Antwar Saloon

AUSKAR · Joined: 18 Jul 2006 Posts: 1780 Location: Oregon

Maybe I said this before. In all the haze, it is hard to tell because I don't read everyone's post and can't remember what I said.

Obama promised a different type of government. He promised that he wouldn't be partisan and he would be transparent. Enough voters believed him that he was elected president. I didn't vote for him because I did not believe him (I'm cynical), but once elected, I had every hope that I was wrong.

What he said was probably "just talk" to get elected. It's easy for a candidate to ask questions, criticize, and make promises. Once president, it is hard to deliver. Plus, it seems clear he never intended to deliver. He just "talked." Even if you give him the benefit of the doubt, maybe he believed "talk" would influence events.

It turns out, "talk" is not a causative factor.
_________________
Visit my web site at LloydDistrict.com.

jeffg · Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 10:47 pm Post subject: Re: Obama

Xiahou · Joined: 17 Jul 2006 Posts: 2398 Location: Nebraska

Some kind of penalty for lying - Think about it, what job gives you a huge pension for life full benefits security you name it and you can be utterly and completely inept not qualified and lie through your teeth to get. Where is the incentive to go through with the promises and all the talk, what your not going to elect me again oh no I am set for life.
_________________
Where are you John Wayne when we need you...

jeffg · Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 9:27 am Post subject:

Actually, what I think the problem is is that what's required to win an election and what makes a good leader are two completely incompatible skillsets.

Politicians are drawn to the job because it's such a challenge to win - it's an ego high. When they GET there, they don't have the tools to do the job properly.

And that's still on us - we hire (elect) people for the wrong reasons.

The people that are smart enough or have what it takes to run the country are - for the same reasons - smart enough to stay the hell away from such a job, where they're held to an impossible set of conditions from the get go.

I don't see this chain of events stopping in my lifetime.

Jeff

Xiahou · Joined: 17 Jul 2006 Posts: 2398 Location: Nebraska

agreed. Thats the thing as messed up as things are it would take someone tough and honest to fix it. Sad part is there are millions who would whine at this cleaning up of corruption. Mostly those who are and those who benefit from it. We could have the best president EVER and he would be hog tied to do anything by an inept congress and sucking on the govt teat people. I pity no matter who is elected after Obama the mess to clean up geez...

Accountability is the word of century or at least it needs to be.
_________________
Where are you John Wayne when we need you...

Wes Janson · Joined: 06 Aug 2006 Posts: 533 Location: Florida

AUSKAR · Joined: 18 Jul 2006 Posts: 1780 Location: Oregon

Someone once said (but I forget who)...

"Democracy sucks. It's just better than anything else."
_________________
Visit my web site at LloydDistrict.com.

jeffg · Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 11:12 am Post subject:

Huxley · Joined: 18 Jul 2006 Posts: 523 Location: Aurora

bluewolf · Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:00 pm Post subject:

Alpern · Site Admin Joined: 17 Jul 2006 Posts: 1354

jeffg · Posted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 11:45 am Post subject:

I agree, Dave, it SHOULD be hard. Then we don't get changes that are based on high emotions of the moment.

But I don't think that "progress" is completely interchangeable with "liberal".

I think there ae changes that need to be made that serve everyone's best interests - and they're not liberal or conservative issues.

That may cause problems between the groups that believe the Constitution is some type of holy writ vs. those who believe that it's a living document, but I think the fact that there is a mechanism to allow modifications makes that point moot.

Jeff

cavemanjed · Joined: 10 Mar 2007 Posts: 442 Location: Texas

I think if you got some kinda flat tax measure off the ground, you could probably get that passed as an amendment. Possibly term limits for congressman as well, Libs and Conservatives tend to get behind that idea pretty fast. Found this at http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html#process

jeffg · Posted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:37 pm Post subject:

So, the public can actually get an amendment proposed, but it has to get it's state legislature to propose it (and have three quarters of the rest of the states to go along) or get both legislatures on the federal level to propose it.

Does anyone know if the public has ever been able to get either one of these things to happen? I don't mean having an outraged public force a senator to come to make a proposal of his own accord - has there ever been a grassroots campaign to propose a specific amendment? I doubt it.

Jeff

Alpern · Site Admin Joined: 17 Jul 2006 Posts: 1354

jeffg · Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 12:19 pm Post subject:

Yeah, but what I mean is, as a result of the movement, has the public ever proposed an amendment to their legislator directly, or are they just manufactured by the legislator as a result of the movement?

I'm not splitting hairs - it's a specific question. It's the difference between being represented directly, and being represented "in absentia".

Jeff

Alpern · Site Admin Joined: 17 Jul 2006 Posts: 1354

I kind of think you ARE splitting hairs, Jeff. If the public cares enough about an issue to get a constitutional amendment, than one of two things happens: The elected officials propose the amendment and pass it, or they get voted out of office.
_________________
"The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." - John Brunner

AUSKAR · Joined: 18 Jul 2006 Posts: 1780 Location: Oregon

We've become a country of minorities, and are becoming more so as time goes by. That isn't a bad thing. However, it is shifting the importance of the three legs of government towards the courts.

Eventually it will be harder and harder to get something accomplished in the House of Representatives and the Senate, so when suggesting change, fringe elements will turn more and more to the courts. Interesting cases eventually come to the Supreme Court, but it seems "okay" to propose an ultra-liberal but not okay to propose an ultra-conservative.

Some justices are appointed for life.
_________________
Visit my web site at LloydDistrict.com.

jeffg · Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 6:31 pm Post subject:

bluewolf · Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2010 5:37 pm Post subject:

Im wondering where the causality of all that is.

I mean... are laws writen differently now or is the process done differently.

this is kind of a vague idea in my mind so i am working it out as I speak.

but in the past a law was writen and passed and expected to be operational.

today a law is passed but its not really REAL untill some one comes up with an excuse to challengte it in court.

its kind of like lawmakers dont mind tossing in as much dross as they can in order to leave the blame for how it is interpereted ultimatly up to the courts. ... or maybe its that they try so hard and add so much in order to give the courts less leeway and the result it that the courts almost HAVE to give the law a spirit because the law is writen in a way where too many loop holes remove the posibility of strict "letter" interpertation.

once again still just something tumblin through my head as I read this thread at 2am.
_________________
Never surrender freedom for laws that can't affect
criminals; they disobey laws for a living.

--Wayne LaPierre, CNN commentary

Alpern · Site Admin Joined: 17 Jul 2006 Posts: 1354

bluewolf · Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:03 pm Post subject:

while i accept the federal govt has its hands in too many things and is bloated...

I am not a supporter of the whole lets go back to the articles of confederation mentality.

the united states cannot simply be a collection of independents. especially in this world. maybe back when the fastest means of travel and communication was the horse. but not anymore.
_________________
Never surrender freedom for laws that can't affect
criminals; they disobey laws for a living.

--Wayne LaPierre, CNN commentary

cavemanjed · Joined: 10 Mar 2007 Posts: 442 Location: Texas

Alpern · Site Admin Joined: 17 Jul 2006 Posts: 1354

Lance · Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 1:59 am Post subject:

Onelifestraveler · Joined: 17 Nov 2008 Posts: 37 Location: Waterford, WI

I actually think the country is working great, but needs a few big changes.

First anyone should be able to see where the money comes from-be it political campaigns or tax collection or congress/president income.

Second anyone should be able to see where, how much and who voted for -- the money being spent.

Third anyone who works for the government and quits, retires , gets voted out-- should not be able to work in any field that would benefit or influence the government.

The vice president has come to Milwaukee twice this year.
Within a half hour of his arrival fifteen to twenty business jets, that had arrived the night before or that morning, departed. (both times)

Sure seems that money or influence is being taken care of before the official visit starts.
But maybe it is just a quintessence.
_________________
No matter where you go there you are.

It is a strange and wonderfilled world.