I know I will take alot of flames for this but

[Byte 2.0]

I know I will take alot of flames for this but, one of the things that being an American gives me to the right to do is to disagree....

Ok, one---I disagree with the electoral college when the popular vote states other wise.


That suggest to me that some of the starts have a wrong number of electoral votes....

One possible way to fix it is to adjust the number ot electoral votes.


Right now it is looking like public opinion doesn't matter.

Flame all you want, but remember while you are flaming...It is your Right as an American to totally Disagree with my beliefs, as it is my right to disagree with you.

[Kubie]

No flaming from me, byte. I believe the electoral college has outlived its usefulness.
What we need now is easily understandable ballots.

[Byte 2.0]

it should have been a universal ballet for the President...

No matter how you look at it, it should have been on one page...

The Electric ballet I did had all the President canidates down the left side...No way could it have been miss ready...

[stylin19]

the number of electors is tied to the number of representatives + plus senators.

you may get your wish , because of the 2000 census. The census could and probably will cause some re-districting in some states...which would increase\decrease representatives and correspondingly, rearrange electors.

keep that in mind.

[mairving]

I am not in favor of abolishing the electoral college. Part of the reason would be the effect it would have on politics in our country. Think of the way that campaigning would change. You would never see any candidate ever in the smaller states. You would only see the candidates in the large cities. It would drastically change the way things are done in the country.

It is funny too that a lot of people have changed their minds on the electoral college. Democrats were all in favor of the Electoral college. Republicans were opposed. That was when it was thought that Bush would get the most popular votes and Gore the most Electoral votes. It would be interesting if Gore's popular vote vanished and Bush won the popular vote if people's mind would change.

[jessho]

It seems as though many have forgotten the intent of the Electoral. When the country was founded, there were 13 separate colonies that had common needs, but wanted to remain basically sovereign.
One of the concerns was the ability of all to enjoy the fruits of a common nation without compromising representation. States with a larger population, if a common vote was determined, would have an advantage over states with less populations. All matters of "common" concern would be out of their hands if the specific concerns of a particular region were mandated due to a larger population. Otherwise, their monies would be collected for the "common" good and their ability to influence the allocation of these monies would be nonexistent. The system in this situation would be identical to the system that had been mandated by England, which is what many died to abolish.

The Electoral College insures that the election of the President is as equitable as the election of representative to the House and Senate. The President, with the highest administrative office, including Commander in Chief of the military, should be determined this way. It gives every state the opportunity to decide who they want to elect as president, regardless of the influence of other states.

[troysvihl]

jessho's right, the electoral college simply slides a slight amount of power over to each individual state.

One question for byte and everyone else who wants to abolish the electoral college: Should we abolish the Senate to? The same argument that you use to advocate the abolition of the electoral college applies equally well to the senate.



Luckily, (IMHO) the electoral college is here to stay. There is no way that the smaller states are going to ratify any changes to the constitution that will shift more power to the larger states. And without a constitutional amendmant, the electoral college stays in place.

[LawyerRon]

Rather than discussing the abolishment of the Electoral College, which requires a Constitutional Amendment, I would prefer to see improvement in election procedures that would eleminate the majority of the sloppy handling of ballots that is going on.

[glc]

Agreed, Ron. We have the technology - let's use it. We can pay for touchscreen voting in every precinct with the money that we now throw at studies of mating habits of hoot owls, etc.

[mairving]

Another thing to think about in abolishing the electoral college is that you would federalize the process. Take this election, for instance. There are only 200,000 votes separating Bush/Gore. A race this close would call for a recount nationwide. Every single precinct in the nation would have to be counted. There would not just be 4 counties in question, there would be hundreds. What a nightmare.

Yes we do need to approve the voting experience. I am not sure what the most cost effective way to do this. I think that one place this year had a touch screen computer ballot. Voting via computer does throw the recount issue out but there is great potential for mischief there. It is also a very costly proposal. Voting online has also been mentioned. The possiblities for vote fraud and manipulation there are too great to consider.

[Karel]

Why would a nationwide recount be a nightmare? How long did the initial count take? In a matter with this impact, I wouldn't hesitate to call a nationwide recount for one second. Are deadlines such holy cows in the U.S.? Now, all focus is on Florida, for probably no good reason at all, except timing. I bet that Floridian situations occured in all counties all over your nation.

Anyway, in the eyes of the world, both candidates "lost" (face). This means that the one who eventually becomes president will not be considered a real winner. In the nation that advertises itself as the most democratic (as in "the people decides"), the next president will probably receive his mandate from a judge...

[glc]

Karel: Your observations are very valid - but there is one problem. Due to the way the national election laws are written, there is nobody who has the *jurisdiction* to call for a nationwide recount. Election procedures and post-procedures are governed by applicable *state* laws. Each and every state would have to call for a recount and it must conform to the laws in each individual state. Right or wrong, this is how our Constitution is written. The only way the Feds can step in is if there is a Constitutional issue.

[Karel]

glc,

I was aware of that. It shows that even constitutional laws should not be considered sacred and unchangeable. I'm not saying that every incident should provoke a change. All I'm saying is that no society remains the same forever. Even its constitutional laws should be flexible enough to reflect such evolution.

[jessho]

There should not be any national authority to decide when a national re-count is neccessary. The states have there own laws to decide this issue. If the state is comfortable with their results, the information is sent in, and the vote is over.

[glc]

Yes, we can change our Constitution. There are procedures in place for amendments. I would not be surprised if we saw amendment attempts arising out of our current situation. A Constitutional amendment must be passed by the legislatures in 3/4 of the States.

If you are at all interested in exactly what the United States Constitution says, here is one site that has the whole thing:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html

[troysvihl]

>>Even its constitutional laws should be flexible enough to reflect such evolution.<<


I think the constitution is plenty flexible. (in fact a bit to flexible) Any more flexibility, and there won't be any point to having a constitution at all. We could just govern by statute.




>>I believe the electoral college has outlived its usefulness.<<


I hear a lot of people saying this. In fact it's become something of a clique; people saying it without even thinking what exactly has been "outlived." But what exactly was/is so useful about it back then and why it is no longer relevant today?

[Edited by troysvihl on 11-20-2000 at 06:59 PM]

[Mafud]

Originally posted by mairving
I am not in favor of abolishing the electoral college. Part of the reason would be the effect it would have on politics in our country. Think of the way that campaigning would change. You would never see any candidate ever in the smaller states. You would only see the candidates in the large cities. It would drastically change the way things are done in the country.

.

And your point was...? Hell, living in a state with only 4 electoral vote GUARANTEES you'll not see a Presidential candiddate TODAY. I never saw one, never even smelled one (and both of them have bad odors if not bad vibes), even come close to my precious four electoral votes state.

I think you're only repeating what you've heard, not realizing there are only 20 or so "media markets" that make up a modern campaign. Those like me, not living on the "media track" or somewhere nearby, are just going to have to put up with sound bites.
As for the candidates going to places so the "people can see them?" Pshaww-haven't you noticed they only show up where they're EXPECTED and welcome: large enclosed spaces controlled by their campaingns, where only "invited guests" (read:large dollar campaign contributors) actually get to see them, or touch the hem of their garments?

As for campaigns changing. Too late! George "Dubya" Bush and the Republicans have made "campaigning" a $134 million presidential challenge.
If S.O.B. Jr. wins, his 2004 campaign funds will top $175 million,that is, unless we can talk the Republican led Congress to drastically change campaign finance laws.
**Yeah right!! What chance do you think "campaign finance reform" has of ever being passed by a Republican controlled Congress?
**A snowball's chance in my Father's hometown in The Sudan (hell East) desert.

Grab your sign NOW!: go ye forth and confront all of the slimy slugs at their early, "testing the waters" campaigns,
chanting, over and over: "real campaign reform-real campaign reform"...

sudamafud@aol.com

[mairving]

Mafud, I would be appreciative if you not engage in a personal attack of me. Please stick to the issue. No I am not repeating something that I have heard. I have my own brain and arrive at my own conclusion. No one hands me a ballot and says here is how to vote. The Electoral College has worked for over 200 years with very few problems. My main point is that this country is made up of fifty states. If you take away the EC, you will federalize the election. You will not have 50 states. Our founding fathers were clear in that each state will count.

[troysvihl]

>>>"real campaign reform-real campaign reform"...<<<


Another clique.

Let me get this straight: You want current politicians to design rules that limit how a campaign can be run? Well I hope you like encumbants b/c the rules are going to be very favorable to them.

[jessho]

Mafud,

Your post seems one-sided. You seem concerned about the money and the way candidates are exposed to the public, but fail to mention the Hollywood exposure that Democrats have taken advantage of. Sounds like sour grapes to me.

[Jenni]

I think the electoral college is fair because it does shift power away from the larger states/cities. As for the popular vote totals, as far as I know, NM and OR still haven't called their races yet either, and when all is said and done, Bush could very well be ahead in the popular vote too.
One thing no one can deny is the media bias toward Al Gore. They were all happy when Florida was called for Gore, but when they had to take it back and Bush was ahead, you could hear them pouting and complaining.

[bob]

Jenni I beleive they were even more upset when they had to take back the called win for Bush. It was a matter of pride not politics.

Foxnews had a relitive of GWBush working on the exit poll data and was involved in calling Flordia for Gore FIRST - before the other networks. How can that be explained?


The EC will not be removed but spliting the EC votes in porportion to the vote in each state may be the fair solution.

[Jenni]

Journalists have no pride...kinda like ambulance chasing lawyers. The problem I have with them is that instead of reporting news, they are now in the business of MAKING news. They pretend to be fair and unbiased, but would you ever see any of them at a Republican fundraiser? Not likely, and they obviously can't separate work and personal beliefs. If things in Florida go badly for Gore, you will here no "Bush Wins" stories, but lots of "Gore Loses" stories.
If they would be honest and say "we think Gore should win" I wouldn't have a problem with that. I just wouldn't watch them.

[troysvihl]

>>The EC will not be removed but spliting the EC votes in porportion to the vote in each state may be the fair solution.<<

That ain't going to happen either. It would take a constitutional amendmant, and no way in hell are 2/3 of the states going to ratify such a proposal.

[Mafud]

Originally posted by mairving
Mafud, I would be appreciative if you not engage in a personal attack of me. Please stick to the issue. No I am not repeating something that I have heard. (SNIP)


The "you" was third person.

My point was and is: there were 28 (low electoral college states) who did *not* get a visit from Gore or Bush.
You inferred that keeping the electoral college somehow would force candidates to visit the low electoral college states. That is an old, old argument, older than both of us, thus, something you've heard. That is not an attack, but an observation.

Ask Montana or Wyoming or Kansas if they feel they got a fair shake from the candidates. You already know the answer.

[Mafud]

Originally posted by troysvihl
>>>"real campaign reform-real campaign reform"...<<<


Another clique.

Let me get this straight: You want current politicians to design rules that limit how a campaign can be run? Well I hope you like encumbants b/c the rules are going to be very favorable to them.

Didn't say that. I proposed no formula for the reform.
If I were to propose reform, prsentday legislators would set the rules for the next.

The reforms would be phased in year by year.
As for Congress: any member of the present Congress would have to set and abide by term limits first.
A Senator elected in 2000 would be proscribed to leave Congress by 2012.
A Representative elected in 2000 would have to leave Congress in 2004.
No member of Congress could serve more than two consecutive terms.

Presidential campaigns would be limited to eight months.
No presidential candidate could form a "committee" before the eight month window.
No presidential candidate could "explore" or "test" their candicacy befoe the eight month limit.
"Soft" money would be outlawed; period.
No person could accumulate millions of dollars in "war chests."
Television and radio time would be provided free of charge.
Each candidate from each qualifying party, would be given proportional amounts of money for free mailings.
Individuals would be restricted to a *maximum* of $1,000 in donations.
Individuals could *not* give money to, or provide in-kind support any national party beyond the $1,000 limit.

Other campaign rules would address events or situations as they arose.

No member of any state legilative body could serve more than three consecutive terms.

Term limits first: reform after.

[bob]

troysvihl, 2 states already split their EC votes.

Jenni, I am sure you would like Foxnews - do you have cable?

[jessho]

Proportioning the Electoral vote would never work. Each state can have as many candidates as they want. What if a state had 20 candidates and 4 electoral votes? With a large group of candidates, the election would never end. Each state has the right to elect any candidate they choose. When it is time to choose the President, they should only get to vote for one candidate.

The system works as it is. The political circus that is happening now will end and the country will go on. Attempting to change the Constitution because of an isolated event is reckless.

[troysvihl]

bob - I stand corrected, the splitting of the votes is a state issue not a federal one. I will have to think about this. If it would dilute the small amount of individual state power in the present system, I would be against it. I think the point made by Jessho about the multiple state candidates is a good one.


mafud -

I don't favor any rules that would limit personal freedom.

I don't suport term limits, b/c if there is a decent politician out there, I want to vote for him as many times as possible. And term limits would only stop a person from occupying one position; as the encumbant's term came up, he would simply jump from the state government position to the house representitive position then over to the senate position. Any successful politician could stay in a governmental position for decades doing that.

And I don't support campaign limits (both spending and donation), b/c I see campaign contributions as a form of speech. When I donate to a candidate, I'm simply helping him speak for me.
(BTW, the Supreme Ct has decided that spending limits are violations of free speech, but has ruled that donation limits are OK (unfortunately IMHO))

I seriously doubt that statutory time windows on when a candidate may campaign would fly with the Supreme Court either. Gagging a person from drumming up support would be a flagrant violation of the 1st amendment.

I also don't support "free" TV or radio time. Nothing is free, that would simply force TV/Radio station owners to bear the cost of the air time. I don't think that's very fair to give away another person's property.

Public funding of campaign and money limits only serves encumbants. Encumbants are the ones that already have name recognition and can raise a decent pool of money from many people even if each donor is limited to a set amount. Challengers, on the other hand, usually don't have name recognition and have to get funding from a small group of people. So if there are individual donation limits, guess who comes out with a much larger cash pool? That's right, encumbants. By drying up any decent means of collecting funds from a small group of people, you effectively ensure an encumbant's reelection. Public funding also ensures that third party candidates can't compete on local leves b/c they usually don't qualify for funding while their competitor does. Public funding rules are written by encumbants and are just a bad idea.

If I had my way, I would repeal all election law. Most of the "problem" with soft money stems from the last set of election laws that were past. (I don't really see soft money as a problem; just a bunch of hype IMHO)

Back in the day, before donation limits, pretty much anyone could run a decent campaign for president. All they had to do was get a half dozen or so rich buddies to fund it. Now, that doesn't occur, and we have a smaller pool of candidates bringing up fewer issues.

Beware any polician that talks of these and other campaign finance "reform." He's simply milking an ideaologically bankrupt vote-cow. He know's it will get him votes cause it sounds good to the constituents and at the same time will ensure his stay in power.

[Edited by troysvihl on 11-21-2000 at 09:42 PM]

[Mafud]

[QUOTE][i]
mafud -

I don't favor any rules that would limit personal freedom.

"I don't suport term limits, b/c if there is a decent politician out there, I want to vote for him as many times as possible."

Th so-called "founding fathers" beleived in term limits. They nearly universally thought legislators were first citizens who would give up a season or two of tobacco, corn, etc. production to serve their state/nation. They NEVER intended, nor foresaw, a Strom Thurmod, serving into their 96?th year.

A Congress made up of citizen legislators is what Gingrich and the Republicans told us we were getting in the 1994 "revolution."
Yeah, right! They and their "revolution" turned out to be the same kind of low-life political scum-buckets as the rest of them.
All of them need to leave.

As to personal "favors" from your state or federal politicians: those who get the favors are tied tighter to the feeding teat than the little guy who gets zip.

A little "True" tax relief is all we all want. Beyond that, sucking up to politicians for favors makes a person wallow with dogs. The results? They'll get up with fleas.

"And term limits would only stop a person from occupying one position; as the encumbant's term came up, he would simply jump from the state government position to the house representitive position then over to the senate position. Any successful politician could stay in a governmental position for decades doing that."

An honest, "citizen" politician would serve out his elected term and go home. Dishonest sleaze-balls will continue to grovel at the federal/state/local governemnt feeding teat. Scuz-balls all.
Any "Citizen", politician or not, when called to serve by his/her goventment, should serve, but with the clear intent when the commissioned job is finished, s/he would get a hearty "well done" from his/her government, and if they were deprived of earning a living while serving, a small pension should be set aside for them. But they would skdaddle out of office,no matter what.
While surely not the ideal "citizen servant" model, Benjamin Franklin in some way epitomizes the "citizen" servant ideal of the founding fathers.
Serve, then go home and play with a kite.
Any politican, no matter who or at what level, who stays around for 40 years is a goverment teat sucking parasite, whose entire reason for being is to stay stuck to the goverment teat. Any person who has worked for government for 20, 30, 40 years, or has never held a job in public commerce of some kind, has NO blooming idea of what people want or even what the country want or needs.
The only thing they know is what they and THEIR constituents want: mor govenrment money in their pockets, nothing for the people.

"And I don't support campaign limits (both spending and donation), b/c I see campaign contributions as a form of speech."

That is flat out Republican Party propaganda.

"When I donate to a candidate, I'm simply helping him speak for me."

OK, but what does he ever say FOR you? If he is Democrat, he'll say what he think his Democratic constiuents want to hear. REpublican the same. Is that what you mean? Having some SOB giving you his "pull my string, I'll say anything you want" Parrot speech to you? Of course not.

"(BTW, the Supreme Ct has decided that spending limits are violations of free speech, but has ruled that donation limits are OK"

That ruling was the broadest possible application of the law. The law was intially designed to say:
"Any candidate may spend as much (of their own) money to get elected," not how the Supreme Court ruled.

"I seriously doubt that statutory time windows on when a candidate may campaign would fly with the Supreme Court either."

It is one thing I admire about the British: a candidate for Prime Minister or the House of Commons has only a finite number of days to campaign, then they hold an election, best or most convincing candidate wins. End of campaign.
No George "Dubya" Bushes who began his presidential campaign ever before he declared for Governor.

"Gagging a person from drumming up support would be a flagrant violation of the 1st amendment."

Nahh. More REpublican speak. Getting everyone off on the same foot at the same time makes it more fair, not less, especially for underfunded third party candidates, whom may be exactly the candidate we all want and need, if he or shecould only be heard.
Besides, what you said is straight out of the NRA "How to talk politics" (and put down Democrats)handbook.
*Have you noticed absolutely no one, in the NRA, not even Heston, has had an original thought in 27 years?
Talk about Parrots!

"I also don't support "free" TV or radio time. Nothing is free,"

The govenrment, instead of giving money to the candidates, would divide monies up between the major media outlets.
*And haven't you heard of "Public service" time?
*"Public service" broadcasting is whole dollar deductable to those who participate. That means a network would get to deduct the whole dollar value of the donated time right off the top of their gross income, then deduct it again as a charitable gift. So tell me, how can they lose? 1 for 1 deduction and another percentage of their net income lopped off to boot.

"that would simply force TV/Radio station owners to bear the cost of the air time. I don't think that's very fair to give away another person's property."

Ehhhkh! The "Airwaves" belong to the public: get it?
PUBLIC Airtime? It does not belong to them. Besides, any time they so-called "lost" broadcsting presidential candidates is again, whole dollar deductable.
But you knew that; right?

"Public funding of campaign and money limits only serves encumbants. Encumbants are the ones that already have name recognition and can raise a decent pool of money from many people even if each donor is limited to a set amount."

Go back and read what I posted. Campaign finance reform must happen first. Your point about encumbents makes my other point: term limits and no sandbagging contributions. *When they leave office, whether voted out or end of term, and since their "war chests" were contributions given to them for their campaigns, their "war chests" belong not to them but to the people.

"Challengers, on the other hand, usually don't have name recognition and have to get funding from a small group of people."

Challengers would come in with a more even footing if encumbents had to observe term limits and campaign finance reform. Dang, don't you get it?

"So if there are individual donation limits, guess who comes out with a much larger cash pool? That's right, encumbants."

See: term limits.

"By drying up any decent means of collecting funds from a small group of people, you effectively ensure an encumbant's reelection."

See: term limits.

"Public funding also ensures that third party candidates can't compete on local leves b/c they usually don't qualify for funding while their competitor does."

Absolutely correct UNDER PRESENT RULES.
See: campaign finance reform.

"Public funding rules are written by encumbants and are just a bad idea."

See: term limits.

"If I had my way, I would repeal all election law."

That would leave us in a state where within 15-20 years, only the rich would, or could*** hold office. Every one else would be flunkies of a government that would be no better than that of a Third World "Banana Republic", Argentina comes quickly to mind but there are others.
***The next presidential campaign has already been scaled at $450 to $600 million for the two major party candidates alone. Throw in Congressional election spending and the tab might break $2 BILLION.
****One sucessful Democrat spent $65 MILLION of his OWN money (he won). That is obscene.

"Most of the "problem" with soft money stems from the last set of election laws that were past."

More than BILLION dollars in "soft" money was spent this presidential and Congressional election. That much "soft" money is corruption in itself.
"Soft money" = corruption.

"(I don't really see soft money as a problem; just a bunch of hype IMHO)"

That $1.2 BILLION in "soft" money spent this election ain't no "hype", it's real money and it has bought real influence for those who spent it. And your local poltician, the one you trust to "speak" for you? Who the HOO do you think he'll vote for: a corporation (like privately held multi-multi-Billion dollar Koch Indutries), who themselves may have popped as much as $185 million dollars on their favorite candidates, including your local yokel, Democrats and Republicans, all across the country?
Yeah, he'll speak for you all right, when hell freezes over.

"Back in the day, before donation limits, pretty much anyone could run a decent campaign for president."

Yean that was when politicans chose presidents instead of corporations. But back then, all the politicians knew the people, the candidates and the local needs that needed to be addressed.

"All they had to do was get a half dozen or so rich buddies to fund it."

A strictly Republican means of finding a candidate they can support, then pump the money in ala George "Dubya" Bush, a man who outright bought the Republican nomination (and the Texas Governor's) nomination too.
Simply outbid his competition.
*The Republicans had two (maybe three) national candidates who would have kicked Gore's ass once an day and twice on Sundays, drug him kicking and screaming like a little sniveling girly-man out to the ash-heap of life and then thrown him up on it.
Instead, the by now "stupid" big Republican money bought that wuss Bush, who by all rights should have kicked Gore's ass by 700,000 votes in his brother's home state.
But that wussy Bush couldn't and now look at th fine mess we have!

"Now, that doesn't occur, and we have a smaller pool of candidates bringing up fewer issues."

Nahh. We had more than 14 third party presidential candidates who spoke on everything the Amerian voter wanted to hear, including old wussy Nader himself, who, no matter whether you like him or not, has some damn fine ideas.

"Beware any polician that talks of these and other campaign finance "reform." He's simply milking an ideaologically bankrupt vote-cow. He know's it will get him votes cause it sounds good to the constituents and at the same time will ensure his stay in power."

See: term limits:
See: campaign finance reform, my style.
Remember, "My style" is to throw the bums out (every once in a while), clean house.
We, you and me, ought to adopt this pledge:
"I ain't got no favorite politician and I don't like *no* stinking politicians: they all suck!"

[troysvihl]

I disagree with pretty much everything you said.

Many of the founding fathers wanted term limits, but not enogh of them to adopt a proposed amendmant on it. It was rejected with the hundreds of other failed amendments back during the ratification.



I must say, your almost as arrogant as the DNC with all your talk of limiting people's actions and telling them how they are going to spend their money. You seem to like rules.




I've been a member of the NRA for many years and I've yet to see the handbook you mention. And yes, that organization has been saying the same thing for quite a while, but considering it's a one issue organization, I'm unsure why you would expect anything else.

BTW, I view mandated air time as theft from the station owner. I know that the airwaves are viewed as public domain, but that whole concept is a load of sh1t to me. It was all started back in the early part of this century by the Progressive party. Since we were talking about each of our visions of how things should be, I think that the old colonial principal that whomever puts a newly discovered piece of property to good use first has ownership rights.

[clydefo]

We already have term limits. Four, six or two years depending on the office. Career limits are a terrible idea. It would mean no more men like the late Speaker Sam Rayburn or Senator Everette Dirksen; only short-term opportunists looking for the revolving door to a military-industrial complex payoff. Repeal the 22nd Amendment!

[Mafud]

Originally posted by troysvihl
I disagree with pretty much everything you said.

Many of the founding fathers wanted term limits, but not enogh of them to adopt a proposed amendmant on it. It was rejected with the hundreds of other failed amendments back during the ratification.[/ QUOTE]

The founding Fathers voted for liberty, but not for women, or Blacks or those without property. It then should come as no surprise they did not vote their moral or ethical compasses but for what was expedient.
While many speak about separation of church and state for instance, few know the issue was not that high minded, but rather, the smaller colonies and those colonies whre other denominations prevailed, Presbyterian and Espiscopalian the more prominent of them, would not have themselves tied to a Quaker yoke, as they feared if the Quaker Pennsylvanians tried to force them to submit to the Quaker doctrines. Tehy most vociferously, strenuously objected when they the Quakers would attempt to make their faith the law of the land.
Bullfeathers the others said, we'll have none of that!
And so, the utter separation of your (Quaker) church from my (Presbyterian) church must be paramount.
"No church shall enforce its liturgy, creed or theology on another."
Simple as that.

But somehow, and despite the many immoral, if not unethical compromises made by them, somehow, as they are further adulated and diefied, the diefication makes those cowardly, invidious bastards look good.
Founding Fathers my ass! They were, if not self serving, set on preserving priviledge for themselves and damn few others.

[I must say, your almost as arrogant as the DNC with all your talk of limiting people's actions and telling them how they are going to spend their money. You seem to like rules.]

No DNC here. The presidential election, the foremost of all federal elections, should be above taint, above partisanship. No suspicion should fall on the election process (as it is right now), nor on the candidates. A candidate who has to lower him/herself to begging becomes, no matter how one parses the action... a beggar. Worse,they become beholden to "special interests", most of them up to no good.
America, if not you, is ready for a clean campaign funded by Americans. We want to keep the candidates on the straight and narrow, tell us what they know is wrong, then by God tell us how they are going to fix it.
Health Care for example.
That do-nothing Congress, all of them, on both sides, did nothing to address Heath Care, and here those Republicans tell us "we're working on it", as if 87 million Americans without adequate Health Care can wait six more years for them to "fix" it.
A Congress with term limits, that dreamed of "citizens Congress" (Remember the Republicans promising us a citizens Congress with term limits?). Sucha Congree would break that log jam.
But we also need a President free from any "special interests", free from Senators and members of Congress who serve for 30 plus years.

[I've been a member of the NRA for many years and I've yet to see the handbook you mention. And yes, that organization has been saying the same thing for quite a while, but considering it's a one issue organization, I'm unsure why you would expect anything else.]

[BTW, I view mandated air time as theft from the station owner. I know that the airwaves are viewed as public domain, but that whole concept is a load of sh1t to me.]

You must realize that how you feel about the airwaves has nothing at all to do with international treaties that emphatically enforce every nation's right to their airspace and the soverienty of their skies, but you knew that, now that you remember how touchy nations are about someone "straying into my airspace."

[It was all started back in the early part of this century by the Progressive party. Since we were talking about each of our visions of how things should be, I think that the old colonial principal that whomever puts a newly discovered piece of property to good use first has ownership rights.

As long as the government controls licencing of the airwaves, the "best use" dictate you cite is a yearly condition of their permits and licenses.
The airwaves, are not "property" as defined in your statement, in that no one but the federal government can "own" them.
As long as the federal governments and regulates the airwaves in trust for the country, it alone can determine what is "best use", and if that means giving time to presidential candidates, so be it.

Once more, from the top: the US governemnt owns the air above its borders. By right of imminent domain, the goverment can force persons interested in utilizing American airspace, to qualify for a licence/permit/certificate etc. to do so.
That includes needing permits, licences and meeting community broadcast standards. So, TV/Shortwave/FM/AM, any type of electronic signal is moderated by the federal govenment.
Unlike Utilities, broadcasters are NOT guaranteed a profit. But the airwaves belong to the "people" and the govenment is the guardian of the people's airwaves.

[Carl Price]

Originally posted by Mafud
[
As long as the government controls licencing of the airwaves, the "best use" dictate you cite is a yearly condition of their permits and licenses.
The airwaves, are not "property" as defined in your statement, in that no one but the federal government can "own" them.


You just don't get it do you? While the airwaves are not the property of the stations, advertising time is. In fact it is the only thing they have that people wants to buy. Now if you mandate that they must give this to politicians, it is theft plain and simple. Are you a thief?

[bob]

Even advertising time is regulated. The government can demand any block of time they want. If the station can not afford it there are many others waiting for the rights to the channel.
The public airwaves are just that - public.
Demanding time on cable or direct satallite would not be legal.

[troysvihl]

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

>>But somehow, and despite the many immoral, if not unethical compromises made by them, somehow, as they are further adulated and diefied, the diefication makes those cowardly, invidious bastards look good.
Founding Fathers my ass! They were, if not self serving, set on preserving priviledge for themselves and damn few others.<<

But no way in hell am I going to let this slide. There are many shortcoming when looking to what the founders could have done. (just as when you look at any event in hindsight) But the founding fathers were a group of people that had everything to lose and not much to gain. They could have preserverd their priviledge by maintaining the status quo, not by starting a revolution. They knowingly signed a document declairing their freedom, and more than 3/4 of them paid with their lives, property, or both.

[Mafud]

Originally posted by troysvihl
We'll just have to agree to disagree.

>>But somehow, and despite the many immoral, if not unethical compromises made by them, somehow, as they are further adulated and diefied, the diefication makes those cowardly, invidious bastards look good.
Founding Fathers my ass! They were, if not self serving, set on preserving priviledge for themselves and damn few others.<<

But no way in hell am I going to let this slide. There are many shortcoming when looking to what the founders could have done. (just as when you look at any event in hindsight) But the founding fathers were a group of people that had everything to lose and not much to gain. They could have preserverd their priviledge by maintaining the status quo, not by starting a revolution. They knowingly signed a document declairing their freedom, and more than 3/4 of them paid with their lives, property, or both.

They were, at the very least, failed Royalists who could not go home. They took every advatage of their status. They started the revolution to keep the land, a land so vst they knew going back to England, even had that been an option, was not going to happen.

These guys were first class opportunists, no more no less. Nothing said today will change that.
"Opportunists" you say? Bet your sweet bippy. First they restriced passage on any ships bound for America, letting their "friends" and real estate collaborators in to claim the best lands. They restricted certain people from owning land, at lest until they themselves had grabbed all the prime locations.
The Fathers knew as long as England herself was tied up in wars (and she was), they would have a relatively free hand playing revolution.

These "sterling" gentlemen took fifiteen years to ratify a tiny little Constitution. Why? It took that long for them to immunize themselves from penalties for the crime they'd committed against the crown. They then proceeded to makes thousands of little "machinations" peformed more land grabss, making new common law regarding on property, taxes, slavery, commerce, maritime commerce-etc.
That is, they set it up so the rich (themselves) would always be rich. When the Constitution was finally ratified, the fate of poor and the middle classes had already been sealed.
Thses were no angels, just opportunists with money and great educations, kind of like having parachuting a planelaod of guy like Biil Gates and Donald Trunp into a new land. By the time they brought in their freinds and business associates, they woudl be at it again. With all that education, money and talent? They'd write a grand Constitution too and it would be full of the same principals as ours. But no way the new guys, the new scoundrels wouldn't carve this sucker up for themselves first, just like the founding fathers did.
The best thing about them?
The Constitution, and that was drawn mostly to appease their own guilt.

[troysvihl]

most of our common law came from England, any changes to it didn't really occur until the 19th century.

lol. needless to say, i don't agree that they were opportunists. (not that I find anything wrong with being an opportunist) And I certainly don't think that the Constitution was an after thought merely drawn up to appease their guilt. BTW, the "tiny" constitution was the end product. There were hundreds of amendmants to be debated and agreed upon. Only a handful of them were accepted.

And I also don't think the deck was stacked against the poor. I only see evidence of their intent to set rules on a basis of rights. One set of rules applicable to all citizens, without falling into this notion of class warfare that you seem to be so fond of.

If the founders were so good at taking advantage of opportunities, why did about half of them wind up at the end of a noose? They certainly weren't immunized as you claim they were.

[Edited by troysvihl on 11-22-2000 at 10:16 PM]

[SARGE]

Whatever and however, ain't you glad they did it?

[Kubie]

I'm sure glad I have the freedoms they gave us. Apparently some aren't and want to lose them.

[troysvihl]

sure am. just wish they had put more limit's on the fed gov's power.

[Edited by troysvihl on 11-23-2000 at 02:40 AM]