It's time to clean house

DannyinJapan

DannyinJapan

Joined
Oct 9, 2003
Messages
5,594
I dont know when this country returned to the g$5 d#$%#@ fuedal era, but I never approved the establishment of a ruling class nor aristocracy of any kind.
Why the hell everybody in the Kennedy family gets to have a seat in congress is beyond me but that BS needs to stop NOW.

I support my president and my government, but we have to be very very careful of allowing this kind of thing to happen, people. As much as I like the president, even I was uncomfortable with a man being president as his father was. That's just too close to having a king and a royal family.
I am going to write my representatives and ask them to propose legislation that forbids members of the same family from being in congress, the supreme court or the presidential office within two generations.I suggest you all do the same.

No more kings !
 
DannyinJapan said:
I am going to write my representatives and ask them to propose legislation that forbids members of the same family from being in congress, the supreme court or the presidential office within two generations.I suggest you all do the same.
Click to expand...

Does that include husband and wife? :p
 
yes.
This isnt such a strange idea, we have similar laws that are supposed to prevent the media from being owned and controlled by one group.
 
What I think will be really interesting is the trading of power between the Bush family and the Clinton family. If Hillary runs, she is pretty much guaranteed to win, and that will be the last 4 presidents trading back and forth. I guess Laura Bush will go next after 8 years of Hillary. By then, Chelsea might be old enough to give it a go, or she will marry someone who is ready, and so it goes around and round.
 
I saw a comic on TV comment on this the other night... and it was really scary. It went something like this:

Four years of Bush... follwed by
Eight years of Clinton... followed by
Eight years of Bush... followed by (future now)
Eight years of H. Clinton... followed by
Eight years of J.D. Bush (I think that was him... another young Bush)... followed by
Eight years of Chelsea Clinton

Scary!
 
I don't want kings either, but this isn't unprescidented. Our second president John Adams and his... grandson I believe were both president. I don't see any lasting power in that family. No land grants. No serfs. No permanent seats within the govt.

As far as the Kennedy's go they are elected by their constituants. I don't like their behavior, or their views, or how they got their money. But they don't represent me. How can we legislate who other people can choose to vote for in America? That is a scary idea.

Same with the Bush's. Legislation is overrated. If Jeb Bush works his way up and builds a record of leadership why should he be restricted from certain positions simply because his father and brother already held them. I can tell you that if he's the better of the two candidates running I'm going to vote for him. Four years later he'll have to proove himself again. Then after eight years max he has to surrender the reins. Again, where are the symptoms of this feudalism????????

What is flawed about our system that requires meddling by our awful, cowardly, corrupt congress. Lets keep congress away from things they don't need to involve themselves with. I won't be writing them for this legislation you seek. I think its a mistake. I may write them to counter your position and offset the demand though. You're tampering with dangerous ideas that are estabolished, working fine, and have no symptoms of the disease you claim is eating us up.

No offense Danny, I respect you greatly as you know, I just disagree.
 
DannyinJapan said:
I dont know when this country returned to the g$5 d#$%#@ fuedal era, but I never approved the establishment of a ruling class nor aristocracy of any kind.

...snip...

No more kings !
Click to expand...


You are damn right. Every ruler in every damn nation on this planet wants to have the good old feudal times back - if he/she only can. And everyone of them keep trying all the time.
 
Who??? Who are these rulers??? Yea the old evil eastern block rulers like Putin, etc, but who else??? Bush??? Blair??? Who??? What are you talking about?
 
I don't buy the full-on fuedalism argument, myself. I don't see those that are in power as evil and wanting more, more, more. I would say that the more you take on, the less fun it becomes. At least with the systems of checks and balances is SUPPOSED to be less fun;)
However, that is not to say that many of our government leaders are not fat, sassy, and greedy. I'm talking about Congress here. I would say that instead of wanting the actual power, they want their palms greased for life. Why do good and bow out tired but pleased with what you have acomplished in 4 or 8 years when you can pander to your base making loose promises with plenty of back scratching to stretch out a 30 year career of wealth. I don't see these knuckleheads as those that would don capes and masks and shake a literal iron fist at the public. They just don't want to wait in line, get busted for being a dumb@$$, or have to do an ounce of real work in their life. That's the good life, just be charming and disagree with everything the other party says and get money THROWN at you;)

Jake
 
aproy1101 said:
Who??? Who are these rulers??? Yea the old evil eastern block rulers like Putin, etc, but who else??? Bush??? Blair??? Who??? What are you talking about?
Click to expand...

Everybody in Europe with it's bloody feudal traditions. You mention Blair? All firearms are BANNED in England, and all knives over 2", and don't make me laugh saying that it's for the safety of the citizens. Hell the English are not kids, are they??

And Bush might start to cut your personal rights as well using terrorists as an excuse. Let me tell you this - in Israel are civilians encouraged to carry firearms and there were terrorist attacks when the civilians shot the bad guys before much harm was done.

I believe in God but I hate it if some politician has full mouth of His name when he justifies his actions, and Bush does this a lot. Kings liked to do that exactly, check the history textbooks, or look what Saddam Hussein and all muslim radicals did and still do.
 
Steely_Gunz said:
I'm talking about Congress here. I would say that instead of wanting the actual power, they want their palms greased for life. Why do good and bow out tired but pleased with what you have acomplished in 4 or 8 years when you can pander to your base making loose promises with plenty of back scratching to stretch out a 30 year career of wealth. I don't see these knuckleheads as those that would don capes and masks and shake a literal iron fist at the public. They just don't want to wait in line, get busted for being a dumb@$$, or have to do an ounce of real work in their life. That's the good life, just be charming and disagree with everything the other party says and get money THROWN at you;)

Jake
Click to expand...


Now here is a point I agree with. I would agree to term limits on congressmen. (That word includes the ladies, I'm so old fashioned.)
 
DannyinJapan said:
yes.
This isnt such a strange idea, we have similar laws that are supposed to prevent the media from being owned and controlled by one group.
Click to expand...

Maybe trying to actually enforce those laws and operate on that principle might be a good idea - right now it really doesn't seem like that's happening.

I also have to agree with approy. Legislating who people can and cannot vote for goes against everything democracy is supposed to be.
 
I have said this before.

I agree to a level. For instance Jimmy Carter was president 26 years ago. However I don't have any problem with Jack his oldest son running this year in Nevada.

However Kennedy with his brother as Atty. Gen? The Bush Dynasty? The possible Kennedy Dynasty, and here in WV our gov got elected in good part I think because his uncle was a very popular politician even though when he was treasurer he messed up and lost the state millions.

Three things I would like to see that I think would strengthen our democracy.

1) Up the amount you can donate to an individuals campaign, but limit contributions to only those people who can actually cast a vote for them. This would force politicians back into their districts for more one on one contact.

2) For 10 years after a person has served in the Presidency, House, Senate, or Supreme Court no relative can be elected or appointed.

3) For 5 years after a senator, congressman, president or cabinet member gets out of office, they cannot work for any industry that they regulated while in the admin. This would prevent the "revolving door" where industry rewards politicians with jobs for favors performed to their industries while in office.
 
The fairness doctrine stank.

These other proposed rules stink of communism.
 
aproy1101 said:
The fairness doctrine stank.

These other proposed rules stink of communism.
Click to expand...

How is giving both sides the ability to say their piece communisim? If only one voice has the ability to reach the public, then only one voice is heard. Democracy cannot survive under such circumstances.

Nanci GriffithWe're living in the age of communication
Where the only voices heard have money in their hands
Where greed has become a sophistication
And if you ain't got money
You ain't got nothin' in this land
An' here I am one lonely woman
On these mean streets
Where the right to life man has become my enemy
Cuz' I'm living in his time of inconvenience
At an inconvenient time

[Bridge:]
I've turned my cheek
As my history fades
While the clock ticks away
Any progress we've made
I never thought
I'd be ashamed to be human
Afraid to say
My time has seen it's day
Cuz' I'm living in a time of inconvenience
Living in a time of inconvenience
Living in a time of inconvenience
It's an inconvenient time

This is the time of greed and power
Where everyone needs to have someone to shove around
Our children come to us for answers
Listening for freedom but they don't know the sound
And there they are, our children
Dumped out in these mean streets
The evil sweeps them up
And brings them to their knees
Cuz' they're living in our time of inconvenience
They're living in the age of communication
This is the time of greed and power
This is the time that I wish was not mine
Cuz' it's an inconvenient time
Click to expand...
 
hollowdweller said:
How is giving both sides the ability to say their piece communisim? If only one voice has the ability to reach the public, then only one voice is heard. Democracy cannot survive under such circumstances.
Click to expand...

The Fairness Doctrine was legislation aimed at stopping the bleeding caused by the onslaught of successful right wing talk show hosts on the Democratic party. Additionally, it ignored the obvious leftie slant of the major media (think Dan Rather here). Its portions that deal with media monopolies are redundant. I agree that no media conglomerate (clear channel :barf: ) should monopolize airwaves. Those portions were a trojan horse for getting through regulation on political talk shows. I think its unfortunate that there are no talented Democrats doing political talk shows. Franken is the best they've got, and I love him as a commedian, but really, how you gonna put him up against the Rush Limbaugh's and Sean Hannity's???? Allen Colms is a perfect example of a wimpy left winger getting bullied around by Hannity. I don't like the talk shows except Neal Bortz, but eve he laughs at the Colmses and Frankens. Whether you think Hannity and Limby are assholes means very little, they are talented, and the Democrats lack that. But the Fairness Doctrine was bullshit legislation from the start.
 
aproy1101 said:
The Fairness Doctrine was legislation aimed at stopping the bleeding caused by the onslaught of successful right wing talk show hosts on the Democratic party. But the Fairness Doctrine was bullshit legislation from the start.
Click to expand...

So reminde me again when right wing radio started? At least know your subject before you pontificate;) :D You might mislead someone glad we still have the fairness doctrine here on the internet so I can correct your innacuracies:thumbup: ;) First the Fairness doctrine preceded right wing radio by a few decades and it was not legislation at all:

The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the "Fairness Doctrine" is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were "public trustees," and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance.

From the early 1940s, the FCC had established the "Mayflower Doctrine," which prohibited editorializing by stations. But that absolute ban softened somewhat by the end of the decade, allowing editorializing only if other points of view were aired, balancing that of the station's. During these years, the FCC had established dicta and case law guiding the operation of the doctrine.

The fairness doctrine ran parallel to Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1937 which required stations to offer "equal opportunity" to all legally qualified political candidates for any office if they had allowed any person running in that office to use the station. The attempt was to balance--to force an even handedness. Section 315 exempted news programs, interviews and documentaries. But the doctrine would include such efforts. Another major difference should be noted here: Section 315 was federal law, passed by Congress. The fairness doctrine was simply FCC policy.

The FCC fairness policy was given great credence by the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court case of Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC. In that case, a station in Pennsylvania, licensed by Red Lion Co., had aired a "Christian Crusade" program wherein an author, Fred J. Cook, was attacked. When Cook requested time to reply in keeping with the fairness doctrine, the station refused. Upon appeal to the FCC, the Commission declared that there was personal attack and the station had failed to meet its obligation. The station appealed and the case wended its way through the courts and eventually to the Supreme Court. The court ruled for the FCC, giving sanction to the fairness doctrine.
Click to expand...

Early on it was realized that balance in the media was essential to an informed electorate.
 
hollowdweller said:
First the Fairness doctrine preceded right wing radio by a few decades and it was not legislation at all
Click to expand...

You are right. I was confused on the Fairness Doctrine.:confused: I apologize if I misled. :foot:

hollowdweller said:
Early on it was realized that balance in the media was essential to an informed electorate.
Click to expand...

Then the media promptly discarded these principles and veered drastically left.;)



In the interest of learning more of this policy, when was it discarded Jim?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top