posted 10-18- 09:19 AM               

No new developments, same as the last two debates. Gore still hurts Bush with the 1% tax thing, and Bush still holds up to the fight, controlling in a calm leader like fashion.

It helped Bush that abortion was not mentioned, and it helped Gore that they did not linger on the military or foreign affairs - keeping in mind that I am not suggesting who is really the better president on those issues.

Gore is a lying scumbag though, what does he mean by saying racial quotas are illegal? Every stupid college has damn quotas, police, military, you name it. Bush defined his "affirmitive access" - Gore would not define what "affirmitive action" is exactly, but pushed Bush to be for or against it - WHAT? Also where does it mention affirmitive action in the constitution? Did Gore write the constitution as well?

Gore did say he was for smaller government again, smaller than his opponent - wow.

posted 10-18- 12:49 PM               

Sv,

I don't think you're being a jerk at all. Like you, I find these discussions fun... nothing personal. How boring it would be if we all felt the same way about this stuff. Please do not pull punches for fear of offending anyone here.

posted 10-18- 01:39 PM               

I am ambivalent about the death penalty. To me, what happens to convicted murderer is of mush less importance than what happens with the public and our country.

I do respect that other people have strong feeling on the matter, and I hope they come to the best solution. This is a rare topic that I have little opinion on

As far as killing judges, no way! That is their job - however - I do think that some form of accountability should be in order. Generally I believe that such a judge should be apt to lose their position.'

Let me ask you, should we sentence a judge to death if they let a real murderer go and they murder again? Both are tough, tough questions - and in the end we must have a culture that can inspire people to be great and rise to challenges such as judging other's actions.

I am against trial by jury, it is an out dated idea. Trial by jury means the case can go any way - it is a show run by lawyers to "impress" the jury. It was a great notion, but in our new culture it is out of place.

We should always have trial by judge. If I were falsely accused, I would rather find myself before a judge than a jury. Lawyers disagree, they feel that if they have a jury to sway, anything is possible. If you are guilty, this is indeed good - but the innocent man rather put his faith in the honor and integrity of one man to "do the right thing."

posted 10-18- 02:33 PM               

Dude, fire away... like i said above... this is all done in the name of fun. I would rather see rampant dissagreement here than rampant agreement. :-)

posted 10-18- 03:43 PM               

Mighty, you are right, trial by Judge alone is an ideal, not a full solution. And I also agree that the system is pretty darn good. And waiving your right to trial by jury is a powerul thing indeed Lothar.

I have favored the idea of professional jury people, but I have no clear plan to implement such a thing. If only people had a bit more in common, and a bit more confidence in their own judgement, jury would work as well as it once did.

posted 10-18- 05:45 PM            

What makes a great man and why should judges be considered 'great men'? Why are appointed judges better than the average Joe?

Weren't the average Joe's on Normandy beach in 1944 great men?

Professional, PAID judgement would be a threat to democracy and peoples' civil liberty. Cause we all know, when it comes to payments and money, the rich people will always win. Granted, that happens now with the current system, but it would be worse without a trial by one's peers.

"Until I receive the Voodoo 3 I will fully agree with anything JT and DanW and the rest of Team Jug say. "

posted 10-18- 06:03 PM               

You are the one suggesting by implication that those at Normandy beach were average Joe's... every man has the potential for greatness, but few men seek it.

Until we can start putting faith in our fellow man again, we will get nowhere. If you read my post about teachers you can see a glimps of my past, of distrust and resentment. But how do we regain such faith? By bettering people no doubt, but you must start with faith and work towards trust.

posted 10-18- 06:14 PM               

Great stuff so far boys, I don't agree with getting rid of jurys, nor pro jurys.

About the death penalty. The one reason that I don't like it for is we don't know whats happening to the person.

We don't know what happens after death. Isn't this supposed to be a punishment?

But is death punishment? How do you know?

Now if its just to get rid of a bad seed and not spend money taking care of it till it dies of natural causes, then I can almost see it. Those suckers get expensive.

Btw I work with a convicted muderer and he is a great guy.

It would have been a waste to let him sit in jail for life. He is out, has a job and supports himself in society instead of draining from it in jail.

Also I think the killing of an innocent man is a very valid issue.

Also I'm more for reabilitation then punishment. Punishment isn't a deterent in my eyes. People don't think of all the jail time or the death penalty when they are ripped out of there mind and some guy just hit on their wife.

posted 10-18- 07:11 PM            

Of course they were average Joes. Most of them were just kids at the time, way younger than you or I. But the situation they were forced into made them a step above and average Joe.

I just used them for an example. Throughout our history there have a lot of average Joes that have risen to the occasion to become great men.

The reason I choose the D-Day guys is to illustrate that any given man, if put in the right place at the right time, has the potential to become a 'great person'. That's why I think that a trial by jury allows ordinary people to become 'great'. They are placed into that situation and are asked to judge their peer. I just don't think it's something that a paid person can do. If the jury members act in good faith and remove any prejudices and pass judgement based on what evidence was presented in court, then the system works.

Again, this is not the case all the time. We live in a imperfect world full of hate and prejudices. But I for one do not see a better system.

As far as Normandy, I can tell you from personal experience that those people were all great human beings. My grandfather was there, and until the day he died, he never spoke of what happened there. He almost told me once when I was around 11 or 12 but just told me that its something you can't talk about. The guys there didn't really know the impact that day had in the history of the world..most of them were scared shitless..at least the ones that lived were. They were just doing their jobs. They became great by doing what they felt was right....So I think a trial by jury can do the same thing to the average Joe.

posted 10-18- 07:46 PM               

It's when a handful of Government bureaucrats decide what is best for Joe American, because poor old Joe needs Big Government to survive, that we get into trouble.

posted 10-18- 08:16 PM               

Then the jury shown only the parts the judge deems they should see.

That would stop that whole, ask a question you can't ask and then revoke it. We all know a jury can't just disregard something they heard.

I also think that unless it directly pertains to the case you as a jury person shouldn't even see the accused nor victim. No color or race, maybe not even sex unless its very important.

Everything we can do to insure an impartial jury trial.

I would go as far as making it so you never even hear the lawyers, some people are good talkers but that should't even come into it.

posted 10-18- 08:18 PM            

I agree with you for the most part. I'm totally against affirmative action and most 'socialist' type programs to a certain extent.

Where I disagree with the Republicans and the less government theory is with big business. I do think some type of minimal regualtion is needed on these companies as far as stuff like pollution and price fixing are concerned. Remember, big time monopolies existed in the early 1900's. Working conditions were poor and on the job accidents were very frequent. Workers put in 6 12 hour days a week and sometimes more. I forget who it was that slammed OSHA, but I totally disagree that OSHA is bad.

Big companies today are still up to no good (at least from my standpoint as a consumer, and not a shareholder ) The RIAA is definitely price fixing CD's at inflated prices. Let's not forget Bill and his evil minions. Time Warner/AOL is gonna be a big monster too. To me, big conglomerates such as these don't give a damn about the working man. I guess being raised in a union household in Texas of all places puts my vote with anyone that seems to be for what I consider the working man. I do think government agencies should be around to keep these large companies in check.

Neither Gore nor Bush fit that desription IMHO. Gore seems to want to place too much emphasis on the environment, affirmative action and gun control. Bush seems like a corporation made to look like a human being, although I do like his stance on health care, affirmative action and frying convicted felons.

Character is not an issue with me either. I can look you in the face and tell you I'm your friend while stabbing you in the back at the same time. Performance matters most. Politicians are masters in the art of bullshit. Talking a lot while at the same time not making any sense out of what they are saying.

I am a little scared of a big government as well. But, history shows that in the right place at the right time big government can be useful. The Great Depression is a perfect example of this. FDR basically saved democracy during that time by implementing social programs - how ironic. Although I don't think that now is the time for big government like we had back then, but a lot of those agencies still exist today.

Mirthain,

I think your stance on Gore is a little too extreme though. (not the environment part though) Remember, we still have a Republican Congress as of now, so that's one big hurdle for Gore to have to jump. Bill and crew tried the old health care game back in 93 and it failed back then. The economy is stronger now and any Spanky health care attmepts will likely fail again. (sorry spanky )

posted 10-18- 08:56 PM               

I think Bush will win, and even though he is "my guy" I feer that his victory will only hurt the conservative cause. In the next 4 - 8 years we are going to have a recession, I would much rather have Gore in office to blame. Bush just needs to show America that there are indeed new republicans, and that conservitism has a bright future in America. This he has accomplished, even if he comes in a close second place.

Gore, unlike Clinton, will hurt the democrats and set the liberal cause back. IMO Gore is not a good liberal, he is too un-American to be effective. Now Leiberman on the other hand, minus his religion, could puch the liberal cause forward and "Americanize" it to some degree.

posted 10-18- 09:20 PM               

An elected official is entering into a contract with each person they represent. They are swearing to bring their voice to government. There is an inherent conflict of interest in allowing public officials to recieve money from corporations or constituents. It almost guarantees that groups with money will gain favor.

Therefore, I think that all public officials should be paid by the government and not be allowed to accept any gifts or compensation (none at all) from ANY other party. No dinners, no donations, nothing. Elections should also be exclusively paid for by the government. This would allow each candidate to have an equal voice, regardless of how popular they were with the moneyed interests. Funded candidates would be determined by how much of the vote they receive in a special election. Campaigns could be made much cheaper than they are now by relying on free time on the public airwaves for each candidate. Television and radio stations would be required to provide this time free-of-charge as a condition of being able to license the public airwaves.

posted 10-18- 09:22 PM               

Thousands of innocent civilians were killed by the Allies in WWII. Using your logic we should never have gone to war because innocents would get killed.

Innocent bystanders get killed during shootouts between police and criminals. Should the police disarm so they don't accidently kill someone?

Ambulances get into traffic accidents and innocent people die. Are you suggesting that ambulances obey all traffic laws?

Doctors make mistakes all the time and people die as a result. Shall we close all the medical schools and stop doctors from practicing medicine before they kill anyone else?

Why stop at the death penalty. People are convicted and put into prison erroneously too. Why don't we just close all the prisons and let everyone out since there may have been a mistake made?

Make them work for room and board? I hate to tell you but slavery is illegal. Besides some liberal would object to abusing prisoners if they were made to earn a living.

Your anti-death penalty logic is full of holes. Better think of something else to placate your bleeding heart.

posted 10-18- 10:10 PM               

I disagree with your "great business men are bastards" stareotype. This is just not the case. Moreover it is shareholders that force business leaders to be unrealistic and that can lead to bad stuff. Public companies are almost always much more diabolical than private ones. The public has a desire for its companies to grow forever without end or slow up - this is usually unrealistic. So drastic measures are taken that trespass into uncapitalistic areas.

Private businesses are much more down to earth and practical - they are happy with continued success, growth is a perk, not manditory.

So the public is resposible for bad business practice. When was the last time you heard a share holder say, "100 is enough, you can relax now guys" LOL.

People don't understand money, it really is not evil. It facilitates politics as well as commerce; without the political system would fail. Money in the world of commerce represents productivity and value. Money in politics represents interests and power. Without it there would be no true representation of the political world.

Imagine an economy without money? Impossible. It is just as hard to create a government without money. Money quantifies interests. It may seem petty, but it is beautiful!

If you can imagine an economic world with no money, posessions, or social strata, then you can imagine a political world with no money, ideals, or view points.

All money does is facilitate the quantification of stuff, physical stuff in the case of the economy, and power stuff in the case of government.

Anyone can say they are for this strongly or against that strongly - but in the end much compromise is needed. People who put up money for their ideals are rewarded with power. Money talks, when you buy, join a political group, or refrain from buying.

Witout money on the line people would bicker and argue, philosophize and preach, but never execute!

All this being said, I do agree that there are wrong ways for money to come into play. I am against campaign finance reform though. Still, certain rules are needed, and indeed maybe we need to be more strict based on what is going on within the current system.

posted 10-18- 11:05 PM               

Since you bring up wars and civilians, I'll mention that I think that unnecessarily killing civilians in war isn't acceptible. This includes the Holocaust, the Allied terror-bombing on Hamburg and Dresden, and arguably the atomic bomb attacks on Japan (Truman went against his military advisors on this).

I don't think that unnecessary killing of innocents during police action is acceptible either. For instance, if a police officer is chasing a guy with expired plates at 90 mph down a residential street, that officer is unnecessarily risking people's lives.

As for money, I don't think it is evil. I think it is a great tool. It is like the ultimate battery or the ultimate measure of value. I don't think it should have a role in giving candidates the means to become elected. I believe that candidates should be elected because they represent thier electorate, not because they had 20 times more TV ads than thier opponent. I can't see how putting a firewall between public officials and the money of interest groups can hurt a democracy.

I don't believe all leaders of industry are bastards, just that it isn't uncommon. In a way you say this same thing, Sv. you mention that the "public" demands bad business practices in publicly held companies. I couldn't agree more. Who better to implement bad business practices for the shareholders than a bastard? I know I wouldn't want a "great man" to carry out my dirty work

There is a big difference between the "public" in the IPO sense, and the "public" in the context of a Democracy. A democracy has to ultimately be in the hands of ALL of it's citizens, not just a moneyed subset.

posted 10-19- 12:44 AM               

Great stuff lothar, I totaly agree.

Danw, No prob man, Ya know what I find funny? Countrys with health care systems like them and protect them, but countrys such as the US without one don't want one.

I can't say I understand why.

Someone said once, (and it may have been here) why should a goverment pay for a lawyer for you but not your health care?

SV, thanks for the intrest in the ideas, I'm sure if Mad Dog was here he could remember some more, its just one of the late night topics here around the house some nights.

I totally agree about no money from anyone for campains, Every guy should get an equal voice. So we can be sure its not money that ends up being the deciding factor.

I'm not even sure if they should be paid at all. I guess it can be a full time job though eh? Or they would like us to belive that anyways.