I voted

Erich · 11-08-2006, 11:36 AM

you got that right, again I point this out, Politicians paying off even those not interested in accepting their right to vote, pay them off to swing the election in their favour ........... Kennedy, you old wrinkled fart, has won again. Geez wonder why. Politics = Power that clown needs to go to pasture in a hurry. Crap he will probably die from some strange disease while in office

Matt308 · 11-08-2006, 11:49 AM

While I inherently do not like term limits, reality is they would be effective. It's just a shame really that you have to impose such restrictions due to the pompous arrogance of most politicians.

Matt308 · 11-08-2006, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erich

you got that right, again I point this out, Politicians paying off even those not interested in accepting their right to vote, pay them off to swing the election in their favour ........... Kennedy, you old wrinkled fart, has won again. Geez wonder why. Politics = Power that clown needs to go to pasture in a hurry. Crap he will probably die from some strange disease while in office

Like Strom Thurman...

Erich · 11-08-2006, 12:10 PM

now for a total mind change for the day after ...........

it's good to see old folk like me still rockin

Rip it up

YouTube - Scorpions(Big city Night)Live 2005.

turn it up loud please . . . .

mkloby · 11-08-2006, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Term limits! There is no reason why rich professional politicians (i.e. Kennedy, Kerry, Rockefeller) needs to hold office for 15 or more years. I could see some rich guy wanting to get involved in politics for a short while but folks like this need to go and they exist in both parties. I'm more pissed about rich Dems riding in office for years and years, especially when they say they represent the "common man." Christ, the last time fat @ss Kennedy worked his @ss off is when he swam from his sinking car!

That was awesome Joe! Laughed my a** off! I still think campaign finance reform is the most overdue, most needed reform our political institution needs. It would also foster more focus on debates on issues - since all that time and money wouldn't be spent on digging up dirt and smearing your way into office. Who cares if you used an ethnic slur 30 years ago!?!?

Matt308 · 11-08-2006, 12:24 PM

Klaus Meine and Micheal Schenker - Rock Gods

syscom3 · 11-08-2006, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Syscom - while you are correct about Art VI, 1st Amend says nothing of the sort. All it says is congress shall not establish a religion (anti-estiablishment clause) or prohibit free exercise of religion. In fact - look up the history of judicial review. It's not a power that is in the constitution - so the courts are exercising a right that was never granted to them in the constitution.

Marbury v Madison established the right of the USSC to review laws and interpret the meaning of the constitution as applied to that law. Its been that way for 203 years. Its even laid out in the federalist paper #78, as well as precedents going back to the early 1600's in English common law.

Quote:

This says absolutely nothing about voting in a Church, or better yet, that the gov't cannot provide funding to say a Catholic school. Prayer in school - says nothing about.

Go reread my full statement and notice my words..."snicker, snicker"..... a universal indication of sarcasm

Quote:

It's about interpretation - judges interpret the law to fit their own personal beliefs and biases. If you go by the explicit wording of the 1st Amendment - it says nothing about separation of Church and state.

The constitution is made up of several parts, and if you include the well documented discussions from the authors of the constitution, they were worried about an official established religion, thus went to the effort to make sure there was a firewall between govt and religion. "seperation of church vs state" is a correct summation of what the intent was. And its been that way for a long long time.

Quote:

Please don't accuse me of never having read the constitution or anything else. As you already know - I have a degree in poly sci (not that it matters to me, but it's important to you to have a degree to be able to argue a point)

If youre a strict constructionalist, then youre on the wrong side of history.

And dont accuse me of not having read it.

syscom3 · 11-08-2006, 01:15 PM

I say get rid of Gerrymandering. Competitive districts are good! Keeps the politico's on their toes.

Advice to the democrats..."Its easier to be on the backbenches yelling and screaming than it is to be in control and held accountable"

Nancy Pelosi..... If she goes to far out on a limb, she will be chopped down by the more conservative members of her party.

Democrats..... they dont have a veto proof majority nor control of the white house. Gridlock might be good!

Democrats... this election was more of a referendum on Bush than on love for the liberals.

Bush..... You didnt have a mandate in 2004 and are paying the price for some pretty inept decisions.

GOP.... you learn more from defeat than accumulated winnings. Time to get the fire in the belly and regroup for 2008. The country is still moving towards conservative attitudes.

GOP - you lost in the heartland because of a stupid and ill formed theory about free trade vs FAIR trade. Ohio and Indiana were lost because of all the factories closing and going to China.

FLYBOYJ · 11-08-2006, 01:28 PM

Rumsfield just resigned...

mkloby · 11-08-2006, 01:32 PM

all i care about is what is explicitly in the constitution. I don't care about foundations of US law in english law - it's irrelevant. fed papers are a good read - but again - I care about the constitution. I understood the sarcasm intended - yet separation of church and state implies much much more than is explicitly written in the constitution - that's my point. There is no constitutional basis for many of the ideals held by those who demand strict separation and we disagree on that - just as there is none for the premise of judicial review. That it's been that way for 200 years is another matter.

I did not classify myself as anything btw...
I challenged bringing out the exact verbage - have not made accusations.

lesofprimus · 11-08-2006, 07:47 PM

Joe, u crack me up man....

I dont have enough energy or time in my life to get into politics, but thank God there are people like u guys to give us the straight sh!t....

FLYBOYJ · 11-08-2006, 08:15 PM

mkloby · 11-08-2006, 09:54 PM

So flipping through the channels I came across CNN Larry King Live, who had Bill Maher on the show. Maher infuriates me, but he brought up need for campaign finance reform, which is good. He suggested 1. banning tv advertising for races and 2. having the campaigns funded from public monies. On his first point - I don't think they should be banned - but I do believe that campaign expenditures should be at a set level, much much lower than expenditures generally run. I flat out dislike the idea of public monies going to campaigns. But it's good that this gets media attention. I believe it's possibly the most corrupting influence on US politics.

Maher claimed that tv advertising is banned in UK - is that true Brits?

Matt308 · 11-08-2006, 10:56 PM

While in priciple I agree with mkloby, what concerns me is some of the psycho b^ullshit that I read in my voter's pamphlet from the green party, the socialist fag party, the communist party, the pinko save the fat whale party, etc. I din't like the idea that just any old prick with two nickles to slide between his arse cheeks is a viable candidate, but how then do you weed the wheat from the chaff?

So....no...[reluctantly]...I don't agree.

We as a REPUBLIC, NOT A DEMOCRACY, cannot afford to let any tom, richard or harry fantasize of public office at the publics expense. There has to be some means of assuring that a significant amount of civil constituents support a given candidates position and platform. Perhaps a limit upon campaign contributions by private individuals is in order above and beyond those placed upon corporate sponsorship.

But no. I don't want anything like the last guy in my voters pamphlet during the primary claimnig that "Mike the Mover's" only platform was to call Bush out for few rounds in a boxing ring. I don't need that feces.

syscom3 · 11-08-2006, 11:08 PM

Quote:

- yet separation of church and state implies much much more than is explicitly written in the constitution - that's my point.

Do you, or dont you agree that the US has been completley free of sectarian strife for 220 years is due to a strict seperation of church and state? The Constitution mentions this three times and its easily deduced what the founding fathers wanted.

And putting the 10 commandments on a court house does not fall under this, so dont use it as an example.

Quote:

There is no constitutional basis for many of the ideals held by those who demand strict separation and we disagree on that - just as there is none for the premise of judicial review. That it's been that way for 200 years is another matter.

The basis for judicial review was implied by the authors of the constitution, and when Marbury v Madison was decided, plenty of judicial scholars and politicians of that era thought it was an interesting idea.

Time has proven it to be a sound and wise decision.