NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: When the average little guy faces a multitude of problems, as this guy is doing, political change happens. If the Democrats can dump their ideological idiocy, they will win in 2008. If they can't? Who the hell knows? :rolleyes:


My Brother's Keeper (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/02/opinion/02Mason.html?th&emc=th)


By BOBBIE ANN MASON
Published: October 2, 2005
Mayfield, Ky.

ON the Monday after Hurricane Katrina, cars lined up on Broadway, a busy street here in my hometown. Rumors of $4-a-gallon gas sent people straight to my brother's store, Don Mason's Gas-N-Go.

"I sold 5,000 gallons at $2.46, twice as much in six hours as I did on the best day I'd ever had," Don told me. "But the next day was the worst - I had no gas."

Don sells generic gas, and he has had trouble getting it. "Being unbranded hurts," he says. Unbranded usually sells for a bit less than the big names like Shell and BP, but the gas comes from the same place. "The only difference is their additives," he says.

When the refineries shut down for Hurricane Rita, allocations to the big brands got priority, Don says. He pays up to 30 cents a gallon more than his competitors do. This week he was selling gas for $2.79 - it cost him $2.71 - and the name-brand stations in town were selling for 10 cents less.

"I can't compete if this keeps up," he told me.

All his life Don wanted to own his own business. After working for Coca-Cola for many years, he finally managed, in 2002, at age 45, to buy a small gas station, a quaint little building that he stocked with snacks from Sam's Club. Business took off, enabling him to build a larger store and quit Coca-Cola. He and his wife, who teaches third grade, had built a new home. Their two sons are grown - one newly wed and living nearby, the other a student at the local Baptist Bible college. Don's dream of being his own boss was complete.

You pump your gas outside, but you have to pay inside so that you can buy stuff and make small talk. The profits aren't in the gas. They're in the junk snacks, light bulbs, cake mix, motor oil, sausage biscuits, Spicy Tater Babies. Don arrives before 6 a.m. to create breakfast for people on the go. On the wall above his milk cooler is a mural of a Holstein cow and a sign from our father's old dairy - Mason's Dairy Grade A Buttermilk.

Don's not afraid to risk losing business. When the town considered legalizing alcohol, he slapped a "Vote No" sign on his window. And he won't sell lottery tickets. "They're a tax on poor people," he explains.

Now the hurricanes have churned and spun many people's dreams. Don is disturbed by the difference between the prices he and his competitors pay.

"Last week I ordered a load and got a good price, $2.31 - good till 6 p.m., but they didn't deliver until 11 p.m., and the price had shot up to $2.65. I'd been selling for $2.59 all day. They jacked up the price because Hurricane Rita was coming, but Rita was still on the other side of the Florida Keys," he told me.

He called the distributor in Paducah, Ky., and the headquarters in Denver but got the runaround. Nobody would discuss the price. "They can't justify it," Don said.

In his struggle, he got lucky for a couple of days. He got one load of gas out of Louisville for 21 cents cheaper than he could get it from nearby Paducah, and he got a load of branded gas by mistake - 40 cents cheaper than unbranded.

"It'll straighten out in a couple of weeks and go back to normal," he said. "Before Rita, prices were going down and I was doing pretty good." But the local economy is in a whirl, with a big employer moving out.

Don said, "Bush keeps hollering about how good we're doing, but we're not doing any good. I'm not setting the woods on fire, but I'm making it. If people think you're doing good they'll stop by. If you get a new truck, park it out front, and people will think you're doing good. Image is everything."

He laughed. "People want to see you do good. I've lived here all my life. People know me."

Personally, I would love to grab all the ideological Republicans in one hand and all the ideological Democrats in the other and shake them until their heads were empty, then pour some sense into their empty little heads! Grrrr! :mad:

While I agree with you on an ideaological shift that will happen, I think it may also be a new breed of Republicans we may see. Ever since Bush first came to Washington, a deeper and deeper divide between him and other Republicans has been happening, so that after the midterm elections, I expect to see some Republicans actually denouncing the president. In fact, I personally think that sometime after the 2008 elections, we will see some form of a party shift with the small government and moderate conservatives. I believe they will either all become independents, or perhaps even form their own party. The latter would be especially fun to watch. Not since the disappearance of the Communist, Populist, and Abolitionist parties have we seen real third party politics in this country.

Hazzar the Dems will win again...and Bill will be forced to wear pink for at least 4 years!!! :D

While I agree with you on an ideaological shift that will happen, I think it may also be a new breed of Republicans we may see. Ever since Bush first came to Washington, a deeper and deeper divide between him and other Republicans has been happening, so that after the midterm elections, I expect to see some Republicans actually denouncing the president. In fact, I personally think that sometime after the 2008 elections, we will see some form of a party shift with the small government and moderate conservatives. I believe they will either all become independents, or perhaps even form their own party. The latter would be especially fun to watch. Not since the disappearance of the Communist, Populist, and Abolitionist parties have we seen real third party politics in this country.
Yayyy! I hope you're correct about this. I would LOVE to see that! :D

Hazzar the Dems will win again...and Bill will be forced to wear pink for at least 4 years!!! :D
I seriously doubt Hillary can win the Presidency. Sorry about that.

Well, for people to support a minor party they generally have to either be people who would otherwise not vote, or believe that the party will have some real influence. It doesn't seem viable without switching to an MMP system. I think the US needs to be saved from the Republicrats! Although with the way US politics is based so much on corporate support, the small parties wouldn't necessarily be any more honest than the major ones...

Multparty systems aren't all that great either and can actually make a representative democracy less representative. Say you have a voting body for your government that is composed of 45% Libertians, 45% Orthodoxians and 10% Monster Raving Loonies (http://www.omrlp.com/) (it's just such a great name for a political party! :D). Any time an issue comes up for a vote, the Libertians and the Orthodoxians naturally oppose each other as a matter of principal and you wind up with the Monster Raving Loonies making all the decisions.

Hazzar the Dems will win again...and Bill will be forced to wear pink for at least 4 years!!! :D

Giggles.

Pass that crack pipe on over here my friend.

Well, for people to support a minor party they generally have to either be people who would otherwise not vote, or believe that the party will have some real influence. It doesn't seem viable without switching to an MMP system. I think the US needs to be saved from the Republicrats! Although with the way US politics is based so much on corporate support, the small parties wouldn't necessarily be any more honest than the major ones...
I think that the US needs to be saved from ideologies ... of ALL types! :headbang:

Multparty systems aren't all that great either and can actually make a representative democracy less representative. Say you have a voting body for your government that is composed of 45% Libertians, 45% Orthodoxians and 10% Monster Raving Loonies (http://www.omrlp.com/) (it's just such a great name for a political party! :D). Any time an issue comes up for a vote, the Libertians and the Orthodoxians naturally oppose each other as a matter of principal and you wind up with the Monster Raving Loonies making all the decisions.
I actually favor a two-party system, as long as one of them isn't based on some frakkin' ideology or theology! I HATE that sort of thing! It blinds people to other possibilities!

If the Democrats can dump their ideological idiocy, they will win in 2008. If they can't? Who the hell knows? :rolleyes:

Dude, you know very well that the Democrats, on the whole, aren't much different than the Republicans. They're for a bit more protectionism and a few more civil liberties (note that this is on the average). It's hardly the polar opposite party you make it out to be.

If you're going to continue this "partisan" commentary, you could at least get it right and do it toward the Green party. Now, I'm not condoning this, but at least it'd make sense, because they are the polar opposite of the Republican party.

I doubt the Democrats will gain much. Perhaps some, but not much.

I think the best thing to do would be to gather up all the CEO's and Presidents of Big oil, all the leaders of the Oil Suppliers, all the Shareholders who own a ton of stock of their companies, seal them all in a barrel, and drown them in the ocean.

I think the best thing to do would be to gather up all the CEO's and Presidents of Big oil, all the leaders of the Oil Suppliers, all the Shareholders who own a ton of stock of their companies, seal them all in a barrel, and drown them in the ocean.

I'd pay good money to see that...

...If I had any. Since I don't, I'd just have to sneak in to watch. :p

Personally, I would love to grab all the ideological Republicans in one hand and all the ideological Democrats in the other and shake them until their heads were empty, then pour some sense into their empty little heads! Grrrr! :mad:
They're heads are already empty. They fill them up with lobby money. Money pushes out sense. We'll need some other plan.

They're heads are already empty. They fill them up with lobby money. Money pushes out sense. We'll need some other plan.

Like, er, outlawing political contributions.

I seriously doubt Hillary can win the Presidency. Sorry about that.
You're right. The US is not ready for a woman president (even if they found a competent one), or a black president, or a Jewish president (yeah, we've made progress :rolleyes: ). The Dems need to quit farting around and stop letting Hillary hog the spotlight.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm all for a Jewish, black, female president, but right now, I'm more in favor of knocking the neo-cons out of power.

I actually favor a two-party system, as long as one of them isn't based on some frakkin' ideology or theology! I HATE that sort of thing! It blinds people to other possibilities!

Good luck with that, the only real alternative to ideology is populism. Basing all your policies on opinion polls can be as flawed as blind ideology, as it can lead to the tyranny of the majority, or just short-sightedness.

You can't really base things on "what works" independent of ideology, as our perception of what works is based on ideology.

Like, er, outlawing political contributions.
That would be a start. :D

How about this:

1. No campaign may spend more than $100,000 total combined funds (or some similarly ridiculously small amount -- for the challenge ;)).
2. EVERY candidate gets the same amount of free tv time.
3. Media are required to give equal time to all political views, so we don't have any more 1-party saturation advertising region by region.
4. The Board of Elections has a budget for tv debates in which ALL parties may participate -- there should be candidate debates and separate issues debates so even parties not on the ballot can get a hearing (and make coalitions?).
5. Time limits on campaigns -- you can't start running ads more than, say, 4 months before election day.
6. ALL campaign finances must be open, published information; this is enforced by Board of Elections auditors and inspectors.
7. ABOLISH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE.

Such a set-up wouldn't get rid of idealogy but it might make it harder for idealogy to hide political corruption, cloud the issues, intimidate opposition, and manipulate voter fears and prejudices. It would also make straight up crookedness harder to get away with.

Good luck with that, the only real alternative to ideology is populism. Basing all your policies on opinion polls can be as flawed as blind ideology, as it can lead to the tyranny of the majority, or just short-sightedness.

You can't really base things on "what works" independent of ideology, as our perception of what works is based on ideology.

This is why we have a representative democracy instead of a direct democracy: so people can actually take proper time to consider what they are voting for.

If I were to make a bumper sticker for direct democracy, it would be:

Support Direct Democracy
Because one of us is not as dumb as all of us

This is why we have a representative democracy instead of a direct democracy: so people can actually take proper time to consider what they are voting for.
Are you referring to the Electoral College? If so, it has nothing to do with direct vs. representative democracy, and abolishing it would not change us into a direct democracy. Even in a representative democracy, somebody still has to vote directly for the representatives. Since we have general elections, obviously, we are capable of doing that. The Electoral College is an unnecessary extra step that can be -- and has been -- and not just recently -- corrupted.

If you're not referring to the EC, then never mind. :)

If I were to make a bumper sticker for direct democracy, it would be:

Support Direct Democracy
Because one of us is not as dumb as all of us
Oh, I don't know about that. I've met some idiots who I swear are as stupid as all the other idiots in the world combined. :D

This is why we have a representative democracy instead of a direct democracy: so people can actually take proper time to consider what they are voting for.

If I were to make a bumper sticker for direct democracy, it would be:

Support Direct Democracy
Because one of us is not as dumb as all of us

But if you have a representative democracy you can still have populist politicians who have no ideals and campaign just on what will get them votes, with similar results to direct democracy. Ideology is inevitably going to be part of politics, but I agree that people need to look at the real world instead of basing all their opinions on abstract principles.

You're right. The US is not ready for a woman president (even if they found a competent one), or a black president, or a Jewish president (yeah, we've made progress :rolleyes: ). The Dems need to quit farting around and stop letting Hillary hog the spotlight.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm all for a Jewish, black, female president, but right now, I'm more in favor of knocking the neo-cons out of power.

Actually, I like the fact that the Republicans are scurrying around trying to besmirch Hillary. That way they're distracted from who really is gonna run...Pedro from Napoleon Dynamite.

Actually, I like the fact that the Republicans are scurrying around trying to besmirch Hillary. That way they're distracted from who really is gonna run...Pedro from Napoleon Dynamite.
He probably wouldn't be our worst choice. ;)

While I agree with you on an ideaological shift that will happen, I think it may also be a new breed of Republicans we may see. Ever since Bush first came to Washington, a deeper and deeper divide between him and other Republicans has been happening, so that after the midterm elections, I expect to see some Republicans actually denouncing the president. In fact, I personally think that sometime after the 2008 elections, we will see some form of a party shift with the small government and moderate conservatives. I believe they will either all become independents, or perhaps even form their own party. The latter would be especially fun to watch. Not since the disappearance of the Communist, Populist, and Abolitionist parties have we seen real third party politics in this country.

More likely is that they will flock to the Democratic party. Which is good. Especially people like McCain. But when they do, you realize that it won't be the Democratic party anymore. It'll be more like a libertarian party, which is bad. We need to be very careful when dealing with the fragmentation of the republican party.

Like, er, outlawing political contributions.
That would be held unconstitutional.

You're right. The US is not ready for a woman president (even if they found a competent one), or a black president, or a Jewish president (yeah, we've made progress :rolleyes: ). The Dems need to quit farting around and stop letting Hillary hog the spotlight.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm all for a Jewish, black, female president, but right now, I'm more in favor of knocking the neo-cons out of power.
I don't think the majority of American voters would reject a competent, otherwise electable female or African-American or Hispanic-American ( emphasis on the word "competent" ).

I don't really give a carp what political party gets into power next time, but if they both choose a political hack ( which is what I think most of the ones in office now really are! ), then I'll have to lodge a protest of some sort. Heh!

Oh, I don't know about that. I've met some idiots who I swear are as stupid as all the other idiots in the world combined. :D
[ runs that through his "logic board" ]

Computer voice: "That statement does not compute. Please re-enter data and try again." :D

But if you have a representative democracy you can still have populist politicians who have no ideals and campaign just on what will get them votes, with similar results to direct democracy. Ideology is inevitably going to be part of politics, but I agree that people need to look at the real world instead of basing all their opinions on abstract principles.
Frankly, I don't give a crap if an office-seeker has "ideals" or not. Sounds too close to ideology for my tastes. What I DO care about is their performace history and their character.

They're heads are already empty. They fill them up with lobby money. Money pushes out sense. We'll need some other plan.
I've often wondered what would happen if we passed a law that said every candidate for any elective office will be granted sufficient funds to match those of the major party candidates. Yes, it would be a bit pricey, but it wouldn't be unconstitutional ( IMHO ), and it would at least give the non-major party candidates a fighting chance.

Personally, I would love to grab all the ideological Republicans in one hand and all the ideological Democrats in the other and shake them until their heads were empty, then pour some sense into their empty little heads! Grrrr! :mad:

Well, you're halfway there. Their heads are already empty.

Sense is in short supply, though. We've been running a serious common sense deficit since about 1947. It seems that there is only so much common sense to go around, and with the rapid increase in world population post-WWII, there just isn't enough any more for everyone to have some.

:rolleyes:

Frankly, I don't give a crap if an office-seeker has "ideals" or not. Sounds too close to ideology for my tastes. What I DO care about is their performace history and their character.

Sure, but performance can't be measured objectively, ideology is always involved to some extent. If a country's economy grows fast but so does its poverty rate and unemployment, whether or not it is being run well depends on ideology.

[ runs that through his "logic board" ]

Computer voice: "That statement does not compute. Please re-enter data and try again." :D
Spend more time talking to people; you'll figure out what I mean.

(Unless, of course.... :p )

Sure, but performance can't be measured objectively, ideology is always involved to some extent. If a country's economy grows fast but so does its poverty rate and unemployment, whether or not it is being run well depends on ideology.
Whether or not the economy is being run well depends on a series of complex factors, some of which we can influence ( the prime lending rate, for example ), and some of which we have no control over whatsoever ( Katrina ).

Spend more time talking to people; you'll figure out what I mean.

(Unless, of course.... :p )
:rolleyes:

Well, you're halfway there. Their heads are already empty.

Sense is in short supply, though. We've been running a serious common sense deficit since about 1947. It seems that there is only so much common sense to go around, and with the rapid increase in world population post-WWII, there just isn't enough any more for everyone to have some.

:rolleyes:
GOD, I hope you're wrong! :eek: :headbang:

I don't think the majority of American voters would reject a competent, otherwise electable female or African-American or Hispanic-American ( emphasis on the word "competent" ).
I'd be willing to take a $5 bet on that one. You have more faith in Americans than I do.

I don't give a damn who wins, just as long as they're a complete human being, and prefibly someone who has been poor before and not born into wealth, also someone who's actually been engaged in combat through military service.

I'd be willing to take a $5 bet on that one. You have more faith in Americans than I do.
I have to ... they were my bosses for many years. :p

Raise that bet to $500 and you're on! :D

I've often wondered what would happen if we passed a law that said every candidate for any elective office will be granted sufficient funds to match those of the major party candidates. Yes, it would be a bit pricey, but it wouldn't be unconstitutional ( IMHO ), and it would at least give the non-major party candidates a fighting chance.
See my post #20 in which I suggest doing the mirror-opposite of that -- limiting even the richest/most-connected candidates to a small budget that the non-majors could also manage. Same difference, but cheaper for taxpayers.

I don't give a damn who wins, just as long as they're a complete human being, and prefibly someone who has been poor before and not born into wealth, also someone who's actually been engaged in combat through military service.
I like all of those with the addition of someone who has owned their own business and has been at least moderately successful with it. :)

Whether or not the economy is being run well depends on a series of complex factors, some of which we can influence ( the prime lending rate, for example ), and some of which we have no control over whatsoever ( Katrina ).

I don't think I was very clear... Whether or not people evaluate the country as being run well depends on ideology. We can look at how the leader has managed the economy and what they have done about poverty, how we evaluate it is strongly influenced by ideology.

See my post #20 in which I suggest doing the mirror-opposite of that -- limiting even the richest/most-connected candidates to a small budget that the non-majors could also manage. Same difference, but cheaper for taxpayers.
Which would almost immediately be ruled unconstitutional.

I don't think I was very clear... Whether or not people evaluate the country as being run well depends on ideology. We can look at how the leader has managed the economy and what they have done about poverty, how we evaluate it is strongly influenced by ideology.
I disagree. How we evaluate how well "the economy" is doing depends upon what's in our walletts.

EDIT: What's in your wallett? :D

I have to ... they were my bosses for many years. :p

Raise that bet to $500 and you're on! :D
You're Mexican? ;)

I don't have $500 to lose, in case my pessimism turns out to be misplaced (I wish).

I like all of those with the addition of someone who has owned their own business and has been at least moderately successful with it. :)

Yes, that's a requirement. Also their children have to be intelligent and sohpisticated or at least decent, not drug addicts and party animals with no signs of intelligence (not a knock on Bush's daughters but hey, if they're a reflection of who he is then...) :p

You're Mexican? ;)

I don't have $500 to lose, in case my pessimism turns out to be misplaced (I wish).
Dude! Put up or shut up! :D

Also their children have to be intelligent and sohpisticated or at least decent, not drug addicts and party animals with no signs of intelligence (not a knock on Bush's daughters but hey, if they're a reflection of who he is then...) :p
Illogical, since every adult is responsible for her/his own actions. Also probably unconstitutional. :p

Illogical, since every adult is responsible for her/his own actions. Also probably unconstitutional. :p

I think some people should have their adulthood revoked :D .

Which would almost immediately be ruled unconstitutional.
By corporations, yes.

Seriously, I think its constitutionality would be legally debatable. On the one hand, you would be limiting citizens' ability to financially contribute to/support the candidate/party of their choice (which itself is debatable as a constitutional right). On the other hand, you would be opening up the political process to many more players and taking measures to prevent political corruption, both of which are good for democracy. Duelling constitutional benefits. Something for constitutional lawyers to work out in the judiciary branch.

Now we just have to wait until we can get an independent judiciary back...

Dude! Put up or shut up! :D
Hey, man!! I proposed my bet. You want to up the stakes, vote for a party that will pay a living wage.

(What's in my wallet? Not frickin' much.)

I disagree. How we evaluate how well "the economy" is doing depends upon what's in our walletts.

EDIT: What's in your wallett? :D
Economies run themselves. Politicians either take credit or lay blame for them. When they take direct action, they either damage the economy immediately, or they create short-term benefits that become damaging when economic conditions change.

Thus, all economic legislation should have "sunset" provisions.

I suppose this makes me a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, huh?

The Republicans will win due to two reasons; Howard Dean is running the show and the only name that has been circulating for '08 is Hillary and if she runs then she'll never win. If she runs we could put up Tom DeLay and he'd even win. Why? Because Hillary is evil. Why does everyone think Hillary is evil? Well she sold her soul to the Devil. If only we still had a politician like Grover Cleveland in this country; Honest, dutiful, dedicated and bipartisan.

By corporations, yes.

Seriously, I think its constitutionality would be legally debatable. On the one hand, you would be limiting citizens' ability to financially contribute to/support the candidate/party of their choice (which itself is debatable as a constitutional right). On the other hand, you would be opening up the political process to many more players and taking measures to prevent political corruption, both of which are good for democracy. Duelling constitutional benefits. Something for constitutional lawyers to work out in the judiciary branch.

Now we just have to wait until we can get an independent judiciary back...
Didn't realize we had lost it! :p

Latest Constitutional law on this subject:

"Money talks:" Does that mean cash contributions are "speech" within the meaning of the First Amendment? In Buckley v Valeo (1976), the Supreme Court answered, "Yes"--at least for cash contributions to political campaigns. The Court concluded that money is an essential ingredient of a modern political campaign, being required to rent halls, pay for candidate travel, and--most importantly--but advertising time and space. As such, cash contributions are too closely tied to expressive activities to be considered merely "conduct."

Buckley considered the constitutionality of a federal campaign financing law that imposed numerous restrictions on both candidate's own spending and the contributions of individuals to campaigns. The challenge to the act was brought by unlikely political bedfellows, including conservative Senator James Buckley and liberal anti-war candidate Eugene McCarthy.

The Court in Buckley upheld some of the provisions of the act, while striking down others. In particular, the Court invalidated limits placed on the personal expenditures of candidates for federal office, thus paving the way for runs by wealthy candidates such as Ross Perot in 1992. The Court also struck down a $1000 limit on individual spending on behalf of a campaign, concluding that the restriction was not closely tailored to serving the government's asserted interest in preventing corruption. On the other hand, the Court upheld limits on individual contributions to campaigns and the use of federal matching funds for candidates who agree to abide by federal spending limits. The Court also upheld donor disclosure requirements, except as they apply to controversial third parties where disclosure might prove embarrassing to donors.

The Republicans will win due to two reasons; Howard Dean is running the show and the only name that has been circulating for '08 is Hillary and if she runs then she'll never win. If she runs we could put up Tom DeLay and he'd even win. Why? Because Hillary is evil. Why does everyone think Hillary is evil? Well she sold her soul to the Devil. If only we still had a politician like Grover Cleveland in this country; Honest, dutiful, dedicated and bipartisan.
Or "Silent Calvin Cooledge!" :D

Didn't realize we had lost it! :p

Latest Constitutional law on this subject:

"Money talks:" Does that mean cash contributions are "speech" within the meaning of the First Amendment? In Buckley v Valeo (1976), the Supreme Court answered, "Yes"--at least for cash contributions to political campaigns. The Court concluded that money is an essential ingredient of a modern political campaign, being required to rent halls, pay for candidate travel, and--most importantly--but advertising time and space. As such, cash contributions are too closely tied to expressive activities to be considered merely "conduct."

Buckley considered the constitutionality of a federal campaign financing law that imposed numerous restrictions on both candidate's own spending and the contributions of individuals to campaigns. The challenge to the act was brought by unlikely political bedfellows, including conservative Senator James Buckley and liberal anti-war candidate Eugene McCarthy.

The Court in Buckley upheld some of the provisions of the act, while striking down others. In particular, the Court invalidated limits placed on the personal expenditures of candidates for federal office, thus paving the way for runs by wealthy candidates such as Ross Perot in 1992. The Court also struck down a $1000 limit on individual spending on behalf of a campaign, concluding that the restriction was not closely tailored to serving the government's asserted interest in preventing corruption. On the other hand, the Court upheld limits on individual contributions to campaigns and the use of federal matching funds for candidates who agree to abide by federal spending limits. The Court also upheld donor disclosure requirements, except as they apply to controversial third parties where disclosure might prove embarrassing to donors.
Yes, I know they did this. They were wrong.

EDIT: I disagree with the primary assumption that monetary political contributions = speech. I think valid arguments could be made that they are not speech and do not have to be protected from limitations. That decision could go either way, and therefore, if the subject comes up again, the above-mentioned decision could be reversed without violating the Constitution.

Second, there are too many loopholes in disclosure regulations. Lots of money and sources of money go unreported. So they cannot be called an effective substitute for campaign budget limitations. Blanket transparency on everything would close many of these loopholes. As for protecting the identity of members "controversial third parties," this seems like a backlash against McCarthyism. Too much of a backlash, imo. I want to know where my candidate's money is coming from, whether its Halliburton, or fundamentalist churches, or the Aryan Nation.

Hey, man!! I proposed my bet. You want to up the stakes, vote for a party that will pay a living wage.

(What's in my wallet? Not frickin' much.)
LOL! Join the frakkin' CLUB, Dude! :headbang:

Yes, I know they did this. They were wrong.
Second-guessing the "nine black beetles?" OMG! :eek:

This is why I'm going fund the Washington party, which will be centrist and not left or right.

I think some people should have their adulthood revoked :D .
ROFL! Good idea! I get to pick who! :D

This is why I'm going fund the Washington party, which will be centrist and not left or right.
Fascinating. Good luck. :rolleyes:

This is why I'm going fund the Washington party, which will be centrist and not left or right.

In opposition, I will found the Bi-Polar party, which is both right and left, conservative and liberal, libertarian and bureaucratic, authoritarian and anarchistic, lassez faire and pro-active.

Economies run themselves. Politicians either take credit or lay blame for them. When they take direct action, they either damage the economy immediately, or they create short-term benefits that become damaging when economic conditions change.

Thus, all economic legislation should have "sunset" provisions.

I suppose this makes me a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, huh?
Not sure about the nomenclature, but puts you in approximately the same ballpark as me. How do you feel about the military, and international relations? ;)

Economies don't "run themselves," fiscal and monetary policies ( and a host of other "levers" ) strongly influence economics. That's why the Federal Reserve Board ( among other quasi-governmental agencies ) was created as a largely independent entity.

*blinks* allocations to the big brands got priority because there are a hell of a lot more gas stations selling big brand gasoline than unbranded. As for his troubles with his supplier, how exactly is Bush supposed to fix that? Does he have a magic wand he can wave to fix the problem?

In opposition, I will found the Bi-Polar party, which is both right and left, conservative and liberal, libertarian and bureaucratic, authoritarian and anarchistic, lassez faire and pro-active.
Dude! You're ... conflicted. ;)

Second-guessing the "nine black beetles?" OMG! :eek:
Lawyers in drag don't intimidate me. :D

(See my edits above.)

*blinks* allocatoins to the big brands got priority because there are a hell of a lot more gas stations selling big brand gasoline than unbranded. As for his troubles with his supplier, how exactly is Bush supposed to fix that? Does he have a mgic wand he can wave to fix the problem?
No. :rolleyes:

It is, however, a "pocketbook" issue, and not just for the unbranded suppliers.

Economies don't "run themselves," fiscal and monetary policies ( and a host of other "levers" ) strongly influence economics. That's why the Federal Reserve Board ( among other quasi-governmental agencies ) was created as a largely independent entity.
Sure they run themselves. All the things you listed are controls, not creating forces. Governments follow and seek to control economies; they don't make them. It's like a herding culture -- you know, back in the day, the reindeer ran around and the people followed them, tried to steer them, get ahead of them, fenced them, hobbled them so they could be milked, etc. But the reindeer were there first. If there were no people, there would still be reindeer. If the entire government were abducted by aliens tonight, business would still be going on tomorrow, and "the economy" would recover.

Not sure about the nomenclature, but puts you in approximately the same ballpark as me. How do you feel about the military, and international relations? ;)
You'll have to be more specific, E.

Sure they run themselves. All the things you listed are controls, not creating forces. Governments follow and seek to control economies; they don't make them. It's like a herding culture -- you know, back in the day, the reindeer ran around and the people followed them, tried to steer them, get ahead of them, fenced them, hobbled them so they could be milked, etc. But the reindeer were there first. If there were no people, there would still be reindeer. If the entire government were abducted by aliens tonight, business would still be going on tomorrow, and "the economy" would recover.
Ah! Ok. I misunderstood your other post. My bad. :)

I seriously doubt Hillary can win the Presidency. Sorry about that.

I've seen a couple of polls on that here on NS. With as many libs as NS has, she still lost. I wonder who will run for the Dems...I wonder who will run for the Republicans. Should be an interesting race whoever runs.

You'll have to be more specific, E.
Ok.

I believe, based on my experience, that the world can be and often is a dangerous place, particularly for nonsectarian democracies. As a consequence, I favor a strong, well-funded, highly trained, technologically advanced military.

In international relations, I will assume ( all other things being equal ) that nations will do what their leaders see as "in our best interest." It therefore behooves the US, as the world's sole "super-power," to "sieze the high ground" by advocating that which is in the best interests of all people, whenever possible.

How's that? :)

Ah! Ok. I misunderstood your other post. My bad. :)
I need to work on my delivery. That reindeer story should not have made more sense than my original post. <self-directed sarcasm> ;)

Don't get me wrong -- I'm all for a Jewish, black, female president,

I wonder where they can find a Jewish, black, female to run for president. :D

I've seen a couple of polls on that here on NS. With as many libs as NS has, she still lost. I wonder who will run for the Dems...I wonder who will run for the Republicans. Should be an interesting race whoever runs.
I am leaning toward a Republican ticket headed by Rudolph Guilianni ( I would prefer Colin Powell, but he probably wouldn't run ), with General Russell Honore as VP.

Suggestions for the Democratic ticket?

I wonder where they can find a Jewish, black, female to run for president. :D
Heh! There must be one out there somewhere! :D

I think that the US needs to be saved from ideologies ... of ALL types! :headbang:
So spreading democracy to faraway countries is not an ideology?

In international relations, I will assume ( all other things being equal ) that nations will do what their leaders see as "in our best interest." It therefore behooves the US, as the world's sole "super-power," to "sieze the high ground" by advocating that which is in the best interests of all people, whenever possible.

I like your internationalist sensibilities. It's probably a good idea that the US sustains an unchallengeable military.

This, by the way, is also certainly an ideology.

I'd love to see a Ron Paul presidency.

So spreading democracy to faraway countries is not an ideology?


I like your internationalist sensibilities. It's probably a good idea that the US sustains an unchallengeable military.

This, by the way, is also certainly an ideology.
Hardly! It's a matter of survival. :p

Multparty systems aren't all that great either and can actually make a representative democracy less representative. Say you have a voting body for your government that is composed of 45% Libertians, 45% Orthodoxians and 10% Monster Raving Loonies (http://www.omrlp.com/) (it's just such a great name for a political party! :D). Any time an issue comes up for a vote, the Libertians and the Orthodoxians naturally oppose each other as a matter of principal and you wind up with the Monster Raving Loonies making all the decisions.
That's why run-off voting is needed.

I am leaning toward a Republican ticket headed by Rudolph Guilianni ( I would prefer Colin Powell, but he probably wouldn't run ), with General Russell Honore as VP.

Suggestions for the Democratic ticket?

Killer ticket. For the Democratic ticket how about Leiberman and McCain. Maybe they could convince McCain to switch parties.

Hardly! It's a matter of survival. :p

A neutral, non-interventionist foreign policy would be a much greater guarantor of survival.

I am leaning toward a Republican ticket headed by Rudolph Guilianni ( I would prefer Colin Powell, but he probably wouldn't run ), with General Russell Honore as VP.

Suggestions for the Democratic ticket?

Is Honore a Republican?

I'd love to see a Ron Paul presidency.
Never heard of him. Sorry.

Grover Cleveland is the best President we have ever had.

Is Honore a Republican?
No idea. Draft his ass! :D

A neutral, non-interventionist foreign policy would be a much greater guarantor of survival.
Thank you, George Washington! :p

COMMENTARY: When the average little guy faces a multitude of problems, as this guy is doing, political change happens. If the Democrats can dump their ideological idiocy, they will win in 2008. If they can't? Who the hell knows? :rolleyes:

Unfortunately for the Democrats, this multitude of problems was created by the Democrats in the first place - they succumbed to the green lobby and prevented any construction of new refineries over the last 30 years. Oh, and they are on record persistently saying that gas prices must be higher.

Killer ticket. For the Democratic ticket how about Leiberman and McCain. Maybe they could convince McCain to switch parties.
Not bad. Not bad.

But I seriously doubt McCain would switch.

Ok.

I believe, based on my experience, that the world can be and often is a dangerous place, particularly for nonsectarian democracies. As a consequence, I favor a strong, well-funded, highly trained, technologically advanced military.

In international relations, I will assume ( all other things being equal ) that nations will do what their leaders see as "in our best interest." It therefore behooves the US, as the world's sole "super-power," to "sieze the high ground" by advocating that which is in the best interests of all people, whenever possible.

How's that? :)
Good enough!

I agree with you 100% about the need for a strong, well-funded, highly trained, technologically advanced military. I wish we had one. I believe that what we do have is a politically mismanaged military burdened by a bloated, over-funded, pork-addicted military-industrial complex that is making it increasingly difficult for the brave men and women in uniform to come home alive and with all limbs attached. Every year, it seems, they spend more money, and we get less for it. I also believe there is a trend among civilians with influence on the military (ie, the president, the cabinet, lobbyists) to want to use the military as a way to make use of and, thus, control, the poor -- not a military objective. All my problems with the military are at the political level.

As for international relations, I disagree with you nearly 100% that governments usually act in the interests of their people. Left to their own devices, politicians within governments will enrich themselves at expense of their people and everyone else, every chance they get. This is why people MUST be politically aware and active.

Also, on the super-power issue, I disagree again. I do not believe it is in the US's best interests to try to maintain super-power status. Our enemies are extremely dangerous and extremely political. Our attempts at hegemony merely fuel their recruitment/propaganda engines and keep the focus on us as most desirable target. Also, we are spending money -- and borrowing money -- like there's no tomorrow trying to stay in first place. I happen to believe that all this borrowing is essentially exporting our economy (the reindeer!) to be controlled by other countries -- increasingly, that means China. Yeah, they're interested in the US being the sole super-power. Right.

I say it's time to take an expansive, statesmanlike stance that the cold war is over and, thus so is the need for super-powers (logical leap, but who cares, this is politics). Do some mea culpas over Iraq and whatever else our European allies are feeling snippy about, and gracefully let them take the driver's seat for a while. I would like to see an international, intercontinental coalition in which the US is not the official leader. I would like to see this coupled with a slight increase in political isolationism within the US -- a return to Washington's advice to avoid foreign entanglements. Obviously, with the biggest military and, if we can stop parceling it out to China, the biggest economy, we will still have leadership-level influence on most issues.

Somehow I manage to be both isolationist and internationalist at the same time. It does make sense, but I'll have to think up some other livestock analogy to explain it. ;)

Never heard of him. Sorry.

Ron Paul=the only member of Congress who gives a damn about the Constitution

A neutral, non-interventionist foreign policy would be a much greater guarantor of survival.

Uh, like in the 1930s when Japan attacked the US from one side and Germany from the other? Yeah, right. 4 or 5 billion people in the world want us all dead and we can just stay neutral!

Unfortunately for the Democrats, this multitude of problems was created by the Democrats in the first place - they succumbed to the green lobby and prevented any construction of new refineries over the last 30 years. Oh, and they are on record persistently saying that gas prices must be higher.
I must reluctantly agree with this position. If the price of gasoline continues to rise, it will increase the pressure to develop alternative fuels and environmentally friendly modes of transportation, two things I believe are absoultely necessary if we are to leave behind anything for our progeny. :(

I do not believe that Democrats will be making any gains in many elections. I know that they are working hard to take Kentucky but most people have come to realize the democrats for what they are, and many feel that another democrat would repeat the mistakes of the Carter administration. They can stage all kinds of made-for-tv dramas but the people, from what I can tell, simply don't have the heart for democrat rhetoric anymore, their legal witch hunts against the republicans simply do not have much popular support, nor has it generated as much interest as they would have hoped.

Uh, like in the 1930s when Japan attacked the US from one side and Germany from the other? Yeah, right. 4 or 5 billion people in the world want us all dead and we can just stay neutral!

Newsflash: We weren't neutral in the 1930s.

Ron Paul=the only member of Congress who gives a damn about the Constitution
More please. Too busy to go look him up right now.

Uh, like in the 1930s when Japan attacked the US from one side and Germany from the other? Yeah, right. 4 or 5 billion people in the world want us all dead and we can just stay neutral!
Why do 4 or 5 billion people want us dead? And why do you know better than 4 or 5 billion people? Maybe if that many people wanted us dead... there'd be a rather good reason for the killing. Your argument is juvenile.

We are not Team America World Police. We just think we are and that's much more dangerous.

More please. Too busy to go look him up right now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

http://www.house.gov/paul

Also, on the super-power issue, I disagree again. I do not believe it is in the US's best interests to try to maintain super-power status. Our enemies are extremely dangerous and extremely political. Our attempts at hegemony merely fuel their recruitment/propaganda engines and keep the focus on us as most desirable target.

Look, what really fuels propaganda engines, is our prosperity combined with freedom. As long as we set such a powerful example, we represent a mortal threat to China, Iran and a lot of other countries (just as West Germany was a mortal threat to East Germany without even doing anything to it - simply by presenting an attractive alternative). Thus they will hate us and try to destroy us no matter what we do (short of establishing a third world dictatorship at home). So we might as well get on with the program and fight them back.

Why do 4 or 5 billion people want us dead? And why do you know better than 4 or 5 billion people? Maybe if that many people wanted us dead... there'd be a rather good reason for the killing. Your argument is juvenile.

We are not Team America World Police. We just think we are and that's much more dangerous.

It is YOUR argument that is juvenile. Please explain what "rather good reason" the Germans had for murdering the Jews (by your logic they MUST have had such a reason) and also for what "rather good reason" the KKK hates blacks, Jews and Catholics.

Envy is a very powerful force in the world. Plus, most people in the world are irrational (rational thinking is limited only to the West). If you had lived outside the West for a long time (like I did) you would have known.

I agree with you 100% about the need for a strong, well-funded, highly trained, technologically advanced military. I wish we had one. I believe that what we do have is a politically mismanaged military burdened by a bloated, over-funded, pork-addicted military-industrial complex that is making it increasingly difficult for the brave men and women in uniform to come home alive and with all limbs attached. Every year, it seems, they spend more money, and we get less for it. I also believe there is a trend among civilians with influence on the military (ie, the president, the cabinet, lobbyists) to want to use the military as a way to make use of and, thus, control, the poor -- not a military objective. All my problems with the military are at the political level.
I have no idea what you're talking about when you say that the military is used to "control the poor." IMHO, you're correct about the military being a convenient repository for "pork," however.


As for international relations, I disagree with you nearly 100% that governments usually act in the interests of their people. Left to their own devices, politicians within governments will enrich themselves at expense of their people and everyone else, every chance they get. This is why people MUST be politically aware and active.
That's why I phrased my statement that way. The "our" can refer to either "us as a nation," or "those of us who are in charge of the purse-strings."


Also, on the super-power issue, I disagree again. I do not believe it is in the US's best interests to try to maintain super-power status. Our enemies are extremely dangerous and extremely political. Our attempts at hegemony merely fuel their recruitment/propaganda engines and keep the focus on us as most desirable target. Also, we are spending money -- and borrowing money -- like there's no tomorrow trying to stay in first place. I happen to believe that all this borrowing is essentially exporting our economy (the reindeer!) to be controlled by other countries -- increasingly, that means China. Yeah, they're interested in the US being the sole super-power. Right.
Doing nothing is a worse alternative, IMHO, when it comes to those who oppose us. Failure to maintain our position as "super-power" could easily devolve to relegating us to the dustbin of history. I do, however, agree on the continuing reliance on foreign funding.


I say it's time to take an expansive, statesmanlike stance that the cold war is over and, thus so is the need for super-powers (logical leap, but who cares, this is politics). Do some mea culpas over Iraq and whatever else our European allies are feeling snippy about, and gracefully let them take the driver's seat for a while. I would like to see an international, intercontinental coalition in which the US is not the official leader. I would like to see this coupled with a slight increase in political isolationism within the US -- a return to Washington's advice to avoid foreign entanglements. Obviously, with the biggest military and, if we can stop parceling it out to China, the biggest economy, we will still have leadership-level influence on most issues.
IMHO, isolationism=decline and fall.


Somehow I manage to be both isolationist and internationalist at the same time. It does make sense, but I'll have to think up some other livestock analogy to explain it. ;)
Heh! Quite a trick, that. ;)

Killer ticket. For the Democratic ticket how about Leiberman and McCain. Maybe they could convince McCain to switch parties.
I don't trust Lieberman. And, even if I did, he's Jewish -- though not black and female. :p

Realistically, though, I wonder who the Republicans will put up next. Will there be a split between moderates and neo-cons? I suppose it depends on how the Congressional races go.

As for the Democrats, the pickings are slim. I happened to have liked Bill Clinton, but I don't dig Hillary. He struck me as a "real" politician -- filthy, self-serving but professional. She strikes me as power-hungry. I really think she only stayed married to that hound because she wanted to be in the White House. He was her meal ticket.

I like Kerry's record overall, but based on the campaign he ran, he doesn't have what it takes to get a government on track. I was impressed by John Edwards, but I see him more as VP material. I was also impressed by Wes Clark, but I can see how he alienated a lot of voters -- too cerebral. Americans seem to admire stupidity these days. Pity. He should have been easy to sell as a candidate -- decorated officer, passionate, telegenic. Maybe he's too short...

How about Clark/Edwards, with Edwards doing most of the talking?

Look, what really fuels propaganda engines, is our prosperity combined with freedom. As long as we set such a powerful example, we represent a mortal threat to China, Iran and a lot of other countries (just as West Germany was a mortal threat to East Germany without even doing anything to it - simply by presenting an attractive alternative). Thus they will hate us and try to destroy us no matter what we do (short of establishing a third world dictatorship at home). So we might as well get on with the program and fight them back.
I disagree with you -- both your primary assumption about why we are a target, and your conclusion as to the best response.

Envy is a very powerful force in the world. Plus, most people in the world are irrational (rational thinking is limited only to the West). If you had lived outside the West for a long time (like I did) you would have known.
And very few Westerners at that, apparently.

You know, crazy people think they're the only ones in the crowd who understand things, too.

I was impressed by John Edwards, but I see him more as VP material.

How about Clark/Edwards, with Edwards doing most of the talking?
That dog won't hunt.

Edwards was our governor here in NC and almost ruined the State! My impression of him is "empty pretty-boy suit." :(

I disagree with you -- both your primary assumption about why we are a target, and your conclusion as to the best response.
The Jihadists want to re-establish the Caliphate and would thus oppose anyone and anything which gets in their way. We're simply a high-profile target as the most powerful secular Nation on the planet.

Well, really the Dems deserve to win.....I mean really, WHY are we fighting a war again? inocents: :rolleyes: :sniper: ......really people. :headbang: and what about the injustice to many dems because repubs are actually doing the injustice...............maybe we shouldn't have parties and get togeter in harmony........ :fluffle: (yah right) that's my side! :cool:

Well, really the Dems deserve to win.....I mean really, WHY are we fighting a war again? inocents: :rolleyes: :sniper: ......really people. :headbang: and what about the injustice to many dems because repubs are actually doing the injustice...............maybe we shouldn't have parties and get togeter in harmony........ :fluffle: (yah right) that's my side! :cool:
Um ... ok. :rolleyes:

I'm a Libertarian, so I'm going to give it to you straight and unbiased. The party in control has changed throughout history. The Democrats were in control of congress and the white house for a VERY long time.... Even before the 1900's the Democrats had control of congress... Ironically enough, the Democrats were actually the conservative party at the time and the Republicans were the liberal ones.... Now the Republicans are in control of congress and who knows when it will be given back to the democrats.... But the Democrats are having such a big problem with their ideology gap that the Republicans are probably going to win in 2008.... If they don't, it will be a very close race..... But take heart, Democrats, as an ideological divide is starting to take place in the Republican party.... Turning into the McCain/Guliani Republicans vs. the Neo-cons, versus the Reagan conservatives. The Democrat's time will come, but I doubt it will be 2008.... To reply to Brennan the greatest.... The founding fathers (if you read the Federalist Papers) were vehemently against political parties (which they called factions.) Having no political parties would definately be better for the U.S. electoral system, but it's an unavoidable thing.

I have no idea what you're talking about when you say that the military is used to "control the poor." IMHO, you're correct about the military being a convenient repository for "pork," however.



That's why I phrased my statement that way. The "our" can refer to either "us as a nation," or "those of us who are in charge of the purse-strings."



Doing nothing is a worse alternative, IMHO, when it comes to those who oppose us. Failure to maintain our position as "super-power" could easily devolve to relegating us to the dustbin of history. I do, however, agree on the continuing reliance on foreign funding.



IMHO, isolationism=decline and fall.



Heh! Quite a trick, that. ;)
By "controlling the poor" I'm talking about recruitment from among the poor. To the poor, the military is sold as a means of economic advancement and a source of health and housing benefits while underplaying the obligations and dangers that go with it. This is dishonest, imo -- even more so in light of rollbacks of veterans' benefits. There are those in this country, however, who see soldiering as a proper function for the poor since they lack the education and resources to do anything else, conveniently not asking themselves why they lack education and resources. It's right up there with the common American attitude that the poor deserve to be so for this or that reason. I see this as a pernicious and abusive attitude.

I think we disagree on the idea of "us as a nation." I don't believe there is any such "us/nation" entity. In my view, nations are artificial constructs that have certain very practical jobs -- allocation of resources, responding to threats from outsiders. They either serve the entire population of a region or serve only a minority while exploiting the rest. The residents of a region must be on their guard against their own leaders -- even the elected ones -- to make sure they do not lapse from serving into exploiting. I do not buy into the idea of "patriotism." "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel," imo.

I also disagree with you that giving up being the world's leader would be bad for us. A) We are a long way off from the "dustbin of history." Our economy, military, population, lifestyle, and politics are far too big and globally active for us stop influencing the world, even if we do give up official control to others. I'm not talking about what we do -- I'm talking about what we are *seen* to be doing -- especially by the people whose hearts and minds we claim to be trying to win. They may be less inclined to give up jeans, soda and democracy if they don't feel we are trying to shove it down their throats at the point of a gun.

B) If we were to start scaling back our "leadership" activities, we would gradually start freeing up capital that could be used domestically, thus helping stem the tide of foreign borrowing and outsourcing. If we keep going as we are, we will soon be vulnerable to foreign powers controlling much of our supplies of food, water, medecine, even weapons, and to foreign powers owning massive amounts of real estate (Britain, Germany and the Netherlands are already the biggest landlords in NYC, for instance), and owning the mortgages on real estate and other kinds of private debt, etc. Right now, China is already buying up proprietary control over technologies that are owned by private corporations (like IBM) but which are used in governmental and military applications. And those corporations, such as IBM, Microsoft, Yahoo, etc., are already cooperating with China to give them even greater and more invasive control over those technologies. We might as well just give them the goddamned codebooks, already.

Our government is selling out this country in order to keep up some 19th century charade of a power structure. If we keep playing this game, we will put ourselves entirely under the control of our enemies. I characterize it this way, because I don't trust China as far as I could throw it. They're playing the same 19th century game, and right now, they are playing it smarter than us.

That dog won't hunt.

Edwards was our governor here in NC and almost ruined the State! My impression of him is "empty pretty-boy suit." :(
Okay, I'll buy that. I lived in Vermont under Dean and there's no way I wanted him running the country, either.

The Democrats show no sign of " getting their act together " .

That dog won't hunt.

Edwards was our governor here in NC and almost ruined the State! My impression of him is "empty pretty-boy suit." :(

Not to mention Clarke being a beady eyed weasel with a Napolean complex.
There's another fellow that takes a poll to see what his opinion is . Just what we need .

It is YOUR argument that is juvenile. Please explain what "rather good reason" the Germans had for murdering the Jews (by your logic they MUST have had such a reason) and also for what "rather good reason" the KKK hates blacks, Jews and Catholics.

Envy is a very powerful force in the world. Plus, most people in the world are irrational (rational thinking is limited only to the West). If you had lived outside the West for a long time (like I did) you would have known.
You're right. I forgot about the five billion Germans that all agreed to kill the Jews.

Taking hate groups and supposing that I advocated mass killings in my argument is not looking at my argument in the way which I intended it. Maybe I should have been clearer. I do not believe that 5 billion people wish to see us dead.

I refuse to believe that the unpopularity of the US in the rest of the world is due to Envy. I refuse to believe that it is even a major contributing factor, though I wouldn't go so far as to say that it isn't a factor at all. But given that when we intervene, we often do more harm than good, it is not hard to understand our unpopularity in the world.

Your ideas of rational thinking only applying to the West just goes to show that you understood little in your travels. I've been to Harlem. They hate white people there. I've been to Alabama. They hate Northerners there. I've been to Canada. They hate... they strongly dislike... er... they're miffed at the United States. People who believe things like this are people I'd rather not associate with.

I don't know where you've been and I'm not sure that I care. Your teacup is full and you're asking me for more tea and it's just not going to work.

Good enough! ...BIG SNIP...Somehow I manage to be both isolationist and internationalist at the same time. It does make sense, but I'll have to think up some other livestock analogy to explain it. ;)

Very good. Although I don't agree fully with everything you said, there is a lot of good food for thought and contemplation here. Thank you.

The Jihadists want to re-establish the Caliphate and would thus oppose anyone and anything which gets in their way. We're simply a high-profile target as the most powerful secular Nation on the planet.
Only a few jihadists are interested in a caliphate. There are lots of justifications for jihadism.

Midlands was suggesting that they are motivated by envy of our wealth, freedom, etc. I suppose he thinks that they think that if they break us, the wealth will bleed out to them. I say their issues have nothing to do with that. In fact, I'll go as far as to say, their issues have nothing to do with us at all. The motives of a bin Laden or Hamas are entirely about personal enrichment and political power, and their rhetoric is lies designed to persuade and recruit fighters who otherwise would have no reason to trust them more than us.

I don't suggest we shouldn't defend ourselves from them. But I do say that if we don't paint ourselves as the leaders of the world, and actually follow the lead of other countries, this may undermine the propaganda they use for that recruiting. Of course, they will simply transfer the same accusations to other countries, but there's a kind of momentum to propaganda. It's easier to get followers to suicide-bomb Baghdad in the name of hitting one big enemy (the US), than it is is to get them to suicide-bomb anything in the name a whole bunch of other little fragmented things that don't have a clear relationship to each other or anything else. Hunters where camoflage when they go after turkey, don't they? It's not because the turkeys are winning.

(Ha! Livestock analogy!! :D )

Ron Paul=the only member of Congress who gives a damn about the Constitution

What about Byrd. He want's mandantory classes on the Constitution in the public schools. Can't say I disagree with that either.

Not to mention Clarke being a beady eyed weasel with a Napolean complex.
There's another fellow that takes a poll to see what his opinion is . Just what we need .
You only say that because he's short. :p

The Democrats show no sign of " getting their act together " .
Too true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

http://www.house.gov/paul

Your first source is not a credible source, however I will accept the second. Thank you.

What about Byrd. He want's mandantory classes on the Constitution in the public schools. Can't say I disagree with that either.
Byrd's a good man, but too old for the job?

Very good. Although I don't agree fully with everything you said, there is a lot of good food for thought and contemplation here. Thank you.
Glad to be of service. :)

Envy is a very powerful force in the world. Plus, most people in the world are irrational (rational thinking is limited only to the West). If you had lived outside the West for a long time (like I did) you would have known.

I've lived in Asia, Europe, and spent a lot of time in the Middle East. I take exception to your statement "rational thinking is limited only to the West." :mad: The statement is not true nor is it supported by fact or reality.

Byrd's a good man, but too old for the job?

Sheets Byrd? The Klansman? You're kidding right?

Well really, at least the Democrats are the closest thing you have to moderates. Until a better option comes along, makes more sense to vote Democrat then the right wing fantics of the Republican party.

My husband and I often get a chuckle when we hear people in the USA call the Democrats "liberals" not even close to liberals people. In fact the USA doesn't seem to even know what left-wing means. Those of us in the rest of the free world point and laugh.. the Democrats in Canada would be the Conservatives..lol

I've lived in Asia, Europe, and spent a lot of time in the Middle East. I take exception to your statement "rational thinking is limited only to the West." :mad: The statement is not true nor is it supported by fact or reality.
Said better than my attempt to say the same thing.

Hardly! It's a matter of survival. :p
Most countries seem to get by without doing regime change abroad. Let me just show you again what you said:

It therefore behooves the US, as the world's sole "super-power," to "sieze the high ground" by advocating that which is in the best interests of all people, whenever possible.
This is idealism! I agree with it, so it is the good kind of idealism. Don't be ashamed of it. Admit it, you have an ideology. Nobody here really lacks one.

Somehow I manage to be both isolationist and internationalist at the same time. It does make sense, but I'll have to think up some other livestock analogy to explain it. ;)
It's weird, the US liberals are isolationalist, but internationalist; and conservatives are interventionist, yet insular. I wish someone would get some consistency!

just as West Germany was a mortal threat to East Germany without even doing anything to it - simply by presenting an attractive alternative
or... like Cuba? They had to be destroyed too.

Well, really the Dems deserve to win.....I mean really, WHY are we fighting a war again? inocents: :rolleyes: :sniper: ......really people. :headbang: and what about the injustice to many dems because repubs are actually doing the injustice...............maybe we shouldn't have parties and get togeter in harmony........ :fluffle: (yah right) that's my side! :cool:
aargh, too many smilies.

Your first source is not a credible source, however I will accept the second. Thank you.
What, you don't even trust wikipedia to tell you who Ron Paul is?

Lets see to get back on topic..What do you think of Joe Biden ? Mark Warner of Virginia ? Phil Bredesen is another .


http://www.bredesen.com/about%20gpb.htm


Why Mark Warner?


The Democratic Party is at a crossroad. Never in the history of the party has there been a more urgent need for a “New-Centrist” form of leadership.

As one of only five Democratic governors in southern Republican ‘red’ states, Governor Mark Warner has demonstrated that a moderate candidate who speaks to traditional American core values, can win elections and more importantly, can build consensus and govern successfully.


A Winner:


Governor Warner was elected in 2001 breaking an eight-year Republican reign on state government.At that time, Dr. Dennis Logue Jr., LC assistant professor of political science, said. “He set up the idea that Republicans couldn’t govern.”

During the 2001 election, voters gave the Republicans a 64-seat majority in the House of Delegates compared to the Democrats 34 seats. Two Independents pledged to caucus with the Republicans.“Power-sharing is out the window,” Logue said in reference to an agreement both parties had when the House was split more evenly. (Source-David Griles, Critograph Reporter)


A Record of Accomplishment:


Governor Mark Warner inherited a $6 billion budget shortfall but built an alliance with Republican Senate Finance Chairman John Chichester and a coalition of other Republicans to solve Virginia’s fiscal problems and protect its AAA Bond Rating. By 2004, Virginia’s red ink was erased.


Mark Warner could have taken the path many politicians take...balancing the budget on the backs of the poor and jeopardizing important issues like education, transportation, and health care. That did not happen.


Virginia realized $1.5 billion in new funding for education, the largest increase in history. At the same time, 140,000 citizens no longer have to file taxes and other programs like Child Health Care and Transportation are receiving the attention they deserve.





Governor Warner’s colleagues at the National Governors Association expressed their confidence in his superb leadership skills by naming him Chairman in July 2004. Governing Magazine was so impressed with Mark Warner’s abilities and bipartisn style of governing, they named him and Republican Senate Finance Chairman John Chichester “Public Officials of the Year” in 2004.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By JOSEPH R. BIDEN Jr. and RICHARD G. LUGAR

WASHINGTON — Through tragedy and pain, Americans have learned a great deal this past year about why foreign policy matters. In recent months, President Bush has made clear his determination to remove Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein from power — a goal many of us in Congress share. But to date we've seen only leaked reports of competing military plans. These have reflected deep divisions within the administration about whether and how to proceed. The time has come for a serious discussion of American policy toward Iraq.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will begin in-depth hearings today. While the White House supports the hearings — which have been coordinated closely by Democrats and Republicans on the committee — administration officials will not participate at this time lest the president be put in the position of having to make critical decisions prematurely.

Without prejudging any particular course of action — including the possibility of staying with nonmilitary options — we hope to start a national discussion of some critical questions.

First, what threat does Iraq pose to our security? How immediate is the danger? President Bush is right to be concerned about Saddam Hussein's relentless pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. It's true that other regimes hostile to the United States and our allies have, or seek to acquire, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. What makes Mr. Hussein unique is that he has actually used them — against his own people and against his Iranian neighbors. And for nearly four years, Iraq has blocked the return of United Nations weapons inspectors. We need to explore Mr. Hussein's track record in acquiring, making and using weapons of mass destruction and the likelihood he would share them with terrorists. We also need a clear assessment of his current capabilities, including conventional forces and weapons.

Second, what are the possible responses to the Iraqi threat? The containment strategy pursued by the United States since the end of the Persian Gulf war has kept Mr. Hussein boxed in. Continuing the containment strategy, coupled with a tough weapons-inspection program, is one option. But it raises the risk that Mr. Hussein will play cat-and-mouse with inspectors while building more weapons and selling them to those who would use them against us. If we wait for the danger to become clear and present, it may be too late. That is why some believe removing Mr. Hussein from power is the better course.

A military response poses other problems. Some argue that by attacking Mr. Hussein, we might precipitate the very thing we are trying to prevent: his use of weapons of mass destruction. There also is concern he might try to spark a regional war. We must determine whether resources can be shifted to a major military undertaking in Iraq without compromising the war on terror elsewhere. We have to ask how much military intervention would cost and consider its likely impact on our economy. And we need to determine what level of support we are likely to get from allies in the Middle East and Europe.

Third, when Saddam Hussein is gone, what would be our responsibilities? This question has not been explored but may prove to be the most critical. In Afghanistan, the war was prosecuted successfully, but many of us believe our commitment to security and reconstruction there has fallen short. Given Iraq's strategic location, its large oil reserves and the suffering of the Iraqi people, we cannot afford to replace a despot with chaos.

We need to assess what it would take to rebuild Iraq economically and politically. Addressing these questions now would demonstrate to the Iraqi people that we are committed for the long haul. Iraq's neighbors would breathe easier if they knew the future had been thought through in detail. The American people, whose sons and daughters may be put in harm's way, need to have that same sense of assurance. Simply put, we need to know everything possible about the risks of action and of inaction. Ignoring these factors could lead us into something for which the American public is wholly unprepared


These fella's tend to make too much sense to get elected by the Dems ...

Instead we get the co-opt Sheehan party of far left goofballs that nominate a scuzball like Kerry and expect us to vote for him .

Send up a reasonable Democrat and I'll support him in a heartbeat. How about Harry Reid from Nevada? A very moderate individual, a big leader among the Democrats, and an overall good guy.

Unless, of course, the Republicans can get John McCain to run again. I'd pick him over most any other candidate. Unfortunately, age just may be getting to him.

For fun, maybe you could get "Give 'Em Hell, Zell!" Miller from Georgia to run, on the Democratic ticket. As a Senator from my fine home state, he was noted for appearing at the RNC and giving a great speech on the pathetic nature of his Massachusetts compatriots (Kerry and Kennedy). He'd grab the South without question, and probably the traditionally Democratic northeast at the same time. If the Republican running against him was someone like Jeb Bush, the slaughter would just be terrifying.

Yayyy! I hope you're correct about this. I would LOVE to see that! :D
Yeah, but I see a continual decline in the Democrats' ranks. We may have another two party system after all: The Republicans, and the splinter conservatives. I am also wondering when those ultraliberal Rockerfeller Republicans will show up.

I'm bush like. "Laberals" arnt going to win because they're "laberal". The president's brother will run in 2008 jeb bush and with a name like jeb you know thats a very smart man. Jeb bush will win and that will make him the 3rd bush to be president. Laberals are useless, they just hug trees and try to stop war.

Yeah, but I see a continual decline in the Democrats' ranks. We may have another two party system after all: The Republicans, and the splinter conservatives. I am also wondering when those ultraliberal Rockerfeller Republicans will show up.
Oh. You haven't heard of the Saturday Night Massacre? Tsk! :D

Unless, of course, the Republicans can get John McCain to run again. I'd pick him over most any other candidate. Unfortunately, age just may be getting to him.
WATCH it! :p

Fuck the corporations, religions, political labels and senseless laws. We don't want you anymore!