The New McCarthyism.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2003-04-30 01:03am

The ironic thing about the whole election 2000 debacle is that if Gore had managed to carry his home state, Florida wouldn't have mattered a bit and it'd be President Gore in the White House.

Instead, he not only lost Tennessee, he lost Bill Clinton's home state as well.

In hindsight, GWB's most clever move was to campaign heavily in Gore's backyard in the final days of the election.

Johonebesus · Post by **Johonebesus** » 2003-04-30 02:50am

Durran Korr wrote:Don't you understand that you can't possibly discern what the Popular Will is when such a significant portion of the population isn't voting? And if you want an example of the efficiency of a purely direct election, look to Russia in 1996.

Low voter turnout is a problem with our society, not our system. The correction for this problem is not to create another layer of voting. If anything the recent election only taught voters that their votes don't count. Furthermore, I have not been championing a direct election of the president, though neither have been arguing against it. I have only been arguing that the electoral college, as it is now, is not working. For good or ill, the Electoral College is currently designed to try to reflect the Popular Will, and it does not do so accurately. You are very correct that if people would vote it would be easier to figure out what they want, but a system that transforms half of a state's votes into 100% of the state's votes does not seem to me very democratic.

The Electoral College in this day and age cannot reflect the will of the people - it can only reflect the will of the states, because such a significant portion of the people doesn't vote.

What exactly do you mean by state? A state is either the government ruling a territory or, loosely, the people who occupy a territory. In the case of Florida in 2000, the College represented neither (and the situation was probably quite similar in most states, but it just wasn't as dramatic). It is an artifice that is supposed to represent the People, but does so poorly. Whether or not it should represent the People is debatable, but that is what is currently intended, and so I think it should do so more accurately.

And a split electoral vote system would still encourage third-party and independent candidates to run, which could result in pluralities of the electoral vote being had on a regular basis.

Why exactly is this a bad thing? Democracy is messy. Limiting choice simply confounds the democratic process. The two-party system is probably one of the major reasons for low voter turnout. Steps could be taken to allow for pluralities, run-offs or preference voting. The Framers assumed that pluralities would occur in the Electoral College and set up a back-up vote. Our system in fact would work just fine with more than two parties. Unlike most republics, our constitution does not require one party to have a majority in the legislature for the government to function. In the long run, I think we would be better off with multiple parties like most republics have. It would be messy, but it would be more democratic and would, perhaps, encourage more people to vote.

Besides, the smaller number of Electors would offset third parties. With only 25 Electors, Florida could not have divided its delegation to reflect the votes for Buchanan and Nader, so a 13-12 split would have been necessary.

The Electoral College is part of the American federalist system. It prevents a candidate who appeals to only one class of voters (like Al Gore and Grover Cleveland) from being elected.

No it doesn't. It is less susceptible to regionalism, but it does nothing to prevent a widely distributed class, such as social and moral conservatives, from dominating the election, especially when so few people actually vote. According to the sources I just found, the 1888 vote was pretty close in most of the Northern states, so clearly Cleveland did not appeal only to Southerners, and how exactly did Gore only appeal to one class of voters? The two party system encourages the extremists from both sides to vote while discouraging moderates. The electoral college does nothing to correct that.

Glocksman wrote:You are aware that the Constitution doesn't mandate a vote of the people for either electors or the president?

I am very much aware of that fact, which is why I have suggested several times that the Electors be chosen by the state governments rather than by the people.

Part of the problem is that the U.S. is neither a federation or a single state, but something in between. Our system might work much more smoothly if the federal aspect of our nation were better emphasized, if Americans viewed the country as a union of several sovereign states rather than a single unit. Many local elections can't even get a third of the electorate to vote.

Aeolus · Post by **Aeolus** » 2003-04-30 08:49am

0.1 wrote:Viva the Republic of California. We're one of the largest economies in the world, and let's face it, population wise, we outnumber the nearest states. If the U.S. fragments, expect Oregon, Washington, Nevada, and probably Arizona to be absorbed into California.

The first major annoyance we Californians would have to face would be those redneck Texans. The eastern U.S. can do whatever it wants, all we really want after we take over the neighboring states are the Dakotas (where the ICBM silos are). Heck, by taking Washington, we'd get Bangor Bay and all the Pac fleet's boomers. The only major thing we'll lack is strategic air capabilities. Too bad Whiteman is in Missouri.

Texas gets New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Lousiana,Missouri, and we'll fight you for Colorada

Aeolus · Post by **Aeolus** » 2003-04-30 08:52am

Johonebesus wrote: Are there any states where the electors are not chosen by popular vote or obligated to abide by the popular vote? If the Georgia Senate appointed electors at its own discretion, then they would reflect the will of the State, but as it is the Electoral College is generally set up to reflect the will of the People. The problem is it does not reflect popular will accurately. Roughly half of the voters of Florida wanted Bush, but all of Florida's votes went for Bush. This was not because the system is designed to reflect the will of the State, but because it is poorly designed to reflect the will of the People in the state. It does not provide a consensus; it forces an artificial consensus by trying to simplify the will of the People. The way the system works now is inaccurate and inefficient. If we keep the Electoral College, the method of choosing Electors should be reworked.

In 1960 Hawaii had a situation like Florida in 2000. So they had their legaslature vote for a slate and sent them to DC

Don't overquote~Olrik

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-04-30 11:44am

Low voter turnout is a problem with our society, not our system. The correction for this problem is not to create another layer of voting. If anything the recent election only taught voters that their votes don't count. Furthermore, I have not been championing a direct election of the president, though neither have been arguing against it. I have only been arguing that the electoral college, as it is now, is not working. For good or ill, the Electoral College is currently designed to try to reflect the Popular Will, and it does not do so accurately. You are very correct that if people would vote it would be easier to figure out what they want, but a system that transforms half of a state's votes into 100% of the state's votes does not seem to me very democratic.

OK, let me clear this up; the Electoral College is not designed to reflect the popular will, it's designed to reflect the will of the states. The states have simply chosen to allow their will to be determined through popular vote in this day and age. And no, it isn't as democratic as a pure direct vote would be, but this country's system was designed to protect against against some of the less savory aspects of democracy. It has checks against absolute majority rule by the people, and the Electoral College is one of them.

What exactly do you mean by state? A state is either the government ruling a territory or, loosely, the people who occupy a territory. In the case of Florida in 2000, the College represented neither (and the situation was probably quite similar in most states, but it just wasn't as dramatic). It is an artifice that is supposed to represent the People, but does so poorly. Whether or not it should represent the People is debatable, but that is what is currently intended, and so I think it should do so more accurately.

I mean that ultimately the decision of whom the electors will be and what they will represent is up to the states, not the voters. The states have just chosen to make the selection of their electors more democratic.

Why exactly is this a bad thing? Democracy is messy. Limiting choice simply confounds the democratic process. The two-party system is probably one of the major reasons for low voter turnout. Steps could be taken to allow for pluralities, run-offs or preference voting. The Framers assumed that pluralities would occur in the Electoral College and set up a back-up vote. Our system in fact would work just fine with more than two parties. Unlike most republics, our constitution does not require one party to have a majority in the legislature for the government to function. In the long run, I think we would be better off with multiple parties like most republics have. It would be messy, but it would be more democratic and would, perhaps, encourage more people to vote.

Democracy is indeed messy, and the Electoral College at least caps some of that messiness. Inaccuracy would be much higher in a direct vote system.

And I think our system is more pluralistic than people imagine it to be. It is true that we only have two major parties, but those parties are made up of many different, often competing factions.

Besides, the smaller number of Electors would offset third parties. With only 25 Electors, Florida could not have divided its delegation to reflect the votes for Buchanan and Nader, so a 13-12 split would have been necessary.

Small fries like Buchanan and Nader aren't the problem. The real problem is the candidates who didn't run because of the electoral college. This would be candidates like, in 2000, John McCain and Bill Bradley (it is questionable whether they would have chosen to run as independents anyway, but the point is there would be much more incentive to do so under a direct or split electoral vote system.). A split electoral vote system would really be the same thing essentially as a direct vote system, with the electoral college still in existence in order to pay service to the Constitution. It would have the same kind of problems as a direct vote system; states with clear majorities would be induced to fraudulently increase their majorities in order to grab more electoral votes for their candidate, independent and third party candidates would be induced to run in greater numbers, drastically increasing the likelihood of both a popular and electoral vote plurality, and it would be much more vulnerable to regionalism.

No it doesn't. It is less susceptible to regionalism, but it does nothing to prevent a widely distributed class, such as social and moral conservatives, from dominating the election, especially when so few people actually vote. According to the sources I just found, the 1888 vote was pretty close in most of the Northern states, so clearly Cleveland did not appeal only to Southerners, and how exactly did Gore only appeal to one class of voters? The two party system encourages the extremists from both sides to vote while discouraging moderates. The electoral college does nothing to correct that.

The vast majority of Gore's support came from densely populated urban areas; Bush's support came from everywhere else in the country. As a candidate, Bush appealed to far more demographics than Gore did, Gore just appealed to the largest demographics. As for Grover Cleveland, the fact remains that he would have put forth policies to benefit the South at the expense of the North and the West, and the Electoral College prevented him from being re-elected and doing so.

It is also quite questionable that Gore's much-vaunted popular vote majority in fact existed, due to urban vote fraud (where it has historically been most prevalent).

I am very much aware of that fact, which is why I have suggested several times that the Electors be chosen by the state governments rather than by the people.
Part of the problem is that the U.S. is neither a federation or a single state, but something in between. Our system might work much more smoothly if the federal aspect of our nation were better emphasized, if Americans viewed the country as a union of several sovereign states rather than a single unit. Many local elections can't even get a third of the electorate to vote.

We are in complete agreement. This is exactly what I would like to see happen.

Tom_Aurum · Post by **Tom_Aurum** » 2003-04-30 05:54pm

So anyways, stepping away from the amusing extremists for the moment and onto more everyday people that are getting picked on by modern-day McCarthyism.

In the first few days of the whole 9/11 scare police were taking the whole terrorism tag as an excuse to see if they couldn't intimidate, or at least implicate homeless persons. It was "theorized" that terrorists were hiding out in the homeless populations, and that they needed to be removed from populated areas so that they posed less of a threat.

"Drug money supports terrorism." Bullshit. The only incident I have heard about that actually ties muslim terror to drug money is one incident involving crystal meth. Strangely enough, however, money from speed also (in a small part at least) supports a group the opposite side of the spectrum, japanese rightists and ultranationalists. Anyways, it is being used to support the law being stricter on users of soft drugs as well, ones that (in my humble opinion) should be legal such as marijuana.

Oh, and by the by, try an experiment. Try speaking in dissent of the government in your favorite hangout today. See how many people will mindlessly throw an unfounded insult in your direction.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-04-30 10:19pm

"Drug money supports terrorism." Bullshit. The only incident I have heard about that actually ties muslim terror to drug money is one incident involving crystal meth. Strangely enough, however, money from speed also (in a small part at least) supports a group the opposite side of the spectrum, japanese rightists and ultranationalists. Anyways, it is being used to support the law being stricter on users of soft drugs as well, ones that (in my humble opinion) should be legal such as marijuana.

Guess you missed all the hub bub about the poppy fields in Afganistan that I am ashamed to say that we did not burn down. A shit load of money went to the Taliban because of those poppy fields.

I believe that restrictions on drugs should be lightened and in the case of weed, they should be almost non exisistent but drugs do make money for the bad guys at this point too.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-05-01 02:44am

Knife wrote:Guess you missed all the hub bub about the poppy fields in Afganistan that I am ashamed to say that we did not burn down. A shit load of money went to the Taliban because of those poppy fields.

Well, burning down the poppy fields would be a double edged sword. After all, poppy plants make more than just heroin. It is also used to make highly useful products, like morphine and codeine.

Johonebesus · Post by **Johonebesus** » 2003-05-01 04:44am

Durran Korr wrote:OK, let me clear this up; the Electoral College is not designed to reflect the popular will, it's designed to reflect the will of the states. The states have simply chosen to allow their will to be determined through popular vote in this day and age. And no, it isn't as democratic as a pure direct vote would be, but this country's system was designed to protect against against some of the less savory aspects of democracy. It has checks against absolute majority rule by the people, and the Electoral College is one of them.

The Electoral College is deliberately set up in such a way that Electors are chosen by the People. Regulations like the one that got Bush the presidency were specifically designed to prevent the College from voting contrary to the Popular Will. Therefore, the College is currently designed to reflect the Popular Will. My point is that it does not do so accurately or fairly. I am not necessarily saying that it should represent the people, only that under the current structure it is intended to, and it fails. You said that the Electoral College should be left alone, but I would claim that it does not function as intended right now, so it should be reworked. Not on a constitutional level, but rather in the way Electors are chosen.

Furthermore, the College was not designed to prevent a "tyranny of the majority", which I think is one of your points (please correct me if I am wrong), but to prevent a rule by the ignorant masses. The Framers believed that society could be divided into the civil class and the common lower classes. The ignorant masses should have a voice, but because they are ignorant and lack the ability to look past their own circumstances and wants, their opinions should not carry as much weight as the opinions of the people who have some education and would bear the burden of civil service. That is why the Founding Fathers created the Electoral College, because they thought it would be dangerous for the masses to have too direct a voice, and they trusted that the civil class would possess the proper attitude of responsibility, l'oblige noblesse.

Voter fraud has historically been a real problem, but, except in very close races, it is probably not too often a severe problem today. If there is going to be voter fraud, the solution is to do as much as possible to protect the system from fraud, not to limit the use or relevance of voting. There is no way to prevent voter fraud except to not hold elections.

As for elections that are messy due to several candidate, good. Maybe it would get people out voting. Maybe it would help to shake up the parties. Why is there such a thing as Log Cabin Republicans? They are economic conservatives who have no place in a party dominated by Christian Fundamentalists. You say that there are various factions within parties vying for control, but primaries have even fewer voters than general elections. Currently, fiscal conservatives must align themselves with a party that is frequently antithetical to their opinions social policies. With multiple parties, there would be more freedom to form sensible coalitions, such as between fiscal conservatives and people who fear government intrusion on personal freedom, who tend to be Democrats. Since the factions would not be competing behind closed doors within parties but in the public forum, voters would have more freedom to choose the candidates that appeal to them, and perhaps would help to discourage the extremists from getting all the power. Preference voting or run-offs would allow the People to come to a choice that appeals to the broadest base without forcing them to choose between two extremes. I beleive that the Congress would be much better if we had multiple parties. Would it be messy? Of course. I do not believe that messiness is necessarily a bad thing. The only way to make a clean system is to make it less democratic.

As for the President, it might not be a good idea for thim to be elected by popular vote, but then there a many dangers in limiting the People's voice in the process. Which is more dangerous, trusting that general elections can be sufficiently fair and secure that the Popular Will can be accurately determined, or trusting that the people in power will be responsible enough to make wise decisions in choosing the highest leaders? If we have a bad persident, I would rather it be because the People made a bad choice than because our second tier leaders made a bad (or corrupt) choice. But that's just my personal opinion.

I am very much aware of that fact, which is why I have suggested several times that the Electors be chosen by the state governments rather than by the people.
Part of the problem is that the U.S. is neither a federation or a single state, but something in between. Our system might work much more smoothly if the federal aspect of our nation were better emphasized, if Americans viewed the country as a union of several sovereign states rather than a single unit. Many local elections can't even get a third of the electorate to vote.
We are in complete agreement. This is exactly what I would like to see happen.

Now if we could only convince the rest of America. If the President's power were restricted mostly to foreign policy, and if most domestic matters were handled at the state level, with the Congress only intervening to set a few standards and keep things fair, I would be more than pleased to leave the election of the president up to the state governments. I would also like the 17th amendment repealed.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-05-01 12:13pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:
Knife wrote:Guess you missed all the hub bub about the poppy fields in Afganistan that I am ashamed to say that we did not burn down. A shit load of money went to the Taliban because of those poppy fields.
Well, burning down the poppy fields would be a double edged sword. After all, poppy plants make more than just heroin. It is also used to make highly useful products, like morphine and codeine.

True, but lets not delude ourselves. The Afgan poppy fields were not going to produce morphine or codeine.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-05-01 12:35pm

Now if we could only convince the rest of America. If the President's power were restricted mostly to foreign policy, and if most domestic matters were handled at the state level, with the Congress only intervening to set a few standards and keep things fair, I would be more than pleased to leave the election of the president up to the state governments. I would also like the 17th amendment repealed.

You make some good points. I do agree that the Electoral College is more suited for the original system the Founders devised, I just also happen to believe that it works fine today as well.

I'm not a big fan of the Presidency, in any case, I prefer the Courts and Congress for getting things done on the federal level. And I agree, a repeal of the 17th Amendment would be a good step in getting us on track to thinking more on the state and local level than the federal level.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-05-01 02:55pm

Johonebesus wrote:Now if we could only convince the rest of America. If the President's power were restricted mostly to foreign policy, and if most domestic matters were handled at the state level, with the Congress only intervening to set a few standards and keep things fair, I would be more than pleased to leave the election of the president up to the state governments. I would also like the 17th amendment repealed.

I'm going to have to disagree on the part about keeping domestic matters in the hands of the states. While I agree about the president's duties being mainly restricted to foreign policy (it's basically that way now because of precedent), I think that there should be a certain amount of discretion exercised when deciding whether or not the state or federal government gets to handle a certain domestic issue.

Issues regarding civil rights are best left in the hands of the federal government in order to create some measure of consistency across the nation. This is a double-edged sword in that the federal government could make a really bad decision on civil rights; I guess it really depends on whether or not you think that it's worth it.

Certainly if a state is infringing on civil rights, it's a lot easier to appeal to rectify the situation than it is if the federal government does so. So I guess that's one big thing in favor of letting states decide civil rights issues. However, things like Texas sodomy laws would also be a lot more difficult to pass on the federal level in the first place, as well.

Hm ... well I started this post in favor of letting the federal government handle civil rights issues, but now I'm not so sure. Back to the Thinking Chamber, I guess.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-05-01 03:01pm

And that's why we have the Courts. I'm not really interested in gutting the federal government's capability to carry out its constitutionally-mandated duties, like civil rights, I'm interested in slashing the President's power in order to make it more resemble the office it was originally envisioned to be, and reducing the federal government to the constitutionally-mandated functions in question.

Johonebesus · Post by **Johonebesus** » 2003-05-01 03:40pm

Durandal wrote:I'm going to have to disagree on the part about keeping domestic matters in the hands of the states. While I agree about the president's duties being mainly restricted to foreign policy (it's basically that way now because of precedent), I think that there should be a certain amount of discretion exercised when deciding whether or not the state or federal government gets to handle a certain domestic issue.

Issues regarding civil rights are best left in the hands of the federal government in order to create some measure of consistency across the nation. This is a double-edged sword in that the federal government could make a really bad decision on civil rights; I guess it really depends on whether or not you think that it's worth it.

Certainly if a state is infringing on civil rights, it's a lot easier to appeal to rectify the situation than it is if the federal government does so. So I guess that's one big thing in favor of letting states decide civil rights issues. However, things like Texas sodomy laws would also be a lot more difficult to pass on the federal level in the first place, as well.

Hm ... well I started this post in favor of letting the federal government handle civil rights issues, but now I'm not so sure. Back to the Thinking Chamber, I guess.

The Federal Congress should certainly set some standards. It might even be permissible for the Congress to help even out funding for some things like education and healthcare, maybe, as these matters affect the whole nation. However, even now many important matters, like education, are controlled and funded by the states, but what little attention the public gives to politics goes to the national level. Also, different regions have different cultures and different economies and different resources and different environments. A good solution in New York might not work in Alaska. And as Durran Korr said, the states are still under the rule of the Constitution, and the courts would still be available to keep the states from getting out of hand.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-05-01 04:22pm

Johonebesus wrote:The Federal Congress should certainly set some standards. It might even be permissible for the Congress to help even out funding for some things like education and healthcare, maybe, as these matters affect the whole nation.

Agreed. We need a national set of standards for education, especially since other countries love to shove it in our face about how stupid our students are based on standardized test scores. Well, which states were those students from?

However, even now many important matters, like education, are controlled and funded by the states, but what little attention the public gives to politics goes to the national level. Also, different regions have different cultures and different economies and different resources and different environments. A good solution in New York might not work in Alaska.

A good example would be gun control. In many rural areas, kids are taught how to use guns responsibly, so there's really no use for gun control in those areas aside from pissing the people off. However, to say that more lax control measures are appropriate for a place like Detroit or New York City is simply absurd.

Rubberanvil · Post by **Rubberanvil** » 2003-05-01 05:25pm

Johonebesus wrote:Low voter turnout is a problem with our society, not our system. The correction for this problem is not to create another layer of voting. If anything the recent election only taught voters that their votes don't count.

How are you going to get more people to vote?

Only things I can think is to extend(sp) the amount the voting period to a couple of days at least to allow for people working various shifts to get to the voting stations(?). Make the election period a national holiday to people working non-essential jobs time to vote. People who do have to work importnats jobs (medical personnal, police, firefighter and etc.) be given the nessecary means to vote early. Better placement of the stations instead of the obscured locations like they are now.

Mandatory execution of any journalist(s) who posts the results of the election before the election period ends.

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-05-01 06:24pm

Johonebesus wrote:Low voter turnout is a problem with our society, not our system. The correction for this problem is not to create another layer of voting. If anything the recent election only taught voters that their votes don't count.

Or, as Day Quayle said, "Low voter turnout is an indicator that fewer people are voting."

I REALLY wish he was running for office again.

Johonebesus · Post by **Johonebesus** » 2003-05-02 03:33am

Rubberanvil wrote:How are you going to get more people to vote?

Only things I can think is to extend(sp) the amount the voting period to a couple of days at least to allow for people working various shifts to get to the voting stations(?). Make the election period a national holiday to people working non-essential jobs time to vote. People who do have to work importnats jobs (medical personnal, police, firefighter and etc.) be given the nessecary means to vote early. Better placement of the stations instead of the obscured locations like they are now.

Mandatory execution of any journalist(s) who posts the results of the election before the election period ends.

There is no institutional change which would make a big difference. Perhaps programs like registering to vote when you get your driver's license could help a little, but the problem is caused by lazy, apathetic citizens who do not believe the system works and don't care anyway. To most people, Republicans and Democrats are just politicians; the only significant difference being which corporations and special interests control them. They do not trust politicians and automatically believe they are hypocritical liars and thieves. Also, most Americans are lazy and don't want to really think about important matters, and lack the skills to think rationally. Real increases in voter turnout will only happen after significant changes in our society.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-05-02 07:28am

Durandal wrote: Agreed. We need a national set of standards for education, especially since other countries love to shove it in our face about how stupid our students are based on standardized test scores. Well, which states were those students from?

Argh. Not standardized tests. When got out of school, testing was bad,
but not at the level it is now. We have WEEKS of classtime spent preparing
for these goddamned tests, rather than actually LEARNING something
now...

A good example would be gun control. In many rural areas, kids are taught how to use guns responsibly, so there's really no use for gun control in those areas aside from pissing the people off. However, to say that more lax control measures are appropriate for a place like Detroit or New York City is simply absurd.

So you're saying it's OK for white people to have little, if any, gun laws, but
blacks can't be trusted with anything more than a sharp stick? Because that's
precisely the racial makeup of those areas...

Rubberanvil · Post by **Rubberanvil** » 2003-05-02 04:58pm

Johonebesus wrote:but the problem is caused by lazy, apathetic citizens who do not believe the system works and don't care anyway.

Yet those are the same fuckers who whine and bitch if things don't go their way.

Tom_Aurum · Post by **Tom_Aurum** » 2003-05-02 05:05pm

Okay, so, yeah, it seems we're still supporting the broad generalization that "drug money supports terrorism."

<Blinks>

Wake up.

The context of the ad is skewed to associate your average weed deal with supporting muslim extremists. Not to mention, as you said, the poppy fields already in afghanistan have been burned, so we really don't have to be worrying about that.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-05-02 10:26pm

Tom_Aurum wrote:Okay, so, yeah, it seems we're still supporting the broad generalization that "drug money supports terrorism."

<Blinks>

Wake up.

The context of the ad is skewed to associate your average weed deal with supporting muslim extremists. Not to mention, as you said, the poppy fields already in afghanistan have been burned, so we really don't have to be worrying about that.

No, I am admitting that terrorist use illegal enterprises to help fund themselves. Your average hippie growing shit in his backyard is not a terrorist, your drug kingpin in Columbia and Afganistan not only grow drugs but in most cases murder, bribe, smuggle, and influence the local if not country in a negitive way.

And the poppy fields were not burned (which is why I am ashamed about it) so that the locals can make money (much to the detrament of the world, unless you think heroin is good for ya).

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-05-02 10:57pm

MKSheppard wrote:So you're saying it's OK for white people to have little, if any, gun laws, but blacks can't be trusted with anything more than a sharp stick? Because that's precisely the racial makeup of those areas...

Oh that's a very nicely put together strawman you have there. Too bad that my assertion that gun control should be more strict in those areas is based on their crime rate and that alone, so your attack has no merit.

And, since when does gun control = no one can own a gun? You don't even know what kind of control I'm talking about. Stop jumping to the conclusion that everyone who advocates any sort of control on guns is trying to take your guns away from you.

Johonebesus · Post by **Johonebesus** » 2003-05-03 01:58am

MKSheppard wrote: Argh. Not standardized tests. When got out of school, testing was bad,
but not at the level it is now. We have WEEKS of classtime spent preparing
for these goddamned tests, rather than actually LEARNING something
now...

I don’t like the idea of lots and lots of standardized tests, but a standard exit exam for high school might be a good idea. There might also be a set of uniform curriculum standards, nothing very specific, just some general guides as to what should be taught and when, and a national accreditation agency instead of multiple regional accreditation organizations with different standards. The Congress should not dictate exactly what courses should be taught with which textbooks by what methods, with lots of tests at all grades, but it might be good to create some basic curriculum and funding standards. There is no reason at all that students in a rich county should get all the latest equipment and best facilities and classes like communication technology and computer programming and comparative religions, while students in a poor county are lucky to have a dozen old Tandy's and teachers competent enough to cover the most basic material. There is absolutely no sensible reason why school funding should be based on local property taxes. Every school should have roughly the same facilities, and the same funding in proportion to the number of students. If the states won't do it voluntarily, then the Congress should force the states to equalize school funding. Public education is critical to our nation's well being. Public ignorance is probably the greatest problem our nation suffers.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-05-03 11:54pm

Aeolus wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote:
Aeolus wrote: But of course this is just an academic debate, their have been around 100 attempts to get rid of or radically change the college in the last century or so, and the small states shot down every one
I dont pretend to understand American demographics totally. But I will ask the question again.
Are you American, or are you not?
I am a Texan, we are members of the American Union. I am an American. Note that to foreigners I am an American, to Americans I am a Texan. That is how a FEDERAL UNION works.

Thats how the American federal union works

The United States is a union, federation, confederacy of legaly equal states. That is the reason for the electoral collage. Otherwise we would merely be an empire dominated by 1 or more of the larger states. Yes Texas is one of the largest states but that does not mean that I would want us to rule Oklahoma or Lousiana. I think the biggest mistake people in other nation make is to see The US as a single monolithic entity. We have an old saying "politics stop at the shore" It basically means that when dealing with other Nations we are one people. But inside are own country all the gloves are off.

Ok, so you are politically immature, my mistake