NorthSideSox72

Whatever trade may occur involving A-Rod, the other team will inevitably stipulate in the trade contract what happens to that cash, one way or the other. No lawyer worth their salt would leave that to chance.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 10:31 AM) Wow, that's huge--so the 20% rate, does that mean that 1 our of 5 kids in MC schools are in the special ed program? That's going to be an enormous problem for those graduation rate. I'm not sure how it work in IN, but aren't special ed kids allowed to be in school until 20 or 21? So, to keep these graduation rates intact some of those kids couldn't be moved up until they are 16 or 17? Lawmakers seem to be so out of touch with the needs of special populations (or at least special populations with no money). I think the minimum age bump up is really good though. I saw an episode of Oprah (I know, I know) and I seem to remember them focusing pretty hard on IN about a higher drop out rate, though, admittedly, I don't remember what part of IN that was. Years back, the Denver Public School Districts, at the high school level, implemented a drop out program I really liked. Basically, for anyone under 18, in order to legally leave high school, the student and parents had to read a document out loud, and sign each point. Each point was something awful about leaving high school, like the staggeringly high rate of poverty for high school dropouts, lowered life span, rate of violent death, etc. The parent and student had to read each of these outloud and sign after each one that they understood the risks. That is of course a last resort sort of tactic, but, I kind of liked it.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 08:56 AM) sub a) Because of the new President standard the distinction between Federal and State power is practically non-existent. Katrina is a good example of this. Why was Bush blamed for not acting when the ONLY Federal response came from FEMA. Argue all you want about whether Bush nominated the right guy to lead that agency, but most people thought Bush should have 'done more.' It's not the federal governments job to fix every problem in the country! (So I guess back to the subject of the thread my President will understand his role as leader of all national problems, not state and local problems......but that'll never happen again.) This is sort of in conflict with your point that the executive is there to administer the policies of Congress. Congress created and funds FEMA, and the executive is supposed to manage it. Therefore, by your logic, the President (Chief Executive) was highly responsible for the debacle of a federal response to Katrina.

I have a feeling there will be a lot of close races come 11/7, and with them, a lot of voting controversies. The only good news that way is, with a lot of close races, some will likely fall each way, thus sort of cancelling out any feeling of national conspiracy. But, if one party or the other seems to win all the really close ones, watch out.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Oct 24, 2006 -> 09:38 PM) So you think that the porn industry that spends money and resources on dropping malware on peoples systems to direct them this way would agree to to be penned in to an area that they could be easily blocked by an extension. Good luck with that one. I think its irrelevant if they agree or not. They can agree and flourish (people will still go to their sites a LOT), or not agree and not exist. Their choice.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 08:15 AM) Hillary>Obama, at least according to Dick Hilary>Obama for the GOP.

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Oct 24, 2006 -> 04:58 PM) Must be my work computer. I just get the red x box.

Its amazing to me that this cannot be changed somehow.

QUOTE(CrimsonWeltall @ Oct 24, 2006 -> 08:43 PM) The legal system is getting too expensive. We should probably get rid of trial by jury while we're at it. We will save at least ten dollars per juror per day they would have been in court. Think of all the money we could save! Actually, I'd be pretty happy with removal of trial by jury. I think its a failed system. But that has nothing to do with $$$$, since you'd need to replace them with more judges.

OK, here we go... --Interprets all 10 amendments of the Bill of Rights broadly, erring on the side of the people (not just 1 and 4 like the Dems, or 2, 5 and 10 like the GOP). --Sees getting off oil and other fossil fuels as a high priority, national security issue on multiple fronts (military, economic, environmental). --Expects the government to be run like a business (see my previous posts on how to accomplish this). --Understands the dangers of allowing religion (ANY religion) to dictate policy. --Believes that the federal government does not belong in the business of marriage, or any other personal relationships, whatsoever. --Supports a balanced budget amendment (with a declared war exception). --Supports a Truth in Legislation Act and/or a Line Item Veto power. --Pro-choice and pro-child. --Wants to remove monetary influence from any part of the equation for election of politicians. --Believes in a strong national defense, but also subscribes to the "walk softly and carry a big stick" theory (as opposed to the "walk loudly and hit people" theory). --Pushes for much greater funding and prioritization of non-traditional military strategy (this includes overseas operatives, increasing the flow of both SigInt and HumInt, alternate technologies, psychological tactics, etc.). --Stop all financial support of any nation or government that doesn't treat its citizens with at least some nominal level of basic respect. --Wants secure borders, but also easier policies for LEGAL immigrants and NO WALL. --Sees and understands the realities of our current environmental problems and their consequences, and promotes things like sustainable agriculture and energy policy, protection of open space and water sources, and much tougher standards for emissions at all levels. --Reverses the course of the current, tort-happy legal system in some fashion. --Favors privatization of social security to promote solvency, and eventually, getting the government out of that business entirely. --Favors open trade and moving the country forward in global business, as opposed to being protectionist. --Sees the war on terror as needing attention on THREE fronts: tracking and the big fish, securing our own country, AND addressing the root causes of terror in the Middle East (this is the part being ignored currently). --Sees big business not as a great evil, but instead, as one of the country's greatest assets and tools for growth. --Understands that "going it alone" in foreign policy should be a last resort. --Looks to get rid of the IRS almost entirely, favoring simplified tax codes and a near-zero reporting need for most taxpayers. --MORE FEDERAL MONEY TO: Environmental concerns as above, non-traditional national defense, science funding for national security needs like energy policy --LESS FEDERAL MONEY TO: Waste (see business point above), social security, entitlements generally, pork (truth in legislation and/or line item veto), exploration of fossil fuel sources, IRS and other self-serving agencies That's all for now. Maybe more later.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 24, 2006 -> 07:18 PM) Huh? What's this got to do with anything? Should we rid ourselves of the entire justice system because we're not perfect? Let's just give up and let criminals run lose because of the small chance of making a mistake in convicting someone... I am not stating that I agree with it, but, the argument there is that the death penalty (unlike prison terms) is irreversible. If a mistake was made, there is no way to correct it. And since humans are flawed, we should avoid that permanent, ultimate penalty.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 24, 2006 -> 04:53 PM) Personally, I think that broadcast advertising time should actually be free and available to candidates on a limited basis within a specific campaign window. Outside of that, I think specific campaign advertising should be not allowed. Any issue advertising within the political window would NOT be subject to political advertising rates, as is currently required. I think corporations should not be allowed to donate any money to any candidate or issue whatsoever. I think that no primary should be allowed to be held more than three months prior to a general election. I think that any form of voting deemed admissible should have a paper trail receipt that is kept for recounts. I agree on all the above, except maybe a modified version of point number one. I do think candidates should have free TV and radio time, and that any other window for use would be very limited. QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 24, 2006 -> 04:53 PM) I think the electoral college should be allowed. This I'd like to hear your explanation of. What possible good does anything other than a popular vote do for a national office? Because as I see it, anything other than that disenfranchises some people.

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Oct 24, 2006 -> 04:52 PM) One of the funniest things I have ever heard: http://howtoprankatelemarketer.ytmnd.com/ They must really hate those red X's.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Oct 24, 2006 -> 03:21 PM) I really like Lisa Madigan, are there any whispers that she may run for Governor sometime? Lisa rocks. But I'll lay good money that she won't run for governor as long as her father is still Speaker of the House. That would appear far to crony-like (even though in reality, Lisa and Michael are different politically).

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 24, 2006 -> 02:38 PM) So in other words, you have no problem at all with the current system, because that is exactly how it works. There are some small details that are different, but you're telling me you have no problem with the general principle. I totally disagree. I have no problem with the rules I set out. If those are the current rules, then I completely agree with them too. But, if those are the current rules, then they are absolutely not being followed. If they were, then how are candidates raising the kind of money they are? The answer is of course they have found ways around the system. So, like I said, the system needs to have these rules made more clear and absolute.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Oct 24, 2006 -> 02:06 PM) http://www.sltrib.com/ci_4539917?source=rss President Clinton signs a law requiring some form of proof of age like a credit card number or such to access online porn or other offensive material. Your ACLU, that great protector of our rights is now suing to stop it. Shocking. And if you read the article, their contention as zero to do with porn. It has to do with the wording and how it might effect non-porn stuff. What amazes me about this is, there is a really, really easy fix... ".prn". Simply require all adult sexual material to have that suffix, and its an easy thing to filter out. Standards? Use the same as network TV and media. I'm sure there would be grey areas, but those could be addressed over time.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 24, 2006 -> 01:42 PM) But you're missing the one key point...the people giving the money will always, always have an agenda of their own. Especially when you get to big donors, they are donating that money for a reason. If you simply ban the ability of one person to give it directly after raising it from others, then all that person has to do is be the one who hosts the dinner with the politician where all his rich friends show up, which is basically how most of these donations work today anyway. And even if somehow you found a way to ban politicians from having dinner with donors, then politicians will still know which industries are their heavy donors, what their heavy donors want, and so on. If I'm working for an oil company, and I give $2000 to a candidate, do you think that candidate and their workers are too blind to tell where their money is coming from? Any system where people are allowed to contribute directly to a candidate is going to give you the same problem. There is just no way around it. People aren't breaking the law right now, they're following it to the letter, and still industries and wealthy donors are able to arrange it so that their voices are heard a lot more than mine. I haven't missed that point at all - my post addresses that. You cannot enforce against the donators - it must be against the politicians. And it has to be part of the deal going into office that your finances will be tracked mercilessly. And again, as I said, dinner is fine - its face time. Also, a hundred people all donating 2k is fine. I could care less about either one. If that was all it was, was $200,000 from 100 employees of Exxon Mobil (INDIVIDUALLY, it needs to come from them, not the company), then that's all fine and dandy. It won't be enough to influence them. And either way, its then a choice, not blackmail or such things.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 24, 2006 -> 01:30 PM) Seriously, even if you do all of that, including banning moving campaign funds between different committees...there are still going to be way too many ways for corruption to sneak into the system, politicians will still spend 90% of their time raising funds, and lobbyists will still be in the business of offering up campaign contributions in the millions to people who will support the bills they write. And if you raise the limits at all, it gets even worse. The only way the system of campaign contributions and lobbyists will be fixed is to kill it completely. There is no tweak you can make, there is no hidden trick, there is no magic fix you can make that will suddenly make the system un-corrupt. As long as part of a politician's job includes raising money from anyone, then the system will be broken. I don't agree. If Lobbyists raise millions, fine. Where does it go? Because if it ends up with a politician in ANY way, then make it illegal, and the penalty is forfeiture of office. Real simple. And I don't think raising money is evil - just leave it as raising money from the PEOPLE individually. This is really not a hard thing to enforce. I think that is where many of the current laws are going wrong - people go around them. The answers to that are so simple: make the laws direct and to the point and absolute, make the penalties high, and put an enforcement mechanism in place that will actually be used. Those are the missing pieces.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 24, 2006 -> 01:21 PM) Interestingly/Sadly enough, this is basically how the system is structured right now. There is a limit of $2000 currently in individual contributions to a particular candidate. Corporations are not actually allowed to give any sort of direct assistance to any campaign, including either money or the usage of any of a corporation's equipment. What basically happens though is that corporations and really, really rich people get around these limits by arranging along with lobbyists for donations from wealthy donors to be bundled...such that you can become a Bush Ranger if you can find some convenient way through either your employees or friends to get 49 people to contribute that $2000 along with you. There is also some ability on the part of candidates to shift money donated from one campaign to another once it reaches a certian point, through a variety of methods. And almost all individual campaign donations are already tracked and available online, at places like opensecrets.org. In other words, I think what you're proposing is basically the current system at the federal level, or if you up the limit to $5000, it's even less stringent. Then those laws need to... I don't know... BE ENFORCED. If you can convince 50 of your friends to donate, then fine. I have zero problem with that. Now, if you are talking about "shifting" money or anything that results in ANY more money than the 2k per individual going to anyone candidate, then the hammer needs to come down.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 24, 2006 -> 01:19 PM) 1. Someone with the balls of our current president but the brains of our first or 16th president (does that count as not using names? ) Yes, it does. NO REFERENCE TO SPECIFIC PEOPLE!!!!! That was what I was going for. But still, I like your other answers.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Oct 24, 2006 -> 01:15 PM) Ban all lobbyists from Washington. Lobbyists represent a special interest, made up of some part of the population. Politicians have a need to see what certain lobbys think, to fully represent the best interests of their voters and of the nation. Therefore, to me, they are a positive and need to stay. The problem comes in with the money - they influence with the dollar. That is the part you need to take out. To me, the answer needs to be almost absolute. Say, nothing more than the cost of dinner, per day. Beyond that, any spending MUST be from the annual donations as I noted earlier from individuals, or from government dollars given to all of Congress for basic business expenses.

Describe the following... 1. Your ideal Presidential candidate 2. Your ideal Congressional Representative And do so WITHOUT using... --Any specific person, by name or indirectly!!! --Any political party

My views... --The Electoral College, at this point, serves no positive purpose (but it definitely has some negatives). It needs to go. --All states should allow for early voting, thus increasing voter turnout and allowing time to handle various glitches. --Districting for federal Congressional seats should be handled outside of Congress, by an independent body. --Voting machines should all be electronic, but should also all put out a paper receipt to the voter, confirming their votes. ON FINANCE... --Individual contributions to candidates should be limited to a relatively low number, perhaps 2k or 5k per person. Corporations should never be allowed to make any contributions at all. Not-for-profits and lobbying organizations, same thing, not allowed to contribute. If corporations or NFP's want to get TIME from candidates, since they represent large swaths of the population, that is fine. By the way, this financing part isn't difficult to track. Each person (by SS#) contributes to a given candidate (who registers for a TIN as an NFP of sorts). The database can be scraped, and run against transactional information. Also, funds used for anything campaign-related need to be segregated and trackable. Donations by candidates to their own accounts can ONLY be matching to what they earn via government input or the individual donations. --TV and radio time should be pre-allocated for all candidates that can raise enough signatures. Candidates still need to pay for ads, but the time allowed total should be highly, strictly limited and balanced between all candidates. --Paper and in-person advertising would be no-limit. --Debates need to be highly inclusive, and then can be dwindled down later in some fashion. --Non-advertising campaign expenses (travel, food, non-marketing staff, etc.) can be done with their own money if they choose.

We (Kap and I) hereby request your ideas, theories and plans of action to reform the election and/or campaign process here in the U.S. The general purpose is to make the system more fair and equal, to put higher quality individuals in office, and to create a government more properly representative of the interests of the people. What say you?