ParanoiA

That's the impression here in the states too. I used to feel the same way, only I was concerned about her economic whimsical intents rather than any military exercises. I think she's a lot more cool headed and diplomatic than people give her credit for. Honestly, in a crisis with military action on the line, I would trust Hillary over Obama in a heartbeat. This is totally speculative, but he comes across to me as the guy that will "pretend" he's being cool and collective while he panics internally, whereas Hillary gives me the impression that she'll handle it as if she knew it was coming all along.

The greatness of the republic, I think anyway, lies in the principles that aren't readily noticeable, nor apparently obvious in practice. The fact that the power comes from the people themselves - that they invest their governing in an idea (in the abstract)- a document (in the tangible) rather than a man or group of men. So, the laws and so forth are continuous, and follow the document, regardless of the leader who created them. We've all heard, and most have agreed, in the power of an "idea" as it relates to terrorism, and how that keeps it from being easily defeated. That's because it's an abstract system of thought that cannot be defeated by killing men. Others still "think it". I believe the power of the republic is similar in that it's a system that essentially 300 million americans, more or less, are invested in its ideal. It makes it incredibly difficult for anyone to thwart our system and oppress us. There's probably much better reasons than that, but that's the first thing that came to mind. The electoral college was necessary at one time to help with the lack of accessability by rural americans to get to a voting booth. It's way out dated, and I'm thinking most of us are ready to ditch it. As for changing the constitution, well sure you're right. The state governments can pass amendments the people don't agree with, the federal courts can interpret the document to compliment an agenda. But these are a consequence of the check and balance system. Its thankless brilliance has blessed us with a government that seems impervious to organized nefarious infiltration. The implication is that state governments were elected by their people, and so represent them at a state level - not to mention historical logistics legitimate the United "States" of America. We are grouped as states, so obviously we have to enter the union, and maintain the union, under that premise. I guess that's somewhat arguable, for the future status, but I think we still like being represented as individual states, rather than one big state. There are subtle differences in laws between them. (Like better beer in Missouri than Oklahoma - no constitution is worth destroying good beer).

That wasn't Pangloss, that was me. And what I do for a living stays at work. I don't join phone repairmen clubs and make claims about how an ISDN PBX should send an NI2 local call to the central office and then refuse to back it up by saying I get paid to do that. No, and that's my point. Most of his idiotic decisions are party positions. Look, I'm only being pedantic about it since you overgeneralized him in the same sentence you were criticizing him for overgeneralizing issues. I regularly criticize both political parties as idiots. I characterize the american people as sheeple. Little rhetorical digs that emote my displeasure while supplying a "hint" of truth. But I don't do this while simultaneously criticizing someone else for doing it.

Well then your disposition isn't an honest approach to the truth. This fuctions just like partisanship. You've decided they're all beneath you (not necessarily inaccurate) and that you're going to insult them and that it's a game. That's good for columns and spiffy editorials, but not much good for those of us looking for honest, critical analysis. Not that you have to be, but many of us are, which is why we may clash. I hold the offices in awe and therefore get frustrated by the opportunists that occupy them. There are very few, as in I can think of two, true statesmen in those offices. Although I'll admit, I haven't done any particular research on all of them, so there could be more. I highly doubt it though. So, consequentially, I wind up looking down at them most of the time. I want someone I can look up to. Someone who truly is an expert at law, economics, and so forth - someone who I think is truly smarter than me. When's the last time you ran across a politician that you felt out ranked your capacity for wisdom and philosophical primacy? In my mind, they should all be that way.

I really did laugh out loud when I read that. Awesome. I don't know man, I've seen his kind of politics over and over my whole damn life. Change, Bring The Country Together, Cross Party Lines, blah blah blah... He's good at selling it. That's what Billy was good at too - salesmanship. I think John's post really hits the details on that - it has much to do with the climate this same ole rhetoric is used within. And I think we underestimate the real impact and value of zero experiential baggage coming with him. Like my liberal buddy sitting next me keeps asking..."What has he done?"

Yeah, I love the whole bit about speaking up like a man. That's exactly what crosses my mind when these opportunists roast their old bosses.

Anybody read this letter from Dole yet? I think it hits the spot nicely.

Well, so much for that idea...

Dare I say ask this on a science site....how about drilling in ANWR? Would that do anything for the short term?

Doesn't the Senior/Junior rep proposal present a reasonable solution to this? Seems to me the benefit we're trying to achieve is saturation of "representation" in order to curtail corruptive lobbying and special interest techniques. Representation in the form of votes, not necessarily in assembly and debate. So, wouldn't that resolve the problem of inertia for exigent change? Of course, I'm left wondering just how powerful that leaves the Senior rep. Is he still valuable as a corruptive tool for special interests?

Great analysis John. And I certainly do respect his position to be against the war from the very beginning.

Exactly. The market needs to drive it. These guys are in the oil business. It's silly to grill them like little children asking them why they won't commit to alternative fuels. That's not their business. I'm not going to be shamed from my cabinet building side business into building coffee tables instead. I'm in the cabinet business. Buy your coffee table from someone in the coffee table business. Turn about is fair play. Remember their insignificance and what put them there when you invest your money in the guys that DO alternative fuels. When the oil businessmen start whining about profits, remind them what business they're in, and the freedom of pursuit that they squandered by squeezing oil profits rather than investing in their own future. I don't see any reason to expect them to invest in alternative fuels. Likewise, I don't see any reason why they wouldn't invest in alternative fuels to stay relevant in the energy market. Let them reap what they sow. I already can't wait to go solar for my home, just somebody give me something I can drive that doesn't require oil for fuel - that I can afford.

I like this, but how would you frame this? 435 legislators, and 6,000 or so voting delegates of some kind? Obviously the reps we're wanting to add to this are for greater representation by the people, but would their legislative initiative authority be inferior to the 435? And are we sure these extra reps aren't taintable within this structure as well? Sure there's more of them, but if the 435 are the ones writing and proposing legislation, I'm not so sure a good ole boy club won't still manifest itself. Either way, it's still better than today though. And I still think Phi has a great point on spending. How do we know we're not creating a little army of spend-aholics putting us in even worse shape financially?

Well if it's humility you're looking for let me be the first to acknowledge my lack of leaping to the newest conclusion presented to me in a politics forum. I wasn't sure much of anybody had reached a conclusion but you and doG, did I miss something? So far I love the idea, but I want to see it tested with the points brought up above.

Yeah, I think that's the longest, most thoughtful post I've seen from Saryctos.

Exactly. Depends on whether or not she's learned to listen. Yeah, and I think this is a great contrarian argument for 30 thousand proponents to defend. I love the idea of the extra reps, but this point needs to be dealt with. Ever since a buddy of mine mentioned this, I've always thought it would be a cool idea. The obvious problem though, is difficult to work around, though the high number of reps could contain it a little - and that's talent, and lack thereof. I think you're looking to argue rather than discuss. Don't worry I get it. Some folks express their ideas better in combat. It's a bit pretentious though, as the specific people you're at odds with right now are critical thinking scientists and are professional skeptics by their very nature. Don't take offense, use it to measure your movement. If you're correct, it should survive any scrutiny by them.

Hmmm...would these be a bad time to bring up the draft? Kind of a really long and drawn out version of jury duty...

I think they're more dangerous. Because they're meticulous, they rely on religion, but their arguments work on secularists as well. They're incremental. They have a movement dedicated to interventionism and pages of rationale to support it. Democrats and Republicans both are signed on to the notion. And this is in the hands of the most powerful arsenol mankind has ever seen. Only if it's free.

I don't understand the thread Rev. No one said you had to distinguish fact from opinion until you violated your own indictment of the Bush administration. THAT's what started the whole business. You made the statement that oversimplifying Iran's politics "They bad, we good" doesn't help matters, and that things will not go well. And you made that statement while oversimplifying Bush's politics as "Bush is an idiot". You're guilty of that which you accuse others. It's that simple. Write all the posts and create all the threads you want, but this is not about mistaking opinion for literalism, it's about making overgeneralizations about others making overgeneralizations. iNow, and others, always get emotive and miss Pangloss's points when he calls folks out on this. If you're not going to be consistent with your application of your philosophical conclusions, then expect to be challenged. It doesn't matter what ideology or party you're attracted to. It doesn't matter if "you hate the same guy I do, yay!!" - it doesn't relieve you of critical obligations to analysis. We all know the smell of rhetoric, and it has it's place in politics, no doubt. We also know the smell of hypocrisy, and everyone loves to point that out. Didn't I say we never outgrow the taste of humble pie? Try a piece Rev, it's not as bad as you think.

Noted.

Rev, I love your wisdom, your attitude and your intellect. You have a knack for humor and a talent for flare in your overgeneralizations, but you can't really believe the literal interpretation of your words...do you? An idiot? About half the country is completely in line with that idiot and their senselessness is arguable, but not fact. These are the american citizens; people that build space shuttles and study stem cells. It's opinion dude, just accept it. It's also a rhetorical oversimplification that ought to humble your indictment of the neocons for the same thing. Pangloss called you out on it. Sounds fair to me. Could hardly argue with being nonsensical, but that's an ideological thing. There's nothing "proven" about Bush and his advisors and about half the population of the united states' point of view. Some of their views have merit, and some of their concerns are legitimate. A great many are oppressive, imperialistic, non-secular, invasive, contrary to many of the principles we're supposed to be willing to die for. PNAC is not made up of idiots and all of Bush's foreign policies can be found there. An example of this? I thought he had a circle of smart dudes. My money's on the "one smart guy was over-ruled by other smart guys, so pissed him off" routine. But I'll proudly admit that's a presumptuous prediction on my part. This could actually be your best ground for evidence. But to be an "idiot", you need more than just Creationism evangelism, and making speaking mistakes. It's good rhetoric, but that's what it is. You're oversimplifying, and consequentially underestimating the neocon, religious right. Don't get me wrong. I have just as much fun calling Bush an idiot as the next guy, it's a nice way to sum up my opinion on the whole mess of his administration, but I'm sure he's a pretty smart dude in person. The whole "stupid" persona, I think, comes from his awkward performance in front of a large audience.

No kidding. I wanted a woman president so bad, I went out of my way to try to like her - not that I was going to vote for her. I still like her better than Obama. I'm certainly not frightened of her like I was a year or so ago. I would have thought we'd have a woman president before a black president. Not sure why, I just thought a white woman pres would seem the logical step to a black man pres. Now what I'd like to see is a black woman president. I wonder how many black women are libertarian-ish types...

Many good points there, and I totally agree. The problem comes when he gets a teacher who's style doesn't compliment this in any way whatsoever. (He even claims, albeit not confirmed, that can he can't ask simple questions about overdue homework, or his grade and so forth, or they'll get pissy with him). So, on the one hand, I want to teach him how to properly and respectfully question authority, but with the understanding that if that authority figure isn't playing along, or is particularly strict with behavior, that he has to retreat. That second part is terribly difficult. It is for me to this very day. I have a very difficult time letting go of what I believe are stupid work practices here on the job, a corporation no less. I still have to work hard to shut my mouth and do my job no matter how stupidly they insist I do it. And I use that as an example when I talk with him as well - that none of this rebellious spirit goes away, it gets refined.

I'm not getting the logic here. Not taking issue with it, I just don't understand. How does an interstate district paralyze the federal government's protections for them? I like that logic too. It would seem to compliment the intent of representation of the populace in the first place. It makes sense that the house of reps was more about sheer numbers of people; the senate representing the state entities. _________________________________________________________ What a cool thread. JEQuidam and doG have really made me rethink my impulsive dislike of representative democracy. So many new problems with direct style, and a saturation of representatives does seem to directly address the things I've always been turned off by representation. I would like to see some other dissention though, as I'm kind of dumbstruck to any contrarian arguments at the moment. Pangloss, you had mentioned some negatives to this in previous threads, so what were they?

Obviously she wants to shoot Obama.