Well... The Democrats have taken the House of Representatives.

ScottBot · #**131** 9th November 2006, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by PetertheRock

Remember this...which party does the NOW and Planned Parenthood give money to? Why do you think this is?

They provide valuable women's health and reproductive services and advocacy. Since the Democrats are on the side of the "underdog", then it is only logical to give the money to them, and not the misogynistic GOP.

(wonders if anyone caught the satire in this comment)

PetertheRock · #**132** 9th November 2006, 10:26 AM

Whether you like Rush Limbaugh or not he was correct yesterday when he said Americans didn't vote against conservatism. Americans voted against Republicans because they are not conservative. Most of the Democrats that won are conservative Democrats. Most of the Democrats that won are more conservative than the Republicans.

The Democrats won because they sounded like Republicans and the Republicans lost because they weren't conservative. If the Democrats take this as a victory for liberalism like they will, they will do more damage to the party than we could ever hope for.

PetertheRock · #**133** 9th November 2006, 10:27 AM

You have to be kidding! They provide one thing...abortions!

Servus Iesu · #**134** 9th November 2006, 10:31 AM

Originally Posted by PetertheRock

Remember this...which party does the NOW and Planned Parenthood give money to? Why do you think this is?

They give money to Democrats, because they are unapologetically pro-choice, whereas some Republicans are partially pro-life. I don't deny that Democrats are more extreme in their support for societal depravity, what I take issue with is the notion that the Republican party holds out any hope for the salvation of America.

Democratic politics is based on pleasing constituents. You have to keep the money rolling in if you are going to win elections. Democrats need money from NOW and NARAL and Republicans need money from gullible religious people who think they care about them. So what the Democrats do is play up rhetoric about how the Republicans are going to ban abortion and return women 'to their place' imminently, if they are not defeated. Democratic strategists know is highly unlikely, but it keeps the money rolling in from feminist groups. Meanwhile, Republicans keep playing the fear card with the religious right. They tell their constituents that they are making progress on the abortion issue, if only more Republicans get elected maybe they can finally do something about it and nominate 'conservative' judges. This keeps the money and votes coming from their constituents. Meanwhile, both parties are fully committed to the status quo. It is a fantastic political strategy if you think about it. Republicans haven't done a thing for social or economic conservatives, not one blessed thing, in the last six years of united Republican government. Yet just the fear of what Democrats could do is enough to turn out their voters (though this election shows that maybe the whole act is starting to wear thin).

PetertheRock · #**135** 9th November 2006, 11:22 AM

Personally I would be in favor in doing away with all political parties. Get rid of the DNC, the RNC, and all the state and local committees and just have the American party. How about electing people based on what they stand for instead of what party they belong to. Then you could vote for pro life Democrats because the DNC wouldn't be telling them how to vote. Then you could vote against pro abortion Republicans because party affiliation wouldn't matter.

Servus Iesu · #**136** 9th November 2006, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by PetertheRock

Personally I would be in favor in doing away with all political parties. Get rid of the DNC, the RNC, and all the state and local committees and just have the American party. How about electing people based on what they stand for instead of what party they belong to. Then you could vote for pro life Democrats because the DNC wouldn't be telling them how to vote. Then you could vote against pro abortion Republicans because party affiliation wouldn't matter.

I certainly agree. Two other reforms which I think would reduce many of the present political problems would be eliminating pay for legislators and making political positions part time. These politicians become invested in keeping their jobs and that is the central thing that matters to them. Back in the day, legislators met for a session for a few weeks and then had to go home to real jobs. I think it was Ben Franklin who said that no man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session. Therein lies the added benefit of part-times legislators. The less time they have to legislate, the less damage they can do.

Of course, said reforms will never happen because they squarely contradict the personal interests of almost every Republican and Democrat. No one is going to propose such legislation, and even if they did it wouldn't even make it to committee.

Servus Iesu · #**137** 9th November 2006, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by PetertheRock

Personally I would be in favor in doing away with all political parties. Get rid of the DNC, the RNC, and all the state and local committees and just have the American party. How about electing people based on what they stand for instead of what party they belong to. Then you could vote for pro life Democrats because the DNC wouldn't be telling them how to vote. Then you could vote against pro abortion Republicans because party affiliation wouldn't matter.

I'd be interested in hearing what you think of this, but I believe another problem is that the Republic has become too 'Democratized'. In the Constitution the word 'Democracy' isn't used a single time, only 'Republic'. I believe this was intentional on the part of the founding fathers. Many of them actively spoke against Democracy.

While many take it for granted that direct election of senators was a great and progressive reform, I've come to the conclusion that it has actually had disastrous results. Also, the Fouding Fathers specifically chose not to have direct election of senators. Are we to think they simply didn't consider it, or that there was a reason?

I believe they did this intentionally. Unlike a Democracy, a Republic ought to have some built in checks against the power of the 'people' -the mob that is. The Founding Fathers established the House of Representatives to be the legislative body of the people, but the Senate was supposed to be a source of stability and leadership. That is why the House constantly turns over in elections whereas Senators have six year terms.

When every level of government is directly elected, then every government official has to worry constantly about pleasing 'the people'. This leaves little room for doing the right thing when it isn't popular. As a result, untenable programs like Social Security are going to keep on in their present projection until they totally bankrupt the Government and destroy the dollar. The Republicans haven't taken action on social security because they fear the political consequences, and understandably so.

I place abortion and other moral issues in the same category. Politicians follow the fads of majority opinion rather than logical or moral considerations. This is perhaps the greatest fallacy held dear in our national mythology today, that 'the people' are somehow always right. That is ridiculous. It is also the same kind of rhetoric used by totalitarian regimes to justify their insane policies.

krstlros · #**138** 9th November 2006, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by PetertheRock

You have to be kidding! They provide one thing...abortions!

You need to research your subject more.

ScottBot · #**139** 9th November 2006, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by Servus Iesu

I certainly agree. Two other reforms which I think would reduce many of the present political problems would be eliminating pay for legislators and making political positions part time. These politicians become invested in keeping their jobs and that is the central thing that matters to them. Back in the day, legislators met for a session for a few weeks and then had to go home to real jobs. I think it was Ben Franklin who said that no man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session. Therein lies the added benefit of part-times legislators. The less time they have to legislate, the less damage they can do.

Of course, said reforms will never happen because they squarely contradict the personal interests of almost every Republican and Democrat. No one is going to propose such legislation, and even if they did it wouldn't even make it to committee.

The Founding Fathers of our country never intended Politics to be a full time career. Stipends were intended to HELP offset the loss of income for politicians while they were attending thier public duties. However, enter the age of Strom Thurmon, Robert Byrd, and Edward Kennedy, whom have taken lifelong leaching off the public dime to new levels.

ScottBot · #**140** 9th November 2006, 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by Servus Iesu

I'd be interested in hearing what you think of this, but I believe another problem is that the Republic has become too 'Democratized'. In the Constitution the word 'Democracy' isn't used a single time, only 'Republic'. I believe this was intentional on the part of the founding fathers. Many of them actively spoke against Democracy.

While many take it for granted that direct election of senators was a great and progressive reform, I've come to the conclusion that it has actually had disastrous results. Also, the Fouding Fathers specifically chose not to have direct election of senators. Are we to think they simply didn't consider it, or that there was a reason?

I believe they did this intentionally. Unlike a Democracy, a Republic ought to have some built in checks against the power of the 'people' -the mob that is. The Founding Fathers established the House of Representatives to be the legislative body of the people, but the Senate was supposed to be a source of stability and leadership. That is why the House constantly turns over in elections whereas Senators have six year terms.

When every level of government is directly elected, then every government official has to worry constantly about pleasing 'the people'. This leaves little room for doing the right thing when it isn't popular. As a result, untenable programs like Social Security are going to keep on in their present projection until they totally bankrupt the Government and destroy the dollar. The Republicans haven't taken action on social security because they fear the political consequences, and understandably so.

I place abortion and other moral issues in the same category. Politicians follow the fads of majority opinion rather than logical or moral considerations. This is perhaps the greatest fallacy held dear in our national mythology today, that 'the people' are somehow always right. That is ridiculous. It is also the same kind of rhetoric used by totalitarian regimes to justify their insane policies.

This is why I strongly endorse the repeal of Amendment 17, which changes the way that the Senate is elected. In the Constitution, the Senate was established to promote State Rights, the House was intended to represent the will of the people. The House of Representatives is the "mob rule", i.e. representative democracy. The House was the Republic. However, since the Senate is now elected by direct popular vote, there is little difference between the House and the Senate.