Yeah Jacmoe, I'm sure you know all about the typical "US American" and know that warmi represents the bulk of us. You sound like a bigot.Yet, so typically US American..
The worst kind of ignorance.
There really is a world beyond the borders of the US of A.
I have only one remaining memory of watching the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games in Atlanta from the other side of the world. It isn’t who performed the songs, nor what sort of stage show in the round thrilled the audience. The one memory I have is that when athletes from Georgia came out into the stadium, they received the second loudest round of applause and cheers, following only the United States of America.
I vacillated between amusement and embarrassed cringing for the audience. I realized that the majority of those in the state of Georgia, USA, had so little knowledge of the world that they didn’t even realize that there was country called a Georgia. Nor was there a logical disconnect about there being (in their minds) a representative team from their home state in an international competition.
Actually I didn't vote Republican last election nor I generally watch Fox News ( with some exceptions) so you are making the same mistake Jacmoe is making.johnhpus wrote:Yeah Jacmoe, I'm sure you know all about the typical "US American" and know that warmi represents the bulk of us. You sound like a bigot.Yet, so typically US American..
The worst kind of ignorance.
There really is a world beyond the borders of the US of A.
Edit:
Not to mention that warmi is practically alone in his pro-Republican/Fox News position on the forum. Pretty much everyone else from the U.S. who likes to argue in the off-topic forum would hold the opposite opinions of warmi.
Kencho wrote:Hehe, so the Iraq war was necessary because there was "suffering and pain" there, right? Now what intrigues me is why there's no military action in other countries in a similar (or worse) situation than Iraq's, like in a lot of African countries. Ah, I know. Maybe because Iraq people not only had suffering and pain, but oil as well
Anyways, these discussions are plain futile: Americans will look arrogant and non-americans will look ignorant of the true motives. So let's get back to the original subject.
Don't give me that Anti-Americanism in Europe Fueled by Ignorance.johnhpus wrote:Wow. Your entire post is so amazingly misguided that I can hardly find a way to respond.
Im totally in agreement with you on this one.warmi wrote:No, the war was not necessary at all .. in fact it was a complete waste of everything that is being wasted in a war ( starting with human lives and on ).
I truly wish this war was about oil .. at least it would have been justified in terms of well-defined national interest ... as it is stands now, it is just another stupid escapade in the name of freedom and some general well-soundings but useless BS.
It is called Generalization.johnhpus wrote:Wow. Your entire post is so amazingly misguided that I can hardly find a way to respond.
I'm sure that we could choose any country and find plenty of funny instances that make them look stupid. But the really stupid thing would be to believe that it factually represents the rest of the country.
With all the cuts in education in my state, and reading about all sorts of cuts in others, I'm kind of left wondering what we're focusing on. Right. You are a flawless people.KungFooMasta wrote:its funny watching/reading these meaningless incidents that people use to generalize americans. (alzheimers and olympics for example)
He's not even been president for six months yet.KungFooMasta wrote:Obama puts out a lot of good initiatives and tries to do everything at once, but I don't feel any sort of assurance things will get better.
No problem, Jacmoe. I quit smoking recently and that's probably why I'm feeling so touchy anyway. You're still a good guy in my book, no matter what you think of my fellow AmericansSorry, John.
Everything has a cost ... in this case the Endangered Species Act means it takes years and tens of millions of dollars to even get a permit to build something that can potentially affect any animal/insect or plant listed under this act.KungFooMasta wrote:He does have a lot to live up to, I hope he can cope well, I imagine hes under a ton of stress.
Thought I'd share something good Obama has done already:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29490531/
Not really a change people asked for, but a good change still.
Most probably nature.warmi wrote:Sooner or later something will have to give ...
I would guess from that that things have heated up a little there. I would appreciate local people giving their opinion on this, whether they have noticed this increased polarisation.From Sacramento -- California's dysfunctional Legislature is largely the result of a dysfunctional election system.
The system is geared to elect ideologues, not pragmatists -- liberals and conservatives, rather than moderates. That, combined with two voter-injected poisons -- term limits and the two-thirds vote requirement -- is what increasingly has led to legislative gridlock.
This isn't news to a lot of folks, although not everyone agrees with all of it, especially the two-thirds vote absurdity.
But a comprehensive report released last week by the nonpartisan Field Poll offers evidence that the two major parties in California -- particularly the Republican -- have been moving toward the extremes.
They nominate ideologues who easily win in November and contribute to political polarization and paralysis in Sacramento.
<snip>
"The fastest growing segments of non-partisans are Latinos and Asians," DiCamillo says. "We're talking about first-generation citizens with few ties to a party."
Another reason for rejecting the parties, the pollster says, "is the hyper-partisanship nationally and in California. Younger voters are turned off by the failure of politicians to compromise."
He adds: "You can't turn on the radio without hearing the flamethrowers. You've got the Republican cable network and the Democratic network. Look at what's going on in the health debate. It's all partisan warfare, not a discussion of healthcare. It turns people off to politics generally."
<snip>
Conservatists vs. Liberals
Getting into a bit of a political mood, I guess. Just some of the things I noticed recently.
The definition of conservatists and liberals seem to be relative concepts that differ among places and times. While reading some of the message boards on The Motley Fool, I began to learn what the current American society seems to think of the conservatists and the liberals.
It seems to me, on a very coarse level, those two concepts are linked to the two major political parties. Among many characteristics, the most intriguing ones, for me, was the convervatists’ view of the liberals being socialists (or “commies”) with the idea of a bigger government and the convervatists being huge supporters of individual freedom and small governments.
I spent the most of my formative years in Korea. So, to me, conservatists are those who supports totalitarian, conformistic views in which the bigger governments are a good thing. And you would be a liberal if you were fighting for your individual rights.
Maybe I am confused (I probably am). But it just goes to say that even the seemingly straight forward terminologies can carry different ideas among different people.
<snip>
Policy Recommendations
Few of the most fervent hopes of Proposition 140’s backers—or the worst fears of its opponents—have materialized.
Even so, term limits have dramatically changed California’s Legislature. Many veteran legislators and staff members regret Proposition 140’s effects, which include a decline in the Legislature’s research capacity. (The Legislative
Analyst’s Office, for example, lost a large portion of its staff, with the sharpest drop coming immediately in the wake of
Proposition 140.) Even the measure’s major proponent, former Los Angeles County Supervisor Pete Schabarum, recently
voiced his discontent with the results. Coping with term limits will mean compensating for the problems that have
arisen while recognizing the value of increased turnover and legislative diversity.
With this thought in mind, the authors make several recommendations about training, the budget process, and modifying term limits. As relatively inexperienced legislators take on greater responsibilities, training for new members and legislative staff plays a more critical role than ever. In particular, increased training in legislative oversight could improve the Legislature’s performance in this area.
The authors also conclude that the Legislature could ensure more stability and responsibility in the budget process by:
• Holding more joint Senate-Assembly subcommittee hearings to work out agreements in specific funding areas.
• Giving these subcommittees specific funding targets to work within.
• Reporting proposals from each house’s subcommittees under closed rules so that they are not easily changed in the budget conference committee. This former practice of “locking” budget items on which both houses agreed should be reinstated to make subcommittee hearings more consequential.
• Strengthening the Legislative Analyst’s Office, giving it a larger role, and staffing it at previous levels.
• Making chairs of the budget subcommittees members of the final budget conference committee to ensure that agreements made early on are adhered to more closely in the final stages.
Finally, the authors suggest amending but not ending term limits. Instead of allowing legislators six years in the Assembly and eight in the Senate, a new provision could limit members to 14 years of total legislative service. This alteration would do little to erode the gains brought by Proposition 140 and would allow legislators who stay in one house to learn more about particular policy areas and committees. Experience levels for Assembly chairs and consultants, which have dropped to very low levels, would rebound. Assembly committees could also perform their gatekeeping function more proficiently. Crucially, Assembly leaders who chose not to run for the Senate would have more time to obtain expertise and lead their caucuses effectively, and the Legislature as a whole could be strengthened in its budget negotiations and oversight action. This change, the authors maintain, would make the houses more equal in experience and the branches more equal in power even as it ensured the turnover required by Proposition 140.
Wrong Solution To Term Limits in California
By Doug Paul Davis
Let me make this clear--the Term Limits law passed in California is one of the worst initiatives that California voters have passed with the most unintended consequences since Proposition 13. For those who thought that Term Limits would produce more competition for legislative seats, redistricting has pretty much taken care of that ideal. Moreover, you have placed a huge governmental system and the eighth largest economy in the world (we've slipped recently) in the hands of rank amateurs. As soon as legislators learn how to actually govern, they are termed out.
This has forced an accelerated Peter Principle on California governance, because instead of doing away with career politicians, it creates a revolving door of mediocre ones, shuffling from office to office, because what they lack in expertise about government and their specific job, they gain in expertise on how to win political office. So it is actually the worst of all worlds--you have career politicians pushed into positions of higher office, rather than stuck in the lower level of the legislature where they can gain some expertise on how to craft legislation.
<snip>