OT: Test to see where you stand Morally.

Atrocities · #1 December 1st, 2005, 03:01 AM

Right left, they are both to blame. Nuff said.

Quote:

�Dragon Lady Testifies Before Grand Jury�

Now that was truly funny.

Wolfman77 · #2 December 1st, 2005, 11:57 AM

Indeed, right or left, it's all pretty much the same for most things. They just phrase the wording a little different. There are a few issues that they are actually divided on, and I don't agree with all policies on either side, heck some of them can't even agree amongst themselves. For the most part, I don't really look at what party they are, but some times, the "lesser of the two evils" theory must be used, then It usually puts me on one side more than the other.

Something I've always wanted to ask people in a disscussion like this:
If you could change one major aspect of the way your government was set up, wha twould it be? How would it be better, and what would the side effects be?

I've always disliked our 2 branch congress. I think things would flow through better with 1 branch. I do see why we have them both, large states would complain about our Senate not being equal, small states would complian about the House. But when they both write a bill that is just slightly different, mostly due to pork being added, it seems like alot of duplication. (For those who don't know, pork it the term used to describe extra things added to bills to encourage support from those that might not otherwise support it. usually locally benificial for the Reps. state or district.) Maybe if they worked on the bills together from the start then voted separately it would cut down on this.

Atrocities · #3 December 2nd, 2005, 12:00 AM

It makes me sick to watch the news any more. Its filled with so much bull****, pandering sensationalism, and out right manufactured news that it shouldn't even be called news any more. You have the Pervert of the day segement, they said he said segment, spindoctor segment, point the finger segment, and so on.... ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

It never [censored] ends!

They hyped the weather last night saying it was going to snow heavily today... they toyed with us keeping us on long enought to lie to us. It did not snow, not so much as one flake today.. and do you know what those SOB's said? They said that they were correct, that their forecasts was spot on.... WTF???? All you have to do is pull up the video from last night to know they are lying through their god damned teeth!

If they will lie about what they said when they are wrong, imagine what else our news organizations will lie about.

I say line them all up against a wall and execute them. Tell us the truth or die.

Suicide Junkie · #4 December 2nd, 2005, 03:58 AM

I don't watch the news... No point to it.

If it is important, it will come up on the forums or in the IRC channel.

Renegade 13 · #5 December 2nd, 2005, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Atrocities said:
It makes me sick to watch the news any more. Its filled with so much bull****, pandering sensationalism, and out right manufactured news that it shouldn't even be called news any more. You have the Pervert of the day segement, they said he said segment, spindoctor segment, point the finger segment, and so on.... ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

It never [censored] ends!

They hyped the weather last night saying it was going to snow heavily today... they toyed with us keeping us on long enought to lie to us. It did not snow, not so much as one flake today.. and do you know what those SOB's said? They said that they were correct, that their forecasts was spot on.... WTF???? All you have to do is pull up the video from last night to know they are lying through their god damned teeth!

If they will lie about what they said when they are wrong, imagine what else our news organizations will lie about.

I say line them all up against a wall and execute them. Tell us the truth or die.

You must have some baaaad newscasters. I like watching the news here; though mostly for the people. They have some people who obviously like their job, get along with each other and provide a lot of humor throughout the news. Especially the sportscaster. Really funny guy.

On the other hand, most of the actual 'news' is pure dross. Every other story is about how "Avian Flu" is gonna wipe us all out (yeah, right...) or about the evils of the so-called Global Warming, which I believe is also a load of bull****e. After all, it's only sitting at -21C right now

You know what would make the news better? A lot more coverage of scientific work, besides medicine which gets a fair bit of coverage. Give us some physics, astrophysics, cosmology, chemistry, neurology. Pretend for just a moment that a few members of the public are actually intelligent enough to see through the drivel and want something more substantive, something that will actually stimulate the mind!

Hey, I can rant!

AMF · #6 December 2nd, 2005, 04:44 AM

Quote:

Wolfman77 said:
I've always disliked our 2 branch congress. I think things would flow through better with 1 branch. I do see why we have them both, large states would complain about our Senate not being equal, small states would complian about the House. But when they both write a bill that is just slightly different, mostly due to pork being added, it seems like alot of duplication. ...

You're making an argument for a form of government in which efficiency is a guiding principle. But divided government is specifically designed with an opposite intention: that of providing an overlapping set of checks and balances and thereby institutionalizing moderating influences on the governing of the nation, and in so doing avoid the hazards of radical change.

The Senate is a fundamentally different body, with a very different dynamic than the House.

The danger that arises when a single group or party controls all branches of government is not simply hypothetical, and having a government that is divided horizontally (legislature, judiciary, and executive) as well as vertically (federal, state, local) has provided the US with a system that can self-correct pretty well. While we historically lurch between flirtations with radicalism we typically come back to the center in the end.

I would be very concerned if all three branches of government were controlled by a single party in the US, no matter whether that party was from the left, the right, mars, venus, whatever. Divided government is a very good thing.

But it is definitely not efficient. Redundancy is one of the prices we pay for a system that is relatively durable and still largely protects local & individual rights in a very diverse country yet still with a functioning government that can get things done (but rarely as fast as people would like...and that's good)...

I'll stop babbling...

Alarik

Fyron · #7 December 2nd, 2005, 05:21 AM

The less efficient a government is, the better it is.

El_Phil · #8 December 2nd, 2005, 09:07 AM

Well up to a point. If a goverment is totally inefficient then nothing happens. I suppose that is 'better' provided you're happy with the way things are.

Wolfman77 · #9 December 2nd, 2005, 12:22 PM

Good points. I can see the usefulness of having both a Senate and a House for keeping things cenetered, especially when opposing parties control each. My ideas are probably more attributed to my personality than anything that might work in real life, I just hate to seee waste. I guess the less a government does the less it can mess up isn't to far from the truth, but unfortunately there are enough people out there that need some guidance in order for them to benefit society, though it does tend to benefit a small portion more than the whole. A government that did absolutely nothing would be extremely inefficient, but then what would be the point of having one. Government power is always going to increase. We elect people who want power, it is in their nature to get more. Very few would run for office if they had no desire for power, or wasn't a step in the direction for them to get more.

Thermodyne · #10 December 2nd, 2005, 12:48 PM

Quote:

alarikf said:

You're making an argument for a form of government in which efficiency is a guiding principle. But divided government is specifically designed with an opposite intention: that of providing an overlapping set of checks and balances and thereby institutionalizing moderating influences on the governing of the nation, and in so doing avoid the hazards of radical change.

The Senate is a fundamentally different body, with a very different dynamic than the House.

The danger that arises when a single group or party controls all branches of government is not simply hypothetical, and having a government that is divided horizontally (legislature, judiciary, and executive) as well as vertically (federal, state, local) has provided the US with a system that can self-correct pretty well. While we historically lurch between flirtations with radicalism we typically come back to the center in the end.

I would be very concerned if all three branches of government were controlled by a single party in the US, no matter whether that party was from the left, the right, mars, venus, whatever. Divided government is a very good thing.

But it is definitely not efficient. Redundancy is one of the prices we pay for a system that is relatively durable and still largely protects local & individual rights in a very diverse country yet still with a functioning government that can get things done (but rarely as fast as people would like...and that's good)...

I'll stop babbling...

Alarik

The founders set up three branches and the intent was that each branch would limit the power of the others. They didn�t foresee that it would become an issue of two parties competing for the power regardless of governmental branch. They assumed that Senators and Congressmen would be loyal to their home states and not so heavily beholding to the party. There are some things that could be done to correct this. But it will only happen when the people demand it. First, we need to ban Pac�s and this includes the national comities of the major parties. The importation of campaign funds from out of state to influence local elections should be a crime. Then we need to ban corporate campaign donations, union endorsements etc. It�s one person, one vote; let�s leave out the graft and paybacks. After that we need to limit campaign funds to in state sources for all non presidential candidates. This should filter down all the way to the local level. A person running for member of congress in say Arkansas should not be getting campaign funds from New York or California. Just as presidential candidates should not be getting funds from China or France. Some guy running for county government should not have to sell out to the national party to get indorsed and funded. His funding should be limited to the district(s) where he is running. If we did this, then our elected officials would once again have to rely on their constituents to put them in office, instead of some large multinational money raising machine. It�s this same machine that forces them to vote the party line instead of their conscience. Diverge from the party line and find yourself unfunded in the next primary. The people on the Hill will never change the way the system works, they can�t comprehend life without the millions of dollars at stake. This has to be done by us, starting at the local level.