A constitutional amendment requiring a two thirds super majority for any deficit spending would be good start.I admire how you've provided an "out" (in case of totally unforseen emergency circumstances) -- making it possible in extremis, but difficult enough that it can't be done idly. Good show.
The only problem I have with this is that in the case of a super majority being held by one party(which can happen), the steamroller gets dusted off and things can get really ugly(or beautiful, depending).
Another reason we need more than two parties with actual weight?
Can't be done within the limits of the Constitution, sadly.
|
Another reason we need more than two parties with actual weight?Can't be done within the limits of the Constitution, sadly.
Um, I don't know which copy of the Constitution you're reading, but mine doesn't have the "two parties only" clause or amendment. You're barking up the wrong tree if you think the Constitution is what keeps a viable third party from happening. Were that true, the Republicans would have been D.O.A.
The only thing keeping a viable third party from forming is the media and general ignorance by the American voters (and the ignorance is secured by a media which is no longer a watch dog but an active political player).
Um, I don't know which copy of the Constitution you're reading, but mine doesn't have the "two parties only" clause or amendment. You're barking up the wrong tree if you think the Constitution is what keeps a viable third party from happening. Were that true, the Republicans would have been D.O.A.
The only thing keeping a viable third party from forming is the media and general ignorance by the American voters (and the ignorance is secured by a media which is no longer a watch dog but an active political player).
Given that the Constitution doesn't allow for power sharing between two or more smaller parties, but rather a straight representative-vote situation, I remain unconvinced by your hypothesis. Especially because in all of U.S. history we've never had 5 viable parties or whatever (although places like Canada do), but rather only 2 at a time. And I refuse to believe that everyone in the U.S. is orders of magnitude more stupid than everyone in Canada.
The Republican party had no chance until the Whigs imploded over slavery; the Reps then stepped in and filled the gap.
A constitutional amendment requiring a two thirds super majority for any deficit spending would be good start.I admire how you've provided an "out" (in case of totally unforseen emergency circumstances) -- making it possible in extremis, but difficult enough that it can't be done idly. Good show.
I should think we also need some stipulations as to what happens if our elected officials throw a tantrum -- does the whole government shut down, police and fire department personnel get sent home, and anarchy descends? I wouldn't want to give them blackmail potential to force a supermajority ("Vote Yes for emergency spending or all Federal highways will be closed" or the like).
My proposed amendment doesn't address that, but the Gingrich vrs Clinton shut down was immensely unpopular.
I like government shutdowns on principal. They prove that life can go on without the government for a while. Of course the government will try to engage in the highest profile most disrupting shutdown possible to make it seem as bad as possible. Here in Colorado Springs when the voters failed to authorize tax increases the city made a big show of shutting down parks and pools and other high visibility local services to punish the voters.
Life went on.
The city functioned within its budget.
I could accept deficit spending funded by war bonds during a declared war, but I imagine congress could put together a super majority during a declared war. The "declared" distinction is important in my mind to avoid something like Iraq justifying war bonds and voting for the deficit. An illegal or unpopular war would make it harder to get the super majority, so I don't think a separate war clause would be needed.
I'm kind of rambling, sorry.
|
|
Given that the Constitution doesn't allow for power sharing between two or more smaller parties, but rather a straight representative-vote situation, I remain unconvinced by your hypothesis. Especially because in all of U.S. history we've never had 5 viable parties or whatever (although places like Canada do), but rather only 2 at a time. And I refuse to believe that everyone in the U.S. is orders of magnitude more stupid than everyone in Canada.Um, I don't know which copy of the Constitution you're reading, but mine doesn't have the "two parties only" clause or amendment. You're barking up the wrong tree if you think the Constitution is what keeps a viable third party from happening.
The only thing keeping a viable third party from forming is the media and general ignorance by the American voters (and the ignorance is secured by a media which is no longer a watch dog but an active political player).
Last I checked, no Canadian citizen ever voted for a Republican or Democrat. That makes them smarter by default.
Last I checked, no Canadian citizen ever voted for a Republican or Democrat. That makes them smarter by default.
You reckon the Parti Quebecois is better?
|
|
Last I checked, no Canadian citizen ever voted for a Republican or Democrat. That makes them smarter by default.You think the Partie Quebecoise is better?
They aren't real Canadians. They're just a bunch of people to lazy to move back to France after they lost.
So, really, they don't count. The only thing they've ever accomplished is being rude to tourists.
The only thing they've ever accomplished is being rude to tourists.
No Canadian has ever been rude to anyone. It makes them self-destruct. Parisians, on the other hand...
I wouldn't say that the two party system is locked in by the constitution per se, but I think we can agree that the system is rigged by campaign finance and other election laws as well as legislative procedure, the media, and the habits of the voters.
|
|
The only thing they've ever accomplished is being rude to tourists.No Canadian has ever been rude to anyone. It makes them self-destruct. Parisians, on the other hand...
See, you know little of the Qubecois mental state. They seem to think they ARE Parisians.
I've been treated rudely in Quebec. The only place in Canada I've experienced that.
Again, they're not really Canadians.
The only thing they've ever accomplished is being rude to tourists.No Canadian has ever been rude to anyone. It makes them self-destruct. Parisians, on the other hand...
I really hated Paris.
Both times.
A lot!
I keep looking for a way we can fix our problems within the current system...and not finding it. It's really rather depressing.
|
|
I keep looking for a way we can fix our problems within the current system...and not finding it. It's really rather depressing.
Well, the system is broken, and the media is complicit in keeping it that way. I think we need to housebreak the supposed "watch dogs" in our "neutral" media before we can go after the criminals they're protecting from us. Which is even more depressing. The press got protections in the Constitution so they could watch dog with abandon. Now they've all taken sides with the criminals they were supposed to help protect us from.
I keep looking for a way we can fix our problems within the current system...and not finding it. It's really rather depressing.Well, the system is broken, and the media is complicit in keeping it that way. I think we need to housebreak the supposed "watch dogs" in our "neutral" media before we can go after the criminals they're protecting from us. Which is even more depressing. The press got protections in the Constitution so they could watch dog with abandon. Now they've all taken sides with the criminals they were supposed to help protect us from.
I think the market place is seeing to that. I get a chuckle out of watching the left wing old media die a slow death. I am less amused when they claim to be an indispensable service to the public, and they claim that they should be given our tax money.
I keep looking for a way we can fix our problems within the current system...and not finding it. It's really rather depressing.
We are probably doomed.
Even if both sides met in the middle we would blast the left for raising taxes and they would blast the right for touching entitlements.
Even when the other side does something we might agree with in general we blast them for it anyway. When the Democrats cut half a trillion dollars from medicare we hammered them for it in this election cycle.
Unfortunately the system is rigged to favor the stupid and amoral.
We are probably doomed.
I am wondering who you have in mind when you say this.A lot of the very devout protestants at the time of the founding of the U.S. were quite keen on separation of church and state, lest their organization get corrupted the way they reckoned the church in Rome had.
The reason I ask is that most of the bigwigs who founded the U.S. were deists, so I doubt that you can label them "devout Protestants".
EDIT: Also, although I'm sure the Catholic church was on their minds, I think that the history of the Church of England had more to do with the American Revolutionaries insistence on the separation of church and state.
Last I checked, no Canadian citizen ever voted for a Republican or Democrat. That makes them smarter by default.You think the Partie Quebecoise is better?They aren't real Canadians. They're just a bunch of people to lazy to move back to France after they lost.
So, really, they don't count. The only thing they've ever accomplished is being rude to tourists.
See, I'd argue the opposite: that the Quebecois are the original Canadians. Anglophone Canada was pretty much founded by reactionary American Tories fleeing from having their property confiscated and getting tarred and feathered during the American revolution.
EDIT: On second thought, apologies to all Mickmacks, Mohawks, etc., etc., about the "original Canadians" comment. In above quote am only discussing anglophone and francophone Canadians.
|
|
Last I checked, no Canadian citizen ever voted for a Republican or Democrat. That makes them smarter by default.You think the Partie Quebecoise is better?They aren't real Canadians. They're just a bunch of people to lazy to move back to France after they lost.
So, really, they don't count. The only thing they've ever accomplished is being rude to tourists.
See, I'd argue the opposite: that the Quebecois are the original Canadians. Anglophone Canada was pretty much founded by reactionary American Tories fleeing from having their property confiscated and getting tarred and feathered during the American revolution.
EDIT: On second thought, apologies to all Mickmacks, Mohawks, etc., etc., about the "original Canadians" comment. In above quote am only discussing anglophone and francophone Canadians.
As one sporting a quarter Seneca blood, my deep seated distrust of all things Canadian knows no bounds. Damned Hurons. I know my Canadians. Watch them for signs of their congenial politeness turning rabid. Seeing how they eye their hockey sticks, thinking how nice it would be to high stick America in the nads. I'm watching you, Canada, I'm not fooled. I know Shatner and Keanu Reeves are just advanced guards of some invasion force. I'm still trying to figure out how you were allowed to launch Celine Dion and Nickleback at us without breaking several international WMD treaties. Bastards.
Plus, the French called the place New France. So they're not the first Canadians. :P
Last I checked, no Canadian citizen ever voted for a Republican or Democrat. That makes them smarter by default.You think the Partie Quebecoise is better?They aren't real Canadians. They're just a bunch of people to lazy to move back to France after they lost.
So, really, they don't count. The only thing they've ever accomplished is being rude to tourists.
See, I'd argue the opposite: that the Quebecois are the original Canadians. Anglophone Canada was pretty much founded by reactionary American Tories fleeing from having their property confiscated and getting tarred and feathered during the American revolution.
EDIT: On second thought, apologies to all Mickmacks, Mohawks, etc., etc., about the "original Canadians" comment. In above quote am only discussing anglophone and francophone Canadians.
As one sporting a quarter Seneca blood, my deep seated distrust of all things Canadian knows no bounds. Damned Hurons. I know my Canadians. Watch them for signs of their congenial politeness turning rabid. Seeing how they eye their hockey sticks, thinking how nice it would be to high stick America in the nads. I'm watching you, Canada, I'm not fooled. I know Shatner and Keanu Reeves are just advanced guards of some invasion force. I'm still trying to figure out how you were allowed to launch Celine Dion and Nickleback at us without breaking several international WMD treaties. Bastards.
Plus, the French called the place New France. So they're not the first Canadians. :P
....
Yes, he's here. Badmouthing you. Yeah. I'll take care of it. How much canadian bacon am I getting? Alright. You'll have him by the end of the week.
|
|
Last I checked, no Canadian citizen ever voted for a Republican or Democrat. That makes them smarter by default.You think the Partie Quebecoise is better?They aren't real Canadians. They're just a bunch of people to lazy to move back to France after they lost.
So, really, they don't count. The only thing they've ever accomplished is being rude to tourists.
See, I'd argue the opposite: that the Quebecois are the original Canadians. Anglophone Canada was pretty much founded by reactionary American Tories fleeing from having their property confiscated and getting tarred and feathered during the American revolution.
EDIT: On second thought, apologies to all Mickmacks, Mohawks, etc., etc., about the "original Canadians" comment. In above quote am only discussing anglophone and francophone Canadians.
As one sporting a quarter Seneca blood, my deep seated distrust of all things Canadian knows no bounds. Damned Hurons. I know my Canadians. Watch them for signs of their congenial politeness turning rabid. Seeing how they eye their hockey sticks, thinking how nice it would be to high stick America in the nads. I'm watching you, Canada, I'm not fooled. I know Shatner and Keanu Reeves are just advanced guards of some invasion force. I'm still trying to figure out how you were allowed to launch Celine Dion and Nickleback at us without breaking several international WMD treaties. Bastards.
Plus, the French called the place New France. So they're not the first Canadians. :P
....
Yes, he's here. Badmouthing you. Yeah. I'll take care of it. How much canadian bacon am I getting? Alright. You'll have him by the end of the week.
You know Seneca have super hearing. I knew you downstaters were collaborators.
Good god...my post disappeared! They KNOW! THEY KNOW!!!
As one sporting a quarter Seneca blood, my deep seated distrust of all things Canadian knows no bounds.
What? Whatdid we do?!?!? We're just quietly minding our own business up here.
Damned Hurons. I know my Canadians. Watch them for signs of their congenial politeness turning rabid.
You do realize that Canadian "rabid" is American "grumble quietly under your breath"?
Seeing how they eye their hockey sticks, thinking how nice it would be to high stick America in the nads. I'm watching you, Canada, I'm not fooled. I know Shatner and Keanu Reeves are just advanced guards of some invasion force.
Shatner, yes. Reeves? No. He's just one of the ones we let go because we didn't want anything to do with him. How he ended up in the US is your fault not ours.
Lorne Greene, Dan Ackroyd, Donald Sutherland - these were the advance force. Everyone since then has just been shoring up what has now become an already formidable fifth column.
And trust me, we don't want to invade. We just want to take over your entertainment industry...
I'm still trying to figure out how you were allowed to launch Celine Dion and Nickleback at us without breaking several international WMD treaties. Bastards.
See "Keanu" above. And you can add Bryan Adams to that list. But he keeps coming back for some reason.
Plus, the French called the place New France. So they're not the first Canadians. :P
I live in Quebec. The last thing the Quebecois would call themselves is "Canadians" - first or last.
Greg
I could easily make a similar post about "conservatives,"
I'm sorry, what's your point??
What is gained by pointing fingers at the other guy? I mean, yes, you can say the same things about conservatives and liberals. Would you rather spend your time trying to deflect attention to the other guy or to clean your own house?
-This- IS politics.
Fixed.
|
|
Fixed.
I could easily make a similar post about "conservatives,"
I'm sorry, what's your point??
What is gained by pointing fingers at the other guy? I mean, yes, you can say the same things about conservatives and liberals. Would you rather spend your time trying to deflect attention to the other guy or to clean your own house?
-This-! IS! politics! *chestkick*
Fixed the fix
I'm sorry, what's your point??
What is gained by pointing fingers at the other guy? I mean, yes, you can say the same things about conservatives and liberals. Would you rather spend your time trying to deflect attention to the other guy or to clean your own house?
-This- is why I hate politics.
You point fingers:
Like I said before, liberals want to be seen as the noble patronizingly passing out bread crumbs to the starving masses. Liberals don't want to get the starving masses to provide their own food - elsewise, they'd lose all the sycophants they've got
...and then chastize me when I refuse to do the same?
I could easily make a similar post about "conservatives," but I think I'll pass...
And yet you manage the temerity to ask me the point? You have the disingenuity to say that this is why you hate politics?
The reason I ask is that most of the bigwigs who founded the U.S. were deists, so I doubt that you can label them "devout Protestants".
1. I specifically meant church leaders, not politicos.
2. Even considering the latter for a moment, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, and (maybe) Washington, and (Unitarian-leaning) John Adamas can hardly be termed "most." (I leave out Deist pamphleteers Thomas Paine and Ethan Allen because of their relative lack of direct influence in national politics). It's a tribute to Jefferson's and Madison's powers of reasoning and diplomacy that they were able to manage to ratify a secular document like the Constitution, given the attitudes of some of the other Founders:
Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers. It is to be regretted, but so I believe the fact to be, that except the Bible there is not a true history in the world. Whatever may be the virtue, discernment, and industry of the writers, I am persuaded that truth and error (though in different degrees) will imperceptibly become and remain mixed and blended until they shall be separated forever by the great and last refining fire.
--Letter to Jedidiah Morse, 28 February 1797.
Amongst other strange things said of me, I hear it is said by the deists that I am one of the number; and indeed, that some good people think I am no Christian. This thought gives me much more pain than the appellation of Tory; because I think religion of infinitely higher importance than politics; and I find much cause to reproach myself that I have lived so long, and have given no decided and public proofs of my being a Christian. But, indeed, my dear child, this is a character which I prize far above all this world has, or can boast.
--Letter to daughter Betsy, 20 August 1796.
The reason I ask is that most of the bigwigs who founded the U.S. were deists, so I doubt that you can label them "devout Protestants".1. I specifically meant church leaders, not politicos.
2. Even considering the latter for a moment, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, and (maybe) Washington, and (Unitarian-leaning) John Adamas can hardly be termed "most." (I leave out Deist pamphleteers Thomas Paine and Ethan Allen because of their relative lack of direct influence in national politics). It's a tribute to Jefferson's and Madison's powers of reasoning and diplomacy that they were able to manage to ratify a secular document like the Constitution, given the attitudes of some of the other Founders:
Well substantiated, sir. (Sound of applause)
Well substantiated, sir.
Separation of church and state is an area in which I take a considerable amateur interest.
Separation of church and state is an area in which I take a considerable amateur interest.
I ran over to wikipedia ('cos I'm too lazy to run to my bookshelf) and the article on deism suggests that there were more bigwig deists than the ones you mention, but I'll bow to your powers of substantiation.
The only thing they've ever accomplished is being rude to tourists.No Canadian has ever been rude to anyone. It makes them self-destruct. Parisians, on the other hand...I really hated Paris.
Both times.
A lot!
Never made it to paris but my month in cannes,nice and toulon was a wonderful time. I would suggest the french rivera to anyone that can go. The only reason I got to go was it was a port on our deployments and we were the host ship for the USO gala.
Never made it to paris but my month in cannes,nice and toulon was a wonderful time. I would suggest the french rivera to anyone that can go. The only reason I got to go was it was a port on our deployments and we were the host ship for the USO gala.The only thing they've ever accomplished is being rude to tourists.No Canadian has ever been rude to anyone. It makes them self-destruct. Parisians, on the other hand...I really hated Paris.
Both times.
A lot!
Cool. I'm sure it's not fair to judge France by my experiences in Paris, but it made such a dreadful impression that it's hard to get past it.
I ran over to wikipedia ('cos I'm too lazy to run to my bookshelf) and the article on deism suggests that there were more bigwig deists than the ones you mention, but I'll bow to your powers of substantiation.
The main thing is not how many they were, but rather how directly their views led to a better political document -- because facts are not predicated on majority opinion, and one good idea can convince any number of people who initially might disagree.
Madison put it most succinctly:
And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.
--Letter to Edward Livingston, 10 July 1822.
The reasoning behind the usefulness of the separation of church and state is nicely laid out in Jefferson's letter to the Virginia Baptists (who, fearing persecution by other sects
as did their confederates in Danbury, were only too happy to agree):
Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.
--Letter to the Virginia Baptists, 1808.
Fixed the fixFixed.
I could easily make a similar post about "conservatives,"
I'm sorry, what's your point??
What is gained by pointing fingers at the other guy? I mean, yes, you can say the same things about conservatives and liberals. Would you rather spend your time trying to deflect attention to the other guy or to clean your own house?
-This-! IS! politics! *chestkick*
ROTFL!!!!
Cool. I'm sure it's not fair to judge France by my experiences in Paris, but it made such a dreadful impression that it's hard to get past it.
Do you mind sharing what was so terrible? I've never been to Paris (or outside of North America, for that matter).
Cool. I'm sure it's not fair to judge France by my experiences in Paris, but it made such a dreadful impression that it's hard to get past it.Do you mind sharing what was so terrible? I've never been to Paris (or outside of North America, for that matter).
The city smelled like a urinal. The folks I interacted with were rude or at best indifferent. The food was mediocre at best, and I got food poisoning both times I went to Paris two or three years apart. I would rather drink the water in Mexico than eat in Paris. This was all in the early '80's, so maybe it sucks less now, but I hated everything about both visits with the exception of the museums.
The canals in Venice were dirty. The first thing I saw when I got off the bus in Venice was trash floating down the canals which included dirty diapers and a used condom, but Venice overcame this dreadful first impression with it's great food and friendly people.
In the early '80s, both Paris and Venice were paragons of cleanliness and polite citizenry compared to NYC -- so that 99% of European tourists got an even worse impression of the U.S. than you did of France. If you wanted to compare apples to apples, you'd look at comparable cities/villages: Paris vs. New York, Denver vs. maybe Tours, and some podunk mountain town in Colorado to maybe a little village in the Pays d'Oc.
I've never been to Paris (or outside of North America, for that matter).
You NEED to get out more often! -- regardless of the cost (it took me 10 years to save enough for my recent travels in Eastern Europe, from which I learned more about freedom than I thought there was to absorb). I firmly believe that no one can be a responsible world citizen without any firsthand knowledge of the rest of the world.
In the early '80s, both Paris and Venice were paragons of cleanliness and polite citizenry compared to NYC -- so that 99% of European tourists got an even worse impression of the U.S. than you did of France. If you wanted to compare apples to apples, you'd look at comparable cities/villages: Paris vs. New York, Denver vs. maybe Tours, and some podunk mountain town in Colorado to maybe a little village in the Pays d'Oc.
Granted. I'm not partial to large urban areas to begin with, and it was more than 20 years ago, so obviously my experience should be taken in that context.
In the early '80s, both Paris and Venice were paragons of cleanliness and polite citizenry compared to NYC -- so that 99% of European tourists got an even worse impression of the U.S. than you did of France. If you wanted to compare apples to apples, you'd look at comparable cities/villages: Paris vs. New York, Denver vs. maybe Tours, and some podunk mountain town in Colorado to maybe a little village in the Pays d'Oc.
Hey, man, I call it like I see it. From roughly 1972 to 1994 (with a brief hiatus spent in Baltimore), it was a quick Amtrack ride for me to go into NYC. I'm sorry, but the place was a pit -- even compared to some of the places I've lived (Ian Fleming famously described in The Spy Who Loved Me: "And Troy's a bad town -- sort of a gangster suburb to Albany").
In 1987 I got to see Frankfurt and Munich, and I'd never imagined that cities could be so clean, safe, modern, and friendly. (BTW, a recent stopover in Frankfurt reminded me that all things change: the airport there is now, if anything, a lot worse than Newark International.)
Granted. I'm not partial to large urban areas to begin with, and it was more than 20 years ago, so obviously my experience should be taken in that context.
Paris in the summer of 1998 was beautiful and didn't smell like a urinal at all. (Though I did see an amusing sign on some doors that apparently led to some kind of power substation at Versailles: Danger! Ne Urine Pas Sur La Porte.)
The people were decently polite, though I suppose it would be hard to match the outrageous fawning that is typical in many American tourist spots. That's fine by me, though.
But my experience came with a decent command of French and a general refusal to use English with the Parisians.
But my experience came with a decent command of French and a general refusal to use English with the Parisians.
I've learned that a decent pronounciation of the local words for "Hello," "Thanks," and "No" makes all the difference between an excellent experience and a tourism nightmare, almost anywhere you go.
But my experience came with a decent command of French and a general refusal to use English with the Parisians.I've learned that a decent pronounciation of the local words for "Hello," "Thanks," and "No" makes all the difference between an excellent experience and a tourism nightmare, almost anywhere you go.
I was pleasantly surprised by my last tip to Paris. Even though it was the end of the tourist season everyone we dealt with was polite, even the the supposedly surly waiters! Having a smattering of French helped. Though I think the main factor was we had our incredibly cute 12 month old daughter with us. Outside Paris was even better. I'd happily go back and travel anywhere in France.
I've never been to Paris (or outside of North America, for that matter).You NEED to get out more often! -- regardless of the cost (it took me 10 years to save enough for my recent travels in Eastern Europe, from which I learned more about freedom than I thought there was to absorb). I firmly believe that no one can be a responsible world citizen without any firsthand knowledge of the rest of the world.
Believe me; I'd like to! It just isn't in the cards, at least for this year. Alas, I will remain an irresponsible world citizen for the time being. ;-)
*attempts to kickstart thread*
So...Pelosi as minority leader. Discuss. :)