|
OMG I Hate the Fox Channel | by tesla_koil | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
Bill O'Reilly? | by firehawk | 2006-09-25 07:06:48 |
|
Fox sunday news or something | by tesla_koil | 2006-09-25 07:08:16 |
|
False | by VivianC | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
Radical Islam has been an issue | by tesla_koil | 2006-09-25 08:01:39 |
|
It was a legitimate question | by DesertRat66 | 2006-09-25 08:08:16 |
|
the remark | by tesla_koil | 2006-09-25 08:13:24 |
|
Give it 2 more years | by TheRantingGeek | 2006-09-25 08:18:27 |
|
not under the two party system | by tesla_koil | 2006-09-25 08:21:12 |
|
We've been politically apathetic | by MatthewDBA | 2006-09-25 08:27:02 |
|
You should read Morris Berman. | by kelli217 | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
this country is redeemable | by tesla_koil | 2006-09-25 09:49:56 |
| Let's see |
by MatthewDBA |
2006-09-25 10:10:54 |
- Balanced budget. This one might be achievable; we have had budget surpluses before.
- Pay our debts. Given the size of the national debt (measured in thirteen or more digits), I don't know that this is possible any time in the next century or so.
- Empower the states; de-emphasize federal jurisdiction. This might have a remote chance of success, but would require (among other things) the overturning of at least six decades of judicial precedent.
- Make legislators and executives recallable at people's request. I'm not sure this is actually a good idea. I think you'd constantly have people agitating to remove this or that legislator, to the detriment of governmental process. And as far as recalling the president, that's a very bad idea; the same thing would happen there, but with wider possible consequences. I do have an idea, though, vaguely related to the next point as well. Suppose that instead of Presidential candidates advertising their platforms, and people voting for them, the states instead voted for electors; and it was made illegal to promise to cast an electoral vote for a specific party? The electors would run on general integrity, and a history of being able to make important decisions free of ethical entanglements. The candidates would be disassociated from a given platform.
- People focus on voting for morally good people, not for platforms. I don't think this is really possible. First of all, one can't really teach people how to vote; the basis on which they choose a candidate depends on how they're brought up to view humanity in general and politics in particular. Second, how does someone decide what is "morally good"? Most often, they look to how they would act, and then they look at whether that agrees with what the candidate has said they will do: the candidate's platform.
- People become involved with their government. I don't see how to do this. How do you force people to do something for their government - especially when they're not enamored of it in the first place?
- Switch from "The Government" to "Our Government". Again, I have no clue how to accomplish this. I'm not sure it can be accomplished.
|
|
[ Reply ] |
|
Education...is key | by tesla_koil | 2006-09-25 10:27:57 |
|
I don't know | by MatthewDBA | 2006-09-25 10:55:11 |
|
recall is a state function | by tesla_koil | 2006-09-25 11:06:01 |
|
There is a procedure for recalling a President. | by Peace_man | 2006-09-25 11:44:29 |
|
As bad as the President's behavior | by MatthewDBA | 2006-09-25 11:51:42 |
|
If Clinton's lie about sexual relations is | by Peace_man | 2006-09-25 12:00:18 |
|
he lied under oath.. illegal/purgery | by tesla_koil | 2006-09-25 12:06:06 |
|
It's not illegal to lie | by MatthewDBA | 2006-09-25 12:12:39 |
|
If it is not illegal for a President to knowingly | by Peace_man | 2006-09-25 14:02:32 |
|
Prove it. | by VivianC | 2006-09-25 15:19:28 |
|
Do you believe that he was misled, along | by Peace_man | 2006-09-25 15:27:05 |
|
Why would he be a fool... | by VivianC | 2006-09-25 20:37:48 |
|
See Hamdan v. US | by kelli217 | 2006-09-25 12:11:36 |
|
First of all | by MatthewDBA | 2006-09-25 12:36:32 |
|
If he ignored the court's ruling, | by VivianC | 2006-09-25 13:17:22 |
