|
|
Post by HomeAtLast on Feb 9, 2004 15:25:58 GMT -5
Like it is safe to elect conservative republicans. Remember Watergate? How any indictments? And we won't even get into current "Intelligence" failures. How about "It is not safe to elect politicians"  |
|
|
|
Post by MorningStar on Feb 9, 2004 16:29:49 GMT -5
How about "It is not safe to elect politicians" That's the best one I've heard of yet!! |
|
|
|
Post by Himmel on Feb 9, 2004 16:32:17 GMT -5
That's the best one I've heard of yet!! Amen! I second that! ;D BTW, I love your quote at the bottom.  |
|
|
|
Post by atomheart on Feb 9, 2004 16:52:20 GMT -5
How about "It is not safe to elect politicians" That is the silliest thing I ever heard! Joking or not. Good greif.  |
|
|
|
Post by marysia on Feb 9, 2004 16:56:45 GMT -5
That is the silliest thing I ever heard! Joking or not. Good greif. well i think there's a difference between a man running for an office and a politician. there's an honesty factor in my book. people in politics aren't necessarily politicians - at least in my book. that can be a good or bad thing. IE - jimmy carter - although he was a man in politics he was not a politician - on my book anyway... |
|
|
|
Post by atomheart on Feb 9, 2004 16:57:46 GMT -5
How about "It is not safe to elect politicians" That is the silliest thing I ever heard! Joking or not. Good greif. |
|
|
|
Post by atomheart on Feb 9, 2004 16:58:56 GMT -5
Sorry about the double-post. This MB is running awful slow today.
|
|
|
|
Post by atomheart on Feb 9, 2004 17:02:06 GMT -5
well i think there's a difference between a man running for an office and a politician. there's an honesty factor in my book. people in politics aren't necessarily politicians - at least in my book. that can be a good or bad thing. IE - jimmy carter - although he was a man in politics he was not a politician - on my book anyway... There's no such thing as a honest politician. They all lie to an extent. Just some more than others (i.e Bill Clinton). |
|
|
|
Post by HomeAtLast on Feb 10, 2004 0:10:04 GMT -5
There's no such thing as a honest politician. They all lie to an extent. Just some more than others (i.e Bill Clinton). atom, Exactly....thus it is not safe to elect a politician. Some just are better at hiding their lies than others. Plus, the president really does not have much power in the democratic system. The Congress and Senate have much more power. I was always taught in government cpkmtyolles and economics cpkmtyolles that we should all think harder about who we vote for in those elections than the presidential race. Blessings, Ann btw - I was joking, obviously. (smile and the world smiles with you!) |
|
|
|
Post by atomheart on Feb 10, 2004 15:55:37 GMT -5
atom, Exactly....thus it is not safe to elect a politician. Some just are better at hiding their lies than others. Plus, the president really does not have much power in the democratic system. The Congress and Senate have much more power. I was always taught in government cpkmtyolles and economics cpkmtyolles that we should all think harder about who we vote for in those elections than the presidential race. Blessings, Ann btw - I was joking, obviously. (smile and the world smiles with you!) Then who do you suggest we vote in then? Do we do away with the system of government? Should we just have anarchy? If you think it's bad now it would be much, much worse if we were not a democracy or a represented republic. Or do you see voting as choosing the lesser of the two evils? |
|
|
|
Post by marysia on Feb 10, 2004 17:36:14 GMT -5
Then who do you suggest we vote in then? Do we do away with the system of government? Should we just have anarchy? If you think it's bad now it would be much, much worse if we were not a democracy or a represented republic. Or do you see voting as choosing the lesser of the two evils? yes unfortunately often voting IS just choosing the lesser of two evils. you weight the pro's and cons and go from there. for example -- although i am a tree hugger - i would rather kill a tree than a child so... pro lifers get a plus on that... there is a big difference from a person in politics and a politician. |
|
|
|
Post by heathen76 on Feb 10, 2004 17:50:30 GMT -5
Then who do you suggest we vote in then? Do we do away with the system of government? Should we just have anarchy? If you think it's bad now it would be much, much worse if we were not a democracy or a represented republic. Or do you see voting as choosing the lesser of the two evils? Other than my dream of a government that is about 20% of it's current size, I would like to see the following: 1.) Anyone that holds an office is chosen by the majority. Nobody ever runs for office, but society's great citizens are chosen to hold an office. All would consider it an honor. For instance, if there was a person that was a great businessman, then maybe they would be chosen to handle fiscal policy. A great negotiator might become Secretary of State. Whatever. 2.) There would be no campaigning, no fundraising, no political action committees. 3.) Nobody would serve more than one term in any office (terms might need to be extended slightly). 4.) If someone is failing in their office, a majority vote would pull them from office. This, of course, would require a greater level of consciousness in society. Would something like this work today? Probably not. In the future? Perhaps. |
|
|
|
Post by MorningStar on Feb 10, 2004 18:14:47 GMT -5
Given, what, a 40% turnout in the last election (I think). Probably not. I wonder how much land on the French/Spanish border is...or the EU job market.... Other than my dream of a government that is about 20% of it's current size, I would like to see the following: 1.) Anyone that holds an office is chosen by the majority. Nobody ever runs for office, but society's great citizens are chosen to hold an office. All would consider it an honor. For instance, if there was a person that was a great businessman, then maybe they would be chosen to handle fiscal policy. A great negotiator might become Secretary of State. Whatever. 2.) There would be no campaigning, no fundraising, no political action committees. 3.) Nobody would serve more than one term in any office (terms might need to be extended slightly). 4.) If someone is failing in their office, a majority vote would pull them from office. This, of course, would require a greater level of consciousness in society. Would something like this work today? Probably not. In the future? Perhaps. |
|
|
|
Post by HomeAtLast on Feb 11, 2004 0:30:39 GMT -5
Then who do you suggest we vote in then? Do we do away with the system of government? Should we just have anarchy? If you think it's bad now it would be much, much worse if we were not a democracy or a represented republic. Or do you see voting as choosing the lesser of the two evils? atom, Guess you missed the part of my post where I said that I was joking. but, since you ask, yes I do believe that voting in many cases is choosing the lesser of 2 evils. I see the candidates as saying what they think that the majority wants to hear and then doing what they want and what profits them the most. Look at any of their histories of votes in congress and the senate. How many were actually even there for the majority of the votes. Even locally it is all a game to them. I contacted an alderman recently to voice my opinion on a vote on city council. My alderman said that he did not like the idea that he voted yes on, but voted that way so that the other councilmen/councilwomen would not vote out things that were important to him. That is called politics. How does that benefit the people when they do not even vote the way they want to rather than having a popularity contest between the aldermen. Blessings, Ann |
|
|
|
Post by atomheart on Feb 11, 2004 15:12:06 GMT -5
atom, Guess you missed the part of my post where I said that I was joking. but, since you ask, yes I do believe that voting in many cases is choosing the lesser of 2 evils. I see the candidates as saying what they think that the majority wants to hear and then doing what they want and what profits them the most. Look at any of their histories of votes in congress and the senate. How many were actually even there for the majority of the votes. Even locally it is all a game to them. I contacted an alderman recently to voice my opinion on a vote on city council. My alderman said that he did not like the idea that he voted yes on, but voted that way so that the other councilmen/councilwomen would not vote out things that were important to him. That is called politics. How does that benefit the people when they do not even vote the way they want to rather than having a popularity contest between the aldermen. Blessings, Ann You explained to me what you meant when you said that it wasn't "safe to elect politicians" then at the end of your explaination, you said you were joking. If so then why did you bother to explain it to me? Or was your explaination part of the joke? |
|
