I am a former Rebuplican George Bush screwed things up so bad I am now an Independant. Glad to see the demos win. But agree with Doobie it will not really change anything.

Without real election reform as I've described, or in a similar form, you're right, nothing will change! The good old boys club dictates the agenda and if you don't go along, you don't get along!

__________________
Life is good, the water is sweet. The ground keeps moving beneath my feet.

And how do you square that with the First Amendment?

Vi

__________________
Liberals are people that will believe anything twice.

I'm with mogie. I used to consider myself a republican. But it took only 1.5 years of Bush to turn me away. Like Mogie, I am now an Independent (Libertarian).
I'm happy that the Dems won, because they will keep the President in check. There will now be oversight, and THAT is what makes me feel safer.

__________________
"An unexamined life is not worth living"
~--------------------------------------------------~

I've been registered as a Libertarian for over 20 years. I read Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" and it turned me 180 degrees politically.

All About Ayn Rand

The Ayn Rand Institute: FAQ


Vi

PS: Med ... I highly recommend Rand's book to you. You'll find it in paperback at the local book store. Tough reading, but well worth the effort.

__________________
Liberals are people that will believe anything twice.

Med ...

This is intended to whet your appitite a bit. Its the forward from Ayn Rand's book "Anthem."

Author's Foreword

This story was written in 1937. I have edited it for this publication, but have confined the editing to its style; I have reworded some passages and cut out some excessive language. No idea or incident was added or omitted; the theme, content and structure are untouched. The story remains as it was. I have lifted its face, but not its spine or spirit; these did not need lifting. Some of those who read the story when it was first written, told me that I was unfair to the ideals of collectivism; this was not, they said, what collectivism preaches or intends; collectivists do not mean or advocate such things; nobody advocates them. I shall merely point out that the slogan "Production for use and not for profit" is now accepted by most men as commonplace, and a commonplace stating a proper, desirable goal. If any intelligible meaning can be discerned in that slogan at all, what is it, if not the idea that the motive of a man's work must be the needs of others, not his own need, desire or gain? Compulsory labor conscription is now practiced or advocated in every country on earth. What is it based on, if not the idea that the state is best qualified to decide where a man can be useful to others, such usefulness being the only consideration, and that his own aims, desires, or happiness should be ignored as of no importance? We have Councils of Vocations, Councils of Eugenics, every possible kind of Council, including a World Council -- and if these do not as yet hold total power over us, is it from lack of intention? "Social gains," "social aims," "social objectives" have become the daily bromides of our language. The necessity of a social justification for all activities and all existence is now taken for granted. There is no proposal outrageous enough but what its author can get a respectful hearing and approbation if he claims that in some undefined way it is for "the common good.Some might think -- though I don't -- that nine years ago there was some excuse for men not to see the direction in which the world was going. Today, the evidence is so blatant that no excuse can be claimed by anyone any longer. Those who refuse to see it now are neither blind nor innocent.The greatest guilt today is that of people who accept collectivism by moral default; the people who seek protection from the necessity of taking a stand, by refusing to admit to themselves the nature of that which they are accepting; the people who support plans specifically designed to achieve serfdom, but hide behind the empty assertion that they are lovers of freedom, with no concrete meaning attached to the word; the people who believe that the content of ideas need not be examined, that principles need not be defined, and that facts can be eliminated by keeping one's eyes shut. They expect, when they find themselves in a world of bloody ruins and concentration camps, to escape moral responsibility by wailing: "But I didn't mean this!" Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating or condoning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of the ultimate consequences to which these principles will lead. They must face it, then decide whether this is what they want or not.--Ayn Rand

__________________
Liberals are people that will believe anything twice.

I believe you could restrict political interferance if you had public funded campaigns. Free speech would still be allowed just not with outside political ads during an election. In other words you could do all the talking you wanted to about the candidates, pundits and all forms of political hacks, you just couldn't run attack ads, or positive ads! That would eliminate such groups as swiftboat etc.

__________________
Life is good, the water is sweet. The ground keeps moving beneath my feet.

Med ...

Please study the Rand piece that I left for you. In all sincerity, its very important to me that you absorb it. Not dissing you ... just trying to do you a favor.

"Free speech would still be allowed just not with outside political ads during an election."

The primary purpose of the First Amendment is that the citizens have the absoulte right to speak out against their government. To restrict political ads and counter ads would strike at the very heart of the intentions of the Founding Fathers. I find the ads sickening as well, Med ... but I respect the rights of those who pay for them and run them.

Vi

__________________
Liberals are people that will believe anything twice.

The problem with the attack ads, either side, is they are misrepresenting the individual running for office. The group with the most money usually wins as the people are too ignorant to see through the bullshit. If there was a law that limited spending by both parties on outside ads, then I would approve, otherwise the kid with the most toys wins, and I hate those snobbnish bastards, not because they have more or better toys than me, but that they shove it in your face, Giant Ego-freaks! Would I like better toys, probably, but thats not life changing for me, so to be specific, If the outside ads were monitored and given equal distribution, I'd be for them!

__________________
Life is good, the water is sweet. The ground keeps moving beneath my feet.

Funny thing is Vi seems to think Ayn Rand's philosophy applies to Corporations, when she was clearly in favor of small business.

__________________
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it. United State Constitution, Art. I Sec. 9 Par. 2

"Dissent is the Highest form of Patriotism" -- Howard Zinn