Handicapping the state of the country

[twindouble]

Your all handicappers here, at least I hope you are. We can single out one horse and argue his merits be it trainer, breeding, speed, connection, bad trip, good trip, better jock, lesser jock and so on but a good handicapper will take into consideration the other 13 horses in the race. What I'm getting at here is regardless of what your political persasion is you have to look at the bigger picture, the whole race and what ever factors you can muster up.


I bring this up because what goes on here is indicative to what's going on the country, to me it's so divided the people are in no position to pick a winner, the country is hanging on a cliff and no one sees it to speak of because we are at each other throats with every conceivable agenda one can imagine. That type of chaos only leads to unwitting self destructive events. You know, like the blind leading the blind.

Is there's anyone here that can say that they believe in their heart that this or prior governments truly represent a government of the people by the people and for the people? Just taking into concideration the Federal Government for now, forget about State and local governments.

Just answer yes or no and give the reasons why you take the position.

My answer is a flat out NO. If this thread takes off I'll chime in. If not I'll get back to some handicapping.


T.D.

[Tom]

No way.
It has been sold to the highest bidders.
Government exists for itself and we do not count. Only large comtributors and illegal aliens who may have the numbers to sway elections count.
Being an Ameircan has been outsourced.

[Lefty]

We sorely need term limits, but the dems always vote it dn by big numbers.

[Tom]

Why is it when the dems control the congress, the republican are always powerless to do anything - (built in excuse?) but when the republicans control both houses, and the white house, they STILL cannot get anything done?
Don't kid yourself - the repubs do not want term limits - they lie if they say they do. They only fight for it when it cannot pass.

[twindouble]

Tom, you said an interesting thing a while back. " Scrap the Constitution and start over" or something like that" Am I correct? Don't ask me to remember the thread, if it doesn't sound like a horses name, I'm lost.:D Elaborate on that.

[twindouble]

We sorely need term limits, but the dems always vote it dn by big numbers.

Yes or no Lefty. Thanks.

[twindouble]

I'll pick up on this tomorrow, getting late here.

[Ponyplayr]

Yes.. Divisions in our country is nothing new.
Good old honest Abe had to climb out a window and run for his life at one political rally. Somehow we have always found a way to resolve the issue. Eventually we will deal with our addiction to oil and this will solve many of our problems.

[DJofSD]

All government is about maintaining a status quo. Of, by and for the people only exists as an ideal. Too often, individual rights and liberties that we believe are the hall marks of our form of government are nothing more than a means to an end instead of the end itself.

Take for example the immigration issue. At one time, the motto on base of the Statue of Liberty was a widely held belief that was actually persued. When was the last time you actually heard any one quote that phrase? The issue is secondary to the power seeking actors in government that want politcal influence, economic benefits and could never be expected to embrace their oath of office.

[Lefty]

It is not so simple as to be a yes or no answer. Some politicians are in it for power and self aggrendizement, some want what's best for the country.

[boxcar]

some want what's best for the country.

And could these "some" be counted on one hand or two?

Boxcar

[betchatoo]

No.

Politicians on both side are determined to keep us divided on issues. They believe this is the only way to insure job security. With the exception of the aftermath of 9-11, when the whole country rose together, supported each other and spoke as one voice for going after the terrorists in Afghanistan, when is the last time the 2 sides agreed on anything?

One side says, "If you don't do things our way you are un-American and non-patriotic. We are the side that cares about what's right for the people."

The other side counters with, "If you do things their way you're stupid and dangerous. We are the side that cares about what's right for the people."

And, in the end, both sides just care about having power and neither side cares about what's right for the people.

[ljb]

No,
All politicians have one goal. That is to get re-elected. This makes money the controlling factor. Politicians will give lip service to special interest groups to get their vote but the real action is geared towards the money source.

[Snag]

Yes.


I think this is the best form of government that has ever come along. Most of the time, our vision of government is based on our own experiences. That usually means what happened yesterday. I know that my knowledge of everything is greater now than it was when I was 20 or 30. This same perspective applies to our countries government history.

This same discussion has always gone on in our history. We are no smarter today than we were in the 1700's. Our founding fathers had an idea and they put it in writing. As a whole, we are all the better for it. If all we look at is the bad in those in power, we lose the overall view. There has always been problems with jerks that are in the government for their own gain. I wonder if anyone of us would want to live under a non representive form of government?

[twindouble]

I said no because of the shear size of Government on all levels. To me it's impossable to represent the people when those in that huge Temple don't even come clost to an ants nest with the comunity in mind. I don't need to cover all but just take one, The IRS. When ever those temples are threated, Congress or the White house will add another layer or create another. Every State government operates the same way. Any family or comunity that becomes so disconnected will never see or beable to do anything about the storms that will someday wash them away.

T.D.

[hurrikane]

I guess I am going to stand out here by myself again.

I do think overall the gov is of by and for the people.
Do I think it is across the board. No.
Do you get and opportunity to elect someone else every few years. YES!

You can't ask this question without asking how many people voted in their last election?
With less than half of the people voting in America is it any surprise that people do not feel that this is a government of, by, and for the people.

I'm guessing 60% fell that way.

[so.cal.fan]

Yes, and I pretty much agree with Snag's comments.
The United States Constitution is probably the best political document ever written.
Our country is the greatest country the world has ever seen (Hillary Clinton made that comment, recently).
I am also very optomistic that this country will get better and better in spite of all our difficulties, we all are here evolving.......we are all blessed by Divinity to be living here in this country.

[betchatoo]

Yes, and I pretty much agree with Snag's comments.
The United States Constitution is probably the best political document ever written.
Our country is the greatest country the world has ever seen (Hillary Clinton made that comment, recently).
I am also very optomistic that this country will get better and better in spite of all our difficulties, we all are here evolving.......we are all blessed by Divinity to be living here in this country.

I love living in the United States and I believe that every U.S. poster here (with maybe 1 or 2 exceptions) would say the same thing. I also agree with Winston Churchill’s famous proclamation: “Democracy is the worst form of government; except for all the others.

However, the question was; is this currently a government of the people, by the people? I believe this is less true than it was 30 years ago. I think members of the far sides have hijacked both parties, and because of this, we are not reaching the middle ground that most Americans favor, as often.

To leave you with another quote (this one, Will Rogers), "Ancient Rome declined because it had a Senate; now what's going to happen to us with both a Senate and a House?

[so.cal.fan]

Actually most Democracies fail after 2 or 3 hundred years because of all the ignorant people who become voters and vote themselves so many benefits that the country goes bankrupt.
That is why so many people are up in arms about all the illegal immigrants.....who many believe, at least here in Calif. that they are also voting illegally.
There is another thread, by Tom, addressing this issue. :(

[Tom]

The good thing - right to vote for your leaders.
The bad things - Bush, Gore, Kerry, Clinton, Bush, Kennedy, Pataki.......the whole thing is, we do not get to vote for who we want - we get to vote for who they LET us vote for. Catch-22: it takes tons of money to get elected, and anyone who has tons of money is already beholden to NOT us.

[twindouble]

I guess I am going to stand out here by myself again.

I do think overall the gov is of by and for the people.
Do I think it is across the board. No.
Do you get and opportunity to elect someone else every few years. YES!

You can't ask this question without asking how many people voted in their last election?
With less than half of the people voting in America is it any surprise that people do not feel that this is a government of, by, and for the people.

I'm guessing 60% fell that way.

Not all but a good percentage of that apathy is created by that disconnect I mentioned. The expressions, can't beat city hall, can't beat big government, can't beat big corporations are cemented in truth. The latest obscene thing is emanate domain, governments take your property and gives it to strangers to develop. Now that's just one more example of a government that doesn't represent the people.

[Lefty]

No,
All politicians have one goal. That is to get re-elected. This makes money the controlling factor. Politicians will give lip service to special interest groups to get their vote but the real action is geared towards the money source.


Hmm, the how come when Gingrich and the 94 Congress brght term limits up for a vote, as promised over 80% of Repubs voted for them?

[Snag]

.
However, the question was; is this currently a government of the people, by the people? I believe this is less true than it was 30 years ago. I think members of the far sides have hijacked both parties, and because of this, we are not reaching the middle ground that most Americans favor, as often.


You are correct about the hijacking of the parties. However, the representatives we have come from each state of the union. Our government is not a Federal Government. The people still vote to send their representative to Washington.


I find it strange that we seldom have harsh words for our own state representatives. We like to blame those from the other states in the South, East, West, North, but never our own. Why? Because even if they are wrong, we, at some level, support them and their decisions. It's easier to blame others.

[Lefty]

The good thing - right to vote for your leaders.
The bad things - Bush, Gore, Kerry, Clinton, Bush, Kennedy, Pataki.......the whole thing is, we do not get to vote for who we want - we get to vote for who they LET us vote for. Catch-22: it takes tons of money to get elected, and anyone who has tons of money is already beholden to NOT us.

Not exactly true. The candidates used to be chosen by party leaders and now we have primaries; so ultimately the people vote for the candidates they wanna vote for. Just ask Howard Dean!

[twindouble]

Not exactly true. The candidates used to be chosen by party leaders and now we have primaries; so ultimately the people vote for the candidates they wanna vote for. Just ask Howard Dean!


When money is the primary engine that drives the political process, how can that result in a government of the people?

[Lefty]

because they're getting that money from the people.
Ok, you guys, our democracy stinks(according to you)got a better idea?

The best idea is term limits and for we the people, not to vote for anyone that won't vote for them.

[Lefty]

You are correct about the hijacking of the parties. However, the representatives we have come from each state of the union. Our government is not a Federal Government. The people still vote to send their representative to Washington.


I find it strange that we seldom have harsh words for our own state representatives. We like to blame those from the other states in the South, East, West, North, but never our own. Why? Because even if they are wrong, we, at some level, support them and their decisions. It's easier to blame others.
that's because our own "pork" tastes good.

[Tom]

Not exactly true. The candidates used to be chosen by party leaders and now we have primaries; so ultimately the people vote for the candidates they wanna vote for. Just ask Howard Dean!

I have not wanted to vote for anyone in the last three elections. I settled on Bush - that's like saying what would you rather have, cancer or AIDS?

[Tom]

When money is the primary engine that drives the political process, how can that result in a government of the people?

It can't - it makes for government by the rich. If you have any question as to Bush represents, just check his calendar - fund raiser after fund raiser, and hand-picked audiences for good sound bytes. He is afraid to face a an audience "of the people."

The amnesty of illeagals in 1986 - who master-minded that failur of that law? Teddy Kennedy. It was all show, and when they tried to enforce the law, the pols made them back off.

[Lefty]

Tom, then guess you'd better come up with something, uh, better! I think Bush has done an excellent job, but guess you and a few others could have done better. With what we've been through in the last few yrs and still to have this economy, it's damned remarkable! But guess yo;re nut one hundred percent satisfied. Think you ever will be? Think you'll vote for Hillary?

[twindouble]

because they're getting that money from the people.
Ok, you guys, our democracy stinks(according to you)got a better idea?

The best idea is term limits and for we the people, not to vote for anyone that won't vote for them.

Better ideas come from discontent. To say your happy with the status quo says you wouldn't make much of a partner when it comes to changing things for the better. Al Capone was people also, my take is there's to many Capone's involved in the political process but they don't carry around machine guns, just a lot of money.

[Snag]

that's because our own "pork" tastes good.:lol: :lol: :lol: I knew there was a reason why I have gained weight this year. I just thought it was the increased beer intake.

[Ponyplayr]

Tom, then guess you'd better come up with something, uh, better! I think Bush has done an excellent job, but guess you and a few others could have done better. With what we've been through in the last few yrs and still to have this economy, it's damned remarkable! But guess yo;re nut one hundred percent satisfied. Think you ever will be? Think you'll vote for Hillary?

I don't know who Tom would vote for but I could never vote for her.
I have been a card carrying Democrat since I turned eighteen. After Kerry ..Dean and Hillary I am going to vote republican for the first time in my life. My party has lost touch with reality is filled with hate and has no love for or desire to defend our country.

[ljb]

I think we live in the best country in the world but, it is going downhill fast. SoCalFan mentioned democracies only lasting 2 or 3 hundred years because they vote themselves too many goodies and go broke. Where do you all think our current government is taking us? Checked out the deficit spending lately ?
I don't have an answer but both major political parties are on the take. We need massive election reform and we need it now!

[ljb]

Hmm, the how come when Gingrich and the 94 Congress brght term limits up for a vote, as promised over 80% of Repubs voted for them?
Because if any more had voted for them it may have passed. :eek:

[lsbets]

Everyone is for term limits until they get elected to office. Than the issue becomes one of taking choices away from voters, which would just be wrong. The way politicians think is "Hey, they elected me. If I put in term limits, I am taking away their right to elect me in perpetuity."

[ljb]

Not exactly true. The candidates used to be chosen by party leaders and now we have primaries; so ultimately the people vote for the candidates they wanna vote for. Just ask Howard Dean!
Howard Dean had the people's support until the party machine went to work. The power brokers in the Democrat party were afraid of Dean, thought he was too radical. Course his scream didn't help much either but, it was a forgone conclusion that he would not be the candidate. This just proves the point in question. No this is not a government of the people.

[Tom]

Howard Dean had the people's support until the party machine went to work. The power brokers in the Democrat party were afraid of Dean, thought he was too radical. Course his scream didn't help much either but, it was a forgone conclusion that he would not be the candidate. This just proves the point in question. No this is not a government of the people.

Plus, Howard showed what a total idiot he really is to the mass media!

Heeeyyyyaaaaaaaa! :lol:

[Tom]

Because if any more had voted for them it may have passed. :eek:

Corect-o-mundao. They knew it would not pass, so they made it look good.

Fresh case in point:

Tenessee just got fed funds ( for those you in Rio Lindo, that is OUR tax money!) to rebuilt a railway destryoed by Katrina, to the tune of a quater billion dollars. Now they are going to move it - right after it got repaired, inland, to make room for casinos. This time, only 700 million dollars. The money was snuck into a war spending bill designed to fund our troops.
How can anyone say this government represents US? It is a sham.

[Tom]

Tom, then guess you'd better come up with something, uh, better! I think Bush has done an excellent job, but guess you and a few others could have done better. With what we've been through in the last few yrs and still to have this economy, it's damned remarkable! But guess yo;re nut one hundred percent satisfied. Think you ever will be? Think you'll vote for Hillary?
If she ran against Bush, I would vote for her in a minute. And Lefty, any fool idiot could do better with the deficit spending thanBush has done - he has done nothing. He has not even threatened to veto a bill with excessive spending. Any idiot could do better.

[Overlay]

I couldn't read this thread without thinking that the conditions that people are commenting on here are the very same ones that James Madison discussed almost 220 years ago in No. 10 of The Federalist Papers, and were also the conditions that the mechanisms of the Constitution were deliberately designed to take into account, and to use as the basis for constructive change. People will always pursue their own narrow self-interest, and it was (and is) this conflict of opposing priorities (however discordant and chaotic it may seem at times) that assures that no one overriding majority will become dominant, imposing its will on the minority, and infringing rights and liberties in the process. I think that the reasons our constitutional form of government will endure are the correct perceptions of human nature and of the basis of human behavior which the Constitution assumed in laying out how our government would function.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed10.htm

[Lefty]

Because if any more had voted for them it may have passed quotes lbj.

Wrong answer. If MORE DEms had voted for it, it would have passed. Only 60% or so of the dems voted for it as opposed yto 80% or so of repubs and ypou post such an answer.

[ljb]

Because if any more had voted for them it may have passed quotes lbj.

Wrong answer. If MORE DEms had voted for it, it would have passed. Only 60% or so of the dems voted for it as opposed yto 80% or so of repubs and ypou post such an answer.
Lefty,
If, if, if. do you have anything but ifs ? The Republicans have complete control now, and Bush does not know how to veto anything, why hasn't it been implemented ?

[Lefty]

lbj, because the Repubs DO NOT have complete control. This has to be passed by a super majority and the Repubs only have a slim majority. So, get real, bub.

[ljb]

lbj, because the Repubs DO NOT have complete control. This has to be passed by a super majority and the Repubs only have a slim majority. So, get real, bub.
Why would this have to be passed by a super majority ? Near as i can tell a super majority is only needed to move a vote through a cloture motion or for a constitutional amendment. And 80 percent of repubs + 60 percent of dems seems like a super majority to me.

[Lefty]

lbj, you need to brush up on your math skills as well as your govt skills. When this came up for a vote when Knute was in, if they had had a super majority, we'd have term limits now; but the dems killed it. Go forth and learn.

[Tom]

If all the repubs and 10 dems vote for it, that is over 60% now. But have they tried? Of course not - it could easily pass now, so they shy away like a coyote from a skunk in the pumpkin patch (thinking of Dan Rather today!)

[Lefty]

Tom, yeah, Gingrich is gone, ran out by the lying libs and weak repubs. It is sad.

[46zilzal]

Tom, yeah, Gingrich is gone, ran out by the lying libs and weak repubs. It is sad.
Old Newt had enough skeletons in his closet to create his OWN demise. Not a babe in the woods by any means.
http://www.realchange.org/gingrich.htm

[Tom]

Tom, yeah, Gingrich is gone, ran out by the lying libs and weak repubs. It is sad.

What is sad is we have a republican congess sand White House and we can only get bills passed that set new records for pork or benifit big businesses. That is really sad.

Think Scott resigned because he was tired of telling lies evey day and getting caught in them? What does Gingrich have to do what I posted - you don't think 10 dems will vote for term limits? They might if the repubs had the ball s to put it to a vote - they do not.

What do we need, 100% of both house before this bunch of jerks can do anything for the country and not for profit?

I am tired of hearing excuses from this gang of goons and idiots.

[Tom]

Old Newt had enough skeletons in his closet to create his OWN demise. Not a babe in the woods by any means.
http://www.realchange.org/gingrich.htm

Those aren't skeletons - they are all the "bones" he had thrown to him during his reign.:D

[Lefty]

Tom, Newt was the driving force behind the contract with america and i.e. the driving force behind term limits. Guess Hastert doesn't have the savvy or the ball ol Newt had. He(Newt) will prob run for Pres in 08.

[ljb]

He(Newt) will prob run for Pres in 08.
We can only hope! :D

[skate]

TD;


my factor, mustard and all, would be "The Creator". he, she or IT, just has too many negatives fatored into the equation.
oh fine, i can't see it all, but that aint my fault.

hey , in this country the media has way too much domination. nothing to do with any power that they have, but the % of people (with high i.q.) just don't have enough correct judgement.
i'm talking about "the" people and not just those in gov.

that's the way people were made

skating

[ljb]

lbj, you need to brush up on your math skills as well as your govt skills. When this came up for a vote when Knute was in, if they had had a super majority, we'd have term limits now; but the dems killed it. Go forth and learn.
Lefty,
I already told you a super majority is only needed for a constitutional amendment or to stop/end a filibuster. And 80 percent of the Repubs +60 percent of the Dems would have been a super majority.

You should really brush up on all your skills.

[Lefty]

lbj, if what you say is true, then term limits would be law, so(gasp)you must be WRONG!

[Tom]

Lefty, I missed it - when did they vote on it and it failed?

[Lefty]

When Gingrich and the 94 congress was elected they hadvowed to bring a number of things to a vote. Term limits was one.

[Tom]

This congress. When did they even try?
There is much more change to pass it now - all we need is a few dems to swing over - not that many. Or is that why they have noot acted - because it could pass?

[Lefty]

Tom, they tried back then 94-95 whatever. Why not now? Can't read minds. Maybe cause Hastert is no Newt Gingrich.