| reply to N3OGH
Re: All the disputed requests for anti-terrorism ...and I agree. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be upset! It doesn't mean that we shouldn't be outraged. It doesn't me we shouldn't fight and complain and act ( in a positive and legal way, of course.)!
We shouldn't tolerate this behavior. |
|
 bentand IngaPremium
join:2004-10-04
Loveland, CO
 ·Comcast
| said by jjeffeory:...and I agree. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be upset! It doesn't mean that we shouldn't be outraged. It doesn't me we shouldn't fight and complain and act ( in a positive and legal way, of course.)! We shouldn't tolerate this behavior. But yet we keep voting Republicans and Democrats into power as if they had changed their ways.
--
Greedy Old Pigs v. The Donkey Show |
|
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| said by bent:But yet we keep voting Republicans and Democrats into power as if they had changed their ways. There's no other realistic choice. The way we have general elections without run-offs, the fear of "wasting your vote" (Ex. voting for Perot, and helping Clinton win in '92) will prevent third parties from being anything more than pamphleteers on the sidelines.
I wish that could be improved, if only to demonstrate that governing such a large country, with so many non-homogenous interests, facing complex issues that can't be dismissed with quaint slogans (like "Manifest Destiny" to steal the land of Native Americans) wouldn't be much different under any political party.
It would at least shut people up about how much better things would be if...
Mark |
|
 tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1
 ·T-Mobile US
| said by amigo_boy:said by bent:But yet we keep voting Republicans and Democrats into power as if they had changed their ways. There's no other realistic choice. The way we have general elections without run-offs, the fear of "wasting your vote" (Ex. voting for Perot, and helping Clinton win in '92) will prevent third parties from being anything more than pamphleteers on the sidelines. I wish that could be improved, if only to demonstrate that governing such a large country, with so many non-homogenous interests, facing complex issues that can't be dismissed with quaint slogans (like "Manifest Destiny" to steal the land of Native Americans) wouldn't be much different under any political party. It would at least shut people up about how much better things would be if... Mark ...If only we followed the constitution and left much more power to the states to govern themselves instead of mandating everything, the points you raise could at least be mitigated by freedom of choice. At least for now businesses and citizens can, for example, choose to move away from California's high tax rates to an income-tax-free state like Texas. I wish there were more issues that were settled on a state level such that those who disagree or want something different can move to a better place of their choosing while still being able to retain their citizenship with this country.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara |
|
1 edit | reply to bent
We?
All you guys do! 
I keep saying the two party system is broken. People need to wake up and decide they want some real "change" and then make it happen. |
|
bentand IngaPremium
join:2004-10-04
Loveland, CO Reviews:
·Comcast
1 edit | reply to tiger72
said by tiger72:said by amigo_boy:said by bent:But yet we keep voting Republicans and Democrats into power as if they had changed their ways. There's no other realistic choice. The way we have general elections without run-offs, the fear of "wasting your vote" (Ex. voting for Perot, and helping Clinton win in '92) will prevent third parties from being anything more than pamphleteers on the sidelines. I wish that could be improved, if only to demonstrate that governing such a large country, with so many non-homogenous interests, facing complex issues that can't be dismissed with quaint slogans (like "Manifest Destiny" to steal the land of Native Americans) wouldn't be much different under any political party. It would at least shut people up about how much better things would be if... Mark ...If only we followed the constitution and left much more power to the states to govern themselves instead of mandating everything, the points you raise could at least be mitigated by freedom of choice. At least for now businesses and citizens can, for example, choose to move away from California's high tax rates to an income-tax-free state like Texas. I wish there were more issues that were settled on a state level such that those who disagree or want something different can move to a better place of their choosing while still being able to retain their citizenship with this country. The real easy solution to that is to invert the Federal and State Income Taxes. Like that will ever happen. When have people with power ever willingly given up that power? Why am I sending such a huge percentage of my income to Washington so that some douchebags there can decide how to spend it? I'd rather the douchebags right here in Denver decide how to spend it.
--
Greedy Old Pigs v. The Donkey Show |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| reply to tiger72
said by tiger72:...If only we followed the constitution and left much more power to the states to govern themselves States rights were never a reality. The founding generation abandoned that principle when it threw off the Articles of Confederation just 12 years after the Revolution. A relative libertarian utopia compared to the powerful, centralized federal government they constituted in 1789-1791.
Every generation since as followed that example. A state enslaves its population, or prohibits freedom of the press, and it's another loss of "states rights." A company in one state pollutes the air (affecting other states), another loss of "states rights."
"Go back to states' rights" is Ron Paul's mantra. But, it's a unrealistically simplistic response to complicated issues which would not disappear just because they're devolved into 50 little ones. It ignores how we got to where we are today. It's just a typical libertarian sleight-of-hand. Talking past issues with simplistic jargon.
Mark |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to amigo_boy
A ton of Democrats voted for Perot too, and came back to Clinton in 94. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
1 edit | said by KrK:A ton of Democrats voted for Perot too, and came back to Clinton in 94. No problem for them.  It was Rs who moaned about other Rs "voting for Clinton" by voting for Perot.
Since then, the event is often used by Rs to whip a little fear into the disillusioned. (As Nader is used to whip Ds into shape regarding 2004's close call involving hanging chad, etc.).
There's no way to vote your conscience without run-off elections (or, tier-rank ballots which 2/3 of the population wouldn't comprehend anyway).
I don't think it would make a difference. If the "Tea Party" got into office, they'd last about 2 years like the "Republican Revolution" of '94.
If Greens (or Libertarians) got into office, they'd have the same abrupt encounter with reality.
It seems to be a natural human trait to blame the two-party system for everything. Or, dismiss every disagreeable action to "unconstitutionality." But, it always goes back to the same thing. Few people changing what they can change (preferring World of Warcraft). Or, trying to change things and realizing... it's not as bad as they thought it was. It's just the nature of a complicated world where people don't have the homogenous values and goals they did in Ward Cleaver's day.
Mark |
|
Pv8man
join:2008-07-24
Hammond, IN
3 edits | reply to jjeffeory
Wiki Search RON PAUL
oops, now I'm on the terrorist watch list for supporting a pure constitutional candidate now Dr. Ron Paul
the new massive NSA data center in Utah can possibly act like google and start archiving everything it can on the net.
they said with the building size at 1.5 million square feet, and being stationed next to a Military base and power plant, and being able to supposedly store something like 16 yottabytes ?!?
I'd have to say that they are planning to keep that secure and running for a very very long time.
--the more ya know-- lol
by the way, i think yotta bytes may be possible, after reading this article back in 2006 about a scientist who invented 50 terrabyte flash memory using insect DNA protein to store it.
»www.getusb.info/50-terabyte-flas···protein/ |
|
approval from:
Romney2012 
| reply to bent
...if we had a government that adhered to the one moral purpse of government, which is to PROTECT INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. But no.. we have too many whiners who want handouts, want medical care for free from crib to crypt, want to punish competitors that are better at making products than they are, etc. Sickening... |
|
