some reason you have to be a *** about it. The system was never set up, or meant to be a party system. But throughout history people always seem to take sides.

I'll use George Washington as my example since he is my favorite historical person.

Washington was not a member of any political party and hoped that they would not be formed, fearing conflict that would undermine republicanism. He warned against bitter partisanship in domestic politics and called for men to move beyond partisanship and serve the common good.

George Washington in 1798 complained, "that you could as soon scrub the blackamoor white, as to change the principles of a profest Democrat; and that he will leave nothing unattempted to overturn the Government of this Country."

Democrats back then had the same mindset of the ones now. They grab at power and strip liberty/freedoms from the people in the name of common good. Rino's are no better.

Washington would be furious with the government we have today. Everything I read about him makes me believe he would support the Tea party, that is if he didn't start another revolution instead.

History
Popular votes to political parties during presidential elections.
Political parties derivation. Dotted line means unofficially.

The United States Constitution has never formally addressed the issue of political parties. The Founding Fathers did not originally intend for American politics to be partisan. In Federalist Papers No. 9 and No. 10, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, respectively, wrote specifically about the dangers of domestic political factions. In addition, the first President of the United States, George Washington, was not a member of any political party at the time of his election or throughout his tenure as president. Furthermore, he hoped that political parties would not be formed, fearing conflict and stagnation.[46] Nevertheless, the beginnings of the American two-party system emerged from his immediate circle of advisers, including Hamilton and Madison.[47]
First Party System: 1792-1824
Main article: First Party System

The First Party System of the United States featured the Federalist Party and the Democratic-Republican Party (Anti-Federalist). The Federalist Party grew from Washington's Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, who favored a strong united central government, close ties to Britain, an effective banking system, and close links between the government and men of wealth. The Democratic-Republican Party was founded by James Madison and by Washington's Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, who strongly opposed Hamilton's agenda.[48] Both parties had newspapers favoring them, with the Federalist paper being the Gazette of the United States and the Democratic-Republican paper being the National Gazette.

The Era of Good Feelings (1816–1824), marked the end of the First Party System. The elitism of the Federalists had diminished their appeal, and their refusal to support the War of 1812 verged on secession and was a devastating blow when the war ended well. The Era of Good Feelings under President James Monroe (1816–24) marked a brief period in which partisanship was minimal.[49] These good feelings inspired the first short-lived "era of internal improvements" from the 18th through the 25th Congress, which ended with the panic of 1837.[50]
Second Party System: 1828-1854
Main article: Second Party System

In 1829, the Second Party System saw a split of the Democratic-Republican Party into the Jacksonian Democrats, who grew into the modern Democratic Party, led by Andrew Jackson, and the Whig Party, led by Henry Clay. The Democrats supported the primacy of the Presidency over the other branches of government, and opposed the Bank of the United States as well as modernizing programs that they felt would build up industry at the expense of the taxpayer. The Whigs, on the other hand, advocated the primacy of Congress over the executive branch as well as policies of modernization and economic protectionism. Central political battles of this era were the Bank War and the Spoils system of federal patronage.

The 1850s saw the collapse of the Whig party, largely as a result of deaths in its leadership and a major intra-party split over slavery as a result of the Compromise of 1850. In addition, the fading of old economic issues removed many of the unifying forces holding the party together.
Third Party System: 1854-1890s
Main article: Third Party System

The Third Party System stretched from 1854 to the mid-1890s, and was characterized by the emergence of the anti-slavery Republican Party, which adopted many of the economic policies of the Whigs, such as national banks, railroads, high tariffs, homesteads and aid to land grant colleges. Civil war and Reconstruction issues polarized the parties until the Compromise of 1877, which ended the latter. Thus, both parties became broad-based voting coalitions. The race issue pulled newly enfranchised African Americans (Freedmen) into the Republican party while white southerners (Redeemers) joined the Democratic Party. The Democratic coalition also had conservative pro-business Bourbon Democrats, traditional Democrats in the North (many of them former Copperheads), and Catholic immigrants, among others. The Republican coalition also consisted of businessmen, shop owners, skilled craftsmen, clerks and professionals who were attracted to the party's modernization policies.
Fourth Party System: 1896-1932
Main article: Fourth Party System

The Fourth Party System, 1896 to 1932, retained the same primary parties as the Third Party System, but saw major shifts in the central issues of debate. This period also corresponded to the Progressive Era, and was dominated by the Republican Party. It began after the Republicans blamed the Democrats for the Panic of 1893, which later resulted in William McKinley's victory over William Jennings Bryan in the 1896 presidential election. The central domestic issues changed to government regulation of railroads and large corporations ("trusts"), the protective tariff, the role of labor unions, child labor, the need for a new banking system, corruption in party politics, primary elections, direct election of senators, racial segregation, efficiency in government, women's suffrage, and control of immigration. Most voting blocs continued unchanged, but some realignment took place, giving Republicans dominance in the industrial Northeast and new strength in the border states.
Fifth Party System: 1933-present
Main article: Fifth Party System

The Fifth Party System emerged with the New Deal Coalition beginning in 1933.[51] The Republicans began losing support after the Great Depression, giving rise to Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the activist New Deal. They promoted American Liberalism, anchored in a coalition of specific liberal groups, especially ethno-religious constituencies (Catholics, Jews, African Americans), white Southerners, well-organized labor unions, urban machines, progressive intellectuals, and populist farm groups. Opposition Republicans were split between a conservative wing, led by Ohio Senator Robert A. Taft, and a more successful moderate wing exemplified by the politics of Northeastern leaders such as Nelson Rockefeller, Jacob Javits, and Henry Cabot Lodge. They steadily lost influence inside the GOP after 1964.[52]

Experts debate whether this era ended in the mid-1960s when the New Deal coalition did, the early 1980s when the Moral Majority and the Reagan coalition were formed, the mid-1990s during the Republican Revolution, or continues to the present. Since the 1930s, the Democrats positioned themselves more towards Liberalism while the Conservatives increasingly dominated the GOP.[53]

We don't need another Clinton in the White House either. Especially one who pleads the 5th every time she is questioned.

I'm not surprised that our take on history differs.

There's no other way to "take" that, it's fact.

You highlight some stuff, then post some information about the party system and think you know what your talking about.