| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/03/2006 03:29:48 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Those funds that are not personal, can't be spent on personal things. If a politician has $8million in campaign funds, they must be spent on campaigning, not a new Beemer for their daughter's sweet sixteen party. |
You'd be surprised (or maybe not) ... |
Well, I meant legally anyway....... |
|
|
|
11/03/2006 03:30:49 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by RonB:
Oh, and I can't resist pointing out that Wilberforce was a bored, wealthy man who became a career politician. Some would say that he, therefore, should not have been a representative of the populace. I respectfully disagree. |
You had to go back over 200 years and to another country to find one bored wealty man who was worthy of representing his people? |
It's not quite that bad ... here is one from near where I live. |
|
|
|
11/03/2006 03:34:48 PM · #103 |
Just came back from voting place. waited 40 minutes... there were 10-12 voting booths. A bunch of people is out there - that's promising.
I voted - now it is your turn. Then you can come back and continue to argue.
It would be nice to once in a while have above 50% popular participation in elections. Maybe things would be different, and our elected leaders would feel more responsible to us than to lobbyists.
-Serge |
|
|
|
11/03/2006 03:38:54 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
Just came back from voting place. waited 40 minutes... there were 10-12 voting booths. A bunch of people is out there - that's promising.
I voted - now it is your turn. Then you can come back and continue to argue.
It would be nice to once in a while have above 50% popular participation in elections. Maybe things would be different, and our elected leaders would feel more responsible to us than to lobbyists.
-Serge |
Huh? What were you voting for?
|
|
|
|
11/03/2006 03:41:51 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by kdsprog:
Huh? What were you voting for? |
For texas senator from texas, for US district 21 congressman, for texas governor etc. etc.
Edit to correctly characterize position
Message edited by author 2006-11-03 15:43:42. |
|
|
|
11/03/2006 03:42:45 PM · #106 |
| Most states allow you to vote early (up to 30 days), usually at the Registrar of Voters or County Clerk's offices. People are also mailing or turning in absentee ballots. |
|
|
|
11/03/2006 03:44:24 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Most states allow you to vote early (up to 30 days), usually at the Registrar of Voters or County Clerk's offices. People are also mailing or turning in absentee ballots. |
Early voting in Texas ends today @ 19:00 CST. |
|
|
|
11/03/2006 03:47:32 PM · #108 |
Oh, they don't do that in NJ. I thought maybe you were voting for a local type thing.
|
|
|
|
11/03/2006 03:49:26 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by greatandsmall:
Personally speaking; I still have a lot more research to do before I vote. I will be attempting to determine which candidates stood up against the NWO initiatives, that have been so rapidly advanced by the current administration. |
Just curious: what are some of the NWO initiatives you're referring to, other than the two already mentioned in this thread? |
Here are just a few that I want to consider. I'm also quite interested in the 9/11 investigation.
The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005
The New Freedom Initiative
The Graham-Levin Amendment
John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007
Graham-Levin Amendment Roll Call
|
|
|
|
11/03/2006 03:59:21 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Those funds that are not personal, can't be spent on personal things. If a politician has $8million in campaign funds, they must be spent on campaigning, not a new Beemer for their daughter's sweet sixteen party. |
You'd be surprised (or maybe not) ... |
Who says you need to use campaign funds for your daughter's car? |
|
|
|
11/03/2006 04:12:16 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by greatandsmall:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Those funds that are not personal, can't be spent on personal things. If a politician has $8million in campaign funds, they must be spent on campaigning, not a new Beemer for their daughter's sweet sixteen party. |
You'd be surprised (or maybe not) ... |
Who says you need to use campaign funds for your daughter's car? |
Hey, maybe that's the infamous "Nigerian billionaire" we all thought was a made-up person ... : ) |
|
|
|
11/03/2006 04:15:31 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by RonB:
1) If you are not able to persuade 8 million people to donate $1 each to your campaign, so that you can counter your opponent, then you are probably not going to be able to persuade the majority to vote for you, either. It is not the fault of the campaigner that the public, at large, are so gullible that they fall for campaign rhetoric just because it is repeated 12 times a day. |
With $12 in my “war chest” just how do you propose I convince 8,000,000 people to give me $1? |
In Arizona, you don't need to. Arizona is a "clean money" state. That means that if you can raise just $1,000 in $5 private contributions ( no corporate money allowed ) the state will give you an additinal $2,500 to run for the state legislature as a "clean" candidate. That means that you only have to convince 200 people that you are a worthwhile candidate at $5 a piece. In Arizona, 36% of state legislators are "clean". And 7 out of 9 elected officials in the state are "clean". You shouldn't really expect to run for the U.S. Senate right off the bat - and the State Legislature is a good place to get started on your political career.
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by RonB:
2) While SOME bored rich people may not be the best choice for running our country, why should being bored or rich be a reason to be excluded from consideration for office? |
I made a bad generalization. There are SOME good bored rich politicians.
Originally posted by RonB:
3) Is it impossible to be a true representative of the population and be an "elite"? If so, why? Is being elite a character flaw? |
Not impossible, but it’s hard to represent people that worry about paying their electrical bill when your biggest worry is should I have invested that 10 million in stocks or bonds? It seems to me that a disproportionate number of our reps are among the elite compared to the represented. |
That's a much better way of stating it. Thanks. And I agree with your sentiment - I just don't believe in a litmus test.
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by RonB:
1) What makes you think that the advertisers, graphics artists, photographers, printers, copy editors, cameramen, sound engineers, loggers, paper producers, web-men, truckers, postal workers, etc. do not put the money they receive for campaign work to "good use"?
2) Who should decide what "good use" is? |
Good point, but I can’t see how commercials saying the other guy is more of an ass hat then me is a good use when I see what organizations like the Make A Wish foundation can do with the money. Difference of opinion I guess. |
I guess. Then again, I know lots of families that haven't a snowball's chance in hell of touring the Waterford crystal factory in Ireland as a recent Make-a-Wish family did - because they're all healthy. Why isn't there a Make-a-Wish for healthy kids?
And I never said that the commercials were a good use of money - only that the expenditure of money did end up in some worker's pocket and that they could put it to good use. So it's not really "wasted" economically speaking.
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by RonB:
1) Why is it wrong to make politics a career? |
Probably a matter of opinion, but to me it does not seem right to make a career off being a representative of the people and getting rich off their tax money. |
Oh, I agree, wholeheartedly. I actually think that those who can afford it should serve for free - but it has to be by their own choosing, not by mandate.
Originally posted by LoudDog:
I don’t have a problem with politicians that are moving up the ladder to an ultimate goal. My beef is with the guys that have held the same job for 30 years, are useless, and keep getting re-elected because that’s who the sheep always vote for. (I think you’d agree with most of the ones I’m thinking about) |
Yep, I'm sure I would. But I don't blame the politicians as much as I blame the people who keep voting for them. That's why I'm in favor of reasonable term limits.
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by RonB:
2) Why is being rich to begin with, or not needing the money qualify as a valid reason for excluding someone from holding office? |
It doesn’t and I didn’t say it should. But it also shouldn’t be a prerequisite! If I wanted to run for Senate there is no way I could unseat either of they guys in my state with my $12 “war chest.” |
True. But you shouldn't even try to start at "the top". It's better for everyone when a candidate works their way up the political ladder, as it were. By the time they're ready to run for national office, they have more contacts from which to gain contributions.
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by RonB:
3) Should congressional pay be scaled to one's net worth? More if you're "poor", none if you're "rich"? |
If I were making the rules, Congressmen and Senators would get paid the average household income for the area they represent. Kind of gives them some incentive to do a good job, huh? And it eliminates the people there just for the pay check. Benefits should be comparable too. |
A bit extreme, and an open invitation for pork-barrel spending ( bring home more bacon, get a raise? ).
Rather, I could see it tied to, but somewhat higher than the cost of living in both the representatives home state, and in Washington where he/she must maintain offices. That was the intent of our founding fathers - they wanted elected federal officials to be paid enough to keep them from being distracted by worrying about what's happening back on the farm when they should be focusing on national matters.
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by RonB:
Even if the person that best represents your views is a career senator or congressman collecting a six-figure salary that's twice what you are making, and they were rich to begin with and don't even need the money? Does voting for such a person make you "wrong", too? |
If the person that best represents you is Ronald McDonald, that’s who you should vote for and there is nothing wrong with that. What I think is wrong is that most of my options are bored rich guys that are in no way a representation of me. |
Nor of me, but they still deserve the right to run ( and be ignored by you and me ).
Originally posted by LoudDog:
And note that the current pay for senate and congress is $165K/year so it’s actually triple what most Americans make. That’s high enough where people would do it just for the money and not for the good of the country. |
I think that they do it for the power, not the money.
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Not all republicans are the same and not all democrats are the same. A "D" or "R" next to your name does not dictate your stance on all positions. |
Originally posted by RonB:
Nor does your length of service. Nor does your net worth. Nor does how you got "rich", as long as you did so legally. Nor does how much money you spent on campaigning. |
Agreed, bad generalization on my part as I stated.
I agree that SOME of our politicians should be bored rich people as those people need representation and SOME bored rich people can do a great job as a politician representing the rest of us. However, don’t you feel at all cheated when the vast majority of our “representatives” live lifestyles we only dream about? While we worry about paying taxes, keeping our job and making next month’s house payment, they build up their “war chest” so no one can unseat them. |
Yes, I do feel cheated. I also feel cheated when they spend money on projects that are NOT outlined in the Constitution. Show me what section of the Constitution, for example, could be used to justify the Bridge to Nowhere?
If I were ever to decide to run for office my first priority would be to introduce legislation to require Constitutional justification for every expenditure. And "the common good" is not sufficient when "common" is just a couple of hundred residents on an Alaskan island - that's not "common" enough for me.
Good points, though. And some that we should consider when we go to the polls next Tuesday - and in local and state elections, as well. |
|
|
|
11/03/2006 05:13:54 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by kdsprog:
Oh, they don't do that in NJ. I thought maybe you were voting for a local type thing. |
Of course they do. |
|
|
|
11/03/2006 05:18:04 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by greatandsmall:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Those funds that are not personal, can't be spent on personal things. If a politician has $8million in campaign funds, they must be spent on campaigning, not a new Beemer for their daughter's sweet sixteen party. |
You'd be surprised (or maybe not) ... |
Who says you need to use campaign funds for your daughter's car? |
Hey, maybe that's the infamous "Nigerian billionaire" we all thought was a made-up person ... : ) |
LOL! Nice segue for a letter I recently received from my congressman Dave Weldon.
"Dear Mrs. Palmrose:
Knowing of your past interest in the issue involving the disclosure of the name of CIA employee Valerie Plame, I wanted to update you on the latest, and perhaps final chapter of this story.
In late August, it was finally revealed that Richard Armitage, a State Department official who, according to the Washington Post, was a reluctant supporter* of the Iraqi War, disclosed Ms. Plame's identitiy to a reporter. The enclosed Washington Post editorial lays out how the disclosure happened and that Mr. Armitage was unaware that Ms. Plame's identity was classified.
The Post summarizes the Plame Affair by stating that 'the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson [Mrs. Plame's husband]. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both of those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.'
After two and one-half years of haranguing by critics claiming it was Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, or Vice-President Dick Cheney responsible for the 'outing' of Valerie Plame, the only response from those accusers today is 'never mind'. In a July 2005 editorial, the Florida Today stated that there was 'clear evidence that Rove revealed Plame's identity...' In October 2005, a Florida Today editorial again stated that the White House 'disclose[ed] Plame's identity.' The facts now show that this was not the case. Mr. Wilson has a lot to answer for regarding his baseless accusations. But, I have to wonder how accountable he will be held to what are clearly false accusations.
I hope you find this update helpful as this case draws to a close. It is an honor to serve you in Congress.
Sincerely,
Dave Weldon
Member of Congress"
*Richard Armitage the "reluctant" supporter of the Iraq war was actually a member of the neo-con think tank Project for the New American Century which not only planned the Iraq war years in advance, but also noted that an event like "Pearl Harbor" would be necessary to spur the people into supporting it. Armitage was one of many PNAC signors who was appointed high ranking positions in the Bush Administration.
I especially like how my Congressman quoted the Washington Post article (knowing that they want to hush the controversy) while conveniently omitting any mention of Scooter Libby's resignation from his position after being indicted on criminal felony charges by a grand jury for obstruction of justice (one count), perjury (two counts) and making false statements (two counts).
I am further astounded by the way in which he tries to absolve the perpetrators of this crime by blaming it on her husband! The hypocricy in this letter abounds; and you can bet I won't be voting for this clown!
Message edited by author 2006-11-03 17:18:47. |
|
|
|
11/03/2006 05:28:10 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
Originally posted by kdsprog:
Oh, they don't do that in NJ. I thought maybe you were voting for a local type thing. |
Of course they do. |
That's for an absentee ballot. You can't go to your polling place and vote.
Early Voting in NEW JERSEY
Early voting in person - It is not permitted in this state to vote in person before Election Day.
By mail - Any registered voter may vote early by mail. The voter should download an application for an absentee ballot (available at www.state.nj.us/lps/elections/form_pdf%27s/2005_absentee_ballot-web-version-9.29.05.pdf in PDF format ), complete it, and mail it to his County Clerk no later than October 31, 2006. The voter may apply in person for an absentee ballot at the County Clerk's office up until 3:00 PM, November 6. Contact information for County Clerk's offices is available at www.state.nj.us/lps/elections/loc_officials_doe.html.
Message edited by author 2006-11-03 17:32:34.
|
|
|
|
11/03/2006 05:45:27 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by kdsprog:
Originally posted by TechnoShroom:
Originally posted by kdsprog:
Oh, they don't do that in NJ. I thought maybe you were voting for a local type thing. |
Of course they do. |
That's for an absentee ballot. You can't go to your polling place and vote. |
Yes, I know. I posted the link. Just to refresh, your comment was in response to the following. I added the emphasis.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Most states allow you to vote early (up to 30 days), usually at the Registrar of Voters or County Clerk's offices. People are also mailing or turning in absentee ballots. |
|
|
|
|
11/03/2006 05:46:33 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by RonB:
1) If you are not able to persuade 8 million people to donate $1 each to your campaign, so that you can counter your opponent, then you are probably not going to be able to persuade the majority to vote for you, either. It is not the fault of the campaigner that the public, at large, are so gullible that they fall for campaign rhetoric just because it is repeated 12 times a day. |
With $12 in my “war chest” just how do you propose I convince 8,000,000 people to give me $1? |
Give it to 12 people and have them do the same? Pay it forward man! :P |
|
|
|
11/03/2006 06:22:19 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by RonB:
You shouldn't really expect to run for the U.S. Senate right off the bat - and the State Legislature is a good place to get started on your political career.
|
Actually, this is almost happening in Western North Carolina as we speak (read).
Heath Shuler, former NFL quarterback is running against Charles Taylor for a seat in the House of Representatives. Shuler has never held as much as a school board seat, from what I know. BUT, because he is willing to run as a democrat (he is the one I referred to earlier as agreeing with Taylor/Republicans on a lot of the issues), all the ultra-left groups (and moderate left groups) in the area have thrown their support of him.
It's another case of voting against Taylor and the Republicans, not necessarily for Shuler and the Democrats. Which to me is just not a smart way to do politics.
|
|
|
|
11/03/2006 06:38:49 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Heath Shuler, former NFL quarterback is running against Charles Taylor for a seat in the House of Representatives. Shuler has never held as much as a school board seat, from what I know. BUT, because he is willing to run as a democrat (he is the one I referred to earlier as agreeing with Taylor/Republicans on a lot of the issues), all the ultra-left groups (and moderate left groups) in the area have thrown their support of him. |
Amazing ... most professional athletes seem to lean the other way (e.g. Jack Kemp). Since we're talkin' sports, I thought we could all do with this humorous diversion, courtesy of (that pinko rag) the NY Times:
Yankee Go Home
By TOM PEYER and HART SEELY
Published: November 3, 2006
With the World Series over, New York Yankee fans at last can devote themselves to the major questions facing their nation. Atop the list: Should the Yankees trade their superstar third baseman, Alex Rodriguez? Already, the debate is raging.
TRADE A-Rod’s continued failure to deliver in the clutch is diverting critical resources and dividing our team. He must go. We need to move on, now!
KEEP Trading A-Rod would lead to a disaster in the American League East. It would embolden other teams and threaten future Yankee clubs. To cut and run is not an option.
TRADE Neither is “Stay the course.”
KEEP Not once has the Yankee brass said, “Stay the course.” That’s never been the plan!
TRADE We need an A-Rod exit strategy. Getting him was always a mistake. We were told the Yankees would greet him as a liberator. After three years, it’s a fiasco — yes, a fiasco. Against the Tigers in the playoffs, he went 1-for-14, struck out with the bases loaded and made a critical fielding error. Each day, the news reports worsened.
KEEP Those reports failed to mention that he drove in 121 runs this season. The news media have an agenda. Some writers have openly stated their hatred for the Yankees. By the way, I don’t remember you voting against the A-Rod trade. Right now, if we set a trade deadline, our enemies can just sit back and wait. You’ll undercut every single Yankee player, scout and ticket-holder. The fact is, you’ll be just a lousy, stinking trader!
TRADE How dare you question my loyalty! You’re asking us —
KEEP Do you want the Yankees to win?
TRADE You’re asking us to sacri- fice —
KEEP Do you want the Yankees to win?
TRADE You’re asking us to sacrifice future playoffs just to prove the last five postseasons were not lost in vain. That’s the YES Network spin, but the mainstream media should ask whether getting A-Rod was a flawed strategy from the start.
KEEP It was our only choice. Have you forgotten the sorry state of this team after the 2001 World Series? No defense. No pitching. We faced the retirement of Paul O’Neill. We’re still paying for our excesses of the 1990s. Today, we have baseball’s best batting order and several great young players. We are building a stable dynasty in the American League East.
TRADE We’re sending our kids to fight an endless war in Boston, when it’s Detroit that attacked us. After we swept the Red Sox in August, you hung out your Mission Accomplished banner, but nothing has been accomplished.
KEEP The Yankees never said it was over. The news media said it was over. And I acknowledge the challenges. We must adapt. We must heed the experts. Joe Torre and his coaches have said they believe A-Rod should come back. We must listen to them.
TRADE Those are the same “experts” that batted A-Rod eighth!
KEEP You would stoop so low as to attack Joe Torre? Have you no shame? Have you no shame!
TRADE Nobody respects the office of Yankee manager more than I. But the issue is A-Rod. There can be no true victories as long as we ignore the tribal enmities that exist between our third baseman and our shortstop.
KEEP There is no animosity between A-Rod and Derek Jeter. Your claims are merely fueling our enemies. Los Angeles doesn’t rip Vladimir Guerrero because the Angels didn’t win the pennant. Other teams simply don’t allow this kind of debate. A-Rod’s contract ends in 2010. He will be a Yankee until then. He will be a Yankee until we win the World Series.
TRADE A-Rod out of New York now! A-Rod out of New York now! What do we want? A-Rod out of New York! When do we want it? Now!
KEEP Stay the course! Four more years!
Tom Peyer and Hart Seely are the co-editors of “O Holy Cow: The Selected Verse of Phil Rizzuto.” |
|
|
|
11/03/2006 10:29:27 PM · #120 |
greatandsmall, thanks for your response. I do wonder why you counted the New Freedom Initiative among the NWO projects. I was under the impression that that is one of a very small number of Bush administration initiatives that is actually fairly positive and embraced at least by the mental health community. Am I wrong about that?
|
|
|
|
11/03/2006 10:39:50 PM · #121 |
| Because there's a conspiracy behind everything if you look hard enough... |
|
|
|
11/04/2006 11:10:20 AM · #122 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Just curious: what are some of the NWO initiatives you're referring to, other than the two already mentioned in this thread? |
Judith,
It's been a pleasure to participate in this discussion with you. You strike me as an open-minded and rational person. My answer to this question is so voluminous, that I fear it may severly hijack this thread. Therefore, I would like to refer you to a thread that I started to specifically address my concerns about our goverment's involvement in diagnosing our children's mental health.
Routerguy666,
you are free to follow along and continue with your sniping;)
Message edited by author 2006-11-04 11:20:17. |
|
|
|
11/04/2006 12:15:44 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Because there's a conspiracy behind everything if you look hard enough... |
"Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they arean't out to get me." |
|
|
|
11/04/2006 12:18:42 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Because there's a conspiracy behind everything if you look hard enough... |
"Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they arean't out to get me." |
Only the paranoid survive. |
|
|
|
11/04/2006 12:21:04 PM · #125 |
"Paranoia is not the belief that everybody's out to get you -- they are.
Paranoia is the belief that everybody's conspiring to get you." |
|
