| Haystacks Calhoun II 11.12.2006 16:07 |
Incoming House intelligence chief botches easy intel quiz WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Rep. Silvestre Reyes of Texas, who incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has tapped to head the Intelligence Committee when the Democrats take over in January, failed a quiz of basic questions about al Qaeda and Hezbollah, two of the key terrorist organizations the intelligence community has focused on since the September 11, 2001 attacks. When asked by CQ National Security Editor Jeff Stein whether al Qaeda is one or the other of the two major branches of Islam -- Sunni or Shiite -- Reyes answered "they are probably both," then ventured "Predominantly -- probably Shiite." That is wrong. Al Qaeda was founded by Osama bin Laden as a Sunni organization and views Shiites as heretics. Reyes could also not answer questions put by Stein about Hezbollah, a Shiite group on the U.S. list of terrorist organizations that is based in Southern Lebanon. Stein's column about Reyes' answers was published on CQ's Web site Friday evening. In an interview with CNN, Stein said he was "amazed" by Reyes' lack of what he considers basic information about two of the major terrorists organizations. "If you're the baseball commissioner and you don't know the difference between the Yankees and the Red Sox, you don't know baseball," Stein said. "You're not going to have the respect of the people you work with." While Stein said Reyes is "not a stupid guy," his lack of knowledge said it could hamper Reyes' ability to provide effective oversight of the intelligence community, Stein believes. "If you don't have the basics, how do you effectively question the administration?" he asked. "You don't know who is on first." Stein said Reyes is not the only member of the House Intelligence Committee that he has interviewed that lacked what he considered basic knowledge about terrorist organizations. "It kind of disgusts you, because these guys are supposed to be tending your knitting," Stein said. "Most people are rightfully appalled." Pelosi picked Reyes over fellow Californian Rep. Jane Harman, who had been the Intelligence Committee's ranking member, and Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida, who had been impeached as a federal judge after being accused of taking a bribe. Calls from CNN to Reyes' office asking for reaction to Stein's column have not been returned. |
| Lester Burnham 11.12.2006 16:31 |
Man, this would be like someone asking Greg Brooks who sang the first verse of WWTLF and him responding with "Freddie". oh wai |
| Mr.Jingles 11.12.2006 16:56 |
HOLY SHIITE! As if things would have been any better if Republicans retained the house. They're all a bunch of fuckin' morons. ...different party, same lack of brain cells. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 11.12.2006 17:11 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: ...different party, same lack of brain cells.And there you have it. |
| Smitty 11.12.2006 17:19 |
Haystacks Calhounski wrote: Reyes answered "they are probably both," then ventured "Predominantly -- probably Shiite."Ugh, morons... |
| sparrow 21754 11.12.2006 22:26 |
its like watching paris hilton solve a math problem.... oh snap! |
| AspiringPhilosophe 12.12.2006 03:00 |
If honesty and intelligence were suddenly introduced into American politics, the whole system would collapse. This doesn't surprise me at all, as sad as it is. Just goes to show that Americans don't give a crap about their politicians as long as they aren't personally affected by anything. |
| user name 12.12.2006 05:10 |
CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Just goes to show that Americans don't give a crap about their politicians as long as they aren't personally affected by anything.That is exactly my view on politics. Sorry for ruining the United States government. :( |
| AspiringPhilosophe 12.12.2006 08:23 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:Haha. Yeah, I know what you mean. Just as long as everyone has their job and money coming in and nothing is personally threatening them, then it's ok to vote for whoever without actually looking at the politician, because the "ads" tell you everything you need to know.CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Just goes to show that Americans don't give a crap about their politicians as long as they aren't personally affected by anything.That is exactly my view on politics. Sorry for ruining the United States government. :( It's disgusting |
| Donna13 12.12.2006 14:09 |
Sparrow wrote: its like watching paris hilton solve a math problem.... oh snap!Well, this might surprise you, but I think Paris is "secretly" quite intelligent. I think it might take more brains than the average person has to figure out how to be that famous and well-paid for just being "Paris". |
| Mr.Jingles 12.12.2006 15:54 |
Donna13 wrote:It doesn't take a lot of brains to achieve what Paris has achieved, first you have to suck a whole lot of celebrity cock.Sparrow wrote: its like watching paris hilton solve a math problem.... oh snap!Well, this might surprise you, but I think Paris is "secretly" quite intelligent. I think it might take more brains than the average person has to figure out how to be that famous and well-paid for just being "Paris". |
| user name 12.12.2006 18:56 |
CMU HistoryGirl wrote:I actually don't vote for politicians, because I know that I will never be able to make a fully informed decision. I know my decision will be more informed than, say, 90% of everyone else, but their votes are just as useless. I'm not saying that only the people who are hardcore into political issues should vote - I'm saying that politics is a very closed game where it's quite difficult to get all the unbiased information you need.<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:Haha. Yeah, I know what you mean. Just as long as everyone has their job and money coming in and nothing is personally threatening them, then it's ok to vote for whoever without actually looking at the politician, because the "ads" tell you everything you need to know. It's disgustingCMU HistoryGirl wrote: Just goes to show that Americans don't give a crap about their politicians as long as they aren't personally affected by anything.That is exactly my view on politics. Sorry for ruining the United States government. :( I will vote for referendums and such that I am aware of, however, because it is much easier to inform oneself on such issues. But, take the 2004 Presidential election, for example. We had Bush or Kerry. The most persuasive argument to vote for Kerry was "He's not Bush," which was absolutely ridiculous. Politicians just cannot make themselves look good anymore. The best you can get is, "not as bad as the other guy(s)." So my (pitiful) solution is just to not vote. Sorry, but that's all I can do. I'm not going to put in the time and effort to become an arrogant political expert. I mean, we only have one life to live, yeah? And it's hard enough just being arrogant. ;-) |
| AspiringPhilosophe 12.12.2006 21:43 |
**bows to MusicMan** You are very observant! |
| Crezchi 12.12.2006 22:00 |
Donna13 wrote:Yeah, she is the only one i have ever known to visit a tire air pump to get a refill for her head.Sparrow wrote: its like watching paris hilton solve a math problem.... oh snap!Well, this might surprise you, but I think Paris is "secretly" quite intelligent. I think it might take more brains than the average person has to figure out how to be that famous and well-paid for just being "Paris". |
| Donna13 12.12.2006 22:52 |
Crezchi wrote:Well, that's one I haven't heard yet. Ha. But I am assuming that Paris probably knows more about business than most. Her public behavior and expressions such as, "That's hot," seem to be conceived to project a dumb (and carefree) persona. If we fall for her "act" (which is making her famous), it makes us seem even more dumb I think. That's like believing that Britney forgot to put on underwear because she is so dumb. Think again.Donna13 wrote:Yeah, she is the only one i have ever known to visit a tire air pump to get a refill for her head.Sparrow wrote: its like watching paris hilton solve a math problem.... oh snap!Well, this might surprise you, but I think Paris is "secretly" quite intelligent. I think it might take more brains than the average person has to figure out how to be that famous and well-paid for just being "Paris". |
| sparrow 21754 13.12.2006 01:37 |
Donna13 wrote:the only thing theyre GOOD at is getting attention. doesnt mean theyre smart.Crezchi wrote:Well, that's one I haven't heard yet. Ha. But I am assuming that Paris probably knows more about business than most. Her public behavior and expressions such as, "That's hot," seem to be conceived to project a dumb (and carefree) persona. If we fall for her "act" (which is making her famous), it makes us seem even more dumb I think. That's like believing that Britney forgot to put on underwear because she is so dumb. Think again.Donna13 wrote:Yeah, she is the only one i have ever known to visit a tire air pump to get a refill for her head.Sparrow wrote: its like watching paris hilton solve a math problem.... oh snap!Well, this might surprise you, but I think Paris is "secretly" quite intelligent. I think it might take more brains than the average person has to figure out how to be that famous and well-paid for just being "Paris". |
| thomasquinn 32989 13.12.2006 07:52 |
Haystacks Calhounski You are one insanely STUPID fuck. I wanted you to know that. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 13.12.2006 08:54 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: The best you can get is, "not as bad as the other guy(s)." So my (pitiful) solution is just to not vote.You're right about having to vote for the lesser (obvious) evil, that's certain, but I don't think not voting is an answer (though voting on issues, as you do, is just as important). IMHO, voting in a balanced way is what will help this country. All Democrats or all Republicans and we have a lopsided - and dangerous - situation. This past election, many people voted Democrat down the line simply to get the Republicans out of power. They absolutely needed their control curbed, but to what end? We need people from both sides to meet somewhere in the middle or we wind up as we are now - with a divided country and a seemingly more dangerous world where not only foes but friends are angry and disgusted with us. No one has to be a political expert. Instead, losing arrogance when pulling the lever or punching the chad is what's needed. It's about the future of the country, it's not about personal victory, as many have made it. I see it like this - in NY, you're either a Yankee fan or a Mets fan. You can't be both (apparently). When the Mets win, Mets fans celebrate. When the Yankees lose, Mets fans celebrate harder. Forget the fact they're both playing for NY and any NY team in the World Series is a good thing. Nope. Arrogance and anger. Two emotions that block logic. Two emotions that have ruled the past few elections. And look at the mess we're in. I'm sorry, but I think voting is as important as investing in a personal retirement fund. Though it might not directly affect you now, at some point it will have an impact on your life. It's about security, pride and peace of mind. |
| Haystacks Calhoun II 13.12.2006 09:16 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: Haystacks Calhounski You are one insanely STUPID fuck. I wanted you to know that.I'm stupid because the idiot that Nancy Pelosi hand-picked to run the Intelligence Committee is completely clueless?? Wow. That's some twisted logic. |
| Mr.Jingles 13.12.2006 09:21 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote:I'm sorry, but I think voting is as important as investing in a personal retirement fund. Though it might not directly affect you now, at some point it will have an impact on your life. It's about security, pride and peace of mind.Trust me, voting is definitely NOT about pride. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 13.12.2006 09:50 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: Trust me, voting is definitely NOT about pride. Most of the time we have to make a choice that we will either regret later on, choose because is the least bad, or in the best cases a decision we have made with a certain degree of skepticism.You're right, but I guess the point I was trying to make is that being part of the decision making process is about security and pride. If a person just goes to the polls and pulls levers for the opposing party, it's pointless. But if you take the time to listen - not just during the campaign season but before and after - you'll have a better sense of who you're choosing and why. If you keep an eye on their performance, same as keeping an eye on your retirement portfolio, you'll be taking a proactive role in the direction of the country. It sucks. It's not easy. It's not always satisfying. But it directly affects each of us whether we acknowledge it or not. Good or bad choices... I'd rather make my own then let others make them for me. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 13.12.2006 11:08 |
My question is why bother voting at all? Now, I've voted in the last Presidential election (where I "threw away" my vote by voting 3rd party...the only reason I was there was to vote on some amendments and proposals on the ballot) and the mid-term elections (again, throwing away my vote for governor but voting on some very important issues). If you honestly think voting influences anything you are pretty naive. Everyone will say everything they think everyone wants to hear to get elected, and then prompty forget about all promises made once the election is in the bag. Besides, in the presidential elections your vote doesn't count for anything, since the Electoral College is in place (and FYI, there is no rule that says they have to vote for the majority popular vote winner from the "dumbed down" open elections). Maybe if voting actually made a smidgeon of difference, more people would go out and vote. I know that's most of the reason people in my generation don't vote. Contrary to popular belief, its not that we are unedcuated on anything or that we just don't care...it's that we know that our votes count for nothing until and unless there is real change in the system. And that change won't ever come from inside the system...too many people in it have a vested interest to remain there. |
| Maz 13.12.2006 11:27 |
CMU HistoryGirl wrote: the only reason I was there was to vote on some amendments and proposals on the ballot) and the mid-term elections (again, throwing away my vote for governor but voting on some very important issues). If you honestly think voting influences anything you are pretty naive. Maybe if voting actually made a smidgeon of difference, more people would go out and vote.That post seems full of contradictions. Issues are important, but it's politicians who usually put those issues on the ballot. That would seem to imply that voting for politicians would been important as they often decide laws. Next, if voting is naive, then why worry about issues like you do? Voting makes all the difference in the world, and let no one tell you otherwise. My guess is that voting liberal in a conservative world like the last 6 years has put a sour taste in your mouth. But politics operate in cycles. Not voting is naive. And to the original post - It's tit-for-tat. We all remember Bush's failed quiz in the 2000 election and his inability to identify important leaders from other countries. Do we really think this is strictly a problem for Democrats? Is it any worse than the Republican chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works arguing against scientific consensus? Isn't that just as stupid? |
| yamaha 13.12.2006 11:54 |
CMU HistoryGirl wrote: If you honestly think voting influences anything you are pretty naive. Everyone will say everything they think everyone wants to hear to get elected, and then prompty forget about all promises made once the election is in the bag. Besides, in the presidential elections your vote doesn't count for anything, since the Electoral College is in place (and FYI, there is no rule that says they have to vote for the majority popular vote winner from the "dumbed down" open elections). Maybe if voting actually made a smidgeon of difference, more people would go out and vote. I know that's most of the reason people in my generation don't vote. Contrary to popular belief, its not that we are unedcuated on anything or that we just don't care...it's that we know that our votes count for nothing until and unless there is real change in the system. And that change won't ever come from inside the system...too many people in it have a vested interest to remain there.The electoral college is designed to represent one state as a whole. Simpily put, if the voters in your state choose one candidate over another, all of the college votes will go to that one person. And, as long as the census is correct, the proportionality of the college votes will be correct across the country. What happens is that the candidate who can please the voters in more individual states will win. This goes to say that the college places more important on voting going on in one state versus the entire country. What I take away from it is that the college makes it even more important to vote. Boost your states count and win more than a proportionate number of votes. Example: California get 55 votes of the 535 total. Tis means that winning here gives 10.3% of the total. California has a population of 37,172,015. The US population is estimated at 300 million. It would take 18.6 million votes to have a majority in california. This is just over 6% of the nation. So, in california a group accounting for 6% of the nation can control over 10% of the college votes. This is why it is important to get out there and not only vote, but try to get others to do the same. (all figures taken from Wikipedia) |
| magicalfreddiemercury 13.12.2006 12:14 |
CMU HistoryGirl, Voting does make a difference. People turned out in droves for this election and it made a difference - not because of who was elected but because of the statement it made. If people don't vote, it's like saying it doesn't matter - let the higher-ups do as they will. If you get out there and cast your vote - even if it is for the lesser evil - it gets your voice heard. It's the 'squeaky wheel' syndrome. Those who want change go out there and make a lot of noise. When a person just sits back and thinks their single vote/voice doesn't count, they should consider how many other single voices are out there thinking the very same thing. Imagine the difference all those voices could make. |
| Haystacks Calhoun II 13.12.2006 13:12 |
The statement? The statement on American voters that they are completely stupid? That the American voters will cut off their nose to spite their face? That American voters will replace what they percieve as bad with what they know in their hearts is worse? Our country is in deep doo doo. |
| Maz 13.12.2006 13:27 |
Haystacks Calhounski wrote: That American voters will replace what they percieve as bad with what they know in their hearts is worse?That's quite the bloated and egotistical statement. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 13.12.2006 13:30 |
Haystacks Calhounski wrote: The statement? The statement on American voters that they are completely stupid? That the American voters will cut off their nose to spite their face? That American voters will replace what they percieve as bad with what they know in their hearts is worse? Our country is in deep doo doo.Not worse. Different. And as for our country being in deep doo doo, as you say, well, it's been that way for quite a few years now. Change can only benefit us, and the next Presidential election is too far away. EDIT - Just have to add this about your first comment here - "The statement on American voters that they are completely stupid?" If you recall, a big part of this country as well as the rest of the world thought the American voters were completely stupid when they elected Bush the first and second time. Whether you agree with the outcome is not the issue. The issue is going out there to let your voice be heard. Every election matters, every voice counts. People were unhappy and the administration didn't care to listen. The only way to get the necessary attention, was to vote. Sadly, as I said before, in this case, too many people simply voted against the current instead of for a new one. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 13.12.2006 14:10 |
Wow, got a lot of responses here. I should clarify a few things.... Voting counts...only in certain instances though. Referrendum voting is one example, when the people voting actually have all of the power to decide on an issue and whether it is adopted or not. That's important, and thus why I voted. However, voting for politicans to represent us in the government and do things on our behalf doesn't matter. First off...I am not a liberal voting in world of conservatives, and therefore have a sour taste in my mouth. I'm also not a conservative....I'm an independent, so it's not that voting in this climate has turned me off to voting period...I saw long before voting that it made no difference. One reason? Agian, the electoral college. The person who responded with the info on the electoral college is right on the money. However, what basically happens is that the people vote for a candidate, and in theory the memebers of the electoral college vote the same way they do. But...there isn't a law requiring them to do that. For instance, if I was on the electoral college and my state voted for a candidate I didn't like, even though I'm supposed to vote for that candidate, I could say "Screw it" and vote for whoever I want. There goes the accountability of the electoral college. It was a good system when America was founded, and it was hard to count up the votes from far-removed areas. However, now the President can't even burp without it being reported on the evening news, and voting results are broadcast all over the country before the ballots are even done being counted. It's an outdated system that is past its usefulness and should be abolished. Another reason? How about the fact that, if you write down what the politicians promise to do, and at the end of their terms write down what off that list they actually did, there is a HUGE discrepancy. Yes, I realize other things tie into it, like Congressional approval and compromise and things, but let's take Clinton for an example. For 6 of his 8 years he had majority control of both the House and Senate, with a big enough gap between them and the Republicans that he could have done all of the things that he campaigned for (Social Security Reform, Universal Health Care) without having to pay the Republicans any nevermind. Did he do it? Nope...none of it got accomplished, and then he had the nerve to blame the Republicans! It's your own laziness that you didn't get anything done that was against your lobbying and money interests! Now, we've got the opposite problem. Yes, the public sent a message to Bush with the midterms. But now, what have we got? A)no guarantee that he'll listen at all B)a lame duck government that can't get anything accomplished for the next 2 years because of partisanship in Washington. Oh yeah...that's much better than what we had before. At least there was movement before...now things are going to just sit and stagnate, at a time when we NEED to move on certain issues. Two years may be too late. Even with an optimum mix in the government, there is so much compromise that is needed to pass anything that by the time it gets passed it is completely watered down, useless and ineffectual. So how do you get the politicans to move on an issue? Money. Donate money to them, and lots of it, and it will be easy to get the access and influence you need. When politicans get into Washington, they aren't concerned with their promises to the people they represent...they are fighting their butts off to stay there, especially in an election cycle. Money makes the world go round in Washington. Holding politicans accountable would also be good, except we can't do that in a two party system. All we can do is vote the other party in, which then does nothing on the issues, just like the party you just voted out. Until more parties are allowed to step up to the plate, hold debates with the major players, and become major pla |
| Haystacks Calhoun II 13.12.2006 14:16 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote:American voters are stupid. Look at the last few election cycles. Sheep.Haystacks Calhounski wrote: The statement? The statement on American voters that they are completely stupid? That the American voters will cut off their nose to spite their face? That American voters will replace what they percieve as bad with what they know in their hearts is worse? Our country is in deep doo doo.Not worse. Different. And as for our country being in deep doo doo, as you say, well, it's been that way for quite a few years now. Change can only benefit us, and the next Presidential election is too far away. EDIT - Just have to add this about your first comment here - "The statement on American voters that they are completely stupid?" If you recall, a big part of this country as well as the rest of the world thought the American voters were completely stupid when they elected Bush the first and second time. Whether you agree with the outcome is not the issue. The issue is going out there to let your voice be heard. Every election matters, every voice counts. People were unhappy and the administration didn't care to listen. The only way to get the necessary attention, was to vote. Sadly, as I said before, in this case, too many people simply voted against the current instead of for a new one. People are going to wake up in about 6 months and think, "Dear God, what have we done to ourselves"? The Dems did a fine job with smoke and mirrors fooling voters into thinking that they were voting for something different, when, in fact, they voted for the same bums that they threw out of office in past elections. Simply put, people in America are lemmings, and most only vote based on what they hear in the media news cycle, and do no research into what the people that they voted for actually stand for, what their voting history has been, etc. America got duped. The good news is, people will realize it, and throw this batch of bums out too. Just more of the same. |
| Haystacks Calhoun II 13.12.2006 14:20 |
Glad someone brought that up. Clinton's eight years, unfortunately for America, were 8 years of wasted opportunity. His presidency just dosen't stand up to scrutiny. Do some research into all of the scandals, indictments, back-stabbing, blaming, and missed opportunity. Sad part is, there are people who actually think that Hillary would make a good president. Will anyone look back at the things that she has done? My guess is, no. Voters are too stupid. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 13.12.2006 14:36 |
Haystacks Calhounski wrote: American voters are stupid. Look at the last few election cycles. Sheep. People are going to wake up in about 6 months and think, "Dear God, what have we done to ourselves"? The Dems did a fine job with smoke and mirrors fooling voters into thinking that they were voting for something different, when, in fact, they voted for the same bums that they threw out of office in past elections. Simply put, people in America are lemmings, and most only vote based on what they hear in the media news cycle, and do no research into what the people that they voted for actually stand for, what their voting history has been, etc. America got duped. The good news is, people will realize it, and throw this batch of bums out too. Just more of the same.Plain and simple - this election was about getting rid of the Republican majority. The voters did that with little thought of anything else. I said that and more in one of my earlier posts. They weren't duped this time any more than they were duped in the long-ago and recent past. In the last election, the statement made was that anti-choice and anti-gay marriage was more important than anything else. In this one, the statement was widespread displeasure with the way-right tilt of the current representatives - in war, at home, and in our personal space. Are the American people going to be happy with their choice? Are they ever? Do they ever have reason to be? And you say smoke and mirrors as if that's somehow worse than shock and awe. Smoke and mirrors are part of politics, are they not? Do you really think when people vote, they believe they're backing a great person? Ever? Or do you think they believe/hope their vote will stand for change when more of the same simply will not do? |
| Haystacks Calhoun II 13.12.2006 15:10 |
Change? Do you think anything is gonna change? Remember, this is the same group of people that Americans kicked out of power not too many years ago......putting them back in is going to change? That is where people get stupid. Believing that things will change. Unfortunately, with two party rule, this is what you get. One party gets power for a while, scandal breaks out, or supposedly breaks out, people vote them out, and put the same scandal ridden people back in that they voted out before. Lather, rinse, repeat. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 13.12.2006 15:48 |
Great job Haystacks! I'm glad someone else sees that 2 party rule is pointless because there is no accountability |
| Maz 13.12.2006 15:58 |
CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Snip1 - The electoral college only affects the presidential election, therefore your critique is not applicable to municipal, state, or other federal positions like Senate and House. Though your complaint might, in theory, occur, never has the electoral college in the last century wantonly disregarded the will of the people of that state. The most that has ever happened is a throwaway vote from one elector, such as a lone vote for Reagan in the election of 1976. It had no bearing on the election and was more of a statement than a failure on the part of the electoral college. 2 - Clinton only had a majority in Congress for 2 years, not 6 of 8. The Republican Revolution, as it was called, lasted from 1994 until this last election, save for a brief time when the Dems had control of the Senate around 2001-2002. Therefore Clinton had to compromise and your critique should be viewed in that light. It was the Clinton presidency, for instance, that reformed the welfare system, not the Republicans who had bitched about it for years. 3 - It saddens me that people actually think that voting is useless. Politicians do have power and they can be entrenched, but it's only the non-voters that lack a voice. If voting was so useless, than we would not have the 15th Amendment, nor would scores of groups have wasted years agitating for the franchise. |
| Maz 13.12.2006 16:00 |
As for the 2 party system - suggest something else. Do you want a parlimentary system as in many European countries? Do you want coalition governments? Perhaps those are good things, but perhaps the 2 party system has also helped the US a great deal. If one side, say Republicans in the recent election, moves too far to the right, that leaves the Democrats to claim the middle ground, where most Americans live. I believe that the 2 party system has kept the US grounded for most of its existance. |
| user name 13.12.2006 17:04 |
On the individual level, voting is useless, unless the margin of victory is one. In the aggregate, theoretically, it is important that everyone in the country vote. I would go so far as to say that convincing people to vote is worth far more than voting yourself. Also, when voting for referendums, what you see is what you get. When voting for politicians, you are making a complete guess based on propaganda and half-empty promises. That sounds like the very much like the definition of a word called futile. It's entirely luck. For example, I took my stab at voting for a politician once, for Governor Corzine in New Jersey. The next thing I know, he gets elected and severely cuts funding to higher education. That includes a massive budget cut to my school, the College of New Jersey. This school has recently been in a very large growth stage which has effectively been put into stasis. Couple this with the fact that I enrolled here for the purposes of what the college would be in five years from my days as a senior in high school, and you see that all I got out of this is a load of shit. I also walked around with some goons who wanted him to get elected, to go to people's houses and put up flyers and remind them to vote. Admittedly, it was only to get $75 in 5 hours, because I really didn't care which way the election went, I needed some cash, and I only even voted to appease my parents' will. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 13.12.2006 17:23 |
Zeni wrote:1. Yes, I realize the electoral college only effects Presidential Elections. Maybe a wanton disregaurd hasn't happend yet, but my point is that when it does (because it's inevitable) there is no recourse, because there is nothing in the law that prevents it. Yes, in theory people could run screaming to the Supreme Court, but we saw what happend the last time they became embroiled with an election issue.CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Snip1 - The electoral college only affects the presidential election, therefore your critique is not applicable to municipal, state, or other federal positions like Senate and House. Though your complaint might, in theory, occur, never has the electoral college in the last century wantonly disregarded the will of the people of that state. The most that has ever happened is a throwaway vote from one elector, such as a lone vote for Reagan in the election of 1976. It had no bearing on the election and was more of a statement than a failure on the part of the electoral college. 2 - Clinton only had a majority in Congress for 2 years, not 6 of 8. The Republican Revolution, as it was called, lasted from 1994 until this last election, save for a brief time when the Dems had control of the Senate around 2001-2002. Therefore Clinton had to compromise and your critique should be viewed in that light. It was the Clinton presidency, for instance, that reformed the welfare system, not the Republicans who had bitched about it for years. 3 - It saddens me that people actually think that voting is useless. Politicians do have power and they can be entrenched, but it's only the non-voters that lack a voice. If voting was so useless, than we would not have the 15th Amendment, nor would scores of groups have wasted years agitating for the franchise. 2. Thanks for correcting my numbers on the Clinton presidency. I bow to that knowledge, but my point still stands. He could have done in two years what he promised to do...never did it. I'm not saying he didn't accomplish anything, because he did. He just accomplished things that were the equivalent of peanuts compared to the promises he was making about things like Universal Health Care and Social Security Reform. Those things desperately need our attention...not likely to happen now. 3. Yes, politicians have power. The voters give it to them. And they then proceed to abuse that power. Even in a fake democracy (which the US is...we are actually a representative republic, not a democracy) the politicians have power...but that power is entrusted to them by the voters who give them the keys to the power. You make it sound like politicians will abuse that power that they have if people don't vote, but they are doing that anyway. And you can't abuse what you don't have. If everyone just stopped voting, granted we'd descend into chaos, but the politicians wouldn't abuse power because they wouldn't have it anymore if no one re-elected them. You may see it as non-voters lacking a voice...I don't see it that way. I see it as "I'm not giving this person power because I don't think they will use it wisely." If everyone else wants to give them power, fine. But at least my consious is clear. |
| Maz 13.12.2006 17:38 |
1 - Nothing in history is inevitable. If anything, 200 years of precedent works against the idea that the Electoral college would do something radical. 2 - Clinton had 2 years, but was also elected with less than 50% of the electoral vote. Mandates can create change in 2 years, slim victories take time. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 13.12.2006 17:52 |
Haystacks Calhounski wrote: Change? Do you think anything is gonna change? Remember, this is the same group of people that Americans kicked out of power not too many years ago......putting them back in is going to change?Yes. Yes I do. What will change is the absolute power one party had over the country. What will change is the type of judges approved for the Supreme Court. What will change is the right-wing religious agenda pervading nearly every thing this administration has tackled. Will it be a drastic change? No. Why? Because of the rest of your post. Things will swing back and forth depending on the mood of the people, but they will swing only slightly because of their limited choices. Does that mean people shouldn't vote? Because the choices suck? No. If anything, I think it means people need to get more involved. I happen to be one of those who sends letters, makes phone calls and signs petitions. Is that obsessive? Maybe. But then, I keep hoping I'll witness a more impressive 'change'. Call me a dreamer. |
| Micrówave 13.12.2006 18:37 |
I don't see how things will change now that we have a Democratic Congress and Senate. Case in point: This election was primarily about the war in Iraq. The Dems want to get out, as quickly as possible. So let's say that happens, the Democrats find a way to bring our troops home in six months... all of them. Now Iran sends guns and money to the Shiite muslems and there's NO ONE THERE TO STOP THEM. Next, Saudi Arabia sends guns and money to the Sunni muslems and there's NO ONE THERE TO STOP THEM. Guns get bigger, funds get bigger. Magically, everyone lays down their weapons and there's no more war ever? |
| Mr.Jingles 13.12.2006 19:04 |
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that violence will create nothing more violence. |
| Mr.Jingles 13.12.2006 19:13 |
Haystacks Calhounski wrote: The statement? The statement on American voters that they are completely stupid? That the American voters will cut off their nose to spite their face? That American voters will replace what they percieve as bad with what they know in their hearts is worse? Our country is in deep doo doo.Then tell us what good would the Republicans do if they kept control of congress? They've had control of congress for over 12 years and what has improved? what has been achieved? Voters are not stupid, they are just tired of the same old shit leading us nowhere. What's the point of insulting people who are choosing a new direction and a new leadership because the one they had before quite simply didn't work. Chances are that it will be the same old bullshit we've been getting for ages. One party fuckin' things up, and the other one pointing fingers but not bringing solutions. Sadly though, there's a minority of politicians in congress who try to break the partisan wall by trying to work things out instead of playing the blame game. Last and not least, congratualations on your attempt on taking Caspar's spot for the most politically biased person on this message board. The two of you might be on the opossite sides of the political spectrum, but the one thing the two of you definitely have in common is that you only see things from a single perspective. |
| user name 13.12.2006 19:35 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: What will change is the right-wing religious agenda pervading nearly every thing this administration has tackled.One thing I will contest is the public's commonly held belief that being Republican is all about religion. I would go so far as to say that 90% of Republican policy is not based on religion. It's only the few (generally unimportant) issues that you always hear about (gay marriage, abortion - two issues that I couldn't care less about) where the religion seems rooted. Unfortunately, this is where most of the Republican voter-base comes from, and it's also where most Democrats-who-would-otherwise-be-Republicans come from. To get my point fully across: Most Libertarians (the ones who don't vote Libertarian) vote Republican. These are the same people who are steadfastly and adamantly against the combination of the church and the state. |
| Haystacks Calhoun II 13.12.2006 19:57 |
I don't see how I am biased one way or the other. Both parties suck. That is the crux of my point. I just think that the Republicans suck a little less than the Democrats, that's all. Both parties are run by big business, by lobbyists, by money, by everything other than the will of the people. Nothing is going to change, except perhaps taxes going up in the near future, sure, it's a different letter after the name, but they are still controlled by the same people. The Dems can't cut and run from Iraq, or the War on Terror. Not going to happen. Never was. Bin Laden was right, I believe, in thinking that the American people didn't have the stomach for a long term war. That said, we need to be in the Middle East long term. Hell, we still are in Germany and Japan..... In time, people will realize why they threw the Dems out of office in 1994. Then, in time, they'll realize why they threw the Republicans out in 2006. It is true, though, that people voting for change and changes sake is laughable under the current system. It's all about who has the money. Guess what? It ain't us. |
| Haystacks Calhoun II 13.12.2006 20:00 |
Back to your point, the Republicans did a wonderful job in the 1994-2000 cycle in changing a myriad of things. Perhaps they should make it a rule that everyone gets 6 years, and you're out. Period. Would see to it that the "good old boy" network of the Kennedys, the Spectors and such cannot keep power forever. |
| Mr.Jingles 13.12.2006 20:45 |
Haystacks Calhounski wrote: Back to your point, the Republicans did a wonderful job in the 1994-2000 cycle in changing a myriad of things.That was during the Clinton administration. If you ask a Democrat what made things so much better back in the 90s they would thank Clinton, and if you ask a Republican the same question then they would thank a Republican controlled congress. Even when things are working the right way, there's still a biased opinion on who should get praised for doing what. Same as the blame game when things are going wrong. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 14.12.2006 08:23 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:My comment was about this administration and how it's managed to pass it's right-wing religious agenda. With fellow republicans in control, the president has had more leeway - as we've seen repeatedly during his frighteningly long 6 years in office - didn't he say god told him it was right to go into Iraq?magicalfreddiemercury wrote: What will change is the right-wing religious agenda pervading nearly every thing this administration has tackled.One thing I will contest is the public's commonly held belief that being Republican is all about religion. Perhaps the entire party isn't all about religion but the way the line between church and state has been blurred under the watch of this republican majority and its born-again president certainly makes one question the party's agenda. |
| Mr.Jingles 14.12.2006 08:53 |
This whole thread is fuckin' retarded starting from the article itself and following Haystack's arguments. First he calls people who chose to vote Democrat "stupid", then claims that he's not politically biased because "Republicans and Democrats suck, but Republicans suck a little less". OK, let's suppose I was forced to listen to Paris Hilton's album or Kevin Federline's. Though I truly wish not to pick either one, I end up choosing Paris Hilton's because I have the feeling it might be the least worse. Do I deserve to be called "stupid" for making a pick between two horrendous choices? I mean, how are we supossed to take this guy seriously condemning stupidity and answering back with an absolutely stupid argument? Now that's just fuckin' stupid. |
| PieterMC 14.12.2006 09:12 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: OK, let's suppose I was forced to listen to Paris Hilton's album or Kevin Federline's.How dare you imply that either one sucks!! |
| Donna13 14.12.2006 12:41 |
|
| thomasquinn 32989 14.12.2006 13:24 |
Haystacks Calhounski wrote:No.<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: Haystacks Calhounski You are one insanely STUPID fuck. I wanted you to know that.I'm stupid because the idiot that Nancy Pelosi hand-picked to run the Intelligence Committee is completely clueless?? Wow. That's some twisted logic. You are stupid because you believe that a) the republicans actually do things right every now and again b) the democrats are incapable of doing anything other than fucking up. For your information, two years ago, Bush was interviewed by a Dutch journalist, and asked to point out Iraq, Afghanistan and the Netherlands on a map (with the names of the countries removed). He placed them in West Africa, Central Africa and South-East Asia respectively. I think that puts your Shia-Sunni matter in perspective. Oh by the way, the difference between those two groups is so small, that the answer your democrat gave is pretty much correct. Ask a theologian if you won't take my word for it. He'll tell you the same thing. |
| user name 14.12.2006 14:04 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote:I don't believe he ever said that God told him to do something, but his insistence that "God is on our side" does not make it a religious issue. It is merely a ploy to gain the support of conservative Christians. You have to maintain the support of your followers, no matter who they are. I figure, tell them whatever you want, as long as the goals are not compromised.<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:My comment was about this administration and how it's managed to pass it's right-wing religious agenda. With fellow republicans in control, the president has had more leeway - as we've seen repeatedly during his frighteningly long 6 years in office - didn't he say god told him it was right to go into Iraq? Perhaps the entire party isn't all about religion but the way the line between church and state has been blurred under the watch of this republican majority and its born-again president certainly makes one question the party's agenda.magicalfreddiemercury wrote: What will change is the right-wing religious agenda pervading nearly every thing this administration has tackled.One thing I will contest is the public's commonly held belief that being Republican is all about religion. It's funny how many people use that as an argument as to why we shouldn't be at war. "Bush said 'God'" "OMG HE MUST B RONG!" |
| magicalfreddiemercury 14.12.2006 14:45 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: I don't believe he ever said that God told him to do something, but his insistence that "God is on our side" does not make it a religious issue. It is merely a ploy to gain the support of conservative Christians. You have to maintain the support of your followers, no matter who they are. I figure, tell them whatever you want, as long as the goals are not compromised. It's funny how many people use that as an argument as to why we shouldn't be at war. "Bush said 'God'" "OMG HE MUST B RONG!"link For the record, I didn't use that as an argument against the war - there are so many other arguments against it anyway. However, if his drive to wipe out Islamic extremism was based on what he perceives as 'the word of god', well, then, there is a definite problem there, wouldn't you say? I hope you're being sarcastic when you say his insistence that 'god is on our side' doesn't make it a religious issue. Given that, the fact we're supposed to be fighting religious extremism, and the guy's propensity for religious references, and you clearly have a religious motive for his actions. He's a religious fanatic and proud of it. He's like the Islamics who cannot see a separation of church and state. In Islam, there is no separation between living and worshiping. The two are intertwined. So it is, it seems, for Bush. He even had a former head-of-state squirming in his seat - link link link |
| user name 14.12.2006 20:05 |
I'm not saying that it is determinable to what degree of religious intent Bush acts, but what I am saying is that it is indeterminable. What a politician says is ultimately geared toward what he wants to do. That could be either performing his job, or just getting elected again. You know what? Saying you're a Christian gets you more votes. Therefore, when a politician appears religious...or a "family man," that is indicative of nothing. We should only focus on what a politician does, rather than what he or she says to promote it. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 14.12.2006 21:27 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: I'm not saying that it is determinable to what degree of religious intent Bush acts, but what I am saying is that it is indeterminable.Which is precisely why he's so frightening. |
| user name 14.12.2006 23:22 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote:But by what I said, anyone could be so frightening.<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: I'm not saying that it is determinable to what degree of religious intent Bush acts, but what I am saying is that it is indeterminable.Which is precisely why he's so frightening. And I don't think any President could be "frightening," so to say. |
| Mr.Jingles 15.12.2006 07:28 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:A Vice President could...magicalfreddiemercury wrote:But by what I said, anyone could be so frightening. And I don't think any President could be "frightening," so to say.<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: I'm not saying that it is determinable to what degree of religious intent Bush acts, but what I am saying is that it is indeterminable.Which is precisely why he's so frightening. Specially when he's holding a gun. |
