Psalm 109:8




"May his days be few and let someone else take his position of leadership."

Look it up if you don't believe me!!

On 07/16/10 06:54 pm, Vincent Parry wrote:

Psalm 109:8




"May his days be few and let someone else take his position of leadership."

Look it up if you don't believe me!!

IOW: Replace the person who's gradually figuring out how the system
works by a newbie who has to start from the beginning.

We should try it with our major corporations.

Perce

On 7/16/2010 4:20 PM Percival P. Cassidy spake thus:

On 07/16/10 06:54 pm, Vincent Parry wrote:

Psalm 109:8

"May his days be few and let someone else take his position of leadership."

Look it up if you don't believe me!!

IOW: Replace the person who's gradually figuring out how the system
works by a newbie who has to start from the beginning.

We should try it with our major corporations.

Eggs-zactly!

WTF is it with all this hoo-ha about term limits and incumbents? In
addition to the observation you made, it turns out that we already have
term limits, and a way to deal with incumbents who ought to be removed
from office: they're called ...

ELECTIONS!

(The *real* problem is getting $$$$ out of elections[1], which of course
we've done practically nothing about. Can you say "publicly financed
elections"?)


[1] Of course, the recent Supreme Court decision (Citizens United v.
Federal Election Commission) sends us in the completely wrong direction
here.


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

On 07/16/10 10:13 pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:

Psalm 109:8

"May his days be few and let someone else take his position of
leadership."

Look it up if you don't believe me!!

IOW: Replace the person who's gradually figuring out how the system
works by a newbie who has to start from the beginning.

We should try it with our major corporations.

Eggs-zactly!

WTF is it with all this hoo-ha about term limits and incumbents? In
addition to the observation you made, it turns out that we already have
term limits, and a way to deal with incumbents who ought to be removed
from office: they're called ...

ELECTIONS!

(The *real* problem is getting $$$$ out of elections[1], which of course
we've done practically nothing about. Can you say "publicly financed
elections"?)

[1] Of course, the recent Supreme Court decision (Citizens United v.
Federal Election Commission) sends us in the completely wrong direction
here.

Here is the proposal for political reform I posted in another ng just a
few weeks ago:

Hold a new election for all positions --

(a) A publicly funded election with a permanent prohibition of all other
political contributions, whether corporate or private.

(b) A permanent prohibition of political advertising by radio, TV and
print media.

(c) The public funding shall include the financing of printing and
distribution of policy statements (an agreed set maximum number of words
or pages) by each candidate to every household in his/her electoral
district (for elections to the House), state (for elections to the
Senate) -- or nationwide (for the President/VP). These could be separate
publications for each candidate, or they could to advantage be combined
in a single booklet to each household. Such publications to be in at
least both English and Spanish, and where more than x% (to be decided)
of the population of any area has as its mother tongue a language other
than those two, such publication should be in that language/those
languages as well.

(d) To become a candidate and thus qualify for such public funding and
get one's name on the ballot would require nomination by some specified
modest number of citizens and payment of a modest fee; both number and
fee might well vary according to the position being sought.

(e) Direct election of President/VP -- no Electoral College.

That should be a good start.

Unfortunately, most of it would be ruled unconstitutional. But now we
see all the problems with the "it-seemed-like-a-good-idea-at-the-time"
Constitution and its amendments -- or at least with the specific wording
that was employed.

Perce

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 23:31:11 -0400, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:

Snip
Such publications to be in at least both English and Spanish,
and where more than x% (to be decided) of the population of any
area has as its mother tongue a language other than those two,
such publication should be in that language/those languages as well.
Snip

Correct me if I am wrong, but I was certain that English was the
language of the U.S.A. Did this change?

On Jul 17, 12:03*am, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 23:31:11 -0400, "Percival P. Cassidy"


wrote:


Snip
Such publications to be in at least both English and Spanish,
and where more than x% (to be decided) of the population of any
area has as its mother tongue a language other than those two,
such publication should be in that language/those languages as well.


Snip


Correct me if I am wrong, but I was certain that English was the
language of the U.S.A. *Did this change?





You are wrong. The USA has no such designation.

You are welcome.
..

In article ,
"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote:



(a) A publicly funded election with a permanent prohibition of all other
political contributions, whether corporate or private.
You won't get that though. Many different courts of many different
ideological outlooks have said that this won't fly. That pesky first
amendment thingy.

(d) To become a candidate and thus qualify for such public funding and
get one's name on the ballot would require nomination by some specified
modest number of citizens and payment of a modest fee; both number and
fee might well vary according to the position being sought.
You most likely won't get this either. Way too close to a poll tax
which has been tossed long ago.


(e) Direct election of President/VP -- no Electoral College.

Until 2000 I probably would have agreed. We had enough trouble with
FL, just think what would have happened if we had to recount EVERY state
and EVERY precinct in every state. We'd still be at it.




--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

On 7/17/2010 5:09 AM Kurt Ullman spake thus:

In article ,
"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote:

(d) To become a candidate and thus qualify for such public funding and
get one's name on the ballot would require nomination by some specified
modest number of citizens and payment of a modest fee; both number and
fee might well vary according to the position being sought.

You most likely won't get this either. Way too close to a poll tax
which has been tossed long ago.

How do you figure that's like a poll tax? A poll tax is a levy on
*voters*; he's talking about a small fee for *candidates*. As things
stand now, candidates for many offices have to pay a nominal filing fee,
as an indicator of good faith, I suppose; I assume that's what he means.
As long as it isn't an insurmountable barrier to some class of
candidates compared to others, it ought to pass Constitutional scrutiny.

(e) Direct election of President/VP -- no Electoral College.

Until 2000 I probably would have agreed. We had enough trouble with
FL, just think what would have happened if we had to recount EVERY state
and EVERY precinct in every state. We'd still be at it.

Well, we do have these newfangled things called "computers", you know,
which can help count votes even when paper ballots are used. Should be
do-able.


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

Diebold electronic voting machines. You vote, we decide. Fair and
balanced.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...


WTF is it with all this hoo-ha about term limits and incumbents? In
addition to the observation you made, it turns out that we already
have
term limits, and a way to deal with incumbents who ought to be removed
from office: they're called ...

ELECTIONS!

(The *real* problem is getting $$$$ out of elections[1], which of
course
we've done practically nothing about. Can you say "publicly financed
elections"?)


[1] Of course, the recent Supreme Court decision (Citizens United v.
Federal Election Commission) sends us in the completely wrong
direction
here.


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

David Nebenzahl wrote:

Eggs-zactly!

WTF is it with all this hoo-ha about term limits and incumbents? In
addition to the observation you made, it turns out that we already
have term limits, and a way to deal with incumbents who ought to be
removed from office: they're called ...

ELECTIONS!


Nope. I'm in Texas. No matter how hard I work or how often I vote, I can't
do anything about Harry Reid or Chuck Schumer. Their votes affect ME, but my
vote has no effect on them.


(The *real* problem is getting $$$$ out of elections[1], which of
course we've done practically nothing about. Can you say "publicly
financed elections"?)

Nonsense. There's too LITTLE money spent on elections. Some wag figured out
we spend more on potato chips than we do on presidential elections. George
Will proposed three simple rules for campaign finance:
1. No foreign contributions,
2. No cash, and
3. Instant, public, reporting.

If a voter doesn't want to vote for a candidate that takes 95% of his
campaign funding from the rutabaga industry, or if the voter supports the
hand-picked and financed pawn of the Aircraft Propeller Manufacturer's
Association, he can make his decision based on the support the candidate
receives. If, for example, a voter sees that the Sierra Club (or the NRA or
the ACLU, etc.) promotes a candidate, the voter can easily make the
determination that a group knows more about, and favors, the candidate. To
the degree, then, that the voter agrees with the aim of the supporting
group, the voter can make a better decision about the candidate.



[1] Of course, the recent Supreme Court decision (Citizens United v.
Federal Election Commission) sends us in the completely wrong
direction here.

The Supreme Court held that people who have banded together and pooled their
money to support a candidate are exercising a constitutionally-protected
form of political support and speech. Absent that ruling groups as diverse
as the ACLU and the NRA could not support the candidacy of people friendly
to their cause.

A politician needs two things to get elected: support of the voters and
money. Money (i.e., "special interests") is the counterpoint to mob rule.
California, to a significant degree, is a "mob rule" state where all manner
of wacky propositions find their way onto the ballot - and get adopted. For
example, a proposal to limit the number of children in a classroom to, say,
25, sound good to the general public but may have profound, and expensive,
consequences.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

The Supreme Court held that people who have banded together and pooled their
money to support a candidate are exercising a constitutionally-protected
form of political support and speech. Absent that ruling groups as diverse
as the ACLU and the NRA could not support the candidacy of people friendly
to their cause.

And the law in question only was involving 90 days before a regular
election and some time before a primary. It also SPECIFICALLY reiterated
that it was okay to put caps on what everybody could give to the
CANDIDATES.

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

The Supreme Court held that people who have banded together and
pooled their money to support a candidate are exercising a
constitutionally-protected form of political support and speech.
Absent that ruling groups as diverse as the ACLU and the NRA could
not support the candidacy of people friendly to their cause.

And the law in question only was involving 90 days before a regular
election and some time before a primary. It also SPECIFICALLY
reiterated that it was okay to put caps on what everybody could give
to the CANDIDATES.

"Only 90 days..." The difference between 90 days and one year is where the
line is drawn. The court held there can not be a line at all, no matter
where it might be.

We have "Freedom of Speech," but the court has allowed differing
restrictions based on the content. One of the most restricted is
"commercial" speech, for example, cigarette advertising. The restrictions
which the court holds most suspect and on which they frown severly is
"political" speech. True, they've allowed SOME restrictions, such as permits
and boundaries around sound trucks and parades, but, in general, the court
has traditionally cleaved to the notion that polictical speech should be
almost without limits.

For example, some years ago a New England local candidate proposed a TV
commercial featuring a nude model. The TV station declined to run the ad and
the politician sued. The court held that, as a political speech, the ad
trumped decency laws.

As for money, the struck-down law permitted the NY Times to print anything
for or against a candidate, but prohibited me from running my own small
printing press with the same story. The court essentially held that "money"
= "press" and trash-canned limits on contributions.

I think the OP meant to replace the ones who had been corrupted by
power.

Incidentally, as to replacing experienced guys. The LDS church does it
all the time. Of course, we have the power of God with us. That (God;
Heavenly Father) doesn't need replacing.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote in message
...

IOW: Replace the person who's gradually figuring out how the system
works by a newbie who has to start from the beginning.

We should try it with our major corporations.

Perce

On Jul 17, 6:41*am, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
That (God;
Heavenly Father) doesn't need replacing.

That doesn't keep individuals from replacing Him all the time.

Stormin Mormon wrote:
I think the OP meant to replace the ones who had been corrupted by
power.

Incidentally, as to replacing experienced guys. The LDS church does it
all the time. Of course, we have the power of God with us. That (God;
Heavenly Father) doesn't need replacing.

Uh, so do the Catholics. In fact, all hierarchical religions do.

Jews, Muslims, Southern Baptists, most evangelical churches, and others
replace their local authorities regularly, but they don't have a central
authority TO replace.

"Vincent Parry" wrote in message
...
Psalm 109:8




"May his days be few and let someone else take his position of
leadership."

Look it up if you don't believe me!!

Why parrot your favorite hate radio hosts?

Vincent Parry wrote:
Psalm 109:8




"May his days be few and let someone else take his position of leadership."

Look it up if you don't believe me!!

There is a proverb that states, "the rod is for the back of those who
are void of understanding".



--
LSMFT

I haven't spoken to my wife in 18 months.
I don't like to interrupt her.

On Jul 17, 4:51*pm, LSMFT wrote:
Vincent Parry wrote:
Psalm 109:8

"May his days be few and let someone else take his position of leadership."

Look it up if you don't believe me!!

There is a proverb that states, "the rod is for the back of those who
are void of understanding".

--
LSMFT

I haven't spoken to my wife in 18 months.
I don't like to interrupt her.

I'm betting...there's a proverb that states...etc,etc, duh!

On Jul 16, 6:54*pm, Vincent Parry wrote:
Psalm 109:8

"May his days be few and let someone else take his position of leadership.."

Look it up if you don't believe me!!

ARE YOU RELATED TO PANCHO VILLA ?
MUST BE [;-)]

SEEMS LIKE THE LORD FAVORED DEMOCRACY WITH THIS PSALM EVEN BACK THEN

I AM PROTEUS

On Jul 17, 5:15*pm, Proteus IIV wrote:
On Jul 16, 6:54*pm, Vincent Parry wrote:

Psalm 109:8

"May his days be few and let someone else take his position of leadership."

Look it up if you don't believe me!!

ARE YOU RELATED TO PANCHO VILLA ?
MUST BE [;-)]

SEEMS LIKE THE LORD FAVORED DEMOCRACY WITH THIS PSALM EVEN BACK THEN

I AM PROTEUS

It's not my quote...what the...?

On Jul 18, 9:12*am, Bob Villa wrote:
On Jul 17, 5:15*pm, Proteus IIV wrote:

On Jul 16, 6:54*pm, Vincent Parry wrote:

Psalm 109:8

"May his days be few and let someone else take his position of leadership."

Look it up if you don't believe me!!

ARE YOU RELATED TO PANCHO VILLA ?
MUST BE [;-)]

SEEMS LIKE THE LORD FAVORED DEMOCRACY WITH THIS PSALM EVEN BACK THEN

I AM PROTEUS

It's not my quote...what the...?==SAY IT

YOU SEE A FOREST NEVER STOPPING TO REALLY LOOK AT THE TREES

I AM PROTEUS