There's no one in politics that doesn't owe someone something for getting them in office.
there is no one in politics that doesn't owe the voters something for getting them elected.
again, if your model is "the people = us and the government = them", then yes...it's a model based on a corruption not only from other sources but a corruption of the system itself.
when you define the beast as being a government that isn't of the people, yes indeed. And so many Republicans are so quick to remove the People from the equation of government.
The fact is, it's as corrupt as We The People allow it to be.
crabgrass, what do you suggest I, the Average Joe, do about corruption in Government?
And I'm not just talking major corruption. I'm talking about getting elected on special interest monies. Lying to get elected. Backing down on promises......
What is a person to do when both the major candidates in a race are less than "desirable"?
Some people won't even admit it exists in certain places.
some people see the current administration's secrecy as evidence that it's being hidden from the people.
This separation of the government being We The People is most obvious when those in power do not allow what they are doing (in OUR name) to be transparent to US. That's what is going on now. That's why the FOIA is SO important and why it's such a crime the way the current administration is shitting on it.
some people see the current administration's secrecy as evidence that it's being hidden from the people......
I'd need to know specifically what you're refering to before I can comment.
you might start by not supporting a party that blocks election reform
And what, support the party that gives out cigarettes to the poor & the homeless to get them to vote their party? Support the party that goes to group homes to sign up the mentally ill?
btw: Here in MN this last election, Norm Coleman asked Wellstone to pledge no out of state (OOS) or PAC monies. Wellstone refused. What's Coleman to do? Not accept OOS or PAC money?
Consider this quote from Mark Tapscott, the head of the Center for Media and Public Policy at the rather conservative Heritage Foundation:
For whatever reason, this administration has gone way, way too far in its pursuit of secrecy in some particularly worrying ways.
Those are fighting words amongst us Republicans and very worrisome indeed. Another quote in the article is this one from Larry Clayman, Chairman of Judicial Watch, which is suing the Bush Administration to force the disclosure of members of the Energy Task Force:
This administration is the most secretive of our lifetime, even more secretive than the Nixon Administration.
And what, support the party that gives out cigarettes to the poor & the homeless to get them to vote their party?
So, you are saying that you support the blocking of changing the system that is allowing corruption because there is corruption...back to the "We are corrupt and it's okay because my party isn't trying to change it because we it exists so I can't supprt something trying to change it because we excuse it because we are blocking trying to change it because they are corrupt and it exists...etc..." argument.
if the system is corrupt, so are you, you are the system.
step up and accept it or try to change it...and you are going to change it by supporting the people who are not willing to change it?
Now we're back to the fact that neither side is truly willing to change the nature of the beast.
no one is suggesting election reform?
nonsense
The fact is, if WE wanted it, WE could have elected Ralph Nader or WE could have elected any number of others whom are trying to get some reform in place.
Our founding fathers told us that it UP TO US to change the system.
you know, it used to be that the idea of blacks having rights was unheard of...and until people stopped supporting those who did not want to change this, it remained that way.
We The People changed it
if We The People hadd accepted that "that's just the way it is", it would still be that way.
We The People are a lot more powerful than you want to give US credit for.
But as long as enough of The People willingly support an outfit who considers Government as something that isn't We The People, we lose that more and more...what did WE know about 9/11 before it happened?
We The People don't know, but there are some of us who feel that We The People have to know because since it's US who knew it, We have to know what WE knew so WE can accept responsibility for it.
now, sure, it's easier to say "that ain't US", but if you do, you lose your freedom and democracy.
Freedom and democracy...some paople are and have been willing to put their very lives on the line for it...and yet you are content to sit there and say that the government ain't US?
well...a year ago it wasn't We The People, it was We the Court.
Make up your mind, one minute you're claiming that , and I quote
"when you define the beast as being a government that isn't of the people, yes indeed. And so many Republicans are so quick to remove the People from the equation of government."
So Republicans are quick to remove people from the equation of government but you just managed to do so within 10 posts. Guess what, We the people are also the ones who put the laws, the checks and the balances in place. The court and those laws were put in place by We the people too. Of course you didn't like the outcome so then you are the one to revert to removing people from the equation of government. Pot, meet kettle. That must be the new liberal "battlecry"
that's true...and they are one step removed from the election process, which is what was discarded in favor of the courts in this case.
Like I said if you don't like the outcome then attack the law after the fact. WE the people are the ones that gave the authority for them to oversee the electoral process. You're double standard is telling. One minute you're blasting Republicans for removing people from the equation of government and the next you're doing the same thing because you didn't like the outcome eventhough WE the people gave them the authority to do so. The judges ARE WE the people because WE the people gave them decision making authoirity to decide and interpret law. Then you totally go against what you've been deriding simply because you didn't like the results, which was shown time and time again to be the correct one anyway. But it only took 10 or so posts to contradict yourself.
I don't think he would have, Look at trends in even other normally "D" leaning states. Polls are just that, polls. And they predicted a Humphey victory 4 years ago and a Mondale victory this Nov. It would have been tight but I think Bush's popularity coupled with Wellstone's far left stance and he was in trouble. Even analysts predicted he was in trouble. Put ti this way, Who would have ever predicted a loss by Walt Mondale in this state including the sympathy vote. Times have changed and I think Paul would have been caught up in the change. I really would have liked to find out and it would have made the victory sweeter. It's sad we didn't get that chance.
Walt screwed up by not controlling the "gathering" for Paul's funeral, when that asshole "speaker" they had Tanked the election for the Democrats by making it into a campaign event.
Walt was never in charge and didn't ever have control, fold.
so, now you claim that all politicians have the same level of corruption?
swell.
you keep that as your battlecry
so, now you claim that all politicians have the same level of corruption?
Not all are at the same level, but all are corrupt to some extent. It's the nature of the beast.
Why are my statements a battlecry in your mind?
I'm merely stating the facts.
btw: I'm one of those wacky Conservatives that defended Clinton during the Monica fiasco.
there is no one in politics that doesn't owe the voters something for getting them elected.
again, if your model is "the people = us and the government = them", then yes...it's a model based on a corruption not only from other sources but a corruption of the system itself.
when you define the beast as being a government that isn't of the people, yes indeed. And so many Republicans are so quick to remove the People from the equation of government.
The fact is, it's as corrupt as We The People allow it to be.
The fact is, it's as corrupt as We The People allow it to be.
Some people won't even admit it exists in certain places.
crabgrass, what do you suggest I, the Average Joe, do about corruption in Government?
And I'm not just talking major corruption. I'm talking about getting elected on special interest monies. Lying to get elected. Backing down on promises......
What is a person to do when both the major candidates in a race are less than "desirable"?
some people see the current administration's secrecy as evidence that it's being hidden from the people.
This separation of the government being We The People is most obvious when those in power do not allow what they are doing (in OUR name) to be transparent to US. That's what is going on now. That's why the FOIA is SO important and why it's such a crime the way the current administration is shitting on it.
you might start by not supporting a party that blocks election reform
some people see the current administration's secrecy as evidence that it's being hidden from the people......
I'd need to know specifically what you're refering to before I can comment.
you might start by not supporting a party that blocks election reform
And what, support the party that gives out cigarettes to the poor & the homeless to get them to vote their party? Support the party that goes to group homes to sign up the mentally ill?
btw: Here in MN this last election, Norm Coleman asked Wellstone to pledge no out of state (OOS) or PAC monies. Wellstone refused. What's Coleman to do? Not accept OOS or PAC money?
Consider this quote from Mark Tapscott, the head of the Center for Media and Public Policy at the rather conservative Heritage Foundation:
For whatever reason, this administration has gone way, way too far in its pursuit of secrecy in some particularly worrying ways.
Those are fighting words amongst us Republicans and very worrisome indeed. Another quote in the article is this one from Larry Clayman, Chairman of Judicial Watch, which is suing the Bush Administration to force the disclosure of members of the Energy Task Force:
This administration is the most secretive of our lifetime, even more secretive than the Nixon Administration.
So, you are saying that you support the blocking of changing the system that is allowing corruption because there is corruption...back to the "We are corrupt and it's okay because my party isn't trying to change it because we it exists so I can't supprt something trying to change it because we excuse it because we are blocking trying to change it because they are corrupt and it exists...etc..." argument.
if the system is corrupt, so are you, you are the system.
step up and accept it or try to change it...and you are going to change it by supporting the people who are not willing to change it?
and you are supporting an administration who tried to put Henry Kissinger in charge of making OUR knwoledge of 9/11 transparent.
think about that.
Now we're back to the fact that neither side is truly willing to change the nature of the beast.
no one is suggesting election reform?
nonsense
The fact is, if WE wanted it, WE could have elected Ralph Nader or WE could have elected any number of others whom are trying to get some reform in place.
Our founding fathers told us that it UP TO US to change the system.
by no means do you even KNOW what all they are doing.
why are you supporting them?
no one is suggesting election reform?
None that isn't self serving.
Our founding fathers told us that it UP TO US to change the system.
Our founding fathers were a bunch of well to do white guys that were already in position of power.
by no means do you even KNOW what all they are doing.
We never know exactly what they are doing.
why are you supporting them?
What's my alternative? Support the terrorist? Vote for Al Gore or Ralph Nader?
I don't think so.
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.
Actually, I don't disagree with most of what you say. Call me a cynic, but I just don't see it as realistic.
so, you aren't supporting the Constitution? It's designed to be changed in order to make sure the government is the people.
and therefore your battle cry is "We are corrupt! Deal with it"
the Republican battlecry.
if what is wrong is winning, be wrong and go with a winner?
The Politics of Dispair.
you know, it used to be that the idea of blacks having rights was unheard of...and until people stopped supporting those who did not want to change this, it remained that way.
We The People changed it
if We The People hadd accepted that "that's just the way it is", it would still be that way.
We The People are a lot more powerful than you want to give US credit for.
But as long as enough of The People willingly support an outfit who considers Government as something that isn't We The People, we lose that more and more...what did WE know about 9/11 before it happened?
We The People don't know, but there are some of us who feel that We The People have to know because since it's US who knew it, We have to know what WE knew so WE can accept responsibility for it.
now, sure, it's easier to say "that ain't US", but if you do, you lose your freedom and democracy.
Freedom and democracy...some paople are and have been willing to put their very lives on the line for it...and yet you are content to sit there and say that the government ain't US?
It's sad.
Yes and WE the people decided that liberals have had power for many years and way to long so WE the people showed how they felt in November :)
well...a year ago it wasn't We The People, it was We the Court.
The suggestion of election tampering is indeed quite troubling, as it directly removes the "We The People" from the equation.
Again, the Republican cry..."You are NOT the Government!"
and decided to replace that with an acceptance of corruption and the removal of the Government from the People by secrecy
swell.
I can see this conversation is over with.
Make up your mind, one minute you're claiming that , and I quote
So Republicans are quick to remove people from the equation of government but you just managed to do so within 10 posts. Guess what, We the people are also the ones who put the laws, the checks and the balances in place. The court and those laws were put in place by We the people too. Of course you didn't like the outcome so then you are the one to revert to removing people from the equation of government. Pot, meet kettle. That must be the new liberal "battlecry"
that's true...and they are one step removed from the election process, which is what was discarded in favor of the courts in this case.
Like I said if you don't like the outcome then attack the law after the fact. WE the people are the ones that gave the authority for them to oversee the electoral process. You're double standard is telling. One minute you're blasting Republicans for removing people from the equation of government and the next you're doing the same thing because you didn't like the outcome eventhough WE the people gave them the authority to do so. The judges ARE WE the people because WE the people gave them decision making authoirity to decide and interpret law. Then you totally go against what you've been deriding simply because you didn't like the results, which was shown time and time again to be the correct one anyway. But it only took 10 or so posts to contradict yourself.
I see.
If it doesn't go your way, it's a sham. Otherwise the process has worked perfectly.
Got it.
Exactly, about time you got it ;)
So, does this mean Roe -v- Wade was a sham as well?
What about Brown -v- Board of Education?
Scopes trial?
Well yes, apparently I mean they are one step removed from the electoral process so it must be.
exactly...are the Republicans (who you apparently support) now doing something about it or blocking the doing something about it?
it's no double standard...I'm applying the same standard to it.
I see the Republicans desire to keep the Government separate from the People and am commenting on it.
approving of something is not the same thing as taking responsibility for it being that way.
You're argument isn't totally without merit, Crabgrass.
It's just one sided is all.
I think putting the outcome of an election in the hands of the courts is wrong and do not support it.
I'm outta here.
Have a great New Years Eve you guys!
no, it's not.
now, tell me what exactly you think my argument is?
Sure, o.k
I'd love to stay and debate Crabgrass but I'm heading out to make dinner for New Years Eve. As Eddie Murphy once said .....Merry New Year !
Have a safe one.
Might as well be Howard Dean as anyone. Face it, the Democratic nominee is going to lose.
Might as well be Howard Dean as anyone. Face it, the Democratic nominee is going to lose.
Now is that the kind of attitude to have?
Yeah, I wish I could remember Ricks comment to me, when I said Norm would most likely lose to Paul.
:-)
Serve up my words. I'll eat them.
Naw, it's not worth slogging through posts for.
Is that a prediction Bill ? If I recall you also said the D's would gain seats and kick the R's ass :)
If you're going by polls they also showed ol' Walt with a lead too.
I really do wish we could have found out.
BTW how goes it ? Hope you had a good New Year :)
How did Walt "screw it up" in your opinion ?
I don't think he would have, Look at trends in even other normally "D" leaning states. Polls are just that, polls. And they predicted a Humphey victory 4 years ago and a Mondale victory this Nov. It would have been tight but I think Bush's popularity coupled with Wellstone's far left stance and he was in trouble. Even analysts predicted he was in trouble. Put ti this way, Who would have ever predicted a loss by Walt Mondale in this state including the sympathy vote. Times have changed and I think Paul would have been caught up in the change. I really would have liked to find out and it would have made the victory sweeter. It's sad we didn't get that chance.
LOL, that's funny, Bill Fold.
We'll never know if Paul would have won. Statistically they were tied at the time of his death.
It also doesn't explain the R's gains.
Also, how did "Walt" screw it up?
It wasn't a funeral.
Nice thought, Bill, but I don't know anymore.
If this state picks Old Smoothyover Mondale, Wellstone might have gotten washed away, too.
Brave New World.
Every poll I saw had him ahead by 4 to 5 points just before he died
And in every one of those polls, they polled less than 1,000 people. Sometimes half that many.
Like I said, that's statistically a tie.
Walt screwed up by not controlling the "gathering" for Paul's funeral, when that asshole "speaker" they had Tanked the election for the Democrats by making it into a campaign event.
Walt was never in charge and didn't ever have control, fold.
We're all going to see his movie.