Coalition

They have launched a campaign called "Hall Pass On That" to oppose President Obama speaking to school children.

They say, "Parents are also concerned as the entire program was crafted with help from the president’s White House Teaching Fellows, some of whom are activists with documented hostility towards the very tenants of our republic."

http://www.hallpassonthat.com/

My question is: How would they know that about the school teachers who worked on the program?

hard, stick with school, and do their best because that is the key to getting good jobs and succeeding in our country. How that is a socialist agenda or fostering an Obama "cultism" is beyond me. The text will be released today for concerned parents. This is just a ploy.

From the Tea Party Coalition to the Birthers, and the acid comments from Fox News commentators, Limbaugh and Palin, I think the right wing of the Republican party is having a collective mental breakdown. I’m sorry they are disappointed Obama was elected, but it’s time to get over it. It looks like sour grapes. Democrats had to put up with 8 years of Bush who, in two terms, did more harm than all our presidents put together. God only knows how we look to the international community.

How about acting like patriotic Americans and stop this mantra of "deflect, deny, delay, and destroy".

http://goLIVEmiami.com FFPC fundraiser to support lobbying the Florida Legislature to bring back a stronger film incentive program. Meet the young sponsors of the event, models and film makers Adam and Matthew Ziff and Michelle Minkin and Sam E. Goldberg from S&M Radio at idobiradio.com. You Go Where I Go, http://goLIVEmiami.com

Duration : 0:2:24

Read the rest of this entry »

yes, it would.

Apart from 3 policies regarding
* Slacker immigration and asylum laws
* An anti war-stance
* And a mutual dislike for Israel,
Would the far left and Muslim community not clash on every other policy?
Respect would increase taxes for small businesses, they are opposed to second homes for "buy to let property’s" both being business sectors the Muslim communities are involved in. They advocate animal cruelty reforms that contravene Halal butcher’s method of killing. They champion gay rights and intend a massive budget increase for the needs of gay/lesbian people. They are vehemently pro-choice and anti faith schools of any sort and despise sectarianism, and yet they proclaim themselves "The Party for Muslims" is that "Muslims not Hindu’s" because that sounds sectarian to me.

I’m quite happy for people to vote for however they want, but a socialist/Islam alliance doesn’t seem to fit.

Your views please

The respect part yhas split into two factions one led by Galloway and his ’spivlamist’ allies and the other one that is merely a front for the Socialist Workers Party.

The truth of the matter is that the left in Britain is politically dead and so taken up with minority groups as to make their political position incomprehensible to any sane person. It is not clear why this is but it does mean that in real terms they end up supporting people well to the right of the BNP. In a way it is best viewed as an extension of the middle class western liberals guilt and self-hatred.

Dana Loesch of the St. Louis Tea Party Coalition appears on Greta Van Susteren’s show to react to being painted as part of a “mob”.

“It is absolutely insulting,” she says. “If I were in this for the money, I would have gone and worked for ACORN.”

Duration : 0:5:0

Read the rest of this entry »

So a multi party system does nto share responsibility in the actions of the govt? In other words, each party is respectively responsible for their own policies and action?

No. A multi-party system refers to an electoral process where any number of parties can participate, and the one that garners the most votes wins control of the government (or, as in our case, a given branch of the government).

A coalition gov’t is what happens in a parlimentary system where no single party has a majority, and therefore cannot control the government on their own. They then form alliances with one or more like-minded parties to reach a majority, and then share the responisibilites of rule.

Response to additions: Each party is responsible for its own positions and platform, and in a multiparty system each of those parties is competing to control 50% or more of the gov’t, and to promote its own position whether or not it has majority control (of course, with that control, it’s much, much, easier). If no party can achieve the 50% mark, then a coalition has to be formed.

say for example party a had a majority of seats in parliament, if party b and party c put together would make up more seats then they can form a kind of coalition and therefore stop party a from passing any laws?

Yes, but the public would be very unhappy their votes being wasted, which would likely drive more voters to party a, and these kinds of alliances usually fall apart within 6 months anyway, and nothing wil get done untill the next election, as nobody will have them numbers to guarentee voting something through.

As The title Says

Duration : 0:3:15

Read the rest of this entry »

I need debate points for ‘coalition govt is better than single party rule!

It is not. It is a pact between wolves to share power and be indecisive when it comes to the interests of the people.

Well, that depends…

I currently live in Australia and the federal coalition governemnt in Canberra appears to be functioning fairly well, for the last ten years or so.

The governemnt in India is a coalition of parties, and I think Pakistan also.

A prominent example is Italy, of course, where almost every government has been coalition.

Like anything in politics, it’s the people in the politics, not the politics in the people, that make the difference.

There is no logical reason why a coalition cannot function better than a single party; in truth, it may be better having coalitions more often.