I would make it the compromise party.

You, see, life is full of compromising, I can't afford a mustang so I go for something that works best on my salary. Why can't politics do this?

I mean look at gay marriage, most people support a civil union, instead of a full out marriage (IE church union) make it legal for gay people to have civil unions. That way both sides compromise over it.

Abortion? Allow it, but if girls don't want it they don't have to do it. As long as they have the choice, they should be able to do it really.

Trade disputes? Find the solution that gives both sides something, like reopen the border so that some younf beef can go through, and let us do something for you.

Country conflicts? Give each side a piece of the pie, most reasonable people would rather share the holy land then have to deal with others blowing up the holy land.

We'll scratch your back, you scratch ours, it works, Social security? Why nto put more money into the program and have the baby boomers who haven't all retired yet, pay more more money (especially the ones that can afford it)

I don't see different sides, I see different groups trying to be happy in life, if both sides can reach an agreement taht makes both sides happier then they are, then it'll work. Compromising is a great thing.

NOTE: do not confuse this with flip flopping, flip flopping is saying you support one side one time, tehn disagreeing the next time. My idea is saying you want whats best for both sides. (within a reasonable amount)

My party would be the Flip-flop Party. Only because I find the idea that "changing one's mind in the face of new evidence or being proved wrong is a bad trait for a leader" mystefying beyond belief.

The Flip-flop Party would also be called the BTTGOP which would stand for Better than the GOP. This will be something of an oxymoron, as by defenition almost any party is better than the GOP. In Britain (I'm dual national, BTW) it will be called the WAPRBALWBTTTOL, which will stand for We're pretty rubbish but at least we're better than the Tories or Labour.

The main policy plank of the Flip-flop Party is non-ideological pragmatism. On avarage therefore it will tend towards the centre (except in the US which is so skewed to the right we'll be denounced as unrepentant socialists). We will seek to find a happy balance between captialism and a welfare state. Education, health care will be seen as essential planks of investing in the people, and will be given maximum priority. The armed forces would have their funding slashed until they manage to spend their money more carefully. Subsidies to farmers will be removed. Completely. Public resourses like forests and fisheries will be managed more carefully. Watermanagement, especially in the west, will be taken out of the 19th century system very quickly. Protecting the environment will also be a major priority.

I loook forward to annoying as many irritating special interest types as possible. In particular, I'd seek to move America away from its violence obsessed popular culture and into a more European way of thinking, emphasising sex. Once merica becomes more comfortable with sex the calmer and more rational it wioll be.

Vote for me in 2008.

your right thats not flip flopping, but unfortunately politics dont work that way, it would be nice if you could but heres how they would view those hot topics of yours.


acording to both sides this puts you in favor of it,



again puts you in favor of it




sorry this doesnt work simply because they never see eye to eye...they all want more than the other is willing to give its a fact of life.



alright ASB, i really have only one thing to say to this, i would like to see you try, the only reason that america has been able to bail your buns out of the fire for the past 100 years is our obsession with violence in our popular culture, if we thought more like the europeans we would have let europe go hang during both WWI and WWII, and you would be speaking german

That's not compromise, that's the pro-choice position. I don't think anybody thinks girls should be forced to have abortions (outside of mainland China).

Civil unions for gays isn't good enough. "Seperate but equal" is not true equality.

Yup. It should be marriage for everyone or marriage for no one. If the church doesn't want to recognize a union, fine. Whatever. But the state should.

I think you misstated here - allow me to correct it:
"..the only reason that america has been able to bail your buns out of the fire for the past 100 years is our obsession with Bugs Bunny cartoons in our popular culture,.."

or perhaps:
"..the only reason that america has been able to bail your buns out of the fire for the past 100 years is our obsession with scandalous behavior in our popular culture,.."

I could go on, but the point is the same - both those statements are equally as valid as your original one.

What is marriage? Well, basically, it is a religious arrangement, principally Christian, Jewish, and Islamic, between a man and a women. Sure, gays can get into a similar arrangement i.e civil unions if they want, it just can't be marriage. Give them all those legal attachments as well, and make it identical to marriage, just not religious. You can't call it marriage 'cos it isn't. You don't have non-Jewish people having a bar mitzvah, because it's a religious ceremony, just like marriage.
And don't use that equality excuse, either. Marriage is a religious thing, it's theirs, they "own" it. You don't go up to someone who has patented a nice invention and say "I want it because we're all equal"

Anyway.... Getting back to the point of this thread.....

You can't make a compromise party because most western countries are so multi-cultural, you will always have a sizable segment of the population, especially the voting population, who will vehemently disagree with you. And the people with the opposite view. Issues that have become heavily political are always the ones where people have very strong opinions, opinions that they won't/can't compromise on.

If the government is handing out marriage licences, then marriage is a secular institution. Yes, marriage is also a religious institution, but we're not talking about religious marriage, but civil marriages granted by the government.

Edit: Unless you're saying that atheists can't be married, which is plainly false.

Okay, suppose the GOP do eliminate social security and do a bunch of the other things they are politically disposed to do, like kill off public healthcare, decent afordable education and stuff, won't they be clearing a huge space for socialist leaning political parties to fill?

Won't it lead to there being good arguments like 'we need welfare' healthcare and education, and such essential things should be provided to at least a basic level from the monies that the government takes as tax'? Now there's a platform that might actually get support after a few years of seeing what America is really like without those socialist institutions...

And...I'm all for flip-flopping. We've seen far too much of 'The new evidence proves I'm wrong, but I will not be swayed from my resolve.' lately. Not flip-flopping isn't a sign of a steadfast leader, it's a sign of a moron.

Ah hem.
I'd like to point out that...
A) You were late. Both times.
B) You were so late for the first one you barely made a difference.
C) It wasn't the US that won the Second World War for us. It was Russia.
D) We were in that pickle at the time because we had the violent mindset. Now we think about sex all the time, and the tryanny of Europe, in the form of the EU, is Brussels telling us about how straight our bannanas should be.
E) My father was from the Bahamas and my mother from Australia. Chances are I'd actually still be speaking English.
*cowers from straight bannanas*

I believe in compromising between it, we shouldn't really force people into things should we?

Yeah, I am pro choice, but Theres room to look for a compromise between them. Legalising it is a logical answer because then it's a matter of choice, the girl gets a choice in teh matter, and if she wants an abortion and feels it's alright it's her choice, while the other side may not approve of it, its not like they are being forced to have abortions, it doesn't necceceraly(sry spelling) effect them.

Yeah I support gay marriage as a civil union, which by definition isn't marriage, but a legal union. So therefore it's not MARRIAGE, but for those who get it, it is. but thing is, most christians are fine with a civil union, which is also what most gay people want.

IF people work for it, and if we actually have people trying to bring compromise between two parties/countries, then it can work. Of course their will be times you cannot compromise things, but for a lot of things it works.

of course, not everyone can believe this, most people won't believe it, because some people are too extreme, and won't compromise on issues. In this case we can't have compromise. For the most part my party would try to find middle ground, and if people don't want to find that middle ground then I have no say over it. Most people tend to be reasonable enough to accept the idea of compromise between situations.



Get on topic please. and for the record, you can't say russia won it because all sides fought in the war. YOu can't really take that situation and use hindsight and say "Oh, russia won the war for us." because it was a combination that did germany in, hitler's poor management, russia's, and America's fronts, british and canadian forces too helped.

For that, you can't really say only one group won it, yes they helped, but they didn't do it on their own.

But anyways, thats besides the point and off topic.

Yes. Get on topic.

And no more jokes. This is a SERIOUS forum. World War II jokes and comments about bendy bananas are definitely not allowed here!

actually mr toad i stated exactly as i meant, except for the germans the countries of the european continent havent been able to accomplish much of anything militarily for the last century, and we've been the ones beating the germans, i dont count the russians in this because their government and culture come from beyond the ural mountains, the french havent come out on top in a war since before 1900 other than WWI and WWII the british havent had a war since napoleon, the spanish and the italians have been imbroiled in civil wars except for WWI and WWII, and except for switzerland who has remained out of every war since their own civil wars in the 16th century.

my point is this, since 1900 the European nations have either apealed to or simply been rescued due to treaty by the united states who except for korea where we were driven back to the line we were supposed to hold in the first place, and vietnam where my research into things actually places us in the wrong position there, we have won every military action we have ever endevored, now my foriegn military history could be off, and there might be actions that my being american would not know of, but be that as it may its america's, for lack of a better phase, morbid facination with violence that alllows us to supply the properly trained and desensetized soldiers that have bailed the countries of europe

actually it was here we made the most difference especially the marines, check your history books and find the battle of belleu woods and Somme
it was the americans that broke the stalemate of the trench warfare

actually if america hadnt come in either britain would have fallen or germany would have left them alone to concentrate on russia who would have fallen back to their positions in the urals giving hitler all of continental europe

actually no chances are you would be speaking japanese because if it hadnt been for a stroke of luck in leyte gulf the japanese would have hit australia like a tsunami, of course if the japanese hadnt bombed pearl harbor which was against yamamoto's advice we probably would have come in a bit later when hitler actually invaded england

and as to staying on topic we are actually because we are debating a point of one of the proposed parties