re: the No Confidence vote, there is an EXCELLENT book by Jose Saramago called Seeing which plays out this scenario. It is an awesome read (I prefer it to its more famous brother Blindness).
A Non-political Post
Historically, when calling out that people need to read the founding documents of the USA, its important to remember that the founding fathers were the one's who generally "undid" their own constitution.
Hamilton, Washington, Jefferson, & Madison collectively combined to:
-create a Navy
-create a standing army
-allow national debt
-create a national bank
-lay a strong federalist foundation for future congresses
Even Madison, the devout anti-federalist, became a proponent of strong national governments.
Hamilton, Washington, Jefferson, & Madison collectively combined to:
-create a Navy
-create a standing army
-allow national debt
-create a national bank
-lay a strong federalist foundation for future congresses
Even Madison, the devout anti-federalist, became a proponent of strong national governments.
A reason I have been told to vote:
Over the last 50 years or so, the socialist party has been the most influential party of all despite being only a few percent of the population. As the Republicans and Democrats have attempted to gain votes, they have taken on more and more of the philosophy of that few percent, until we ended up with the Republicrats and the Demicans
At least that's the theory. That's why I vote libertarian
Over the last 50 years or so, the socialist party has been the most influential party of all despite being only a few percent of the population. As the Republicans and Democrats have attempted to gain votes, they have taken on more and more of the philosophy of that few percent, until we ended up with the Republicrats and the Demicans
At least that's the theory. That's why I vote libertarian
First, I was amused by the OP that kicked this off. It has something of the "I come not to praise Caesar but to bury him" vibe with the repeated insistence on its non-political stance. It avoided party faction. But whenever someone considers the common good, that's political. And neither Aristotle nor I think that's a bad thing.
Second, my 2 cents on why citizens should vote, particularly in the federal elections. The president chooses federal judges, who sit for life; and the Senate confirms them. These judges have distinctive viewpoints that are often much more pointed than the center-leaning practices of those seeking election. Trust me when I say that a federal judge is going to have a far more significant impact on the interpretation of your Constitutional rights or the delegated powers of the federal government than any elected individual. As an attorney, I see the fruit of these judicial decisions, both good and bad, every day. If you fail to vote because the Demopublican and the Republicrat seem not only the same but equally offensive; I can assure you that Republicans and Democrats appoint very different judges. The former tend to support states rights and limited government and the latter tend to support the expansion of federal government. So, hold your nose and vote according to which policy you prefer for the weasel who is going to bestow that irrevocable black robe.
Second, my 2 cents on why citizens should vote, particularly in the federal elections. The president chooses federal judges, who sit for life; and the Senate confirms them. These judges have distinctive viewpoints that are often much more pointed than the center-leaning practices of those seeking election. Trust me when I say that a federal judge is going to have a far more significant impact on the interpretation of your Constitutional rights or the delegated powers of the federal government than any elected individual. As an attorney, I see the fruit of these judicial decisions, both good and bad, every day. If you fail to vote because the Demopublican and the Republicrat seem not only the same but equally offensive; I can assure you that Republicans and Democrats appoint very different judges. The former tend to support states rights and limited government and the latter tend to support the expansion of federal government. So, hold your nose and vote according to which policy you prefer for the weasel who is going to bestow that irrevocable black robe.
@Rob
These are valid back-ups. The University of Phoenix is the school that backed up the fact that O'Donnell never took a class at Oxford. Of course, course organizations have agendas, but the idea that these schools would purposefully lie and no one would find out is ludicrious. The military can't even keep battle logs secret during a war (Wikileaks). How would multiple schools keep their lies secret? They couldn't. So, who do you get your valid information from...god?
Actually, that doesn't bother me as much as her putting beliefs over facts and saying she doesn't "beleive" in evolution.
Concerning hope...
I would agree that it usually is "darkest before the dawn" and that we have been in bad situations before like the ones you bring up. And, I would even state that the events of the Civil War and the events of the Great Depression and the aftermath/debt of WWII were worse than what we face now.
My lack of hope stems more from the current beliefs/temperment of the country, and who is getting the support from the "angry voter." The Tea Party? I'm sure there are good people in the movement, but I just see one crazy after another on TV and in print (this includes small media). Glen Beck? The idea that he has enough influence to hold a rally, even a small one, just stupifies me. He has extreme and extremely bad ideas. Palin. I know you like her, but I honestly can't find one of her values, qualities, or policies that makes any sense...or that I believe she trully means to implement. She looks like any other politician, except she might be slower than the "Decider."
I see no one I would even bother getting out of bed to vote for in 2 years...and I vote.
These are valid back-ups. The University of Phoenix is the school that backed up the fact that O'Donnell never took a class at Oxford. Of course, course organizations have agendas, but the idea that these schools would purposefully lie and no one would find out is ludicrious. The military can't even keep battle logs secret during a war (Wikileaks). How would multiple schools keep their lies secret? They couldn't. So, who do you get your valid information from...god?
Actually, that doesn't bother me as much as her putting beliefs over facts and saying she doesn't "beleive" in evolution.
Concerning hope...
I would agree that it usually is "darkest before the dawn" and that we have been in bad situations before like the ones you bring up. And, I would even state that the events of the Civil War and the events of the Great Depression and the aftermath/debt of WWII were worse than what we face now.
My lack of hope stems more from the current beliefs/temperment of the country, and who is getting the support from the "angry voter." The Tea Party? I'm sure there are good people in the movement, but I just see one crazy after another on TV and in print (this includes small media). Glen Beck? The idea that he has enough influence to hold a rally, even a small one, just stupifies me. He has extreme and extremely bad ideas. Palin. I know you like her, but I honestly can't find one of her values, qualities, or policies that makes any sense...or that I believe she trully means to implement. She looks like any other politician, except she might be slower than the "Decider."
I see no one I would even bother getting out of bed to vote for in 2 years...and I vote.
@ Chad
"Actually, that doesn't bother me as much as her putting beliefs over facts and saying she doesn't "beleive" in evolution."
Remember that all the facts for evolution go back to "beleif" that our distance ancestor was a rock. All people are taught today are the arguments for evolution. Creationism also has good arguments. At the end of the day we choose to believe whatever we want based off the amount of information we know.
I am not going start a debate that will never end, but I will say that nobody was around X billion years ago and nobody is still around from X million or X thousand years to know what the truth is. There are facts supporting both sides and this is why the debate never ends.
Some "facts" hold true in controlled conditions, but we don't know all conditions have been the same as today. Kind of like the stock market. You can't accurately use a few hundred years to determine how a few billion years evolved. Carbon dating is not infallible and fossil records are a circular reference for dating. What came first? The fossil record or the date for the record?
"Actually, that doesn't bother me as much as her putting beliefs over facts and saying she doesn't "beleive" in evolution."
Remember that all the facts for evolution go back to "beleif" that our distance ancestor was a rock. All people are taught today are the arguments for evolution. Creationism also has good arguments. At the end of the day we choose to believe whatever we want based off the amount of information we know.
I am not going start a debate that will never end, but I will say that nobody was around X billion years ago and nobody is still around from X million or X thousand years to know what the truth is. There are facts supporting both sides and this is why the debate never ends.
Some "facts" hold true in controlled conditions, but we don't know all conditions have been the same as today. Kind of like the stock market. You can't accurately use a few hundred years to determine how a few billion years evolved. Carbon dating is not infallible and fossil records are a circular reference for dating. What came first? The fossil record or the date for the record?
@Chad: See that's the problem. The tea party is being hopelessly co-opted by the FoxNews neocon "mainstream" republicans... And sadly, nutcase Beck has become the pied piper of Tea Party disinfo. Palin, exact same thing...
Both were for the bailouts, both are clueless neocons as far as foreign policy goes, domestically they demand countless infringes on the Bill of Rights in the name of terror threats... If the generally public gets tricked into thinking clowns like these are the tea party, then the movement is already dead.
Both were for the bailouts, both are clueless neocons as far as foreign policy goes, domestically they demand countless infringes on the Bill of Rights in the name of terror threats... If the generally public gets tricked into thinking clowns like these are the tea party, then the movement is already dead.
@ Maus
"First, I was amused by the OP that kicked this off. It has something of the "I come not to praise Caesar but to bury him" vibe with the repeated insistence on its non-political stance. It avoided party faction. But whenever someone considers the common good, that's political. And neither Aristotle nor I think that's a bad thing."
Thank you for your comments. My entire purpose was to encourage my fellow Americans to be just that--Americans, and use the only tool we have to influence the way you think and believe. I kept shouting "non-political" simply because a writer can make a fine mess of things on a forum if that writer comes across as trying to shove his/her ideals down the throats of the readers. I wanted to avoid that at all costs.
I could certainly go into a long hard discourse of my own personal thoughts and beliefs, but I don't think anyone wants to hear that, and I don't want Jacob asking me to leave the forum over it!! LOL. If I did get started, the smoke would boil out of my ears and keyboard to the point I might not make too many friends!
Yes, I wanted this to be a call to our rights to vote--period.
"First, I was amused by the OP that kicked this off. It has something of the "I come not to praise Caesar but to bury him" vibe with the repeated insistence on its non-political stance. It avoided party faction. But whenever someone considers the common good, that's political. And neither Aristotle nor I think that's a bad thing."
Thank you for your comments. My entire purpose was to encourage my fellow Americans to be just that--Americans, and use the only tool we have to influence the way you think and believe. I kept shouting "non-political" simply because a writer can make a fine mess of things on a forum if that writer comes across as trying to shove his/her ideals down the throats of the readers. I wanted to avoid that at all costs.
I could certainly go into a long hard discourse of my own personal thoughts and beliefs, but I don't think anyone wants to hear that, and I don't want Jacob asking me to leave the forum over it!! LOL. If I did get started, the smoke would boil out of my ears and keyboard to the point I might not make too many friends!
Yes, I wanted this to be a call to our rights to vote--period.
-
RobBennett
- Posts: 120
- Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 8:09 pm
- Contact:
"So, who do you get your valid information from...god?"
No. I don't get my information from God, Chad. I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again.
I think we all have things that we look at that influence us more than other things. The evolution thing seems to be a hot button for you. I have my hot buttons. Everybody does.
I think that one of the problems we have might be that we are having a harder time pulling together as one nation than we did in the past. People always voted for different candidates and then they pulled together after the election and everybody saw themselves as just Americans. You could disagree on some issues with your neighbors and still be friends with them because you agreed on the basics. Today, it seems that a lot of the disputes are over the basics, things re which people feel there can be no compromise.
But again, I have hopes that the economic crisis might cause people to pull together a bit more. It might not. I suppose it could have just the opposite effect. But when I am trying to be optimistic, that's something I think about.
Rob
No. I don't get my information from God, Chad. I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again.
I think we all have things that we look at that influence us more than other things. The evolution thing seems to be a hot button for you. I have my hot buttons. Everybody does.
I think that one of the problems we have might be that we are having a harder time pulling together as one nation than we did in the past. People always voted for different candidates and then they pulled together after the election and everybody saw themselves as just Americans. You could disagree on some issues with your neighbors and still be friends with them because you agreed on the basics. Today, it seems that a lot of the disputes are over the basics, things re which people feel there can be no compromise.
But again, I have hopes that the economic crisis might cause people to pull together a bit more. It might not. I suppose it could have just the opposite effect. But when I am trying to be optimistic, that's something I think about.
Rob
@ Rob I appreciate your candor and civil tone.
I have trouble seeing Sarah Palin as healing the "us vs. them" mentality you're talking about. Perhaps stating the obvious, the glib talking heads (Beck, Stewart, O'Reilly, Maddow, Olbermann) exacerbate and profit from it.
I agree with your objection to personal attacks re: O'Donnell or anyone, really--some of the silly things she said were a lifetime ago, and it seems unfair to bring them up now (same with Clinton or Obama smoking pot in their youths). With a lot of Tea Party candidates, however, I think one of the most important policy questions they should be asked is, "Do you support the separation of church and state and the First Amendment?: 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'"
The belief or suspicion that some of these candidates may not support the First Amendment could very well be a reason for the "us vs. them" alienation too--just as there's a belief that Obama and some in his party aren't being sincere when they claim support of the Second Amendment, for example.
This gets to Maus's point about judicial appointments. Do you want judges appointed who reflect your and Sarah Palin's world view, Jimmy Carter's world view? I hope we could all agree that we would want neither--Getting back to HSpencer's original point, we should want elected officials and judges who support and defend the Constitution, not just their favorite parts.
I have trouble seeing Sarah Palin as healing the "us vs. them" mentality you're talking about. Perhaps stating the obvious, the glib talking heads (Beck, Stewart, O'Reilly, Maddow, Olbermann) exacerbate and profit from it.
I agree with your objection to personal attacks re: O'Donnell or anyone, really--some of the silly things she said were a lifetime ago, and it seems unfair to bring them up now (same with Clinton or Obama smoking pot in their youths). With a lot of Tea Party candidates, however, I think one of the most important policy questions they should be asked is, "Do you support the separation of church and state and the First Amendment?: 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'"
The belief or suspicion that some of these candidates may not support the First Amendment could very well be a reason for the "us vs. them" alienation too--just as there's a belief that Obama and some in his party aren't being sincere when they claim support of the Second Amendment, for example.
This gets to Maus's point about judicial appointments. Do you want judges appointed who reflect your and Sarah Palin's world view, Jimmy Carter's world view? I hope we could all agree that we would want neither--Getting back to HSpencer's original point, we should want elected officials and judges who support and defend the Constitution, not just their favorite parts.
-
AlexOliver
- Posts: 461
- Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 7:25 pm
@Maus: "The former tend to support states rights and limited government and the latter tend to support the expansion of federal government."
Democrats are supposed to be for the right to choose and Republicans, the right to have no say.
So here are conflicting values, small government and pro-choiceness (and wanting to get off foreign oil, reduce federal spending, and so many others). Who represents these?
Democrats are supposed to be for the right to choose and Republicans, the right to have no say.
So here are conflicting values, small government and pro-choiceness (and wanting to get off foreign oil, reduce federal spending, and so many others). Who represents these?
-
RobBennett
- Posts: 120
- Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 8:09 pm
- Contact:
"The belief or suspicion that some of these candidates may not support the First Amendment could very well be a reason for the "us vs. them" alienation too"
Absolutely.
This is one of the Elephants in the Living Room that is influencing everything that goes on but that no one talks about.
Of course, you worded things to state the realities from your perspective. Those of us holding the other perspective would word things differently.
But the basic point here -- that there are fundamental questions about what kind of government we should have that are not being discussed -- is right on. Maybe these things cannot be worked out. I am of the view that it is better to talk them over and to try to find common ground. (I don't mean this board community, I mean the nation). But perhaps that is not so. Perhaps there is no possible good resolution.
I ALWAYS favor talking things out. That's just my nature. I am a big believer in communication. That's why I became a journalist. So I have an inherent bias re the process question.
Rob
Absolutely.
This is one of the Elephants in the Living Room that is influencing everything that goes on but that no one talks about.
Of course, you worded things to state the realities from your perspective. Those of us holding the other perspective would word things differently.
But the basic point here -- that there are fundamental questions about what kind of government we should have that are not being discussed -- is right on. Maybe these things cannot be worked out. I am of the view that it is better to talk them over and to try to find common ground. (I don't mean this board community, I mean the nation). But perhaps that is not so. Perhaps there is no possible good resolution.
I ALWAYS favor talking things out. That's just my nature. I am a big believer in communication. That's why I became a journalist. So I have an inherent bias re the process question.
Rob
@AlexOliver
I suppose the short and quick answer would be a Libertarian, since they'd most likely resolve the conflict between small government and freedom of choice. But realistically, no Libertarian is going to be elected to federal office as such. Ron Paul is the closest thing to it and he "flies" under the Republican flag. Plus, if I'm not mistaken, he is a medical doctor opposed to abortion.
The more realistic answer is to worry less about the social issue of choice than about the fiscal issue of federal expansion and the taxation or deficit spending that must accompany it. Even if Roe v. Wade were overturned tomorrow, access to abortion would become a matter of state legislation. Some states would undoubtedly restrict access. Some, like California, most certainly would not. I recognize that some small percentage of people would be de facto deprived of choice. Personally, that doesn't bother me. I place a lot of the responsibility for social decisions like health and education squarely on the shoulders of the individual citizen. But my point is that the impact of red social policy is probably going to be much much smaller than the impact of blue fiscal policy. Vote the fiscal policy and the other will sort itself out.
I suppose the short and quick answer would be a Libertarian, since they'd most likely resolve the conflict between small government and freedom of choice. But realistically, no Libertarian is going to be elected to federal office as such. Ron Paul is the closest thing to it and he "flies" under the Republican flag. Plus, if I'm not mistaken, he is a medical doctor opposed to abortion.
The more realistic answer is to worry less about the social issue of choice than about the fiscal issue of federal expansion and the taxation or deficit spending that must accompany it. Even if Roe v. Wade were overturned tomorrow, access to abortion would become a matter of state legislation. Some states would undoubtedly restrict access. Some, like California, most certainly would not. I recognize that some small percentage of people would be de facto deprived of choice. Personally, that doesn't bother me. I place a lot of the responsibility for social decisions like health and education squarely on the shoulders of the individual citizen. But my point is that the impact of red social policy is probably going to be much much smaller than the impact of blue fiscal policy. Vote the fiscal policy and the other will sort itself out.
-
RobBennett
- Posts: 120
- Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 8:09 pm
- Contact:
"Rob Sincerely interested to see how you would word it. ?"
You suggest that there are people who want to "establish a state religion."
I would say that there are people who intend to have their views (which are obviously informed by their religion, which is a big part of what they are) evidenced in state policy WITHOUT the establishment of a religion.
I am a Christian and one of the Ten Commandments is "Thou Shalt Not Kill." So I certainly favor laws against murder. But I do not even a tiny bit favor laws saying that all citizens should have to say certain prayers each day.
Rob
You suggest that there are people who want to "establish a state religion."
I would say that there are people who intend to have their views (which are obviously informed by their religion, which is a big part of what they are) evidenced in state policy WITHOUT the establishment of a religion.
I am a Christian and one of the Ten Commandments is "Thou Shalt Not Kill." So I certainly favor laws against murder. But I do not even a tiny bit favor laws saying that all citizens should have to say certain prayers each day.
Rob
-
AlexOliver
- Posts: 461
- Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 7:25 pm
"Vote the fiscal policy and the other will sort itself out."
But what if it (the social policy) affects you right now? I'm thinking specifically of gay people though I'm sure there are others. Only the democratic party is currently even open to the idea of repealing DADT or legalizing gay marriage (or other gay rights, such as hospital visitation, joint adoption, etc).
But what if it (the social policy) affects you right now? I'm thinking specifically of gay people though I'm sure there are others. Only the democratic party is currently even open to the idea of repealing DADT or legalizing gay marriage (or other gay rights, such as hospital visitation, joint adoption, etc).
@AlexOliver
Well, of course, the situation you describe adds a significant twist to things. I didn't meand to be glib. For me, fiscal concerns trump social issues because I don't expect government to be involved in those issues. But I would never advocate voting for a candidate who espouses values that are inimical to one's personal identity. The sad fact is that gays are going to struggle for their civil rights just as other minorities have had to do; and with mixed results after many years of struggle. My brother lives in San Francisco precisely because it is a place that most mitigates the harsh realities of that struggle. And part of the reason for our constitutional system of checks and balances was to prevent a tyranny of the majority. Given concerns such as those you list, you'd want to vote for the federal candidates who are most likely to appoint judges who will recognize such rights.
Well, of course, the situation you describe adds a significant twist to things. I didn't meand to be glib. For me, fiscal concerns trump social issues because I don't expect government to be involved in those issues. But I would never advocate voting for a candidate who espouses values that are inimical to one's personal identity. The sad fact is that gays are going to struggle for their civil rights just as other minorities have had to do; and with mixed results after many years of struggle. My brother lives in San Francisco precisely because it is a place that most mitigates the harsh realities of that struggle. And part of the reason for our constitutional system of checks and balances was to prevent a tyranny of the majority. Given concerns such as those you list, you'd want to vote for the federal candidates who are most likely to appoint judges who will recognize such rights.