2010 State of the Union: Best Vice Presidential necktie in history.

[pohibaba]

My point was in general for any candidate, used Obama because he is president now.

My point was that if you give a politician more time and resources to get stuff done then they'll probably get more stuff done. The only bad thing is that at least half the time you won't be agreeing with any of the stuff that they want done.

[pohibaba]

The real answer is the abolition of political parties, which was debated when the Constitution was being written. Unfortunately at this point in our country's history that idea is probably as untenable as the idea of corporations being afforded the same rights as citizens.

What we need is a comprehensive election reform amendment that would standardize how national candidates get on the ballot and institute instant runoff voting for all national elections. In some states it's practically impossible for any third party to get on the ballot, and in some, even if you do get on the ballot, they refuse to put the name of your party next to the candidate if you're not a Republican or Democrat.

[Leif]

The real answer is the abolition of political parties, which was debated when the Constitution was being written. Unfortunately at this point in our country's history that idea is probably as untenable as the idea of corporations not being afforded the same rights as citizens.

Why is it that whenever liberals see a problem with society, they always want to ban something, restrict someone's rights, or try to criminalize behavior?




If people are still harping about the McCain-Feingold overturn, the court has long held that people exercise their free speech (particularly political speech) by spending money. Telling people they can't spend money restricts speech. A corporation does not have a brain. It's run by people who are authorized to spend money. When they decide to spend money, it's still political speech.

Nobody has been able to tackle the "Wouldn't we have to outlaw the media then?" question. This is a perfect example of a consequence that arises when liberals try to criminalize some speech but not others. It endangers all speech.

[Plow]

I agree with Pohi, but I think the 4 year term of the president, with 2 term limits, is perfect, for congress as well. The supreme court takes a whole different approach, but lower judiciary positions should be similar as well.

Just make it like the Olympics, congress elections 2/6/10etc, presidential/judicial 0/4/8/12etc.

Reelection is an important factor that does need to be important to them, to some degree-- it's a solid check to ensure they're representing their constituents the way they were voted to do. But every 2 years is too often, and holding these seats for life is a bit absurd. The ones that deserve a position like that for life can be much more effective in administrative positions.

Why is it that whenever liberals see a problem with society, they always want to ban something, restrict someone's rights, or try to criminalize behavior?

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i3...a/Rofl-mao.jpg

[Olo401]

Yeah ok Leif.. liberals like this guy?

"All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests. However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
....
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

- George Washington, excerpt from 1796 farewell address

[Leif]

Yeah ok Leif.. liberals like this guy?

You're going to have to put your own subtitles on that because I don't think it means whatever you think it means.

[ephel]

My point was that if you give a politician more time and resources to get stuff done then they'll probably get more stuff done. The only bad thing is that at least half the time you won't be agreeing with any of the stuff that they want done.

Your conclusion seems to be nobody should be given enough time to get anything done.

[Olo401]

Your conclusion seems to be nobody should be given enough time to get anything done.

Actually it's that nobody should be given that much time to accumulate so much power from special interests. Unfortunately it doesn't take much time for such interests to become entrenched because they have so much damn money to throw around

So term limits is a red herring for the real problem - special interests that buy votes.

[ravbane]

Is there a name for a disease that prevents you from reading and understanding logical and sound arguments that challenge your own?

If not, I think we have a case study here.

[Olo401]

^ it would help if you addressed this to someone. Just sayin'..

[Stiker]

The real answer is the abolition of political parties, which was debated when the Constitution was being written. Unfortunately at this point in our country's history that idea is probably as untenable as the idea of corporations not being afforded the same rights as citizens.

I would love it if political parties went by the wayside. It is seriously the idiot's guide to voting. And I mean voting in every way possible, whether it is someone in government or someone voting for said candidates.

It is borderline impossible for any one person to completely align with one party and any Republican or Democrat that thinks so is deluding themselves (and furthermore, think that the people in Washington completely abide by said beliefs 100% of the time as well).

I would love to see everyone just sticking to their own guns and saying what is on their mind and not worry about stepping on the toes of their party. It will never happen though.

[willriker]

Is there a name for a disease that prevents you from reading and understanding logical and sound arguments that challenge your own?

If not, I think we have a case study here.

I want in on the contributing credit.

[ephel]

Actually it's that nobody should be given that much time to accumulate so much power from special interests. Unfortunately it doesn't take much time for such interests to become entrenched because they have so much damn money to throw around

So term limits is a red herring for the real problem - special interests that buy votes.

I'm just messing around, nothing will fix these problems. Was just throwing it out there since we give one man the opportunity to run 2 terms now, just give him the 8 years. 6 years to "try" to fix stuff, 2 years to reele... oh nm he cant

[Daemien]

In regards to the awesome tie: It only looks metallic because of the very high quality silk and the density of the weave.

http://www.neimanmarcus.com/products/mp/NM-2ADD_mp.jpg

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Actually it's that nobody should be given that much time to accumulate so much power from special interests. Unfortunately it doesn't take much time for such interests to become entrenched because they have so much damn money to throw around

So term limits is a red herring for the real problem - special interests that buy votes.

I just found Obama bitching about special interests and corporations influencing elections etc so ironic now that I remember he was taking in foreign money.

[Cantih]

This was fun today, http://rawstory.com/2010/01/obama-spars-gop-debate/
(Skip the article if you like, it'll be accused of bias, but watch the raw video if you can find it)

[Caiyuo]

This was fun today, http://rawstory.com/2010/01/obama-spars-gop-debate/
(Skip the article if you like, it'll be accused of bias, but watch the raw video if you can find it)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_442423.html

huffpo, blahblah.There's a full transcript there, but the video is only the Q&A part of the appearance, while the text covers the entire event. It was interesting to watch, but I'm more interested in what the aftermath of this, if any, will be. Regardless, I'd definitely like to see more of these.