I have to say this, and you won't like it ...

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2006-09-26 07:14pm

Flagg wrote:Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but couldn't voters pass state constitutional amendments that can set term limits for their state and federal representatives and senators? That right there would be a huge step in the right direction.

We can set term limits for state officials but the Supreme Court struck down state laws establishing term limits for their federal representatives.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2006-09-26 07:15pm

Forgot this part:

Alot of the things we need I would think can be done on the state level through ballot initiatives.

Not all states have an initiative system. I want to say a minority of the states has an initiative system but I honestly can't remember for sure.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2006-09-26 07:19pm

Uraniun235 wrote:Even if it were upwards of 70%, where would the battles occur? Would the Feds just up and raze the legislative building and a few city blocks to cow the people into submission?

I don't think there would be battles, really. I don't think anything would be razed as that would garner way too much sympathy from possible loyalists within the area. Really, who would fight the feds? Unless we assume that the National Guard within those states isn't off fighting a war somewhere, I can't see there being enough resistance for there to be a full fledged battle. I would think there would be resistance around state legislatures, and probably some barricaded areas within the cities. To be honest I think you would have alot of large (and several more smaller) standoffs between government troops and armed civilians. I'm sure some of those would heat up into firefights, but unless the states get their hands on some real military assets and personel I really don't see enough resistance to prevent an occupation. I could be wrong though, and please correct me if I am. I'm admittedly out of my depth when it comes to most military matters compared to people on this board.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2006-09-26 07:21pm

Uraniun235 wrote:
Flagg wrote:Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but couldn't voters pass state constitutional amendments that can set term limits for their state and federal representatives and senators? That right there would be a huge step in the right direction.
We can set term limits for state officials but the Supreme Court struck down state laws establishing term limits for their federal representatives.

Ahh, ok. I wasn't aware that that had been done. It seemed like way too good an idea for someone not to have tried it, though.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2006-09-26 07:23pm

Uraniun235 wrote:Forgot this part:
Alot of the things we need I would think can be done on the state level through ballot initiatives.
Not all states have an initiative system. I want to say a minority of the states has an initiative system but I honestly can't remember for sure.

I know FL does, and I'm pretty sure WA does since I've seen commercials for them. I'm admittedly ignorant about this state.

Lonestar · Post by **Lonestar** » 2006-09-26 07:24pm

Flagg wrote: Alot of the things we need I would think can be done on the state level through ballot initiatives.

Oh, God no. Intiatives are so stupid. Basically, it means the side that's better funded can convince the taxpayers that it's in their interest to pay hundreds of millions of dollars on, say, professional sports teams stadiums.

Or maybe we could just freeze taxes in the state with the biggest economy in the country and overnight ruin government services.

No, Intiatives are batshit stupid.

Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but couldn't voters pass state constitutional amendments that can set term limits for their state and federal representatives and senators? That right there would be a huge step in the right direction.

Why?

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2006-09-26 07:40pm

I have given some thought about moving out of this country once I have the money to do so. Every civilized country has its goods and bads, and has something its citizens have something to severely criticize for, but I think the difference between a place like, say, Europe and the US is that the latter is still too young. It's seen only one major war as a nation on its soil, and that was purely with itself. It's like a teenager; unblemished, and convinced of its infallibility.

Europe, on the other hand, has seen centuries of wars, tyranny of kinds you've never seen in the US, and of whole governments being toppled over in bloody rebellions and restructured. A great majority of it was absolutely devastated in the two world wars, whilst the US was relatively untouched.

The United States talks a lot about fighting tyranny and spreading liberty, but it hasn't had the in-your-face experience with tyranny like Europe has had multiple times.

So one can see Europe as a mature adult, or even a senior, who knows everything about life and just wants to live its life peacefully.

I agree with Wong's sentiments, except that if the United States does go into severe decline, it's going to be over a very long period of time. Stuff in this country happens really slowly. Which may or may not be better than stuff happening too quickly. Who knows.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2006-09-26 07:45pm

Lonestar wrote:
Flagg wrote: Alot of the things we need I would think can be done on the state level through ballot initiatives.
Oh, God no. Intiatives are so stupid. Basically, it means the side that's better funded can convince the taxpayers that it's in their interest to pay hundreds of millions of dollars on, say, professional sports teams stadiums.

Or maybe we could just freeze taxes in the state with the biggest economy in the country and overnight ruin government services.

No, Intiatives are batshit stupid.

Some of them can be. "My idea" has already been tried, so It's dead in the water anyway. In FL there were a few good things that came about due to ballot initiatives, like the restraunt smoking ban and the class size inititive.

Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but couldn't voters pass state constitutional amendments that can set term limits for their state and federal representatives and senators? That right there would be a huge step in the right direction.
Why?

Because then we get rid of porkbarreling assholes like Byrd, Stevens, and the late Thurmond, and replace them with younger, but less effective porkbarreling assholes. Plus we'll get an entire term where they're not trying to win the next election. It's not a solution, but it's a step in the right direction coupled with lobby reforms.

Lonestar · Post by **Lonestar** » 2006-09-26 07:54pm

Flagg wrote: Some of them can be. "My idea" has already been tried, so It's dead in the water anyway. In FL there were a few good things that came about due to ballot initiatives, like the restraunt smoking ban and the class size inititive.

But for every "good" intiative there's a bad one that's much worse. Limit the class size? Great! Freeze taxes? Great! Hey, why are those ungrateful teachers striking? Waddya mean we don't got the money to pay the extra teachers a reasonable salary in order to meet the smaller class intiative?

Because then we get rid of porkbarreling assholes like Byrd, Stevens, and the late Thurmond, and replace them with younger, but less effective porkbarreling assholes. Plus we'll get an entire term where they're not trying to win the next election. It's not a solution, but it's a step in the right direction coupled with lobby reforms.

Pork Barrel is good. Hell, I'm very conservative, but I'd rather tax and spend then not tax and spend, or tax but not spend.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2006-09-26 08:05pm

Lonestar wrote:
Flagg wrote: Some of them can be. "My idea" has already been tried, so It's dead in the water anyway. In FL there were a few good things that came about due to ballot initiatives, like the restraunt smoking ban and the class size inititive.
But for every "good" intiative there's a bad one that's much worse. Limit the class size? Great! Freeze taxes? Great! Hey, why are those ungrateful teachers striking? Waddya mean we don't got the money to pay the extra teachers a reasonable salary in order to meet the smaller class intiative?

Freezing all taxes is a retarded fucking initiative anyway. There should definatly be some kind of vetting process other than the number of petitions you can get.

Because then we get rid of porkbarreling assholes like Byrd, Stevens, and the late Thurmond, and replace them with younger, but less effective porkbarreling assholes. Plus we'll get an entire term where they're not trying to win the next election. It's not a solution, but it's a step in the right direction coupled with lobby reforms.
Pork Barrel is good. Hell, I'm very conservative, but I'd rather tax and spend then not tax and spend, or tax but not spend.

Taxing and spending is fine, as long as you're spending it on the right things. Some prokbarreling shit is expected, like building that new onramp that we really didn't need, or building that brand new park next to the sewage lagoon. It's the obscene things like building a bridge to nowhere, and repairing your football stadium when not all the bodies have been fished out of NO that are completely unacceptable.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2006-09-26 08:09pm

Flagg wrote:Taxing and spending is fine, as long as you're spending it on the right things. Some prokbarreling shit is expected, like building that new onramp that we really didn't need, or building that brand new park next to the sewage lagoon. It's the obscene things like building a bridge to nowhere, and repairing your football stadium when not all the bodies have been fished out of NO that are completely unacceptable.

It's a symbol!
It sends a message!
We cant do nothing!
And we have to do something!

The above are all warning signs that someone is about to do, or is already doing, something very fucking stupid.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2006-09-26 08:35pm

Darth Wong wrote:But Ross Perot's vision of America won; it is now run like a business (more specifically, like Enron). A business has no ethical values at all, nor do its shareholders. And that's the way Americans seem to view themselves now: as shareholders in America Inc.

Gotta let the board of directors do whatever it takes to make money; there's no moral stain on my hands because I'm just a shareholder.

If we're all shareholders, I want to start receiving dividends

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2006-09-26 08:40pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:
Flagg wrote:Taxing and spending is fine, as long as you're spending it on the right things. Some prokbarreling shit is expected, like building that new onramp that we really didn't need, or building that brand new park next to the sewage lagoon. It's the obscene things like building a bridge to nowhere, and repairing your football stadium when not all the bodies have been fished out of NO that are completely unacceptable.
It's a symbol!
It sends a message!
We cant do nothing!
And we have to do something!

The above are all warning signs that someone is about to do, or is already doing, something very fucking stupid.

You forgot the one that makes me sleep with a gun under my pillow at night (figuratively), assuming I sleep at all:
But, it's for the children! Won't somebody please think of the children!?

Lonestar · Post by **Lonestar** » 2006-09-26 09:02pm

Flagg wrote: Freezing all taxes is a retarded fucking initiative anyway. There should definatly be some kind of vetting process other than the number of petitions you can get.

Problem is, intiatives are a kinda all-or-none deal.

Taxing and spending is fine, as long as you're spending it on the right things. Some prokbarreling shit is expected, like building that new onramp that we really didn't need, or building that brand new park next to the sewage lagoon. It's the obscene things like building a bridge to nowhere, and repairing your football stadium when not all the bodies have been fished out of NO that are completely unacceptable.

Oh, I agree that some pork spending is pointless to the point that the only thing it's doing is creating make-work jobs, but without pork-spending we would have never came up with the money to save the Battleship Texas from literally falling apart(the money was snuck in there in the last budget), funding local green spaces, and renovating infastructure that otherwise would have had to wait until the next big transportation bill.

A lot of pork spending does provide tangible bennies beyond make-work jobs. Now, do we need to have federal taxdollars to go to renovating the superdome while there are abandoned cars and debris sstill in the streets of NO? Nope.(forgetting for the moment that a firm offered to pay the city to take the metal away for scrap, the city turned it down, and now the City is paying tens of millions of dollars instead of makign a profit).

Pork can be good.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-09-26 09:28pm

I think pork wouldn't be necessary if states were more self-sufficient in funding their local interest projects. Currently, they recieve a significant percentage of their income from the federal government through grants, don't they?

On topic: I don't pretend to have any sort of formal education in these matters, but it seems to me that America has been creeping towards this pitiable state ever since America abandoned it's policy of non-involvement set by George Washington. Once we decided to flex our muscles in foreign policy for no damn reason, all hell broke loose. Previously, foreign wars were usually conducted for some immediate gain to America (the manifest destiny wars come to mind), or during periods of serious internal strife (the Civil War). To me, Woodrow Wilson embodies the earliest form of "I'm going to start a war to spread my ideology" neoconservatism. Ever since then, we've been fighting foreign wars with little gain left and right. Politicians were looking for a way to fend off disgruntled constituents who didn't like pouring money into hellholes overseas and getting no return. Along comes the fundamentalist revival of the 60s. Conservative leaders use the predictable rantings of ultra-Christians as a convenient political platform appealing to the "Moral Majority" and such, conveniently getting people to ignore the real issue. Of course, I don't claim to see an absolutely straight, unbending trend. We've had good administrations as well as bad since the beginning of the 20th century, but I sure as hell see a general movement towards unnecessary involvement and a foreign policy based around the concept of the global policeman.

Medic · Post by **Medic** » 2006-09-26 09:30pm

kheegan wrote:
D.Turtle wrote: That is where the american two-party winner-take-all system fails.

It fails to represent minorities.

It is appalling to see for example how the HUGE immigrant communities and the HUGE black american community get ignored (or rather get fucked over).

In general, the way American society works is that those being trodden on by the elite try to work their way to the elite so that they can trod on those left behind. That's the 'American Dream'.

Damnit, I've thought this several times in the past month, but never had a thread to articulate it.

Look no further than Gangsta Rap culture, movies like "Get rich or die trying," lotteries or the idiot tax, American Idol probably takes the crown. Rags to riches stories are a dime a dozen it seems but not so with everyone still in rags. Parents too serious about their kids athletic performance, the small fact that so many people have dreams of becoming actors, models, athletes, and get rich, but that only an appaling miniority succeed.

There's no serious effort to help the downtrodden, cause earning your keep is admired to a harmful degree. The antithesis to this argument, I imagine, is that a populace that votes into power a welfare state is just getting themselves largess at the expense of the rich, but it's obvious in the current system, rising tides haven't lifted all boats.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2006-09-26 09:32pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:You know, there is alot of general issue agreement with Mike's rant. However, I wonder where the folks are that disagree with him here. Surely there are those who do disagree and I think this thread could benefit with a good healthy rebuttle. That's the base of dielectics, after all.

I suppose I could say something, but I've been on this board long enough to know that it will be a one to two hour investment that isn't going to change anyone's mind.

Medic · Post by **Medic** » 2006-09-26 09:52pm

By rags I'm not implying that anyone not in the middle or upperclass is flat-out poor, with an **entire family living in as much space as an Army barracks room, rather, just trying to demonstrate a theme.

**Though I have seen that, my best friends girlfriend of all people

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2006-09-26 10:33pm

Flagg wrote:Because then we get rid of porkbarreling assholes like Byrd, Stevens, and the late Thurmond, and replace them with younger, but less effective porkbarreling assholes. Plus we'll get an entire term where they're not trying to win the next election. It's not a solution, but it's a step in the right direction coupled with lobby reforms.

No, it's not a solution. Term limits would put the reins of government in the hands of the unelected lobbyists, bureaucrats, and party insiders who have time to stick around in DC for years and learn where all the buttons and levers are. There is already a mechanism in place for removing ineffective legislators, one which could be immediately improved with publically financed elections and a ban on gerrymandering.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2006-09-27 12:03am

I've been resigned to this for a while. The difference is that I really can't see America being great again. I used to believe that this was just another swing in the pendulum toward the right, and we'd swing back just far enough to make some progress eventually.

But no, I don't think so. I'm frankly getting sick of the government. I'm sick of being part of an elite just because I can think critically. I want my society's elite to actually be elite. Because I know for damn sure I don't belong in any reasonably-defined intellectual elite group. There are a whole lot of people a who hell of a lot smarter than me out there. But this country's so god damn fucking stupid lately.

mingo · Post by **mingo** » 2006-09-27 12:08am

SirNitram wrote: Have you considered all the actions in the Cold War that might lead someone to have no respect for the US, or is it swept aside under the 'Need to beat the commies'?

Due to the poor education I got in US public schools, it took me quite a while to understand the Communism was NOT the opisite of Democracy, but rather the opisite of Capitalism, which was always much more inportnat to our government that Democracy anyway.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2006-09-27 12:49am

mingo wrote:Due to the poor education I got in US public schools, it took me quite a while to understand the Communism was NOT the opisite of Democracy, but rather the opisite of Capitalism, which was always much more inportnat to our government that Democracy anyway.

But totalitarianism is the opposite of democracy, and Communism by it's very nature is totalitarian because it cannot exist without the State in complete control of both the economy and politics of the country (even so, true communisim has never actually been achieved, because even under these conditions it is not workable in actual practice). Even Marx envisioned it as totalitarian, in what he referred to as the "dictatorship of the proletariat" (Marx naivly believed that the prolitariat would treat each other fairly, and only oppress the bourgeois).

Vaporous · Post by **Vaporous** » 2006-09-27 12:51am

Durandal wrote:I've been resigned to this for a while. The difference is that I really can't see America being great again. I used to believe that this was just another swing in the pendulum toward the right, and we'd swing back just far enough to make some progress eventually.

But no, I don't think so. I'm frankly getting sick of the government. I'm sick of being part of an elite just because I can think critically. I want my society's elite to actually be elite. Because I know for damn sure I don't belong in any reasonably-defined intellectual elite group. There are a whole lot of people a who hell of a lot smarter than me out there. But this country's so god damn fucking stupid lately.

That's almost exactly my feeling as well. I still hold out some small hope that someone will arise who is capable of leading the government in a better direction, but I don't see it as likely anymore. Where would this person come from if the system that we hope would produce him is opposed to the very idea of his existence?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-09-27 12:54am

Vaporous wrote:That's almost exactly my feeling as well. I still hold out some small hope that someone will arise who is capable of leading the government in a better direction, but I don't see it as likely anymore. Where would this person come from if the system that we hope would produce him is opposed to the very idea of his existence?

That's the problem. If the people don't want that kind of person (and they don't), then we'll never get him.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2006-09-27 01:08am

Communism by it's very nature is totalitarian because it cannot exist without the State

Um...

Wasn't communism initially a state of things in a small community of people during the primeval times where everything was common, and no state existed? Isn't that what Marx intended to achieve by saying that the State will eventually wither away? He was obviously wrong because the State did not, and never ever in reailty could wither away after accumulating all the power, but it's strange to say that communism can't exist without the state when in fact it, per Marx, can only exist without the state.