|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 536 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 262 of 536:
| 
Nov 3 19:29 UTC 2003 |
Karmanos could take a 200% paycut and do just fine.
I would have no worries about flying with a 70 year old pilot, as long
as he or she has passed all his or her medical and competency tests. While
average aging of humans has not changed, there are long-lived, healthy
and very mentally competent individuals.
While I recognize that GWB did not win the popular vote, and I think he
is almost totally incompetent as president, I support the electoral
college system, which retains some State federalism along with popular
democracy. I think this is a useful "check and balance".
|
klg
|
|
response 263 of 536:
|
Nov 3 20:05 UTC 2003 |
(We see he's got you fooled.)
|
polygon
|
|
response 264 of 536:
|
Nov 3 20:09 UTC 2003 |
I also would oppose abolition of the Electoral College. However, I
would support a small change in the system, that one electoral vote
from each state would be awarded to the winner of the national popular
vote.
That would retain every advantage of the electoral college, while avoiding
the problems that would be created by getting rid of it, and reducing the
risk of an election like 1888 or 2000 when the popular vote winner isn't
elected.
|
klg
|
|
response 265 of 536:
|
Nov 3 20:18 UTC 2003 |
At first blush this proposal may appear to be reasonable; however,
there is at least one readily-apparent unintended consequence. To wit,
in an extremely close election, a la 2000, would not this modification
serve to increase the amount of litigation by the candidates since each
candidate's vote counts, even in those states where the outcome was one-
sided, would be elevated in overall importance? As a result, the
outcome of the election may not be determined for months (if ever).
|
jp2
|
|
response 266 of 536:
|
Nov 3 20:40 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 267 of 536:
|
Nov 3 20:46 UTC 2003 |
Of course there is - just the sums of all votes. It doesn't *count* for
anything, but it exists.
|
keesan
|
|
response 268 of 536:
|
Nov 3 20:54 UTC 2003 |
Why should people in small states get bigger votes per person?
|
gull
|
|
response 269 of 536:
|
Nov 3 21:29 UTC 2003 |
Re #260: I'd happily ride in an airplane with a 70 year old pilot, assuming
he'd passed the required medical exam. Of course, it won't happen because
airline pilots are required to retire at 55 regardless of their medical
condition, a rule that's unlikely to change for political reasons. A side
effect of this rule is that if you want to have a decent career as an
airline pilot, you have to start early -- so a lot of pilots in
lower-seniority positions are very young.
Re #268: Why not turn the question around? Why should small states (or, to
be more accurate, ones with small populations) not get a say in who is
elected?
|
scott
|
|
response 270 of 536:
|
Nov 3 21:33 UTC 2003 |
Re 260: Gosh, I had Republicans all wrong, it appears. I had thought that
they viewed people by their merits, not trying to legislate what jobs people
are allowed to have.
I say if a 70-year-old person wants to perform physical labor, and is capable
of so, who are we to tell him/her otherwise?
|
drew
|
|
response 271 of 536:
|
Nov 3 21:34 UTC 2003 |
The idea of multiple states was originally that each state would for the most
part run its own show, and that there'd be competing systems of government
and sets of laws. People were supposed to be free to, collectively, make
whatever rules they want, and individually, "vote with their feet" for
whatever society they like best. Having "larger votes per person" was to give
some protection to the smaller states from being overrun in the Federal
legislatures by the more populous states. Thus a section of Congress based
on constant number of votes per state as well as one based on individual
representation.
The Electoral College system is an attempt to reflect this compromise in
presidential elections.
|
jp2
|
|
response 272 of 536:
|
Nov 3 21:34 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 273 of 536:
|
Nov 3 21:39 UTC 2003 |
Re #268: they don't - but each *State* gets two additional votes by virtue
of being a member of a federation of states. This is called "State's
Rights", which are protected by the Constitution.
There are many institutions in our nation in which the votes are of the
States, not of the individual citizens. The votes in the Senate are a
prime example. Are you opposed to the existence of the US Senate because
it does not give representational voting in accord with the populations of
each State (as in the House of Representatives)?
|
klg
|
|
response 274 of 536:
|
Nov 4 00:54 UTC 2003 |
Mr. scott-
The question was whether to raise the retirement age, thus forcing those
older workers to continue in their jobs - not to allow them to continue
working; however, allowing 70 year old pilots to continue flying
commercial passenger airplanes is, in a word, risky.
klg
|
tod
|
|
response 275 of 536:
|
Nov 4 00:57 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
klg
|
|
response 276 of 536:
|
Nov 4 01:03 UTC 2003 |
No.
|
tod
|
|
response 277 of 536:
|
Nov 4 01:09 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
scott
|
|
response 278 of 536:
|
Nov 4 01:53 UTC 2003 |
Re 274: Ah, so you're saying that there will be sweatshops full of 68 year
olds, forced to work instead of being able to retire on handouts from the
government? I'm impressed; you're sounding more like a liberal every day.
|
gull
|
|
response 279 of 536:
|
Nov 4 14:43 UTC 2003 |
We're all just killing time until we get old enough to score a cushy job as
a Wal-Mart greeter. ;>
|
klg
|
|
response 280 of 536:
|
Nov 4 17:05 UTC 2003 |
(Keep calling me a "liberal" and I may just do something drastic.)
|
scott
|
|
response 281 of 536:
|
Nov 4 18:39 UTC 2003 |
(Since no real conservative would argue party-line points with such dogged
idiocy, you *must* be a liberal.)
|
other
|
|
response 282 of 536:
|
Nov 5 02:48 UTC 2003 |
klg is obviously an intelligent person with dedication to his ideals
so he must, by definition, be a liberal!
|
klg
|
|
response 283 of 536:
|
Nov 5 03:57 UTC 2003 |
(Anyone around here know the definition of "liberal"?)
|
other
|
|
response 284 of 536:
|
Nov 5 05:11 UTC 2003 |
Ask rane. He's the expert.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 285 of 536:
|
Nov 5 06:13 UTC 2003 |
liberal (adj). 1. Possessing or manifesting a free and generous heart;
bountiful. 2. Appropriate or fitting for a broad and enlightened mind. 3.
Free from narrowness, bigotry, or bondage to authority or creed, as in
religion; inclined to democratic or republican ideas, as opposed to
monarchical or aristocratic, as in politics; broad, popular, progressive.
illiberal (adj.). 1. Not liberal; not generous in giving; parsimonious. 2.
Narrow-minded. 3. Lacking breadth of culture; hence, vulgar.
|
tsty
|
|
response 286 of 536:
|
Nov 5 10:14 UTC 2003 |
dean combines teh best of mcgovern and mccarthy in a siingle loser-pac.
how amazing that the far-left-radicals still how so much sway.
cut-n-run and raise taxes .. in your face. what a dolt.
here's to mcdean ... enjoy disintigrating yuor democrats, it's you
yoru alst chance.
,
|
