No. They're counting on the masses not to know it. And the masses will never know it.
A couple hundred people in the country informed in politics won't make a difference.
You see, you as a single entity doesn't matter. But the problem is that many people with this same mantra become the problem. When one person follows the masses because they feel they are a droplet within the sea, then your integrity within society is compromised.
I think it's important to know your surroundings. In one way or another, they will affect you. Of course you can always move, but I think it's important to play a part in the world no matter how little of an affect you have.
Ignorance is a politician's number one ally. They focus on demographics that they know they can influence. If people were smart, they wouldn't count on what somebody says, they look at what they've done.
Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see.
It is up to you as an individual to see past the smoke and mirrors that politicians employ. If you don't, you're part of the problem. You may not want to be, and it may not even pass your thoughts. The fact of the matter, though, is that if you're making uninformed decisions when you vote, it hurts everybody.
Well I don't really have a problem with them, because they do like you said take a lot of the dirty jobs, but they shouldn't be allowed to vote, they're not citizens, and they should learn minimal English since we're a English speaking country.
Yes, they should have to learn English. And no, they shouldn't be allowed to vote. Many of the illegals themselves cannot vote but they are breeding children that can. I think one of the worst loopholes of the American system is the citizen birth laws of the US. All they need to do is cross our border and give birth to their child for it to be a US citizen... parentage laws also allow the parent to stay within the United States until their children are of legal adult age.
There is such a huge influx of hispanic immigrants that it gives very little credence to American customs. They form tight-knit communities (at least many do) that makes it so they do not need to integrate in full American society. These communities are often started by illegals, and as that implies, there isn't even a way for any sort of law to force English on them.
But in all honesty, I'd be perfectly okay with all immigrants if they learned English and attempted to fully integrate in American society. I'd feel much better about giving them my tax dollars, because that's were a good chunk of it is going. (Along with bail-outs and other various undertakings of the government)
Yes, I know that they lobby for a specific cause. Some of these causes are worthy causes though, and they still have to persuade the congressman to vote in their favor anyway. I'm a political science major too by the way.
I was not trying to belittle your academic integrity, moreover, explain the angle that I felt was missed in your response. I agree with you regarding how campaigns are financed but I still fear that with those sanctions other problems will still occur. I personally think that candidates should have a money cap total to use for their campaigns period. This would make up for candidate inequality on all fronts assuming that both candidates can meet that maximum. It's a difficult dilemma...
Quote from "Daemaro" »
I'm not denying there are a lot of Spanish speaking people in the US, I just think if you live in the US you should be able to also speak and read basic English. That may just be ignorance on my part though.
I'm with you 100% on this one - but I can't turn a blind eye to reality just because I don't agree with how it is functioning. I wish that we could just deport all the illegals but we just can't. They are the backbone of our economy because they take all the jobs that nobody wants to get dirty doing. They also maintain a commanding voting pool that politicians capitalize on - it's rather disgusting.
I'm not sure about how much influence lobbyists have. Sure, they give money to campaigns in hopes of getting legislation passed in their favor, but ive met a few assemblymen who have voted against legislation that would favor their supporting lobbyists. The bottom line is, every campaign should be publically financed. The whole process of getting money for campaigning is so cumbersome and tedious that it becomes distracting. The people involved in government I know have told me about how there are a ton of fine line provisions regarding who can you get money from, how much they can give, and they would have to call up these people and they would have no idea who the candidates were. SO, you have to have some kind of public financing to stop any kind of lobbying or interest group influence, or more importantly, to stop the worrying that these groups are indirectly passing legislation. Plus, candidates would have so much more time to campaign, and it would weed out all of the candidates who have a shit load of money and can privately run their campaigns themselves.
To give you a better idea of a lobbyist take this definition:
someone who is employed to persuade legislators to vote for legislation that favors the lobbyist's employer wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Now, I think you misunderstand the reasons why lobbyists have so much power. Their power doesn't require money. Their job is to persuade legislators for companies, individuals, groups, etc. Their sole purpose is to persuade. Successful lobbyists are, obviously, those that are the most influential.
I hope you see where this is going, because these are people that are not elected that are swaying the thoughts of those whom the people elect. The public does not have any say in what lobbyists do because they are outside of the limits that are put upon the state government.
Lobbyists gaining money for campaigns is only a part of the power that they weild. Campaigns aren't only financed by large corporations. And generally, it's not the lobbyists that get these companies to finance candidates, it's the candidate themselves. If the candidate promises companies earmarks or favors they will fund their campaigns. I'm in class at the moment, otherwise I'd explain further.
You're right it's not all encompassing, too many players to cover that in one hour. Lobbyists are the Grima Wormtongue's of policy, and bipartisan effort only happens when both sides of the isle are paid. I know because the company I work at has government contracts in healthcare Medicare and Medicaid. We actually save the government money but our CEO and legal team have had to go to Washington to get both sides to understand that. But before they would even listen we had to pay both sides (their causes of course), and we had to pay more to both sides to get them both to agree.
Our CEO is amazed at the process, she is really concerned about how our country's political system works because it's a mess. If our system is the best in the world then she is scared how it works for the rest of the world. It takes a few thousand just get a lobbyist to hear you in a group setting. It takes about $50/k to meet with your representative in a group setting, and were talking about 20 to 30 people at a time, so you have just minutes to get your point across to whomever your state representative is with a bunch of others there listening to you. This has to be done twice, once for each side of the political isle every time they go to DC.
One of the brilliant parts of my upper-division POE classes was the "honor" of meeting such characters. We met several mayors, the governor, the Attorney General, various other government workers and last but not least... a lobbyist.
The lobbyist strikes the most vivid memory because of his personality. It seemed almost comical because he had so much energy. He was extremely enthused about his line of work and in all honesty, this made me quite suspicious. I had preconceived notions about lobbyist prior to this guest appearance, but his antics confirmed many of my fears.
And yes, you're completely right about playing both sides of the table. It was astonishing when I learned that the politics digs it's nails deep into the arteries of the state. Lobbyists, again, are only one small part of the big puzzle but they are most certainly a very annoying thorn that nobody seems to be able to dislodge. It is staggering how much power lobbyists have in light of legislation. And representatives! Gosh, that's a whole extra tier that must be persuaded.... it's utter chaos.
Quote from "VegasRage" »
The Austrian's propose allowing companies to fail and let the process of bankruptcy to help reset the market.
And I think both you and I know exactly why the United States isn't allowing these companies to die. both out of fear and out of the fact that more power is in the hands of major corporations than the legislative bodies that were given the enumerated rights.
Do you have 60 minutes and want know how we came to this mess? To truly understand it you need to know the history of money and in this case the history of the US dollar. Then you will know how we have been slowly robbed of our wealth and why this moment was inevitable.
Dr. Lawrence Parks give a presentation that does just this. It simply is angering to think of where were and where we have come to. The history of the US dollar, how we got robbed, how this economic mess was destined to happen, and why change is unlikely with our current system. http://montanasoundmoney.org/parksvideo.html
Can't recommend it enough
This is a slice of the pie most definitely. There are so many factors, though, that it's really difficult to see a whole picture without really stepping back from it all.
Currently I'm in college studying Political Economics and this touches many factors we've covered. Money and the US dollar is a problem that works in tandem with the policies that revolve around it. It's a shame that there is no vaccine for this economic virus.
Oh? So you buy into a superiority complex? It's people with this sort of mentality that destroy liberty and justice. We as a people are equal under the law in the United States.
Quote from "HARDCOREPOORE" »
all you guys are doing is putting words into my (fingers?) mouth whatever.
Are we? It seems that we respond by directly quoting you.
Quote from "HARDCOREPOORE" »
obama is stealing money from the american people what dont you get about that.
they found a loophole in the system and exploited it (fact)
touche, cut ur looses and thats it.
Link to the source of this twaddle speak. Stealing implies illigality of actions. I don't recall seeing anything about him breaking into banks or homes.
Forking from this, however, I don't think Obama is doing a very good job with is new plans and many of his propositions beg to question the motive behind his actions. I am not a huge fan of Obama, I was even less of a fan of McCain. When you have to pick between the evil of two lessers everybody loses. (yes, I changed that cliche purposefully)
Quote from "HARDCOREPOORE" »
if obama takes money from these people, whats to stop him from taking avg joes life savings
Um, what?
I would also like to point out the fact that you do not touch on the meat of the subject. We provide solid counter evidence to your argument yet your constantly pick out small pieces to disagree with. This is a terrible way to argue.
what kind of government takes money from people, oh yeah communists.
Wrong. Every kind of government takes money from people - it's called taxes. Communism seeks to make an equitable distribution of wealth and eliminate any class structure, thus creating equality amongst people. They focus on the role of the proletariat to rebel against the upper classes and take control of the government.
Quote from "HARDCOREPOORE" »
if the president is a regular person, then the system has failed.
Is this what they've been teaching you kids in school these days? *Shudder*
It is very apparent to me that you have not studied functions of Congress. The system is not just the president. The House of Representatives and the Senate work in tandem. Each must pass the bill before it reaches the president. And even before a bill passes, the legislature is worked on by committees before the finals drafts are even voted on. The president has the ability to sign or veto the bill. If he vetos, the Congress can still override his decisions.
What about this system requires the president to be "more than a regular person?"
Quote from "HARDCOREPOORE" »
the president has to be the best of the best, there is no way the president should have equal intelligence to the common person
You are sadly misinformed - I don't know where you get these ideas. I know plenty of people who have equal or higher education than Obama and equal or higher IQ. Obama is a person like any of us. His charismatic qualities have people following him but this does not make him infallible. His mistakes are already costing the Unitied States. Furthermore, the president doesn't have to be anything except what the public believes to be the best candidate. (And the party they represent must believe this candidate will achieve the party's best aims - not the people's)
Intelligence in presidency is overshadowed by charisma and the public's view of the candidate. If this is your bottom line for presidential politics, you are gravely mistaken. Obama is a figurehead, nothing more. He may have a good education, he may have a high IQ but no more than any other Harvard Grad. He was born into a good situation into a network of rich people that supported him - if only everybody was that lucky.
@Thassadar Honestly, I don't care one way or another. Shit, I'd rather have Hillary then McCain...
McCain... *Shudders*
@ 3CXOD Someone can only take what you are willing to give... And I butchered that quote...
I agree with you simply on the grounds that if McCain died in office (which he had a high probability of doing so given his age in comparison to other presidents) then we'd have Sarah Palin taking up the mantle.
I never want to see her face amongst the list of presidents. Period.
On another note, I'm currently in college studying Political Economics and it's a fairly pressing issue, as we all know. I think it's also unfair to ask whether or not Obama himself is bad.
He's only one man, and I think people lose sight of how legislation actually occurs. It's not just him that calls the shots - he's just the spokesman for it. Don't forget that Congress can present Bills and override vetos.
But even as we enter the second quarter of the year, it will still be difficult to see what Obama has done well. The problem with making changes is that things are not immediate - yet people clamor for immediate results. This is a huge problem in politics because the answer to these problems may not be something achieved in months - even years. Politicians are seeking fast actions to appease the public and get reelected when they should be making decisions that are good for the long-term.
Whether or not Obama has done a good job will not be seen in the immediate future.
On another note, there as a great article about how Obama is related to the Manchurrian Candidate. It is true that whenever Obama opens his mouth to talk about his further economic plans the stock market seems to fall.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
~Nocturne, previously known as Eve
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You see, you as a single entity doesn't matter. But the problem is that many people with this same mantra become the problem. When one person follows the masses because they feel they are a droplet within the sea, then your integrity within society is compromised.
I think it's important to know your surroundings. In one way or another, they will affect you. Of course you can always move, but I think it's important to play a part in the world no matter how little of an affect you have.
Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see.
It is up to you as an individual to see past the smoke and mirrors that politicians employ. If you don't, you're part of the problem. You may not want to be, and it may not even pass your thoughts. The fact of the matter, though, is that if you're making uninformed decisions when you vote, it hurts everybody.
Yes, they should have to learn English. And no, they shouldn't be allowed to vote. Many of the illegals themselves cannot vote but they are breeding children that can. I think one of the worst loopholes of the American system is the citizen birth laws of the US. All they need to do is cross our border and give birth to their child for it to be a US citizen... parentage laws also allow the parent to stay within the United States until their children are of legal adult age.
There is such a huge influx of hispanic immigrants that it gives very little credence to American customs. They form tight-knit communities (at least many do) that makes it so they do not need to integrate in full American society. These communities are often started by illegals, and as that implies, there isn't even a way for any sort of law to force English on them.
But in all honesty, I'd be perfectly okay with all immigrants if they learned English and attempted to fully integrate in American society. I'd feel much better about giving them my tax dollars, because that's were a good chunk of it is going. (Along with bail-outs and other various undertakings of the government)
I was not trying to belittle your academic integrity, moreover, explain the angle that I felt was missed in your response. I agree with you regarding how campaigns are financed but I still fear that with those sanctions other problems will still occur. I personally think that candidates should have a money cap total to use for their campaigns period. This would make up for candidate inequality on all fronts assuming that both candidates can meet that maximum. It's a difficult dilemma...
I'm with you 100% on this one - but I can't turn a blind eye to reality just because I don't agree with how it is functioning. I wish that we could just deport all the illegals but we just can't. They are the backbone of our economy because they take all the jobs that nobody wants to get dirty doing. They also maintain a commanding voting pool that politicians capitalize on - it's rather disgusting.
To give you a better idea of a lobbyist take this definition:
someone who is employed to persuade legislators to vote for legislation that favors the lobbyist's employer
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Now, I think you misunderstand the reasons why lobbyists have so much power. Their power doesn't require money. Their job is to persuade legislators for companies, individuals, groups, etc. Their sole purpose is to persuade. Successful lobbyists are, obviously, those that are the most influential.
I hope you see where this is going, because these are people that are not elected that are swaying the thoughts of those whom the people elect. The public does not have any say in what lobbyists do because they are outside of the limits that are put upon the state government.
Lobbyists gaining money for campaigns is only a part of the power that they weild. Campaigns aren't only financed by large corporations. And generally, it's not the lobbyists that get these companies to finance candidates, it's the candidate themselves. If the candidate promises companies earmarks or favors they will fund their campaigns. I'm in class at the moment, otherwise I'd explain further.
Cheers.
Clearly you are underestimating the Spanish population in the states.
Dot dot dot...
Yes, that's what it says.
On another note I was going to say that you should look at the image location but it directs you to a photobucket account.
One of the brilliant parts of my upper-division POE classes was the "honor" of meeting such characters. We met several mayors, the governor, the Attorney General, various other government workers and last but not least... a lobbyist.
The lobbyist strikes the most vivid memory because of his personality. It seemed almost comical because he had so much energy. He was extremely enthused about his line of work and in all honesty, this made me quite suspicious. I had preconceived notions about lobbyist prior to this guest appearance, but his antics confirmed many of my fears.
And yes, you're completely right about playing both sides of the table. It was astonishing when I learned that the politics digs it's nails deep into the arteries of the state. Lobbyists, again, are only one small part of the big puzzle but they are most certainly a very annoying thorn that nobody seems to be able to dislodge. It is staggering how much power lobbyists have in light of legislation. And representatives! Gosh, that's a whole extra tier that must be persuaded.... it's utter chaos.
I believe a Sweden took this approach with a car manufacturing company (Saab).
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/03/23/europe/23saab.php
And I think both you and I know exactly why the United States isn't allowing these companies to die. both out of fear and out of the fact that more power is in the hands of major corporations than the legislative bodies that were given the enumerated rights.
This is a slice of the pie most definitely. There are so many factors, though, that it's really difficult to see a whole picture without really stepping back from it all.
Currently I'm in college studying Political Economics and this touches many factors we've covered. Money and the US dollar is a problem that works in tandem with the policies that revolve around it. It's a shame that there is no vaccine for this economic virus.
When you began your bleat about intelligence.
Oh? So you buy into a superiority complex? It's people with this sort of mentality that destroy liberty and justice. We as a people are equal under the law in the United States.
Are we? It seems that we respond by directly quoting you.
Link to the source of this twaddle speak. Stealing implies illigality of actions. I don't recall seeing anything about him breaking into banks or homes.
Forking from this, however, I don't think Obama is doing a very good job with is new plans and many of his propositions beg to question the motive behind his actions. I am not a huge fan of Obama, I was even less of a fan of McCain. When you have to pick between the evil of two lessers everybody loses. (yes, I changed that cliche purposefully)
Um, what?
I would also like to point out the fact that you do not touch on the meat of the subject. We provide solid counter evidence to your argument yet your constantly pick out small pieces to disagree with. This is a terrible way to argue.
Wrong. Every kind of government takes money from people - it's called taxes. Communism seeks to make an equitable distribution of wealth and eliminate any class structure, thus creating equality amongst people. They focus on the role of the proletariat to rebel against the upper classes and take control of the government.
Is this what they've been teaching you kids in school these days? *Shudder*
It is very apparent to me that you have not studied functions of Congress. The system is not just the president. The House of Representatives and the Senate work in tandem. Each must pass the bill before it reaches the president. And even before a bill passes, the legislature is worked on by committees before the finals drafts are even voted on. The president has the ability to sign or veto the bill. If he vetos, the Congress can still override his decisions.
What about this system requires the president to be "more than a regular person?"
You are sadly misinformed - I don't know where you get these ideas. I know plenty of people who have equal or higher education than Obama and equal or higher IQ. Obama is a person like any of us. His charismatic qualities have people following him but this does not make him infallible. His mistakes are already costing the Unitied States. Furthermore, the president doesn't have to be anything except what the public believes to be the best candidate. (And the party they represent must believe this candidate will achieve the party's best aims - not the people's)
Intelligence in presidency is overshadowed by charisma and the public's view of the candidate. If this is your bottom line for presidential politics, you are gravely mistaken. Obama is a figurehead, nothing more. He may have a good education, he may have a high IQ but no more than any other Harvard Grad. He was born into a good situation into a network of rich people that supported him - if only everybody was that lucky.
I agree with you simply on the grounds that if McCain died in office (which he had a high probability of doing so given his age in comparison to other presidents) then we'd have Sarah Palin taking up the mantle.
I never want to see her face amongst the list of presidents. Period.
On another note, I'm currently in college studying Political Economics and it's a fairly pressing issue, as we all know. I think it's also unfair to ask whether or not Obama himself is bad.
He's only one man, and I think people lose sight of how legislation actually occurs. It's not just him that calls the shots - he's just the spokesman for it. Don't forget that Congress can present Bills and override vetos.
But even as we enter the second quarter of the year, it will still be difficult to see what Obama has done well. The problem with making changes is that things are not immediate - yet people clamor for immediate results. This is a huge problem in politics because the answer to these problems may not be something achieved in months - even years. Politicians are seeking fast actions to appease the public and get reelected when they should be making decisions that are good for the long-term.
Whether or not Obama has done a good job will not be seen in the immediate future.
On another note, there as a great article about how Obama is related to the Manchurrian Candidate. It is true that whenever Obama opens his mouth to talk about his further economic plans the stock market seems to fall.