All the people at my company who were important and doing work in 1996 were there in 2000 and still there in 2004. People who have real skills are in great demand, especially now.
People without skills are only in demand when they're trying to get investors and want to say they have 100 "Certified" engineers.
I agree. Term limits are only good if you've someone you don't like in office. But if he's popular, he'll just be replaced by someone similar, unless you can pull a Gore and completely screw your campain. (I'm refering to Gore losing Tennessee because he talked too much about gun control).
Without term limits you get guys who really do their job well and work hard - with them you get someone who's looking to help some corporation so that they can get a nice paid "consulting fee" after leaving office.
> - Cut Social Security and Medicare benefits by 45%
Do you realize how old most people who vote are? Doing this would automatically prevent reelection of everyone who votes for it.
See what term limits could do? Imagine a Senate and House were 60% are out from term limits anyway, with a lame duck president (which we'll have if/when Bush gets reelected): then it could be done. Of course, people would run saying they were going to reverse it.
I personally thing that Social Security is a last resort - and so should be the absolute minimum. It would cost about $300 a person to build large flophouses and food kitchens.
Muhahahaha! All other currencies will run in fear as we loose our repressed faith in our currency, causing it to loose value upon an unsuspecting world!
You bastard! Copying copyrighted works into Slashdot! Have you no shame! Look it says:
Copyright 2004 Richard Stallman.
Fool.
Hmmm.... wait..... Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted worldwide without royalty in any medium provided this notice is preserved.
Uh, hmm..... er.... cannot comprehend this use of copyright...
"But if term limits are one term, then the endorsement of the party will become the defining factor."
I can agree with you, in some cases, namely small local elections. I think that in those cases you have a chance of actually knowing the candidate, and talking to them.
Here's a question: Who depended more on their party: Arnold or Kerry?
How many people were going to vote Democrat no matter who was nominated?
Though it might make 527s like the Swifties more important....
How difficult would it be to change the payload from drugs to explosives?
Well, considering that terrorists have stated they want to hurt the U.S., and that they are active in other countries (Russia, Australian embassies, etc), but haven't done anything in the U.S. in the last 3 years means either:
1. They can't get the equipment (bombs) to the places they need them. 2. They don't want to attack the U.S., perhaps because the U.S. didn't react to Sept 11 in the way they planned. Were we supposed to be more like Spain?
And in all honesty, there is something that can be done about terrorism, and everyone will have to admit that if we nuked the entire world then there would be no terrorism anymore. Because everybody would be dead.
We're darn close with term limits of two terms on President and many other officials (the Governator?).
And the parties continue to thrive. Remember - most people don't think a damn about politics; they vote for the candidate from the party they support.
So if there were term limits, party affiliation would become even more important. For example; you know things about Bush because he is POTUS. We know things about Kerry because he's a Senator.
But if term limits are one term, then the endorsement of the party will become the defining factor. As it is currently, you can find people who are elected time and time again to their position but actually begin to change what they think about things, and their constituents continue to vote for them because they trust them.
Also, politicians who have a chance of being reelected will keep an eye on the will of the people; single term limits would turn every single term into a lame duck term. Assuming you're anti-Bush, do you think he would have acted differently if he knew there was no way for him to be re-elected? Perhaps not, if he valued his party.
Then again, remember that I think one of the worst things that happened to the US was direct election of Senators. We should do our best to keep a Republic to prevent tyranny of the majority.
My personal take on it: the House of Representatives should be doubled or more. That way there is a much larger chance that third or fourth party candidates can get in. That's where the revolution will start.
However, if the Democrats manage to seize defeat from the jaws of victory in this election (they have everything you could ask for in an opponent: hated, deficit, etc, and are neck and neck.) , then you may be seeing the beginning of the death of the Democratic party as it is currently known. The Federalist party died in a similar manner (if I remember correctly). And many have commented that the Republicans are moving left in some things: who enacted Medicare prescription benefits: Bush or Clinton?
Now as to other commentary: A vote for a third party candidate can only be considered throwing away your vote if you're voting against a candidate. For example, a vote for Nader can only be considered throwing away your vote if you are voting against Bush.
And voting for a third party candidate is much better than not voting at all: the third party vote announces to the world that there are issues that are important to you that the main candidates do not discuss. Not voting announces to the world that you are watching American Idol or something else. Any number of things can cause someone not to vote, but definite agreement with the candidate causes someone to vote third party.
My personal favoured modification would be: you can't be re-elected. You can be elected once each as a school inspector, state senator, congressman, senator, president, whatever - but only once.
The biggest problem with this is that then the power begins to rest in the unelected officials; party members, aides, etc.
They begin to "advise" these new politicians. Term limits are only good if you don't like the people being elected.
Don't forget that it semi-automatic AK-47s are still easy (and cheap!) to get.
And the only thing that fully automatic is good for is either display of banging noises, or laying down covering fire for an trench attack.
Or really, really, really hunting Bambi hardcore style.
Re:One, two, three, four, I declare a flame-war!
on
Assault Weapons Ban
·
· Score: 1
Secondly, it keeps the government in check by allowing the people the means to hold a revolution if necessary. England regularly rounded up swords in Scotland to keep it under its control (way back when, of course).
Did you know they also rounded up bagpipes? Bagpipes were a weapon of war.
This is true, but they haven't promoted it either.
A Republican campain manager once said (don't have the reference) that they can't win the pro-life fight because then they'd lose the pro-life voters. As it is, you basically have to vote Republican if you're pro-life, because they at least don't increase abortion.
They do. And if the Republican party became pro-abortion and anti-gun, then I wouldn't be a Republican anymore.
And there are millions like me, so some say the Republicans are pro-life and pro-gun because if they weren't, they would have no chance of winning anything.
And that is the only major policy difference between Democrats and Republicans that I can find anymore.
Now in smaller elections, such as local representatives, you have more choices and can find someone who agrees with you on more that a few issues. But in the big ones, you pick one or two issues and run with them, not much else you can do.
I think we should double the number of representatives in Congress so that there is a greater chance that more 3rd party people can get in.
Oh, sheesh. I can't believe you don't understand that Pappy Bush scared that little plane so much that it was afraid to even think of crashing. That's how powerful those Bushies are.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I hear CBS is looking for a few typesetters..... :)
Preach it, brother!
All the people at my company who were important and doing work in 1996 were there in 2000 and still there in 2004. People who have real skills are in great demand, especially now.
People without skills are only in demand when they're trying to get investors and want to say they have 100 "Certified" engineers.
I agree. Term limits are only good if you've someone you don't like in office. But if he's popular, he'll just be replaced by someone similar, unless you can pull a Gore and completely screw your campain. (I'm refering to Gore losing Tennessee because he talked too much about gun control).
Without term limits you get guys who really do their job well and work hard - with them you get someone who's looking to help some corporation so that they can get a nice paid "consulting fee" after leaving office.
See what term limits could do? Imagine a Senate and House were 60% are out from term limits anyway, with a lame duck president (which we'll have if/when Bush gets reelected): then it could be done. Of course, people would run saying they were going to reverse it.
I personally thing that Social Security is a last resort - and so should be the absolute minimum. It would cost about $300 a person to build large flophouses and food kitchens.
Medicare is the real killer.
and then loose value as people loose faith in it.
Muhahahaha! All other currencies will run in fear as we loose our repressed faith in our currency, causing it to loose value upon an unsuspecting world!
Now we know the secret plan!
Bush's records for 4.5~5 years of service total over 300 pages. Are there 300 pages of documents on that site? Why haven't all of them been released?
Why hasn't Kerry signed form 180 if everything is already released?
But Pom Pom would......
You bastard! Copying copyrighted works into Slashdot! Have you no shame! Look it says:
Copyright 2004 Richard Stallman.
Fool.
Hmmm.... wait..... Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted worldwide without royalty in any medium provided this notice is preserved.
Uh, hmm..... er.... cannot comprehend this use of copyright...
[corporate head explodes]
"But if term limits are one term, then the endorsement of the party will become the defining factor."
I can agree with you, in some cases, namely small local elections. I think that in those cases you have a chance of actually knowing the candidate, and talking to them.
Here's a question: Who depended more on their party: Arnold or Kerry?
How many people were going to vote Democrat no matter who was nominated?
Though it might make 527s like the Swifties more important....
No, but OpenOffice.org better add one if it wants to be competitive.
How difficult would it be to change the payload from drugs to explosives?
Well, considering that terrorists have stated they want to hurt the U.S., and that they are active in other countries (Russia, Australian embassies, etc), but haven't done anything in the U.S. in the last 3 years means either:
1. They can't get the equipment (bombs) to the places they need them.
2. They don't want to attack the U.S., perhaps because the U.S. didn't react to Sept 11 in the way they planned. Were we supposed to be more like Spain?
And in all honesty, there is something that can be done about terrorism, and everyone will have to admit that if we nuked the entire world then there would be no terrorism anymore. Because everybody would be dead.
You know what? It's available! kids.us is a domain area that only allows "kid safe" web pages.
Czech it out!
We're darn close with term limits of two terms on President and many other officials (the Governator?).
:)
And the parties continue to thrive. Remember - most people don't think a damn about politics; they vote for the candidate from the party they support.
So if there were term limits, party affiliation would become even more important. For example; you know things about Bush because he is POTUS. We know things about Kerry because he's a Senator.
But if term limits are one term, then the endorsement of the party will become the defining factor. As it is currently, you can find people who are elected time and time again to their position but actually begin to change what they think about things, and their constituents continue to vote for them because they trust them.
Also, politicians who have a chance of being reelected will keep an eye on the will of the people; single term limits would turn every single term into a lame duck term. Assuming you're anti-Bush, do you think he would have acted differently if he knew there was no way for him to be re-elected? Perhaps not, if he valued his party.
Then again, remember that I think one of the worst things that happened to the US was direct election of Senators. We should do our best to keep a Republic to prevent tyranny of the majority.
My personal take on it: the House of Representatives should be doubled or more. That way there is a much larger chance that third or fourth party candidates can get in. That's where the revolution will start.
However, if the Democrats manage to seize defeat from the jaws of victory in this election (they have everything you could ask for in an opponent: hated, deficit, etc, and are neck and neck.) , then you may be seeing the beginning of the death of the Democratic party as it is currently known. The Federalist party died in a similar manner (if I remember correctly). And many have commented that the Republicans are moving left in some things: who enacted Medicare prescription benefits: Bush or Clinton?
Now as to other commentary: A vote for a third party candidate can only be considered throwing away your vote if you're voting against a candidate. For example, a vote for Nader can only be considered throwing away your vote if you are voting against Bush.
And voting for a third party candidate is much better than not voting at all: the third party vote announces to the world that there are issues that are important to you that the main candidates do not discuss. Not voting announces to the world that you are watching American Idol or something else. Any number of things can cause someone not to vote, but definite agreement with the candidate causes someone to vote third party.
Wow! Long post.
The biggest problem with this is that then the power begins to rest in the unelected officials; party members, aides, etc.
They begin to "advise" these new politicians. Term limits are only good if you don't like the people being elected.
Oh, I agree. In fact, I see no problem with automatic weapons everywhere.
:)
I just think the Clinton Gun Ban is a worthless piece of trash.
I am NRA.
Don't forget that it semi-automatic AK-47s are still easy (and cheap!) to get.
And the only thing that fully automatic is good for is either display of banging noises, or laying down covering fire for an trench attack.
Or really, really, really hunting Bambi hardcore style.
Did you know they also rounded up bagpipes? Bagpipes were a weapon of war.
You may also be interested in reading Fides et Ratio by Pope John Paul II.
A worthwhile read.
Whew! At least we won't have to worry about seeing you on this list.
And how can you discuss it if you think anyone religious is a creationalist?
And not even all creationlists (those who believe God created the world) think it is 5,000 years old.
This is true, but they haven't promoted it either.
A Republican campain manager once said (don't have the reference) that they can't win the pro-life fight because then they'd lose the pro-life voters. As it is, you basically have to vote Republican if you're pro-life, because they at least don't increase abortion.
And for everything GWB didn't do, he did cut $50 million in funding to UNFPA. See UNFPA, Condemned by Bush Administration, Loses Additional $50 Million in U.S. International Family Planning Funds for details. (I love getting facts from the "other side.....")
And don't even start talking gun control......
They do. And if the Republican party became pro-abortion and anti-gun, then I wouldn't be a Republican anymore.
And there are millions like me, so some say the Republicans are pro-life and pro-gun because if they weren't, they would have no chance of winning anything.
And that is the only major policy difference between Democrats and Republicans that I can find anymore.
Now in smaller elections, such as local representatives, you have more choices and can find someone who agrees with you on more that a few issues. But in the big ones, you pick one or two issues and run with them, not much else you can do.
I think we should double the number of representatives in Congress so that there is a greater chance that more 3rd party people can get in.
Heh. California's disasters are just not announced as early.
Though my company sent us home during the fires, but the fire department would have done it anyway.
Work during the Earthquake!
By my calculation, he could have turned himself in and made $92,000!
(250,000-158,000)
Littlegreenfootballs.com has the original Microsoft Document he used available for download.
Check it yourself.
Also, OpenOffice.org should add a feature - what year typewriter would you like to imitate?
Oh, sheesh. I can't believe you don't understand that Pappy Bush scared that little plane so much that it was afraid to even think of crashing. That's how powerful those Bushies are.
[/sarcasm]