I announce my candidacy

If so it would be the will of the majority of the people in the country which is what a democracy is all about.

carguy123 wrote: If so it would be the will of the majority of the people in the country which is what a democracy is all about.

Would it be the will of the majority though, or just the minoirty that have time to vote on this stuff?

Just like now if you don't vote then you'd have no reason to complain.

But no, it would be much easier to vote so it would be the majority (of the voters).

And it wouldn't be a full time job to vote. I was never advocating you vote on every aspect of government life, that's way too cumbersome, but I was advocating that your vote actually count every time you did vote.

Additionally because it would be easier to vote I was advocating that you be allowed to vote on more issues than now. That relieves us of the burden of a number of our "public servents".

Of course if you are thinking of the running of this country and your life as simply "this stuff" then maybe you're one of the sheep and so you wouldn't have the worry about it, you could just let the rest of us determine your destiny for you.

carguy123 wrote: If so it would be the will of the majority of the people in the country which is what a democracy is all about.

The majority, no matter how large, must never have the power to vote away the rights of the minority.

unk577 wrote: More people would care if they were able to vote on every expenditure due to the fact that we would be able to have better control over the direction our country is going. Lobbyist would be out of the picture and the economy would better off due to free trade and competition. Lobbyist use the government to control their competition or put in place regulations tocreate a demand for the business paying them.

Enh. Sorry. But thanks for playing.

Clearly, you know nothing about California politics. The proposition system in California is a system of direct democracy. It is completely berkeleyed up and really screws with our fair state.

See, those horrible evil special interest groups don't even need to find a politician for them to influence. If they want a specific legislation enacted, all they need is sufficient money. With enough money, anyone can get their poorly written and biased legislation on the ballot. You can then pump a bunch of money into an advertising campaign about how wonderful your plan is. It will then be voted on by a bunch of people we we're lucky if even 1% of them have bothered to spend more than 5minutes to educate themselves on what they're voting on.

Then, when E36 M3ty legislation gets passed, it overrides the legislature, and the only ways to get it overturned are another proposition or to go to the state supreme court.

unk577 wrote:

Snowdoggie wrote: I suggested the direct democracy idea years ago in a freshman year Political Science Class and the professor went over the logistics of why it wasn't practical including the fact that many people don't care enough to show up every four years to vote for President, much less get on their computer every single day to vote on every expenditure that a large complex goverment needs to make. As for health care and the right vs. responsibility argument, If you are an atheist, it's fine to believe that everybody should be responsible for their own health care, and even do without it if you can't afford it, but if you 'claim' to be a Christian, there is that part in the Bible about being your brother's keeper and many passages about helping your fellow man, including those who are victims of corporate layoffs and pre-existing conditions.

I think most people don't vote every 4 years due to the poor choice of candidates we regularly have. Give the people a good choice rather the the lesser of 2 evils and more people would vote. More people would care if they were able to vote on every expenditure due to the fact that we would be able to have better control over the direction our country is going. Lobbyist would be out of the picture and the economy would better off due to free trade and competition. Lobbyist use the government to control their competition or put in place regulations tocreate a demand for the business paying them. People have a right to worship whoever they please, but religion has no place in government. I'll take an atheist candidate over anyone else. I don't need a president having his decisions influenced by what a fictional character thinks is right or wrong. People think Ron Paul is a cook because he believes in aliens, yet these same people believe in god. See the irony. It goes back to the original post, people are sheep. They need someone to follow because they can't decide right from wrong for themselves or they can't explain something so they turn to their "god" for direction. I don't agree with all the statements in the original post.

Nobody gets a candidate they agree with 100% of the time. Every vote is for the lesser of two evils and politics is the art of compromise.

If you don't like who is running, get involved in the selection process, or better yet, run for office yourself.

Everybody here hates lobbyists, except for the Lobbyist from SEMA who is working hard to maintain your right to keep a non-running project car on your private property and modify the car the way you see fit.

Snowdoggie wrote: Everybody here hates lobbyists, except for the Lobbyist from SEMA who is working hard to maintain your right to keep a non-running project car on your private property and modify the car the way you see fit.

You're my hero.

seann wrote:

Snowdoggie wrote: I suggested the direct democracy idea years ago in a freshman year Political Science Class and the professor went over the logistics of why it wasn't practical including the fact that many people don't care enough to show up every four years to vote for President, much less get on their computer every single day to vote on every expenditure that a large complex goverment needs to make. As for health care and the right vs. responsibility argument, If you are an atheist, it's fine to believe that everybody should be responsible for their own health care, and even do without it if you can't afford it, but if you 'claim' to be a Christian, there is that part in the Bible about being your brother's keeper and many passages about helping your fellow man, including those who are victims of corporate layoffs and pre-existing conditions.

Um, no it's not fine if your an atheist either. Or maybe I'm just taking the bait.

It's nice to know that some atheists have ethics and that is a good thing. The people I have a problem with are the ones who are against gay marriage and abortion because the Bible tells them so, but would would not support legislation outlawing usury and providing help for the poor and downtrodden because the same bible supports those issues as well.

Snowdoggie wrote: It's nice to know that some atheists have ethics and that is a good thing. The people I have a problem with are the ones who are against gay marriage and abortion because the Bible tells them so, but would would not support legislation outlawing usury and providing help for the poor and downtrodden because the same bible supports those issues as well.

Ooh, we totally need to outlaw usury. I think I'm going to work that into a campaign platform. We'd never have gotten into our current economic crisis if there was a ban on usury!

Duke wrote:

carguy123 wrote: If so it would be the will of the majority of the people in the country which is what a democracy is all about.

The majority, no matter how large, must never have the power to vote away the rights of the minority.

Which is why we are a REPUBLIC and not a democracy.

Thanks for posting the reminder, Duke.

Eric

Why do I have a vision of Ron White holding a glass of scotch saying Re-Pub-LICK ?

Salanis wrote:

Snowdoggie wrote: It's nice to know that some atheists have ethics and that is a good thing. The people I have a problem with are the ones who are against gay marriage and abortion because the Bible tells them so, but would would not support legislation outlawing usury and providing help for the poor and downtrodden because the same bible supports those issues as well.

Ooh, we totally need to outlaw usury. I think I'm going to work that into a campaign platform. We'd *never* have gotten into our current economic crisis if there was a ban on usury!

Either one of the two Presidential candidates could gather enough independent votes to win by promising to outlaw all loans for more than 20% interest and run the payday loan vendors out of business, but it would be over the screeching of the bank and finance company lobbyists.

If there is a God, then Payday loans and ARMs are the work of Satan.

psteav wrote:

donalson wrote: i'm with ya... sadly schools don't do much in the way of teaching the constitution... much more important things to learn things like how my great grandaddy was a monkey and how it's more normal to be attracted a he vs a she... oh ya... and how superb the socialist system of government works in theory... i mean i would have free health care right?....

Might wanna read up on that Consitution yourself there, pard. Start with the establishment clause. Get back to me.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance

what part am I missing?... funny how MY beliefs are not PC so somehow they are boxed into the worry of respecting or establishing religion therefore aren't an option to be taught yet i was REQUIRED to learn about the monkey theory, the history of Islam (and the 5 pillars of course), and safe sex (abstinence not even being mentioned)... I have no problem with schools teaching the other side of the story... but i suppose they get their idea of fair and balanced from CNN ;-)

ironically... GOVERNMENT school is at the heart of Communism (take a peak at the manifesto)... we're well on our way... I was amazed to see how indoctrinated my niece and nephew where in just the 2nd grade.

and for the record... yes private or home schooling is in my children's future... and yes they will learn the other viewpoints...

flame suit on

donalson wrote: ...yet i was REQUIRED to learn about the monkey theory...

As opposed to the "... and God said 'POOF'..." theory?

yup... and it takes no more faith for me to believe that that it does for you to believe that POOF the world was conglomerated from a bunch of gases that came from... well we don't know... but one of em is OK to teach in school and the other doesn't get a mention fair and balanced.. just like CNN... thats my take on it...

Edit: Never mind. If other people want to take this into the science vs religion/creationism vs. evolution direction, I'll jump in then. But, for now, I'll leave it to someone else to escalate the same-old-argument.

I got my "God said 'POOF'" joke in.

Snowdoggie wrote: If there is a God, then Payday loans and ARMs are the work of Satan.

Or free-market capitalism.

You're less of my hero now.

donalson wrote:

psteav wrote:

donalson wrote: i'm with ya... sadly schools don't do much in the way of teaching the constitution... much more important things to learn things like how my great grandaddy was a monkey and how it's more normal to be attracted a he vs a she... oh ya... and how superb the socialist system of government works in theory... i mean i would have free health care right?....

Might wanna read up on that Consitution yourself there, pard. Start with the establishment clause. Get back to me.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance

what part am I missing?... funny how MY beliefs are not PC so somehow they are boxed into the worry of respecting or establishing religion therefore aren't an option to be taught yet i was REQUIRED to learn about the monkey theory, the history of Islam (and the 5 pillars of course), and safe sex (abstinence not even being mentioned)... I have no problem with schools teaching the other side of the story... but i suppose they get their idea of fair and balanced from CNN ;-) ironically... GOVERNMENT school is at the heart of Communism (take a peak at the manifesto)... we're well on our way... I was amazed to see how indoctrinated my niece and nephew where in just the 2nd grade. and for the record... yes private or home schooling is in my children's future... and yes they will learn the other viewpoints... *flame suit on*

You're parroting back the same tired crap that the religious right has been spouting for the last thirty years. You clearly haven't read the establishment clause or any of the caselaw surrounding it, and it seems like you're getting all of your info from secondhand analysis by pundits and talking heads.

You're confusing two issues here. The establishment clause prevents any establishment of a state religion. Like it or not, creationism is a religious theory. There is very little scientific evidence for the world being created in seven consecutive 24 hour periods, man riding around on dinosaurs, etc., etc. There is a lot of evidence supporting the big bang theory. Why it happened? Well, we don't necessarily know. Ditto evolution. Does this mean it's true? Not necessarily. It's the best-supported hypothesis we have, therefore it gets taught in the schools. As for "creationism" as it's usually meant, it's a matter of faith and therefore it shouldn't get taught in the schools.

As far as teaching kids about religion, that's fine. You learned the five pillars of Islam? Great! There's not enough correct information going around about it. I hope they taught you about cultural differences about Jews, Hindus, and hell, anymore we need to teach kids the basic beliefs of Christianity too, since more and more grow up agnostic and don't actually know what the beliefs are.

There's a big difference between teaching what someone else believes and teaching that same thing as the unvarnished truth.

As far as Sex Ed goes, it kills me that people think you can stop kids from berkeleying. How many people here didn't have sex because you thought it was immoral? Now, how many have a friend/child/family member who got pregnant or got someone pregnant because they didn't have the straight dope, and the parents thought "my kid is smarter/better than that". I know that I know a lot more people in the second boat than the first one. It's not the government's job to legislate morality or the school's job to teach it. THAT'S WHAT PARENTS ARE FOR. And I seriously doubt abstinence was "not even mentioned".

Don't forget, right after the establishment clause is the free exercise clause. Wanna raise your kids Christian? More power to you. More kids need decent values. FWIW, my kids are going to get those same core values. Wanna home-school them? That's your prerogative. Want to tell them that evolution has been disproven, the earth is 6000 years old, and Jesus rode a Velociraptor to the Sermon on the Mount? Well, I disagree with you, but they're your kids, and it's your belief system.

Duke wrote:

carguy123 wrote: If so it would be the will of the majority of the people in the country which is what a democracy is all about.

The majority, no matter how large, must never have the power to vote away the rights of the minority.

Who ever said the majority would vote away the rights of the minority, only that if you didn't vote then you'd have to go along with what the majority voted for.

carguy123 wrote:

Duke wrote:

carguy123 wrote: If so it would be the will of the majority of the people in the country which is what a democracy is all about.

The majority, no matter how large, must never have the power to vote away the rights of the minority.

Who ever said the majority would vote away the rights of the minority, only that if you didn't vote then you'd have to go along with what the majority voted for.

Don't mind me guys, just passing through...

Who would vote for someone with such an awful haircut?

Wally wrote: Who would vote for someone with such an awful haircut?

Yeah. Go cry emo kid!

Although, that is a pretty bitchin' stache.

Osterkraut wrote:

Snowdoggie wrote: If there is a God, then Payday loans and ARMs are the work of Satan.

Or free-market capitalism. You're less of my hero now.

There are no bailouts for banks under true free-market capitalism.

...and I don't believe in heroes or ideological absolutes.

Snowdoggie wrote:

Osterkraut wrote:

Snowdoggie wrote: If there is a God, then Payday loans and ARMs are the work of Satan.

Or free-market capitalism. You're less of my hero now.

There are no bailouts for banks under true free-market capitalism. ...and I don't believe in heroes or ideological absolutes.

There also would have been no pressure to lend to those that couldn't afford housing.

...and I don't believe in not believing in heroes or ideological absolutes.

Osterkraut wrote:

Snowdoggie wrote:

Osterkraut wrote:

Snowdoggie wrote: If there is a God, then Payday loans and ARMs are the work of Satan.

Or free-market capitalism. You're less of my hero now.

There are no bailouts for banks under true free-market capitalism. ...and I don't believe in heroes or ideological absolutes.

There also would have been no pressure to lend to those that couldn't afford housing.

How so? No regulation means you can lend to anybody and sell the loan to anybody and you are not required to disclose or explain anything to anybody.