Quote by TriSec:
BTW, did anyone notice that the President made another speech to the nation's schoolchildren yesterday? What happened to all the histrionics?
The result was a potentially destabilizing blow for New York Republicans. It put at the top of the party's ticket a volatile newcomer who has forwarded e-mails to friends containing racist jokes and pornographic images, espoused turning prisons into dormitories where welfare recipients could be given classes on hygiene, and defended an ally's comparison of the Assembly speaker, Sheldon Silver, who is Jewish, to "an Antichrist or a Hitler."
Quote by Al from WV:
It's a rare day that I listen to talk radio anymore, but this morning, waiting for a phone call on the way to work, I turned on the CD player... oops, punching the wrong button got me on talk radio. Some conservative's show, I suppose. Don't remember the name. He was railing against what he called "establishment Republicans."
I didn't listen too closely, because most of it was about something I could care less about - political strategy (which is 99% of politics today). I'm just stupid enough to vote my conscience and to wish everyone else would, too, if they have a conscience. The fact that political strategy (who can win, how to win, which party is better, which party does.... whatever) is the order of the day is the reason I've stopped posting on current events/political message places except for the very very rare post here. I have no stomach for it. It's party over principle, party over country, plain and simple.
None the less, one caller said something important that falls by the wayside when political strategy is the main point of the day (week, month, year, decade...). He said "I'd rather lose with a good person as a candidate than win with a bad person."
Wish I knew that guy. I like people like that, and I find damn few of them anywhere in America anymore, on any side of or angle from the political aisle.
Quote by BobR:Quote by Al from WV:
It's a rare day that I listen to talk radio anymore, but this morning, waiting for a phone call on the way to work, I turned on the CD player... oops, punching the wrong button got me on talk radio. Some conservative's show, I suppose. Don't remember the name. He was railing against what he called "establishment Republicans."
I didn't listen too closely, because most of it was about something I could care less about - political strategy (which is 99% of politics today). I'm just stupid enough to vote my conscience and to wish everyone else would, too, if they have a conscience. The fact that political strategy (who can win, how to win, which party is better, which party does.... whatever) is the order of the day is the reason I've stopped posting on current events/political message places except for the very very rare post here. I have no stomach for it. It's party over principle, party over country, plain and simple.
None the less, one caller said something important that falls by the wayside when political strategy is the main point of the day (week, month, year, decade...). He said "I'd rather lose with a good person as a candidate than win with a bad person."
Wish I knew that guy. I like people like that, and I find damn few of them anywhere in America anymore, on any side of or angle from the political aisle.
In an ideal world, there would be no parties, and all candidates would be funded by a government pool, thereby taking special interests out of the mix. Every candidate would be beholden only to their ideals, and the people in their districts that adhered to those ideals.
However, that world does not exist, and it never has. We've had parties since essentially the birth of our nation, so we have to work with the system we have in place.
Quote by Al from WV:Quote by BobR:Quote by Al from WV:
It's a rare day that I listen to talk radio anymore, but this morning, waiting for a phone call on the way to work, I turned on the CD player... oops, punching the wrong button got me on talk radio. Some conservative's show, I suppose. Don't remember the name. He was railing against what he called "establishment Republicans."
I didn't listen too closely, because most of it was about something I could care less about - political strategy (which is 99% of politics today). I'm just stupid enough to vote my conscience and to wish everyone else would, too, if they have a conscience. The fact that political strategy (who can win, how to win, which party is better, which party does.... whatever) is the order of the day is the reason I've stopped posting on current events/political message places except for the very very rare post here. I have no stomach for it. It's party over principle, party over country, plain and simple.
None the less, one caller said something important that falls by the wayside when political strategy is the main point of the day (week, month, year, decade...). He said "I'd rather lose with a good person as a candidate than win with a bad person."
Wish I knew that guy. I like people like that, and I find damn few of them anywhere in America anymore, on any side of or angle from the political aisle.
In an ideal world, there would be no parties, and all candidates would be funded by a government pool, thereby taking special interests out of the mix. Every candidate would be beholden only to their ideals, and the people in their districts that adhered to those ideals.
However, that world does not exist, and it never has. We've had parties since essentially the birth of our nation, so we have to work with the system we have in place.
Sorry, Bob, I can't even agree with you about the ideal. I have read my copy of the Constitution over, again, and I cannot in good conscience and being a reasonable man, find any place in it that tells government to fund candidates.
I tend to want to stick to the words in the Constitution, as amended and as written and in the meaning of the day's language that they were written in. If that is not done, I believe the Constitution loses all backbone and becomes a general guideline that might or might not be followed, depending on the power, wishes, and convenience of the person making the decision.
All the best, anyway,
Al
Quote by TriSec:
*sigh*.
The Sox are still mathematically in it, but we all know the season's done. So they have next year's schedule out already. There's an interesting visit by the Cubs (first time in since 1918), but guess who we open against? Again?
Come on guys, how about a little imagination?
Quote by TriSec:
Idle thought, weren't the Jets involved in a female reporter incident back in the 80s? Mark Gastineau, if memory serves. And the Patriots had an incident, too. Back when Victor Kayem used to own the team. Same kind of thing.
Quote by TriSec:
Al, I have to agree with Bob.
How do you level the playing field? Public funding of campaigns is about the only way I see out.
Suppose me, Joe Citizen, wants to challenge John Kerry for his Senate seat? There's no way; he's got a personal fortune, name recognition, and millions pouring in from corporate special interests. Following the Constitutional logic, the system is already predispositioned against an ordinary citizen running. Where does it say in the Constitution that a candidate for office needs to be well-connected and wealthy? I daresay the current system is the one that's unconstitutional. But that's just me.
Quote by BobR:Quote by Al from WV:Quote by BobR:Quote by Al from WV:
It's a rare day that I listen to talk radio anymore, but this morning, waiting for a phone call on the way to work, I turned on the CD player... oops, punching the wrong button got me on talk radio. Some conservative's show, I suppose. Don't remember the name. He was railing against what he called "establishment Republicans."
I didn't listen too closely, because most of it was about something I could care less about - political strategy (which is 99% of politics today). I'm just stupid enough to vote my conscience and to wish everyone else would, too, if they have a conscience. The fact that political strategy (who can win, how to win, which party is better, which party does.... whatever) is the order of the day is the reason I've stopped posting on current events/political message places except for the very very rare post here. I have no stomach for it. It's party over principle, party over country, plain and simple.
None the less, one caller said something important that falls by the wayside when political strategy is the main point of the day (week, month, year, decade...). He said "I'd rather lose with a good person as a candidate than win with a bad person."
Wish I knew that guy. I like people like that, and I find damn few of them anywhere in America anymore, on any side of or angle from the political aisle.
In an ideal world, there would be no parties, and all candidates would be funded by a government pool, thereby taking special interests out of the mix. Every candidate would be beholden only to their ideals, and the people in their districts that adhered to those ideals.
However, that world does not exist, and it never has. We've had parties since essentially the birth of our nation, so we have to work with the system we have in place.
Sorry, Bob, I can't even agree with you about the ideal. I have read my copy of the Constitution over, again, and I cannot in good conscience and being a reasonable man, find any place in it that tells government to fund candidates.
I tend to want to stick to the words in the Constitution, as amended and as written and in the meaning of the day's language that they were written in. If that is not done, I believe the Constitution loses all backbone and becomes a general guideline that might or might not be followed, depending on the power, wishes, and convenience of the person making the decision.
All the best, anyway,
Al
The Constitution provides Congress the power to create laws, so it would be possible for them to create campaign finance laws. Contrary to the notion that it would infringe on free speech, it would keep money from stifling the free speech of those without deep pockets.
Quote by Al from WV:Quote by TriSec:
Al, I have to agree with Bob.
How do you level the playing field? Public funding of campaigns is about the only way I see out.
Suppose me, Joe Citizen, wants to challenge John Kerry for his Senate seat? There's no way; he's got a personal fortune, name recognition, and millions pouring in from corporate special interests. Following the Constitutional logic, the system is already predispositioned against an ordinary citizen running. Where does it say in the Constitution that a candidate for office needs to be well-connected and wealthy? I daresay the current system is the one that's unconstitutional. But that's just me.
Show me the violation of the Constitution. There is no equality of outcome guaranteed in any founding document, nor in any responsibly judged aspect of life, only equality of existence. If equality of outcome were a responsible thing to want, then one would want every person to have the same material things, without regard to their industriousness, intelligence, ingenuity, or any other personal aspect. in such a system, why bother to have any positive personal qualities (in addition to it being anathema to the founders purposes as shown in their writings again and again and again).
The existing fact that rich people can spend enough money to influence people to vote for them is indeed ugly and needs to not be so. However, kicking the Constitution aside, or worse, pretending that it condones government being Big Daddy, is not an answer in line with what this country stands for, or at least what the paper the founding documents are written on say it stands for (not that it does much, anymore).
Quote by Al from WV:Quote by BobR:Quote by Al from WV:Quote by BobR:
In an ideal world, there would be no parties, and all candidates would be funded by a government pool, thereby taking special interests out of the mix. Every candidate would be beholden only to their ideals, and the people in their districts that adhered to those ideals.
However, that world does not exist, and it never has. We've had parties since essentially the birth of our nation, so we have to work with the system we have in place.
Sorry, Bob, I can't even agree with you about the ideal. I have read my copy of the Constitution over, again, and I cannot in good conscience and being a reasonable man, find any place in it that tells government to fund candidates.
I tend to want to stick to the words in the Constitution, as amended and as written and in the meaning of the day's language that they were written in. If that is not done, I believe the Constitution loses all backbone and becomes a general guideline that might or might not be followed, depending on the power, wishes, and convenience of the person making the decision.
All the best, anyway,
Al
The Constitution provides Congress the power to create laws, so it would be possible for them to create campaign finance laws. Contrary to the notion that it would infringe on free speech, it would keep money from stifling the free speech of those without deep pockets.
If I take your response at face value, I have to believe that you are saying that Congress can pass whatever laws it wants, without complying with the Constitution in the law. I know you know better. Congress can only create laws to execute the powers specifically given to it. I suppose it might be hidden under the pretense that the general welfare phrase really means "whatever feels good today." That's a notion that I reject, personally, but I see a lot of people espousing, changing "whatever feels good today" to "this seems like a good thing" without changing the real motivation under it.
None the less, as I've said before, I expect no change. The Constitution is no longer a document that bounds government, as it was for most of it's life to date, it is now a document that gets twisted and turned and contorted as necessary to "allow" what somebody can get most of the vocal people to like. Usually, that's some form of lowering discipline and assisting rebellion against existing order. The wishes of the 60s have come to pass. What was yesterday is "the establishment" and it MUST be taken down. Nevermind good sense, right, adherence to the actual words in the Constitution...
It is no surprise that I have not been a happy person for a long time. I packed my old uniform away this weekend, there's nothing left to be proud of. The Constitution I thought I was defending does not exist anymore, in any real practical sense.
Quote by BobR:Quote by Al from WV:Quote by BobR:Quote by Al from WV:Quote by BobR:
In an ideal world, there would be no parties, and all candidates would be funded by a government pool, thereby taking special interests out of the mix. Every candidate would be beholden only to their ideals, and the people in their districts that adhered to those ideals.
However, that world does not exist, and it never has. We've had parties since essentially the birth of our nation, so we have to work with the system we have in place.
Sorry, Bob, I can't even agree with you about the ideal. I have read my copy of the Constitution over, again, and I cannot in good conscience and being a reasonable man, find any place in it that tells government to fund candidates.
I tend to want to stick to the words in the Constitution, as amended and as written and in the meaning of the day's language that they were written in. If that is not done, I believe the Constitution loses all backbone and becomes a general guideline that might or might not be followed, depending on the power, wishes, and convenience of the person making the decision.
All the best, anyway,
Al
The Constitution provides Congress the power to create laws, so it would be possible for them to create campaign finance laws. Contrary to the notion that it would infringe on free speech, it would keep money from stifling the free speech of those without deep pockets.
If I take your response at face value, I have to believe that you are saying that Congress can pass whatever laws it wants, without complying with the Constitution in the law. I know you know better. Congress can only create laws to execute the powers specifically given to it. I suppose it might be hidden under the pretense that the general welfare phrase really means "whatever feels good today." That's a notion that I reject, personally, but I see a lot of people espousing, changing "whatever feels good today" to "this seems like a good thing" without changing the real motivation under it.
None the less, as I've said before, I expect no change. The Constitution is no longer a document that bounds government, as it was for most of it's life to date, it is now a document that gets twisted and turned and contorted as necessary to "allow" what somebody can get most of the vocal people to like. Usually, that's some form of lowering discipline and assisting rebellion against existing order. The wishes of the 60s have come to pass. What was yesterday is "the establishment" and it MUST be taken down. Nevermind good sense, right, adherence to the actual words in the Constitution...
It is no surprise that I have not been a happy person for a long time. I packed my old uniform away this weekend, there's nothing left to be proud of. The Constitution I thought I was defending does not exist anymore, in any real practical sense.
That's right - you DO know me better. We have a branch of government (the SCOTUS) that is in place to determine whether laws pass Constitutional muster. How you feel about any particular law will influence your opinion as to whether you think they are doing their job properly.
While you did a good job of supposing my thoughts and then shooting them down, that really has nothing to do with what I was saying.
Quote by TriSec:
The one thing the constitution didn't address is "death by a thousand cuts". Both parties seem to be trying to outdo each other in the race to the bottom. We thought Bush was bad; you think Obama is bad, and meanwhile more gets eroded. Of course, the ones that would actually protect anything are either powerless, on the wrong side, or end up getting swept aside after they cross the wrong person.
And so we all lose.
Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman gave her campaign another $15 million Tuesday. The latest contribution brings Whitman's personal spending in the race to $119 million, shattering the record for most money ever spent by one political candidate on a single election in American history.
Quote by Raine:
This is a serious problem I have with elections:Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman gave her campaign another $15 million Tuesday. The latest contribution brings Whitman's personal spending in the race to $119 million, shattering the record for most money ever spent by one political candidate on a single election in American history.
This should not be legal.
Quote by Raine:
This is a serious problem I have with elections:Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman gave her campaign another $15 million Tuesday. The latest contribution brings Whitman's personal spending in the race to $119 million, shattering the record for most money ever spent by one political candidate on a single election in American history.
This should not be legal.
Quote by TriSec:
Al, I have to agree with Bob.
How do you level the playing field? Public funding of campaigns is about the only way I see out.
Suppose me, Joe Citizen, wants to challenge John Kerry for his Senate seat? There's no way; he's got a personal fortune, name recognition, and millions pouring in from corporate special interests. Following the Constitutional logic, the system is already predispositioned against an ordinary citizen running. Where does it say in the Constitution that a candidate for office needs to be well-connected and wealthy? I daresay the current system is the one that's unconstitutional. But that's just me.
Quote by BobR:
On the other hand, I doubt our founding fathers would be in support of buying a seat in Congress.
Quote by livingonli:
I'm back. I did lose 3 pounds in the last month so at least it's moving in the right direction. I still got a way to go, but I would like it to stick this time.