SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

   PoliticsModerate Forum


Previous 10 Next 10 
To: epicure who wrote (20732)1/17/2008 1:01:59 PM
From: one_less
   of 20773
 
It should be especially unsettling to young voters that in America, rule by the people has been replaced by rule according to Special Interests and Lobbys. These groups, in turn, have become so intrenched that their leadership is subject to a stratifying layer of corrupt influences. When each special interest group begins scratching the backs of the others for the sake of political alliance we completely lose accountability to the people. The people become dependant on the group, rather than the group leadership simply being representative of the people.

To address corruption of government representation, we would also be requiring a major overhaul of these special interest machinations. If you understand the challenges and risks associated with such an endeavor, you may begin to understand why any pressure to return to civil nobility in government representation is largely ignored.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: one_less who wrote (20735)1/18/2008 4:25:16 PM
From: epicure
   of 20773
 
I don't think young voters care as much as we could wish they did.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: one_less who wrote (20727)3/30/2008 4:14:42 PM
From: TimF
   of 20773
 
It wasn't so unreasonable to call the MX the Peacekeeper.

Deterrence can keep peace, and indeed nuclear weapons where one of the reasons we never had open full scale warfare against the USSR.

I agree with you that "change" isn't a very meaningful platform.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: TimF who wrote (20737)3/30/2008 6:46:52 PM
From: one_less
   of 20773
 
It is not that it was an unreasonable application of the term on its own merit; it is that when you juxtapose the term Peace across the political venues of the day, there is a lack of consistency. The term appears to have been weather beaten by political exploitation stemming from the VietNam war era ... Much like we see today with terms like, terror, torture, and change.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: one_less who wrote (20738)10/28/2008 6:48:28 PM
From: Thomas M.
   of 20773
 
Remember a few years ago when tsigprofit was touting Dennis Ross as our hope for Middle East peace? I scoffed, correctly. Now Dennis Ross is the pointman in the Israeli lobby's orchestrated effort to box Obama into a war with Iran.

Dennis Ross Prepares For War On Iran

moonofalabama.org

Tom

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Thomas M. who wrote (20739)11/6/2008 10:53:27 AM
From: one_less
1 Recommendation   of 20773
 
Iran remains a wild card in the global deck as far as I can see. Their internal politics are complex.

This thread seems to have died but we are having some interesting discussions on this new thread. You should join us. It doesn't normally disolve into partisan bickering but no guarantees there as it depends on who gets involved.

Subject 57491

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: 49thMIMOMander who wrote (20695)1/17/2010 5:50:46 AM
From: average joe
   of 20773
 
"When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion - when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing - when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors - when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you - when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice - you may know that your society is doomed."

AYN RAND

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: average joe who wrote (20741)12/16/2010 3:01:56 PM
From: one_less
1 Recommendation   of 20773
 
like now?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


To: one_less who wrote (20742)12/16/2010 4:53:56 PM
From: average joe
   of 20773
 
Like right now...

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


To: average joe who wrote (20743)12/21/2010 6:08:44 PM
From: Skywatcher
   of 20773
 
Almost treasonous behavior by GOP senators for politics...this treaty is SUPPORTED BY EVERY SINGLE PERSON FROM ALL ADMINISTRATIONS WHO KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT OUR NATIONAL SECURITY

Republicans stiffen opposition to nuclear treaty with Russia
They insist there are too many questions and too little time left in this Congress to OK the arms pact.

By James Oliphant, Washington Bureau

December 20, 2010

Reporting from Washington
Advertisement
Click here to find out more!

Senate Republican leaders Sunday took their most aggressive stance yet against a proposed arms control treaty with Russia, casting new doubts over its chances of approval during the remaining days of the current Congress.

The top two GOP members of the Senate, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), said they opposed ratification of the New START treaty, which requires two-thirds of the Senate — 67 votes — to pass.

McConnell, citing concerns about language in the treaty concerning missile defense, accused Democrats of trying to fast-track the agreement.

"All of a sudden, we're once again trying to rush things right here before Christmas Eve," McConnell told CNN. "I think that was not the best way to get the support of people like me."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) quickly responded, saying he was disappointed at McConnell's decision.

"I know many senators, including my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who share the belief that this treaty is too critical to our national security to delay," Reid said.

Supporters of the treaty say its quick approval is necessary in order for the United States to resume close monitoring of Russia's nuclear stockpile.

There was one note of bipartisanship amid the discord. McConnell said that he and Reid had agreed on a deal to keep the government funded into March, guaranteeing a budget showdown in the new Congress, which will be partially controlled by the GOP.

Republicans are annoyed that Reid took time away from the treaty debate on the floor Saturday to advance a bill to repeal the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which ultimately passed, and the Dream Act, the citizenship bill for children of illegal immigrants, which fell victim to a filibuster.

In an interview on "Fox News Sunday," Kyl said whether the treaty received a vote depended on whether enough time remained before the end of session to consider Republican amendments.

"This treaty needs to be fixed," Kyl said. "And we are not going to have the time to do that in the bifurcated way or trifurcated way that we're dealing with it here, with other issues being parachuted in all the time."

Kyl warned that he would vote against the treaty if language in its preamble pertaining to a missile defense shield wasn't altered.

Democrats beat back such an amendment offered by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on Saturday, which would have effectively killed the deal because it would have required the U.S. to return to the negotiating table. They defeated another proposed amendment Sunday that dealt with tactical nuclear weapons.

Reid may attempt to file a motion to cut off Senate debate Monday or Tuesday in order to set up a vote before Christmas Eve.

Kyl and other Republicans contend the treaty's language limits the U.S. capacity to deploy a missile defense system in Europe. In a letter to McConnell on Saturday, President Obama maintained otherwise.

"The New START treaty places no limitations on the development or deployment of our missile defense programs," Obama said. "We are proceeding apace with a missile defense system in Europe designed to provide full coverage for NATO members on the continent, as well as deployed U.S. forces."

Obama also used his weekly address Saturday to call for the treaty's approval. Ratification would hand him another political accomplishment heading into the new year, along with the bipartisan tax-cut deal and the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell."

The White House continued to press moderate Republican senators to support the treaty.

Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), the Senate assistant majority leader, said on Fox News that he was still optimistic the treaty would be ratified before Christmas. "I think we need to bring this to a vote," he said.

joliphant@latimes.com

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)
Previous 10 Next 10