Pollution and the Ruling party's effect on it:

[MKSheppard]

Why is it people like Hamel seem to think that factories have a big fat
switch in them labelled "DEMOCRAT/REPUBLICAN", and whenever a
Republican is elected Governor, etc, switch over, and instead of a thin
trail of smoke, the factory starts belching out huge plumes of smoke
instantly?

Maryland has long been Democrat-dominated, and yet nothing is
done about the Chicken Factories (if you've eaten a Purdue chicken,
you've probably eaten one that's come from the eastern shore of MD
at one point or another), and yet nothing has really been done about
the Chicken farms and their impact on the Chesapeake bay for DECADES.

Why? The chicken farmers have both parties in Maryland bought
and in their pockets. That, and chicken farming is pretty much the
only employer on the Eastern shore that operates year round, so they
can walk, despite dumping millions of tons of chicken waste and guts
into the Bay each year. Ain't politics grand?

[Darth Wong]

Corrupt politicians exist on both sides. However, the Bush Administration is unusually compliant to business lobbyists (look at Ken Lay, being put in a ridiculously blatant conflict-of-interest position to formulate Bush's national energy policy).

Having said that, I think that much of the ideological divide of the parties is an illusion. They've even "switched sides" in the past; there was once a time that the Democratic party's ideology was similar to the Republican party's ideology now.

That's why I think the best name for a political party is the Canadian right-wing mainstream party's name: "Progressive Conservative". The name of the party is virtually schizophrenic, thus making it painfully obvious that they have no real ideology except for seizing power. I like that; at least it's clear

[Falcon]

Corrupt politicians exist on both sides. However, the Bush Administration is unusually compliant to business lobbyists (look at Ken Lay, being put in a ridiculously blatant conflict-of-interest position to formulate Bush's national energy policy).

I seem to remember a lot of leading energy company officials being on the energy board.

[Frank Hipper]

*nods at Darth Wong's post* The U.S. has had a one party system masquerading as a two party system for years now. The democrats will throw something predictably liberal into the mix every now and then to keep up appearances, but the last five years, if nothing else, have hammered this impression home to me.

[Nathan F]

*nods at Darth Wong's post* The U.S. has had a one party system masquerading as a two party system for years now. The democrats will throw something predictably liberal into the mix every now and then to keep up appearances, but the last five years, if nothing else, have hammered this impression home to me.

Er... last time I checked, the Democrats and Republicans usually vote differently on numerous subjects. The Democratic party is traditionally much more liberal than the Republican party. Take gun control for instance, normally, the Republican's are against, and the Democrats are for(but, as always, there are exceptions to the rule, such as Gov. Phil Bredesen (D-Tenn), who is for enforcing current state gun laws and not enacting more).

To say that the two party system is a masquerade isn't looking at the facts of how each party usually votes completley opposite of each other.