1BC Civ Forums / Off Topic Discussions / More Than a Game, Civ in Real Life / Politics & Religion / DNC 1st amendment 'cage' / Latest Posts

RE: DNC 1st amendment 'cage'

Locus Coeruleus — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 22:03:51 GMT

[quote][b]jerm (9/8/2008)[/b][hr][quote][b]Locus Coeruleus (9/8/2008)[/b][hr]Ask the Canadians jerm.... :P

[quote]The Conservatives now fill 127 of the 308 seats in Parliament. The Liberals have 95, Bloc Quebecois 48, the New Democrats 30 and the Greens have one seat. Three seats are held by independents, and four are vacant.[/quote]

[url=http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/09/07/canada.elections.ap/index.html]Canadian Prime Minister Dissolves Parliament[/url]

[quote]Electoral legislation that Harper helped enact after he came to power in 2006 fixed the date for the next election in October 2009, but a loophole allows the prime minister to ask the governor general to dissolve Parliament.[/quote]

[quote]The October 14 election will be Canada's third ballot in four years.[/quote]

Must be nice to have such a flexible system!!!! :w00t:[/quote]

If you like it... well tough :P. I think that is a major flaw with the parlimentary system, and then made worse by multiple parties. Do they ever get anything done? Like I've said, the more parties you havethe less efficient government is. Whether that's a good thing or not is the question I suppose. It's a spectrum. On the one side you have authoritarianism with one party and on the other you have pure democracy which is inefficient. It's like in a Dgame when everyone has to vote on something, we never get past the first hundred turns but when we set up a dictatorship, things move along nicely... unless there's some other glitch in the system. Anyway, I'm not advocating a single party dictatorship because in reality there is a significant loss of freedom. Two parties give us choices yet don't bog us down in us going a hundred different directions. There's only two directions to choose from.[/quote]

I really don't know jerm. Do they ever get anything done? I'm not too well tuned to the day-in day-out affairs of Canadian government. I'm informed enough to catch the bigger things happening like this, but as far as the rest of their lot, I really don't know.

To echo NC though, I think you could well apply the questions to our congress. Do they ever get anything done? ;)

[quote]But it is my God-Given Right, as an American to vote on election day. That is what the Constitution says, and I don't care how little I care about the world, or my country. It does not matter if I do not know who Joe Biden is, Nancy Pelosi, or John Boehner, or where the Republic of Georgia is, or where Khazakstan is, or where Canada, or how many Congressional Seats there are, or how many amendments to the Constitution there are. All that matters is I have the right to vote and I pay taxes and therefore I will vote.......
[/quote]

Not sure how serious you are but I'll respond as though it were serious. With rights come responsibilities. If you are not responsible to know what you are voting for, you shouldn't vote. Not saying you shouldhave your right to vote taken away, just that you shouldn't excercise that right. We've become so preocupied with rights that we've forgotten our responsibilities.[/quote]

Half serious, half not. Obviously those sorts of statements do not apply to me or to you or most of the participants here....but I more or less agree with you here. It's a touchy subject in my mind, because for a long time in this country too many people were not allowed the right to vote because of their skin color or their gender, in some cases even their age. I will repeat though, that I think that there are a lot of people in this country that are, in fact, not responsible enough to know what they are voting for, so in fact, they do not vote. The voter turn out percentages tell me that much.
What I hate just is much is when I hear the sentiment that if people don't like the candidates in the republicrat parties that they will sit out the election, AS IF THERE WERE NO OTHER CHOICES!!!!! C'mon people there are several other choices. It's just that they aren't mainstream, the media shuts them out, the sheeple are led to believe that they HAVE TO vote for a Democrat or Republican, else they are wasting their vote, etc. etc. etc. That is the problem I have with the 2 party system. I mean seriously, could things get any slower if another party or two gained some prominence. I think not. Nothing else, it will spice things up a bit and this country is in need of some spice! :)

RE: DNC 1st amendment 'cage'

Nuclearcow — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 18:13:08 GMT

[quote]I think that is a major flaw with the parlimentary system, and then made worse by multiple parties. Do they ever get anything done?[/quote]As opposed to Congress? :P

Lowest public approval rate of a Congress EVER and still getting lower.

RE: DNC 1st amendment 'cage'

cleopatra143 — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:25:34 GMT

About the voter turnout, I recently read that America's diversity plays a huge role in low voter turnout numbers and community activism. As you say LC, most people would rather sit and watch television. lol

RE: DNC 1st amendment 'cage'

jerm — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 11:40:17 GMT

[quote][b]Locus Coeruleus (9/8/2008)[/b][hr]Ask the Canadians jerm.... :P

[quote]The Conservatives now fill 127 of the 308 seats in Parliament. The Liberals have 95, Bloc Quebecois 48, the New Democrats 30 and the Greens have one seat. Three seats are held by independents, and four are vacant.[/quote]

[url=http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/09/07/canada.elections.ap/index.html]Canadian Prime Minister Dissolves Parliament[/url]

[quote]Electoral legislation that Harper helped enact after he came to power in 2006 fixed the date for the next election in October 2009, but a loophole allows the prime minister to ask the governor general to dissolve Parliament.[/quote]

[quote]The October 14 election will be Canada's third ballot in four years.[/quote]

Must be nice to have such a flexible system!!!! :w00t:[/quote]

If you like it... well tough :P. I think that is a major flaw with the parlimentary system, and then made worse by multiple parties. Do they ever get anything done? Like I've said, the more parties you have the less efficient government is. Whether that's a good thing or not is the question I suppose. It's a spectrum. On the one side you have authoritarianism with one party and on the other you have pure democracy which is inefficient. It's like in a Dgame when everyone has to vote on something, we never get past the first hundred turns but when we set up a dictatorship, things move along nicely... unless there's some other glitch in the system. Anyway, I'm not advocating a single party dictatorship because in reality there is a significant loss of freedom. Two parties give us choices yet don't bog us down in us going a hundred different directions. There's only two directions to choose from.

[quote]But it is my God-Given Right, as an American to vote on election day. That is what the Constitution says, and I don't care how little I care about the world, or my country. It does not matter if I do not know who Joe Biden is, Nancy Pelosi, or John Boehner, or where the Republic of Georgia is, or where Khazakstan is, or where Canada, or how many Congressional Seats there are, or how many amendments to the Constitution there are. All that matters is I have the right to vote and I pay taxes and therefore I will vote.......
[/quote]

Not sure how serious you are but I'll respond as though it were serious. With rights come responsibilities. If you are not responsible to know what you are voting for, you shouldn't vote. Not saying you should have your right to vote taken away, just that you shouldn't excercise that right. We've become so preocupied with rights that we've forgotten our responsibilities.

RE: DNC 1st amendment 'cage'

Locus Coeruleus — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 01:03:35 GMT

[quote]My one plea to people who don't care enough to try and learn what you can about the "issues" is to stay home on election day. If you don't care enough to learn about the world, why would you care enough to vote to affect it? Stay home... I'm sure something good will be on TV. [/quote]

But it is my God-Given Right, as an American to vote on election day. That is what the Constitution says, and I don't care how little I care about the world, or my country. It does not matter if I do not know who Joe Biden is, Nancy Pelosi, or John Boehner, or where the Republic of Georgia is, or where Khazakstan is, or where Canada, or how many Congressional Seats there are, or how many amendments to the Constitution there are. All that matters is I have the right to vote and I pay taxes and therefore I will vote.......

oh wait.....last time I checked, less 2/5 of those eligible to vote did.

[url=http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html]National Voter Turnout in Federal Elections - 1960 - 2006[/url]

Fact is, we haven't even hade a 60 percent turnout in 40 years. I think jerm, it's safe to say that many of those who don't care don't vote. I am not entirely sure if these numbers are a good thing.

Not only are we a decadent society, we don't exactly hold our leaders accountable either.

RE: DNC 1st amendment 'cage'

Locus Coeruleus — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 00:50:49 GMT

Ask the Canadians jerm.... :P

[quote]The Conservatives now fill 127 of the 308 seats in Parliament. The Liberals have 95, Bloc Quebecois 48, the New Democrats 30 and the Greens have one seat. Three seats are held by independents, and four are vacant.[/quote]

[url=http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/09/07/canada.elections.ap/index.html]Canadian Prime Minister Dissolves Parliament[/url]

[quote]Electoral legislation that Harper helped enact after he came to power in 2006 fixed the date for the next election in October 2009, but a loophole allows the prime minister to ask the governor general to dissolve Parliament.[/quote]

[quote]The October 14 election will be Canada's third ballot in four years.[/quote]

Must be nice to have such a flexible system!!!! :w00t:

RE: DNC 1st amendment 'cage'

jerm — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 00:01:33 GMT

I almost forgot. :D How would a third or fourth or fifth party fix any of this?

RE: DNC 1st amendment 'cage'

jerm — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 00:00:07 GMT

[quote]Who do I blame for all this? The American consumer. Take away the American consumer's childish infatuation, lack of patience, lack conscience, and lack of principle, and most of this would fade away. In some ways I can fully understand why those Islamofascists hate us: we are despicable. They are not going about correcting our ways in anything like an appropriate or promising way, but I can in part agree with them that we are pathetic.[/quote]

Absolutely right! This is the primary problem in our country and in fact the West in general. It's where I was going with the whole technology thing. As televisions became more prominent in households, books and reading became much less so over time. People cared more about what happened on Leave it to Beaver or Charles in Charge or Lost than national and world afairs. If the news wanted to stay profitable, they had to give the people a reason to tune in. They had to compete.

I wonder if the emergence and prominence of the internet will change things for the better. Now someone can read any article by almost any newspaper with relatively little effort. The world is changing but will people become more informed from the internet or will the internet evolve into the mindless drivel (with a few exceptions) that is television. I guess it has the interactive aspect going for it. At least one can put their thoughts down and bounce them off other people and have them challenged. This at least is a good thing.

My one plea to people who don't care enough to try and learn what you can about the "issues" is to stay home on election day. If you don't care enough to learn about the world, why would you care enough to vote to affect it? Stay home... I'm sure something good will be on TV.

RE: DNC 1st amendment 'cage'

Scipio Africanus — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 20:45:58 GMT

The fundamental problem is that without partisan drama, and ad hominem innuendo, politics is primarily boring. Calculating the probabilities, forecasting the cost-benefit ratios, arriving at conclusions that are based on a mutual American or NATO, or Western perspective, rationally and calmly weighing as two parties seeking to arrive at a consensus and deciding cooperatively what to do is not what gets people watching/listening/surfing. Dirty laundry, controversy, "mistakes," intrigue are what people want, and if they are not getting it after about 20 seconds they'll switch to the next channel.

The producers, the editors, the directors, and the characters on the news all know this. Their job is to sell product for the advertisers who buy air time, and this dynamic has been working on the texture of our mass media culture for some 50 years.

The culture that has emerged has fed the lobby-special-interest group dynamic of both parties. Both parties have expensive tastes, and require massive budgets to compete with the other. This requires massive patronage, from patrons who have particular interests. It is the job of our politicians to insure that these powerful, financially influential patrons get what they want, and this is where the media comes in as the requisite tool for both parties to rely on.

The problem is, there is not really any truly loyal media. I know certain outlets tend to be more left or more right leaning, but at the end of the day, they are all sharks. When there is blood in the water, they will smell it and a feeding frenzy will ensue. Example: when Clinton's days were finally numbered, after the stained blue dress was tested: his once loyal "left wing" media buddies began to turn on him, and by the time it was over pretty much all of them were painting him in a bad light. It was not because they really gave a damn about truth or justice, or the American way. They simply knew the nature of the evidence precluded anything but outting the story, and also knew that, if they held back while others didn't their ratings (and their sponsors sales) would suffer.

Who do I blame for all this? The American consumer. Take away the American consumer's childish infatuation, lack of patience, lack conscience, and lack of principle, and most of this would fade away. In some ways I can fully understand why those Islamofascists hate us: we are despicable. They are not going about correcting our ways in anything like an appropriate or promising way, but I can in part agree with them that we are pathetic.

RE: DNC 1st amendment 'cage'

jerm — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 20:09:16 GMT

[quote]I discourage partisanism, not necessarily party alliegance or even membership, just mindless party adherence.[/quote]

It's funny. Words' meanings change over time so perhaps I misunderstood your definition of partisanism. In this case, I fully agree with you. I've always considered partisanism to be party alliegance. Mindless party adherence is a problem.

I also agree that Gore would have likely invaded Afganistan but I think Iraq would have been highly questionable. I disagree that the republicans would have been against Gore going in to Iraq though just for party's sake, at least at the grass roots level, which will eventually determine the higher ups' point of view. The reason why the democrats are so against the war is purely because the base of the party is against the war. The guys get elected because they are against it. I suspect the republicans may have questioned tactics and strategy of a Gore invasion but I think they'd have been behind him in that regard. I do think there was a significant lack of "McCainites" who questioned Bush's tactics and I think that was definitely due to partisanism. Still, the republicans have enough neocons in their party who believe in an agressive foreign policy. I don't think they'd have given that up just for political gain.

I believe that the current anger towards the Bush administration is over his win in 2000. Many believe that Bush stole the election and therefore was not a legitimate president. There's an emotional distrust of the man which he never overcame with those on the opposite side of the aisle. They never let it go and therefore became far more anti-Bush. I remember at the begining of the Bush admininstration tried to play nice but the democrats just didn't seem to trust him. 9/11 created an era of bipartisanship which sadly didn't last too long.

I agree wholeheartedly about your point about the mass media Scip. Is it just as technology increases, we just have lower attention spans and can't think for ourselves anymore? Is this a natural decay of civilization? As we become more advanced and have access to more information we actually become dumber?

If this is the case, and the parties are being more partisan because they are putting on a show to show how anti-democrat or anti-republican they are, will this change with more parties or will it just make the situation worse? Instead of a fight between two opponents, we have a battle royale, with each using the media to show why they are superior and all the others are pathetic losers. Why or how would more parties fix this problem?

RE: DNC 1st amendment 'cage'

Locus Coeruleus — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 23:17:34 GMT

Don't really watch CNN. I just go off what I see on the website. I did watch CNN for the conventions, both of 'em. I noticed that after 10pm CT each night of both parties conventions, The Larry King show was on at 11pm CT. Now during the Democrat Convention he had strictly Republican commentary and partisans giving the Republican response for each given night. During the Republican Convention, vice versa. If that's not fair and balanced, I don't know what is!!!! :P

I cannot wait next week though for the "Glen Beck - Independent Convention". :)

I think they hired him simple in response to accusations that they WERE too biased. If all the left-wing radicals do not like that, well they can just go grow up and join the real world! :w00t: I will say that yes, CNN is left leaning on average, just like Fox news is right leaning on average, but by no stretch of the imagination of these cable news networks biased to the degree of some of your network news outlets like NBC!

RE: DNC 1st amendment 'cage'

Nuclearcow — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 23:07:29 GMT

Do you watch CNN? ;) They are pretty darn biased, IMHO. LOTS of Sarah Palin criticism since she was selected. Do you seriously not think CNN is leaning left? Thats why so many were ticked off then they selected Glenn Beck. It was started by Ted Turner! Thats like Ghengis Khan starting a right-leaning news network. Duh! hehe... just teasin', my friend.

I did see a Chicago Tribune piece after Palin spoke where they talked about the angry, divisive, "mean spirited" attacks Palin continued. Let me guess... when the Dems do it, its NOT mean-spirted and not the other stuff? Gee... how did I guess?

RE: DNC 1st amendment 'cage'

Locus Coeruleus — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 22:38:18 GMT

[quote][b]Nuclearcow (9/5/2008)[/b][hr]Your opinion of the media reminds me of mine. Perhaps we agree on more things than our debates of the past. :P

I saw something on CNN about a week ago where the title was, "Should Obama start going negative?" or something similar. Doesn't that imply that he has not gone negative at all? Do you think McCain would agree? Darn media bias. I think they are all biased.

They talk about judicial legistlating from the bench... what about reporting and attempting to sway your audience to your preferred views? Thats not as bad as the judges, probably, but will influence people far more people than most judges ever will.[/quote]

You callin' CNN biased??? You might have a case if you are talking about NBC.... but don't throw CNN in the mud like that!

Look at Glen Beck. Look at this article comparing McCain to Winston Churchill...

[url=http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/04/navarrette.mccain/index.html]Navarrette: Fightin' words from McCain[/url]

[quote]Sarah Palin's fans are already comparing her to Margaret Thatcher. After John McCain finished speaking, I had a similar thought. Like him or not, agree with him or not, this self-described "imperfect servant" may just be the closest thing Americans have to our own Winston Churchill.[/quote]

Look at this report with Good News from Iraq!!!!

[url=http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/09/05/iraq.troops/index.html]Bush Considering Iraq troop cuts.[/url]

[quote] The top U.S. general in Iraq is recommending nearly 8,000 troop cuts in Iraq because of the improving situation there, a source close to the process has told CNN.

President Bush is considering Gen. David Petraeus' recommendation, which the official said is for a reduction of "well over 7,500 personnel," with the number including combat and support troops.[/quote]

What you talkin' bout Willis??? :w00t:

RE: DNC 1st amendment 'cage'

Nuclearcow — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 22:18:59 GMT

Your opinion of the media reminds me of mine. Perhaps we agree on more things than our debates of the past. :P

I saw something on CNN about a week ago where the title was, "Should Obama start going negative?" or something similar. Doesn't that imply that he has not gone negative at all? Do you think McCain would agree? Darn media bias. I think they are all biased.

They talk about judicial legistlating from the bench... what about reporting and attempting to sway your audience to your preferred views? Thats not as bad as the judges, probably, but will influence people far more people than most judges ever will.

RE: DNC 1st amendment 'cage'

Scipio Africanus — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 21:44:30 GMT

I'm afraid we are stuck, but I think it is far worse than simply being stuck with two dominant parties. Other nations which are at comparable stages of information-technology development which have multiple parties (e.g., Italy, Canada, or the EU) do not seem to be much better off by virtue of having more than two political parties.

Indeed, I'm not even so sure it is the fact of a two-party dominance in American life that accounts for the perennial, and seemingly worsening foibles of our nations political life. I think it is a far more insidious force: mass media.

Have a read of some mid 19th century newspapers. Have a read of the Stephen-Douglas debates. Read Uncle Tom's Cabin, Walden, and many MANY other 19th century and early 20th century written works that were powerful, thought-provoking, and important political commentaries. Many of these essayist, speechwriters, thinkers, were engaged in what Journalists are supposed to be doing: informing, provoking debate, playing Devil's Advocate, acting as a neutral third party presenting info. These tones of rhetoric no longer carry any momentum in our globalized, fiber-optic-saturated, high-speed video feed, pic-byte dominated world. It is true that a picture is worth a thousand words, but modern mass media has made a picture worth 100,000 words, and millions of dollars. Messages have gotten more and more terse, encoded, referential to secondary or even tertiary meaning sets. By which I mean: instead of the little bit of language used in "news" media being literal statements in English, they are quite often turns of phrase whose deeper meanings, implications, and perhaps double-meanings can only be appreciated by being "in-the-know," i.e., by learning what is being said at any given time. Like gossipy housewives who can communicate what would otherwise take 5 sentences in only two words because the two words used are referential to the information in the five sentences which has already been discussed, our news media has stopped laying it all out for us, and instead gives us sound bytes, accompanied by graphics flashing by at high-speed.

In short, the actual substance of news has diminished, even while our saturation in it, its global reach, and its ability to mesmerize with fancy imagery, expensive sets, highly-select talking heads, etc., have all increased exponentially.

Have a look at 1950s news announcers. They are not the same breed of plastic creature, specially-bred for the purpose of presenting a particular image to an audience, they were newsmen who were the pioneers of broadcast journalism. The facts of 30 or 40 years of competitive broadcast journalism have made it into primarily entertainment. The primary purpose is no longer to inform and act as a "Free Press," but simply to transfix, to beguile and to capture a few percentage points of additional viewers whose zombie-like attention will garner a few extra millions of dollars in sales for the advertising sponsors.

If we had not been taken over by media, which exists to serve our own voyeurism, a system dominated by two parties might not be that bad a thing. But with so much at stake, and a fickle, unpredictable, and somewhat uncontrollable media holding both parties (and the people) hostage, the impetus to compete against the other in more and more simplified and cartoonish ways is heightened. A politician like Abe Lincoln or even FDR could NEVER get elected today for the simple reason of the media. It would be easy to blame the degeneracy of the American political scene on the powerhungry in the two parties, but I just don't think that that is correct. It has more to do with both sides doing whatever they can to gain or retain a competitive edge on a new playing field, a field that is now dominated by globalized mass media.

RE: DNC 1st amendment 'cage'

Nuclearcow — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 23:29:32 GMT

I'm man enough to say I stereotyped you wrong, Scip. I took you for a mostly Republican partisan who complained about partisanship. I stand corrected, sir.

On presidential elections, I tend to be surprised at how often the main 2 guys are bafoons compared to so many who *could* have made it to the top spot of either of the 2 big parties. I vote my conscience, which means in that case, I often don't vote for either guy for President. I have voted for both my current state senators, a democrat and a republican. I find that most people follow with the masses on most topics, and following your party lines and associating yourself fervently with it, seems to be the norm, IMO.

Scip, do you think a newer 3rd party will rise in the 1/2-near future, or do you think we are 'stuck' with our current system of 2 major parties and few to none others ever are elected in any office anywhere in the U.S?

RE: DNC 1st amendment 'cage'

Scipio Africanus — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 17:47:43 GMT

I don't "look down" on people who are avid party advocates. I'm in a position where I can afford to be bi-partisan (and being as old as dirt helps too . . .) but even some party members are less partisan than others. IMHO, any reduction of partisanism is good because inevitably lifts the dialogue up to deal with real issues and out of the gutter of Us vs Them nonsense. I discourage partisanism, not necessarily party alliegance or even membership, just mindless party adherence.

I think history will be far kinder to GWB than popular opinion has been during his second term. Iraq may well wind up being democratized, and that alone will win him history points. Not too many U.S. Presidents have been responsible for successful democratic nation-building. Course, feeling confident that the job was a success will take time, and that is where Bushes' key weakness comes in.

He is, seemingly, an utter moron when it comes to acting and talking like a statesman. I know he thinks he is just being like a "common person" and talking simple straightforward direct and honest, but he is NOT a common person, he is a privileged child of an elite U.S. political familiy with lots of money from various enterprises. Bushes' main foible is acting and talking like a schmuck and not winning enough support for what were essentially reasonable and principle policies.

And here I turn my attention to Gore. I do not believe there is much evidence to suggest that, had Al Gore been Pres in 2001, that he would have done much of anything differently. I suspect that there are probably several readers here who cling to a fantasy that George Bush is Darth Vader incarnate, and that everything that has happened in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2002 have been utter fiascos without any sound strategic basis, but I challenge you to show me proof that Gore would have taken a different tack. That would NOT include things Gore said post 2002, because most of the anti-war rhetoric these past years has been more anti-Bush rhetoric than anything else.

Go back to ca 1990s Clinton and Gore rhetoric about Iraq, and terrorism and also to their actions and inactions vis a vis foreign security threats. If you do so, you will find that these two jokers were a couple of warmongers who preferred to use saturation bombing to putting American boots on the ground. While the latter may (with sufficient volume) force a foe to surrender, it will do so at a high cost in "collateral damage." Based on this, as well as ever-present rhetoric in the media about fears of Ba'athist "Weapons of Mass Destruction" (which I'm sure most of you have conveniently forgotten) in the late 1990s and up through 2001, I do not believe Gore would have done anything differently.

Had Gore been in charge of the country 2000 to 2004 it would have been the partisan RIGHT who would have been taking pot-shots at his every gaff, second-guessing his every decision, pointing out every mistake, tallying up with a macabre glee every "wasted" casualty, applauding when he made undeniable mistakes that undermined his prospects of gaining a second term, and all the while engaging in the cowardly rhetoric of "We support our troops; we do not support an unnecessary war" . . . give diplomacy a chance . . . etc., etc.

This is the idiocy of partisanism. What an opponent says automatically becomes "wrong" as long as there is any perceived hope that it can somehow be spun as having been stupid, or malfeasant on the part of one's rival. Instead of ideas and facts guiding what people say they believe and portray themselves as doing in policy and procedures, the predecent state of one's opponents stated believes, policies and procedures have become the mirror in oppposition to which the two parties are constantly redefining themselves.

In sum, had Gore won, the operations in Afghanistan probably would not have been much different at all, and there might also have been operations in East Africa. Iraq is a bit more speculative, but given the steeped rivalry that existed between Clinton/Gore and Hussein, and the number of times the Clinton/Gore regime took military or diplomatic embargo action against the Hussein regime and spoke out about their malice, I also think that Hussein's bravado and taunting following 9/11 would similarly have resulted in some form of military action against Iraq by a Gore regime in 2000 to 2004.

RE: DNC 1st amendment 'cage'

jerm — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 17:11:46 GMT

[quote]

What, you mean like the GWB administration wasn't?

It is good that he recovered and finally figured out how to handle the situation in Iraq, but just think of how much money and resources we squandered just getting to that point, when, had he done his homework in the first place.....It's quite disasterous in that regard.[/quote]

I don't share your opinion that GWB's adminstration was a disaster. I mean, one could look at any war we've been involved in and by looking at the first half, conclude that it was such a waste of money and resources. The revolution didn't look too good in the begining and very simple mistakes were made. The Union had tremendous losses in the first half of the Civil War. Can you think of any war in which things went according to plan? If the leaders of the nation adapt and fix the mistakes they've made, history remembers very little of the losses.

He's definitely not on the top of my list of "best presidents" but I would not consider his presidency to be disasterous.

RE: DNC 1st amendment 'cage'

cleopatra143 — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 15:23:39 GMT

Honestly, it's no body's business but my own whom I voted for and for what reason. That is why there is a curtain around the booth. Anywho, I think all people should vote for the best candidate but some feel that having all dems or all reps is the best way to go, and it's their right. I'm sorry that you look down on people who think differently than you. :/

RE: DNC 1st amendment 'cage'

Locus Coeruleus — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 14:32:33 GMT

[quote]No offense but I think that Gore would have been just as disasterous as a Carter administration[/quote]

What, you mean like the GWB administration wasn't? :P

[quote] a mob is a group of numerous heads but no brain.[/quote]

Sounds like the people on the INSIDE of the RNC as well, Bis!!!! :w00t:

RE: DNC 1st amendment 'cage'

jerm — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 12:06:01 GMT

[quote]Anyone care to compare?[/quote]

I haven't voted in enough national elections to really compare :P. I was out of the country when my first presidential election came up (96) and I was just too young (and busy) to really put forth the effort to get an absentee ballot. 2000 I voted my conscience for the Libertarian candidate Harry Brown. In 2004 it was George Bush. Hey, half my presidential votes have been for third parties! :w00t:

I typically don't vote anything for people I don't know about in State Elections. I believe votes should be informed and if I'm not, I don't vote. I do try and put a republican into the U.S. congress and senate when I can, especially when they're down a bit. Unfortunately [perhaps], congress polarizes itself so you have to pick a side. Even if you like a guy, he's probably going to vote along party lines on important issues, regardless of which side they're on. There are a few exceptions and whenever a guy says he's gonna be one of them, he always seems to fold under the pressure.

Local elections in Utah rarely seem to have party affiliation. It's just this guy against that guy. I like that in local elections.

All that said, a record on "partisanism" is far less important than a record on who can get the job done. No offense but I think that Gore would have been just as disasterous as a Carter administration and you voted for both Scip! :P That said, hindsight is 20/20 so you can hardly be blamed for that.

[quote]I challenge all of you who vote along party lines to drop the BS and start using your higher brain functions instead of your brainstem![/quote]

I've addressed this before but you didn't respond. Can't remember where it was (though it wasn't long ago) and I don't have time to dig it up. Feel free to find it if you wish. ;)

RE: DNC 1st amendment 'cage'

Locus Coeruleus — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 09:10:19 GMT

Yeah, that would date him to 1962 at the latest. Doc's pushing 50! When's the big celebration? :)

RE: DNC 1st amendment 'cage'

RabiAkiva — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 09:04:52 GMT

[quote]Why 1968, Rabi? :)[/quote]

Well, 1964, maybe. I didn't think Scip was 18 by 1980 - I guess i was wrong.

RE: DNC 1st amendment 'cage'

Locus Coeruleus — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 08:43:14 GMT

I voted for a Republican that represented my district in the State Level in 2006. In 2000 I too voted for Gore, and 2004, for Kerry. Wasn't old enough to vote in a Presidential election in 1996.

Why 1968, Rabi? :)

RE: DNC 1st amendment 'cage'

RabiAkiva — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 08:08:45 GMT

you voted in 1980? I had you written off as being born in 1968...

RE: DNC 1st amendment 'cage'

Scipio Africanus — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 07:57:57 GMT

When is the last time you voted for a Republican LC?

Me?

1980-Carter (Dem); 1984-Reagan (Rep); 1988-George H.W. Bush (Rep); 1992-Bill Clinton (Dem); 1996-Bill Clinton (Dem); 2000-Gore (Dem); 2004-GW Bush (Rep); 2008 very likely Mssr McCain (Rep)

My record on "Partisanism?" Out of the seven Presidential Elections during which I have been old enough to vote, I've voted 4 Democrat; 3 Republican. This Nov will bring it up to 4 and 4. I have always voted for whom I thought was the best candidate at the time, irrespective of his party.

Every local and state election I've ever participated in has exhibited a similar degree of non-partisanism. The last state election I voted in back last fall had about 20 slots on it, and I voted right at about half Dem half Republican.

Anyone care to compare?

I challenge all of you who vote along party lines to drop the BS and start using your higher brain functions instead of your brainstem!

RE: DNC 1st amendment 'cage'

Locus Coeruleus — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 19:17:05 GMT

[quote][b]Nuclearcow (9/2/2008)[/b][hr]Yeah, did you like how I picked on you as though it was your party and you were a mouthpiece for all that's Democrat? That was nice of me, huh? :P

I was attempting to be funny, but it might have failed.[/quote]

Nah, I was just pretty much exhausted when I responded, after my weekend excursion to Chicago.

RE: DNC 1st amendment 'cage'

Bismarck2990 — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 11:53:04 GMT

Anybody catch those protestors at the RNC? Somebody should've threw those guys into the "freedom" cage -- with bubba. I guess the old saying is correct, a mob is a group of numerous heads but no brain.

RE: DNC 1st amendment 'cage'

Nuclearcow — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 11:30:01 GMT

Yeah, did you like how I picked on you as though it was your party and you were a mouthpiece for all that's Democrat? That was nice of me, huh? :P

I was attempting to be funny, but it might have failed.

RE: DNC 1st amendment 'cage'

Locus Coeruleus — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 23:23:30 GMT

[quote]
LC, I thought the Dems were the self-proclaimed party of the people. What the?[/quote]

Don't know, NC, I am not a Democrat. ;)

RE: DNC 1st amendment 'cage'

Nuclearcow — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 10:54:14 GMT

Biden. His hair is slicked back.

"Heeeeeeeeeeeey!"

RE: DNC 1st amendment 'cage'

Comedy Dave — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 01:38:00 GMT

[quote][b]Scipio Africanus (8/30/2008)[/b][hr]Well Obama DOES rhyme with Osama . . . and he did attend a burkha pre-school or whatever they call it over there . . .

. . . it all becomes obvious now. Much like Emperor Palapatine with his "I love Democracy . . ." Obama is actually a secret Sith Lord, and his election will harken 1000 years of oppression and mayhem that shall make the days of George W. Bush look like Happy Days. :D[/quote]

But who was the Fonz? Dick Cheney?... :P

RE: DNC 1st amendment 'cage'

cleopatra143 — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 22:37:57 GMT

[quote][b]Scipio Africanus (8/30/2008)[/b][hr]Well Obama DOES rhyme with Osama . . . and he did attend a burkha pre-school or whatever they call it over there . . .

. . . it all becomes obvious now. Much like Emperor Palapatine with his "I love Democracy . . ." Obama is actually a secret Sith Lord, and his election will harken 1000 years of oppression and mayhem that shall make the days of George W. Bush look like Happy Days. :D[/quote]Does this mean I get to become a Sith?

RE: DNC 1st amendment 'cage'

Scipio Africanus — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 21:26:53 GMT

Well Obama DOES rhyme with Osama . . . and he did attend a burkha pre-school or whatever they call it over there . . .

RE: DNC 1st amendment 'cage'

Nuclearcow — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 18:28:00 GMT

I think the Dems often get away with stuff like this because of the [b]perception[/b] of being the party of the average person.

The protesters at the Republican convention walk 84 ft. from the front door. They might not get away with doing the same thing because of the opposite impression.

I think the Dems (including Democrat mayor, governor, etc) wanted to crack down and keep protesters away because of the image they wanted to portray of Obama. It might ruin that image if there are *gasp* thousands of people protesting while he's talking.

RE: DNC 1st amendment 'cage'

Bismarck2990 — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 17:43:44 GMT

If Republicans pulled this stunt with a "freedom cage" there wouldn't even be a election.

RE: DNC 1st amendment 'cage'

cleopatra143 — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 15:47:05 GMT

Of course it's an outrage. But as far as I'm concerned, dems and reps have been trampling on our rights for years. They are equally to blame IMO.

DNC 1st amendment 'cage'

Nuclearcow — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 14:52:14 GMT

Hey guys, I wanted to discuss this earlier when it was up and coming rather than afterward, but I have free time at the moment, so here it is, late.

Denver was the site for the Democrat National Convention, as you guys are probably aware. There were a few mega left-winged groups talking about protesting the DNC heavily. Why the Dems and not the Repubs? Because they said the knew the Repubs wouldn't listen, but were hoping to reach the Dems.

Anyways, there is a national law (don't know the name/number. It was talked about on the local radio) where demonstrators, picketers, etc have to be allowed within sight and sound of the group they want to exercise their 1st amendment rights on.

The picketers at the Republican National Convention in Minnesota march within 84 feet of the front door. In Denver for the DNC, they could not get within several hundreds of yards away and had to be enclosed within a "freedom cage" as so tongue in cheek described by those who wanted to picket, protest, etc.
[url=http://drunkatdnc.blogspot.com/]Photos taken directly from this site:[/url]
[img]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3223/2801596595_b9652cc3a9_o.jpg[/img]
Surrounded by spotlights
[img]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3098/2801580293_64be5137c0_o.jpg[/img]
[url=http://www.bluemassgroup.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=12682]these next photos taken from this site:[/url]
[img]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3253/2802724221_42356a3ab1.jpg[/img]
[img]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3282/2803571728_edb183cd8a.jpg[/img]

Anyways, so Colorado is usually a red-state, and when the guys from these left-winged groups went on the news, radio, etc to get support for their 1st amendment rights being "trampled" as they saw it, most of the average citizens looked at the groups complaining, like [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recreate_68]Recreate 68[/url], and were mostly of the opinion that it was GOOD for these extreme lefters to shut up, be away, etc, etc.

A few people, like myself, thought the guys in these groups may have been full of jerks, losers, conspiracy theorists, marxists, or whatever, BUT... this is our 1st amendment rights and yeah, maybe they are being trampled. But nobody seemed to care because of the groups that were being affected.

To exercise your 1st amendment rights... does that mean you have to be in a cage surrounded by heavily armed cops, spotlights, guard-towers, etc if you want to exercise that 1st amendment right to protest? This right was so important to the founding fathers that it was the 1st one stated before all others. I'd imagine most of you heard and saw nothing about this on the news either. Why don't more people care?

Most of the people who debate here on 1BC are right-winged to varying degrees. Do you guys seem anything wrong with this as well? I think people should be outraged, but no body seems to care (or seemed to care, since this is now past tense).

LC, I thought the Dems were the self-proclaimed party of the people. What the? ;)