Politics (enter at your own risk!)

[Fel]

Well, here it is nearly 3am Eastern...I have class in 6 hours, I'm still awake, glued to the TV waiting out the last 2 Senate results, Montana and Virginia.

All I can say is Thank God.

I'm not a Democrat. I'm not a Republican. I'm a non-partisan who sides with the GOP over matters of economics (small government, low taxes, business allowed to do business) and side with the DNC over certain matters social (care for the population via SOME welfare for the truly needy, institute universal health care, etc), though I tend to resist some of their more liberal positions.

That being said, I'm quite happy to see the Democrats have taken the House, and look poised to take the Senate. I say this because one of the main roles of Congress is oversight of the Executive, and that is the one thing that the Republican Congress refused to do. They let Bush run wild all over us, and now, with the Democratic takeover, Bush will either realize his leash only goes so far, or he'll get his sorry ass impeached.

Needless to say, politically speaking, the next 2 years are gonna be REALLY entertaining.

Flame away.

[Lochar]

Because people were sick and tired of Bush's excess. And we couldn't do anything about it before now.

Did you know, you can recall your legislature from the State, but the federal level cannot be recalled?

[J-Man5]

They let Bush run wild all over us, and now, with the Democratic takeover, Bush will either realize his leash only goes so far, or he'll get his sorry ass impeached.

There was a story on MSNBC about Nancy Pelosi the next possible Speaker and how that one of the things that had already been negotiated with the Republicans is that Bush would not get impeached. Its a sad state of affairs when things have already been decided. Thats the problem with a two party system. I think that a forced system of service in congress and senate should be instituted. You serve for two terms and are chosen by a computer and randomly selected. You get a salary and there is no advertising. Lobbying should be made illeagal! And anyone who is a lawyer is automatically disqualified.

At local levels you can run and advertise. But nothing higher than local/county positions.

Government is good. Politics is bad. Politicking is the worst.

All!!! of!!! them!!! are!!! bad!!!

I hate all of the political parties in the US. If I fell under ones in other countries I'd feel the same. It's not generally the people involved but the ideology. I know that if you hired a group of accountants who were not involved in politics you could cut this countries budget in a couple of months and not ever have a deficit again. Even taxes would be reduced to only import and export tarrifs and possibly a national sales tax or VAT tax.

My opinion.

J-Man5

[Sbudda]

They let Bush run wild all over us

As long as I live, I will never understand what you have against Bush...

A powerful man, who receives instructions from God, who doesn't think plans throughly through, and who has a penchant for destroying cities? I submit that, were it not for Bush's influence, Tarrin would be making flower necklaces in every book.

"Terrin was sorely tempted to rampage throughout the city, however he was aware that he needed to find out what the rest of the world would think before he did anything drastic. So he summoned his closest advisors. They worked for long hours, which turned to days, determining each effect his rampaging might cause. They took frequent coffee and pastry breaks. Finally, after 3 weeks of hammering out the details with his advisors, the mayor, the local chamber of commerce, and Camara Tal's feminist enforcers - they decided to simply paint the city a more pleasing color. Tarrin wasn't too sure how ths would get him the Firestaff, but he was sure a bubble bath couldn't hurt."

Yaaaawwwn.

[Fiferguy]

You know, I said it when the bastard stole office, and I'll say it now. I find a lot of similarities between Hitler and Bush. Both rule by fear and intimidation: Hitler against the Jews, and others; Bush against Arabs and Homosexuals, and others. The only difference I see is that, first, Bush can't be president after 2008. Second, Hitler was smarter. Third, Hitler was a better speaker. Fourth, Hitler was better looking.

In the Firestaff series, Tarrin does destroy cities, but it's one of those "The good of the many..." things. Tarrin destroyed cities and any who opposed him because if he didn't get the Firestaff first, the ENTIRE world could've been destroyed. So he waged war and the other things to keep that from happening. Like WWII. Bush on the other hand, waged war for 1) Revenge, and 2) Oil. There was NO reason to go to Iraq. Zero. Zilch. I never woke up going, "Protect me from Saddam." He was never a threat to my safety. Bush is 10x the threat to my safety than Saddam ever was.

That being said, yes, Saddam was evil. There is no doubt about that. If he had said we're going over there because Saddam was evil, maybe I would have a different view on the war. But Bush LIED...and people died. Our soldiers are still dying over there. Now, I fully support our troops, and will do everything that I can to support them. But I cannot in good conscience support the reason they're over there.

I could go on and on about why Bush is the worst president in the history of the United States, but in the end, it doesn't matter. I'm glad that we've (and by that, I mean the Democratic party) has cut the legs out from underneath him. We may not have enough of a majority to override his veto, but at least now he can't get any of his Radical-Christian-Right-Wing-Fear-Inducing-Liberty-Limiting laws passed.

[michaelsuave]

Um guys, the president hasn't/not enough evidence of any sort of fraud or criminal action with which he could get impeached at the moment. I'm more than willing to hear that he is often times/all the time an idiot or excessive in his use of policing powers, but as of yet he hasn't entered the realm of impeachment. The government, including the executive branch, hold a certain amount of sovereign immunity from being held responsible for their actions or decisions. Only when gross negligence or insanely unethical uses of power are established could we see an impeachment. Besides, doesn't it take a supermajority to impeach the president? That would require GOP voting against the president also, the democratic lead isn't that great.

I'm a republican, but in our current situation I do agree with the balancing of the powers. Basically I think the GOP screwed the pooch recently with their scandles, abuses of personal rights, and failure in Iraq. Though on the same hand, my skin is crawling thinking that nancy is going to be the speaker of the house. shiver* She's just a bit to rabid and chomping at the mouth for me.

~Michael

[Starstryker]

I personally think that if the new congress decides to support bush in all his idiocy.....its time to dust off the neutron bombs and start over with this whole capitol thing....




Starstryker

[Fel]

Um guys, the president hasn't/not enough evidence of any sort of fraud or criminal action with which he could get impeached at the moment. I'm more than willing to hear that he is often times/all the time an idiot or excessive in his use of policing powers, but as of yet he hasn't entered the realm of impeachment. The government, including the executive branch, hold a certain amount of sovereign immunity from being held responsible for their actions or decisions. Only when gross negligence or insanely unethical uses of power are established could we see an impeachment. Besides, doesn't it take a supermajority to impeach the president? That would require GOP voting against the president also, the democratic lead isn't that great.

I'm a republican, but in our current situation I do agree with the balancing of the powers. Basically I think the GOP screwed the pooch recently with their scandles, abuses of personal rights, and failure in Iraq. Though on the same hand, my skin is crawling thinking that nancy is going to be the speaker of the house. shiver* She's just a bit to rabid and chomping at the mouth for me.

~Michael

Actually, I think Pelosi's starting on the right foot...not all fire and brimstone, instead striking a reasonable tone and asking for cooperation. Pelosi more or less said that cooperation is necessary to move the country forward. This is exactly what needs to be done if we're gonna go anywhere from this point.

I must say, this is a heck of a lot more than was afforded to the Democrats after 2002.

The thing is, Michael, one of the reasons I take great satisfaction in the defeat of the GOP is the terrible arrogance they've shown in the last few years. I'm not sure if you follow politics, but their behavior in the House has been atrocious. The House is certainly the majority playground, but the GOP has been absolutely tyrannical in their ham-handed approach to dealing with the Democrats, and even in dealing with dissent within their own party. "Bipartisanship" is a word that lost all meaning when Hastert became Speaker. They became beholden to their own agenda, and absolutely refused to move an inch off their chosen path, even when it was proved to them that it was wrong. And anyone that decried or denounced their activities or their lack of action was mercilessly attacked, even WITHIN THE GOP ITSELF. Any Republican that did not march lockstep with the "party doctrine" was beaten down like a dog.

As a centrist, this really, REALLY, REALLY pissed me off. The GOP forgot that they work for the PEOPLE, not that the people serve THEM. Government is about free discourse where many viewpoints share their ideas in a forum of open debate, and then a reasonable compromise is struck that benefits the most people.

That is NOT how it's worked since 2000.

[Spec8472]

They let Bush run wild all over us

As long as I live, I will never understand what you have against Bush...

A powerful man, who receives instructions from God, who doesn't think plans throughly through, and who has a penchant for destroying cities? I submit that, were it not for Bush's influence, Tarrin would be making flower necklaces in every book.

A couple of things...

#1 - Sennadar is a fictitious, fantasy world.

#2 - The bits about Tarrin destroying cities were written <b>well</b> before Bush was president. (Yeah, it's been going a while)

#3 - The Gods in Sennadar can be demonstrably proven to exist - they have a measurable ongoing impact upon the world/multiverse in which Sennadar exists. So, if you were to apply modern scientific principles to gather evidence of the Gods existences, you wouldn't have to go far.

#4 - Destroying cities/etc in a fictitious book is incomparable to doing it in real life.

hold a certain amount of sovereign immunity from being held responsible for their actions or decisions.

See, that is slightly disturbing.

All persons, regardless of whom they are, must be held responsible and accountable for their actions.

With the <i>rare</i> exception of where you were acting under extreme duress (i.e someone's holding a gun to your head/your family's head), you must always be subject to the rule of law.

If you're a head of state, then this is doubly true - yes, you're held to a higher standard, and you're subject to a lot more scrutiny than others - that is (mostly) needed.

If the head of state doesn't follow the rule of law, what kind of example is that setting for other heads of state, or people in office, or even "regular" citizens.

[the_scot]

I agree with Fel on the arrogance of the current group of Republicans. I am an ex-McCarthy Democrat (Eugene, not Joseph) who has become more and more conservative as I have grown older.

One problem I have seen is that the arrogance and corruption seems to eventually infect whichever party has been in power for a while (at least 2 weeks). I saw the same problems with the Democrats in the 70's and 80's. As a result, I supported Reagan, Bush, Dole and Dufas. I'm not real proud of that last one, but at the time, he seemed the better option, and that is the real crux of the matter -- today, we are more likely to vote against someone than for them.

Therefore, I feel that the time as come for us to push for a Constitutional amendment to add "NONE OF THE ABOVE" to the ballot. If "NOTA" gets the most votes for a ballot position (or even a third of the total), then a new election would have to be held for that position with new candidates.

This might not solve everything, but it would drastically reduce the negative advertising and force the candidates to tell us what they really plan to accomplish - before the election. To do this, the candidate would have to listen more to the people, rather than the special interest groups. After all, they can deliver financing, but they can't deliver votes. It might not solve everything, but it could go a long way toward putting the power back in the hands of the "People".

[MISER]

OK, probably gonna make some folks angry here.

Remember you chose to read it.

I chose to as well.

I feel sickened by the elections over all. We have demonstrated to the world that we are a people divided by morality and philosophy. And I see this, as a further sign and symptom, that we as a people and nation, are sick!

We can't stand together on anything. We dont agree, we dont care, and we in general are not willing to work for a goal.

We let the media and a few mindless talking heads in and out of our own nation, tell us what to think instead of thinking for ourselves. We take predigested pap and pablum from the most questionable of sources, and accept it as gospel.

And we have lost the sight and vision of what this nation was founded for in truth and philosophy. AND YES RELIGIOUSLY!

We call immorality civil right's instead of criminal or civil wrongs.

We look to crucify leaders of parties or groups opposed to our own desires or want's, for their acts of indiscretion or flagrant corruption, while ignoring those same types of acts by the leaders of our own groups and parties.

We misuse our own precious freedom and personal power, to place into power overourselves, persons of known, corrupt, criminal, ideologies. And we pretent to like it when we are in a position where we made our nest and now must live in it! Wahhhhh....

The old saying power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Has never been more true. Be it in politics or in the ranks of media.

I voted for, and still support my president. He got handed a crap sandwich early in a first term and has been struggling to do the best he can to keep you and I safe ever sense.

So I have to ask. If you are entitled to vote did you exercise your prescious freedom and right? Have you prayed for your leadership to your diety, for guidance? Or have you just gone along with the flow, accepting a world view from others mouths, unable to seperate the wheat from the chaff in a world where good and evil are at war, and where that war and its battles, and costs effect you?

Have you worn a uniform and defended this nation? I have. I am an old disabled veteran. And did my part so you can live safe, and have your say here. So kindly don't disparage me for my opinions or remarks. If you disagree with me I can live with it.

I disagree wit many things i saw posted earlier here. No personal attacks, just another point of view.

It's our new world today ya all, we made it, and we have to live in it. I don't see it better today, than yesterday, after the election's.

But then I am to some of you just the old Curmudgeon of a group that likes creative fantasy from a young man's imagination, which is shared openly and freely shared here. I too come here to escape in those writings. And occasionaly to speak my piece.

Do you Grok It?

Soapbox packed up.

John

[michaelsuave]

Um guys, the president hasn't/not enough evidence of any sort of fraud or criminal action with which he could get impeached at the moment. I'm more than willing to hear that he is often times/all the time an idiot or excessive in his use of policing powers, but as of yet he hasn't entered the realm of impeachment. The government, including the executive branch, hold a certain amount of sovereign immunity from being held responsible for their actions or decisions. Only when gross negligence or insanely unethical uses of power are established could we see an impeachment. Besides, doesn't it take a supermajority to impeach the president? That would require GOP voting against the president also, the democratic lead isn't that great.

I'm a republican, but in our current situation I do agree with the balancing of the powers. Basically I think the GOP screwed the pooch recently with their scandles, abuses of personal rights, and failure in Iraq. Though on the same hand, my skin is crawling thinking that nancy is going to be the speaker of the house. shiver* She's just a bit to rabid and chomping at the mouth for me.

~Michael

Actually, I think Pelosi's starting on the right foot...not all fire and brimstone, instead striking a reasonable tone and asking for cooperation. Pelosi more or less said that cooperation is necessary to move the country forward. This is exactly what needs to be done if we're gonna go anywhere from this point.

I must say, this is a heck of a lot more than was afforded to the Democrats after 2002.

The thing is, Michael, one of the reasons I take great satisfaction in the defeat of the GOP is the terrible arrogance they've shown in the last few years. I'm not sure if you follow politics, but their behavior in the House has been atrocious. The House is certainly the majority playground, but the GOP has been absolutely tyrannical in their ham-handed approach to dealing with the Democrats, and even in dealing with dissent within their own party. "Bipartisanship" is a word that lost all meaning when Hastert became Speaker. They became beholden to their own agenda, and absolutely refused to move an inch off their chosen path, even when it was proved to them that it was wrong. And anyone that decried or denounced their activities or their lack of action was mercilessly attacked, even WITHIN THE GOP ITSELF. Any Republican that did not march lockstep with the "party doctrine" was beaten down like a dog.

As a centrist, this really, REALLY, REALLY pissed me off. The GOP forgot that they work for the PEOPLE, not that the people serve THEM. Government is about free discourse where many viewpoints share their ideas in a forum of open debate, and then a reasonable compromise is struck that benefits the most people.

That is NOT how it's worked since 2000.

Fel, I do follow politics, and I admit that I have strongly disagreed with some of the tactics used by the GOP legislature. Unfortunately they acted as if the ends justified the means and practiced smother tactics in dealing with the democrats. The whole "nuclear option" I thought was a load of crock, though at the same time I agreed with the point that there should be a vote and that the filibuster was also a "ham handed" tactic used by the democrats.

I'm from california so I get to see a lot of what pelosi says and does on her home front, and it isn't the national statements that scare me, its the ones that she says behind closed doors when she is talking to her groups in San Francisco. I'm a centralist also, a very moderate or left leaning republican, I'm primarily a republican based on their financial/economic issues. As such, when I see people chomping at the bit and foaming at the mouth against the other side then it really makes me sick. I just hate to see this flip flop of extremes. Its my opinion that we have jumped from the "rush limba" legislature to the exact opposite, but we will have to see how it turns out. Until I see actual interaction, I'm going to limit my opinion and response, as all we are getting right now is a lot of talk and no action.

~Michael

[Mark_Reed]

*Notes Miser's post* Hey! Fel even gets a draw from old veterans. Says something about his writing, eh? Not that everyone else who reads this board doesn't already agree...

The Scott said:

-- today, we are more likely to vote against someone than for them.

And on that subject, does anyone else live in Virginia? I do. Four or five months ago, prime time TV got rather entertaining. Then it just got boring. How many attack ads can you throw out there before a lynch mob forms to run you out of town? Jim Webb and George Allen (senate seat, Virginia) were determined to find out. And for me at least, it worked!

Jim Webb convinced me that George Allen should not be in office.

George Allen convinced me that Jim Webb should not be in office.

They're BOTH morons. I voted independant. *rolls his eyes* Everytime I saw yet another attack ad, I had to choke back the urge to track down a politician and slap them. Grow up, already!

At least they kept the attack ads new. Only thing worse than listening to someone getting lambasted is listening to someone getting lambasted for the seventy-fifth time.

-Mark Reed

[Sbudda]

Therefore, I feel that the time as come for us to push for a Constitutional amendment to add "NONE OF THE ABOVE" to the ballot.

If there is anything that Richard Pryor has taught us (besides freebasing cocaine isn't the best idea) is that the NONE OF THE ABOVE vote also doesn't matter. Brewster's Million's was a great movie... nostalgia aside, I've always been in favor of a multiple choice ballot. I know there is a name for this, but I cannot remember what it is called - basically you vote for your 1st choice, and your 2nd choice, and your 3rd choice, etc. If no one's first choice wins a majority, then the votes for second choice (and on down the line) are tallied until someone wins a majority. A pain in the butt to count by hand, but controlled by OSS software, it could be done quite efficiently.

The idea being that people would be more willing to place their first vote for their real choice, instead of worrying about "throwing their vote away" for a candidate that numerically has no shot. There was a good writeup about what changes this could cause in the Far Future Fembot series.

Constitutional amendments I would like to see?

#1 - The US Government is forbidden from increasing the size of America through conquest (voluntary petition for statehood is still ok).
#2 - Truth in Statistics - all uses of statistics in print or in political speechs must be referenced and accessable by all.
#3 - Medical Corps - all medical units in all armed services are placed under separate command, and can be used internally. Ths one is kinda random, but would be nice if people who wanted to be doctors got free education in exchange of 5-10 years of public - non-military - service.
#4 - Sbudda is Awesome amendment - everyone agrees that I'm really, really cool.

And we have lost the sight and vision of what this nation was founded for in truth and philosophy. AND YES RELIGIOUSLY!

I'm gonna have to disagree with you on that one. Aside from various quotes from the Founding Fathers like these...

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter."

...but also from our Nation's common history. If you recall, the Pilgrims left England to escape religious intolerance. Religious intolerance that was brought about by England's official Anglican church. People only want a religious state when that state is run by their own religion. For the same reason you wouldn't want an Islamic state, a state run by another religion would only differ by the cut of the burka. Heck, could you imagine how much fighting there would be if America was a Baptist, or Catholic country? Not to say that the Catholics or Baptists are particularly violent - well, ok maybe - but that other sects would fight them frequently

Don't forget, In God We Trust wasn't added to coins until 1864. It disappeared in 1883 and did not reappear until 1938. The Constitution has no reference to God, or a Creator, or Jesus in it or any amendments. While there is a mention of a creator in the Declaration, "the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them" doesn't really specify anything. Nor does "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" differ from the writing style of other deist thinkers of that period. So, the nation may have become religious, but it sure wasn't founded that way...

#1 - Sennadar is a fictitious, fantasy world.

Wait, Sennadar is fake? Mom's gonna be so mad at me for selling our cows for the beans that guy said would get me there...

[Spec8472]

I've always been in favor of a multiple choice ballot. I know there is a name for this, but I cannot remember what it is called - basically you vote for your 1st choice, and your 2nd choice, and your 3rd choice, etc. If no one's first choice wins a majority, then the votes for second choice (and on down the line) are tallied until someone wins a majority.

It's called run-off voting, Australia uses preferential voting - also known as "Instant Run-off Voting" - See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

Works a little differently to how you write it, but basicly the same, and it's in use for some parts of the US.

Certainly not ideal - since people need to fill in to (afaik - it's been a few years since I last voted) about 8 places, and the vote is marked as invalid if they simply tick one person, or only vote for one person.

Wait, Sennadar is fake? Mom's gonna be so mad at me for selling our cows for the beans that guy said would get me there...

You tried to make some link between Sennadar and the Real world - so yeah, it needed to be said. You can't attempt to justify or even explain Bush's actions by comparing it to what happened in Sennadar.