All,
I've asked AV if I could start a test forum wherein we agree up front for some moderation. (heh, heh, moderate moderation - get it?)
As opposed to the Soapbox (a concept of everyone getting up to proclaim their POV in whatever terms they wish), I see this somewhat of an "online U.N.", wherein members discuss international issues with a degree of decorum.
I'd like to see the entire community participate.
Your feedback would be greatly appreciated!
Very Respectfully,
Brad
aka
cptrev
Full Version: Invitation and Explanation
I've asked people before if anyone wanted to try a moderated forum, and nobody was really interested. I hope it goes well, and I promise not to touch anything. 
Well, the "test" forum properly self-destructed when requested...
We'll see. As a former pastor - it won't be the first time I've seen a forum die due to lack of interest in anything I had to say!!! :-D
Hopefully - "respectful" isn't taken to mean as "humorless" -- although my "humor" may be considered so!
We'll see. As a former pastor - it won't be the first time I've seen a forum die due to lack of interest in anything I had to say!!! :-D
Hopefully - "respectful" isn't taken to mean as "humorless" -- although my "humor" may be considered so!
QUOTE(cptrev @ Feb 27 2006, 04:28 PM) [snapback]187929[/snapback]
Well, the "test" forum properly self-destructed when requested...
We'll see. As a former pastor - it won't be the first time I've seen a forum die due to lack of interest in anything I had to say!!! :-D
Hopefully - "respectful" isn't taken to mean as "humorless" -- although my "humor" may be considered so!
Another effort. You're a tough case, rev.
A separate box in the Political Soapbox. And mentioned on the Home page. Wow.
Here's to it! Best of luck!
QUOTE(cptrev @ Feb 27 2006, 03:28 PM) [snapback]187929[/snapback]
Well, the "test" forum properly self-destructed when requested...
Your Mission, Mr. Phelps, should you choose to accept it.......
Heh.
Hey, I laughed out loud and got warm fuzzy feelings from your lighthearted well-wishes... More than enough "payback" for my quixotic attempt!
best regards,
Brad
best regards,
Brad
QUOTE(cptrev @ Feb 28 2006, 02:18 PM) [snapback]188141[/snapback]
Hey, I laughed out loud and got warm fuzzy feelings from your lighthearted well-wishes... More than enough "payback" for my quixotic attempt!
best regards,
Brad
As is my usual fashion to bend rules of debate so to fit my notion of beauty underlying all ordained governances and civil order, I'll proceed to ignore the thread heading "international" and submit the following "domestic" citation for your consideration.
Snips taken from the U.S. national archives website-
When armies commanded by George Meade and Robert E. Lee clashed on those first three days in July, some Gettysburg townspeople took refuge in their cellars. All around them thundered a battle so great that the North American continent has yet to see an equal. It was a miracle, some say, that only one local resident perished in the conflict -- a young woman felled by a bullet while baking bread.
In the battle's bloody aftermath, Gettysburg residents tended the wounded and dying, welcomed soldiers' relatives, shipped out the dead, rebuilt shattered barns and bullet-pierced homes. In November they extended hospitality to thousands more -- the people who came to witness the dedication of the new soldiers' cemetery and get a glimpse of their president.
President Lincoln was the special guest of David Wills, the 32-year-old lawyer whose house faced the town square. Wills had invited Lincoln to give concluding "remarks" at the dedication ceremony, following the principal address by Edward Everett. Wills helped arrange the cemetery and its dedication on November 19, 1863, on land purchased by Pennsylvania to honor the dead.
Although President Lincoln spent only 24 hours in Gettysburg, he, too, changed the town's history. He was so anxious to keep his commitment that he arrived the night before the dedication on a special train. While Lincoln, Everett, and other dignitaries dined at the Wills house, exhuberant crowds gathered outside, calling for the President. Lincoln greeted them briefly but begged off speechmaking. A White House secretary noted, "The President appeared at the door and said half a dozen words meaning nothing & went in."
On dedication day President Lincoln rode in a large procession from the Wills house about one mile to the cemetery dedication site. A resident on the parade route said Lincoln bowed "with a modest smile and uncovered head to the throng of women, men and children that greeted him from the doors and windows."
Once the procession reached the cemetery, the brokenness of the battlefield was readily apparent. An eyewitness recalled, "...all about were traces of the fierce conflict. Rifle pits, cut and scarred trees, broken fences, pieces of artillery wagons and harness, scraps of blue and gray clothing, bent canteens..."
When Lincoln rose to speak, he faced from 10,000 to 15,000 people gathered around Cemetery Hill, the site of heavy Confederate bombardment during the battle. The new Soldiers Cemetery lay adjacent to the old town cemetery where a pre-war sign ironically declared: "All persons found using firearms on these grounds will be prosecuted with the utmost rigor of the law."
David Wills assigned the main address to Everett, a nationally famous speaker. The official program listed Everett as the Oration speaker and Lincoln as the giver of Dedicatory Remarks.
Everett's speech, which took two hours, was expected to run long, although it caused the crowd to grow restless. A New York Times reporter noticed that during its delivery, "there were as many people wandering about the fields, made memorable by the fierce struggles of July, as stood around the stand listening to his eloquent speech."
Everett wrote Lincoln a brief note the next day, requesting a copy of the speech and covering it with praise: "Permit me also to express my great admiration of the thoughts expressed by you, with such eloquent simplicity & appropriateness, at the consecration of the cemetery. I should be glad, if I could flatter myself that I came as near to the central idea of the occasion, in two hours, as you did in two minutes."
Lincoln graciously replied, "In our respective parts yesterday, you could not have been excused to make a short address, nor I a long one. I am pleased to know that, in your judgment, the little I did say was not entirely a failure."
Lincoln's Speech
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
-end of snip
Good luck, Brad, and keep thinking big.
QUOTE(roserose @ Mar 1 2006, 12:32 PM) [snapback]188266[/snapback]
As is my usual fashion to bend rules of debate so to fit my notion of beauty underlying all ordained governances and civil order, I'll proceed to ignore the thread heading "international" and submit the following "domestic" citation for your consideration.
Snips taken from the U.S. national archives website-
When armies commanded by George Meade and Robert E. Lee clashed on those first three days in July, some Gettysburg townspeople took refuge in their cellars. All around them thundered a battle so great that the North American continent has yet to see an equal. It was a miracle, some say, that only one local resident perished in the conflict -- a young woman felled by a bullet while baking bread.
In the battle's bloody aftermath, Gettysburg residents tended the wounded and dying, welcomed soldiers' relatives, shipped out the dead, rebuilt shattered barns and bullet-pierced homes. In November they extended hospitality to thousands more -- the people who came to witness the dedication of the new soldiers' cemetery and get a glimpse of their president.
President Lincoln was the special guest of David Wills, the 32-year-old lawyer whose house faced the town square. Wills had invited Lincoln to give concluding "remarks" at the dedication ceremony, following the principal address by Edward Everett. Wills helped arrange the cemetery and its dedication on November 19, 1863, on land purchased by Pennsylvania to honor the dead.
Although President Lincoln spent only 24 hours in Gettysburg, he, too, changed the town's history. He was so anxious to keep his commitment that he arrived the night before the dedication on a special train. While Lincoln, Everett, and other dignitaries dined at the Wills house, exhuberant crowds gathered outside, calling for the President. Lincoln greeted them briefly but begged off speechmaking. A White House secretary noted, "The President appeared at the door and said half a dozen words meaning nothing & went in."
On dedication day President Lincoln rode in a large procession from the Wills house about one mile to the cemetery dedication site. A resident on the parade route said Lincoln bowed "with a modest smile and uncovered head to the throng of women, men and children that greeted him from the doors and windows."
Once the procession reached the cemetery, the brokenness of the battlefield was readily apparent. An eyewitness recalled, "...all about were traces of the fierce conflict. Rifle pits, cut and scarred trees, broken fences, pieces of artillery wagons and harness, scraps of blue and gray clothing, bent canteens..."
When Lincoln rose to speak, he faced from 10,000 to 15,000 people gathered around Cemetery Hill, the site of heavy Confederate bombardment during the battle. The new Soldiers Cemetery lay adjacent to the old town cemetery where a pre-war sign ironically declared: "All persons found using firearms on these grounds will be prosecuted with the utmost rigor of the law."
David Wills assigned the main address to Everett, a nationally famous speaker. The official program listed Everett as the Oration speaker and Lincoln as the giver of Dedicatory Remarks.
Everett's speech, which took two hours, was expected to run long, although it caused the crowd to grow restless. A New York Times reporter noticed that during its delivery, "there were as many people wandering about the fields, made memorable by the fierce struggles of July, as stood around the stand listening to his eloquent speech."
Everett wrote Lincoln a brief note the next day, requesting a copy of the speech and covering it with praise: "Permit me also to express my great admiration of the thoughts expressed by you, with such eloquent simplicity & appropriateness, at the consecration of the cemetery. I should be glad, if I could flatter myself that I came as near to the central idea of the occasion, in two hours, as you did in two minutes."
Lincoln graciously replied, "In our respective parts yesterday, you could not have been excused to make a short address, nor I a long one. I am pleased to know that, in your judgment, the little I did say was not entirely a failure."
Lincoln's Speech
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
-end of snip
Good luck, Brad, and keep thinking big.
Thank you roserose for posting that and reminding us. Sometimes in the mania of the present we forget.
At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act"- G. Orwell
"Short of changing human nature, therefore, the only way to achieve a practical, livable peace in a world of competing nations is to take the profit out of war." -Richard Nixon
Can anything be more ridiculous than that a man has a right to kill me because he lives on the other side of the water, and because his ruler has quarrel with mine, although I have none with him?
– Blaise Pascal
The guns and the bombs, the rockets and the warships, are all symbols of human failure.
– Lyndon B. Johnson
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.
– Plato
Politics is the art of association. (1st sentence of Aristotle's "Politics")
I breath the past and dream the future. -roserose
"Short of changing human nature, therefore, the only way to achieve a practical, livable peace in a world of competing nations is to take the profit out of war." -Richard Nixon
Can anything be more ridiculous than that a man has a right to kill me because he lives on the other side of the water, and because his ruler has quarrel with mine, although I have none with him?
– Blaise Pascal
The guns and the bombs, the rockets and the warships, are all symbols of human failure.
– Lyndon B. Johnson
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.
– Plato
Politics is the art of association. (1st sentence of Aristotle's "Politics")
I breath the past and dream the future. -roserose
Yes, roserose. Thank-you for your domestic posting!
It's amazing when I read some of the remarks of Washington, Jefferson, & Lincoln, how powerful and enduring many of their speeches and statements are.
At some point - domestically as well as internationally - I fear we have exchanged statesmen for politicians.
It's amazing when I read some of the remarks of Washington, Jefferson, & Lincoln, how powerful and enduring many of their speeches and statements are.
At some point - domestically as well as internationally - I fear we have exchanged statesmen for politicians.
QUOTE(cptrev @ Mar 1 2006, 04:22 PM) [snapback]188322[/snapback]
Yes, roserose. Thank-you for your domestic posting!
It's amazing when I read some of the remarks of Washington, Jefferson, & Lincoln, how powerful and enduring many of their speeches and statements are.
At some point - domestically as well as internationally - I fear we have exchanged statesmen for politicians.
They are few and far between. The ones I see in DC now don't seem to care about the nation so much as gaining as much power and money to themselves as possible.
QUOTE(cptrev @ Mar 1 2006, 03:22 PM) [snapback]188322[/snapback]
Yes, roserose. Thank-you for your domestic posting!
It's amazing when I read some of the remarks of Washington, Jefferson, & Lincoln, how powerful and enduring many of their speeches and statements are.
At some point - domestically as well as internationally - I fear we have exchanged statesmen for politicians.
Heh, as I recall on the old CSPAN board, the #1 post in the Soapbox was mine, and basically asked where are the leaders? Where are the statesmen?
After some 6+ years, the question stands.
BTW I thought I should drop this here as well, in case it gets lost in the fray of the News Today. You may get a chuckle:
QUOTE
ATLANTA, Jan. 24 (UPI) -- Emory University scientists say political partisans of both parties apparently don't let facts interfere with their judgments on political issues.
The researchers wanted to discover why Democrats and Republicans can hear the same information, but reach opposite conclusions.
The investigators used functional magnetic resonance imaging, or fMRI, to study a sample of committed Democrats and Republicans immediately prior to the 2004 U.S. presidential election.
The participants were asked to evaluate threatening information about their own candidate while undergoing fMRI. The scientists say what they found was striking.
"We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning," said Drew Westen, director of clinical psychology at Emory who led the study. "What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up."
Once partisans reached completely biased conclusions -- essentially ignoring information that couldn't be rationally discounted -- they then got a blast of activation in circuits involved in reward.
"None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged," he said.
The findings are to be presented during this week's annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology in Palm Springs, Calif.
The researchers wanted to discover why Democrats and Republicans can hear the same information, but reach opposite conclusions.
The investigators used functional magnetic resonance imaging, or fMRI, to study a sample of committed Democrats and Republicans immediately prior to the 2004 U.S. presidential election.
The participants were asked to evaluate threatening information about their own candidate while undergoing fMRI. The scientists say what they found was striking.
"We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning," said Drew Westen, director of clinical psychology at Emory who led the study. "What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up."
Once partisans reached completely biased conclusions -- essentially ignoring information that couldn't be rationally discounted -- they then got a blast of activation in circuits involved in reward.
"None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged," he said.
The findings are to be presented during this week's annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology in Palm Springs, Calif.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?...albrain-crn.xml
Washington was skeptical of political parties for good reason. Once again I point out there is no mention of a two party system in the Constitution and post yet another link to Instant Runoff Voting.
http://www.fairvote.org/irv/whatis2.htm
http://www.fairvote.org/irv/talking.htm
IRV Talking Points
*
Ensures majority rule, in contrast to plurality voting.
* Saves money compared to costly two-round runoff elections, which often have low voter turnout.
* Increases voter turnout by giving voters better choices. Experience around the world shows that voter turnout goes up when voters have a wider range of choices.
* Promotes positive, issue-based campaigns because candidates will seek 2nd and 3rd choice votes.
* Creates a clearer mandate for a winning candidate’s agenda, giving better direction for policy-making.
* Solves the problem of groupings of voters splitting their votes among similar candidates, which allows a candidate with only minority support to win.
* Minimizes "wasted" votes, votes that don’t help elect a winner. To the fullest extent possible, your vote will contribute to electing a candidate that you like.
http://www.fairvote.org/irv/whatis2.htm
http://www.fairvote.org/irv/talking.htm
IRV Talking Points
*
Ensures majority rule, in contrast to plurality voting.
* Saves money compared to costly two-round runoff elections, which often have low voter turnout.
* Increases voter turnout by giving voters better choices. Experience around the world shows that voter turnout goes up when voters have a wider range of choices.
* Promotes positive, issue-based campaigns because candidates will seek 2nd and 3rd choice votes.
* Creates a clearer mandate for a winning candidate’s agenda, giving better direction for policy-making.
* Solves the problem of groupings of voters splitting their votes among similar candidates, which allows a candidate with only minority support to win.
* Minimizes "wasted" votes, votes that don’t help elect a winner. To the fullest extent possible, your vote will contribute to electing a candidate that you like.
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Mar 3 2006, 10:30 AM) [snapback]188644[/snapback]
Washington was skeptical of political parties for good reason. Once again I point out there is no mention of a two party system in the Constitution and post yet another link to Instant Runoff Voting.
http://www.fairvote.org/irv/whatis2.htm
http://www.fairvote.org/irv/talking.htm
IRV Talking Points
*
Ensures majority rule, in contrast to plurality voting.
* Saves money compared to costly two-round runoff elections, which often have low voter turnout.
* Increases voter turnout by giving voters better choices. Experience around the world shows that voter turnout goes up when voters have a wider range of choices.
* Promotes positive, issue-based campaigns because candidates will seek 2nd and 3rd choice votes.
* Creates a clearer mandate for a winning candidate’s agenda, giving better direction for policy-making.
* Solves the problem of groupings of voters splitting their votes among similar candidates, which allows a candidate with only minority support to win.
* Minimizes "wasted" votes, votes that don’t help elect a winner. To the fullest extent possible, your vote will contribute to electing a candidate that you like.
That is/would be the best thing for this country. Either that or a civil war.
QUOTE(Mizilus @ Mar 5 2006, 08:34 AM) [snapback]189042[/snapback]
Either that or a civil war.
Sounds like fun. We get the NRA, and you get Code Pink.
I'm fairly fond of the Instant Runoff concept also.
Gonna take a political revolution in a single state to push the issue... states still choose their "electors" for the Electoral College... therein is the chance, albeit slim, to make a difference in the status quo. IMHO.
Gonna take a political revolution in a single state to push the issue... states still choose their "electors" for the Electoral College... therein is the chance, albeit slim, to make a difference in the status quo. IMHO.
I think it's been used locally. The perfect place to test it and tweak it. I'd prefer non-partisan elections with at least 5-7 choices, but I haven't worked out the technical aspects of that kind of thing.
As a strong advocate for 3rd parties, I would prefer IRV to plurality voting. At this point the only way a 3rd party could make meaningful inroads in a national election would require a well-financed charismatic candidate with massive support of independents (approx 40% of voters as I recall) combined w/a sizeable jumping-ship from one or both parties. IOW highly unlikely.
I would also note the IRV might not solve that due to what I recall is referred to as the "compromising" problem. Voters could be pressured to abandon their favorite candidate when their preferred lesser-of-2-evils candidate risks early removal means that IRV has a strong tendency to cause voters to consider least risk and then compromise.
IRV should allow 3rd party candidates to get symbolic votes and begin to acheive more legitimacy, but it may not, since the pressure for compromise strategy will kick in precisely at the time when a 3rd party is about to become effective. Local elections where the outcome is percieved as less 'critical.'
As a Nader supporter in 2000 I saw this compromise at work for myself. I spoke w/moderate GOPers who had serious concerns about Bush's qualifications and saw merit in Nader's view of the way globalization was taking us. I spoke w/Dems who had serious concern's about Gore's qualifications on the grounds of the Buddhist Temple affair and the huge influence of corporations on the Dem Party. They appreciated Nader's history of consumer protection and integrity. But in discussion w/both these 'possible' Nader voters the issue came down to fear.
GOPers feared a Gore win, Dems feared a Bush win. They compromised in the name of the lesser evil. They didn't vote for someone they truly had confidence in. IRV will not defeat fear. In the realm of politics, compromise has been considered a good thing in the democratic process - leading to moderation.
But in recent elections the polarization of the electorate is forcing voters to compromise w/themselves. Dems and GOPers not only disagree with each other, but actually seem to show passionate hatred. Rovian politics has thrived on it.
That said, IRV might give 3rd parties a growing chance at the local/state level. That might eventually translate into moving 1 of the parties, if not actually cause the ascention of that 3rd party to compete w/the majors.
That said:
http://math.temple.edu/~wds/crv/AustralianPol.html
QUOTE
Australian politics
We shall here argue that IRV leads to 2-party domination, and Australia is evidence of that. However, the situation is somewhat more complicated than that; Australia uses several voting systems for different purposes – IRV is only one of them – and because of the other multiparty-genic nature of some of the other systems (especially 10-winner reweighted-STV PR for Senators) Australia is not entirely 2-party dominated....
We conclude that the IRV system in Australia has led (and in the opinion of the Australians themselves has led) to 2-party domination, although it could perhaps be argued it is 3-party domination depending on how independent you regard the Nationals as being from the Liberals, and also depending on how significantly you view their present 7.6% seat share in the Senate+House combined.
However, this 2-party domination presently is slightly less severe than in the USA, probably mostly due to the moderating effect of Australia's simultaneous use of 10-winner PR reweighted-STV for Senators, but perhaps arguably because IRV leads to a slightly less powerful kind of 2-party dominance than does plurality.
We shall here argue that IRV leads to 2-party domination, and Australia is evidence of that. However, the situation is somewhat more complicated than that; Australia uses several voting systems for different purposes – IRV is only one of them – and because of the other multiparty-genic nature of some of the other systems (especially 10-winner reweighted-STV PR for Senators) Australia is not entirely 2-party dominated....
We conclude that the IRV system in Australia has led (and in the opinion of the Australians themselves has led) to 2-party domination, although it could perhaps be argued it is 3-party domination depending on how independent you regard the Nationals as being from the Liberals, and also depending on how significantly you view their present 7.6% seat share in the Senate+House combined.
However, this 2-party domination presently is slightly less severe than in the USA, probably mostly due to the moderating effect of Australia's simultaneous use of 10-winner PR reweighted-STV for Senators, but perhaps arguably because IRV leads to a slightly less powerful kind of 2-party dominance than does plurality.
http://math.temple.edu/~wds/crv/AustralianPol.html
That's why I say test and tweak locally. I'm not sure I want a third "party" as much as a third and fourth "choice". How to go about that I'm not sure.
What I don't want is something like the stupid "debate commission" that won't let you in unless you get 15% and you can't get 15% unless you can consistently get in the debate.
What I don't want is something like the stupid "debate commission" that won't let you in unless you get 15% and you can't get 15% unless you can consistently get in the debate.
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Mar 7 2006, 03:46 PM) [snapback]189562[/snapback]
That's why I say test and tweak locally. I'm not sure I want a third "party" as much as a third and fourth "choice". How to go about that I'm not sure.
What I don't want is something like the stupid "debate commission" that won't let you in unless you get 15% and you can't get 15% unless you can consistently get in the debate.
Given the 2-party control of national elections, that's the best that can be hoped for. Notice the speedy reform of the electoral college by Congress.
A couple more 3rd party Congressmen would be a good sign.
Given the uphill battle to unhinge the duopoly, I used 'a' 3rd party as just the 1st viable alternative. Once voters get the realization that their interests don't lie solely in just 2 parties, the ground will be fertile for 4ths and 5ths.
I'm not so interested in a 3rd Party rising to such power that it just supplants 1 of the 2, as the GOP did to the Whigs. Nor just 'move' 1 of the Majors as Teddy and his Progressive Party did to the GOP, nor La Follette did to the Dems, but more break the 2-party paradigm.
I'd wager the Founding Fathers would be smally amazed that our history has been dominated by a 2 party system. They certainly show no such notion in the Big C, and their idea of balance of power seems to imply more than the number 2.
Given the 2-party control of the CPD, we're lucky it isn't 25%.
The alternate The Citizens' Debate Commission sets it's number at 5%:
http://www.citizensdebate.org/theplan.html
That said, any debate with over 6 folk gets to be pretty unwieldy.
Anything less than three isn't much of a debate to cover 300 million opinions. six would be ok by me, but surely at least 5. You get that many choices in a decent poll.
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Mar 7 2006, 05:33 PM) [snapback]189566[/snapback]
Anything less than three isn't much of a debate to cover 300 million opinions. six would be ok by me, but surely at least 5. You get that many choices in a decent poll.
5 for sure would be good. 2 hrs.
Sadly Desperate Housewives would likely get a higher rating.
What's really required is for the voters to wake up. Issues, not candidates, might just do that.
A big storm brewing.
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Mar 5 2006, 08:06 AM) [snapback]189057[/snapback]
Sounds like fun. We get the NRA, and you get Code Pink.
Oh really? Is that what the lone wolf third party true Americans get?
The NRA is a sh_t stain.
(so much for civility)
Well, Miz... at least you used an underscore! I appreciate that much at least!
My own position has been that the "right to bear arms" should be protected at about the level of "free speech". In other words, just as you shouldn't be able to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, nor to willfully libel people in the press... nor should you be able to own nuclear tipped artillery shells and howitzers...
But if the most vile pornography is protected, then so should machine guns and tanks.
If you tie "all" our rights together and apply protections equally... its easier to agree with one another.
But to have "real" rights and "pseudo" rights within the Bill of Rights, and then to add a seemingly boundless "right to privacy" TO the Constitution by pulling together phrases and interpreting them..
We end up with a mess... an oligarchy of the Black Robed Ones.
So, all in all, the NRA has my respect as playing as valuable a role in their narrow sphere as the ACLU tries to do in many others.
My own position has been that the "right to bear arms" should be protected at about the level of "free speech". In other words, just as you shouldn't be able to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, nor to willfully libel people in the press... nor should you be able to own nuclear tipped artillery shells and howitzers...
But if the most vile pornography is protected, then so should machine guns and tanks.
If you tie "all" our rights together and apply protections equally... its easier to agree with one another.
But to have "real" rights and "pseudo" rights within the Bill of Rights, and then to add a seemingly boundless "right to privacy" TO the Constitution by pulling together phrases and interpreting them..
We end up with a mess... an oligarchy of the Black Robed Ones.
So, all in all, the NRA has my respect as playing as valuable a role in their narrow sphere as the ACLU tries to do in many others.
trev, for the record, I really appreciate these forums you started.
Haven't been saying anything because I've been off-line, and as a matter of policy, I don't say much when I'm not going to be around to hold up my end of a discussion, but you'll be hearing from me soon. I've been reading it all, just need time to compose my thoughts before I start shooting my mouth off.
Haven't been saying anything because I've been off-line, and as a matter of policy, I don't say much when I'm not going to be around to hold up my end of a discussion, but you'll be hearing from me soon. I've been reading it all, just need time to compose my thoughts before I start shooting my mouth off.
Others are invited to suggest new forums or offer help and advice on this topic and others. We have lots of room and I'm not averse to people running their topics their way. (I'm surprised cptrev didn't delete mizzie above)
Thanks Judy, and if a rough post seemed to start a "flame war", I'd delete the bunch.
I think Miz' post was simply a deeply held opinion. I'm not trying to be a Catholic school nun with a ruler slapping wrists for naughty words - I'm just interested in a forum where the topic is addressed in generally respectful tones.
Only if people with diametrically opposed positions can discuss their differences with mutual respect, can we hope to truly have dialogue.
And only with dialogue will we find a viable future in my opinion. It's certainly been slow up here in the "international issues" sub-folder, but I appreciate Artie's patience in allowing it to muddle along.
I think Miz' post was simply a deeply held opinion. I'm not trying to be a Catholic school nun with a ruler slapping wrists for naughty words - I'm just interested in a forum where the topic is addressed in generally respectful tones.
Only if people with diametrically opposed positions can discuss their differences with mutual respect, can we hope to truly have dialogue.
And only with dialogue will we find a viable future in my opinion. It's certainly been slow up here in the "international issues" sub-folder, but I appreciate Artie's patience in allowing it to muddle along.
QUOTE(cptrev @ May 16 2006, 11:33 AM) [snapback]206646[/snapback]
Thanks Judy, and if a rough post seemed to start a "flame war", I'd delete the bunch.
I think Miz' post was simply a deeply held opinion. I'm not trying to be a Catholic school nun with a ruler slapping wrists for naughty words - I'm just interested in a forum where the topic is addressed in generally respectful tones.
Only if people with diametrically opposed positions can discuss their differences with mutual respect, can we hope to truly have dialogue.
And only with dialogue will we find a viable future in my opinion. It's certainly been slow up here in the "international issues" sub-folder, but I appreciate Artie's patience in allowing it to muddle along.
I think Miz' post was simply a deeply held opinion. I'm not trying to be a Catholic school nun with a ruler slapping wrists for naughty words - I'm just interested in a forum where the topic is addressed in generally respectful tones.
Only if people with diametrically opposed positions can discuss their differences with mutual respect, can we hope to truly have dialogue.
And only with dialogue will we find a viable future in my opinion. It's certainly been slow up here in the "international issues" sub-folder, but I appreciate Artie's patience in allowing it to muddle along.
Posts beget posts. There's nothing wrong with folders that are slow and thoughtful. I've been to websites that only get a post or two a day, but they muddle along because people like it that way. We have space and people have opportunity. How they use it is up to them.
I think that when a thread is slower, it tends to encourage people to take a bit of time over providing a thoughtful post too.
Quality vs. quantity kind of thing.
The posts here tend to be fewer, but they all seem to be thoughtful, for the most part.
Quality vs. quantity kind of thing.
The posts here tend to be fewer, but they all seem to be thoughtful, for the most part.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.