Conservative Club II

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Well since our old club seems to have been destroyed I felt its time to open its replacement. To bad our Sgt at arms is banned, maybe for life, from witnessing this event. You all know the rules, infered only. Rush Limbaugh has stocked us with some of his best cigars, theres a shooting range out back now complete with skeet. We have an 18 hole golf course and a driving range. Of course the bar is fully stocked and I have hired the Juggies from the Man Show as waitresses. There is also a Ruths Crisp Steakhouse on the premisis I hope you all like the new place.

I know this thread already exists but I believe you can close the other one.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Membership List
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Gawain of Orkeny ______President
Devastating Dave______Sgt at Arms
Pindar_______________ Master of the Horse
Redleg
Crazed Rabbit
TuffStuffMcGruff
Xiahou
Alexander the Pretty Good
Don Corleone
PanzerJager
Tuetonic Knight
Kaiser of Arabia
Templar Knight
Azi Tohak
Proletariat
Radier
strike for the south

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:duel: ~:grouphug: ~:cheers:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Templar Knight]

golf, cigars and waitresses, can I join?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Are you a conservative?

[Templar Knight]

hell yes! ~:)

[KyodaiSteeleye]

I'm a conservative!

:disguise:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Maybe you should pull your pants back up and look for a handout elsewhere ~D

[KyodaiSteeleye]

~;)

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Aahhh. Such a spacious modicum of relaxment from which I and my conservative brethren may lay the political smackdown. So cry "Four more years" and let slip... something. Couldn't think of a good recreational item that could be "let slip." Hell, put those burgers on the barbie and break out the rifles! We're going skeet shooting! On the golf course!

:charge:

~:) :balloon2:

[Templar Knight]

so am I in or not? ~;)

[Don Corleone]

Brief questionare on very, very important grounds for membership...


-Whisky or whiskey? Which?

-Favorite cigar? How many do you intend to bring to the first member's meeting for us to partake of?

-Jennifer Anniston or Angelina Jolie?

-What's your handicap?

All that political rambling is just a cover, this is really a country club, with the Juggies (from the manshow) for waitresses.

By the way, I'm just messin around... Gawain's membership chair.

[Xiahou]

While this may hardly be a topic for deep though-provoking discussion, I've been wanting to get something off my chest....

I think Sean Hannity is an idiot- there, I said it. ~D
When I first got FoxNews, I thought he was interesting and I occassionally watched his show. When he got the 3-6pm slot on my local AM radio, I thought great- beats the local lib we used to have. But, after listening to him on and off for what's probably been a year, I realize I just can't stomach the man. He seems to only be able to stick to pre-defined talking point during a discussion and if he's knocked off script all he seems capable of responding with is something intellectually equivalent to "well you're a big doody-head!"

I will acknowledge that he (or maybe his staffers) dig up some juicy news bits from time to time and that he's involved in some worthwhile charities, but outside of that- what good is he? I know there are many more intellectually engaging people out there to listen to- especially on radio.

So, any conservative commentators you can't stand or love dearly? ~:cool:


so am I in or not? As I've said in a different thread, by looking at their platform, the UK conservatives seem to be pretty reasonable people- certainly when compared to the liberals. ~;)
So, you've got my vote.

[JAG]

I heard this is the conservationist club. Can I join, I am a very keen and ardent conservationist. Damn those people who would walk all over the earth with thier polluting smiles and bollox arguments!

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

*awkward pause*

[to partying conservatives]: Should we tell him?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I think Sean Hannity is an idiot- there, I said it.
When I first got FoxNews, I thought he was interesting and I occassionally watched his show. When he got the 3-6pm slot on my local AM radio, I thought great- beats the local lib we used to have. But, after listening to him on and off for what's probably been a year, I realize I just can't stomach the man. He seems to only be able to stick to pre-defined talking point during a discussion and if he's knocked off script all he seems capable of responding with is something intellectually equivalent to "well you're a big doody-head!"

I will acknowledge that he (or maybe his staffers) dig up some juicy news bits from time to time and that he's involved in some worthwhile charities, but outside of that- what good is he? I know there are many more intellectually engaging people out there to listen to- especially on radio.

I used to listen to him after Rush but he always says the same things. Always uses that trick of quoting a democrat like it was Bush and making another liberal look stupid. You would think they would hae caught on by now. Now i tune into O Reily when hes on. I catually think Colmes is more entertaining on TV. At least hes real funny sometimes. That being said Hannity is a very powerful force on the conservatives side. I wouldnt toss him out ~:)

[Crazed Rabbit]

I heard this is the conservationist club. Can I join, I am a very keen and ardent conservationist. Damn those people who would walk all over the earth with thier polluting smiles and bollox arguments!

Read the title of the thread. Repeat as necessary until a certain realization dawns upon you.

If you still want in, you'll have to bring us 10 newly felled trees to prove your loyalty. You will also have to drive an SUV and buy everything at Walmart. Of course, you'll still be the busboy for thinking this was a conservationist club. ~;)

Though, I do agree about people walking over the earth being fools. It's much better to drive a big ole gas guzzling bemehoth, crushing the small, delicate plants, and shooting the furry woodland creatures as they scatter in fear.

Crazed Rabbit

[Xiahou]

Though, I do agree about people walking over the earth being fools. It's much better to drive a big ole gas guzzling bemehoth, crushing the small, delicate plants, and shooting the furry woodland creatures as they scatter in fear. I'll drink to that! ~:cheers:



I used to listen to him after Rush but he always says the same things. Always uses that trick of quoting a democrat like it was Bush and making another liberal look stupid. You would think they would hae caught on by now. Now i tune into O Reily when hes on. I catually think Colmes is more entertaining on TV. At least hes real funny sometimes. That being said Hannity is a very powerful force on the conservatives side. I wouldnt toss him out Yes, this is all pretty much true- I just think there are many people out there capable of more intelligent debate than him (Michael Medved comes to mind), I guess they don't have the charisma (or TV Show?) to attract enough publicity to themselves. I also think that Hannity appeals to people on more of an emotional level than others, which is probably another reason I don't care for him- I usually don't find emotional arguments appealing.
In case anyone's interested... www.michaelmedved.com (http://www.michaelmedved.com) I mention him, because while driving to/from customers I occasionally pass thru areas that air him instead of Hannity and he seems much more intelligent from what I've heard.

[PanzerJaeger]

I think hannity is trying to form a good public image and avoid the stigmas attached to people like Savage and even Limbaugh.. sure i like them but they have stigmas.

Hannity is a good person to point out to new conservatives, his arguments are pretty simple and talking-point oriented, but powerful.

Now if you want to get in-depth, others are more appropriate, but Hannity serves an important purpose in helping our younger brethren sort out basic conservative ideology.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Hey who your favorite conservative radio talk show hosts?

I thibk Rush rules. Medved is very good. I also love Glenn Beck . Laura Ingram is my favorite female one. I think mext to Rush though I like Mark Levine. He really cracks me up.

[Xiahou]

I'd say Rush is my favorite as well- that guy can really think on his feet. I occasionally get to listen to Ingram and she's usually pretty good too. Savage is what O'Reilly would call a 'bomb thrower'- I listen occassionally for entertainment value, but I don't put much stock in him.

As to O'Reilly himself- I have to agree with some of his critics... He does seem very arrogant and quite full of himself. I also think he takes some silly positions just so he can prove to everyone that he's a 'moderate' or 'traditionalist' or whatever the hell he's calling himself. ~D Having said that though, the man does have his moments and he seems to have alot of influence right now. And its fun to watch him really grill libs who can't back up their arguments.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

. And its fun to watch him really grill libs who can't back up their arguments.

Yeah whe it comes to getting peeps to stay on topic and answer the questions hes the best. I hate hoe he always rtalks in the third person. And always saying we like everyone who works with or listens to him agrees with him. What does he have, a mouse in hispocket? Or is the just the effect of Edie on him? She really spices up the show. Theres another libertarian host i cant think of at the monent whos great and no its not lional though I do love his voice. I talked on his show once. Wouldnt you know my cell phone died just as I was about to sink him ~:) We were arguing over seperation of church and state.

Just thought of the other guy. Neal Boortz.

[Demon of Light]

What happened to the first Conservative Club?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Some liberal burned it down. "looks in Jags direction" ~D

[Don Corleone]

Does anyone else get Neil (Neal?) Borscht? He's on our FM talk station oppossite Rush (AM). I'd have to say, Laura Ingram, in terms of sheer entertainment value, WAS my favorite. Lately, she's tried to get 'cool' by including movies & music and I just don't see the point. I will say, when she had the "The Call of the Dean-key" YEAAARRGGGHHHH!!!! I couldn't stop laughing.

I don't like Rush as much as I used to because 1) he seems obsessed with the word "orgasm" lately and 2) sometimes he takes a partonrizing tone. I guess my favorite right now, probably cause he's new and different, is Neil Borscht.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Does anyone else get Neil (Neal?) He's on our FM talk station oppossite Rush (AM).

Borscht? Isnt that some kind of Polish dish?

You two can learn to read and spell ~:) Check above.

From my previous post


Just thought of the other guy. Neal Boortz.

He rocks

[PanzerJaeger]

I dont get a chance to listen to much talk radio... i have really enjoyed Rush the times i have gotten to hear him. The commercials are killer though, at least around here!

[Gawain of Orkeny]

On a new topic should the republicans change the rules of conress and eliminate the super majority rule if the democrats continue to block and filibuster Bushes judicial nominations.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I kind of favor the "nuclear option". At least partly because its the closest we'll come to actually using nuclear weapons, and even better because its towards Democrats! ~D

I have some slight vague uneasiness about, though. I mean, IF we lose the Senate then we can't fillibuster. But then again, I don't think our side will ever sink to that level of girly-manliness. I hope.

Though I think it would be priceless for a Republican senator to fillibuster by reading the Bible in its entirety. Watch the liberals rage. Priceless. ~:cheers:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Though I think it would be priceless for a Republican senator to fillibuster by reading the Bible in its entirety. Watch the liberals rage. Priceless. ~:cheers:

*Reminds self to write letter to senator reccomending reading of "Fahrenheit 911" during fillibuster*


I say we make a deal...you guys get rid of the fillibuster, and we out all the Republicans who are gay. Of course nothing would happen to their careers since gays aren't treated any different by Americans as PJ pointed out in another thread.

[makkyo]

how can a prove my conservitiveness? Need I go hunting for you guys?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

how can a prove my conservitiveness? Need I go hunting for you guys?

Are you willing to have a large portion of your taxes go to helping some poor bums in Iraq but against welfare in the United States?

[makkyo]

better than having it put toward more efficient trash removal on my street.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

makkyo:

Do you think that less is more in both taxes and government size?
Do you enjoy the thought of well-nuked terrorists?
Do you like the idea of people working for their pay?
Do you have firearms or wish to purchase some?
Do you drink oil for breakfast?

If you answer yes to maybe two of these questions, you'll probably make it. Maybe. Unless your a left-leaning libertarian. But those are usually screened out by the oil question.

If you DO go hunting, get me a rib sandwich of any available meat. Though well done.

SK-

I say we make a deal...you guys get rid of the fillibuster, and we out all the Republicans who are gay. Of course nothing would happen to their careers since gays aren't treated any different by Americans as PJ pointed out in another thread.
Hhmm. OK. ~;)

[makkyo]

I have enough weapons in my home to supply a small army. I have a air rifle, two .47 caliber hunting rifle, a 12 gague shotgun, a muzzle-loading shotgun, a colt revolver, and a smaller pistol (magazine), and a saber (or sabre...).
yes to all questions, except I have bacon and eggs for breatfast.

I hope you like elk meat....

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Well, I hereby declare you conservative. Even though that really isn't my job.

Throw that elk on the barbie, I'm starved!

~:cheers:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

As Jimmy Durante used to say "Everybody wants to get into de act" Ill do the declaring around here thank you ~D

But makkyo ................................................... your in baby

Ill make a new membership list soon.

[Don Corleone]

Makkayo, where are you from? Sweden? Reason I ask is conservative means different things in different places. In Europe, it means 'let's stay with what we have right now and not try new things'. In America, we call that 'conservative with a small c'. As a political philosophy, Conservative in America (Conservative with a big C) is in favor of limited government and limited government imposition.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I sense Jag prying around outside. Lets see if he can resist .

[JAG]

Makkayo, where are you from? Sweden? Reason I ask is conservative means different things in different places. In Europe, it means 'let's stay with what we have right now and not try new things'. In America, we call that 'conservative with a small c'. As a political philosophy, Conservative in America (Conservative with a big C) is in favor of limited government and limited government imposition.

Dear, dear. You really have no idea of the political situation anywhere bar the US do you. That is a really, really bad idea of how politics in Europe is like. You would think that you guys were doing politics before us not after.

It also seems my humour is lost on you guys. ~:cool:

[JAG]

I sense Jag prying around outside. Lets see if he can resist .

Never.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Wow look at that. Im a regular Nostradamus. It took him less than a minute.

[JAG]

*Listens to his black metal and strokes his cat*

[Don Corleone]

I think Gawain's been watching too much American Idol. Who do you think you are with lines like "you're in baby", Randy Jackson?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Who do you think you are with lines like "you're in baby", Randy Jackson?

No Austin Powers. I thought it was obvious. Sorry Ive never seen even one episode of American Idol.


*Listens to his black metal and strokes his cat*

Excuse me? Im the one who predicted youd post. What powers did you show? Other than predictability.

[Don Corleone]

Hey now, if Jag's pussy hurts and he needs to stop in here to rub it, cut him some slack. Jag, if it's not hurting, perhaps you should move on. We consider this a respectable joint. ~D

[JAG]

Excuse me? Im the one who predicted youd post. What powers did you show? Other than predictability.

Never said I had any powers, nor did I say you had powers either. Well that is untrue, I could name a few but they may get me in trouble.


Hey now, if Jag's pussy hurts and he needs to stop in here to rub it, cut him some slack. Jag, if it's not hurting, perhaps you should move on. We consider this a respectable joint.

Huzzah!!!! Great post.

[Don Corleone]

Hey, you walk in here stroking a kitty, like Dr. Evil himself, you gotta expect to field a few like that. ~;)

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Yeah if you want to strroke your pussy take it to a cat house, not the conservative club,

[JAG]

Conservationist club is the exact right place to take it. Peace and love for all things - nature, animals and all. C'mon man.

[Xiahou]

Yeah if you want to strroke your pussy take it to a cat house, not the conservative club,
I think I just threw up a little.... :sick:

[Proletariat]

I don't know if she counts, but I hate Dr. Laura. What a sanctimonious moron. :furious3:


I believe Americans (well, all westerners really) aren't emotionally or intellectually equipped to bear the right to self-govern any longer. I'm taking up this Hobbesian view since everyone is an idiot, and we'd all benefit from a benevolent monarch. I also approach every social issue from gay marriage to social security with vicious apathy but I'm very right wing when it comes to foreign policy. So I can hang out here for a little while? Yanno, until this autocracy ball gets rolling?

[Big_John]

i'm black.. you guys need a token black guy?

[Redleg]

I don't know if she counts, but I hate Dr. Laura. What a sanctimonious jackass. :furious3:



[/pouts her lips, trying to draw sympathy]


Now now - Dr Laura is funny - not that I listen to her often - but every now and then when I am on my way to work - running late that is - I get a giggle from her attempts to help stupid and idiotic people calling asking for advice when they already know what the answer is - the smucks opening themselves up for embrassment to entain the masses that listen to the radio.

Personally I like Snow - and the two local talk show hosts here in Dallas that are on in the Morning and afternoon.

Beck is a Hoot when he gets going on a moron kick -

http://www.big570.com/

They have streaming audio and you can listen to them almost any time.

[Pindar]

i'm black.. you guys need a token black guy?

Pigment is neither here nor there, but we do need a big guy preferably with a name with only one syllable. ~:cheers:

[Templar Knight]

As I've said in a different thread, by looking at their platform, the UK conservatives seem to be pretty reasonable people- certainly when compared to the liberals. ~;)
So, you've got my vote.

Thank you sir ~:pat:

[Templar Knight]

Is it alright if we have some death metal in the club? ~:)

[JAG]

Is it alright if we have some death metal in the club? ~:)

Muhahaha! My influence is spreading. All you need now is a cat and you will become one with me!

[Adrian II]

Muhahaha! My influence is spreading. All you need now is a cat and you will become one with me!I have brought some quality reefers. Want one, Templar Knight? Breaks the ice at Conservative parties.

[Templar Knight]

Muhahaha! My influence is spreading. All you need now is a cat and you will become one with me!

I have a cat as well ~:)

[Templar Knight]

http://home.broadpark.no/~grajkov/smilie/smackbutt.gif

[Adrian II]

http://home.broadpark.no/~grajkov/smilie/smackbutt.gifLMAO!!
http://www.my-smileys.de/smileys2/git.gif

[Templar Knight]

yay http://home.btconnect.com/Boney/alan/images/smilies/yay.gif

http://www.nieuwint.net/images/cdv/smiley/banana.gif

*strokes his pussy while listening to Iron Maiden*

Its the only time I have until Gemma nags me ~:)

[Adrian II]

yay http://home.btconnect.com/Boney/alan/images/smilies/yay.gifNice joint. But what are those condoms doing next to the hole in the camel hair sofa?
Oops.. Turn the lights fandango!
http://www.my-smileys.de/smileys2/00009179.gifhttp://www.my-smileys.de/smileys2/anim-jjd.gifhttp://www.my-smileys.de/smileys2/01_4.gif

[Templar Knight]

well now that would be telling ~:cheers:

[Pindar]

Let's try and keep this thread from degenerating shall we gentlemen.

[JAG]

lol, nice smilies, especially your guitar one Adrian, very good.

[Don Corleone]

I'm just waiting for Gawain to walk in and see all the roaches, smell the 'strange aroma' and see the residue left from Jag & TK stroking their pussies. I think he's gonna blow a gasket.

[Templar Knight]

me and Jag are professional pussy patters

[JAG]

me and Jag are professional pussy patters

Couldn't have said it better myself! ~D

[Templar Knight]

Couldn't have said it better myself! ~D

:bow:

[Templar Knight]

This club is too liberal, im taking control, Gawain should have done better ~;)

[Big_John]

i never thought a conservative club would be so.. unruly. you guys need to lock the doors or something.

[Crazed Rabbit]

i never thought a conservative club would be so.. unruly. you guys need to lock the doors or something.

The hitmen are on the way. This whole matter will be solved shortly.~:cool:

This is the secret, right-wing conspiracy headquarters forum, right?
~;)

Crazed Rabbit

[JAG]

Where is the talk of conservation! That is what I am waiting for!

[Templar Knight]

hmmm, im lost :toff:

this club has went bottoms up :curtain:

ill phone for help :phonecall:

[makkyo]

Where is the talk of conservation! That is what I am waiting for!
can't we just burn oil insted?

[Kongamato]

What I think this thread has proven is that we need an "Emoticon Firing Range" in the Frontroom.

[JAG]

Not if you want to keep having heat waves like we have had continuously in the last decade. Not if you want more and more people to die of them as they get worse and worse. Not if you want more Tsunami's.

[makkyo]

You mean Tsunamis caused by earthquakes?
*looks outside to the snow*
about them heat strokes....

[JAG]

Sigh, people who would deny the place is getting warmer must live on another planet.

[makkyo]

tell that to the snowman outside my house.

[JAG]

tell that to the snowman outside my house.

Even anti global warming scientists state that the planet is warming up... But I bow down to your greater knowledge, because in the middle of winter there is snow outside your house. Fair enough.

[makkyo]

let's have people that actually knwo what they're talking about settle the matter.
Glodal Warming (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html)
think in the broader scope of things. Greenhouse gasses are nothing new (from oil or volcanoes)

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

*arrives with Conservative combat team*

RIGHT-WINGERS GET DOWN!

*sprays room indiscriminantly with fire from his vintage BAR*

OK, it's safe now.

*realizes he missed everyone and everything except Gawain's favorite chair*

Oops. ~:eek:

:charge:

I like the idea of a smiley firing range, though it would be little better than a spam thread...

[JAG]

let's have people that actually knwo what they're talking about settle the matter.
Glodal Warming (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html)
think in the broader scope of things. Greenhouse gasses are nothing new (from oil or volcanoes)

You think I am reading that at 2.20 in the morning you msut be joking. ~D I have read enough on the issue and I get the distinct impression that those scientists who would argue against global warming get their funds from Gas companies. Makes sense to me.

[makkyo]

pure speculation and paranoia my friend

[Xiahou]

Yes, as usual, JAG has read as much as he needs to make up his mind and now feels safe ignoring any and all evidence suggesting otherwise..... ~;)



You mean Tsunamis caused by earthquakes?
Hilarious. ~:cheers:

On a more important note, I invite all members to ignore liberal trolling in this thread- if they want a debate they know where the 'new thread' button is and how to use it... dont let our thread get mucked up. :bow:

[Big_John]

You mean Tsunamis caused by earthquakes?
Hilarious. ~:cheers:just a tiny note. increased melting of tidewater glaciers and polar caps actually could increase the threat of local tsunamis. probably not what JAG was referring to though..

[JAG]

The Tsunami was a reference to acts of nature which could become very much more likely, not neccesarily a tsunami like we saw. *sighs*


Yes, as usual, JAG has read as much as he needs to make up his mind and now feels safe ignoring any and all evidence suggesting otherwise.....

I have read 'evidence' against and it seems to hinge on the 'fact' that the earth would be heating up at the same rate anyway. I think it is rather laughable if you think this is the only cause. Why is it every country except the US accepts the scientific evidence for global warming? It is mind boggling. But it seems the world will need to go ahead with dialog and progress without the US, which will just have to do. You will come round eventually, I am sure.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Gah the libs are posting here!
OUT OUT GET YOUR OWN CLUB! We want ours!

Heh.
I claim the title as Lord Protector of the Conservative Club at totalwar.org. Think Robspierre-the funny clothes and the french blood

[Xiahou]

On a new topic should the republicans change the rules of conress and eliminate the super majority rule if the democrats continue to block and filibuster Bushes judicial nominations.
I'm of two minds on the issue. On one hand, as last election showed, letting the Dems force their obstructionist policies only serves to earn Republicans even bigger majorities. So, eventually it may lead to a Republican super-majority at which point the Dems get no say in anything.

On the other hand, although if currently seems likely, there's no way to guarentee that our next president will be Republican so it's very important that we get some sensible judges through while Bush is in office.....


I claim the title as Lord Protector of the Conservative Club at totalwar.org. Think Robspierre-the funny clothes and the french bloodOnly if I get Sergeant-at-Arms. ~D

[JAG]

Gah the libs are posting here!

And you know why? Coz we can. ~D

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Well I figuerd Id let this go just to show you all why we request liberals don post here. Look at the friggin mess theve made. They have made no contribution at all to any subject of subtance and do nothing but pet eachothers pussies and play crappy music.


Only if I get Sergeant-at-Arms.

This is where I really miss Devastating Dave. No one can ever replace him in that spot I am open to elections on the matter. Anyone else who would care to run leave your request here. Lets hope the left gets tired of its childish games. I suggest we go back to the our standard practice of only answering serious posts by them if any.

"Calls in the fumigators and installs new carpetting" Damn Liberals :rifle:

[PanzerJaeger]

There are quite a few conservatives on this board who deserve special mention for their well thought out arguments and positions.

[JAG]

There are quite a few conservatives on this board who deserve special mention for their well thought out arguments and positions.

And a lot of exceptions as well. ~:)

[PanzerJaeger]

Hey Jag, since your apparently hanging out in here now, why dont you explain your theory on how nationality equates to race.. Are you a member of the english race?

[Kongamato]

I was about to say for being a team, you could stand to use some team tactics. Here are some suggestions. At the beginning of your posts, you ought to quote arguments made earlier by your comrades and compliment them for their good thinking. Address them by an abbreviated name or a nickname. Examples would be "Great point there, Red", "Can't argue with that, Don" or "Yeah, like that'll ever happen. Hah!" Agree with your friend, then build upon what they said, making it grow in strength.

Also, when reading comments directed specifically at another team member and not at you, respond to them anyway. Tack on a message to the comment's original target, like "They just aren't getting this, are they Panz".

It is the most infuriating thing EVER to see people agreeing with statements that oppose you, and it is also highly infuriating to see the enemy having fun and enjoying themselves. The opponents must also face multiple opponents every time they write a message. A lesser form of this tactic was used by that guy who doesn't post here much anymore. What was his name again... Armoire de Maury Povich? It doesn't matter.

Also, you ought to defend each other. I saw Panzer being called a racist in another thread, and where were you all to defend him? Ideally, there should be three or more posts saying how he's never written any racist posts and that it is not in his character. Then you can top it off by having Panz say something like "Thank you for defending me, you are true friends amongst these... people". Hear that? That's the enemy's monitors being thrown out the window in a fit of rage.

Think TEAM, folks!

[Pindar]

On a new topic should the republicans change the rules of conress and eliminate the super majority rule if the democrats continue to block and filibuster Bushes judicial nominations.


I'm of two minds on the issue. On one hand, as last election showed, letting the Dems force their obstructionist policies only serves to earn Republicans even bigger majorities. So, eventually it may lead to a Republican super-majority at which point the Dems get no say in anything.

On the other hand, although if currently seems likely, there's no way to guarentee that our next president will be Republican so it's very important that we get some sensible judges through while Bush is in office.....


The super majority rule has no Constitutional standing. It should be abandoned.


Only if I get Sergeant-at-Arms. ~D

I second Xiahou as Sergeant-at-Arms, as the first has fallen.

[Templar Knight]

damn all the good positions have been taken, I will be Grand Master then ~:cheers:

[Don Corleone]

First, I'm not sure your membership hasn't been revoked for letting Jag run amok in here with you yesterday. Second, it's an election process. Third, I don't think we HAVE a 'grand master'.

I would however like to submit my name for Overseer of the Juggies, erh, I mean waitresses.

Also, with all due respect, I move we keep our current Sergeant-At-Arms. One day, he shall return....

How about we create a new, equivalent position with a different title. I nominate Xiahou for the office of Constable or, if you don't like that title, High Ward of the Hall.

[Templar Knight]

too late I have been elevated to Grand Master ~:cheers:

[Don Corleone]

I think you might want to rethink that position. You're sitting in the guild hall of a bunch of people who worship the Federalists. We don't take kindly to kings or overlords and we certainly don't it kindly from interlopers. :charge:

[Templar Knight]

well well well :book:

as long as I can open fire on the liberals as they approach :bow:

[Adrian II]

well well well :book:

as long as I can open fire on the liberals as they approach :bow:And who might you appoint as your honourable Assistant, oh Grand Master? Nudge-nudge, wink-wink, lick those heels.
~:handball: ~D

[Templar Knight]

who else but you Adrian ~:cheers:

[Don Corleone]

*sniff* *sniff* Okay, Adrian's presence confirms it. I smell a progressive circle plot afoot... :embarassed:

[Adrian II]

*sniff* *sniff* Okay, Adrian's presence confirms it. I smell a progressive circle plot afoot... :embarassed:D'uh!
http://www.my-smileys.de/smileys2/git.gifhttp://www.my-smileys.de/smileys2/5_1_116[1].gif

[Templar Knight]

lmao ~D

[Adrian II]

lmao ~DWhy Grand master, let us discuss family values!
http://www.my-smileys.de/smileys2/banana.gifhttp://www.my-smileys.de/smileys2/00001655_3.gif

[Templar Knight]

lol, oh dear, my favourite position ~;)

[JAG]

meeeeeee, meeeeeeeeeeeee! I can do family values!

Abolish the familly, then they have no values! muahahahahahaha!

[Xiahou]

I suggest we go back to the our standard practice of only answering serious posts by them if any.

Yes, by all means- stop feeding the trolls... it only encourages them. ~:handball:


The super majority rule has no Constitutional standing. It should be abandoned. Yes, I agree with that, but I hardly expect the Democratic senators to submit to that logic. They'd undoubtedly scream bloody murder if their filibusters were circumvented. I guess the question is, who would care?

[Templar Knight]

The Grand Master and his asistant - http://schildersmilies.de/noschild/streichel.gif

[Crazed Rabbit]

Would they be able to filibuster to block the anti-filibuster law? That'd be the height of ridiculessness. I think it should be done away with, even if it means we never get to have a Republican filibuster of a senator reading the Bible from begining to end.

Crazed Rabbit

[Adrian II]

The Grand Master and his asistant - http://schildersmilies.de/noschild/streichel.gifWhatever you say, oh Grand Master Templar Knight!!
http://www.my-smileys.de/smileys2/070.gif

[Don Corleone]

They don't have to pass a law. Filibustering isn't a law, it's in the rules of the Senate. The ruling party gets to write the rules, and by tradition, they don't go changing them radically. The reason it's called the 'nuclear solution' is because when the Democrats retake the Senate (assuming they ever do), if the Republicans didn't honor the tradition, there's no reason to expect them to. If anything, there's good reason to believe they won't, they tend to be much more in line with the 'scorched earth' policy.

[Don Corleone]

For example, the majority party can set the committe ratios any way they want to. If the Democrats win the Senate 51-49, there's no reason to assume they won't make the committees: 7-2 instead of 5-4, or even 8-1. They've done stuff like that before when they're particularly aggravated. Committe representation is set in the rules of the senate, not a law.

[Pindar]

Yes, I agree with that, but I hardly expect the Democratic senators to submit to that logic. They'd undoubtedly scream bloody murder if their filibusters were circumvented. I guess the question is, who would care?

Super majorities have their place, but should generally be avoided. A simple majority, by definition reflects the general will, and whether that will indicates liberal fool hardiness or more correct modes, it is legitimate. In short those given sanction to govern should do so.

[JAG]

Filibustering amazes me, it is a terrible rule to have in a democracy. An elected majority should be able to get through it's platform if it is voted for by enough people. It should not be down to senators reading out garbage to block legislation it should be down to the opposing view making more sense and people voting for your view. Filibustering is a cheap shot at stopping legislation and I am glad we got rid of it over here a few years back, I think the US system would work better without it as well.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

First, I'm not sure your membership hasn't been revoked for letting Jag run amok in here with you yesterday

I never approved his membership. And from the looks of it I doubt I ever will.


who else but you Adrian

This pretty much comfirms it. I really like Adrian and consider him a moderate if there ever was one. But hes no conservative. If you thibnk you can come in here and make yourseld grand master and then appoint an assitant you are sadly mistaken. We will see if your attitude improves. The liberals might find this thread amusing . We conservatives take it seriously.


The super majority rule has no Constitutional standing. It should be abandoned.

I agree.


For example, the majority party can set the committe ratios any way they want to. If the Democrats win the Senate 51-49, there's no reason to assume they won't make the committees: 7-2 instead of 5-4, or even 8-1. They've done stuff like that before when they're particularly aggravated. Committe representation is set in the rules of the senate, not a law.

I dont belive a super majority is needed to change these things. The republicans can change it now through a simple majority I belive. If the democrats had a 51-49 majority they also could change the rules to get rid of the super majority. And you can bet if this were the case they would.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Heh I whatevernumberwereon Xiahous nomination.
But I still am Lord Protector. Why? Because I'm CRAZY.
Anyway, JAG, shoo, go to your 'progressive's circe' before I start posting some Propaganda there.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I havent even looked ther. Have any of you posted there since they brought it back up? Why was the conservative club removed yet this was allowed to remain? I guess they just couldnt stand for it to be the most popular thread. Now they can claim that thiers is. I smell a rat. ~:)

[JAG]

Go for it, it isn't mine - I wouldn't dream of being so possesive, all threads belong to all comrades. :bow:

[JAG]

I havent even looked ther. Have any of you posted there since they brought it back up? Why was the conservative club removed yet this was allowed to remain? I guess they just couldnt stand for it to be the most popular thread. Now they can claim that thiers is. I smell a rat. ~:)

Don't worry we also do not care for post numbers - all comrades are of equal footing and all threads are of equal importance. :bow:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I don't have much use for these threads really. Usually if I have post I want to make, I want to see what the conservatives have to say about it not the other Liberals so much.

and jag it's the progressive circle not the socialist circle :p

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I want to see what the conservatives have to say about it not the other Liberals so much.

If you really want to see what conservatives think you should keep the liberals out of here. Listen and learn ~D

[JAG]

I don't have much use for these threads really. Usually if I have post I want to make, I want to see what the conservatives have to say about it not the other Liberals so much.

and jag it's the progressive circle not the socialist circle :p

It seems sarcasm really is a British thing......

[Gawain of Orkeny]

My fellow conservatives. Can any of you explain to me how a circle can be progressive since it just goes in circles and never gets any where? ~D

[Pindar]

My fellow conservatives. Can any of you explain to me how a circle can be progressive since it just goes in circles and never gets any where? ~D

The key to the liberal mind set is a base dissatisfaction (often this takes more extreme forms: i.e. chicken little syndrome) the only way to alleviate this is movement. This is typically a social movement.* The circle is an apt representation because there never is a point where this dissatisfaction is removed.**



*Marco approaches are preferred over micro because the large avoids personal responsibility, allows one to lay blame elsewhere and avoid the narcissistic elements that give rise to the dissatisfaction to begin with.

**Of course there are those who follow the caucus-race approach as well. This is the wonderland mentality where as the good Dodo explained to Alice: everyone begins running when they like and leave off when they like. At some point the race is declared over and everyone has won and all must receive prizes!

How's that. ~;)

[Tribesman]

Can any of you explain to me how a circle can be progressive since it just goes in circles and never gets any where?
Well , time for my first ever post (and hopefully last) in the conservative club , just to explain something really simple in terms that even a die-hard conservative can understand~:cheers:
Gawain; Next time you leave your home , you might notice some metal lumps moving along a thing called a road , if you look really close(but not too close if they are moving towards you ) you will see some circles that are rotating about a centre called an axel or axis(not to be confused with the other axis as that is evil and must be destroyed) now while these circles are just going round and round you may observe , if you can really concentrate for that long and not get too confused , that they are making progress .
~;)

[Templar Knight]

what? your not staying for cake and tea?

[makkyo]

Well, it seems the libs have succeded in keeping the conservative club from talking about anything conservative... ahhh!!!

[Adrian II]

what? your not staying for cake and tea?Bummer, I baked my special Celestial Weed Cake for you guys.
http://www.my-smileys.de/smileys2/55,.gif

[Big_John]

you guys need a bouncer.

[Adrian II]

you guys need a bouncer.I'm working on it, OK?

http://www.my-smileys.de/smileys2/blob16.gif

[Big_John]

higher, fool!

[BDC]

You need a splatter.

Like a bouncer but with more force.

[Adrian II]

You need a splatter.

Like a bouncer but with more force.
http://www.my-smileys.de/smileys2/booo.gif

[JAG]

Bounce, bounce, bounce!!!!

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I officially dub this thread "Spam Club II"

:help:

[Adrian II]

Bounce, bounce, bounce!!!!Wanna compete with the Assistant Grand Master, JAG?
http://humferier.free.fr/sav/greenchainsaw.gif

[JAG]

NoooooOOOOOoooooooooooOOOOooooooooooooooo.

*muffled noises*

[Adrian II]

NoooooOOOOOoooooooooooOOOOooooooooooooooo.

*muffled noises*
French smileys rule. http://humferier.free.fr/sac/biggrinflip.gif

[JAG]

Where are you getting them from, they are great.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

http://humferier.free.fr

Right click, properties. Gah!

[Adrian II]

http://www.willrich.supanet.com/explosions/14.gif

[Big_John]

what the cons need is a like-minded mod to keep this thread relatively clean for them.

[JAG]

http://humferier.free.fr/sfv/something.gif

muahahahah!!!!

[Adrian II]

what the cons need is a like-minded mod to keep this thread relatively clean for them.You're right, I'm outta here before the mods get me.
http://www.my-smileys.de/smileys2/00009177.gif

[JAG]

rofl

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

I think you might be starting to take the mick a bit now lads...if Sat or Hosa has to close this thread as it's just spam, the right wingers are going to be pretty ticked off...

[JAG]

Spam?????? This is constructive debate!

[makkyo]

Now we all know what the libs do in their free time, eating Celestial Weed Cake and finding smilies on the internet for use here.

[Xiahou]

You know, I can't help but enjoy reading some well-reasoned bashing of the AARP (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3689) and their nonsensical fear-mongering about Social Security reform. I've long had a dim view of this organization, as it seems to put the organization's interests above their constituents time and time again.

On another note, I hear a conservative lobbyist group is preparing to launch an outright AARP smear campaign... I'm not sure how I feel about this. On one hand, it'd be nice to see them get a taste of their own medicine, but on the other it's likely to be very crass and cheapen the debate....

[KyodaiSteeleye]

Spam?????? This is constructive debate!
Did someone call me?

[PanzerJaeger]

Interesting report on term limits in America..

Video (http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player.html?022505/views_wilson%20_022505&Special_Report&Ending%20Term%20Limits&acc&Politics&1&wvx-300)

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Special meeting of conservative club. Welcome home party for Devastating Dave to be held here tonight. ~:cheers:

[Adrian II]

Special meeting of conservative club. Welcome home party for Devastating Dave to be held here tonight. ~:cheers:
Here's the mechanical bull you ordered for tonight, Mr Orkeny Sir. The 250 crates of beer are being unloaded, and I put the inflatable sex dolls behind the counter. If that'll be all, harrumf, then I'm outta here!...

http://www.visi.com/~cpj1/rsr/bull/bull2.jpg

[JAG]

I wanna be better than oxygen
So you can breathe when you're drowning and weak in the knees
I wanna speak louder than Ritalin
For all the children who think that they've got a disease
I wanna be cooler than t.v.
For all the kids that are wondering what they are going to be
We can be stronger than bombs
If you're singing along and you know that you really believe
We can be richer than industry
As long as we know that there's things that we don't really need
We can speak louder than ignorance
Cause we speak in silence every time our eyes meet.

On and on, and on, and on it goes
The world it just keeps spinning
Until i'm dizzy, time to breathe
So close my eyes and start again anew.

I wanna see through all the lies of society
To the reality, happiness is at stake
I wanna hold up my head with dignity
Proud of a life where to give means more than to take
I wan't to live beyond the modern mentality
Where paper is all that you're really taught to create
Do you remember the forgotten America?
Justice, equality, freedom to every race?
Just need to get past all the lies and hypocrisy
Make up and hair to the truth behind every face
That look around to all the people you see,
How many of them are happy and free?
I know it sounds like a dream
But it's the only thing that can get me to sleep at night
I know it's hard to believe
But it's easy to see that something here isn't right
I know the future looks dark
But it's there that the kids of today must carry the light.

On and on, and on, and on it goes
The world it just keeps spinning
Until i'm dizzy, time to breathe
So close my eyes and start again anew.

If i'm afraid to catch a dream
I weave your baskets and i'll float them down the river stream
Each one i weave with words i speak to carry love to your relief.

I wanna be better than oxygen
So you can breathe when you're drowning and weak in the knees
I wanna speak louder than Ritalin
For all the children who think that they've got a disease
I wanna be cooler than t.v.
For all the kids that are wondering what they are going to be
We can be stronger than bombs
If you're singing along and you know that you really believe
We can be richer than industry
As long as we know that there's things that we don't really need
We can speak louder than ignorance
Cause we speak in silence every time our eyes meet.

On and on, and on, and on it goes
The world it just keeps spinning
Until i'm dizzy, time to breathe
So close my eyes and start again anew

[Devastatin Dave]

**Drives through front door in a gas guzzling SUV, with many engangered dead animals tied to the hood, crushing JAG**

Looks good in here, may I join? ~D

**grabs inflatable sex doll and heads to the restroom**

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I knew I could count on Dave going right back to work. Nice to have you back ~D

[JAG]

Nothing worse than breaking the idealism of the youth than with a SUV. ~D

[Devastatin Dave]

Nothing worse than breaking the idealism of the youth than with a SUV. ~D

Its almost like the manufacturers of SUV's knew, who woulda thunk it!!! LOL ~D

[Pindar]

Interesting report on term limits in America..

Video (http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player.html?022505/views_wilson%20_022505&Special_Report&Ending%20Term%20Limits&acc&Politics&1&wvx-300)


Term limits are a good thing. Professional politicians are a bad thing.

[Xiahou]

Term limits are a good thing. Professional politicians are a bad thing.
Agreed- professional politcians breed corruption.

Also, welcome back Dave! :balloon2:

[Pindar]

Dave,

I quoted a nice Rossetti poem to you as a farewell salute. Now you are back. A new Sergeant-in-Arms was in process. Xiahou was to be the man of the hour. Now are you forgoing this militant title given your prostrate status or are you claiming old standing in which case a trail by combat between yourself and he who would replace you should occur. :duel:

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Who let the Dave out?

Mod!
Mod!
MOD!

Who let the Dave out?

MO-

Er, sorry. *cough*

Welcome back!

[Devastatin Dave]

Xiahou is an excellent choice and I second the vote...

Term limits are the only thing that keeps this country from turning into a dictatorship. Keep the term limits. That's my opinion, what's yours!!!

[Xiahou]

Xiahou is an excellent choice and I second the vote...

Term limits are the only thing that keeps this country from turning into a dictatorship. Keep the term limits. That's my opinion, what's yours!!!
Well, the job is yours if you want it.. otherwise, it's mine. ~:cheers:

[Redleg]

Xiahou is an excellent choice and I second the vote...

Term limits are the only thing that keeps this country from turning into a dictatorship. Keep the term limits. That's my opinion, what's yours!!!

I agree with Term limits the problem however is that in the US Congress - both the House and the Senate - will not pass legislation that limit the number of terms for either office. Personally I would like to see a politician only serve in the Senate for 2 terms and the House for 6 terms - both would equate to 12 years in Congress. I would however allow a politician to progress from the house to the Senate serving up to a total of 24 years combined for both.

But that would never pass the career politicans that are in our congress today.

[Pindar]

In "U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (93-1456), 514 U.S. 779 (1995)." The Supreme Court ruled that a state: in this case Arkansas, cannot discriminate political tenure or: "change, add to, or diminish" the age, citizenship, and residency requirements for congressional service enumerated in the Qualifications Clauses, U. S. Const., Art. I," This was a wrong headed decision that goes against the original powers reserved for states in the Tenth Amendment. Alas.

Given this state prohibition the only way term limits can carry the day is on the Federal Level. It is unlikely the any such action will see progress. This condemns the GOP in place for going against the intent of the 1994 Contract with America none of whom have repudiated it.

[Pindar]

Xiahou, as Master of the Horse I am empowered to appoint you: Sergeant-in-Arms. Dave is now emeritus status So let it be written! So let it be done!

[BDC]

But that would never pass the career politicans that are in our congress today.

Well that's always the problem. The people who want to be in power are generally the ones who really shouldn't be.

[Devastatin Dave]

Well that's always the problem. The people who want to be in power are generally the ones who really shouldn't be.

And they can vote their own pay raises, what a job!!! :dizzy2:

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Speaking of term limits, will our own club officers have limits?

~;)

[Devastatin Dave]

Speaking of term limits, will our own club officers have limits?

~;)

No way that'll ever happen, Gawain rules with an iron fist, in fact, I have these photos that... hey who's that at the door.... Oh MY SWEET GAH..... umph, urgh....

**two large men drag DD away from key board for reeducation**

:help:

[PanzerJaeger]

Some of you more well rounded guys should start a blog. You could post some of your older stuff from here and anything that pops into your head. Call it the Conservative Club.

I havent ever read a thread here at the org where the conservative side was not only represented, but came out as the rational, realistic viewpoint. To me anyway...

Unlike the previous generation, we have a large element of young faithful who need guidence and help to logically sort out our positions, including myself. Unlike the liberals, who rely on emotions and guilt, our young ideologues demand logical, well thought out posititions that they understand. Unfortunatly the left is able to take advantage of the idealism of youth to embrace younger people, but we must rely almost entirely on the reasonable, realistic kids, who are sometimes hard to come by. ~;)

As i said though, the young conservative movement is much larger and growing, much of that due to the president. We need as many cool, intelligent people such as yourselves to guide us.

Hell, id read it. ~D

[bmolsson]

I got a innocent question for the conservatives. How about a king instead of a president ? Saving all those tax dollars from the elections and have a royal family instead ??

[Xiahou]

I got a innocent question for the conservatives. How about a king instead of a president ? Saving all those tax dollars from the elections and have a royal family instead ??
I thought it was usually the libs that cry about how much elections cost- campaign finance reform anyone? (and don't tell me that McCain is conservative ) Personally I don't care how much they cost, so long as its privately financed. Limiting that goes againt free speech imo.

Now, public government funded campaigning is something I'm not so comfortable with. It allows people like Lyndon La-douche to make millions in matching funds every election year while never even getting a recognizable fraction of the vote.

[bmolsson]

But why have elections then. Why not just select the richest guy on the block.....

[Redleg]

But why have elections then. Why not just select the richest guy on the block.....


There are a few great books that explain why the United States felt it necessary to have an election process - to prevent any one dynsty (SP?) type of government from happening.

An interesting election that shaped American Politics and the Populist (SP?) idealog of the American public is the election and presidency of Andrew Jackson. Reading almost any political history book on him will provide some insight to your question.

Another good one is the election and presidency of FDR, because of the number of times he was elected and the Constitutional Admendment that was passed after his death in office. Reading on this president will also help one to develop a sense of why American elections were initially deemed necessary and the only way to bring a leader into office.

Does it apply today - I think so because of the American Politicial Spectrum requires the election process - with all its two sided passion and everything that goes along with our process. Without the election process the government would not have a adequate measure of how the public views the success of the government. Elections also prevent armed revolution - because we basically have one every 4 - 8 years depending on how successful the government is seen to be.

[bmolsson]

Does it apply today - I think so because of the American Politicial Spectrum requires the election process - with all its two sided passion and everything that goes along with our process. Without the election process the government would not have a adequate measure of how the public views the success of the government. Elections also prevent armed revolution - because we basically have one every 4 - 8 years depending on how successful the government is seen to be.


I agree, but will it be possible in the future, since money seems to have an increased importance on the election as well as who is elected. Here in Indonesia there are inofficial price tags on some elected posts. Not really what we want..... ~;)

[Xiahou]

Here's a question for the club that should please the leftist trolls that are lurking around here......

What do you think is the worst thing Bush has done during his presidency?

While I would invite members to try and change my mind.... I would have to say it's the Medicare prescription drug debacle. First off, its pretty clear the numbers on it were at the very least 'massaged' to make them look better than they were. But, regardless, he has committed us to a huge new entitlement that's likely to balloon out of control if not stopped. To me, it makes many of his new budget cuts lackluster to say the least.

[Pindar]

I got a innocent question for the conservatives. How about a king instead of a president ? Saving all those tax dollars from the elections and have a royal family instead ??

Monarchy is a repugnancy and antithetical to popular consent and egalitarianism.

There is no principle that requires elections be funded by the government.

[Pindar]

What do you think is the worst thing Bush has done during his presidency?



I have two.

1) Listening to Powell the fool and going to the U.N. prior to moving against Iraq.

2) The Medicare Prescription Drug Bill. Argggh! I feel sick just thinking about it.

[bmolsson]

Monarchy is a repugnancy and antithetical to popular consent and egalitarianism.


Not in most modern monarchies. Never understood why, but most Europeans are actually royalists, even though they like socialist (or at least social democratic) values.....

[Pindar]

Not in most modern monarchies. Never understood why, but most Europeans are actually royalists, even though they like socialist (or at least social democratic) values.....

The repugnancy still applies regarding egalitarianism even if some nations generally agree to elevate some in their number to paragons of the public dole.

[bmolsson]

The repugnancy still applies regarding egalitarianism even if some nations generally agree to elevate some in their number to paragons of the public dole.

What makes you say that ? Isn't that a contradiction in it self ? :book:

[Pindar]

What makes you say that ? Isn't that a contradiction in it self ? :book:

No, monarchy is anathema to egalitarian principles. Some peoples may decide to allow some of their number to live at government expense based on blood lines but that does not change the fact such action runs counter to the idea of equality under the law.

[bmolsson]

No, monarchy is anathema to egalitarian principles. Some peoples may decide to allow some of their number to live at government expense based on blood lines but that does not change the fact such action runs counter to the idea of equality under the law.

Appointment to leading positions by blood line doesn't automatically mean that these persons are "above the law". Of course, if you have the power, you will have a different practical position in legal issues, but in theory it shouldn't matter.

[Xiahou]

I have two.

1) Listening to Powell the fool and going to the U.N. prior to moving against Iraq.

2) The Medicare Prescription Drug Bill. Argggh! I feel sick just thinking about it.

Hmmm, as to #1- While I do think Powell was a weak Secretary of State, I had always felt that the reason they went to the UN was to make it easier for Blair to sell the war to his people. Clearly, it did the US no good and I don't think it was necessary on our part as popular opinion supported ousting Saddam with or without UN blessing.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Worst thing(s) Bush did... hmmm...

How about the illegal immigration amnesty-that-isn't-to-be-called-amnesty? That wasn't very cool.

His spending in general, particularly things like the Medicare benefits crap.

Deficit spending... not a good thing for any President to do, and it's all parties' faults. We need an amendment, like the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights or something limiting government taxation and spending.

It won't happen, at least not right now.

----------------------------------------------

In other news, did you here about that Salazar senator (D-Col.) essentially rejecting the Bush nominees (saying he won't vote for them). I think some Republicans (Rove & co.?) were hoping he would be more supportive...

[PanzerJaeger]

Id have to say all his non-military deficit spending..


In other news, did you here about that Salazar senator (D-Col.) essentially rejecting the Bush nominees (saying he won't vote for them). I think some Republicans (Rove & co.?) were hoping he would be more supportive...

Things are heating up.. it will only hurt thm to obstruct though...

[Devastatin Dave]

The illegal alien thing!!! Its the simple fact that hispanics are the fastess growing minority and he is simply doing this for hipanic votes. If it was up to me, I'd build a wall greater than what the Isrealis have, machine gun turrents, and land mines across the border. I would also shoot to kill. Its an invasion of a soveriegn nation and it should not be tolerated by our Commander and Chief.

[Xiahou]

Good points on the illegal immigration policy guys. However, I still wouldn't call it his worst move since all he did was pay lip service to the idea of the amnesty- it'll never happen. Some form of guest worker program is an obvious necessity, but it must be controlled- you can't have people running across the border all willy-nilly. It's a matter of national security to know who is coming into your country and for what reason, imo.

[bmolsson]

Isn't Powell a possible future president ??

[Devastatin Dave]

Isn't Powell a possible future president ??

I hope not, he's one menstration cycle away from a Fenchmen when it comes to international affairs...

[bmolsson]

I must say that I don't really know Powell, but he seems to have what is needed for a presidency. Good military records and well connected. Always thought him as a possible first black president in US.......

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Isn't Powell a possible future president ??

No

He promised his wife he would never run .

[Pindar]

Appointment to leading positions by blood line doesn't automatically mean that these persons are "above the law". Of course, if you have the power, you will have a different practical position in legal issues, but in theory it shouldn't matter.

"Above the law" suggests some immunity to prosecution. Equality "under the law" refers to the equal status of citizenry. A person or persons who receive government position, special salary or tax exempt status due to blood lines is a violation of this notion. Monarchy is immoral and at odds with the egalitarian thrust of democracy.

[Xiahou]

Here's something I read at Cato (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3697).

It's basically trying to make a case for term limits on federal judges as opposed to lifetime appointments. After reading it, I tend to agree on this one- the court is gaining more and more power today, while at the same time we have the most elderly judges in our history, many of who are far removed from the 'common man' and essentially live in their own world.

So why not have federal judges (including Supremes) limited to a single 15yr term?

[bmolsson]

"Above the law" suggests some immunity to prosecution. Equality "under the law" refers to the equal status of citizenry. A person or persons who receive government position, special salary or tax exempt status due to blood lines is a violation of this notion. Monarchy is immoral and at odds with the egalitarian thrust of democracy.

If the same thing is acheived with superior access to wealth then ? My view is that money in politics might create a similar situation. A person from a very wealthy family will be able to get a political position due to his blood line. This even if the equality to law apply.

[Crazed Rabbit]

It's basically trying to make a case for term limits on federal judges as opposed to lifetime appointments. After reading it, I tend to agree on this one- the court is gaining more and more power today, while at the same time we have the most elderly judges in our history, many of who are far removed from the 'common man' and essentially live in their own world.

So why not have federal judges (including Supremes) limited to a single 15yr term?

Hmm. This is certainly a good subject for consideration. I think that I would support it. It would allow the judges to be less than 15 years out of date, and limit their power.

Though I think that perhaps a major reform of the relationship of the judiciary with the other branches is needed. As it is now, there's lots of judical activism going on. When a judge legislates from the bench, the only way to stop them is to go through the process of amending the constitution or hope a higher judge overrules them. Perhaps an amendment stating that judges cannot demand new laws.

Though I would enjoy getting on some circuit court, or the Supreme court, and declaring that the USA was being unconstitutional in not giving all its citizens access to machine guns and free revolvers.


If the same thing is acheived with superior access to wealth then ? My view is that money in politics might create a similar situation. A person from a very wealthy family will be able to get a political position due to his blood line. This even if the equality to law apply.

Wealth has to be earned by the person who has the wealth. Being born a prince, however, is just sheer luck.
Heirs of great wealth are not above the law in regards to money. The state does not give them any money or special privlages. (sp?) And if the parents, who have worked for the money, want to give it to their kids, who's to stop them?

And poor people are by no means cut out of politics. Alberto Gonzales, Bush's Attorney General, was the son of a poor immigrant.

Crazed Rabbit

[Xiahou]

And poor people are by no means cut out of politics. Alberto Gonzales, Bush's Attorney General, was the son of a poor immigrant.

Let's not forget Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez either. Didn't he start out by selling cereal out of the back of his delivery truck in Mexico City? He eventually went on to become CEO of the company before his appointment. There are a lot of success stories in the Bush administration.

[bmolsson]

Wealth has to be earned by the person who has the wealth. Being born a prince, however, is just sheer luck.
Heirs of great wealth are not above the law in regards to money. The state does not give them any money or special privlages. (sp?) And if the parents, who have worked for the money, want to give it to their kids, who's to stop them?


The issue here is not based on any real life stories or an attempt to hunt down the current Bush administration. What I am trying to see is the fact that more and more fortunes are inherited which in most western system automatically means more political power. With the current development, we might soon have dynasties of politician based on family fortunes. This will not differ much from the old times monarchies. Sure, it's not the same, but try to see the direction.....

[Crazed Rabbit]

What I am trying to see is the fact that more and more fortunes are inherited which in most western system automatically means more political power. With the current development, we might soon have dynasties of politician based on family fortunes.

Nothing lasts forever, and glory is fleeting, political glory especially so. I think there will be no dynasties, perhaps short spurts of a few relatives, but nothing long lasting. Just look at the Kennedys.

And in America, more and more people are getting rich. Thus, a whole bunch of potential 'dynasties' means that they will have to compete for the support of the people, even if it was only rich people who could get in politics.

Crazed Rabbit

[Sasaki Kojiro]

And in America, more and more people are getting rich. Thus, a whole bunch of potential 'dynasties' means that they will have to compete for the support of the people, even if it was only rich people who could get in politics.

Crazed Rabbit

Currently, it is not more people becoming rich, it is just rich people becoming richer. Has been this way for some time now.

[Xiahou]

Currently, it is not more people becoming rich, it is just rich people becoming richer. Has been this way for some time now.
I guess I'll have to disagree with that...


The United States led the field in terms of wealth creation, with the number of millionaires rising by 14% to 2.27 million, the largest gain in actual numbers of any country. -MSN Money (http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Retirementandwills/InvestYourSavings/P86555.asp) That's for the year 2003 btw.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I guess I'll have to disagree with that...

That's for the year 2003 btw.

lol, rise in the number of millionares...you do realize that's just what I said. The people who used to have 900,000 got richer, and the people who don't make much at all didn't make anymore than before, or less.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The people who used to make 900,000 got richer, and the people who don't make much at all didn't make anymore than before, or less.

Talk about generalization. So only eole who made 900,000 or more made more money? Most millionaires in the US earned it , not inherited it.

[Xiahou]

lol, rise in the number of millionares...you do realize that's just what I said. The people who used to make 900,000 got richer, and the people who don't make much at all didn't make anymore than before, or less.
Wrong. It's not talking about income, it's the total of all financial assets. There's a big difference there- not that I think it'll make much difference to you. Howabout you provide some data to backup your claim?

[Pindar]

Originally Posted by Pindar
"Above the law" suggests some immunity to prosecution. Equality "under the law" refers to the equal status of citizenry. A person or persons who receive government position, special salary or tax exempt status due to blood lines is a violation of this notion. Monarchy is immoral and at odds with the egalitarian thrust of democracy.



bmolsson]If the same thing is acheived with superior access to wealth then? My view is that money in politics might create a similar situation. A person from a very wealthy family will be able to get a political position due to his blood line. This even if the equality to law apply.


I'm not sure I understand the question. Is it your worry that wealth might mean someone being given a government hereditary position? That is impossible under U.S. law. It is very possible however that a wealthy man might get elected to a political post, even multiple times, and that is OK. From its inception the U.S. has been based upon the idea of political equality not economic equality. The garnering of wealth or its loss is left to the devices of the individual. As long as political power is ultimately amenable to popular consent then how an individual choose to use his acquired wealth, whether it be the pursuit of luxury or political position, is his own affair.

[Xiahou]

I'm not sure I understand the question. Is it your worry that wealth might mean someone being given a government hereditary position? That is impossible under U.S. law. It is very possible however that a wealthy man might get elected to a political post, even multiple times, and that is OK. From its inception the U.S. has been based upon the idea of political equality not economic equality. The garnering of wealth or its loss is left to the devices of the individual. As long as political power is ultimately amenable to popular consent then how an individual choose to use his acquired wealth, whether it be the pursuit of luxury or political position, is his own affair.
Good points Pindar, looking back, I suppose the debate of who's rich or why, while perhaps interesting, is really irrelevant to the discussion anyhow. :bow:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Wrong. It's not talking about income, it's the total of all financial assets. There's a big difference there- not that I think it'll make much difference to you. Howabout you provide some data to backup your claim?

Table 1. Share of Aggregate Income Received by Each Fifth and Top 5 Percent of
Families, 1947 to 1994. (Families as of March of the following year.)

Percent distribution of aggregate income

Number Lowest Second Third Fourth Highest Top 5 Gini
Year (thous.) fifth fifth fifth fifth fifth percent ratio
1994../21/..69,313 4.2 10.0 15.7 23.3 46.9 20.1 0.426
1993../20/..68,506 4.1 9.9 15.7 23.3 47.0 20.3 0.429
1993../19/..68,506 4.2 10.1 15.9 23.6 46.2 19.1 0.420
1992../18/..68,216 4.3 10.5 16.5 24.0 44.7 17.6 0.404
1992........68,144 4.4 10.5 16.5 24.0 44.6 17.6 0.403
1991........67,173 4.5 10.7 16.6 24.1 44.2 17.1 0.397
1990........66,322 4.6 10.8 16.6 23.8 44.3 17.4 0.396
1989........66,090 4.6 10.6 16.5 23.7 44.6 17.9 0.401
1988........65,837 4.6 10.7 16.7 24.0 44.0 17.2 0.395
1987../17/..65,204 4.6 10.7 16.8 24.0 43.8 17.2 0.393
1986........64,491 4.6 10.8 16.8 24.0 43.7 17.0 0.392
1985../16/..63,558 4.6 10.9 16.9 24.2 43.5 16.7 0.389
1984........62,706 4.7 11.0 17.0 24.4 42.9 16.0 0.383
1983../15/..62,015 4.7 11.1 17.1 24.3 42.8 15.9 0.382
1982........61,393 4.7 11.2 17.1 24.3 42.7 16.0 0.380
1981........61,019 5.0 11.3 17.4 24.4 41.9 15.4 0.369
1980........60,309 5.1 11.6 17.5 24.3 41.6 15.3 0.365
1979../14/..59,550 5.2 11.6 17.5 24.1 41.7 15.8 0.365
1978........57,804 5.2 11.6 17.5 24.1 41.5 15.6 0.363
1977........57,215 5.2 11.6 17.5 24.2 41.5 15.7 0.363
1976../13/..56,710 5.4 11.8 17.6 24.1 41.1 15.6 0.358
1975../12/..56,245 5.4 11.8 17.6 24.1 41.1 15.5 0.357
1974./12/11/55,698 5.5 12.0 17.5 24.0 41.0 15.5 0.355
1973........55,053 5.5 11.9 17.5 24.0 41.1 15.5 0.356
1972........54,373 5.4 11.9 17.5 23.9 41.4 15.9 0.359
1971../10/..53,296 5.5 12.0 17.6 23.8 41.1 15.7 0.355
1970........52,227 5.4 12.2 17.6 23.8 40.9 15.6 0.353
1969........51,586 5.6 12.4 17.7 23.7 40.6 15.6 0.349
1968........50,823 5.6 12.4 17.7 23.7 40.5 15.6 0.348
1967../9/...49,834 5.4 12.2 17.5 23.5 41.4 16.4 0.358
1966../8/...49,214 5.6 12.4 17.8 23.8 40.5 15.6 0.349
1965../7/...48,509 5.2 12.2 17.8 23.9 40.9 15.5 0.356
1964........47,956 5.1 12.0 17.7 24.0 41.2 15.9 0.361
1963........47,540 5.0 12.1 17.7 24.0 41.2 15.8 0.362
1962../6/...47,059 5.0 12.1 17.6 24.0 41.3 15.7 0.362
1961../5/...46,418 4.7 11.9 17.5 23.8 42.2 16.6 0.374
1960........45,539 4.8 12.2 17.8 24.0 41.3 15.9 0.364
1959........45,111 4.9 12.3 17.9 23.8 41.1 15.9 0.361
1958........44,232 5.0 12.5 18.0 23.9 40.6 15.4 0.354
1957........43,696 5.1 12.7 18.1 23.8 40.4 15.6 0.351
1956........43,497 5.0 12.5 17.9 23.7 41.0 16.1 0.358
1955........42,889 4.8 12.3 17.8 23.7 41.3 16.4 0.363
1954........41,951 4.5 12.1 17.7 23.9 41.8 16.3 0.371
1953........41,202 4.7 12.5 18.0 23.9 40.9 15.7 0.359
1952../4/...40,832 4.9 12.3 17.4 23.4 41.9 17.4 0.368
1951........40,578 5.0 12.4 17.6 23.4 41.6 16.8 0.363
1950........39,929 4.5 12.0 17.4 23.4 42.7 17.3 0.379
1949../3/...39,303 4.5 11.9 17.3 23.5 42.7 16.9 0.378
1948........38,624 4.9 12.1 17.3 23.2 42.4 17.1 0.371
1947../2/...37,237 5.0 11.9 17.0 23.1 43.0 17.5 0.376


http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/incineq/p60tb1.html

If this is off topic to the discussion then no need to carry on, but these are the statistics. More people becoming millionares isn't people becoming rich.

[Xiahou]

Yes, it's purely academic, but I've never been one to leave 'well enough' alone. ~;)
Did you see that part where the Census Bureau says that comparisons between 1992 and earlier and 1993 and later may not be valid because they changed their sampling methods that year?

So yes, between 1947 and 1992 the top 5% gained.... about 2% more of the resources? I dont think that comes as a shock to anyone. Also, if you look at the Gini coefficients for 1993-1998 you see that income inequality is virtually unchanged during that time. chart (http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/incineq/p60204/fig7.html)


More people becoming millionares isn't people becoming rich.
I still maintain that is what it means. But just out of curiosity, what criteria would satisfy you for "people becoming rich"? Increases in people making $500,000? $100,000?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Yes, it's purely academic, but I've never been one to leave 'well enough' alone. ~;)
Did you see that part where the Census Bureau says that comparisons between 1992 and earlier and 1993 and later may not be valid because they changed their sampling methods that year?

So we don't know?


So yes, between 1947 and 1992 the top 5% gained.... about 2% more of the resources? I dont think that comes as a shock to anyone. Also, if you look at the Gini coefficients for 1993-1998 you see that income inequality is virtually unchanged during that time. chart (http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/incineq/p60204/fig7.html)


It may be a small percent, but it's out of a big number ~:)

I admit I have no idea what a Gini coefficient is.



I still maintain that is what it means. But just out of curiosity, what criteria would satisfy you for "people becoming rich"? Increases in people making $500,000? $100,000?

I tend to think of over $100,000 as rich. But that's just me. I can't see a difference between having say 200 grand and 300 grand. Just more expensive cars and a bigger house.

[Xiahou]

I admit I have no idea what a Gini coefficient is.
Eh, I'd have a tough time spelling it out for you myself- other than to say it's a metric they use to represent the level of income inequality between rich and poor... the higher the number, the greater the inequality.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I tend to think of over $100,000 as rich

100,000 here is strictly middle class. Houses start at 300,000

[Devastatin Dave]

100,000 here is strictly middle class. Houses start at 300,000
Living in New York? 100,000 out here is upper Middle Class around these parts.

[Xiahou]

Living in New York? 100,000 out here is upper Middle Class around these parts.
Heh, what I wouldn't give to be "upper middle class"- I dont even pull down half that... Maybe I should talk to the Dems, they're always promising handouts, a chicken in every pot and whatnot. ~D

[bmolsson]

I'm not sure I understand the question. Is it your worry that wealth might mean someone being given a government hereditary position? That is impossible under U.S. law. It is very possible however that a wealthy man might get elected to a political post, even multiple times, and that is OK. From its inception the U.S. has been based upon the idea of political equality not economic equality. The garnering of wealth or its loss is left to the devices of the individual. As long as political power is ultimately amenable to popular consent then how an individual choose to use his acquired wealth, whether it be the pursuit of luxury or political position, is his own affair.

The question is hypothetical and what I am trying to say is that in a modern society, you need to achieve fame and get media attention to be recognized. In a populistic election you will be elected due to your fame and media attention. You get media attention and fame by using money, hence the connection between wealth and political positions.

If you have a media mogul with control over a few TV and radio stations, some newspapers and magazines. He will have a easier position to give himself or his candidate the attention needed for being elected.

Further down the road, if you have large business interests, a political position might be used to improve your business, and you make more money with in the end leds to larger wealth and higher political positions.

We have now come to the point where a well placed fortune, made for political success, might be a family vehicle and the comparation with a monarch starts.

My bottom line is that if you don't have economical equality in politics, do you really have political equality ?
The old kings was the richest persons in their kingdoms, since they owned everything. In old times, land was the difference between a poor and rich man, and in the end the political power. Today, well placed wealth could be used in a similar way, but with media and other resources important in the political election process.

Do I make my self a bit clearer ?

[Pindar]

The question is hypothetical and what I am trying to say is that in a modern society, you need to achieve fame and get media attention to be recognized. In a populistic election you will be elected due to your fame and media attention. You get media attention and fame by using money, hence the connection between wealth and political positions.

If you have a media mogul with control over a few TV and radio stations, some newspapers and magazines. He will have a easier position to give himself or his candidate the attention needed for being elected.

Further down the road, if you have large business interests, a political position might be used to improve your business, and you make more money with in the end leds to larger wealth and higher political positions.

I don't have a problem with any of this as long as there is full disclosure.


We have now come to the point where a well placed fortune, made for political success, might be a family vehicle and the comparation with a monarch starts.

This doesn't follow: a plutocrat however rich is still a private citizen and operating within the private arena. A king does not. Should the plutocrat assume public office he is bound by the lawful terms of that office and remains subject to the public trust via elections. A king is a titled hereditary position not subject to a typical meritocracies' concerns.


My bottom line is that if you don't have economical equality in politics, do you really have political equality?

Yes. One man one vote.


The old kings was the richest persons in their kingdoms, since they owned everything. In old times, land was the difference between a poor and rich man, and in the end the political power. Today, well placed wealth could be used in a similar way, but with media and other resources important in the political election process.

Wealth can create influence and access and that is fine.


Do I make my self a bit clearer ?

Yes.

[Pindar]

Good points Pindar, looking back, I suppose the debate of who's rich or why, while perhaps interesting, is really irrelevant to the discussion anyhow. :bow:

Quite right.

Thank you sir. :bow:

[bmolsson]

This doesn't follow: a plutocrat however rich is still a private citizen and operating within the private arena. A king does not. Should the plutocrat assume public office he is bound by the lawful terms of that office and remains subject to the public trust via elections. A king is a titled hereditary position not subject to a typical meritocracies' concerns.


True, but if the wealth is the tool to gain power and the wealth is inherited, isn't the difference rather small ?



Wealth can create influence and access and that is fine.


Even if the influence and access is used to gain more wealth, which then give more influence and access etc etc

[Redleg]

True, but if the wealth is the tool to gain power and the wealth is inherited, isn't the difference rather small ?

The difference is that money is not a guarntee to politicial leadership - however being born into royality is a guarntee to politicial power.



Even if the influence and access is used to gain more wealth, which then give more influence and access etc etc

Once again wealth is not a guartnee to politicial leadership - it does give the individual more influence both to private citizens and the government. But that does not mean that just because wealth is needed for politicial office - that the people will necessarily vote toward that wealth. By having a voting process under the populist concept every individual gets a vote regardless of what their economic status is.

Now the United States populist voting system is hedged by the electroial college which weights the votes by the state - which futher gives the population of a state the feeling that their vote matters in the election process because the candidate desiring to be President must tour several different states - verus just hanging out in the higher population density areas of the nation.

While wealth might create a major problem in the election process - establishing a monarch removes the election process from the people. Monarcy by defination removes the ability of the people to decide for themselves the direction in which they want the country to move. The voters decide the direction not by issue - but by who we vote into office.

A monarchy takes that away from the people - and places it only on one family regardless of what the people would like. People with wealth still have to convince the voters that their agenda is best - so that they will get the votes necessary to get in office.

[Devastatin Dave]

members of the Conservative Club, time to mobilize!!!
Go to this thread...
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=44481
listen to the intervue I posted that came from the Daily Show and please post comments. Thank you...

Time to take the gloves off and throw down the gauntlet!!!

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Yeah I posted there already. The dems are in real trouble if this all works out. I remember hearing Clinton say how he wished 911 had occurred during his watch.

[Redleg]

The far left in the United States is doing more harm to the democratic party then good. If the democrates want to have a decent chance in the next elections for congress and the Presidential Office - they will have to cut the strings from this group and force a split - in other words cast them aside so they can form a useless third party. But as long as the Democratic Party pampers to this ideologicial minority - well the Republician will in short maintain control of both houses of congress and most likely even the Presidential Office.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The far left in the United States is doing more harm to the democratic party then good. If the democrates want to have a decent chance in the next elections for congress and the Presidential Office - they will have to cut the strings from this group and force a split - in other words cast them aside so they can form a useless third party. But as long as the Democratic Party pampers to this ideologicial minority - well the Republician will in short maintain control of both houses of congress and most likely even the Presidential Office.

I'm afraid you're right on this. A split would seem suicidal though, there has to be some way to keep them in, much like Bush kept in the far christian right.

[makkyo]

But many americans are Christians, not left wing fanatics.

[Devastatin Dave]

I'm afraid you're right on this. A split would seem suicidal though, there has to be some way to keep them in, much like Bush kept in the far christian right.
I think short term it will be a very painful move for the Dems, but for long term survival, it needs to be done or there will be no more Democratic party.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well, I wouldn't personally mind the dems dying out, and another party emerging from the left/social conservative side of the republicans. In short, everyone moves right. Though I doubt that will happen.

The dems really need to do something to survive- they are becoming stagnant no-men who are defined by what they oppose, not what they support. Having Howard' "I hate republicans!" YEEAAARRGH! "Republicans are evil!" 'Dean as their chair certainly isn't helping. I plan on sitting back and watching the show of their fall.

Crazed Rabbit

[Pindar]

True, but if the wealth is the tool to gain power and the wealth is inherited, isn't the difference rather small ?

No, it is not. The meritocratic element is a critical distinction as is the notion of popular sovereignty.




Even if the influence and access is used to gain more wealth, which then give more influence and access etc etc

The accumulation of wealth is not a bad thing. That more wealth may allow greater influence is also not a bad thing. My sense is you worry about corporate influence on the political process. Business should be able to lobby a position as much as any other group. If a politician is more amenable to the President of Microsoft than to the plumber who calls his office that is because the President of Microsoft is more important. As far as political contributions are concerned: people, corporations etc. should be able to contribute as much money as they like. Campaign finance reform legislation is foolish and self defeating. If George Soros wants to give 50 million to support John Kerry, bully for him. The only requirement should be complete transparency so all know where the money has its source.

[bmolsson]

The accumulation of wealth is not a bad thing. That more wealth may allow greater influence is also not a bad thing. My sense is you worry about corporate influence on the political process. Business should be able to lobby a position as much as any other group. If a politician is more amenable to the President of Microsoft than to the plumber who calls his office that is because the President of Microsoft is more important. As far as political contributions are concerned: people, corporations etc. should be able to contribute as much money as they like. Campaign finance reform legislation is foolish and self defeating. If George Soros wants to give 50 million to support John Kerry, bully for him. The only requirement should be complete transparency so all know where the money has its source.


Never said that wealth is a bad thing, but we do have a few issues that will very soon become serious matters. Patents are today something that moves in the direction of genetic material as well as software code. The corporate interest here is often different from the political (read peoples).
Other matters more recent is tobacco industry, where corporate interests for profit is against political interests for peoples health.
Now, my point here was not the above, my question was if there is a risk if wealth are able to buy political power in a democratic process. It was not for US specifically. Also to note, I am not talking about corrupt practices.
I do believe that if a populistic system become to dependent on private financial support, we might lose out to get the "best man" on the political posts. I don't have any solution, just a concern..... ~;)

[A.Saturnus]

When I split this thread to create "Junk science", I accidently included Pindar's last post. Sorry. Here is it:



Never said that wealth is a bad thing, but we do have a few issues that will very soon become serious matters. Patents are today something that moves in the direction of genetic material as well as software code. The corporate interest here is often different from the political (read peoples).
Other matters more recent is tobacco industry, where corporate interests for profit is against political interests for peoples health.
Now, my point here was not the above, my question was if there is a risk if wealth are able to buy political power in a democratic process. It was not for US specifically. Also to note, I am not talking about corrupt practices.
I do believe that if a populistic system become to dependent on private financial support, we might lose out to get the "best man" on the political posts. I don't have any solution, just a concern..... ~;)


Economics is amoral. Thus, economic interests are also amoral. Any society that allows private enterprise will by that allowance bring tension between "public" and "private" read: corporate, concerns. The theoretical justification for these allowances and acceptance of possible tensions is liberty. The role of a government that recognizes liberty's centrality is to provide and maintain the boundaries that maximize opportunity and systemic equity. This is the reason for anti-monopoly legislation. This does not mean sustaining inefficiency in the private sector, but simply maximizing the grounds for competition to occur. This competition also applies when private interests court public officials. Transparency between these relations and contributions allows the public at large to check any perceived undue influence.

The "best men" rarely emerge to fill political posts because those that seek such position are typically motivated by a base narcissism. This puts them at odds with general notions of virtue. This is one of the reasons government is a necessary evil.

[Xiahou]

I read this article from Slate today- I found it amusing..
Bush to U.N.: Drop Dead (http://slate.msn.com/id/2114455/)

Heh, sounds like Bush is appointing a UN ambassador who pretty much hates the very same organization. ~D

[Devastatin Dave]

The UN doesn't need to drop dead, it just needs to get off US property. Time for the international buerocrats get their whores, drugs, and diplomatic immunity on someone else's property. It will be a glorious day when Koffi and his band of thieves go back to their little hell holes around the globe.

[bmolsson]

Economics is amoral. Thus, economic interests are also amoral. Any society that allows private enterprise will by that allowance bring tension between "public" and "private" read: corporate, concerns. The theoretical justification for these allowances and acceptance of possible tensions is liberty. The role of a government that recognizes liberty's centrality is to provide and maintain the boundaries that maximize opportunity and systemic equity. This is the reason for anti-monopoly legislation. This does not mean sustaining inefficiency in the private sector, but simply maximizing the grounds for competition to occur. This competition also applies when private interests court public officials. Transparency between these relations and contributions allows the public at large to check any perceived undue influence.


I disagree that economics is amoral. It is possible to do business with everyone involved being happy.
The problem with wealth, just like power, it corrupt individuals. Being rich is not as easy as it seems.

Anti-monopoly legislation is a way to protect the market economy, since the definition of market economy is competition. Fully agree on that one.
But when we are talking about it, I think that we actually can see anti-monopoly legislation as a protection of the democratic system as well. It will actually prevent my concerns to occur..... ~;)



The "best men" rarely emerge to fill political posts because those that seek such position are typically motivated by a base narcissism. This puts them at odds with general notions of virtue. This is one of the reasons government is a necessary evil.

Don't fully agree with this. There are still idealists around, believe it or not.... :bow:

[Pindar]

I disagree that economics is amoral. It is possible to do business with everyone involved being happy.

The happiness of participants is not a moral determinate.

Commerce is not concerned or effected by the moral standing of the participants or the objects under consideration. It does not matter whether one is the Pope or a common dealer, whether the object for sale is a vase or a person: the relation of buyer and seller and transferable unit remains.




Anti-monopoly legislation is a way to protect the market economy, since the definition of market economy is competition. Fully agree on that one.
But when we are talking about it, I think that we actually can see anti-monopoly legislation as a protection of the democratic system as well. It will actually prevent my concerns to occur..... ~;)

This is an extrapolation. There is nothing in the law that suggests this. Monopolies are bad because they potentially stifle innovation and negatively impact price.

Suggesting an arbitrary limiting of market share protects against potential political influence peddling is dangerous. Any industry that demonstrates money generating potential wields power and political influence. If one really fears corporate power then one must attack at the source: private enterprise.




Don't fully agree with this. There are still idealists around, believe it or not.... :bow:

If one accepts the notion that greater power increases the possibility of greater corruption and one is also familiar with the general trend of history then it is prudent to guard against tyranny. The threat of Alcibiades is ever present.

[bmolsson]

The happiness of participants is not a moral determinate.


In reality it is, theory surely not...



Commerce is not concerned or effected by the moral standing of the participants or the objects under consideration. It does not matter whether one is the Pope or a common dealer, whether the object for sale is a vase or a person: the relation of buyer and seller and transferable unit remains.


So you deem a sale-buy transaction as amoral ???



This is an extrapolation. There is nothing in the law that suggests this. Monopolies are bad because they potentially stifle innovation and negatively impact price.


Yes it is, but you have to admit that the assumption works....



Suggesting an arbitrary limiting of market share protects against potential political influence peddling is dangerous. Any industry that demonstrates money generating potential wields power and political influence. If one really fears corporate power then one must attack at the source: private enterprise.


Yes and no. Controlling the market for monopoly building is necessary to keep the market economy healthy. Monopoly itself is a threat against private enterprise. The power and political influence a good business generate is insignificant as long as large economical resources are not used in a system where it is permitted.





If one accepts the notion that greater power increases the possibility of greater corruption and one is also familiar with the general trend of history then it is prudent to guard against tyranny. The threat of Alcibiades is ever present.


Yes it is, but that is not actually an argument against any system. It's an question and concern on how a ruler should be removed when he have lost the interest of the people and/or country he is ruling.

[Pindar]

In reality it is, theory surely not...

In theory it fails as well. The notion that the good is defined by happiness is known as eudaimonism and it certainly has its proponets. However, this view has critical flaws. By defining the good as happiness one has created a moral theory where the good is a species of egoism. This is because happiness is subject specific. Egoistic moral theory, as with its cosmological corollary, has a reductionist tendency which means the "I" maintains a primacy. That is ultimately implosive and self defeating.

It is more fruitful to see the good as expanding beyond the self: as that which seeks what is best for the other.




So you deem a sale-buy transaction as amoral ???

Yes, there is nothing within the commercial act that requires a moral referent. Further all things within the dynamic are interchangeable or of undetermined status. This applies to buyer, seller, object of purchase and assigned value.




Yes it is, but you have to admit that the assumption works....

Assumptions work through the assuming. If you mean that anti-monopoly law restricts corporate growth and thereby helps control political influence then things become more complicated. To determine whether such a law "works" one must first determine a viable threat exists. If under full disclosure legislation all commercial/political contact is always already available for public scrutiny then what you have described is at best a redundancy.




Yes and no....The power and political influence a good business generate is insignificant as long as large economical resources are not used in a system where it is permitted.

I don't know how a good business is being defined here. If a good business is any business that isn't a monopoly then you have allowed quite a large margin. Further, there are a whole host of businesses that may not be the largest company for there field but nonetheless weld massive amounts of capital. In addition, the anti-monopoly law seems specious as a political influence control since a company that only owns 58% of a market seems essentially as powerful as a company that owns the monopoly status 60%.






Yes it is, but that is not actually an argument against any system. It's an question and concern on how a ruler should be removed when he have lost the interest of the people and/or country he is ruling.

The Alcibiades option, as I will name it, is not about removal of corrupt power, but that the threat of corruption is ever present and thus stands as a retort to simple idealism about power and the state.

[bmolsson]

In theory it fails as well. The notion that the good is defined by happiness is known as eudaimonism and it certainly has its proponets. However, this view has critical flaws. By defining the good as happiness one has created a moral theory where the good is a species of egoism. This is because happiness is subject specific. Egoistic moral theory, as with its cosmological corollary, has a reductionist tendency which means the "I" maintains a primacy. That is ultimately implosive and self defeating.


I think that this is knitpicking. Surely you are right, but both good and happiness would have a larger meaning in a society where we no longer have to fight for our survival. I think that you base your notion on to medieval values. Surely you would agree that we have reached a bit longer.....




It is more fruitful to see the good as expanding beyond the self: as that which seeks what is best for the other.


As long as it doesn't make you happy ?? ~;)





Yes, there is nothing within the commercial act that requires a moral referent. Further all things within the dynamic are interchangeable. This applies to buyer, seller, object of purchase and assigned value.


In a commercial act you need to have a certain level of "business moral". Even if it is not based on any religious values, all parties needs to have a certain level of "honesty" and "trust", wouldn't you agree?
Also the object as well as it's value need to follow this "business moral". If not, it will not be a commercial act anymore.





Assumptions work through the assuming. If you mean that anti-monopoly law restricts corporate growth and thereby helps control political influence then things become more complicated. To determine whether such a law "works" one must first determine a viable threat exists. If under full disclosure legislation all commercial/political contact is always already available for public scrutiny then what you have described is at best a redundancy.


Yes, but what an important redundancy...... ~D





I don't know how a good business is being defined here. If a good business is any business that isn't a monopoly then you have allowed quite a large margin. Further, there are a whole host of businesses that may not be the largest company for there field but nonetheless weld massive amounts of capital. In addition, the anti-monopoly law seems specious as a political influence control since a company that only owns 58% of a market seems essentially as powerful as a company that owns the monopoly status 60%.


It depends on the field it's in. Monopoly is normally defined as a situation where the business holder, for what ever reason, not have to follow market economy principles.



The Alcibiades option, as I will name it, is not about removal of corrupt power, but that the threat of corruption is ever present and thus stands as a retort to simple idealism about power and the state.


So that means that the type of rule really is irrelevant. Corruption will sooner or later arrive ?

[Pindar]

I think that this is knitpicking. Surely you are right, but both good and happiness would have a larger meaning in a society where we no longer have to fight for our survival. I think that you base your notion on to medieval values. Surely you would agree that we have reached a bit longer.....

I don't think this is nitpicking, but rather looking at the basics of the concept. I don't understand the reference to societal progress. I was attempting a simple rational analysis. Rationality is not culturally bound. Lastly, the viewpoint I put forward has Classical roots not Medieval (this is nitpicking ~;) ).





As long as it doesn't make you happy ?? ~;)

The happiness of the subject is not determinative.



In a commercial act you need to have a certain level of "business moral". Even if it is not based on any religious values, all parties needs to have a certain level of "honesty" and "trust", wouldn't you agree?
Also the object as well as it's value need to follow this "business moral". If not, it will not be a commercial act anymore.

It is certainly possible to argue that a base trust is attends any commercial transaction that rises above a direct barter system. However, that does not create moral standing or guarantee an ethical system. A slave master may trust that his buying new workers will be healthy and promptly arrive after payment, but this trust does not make him a good guy. The formula for the commercial transaction does not speak to moral content. Further, if the slave master after paying doesn't get his slaves or they arrive sick and are unable to work, because the seller lied or cheated, what of it? The buyer's misfortune is a practical concern and only negatively impacts the seller if there is legal recourse or the seller meets up with the slave master again. Thus, determining any positive or negative makes appeal to things beyond the transaction itself.




It depends on the field it's in. Monopoly is normally defined as a situation where the business holder, for what ever reason, not have to follow market economy principles.

No, monopoly is a legal category and is tied to percentage of market share.




So that means that the type of rule really is irrelevant. Corruption will sooner or later arrive ?

No, the type of governance is important because it impacts quality of life and unlike economics is tied to notions of justice. Further, corruption is not a guarantee, but a danger to be guarded against, though if we followed the Platonic idea then yes, all political systems already contain within them the seeds of their own destruction which always bear fruit.

[Xiahou]

Anyone familiar with the proposed bankruptcy reform before Congress?

From what I hear, the proposal would make it tougher for people to have their debts wiped totally clean through bankruptcy, forcing people to pay at least part of their debts back using any income they have after housing, food ect.

On one hand, I say good- it should be tougher for people to shirk their commitments and from racking up huge debts only to declare bankruptcy to get out of paying... On the other hand, this reform is being heavily lobbied by banks and credit card companies and I think they dig their own graves when it comes to bankruptcy. Why do they still offer pre-approved credit cards by the dozens to people who are already thousands in debt? Why are they so quick to make car or home loans to credit risks? I sometimes tend to think the credit companies already hold all the cards by hoarding your personal information, credit score, ect. so why make things even easier for them at the expense of consumer. I also feel that the idea that a person can take a financial risk without fear of being shouldered with debt for the rest of their lives is an important entrepreneurial aspect of American culture.

Thoughts?

[bmolsson]

I don't think this is nitpicking, but rather looking at the basics of the concept. I don't understand the reference to societal progress. I was attempting a simple rational analysis. Rationality is not culturally bound. Lastly, the viewpoint I put forward has Classical roots not Medieval (this is nitpicking ~;) ).


I think your concept is Classic Medieval then..... ~D

Rationality doesn't really steer the political scene, any American would know that. I think it's here we differ.




The happiness of the subject is not determinative.





It is certainly possible to argue that a base trust is attends any commercial transaction that rises above a direct barter system. However, that does not create moral standing or guarantee an ethical system. A slave master may trust that his buying new workers will be healthy and promptly arrive after payment, but this trust does not make him a good guy. The formula for the commercial transaction does not speak to moral content. Further, if the slave master after paying doesn't get his slaves or they arrive sick and are unable to work, because the seller lied or cheated, what of it? The buyer's misfortune is a practical concern and only negatively impacts the seller if there is legal recourse or the seller meets up with the slave master again. Thus, determining any positive or negative makes appeal to things beyond the transaction itself.


The commercial transaction has nothing to do with the parties involved being good or not. Your example with slaves as the subject is irrelevant. I would argue that for making a commercial transaction fucntion, you need to have an accepted moral for it. If not, it will not work. In modern life, stock exchange, currencies etc are all based on an agreed moral. If the trust for the system and its moral vanish, so does the system. Its not as rational and logical as we all would like to believe.
Slavery, tobacco, drugs etc are all commodities with questionable moral, but this has nothing to do with commerce or market economy.
Let us focus on the way of transaction as such instead.



No, monopoly is a legal category and is tied to percentage of market share.


In the law maybe, and of course its always possible to translate it in to market share. Even though, there are other ways to corner markets than just market share. Example are attempts to monopolize distribution chains of after market products in the automobile industry.



No, the type of governance is important because it impacts quality of life and unlike economics is tied to notions of justice. Further, corruption is not a guarantee, but a danger to be guarded against, though if we followed the Platonic idea then yes, all political systems already contain within them the seeds of their own destruction which always bear fruit.


I think I can agree with this, even if I believe that democracy many times is given to much credit compare to other systems.

[Xiahou]

Might be time to step up to my duties and suggest this one be taken outside. After 2 pages I think this is more right-left debate than right-right. Now if anyone listens or cares about my suggestions is another matter. ~;)

[bmolsson]

On one hand, I say good- it should be tougher for people to shirk their commitments and from racking up huge debts only to declare bankruptcy to get out of paying... On the other hand, this reform is being heavily lobbied by banks and credit card companies and I think they dig their own graves when it comes to bankruptcy. Why do they still offer pre-approved credit cards by the dozens to people who are already thousands in debt? Why are they so quick to make car or home loans to credit risks? I sometimes tend to think the credit companies already hold all the cards by hoarding your personal information, credit score, ect. so why make things even easier for them at the expense of consumer. I also feel that the idea that a person can take a financial risk without fear of being shouldered with debt for the rest of their lives is an important entrepreneurial aspect of American culture.


It's important to remember that bankruptcy is a key thing in a market economy. We need to have a way to remove failures from the market place.
When it comes to private persons, they can't really go bankrupt. A company will sieze to exist, eq. die, and we can't really execute people in debt so there must be other alternatives.
I think that in most European countries, a person with to much debt becomes "black listed" for new debts and will have a chance to negotiate a deal with the creditors....

[bmolsson]

After 2 pages I think this is more right-left debate than right-right.


I wouldn't go so far and call Pindar a lefty because he find commercial transactions amoral....... ~D

[Devastatin Dave]

Don't feed the liberal trolls... ~D

[Redleg]

Anyone familiar with the proposed bankruptcy reform before Congress?

From what I hear, the proposal would make it tougher for people to have their debts wiped totally clean through bankruptcy, forcing people to pay at least part of their debts back using any income they have after housing, food ect.

On one hand, I say good- it should be tougher for people to shirk their commitments and from racking up huge debts only to declare bankruptcy to get out of paying... On the other hand, this reform is being heavily lobbied by banks and credit card companies and I think they dig their own graves when it comes to bankruptcy. Why do they still offer pre-approved credit cards by the dozens to people who are already thousands in debt? Why are they so quick to make car or home loans to credit risks? I sometimes tend to think the credit companies already hold all the cards by hoarding your personal information, credit score, ect. so why make things even easier for them at the expense of consumer. I also feel that the idea that a person can take a financial risk without fear of being shouldered with debt for the rest of their lives is an important entrepreneurial aspect of American culture.

Thoughts?

I once heard a former banking industry head say something along these lines - (might try to find it - but today I am just to lazy to research)

That the banking industry offers credit cards to high-risk consumers because of the tax writeoff because of bad consumer debt. They also make a large income level from the interest rate on such cards. Enough to off set the risk because of the number of consumers in this area that are attempting to re-establish their credit - so they pay the high interest rate plus the annual fee on these types of cards

[Xiahou]

I once heard a former banking industry head say something along these lines - (might try to find it - but today I am just to lazy to research)

That the banking industry offers credit cards to high-risk consumers because of the tax writeoff because of bad consumer debt. They also make a large income level from the interest rate on such cards. Enough to off set the risk because of the number of consumers in this area that are attempting to re-establish their credit - so they pay the high interest rate plus the annual fee on these types of cards
Right, which also further makes me fail to see why they 'need' this reform. If they're really worried about bad debts stop extending credit to bad risks.