a useless vestige of a bygone era and the primary roadblock to meaningful social and economic reform?



[Edited on June 10, 2008 at 1:59 PM. Reason : dammit, plz move to soapbox]

6/10/2008 1:56:08 PM

Nah, US senators are the primary roadblock to any reform at all.

If we could just throw out all the people who are all caught up in washington politics as-is and replace them with people who would be willing to do the job (and didn't have ties to any businesses that would have reason to interfere in congressional matters or anything like that), things would start to change.

Things would be wacky as hell for a while but they'd be sure to change (and maybe stabilize and change for the better once the new senators figured out how to do their jobs).

6/10/2008 2:08:41 PM

i assume you thought this was appropriate because you used "roadblock"


you apparently lack a basic understanding of how the senate works

legislation is SUPPOSED to die in the senate. it's structured that way

6/10/2008 2:17:49 PM

umm a honda civic?

6/10/2008 2:26:17 PM

dodge diplomat ftw

6/10/2008 2:50:33 PM

Quote :

"you apparently lack a basic understanding of how the senate works legislation is SUPPOSED to die in the senate. it's structured that way"

believe me I know how the Senate works

and I know the history of the great compromise

but I still feel that continuing a system that arbitrarily gives the same representation to small, increasingly unpopulated
states as huge, densly populated states provides an unacceptable representative subsidy to extreme conservatism in the
scope of mainstream American politics and is also counter to representative democracy.



[Edited on June 10, 2008 at 2:59 PM. Reason : .]

6/10/2008 2:59:06 PM

you'd obviously be on the other side of the coin if the party that you did not most closely align with wasnt in power in the house (in general, not specifically to the current congress)...by allowing the senate to do its job, you guard against the impetuousness of the House to rush to the cause

the house is designed to act

the senate is designed to consider

i love how this is still in the garage

[Edited on June 11, 2008 at 1:36 PM. Reason : .]

6/11/2008 1:35:49 PM

the longer term of senators also acts as a stabilizing force against the constant changing of opinion of the public mass on various issues. Afterall pretty much as soon as he takes office a congressman is already working on his next election campaign.

6/11/2008 6:24:43 PM

TERM LIMITS

6/13/2008 6:24:15 PM

yeah 2 terms per old guy

6/13/2008 6:38:39 PM

Quote :

"TERM LIMITS "

+1

6/13/2008 6:41:10 PM

As long as they keep blocking the Bush Regime from drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge then I am pretty content with them. I would like to see some more stringent environmental controls other than just CO2. >.<

6/13/2008 6:43:45 PM

Im all for drilling in alaska. Its not like we are drilling in the middle of a 10 acre zoo. Do you know how much land is there? Its like being worried about the effects of a bird farting in a hurricane.

6/13/2008 6:49:38 PM

Good to see that Republican kool-aid still tastes good to you. However, here in the real world there are threatened species in those areas and there is a reason why it's a wildlife refuge meaning humans stay the fuck out in terms of development. I know you want to haul your fat American over-consumer ass around in your gas guzzler for only $1.50 a gallon but maybe once you look a bit beyond yourself you will see there's an entire world out there far greater than you, me or any one person and is worth protecting at all costs.

6/13/2008 7:26:23 PM

Word around the biological campfire is that more species are dying faster now than following the extinction event that took down the dinosaurs...

Just sayin'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction_event

6/13/2008 7:47:34 PM

Quote :

" but I still feel that continuing a system that arbitrarily gives the same representation to small, increasingly unpopulated states as huge, densly populated states provides an unacceptable representative subsidy to extreme conservatism in the scope of mainstream American politics and is also counter to representative democracy."

It's a fair criticism. For example, North Dakota has fewer people living in it than the _city_ I live in. Yet its Senators have just as much power as those who represent all of California.

Still, where do you draw the line? If representation is done entirely by population density then federalism just won't work. The big 10 states will win out every time.

Personally I think the benefits of federalism outweigh the cost of a cumbersome and (sometimes) unfair system, so the Senate exists justifiably in that context.

6/13/2008 8:10:29 PM

Quote :

"Nah, US senators are the primary roadblock to any reform at all."

they are also a primary roadblock to hastily written bills.

6/13/2008 9:36:36 PM

Quote :

"Good to see that Republican kool-aid still tastes good to you. However, here in the real world there are threatened species in those areas and there is a reason why it's a wildlife refuge meaning humans stay the fuck out in terms of development. I know you want to haul your fat American over-consumer ass around in your gas guzzler for only $1.50 a gallon but maybe once you look a bit beyond yourself you will see there's an entire world out there far greater than you, me or any one person and is worth protecting at all costs. "

Ah, way to jump to stereotyping. I guess my honda is the same as a gas guzzler. And realizing that my car, that i need to go to work, wont run on hope makes me some kind of selfish asshole too. I imagine your car takes gas as well, my god how do you live withyourself by using gas. But silly me thinking of ways to ease suffering and pointing out that 200-2000 acres of 18 million acres isnt alot. Wait, let me use an obama line.. They dont need it.. they have plenty of extra. LOL

6/13/2008 10:17:00 PM

Quote :

"I imagine your car takes gas as well, my god how do you live withyourself by using gas."

My car runs on the blood of third-world children. Haven't you gotten your mod kit yet?

6/13/2008 11:06:31 PM

I cant afford it yet. But im voting for someone who said that he would subsidize it for me. Fingers crossed.

6/14/2008 12:19:27 AM

im all for term limits for senate n congress. nothing is worse than a career politician











and yes I know it will never happen

6/14/2008 3:35:45 AM

First, responses to specific comments:

Quote :

"nothing is worse than a career politician"

I'll take an unpopular route and disagree. Certainly, plenty of career politicians are assholes. So are plenty of career [inset occupation here]s. People frequently and consistently take for granted the depth and breadth of knowledge that their legislators often actually do have, particularly senators.

Think about it. We expect them to be competent in all of these fields and many more:

Economics
International relations
American governmental systems
American politics (can't do much without knowing this, can ya?)
Law
Military operations
Health Care
Education
etc.
etc.

A member of the house, which is not inherently a deliberative body, might not need to know all these things. More likely they have a specific field that they stick to. Senators are supposed to debate legislation, and to do so competently, they have to know these things.

You can get that knowledge in a newbie, certainly. Some people are extremely well-educated and know most of this stuff already. Others are just very smart and can pick up on it quickly. But experiences is important here, as it is in most other fields. Also important is the idea that people should be allowed to vote for who the fuck they want to vote for.

Quote :

"However, here in the real world there are threatened species in those areas and there is a reason why it's a wildlife refuge meaning humans stay the fuck out in terms of development."

Also in the real world there's the fact that not every fucking species is integral to global ecology. Also there's the basic fact that the reason ANWR is a refuge has less to do with what's actually there than the fact that the U.S. government could appear environmentally sound by putting a vast tract of what was (at the time) useless, frozen land into the "off-limits" category.

I don't really think that drilling ANWR is a solution to any problem. I think it costs too much to bring us too little. But the reasons you've presented strike me as pretty foolish.

Quote :

"I know you want to haul your fat American over-consumer ass around in your gas guzzler for only $1.50 a gallon but maybe once you look a bit beyond yourself you will see there's an entire world out there far greater than you, me or any one person and is worth protecting at all costs."

What price can be put on polar bears?

Because, frankly, that number exists. They aren't fucking priceless. We can keep them alive in zoos -- hell, we keep them alive during the summer in North fucking Carolina.

But never mind that. Lower fuel prices aren't just for driving fatties around. They -- along with the "over consumption" you mention, generate wealth.

And what do you think it is, exactly, that pays for environment protection? Hopes and dreams and goddamn fucking rainbows?

----

Now, to the OP:

Like I said above, the Senate is a deliberative body. The House, by its very nature, is not. It can't be. Too many people discussing too many things. A somewhat more conservative body is useful in blocking what might be termed "frivolous" legislation, as others have suggested. Furthermore it is instrumental in federalism, which seems to have served us rather well.

6/14/2008 6:33:52 AM

clueless? yess.

6/14/2008 6:48:11 AM

Quote :

"Good to see that Republican kool-aid still tastes good to you. However, here in the real world there are threatened species in those areas and there is a reason why it's a wildlife refuge meaning humans stay the fuck out in terms of development. I know you want to haul your fat American over-consumer ass around in your gas guzzler for only $1.50 a gallon but maybe once you look a bit beyond yourself you will see there's an entire world out there far greater than you, me or any one person and is worth protecting at all costs. "

I do not think this douchebag has an idea how big the AWNR is. For the most part it is a big block of frozen land. We are not talking about fucking denali park. even if they did started drilling there i am sure 98% of the land would still be there for reindeer; the arctic shrubs, and bubba the walrus.

6/14/2008 10:14:01 AM

Quote :

"eyedrb: ...me thinking of ways to ease suffering and pointing out that 200-2000 acres..."

Wrong. The 1002 area is more like 1.5 million acres. But thanks for playing.

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: Also in the real world there's the fact that not every fucking species is integral to global ecology."

Not to quibble, but how exactly did you derive this profound exclamation of science? Invasive species aside, why do you think species evolved to fill in niches in any given biosphere?

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: And what do you think it is, exactly, that pays for environment protection?"

Sadly, it's mostly up the government to protect the environment since they have the legislative and capital means to do so. I say sadly because the government bows to the whims of those that are in power. As for paying for it I would reckon that it is paid for much like everything else they pay for with tax revenues. And if revenues are only collected by means of energy taxation then we are in a heap of trouble.

Quote :

"HUR: I do not think this douchebag has an idea how big the AWNR is."

Ad hom aside, the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge is 19 million acres of pristine wilderness. And we are talking about something as sacred as your example of Denali Park in terms of rich biodiversity which, at the moment, is safe from human intrusion. Besides, size is completely irrelevant because if you were not too busy being deluded by the likes of Hannity and his ilk then you would see that the fight over Alaskan wilderness is just a proxy war against environmentalism as a whole.

I do find it amusing that not a single person has responded to what I posted in the other omggasprices thread pertaining to the Alaskan National Petroleum Reserve which is a non-litigious tract of land even larger than "ANWR". Yet you won't find any of your money-grubbing cohorts even mention that. Figures.

6/14/2008 2:29:39 PM

Quote :

"People frequently and consistently take for granted the depth and breadth of knowledge that their legislators often actually do have, particularly senators."

We take it for granted, yes.

But what evidence do you have that it's warranted we do so?

6/14/2008 2:31:36 PM

Quote :

"Wrong. The 1002 area is more like 1.5 million acres. But thanks for playing. "

In reality, any future
ANWR oil exploration would only take place in the desolate, treeless
area designated as "10-02," which represents just 8% of ANWR's land
area, and which encompasses the Coastal Plain north of the Sadlerochit
Mountains. Of that 8% of ANWR land, Federal law states that only
2,000 surface acres could ever be used for actual drilling purposes.

Roman, while we are "playing" do you mind telling me what 1002 is? Or defined to be? LOL

[Edited on June 14, 2008 at 8:50 PM. Reason : .]

6/14/2008 8:46:57 PM

Since it seems like you finally did some reading on your own so I refrain from playing your quiz game as we both know that I am well aware of the answer. And if you bothered to keep reading you would see that drilling within the 2,000 acre limitation is not feasible given current technology.

6/14/2008 9:37:29 PM

great answer roman. So in your estimation using current technology, you think we woudl have to use up 1.5M acres to drill it? The largest estimate Ive seen is that 12,500 would be affected by drilling it. Really what is your opposition to drilling there?

Or will you "refrain" from answering that as well.

6/14/2008 9:52:00 PM

This isn't even an Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge thread. Instead of derailing it you should have taken it to PMs or starting a whole new one.

[Edited on June 14, 2008 at 11:29 PM. Reason : .]

6/14/2008 11:26:05 PM

Quote :

"This isn't even an Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge thread. Instead of derailing it you should have taken it to PMs or starting a whole new one. "

You say that. But YOU were the first person to mention ANWR my friend.

Quote :

"As long as they keep blocking the Bush Regime from drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge then I am pretty content with them. "

So not only did you choose not to engage in the coversation, you attempt to retreat from a topic YOU introduced.

You consider yourself a student of Rome? You seem to have many aspects/traits of Publius Quinctilius Varus.

6/15/2008 9:46:17 AM

Obviously you missed the part where I was responding to the original post by presenting what I felt the use of the US Senate was. You, however, began a tangential discussion by your response of:

Quote :

"eyedrb: Im all for drilling in alaska. Its not like we are drilling in the middle of a 10 acre zoo. Do you know how much land is there? Its like being worried about the effects of a bird farting in a hurricane."

Now I am choosing not to hijack this thread with a discussion that can be explored either in PMs or another thread. You would be ill advised to think for one second that I am by any means "retreating" from this discussion. I am merely being considerate to the original poster, but then again I should expect this kind of obtuseness from someone who advocates the rape and pillage of pristine habitat.

6/15/2008 3:02:24 PM

in short, you got fucking owned, so now you are running away. like a typical liberal

6/15/2008 4:02:54 PM

Quote :

"in short, you got fucking owned, so now you are running away. like a typical liberal"

6/15/2008 4:26:10 PM

^^ Are you fucking kidding me? At no point in time did I get "owned". I also didn't see you contributing anything valid to the discussion. You just sit in the shadows to distort civility with weakness. Typical wingnut. Wow, no wonder no one takes you seriously anymore.

^ And where the fuck were you during this discussion?

6/15/2008 4:35:25 PM

in short, you got OWNED.

6/15/2008 5:06:08 PM

The only thing that "owned" me if anything would have been the impulse to feed the trolls much to the chagrin of my better judgment. My apologies to Scuba Steve for any part I played in the detraction from your intent. Sadly, I don't think you will receive the same courtesy from those ill-equipped to converse in a civilized manner but instead resort to their reliable tactic of childish one-upsmanship and name calling which is so prevalent in their twisted and often wrong mentality.

6/15/2008 5:15:10 PM

in short, you got owned

6/15/2008 5:16:00 PM

owned

6/15/2008 5:16:34 PM

Keep repeating it and maybe, just maybe you might be able to convince yourself that it is true. Hell, it worked for your pals in the Bush Regime. What's funny is you keep saying the same bullshit over and over yet fail to site anything resembling an example to back up your paltry claim. Until then fuck off.

6/15/2008 5:21:49 PM

dude. you effectively said "oh shit, you seem to know what you are talking about. I'm gonna stop talking now."

so yes, in short, YOU GOT OWNED. now stop your verbal diarrhea.

6/15/2008 5:25:31 PM

No the fuck I did not. I had no problem discussing the issue with him. What I was not going to do was play his little quiz game of "Do you even know blah blah blah?" As if I am his personal wiki or something. And where exactly did you share your abundance of knowledge on the subject? Oh that's right you likely don't have any.

6/15/2008 5:32:07 PM

dude. never claimed to have any vast knowledge on the subject. I'm just calling you out as being owned. never claimed any different. you are the one getting his panties in a wad because he got owned and called out on it. now stop your verbal diarrhea

6/15/2008 5:35:43 PM

Well thank you at least for admitting you are nothing but a troll. Not that anything you had to say previously warranted any merit but you have single-handedly removed all doubt. gg.

[Edited on June 15, 2008 at 6:04 PM. Reason : .]

6/15/2008 5:38:30 PM

in short, you got owned.

6/15/2008 5:44:45 PM

Quote :

"We take it for granted, yes. But what evidence do you have that it's warranted we do so?"

Generally it isn't. That's not really the point.

Condemning people who make a career out of politics is very nearly the opposite of encouraging competent people to seek and retain political office. What makes a given politician an asshole isn't that he's a politician.

Instead of bemoaning "career politicians," it just makes a lot more sense to me to bemoan "incompetent/corrupt/selfish politicians"

6/16/2008 1:40:09 AM