Should we let Bill Frist & Co. change the rules of the senate ?

It's actually in the Constitution (Article 5):

quote:

---

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

---

quote:

---

By even liberal standards, you are waaay out there.

---

I'm sorry, I seem to have missed the message where EZScience called himself a Marxist. Can you point me to that message?I actually thought I just read EZScience's post in which he said he didn't like many socialist government systems and how they tended to discourage people from becoming independent.Can you please explain how this is "waaaay out there by liberal standards"?Because it sure seems to me that you just said, in effect, "I know you are but what am I", and failed to actually address anything.

Yes, I actually agree with your post:

quote:

---

What I am opposed to is a system that seems to allow huge monetary entities to control the political machine by manipulating the selection of candidates, buying advertising campaigns to (in many cases) distort the truth about real issues, and engaging powerful lobbyists to represent their interests - things neither you nor I can afford to do.

---

I readily admit that some Republicans engage in these practices. The difference I find on this forum is that liberals have a hard time acknowledging that the same is true for Democrats.

quote:

---

I'm sorry, I seem to have missed the message where EZScience called himself a Marxist. Can you point me to that message?

---

You seem to be having difficulty because you are confusing Marxist with being "waay out there".

quote:

---

Can you please explain how this is "waaaay out there

---

His post is self evident, no further explanation is needed. Here it is in case you didn't read it. Message 57

Monk writes:

quote:

---

I readily admit that some Republicans engage in these practices. The difference I find on this forum is that liberals have a hard time acknowledging that the same is true for Democrats.

---

I'm a liberal and I'll acknowledge it. Some of us feel that the two parties aren't enough. Some of us feel that either of the two major parties is just as corrupt as the other. Some of us feel that America would be much better served with a multi-party system. But if all we have is two parties, some of us feel that the best we can do is anything possible to stop domination of all three branches of government by either one of those parties.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

quote:

---

Because last time I checked, Kennedy is supportive more freedoms for individual Americans, in contrast to Dobson, who wants everyone in the US to be forced to adhere to his extremist Christian morality.

---

Do you want to know the difference?Dobson is a preacher. Ok? Do you understand that?He can discuss his views with Bill Frist or anyone else in government who chooses to listen to him. It seems that every time there is meeting with Dobson or any religous leader and a politician, it is publicized as proof of the formation of the "new fundamentalist theocracy" emerging in the US. That's ridiculous. There is no conspiracy when preachers meets with members of the government.Dobson has a right to put his view forward and to express his opposition to those issues that he finds objectionable. You would claim it as your right to do the same.He also has a right to express his opinions and his faith to his elected official as any citizen can.BUT HE CAN ONLY EXPRESS AN OPINION. Got it?Now look at Ted Kennedy. Ted has all of the freedoms of expression that Dobson does, he can put forward his agenda for a liberal society much to the angst of conservatives and he can be just as vociferous in defending his ideology as Dobson.But Ted has the power to vote in Congress, Dobson doesn't. Kennedy has been a senator for years, chairman of commitees, inside the beltway. He wields much more power in the government than Dobson ever could. It's a silly comparison. Kennedy has a much better chance of acting to further his agenda than Dobson ever could short of running for political office.

quote:

---

I'm a liberal and I'll acknowledge it. Some of us feel that the two parties aren't enough. Some of us feel that either of the two major parties is just as corrupt as the other. Some of us feel that America would be much better served with a multi-party system.

---

Well all right. That's being honest and I appreciate that. I agree that it would be interesting to see a strong third party and maybe one day we will.I'm not so sure there would be any difference because three parties can be as corrupt as two. But I wouldn't expect that any time soon.The development of political parties, like the evolution of species, changes over time but often settles into long periods where the status quo remains unchanged. We seem to be in one of those periods.There were several political parties during the first 100 years of our nation. Eventually, for a variety of reasons, the system settled down to the two party system which has been refined and entrenched as the status quo.Although populist parties emerge on occasion to put forward credible candidates like Ralph Nader, there just isn't enough support to make a third party candidate viable.But even if it were possible to put a third party candidate in the white house, I suspect s/he would end up as a lame duck for most of the presidency due to the lack of party support in congress.Regarding domination by one political party, well, historically the Democrats have certainly had their share of strong majority control and they will just have to bear with it while Republicans are in control.

I would actually like to see a system like there is in Britain. Only two parties are really viable, but the others hold a fair amount of sway (unlike, say, the Libertarian or Green parties in this country). There is much less of a reason for these small types of parties to be co-opted by corporate interests, because it is very rare that people in these parties would be in decision-making positions. However, these small parties hold enough sway that they can introduce issues into political races that would not otherwise be taken seriously by the ruling parties.At this point, I would be happy if either the Libertarian or Green party found themselves in the position of small party rather than ineffectually useless party. Despite the continual vitriol in the media, there is not that much of a difference between the two parties. I would really like to see some actual progress in this country, and that is not happening in our current system.The Libertarian party might have endorsed tax cuts that were not solely biased toward the rich (ie, a lowering of property taxes or an end to the insanely high tax breaks for corporations). The Green party might have made it possible, through virtue of an alliance, for there actually to be an anti-war Democratic candidate. Whatever your politics (and I am sure that they are different than mine), you must agree that under the current system, the modus operandi is 'Business as usual.' Even if you are looking for a family-and religion-friendly political system, despite the lip service paid to this, the current federal government does not operate this way.This message has been edited by zyncod, 05-26-2005 01:22 AM

Exactly. I haven't been reading your back and forth with EZ very closely. For some reason the cliche popped out in your post and so I read it.I agree that EZ is being hyperbolic in his descriptions, though I suppose it is more of a venting than an actual assessment. I'm not sure if this is necessarily true. Most corporations are happy to get gov't assistance, even if it is gov't subsidized loans or tax shelters rather than total freebie money handouts.Most Republicans are quick to undercut any sort of assistance like these to individuals, yet are in full support of them for corporations on the flimsy excuse that corporations make jobs. In reality it is a functioning and healthy (financial health as well) populace which gives the corporations jobs to fill, and in any case it is the individual citizen that begins a corporation.Thus Republicans, for some reason, give an edge and empowerment to existing corporations, while undercutting new growth (which is what a free market should involve) as well as financial health of citizens NOT being aided by corporations.It is generally this trend which makes "liberals" criticize Republicans for being in bed with powerful corporations. Democrats or other liberals generally find a mix between helping both corporations and citizens. There are very few Democrats that are actually anti-free market, or utopian Marxist in outlook. Yet that is how conservatives generally paint liberals.I think one of the most interesting aspects of the 80's-2000's has been watching conservatives, and especially the Republicans, betray everything they have stated they hold dear, that America has stood for, and act out in the way they claim Democrats do... when actually Democrats don't.And before you respond, I am not a Democrat so this is not me coming to their defense. I despise the Democrats almost as much as the Republicans as far as parties go. I'm simply an outside observer noting that the Dems do not do what the Reps claim, but the Reps generally do what the Dems claim as well as what they themselves have claimed the Dems are guilty of.They are the greater of two evils... at least at this point.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

We are in total agreement on this point. In some other thread where Tal was touting the wonders of how citizens should suckle the tit of coprorations and be thankful for what they get, both Schraf and I pointed out this very thing.That is exactly why I think there are differences in corporations and most diatribes regarding "corporate America" are intended for large, public traded organizations.What I love is how Bush and Co make appeals to small corps in order to give humongous tax breaks and other goodies to the larger corps which will decimate them. He has not been a friend of business, he has been a friend of big business.Although I do support his, or any, efforts to streamline the US tax system. Especially for businesses, it is a nightmare.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Apparently you missed the 60 minutes segment on fundamentalist influence in the US gov't, as well as the excellent article in Harper's on essentially the same subject.On 60 minutes a noted Televangelist, Jerry Falwell, openly discussed his and his friends' control of White House policy. I couldn't believe that never made headlines.Since then it has been made public by other evangelist leaders that they were heavily engaged in discussions with Bush on our foreign policy.Prior to 911, Ashcroft held meetings with religious leaders and NO ONE ELSE, in order to create gov't policy for reopening a war on adult literature. To a lesser degree the same happened with conservatives meeting with the congress and education officials to attempt to get more conservative and anti-evo agendas placed within public education. The same occured on specific science and medical issues (panels were assembled to favor nonscience viewpoints on science).I think it is fair to argue there is not overt coordinated conspiracy. But the efforts are are consistent and single focused to avoid balanced input on policy, wholly excluding nonreligious or more specifically nonevangelist dogmatic positions.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This may be worthy of a new thread, but what does everyone think of the proposed veto of the new stem cell research package that just passed the house?It is my believe that it will pass in the senate, and the prez will veto. But, after this veto, the political power of the fundamentalists will decline. Look at the coalition backing this bill in the house! They have a jew, a christian, a catholic, a liberal, a conservative, etc. A veto would be spitting in the face of plural society, and will do the republicans more harm than good, IMO.

---

'Most temperate in the pleasures of the body, his passion was for glory only, and in that he was insatiable.'

60 minutes....would that be Dan Rather and cBS?

---

I may not agree with what you say, But I will die defending your right to say it.
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

quote:

---

His post is self evident, no further explanation is needed.

---

I'm sorry, I guess I'm just kinda dumb or something because I really need you to explain it to me.How was what EZScience said "waaaaay out there"?

Monk writes me:

quote:

---

I'm not so sure there would be any difference because three parties can be as corrupt as two.

---

I see that zyncod has already responded to this so I'll just say that I concur with him.

quote:

---

There were several political parties during the first 100 years of our nation.

---

Huh? The two we have now trace their roots directly back to well before the civil war. With no more than a very few exceptions those two parties have dominated American politics at the national, state and local levels for the vast bulk of this nation's history.

quote:

---

But even if it were possible to put a third party candidate in the white house, I suspect s/he would end up as a lame duck for most of the presidency due to the lack of party support in congress.

---

True enough but I wouldn't worry about it. I don't see a third-party candidate winning the presidency before that party gathers some degree of power in the congress.Trouble is that our current two parties have managed to fashion a system that protects them. It's almost impossible for a third party to ever get anything more than a few congressional or state legislative seats - and that only in or from large urban areas - because the laws are written to favor a two-party system. Only when a third party gains enough congressional power to affect change in the laws will it have any hope of fielding a viable presidential candidate. Therefore, as you observe, it probably won't happen.So we're stuck with the two-party system, but my fear is that we're in danger of becoming a one-party system. You are correct that there have been periods when we've had democratic party control of at least the legislative and executive branches (I think the judicial is arguable). I agree with you that that wasn't a good thing - and I even voted republican in certain places and at certain times to try to tip the balance a bit, but there was an important difference. At those times, the democratic party had two powerful wings. Liberal democrats were strong and so were conservative democrats. There was a lot of in-fighting between the two and that afforded some protection from absolute power by a particular faction.The republicans are under the almost complete control of their dominant and most radical wing: the religious wingnuts. It's because those wingnuts have deluded themselves into believing they have a mandate directly from an angry god that I'm scared to death of them, and I'm astounded that so many other people seem to be so torpid.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!