Texsox

I was thinking it may be interesting and informative to have posters follow a campaign and adopt a candidate. The main guys are easy enough to follow, but some of the small candidates always seem to have some great agenda items that get incorporated into party platforms. I'm not certain if we would have individual threads for each candidate, I know we are trying to avoid that, but maybe under this format, or even lock them like Nuke's diary.

I assumed that one of the campaigns alerted the AP, etc. to the quote, but I didn't consider the quote may have been planted. But you state a great case for how it could have been planted. And political dirty tricks have been going on forever.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 28, 2007 -> 08:36 AM) Like any other veto, it can be overriden by 2/3 of the houses. And my suggestion is less broad in power than a plain old line item veto that some have suggested. That is the first time I've heard that suggested and IMHO an excellent proposal. I'd like to hear the debate against, and how it differs from the usual things brought up in a straight line item veto debate. Gridlock would be my first thought. Then would it eliminate half the pork? And if one party would be facing having their pork vetoed, what would that do to budget negotiations?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 28, 2007 -> 08:31 AM) Another way to control this that people have suggested is line item veto power for the President. I think maybe a restricted version of that - budget item veto power. In other words, the President has line item veto power over any given spending item, and can say for those items he/she chooses, no money allowed. I'm uneasy with the Executive Branch having that much power. I see the benefits, but like any changes, there isn't a free lunch.

I don't think anyone is proposing that health care plan. I keep hearing choice has to be a part of it. The only ones who are talking about choice getting taken away are the ones opposed to any form of national health care.

And here's the trillion dollar question, place a group squarely in the middle of all this. Would they stand up and say, you have our votes if you cut this crap out? Or would they say, we need $150,000,000 for this road, a new community center, a research grant for our local college, and so on and so on?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 28, 2007 -> 08:20 AM) You're absolutely right. But I also don't hear Re-pube-licans running around telling me that they have to raise taxes to fund 85 billion pet projects either, during this next election cycle. Both parties disgust me, the Democrats much more so. Of course not, the Re-pube-licans will jiust borrow the money and fund their pet project. And convince you someone else will be paying for it down the road. Both sides suck. Pick your poison.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 28, 2007 -> 08:13 AM) From what I understand, some parts of the body hurt a lot more than others. I was with a friend who had her ankle done, it was her third tat as I recall, she said she will never get another, it was 100X worse than her lower back and *****.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 28, 2007 -> 08:08 AM) I Soxy. Don't we all . . . I have one on my butt that says Exit Only, in case I was ever passed out drunk . . .

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 28, 2007 -> 08:12 AM) What you are getting at with voting GOP because you want less government in your life, is why I have voted Republican more often than Democrat (for both Prez and US Congress seats) over the years. But here is the thing - if you pay close attention, I think you will find that the GOP no longer can say that with a straight face. They have been far too busy this decade telling people what they can and can't do in their bedrooms, who they can and cannot associate with, running up huge deficits and spending far more than they take in, intruding in their lives without the fuss of a warrant, getting all up in arms about the occasional nipple on TV (while ignoring violence on it), and stealing money from what 70% of the country wants to spend it on in favor of a war supported by only 30%. That's not less government - its more government. Frankly, neither party can say they are the smaller government party anymore. I hope one of them tries to regain that ground, but right now, I just don't see it. Amen And let me add, I miss tax and spend Democrats. Now we have spend and spend in both parties. Give me the golden years when Dems had to get past a skeptical GOP party who would shut down these spending bills unless they were funded. No one is guarding the treasury. Not only do we not demand they only spend what we send them, we demand they borrow a trillion more and give it to us.

Any proposal that increases revenue, no matter the manner in which it is being done, comes back to balancing the budget and the fairest way of doing it. I dislike the inherent dishonesty in a system where we pay dozens of different taxes. Too many are hidden here and there and we never see the amount. I'm thinking the dozen different property taxes, sales taxes, capital gains, inheritance, gift tax, and could go on and on. This also comes down to balancing our own checkbooks and the cost of living in the US. I agree that choice should be the part of any health plan. What is being left out are the millions of working Americans who have no choice. If we can put together a national health plan that is more cost effective than my current plan, I'd go for it. If we could put together a national health plant that helps small business keep their employees, that is a great thing. I have know through the years small business owners who lost some great employees because they needed benefits that could not be provided. I don't think rhetoric defines any group, you have to look at what gets put into action. I appreciate both parties for having a far ranging debate with many points of view expressed. I think in end, a better product comes out. I disagree with a small amount of actual laws and policies that have come out the past 10 years. I've disagreed with a lot of people's opinions during that debate. Focus on the end result, not the debate leading up. We're all about compromise in this country.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 27, 2007 -> 05:17 PM) Something like that. But honestly, I have seen enough of that crap to last me a lifetime. Unfortunately, there will be more of it. I don't believe there was any crap in the post you replied to. Sorry if you did. Like NSS, I am interested and concerned how we are fighting this war, in part, with private companies. This is the first time I've been aware of it and there are so many angles to explore. Are they recognized as an army, and receive Geneva protections, etc. What are their rules? Are there limits on prosecuting them? And I don't believe our government can enter into a project that will spend hundreds of billions of dollars and not have the financial interests of companies who will benefit come into play. And that is for law makers on both sides of the aisle.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 27, 2007 -> 04:36 PM) Be very careful what you drink in Columbia. Nothing on snopes, I was smelling an urban legend. That's scary

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Sep 27, 2007 -> 04:26 PM) I thought of you as I wrote that. " 'Socrates. . . What is Truth?' . . . 'Socrates. . . What is Beauty?' Not ONCE did anybody say, 'Socrates. . . Hemlock is poisonous!' "

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 27, 2007 -> 05:05 PM) OH OH OH OH BUT THIS IS WHY WHY WHY WHY WE WENT TO WAR! HALLIBURTON! BLACKWATER! DYNCORP! BUSHCO! Kapperbole!

Side bar log for the camp fire, nothing more, nothing less. This is where things get tough for people covering the campaigns. The candidates staff will prepare handouts with the speech, then they try and listen for any deviations. After hearing the same stump speech for the 287th time, they may be paying attention and catch a slip while somone else is just taking the campaign notes for it.

I'm not certain if this comment is pro or con towards Blackwater and the like, but why is anybody running a private business in a war zone? I can't imagine the logistics, even with all the official and no doubt unofficial help they get from our government.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 27, 2007 -> 02:28 PM) John Edwards will make Jimmy Carter a good president. That's all I'll say. And Ford and Nixon as well. Great point.

Are you certain it was Greek? I was thinkning perhaps Democritus, but searching through his famous quotes reveiled nothing. Perhaps Socrates? I wish I had more time to help you but I have to get to a meeting.

Keith Olbermann for those inquiring minds

I don't see the Dems winning the White House with any of their big three. Unless Rudy G. gets nominated. That's the only match up I leave as a toss up or slight edge to the Dems.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 27, 2007 -> 01:33 PM) And what happens when both of those are vetoed? First off, let's see if the GOP can talk some sense and avoid that. Then we'll see if the cooperation can extend a little further and over ride. But this is a step in the right direction. As Dems all we can ask is an honest effort at compromise, and based on what I'm reading, that honest effort has happened.

I wish I shared y'all's optimism that something like this could really happen. It's almost too perfect. We've had independent candidates win, it's how, and why, they would link together. It seems more likely we would have a big enough single issue (environment, immigration, defense, taxes?) that the public would pull them together. Not the more optimistic scenario, but more likely in my book. I'm usually the optimistic, elected officials are good, one here. Y'all are scaring me with the rosy outlook. But I like it. Don't stop thinking about tomorrow As I was going to hit send, I trhought of a way that SS vision could come true with a centralist party. Enough mainstream voters become disallusioned with the Big Two and the left of the right and the right of the left band together and find candidates that share that philosophy.

I love seeing this levelk of compromise. We're all better for it.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 27, 2007 -> 12:44 PM) I think the best possible strategy for a 3rd party wanting to make real inroads, would have priorities something like this: --Solid, simple platform (i.e. small government, socially liberal) - you can't have a 3rd party that is just "not like them" --Start narrow and deep - pick a few Congressional seats that meet specific criteria (record of recent poor representatives, no big candidates lined up, not a big money area), and target those few places to spend all your money, just to get a foot in the door. --Find a few candidates that are known names, and not necessarily nationally - could be local or regionally famous folks, that would garner loyalty That would be great, and easily the best for us, but would the public donate enough money to make them viable? I don't see corporations and special interest groups backing them with enough cash. And to borrow a Watergate era phrase, follow the money. That is one thing I loved about Newt's announcement. Straight to the money. Smart and practical. A combination of your plan and Balta's and a pinch of SS vision and optimism would be awesome.