washingtonamerica.com

Washington D.C. Tourism
december 2011
washingtonamerica.ORG
- L
- K
- J
- I
- H
- G
- E
- D
- C
- B
- A

independent in politics

Not to be confused with Independence Party or Independent Party.

In politics, an independent is a politician who is not affiliated with any political party. Independents may hold a centrist viewpoint between those of major political parties, or they may have a viewpoint based on issues that they do not feel that any major party addresses. Other independent candidates are associated with a political party and may be former members of it, but choose not to stand under its label. A third category of independents are those who may belong to or support a political party but believe they should not formally represent it and thus be subject to its policies. Finally, some independent candidates may form a political party for the purposes of running for public office.

washingtonamerica

to boldly go where no man or woman has gone before

******************************************************************

the earth is melting !!!

tom fitzsimmons... staff wtiter when i turn on the tv, i inevitably hear "we are fighting two wars" i say no.... we have been fighting one war since 911. the only "if"... we were fighting two wars, the second one would be, the civil war (of ideaologies) between those who think that saddam hussein didn't posess weapons of mass destruction, and those who did. the people i am talking about, that didn't, i will refer to as "people b". now... "people a" represent the people who thought that it was ok to tip over saddam and his regime, and, never really thought that he, and his intentions, were separate from the "people c".... the people who tipped over our world trade centers, pentagon, and the sacred field in pennsylvania..... and our way of life (but only for a short time). we remember also the first attempt on the WTC, the cole and the embassy. the "people b" cleverly noticed that the not finding the weapons of mass destruction seemed to play well in the media, which i will henceforth refer to as ""the back stabbing this story is about me ... evil poisan fire breathing people x from planet hell"" ......or "people x" for short. soon it was discovered that the people "b" should make political hay, by scoring some points with the people x.... thus, getting them to sell and promote "no WMD". the "x" people learned that they could make money and fame from the over reporting of the lack of enough WMD. they also learned sometime before that, that they could use the so called "reporting of the news" as a platform to promote their personal agenda. (this is the part where the press is all about me). the people "a", never really made clear to all of the others, that saddam murdered his own countries' men women and children with mustard gas. the U.N. couldn't find the weapons, any weapons.... of mass destruction, so it was assumed and allowed by all, that saddam couldn't possibly have any WMD. that's when the tide turned. the people "a" allowed this to become a pivot point for the people "b". also by now, the press is just thinking about themselves, the new york times is giving away our military secrets to the world under the banner of "free speech".... so they could score brownie points with the few people, who were the last ones to buy their dying newspaper. the talaban and al quiada (who always were connected) enjoyed all of the help from the new york times. the people "b" saw that it would be easy to taint the president (and his ability to govern) by calling him a liar, and saying that he orchestrated the attacks on 911, and that he was a war criminal..... since then, of course, the harmony report came out, we know that saddam did in fact have weapons of mass destuction (550 metric tons of yellowcake (nuke material), arsenels of exploding bomb type weapons, active prison labrotories to test chemicals on live human political prisoners, the world's fourth largest (at the time) standing army.... and that stupid f***ing world war one rifle that he always carried around. he slaughtered a half million people after losing kuwait.......so.... now... at this point, i have to ask, what is the definition of weapons of mass destruction?? so here is the thing, the people "b" thought it was more important to side with saddam and denounce their own leader, than it was to lose an election to the people "a". the people "b" had representitives that first agreed with the idea saddam was really a bad guy (murder and rape rooms and all), but then they changed their minds when things started to get tough. and it was no longer popular to be against saddam. so the people "b" abandoned ship and when into business for themselves. the press' collective head swelled to fantastic porportions... they competed with each other for an ever narrowing spotlight, and they made themselves the story. the people " b" seized the time to campaign by making impossible promises to all the people....the people "a" lost the election and blamed it on peoples "x" "c". we hope this helps to simplify the equation.

after the martians blow up the congress, the president (jack nicholson) comes on and says "i wan't to remind the people that we still have two out of the three branches of government left... and that ain't bad!".....

so, there you go. the point is, is that checks and balances works... the rules of governing cannot be changed in a hurry, that the representatives of "the people" can't just block everybody out while they steam rolll their agenda. they can for a little while... that's why we have term limits. that the founding fathers (and of course founding mothers) were brilliant is an extreme understatement. so what does all of this have to do with being an "independent". when we refer to ourselves as a "two party system", it boils down liberal and conservative. the independent party was a place to go somewhere in the middle. back then, they were all independents, that's the point. so the wrangling of any part is limited to the time frame they are elected to. there is also a self regulating desire to get reelected tempered with whatever the constituants want. constituants.... from "constitution". it all comes back to that... could the framers of our declaration of independence and constitution with it's three branches see the future? the "sense of independence" should always belong to the people. if the people are unhappy, they will "raise an army" and overthrow "the government"... americas have done it before, and will do it again, if they need to. the people are still very much in charge.