Quote from: trumpetguy on December 29, 2007, 10:54:42 AM
And Ron Paul is copping out on this one.   Civil rights are not state by state issues.  If they were, much of the South would still be racially segregated.

Fair enough, he is taking a bad stance, I agree.  But you can see where his principles lead him to his stance on the issue of ga y marriage.  His belief in the Constitution as the law of the land means that the Tenth Amendment turns this into a state issue since it is nowhere enumerated in the Constitution.  I personally disagree, just as you do.  All men are created equal and the principle of equal protection under the law naturally leads to equal treatment under the law for any contract between two people, regardless of who those two people are.  Thus, any two people old enough to enter into contracts can be married regardless of gender.

But I think we have to acknowledge that there are more pressing issues facing the country right now.  Thousands of our own people and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died in a war that's made us less safe, and the government is denying more basic civil rights such as habeas corpus and the eighth amendment.

edit: are you kidding me?  There's a filter to change "g a y" to "ghey"?  Why?

Quote from: asobi on December 29, 2007, 11:05:47 AM
But I think we have to acknowledge that there are more pressing issues facing the country right now.  Thousands of our own people and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died in a war that's made us less safe, and the government is denying more basic civil rights such as habeas corpus and the eighth amendment.

No question there!  I'm in absolute agreement with you on both counts.  Unfortunately, the rest of the GOP candidates and most of the Dem candidates are wimps on both these issues.

Personally my favored candidates right now are Paul, Kucinich, and Obama.  Paul and Kucinich are by far the most in line with my beliefs in their respective primaries.  They're outspoken but principled and not afraid to say something unpopular if it is the correct thing to say and the country needs to hear it.  I'm not 100% sure about Obama but he's my realistic best shot for a sane executive branch 2009-2012.  I liked the transparency act of 2006 a lot, and he's saying all the right things with respect to a peaceful foreign policy and returning civil liberties.

No filter, we say Ghey ... to emphasise the "Ghhhh" ...
Anyway, we also need to toss the Iowa caucus and all other caucusey crap. Worthless ethanol is the end result.
Transporting corn from Iowa to the Texas panhandle and then turning it into ethanol, instead of making it from sugar cane that is grown in the SE right by texas, is just stupid. Corn makes for great cattle feed, Sugar cane makes for good sugar failing which it makes good ethanol. Anyway, nice thing about Ron Paul ... he is not bought and sold by the big businesses. He has been put into play by the individuals not businesses. Dont even care what his political stance is. The problem has been one of ownership, as in which politico is owned by which corporation, issues come next. Solutions to issues are well defined in the constitution or the little guy has a direction in which he wants to go. That is what is important.
Cool.
Srinath.

Ethanol from corn is just such a terrible idea.  Both Kucinich and Paul are completely against subsidizing it, each for their own reasons.  Obama also disagrees with it but has taken the view that cellulosic ethanol might be a good alternative.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol

I'm hoping against hope that Clinton, Giuliani, Huckabee, or Romney don't win their primaries.  I am going to be so angry in 2008, I can tell...

Clinton is a worthless piece of human Grabage who will simply use the "woman for president" line to weedle her way into it. I just say, Yes a woman for president, just not this one.
Giuliani is another one of those 911 candidates. I was there and being very heroic - now WTF was he being heroic about, yes he went there 100's of times and told the people to keep digging. OK ... like we didn't know that.
Fuckabee and Dummy - Yea, No clue how just religion can make eitger of them a "candidate".
Your assesment is very right. Though Kucinich has no chance in hell IMHO. RP is also getting so little of the press, so freaking bought and sold press we got too.
Cool.
Srinath.

There is a filter on the word. On a more important note, anyone watch the debate last night? Unfortunately I don't think it was Pauls best. Thhis is simply because he kept harping on his most unpopular idea. Terrorists attack us because we are there. I think he should let that one go for now and focus on his other thousand ideas that are home runs. I did love how Obama and Edwards teamed p on Hillary though. Awsome. I just hope she doesn't get pitty otes now. with our luck some schmoe will feel bad for her and vote the monster(Hillary) to office. As for the Dems. I have to give Richardson props. Too bad all of the good canidates are the underdogs.

One more thing. I am sick of caucusses and primaries being spread out. I am appauled that people are voting based on results from previous states instead of their principles. I can't stand the media broadcasting winners. We all know this affects how people vote. AAAAGGHHH! 

  -Anti 

Ron Paul!

I would never vote for hitlory Clinton

Thank YOU Frankie! All is forgiven.

  -Anti 

The constitution is in shambles. Democrates are scared to appear weak. The economy is in ruins and spending is out of control mostly because of iraqnam. People die because HMO make money a priority over people. If your home catches fire it will be out out for free. But you will die of your injuries because property is valued above human life

i suppose this is the thread to post my qualms with the current election process. GET RID OF THE ELECTORIAL COLLEGE CRAP!!  as it stands right now, it seems to me all a potential canidate needs to do is get California, Texas, Florida and they've all but got the election wrapped up. individual votes don't seem to count as much as they say they do. oh, and someone mentioned that america has become just a larger corporation, thereby stating that we are run by big business. if this is true(and i believe it may be) just how many votes do you think big business has bought? seriously. so how are you and i (john q. taxpayer) supposed to compete with that? we can't buy more votes than big business. 

Quote from: jserio on January 09, 2008, 10:38:32 PM
GET RID OF THE ELECTORIAL COLLEGE CRAP!!

Agreed.  But while we're on the subject we badly need approval voting or a Condorcet ranked choice method.  I think I've mentioned this before, but here's the pitch:

Under the current plurality system in the United States, the introduction of third alternatives in elections can cause a spoiler effect, as demonstrated with Ross Perot in 1992 and Ralph Nader in 2000.

With approval voting, voters can express their support for third alternatives without hurting the chances of major candidates. Specifically, each voter chooses each candidate that they approve. Whichever candidate is approved by the largest number of voters wins. In this way, the candidate that the largest number of voters are willing to form a consensus around wins the election.

Note, ranked choice voting methods are also excellent alternatives to the current system but among these, there exist many flawed implementations. The simplest adjustment would be to switch from plurality to approval voting. Condorcet criterion-satisfying methods and the range voting method do show promise for the future though.


Why is this a problem?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law

What are our options?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_different_voting_systems_under_similar_circumstances

What is wrong with instant runoff voting?
I will say that IRV is better than plurality. However it has its flaws, and better systems (approval voting, Condorcet methods) exist.
http://zesty.ca/lj/yee-oca-transferable-vote-3.pdf
http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/
http://rangevoting.org/Irvtalk.html
http://rangevoting.org/TarrIrv.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_voting#Tactical_voting_in_particular_systems
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system#Criteria_in_evaluating_voting_systems

Why approval voting?
http://alum.mit.edu/ne/whatmatters/200211/index.html

Oh, the primary and caucus crap sucks too. Too much time and too much $$ ... a candidate is bought and sold before anyone even sees his/her name on a ballot where it counts.
Also, Iowa is first, then NH ... like WTF, what about the rest of us, we are chopped liver
Screw it all, all in 1 day.
And yes multi choice will give segway to a good multi party, but It shouldn't degrade to the multi party like in India IMHO. Platform based is good, and there can be several platforms.
Cool.
Srinath.