Yeah, gee, thanks for comparing my desire for people to actually be educated about what they're voting about to the idiot procedures of the anti-civil-rights people in the 1960s. What I'm talking about isn't the same, mostly because then there were plenty of African-Americans who actually knew who and what they were trying to vote for, instead of the current political demogoguery we are seeing today that preys upon the ignorance of both sides.
No, this would be different as I see it. You would actually have to know and answer questions about how the government works, who is President, VP, Senators, that sort of thing, and who is running.
Are you paying attention to what has happened in "gun-free zones" and in cities with more restrictions on gun control in the US? Crime is higher than in cities and areas with gun control, as a general rule.
You also further restrict the freedom of the law-abiding, and put them at the mercy of criminals. A majority - a VAST majority, of gun owners in the USA are NOT criminals and will likely never commit a crime. Why take away their right to own a gun? What harm will it bring to you?
Another point - conceal-carry owners typically have better criminal records than the police. They DON'T commit crimes. Criminals don't commit crimes when they believe their life is on the line.
We don't live in Europe. We live in the USA. We need to err on the side of freedom, which may mean something people don't like - gun ownership.
Actually, that's probably the best way to do it, is have the electoral college be proportional to within its own state. I've never been a fan of the straight popular vote for President - it really takes away from the rural states and some of their voice in government, and places without major population center needs to have its voice heard. Yeah, it may mean their vote "counts more," but direct democracy, particularly when dealing with such a large population who is getting more and more uneducated about politics, and who is apt to fall for some of the semi-demogoguery from both sides (Obama's campaign to the masses was woefully short on substance, and about all anyone on the street was able to say was "change.")
Frankly, what I would like to see, and what has even LESS chance to get set in than getting rid of the electoral college, is a test that must be taken when one votes that has basic principles of civics.
How old are you? I've heard some not-so-great stories about elderly not being able to get care, as well as issues with those with prostate problems (for which every male over 40 needs a yearly checkup, and if something develops it's about a quarterly exam). You still may have rationed-care issues, particularly if you're elderly or have a serious condition.
Ummm...I'm not directly calling him a liar, but I AM pointing out that he is not picking people who represent his basic message of "change." I kept hearing how experience wasn't what people were looking for, and I honestly think that for him to hold to his message, he needs people to come into Washington with little or no experience in the Washington machine to do government differently. He hasn't done that.
Keep in mind, I didn't vote for him and didn't really have a candidate through the whole process that I liked. I REALLY wanted a conservative version of Obama - outsider, young, energetic, smart - instead of another old white guy who had been around a little too long.
Exchanging one set of Washington insiders for another isn't "change." As I said in another response, the only change that would really affect DC would be throwing all the bums out.
I admit to that much, but my example of Reagan was more toward the attitude he directly took towards DC and he actually did "break" a few rules to get some things done. I don't see Obama taking that angle. Reagan was also an "outsider" to Washington.
Daschle? Not old-style? He was one of the more ineffective pols in recent memory.
I'm more being outside critical of Obama right now and trying to hold him of his promises of "change," whatever THAT meant. I voted McCain, but never really had a horse in the race (a non-Mormon, non-yankee version of Mitt Romney would have been nice).
You also apparently missed much of the Reagan era, which had some RADICAL governmental changes away from the remnants of the New Deal that occurred fairly quickly from a President who had little Washington experience in "getting things done." What DC NEEDS is a group of people who have no beaureaucratic experience and are willing to "break" the system rather than go along to get something accomplished (Teddy Roosevelt rings a bell here). Forceful, enigmatic personalities not willing to put up with Washington garbage CAN enact change there. It really has happened before, but hardly anyone is really willing to try it.
Maybe, but is placing old Washington insiders inside your administration really "change?" I agree with you on the first principle, but I don't think that Obama has gone far enough to fulfill his promise of "change." It started with Joe Biden, and Chu is really the first outsider that he seems to have brought in. There are plenty of competent people outside of DC, and we really need those whose experiences are outside of the Washington context to do some good.
No, I want real change. I don't want the same old politicians from the Clinton era pulling their same old garbage. I want new, fresh faces in Washington that have a vested interest in really changing how government works. I don't see people who are going to change the tax system, social security, beauracracy, entitlements, and other issues as radically as they need changing. I don't think that the people that Obama is bringing in are going to accomplish. Competent people for government can be found outside of Washington insiders, who we DON'T need more of.
You are also too quick to judge the high approval ratings for Obama's transition. The country is so dissatisfied with the Bush administration that ANYTHING slightly different would look better. Come back in two years and see if there really has been any "change" in Washington.
Not from Clinton's. As I said in another response to this post, real change would have been bringing in people with little to no experience in Washington politics. All that he's been doing is bringing in the same old dems, outside of the defense secretary which was even LESS change than before.
I get what you're saying, but I think that the parent was almost doing the opposite - thinking that everything that has been going on in American is bad and simply because Europe is doing something differently, than it must be better (it's the common misconception of the whole health care thing, that the ONLY alternative is somehow a form of socialized medicine and not seeing that there's no real free-market health care system right now in America). It's also the overrating of what the Patriot Act actually did and who it really affected and why and how certain aspects of it are needed.
"Change" I thought wasn't going to be the old-style politics of the left during the Clinton era. Real, complete change would have been bringing in people with little to no experience in Washington politics. All I see are the same old Democrats.
Find out if there's a real "cajun" in the kitchen. Never trust one outside of Louisiana.
Cajuns were kicked out of both places, and had to adapt with what they had. They took a bunch of mess and made it good eating. I consider them/me the lucky ones who got out.
If you want to find an enviro-nut, check out anti-nukies who spew pretty much "Chernobyl" as their mantra and completely ignore modern advances in nuclear technology.
If you want to find an "enviro nut" go look at the rabid anti-nukies who consistently have the mantra of "Chernobyl" and maybe "Three Mile Island," practically ancient accidents with no real modern relevance with today's nuclear technology.
You're overrating Europe and underrating America. Simply by typing what you did without repercussions you have more freedom than in some Western European states; simply by being able to go to the doctor tomorrow for an ill (even though it may be more expensive) you have an advantage in healthcare, and simply by being in a country that has Louisianians your cooking is better.
Wait, what? Most of Obama's appointments are Clinton retreads or Chicagoland pols. Chu is one of the first appointments that more or less goes with the whole "change" mantra.
Actually teach kids about business and how to balance their checkbooks and that credit cards =! income. Make business math a requirement in high school, not something you relegate the dumb kids to who cannot do calculus and need a credit. If we want our kids to learn how to compete in the 21st century economy, we have to teach them on what "compete" and "economy" mean.
Wrong on the last one. Mass transit consolidates population, it doesn't spread it out. Not that I'm totally against the suggestion, mind you, good trains are a GREAT thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, gee, thanks for comparing my desire for people to actually be educated about what they're voting about to the idiot procedures of the anti-civil-rights people in the 1960s. What I'm talking about isn't the same, mostly because then there were plenty of African-Americans who actually knew who and what they were trying to vote for, instead of the current political demogoguery we are seeing today that preys upon the ignorance of both sides.
No, this would be different as I see it. You would actually have to know and answer questions about how the government works, who is President, VP, Senators, that sort of thing, and who is running.
Are you paying attention to what has happened in "gun-free zones" and in cities with more restrictions on gun control in the US? Crime is higher than in cities and areas with gun control, as a general rule.
You also further restrict the freedom of the law-abiding, and put them at the mercy of criminals. A majority - a VAST majority, of gun owners in the USA are NOT criminals and will likely never commit a crime. Why take away their right to own a gun? What harm will it bring to you?
Another point - conceal-carry owners typically have better criminal records than the police. They DON'T commit crimes. Criminals don't commit crimes when they believe their life is on the line.
We don't live in Europe. We live in the USA. We need to err on the side of freedom, which may mean something people don't like - gun ownership.
Maybe, but it was never against the will of the states. Clinton wasn't elected with the will of the people, either - he never got 50%+1.
Actually, that's probably the best way to do it, is have the electoral college be proportional to within its own state. I've never been a fan of the straight popular vote for President - it really takes away from the rural states and some of their voice in government, and places without major population center needs to have its voice heard. Yeah, it may mean their vote "counts more," but direct democracy, particularly when dealing with such a large population who is getting more and more uneducated about politics, and who is apt to fall for some of the semi-demogoguery from both sides (Obama's campaign to the masses was woefully short on substance, and about all anyone on the street was able to say was "change.")
Frankly, what I would like to see, and what has even LESS chance to get set in than getting rid of the electoral college, is a test that must be taken when one votes that has basic principles of civics.
"Rock Nerd"
What is your definition of "civil liberties," and to what levels do you believe they need to be protected? What defines protection?
How old are you? I've heard some not-so-great stories about elderly not being able to get care, as well as issues with those with prostate problems (for which every male over 40 needs a yearly checkup, and if something develops it's about a quarterly exam). You still may have rationed-care issues, particularly if you're elderly or have a serious condition.
Ummm...I'm not directly calling him a liar, but I AM pointing out that he is not picking people who represent his basic message of "change." I kept hearing how experience wasn't what people were looking for, and I honestly think that for him to hold to his message, he needs people to come into Washington with little or no experience in the Washington machine to do government differently. He hasn't done that.
Keep in mind, I didn't vote for him and didn't really have a candidate through the whole process that I liked. I REALLY wanted a conservative version of Obama - outsider, young, energetic, smart - instead of another old white guy who had been around a little too long.
Exchanging one set of Washington insiders for another isn't "change." As I said in another response, the only change that would really affect DC would be throwing all the bums out.
No, not really. It's changing one set of Washington insiders for another. Real change would be throwing all the bums out.
I admit to that much, but my example of Reagan was more toward the attitude he directly took towards DC and he actually did "break" a few rules to get some things done. I don't see Obama taking that angle. Reagan was also an "outsider" to Washington.
Daschle? Not old-style? He was one of the more ineffective pols in recent memory.
I'm more being outside critical of Obama right now and trying to hold him of his promises of "change," whatever THAT meant. I voted McCain, but never really had a horse in the race (a non-Mormon, non-yankee version of Mitt Romney would have been nice).
You also apparently missed much of the Reagan era, which had some RADICAL governmental changes away from the remnants of the New Deal that occurred fairly quickly from a President who had little Washington experience in "getting things done." What DC NEEDS is a group of people who have no beaureaucratic experience and are willing to "break" the system rather than go along to get something accomplished (Teddy Roosevelt rings a bell here). Forceful, enigmatic personalities not willing to put up with Washington garbage CAN enact change there. It really has happened before, but hardly anyone is really willing to try it.
Maybe, but is placing old Washington insiders inside your administration really "change?" I agree with you on the first principle, but I don't think that Obama has gone far enough to fulfill his promise of "change." It started with Joe Biden, and Chu is really the first outsider that he seems to have brought in. There are plenty of competent people outside of DC, and we really need those whose experiences are outside of the Washington context to do some good.
No, I want real change. I don't want the same old politicians from the Clinton era pulling their same old garbage. I want new, fresh faces in Washington that have a vested interest in really changing how government works. I don't see people who are going to change the tax system, social security, beauracracy, entitlements, and other issues as radically as they need changing. I don't think that the people that Obama is bringing in are going to accomplish. Competent people for government can be found outside of Washington insiders, who we DON'T need more of.
You are also too quick to judge the high approval ratings for Obama's transition. The country is so dissatisfied with the Bush administration that ANYTHING slightly different would look better. Come back in two years and see if there really has been any "change" in Washington.
Not from Clinton's. As I said in another response to this post, real change would have been bringing in people with little to no experience in Washington politics. All that he's been doing is bringing in the same old dems, outside of the defense secretary which was even LESS change than before.
I get what you're saying, but I think that the parent was almost doing the opposite - thinking that everything that has been going on in American is bad and simply because Europe is doing something differently, than it must be better (it's the common misconception of the whole health care thing, that the ONLY alternative is somehow a form of socialized medicine and not seeing that there's no real free-market health care system right now in America). It's also the overrating of what the Patriot Act actually did and who it really affected and why and how certain aspects of it are needed.
"Change" I thought wasn't going to be the old-style politics of the left during the Clinton era. Real, complete change would have been bringing in people with little to no experience in Washington politics. All I see are the same old Democrats.
Find out if there's a real "cajun" in the kitchen. Never trust one outside of Louisiana.
Cajuns were kicked out of both places, and had to adapt with what they had. They took a bunch of mess and made it good eating. I consider them/me the lucky ones who got out.
If you want to find an enviro-nut, check out anti-nukies who spew pretty much "Chernobyl" as their mantra and completely ignore modern advances in nuclear technology.
If you want to find an "enviro nut" go look at the rabid anti-nukies who consistently have the mantra of "Chernobyl" and maybe "Three Mile Island," practically ancient accidents with no real modern relevance with today's nuclear technology.
You're overrating Europe and underrating America. Simply by typing what you did without repercussions you have more freedom than in some Western European states; simply by being able to go to the doctor tomorrow for an ill (even though it may be more expensive) you have an advantage in healthcare, and simply by being in a country that has Louisianians your cooking is better.
Wait, what? Most of Obama's appointments are Clinton retreads or Chicagoland pols. Chu is one of the first appointments that more or less goes with the whole "change" mantra.
Actually teach kids about business and how to balance their checkbooks and that credit cards =! income. Make business math a requirement in high school, not something you relegate the dumb kids to who cannot do calculus and need a credit. If we want our kids to learn how to compete in the 21st century economy, we have to teach them on what "compete" and "economy" mean.
Wrong on the last one. Mass transit consolidates population, it doesn't spread it out. Not that I'm totally against the suggestion, mind you, good trains are a GREAT thing.