U.S. Politics...
-
Just out of curiosity, since everyone on the planet seems to be so damned critical of U.S. politics, if you non-Americans had the chance which current U.S. politician would you like to see in the Presidency? If you don't know a given individual, what direction would you like to see our polical system go? More left-wing? More right-wing? In what ways would you most like to see the U.S. improve? Since I vote religiously each election, I'll give you guys an opportunity to influence my vote. Just give me some good arguments about how I should vote and why. I generally vote a straight Republican ticket regardless of who is own it, as parties are historically more reliable than are the individuals who represent them, so obviously, I'm one of those trying to guide the country in a more right-wing direction. However, while not confessing to a condition of confused open-mindedness, I am willing to be convinced of the error of my ways. "Human imagination has been sculpted by the universe within which it was born" Hmmmm...
There wasn't any real difference between the two candidates so the vote wasn't much use this time. From what I've seen, Clinton would be a good choice by comparison. And whatever happenend to Ross Perou (probably spelt that wrong, sorry) and what were his policies ? More right wing ? Lets see, US soldiers to be protected from the International Criminal Court (which only acts if countries do not carry out their own legal process) yet suspected Al Qaeda fighters are called 'illegal combatants' and denied rights unless they are aemrican when they are seperated out. Oh yes - and 1 in 24 amricans to spy on others. You don't need to worry. Elaine :( Would you like to meet my teddy bear ?
-
Possibly I'm the Non-American you are referring to. If so please don't take it personally, as I'd like to whine abhout my islands Political system and politicians also, but I doubt you'd care or were informed. :-) Can I ask you some questions, please. 1. Does your one vote really matter ? 2. Are you electing a puppet of the parties, lobbyists and Fortune 500s. 3. Are you first an Okkie and second an American ? 4. What policies would make you change your vote ? 5. How well do you know the history and origins of the Republicans ? BTW: If you want I'll explain our system if you are really bored but want a laugh. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said byRoger Wright about me.
Colin Davies wrote: 1. Does your one vote really matter ?. It matters to me, of course. But aside from that, no. Colin Davies wrote: 2. Are you electing a puppet of the parties, lobbyists and Fortune 500s? I don't believe I am. Frankly, I see little evidence that the people I vote for are puppets of anyone. I don't know how you could have a democracy without haveing lobbyists. I think they are relatively harmless. I also do not feel threatened by big business being involved in the process. Every candidate running seems to get about the same level of support from big business, and for that matter, most business (although not Fortune 500) people I have known tended to be democrats and not republicans. Besides, I believe that capitalism, left to its own devices, has the potential of becoming a much truer, and more reliable, form of democracy than any formal political system ever will. I trust capitalism more than I trust politics. Colin Davies wrote: 3. Are you first an Okkie and second an American ? Well as a Jeffersonian Democrat, I have to say that, yes, I am an Okie first, American second. We Jeffersonians beleive that true political power should be decentralized and widely distributed among the various states and then to local communities. The federal government exists only for coordinating necessary services between the states, transportation, currency, banking, military, etc. Hence 'State's Rights' (I am humming 'Dixie' as I write that. :)) Colin Davies wrote: 4. What policies would make you change your vote ? That is hard to say. I would consider international communism or NAZIism if you could make a well reasoned argument for either one. Colin Davies wrote: 5. How well do you know the history and origins of the Republicans ? I know the rough outline of it. The Republican party was formed out of the collapse of the old Whig party. Their first national candidate was Abe Lincoln, who was hand picked in a smoked filled room by a bunch of northern industrialist and bankers in the hopes of starting a war, which they succedded at. Following the civil war the republicans continued to be closely wedded with the industrial elite, hand picking toadies such as U.S. Grant. Many blame republican policies for the collapse of the stock market and the great depression. In the post WWII era the republicans, while not abandoning their
-
There wasn't any real difference between the two candidates so the vote wasn't much use this time. From what I've seen, Clinton would be a good choice by comparison. And whatever happenend to Ross Perou (probably spelt that wrong, sorry) and what were his policies ? More right wing ? Lets see, US soldiers to be protected from the International Criminal Court (which only acts if countries do not carry out their own legal process) yet suspected Al Qaeda fighters are called 'illegal combatants' and denied rights unless they are aemrican when they are seperated out. Oh yes - and 1 in 24 amricans to spy on others. You don't need to worry. Elaine :( Would you like to meet my teddy bear ?
-
There wasn't any real difference between the two candidates so the vote wasn't much use this time. From what I've seen, Clinton would be a good choice by comparison. And whatever happenend to Ross Perou (probably spelt that wrong, sorry) and what were his policies ? More right wing ? Lets see, US soldiers to be protected from the International Criminal Court (which only acts if countries do not carry out their own legal process) yet suspected Al Qaeda fighters are called 'illegal combatants' and denied rights unless they are aemrican when they are seperated out. Oh yes - and 1 in 24 amricans to spy on others. You don't need to worry. Elaine :( Would you like to meet my teddy bear ?
Trollslayer wrote: There wasn't any real difference between the two candidates so the vote wasn't much use this time. Depends on how you see it I suppose. To me, the differences could not have been more profound. Trollslayer wrote: More right wing ? Lets see, US soldiers to be protected from the International Criminal Court (which only acts if countries do not carry out their own legal process) yet suspected Al Qaeda fighters are called 'illegal combatants' and denied rights unless they are aemrican when they are seperated out. I'm afraid you are going to have to give me a more well reasoned argument as to why those are bad things. Seems pretty logical to me. As an American, why should I have any sort of respect for an international court of any kind? I'm pretty damned leary of the U.S. federal court system, it is going to take some convicing to get me to be comfortable with a global one which will undoubtedly be dominated by American hating European intellectuals. Trollslayer wrote: Oh yes - and 1 in 24 amricans to spy on others. I agree completely. Except that to me that is a Left-Wing response not Right-Wing. A Right-Wing response would have been to so thoroughly eliminate the threat that no such spying would be necessary. If we refuse to destroy those who sponser and support terrorism, spying on each other is about the only other option. Wouldn't you agree? How would you deal with the problem? "Human imagination has been sculpted by the universe within which it was born" Hmmmm...
-
Just out of curiosity, since everyone on the planet seems to be so damned critical of U.S. politics, if you non-Americans had the chance which current U.S. politician would you like to see in the Presidency? If you don't know a given individual, what direction would you like to see our polical system go? More left-wing? More right-wing? In what ways would you most like to see the U.S. improve? Since I vote religiously each election, I'll give you guys an opportunity to influence my vote. Just give me some good arguments about how I should vote and why. I generally vote a straight Republican ticket regardless of who is own it, as parties are historically more reliable than are the individuals who represent them, so obviously, I'm one of those trying to guide the country in a more right-wing direction. However, while not confessing to a condition of confused open-mindedness, I am willing to be convinced of the error of my ways. "Human imagination has been sculpted by the universe within which it was born" Hmmmm...
Expect lots and lots of silence Stan. Most of the ones complaining just like to read their own words and love to hate the US regardless of what's really happening in the world. Often times their own governments are doing the exact same things that they whine the US is doing. I doubt many will have any real ideas about what alternatives they'd like to see. I'd like to single out Colin Davies as one who is almost always intelligent, thoughtful and reasonable and I do NOT include Colin in the above group!!
Mike Mullikin - I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals. Sir Winston Churchill
-
Expect lots and lots of silence Stan. Most of the ones complaining just like to read their own words and love to hate the US regardless of what's really happening in the world. Often times their own governments are doing the exact same things that they whine the US is doing. I doubt many will have any real ideas about what alternatives they'd like to see. I'd like to single out Colin Davies as one who is almost always intelligent, thoughtful and reasonable and I do NOT include Colin in the above group!!
Mike Mullikin - I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals. Sir Winston Churchill
I know, but its a slow Saturday, and I thought I might have some fun with it. Actually, I kind of enjoy the criticism. I was sort of interested in seeing if others could view the world from an American perspective for a moment. "Human imagination has been sculpted by the universe within which it was born" Hmmmm...
-
Colin Davies wrote: 1. Does your one vote really matter ?. It matters to me, of course. But aside from that, no. Colin Davies wrote: 2. Are you electing a puppet of the parties, lobbyists and Fortune 500s? I don't believe I am. Frankly, I see little evidence that the people I vote for are puppets of anyone. I don't know how you could have a democracy without haveing lobbyists. I think they are relatively harmless. I also do not feel threatened by big business being involved in the process. Every candidate running seems to get about the same level of support from big business, and for that matter, most business (although not Fortune 500) people I have known tended to be democrats and not republicans. Besides, I believe that capitalism, left to its own devices, has the potential of becoming a much truer, and more reliable, form of democracy than any formal political system ever will. I trust capitalism more than I trust politics. Colin Davies wrote: 3. Are you first an Okkie and second an American ? Well as a Jeffersonian Democrat, I have to say that, yes, I am an Okie first, American second. We Jeffersonians beleive that true political power should be decentralized and widely distributed among the various states and then to local communities. The federal government exists only for coordinating necessary services between the states, transportation, currency, banking, military, etc. Hence 'State's Rights' (I am humming 'Dixie' as I write that. :)) Colin Davies wrote: 4. What policies would make you change your vote ? That is hard to say. I would consider international communism or NAZIism if you could make a well reasoned argument for either one. Colin Davies wrote: 5. How well do you know the history and origins of the Republicans ? I know the rough outline of it. The Republican party was formed out of the collapse of the old Whig party. Their first national candidate was Abe Lincoln, who was hand picked in a smoked filled room by a bunch of northern industrialist and bankers in the hopes of starting a war, which they succedded at. Following the civil war the republicans continued to be closely wedded with the industrial elite, hand picking toadies such as U.S. Grant. Many blame republican policies for the collapse of the stock market and the great depression. In the post WWII era the republicans, while not abandoning their
Reverend Stan wrote: Frankly, I see little evidence that the people I vote for are puppets of anyone. Here's a nice timely example. Howard Berman (D-CA) recently introduced a bill in the House that would allow the RIAA (the recording industry cartel) to conduct Denial of Service, snoop and delete, or any other disruptive activities against people it suspects of having illegal copyrighted material (MP3s or whatever). They want to get into P2P networks, disrupt traffic by whatever means necessary (including deleting files they don't approve of, on people's computers that they do not own) - with complete immunity from state and federal laws. That is, to avoid having to handle things in a court of law, using the tons of copyright laws they've already paid for, they instead want permission to sabotage the computer of anyone they don't like. And, if they damage anything on your PC, as a result of their snooping around, you can't sue them without permission from the Attorney General. That's right, due process is eliminated and the RIAA would extract its own brand of justice. Now, this law would be bad enough, but take a look at who are the largest campaign contributors for this fellow. That's right "TV/Movies/Music" lead the list, at $186K for the 2002 election cycle - twice the amount of the 2nd place "Lawyers/Law Firms". And if you want it broken down: 1 Walt Disney Co $31,000 2 AOL Time Warner $28,050 3 Vivendi Universal $27,591 4 Viacom Inc $13,000 Can it be any more obvious who paid for this bill? Now, of course you probably didn't vote for this guy (a califonia democrat). But find your own representatives on that site, and compare their campaign contributors to the bills they've pushed. -c
To explain Donald Knuth's relevance to computing is like explaining Paul's relevance to the Catholic Church. He isn't God, he isn't the Son of God, but he was sent by God to explain God to the masses.
/. #3848917 -
Colin Davies wrote: 1. Does your one vote really matter ?. It matters to me, of course. But aside from that, no. Colin Davies wrote: 2. Are you electing a puppet of the parties, lobbyists and Fortune 500s? I don't believe I am. Frankly, I see little evidence that the people I vote for are puppets of anyone. I don't know how you could have a democracy without haveing lobbyists. I think they are relatively harmless. I also do not feel threatened by big business being involved in the process. Every candidate running seems to get about the same level of support from big business, and for that matter, most business (although not Fortune 500) people I have known tended to be democrats and not republicans. Besides, I believe that capitalism, left to its own devices, has the potential of becoming a much truer, and more reliable, form of democracy than any formal political system ever will. I trust capitalism more than I trust politics. Colin Davies wrote: 3. Are you first an Okkie and second an American ? Well as a Jeffersonian Democrat, I have to say that, yes, I am an Okie first, American second. We Jeffersonians beleive that true political power should be decentralized and widely distributed among the various states and then to local communities. The federal government exists only for coordinating necessary services between the states, transportation, currency, banking, military, etc. Hence 'State's Rights' (I am humming 'Dixie' as I write that. :)) Colin Davies wrote: 4. What policies would make you change your vote ? That is hard to say. I would consider international communism or NAZIism if you could make a well reasoned argument for either one. Colin Davies wrote: 5. How well do you know the history and origins of the Republicans ? I know the rough outline of it. The Republican party was formed out of the collapse of the old Whig party. Their first national candidate was Abe Lincoln, who was hand picked in a smoked filled room by a bunch of northern industrialist and bankers in the hopes of starting a war, which they succedded at. Following the civil war the republicans continued to be closely wedded with the industrial elite, hand picking toadies such as U.S. Grant. Many blame republican policies for the collapse of the stock market and the great depression. In the post WWII era the republicans, while not abandoning their
Reverend Stan wrote: I know the rough outline of it. Ok, from the little I've read that sums it up, but the Republicans used the 'abolition' movement quite expansivly at that time as well. AFAIK Reverend Stan wrote: In the post WWII era the republicans, while not abandoning their support of capitalistic systems, Yes, the cuurent party seems to have switched both trains and directions over time. Reverend Stan wrote: Well as a Jeffersonian Democrat, Is that like being a Republican principally as an anti Democrat , rather than pro Republican ? Like the "Constituttional Democrats of Texas " who were against the "New Deal" ? Reverend Stan wrote: Besides, I believe that capitalism, left to its own devices, has the potential of becoming a much truer, and more reliable, form of democracy than any formal political system ever will. I really consider the USA to be Capitalist first and representitive government second. Remember Tinnarmen Square, with the protestors wanting Democracy. IMHO To be blunt what they really wanted was shiny 10 speed bicycles which is Capitalism and not Democracy. As to who I'd like to see as your next President. Well I think it should be someone more like Nixon, someone who gets things done even when he/she has other flaws. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said byRoger Wright about me.
-
Expect lots and lots of silence Stan. Most of the ones complaining just like to read their own words and love to hate the US regardless of what's really happening in the world. Often times their own governments are doing the exact same things that they whine the US is doing. I doubt many will have any real ideas about what alternatives they'd like to see. I'd like to single out Colin Davies as one who is almost always intelligent, thoughtful and reasonable and I do NOT include Colin in the above group!!
Mike Mullikin - I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals. Sir Winston Churchill
Mike Mullikin wrote: I'd like to single out Colin Davies as one who is almost always intelligent, thoughtful and reasonable and I do NOT include Colin in the above group!! w00t w00t !! Thanks Mike, although you may live to regret that statement. :-) :-) Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said byRoger Wright about me.
-
There wasn't any real difference between the two candidates so the vote wasn't much use this time. From what I've seen, Clinton would be a good choice by comparison. And whatever happenend to Ross Perou (probably spelt that wrong, sorry) and what were his policies ? More right wing ? Lets see, US soldiers to be protected from the International Criminal Court (which only acts if countries do not carry out their own legal process) yet suspected Al Qaeda fighters are called 'illegal combatants' and denied rights unless they are aemrican when they are seperated out. Oh yes - and 1 in 24 amricans to spy on others. You don't need to worry. Elaine :( Would you like to meet my teddy bear ?
Ross Perot bought his way into the election, then when things got too sticky for him (the typical election-related BS and insults started flying his way) he ran like a little girl and has never been heard from again. (Well, ok, he tried to re-enter the election but no one took him seriously by that time.) --Mike-- Just released - RightClick-Encrypt v1.3 - Adds fast & easy file encryption to Explorer My really out-of-date homepage Sonork-100.19012 Acid_Helm
-
Just out of curiosity, since everyone on the planet seems to be so damned critical of U.S. politics, if you non-Americans had the chance which current U.S. politician would you like to see in the Presidency? If you don't know a given individual, what direction would you like to see our polical system go? More left-wing? More right-wing? In what ways would you most like to see the U.S. improve? Since I vote religiously each election, I'll give you guys an opportunity to influence my vote. Just give me some good arguments about how I should vote and why. I generally vote a straight Republican ticket regardless of who is own it, as parties are historically more reliable than are the individuals who represent them, so obviously, I'm one of those trying to guide the country in a more right-wing direction. However, while not confessing to a condition of confused open-mindedness, I am willing to be convinced of the error of my ways. "Human imagination has been sculpted by the universe within which it was born" Hmmmm...
Reverend Stan wrote: since everyone on the planet seems to be so damned critical of U.S. politics, I guess you're think back to the 'Make the pie higher' piece of poetry. That seemed to touch a raw nerve. I think there's a slight misunderstanding of views here. I can only talk for Australians here, but in general we don't criticise US politics, we merely giggle at it. I tend to find that politics is something taken extremely seriously by many Americans, yet your country doesn't enforce voting. Many Americans complain about the way their country is being run, but then don't vote. US politics are a little strange, sometimes a little scary, but always good entertainment. Here in Australia we have to vote, and we take great pains to make as much fun of politicians as is possible. It's a national pasttime and is used to remind everyone (especially the politicians) that we are all human and all the same, deep down. As to which I'd vote for - I'd go for someone who isn't inexorably tangled up in big business. Someone who understands that it's only courtesy to the planet on to our kids in at least as good a shape as when it was passed to us; someone who takes in interest in the outside world and realises that sometimes people just do things differently. Someone who is in the job not because of what they can get out of it for themselves or their friends, but for what they can do for their country and their planet. Personally I feel that Bush is the worst possible choice at the moment. He is too insular, too quick to anger (and to fear) and has too little empathy for other ways of doing things. The world is bruised and battered and needs nurturing and sensitivity to help it grow and heal, not someone who's answer is always to amputate. cheers, Chris Maunder
-
Reverend Stan wrote: I know the rough outline of it. Ok, from the little I've read that sums it up, but the Republicans used the 'abolition' movement quite expansivly at that time as well. AFAIK Reverend Stan wrote: In the post WWII era the republicans, while not abandoning their support of capitalistic systems, Yes, the cuurent party seems to have switched both trains and directions over time. Reverend Stan wrote: Well as a Jeffersonian Democrat, Is that like being a Republican principally as an anti Democrat , rather than pro Republican ? Like the "Constituttional Democrats of Texas " who were against the "New Deal" ? Reverend Stan wrote: Besides, I believe that capitalism, left to its own devices, has the potential of becoming a much truer, and more reliable, form of democracy than any formal political system ever will. I really consider the USA to be Capitalist first and representitive government second. Remember Tinnarmen Square, with the protestors wanting Democracy. IMHO To be blunt what they really wanted was shiny 10 speed bicycles which is Capitalism and not Democracy. As to who I'd like to see as your next President. Well I think it should be someone more like Nixon, someone who gets things done even when he/she has other flaws. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said byRoger Wright about me.
Colin Davies wrote: Ok, from the little I've read that sums it up, but the Republicans used the 'abolition' movement quite expansivly at that time as well. AFAIK Yes, I left that out. As a Southerner I am a bit biased, but my take on it is they used the abolitionist fervor to gain power knowing it would probably lead to a war, but also knowing that a war would get the South out of Wasington, D.C., where the South's voting block had controlled things for most of the ante-bellum period and they would have control for a long time to come. Colin Davies wrote: Is that like being a Republican principally as an anti Democrat , rather than pro Republican ? Like the "Constituttional Democrats of Texas " who were against the "New Deal" ? It is a little confusing, but yes, I think that is a good description. The Democrats (although they will never admit it) abandoned Jefferonianism long ago so many of us abandoned them. The Republicans at least pay lip service to it. I would have made a good Constitutional Democrat. Colin Davies wrote: I really consider the USA to be Capitalist first and representitive government second. I hope the US remains a place where capitalistic principles are supported. Capitalism works best when everyone has wealth to spend, and when everyone is free to spend that wealth as they choose. Government works best when people are dependent and controlled. If allowed to evolve, capitalism might just make government, as we understand it today, obsolete. Although we are obviously not there yet. The problem is how do you transfer wealth in such a way that productivity increases instead of decreases, thus making everyone poorer. Colin Davies wrote: Well I think it should be someone more like Nixon, someone who gets things done even when he/she has other flaws. Nixon is someone we might agree on. It is hard to come up with a name from our current crop, I agree. "Human imagination has been sculpted by the universe within which it was born" Hmmmm...
-
Colin Davies wrote: Ok, from the little I've read that sums it up, but the Republicans used the 'abolition' movement quite expansivly at that time as well. AFAIK Yes, I left that out. As a Southerner I am a bit biased, but my take on it is they used the abolitionist fervor to gain power knowing it would probably lead to a war, but also knowing that a war would get the South out of Wasington, D.C., where the South's voting block had controlled things for most of the ante-bellum period and they would have control for a long time to come. Colin Davies wrote: Is that like being a Republican principally as an anti Democrat , rather than pro Republican ? Like the "Constituttional Democrats of Texas " who were against the "New Deal" ? It is a little confusing, but yes, I think that is a good description. The Democrats (although they will never admit it) abandoned Jefferonianism long ago so many of us abandoned them. The Republicans at least pay lip service to it. I would have made a good Constitutional Democrat. Colin Davies wrote: I really consider the USA to be Capitalist first and representitive government second. I hope the US remains a place where capitalistic principles are supported. Capitalism works best when everyone has wealth to spend, and when everyone is free to spend that wealth as they choose. Government works best when people are dependent and controlled. If allowed to evolve, capitalism might just make government, as we understand it today, obsolete. Although we are obviously not there yet. The problem is how do you transfer wealth in such a way that productivity increases instead of decreases, thus making everyone poorer. Colin Davies wrote: Well I think it should be someone more like Nixon, someone who gets things done even when he/she has other flaws. Nixon is someone we might agree on. It is hard to come up with a name from our current crop, I agree. "Human imagination has been sculpted by the universe within which it was born" Hmmmm...
"Rush Limbaugh for President!" "Knock, knock." "Who's there?" "Recursion." "Recursion who?" "Knock, knock..."
-
Reverend Stan wrote: Frankly, I see little evidence that the people I vote for are puppets of anyone. Here's a nice timely example. Howard Berman (D-CA) recently introduced a bill in the House that would allow the RIAA (the recording industry cartel) to conduct Denial of Service, snoop and delete, or any other disruptive activities against people it suspects of having illegal copyrighted material (MP3s or whatever). They want to get into P2P networks, disrupt traffic by whatever means necessary (including deleting files they don't approve of, on people's computers that they do not own) - with complete immunity from state and federal laws. That is, to avoid having to handle things in a court of law, using the tons of copyright laws they've already paid for, they instead want permission to sabotage the computer of anyone they don't like. And, if they damage anything on your PC, as a result of their snooping around, you can't sue them without permission from the Attorney General. That's right, due process is eliminated and the RIAA would extract its own brand of justice. Now, this law would be bad enough, but take a look at who are the largest campaign contributors for this fellow. That's right "TV/Movies/Music" lead the list, at $186K for the 2002 election cycle - twice the amount of the 2nd place "Lawyers/Law Firms". And if you want it broken down: 1 Walt Disney Co $31,000 2 AOL Time Warner $28,050 3 Vivendi Universal $27,591 4 Viacom Inc $13,000 Can it be any more obvious who paid for this bill? Now, of course you probably didn't vote for this guy (a califonia democrat). But find your own representatives on that site, and compare their campaign contributors to the bills they've pushed. -c
To explain Donald Knuth's relevance to computing is like explaining Paul's relevance to the Catholic Church. He isn't God, he isn't the Son of God, but he was sent by God to explain God to the masses.
/. #3848917That all sounds pretty horrific. But break it down, you have legitimate businesses which have valid concerns about their intellectual property being stolen. Maybe this Berman guy is their puppet, maybe the only reason he made it to Congress is because Viacom gave him a whopping $13,000. On the other hand maybe he is a congressman who honestly believes that business should be protected from theft, and so therefore, these companies gave money to support him and his ideas. Obviously, all of this support is public knowledge. I agree that if such a policy could be passed it would be very bad, but somehow I think both liberal and conservative extremes of the political spectrum would be up in arms over it and it would become very greatly modified. I see far less threat from this guy and his ilk than I do from a large sector of the public who have become convinced that we need some kind of massive alteration of our political system to protect us from Walt Disney. I'm not saying the system is not ready for some change, but we should not make that change in a state of panic and fear mongering. "Human imagination has been sculpted by the universe within which it was born" Hmmmm...
-
"Rush Limbaugh for President!" "Knock, knock." "Who's there?" "Recursion." "Recursion who?" "Knock, knock..."
No way! Rush is of much more value right where he is at. "Human imagination has been sculpted by the universe within which it was born" Hmmmm...
-
There wasn't any real difference between the two candidates so the vote wasn't much use this time. From what I've seen, Clinton would be a good choice by comparison. And whatever happenend to Ross Perou (probably spelt that wrong, sorry) and what were his policies ? More right wing ? Lets see, US soldiers to be protected from the International Criminal Court (which only acts if countries do not carry out their own legal process) yet suspected Al Qaeda fighters are called 'illegal combatants' and denied rights unless they are aemrican when they are seperated out. Oh yes - and 1 in 24 amricans to spy on others. You don't need to worry. Elaine :( Would you like to meet my teddy bear ?
Trollslayer wrote: Lets see, US soldiers to be protected from the International Criminal Court (which only acts if countries do not carry out their own legal process) So whats to stop any other country from trying their war-crime criminals in a farce of a court? James "Java is free - and worth every penny." - Christian Graus
-
Reverend Stan wrote: since everyone on the planet seems to be so damned critical of U.S. politics, I guess you're think back to the 'Make the pie higher' piece of poetry. That seemed to touch a raw nerve. I think there's a slight misunderstanding of views here. I can only talk for Australians here, but in general we don't criticise US politics, we merely giggle at it. I tend to find that politics is something taken extremely seriously by many Americans, yet your country doesn't enforce voting. Many Americans complain about the way their country is being run, but then don't vote. US politics are a little strange, sometimes a little scary, but always good entertainment. Here in Australia we have to vote, and we take great pains to make as much fun of politicians as is possible. It's a national pasttime and is used to remind everyone (especially the politicians) that we are all human and all the same, deep down. As to which I'd vote for - I'd go for someone who isn't inexorably tangled up in big business. Someone who understands that it's only courtesy to the planet on to our kids in at least as good a shape as when it was passed to us; someone who takes in interest in the outside world and realises that sometimes people just do things differently. Someone who is in the job not because of what they can get out of it for themselves or their friends, but for what they can do for their country and their planet. Personally I feel that Bush is the worst possible choice at the moment. He is too insular, too quick to anger (and to fear) and has too little empathy for other ways of doing things. The world is bruised and battered and needs nurturing and sensitivity to help it grow and heal, not someone who's answer is always to amputate. cheers, Chris Maunder
Chris Maunder wrote: I guess you're think back to the 'Make the pie higher' piece of poetry. That seemed to touch a raw nerve. Well, the only nerve touched is that always seems to be the same tired bit of humor. It is a monotonous refrain which compels me to believe that there is far more behind it than having a good chuckle. Chris Maunder wrote: I think there's a slight misunderstanding of views here. I can only talk for Australians here, but in general we don't criticise US politics, we merely giggle at it. I tend to find that politics is something taken extremely seriously by many Americans, yet your country doesn't enforce voting. Many Americans complain about the way their country is being run, but then don't vote. US politics are a little strange, sometimes a little scary, but always good entertainment. Here in Australia we have to vote, and we take great pains to make as much fun of politicians as is possible. It's a national pasttime and is used to remind everyone (especially the politicians) that we are all human and all the same, deep down. Now it is time for me to have some fun at your expense. I think requiring people to vote makes about as much sense as requiring them to have sex. If someone does not want to do it is highly unlikely that they have put any thought into who they want to do it with. I think having people who do not care about the political process voluntarily excluding themselves from it is a good thing. If anything the world has become too democratic. The right to vote should be earned in some way, not given away and certainly not forced upon people. Chris Maunder wrote: As to which I'd vote for - I'd go for someone who isn't inexorably tangled up in big business. Someone who understands that it's only courtesy to the planet on to our kids in at least as good a shape as when it was passed to us; someone who takes in interest in the outside world and realises that sometimes people just do things differently. Someone who is in the job not because of what they can get out of it for themselves or their friends, but for what they can do for their country and their planet. Personally I feel that Bush is the worst possible choice at the moment. He is too insular, too quick to anger (and to fear) and has too little empathy for other ways of doing things. The world is bruised and battered and needs nurturing and sensitivity to help it grow and heal, not someone who's answer is always
-
Reverend Stan wrote: since everyone on the planet seems to be so damned critical of U.S. politics, I guess you're think back to the 'Make the pie higher' piece of poetry. That seemed to touch a raw nerve. I think there's a slight misunderstanding of views here. I can only talk for Australians here, but in general we don't criticise US politics, we merely giggle at it. I tend to find that politics is something taken extremely seriously by many Americans, yet your country doesn't enforce voting. Many Americans complain about the way their country is being run, but then don't vote. US politics are a little strange, sometimes a little scary, but always good entertainment. Here in Australia we have to vote, and we take great pains to make as much fun of politicians as is possible. It's a national pasttime and is used to remind everyone (especially the politicians) that we are all human and all the same, deep down. As to which I'd vote for - I'd go for someone who isn't inexorably tangled up in big business. Someone who understands that it's only courtesy to the planet on to our kids in at least as good a shape as when it was passed to us; someone who takes in interest in the outside world and realises that sometimes people just do things differently. Someone who is in the job not because of what they can get out of it for themselves or their friends, but for what they can do for their country and their planet. Personally I feel that Bush is the worst possible choice at the moment. He is too insular, too quick to anger (and to fear) and has too little empathy for other ways of doing things. The world is bruised and battered and needs nurturing and sensitivity to help it grow and heal, not someone who's answer is always to amputate. cheers, Chris Maunder
Chris Maunder wrote: I'd go for someone who isn't inexorably tangled up in big business. Someone who understands that it's only courtesy to the planet on to our kids in at least as good a shape as when it was passed to us Unfortunately over here we don't get any moderate people who to put forward 'environmental legislation'. Most of the bills introduced over here would shutdown businesses and companies that employ the people. Sure the environment would be safe but no one would have a job. One particular case is the logging industry; so many people have been so protective of the forests that they have become abused in the process. Native Americans used to do up-keep on them by starting small fires which would get rid of the dead undergrowth and clean up the forest floor without harming the larger trees, this would also put more nutrients into the soil by speeding up the decaying process. But because of the years of neglect the smallest fire will burn thousands of acres of forest and civilization. Democrats in America have succeeded in convincing much of the public that Republicans don't care about the environment and will pollute without a care. Of course this isn't true; what Democrats confuse as not caring really is caring but it is caring about the people who need a job to survive. I believe that the proper candidate is someone who is for people to not depend on the government, especially Big Government. Someone who realizes that the best solution to the environment is not to be extreme but to be moderate on both sides of the equation, give tax incentives to those who lower their emmisions which gives the business an incentive to comply. Unfortunately such a person doesn't exist at the federal level. By the time someone gets to that point they are too busy paying their respects to their campaign contributers to be concerned with me. James "Java is free - and worth every penny." - Christian Graus
-
Chris Maunder wrote: I guess you're think back to the 'Make the pie higher' piece of poetry. That seemed to touch a raw nerve. Well, the only nerve touched is that always seems to be the same tired bit of humor. It is a monotonous refrain which compels me to believe that there is far more behind it than having a good chuckle. Chris Maunder wrote: I think there's a slight misunderstanding of views here. I can only talk for Australians here, but in general we don't criticise US politics, we merely giggle at it. I tend to find that politics is something taken extremely seriously by many Americans, yet your country doesn't enforce voting. Many Americans complain about the way their country is being run, but then don't vote. US politics are a little strange, sometimes a little scary, but always good entertainment. Here in Australia we have to vote, and we take great pains to make as much fun of politicians as is possible. It's a national pasttime and is used to remind everyone (especially the politicians) that we are all human and all the same, deep down. Now it is time for me to have some fun at your expense. I think requiring people to vote makes about as much sense as requiring them to have sex. If someone does not want to do it is highly unlikely that they have put any thought into who they want to do it with. I think having people who do not care about the political process voluntarily excluding themselves from it is a good thing. If anything the world has become too democratic. The right to vote should be earned in some way, not given away and certainly not forced upon people. Chris Maunder wrote: As to which I'd vote for - I'd go for someone who isn't inexorably tangled up in big business. Someone who understands that it's only courtesy to the planet on to our kids in at least as good a shape as when it was passed to us; someone who takes in interest in the outside world and realises that sometimes people just do things differently. Someone who is in the job not because of what they can get out of it for themselves or their friends, but for what they can do for their country and their planet. Personally I feel that Bush is the worst possible choice at the moment. He is too insular, too quick to anger (and to fear) and has too little empathy for other ways of doing things. The world is bruised and battered and needs nurturing and sensitivity to help it grow and heal, not someone who's answer is always
Reverend Stan wrote: I think requiring people to vote makes about as much sense as requiring them to have sex. If someone does not want to do it is highly unlikely that they have put any thought into who they want to do it with. I would guess in an educated society who aren't forced to vote that, out of those who wouldn't vote voluntarily there are far more people able to make an intelligent vote than there are those who would be unable to. Forcing people to vote forces the issue and ensures that everyone has their say. The number of valid, well thought out votes is going to be higher than the number of donkey votes, and ensures that the process is less susceptible to being hijacked by noisy minorities. cheers, Chris Maunder
-
Chris Maunder wrote: I'd go for someone who isn't inexorably tangled up in big business. Someone who understands that it's only courtesy to the planet on to our kids in at least as good a shape as when it was passed to us Unfortunately over here we don't get any moderate people who to put forward 'environmental legislation'. Most of the bills introduced over here would shutdown businesses and companies that employ the people. Sure the environment would be safe but no one would have a job. One particular case is the logging industry; so many people have been so protective of the forests that they have become abused in the process. Native Americans used to do up-keep on them by starting small fires which would get rid of the dead undergrowth and clean up the forest floor without harming the larger trees, this would also put more nutrients into the soil by speeding up the decaying process. But because of the years of neglect the smallest fire will burn thousands of acres of forest and civilization. Democrats in America have succeeded in convincing much of the public that Republicans don't care about the environment and will pollute without a care. Of course this isn't true; what Democrats confuse as not caring really is caring but it is caring about the people who need a job to survive. I believe that the proper candidate is someone who is for people to not depend on the government, especially Big Government. Someone who realizes that the best solution to the environment is not to be extreme but to be moderate on both sides of the equation, give tax incentives to those who lower their emmisions which gives the business an incentive to comply. Unfortunately such a person doesn't exist at the federal level. By the time someone gets to that point they are too busy paying their respects to their campaign contributers to be concerned with me. James "Java is free - and worth every penny." - Christian Graus
James T. Johnson wrote: Unfortunately such a person doesn't exist at the federal level. By the time someone gets to that point they are too busy paying their respects to their campaign contributers to be concerned with me. Amen!
Mike Mullikin - I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals. Sir Winston Churchill