NorthSideSox72

Post here anything you'd like about the elections...

Welcome to the 2006-2007 Soxtalk poster election cycle! This is not to be confused with the annual awards. Here, we are going to vote people into fake President and Vice President positions, based on their political platforms and political posting abilities. Here are the rules/guidelines: UPDATED ON NOVEMBER 16th, see all updates in CAPS... --First part with be the establishment of platforms (which will also show us who is running). THESE WILL CLOSE ON 11/22. --After that thread is filled with everyone's platforms, the next thread will be a shortened up version of the debates we tried here a while back - this will be much more brief and simple in this case. THESE WILL BE MODERATED AND DESIGNED BY SOXY AND SS2K5, AND WILL OCCUR THE WEEK OF 11/26 TO 12/1. --DURING THAT WEEK, AN ENDORSEMENTS-ONLY THREAD WILL BE OPENED UP. --STARTING ON 12/1, A THREAD WILL BE OPENED FOR EACH CANDIDATE TO MAKE ONE FINAL POST?ADVERTISEMENT. --Then we vote - I'll set it up as a poll. PRIMARY ELECTION IS ON THE FIRST TUESDAY OF DECEMBER, WHICH IS 12/5. IT RUNS THROUGH 12/7. --Everyone can vote, but, since its such a small crowd, you may NOT vote for yourself --AFTER THE PRIMARY ELECTION, THE TOP HALF (rounded up) OF VOTE-GETTERS WILL MOVE ON TO THE FINAL ELECTION. --IF 10 OR MORE CANDIDATES ENTER THE ELECTION, WE MAY ADD ANOTHER PRIMARY ROUND. --THE FINAL ELECTION IS ONE WEEK AFTER THE PRIMARY - 12/12 THRU 12/14. --The person with the most votes wins the Presidency, second most wins Vice President --THE NEW PREZ AND VP SHOULD CHOOSE THEIR CABINETS AT THIS POINT. Aside from the above, outside the official threads, anything goes. You can lobby, campaign, form coalitions, drop out and endorse other candidates, etc. As long as you follow the normal Soxtalk posting rules, you can be as political as you wish. TO BEGIN... See the next post I make in this thread. It will give you a guideline as to how to make your Platform thread. Please, only one platform post per participant - I will open a seperate forum for discussions of those platforms. Just use my post as a template, and then put your platform in, BY NOVEMBER 22nd...

Happy B-Day, QP!!!

Giuliani has formed an exploratory committee. I think I'd move him from "probably not" to "maybe" or even "probably".

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Nov 13, 2006 -> 03:28 PM) When we talk about Africa in my MBA classes, most people (at least academia) don't see that as a good market for a little while yet, because of the stories that are listed above... When I say future, in this case, I don't mean 10 years. I mean much further out. For now, yes, for most industries, business investment in Africa is just too risky.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Nov 13, 2006 -> 03:27 PM) What the Dems want (at least the hard-left) is Murtha. What should happen is Hoyer, for many reasons. Let's wait and see. This is one of the handful of decisions that I'd call leading indicators of where the party wants to go (along with some of the legislation that Pelosi discussed).

You know, if we weren't in such a weak position in the Middle East (oil dependence, and not an albatross of a war), we would actually have the resources to save a lot more lives in Africa than we can elsewhere in the world. Plus, it would be an investment of many sorts. Not just for American business, but for the future - the next China or India could easily be an African nation. The more we are able to build up some of those nations, the better of we will be when those nations are self-sustaining. Of course its much more complicated than that. But there would seem to be much less active hatred in most of Africa, towards America, then there is elsewhere in the world. Our efforts there might be more likely to succeed.

I think the Hoyer v Murtha thing will be a way to see how the Dems plan to attack the Iraq situation - rapid withdrawal (Murtha) or something more gradual and orderly (Hoyer).

2 more Dems to add: Vilsack announced Bayh is considering

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 13, 2006 -> 10:32 AM) Ooh, fun. BTW, good post of what I was thinking on "moderate". I think most Americans tend to be socially moderate and fiscally conservative. Yeah, I'll start a thread tonight when I have more time, for a mini-election. This could be fun.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Nov 13, 2006 -> 09:35 AM) Just a question: how would you define "socially moderate" For me or someone else? For the purpose of this North-South party, you want to put it as somewhere in the center of the current population. That doesn't mean being in the middle on everything, though. For example, you may be for civil unions but for leaving the marriage question to the states (no amendment at U.S. level). That would be considered moderate because its in the middle of that range of views. But you also may be pro-choice or pro-life, and then have a stand on some other issue that is with the opposite party. As SS2K5 said, you need some variety of views, from both parties. So you might, say, side with the GOP on affirmative action and the 2nd amendment, but side with the Dems on abortion and gay marriage. On the net, you are a moderate. But the key, to me, is the financial angle. Fiscal discipline, running the government like a business, etc. EDIT: I just got a wicked thread idea. I think we're going to have an election right here on Soxtalk...

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 13, 2006 -> 09:24 AM) Count me in. Heck put me on the ballot. Cool. I'll run as your veep. We can be the North-South party.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Nov 13, 2006 -> 08:45 AM) It's my opinion that we will see a shift of power about every 12-16 years from here on out, until our "two party" system gets "overthrown". And by "overthrown", I mean that a serious crisis comes to a head where a serous third (or even fourth) party cleans out the Republicans and Democrats out of office. Why? Because both parties are too driven by power and greed. I think it's disgusting when a party did what the Republicans have done for the last 2-4 years - and the flip side, I think it's disgusting that the opposition party can scream, kick, block, and b**** about EVERYTHING the other party does, and the day after election day, say "we need to work together"... it's bulls***, and a falase pretense... why couldn't they "work together" before the election? Oh, because they have to have POWER before they can do that. That's the part of the system that I can't stand... it's not about representation anymore, it's about power. I definitely agree that a viable third party would go a long way towards getting things moving a little better. But that will be a serious uphill climb. If anyone would like to form a new party, which is socially moderate and fiscally conservative, I'm in with ya. Maybe we can call it the Yankee party, like the article had called that profile. I think it describes a significant chunk of America, and yet, its MIA in the political process.

Interesting Article about my kind of Republicans - socially moderate or liberal, and fiscally conservative. Unfortunately, due to the movement to the right of the GOP in the last decade, the closing of ranks in that party, and the decision to not prioritize fiscal discipline... that type of Republican has been phased out. This past election cycle seems to have been the death nail. I am wondering if this is the beginning of a shift in polarity on the topic of fiscal discipline. Over the decades, some issues have actually gone from one party to another. For example, for much of the 19th Century and early 20th, the GOP was the party of environmentalism and land protection. At some point, it shifted to the Democrats. If this Democrat Congress and any that may follow start reigning in spending, and keep taxes level or nearly so (or even cut them), and the GOP continues down the path towards idealogical priorities... with the Democrats become the party of the balanced budget?

QUOTE(Soxy @ Nov 13, 2006 -> 08:21 AM) Well, he DOES read and follow about 2/3 of the Bible. . . Maybe he crosses the two fingers that are over the New Testament.

I want to seperate the two arguments here. There is one argument being made about whether or not being sworn in on the Quran is somehow a problem. Its been suggested even that it defies the Constitution to do so. In this case, really, there is no argument. Freedom of religion is a huge key to the Constitution, and those same forbearers were smart enough to make sure that was clear. Frankly, if you are threatened by someone swearing an oath on a Quran or some holy text other than the Bible, then you need to go read the Constitution again. Rooftop, I am glad to see new blood in here, but you are simply way off base. Then there is the issue of Ellison having ties to CAIR and the Nation of Islam. This, to me, is definitely something worth discussing. If indeed Ellison has some sort of significant ties to terror-supporting organization(s), then that could be a very bad thing. So... who has some information they'd like to share on that topic? My understanding is that he was part of the Nation of Islam some long time ago. If that's all there is to it, then I'm not overly concerned. But is there more? Can someone show me? Please, on both sides of this very sensitive discussion, try to stop with the straw man arguments and intentional exagerration of the other sides' words. Let's try to stay on topic.

QUOTE(CrimsonWeltall @ Nov 12, 2006 -> 08:02 PM) I don't think it would imply it any more than swearing on the Bible implies an official will uphold Judeo-Christian more than the Constitution. The point of the act is to say that you swear to your deity that what you are about to say is true, so if the guy is a Muslim, a Bible would not be appropriate. Exactly.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Nov 12, 2006 -> 06:09 PM) Yea, it's all my fault. bastard.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Nov 12, 2006 -> 04:56 PM) We're just trying to add a little humor here. Nothing meanspirited on my side and I assume the same on PA's. We're just trying to make the place a little less tense with some of the snark that has been in here. QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Nov 12, 2006 -> 05:01 PM) mine was mean spirited, but you made me laugh, so I take it back Cool. Its been quite some time since we had to close a thread in here, and I'd like to keep the streak alive.

I'd rather not close this thread, given its topical. Anyone have anything to add re: the agenda and the new Congress?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Nov 12, 2006 -> 03:44 PM) Yea. It's all my fault. The victim thing gets old, Kap. I was trying to steer the thread away from the partisan B.S.

religion evil religion = favorite tool of evil

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Nov 11, 2006 -> 06:06 PM) It would be naive to think that the majority of pornographic images were taken for the significant financial benefit of the person that appears in the images. Certainly there are plenty of women who choose to take their clothes off on their own accord and make a great money, however, my estimation is that's probably the minority by an incredibly disproportionate amount. So yes, if you find nothing morally bankrupt with looking at nude women taking their clothes off as long as their getting VERY WELL compensated for this, then sure, have at it. We know this isn't the case most of the time. I won't sit here and claim the moral high ground, or at least perfection. I know first hand what is out there and the ease of access to that stuff. The evidence is there to show that pornographic images destroy marriages and many time is the gateway to sexual related crimes. Not only do I believe that pornography is not just a bad thing to ingest for the viewer, but think about the person who is being photographed. I'm not talking about those who make thousands of dollars off of their nudity, etc, these people are business minded women/men/other who justify their actions to make a living (a different argument for another time). I'm thinking about the people who are suckered into taking their clothes off for chump change, or lured to believe that "this will be their ticket to star dome", or simply forced to pose or they'll be x, y, or z by the photographer. So ask yourself the next time you're looking at these girls/guys/other, am I supporting the abuse of that person? whether its physical, emotional, financial abuse depends, but the point is there. I'm not saying "I'm right" and "you're wrong." I'm saying that people don't think about it. They don't think about the people it effects, whether it's themselves, someone close to them, or a person on the other side of the world making dimes to humiliate themselves. That's what I think about that...since you asked. I'd like to see some evidence that porn is a gateway to sex crimes. And not just someone saying "most sex offenders have viewed porn", because frankly, that's like saying "most bus drivers have viewed porn". Has anyone ever produced a compelling theory backed by evidence showing causality? I doubt it. But I'm willing to be shown otherwise.

Jeez. I try to make a post about a positive channel for Bush, Congress and both parties, and yet somehow it becomes about Dems and Reps again. I guarantee that numerous Congresspeople (though not all, or even most, I'd bet) are stomping all over the rules right now, in BOTH parties. This isn't a party-specific thing. Bush has a chance here to be that "uniter" he has always claimed to be. Let's see if he's capable of living up to his word.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 10, 2006 -> 08:42 PM) But no matter what, because they have the ability to create the laws of the nation, Congress will be the group regulating that organization. The fact is, if you have a one-party rule system and that party is insistent on castrating whatever oversight board there is because they've decided that anyone who finds them corrupt hates baseball, apple pie, chevrolet, and America, there will be no way around it, they'll be able to neuter that investigative body. The House/Senate ethics committees work fine...if you don't have a party which has decided that any ethics body is going to focus on them and therefore the ethics process is an enemy. And no matter what you create, it is just a matter of how determined the party in power is; the Congress has enough power that they'll be able to kill oversight if that's what they want to do. If there was an independent committee of investigation for the last 2 years, all they'd have done is push through a rider on some bill stripping it of some key power in order to shut it down. I for one don't see how anything you could design would actually work better than the current system, in that it would always be subject to the whims of any corrupt supermajority. The one nice thing about having it be a part of Congress was that the minority could actually prevent it from reaching quorum and therefore prevent it from actually killing the whole process; it was all just delayed instead of dead. If it was something created by law, then a simple majority in Congress and the presidency would have been enough to kill investigations. Because of the way the ethics committee was constructed, a shutdown was not equivalent to a total neutering, which was a positive. There is a difference between creating an agency and controlling it. If Congress actually allowed for the creation of an agency within either the judicial or executive branch, under their control, then the only way Congress could screw with it is if it failed to give it any money. And that would be right out there for the world to see. So I do think an external enforcement body is very much possible - its just a question of whether or not Congress is willing to give up the control. One way Bush could get himself some positive feedback from the public is if he created the agency by executive order, and then dared Congress to vote it down. Or, pushed it through in the lame duck Congress. Either way, he puts Congress on the spot.