Bush Speech

[Raineer]

There should be a "None of the Above" option

That's where you hit it on the head. No one is "right" for what the country actually needs.

Gore and Kerry would have been better in the respect that they may not have sent troops to Iraq (definitely a win), however we don't know if our presence there has acted as a detterent to more 9/11-type attacks. Maybe this was the lesser of all evils. That is impossible to tell though.

My problem with Gore/Kerry is they are even MORE pussy than most republican candidates (I try not to look at party lines, but it's a pretty easy stereotype.) They pander to soccer-moms nonstop and in my opinion that makes this country even weaker than it is.

Not all democrats are that way, JFK was a fucking stud but someone like him would never get elected in today's environment.

[Bethany]

Not all democrats are that way, JFK was a fucking stud but someone like him would never get elected in today's environment.

Amen, even though he was before my time, you can't help but see despite such faults as philandering; he was one hell of a president & held so much promise. That time period was a turning point in our countries history where things could have & should have changed dramatically. He fought to change the system instead of rolling with it.

Too bad that because he refused to play by the rules they murdered him and with his death, all the potential that should have been & could have been our country died too.

[Raineer]

He actually challenged the country, which is what was so great about him.

Think about the challenges you've been through in your life, they help build your character. Of the now-adults I know, the better people are typically the ones that had more difficult childhoods and didn't have everything handed to them. That's what worries me about having a president that wants the nation to hand everything out to everyone that asks.

Parenting is a lost art and it's not getting any better. Kids know today that parents aren't responsible for their decisions (look at divorce rates) so they don't feel they have to take responsibility either.

[archibaldcrane]

Talking about major overhauls to the U.S. Constitution is retarded.

That document is brilliant in it's design and execution. Checks and Balances, a fluid governing process, and most importantly, the inability to alter it without overwhelming support. Making constitutional amendments easier than they are right now would be a disaster - politicians would exploit disasters and short-lived public sentiments to ruin what is basically the reason that America has been such a successful democracy.

It's very design forces you to respect it, because it is very resistant to change, and that is how it should be.

[Ace-o-fire]

Today politics in America aren't focused on issues. It's focused on the credibility of the person running against you.

You have to read about the people to know what kind of stuff they stand for not go. "Oh the other dude smokes pot in collage. I better not vote for him cuz he'll run the country in to the ground!"

[Raineer]

Talking about major overhauls to the U.S. Constitution is retarded.

That document is brilliant in it's design and execution. Checks and Balances, a fluid governing process, and most importantly, the inability to alter it without overwhelming support. Making constitutional amendments easier than they are right now would be a disaster - politicians would exploit disasters and short-lived public sentiments to ruin what is basically the reason that America has been such a successful democracy.

It's very design forces you to respect it, because it is very resistant to change, and that is how it should be.

Alas it has one fault, it has to be executed by human beings.

We've changed, so should it.

[archibaldcrane]

Talking about major overhauls to the U.S. Constitution is retarded.

That document is brilliant in it's design and execution. Checks and Balances, a fluid governing process, and most importantly, the inability to alter it without overwhelming support. Making constitutional amendments easier than they are right now would be a disaster - politicians would exploit disasters and short-lived public sentiments to ruin what is basically the reason that America has been such a successful democracy.

It's very design forces you to respect it, because it is very resistant to change, and that is how it should be.

Alas it has one fault, it has to be executed by human beings.

We've changed, so should it.

Heh, what are your recommendations to "fix" the US constitution. Seriously, I'm curious.

[Bethany]

Talking about major overhauls to the U.S. Constitution is retarded.

That document is brilliant in it's design and execution. Checks and Balances, a fluid governing process, and most importantly, the inability to alter it without overwhelming support. Making constitutional amendments easier than they are right now would be a disaster - politicians would exploit disasters and short-lived public sentiments to ruin what is basically the reason that America has been such a successful democracy.

It's very design forces you to respect it, because it is very resistant to change, and that is how it should be.

Have you ever read the Constitution? Actually read it line for line & understood it's wording? If you had, then you would know what an asinine comment it was that you just made in regards to how the Constitution should be resistant to change. .

It was written by men who had several years before challenged authority and questioned the status quo and struck out for independence. They knew going in they were going to make something that future generations should use as an evolving framework, constantly changing to meet the needs of the people.

You can be sure this was their intent because of the presence of entrenchment. Entrenchment refers to whether the constitution is legally protected from modification without a procedure of constitutional amendment. When they wrote our U.S. Constitution they wanted us to revise and amend it with the times. It was to be a living thing, not something to be taken for face value now literally as it was back then. They knew they didn't want it to be like the United Kingdom's constitution, a constitution that is not entrenched.

Does this mean we should amend to pick the national choice of fast food restaurant? No... I've already said in a previous post it isn't easy to change it. And it shouldn't be changed for frivolous reasons. Having said that even if something were done now, that the country finds is wrong twenty years from now, they can and should change it.

This is what is wrong with things now. We have the power to prevent the shit Bush gets away with, yet the general public en mass does nothing to rectify the situation & bring about change so it doesn't happen again.

[Pamelita]

Today politics in America aren't focused on issues. It's focused on the credibility of the person running against you.

You have to read about the people to know what kind of stuff they stand for not go. "Oh the other dude smokes pot in collage. I better not vote for him cuz he'll run the country in to the ground!"

So true.

The sad part is realizing why it's become so prominant lately: because it's supported.

[Melina]

Hmmm...

Here's the way I see it: America right now is like a teenager that just moved out of their parents house. We let the place get dirtier and dirtier cos we're too lazy and not disciplined/mature enough to do otherwise, the dishes pile up, old food is rotting on the table, we're wearing the same jeans 5 days in a row, etc. The finally one day we walk into the kitchen and a swarm of gnats hits us in the face and we finally say "ALRIGHT SCREW IT, I'LL CLEAN" and we do. Then the process repeats itself. I suppose it's hoped that eventually we do mature into adults where we learn from that, pick up our messes when we make them. Unless it's Sunday morning and we wanna snooze for a bit instead of wash the dishes. Or the Price is Right is on.

In that respect I don't think Gore or Kerry would've been "better" than Bush. It takes a while for us to finally say "Oh for the love of Christ this is ridiculous" and actually get up and do something about it. We gotta get slapped in the face with it hard.

...now that I've covered the de-rail, the speech was speechtastic. I almost turned off my porn for it.

[archibaldcrane]

Talking about major overhauls to the U.S. Constitution is retarded.

That document is brilliant in it's design and execution. Checks and Balances, a fluid governing process, and most importantly, the inability to alter it without overwhelming support. Making constitutional amendments easier than they are right now would be a disaster - politicians would exploit disasters and short-lived public sentiments to ruin what is basically the reason that America has been such a successful democracy.

It's very design forces you to respect it, because it is very resistant to change, and that is how it should be.

Have you ever read the Constitution? Actually read it line for line & understood it's wording? If you had, then you would know what an asinine comment it was that you just made in regards to how the Constitution should be resistant to change. .

It was written by men who had several years before challenged authority and questioned the status quo and struck out for independence. They knew going in they were going to make something that future generations should use as an evolving framework, constantly changing to meet the needs of the people.

You can be sure this was their intent because of the presence of entrenchment. Entrenchment refers to whether the constitution is legally protected from modification without a procedure of constitutional amendment. When they wrote our U.S. Constitution they wanted us to revise and amend it with the times. It was to be a living thing, not something to be taken for face value now literally as it was back then. They knew they didn't want it to be like the United Kingdom's constitution, a constitution that is not entrenched.

Does this mean we should amend to pick the national choice of fast food restaurant? No... I've already said in a previous post it isn't easy to change it. And it shouldn't be changed for frivolous reasons. Having said that even if something were done now, that the country finds is wrong twenty years from now, they can and should change it.

This is what is wrong with things now. We have the power to prevent the shit Bush gets away with, yet the general public en mass does nothing to rectify the situation & bring about change so it doesn't happen again.

You're missing something. If the constitution wasn't very resistant to change, someone like Bush would've gladly taken the events of 9/11 to re-write the entire fucking thing. Some would say that with things like the Patriot Act, that is exactly what he's done.

However, that is NOT exactly what he's done. The constitution still stands as the law of the land, and is the rock upon which challenges to freedom-stripping laws stand. The Constitution AS CURRENTLY WRITTEN gives us plenty of recourse against the crimes of the current administration. Censure and impeachment are right there staring us in the face if the will of the people decides to implement them.

I'll ask you the same thing: What would you change? What amendments would you propose?

[Bethany]

You're missing something. If the constitution wasn't very resistant to change, someone like Bush would've gladly taken the events of 9/11 to re-write the entire fucking thing. Some would say that with things like the Patriot Act, that is exactly what he's done.

However, that is NOT exactly what he's done. The constitution still stands as the law of the land, and is the rock upon which challenges to freedom-stripping laws stand. The Constitution AS CURRENTLY WRITTEN gives us plenty of recourse against the crimes of the current administration. Censure and impeachment are right there staring us in the face if the will of the people decides to implement them.

I'll ask you the same thing: What would you change? What amendments would you propose?

Where to start...? Hmm seeing as how this is my opinion on what should happen, I'll go with wishful thinking since I doubt any of it ever comes to pass.

• President can no longer be Commander in Chief of the Military unless they have had an exemplary military career before going into politics. If they haven't, they don't get that privilege. [/*:m:63b2e]
• Allow even more measures to sanction / hold accountable whoever holds the office of the President. [/*:m:63b2e]
• Requirements for holding office of the President should be changed to allow people who are not natural born citizens. [/*:m:63b2e]
• Eliminate the democratic & republican parties. All politicians become independents. [/*:m:63b2e]
• Politicians cannot come from affluent backgrounds. They must come from middle/lower class America. If you can't identify with the majority of your people, you can't be in charge. No silver spoons allowed. [/*:m:63b2e]
• Campaign reform that is real. Every candidate is given X amount of money and can't say a single word about their opponent. They can only say what they would do/change. [/*:m:63b2e]
• Stop policing the world on our own & alienating the global community. United Nations isn't perfect, but at least we will not be the sole target of hate that we are now. [/*:m:63b2e]
• Electoral College... GONE. [/*:m:63b2e]
• Unified voting system across the whole country. No longer left up to the states to have so many different types of rules and machines etc. [/*:m:63b2e]
• Right to bear arms amended to active police and active military only. [/*:m:63b2e]

So many things need/should be changed. I give up in trying to name anymore. It's depressing enough as things stand now, thinking of how it could be better and knowing it wont happen in my lifetime just makes it all that much more so.

[archibaldcrane]

K, just wanted to verify that you want to piss all over this country.

People who have rich parents can't run for office? Awesome. Gun hunting illegal? Superb. Challenger candidates who can't point out the flaws of the incumbents? Man, I wish I had thought of that.

Stupid shit like this is why the framers of the constitution made it difficult to change.

[Bethany]

K, just wanted to verify that you want to piss all over this country.

People who have rich parents can't run for office? Awesome. Gun hunting illegal? Superb. Challenger candidates who can't point out the flaws of the incumbents? Man, I wish I had thought of that.

Stupid shit like this is why the framers of the constitution made it difficult to change.

What you call pissing on the country I would call saving it. How can someone who is born into wealth ever going to know what it's like to deal with things the average American deals with? They can walk a day in that persons shoes. They can do community service blah blah, but it can't change their being out of touch. If someone works their ass off and pulls themselves out of poverty and becomes a politician, they've earned my vote. Not someone like snotty Bush Jr who only has the White House because of Daddy and Mommy's money and power.

Gun control is needed. There is a reason the US ranks so damn high in murder/violence and that reason is easy access to guns despite supposed tougher gun laws. Dick and Jane live in the suburbs and Dick has several guns because hey, he is a card carrying member of the NRA and it's his right to do so! He uses them to hunt for sport because hell, killing things is a national pastime and well, he may not need the gun to get food for his table but who cares. Enter into the picture Juan. He lives in the inner city and he wants to show he is a bad ass thug to all his homies. He takes a ride out into the burbs and breaks into a house looking for a piece and finds lovely Dick's horde of weapons. Juan is ecstatic because after all, everyone knows you need a full automatic to hunt/be fly~ Juan takes his new found bling back to the city where Juan proceeds to show what a man he is by being an all around original gangsta and he accidentally shoots you and kills you. Maybe it's me, but I would rather you be alive than let Dick have guns to get his kicks killing innocent wildlife.

You ask ANYONE what they hate the most about elections and they will say those annoying as hell advertisements on TV slinging mud at each other. In an equal setting with X amount to be spent and no special interest groups or committees paying for trash ads, the politicians would have no choice but to set out what they want to change/do & stand for. People can then make an informative choice not based on half truths and misrepresented facts.

Sorry you feel as though those are stupid points. I don't feel that way though. I don't want to change the Constitution entirely. I just don't want things to stagnate and people never realize they've been a lemming all their life. People need to wake up or Dysgenics wont be a hypothetical outcome, it will be our fate.

[Talus]

Speeches aren't run through a lot of think tanks. They are run through a lot of senior advisers and writers. I think you get more out of it by watching a speech than reading the transcript though. Some presidents are definitely better communicators than others (e.g. Reagan, Clinton).

What's the tone? What's the purpose? What's the structure? These are all things you can tell from the transcript, but a lot of the message is in the delivery and the nonverbal cues the President does along with the speech.

[Correction]

Politicians cannot come from affluent backgrounds. They must come from middle/lower class America. If you can't identify with the majority of your people, you can't be in charge. No silver spoons allowed.

LOL

Every man involved in the creation of the United States of America was by the standards of the time absurdly wealthy.

But GJ being snobbish about someone's wealth.

[Bethany]

Politicians cannot come from affluent backgrounds. They must come from middle/lower class America. If you can't identify with the majority of your people, you can't be in charge. No silver spoons allowed.

LOL

Every man involved in the creation of the United States of America was by the standards of the time absurdly wealthy.

But GJ being snobbish about someone's wealth.

They nearly all owned slaves too. Times change, so have the majority of the people. The separation between the rich and the poor gets bigger all the time. You shouldn't be penalized entirely for your success in certain ways, but you shouldn't be allowed to be a glutton either. That's not being snobbish about someones wealth, thats just stating facts.

[Talus]

That's possibly the dumbest thing I have ever heard (about people of affluent backgrounds being unable to run for public office).

Your socioeconomic status should have no bearing on your ability to hold and effectively work in an elected position. Also, not every president came from an absurdly rich family, examples: Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton.

I think a lot of the general political malaise in the US has to do with the handling of the war and the war itself. Without it, everything is a-ok as long as unemployment is low and the economy is growing steadily. The sad reality though is that war is and has always been a driving factor of growth in economies, whether it was Alexander's armies marching east toward the Hindu Kush, Roman expansion and imperialism, or the US (but the modern imperialism isn't just economic, it is also cultural).

I digress. Getting back to the topic at hand, we live in a republic if you are an American (I realize people from all around the world read these forums). You would rather have someone from a lower or middle class with limited resources and opportunities (and thus, less likelihood of capturing a plurality of support in a popular vote) lead your country than a well-educated, well-connected and well-funded member of the elite? Do you honestly think things would be better?

Your idea is naive at best, and foolish at worst.

[Bethany]

You would rather have someone from a lower or middle class with limited resources and opportunities (and thus, less likelihood of capturing a plurality of support in a popular vote) lead your country than a well-educated, well-connected and well-funded member of the elite? Do you honestly think things would be better?

Your idea is naive at best, and foolish at worst.

I said, if the person worked hard, did well in school, made something of themselves they should be the ones to represent the majority of the U.S. I didn't say take Joe Blow from Mc.Donalds and give him the office of President. (Now if Joe Blow was working at Mc.Donalds part time while going to college etc, then okay sure lol.)

I do think if a real working class citizen politician is what we had to choose from things would be better. They wouldn't give tax breaks to their rich friends just because of whoever they are in bed with business wise etc.

Also, lol... as far as education goes.. need I remind you our current President only got into Yale because of his family, and while he was there he was at best a C student. He nearly didn't acquire his Masters of Business Administration degree from Harvard Business School. He failed miserably at every business he got his hands on.

[Correction]

Politicians cannot come from affluent backgrounds. They must come from middle/lower class America. If you can't identify with the majority of your people, you can't be in charge. No silver spoons allowed.

LOL

Every man involved in the creation of the United States of America was by the standards of the time absurdly wealthy.

But GJ being snobbish about someone's wealth.

They nearly all owned slaves too. Times change, so have the majority of the people. The separation between the rich and the poor gets bigger all the time. You shouldn't be penalized entirely for your success in certain ways, but you shouldn't be allowed to be a glutton either. That's not being snobbish about someones wealth, thats just stating facts.

So because you're rich that means you've 'won' and no longer need representation in government?

Ok good to know it's worth it becoming rich, then, if you wind up getting disenfranchised.

A bad idea is a bad idea, and change for the sake of change is the basis of the FRENCH, not the AMERICAN revolution.