A good question.

Someone posed a question to me and others as to what should be done,if anything, to straighten out the American GOV.

As complex as the question is, as there are so many angles to come from, ill start the conversation by giveing my input.

I think first and foremost should be Election Reform.

Big Bussiness needs to be out of American Politics. It creates biased situations based on greed and power, and in no small part is helping the shrinkage of the modern middle class.

To accomplish this, elections should be publically funded, and each candidate is to be given the same amount of funds in which to run their campaighn.

All those meeting the requirements to run for President, based on the current perameters required, and chooseing to run, will be given these funds and equal air time in all debates aired on any network.

No fees are to be paid by the taxpayers for this air time, as I am sure corp advertiseing dollars would more than fill the network coffers. But under no circumstances will any network be allowed to deny any candidate access to the debates.

What is accomplished by doing this?

Well for one it evens the playing feild for all involved, less funding for mudslinging, and it would bring new perspectives to the political ring. Also provides a wider choice for the people to choose from other than the standard two choices between bad and bad.

Second, no electorial college, elections should be based on popular vote, and popular vote alone, this makes every vote count.

Third, there is nothing wrong with counting votes by hand, technology is not needed in this regard. Further more with the Corporations out of elections it becomes harder for funding to become available to rig elections.

I am a firm believer in fixing the foundation instead of painting over cracked walls, and I think our election process is the foundation that needs to be repaired.

Lets open the door now to comments should anyone choose to make them.

No flames no name calling, lets have an adult conversation.

Peace.:smokin:

Well lets see here..............

1) President is limited to two terms....so should Congress and Senate
2) NO MORE special interest groups

....a)No more donations to a party but to a fund for ALL parties to equally divide...NO running over budget or your man/woman is OUT OF THERE!
....b)TV stations will provide FREE EQUAL coverage for each party (politicians supply ratings with news.....it would be a nice gesture to give a lil' back for the ratings)

3) Each state will be worth 100 points.....the candidates for President will recieve a certain percentage based on STATE popular vote. This will keep the states in an equal playing field so the coastal states don't determine the outcome for the country.

4) If all else fails....make me the Dictator!:D

Have a good one!:thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

Well lets see here..............

4) If all else fails....make me the Dictator!:D

Have a good one!:thumbsup:

---

HELL YEAH!!

i choose option 4,

if i was ur advisor i say for everyones b-day the get a free gram of P91:rasta:

I would say...a working class revolution to overthrow capitalism and the state, establishing a society in which the means of production belong to all and decisions are made in a directly democratic manner by people working as free associations of equal individuals, without need for bosses or legislators. Power corrupts, so let's get rid of power and try equality instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I would say...a working class revolution to overthrow capitalism and the state, establishing a society in which the means of production belong to all and decisions are made in a directly democratic manner by people working as free associations of equal individuals, without need for bosses or legislators. Power corrupts, so let's get rid of power and try equality instead.

---

In theory that works. But society isnt ready to govern itself yet. For that to happen each and every person must mind his actions and such. Unfortunately many people just cannot do that.

Also we should become self sufficient. Each community, city and/or town must be completely self sufficient and not depend on another community for survival because this creates an imbalance of power if one community can control another through trade.

The family should be the most important. The family is the core of a society. When families start to fall apart so does society. People learn more in their family than they do at school. I know i did when i was a young child although i cant say the same for my friends with divorced parents:( .

And as for government i would go with an athenian democracy. Where everybody gets a chance to govern, not just those who have the funds to run.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by halo

In theory that works. But society isnt ready to govern itself yet. For that to happen each and every person must mind his actions and such. Unfortunately many people just cannot do that.

---

Huh? What about a directly democratic society would keep us from punishing people who harm or exploit others?

Quote:

---

Also we should become self sufficient. Each community, city and/or town must be completely self sufficient and not depend on another community for survival because this creates an imbalance of power if one community can control another through trade.

---

Only in a profit-driven economy. Hence the stress on solidarity, cooperation and mutual aid.

Quote:

---

The family should be the most important. The family is the core of a society. When families start to fall apart so does society. People learn more in their family than they do at school. I know i did when i was a young child although i cant say the same for my friends with divorced parents:( .

---

I take it you have not studied anthropology in depth. You might be surprised to know that some cultures don't even have a concept like "family". Children in such cultures are raised by the community and taken care of by all. And what's worse for a child, living with two divorced parents or two parents who are married but don't want to be? Relationships go sour; not all families are perfect, and they never will be. But that is irrelevant to the idea of overthrowing capitalism and the state anyhow.

Quote:

---

And as for government i would go with an athenian democracy. Where everybody gets a chance to govern, not just those who have the funds to run.

---

Ah yes, just like in good old sexist slave-owning Athens, where everybody was equal, but some people were more equal than others.

Hats off to you, MM, good thread, and practical set of priorities.

I suppose I'd stop short of fomenting revolution... today, anyway ;)

I'd do the following:

1) Outlaw corporate/commercial access to elected offices; like you, MM, my top priority. But I'd have stiff penalties, like public executions on Wall Street... No more Enron CEOs getting off easy with massive heart attacks while on vacation in Aspen.

2) Enforce the constitution and get God away from our rights and freedom

3) Like PB4 said, term limits

4) Make viable options to the two party system (although, the one party system seems to work well in the vote counting ;) )

5) Keep the Kennedys away from girls, booze, drugs and automobiles

6) And will someone give Bush a blow job so we can impeach his ass...

Peace!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Huh? What about a directly democratic society would keep us from punishing people who harm or exploit others?
The people who develop the "rules" are going to exploit worst than the former leaders did.

Only in a profit-driven economy. Hence the stress on solidarity, cooperation and mutual aid.
There is no motivation in a completely non-profit driven society. It never works, and probably never will.

I take it you have not studied anthropology in depth. You might be surprised to know that some cultures don't even have a concept like "family". Children in such cultures are raised by the community and taken care of by all. And what's worse for a child, living with two divorced parents or two parents who are married but don't want to be? Relationships go sour; not all families are perfect, and they never will be. But that is irrelevant to the idea of overthrowing capitalism and the state anyhow.
Those "societies" never progress past the stone age. I have no desire to have any kids, either, and I certainly will never take care of the offspring of other people. It's bad enough that there's overpopulation in the first place.

Ah yes, just like in good old sexist slave-owning Athens, where everybody was equal, but some people were more equal than others.

---

The above posting is a good example of collectivist thinking. In this type of Utopia, the individual only exists for the good of the whole, and will never rise to meet challenges with solutions that are uniquely his. It is a self-defeating way of living because there is no motivation to create things that are going to help mankind.

A well-designed, materialist capitalist society is far better for the world - and the future Those that produce reward themselves, and the sky is the limit if their mind and energy is up to it. Collectivism is never going to work, because people are NOT all equal. They must have equal rights, and social justice, but the right to make profit from an enterprise is central to progress.

Individualism makes for progress and betterment of the human race. Collectivism hinders both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by graymatter

6) And will someone give Bush a blow job so we can impeach his ass...

Peace!

---

LOL I choked on my pasta!

To graymatter....that was classic!!!:D

Have a good one!:thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat

Individualism makes for progress and betterment of the human race. Collectivism hinders both.

---

Hey, Breuk, good point, but how do we reconcile "rugged individualism" (aka Reagan/Goldwater) versus human considerations for exapanding options and opportunities to accomplish the basics?

To me the question boils down to how to recapture the meaning of freedom. George Lakoff (linguist) talked about this recently and it really hit me.

I like this question. Here's what I'd do, and it's similar to yours, MM:

1. Campaign finance reform
2. Popular elections; no more electoral college
3. Term limits
4. Eliminate big bidness access to politics and abolish our system of lobbyists. While we're at it, we need to eliminate big pharma access to medicine and abolish those lobbyists, too. Don't even get me started on big insurance.
5. Separate church and state and keep it separate. As Gray said, keep God away from our rights and freedoms.
6. To assist with 5, make it so that popular vote determines matters like abortion access and stem cell research rather than having legislators who'll never have any need of either mode of care run such important decisions through their moral filters.
7. Every penny spent on wars has to be matched domestically in programs supporting universal health care and public education. In the event of peace, people-care and education would still be our top priority.

I'd volunteer to play a round of Monica-and-Bill with Mr. President as a service to the country, but I can already tell I'd develop lockjaw. I do not find him a sexy or compelling man. If John Edwards ever holds office and needs to be impeached, I'm your girl.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by graymatter

Hey, Breuk, good point, but how do we reconcile "rugged individualism" (aka Reagan/Goldwater) versus human considerations for exapanding options and opportunities to accomplish the basics?

To me the question boils down to how to recapture the meaning of freedom. George Lakoff (linguist) talked about this recently and it really hit me.

---

That's a good counter-point, but nobody has to starve, or be left out in the cold in a good materialist system - unless they chose to live that way. It's just not the job of the government to be in the "charity" business, nor should they be involved with restrictive programs such as affirmative action, and other bad policies.

People will help others when it's needed, because it's in the best interest of humanity - but it doesn't have to be forced. Non-profit organizations should not be needed as often as they are today, but I certainly don't want to privatize everything.

One MAJOR step in the right direction would be to bring back beneficial patriarchy, in the family and the law. The poverty stricken families are usually that way because the males have been stripped of their rights, kicked out of their own house, and given unfair responsibilities. I think that divorce, when there are children, should be next to impossible. And if the couple still insists on it, the children should remain in the household of the father. I would also eliminate welfare for "single moms" - if churches, or other private institutions want to support them, that's fine. Widows and orphans are different, though. I absolutely believe that we should bring back the concept of "bastard" - meaning that if there was no legal marriage, then the child's biological father is not legally bound to support it. Of course, some men would do it voluntarily, but they should not be forced. It's worth a try - the current situation is not working, and is getting worse. If a woman wants to be a single mother, that is fine as long as she can support herself and her children - with or without outside help. I don't see why I should have to pay for it, through taxation.

Wow, Breuk, that approach to patriarchal responsibility is awfully stringent, and I'm not sure that what you've proposed is in the best interests of the children involved--particularly the idea to refuse welfare to single moms. Actually, you could refuse it to their mothers, particularly if they refuse to stay on some form of reliable birth control, but I think the idea of withdrawing sustenance from the children themselves would simply put those children at worse risk of perpetuating the cycle of poverty and crime.

In the poor families I work with as a volunteer, the fathers haven't been stripped of their rights or kicked out of their own houses. They've left voluntarily. IF they were ever there in the first place. Many of these folks are accustomed to a completely matriarchal system and have lived in such single-mother-led households for three generations. The fathers are basically sperm donors and little else, but they made that choice. They weren't stripped of their responsibilities by anyone. It's heartbreaking, yes. But those dads simply never took responsibility in the first place. I've volunteered to help these people get social services for years, and I have not yet seen an instance where one of those fathers was "stripped" of anything except perhaps when he was strip-searched on his way into prison. Maybe you're thinking of some sort of different family circumstances than these.

In your plan to cut down on divorce or have children of parents who insist on divorcing stay with their fathers, what if the fathers aren't the right parent with whom to leave children? Particularly if they're small children, that's a mighty big burden to place on a father. I like the idea of discouraging divorce, but I think there are ways to do that that don't put undue burdens on fathers to suddenly be primary caregivers, particularly those who aren't in any way suited for that job. More power to those who do have that aptitude!

Again, I like the concept of a father and a mother being married and together supporting a child, but I think the "bastard" concept again punishes children. I know men sometimes feel trapped when women get pregnant, but they participate in that sexual encounter, too. I see no reason why, if the man plays a 50-50 role in conceiving that child, he shouldn't contribute to its support.

Just a female perspective on a few of those points. How old are you BA? And have you ever been married or fathered children?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by birdgirl73

Wow, Breuk, that approach to patriarchal responsibility is awfully stringent, and I'm not sure that what you've proposed is in the best interests of the children involved--particularly the idea to refuse welfare to single moms. Actually, you could refuse it to their mothers, particularly if they refuse to stay on some form of reliable birth control, but I think the idea of withdrawing sustenance from the children themselves would simply put those children at worse risk of perpetuating the cycle of poverty and crime.

I should say that this would not happen. If the mothers' families were not going to step in, or private charity was unavailable, then they would have to be put in orphanages, either state-run or private, and given a good education until they are old enough to leave.

In the poor families I work with as a volunteer, the fathers haven't been stripped of their rights or kicked out of their own houses. They've left voluntarily. IF they were ever there in the first place. Many of these folks are accustomed to a completely matriarchal system and have lived in such single-mother-led households for three generations. The fathers are basically sperm donors and little else, but they made that choice. They weren't stripped of their responsibilities by anyone. It's heartbreaking, yes. But those dads simply never took responsibility in the first place. I've volunteered to help these people get social services for years, and I have not yet seen an instance where one of those fathers was "stripped" of anything except perhaps when he was strip-searched on his way into prison. Maybe you're thinking of some sort of different family circumstances than these.

Yes, but those children should be given the same help as the ones I mentioned in the paragraph above, if necessary. These men like to hop from household to household, which are usually supported by welfare checks to the mother. This is wrong, and encourages irresponsible behavior in males - many of whom were brought up by exactly the same type of women that they are making babies with.

In your plan to cut down on divorce or have children of parents who insist on divorcing stay with their fathers, what if the fathers aren't the right parent with whom to leave children? Particularly if they're small children, that's a mighty big burden to place on a father. I like the idea of discouraging divorce, but I think there are ways to do that that don't put undue burdens on fathers to suddenly be primary caregivers, particularly those who aren't in any way suited for that job. More power to those who do have that aptitude!

People have to start accepting the fact that having children is a major responsibility, and not just something that "everybody" does. I think that if we took a more mature attitude about sexuality, and people could have their little flings on the side, this would help immensely. I don't choose to live this way, but many people do not stay attracted to each other and run out to get divorced at the fist opportunity. If children were not involved, it's not so bad, but the childfree couples are not causing these problems for others. A mistress, or male suitor, would at least keep the marriages together until the children are in their mid-teens. I don't see it as a big sacrifice, but I'm not a parent.

Again, I like the concept of a father and a mother being married and together supporting a child, but I think the "bastard" concept again punishes children. I know men sometimes feel trapped when women get pregnant, but they participate in that sexual encounter, too. I see no reason why, if the man plays a 50-50 role in conceiving that child, he shouldn't contribute to its support.

He should be not be held financially responsible if there was no marriage. I do not think that it is "immoral" to have sex without marriage, and did so myself for many years, but it's unethical to bring children into the world without a legal system. The whole "deadbeat dad" syndrome is rotten. If neither parent can support the illegitimate child, then it must go to an orphanage. Who would want to produce children irresponsibly knowing that this is likely to happen? Not many, I'd guess.

Just a female perspective on a few of those points. How old are you BA? And have you ever been married or fathered children?

---

Older than dirt, lol (over 50)

NO! I have not, to the best of my knowledge, fathered any children. :thumbsup:

Oh, I forgot to mention - I'm married. I waited for the right person, and got hitched when I was past 40 years old. It was the smartest thing I ever did. We are THINKERS:
Two Healthy Incomes No Kids Early Retirement.

:dance:

I'm only just now getting back to this. Had to be in the office early today and then travel with one of our execs for most of the day.
OK, after you amplified your answers a bit, Breukelen, I feel I understand them better. I was just curious about whether or not you were married or had kids, and I have to add that being over 50 is not older than dirt.

I feel fairly certain that, if left to their own devices, churches and other non-profits wouldn't truly take up the slack left by withdrawal of social welfare support to single moms and their children. It's a lovely idea, but we already know from Bush's resoundingly "successful" (my tone here is sarcastic for those who can't hear it) faith-based initiative that that plan is mostly lip service and not much more.

Here in our area, the non-profit agencies and churches that help poor folks, which include people on welfare and lots of working poor who don't quite qualify, are totally strapped for cash and have few resources to help right now. I don't see how that will get better with more demand. Our food banks have empty shelves. If those single moms and children who qualify didn't have food stamps and WIC support, they'd be hungrier than they already are, and many of them are hungry now.

I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think further reduction of welfare benefits is it. I know there are a couple of states--I believe Wisconsin is one of them--who've had tremendous success in training/skilling these welfare moms and weaning them from social benefits, and I wish other states could follow suit. I do know that since the 1990s, welfare spending overall is down by almost half and that--no surprise here--poverty is up correspondingly. For social workers and volunteers who work with these folks to try and get them services, it feels very hopeless because we see people with real needs going without the most basic supplies.

As for the matter of requiring fathers to marry women before they father children, rotsa ruck. It's hard enough for many of them to commit to women when no children are in the picture. I like the idea of incenting fathers not to add to the problem of illegitimacy, but relying on the "system" to pluck that child of unmarried, poor parents out and put him in an orphanage certainly sounds tricky. I like the idea of insisting on implantable birth-control for every woman who's even at minimal risk of bringing an illegitimate child into the world, but every time I open my mouth about that, I get called a communist. I prefer to think of myself as a children's advocate.

I must now put my mind to feeding dinner to a family of four (three if you don't count my sister, who won't eat anyway) and temporarily veer from the social problems of our time. Talk to you later, BA!

Iâ??m NOT for starving people. I honestly think that the society is going to go backwards if we donâ??t start choosing the lesser of two evils in many situations.

I have traced much of my family history in America back to immigrants from Holland, France and England in the early 17th century. None of the hundreds of families in my line, that I have documented, had divorces, or illegitimate children - at least not before the 20th century. If they were married more than once, it was because their spouse had died. I know that this is not unique, and that many other people would find the same thing if they put the effort into tracing roots.

Today, itâ??s ridiculous. People get married, have kids, and break up. This wasnâ??t common when I was growing up in the 1950â??s and 1960â??s. It happened occasionally, but nothing like today. Several of my friends had to grow up in fatherless households, due to divorce, and I can tell you that these guys still have problems from it, even in my age group. Itâ??s bad for girls, also.

Men have a history in the civilized world of being providers, and now they are well on the way of being nothing more than sperm donors, which, btw, is actually happening. Itâ??s just wrong, and many of the ideas that were taught as the â??truthâ?� in the 1960â??s are responsible. People like Hillary "It takes a Village Idiot"* Clinton are just making it worse.



Have a good evening!

*A tip of the hat to PJ O'Rourke. :dance:

I don't think Hillary's It Take a Villiage to Raise a Child book was meant to disparage or dismiss fathers. It simply talked about how a whole community of people influence children as they're growing up. That's very true. I know I was influential in other kids' lives not only when I was a teacher but also as the mother of one of their friends. I don't find Hillary an idiot. She's clearly been a good mother to her own child, and I admire the way she worked through some very public difficulties in her own marriage and hung in there.

I agree that the divorce rate is ridculous. But I can't deny, as someone who's been married for 22 years, that it's not sometimes very tough. There are times when it'd be much easier to give up, and I think that's why so many people make choice to throw in the towel. Because it's just the easiest solution.

Divorce does damage children. It puts them at greater risk of poverty, crime, and dropping out of school. Makes many of them shy of commitment when they're adults. Boys greatly depend on resident fathers to teach them to be gentlemen and providers--and to model how to respect and treat women. And girls need fathers present in the house to learn that they have some value in men's eyes--and not necessarily just meaningless sexual value, which, as adolescents, they'll often go out seeking from the first available males when dad's not present in their lives.

Have you ever heard Dr. Laura Schlesinger on this subject? I think she's frequently bad-mannered and sometimes gives short shrift to psychological motivations behind people's behaviors. Often her callers are terminally stupid to begin with. But I agree with most of her attitudes about the importance of maintaining a stable, two-parent home for kids. And I think she hits a lot of valid points in her book The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands, too.

Divorce was uncommon among the circle of adults I knew when I was growing up in the 60s and 70s, too. My parents married young and have been married for 51 years, and both sets of my grandparents had marriages that lasted for more than 63 years. I'm certain the long-term examples they modeled have helped me keep hanging in there in my own marriage.

Oh well, we're not going to solve this tonight. But it's been a fun discussion, hasn't it? Hope you have a good Friday, Breukelen!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by birdgirl73

I don't think Hillary's It Take a Villiage to Raise a Child book was meant to disparage or dismiss fathers. It simply talked about how a whole community of people influence children as they're growing up. That's very true. I know I was influential in other kids' lives not only when I was a teacher but also as the mother of one of their friends. I don't find Hillary an idiot. She's clearly been a good mother to her own child, and I admire the way she worked through some very public difficulties in her own marriage and hung in there.

I agree that the divorce rate is ridculous. But I can't deny, as someone who's been married for 22 years, that it's not sometimes very tough. There are times when it'd be much easier to give up, and I think that's why so many people make choice to throw in the towel. Because it's just the easiest solution.

Divorce does damage children. It puts them at greater risk of poverty, crime, and dropping out of school. Makes many of them shy of commitment when they're adults. Boys greatly depend on resident fathers to teach them to be gentlemen and providers--and to model how to respect and treat women. And girls need fathers present in the house to learn that they have some value in men's eyes--and not necessarily just meaningless sexual value, which, as adolescents, they'll often go out seeking from the first available males when dad's not present in their lives.

Have you ever heard Dr. Laura Schlesinger on this subject? I think she's frequently bad-mannered and sometimes gives short shrift to psychological motivations behind people's behaviors. Often her callers are terminally stupid to begin with. But I agree with most of her attitudes about the importance of maintaining a stable, two-parent home for kids. And I think she hits a lot of valid points in her book The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands, too.

Divorce was uncommon among the circle of adults I knew when I was growing up in the 60s and 70s, too. My parents married young and have been married for 51 years, and both sets of my grandparents had marriages that lasted for more than 63 years. I'm certain the long-term examples they modeled have helped me keep hanging in there in my own marriage.

Oh well, we're not going to solve this tonight. But it's been a fun discussion, hasn't it? Hope you have a good Friday, Breukelen!

---

I'm not a Clinton hater - but I don't want her brand of "feminism" foisted upon the nation. I am more in the ballpark of the "childfree" mindset - and the perks and breaks that were given to parents during her husband's administration were grossly unfair to the rest of us. I recommend the book, The Baby Boon: How Family-Friendly America Cheats the Childless (Hardcover) by Elinor Burkett . Hillary is a senator in New York State, where I live, and isn't too bad, on many issues. I can't pull the Baby Boon book out right now as it is in the bedroom, and I would wake my wife up. It's worth noting that even some parents agree with many of Burkett's findings and observations. The Clinton Administration was notoriously overgenerous to parents, at the expense of non-parents and seniors, and this tendency translated into policies in the workplace, and other areas, as well.

I haven't heard Dr. Laura Schlesinger for a while. I don't really fit into the mold of a typical "husband", since I lived alone for a total of about 20 years and am capable of taking care of myself, albeit sloppily. But, I'll check her out the next time I'm in a library, or Borders book store.

Have a nice Friday - it's always the best workday, to me. :thumbsup:

I'm curious. After all that long time as a swinging single, what finally brought you to the point where you were ready to settle down and get married? Did you just finally meet the right girl?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by birdgirl73

I'm curious. After all that long time as a swinging single, what finally brought you to the point where you were ready to settle down and get married? Did you just finally meet the right girl?

---

Yes, and she snagged me! After we started going together, I continued to renew my lease for almost five more years - and she wasn't too thrilled about that. I had previously been in situations where I'd given up apartments to "shack-up", and then had to start from square one when the relationship(s) went south. My wife is different, though. She didn't want kids, wasn't crazy or over-critical, and for some reason was able to put up with my peculiarities and eccentricities. I remember going on a vacation with her, after were seeing each other for a year or so. I predicted that we wouldn't last a week in a hotel room together. I also predicted, based on my previous record, that our relationship wouldn't last 3 months. Boy, was I wrong there! :dance:

That's cool. Traveling together is a real make-or-break test of a relationship, I think. People ought to take long trips together as part of their courtships.

I was 22 when I got married and he was 26, which is just nuts now that I look back on it. That's far too young. We'd only known each other for a year and a half or so. I was finishing grad school and he was in med school. But we were terribly hot for each other, and frankly, that was the motivation--to find a way to be able to easily sleep together. Marriage seemed like the solution. If I had it to do over again, I'd have sewn more wild oats and waited to settle down till I was in my 30s. A huge percentage of young marriages involving medical professionals don't survive the years of internship and residency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

3) Each state will be worth 100 points.....the candidates for President will recieve a certain percentage based on STATE popular vote. This will keep the states in an equal playing field so the coastal states don't determine the outcome for the country.

:

---

Have you gone psycho Psycho? Shouldn't the popular vote be what counts? What you're saying is that 500K people (Wyoming population) should have as much say as 34million (California population). In other words, the votes of 33.5 million people don't mean shit. You should ban yourself for a proposterous idea ;)

Besides, if you look at a map of the election results from 2004, it was the uneducated hillbilly masses in the middle states, those so easily swayed by firery rhetoric of Muslim invaders and the values of being a good Christian, that elected the Idiot in Chief . The coastal states didn't seem to have as much clout as you think.

No offense to the hillbilly masses intended.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fengzi

Have you gone psycho Psycho?

My ex-wives would agree with that assessment! LOL

Shouldn't the popular vote be what counts? What you're saying is that 500K people (Wyoming population) should have as much say as 34million (California population). In other words, the votes of 33.5 million people don't mean shit. You should ban yourself for a proposterous idea ;)

Instead of being more of a congressional election it would sway more towards a senatorial election. Hell, the fine state of California has 53 Congressman while the fine state of Wyoming has 1. How much power do the coastal states need/deserve as compared to the GREAT midwest?

Besides, if you look at a map of the election results from 2004, it was the uneducated hillbilly masses in the middle states, those so easily swayed by firery rhetoric of Muslim invaders and the values of being a good Christian, that elected the Idiot in Chief . The coastal states didn't seem to have as much clout as you think.

No offense to the hillbilly masses intended.

---

LMFAO!!! WEEEEEEEEE DOGGGGGIES!!! LOL At least the liberal vote would count in our lil' "hillbilly" states if gave percentages based on the vote.

Y'all have a good one now.....ya hear!:thumbsup: LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

Instead of being more of a congressional election it would sway more towards a senatorial election. Hell, the fine state of California has 53 Congressman while the fine state of Wyoming has 1. How much power do the coastal states need/deserve as compared to the GREAT midwest?

---

How much more power do we need? Looked at who's living in the White House lately? Obvioulsy California's 54 electoral votes didn't go too far :(

Anyhow, as you are so found of changing your av, I got a new one for ya

LOL.....turn that into a gif and I'll use it! LOL
By the way, my bro lives in Huntington beach....

Have a good one!:thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

LOL.....turn that into a gif and I'll use it! LOL
By the way, my bro lives in Huntington beach....

Have a good one!:thumbsup:

---

Must I do everything. Gif, as requested

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat

Oh, I forgot to mention - I'm married. I waited for the right person, and got hitched when I was past 40 years old. It was the smartest thing I ever did. We are THINKERS:
Two Healthy Incomes No Kids Early Retirement.

:dance:

---

I tried that, when I was 20's, then my 30's, then 40's. All three wives, couldn't think their way out of an inter-tube........ You lucky dog.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fengzi

Must I do everything. Gif, as requested

---

Thank you sir........you are a scholar and a gentleman.:D

Have a good one!:thumbsup:

Yeah it is a good question someone said that it should be two terms thats good or simply what you have got now its certainly alot better in away than how we have it down here in Australia where they could be in forever!(What a scary thought) .Ahh certainly for america it would be better to vote on paper rather than electronically as they have proven to be faulty in the past and also rig so you press john kerry button say for instant and it goes straight to bushs side so that needs to go. and certainly what you said about each party having certain amounts of money to spend on campaigning.:thumbsup: