Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First and foremost, a representative serves the best interest of the public, but they do this by protecting individual liberties and that which the constitution holds. This is why we have representatives arguing from many factions of people as peoples interests will tend to be that of "self interest" and their job is to insure that of the "best interest", which again I refer to the beginning as I stated. This means, we do not violate those protections regardless of what people claim they desire.
Sorry, but the delegates to the constitutional convention knew full well that the House would bend and sway to public "fever". The check on those sentiments is was their reason for establishing the Senate and the Supreme Court. Only the most naive of individuals would not foresee that parochial self-interest would dominate the legislature.
Quote:
The reason this whole article is absurd is because the basic function of the peoples self interest is something our system is designed to deal with and the very reason we have representatives in the first place.
Ah, no that is why we have a Bill of Rights and the above checks and balances that I previously mentioned.
Quote:
As for the specifics of polls
If you take the results of the aggregate of the various polling organizations as Pollster does, you will find that the author is, as they say, spot on.
Quote:
If you need evidence as to the purpose and reasoning behind such, Madison and Jefferson do quite well explaining the purpose and limitations of the powers of government with their arguments within the federalist papers.
The author is wrong about the ignorance of American voters? Jefferson was in France for the constitutional convention as well as the ratification process. If you are going to cite Madison then you must acknowledge Hamilton's contribution to the debate between the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist keeping in mind that the views expressed by either was an expression not of the totality of the debate but rather the political consensus that arose.
Quote:
More specifically, the Federalist No. 10 where Madison points out the problems with a pure democracy and that why a Republic is better suited in protecting the people through its bureaucratic design.
I find it is interesting that on the one hand you cite Federalist 10 where Madison's primary objective was to expound on the danger of actions and partisanship and how the structure of the propose government was designed in no small part to avoid the dangers that factions and partisanship bring to a democracy while dismissing the article which specifically states:
America is increasingly moving toward a parliamentary system in which politicians, rather than voting along regional lines or in pursuit of parochial interests, cast their ballot solely based on whether there is a D or R next to their name. Such a system might work well in the UK, but in the US, with its institutional focus on checks and balances and the many tools available for stopping legislation, a parliamentary-style system is a recipe for inaction.
I'm done. I've got to finish packing
Anyway...
If people would be really honest they would recognize that the article does not judge the value of either Democratic or Republican policy prescriptions it instead quite correctly points out that their is an ideological struggle regarding the role of government (as most post so far have amply demonstrated), it accurately captures the strategies, strengths and weaknesses of both parties, and anyone who denies the schizophrenic behavior of American voters is in total denial, so where the characterization regarding the piece being "propaganda" simply illustrates that folks just don't like a mirror being shown in their face.
Remove government control, release its responsibility to these programs and shrink it to the point where it is simplistic in its duties (as it once was) and you will see these problems go away. Yet, that is not your desire as you wish to change it and then as it fails, tell the people it is their fault for you not being able to play "make a new government".
*Sets time machine for the year before the Louisiana Purchase*
Those were the days!
You sound pretty PO'ed about your OWN inability to "make a new government" to fit your fantasy of a halcyon past.
Our own founding fathers thought it was a good idea to have a revolution every now and then to keep government on its toes. Nations and societies are not static entities. Change is a constant. Governments and peoples who cannot respond appropriately to the way things are in the present are doomed to fail.
We, the people have created the government we now have by a combination of indifference, complacency, and ignorance. The US government is long overdue for an overhaul, but I'm afraid it may be too late.
Elections are generally not much more than popularity contests for the bulk of voters, as many voters show up at the polls only once every four years.
Right!
On election night the voters sit on their butts in front of the TV and watch with suspense as the results trickle in. By midnight they cheer their victory or mourn their loss.
On the day after the voters listen and watch the talking heads 'analyze' the previous night's results.
On day three the voters go back to the stuff they consider more important: sports, soap operas, and stupid sit-coms.
My parents always voted Dem no matter who was running or what the platform was or what the issues were. You couldn't even discuss the issues with them. The Dems represented the blue collar working man and that's how the blue collar worker voted.
These days you don't even hear mention of the blue collar worker..just "middle class".
What is that problem? People refusing to roll over and serve a master claiming the greater good? Are we the problem because we say "this is my property, not yours"? Are we a problem when we say "My money is mine, not yours"? What is this "problem" you speak of?
It's that credit card mentality where everyone simply runs up their credit card to it's max and votes for any party that does the same.
The mortgage crisis that triggered all of this nonsence in 08 can be directly attributed to guys like Barney Franks who bullied congress into passing legislation to make homes affordable for all by lowering mortgage security requirements, you folks scream about socialism but can't see the irony in stuff like that, that idiot is still sitting in the house, isn't he?
You folks live and breath the 'free lunch' ethic but keep using that word socialism to describe what you think is the root cause of all evil while you practice it's very tenets.
If you're not socialistic, in the sense that you people keep throwing the word around, how the hell did you dig yourselves this great big hole and take half of the worlds economies with you?
You've got some serious problems to deal with but all you seem capable of doing is resorting to the same crap that got you into this mess; pointing the finger across the floor at the other party. YOU PEOPLE PUT THEM THERE! Look in the mirror.
It's that credit card mentality where everyone simply runs up their credit card to it's max and votes for any party that does the same.
The mortgage crisis that triggered all of this nonsence in 08 can be directly attributed to guys like Barney Franks who bullied congress into passing legislation to make homes affordable for all by lowering mortgage security requirements, you folks scream about socialism but can't see the irony in stuff like that, that idiot is still sitting in the house, isn't he?
You folks live and breath the 'free lunch' ethic but keep using that word socialism to describe what you think is the root cause of all evil while you practice it's very tenets.
If you're not socialistic, in the sense that you people keep throwing the word around, how the hell did you dig yourselves this great big hole and take half of the worlds economies with you?
You've got some serious problems to deal with but all you seem capable of doing is resorting to the same crap that got you into this mess; pointing the finger across the floor at the other party. YOU PEOPLE PUT THEM THERE! Look in the mirror.
Who are you talking to? It helps if you know the position of the person before you make accusations.
I supported none of that, have and always will be against big government and any social program.
As for Barny Frank, that tool was shown to be corrupt with the issue long before the bubble, but it was swept under the table by the same group to which has created all these problems.
The only way things are going to get fixed is to remove all the garbage from office and replace them with others... with a warning... reduce government, reduce spending, get out of our lives or your gone as well.
I am not fighting against parties, I have and always will fight for the protections of individual liberty. That is what we should all be coming together for and as long as we hold to that, all of these programs become evident that they are not in the best interest of that. The individuals must account for themselves, not the government for them. It is the main responsibility of a free individual. The question is, do people want freedom or do they want to be taken care of. You can not have both.
Sorry, but the delegates to the constitutional convention knew full well that the House would bend and sway to public "fever". The check on those sentiments is was their reason for establishing the Senate and the Supreme Court. Only the most naive of individuals would not foresee that parochial self-interest would dominate the legislature.
Ah, no that is why we have a Bill of Rights and the above checks and balances that I previously mentioned.
We were talking about representatives and their part in this. My comments do not conflict with the separation of powers and their purpose. A representative serves yet a part of the cog in slow turning separation of powers to which serves to slow it down and check its actions in accordance with the best interests of the people
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
If you take the results of the aggregate of the various polling organizations as Pollster does, you will find that the author is, as they say, spot on.
You can take many pieces of garbage and push it into a pile only to end up with a pile of garbage. /shrug
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
The author is wrong about the ignorance of American voters? Jefferson was in France for the constitutional convention as well as the ratification process. If you are going to cite Madison then you must acknowledge Hamilton's contribution to the debate between the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist keeping in mind that the views expressed by either was an expression not of the totality of the debate but rather the political consensus that arose.
The author is playing a blame game pointing fingers at the Republicans and excusing the democrats in this issue. His mention of the voters is yet another propaganda garbage piece which now blames voters who replaced the Democrats with being stupid. Chalk it up there with "silly denier", but with more words.
Interesting about Jefferson, when we are using the separation of church and state, all of a sudden he is important and has a say in the governments creation, yet when it doesn't fit well, well... he was some guy in France...
I am aware of the many sides of the debate. The issue was that the government was not powerful enough to deal with the issues of rogue states siding with enemies and working against the rest of the states, but at the same time they all agreed that government should not be too powerful, that it should have just enough control, but not enough to give it too much authority over the states and its individuals there in.
That doesn't conflict with my responses and the points I have made.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
I find it is interesting that on the one hand you cite Federalist 10 where Madison's primary objective was to expound on the danger of actions and partisanship and how the structure of the propose government was designed in no small part to avoid the dangers that factions and partisanship bring to a democracy while dismissing the article which specifically states:
America is increasingly moving toward a parliamentary system in which politicians, rather than voting along regional lines or in pursuit of parochial interests, cast their ballot solely based on whether there is a D or R next to their name. Such a system might work well in the UK, but in the US, with its institutional focus on checks and balances and the many tools available for stopping legislation, a parliamentary-style system is a recipe for inaction.
I'm done. I've got to finish packing
It was a balancing act of what was best. The best interest of the people was being sought and a pure democracy more easily led to the disruption then the republican form. Both were still susceptible to problems, but one was believed to be better resistant to it over time. In the end though, they all said that without the diligence of the people, no free society could exist. The problem is not the position of the people now, but their position and willingness to accept the dictation of their government over the last 100 years as we have setup for this failing long before any recent action. It has been the consistent move to ever encroaching government and its desire to implement concepts that are outside of its authority as well as a lethargic public to which have used their self interest along with the desire of politicians to see to such in order to be reelected to which has brought us to this time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Anyway...
If people would be really honest they would recognize that the article does not judge the value of either Democratic or Republican policy prescriptions it instead quite correctly points out that their is an ideological struggle regarding the role of government (as most post so far have amply demonstrated), it accurately captures the strategies, strengths and weaknesses of both parties, and anyone who denies the schizophrenic behavior of American voters is in total denial, so where the characterization regarding the piece being "propaganda" simply illustrates that folks just don't like a mirror being shown in their face.
I read it, then I read it again just to be sure I didn't let a mood drive me to see things that were not there.
It is a political hack piece promoting democrats and attacking the republicans and those who did not support the democrats. There isn't an honest thought in it. It is for all intense and purpose, a hit piece from a delusional kid who is mad that his party couldn't play king.
I am not interested in discussing with you anymore. You infer what you want, and ignore what is actually implied.
Well there is certainly an argument to be made on this account. Republicans (at least of recent vintage) Scuttle the regulatory process, appoint the Brownies, and Elizabeth Birnbaums of the world and then scream that government doesn't work. You demand a stimulus bill that is too small and too filled with tax reductions and then turn around and scream that it didn't bring about full employment. Duh! You appoint to the head of mine safety an industry stooge and when 27 miners are killed, you jump and down and scream about the failure of government. No shiite (religiously speaking of course).
I have wondered this myself. GOP administrations typically appoint chronies and industry hacks to oversee important agencies, who then breach ethics and contracting laws with abandon, and generally show contempt for the agencies they direct, then claim government is incompetent. It is beyond ridiculous and insulting to the 20% of the work force that works for the federal government.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
