http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/30/obamas-secretary-of-agric_n_139339.html

Monsanto and co already have actual farmers on the ropes, litigating against organic labeling and using GMO IP as a weapon against honest farmers. Now they've got one of their boys in as Secretary of Agriculture?

Change, my ass...

Yeah that's not good.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

yeah, after doing som research doesnt seem like that is the best choice he could of made.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

So you supported the old boss, and if Obama is the same as the old boss, you must then support Obama...welcome to the party sir.


Lastly, ahh the theme for everything Obama does that people dont like "change, my ass"

I thought it was:

But, but Bush.....!

Lastly, ahh the theme for everything Obama does that people dont like "change, my ass"

But repeating something that was beaten to death months ago is so witty!

Absolutely horrible pick. Someone has Obama in their pocket ;(

Best right that ship Obama, you don't want to go down that path and marr what could have been a great opportunity for you and the country!

OH NO NOT THE SEC. OF AG PICK!!!!!!!!!


Yea. Not too many people like this pick a bunch. This is more a 2012 pick than anything Ive seen. Monsanto and GM crops are not my favorite thing in the world.

From an ideological point of view... he isnt the best choice.

from a practical, best man for the job, point of view, he is. "Governor of a Farm State", is pretty much a required qualification for this job. He brings a lot of experience and political weight to the office.

And this really isnt news now is it?

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20081123/BUSINESS01/811230309/1029/BUSINESS

While everyone wants organic, god knows I spend enough fucking money at Whole Foods, GM crops are a reality.

If you want to bring Africa out of poverty, or make necessary developments in parts of Asia, then GM crops and Monsanto products are a part of the equation.

Yes, Monsanto is the Halliburton of Farming... but the point is if Obama can marshal these various forces and entities to do his bidding, rather than be lead around by his nose by them, ala GWB.

Time will tell and we will see.

Oh and another thing.

Look beyond the top pick of Obamas big cabinet names. The Deputy Secs and Undersec appointments have been pretty much stellar. An example of this is Jane Lubchenco, just appointed to run NOAA. Ray LaHood is an..... interesting choice.

Lots of Harvard and Yale degrees in the White House. Thats going to filter down to other departments like Justice and State as the Liberty U grads are shown the door and Ivy's are ushered in.

I'm less concerned about this and more ticked about his choice in letting Warren give the inagural prayer.

While everyone wants organic, god knows I spend enough fucking money at Whole Foods, GM crops are a reality.

If you want to bring Africa out of poverty, or make necessary developments in parts of Asia, then GM crops and Monsanto products are a part of the equation.

Support that claim. GM crops have sometimes been found to actually produce lower yields than traditional crops. In any case, they aren't significantly better producers of food, but of profit for whoever controls the seeds' IP.

Asia? Monsanto has starved thousands in India alone. Asian rice farmers have been producing yields that put Monsanto to shame for centuries.

Africa? Many African countries won't accept GM foods. They understand that it's one small step removed from poison.

Millions (if not billions) have been spent to marginalize organic foods as something for hippies, while promoting ideas like the misconception that GM foods are the solution to world hunger. It should be very obvious that limiting access to growing food is not the answer to world hunger. You might as well suggest that credit cards are the answer to poverty.

Tbh Dept of Ag is one of the departments I think we should abolish.

Tho if we have to have it I don't want the Haliburton of that division running it. Rover and Byl were right about Haliburton all this time , I'd rather not see a mistake of that level happen again ;(

Support that claim. GM crops have sometimes been found to actually produce lower yields than traditional crops. In any case, they aren't significantly better producers of food, but of profit for whoever controls the seeds' IP.

Overall, GM foods have been pretty solidly successful in Africa and India.

http://newsblaze.com/story/20081216125259tsop.nb/topstory.html

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v456/n7221/full/456421b.html

And its not just food that lifts people from poverty

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7785212.stm

Monsanto is poised to introduce GM corn to India on a large scale basis. Corn could possibly be the thing that transforms India.



Asia? Monsanto has starved thousands in India alone. Asian rice farmers have been producing yields that put Monsanto to shame for centuries.

Look, starvation isnt a new phenomenon for India. But the attempt is to try to develop monsoon season resistant crops. If they can do that, they can really eliminate the major cause for hunger on the sub continent.

And yes, Asians can grow the hell out of rice. Great. But the idea is to diversify the Asian diet.

Nutrition is a core aspect of a modern developed state. The fact that the average Asian male is 5'3 while the average Western male is about 5'11 is no coincidence. The life span is about +15 years as well.

If we can get them bigger and fatter, we can then sell them our SUVs!



Africa? Many African countries won't accept GM foods. They understand that it's one small step removed from poison.

There is a debate about that in some African countries. Mostly sponsored by European interests, many African people have been convinced that GM crops are another attempt at Colonialism. But the debate isnt about their effectiveness. GM crops which are drought resistant are absolutely critical in some areas of Africa.

Hey. I don't like Monsantos business model any more than you do. In fact, I fucking hate it. But effectiveness of their product is pretty damn good.

Millions (if not billions) have been spent to marginalize organic foods as something for hippies, while promoting ideas like the misconception that GM foods are the solution to world hunger.
From what Ive seen Monsantos efforts in PR have been pretty low tech and inexpensive.

This article seems like what they have been doing. Putting forward reasonable arguments for what they do.

http://business.edp24.co.uk/members/editorial/coverStory/story.aspx?brand=BIZOnline&category=Features&tBrand=BIZOnline&tCategory=Features&itemid=NOED19%20Dec%202008%2009%3A07%3A38%3A503

It should be very obvious that limiting access to growing food is not the answer to world hunger. You might as well suggest that credit cards are the answer to poverty.

Business Model = Bad. Product = Good.

So what is the answer? Throw out the baby with the bathwater? That makes zero sense as well.

I'd be curious to see how well India, a country with shrinking farmland, is able to produce corn in the numbers required to feed their masses.

I'll have to watch for a bolt of lightning to strike me dead here. I'm a Hoosier born and bred, but corn isn't really a good idea as it's production per acre isn't really ideal if you lack the land.

Plus corn doesn't love a wet wet soil, so would be interesting to see how that's managed. Would take a hell of a hybrid, which poses it's own problems.

Those damn holy cows will eat it all!!! err

L2, judging from your post, I don't think you have a very deep understanding of what this GM food actually is.

We're not talking about simply pesticide or free-range stuff that some people buy organic for, but the irreparable biological side effects some GM foods are having in our ecosystem.

Unleashing GM seeds into the wild (purposely spreading it into natural crops, to crush smaller farmers under IP suits) is mutating our main source of food in ways that we cannot undo. I'm no tree-hunger, but I know this is bad.

You've got to do more research on this than some fluff pieces on the web.

For one small example, go looking for information about how Monsanto and Fox suppressed a series of stories about the side effects of growth hormones in milk cows. The information that was suppressed is terrifying, on the scale that we're talking about.

Is Monsanto working to make that situation better, now that they were caught? No, they're working to litigate producers of real milk into not being able to even label their products as being free of the growth hormone.

I really don't understand how any sensible person could support what they're doing to our food, regardless of any grandiose, made-up potential future benefits.

/nods I tend to agree San. The crass manipulation of the natural forms and then releasing ,as you say, into the wild is very shortsighted indeed.

Its not shortsighted at all.

It may very well be necessary for the survival of our species in the future.

More and more humans means less and less farmland. Humanity will be forced to grow more with less.

Or, you know, we could just relax with the multiplication and work on some quality instead of quantity.

Without strict controls corn will cross pollinate with other variants. Spent a few summers detassling corn to prevent sweet and field corn from doing exactly that.

It's short sighted to the extreme with only $$ in their eyes.

Or, you know, we could just relax with the multiplication and work on some quality instead of quantity.

Good luck with that when large portions of the world don't believe in birth control (or don't have access to it). People aren't going to stop having sex. If the fear of overpopulation and AIDS hasn't stopped people from banging so often in Africa than nothing will.

When does it end? If there's no restraint on overpopulation, we'll certainly run out of food, water, and sanitized space long before we have the technology to feasibly move off planet.

So, what do you propose?

I've been out of town and so just found this thread, but just let me say that GMO foods in themselves are the least of my worries about Monsanto. The practices that this company engages in in order to strongarm/blackmail farmers into using their products and the litigation hellholes they drive them into when problems arise with their products or farmers resist using them are far far more disturbing. Read up on some of what they have been involved in with regard to dairy farmers who have resisted administering bGH (bovine growth hormone) to their herds and wanted to advertise that fact, if you want to see how 'benevolent' Monsanto is...

Then there's the whole issue of their heavy reliance on 'terminator seeds' to maintain market share, forcing farmers to go back to Monsanto every year to buy new seed in order to keep growing that crop. Tell me how 'great' *that* is for impoverished developing countries who are trying to feed their populations. Probably the worst part of that particular issue is that even in insect-pollinated crops (and it's much worse for wind-pollinated crops like corn, wheat, and rice) some cross-fertilization of neighboring non-Monsanto using fields is inevitable, resulting in reduced seed viability and which has led to... you guessed it, Monsanto suing the complaining *farmers* for 'unauthorized use of their product'. They actually employ a small army of biologists to go out and DNA fingerprint fields of folks they suspect of (inadvertent or not) 'piracy' (or more often, simple resistance to use Monsanto products) and aggressively prosecute. I could go on and on, and will dig up some links when I'm not so rushed, but there's a lot wrong with this company and how it conducts its business that have nothing to do with what they are selling in itself.

On the GMO food issue itself, there are several additional concerns, which have less to do with the nutritional safety and fitness of the food (although this is of some concern with bGH, Roundup Ready, and BT toxin, as well as growth hormone gene splicing and overexpression in farmed fish) and more to do with the sustainability of growing these crops in marginal environments and the horizontal transfer of some of these genes into other organisms. We aren't doing indigenous farmers any favors if we make the local weeds and insects pesticide and herbicide resistant, or drive out use of locally-adapted strains in favor of those that need a lot more intensive agricultural techniques to grow. Finally, on that issue, there is the massive loss of strain and crop species diversity, which continues to accelerate.

This has gone on longer than intended as usual, but I'd like to reiterate what others have said in that choosing a Monsanto 'fox' to put in charge of our agricultural henhouse was a catastrophically bad pick that reeks of corruption and has me beginning to wonder if my original concerns in the Democratic primaries about Obama potentially being a slick demogogue weren't more accurate than folks wanted to think about. I appreciate his great intelligence, but this was a disturbing pick.

Regards,
Nydia

When does it end? If there's no restraint on overpopulation, we'll certainly run out of food, water, and sanitized space long before we have the technology to feasibly move off planet.

So, what do you propose?

You brought it up, what do YOU propose? You've complained about issues and offered no solutions.

Start growing our own food? I'm spending some time this winter break putting in more gardens in my yard, and I'll see how much more I can grow this year over last. Last year two small cherry tomato plants kept me happily in tomatoes - more than I could eat alone - through the tomato scare and beyond. I still have frozen green beans from a 2 square foot patch. My neighbors threatened me if I give them any more of the cucumber, since I couldn't eat it all myself. I can't grow enough to sustain myself and my wife completely, but the two small gardens I have provided a lot of food. I'm trying to get away from some of the questionable stuff at the store. I had lettuce all through the lettuce scare. Granted I'm at a slight advantage because of the weather where I live, but it's a start.

While we're at it, the gross waste of resources in the Western world is EASY to change, if people are willing. We don't, for example, need massive lawns and private swimming pools that never get used, but suck up water.

GM foods may be an alternative to global food crisis, but that doesn't mean we have to rely on them, or remove restrictions on their growth. Poor handling of crops has been traced to a number of problems, including the drops in bee population. There a lot of unproven information on the positive and negative side of the argument, but that's enough doubt that we should be cautious.

Hell, just read up on the problems linked with our baby formulas and rising mental problems. The only nations close to the US tend to be African countries - who get all of our old formula.

You brought it up, what do YOU propose? You've complained about issues and offered no solutions.

It seems obvious that some sort of population control is essential to our continued survival.

The problem with GM food is that no one really knows the effects it will have. The other diet issues as far as Asian vs Western I disagree with L2. The #1 killer of westerners is heart disease which is really a diet issue, this problem is not an issue in most of Asia. Diet is a regional and evolutionary issue truly we don't need to change the world to eat more western.


But all in all, most of Obama's pcks have been very good.

it seems obvious that some sort of population control is essential to our continued survival.

war!!!!

On the issue of overpopulation, we've been beyond sustainable carrying capacity, depending on whom you talk to, since about 1960, and have been, in effect, 'eating our seed corn' in terms of degradation of topsoil/water/dependence on petrochemicals, in order to keep 3/4 of the world's population adequately fed. Despite the panic you sometimes see about demographic dropoffs in some countries (and those extreme transitions observed in Japan and Italy are ironically driven *by* the rise in cost of living associated with our ultimate unsustainability in population growth), population growth is *the* issue that will destroy us, the other issues associated with it (famine, disease, war, in other words the horsemen of the apocalypse :) ) being aggrevating symptoms of the underlying problem.

Idiotic moves such as our government's hysteria about even the *mention* of the word abortion resulting in 'gag' and 'conscience' rules and more importantly, cutting off funding for much-needed family planning education and services in developing countries out of the fear of such is catastrophically counterproductive when literally billions of lives, and our *future* carrying capacity and quality of life are at stake.

Regards,
Nydia

Overpopuation isnt a problem at all in western and developed nations. As I think was mentioned here before, many of the most advanced nations are actually seeing a population decline.

The population explosion we are seeing is occuring in 3rd world and developing nations.

But it is an explosion.

Its all well and good to say, "Stop having so many babies", or have some assumption that people in Camroon are going to limit themselves to a new standard counter to generations of culture.

Fertility Rates (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/Fertility_rate_world_map_2.png)

But I seriously doubt that well meaning people with fine ideas and power point presentations are going to do it. There is one way to limit births.... economic opportunity.

So you want to discourage that behavior by trying to find more food to feed them?

While you're at it, how about if you pay my bills for me, but only when I spend irresponsibly!

Dear L2:

I agree with you in part, but overpopulation isn't just numbers - it's also impact. Each American baby produces an impact on the environment, and its resources, that's hundreds of times that of a baby in Cameroon or Vietnam, or 25 times greater than that of a Mexican baby. Think about what proportion of the world's resources we consume relative to our population (which in the US, is rising just above maintenance) and consider whether we are 'overpopulated', given that information.

Part of the reason that the population crisis is being felt so acutely, and at an accelerating rate, is not because the rate of population growth is continuing to increase, but because as the 1.3 billion each in China and India (among other 'up and coming' economies) demand a more affluent lifestyle, they too consume more resources and hence demand more agricultural intensification and resource degredation. There's a useful formula (thanks, Paul Ehrlich) for assessing the net impact of a society on their environment:

I = PAT where P = population, A = affluence (resource consumption), and T = technology (intensification).

While we in the US do have a relatively small population, our 'footprint' is enormous, and we have no grounds for feeling safe, smug, or self-righteous when we state that population control is 'those other' (third world countries which we have raped for resources) countries' problem.

Regards,
Nydia

It seems obvious that some sort of population control is essential to our continued survival.

And how do you propose we enforce population control on entire continents with major over population problems?

Words like 'some sort of' aren't proposals What kind of population control do YOU think will work in Africa when genocide, starvation, and disease aren't working. Birth control has been 'taught' to them and they don't use it. What do you think will work? Education and economic opportunities is not a magical solution because we need results now, not decades from now that would be required to develop entire nations on the hopes that works to reduce massive population growth in parts of the world.

While we in the US do have a relatively small population, our 'footprint' is enormous, and we have no grounds for feeling safe, smug, or self-righteous when we state that population control is 'those other' (third world countries which we have raped for resources) countries' problem.Footprint, that's the word I was trying to recall. Our footprint - what each person requires to survive in terms of land space for food production and whathaveyou - is far more of an issue. Remember the campaign in the '90s to "reduce?"

And how do you propose we enforce population control on entire continents with major over population problems?

Words like 'some sort of' aren't proposals What kind of population control do YOU think will work in Africa when genocide, starvation, and disease aren't working. Birth control has been 'taught' to them and they don't use it. What do you think will work? Education and economic opportunities is not a magical solution because we need results now, not decades from now that would be required to develop entire nations on the hopes that works to reduce massive population growth in parts of the world.

You're losing me with all this.

My original point was that we can't expect to infinitely increase food yields. Whether we like it or not, the population will be controlled, either by self imposed limits or by famine, disease, and war.

You seem to agree. What's your point?

With two of Africa's biggest problems being HIV and lack of contraceptive use, do we know for sure that its growth won't level off in the next decade "naturally"? Their fertility rate is irrelevant information without considering life expectancy as well.

You're losing me with all this.

My original point was that we can't expect to infinitely increase food yields. Whether we like it or not, the population will be controlled, either by self imposed limits or by famine, disease, and war.

You seem to agree. What's your point?

With two of Africa's biggest problems being HIV and lack of contraceptive use, do we know for sure that its growth won't level off in the next decade "naturally"? Their fertility rate is irrelevant information without considering life expectancy as well.

Considering the two facts that rape is used as an act of war and domination in Africa, and that children are frequently used as sex partners in the belief they will be free of disease, it is clear that the sex drive that so obviously overrides common sense and common decency will need more than simple education and contraception.

Why do you think no European or Western country has ever made a serious effort to improve the lot of any African nation? We will put band-aids on the problems, to make ourselves feel better perhaps, but the root causes are seldom dealt with because the long range goals are more easily met by allowing them to die off due to warfare and disease and famine. When the population of Africa is down to 30-40% of what it is currently, it will be easier to feed and easier to coerce into trade agreements and easier to control.

Racism is inherent in how Africa is dealt with, globally, and it will take more than electing our first black President to change that. People look first at how someone is different than themselves, and then at how they are similar.

We have made strides, but we are not there yet.

Dear L2:

I agree with you in part, but overpopulation isn't just numbers - it's also impact. Each American baby produces an impact on the environment, and its resources, that's hundreds of times that of a baby in Cameroon or Vietnam, or 25 times greater than that of a Mexican baby. Think about what proportion of the world's resources we consume relative to our population (which in the US, is rising just above maintenance) and consider whether we are 'overpopulated', given that information.

Part of the reason that the population crisis is being felt so acutely, and at an accelerating rate, is not because the rate of population growth is continuing to increase, but because as the 1.3 billion each in China and India (among other 'up and coming' economies) demand a more affluent lifestyle, they too consume more resources and hence demand more agricultural intensification and resource degredation. There's a useful formula (thanks, Paul Ehrlich) for assessing the net impact of a society on their environment:

I = PAT where P = population, A = affluence (resource consumption), and T = technology (intensification).

While we in the US do have a relatively small population, our 'footprint' is enormous, and we have no grounds for feeling safe, smug, or self-righteous when we state that population control is 'those other' (third world countries which we have raped for resources) countries' problem.

Regards,
Nydia

Public Radio had someone on that spoke more directly to this issue. He used the unit of measure a fellow colleague coined, Americum. An Americum is a unit of measure that represents 350,000 million "Americans". Meaning, how much an average American consumed in terms of resources, their 'footprint'.

Point being, its not how many more people are coming into the world, it's the rate of growth of the population that are consuming resources to the same degree as Americans.

I forget the dates but we've gone from 2.5 "Americums" to 9.5 in a very short period of time. It is this type of growth that is of concern, not just the number of births.

My original point was that we can't expect to infinitely increase food yields. Whether we like it or not, the population will be controlled, either by self imposed limits or by famine, disease, and war.

ding ding ding.... we have a winner.

We will also ALWAYS have poor.... and rich BTW :)

I'm less concerned about this and more ticked about his choice in letting Warren give the inagural prayer.

Although Warren won't have a policy position with Obama I don't like the idea of him saying a prayer at the inauguration. Who is he praying for in America, obviously not everyone. The whole "marriage has been defined for 5000 years" is pure bullshit.

If I were gay I would protest as Melissa Etheridge is, don't pay taxes until there is equal treatment. I wouls definately get on board a protest against the prop 8 type things and I do believe that quote a few others would too.

The prop 8 vote was a farce. The govt has no business in what two consenting adults do. Whether it be marriage, sex or checkers!!

The big protests should have started before that damn measure was allowed on the ballot imho.

Oh yes Melissa Ethridge is a big hero , not paying taxes is an awesome idea and not against the law AT ALL ;P

Although Warren won't have a policy position with Obama I don't like the idea of him saying a prayer at the inauguration. Who is he praying for in America, obviously not everyone. The whole "marriage has been defined for 5000 years" is pure bullshit.

If I were gay I would protest as Melissa Etheridge is, don't pay taxes until there is equal treatment. I wouls definately get on board a protest against the prop 8 type things and I do believe that quote a few others would too.

To be honest, I can't help but think people whining about this is absolute bullshit.
Republicans are calling him a hypocrite for reaching across political platforms and accepting the guy as a person. Democrats are all uppity because the guy doesn't believe in gay marriage. I thought we wanted a guy who wasn't going to tow the political lines for fucks sake. He's not asking the guy to write marriage policy, we already know where Obama stands on gay marriage, he's asking a personal friend to give a prayer. Its not like he asked Governor Blagojevich or something. I want a President who reaches out to all Americans regardless of their political beliefs, not one who only picks a black guy because he's black, and doesn't always pick people to be around him that always agree with him. I want him to be open to any ideas and respect successful people regardless of their beliefs. He's not gonna outlaw gay marriage because he's got a conservative pastor giving the invocation. This is the kind of change we can believe in, the change we asked for - and the change that we so desperately need.

The prop 8 vote was a farce. The govt has no business in what two consenting adults do. Whether it be marriage, sex or checkers!!Not that I disagree, but it was the votors (the people) who passed the proposition.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28053565/ <-Overbreeders

Oh yes Melissa Ethridge is a big hero , not paying taxes is an awesome idea and not against the law AT ALL ;P

Yeah kind of like that Sam Adams and John Adams crowd. This isn't a case of the Grover Norquist tax and spend govt is taking my money for services that I use, this is what it's all about...taxation without equal representation much like...Sam Adams and that ilk.

Yeah kind of like that Sam Adams and John Adams crowd. This isn't a case of the Grover Norquist tax and spend govt is taking my money for services that I use, this is what it's all about...taxation without equal representation much like...Sam Adams and that ilk.

Oh please child don't make mountains out of molehills.

A vote was taken, the masses had their voice. It's not even remotely the same civil stance.

Sorry, do try and keep up. While I think it's very wrong for a vote to be taken in the first place this doesn't equate to the action you cited.

Oh please child don't make mountains out of molehills.

Yeah you're right...it's nuts to think that every American has the same rights...I think we should have a proposition that doesn't allow Airforce veterans to see their children...or maybe have one that says people in Utah should not be allowed to marry and then if they did get married they should have that marriage negated by the state. Good idea...hey...if people vote it in then they have spoken and that makes it A-OK. I hope everyone against gay marriage is forced to have their marriage annulled by the state and I hope they are not allowed to marry. Would serve them right.


The vote should have never been taken in the first place. This is black & white republican politics at its worst. No, it does deserve the action that I cited. It was a vote pushed by churches which clearly violates the constitution it is also a violation of the constitution to not treat everyone equally. To have this pushed as marriage is defined as between one man and one woman is utterly ludicrous.

I think you will see that there will be a backlash by gays and lesbians and rightfully so.

The violation of church/state was what got me on this. The 'people' of California chose to put the issue on the ballot and while I think it should have been treated as a constitutional change, since it wasn't, and was allowed to go up for the vote, one has to accept that the will of the people was expressed until it is addressed via appropriate legislative and judicial channels.

What the LDS church did with regard to this issue, however, is a whole other ball of wax. I have LDS as well as many other religious friends, and I don't hold anything against them or their personal beliefs, but that church raising and spending 20 million dollars specifically for Prop 8, as well as extensive groundwork, both of which which had a substantial and direct effect on the election, is a clear violation of church/state separation. I'd really like to see an investigation and potential revocation of their tax exempt status in Cal for that stunt...

Regards,
Nydia

The sad reality is that direct democracy doesnt work.

The population problem is going to be self-solving if we do nothing about it, most of the world population will die of famine and tropical diseases as soon as we have a substantial crop failure (which we're already dangerously close to having on several "unimportant" crops like almonds, oranges, etc) or world temperature rises another 2 degrees C or so. I'm waiting for the first major food panic rioting to hit a western nation when some staple grain fails due to crop monoculture being hit by a fungus or similar -- then we might get some belated action on calling companies like Monsanto on their criminal malfeasance. I'd love seeing some CEOs drawn and quartered .. business ethics has to start somewhere!

The DoAg appointment is depressing on several levels, although I don't see why much of anyone is surprised that Obama is a politician. I would however remind people that we're talking about a (one, 1) position versus, oh, ALL OF THEM last time around.


The sad reality is that direct democracy doesnt work.

Based on what modern example at scale?

Based on what modern example at scale?

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_ZZ-CqtHjAnk/Rk7AYIHMS5I/AAAAAAAABMs/myf4TIs8Lr4/SANJAYA_MALAKAR_898989.jpg

But seriously..

Modern kind of skews it because nobody has really tried direct democracy on a large scale since the Athenians. I refer you back to your Aristotle and Plato readings... but also the founding fathers of our country were also not fans of Democracy, in its pure form.

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”
-Thomas Jefferson

“Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either [aristocracy or monarchy]. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”
-John Adams

I could on. But I think you get the point.

Most of the great thinkers of our time or any other, realize that inherent flaw in our human condition. We humans act in more selfish, short sighted and self destructive manner in groups. The larger the group, the more base and primordial our actions become. We lose ourselves in the mob. This is true in a riot as it is in an election.

The Athenian practice of Ostraki, where they would write the names of someone to be banished for 10 years on a shard of pottery, would have no different results than all of us sending in text messages on our cell phones voting on a Federal Budget. Sure it seems like a good idea, but in the short sightedness that makes up who were are as humans, we would ultimately be destroying ourselves.

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”
-Thomas Jefferson

“Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either [aristocracy or monarchy]. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”
-John Adams

Notable opinion to the contrary, but still opinion, not evidence. I think the operative question is not "Was democracy the intent of the founders?" since the answer is clearly no, but "Does a more direct democracy better serve the will of the people?" ..

We may fear the 51% controlling the 49, but what we have now is the .00001% controlling the 99.99999 in virtually every meaningful way; I challenge you to find any socially acceptable source that honestly endorses a mostly dynastic oligarchy hiding behind the bounty of economic prosperity.

Let us not consider strawmen about full-electorate votes for every single issue. What we need to seriously consider, given the near complete control of our government by effectively fascist elements that have written themselves out of public or even governmental redress, that perhaps a highly stratified republic is not in fact the best way to implement democracy given modern communication. This comes up in small pieces in the electoral college debates every four years.

Don't think "our current system with constant referendums," think Single Transferable Votes (or similar modern voting algorithms) across various issues from appointment elections to approving major legal changes, with a reduced congress providing the administrative end of the things. The bicameral nature of Congress could be preserved by largely eliminating the house of representatives and preserving the Senate in its nominal role of counterbalancing "the tyranny of the majority" ... at least as well as it does now.

To a degree I agree.

We have seemed to veer pretty solidly toward a "ruling class". And while it is definitly not perfect, it is the most fair in human history as it is the most based on merit. And in the end, I would rather have a pure Meritocracy than a pure Democracy, with a wide array of checks and balances and decentralization.

Plato put forward the idea of a ruling class, not chosen for their bloodline, but their ability. Trained from birth to be the "Warrior-Poet", capable of the demands of public service. Dangerous in practical terms, but the idea is solid in that a society has to be ruled by its best and brightest, and what criteria should be used to make that judgement. To Plato it was one of ability and merit.

Next came the Romans, and they had the most successful Representative Democracy in world history. The Roman Republic ran for 450 years, older than ours. To the Romans, Pure Democracy was anathema, yet the adopted some Democratic ideas, the Republic worked because it was a Meritocracy.
To advance in Public life one had to work their up the Corsus Honorum. It was a series of jobs and appointments that would create a body of experience or "Gravitas", each step up the ladder made the man a more solid and capable administrator and ruler.
But the problem the Romans had was that their talent pool was limited to a couple of dozen families. It became too incestous intellectually.

The United States is next. And the great things we have going for us is the ability to change, and the openness of our system, but in the end, the best we can hope for is a Meritocracy.

The best thing we could do is to institutionalize necessary credentials for certain offices. The Sarah Palins and Caroline Kennedys of this this world are in no way helpful to our country. None of these people would be allowed anywhere near the offices they ran for in the Republic. This is especially true for appointments. When running for elected office, the voters at least get the say, but when a person is appointed to a position and in no way has the Gravitas to fill it, it shames us and does a disservice to us.

Labeling what we have today as a Meritocracy is a pretty tough sell.

The Sarah Palins and Caroline Kennedys of this this world are in no way helpful to our country. None of these people would be allowed anywhere near the offices they ran for in the Republic. This is especially true for appointments. When running for elected office, the voters at least get the say, but when a person is appointed to a position and in no way has the Gravitas to fill it, it shames us and does a disservice to us.


While I am in complete agreement that a former beauty queen/sports reporter might not have a lot to offer, I am surprised at how easily you dismiss Caroline Kennedy. She has a law degree and has passed the bar in both New York and Washington D.C., she is an author and has served on various boards, and has shown a strong focus on civil rights issues in her writing and with her involvement with the NAACP. If I am not mistaken, the Republicans had a Speaker of the House that had a resume as a pest control worker. Caroline Kennedy has as good if not better credentials than many of those presently serving in Congress; I do not think she should be so easily dismissed out of any inherent bias toward the name, and it's accompanying baggage.

She may very well be qualified.

I just think that TOO much weight is given her because of her father.

I agree.

Both Hillary Clinton and Caroline Kennedy are qualified, but I don't want to see another junior Senator from NY throwing around 10x more clout than they have earned.

I would rather have a pure Meritocracy than a pure Democracy, with a wide array of checks and balances and decentralization.

Well, we didn't get that either. In the same vein that a democracy fails when it decides it can vote itself money, meritocracies ends as soon as anyone realizes they can use their position to influence the merit of people they choose.


The Platonic ideals of philosopher kings are all fine and good, but there have been a lot more examples of democracies than what you cited. You don't have to pick the biggest, there are effective and very direct democratic processes all around us. Your local city and state governments (unless you're in Alaska or Louisiana) are likely far more democratic than the US Federal system because there is simply less distance and obfuscation between people and the decision making. It's harder to shine someone on when they can show up at your office after a 15 minute drive.

I have no intent to try to persuade you; I would suggest you broaden your reading a bit into the practical.


And speaking to your example, citing Kennedy versus Palin completely invalidates your point. C Kennedy is the penultimate example of your modern warrior poet, she's exceptionally well educated and versed in the law and government. If the same process brings them both to the cusp of power ...

I was speaking more of her lack in terms of a modern equivalent of a Cursus Honorum than the Platonic ideal.

She may very well be qualified.

I just think that TOO much weight is given her because of her father.


And that is exactly what I see as such a shame here.

She may be downright awful, or she might well be the best thing that could happen to the Senate in a decade, or, she could just be an adequate representative of her state; BUT, people's preconceptions regarding her pedigree might preclude her opportunity to ever display which she may be.

Should people seeking elected office be labeled "Candidate X" until after they are elected, then? Would that keep people from being inherently biased for or against a particular candidate based upon their pedigree?

Should people seeking elected office be labeled "Candidate X" until after they are elected, then? Would that keep people from being inherently biased for or against a particular candidate based upon their pedigree?


Good idea...but then again there is that visual recognition thing along with keeping a secret from millions of people.

Not any harder than any other of a myriad of secrets that are kept from the General Public's knowledge.

As for recognition, keep all pictures and physical descriptions out of it till after the race. I'm also a fan of this for job applications as well. Interviews should be done over the telephone, with voices masked, to allow for no prejudice.

Not any harder than any other of a myriad of secrets that are kept from the General Public's knowledge.

As for recognition, keep all pictures and physical descriptions out of it till after the race. I'm also a fan of this for job applications as well. Interviews should be done over the telephone, with voices masked, to allow for no prejudice.

Go to the emergency room and tell them you ate the brown acid...

The prop 8 vote was a farce. The govt has no business in what two consenting adults do. Whether it be marriage, sex or checkers!!

The big protests should have started before that damn measure was allowed on the ballot imho.

Oh yes Melissa Ethridge is a big hero , not paying taxes is an awesome idea and not against the law AT ALL ;P
I always knew that fany was gay as a pink fairy wearing a pink too-too

What? I'm "gay" because I think the prop 8 vote was a farce?

I'm sorry man, I don't think the govt has any business in any adult relationship. None, sorry if this is distasteful to you but that's my own opinion.

That doesn't , in any measure, indicate my own sexual orientation. As a matter of fact I'm straight and will continue to be so. I just happen to respect that no matter who we love we're all human beings deserving of equal treatment.

Now please man, quit it. I've no idea why you still are so obsessed with me after all this time. I'm not interested in you, so quit trolling for a date please.

What? I'm "gay" because I think the prop 8 vote was a farce?

I'm sorry man, I don't think the govt has any business in any adult relationship. None, sorry if this is distasteful to you but that's my own opinion.

That doesn't , in any measure, indicate my own sexual orientation. As a matter of fact I'm straight and will continue to be so. I just happen to respect that no matter who we love we're all human beings deserving of equal treatment.

Now please man, quit it. I've no idea why you still are so obsessed with me after all this time. I'm not interested in you, so quit trolling for a date please.
It also has no buisness redefining marriage.

I always knew that fany was gay as a pink fairy wearing a pink too-too

For those of you who called me a troll, I present to you a real troll. Someone who has nothing to add to the conversation, and resorts to personal attacks on an individual.

Back to the subject at hand: Why would it be so farfetched to think this could be implemented? Anonymous voting has been a staple in the past. Why not make the candidates anonymous as well?

I don't think the Govt is attempting to "redefine" anything. I think we're running into a social crossroads that can't be ignored.

Attempting to act as though there are folks out there genetically predisposed to love someone of their own sex don't exist isn't going to change the fact that it's a proven fact.

We're not in the pre 1950's anymore. There is hard science allowing for that to be disproved.

Also of note....

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Sound famliar? This is an important line in our history. It clearly points out that it's not "redefining". Instead I'd argue that we have these rights from day one of our Country. That everyone, every adult, has the right to be happy with whomever they please.

Back to the subject at hand: Why would it be so farfetched to think this could be implemented? Anonymous voting has been a staple in the past. Why not make the candidates anonymous as well?


You should have posted that anonymously

I don't think the Govt is attempting to "redefine" anything. I think we're running into a social crossroads that can't be ignored.

Attempting to act as though there are folks out there genetically predisposed to love someone of their own sex don't exist isn't going to change the fact that it's a proven fact.

We're not in the pre 1950's anymore. There is hard science allowing for that to be disproved.

Also of note....

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Sound famliar? This is an important line in our history. It clearly points out that it's not "redefining". Instead I'd argue that we have these rights from day one of our Country. That everyone, every adult, has the right to be happy with whomever they please.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. AND MARRY ANYONE THEY CHOSE!

And yet for over 200 years homosexuals were not included in marriage.

So Fany you have special knowledge the founders did not? Your claiming they violated and went against their own words for over 200 years.

Which is more likely, the founders knew what they meant and thats why homo's did not marry or somehow fany and others are smarter than the founders and found a new right that they never fought for?

LOL...Elren...some things never improve...and you are certainly proof positive of that.

LOL...Elren...some things never improve...and you are certainly proof positive of that.
Like you ever knew me, I never even remember seeing you in game.

We need to split this thread off I think San. Serious derail going on and for that I apologize.

Elren,

You're terms and slang are quite derogatory. I'll attempt to explain my points to you even tho I know you'll continue to deride me for making my opinion known to you.

Marriage is, and should continue to be, a pact made either in a civil or religious setting.

I don't think the govt should give taxbreaks, bennies or even acknowledge a marriage of any form or manner. I don't care if it's straight, group or same sex.

The govt should only concern itself with the rights, welfare and responsibilities of said parties. As long as consenting adults are involved it should be legal inside their own home/relationship.

I do have some issues with group marriages/polygomy when it comes to the welfare of the children and the rather suspicious actions when conducted by the FLDS.

Still in the air about that last part, but that's merely being used to make my point over all.

Now you can go on ahead and make the Republican party, which I assume you ascribe to with your rather extreme beliefs, look bad. I certainly wouldn't call you a party mate and hope you, and the rest of the fringe that are a cancer to the party, lose the public eye and wither on the vine.

Like you ever knew me, I never even remember seeing you in game.

Rover was around far longer than you. His name isn't one you'd recognize as it wasn't his game name. He and I clash alot, but I respect him as an adult, if ornery at times!!

You on the other hand are of suspect nature. Something is very very wrong with you.

You should have posted that anonymously


I'm not sure where you are going with this, other than you are being argumentative, just for the sake.

Like you ever knew me, I never even remember seeing you in game.

Lol, looks like he showed you.

Like you ever knew me, I never even remember seeing you in game.

I think we know enough to make the judgment that you are trash...

Homosexuals couldn't marry for 200 years. Women couldn't vote for how long? How long did we continue to lynch African-Americans in the street?

You're an idiot.

First, anyone who purports to know what the founder's intent was, is full of shit. I understand that we all have reverence for the Constitution. When people go to see it, they are silent and /bow and etc etc. That said, if you look at the notes by the official recorder during some of the drafting sessions, it's a bunch of doodling of horses and shit because he was flat out DRUNK. Who knows what went on in that room? (Hint: You don't)

Second, not everything in the Constitution is explicitly spelled out. That is why we have the Supreme Court, to make decisions based on the Constitution as best as they are able to. The founders were not concerned with issues such as international and domestic terrorism, wiretapping, etc. So we deal with them as they come, again, trying our best to adhere to the Constitution.

So basically, your argument seems to be that because the Constitution doesn't say "HOMOSEXUALS CAN MARRY", that must mean that the founders did not want them to. Do you understand the difference between positive and negative rights? (I'm guessing no)

Basically, you're a fucking idiot.

P.S. I remember you. Noar and Elren go like bread and butter, and both are synonymous with 'idiot'.

I think we know enough to make the judgment that you are trash...

And this is coming from the poster on this board who should know trash when he sees it!

Ainwein, well put! +Rep for you.

We need to split this thread off I think San. Serious derail going on and for that I apologize.

Elren,

You're terms and slang are quite derogatory. I'll attempt to explain my points to you even tho I know you'll continue to deride me for making my opinion known to you.

Marriage is, and should continue to be, a pact made either in a civil or religious setting.

I don't think the govt should give taxbreaks, bennies or even acknowledge a marriage of any form or manner. I don't care if it's straight, group or same sex.

The govt should only concern itself with the rights, welfare and responsibilities of said parties. As long as consenting adults are involved it should be legal inside their own home/relationship.

I do have some issues with group marriages/polygomy when it comes to the welfare of the children and the rather suspicious actions when conducted by the FLDS.

Still in the air about that last part, but that's merely being used to make my point over all.

Now you can go on ahead and make the Republican party, which I assume you ascribe to with your rather extreme beliefs, look bad. I certainly wouldn't call you a party mate and hope you, and the rest of the fringe that are a cancer to the party, lose the public eye and wither on the vine.
Your the Cancer here fanyboy!

You and your Ilk are making stuff up that has never existed because you hate the founders and what they stood for.

Just for you knowledge.

Your not even worthy of standing in one of the founders shadow nor even good enough to clean their boots with you tongue.

Wormwood, is what you are, crawl on your belly like you and your ilk deserve. You demon bound to the pits of hell. I care not to hear anymore your lieing tongue that spews for poision from the evil one.

Holy crap! A Bible-Thumper! One that creates sentence fragments, and uses improper words. Who woulda thunk it?

Homosexuals couldn't marry for 200 years. Women couldn't vote for how long? How long did we continue to lynch African-Americans in the street?

You're an idiot.

First, anyone who purports to know what the founder's intent was, is full of shit. I understand that we all have reverence for the Constitution. When people go to see it, they are silent and /bow and etc etc. That said, if you look at the notes by the official recorder during some of the drafting sessions, it's a bunch of doodling of horses and shit because he was flat out DRUNK. Who knows what went on in that room? (Hint: You don't)

Second, not everything in the Constitution is explicitly spelled out. That is why we have the Supreme Court, to make decisions based on the Constitution as best as they are able to. The founders were not concerned with issues such as international and domestic terrorism, wiretapping, etc. So we deal with them as they come, again, trying our best to adhere to the Constitution.

So basically, your argument seems to be that because the Constitution doesn't say "HOMOSEXUALS CAN MARRY", that must mean that the founders did not want them to. Do you understand the difference between positive and negative rights? (I'm guessing no)

Basically, you're a fucking idiot.

P.S. I remember you. Noar and Elren go like bread and butter, and both are synonymous with 'idiot'.

What I am saying is that you claim to have special knowledge. You don't, your a moron and a liar and nothing you say can be trusted.
Nor do you understand the role of the supreme court which was never entended to do what you claim.

But what can you expect from a thief and a snake such as you?

Your the Cancer here fanyboy!

You and your Ilk are making stuff up that has never existed because you hate the founders and what they stood for.

Just for you knowledge.

Your not even worthy of standing in one of the founders shadow nor even good enough to clean their boots with you tongue.

Wormwood, is what you are, crawl on your belly like you and your ilk deserve. You demon bound to the pits of hell. I care not to hear anymore your lieing tongue that spews for poision from the evil one.


Quoting Lord of the Rings to try and make your point?

So I was correct, you don't understand the subject matter and are now stuck throwing stones at boogemen!!

You are correct, I don't pretend to know the Founding Fathers thoughts. As Ainwein succintly pointed out tho they had real problems at hand as opposed to worrying about who's going to marry who. Which doesn't do anything to tear at the pillars our country stands on so why would they worry about it?

What I am saying is that you claim to have special knowledge. You don't, your a moron and a liar and nothing you say can be trusted.
Nor do you understand the role of the supreme court which was never entended to do what you claim.

But what can you expect from a thief and a snake such as you?

LOL Osgiliath has a brother!

Quoting Lord of the Rings to try and make your point?

So I was correct, you don't understand the subject matter and are now stuck throwing stones at boogemen!!

You are correct, I don't pretend to know the Founding Fathers thoughts. As Ainwein succintly pointed out tho they had real problems at hand as opposed to worrying about who's going to marry who. Which doesn't do anything to tear at the pillars our country stands on so why would they worry about it?
Or they had it right and you are twisting their intent like the snake you are!

Fanny, don't even bother. Attempting to explain anything to him is akin to teaching Calculus to a two-year old. You're just going to make him frustrated and cry.

Fanny, don't even bother. Attempting to explain anything to him is akin to teaching Calculus to a two-year old. You're just going to make him frustrated and cry.

Ive always got under fany's skin. It makes him fell btter, since he sucked big dong when it came to playing a ranger.

he should of been a rogue, because he is good at backstabing and lying.

Okay, so even though you are barely literate, socially retarded and not much more capable of individual thought than a rock at the bottom of a algae covered pond, you think you have a better "read" on what their intent was?

Go back to whomever is telling you how to think and slap them for allowing you to communicate with adults when you aren't supervised.

Ive always got under fany's skin. It makes him fell btter, since he sucked big dong when it came to playing a ranger.

he should of been a rogue, because he is good at backstabing and lying.

/chuckle You don't get under my skin bub, you merely provide me with a mental pinata' that I can feel guilt free when I smack ya to show your gooey insides ;)

LOL Osgiliath has a brother!

Be fair! At least Osg makes a coherant point from time to time.

he should of been a rogue, because he is good at backstabing and lying.

While backstabbing is a rogue trait, lying is generally accepted as poor form by most rogues.

We tend to call it: stretching the truth, being evasive, misleading, spreading misinformation and half-truths.

But lying? Any warrior can do that. The trick is in getting someone to believe the lies....

Back to the subject: The Constitution is a living document. The Founding Fathers, in thier wisdom (or because they perversly knew the turmoil it would cause future generations) allowed for Amendments to be made.
The only intent you could draw from that was that they realized there were other issues that would creep up later, that could be addressed by these Amendments.

Re: Anonymity.

It wouldn't be all that terrible if we had some way of electing officials that are the most qualified, instead of the most popular.

Just look at the Kennedy v. Nixon debate and the divide in opinion between radio listeners and TV viewers. It's a bit frightening to think how prevalent the visual has become in driving our choices. We're filling politicians' positions with the best actor, not the best statesmen.

I don't think actual anonymity makes sense, but it's not absurd to question our current paradigm either.

Re: Anonymity.

It wouldn't be all that terrible if we had some way of electing officials that are the most qualified, instead of the most popular.

Just look at the Kennedy v. Nixon debate and the divide in opinion between radio listeners and TV viewers. It's a bit frightening to think how prevalent the visual has become in driving our choices. We're filling politicians' positions with the best actor, not the best statesmen.

I don't think actual anonymity makes sense, but it's not absurd to question our current paradigm either.


Then radio advertising and radio speeches only.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. AND MARRY ANYONE THEY CHOSE!

And yet for over 200 years homosexuals were not included in marriage.

So Fany you have special knowledge the founders did not? Your claiming they violated and went against their own words for over 200 years.

Which is more likely, the founders knew what they meant and thats why homo's did not marry or somehow fany and others are smarter than the founders and found a new right that they never fought for?

You mean like the founders allowed slavery, didn't allow women or blacks the right to vote, didn't allow people of differing races to marry, etc., etc.?

LOL Osgiliath has a brother!

Osgiliath is much more capable of having a conversation and cogent thought than Elren. Just reading his sentence fragments, misspellings, and poor word usage is making me dumber each post of his I read.

What's going on here?

Some emo kid lose his sugar daddy and come running here for attention?


Anyway, before the tangent, I was making a point regarding Caroline Kennedy having better qualifications than many of those presently in office, and that I think it is regrettable that so many want to write her off simply because she is a Kennedy without giving her credentials due merit.

I would be happy to see someone of her background in either party, compared to some of those we have been witness to these last 10-15 years.

The idea of anonymity may have some pros, but on the other side we would not be able to gauge the candidate's background as well if kept from knowing them. In the case of C. Kennedy, the background is being ignored in large part while the charges of special treatment because of who she is are being bandied about.

Sheesh, I hate getting caught up in defending Democrats, heh.

/chuckle You don't get under my skin bub, you merely provide me with a mental pinata' that I can feel guilt free when I smack ya to show your gooey insides ;)
I remember when you threw fits in EW when you didn't get the loot you wanted.

What a cum-chuging tard!

You mean like the founders allowed slavery, didn't allow women or blacks the right to vote, didn't allow people of differing races to marry, etc., etc.?

Logical fallacy my old guildy, go back to college.

OMG ELREN !@!


You were a nightmare to just sit and do an ldon with let alone speak to.
Have you already ruined your Xmas ? start on 09 faction. Did the parents cut you off ?? basement get flooded? wth ??

Whats the problem kid ?

Logical fallacy my old guildy, go back to college.


I love this line, he can't spout logic and yet throws his lil tirade and google search gem at us.

Good lord man, get a life...really

I love this line, he can't spout logic and yet throws his lil tirade and google search gem at us.

Good lord man, get a life...really
Come visit me some time and we can see who is the better ranger in RL, budy boy....:rolleyes:

Wait, you think you're an EverQuest character "in RL"?

Guess he's calling me out in real life. how many times is this now??

Elren, I'm not a small man either nor am I stupid enough to fall into your "logical fallacy" of pretending you'll meet me.

Grow up and move on,please.

Guess he's calling me out in real life. how many times is this now??

Elren, I'm not a small man either nor am I stupid enough to fall into your "logical fallacy" of pretending you'll meet me.

Grow up and move on,please.
You ain't got the balls to meet me.

Woops, thats right you still hanging on drizzens nut sack, of course you ain't got the balls, your still hanging on someone elses.:eek:

You ain't got the balls to meet me.

Woops, thats right you still hanging on drizzens nut sack, of course you ain't got the balls, your still hanging on someone elses.:eek:


LOL...Elren just never changes and lives way in the past...so fucking funny.

He is just trolling people.

Ignore him and he'll go away.

He is just trolling people.

Ignore him and he'll go away.I was going to say...you can have a great conversation here if you just ignore people with nothing to contribute who are obviously just trying to stir stuff up. Don't reply, and watch the troll disappear.

On thread - how many people in the last election actually weighed the issues before voting? Most people vote on an emotional reaction to a candidate, and then justify that within their views. Appearance, public speaking skills, and background all end up playing larger rolls. Why did Palin have such a devoted following? It sure wasn't her ideas and stances. How many of the votes in the last election were driven purely by religion? The conservative boards were consumed with two points - abortion, and the fear of Obama being either a secret Muslim or selling out the US to foreign bodies through weak policies and lack of military action.We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.Since I've quoted this here as well, it's worth pointing out that the spirit of the document, possibly summed up in those lines more than any others, is why so many people hold reverence for it. How many times were those lines repeated in the civil rights movement for blacks, for example? Arguing over what the founders intended is a moot point - a better question would be to examine what those lines mean to us now.