User Tag List

First 89101112 Last

Results 91 to 100 of 171

  1. #91

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrinth View Post
    Very, very, very, very bad idea.
    Considering the idiocy that goes on now, I would prefer to take my chances with John Q. Public, even if they aren't the most educated or "qualified".

    It is better to have someone who cares and is willing to learn because it is their responsibility and civic duty, than someone out simply to make a name for themselves and be re-elected.

    Or maybe we set a hard term-limit. No more than one term, ever.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  2. #92
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Here's more detail about the 'John Roberts changed his mind at the last minute' theory....it seems highly plausible to me: http://www.salon.com/2012/06/28/did_...itch_his_vote/

    It seems that the apparent anger of Kennedy, Scalia et al was due to more than principled outrage.....this could forever compromise Roberts ability to function as Chief Justice, no other Justice in their right mind will view him as acting in good faith. If such is the case, I don't envy (or sympathize) with Roberts; he's going to have a fairly lonely professional* life from this point forward, even if people have no choice but to deal with him.

    *at the least, as presumably he had a lot of friends from the legal profession who would be much angrier if they think he based such an important decision on pragmatism rather than principle.

  3. #93
    Freaking Ratchet Rail Tracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,041

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    Considering the idiocy that goes on now, I would prefer to take my chances with John Q. Public, even if they aren't the most educated or "qualified".

    It is better to have someone who cares and is willing to learn because it is their responsibility and civic duty, than someone out simply to make a name for themselves and be re-elected.

    Or maybe we set a hard term-limit. No more than one term, ever.
    I was thinking somewhere along those lines considering quite a bit of congress have serve multiple terms. They should only be allowed to serve the same amount of terms/years the President has. 8 for the house, 12 for the Senate. With elections happening at the same time-frame as they do now.

    That takes a huge constitutional amendment. THAT, however, is an uphill battle in ANY state you live in. Not only that, a constitutional amendment through the state, the Supreme Court will probably rule against it like they had in the past when it comes to this method.

    Only one type of constitutional amendment has ever occurred, and that is through congress. Do you believe that they will choose to vote for a bill to limit themselves?

    EDITED: Rewording

  4. #94
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    This is what is wrong with politics. They don't care about the nation. They just care about winning elections.

    I think we may be much better off if we selected public officials at all levels (including the president, senators, and representatives) through a random selection from the citizens, kinda like serving on a jury (except longer).
    Scenario #1: "But I don't WANT to be president -- and look, I have a doctor's excuse! It's bad for my eczema!"

    Scenario #2: Drug dealer accused of shooting down three competitors and channeling ecstasy to children is appointed President, story at 8.

    Scenario #3: "The machine that 'randomly' selected the President is rigged! We're not listening to that guy."
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  5. #95
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    Here's more detail about the 'John Roberts changed his mind at the last minute' theory....it seems highly plausible to me: http://www.salon.com/2012/06/28/did_...itch_his_vote/

    It seems that the apparent anger of Kennedy, Scalia et al was due to more than principled outrage.....this could forever compromise Roberts ability to function as Chief Justice, no other Justice in their right mind will view him as acting in good faith. If such is the case, I don't envy (or sympathize) with Roberts; he's going to have a fairly lonely professional* life from this point forward, even if people have no choice but to deal with him.

    *at the least, as presumably he had a lot of friends from the legal profession who would be much angrier if they think he based such an important decision on pragmatism rather than principle.
    He did base it on principle, and a very conservative one at that: the preservation of the central public institutions in this country. That's what motivates him. It's also why he's pro-corporate, as he sees large corporations as vital institutions in the country. The decision is surprisingly consistent with his previous ones in this way.

  6. #96
    Starcrossed Seafarer Aquarelle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    3,532

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    One thing I'd ask though, is it really called Obamacare? The reforms Roosevelt introduced didnt end up as Rooseveltcare or Roosewelfare or anything like that.
    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    No, its a derogatory Republican term that became ubiquitous, forcing Democrats to pretend that they were fine with it after previously complaining about its usage.
    I'm actually totally fine with it... no pretending about it! I love that Dems co-opted it and neutralized the derogatory intent.
    Masquerading as a normal person day after day is exhausting.

    My blog:
    TypeC: Adventures of an Introvert
    Wordpress: http://introvertadventures.wordpress.com/

  7. #97
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Scenario #1: "But I don't WANT to be president -- and look, I have a doctor's excuse! It's bad for my eczema!"

    Scenario #2: Drug dealer accused of shooting down three competitors and channeling ecstasy to children is appointed President, story at 8.

    Scenario #3: "The machine that 'randomly' selected the President is rigged! We're not listening to that guy."
    Just limit the pool of potential office holders to engineers, scientists, and doctors. Lawyers and business people had their shot and they turned government into a gigantic mess. Put people who actually build shit that works in charge. Hell, it's possible that we could actually get laws that are comprehensible under such a system.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  8. #98
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    He did base it on principle, and a very conservative one at that: the preservation of the central public institutions in this country. That's what motivates him. It's also why he's pro-corporate, as he sees large corporations as vital institutions in the country. The decision is surprisingly consistent with his previous ones in this way.
    1.) We seem to have far different opinions as to what constitutes Constitutional conservatism (I somehow doubt that his opinion is shared by most members of the Federalist Society); Constitutional conservatism is not synonymous with other types of 'conservatism'.

    2.) In what way does inventing the power to tax economic inactivity (You never did provide a precedent for it) vital to the preservation of the 'central public institutions' of the country? In what way did he justify his decision on that basis? How is that decision consistent with his previous opinions? Or is your contention that he was preserving the percieved legitimacy of the Supreme Court as a non-partisan institution (a concern that the media is certain to conveniently ignore whenever the Supreme Court is dominated by 'liberal' jurists), and any excuse to do so constitutes a 'conservative' judicial opinion?

  9. #99
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquarelle View Post
    I'm actually totally fine with it... no pretending about it! I love that Dems co-opted it and neutralized the derogatory intent.
    I wouldn't be so certain he nuetralized it.

  10. #100
    Starcrossed Seafarer Aquarelle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    3,532

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    Just limit the pool of potential office holders to engineers, scientists, and doctors. Lawyers and business people had their shot and they turned government into a gigantic mess. Put people who actually build shit that works in charge. Hell, it's possible that we could actually get laws that are comprehensible under such a system.
    I would think academics would be a better choice.
    Masquerading as a normal person day after day is exhausting.

    My blog:
    TypeC: Adventures of an Introvert
    Wordpress: http://introvertadventures.wordpress.com/

Similar Threads

  1. Should the US move towards universal health care?
    By ajblaise in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 145
    Last Post: 12-30-2009, 04:41 PM
  2. US House + health care bill
    By Usehername in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 165
    Last Post: 11-15-2009, 04:23 PM
  3. Chuck Norris does not Approve of the Health Care Reform.
    By Gewitter27 in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-30-2009, 03:45 PM
  4. SCOTUS affirms Heller decision!
    By Oberon in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 06-26-2008, 09:40 PM
  5. Single Payor Health Care
    By INTJMom in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 02-24-2008, 09:16 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO