World War Three by dreamtrove

Might as well be Bush!!! LOL. I've heard worse; "Because my husband did", "He was on top", And the always entertaining "Why not". And 'trove I don't think there are that many idiots, but there are enough to swing an election and that just should not happen.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 4:26 PM

I guess when you think about it, democracy is really a popularity contest. Huh.

Think about this.

What if when we went to war we said, 'okay troops., who do you like to lead us into battle' and everyone said 'sgt. tits, because she's mad hawt' or the major said 'lt. racist, because he'll put the black guys on the front lines.'

Or what if in a corporate staff meeting, everyone said "hey, let's make Mr. Hepper president, because he bought us drinks, we like him, and he'll give us a raise," ... even if it bankrupts the company.

"joe should be the preach., no wait, make him pope!"

And yet, we do it. And without great results. The results are terrible.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 4:32 PM

Although my first impulse is to channel Jayne (let's not be excluding people) in the interest of exercising my divergent side I'll ramble for a bit.

I have yet to meet someone who proposed limiting the franchise who didn't automatically assume they would be eligible to vote under the new system. So my first question is, would you accept a system where you yourself were ineligible?

As HKCavalier pointed out, who gets to make the rules? The first rule, in my mind, is that anyone involved with coming up with a new system should automatically be ineligible to vote for the rest of their life. That way they couldn't game the system to favor themselves.

Should we take historical precedents into account? Poll taxes and literacy tests and other measures have been used in the past to keep various groups from exercising the right to vote. For me, the design of any system needs to take that into consideration. Say, for example, the use of literacy tests. There have been long stretches of time in our history where people who failed those tests couldn't vote. So, in all fairness, those groups should be grandfathered in. Maybe look at how long literacy tests were used, a hundred years for example. So for the first hundred years of a new program those who fail literacy tests are still eligible.

Should we take conflict of interest into account? If you work for the government, maybe you shouldn't be allowed to vote for your own boss. So I could see a case made for any public workers being ineligible to vote. If you stretch that a bit more, that would exclude any member of the armed forces.

Should we take accuracy of information sources into account? I'm reminded of that recent study where viewers of Fox News were more likely to be misinformed about current events than viewers of other news channels. So should we automatically disqualify potential voters who watch Fox News on a regular basis? And what is a regular basis?

Should we penalize people on the basis of rhetoric? There are prominent pundits who make a lot of money (whether through radio shows or by writing books) by calling large proportions of Americans traitors. Maybe those who listen or buy their books shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Maybe go by viewpoints. If you don't believe in big government, but instead subscribe to the Grover Norquist school of thought, maybe you shouldn't be voting on those who would administrate that big government.

Or how about another conflict of interest angle. There are a lot of corporations that benefit greatly from government action. The pharmaceutical industry got a huge windfall from the Medicare bill. The credit card industry got a huge windfall from the bankruptcy bill. And so on and so forth. Maybe all the employees of companies that have seen an increase in their profits as a direct result of government action should be ineligible. Or maybe just those who are salaried.

In case you hadn't guess by now, this has mostly been tongue in cheek. Sure it would be nice if people who were uninformed didn't vote. But it wouldn't be America. Sure it would be nice if those who were misinformed didn't vote. But that wouldn't be America either. Sure it would be great for some people if the poor didn't vote. But that would be an America we have left behind. Sure it would be nice for some people if those of a darker hue didn't vote. But that would also be an America we have left behind. We have been moving forward as a country, at least in my opinion, by expanding the franchise. Not limiting it.

I see the problem as an opportunity for education, rather than punishment. We hold these truths to be self-evident and all that. If we start saying who can and cannot vote based on any rationale other than convicted criminal activity (which is another discussion) then we're moving more towards a "some are more equal than others." And that, to me, would not be America.

* edited to add: This reminds me of something else.

When I was younger, my friends and I had an expression we'd sometimes use when we encountered someone particularly obtuse, "they shouldn't be allowed to breed." In a fit of alcohol-fueled clarity

one night I hit on the perfect solution. The Norplant gun. You could just cruise around with the Norplant gun in your pocket and when you ran into someone you thought didn't measure up, pull it out and take a shot. "Hey. You. Out of the gene pool for five years." But then, in all fairness, I would have to shoot myself first. Something about a judge not lest ye be judged running through my head. It was a nice fantasy at that point in my life. But amazingly arrogant and egocentric.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 5:17 PM

Again, how could four simple questions written in a number of languages be used by one party or another to their benefit? It at least puts in place a minimal standard. If you want to vote find out the answers. In doing so the populace may learn a thing or two about the political atmosphere and system of their country. An informed populace is a lot better than what we now have. Have you ever watched a talk show where they send someone to interview "people on the street"? Who's the vice president? Name one article in the Bill of Rights? How ridiculous are the answers?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 5:31 PM

Okay. Let's play around with that.

What are the questions?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 7:50 PM

MYOTHERCARISAFIREFLY

Question #1 Who was the hero of canton?

WHAT???? You got it wrong??? too bad, you cant vote!

just a little side note of humor there since I agree with some of you, disagree with some of you, want to have a drink with some of you, think some of you are idiots, and think that even a few are missing from the nut house. And those are my observations from only being a member for a week. haha

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 8:00 PM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:
Again, how could four simple questions written in a number of languages be used by one party or another to their benefit? It at least puts in place a minimal standard. If you want to vote find out the answers. In doing so the populace may learn a thing or two about the political atmosphere and system of their country. An informed populace is a lot better than what we now have. Have you ever watched a talk show where they send someone to interview "people on the street"? Who's the vice president? Name one article in the Bill of Rights? How ridiculous are the answers?

Let's try this again. In theory, your four questions are very simple. But as soon as you talk about changing our current system of government to integrate these questions, you can't ignore our current system of government!

If you were king for a day and said, "All I'm here to do is institute this four question test to establish who gets to vote and who does not and then I promise to abdicate," you might be able to implement your test.

For a day.

'Cause, once you abdicated, folks would repeal the thing and we'd go back to doing things the way we do them.

So unless you are the "benevolent dictator" of the United States, you have to understand that any test we established to enfranchise people, would innevitably be used to disenfranchise. This kind of control over the electorate is a bad idea.

What about this crazy notion: improve education. But here's a guy who makes the point much more eloquently than I:

"I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power."

"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories. And to render even them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree."

"The most effectual means of preventing the perversion of power into tyranny are to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts which history exhibits, that possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes."

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

"Convinced that the people are the only safe depositories of their own liberty, and that they are not safe unless enlightened to a certain degree, I have looked on our present state of liberty as a short-lived possession unless the mass of the people could be informed to a certain degree."

"No nation is permitted to live in ignorance with impunity."

"And say, finally, whether peace is best preserved by giving energy to the government or information to the people. This last is the most certain and the most legitimate engine of government. Educate and inform the whole mass of the people. Enable them to see that it is their interest to preserve peace and order, and they will preserve them. And it requires no very high degree of education to convince them of this. They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty." --Thomas Jefferson

Pretty wise words. You gotta wonder what it would be like if somebody started a country founded on these principles.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 8:00 PM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by MyOtherCarIsAFirefly:
Question #1 Who was the hero of canton?

WHAT???? You got it wrong??? too bad, you cant vote!

just a little side note of humor there since I agree with some of you, disagree with some of you, want to have a drink with some of you, think some of you are idiots, and think that even a few are missing from the nut house. And those are my observations from only being a member for a week. haha

Join the revolution.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 8:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Okay. Let's play around with that.

What are the questions?

Once again, read above post. That or something similar, just make them easy. I would love to know how many people voted in the last election that could not answer those questions. If you can not answer those questions you can't vote. And again put them in any language. How some posters feel one party could benefit from that idea I will never understand. The only entity that benefits is our country.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 9:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Quote:
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:
Again, how could four simple questions written in a number of languages be used by one party or another to their benefit? It at least puts in place a minimal standard. If you want to vote find out the answers. In doing so the populace may learn a thing or two about the political atmosphere and system of their country. An informed populace is a lot better than what we now have. Have you ever watched a talk show where they send someone to interview "people on the street"? Who's the vice president? Name one article in the Bill of Rights? How ridiculous are the answers?
Let's try this again. In theory, your four questions are very simple. But as soon as you talk about changing our current system of government to integrate these questions, you can't ignore our current system of government!

If you were king for a day and said, "All I'm here to do is institute this four question test to establish who gets to vote and who does not and then I promise to abdicate," you might be able to implement your test.

For a day.

'Cause, once you abdicated, folks would repeal the thing and we'd go back to doing things the way we do them.

So unless you are the "benevolent dictator" of the United States, you have to understand that any test we established to enfranchise people, would innevitably be used to disenfranchise. This kind of control over the electorate is a bad idea.

What about this crazy notion: improve education. But here's a guy who makes the point much more eloquently than I:

"I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power."

"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories. And to render even them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree."

"The most effectual means of preventing the perversion of power into tyranny are to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts which history exhibits, that possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes."

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

"Convinced that the people are the only safe depositories of their own liberty, and that they are not safe unless enlightened to a certain degree, I have looked on our present state of liberty as a short-lived possession unless the mass of the people could be informed to a certain degree."

"No nation is permitted to live in ignorance with impunity."

"And say, finally, whether peace is best preserved by giving energy to the government or information to the people. This last is the most certain and the most legitimate engine of government. Educate and inform the whole mass of the people. Enable them to see that it is their interest to preserve peace and order, and they will preserve them. And it requires no very high degree of education to convince them of this. They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty." --Thomas Jefferson

Pretty wise words. You gotta wonder what it would be like if somebody started a country founded on these principles.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

Very wise words indeed. Problem is, most humans on the planet would read it and chalk it up as legalese. Our political leaders no longer talk with the eloquence of a Churchill or Eisenhower. We no longer have the poets of yesteryear. Education will never be about politics, nor should it. Politics is about short - term everyday life. Education is about science, mathematics, physics, language, drinking beer, learning a trade. This is not an American problem this is "Liberal" democracy's problem. Anyone involved in politics, history, or government has known this for awhile. Problem is the four or five questions are unconstitutional. It would have to be voted on. I say it's about time.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 9:37 PM

Continuing on with the role-playing of how things would look if voting was not a right but instead a reward...

So, going back to your post, something like this?

1. President of the United States of America: __________

2. Senator for your state (name one): ______________ [extra vote for naming two?]

3. Representative for your district: ______________

4. Are we at war in Iraq? (circle one) YES NO

5. The three branches of the federal government: ________________, _________________ and _________________

And if you answer all these questions correctly, then you have earned the right to vote? For the moment, I'll assume that spelling isn't too important. Unless we want to make this a spelling test as well. And the cool thing is this could also serve as a subtle literacy test. Score!

As an aside, knowing these seven bits of information is sufficient, in your mind, to turn someone from an uninformed voter to an informed one. Correct? Just making sure that we're alleviating the problem you've diagnosed. If someone knew the answers to the question and didn't know anything else you'd still be satisfied? Or we could even split it up into varying degrees of difficulty and have a cascading set of questions. Maybe even have qualified personnel interview every prospective voter. Or you could earn a voter license and have to get it recertified sometime before every election. Going back to the more lengthy set, if you know some of the issues and some of the positions then you could vote for some of the candidates. Maybe you don't get to vote for the whole enchilada unless you get 90% on the test. Might have to iron that out a bit more.

Okay. Next set of questions. Who administers the test? Where is the test administered (does it happen at the polling location)? Who grades the test? How is the person notified if they have passed or failed? What about if they are taking this test in a language other than English? What do you do with absentee ballots?

Maybe it might be a good idea to have people take the test while they are voting. Then you have two different vote totals, those who are too ignorant to vote and those who know seven bits of information. And we could publicize that on the news. Try to shame people into figuring out what the answers are.

Basically, how do we implement this new system?

* edited to add: I think there is a big difference between how we perceive the franchise. I see the franchise as the right of every American. It looks to me like you see the franchise as something that shouldn't be the right of every American, only a smaller subset. My intuition is that you have a solution looking for a problem. I won't accept your assumptions concerning the ignorance of voters without seeing hard numbers that show X percentage of voters do not know who the President is, for example.

[HKCavalier, very nice collection of quotes. As you can see, I'm taking the low ground on this one

]

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 10:03 PM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Continuing on with the role-playing of how things would look if voting was not a right but instead a reward...

So, going back to your post, something like this?

1. President of the United States of America: __________

2. Senator for your state (name one): ______________ [extra vote for naming two?]

3. Representative for your district: ______________

4. Are we at war in Iraq? (circle one) YES NO

5. The three branches of the federal government: ________________, _________________ and _________________

And if you answer all these questions correctly, then you have earned the right to vote? For the moment, I'll assume that spelling isn't too important. Unless we want to make this a spelling test as well. And the cool thing is this could serve as a subtle literacy test as well. Score!

As an aside, knowing these seven bits of information is sufficient, in your mind, to turn someone from an uninformed voter to an informed one. Correct? Just making sure that we're alleviating the problem you've diagnosed. If someone knew the answers to the question and didn't know anything else you'd still be satisfied? Or we could even split it up into varying degrees of difficulty and have a cascading set of questions. Maybe even have qualified personnel interview every prospective voter. Or you could earn a voter license and have to get it recertified sometime before every election. Going back to the more lengthy set, if you know some of the issues and some of the positions then you could vote for some of the candidates. Maybe you don't get to vote for the whole enchilada unless you get 90% on the test. Might have to iron that out a bit more.

Okay. Next set of questions. Who administers the test? Where is the test administered (does it happen at the polling location)? Who grades the test? How is the person notified if they have passed or failed? What about if they are taking this test in a language other than English? What do you do with absentee ballots?

Maybe it might be a good idea to have people take the test while they are voting. Then you have two different vote totals, those who are too ignorant to vote and those who know seven bits of information. And we could publicize that on the news. Try to shame people into figuring out what the answers are.

Basically, how do we implement this new system?

[HKCavalier, very nice collection of quotes. As you can see, I'm taking the low ground on this one ]

Hey, let me answer for Fuckface..Shut the fuck up dickcatcher you pompous ass. Even I can read this thread and tell that USjack off didn't think it through that much. Hey dickcatcher he was making a point about how invalid polls are. I happen to like his or this bitches idea. And if you fucking fool read the thread even your stupid ass would have seen that fuck face already said it would be administered in any language. And it wouldn't prove anything but maybe people mite learn something in the process. what a fucking shit ROCK you have become dickcatcher! And this is why I am a troll. you are an ass hole attacking fuckface with a pompous attitude ..fuck you asshole. read your post do you smell the douche bag in ya? Hey fuck face get used to this. Enjoy!!!!! Join the revolution you are always welcome. I say fuck'em fuck'em all.

Chris eatsshitisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 17, 2006 10:51 PM

kaneman,

Dealing with a position is one thing. I have no problem attacking a position, dissecting it, challenging it and even mocking it on occasion. And I expect no less from other posters on this forum. Dealing with individuals is another thing. I choose not to attack individuals (well, I try

). Which means that I will not respond to your attacks in kind.

I will, however, make the observation that you seem to expend a lot of energy negatively. Whatever gets you through the day, I guess.

"Men hate each other because they fear each other. They fear each other because they don't know each other. They don't know each other because they don't communicate with each other. They don't communicate with each other because they are separated from each other." - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 2:36 AM

Understatement of the year

Quote:
USB: Our political leaders no longer talk with the eloquence of a Churchill or Eisenhower.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 6:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Understatement of the year

Quote:
USB: Our political leaders no longer talk with the eloquence of a Churchill or Eisenhower.

Yeah. What's up with that? And it's not like they don't have the highest paid speech writers working on their material for them. Is it just that eloquence is not valued? Or is it a forgotten art form?

On a related note, I don't believe that some of our past great leaders would have a snowballs chance in hell of getting elected today. Lincoln? Too tall, lanky and just downright ugly.

The two most important criteria, in the television age, are to look presidential and be able to read a teleprompter effectively. Style over substance. The sound bite spoken in a well designed setting with compelling visual backdrops will get played on the nightly news. Each appearance is a tightly managed event. I've been very impressed with the designers of these visuals. It's not surprising that many of them were hired from Hollywood.

It's all about the entertainment, baby.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 7:11 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Soup... been away from this thread, got too much to do. But I just looked it over and ... you take the high road, and I'll take the low road... Kaneman, he prolly drinks a bottle of scotch and then starts typing away....

Sorry, just had to get that impression in.

And now back to our regularly scheduled discussion...

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 8:55 AM

I've often wondered why this is myself. I would say it's because of the sound bite. They no longer have the time to write a speak with substance. First, the average US citizen is not going to sit through a long "winded" speech. Secondly, the networks will not air it, they want a 10 second sound bite. They need time to discuss American Idol and wther or not Angelina Jolie was in fact kissing her brother at the Oscars. Got to have priorities!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 9:15 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:
I've often wondered why this is myself. I would say it's because of the sound bite. They no longer have the time to write a speak with substance. First, the average US citizen is not going to sit through a long "winded" speech. Secondly, the networks will not air it, they want a 10 second sound bite. They need time to discuss American Idol and wther or not Angelina Jolie was in fact kissing her brother at the Oscars. Got to have priorities!

It's a consequence of Celebrity culture. Celebrity culture didn't exist for Churchill or Eisenhower, now it does. Politicians are celebrities now, which I imagine is why we get people who worship the ground they walk on.

Celebrities don't give speeches, they have their most plastic faces emblazoned on posters with a short quote ("Our enemies never stop thinking of ways to hurt us, and neither do we").

Corporatism destroys community, and then corporatism supplies us with artificial communities to fill the gap. Celebrities, Reality TV, proof that Big Brother is evil.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 9:31 AM

To extend this a bit. In my opinion, speeches are now written around "applause lines." Short one-liners that evoke an immediate positive reaction from the audience. The goal is to have a clip of the speaker saying something followed by visual and audible approval signals from the audience. The audience itself is not important as an audience but moreso as a prop as the primary target for the speech are the millions who will see the clips on television. It's marketing and, like most marketing, it is an appeal to the people. For the viewer at home the message is clear, "All those people agree with the speaker therefore what the speaker said must be true." It borrows a lot from the way television comedies use audience laughter (or even laugh tracks) to tell the viewer what is funny. Unfortunately for those trying to manage the public, we have not yet gotten to the point where political speeches have applause signs (although I could be wrong since I have yet to attend in person a speech by a President). So the "applause lines" themselves have to be pretty blatant. Which, in my opinion, automatically rules out eloquence.

In other words, the audience is already convinced. There is no need for the speaker to sway the crowd. It's not that we no longer have eloquent speech writers it's that we do not need them for the kind of things speech writers are hoping to accomplish.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 9:48 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

I subscribe to no conspiracy theories. The list of Islamo-fascists attacks on the US, its citizens and its sovereignty, is longer than most would ever recognize. It never gets repeated on the network news shows, that's for sure!

Could that be...
do you think it might...
hey, is that a...

CONSPIRACY ???????

Whistling Dixie Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 9:58 AM

Soup, That explains that annoying pause the politicians give, waiting for the applause, at the end of every third sentence. It is so blatantly staged. Scary stuff. I can just see "PAUSE NOW!" written in the margins. The more I'm thinking about it, I realize that, they all do it. How refreshing would it be to have someone break from the pack?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 10:03 AM

Soup,

More people voting. This is what everyone was screaming for. Now we have 120 million knuckleheads selecting themselves as candidates, so such, a couple select academic achievers because that's who they are, but the average american is Homer Simpson.

Bush is a lot like Homer, and not surprisingly, Mr. Burns, his VP, is calling all the shots. DOH!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 10:06 AM

Now that's I've read the entertainment culture theory, that one works for me too. I think that it's a mixture of the two. Plus, the crossover, when entertainers tell dumb people who to vote for. Esp. dumb entertainers. Britney has nice boobies, and she likes Bush, so, Might as well Bush.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 1:57 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

SignyM

I just started scrolling down the thread - only got this far and have to get back to work. But this caught my eye:

Quote:
Avoid occupying foreign territories as much as possible while distenagling the mess we made- which will take decades to undo seeing as it took decades to create.

Vietnamn was messed with and messed over for decades - first the French then the US. After the US left, it took only about 15 yrs for some type of SOP to return. If other countries left the M.E. TOTALLY ALONE, do you think it'd really take that long for them to recover to some type of regional stability?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 9:12 PM

USBrowncoat,

That's one of the reasons I have a hard time watching either of the two major parties national conventions during a Presidential election year. Although I guess we should be thankful that it's really something that hasn't caught on at the Senate or Representative level (unless it's someone who has aspirations for the Presidency). It doesn't make sense to expend the resources necessary to try to massage millions if you're running for a district that's already gerrymandered to the point of noncompetitivity.

And at the highest level, you really can't compete with the resources that the President has at his disposal. There is a special office, that really came into it's own in the early nineties IIRC, that manages all the President's appearances. Advance teams going out to arrange the stage (lighting, making sure the colors are right, figuring out the best time of day to stage the event, setting up the backdrops - which are another topic altogether, finding the right people to have on the stage with the President and keeping people out of the event that might not be 100% enthusiastic). All of this, of course, is being paid for by us taxpayers.

There are some good stories about these staged events. Here's a short one. There was a speech given in the midwest in a warehouse filled with boxes. The backdrop that was created had the slogan for the day ("Strengthening America's Economy") along with stacks of boxes saying, "Made in the USA." But the real boxes in the warehouse were from overseas. So the advance team went through with tape and taped over the country of origin ( http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/22/bush.boxes/ and, for a close-up on the backdrop, http://thereitis.org/displayarticle286.html ). You can tell where the backdrop starts because the boxes are a darker color than the real boxes.

dreamtrove,

I don't buy that more people voting is a problem. I do think that more people voting is a threat to the status quo. Take, for example, what happened in Connecticut recently. There was a local movement to challenge an incumbent Democratic Senator who many Connecticut Democrats felt was out of step with the views of their state. These were politically savvy, issue-educated voters who decided that it was time for a change. Enough of them made the decision that the incumbent lost the primary. It was a record turnout for an end of summer primary in an off-year election and thousands of people registered to vote for the first time.

So what was the reaction? You would have thought the world was coming to an end. The incumbent refused to listen to the voters of his own party and formed a new party. As of today, at least six Democratic Senators are backing him against the winner of the Democratic primary. The White House is refusing to support the Republican nominee. The Vice-President and other influential members of the Republican party and the pundits are saying this is a victory for al Qaeda.

There is a message here from the politicians of both parties in Washington, DC to local state parties. What you think doesn't mean shit. We know what is best for you.

Okay, that got long and went off course.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 19, 2006 3:18 PM

ANTIMASON

have you guys heard of the constitution party? its become very conspiratorially christian over the last few years, but i believe it is the perfect medium between the left and right extremes; and its platform is the constitution and its preservation, which is the only thing preventing the NWO agenda from becoming the status quo. you should check it out if you can...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 19, 2006 3:29 PM

KANEMAN

Soup, good stuff. I had never heard that one. What a joke. It is so unnecessary anyway, why go through the trouble? The average politician thinks we are a nation of fools.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 19, 2006 3:59 PM