Hey! The system works yet again!
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Thursday, July 6, 2006 13:49
VIEWED: 3845
PAGE 6 of 8
Quote:I think it works- like an eight cylander engine on nitrous missing three sparkplugs....
Originally posted by rue:
No, I don't think the US system works.
The design is good, the product is sound, it's the aftermarket crap and lack of repair...
Slave to the metaphore Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yep, a good realistic start, where do I sign?
Originally posted by rue:
In no particular order:
1) eliminate corporate 'personhood'
2) institute a parliamentary system
3) use only public funding for campaigns
4) have election reform (use the Canadian system)
5) have several foreign news media covering the US and have them be carried on public airways during prime time
The Agreer Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
And speaking of name-calling... who would that be, 'Rap?
I phrased my comment specifically so that those who think this ruling was a good thing fit my description. They know who they are. The ruling is basically unconstitutional, attempting to strip the powers of the Execuitve branch of it's Constitutional powers during a time of war.
Sometimes name calling serves a purpose beyond simplistic insults. Sometimes the shoe fits.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey Unwrapped!
How's that booming economy going?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Do you include SCOTUS in your list of pansy-assed appeasers?
I phrased my comment specifically so that those who think this ruling was a good thing fit my description.
Just curious!Can you perhaps tell us all how you linked one attribute (agreeing with the Supreme Court ruling) with the other (pansy-ass appeasers)? I just can't seem to make that leap. Be explicit. Make sure you go step by step... inch by inch... millimeter by millimeter...I don't want to get lost again.
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't want to interrupt the dialogue, but I was thinking - perhaps the SCOTUS is irked by the presumption of a unitary executive. Perhaps they are not protecting citizens, but their own territory - and this ruling is just a turf war.
That would make sense out of their other ruling which allows arbitrary political redistricting (as long racial minorities aren't affected).
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Some people just prefer pansy-assed armchair quarter backing 
Hooyaa! people who disagree with the war are pansys, I'm a real man cause I watch it on TV! See my chairs rippling Arse groove!
I'm so scared of Terrorists I agree with illegal treatment of prisoners...
Time to change those trousers AU, may I suggest brown one's next time, that way it won't notice next time you cast a shadow...
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
In no particular order:
1) eliminate corporate 'personhood'
I assume to remove corporate voice in the political process. I got no problem with this if there's a practical way to implement it. If that's not what you mean, please clarify.
Quote:
2) institute a parliamentary system
Any particular features of a parliamentary system you think are superior? The British system produced Tony Blair, who I don't think is on your "good guys" list. A quick Google shows both good and bad parliamentary governments.
Quote:
3) use only public funding for campaigns
if you're talking about "hard money" that goes directly to campaign treasuries, that's cool. But, would this also limit the 1st Amendment rights of people who believe they have a stake in the election, either one guy with a million dollars to spend, or a million folks with one dollar to spend?
Quote:
4) have election reform (use the Canadian system)
If you have a link to the "Canadian system" you refer to, I'd appreciate it. I'm not up on the latest in Canadian election reform.
Quote:
5) have several foreign news media covering the US and have them be carried on public airwaves during prime time
Interesting concept, but I'm not sure how this could be required. It seems to be sort of a 1st Amendment "Freedom of the Press" issue. If Foreign news media don't want to cover US news, or don't think it's in their best economic interest, how do you compel them?
I am really not trying to disagree with you on any of these points. Some I really don't have the information I need to form an opinion, and some I'm just asking what I think would be the obvious questions that might arise as to their practicality. I'm really interested in your opinion about these basic issues. I may not agree with all of them, but I'll try to be open-minded.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Not so...maybe require that there be no commercial advertising associated with the electoral process, and guarantee equal time on pubic television for registered candidates to speak their piece- PBS wins, the public wins (AND are forced to tune into a better network for a while, it might stick some, and get ratings for NOVA-type shows instead of "Real Life Incestious Treasure Search"
Originally posted by Geezer:
3) use only public funding for campaigns
if you're talking about "hard money" that goes directly to campaign treasuries, that's cool. But, would this also limit the 1st Amendment rights of people who believe they have a stake in the election, either one guy with a million dollars to spend, or a million folks with one dollar to spend?
.Hopeful Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Corporations currently have the same constitutional protections as individuals, including free speech. What I mean is - just remove those protections by removing corporate 'personhood'.
In no particular order:
1) eliminate corporate 'personhood'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I assume to remove corporate voice in the political process. I got no problem with this if there's a practical way to implement it. If that's not what you mean, please clarify.
Quote:Mixed governments (PMs plus presidents) don't fare very well. And though Tony 'Poodle' Blair is not on my "good guys" list, he his, by all accounts, overall preferred to anyone else. To some extent this is due to the weakness of the opposition AND the weakness of challengers from his own party. But overall, the best thing about parliamentary systems is the ability to vote the government out between elections. I am still convinced it helps keep the system honest.
2) institute a parliamentary system
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any particular features of a parliamentary system you think are superior? The British system produced Tony Blair, who I don't think is on your "good guys" list. A quick Google shows both good and bad parliamentary governments.
Quote:I mean run the campaigns as a public service with public money. Debates, Q & A sessions, position statements. Require that media give free equal air time/ column space to all candidates and forbid campaign advertising. (Gives a new take on the notion of 'free' speech, eh?) In case you are wondering, the private use of public airwaves requires that the companies operate in the public interest.
3) use only public funding for campaigns
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if you're talking about "hard money" that goes directly to campaign treasuries, that's cool. But, would this also limit the 1st Amendment rights of people who believe they have a stake in the election, either one guy with a million dollars to spend, or a million folks with one dollar to spend?
Quote:Paper ballots, all publicly hand counted, overnight.
4) have election reform (use the Canadian system)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have a link to the "Canadian system" you refer to, I'd appreciate it. I'm not up on the latest in Canadian election reform.
Quote:Plenty of 'foreign' media report on the US for home consumption. These reports could and should be broadcast to the US to break the stranglehold of toady journalism. And broadcast media is probably the easiest entry due to the 'public interest' requirement.
5) have several foreign news media covering the US and have them be carried on public airwaves during prime time
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting concept, but I'm not sure how this could be required. It seems to be sort of a 1st Amendment "Freedom of the Press" issue. If Foreign news media don't want to cover US news, or don't think it's in their best economic interest, how do you compel them?
Quote:I'm curious what you have to say.
I am really not trying to disagree with you on any of these points. Some I really don't have the information I need to form an opinion, and some I'm just asking what I think would be the obvious questions that might arise as to their practicality. I'm really interested in your opinion about these basic issues. I may not agree with all of them, but I'll try to be open-minded.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME