Printable View
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..... ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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.
Monarchy is a repugnancy and antithetical to popular consent and egalitarianism.Quote:
Originally Posted by bmolsson
There is no principle that requires elections be funded by the government.
I have two.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
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.
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.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
The repugnancy still applies regarding egalitarianism even if some nations generally agree to elevate some in their number to paragons of the public dole.Quote:
Originally Posted by bmolsson
What makes you say that ? Isn't that a contradiction in it self ? :book:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by bmolsson
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
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...
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...
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.
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.
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.......
NoQuote:
Isn't Powell a possible future president ??
He promised his wife he would never run .
"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.Quote:
Originally Posted by bmolsson
Here's something I read at Cato.
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
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.Quote:
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?
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.
Wealth has to be earned by the person who has the wealth. Being born a prince, however, is just sheer luck.Quote:
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.
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
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.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
I guess I'll have to disagree with that...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
That's for the year 2003 btw.Quote:
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
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.Quote:
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro