Alec Baldwin blasts both sides for mess.

RandFan · 11th October 2008, 12:25 PM

I'm with Alec

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Oh, and get Bill's priceless point. The Republicans wouldn't pass the bill because $700 billion was too much but they went for it at $800 billion.

We got screwed folks. Let's be honest here. We got screwed by the Repubs and the Dems.

HereticHulk · 11th October 2008, 12:38 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

I'm with Alec

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Oh, and get Bill's priceless point. The Republicans wouldn't pass the bill because $700 billion was too much but they went for it at $800 billion.

We got screwed folks. Let's be honest here. We got screwed by the Repubs and the Dems.

and.....

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

$480,000.00 per household!?!?

Crowlogic · 11th October 2008, 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

I'm with Alec

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Oh, and get Bill's priceless point. The Republicans wouldn't pass the bill because $700 billion was too much but they went for it at $800 billion.

We got screwed folks. Let's be honest here. We got screwed by the Repubs and the Dems.

You make an interesting point by saying we've been screwed by the Democrats and Republicans. This is a classic illustration of how "we the people" do not feel that either party is by the people and for the people. So what have our 2 parties done for you lately Mr. & Ms. American citizen?

RandFan · 11th October 2008, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by Crowlogic

You make an interesting point by saying we've been screwed by the Democrats and Republicans. This is a classic illustration of how "we the people" do not feel that either party is by the people and for the people. So what have our 2 parties done for you lately Mr. & Ms. American citizen?

You make a great point. Still, if we were honest enough we would concede that we screwed ourselves. We get the government we are are smart enough to elect.

Chaos · 12th October 2008, 03:19 AM

I can´t help but point out that you guys keep electing these people, or not voting at all which does even less to keep them out of office.

I might even be tempted to ask with which justification you keep bitching about them if you don´t do a thing to get rid of them.

And don´t tell me "there is no good third party to vote for". Sure, there isn´t, tell me, whose fault is that, if not that of you, the people?

Ladewig · 12th October 2008, 07:35 AM

Originally Posted by Chaos

I can´t help but point out that you guys keep electing these people, or not voting at all which does even less to keep them out of office.

I might even be tempted to ask with which justification you keep bitching about them if you don´t do a thing to get rid of them.

And don´t tell me "there is no good third party to vote for". Sure, there isn´t, tell me, whose fault is that, if not that of you, the people?

There are a number of laws that make it difficult for third party candidates to win. Federal matching funds are given only to candidates belonging to parties that received at least 5% in the previous election. Similarly, Democrats and Republicans will debate only people belonging to parties that that received at least 5% in the previous election. Presidential candidates can get on the ballot if the gather enough signatures, but in some states people who vote in the primaries are ineligible to sign such petitions. Furthermore, some states have outlawed write-in votes.

I would love to see a viable third party, but I don't expect to anytime in the next 10 years.

RandFan · 12th October 2008, 08:32 AM

Originally Posted by Chaos

I can´t help but point out that you guys keep electing these people, or not voting at all which does even less to keep them out of office.

I might even be tempted to ask with which justification you keep bitching about them if you don´t do a thing to get rid of them.

And don´t tell me "there is no good third party to vote for". Sure, there isn´t, tell me, whose fault is that, if not that of you, the people?

Well, let's be honest here. America has done pretty damn well over the years. We've made some mistakes. It's the nature of the beast and the forefathers expected it. No nation is immune from error. Not even Germany.

Oliver · 12th October 2008, 08:35 AM

Originally Posted by Chaos

And don´t tell me "there is no good third party to vote for". Sure, there isn´t, tell me, whose fault is that, if not that of you, the people?

According to the overwhelming Meme: "They. Are. Nuts. Period."

Polaris · 12th October 2008, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by RandFan

You make a great point. Still, if we were honest enough we would concede that we screwed ourselves. We get the government we are are smart enough to elect.

Or more accurately, we get the government that is elected by the highly-motivated left-wingers, single-issue voters, Christian fundamentalists and few upright responsible citizens who actually get out and vote on Election Day.

Cicero · 12th October 2008, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by RandFan

No nation is immune from error. Not even Germany.

Imagine getting political advice from a country that spawned a political system with nearly a dozen parties in the Weimar era where hyperinflation was customary, and then gave the word a bellyful of National Socialism.

Oliver · 13th October 2008, 05:13 AM

Originally Posted by Cicero

Imagine getting political advice from a country that spawned a political system with nearly a dozen parties in the Weimar era where hyperinflation was customary, and then gave the word a bellyful of National Socialism.

Alec Baldwin is German?

ImaginalDisc · 13th October 2008, 08:16 AM

Originally Posted by Oliver

Alec Baldwin is German?

Chaos is, try to keep up.

Anyhow, I think I'll go entirely against the consensus and say that I like having two mutually mistrustful and ponderously slow political parties. Call me provincial, but I like a large government that makes changes slowly and in small steps. I like a government that can't make huge mistakes on a whim and yet is able to respond to steady pressure over time. Compared to most countries, the U.S.A. is a very young country, but it's also been extremely stable. We have managed to shift like clay into new forms rather than being broken, melted down, and recast over and over. I'm looking at you, France and Germany.

I've often thought that the best possible compromise is a compromise no one is happy with. If someone is happy with a compromise, and someone else isn't, then that breeds resentment and fuels changing the compromise, even if the compromise is for everyone's benefit. I thin people are most content with the political system they're in when those they percieve as their competitors are not better off than they are. I'm no expert on game theory, but I think that a system where everyone is equally dissatisfied to a small extent is more stable than a system where some people are extremely unhappy, and others are content.

ponderingturtle · 13th October 2008, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by Ladewig

I would love to see a viable third party, but I don't expect to anytime in the next 10 years.

Three parties are not a stable arangement in the US political system. It could change the views of one of the two parties or surplant one, but the constitution leads to a two party system.

Skeptic · 13th October 2008, 10:27 PM

I don't necessarily disagree with Baldwin -- and it's nice to see a Hollywood celebrity who isn't a "the evil Republicans did it" ranter -- but seriously, since when are Hollywood celebrities any guide to politics?

Skeptic · 13th October 2008, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Anyhow, I think I'll go entirely against the consensus and say that I like having two mutually mistrustful and ponderously slow political parties.

You are 100%, totally, completely correct (surprised you there, didn't I?)

A government by incompetents is annoying. And expensive. And raises your blood pressure. But it is far, far better than a government by people who have a plan to save the country and will push it through no matter what.

$800,000,000,000 you say it cost you this time around? Because Congress is made up, seemingly, of a bunch of incompetent fools? That's NOTHING compared to what the other type of government costs.

That type usually results either in a dictatorship, or else (if democracy survives) in seventeen different parties, each one led by a genius who is our last hope to save the country.

Believe me. I live in Israel. You have no idea how lucky you are.

Skeptic · 13th October 2008, 10:40 PM

Just that you guys will have some perspective... Republicans and Democrats hate each other, you say? Well, in Israel, we've got people in the parliament whose official party goal is to do war with, and expell, some of the other folks in the parliament, due to ethnic differences. Beat that.

P.S.

For the record, those folks (a) usually sit together in the parliament's cafeteria (for years, for historical reasons, the parliament had a cafeteria which was a few notches below the average roadside diner in cuisine, but I digress) and (b) vote together when it comes to the really important stuff (e.g., getting more taxpayer's money to their pet projects). Which shows you how serious the whole thing is.

So count your lucky stars on your system of government. Folks -- the whole point of the US Constitution, and what made it such an amazing thing, is precisely that it obviously assumes elected people will often be selfish, incompetent jerks, and takes care in advance to minimize the damage they do.

When you have, however, a "great man" who is leading the country and can do what he will, no matter what the stupid, outdated Constitution says...

11th October 2008, 04:18 PM	#4
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,144	Originally Posted by Crowlogic You make an interesting point by saying we've been screwed by the Democrats and Republicans. This is a classic illustration of how "we the people" do not feel that either party is by the people and for the people. So what have our 2 parties done for you lately Mr. & Ms. American citizen? You make a great point. Still, if we were honest enough we would concede that we screwed ourselves. We get the government we are are smart enough to elect.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

12th October 2008, 03:19 AM	#5
Chaos TAM Chocolate Dispenser Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: The Heart of Old Europe Posts: 9,776	I can´t help but point out that you guys keep electing these people, or not voting at all which does even less to keep them out of office. I might even be tempted to ask with which justification you keep bitching about them if you don´t do a thing to get rid of them. And don´t tell me "there is no good third party to vote for". Sure, there isn´t, tell me, whose fault is that, if not that of you, the people?
	__________________ Grand Master, Knights of the Question Mark Illusion: too good to be true - Reality: too true to be good Authors build castles in the sky, readers live in them and publishers collect the rent. - Maxim Gorki Folks enjoy a witch-hunt as long as they are on the blunt end of the pitchfork. - Suezoled You can't use logic to talk a man out of a position that he didn't use logic to get himself into - passed down by Nyarlathotep Kids these days are better than their parents since they constitute the newest edition, the beta version of our societies - Cleopatra YouÂ´ll have to accept the fact that some people are just plain nuts. - Paul C. Anagnostopolous

12th October 2008, 07:35 AM	#6
Ladewig Hipster alien Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: not measurable Posts: 16,794	Originally Posted by Chaos I can´t help but point out that you guys keep electing these people, or not voting at all which does even less to keep them out of office. I might even be tempted to ask with which justification you keep bitching about them if you don´t do a thing to get rid of them. And don´t tell me "there is no good third party to vote for". Sure, there isn´t, tell me, whose fault is that, if not that of you, the people? There are a number of laws that make it difficult for third party candidates to win. Federal matching funds are given only to candidates belonging to parties that received at least 5% in the previous election. Similarly, Democrats and Republicans will debate only people belonging to parties that that received at least 5% in the previous election. Presidential candidates can get on the ballot if the gather enough signatures, but in some states people who vote in the primaries are ineligible to sign such petitions. Furthermore, some states have outlawed write-in votes. I would love to see a viable third party, but I don't expect to anytime in the next 10 years.
	__________________ Is the JREF message board training wheels for people who hope to one day troll other message boards? It is not that hard to get us to believe you. We are not the major leagues or even the minor leagues. We are Pee-Wee baseball. If you love striking out 10-year-olds, then you'll love trolling our board.

12th October 2008, 08:32 AM	#7
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,144	Originally Posted by Chaos I can´t help but point out that you guys keep electing these people, or not voting at all which does even less to keep them out of office. I might even be tempted to ask with which justification you keep bitching about them if you don´t do a thing to get rid of them. And don´t tell me "there is no good third party to vote for". Sure, there isn´t, tell me, whose fault is that, if not that of you, the people? Well, let's be honest here. America has done pretty damn well over the years. We've made some mistakes. It's the nature of the beast and the forefathers expected it. No nation is immune from error. Not even Germany.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

12th October 2008, 08:35 AM	#8
Oliver ~The Rascal~ Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Cologne Posts: 17,369	Originally Posted by Chaos And don´t tell me "there is no good third party to vote for". Sure, there isn´t, tell me, whose fault is that, if not that of you, the people? According to the overwhelming Meme: "They. Are. Nuts. Period."
	__________________

12th October 2008, 09:30 AM	#9
Polaris Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,167	Originally Posted by RandFan You make a great point. Still, if we were honest enough we would concede that we screwed ourselves. We get the government we are are smart enough to elect. Or more accurately, we get the government that is elected by the highly-motivated left-wingers, single-issue voters, Christian fundamentalists and few upright responsible citizens who actually get out and vote on Election Day.
Polaris Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,167	__________________ "There's vastly more truth to be found in rocks than in holy books. Rocks are far superior, in fact, because you can DEMONSTRATE the truth found in rocks. Plus, they're pretty. Holy books are just heavy." - Dinwar "Roy Moore of Alabama. The world would absolutely benefit by him being run over by any vehicle." - Lowpro Last edited by Polaris; 12th October 2008 at 09:33 AM. Reason: Speaking of accuracy...

12th October 2008, 09:50 AM	#10
Cicero Banned Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 7,861	Originally Posted by RandFan No nation is immune from error. Not even Germany. Imagine getting political advice from a country that spawned a political system with nearly a dozen parties in the Weimar era where hyperinflation was customary, and then gave the word a bellyful of National Socialism.
Cicero Banned Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 7,861

13th October 2008, 05:13 AM	#11
Oliver ~The Rascal~ Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Cologne Posts: 17,369	Originally Posted by Cicero Imagine getting political advice from a country that spawned a political system with nearly a dozen parties in the Weimar era where hyperinflation was customary, and then gave the word a bellyful of National Socialism. Alec Baldwin is German?
	__________________

13th October 2008, 08:16 AM	#12
ImaginalDisc Proactive Untwister of Octagonal Hippopotamus Pants Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Miami, Fl Posts: 10,225	Originally Posted by Oliver Alec Baldwin is German? Chaos is, try to keep up. Anyhow, I think I'll go entirely against the consensus and say that I like having two mutually mistrustful and ponderously slow political parties. Call me provincial, but I like a large government that makes changes slowly and in small steps. I like a government that can't make huge mistakes on a whim and yet is able to respond to steady pressure over time. Compared to most countries, the U.S.A. is a very young country, but it's also been extremely stable. We have managed to shift like clay into new forms rather than being broken, melted down, and recast over and over. I'm looking at you, France and Germany. I've often thought that the best possible compromise is a compromise no one is happy with. If someone is happy with a compromise, and someone else isn't, then that breeds resentment and fuels changing the compromise, even if the compromise is for everyone's benefit. I thin people are most content with the political system they're in when those they percieve as their competitors are not better off than they are. I'm no expert on game theory, but I think that a system where everyone is equally dissatisfied to a small extent is more stable than a system where some people are extremely unhappy, and others are content.
	__________________ Definition: 'Love' is making a shot to the knees of a target 120 kilometers away using an Aratech sniper rifle with a tri-light scope. Statement: This definition, I am told, is subject to interpretation. Obviously, love is a matter of odds. Not many meatbags could make such a shot, and fewer would derive love from it. Yet for me, love is knowing your target, putting them in your targeting reticle, and together, achieving a singular purpose, against statistically long odds. *-HK-47* Last edited by ImaginalDisc; 13th October 2008 at 09:25 AM.

13th October 2008, 09:49 AM	#13
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,420	Originally Posted by Ladewig I would love to see a viable third party, but I don't expect to anytime in the next 10 years. Three parties are not a stable arangement in the US political system. It could change the views of one of the two parties or surplant one, but the constitution leads to a two party system.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

13th October 2008, 10:27 PM	#14
Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Behind the chessboard Posts: 18,361	I don't necessarily disagree with Baldwin -- and it's nice to see a Hollywood celebrity who isn't a "the evil Republicans did it" ranter -- but seriously, since when are Hollywood celebrities any guide to politics?

13th October 2008, 10:32 PM	#15
Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Behind the chessboard Posts: 18,361	Quote: Anyhow, I think I'll go entirely against the consensus and say that I like having two mutually mistrustful and ponderously slow political parties. You are 100%, totally, completely correct (surprised you there, didn't I?) A government by incompetents is annoying. And expensive. And raises your blood pressure. But it is far, far better than a government by people who have a plan to save the country and will push it through no matter what. $800,000,000,000 you say it cost you this time around? Because Congress is made up, seemingly, of a bunch of incompetent fools? That's NOTHING compared to what the other type of government costs. That type usually results either in a dictatorship, or else (if democracy survives) in seventeen different parties, each one led by a genius who is our last hope to save the country. Believe me. I live in Israel. You have no idea how lucky you are.

13th October 2008, 10:40 PM	#16
Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Behind the chessboard Posts: 18,361	Just that you guys will have some perspective... Republicans and Democrats hate each other, you say? Well, in Israel, we've got people in the parliament whose official party goal is to do war with, and expell, some of the other folks in the parliament, due to ethnic differences. Beat that. P.S. For the record, those folks (a) usually sit together in the parliament's cafeteria (for years, for historical reasons, the parliament had a cafeteria which was a few notches below the average roadside diner in cuisine, but I digress) and (b) vote together when it comes to the really important stuff (e.g., getting more taxpayer's money to their pet projects). Which shows you how serious the whole thing is. So count your lucky stars on your system of government. Folks -- the whole point of the US Constitution, and what made it such an amazing thing, is precisely that it obviously assumes elected people will often be selfish, incompetent jerks, and takes care in advance to minimize the damage they do. When you have, however, a "great man" who is leading the country and can do what he will, no matter what the stupid, outdated Constitution says...