Both sides are well intended.

[undertheice]

taking the money out of public service is the only way to fix the problem. eliminating lobbying is only one aspect. campaign reform, filibuster reform, and education reform are some others. and the media ... I have no clue.

without an informed and aware population, no regulation of these political animals will be sufficient. restricting access to our representatives isn't the answer. all these lobbyists operate as the voice of some segment of the people and eliminating them would merely form a more complete curtain between us and the political elites that strive to avoid any semblance of transparency. no regulation of campaigning or the operation of government will ever be effective when those who oversee it reside within the monster itself. education, as long as it is under the thumb of the state, will always be a matter of indoctrination into the most popular agenda of the moment. the media itself has become another arm of the powerful and there is no way to break their hold on that industry.

the simple fact seems to be that governance on a national level is just too vast an enterprise to be as transparent as it must be to avoid its inherent corruption. regional government may be held to close examination, but the sheer size of the federal government makes it immune to such scrutiny. only with a small, relatively weak federal government can the sovereignty of the states and the individual be protected. the massive programs of washington's excess hold us all hostage to the whims of those over whom we have little or no control.

 

[jeffchr]

So why cant the Democraps tellBarney Frank and Chris Dodd to go take a flying fucking leap off the Golden Gate for putting this country in the mess it is now by pushing all the sub prime mortgage bullshit?
Democraps want more government and less personal freedom and the Repubs are the opposite. But both love to spend money and are drunk off their own power.

well heck, after read'n that, now i agree with GWN.

 

[jeffchr]

without an informed and aware population, no regulation of these political animals will be sufficient. restricting access to our representatives isn't the answer. all these lobbyists operate as the voice of some segment of the people and eliminating them would merely form a more complete curtain between us and the political elites that strive to avoid any semblance of transparency. no regulation of campaigning or the operation of government will ever be effective when those who oversee it reside within the monster itself. education, as long as it is under the thumb of the state, will always be a matter of indoctrination into the most popular agenda of the moment. the media itself has become another arm of the powerful and there is no way to break their hold on that industry.

the simple fact seems to be that governance on a national level is just too vast an enterprise to be as transparent as it must be to avoid its inherent corruption. regional government may be held to close examination, but the sheer size of the federal government makes it immune to such scrutiny. only with a small, relatively weak federal government can the sovereignty of the states and the individual be protected. the massive programs of washington's excess hold us all hostage to the whims of those over whom we have little or no control.

i disagree. the elected represent each person in this country once. one vote. period.

you don't get extra influence if you work at United Health Care.

 

[undertheice]

i disagree. the elected represent each person in this country once. one vote. period.

so once you manage to get yourself elected, you needn't concern yourself with the will of the people until the next election cycle? i don't think so. on a national scale, a great deal of damage can be done in just the two short years of a congressman. just look at the horrendous damage brak has managed in a little over a year. without access, the people become meaningless and without any voice in the workings of government. that wealth provides better representation is unavoidable. the better bet is to lessen the damage these morons can do in washington and restrict the real work of governance to more localized authority.




oh, thanks for merely saying you disagree and not calling me an asshat or something similar. that shit is starting to get a bit old.

 

[RickWhite]

I understand that position. But there was too much bs associated with that situation. The Libbey conviction, the Plame outing (which was really hard-core, Chicago - yes "Chicago" - style politics), spying on Americans, Guantanomo, and rendition. So why should I believe there was anything honorable going on in that camp.

First, I haven't seen evidence.

More importantly, you have not answered the question about why you believe they may have embellished the facts, which they all do to an extent - that's how they get elected after all.

Anyway, let's get down to brass tacks here - do you think Bush fabricated the whole WMD story for nefarious reasons and if so what were they?

 

[RickWhite]

how do you suggest we fix the problem? in my opinion, lobbying should be eliminated. taking the money out of public service is the only way to fix the problem. eliminating lobbying is only one aspect. campaign reform, filibuster reform, and education reform are some others. and the media ... I have no clue. but they are distortionists, not journalists. perhaps if the money is out of politics, so too will the media find other ways of getting paid-off.

OK now I have to add another example to my list. I'm not trying to pick on you either.

I'd like to add that rational, level headed people understand that some issues are just amazingly complex and not something we can just change. And they also realize that regardless of how well informed they are, there are going to be issues that will simply be above their (and many times everyone's) pay grade. In fact, this last part is the one thing that defines a wise man if such a definition exists.

 

[jeffchr]

OK now I have to add another example to my list. I'm not trying to pick on you either.

I'd like to add that rational, level headed people understand that some issues are just amazingly complex and not something we can just change. And they also realize that regardless of how well informed they are, there are going to be issues that will simply be above their (and many times everyone's) pay grade. In fact, this last part is the one thing that defines a wise man if such a definition exists.

give me a break
you know, you've got to read these posts in context ricky

my post was a reply to GWN who commented that the thread was becoming a left/right discussion and not addressing the core problems.

he didn't bother to articulate what the core problems were, so I asked him. i threw in my two cents, with a broad scope, which I thought might be a good way to open the topic.

i didn't write those words in stone and mount them on top of the biggest hill in the city.

so if you are trying to imply that I was oversimplifying, i wasn't. perhaps you could say my comments were a set of goals or ideals and any candidate that articulated those principals would get my vote.

and what list?

 

[jeffchr]

First, I haven't seen evidence.

More importantly, you have not answered the question about why you believe they may have embellished the facts, which they all do to an extent - that's how they get elected after all.

Anyway, let's get down to brass tacks here - do you think Bush fabricated the whole WMD story for nefarious reasons and if so what were they?

the evidence i presented were the facts and timing surrounding the joe wilson issue. if you find those facts insufficient to deem them evidence, then so be it. we'll just quit talking about this.

i don't know why bush embellished the facts. i surmise he was trying to prove his manhood for daddy. like i told you in an earlier post, cheney was the force behind iraq policy.

 

[jeffchr]

so once you manage to get yourself elected, you needn't concern yourself with the will of the people until the next election cycle? i don't think so. on a national scale, a great deal of damage can be done in just the two short years of a congressman. just look at the horrendous damage brak has managed in a little over a year. without access, the people become meaningless and without any voice in the workings of government. that wealth provides better representation is unavoidable. the better bet is to lessen the damage these morons can do in washington and restrict the real work of governance to more localized authority.




oh, thanks for merely saying you disagree and not calling me an asshat or something similar. that shit is starting to get a bit old.

i disagree with all of that

so your theory implies that election terms are inherently faulty, and congress needs a babysitter between elections. and that baby sitter should be the rich, soulless corporations who merely securitize politics.

i disagree

damage? hardly.

people always have access to their congressmen. at least the good ones. others, who are on the media circuit might be a little tough to influence.

 

[RickWhite]

the evidence i presented were the facts and timing surrounding the joe wilson issue. if you find those facts insufficient to deem them evidence, then so be it. we'll just quit talking about this.

i don't know why bush embellished the facts. i surmise he was trying to prove his manhood for daddy. like i told you in an earlier post, cheney was the force behind iraq policy.

I see. So you believe that Bush waged war and sacrificed thousands of lives to satisfy some personal feelings of inadequacy and for no other reason. And furthermore you believe that Chaney was really behind it all as a means to make money.

Now, I have to ask - what type of people do you suppose share your views? Do you think all the members of Congress share them? See, I think, and I mean no offense, that those views are pretty much childish and I don't think that rational, educated people hold them unless we are talking about far Left professors and the like.

Rational, level headed people, do not in my mind, entertain theories that suggest that US Presidents go to war to earn their father's approval or to make billions. I just don't see those as reasonable positions regardless of whether or not the President is Democrat or Republican.

 

[golddog]

Years back my father decided that he wanted to help the community and got himself elected to a local office.

He really only had a few ideas or things he wanted to change. In order to get his bills passed he had to help other pass their pet bills. Some he liked, some he didn't, most he didn't care about.

Needless to say, he got his bills passed and decided to get out of politics at the end of his second term.

He summed it up saying that all of the politicians had good intentions, but they had to prostitute themselves, to get their good intentions recognized (bills passed).




quote by Mark Twain: 'Politicians are like diapers; they need to be changed often and for the same reason.'

 

[RickWhite]

Years back my father decided that he wanted to help the community and got himself elected to a local office.

He really only had a few ideas or things he wanted to change. In order to get his bills passed he had to help other pass their pet bills. Some he liked, some he didn't, most he didn't care about.

Needless to say, he got his bills passed and decided to get out of politics at the end of his second term.

He summed it up saying that all of the politicians had good intentions, but they had to prostitute themselves, to get their good intentions recognized (bills passed).




quote by Mark Twain: 'Politicians are like diapers; they need to be changed often and for the same reason.'

To be sure, politics is a dirty business. I know for a fact, many local governments are corrupt. But when it comes to Presidents waging war in order to impress their fathers, that is just silly talk.

 

[jeffchr]

I see. So you believe that Bush waged war and sacrificed thousands of lives to satisfy some personal feelings of inadequacy and for no other reason. And furthermore you believe that Chaney was really behind it all as a means to make money.

Now, I have to ask - what type of people do you suppose share your views? Do you think all the members of Congress share them? See, I think, and I mean no offense, that those views are pretty much childish and I don't think that rational, educated people hold them unless we are talking about far Left professors and the like.

Rational, level headed people, do not in my mind, entertain theories that suggest that US Presidents go to war to earn their father's approval or to make billions. I just don't see those as reasonable positions regardless of whether or not the President is Democrat or Republican.

hogwash

the intent of my statement regarding bush was sarcasm. the point of my comment being I'm not sure about bush's motivations. he may have had good intentions, from his perspective. to further my point, it doesn't matter what his intentions were. he did a piss poor job of managing this country. he was incompetent.

i don't believe a majority of congress shares my views. i think they are inherently more forgiving of political antics and involved with their own agenda's and issues. they know it is bad politics to speak in terms of general policy and criticism. both of those tactics can only return damage. so in that sense, true, those views could be regarded as childish and irrational by congress.. it doesn't make them false, however.

i would characterize beck, limbaugh, bachmann, mitch mcconnell and boehner as irrational and uneducated. there are plenty of people who hold my views. many of them are rational and educated.

your characterization of my comments comes from a narrow perspective. you speak as though you are educated and intelligent, yet you seem to be totally unaware of the liberal mindset. conversations with you are a pain in the ass.