Tue, Jul 29, 2014, 7:27 PM EDT - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

% | $
Click the to save as a favorite.

Frontline Ltd. Message Board

SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Hi Mr. Rott,

    From your post: "I'm betting that your own municipality doesn't even do that."
    ---------------------------------------
    You would lose that bet. We vote on how we run our town in our annual meeting.

    The political parties fight it tooth and nail. They hate having the citizen usurp "their" God given power. Go figure.

    Every other year a bill comes up trying to make the town management more autonomous. Every other year a bill comes up trying to allow people to vote in our elections that don't actually even live here.

    So far, we have been effective in blocking these folks overwhelmingly.

    They don't like this because a minority cannot tell the majority how they have to live.

    It's a battle being waged all over the country.

    The way the trend is going today, I expect with time, we shall lose.

    Just my take.

    Best of luck,

    Power to the citizens,

    Barbershores

  • nikk I agree with you but.... take things that are stalled forever in Congress that seem to have no time limit by the elected officials like immigration or min wage or a hwy bill. Maybe the most important thing to vote on would be a military action. If the Pres and Congress got us into a situation then a required vote to support it or withdraw by the majority would be a nice safe guard?

    Time does not bother on such a vote by majority on some issues as does how easy the American public can be led to believe what is false. Clearly both parties are skilled as Lies and misdirection or having their own facts. The idea of an elected official who is somewhat "smarter" than the average voter I think was the idea but given some of the idiots in office or the ones who must play a fool to stay in office or out right bought and paid for maybe just having the whole mob show up to vote might do the nation less harm in the long run.

    Most cities and counties do bring big bond issue projects to the public and other "hot potatoes" or those that grow into them. The size of Police Dept what type of garbage trucks, who to buy sewer lines from may not be something you want just anyone voting on but maybe rely on public hearings by experts instead of the closed counsel meeting where the city engineers job is on the line if he does not suggest who is giving the most to the mayor. Lots of ways to improve the way we do Gov on all levels but most folks just do not care enough to even go vote would be my bet.

  • "In a democracy, a true democracy, every citizen gets to vote on each issue. "

    Functionally unworkable, both from a management and timing standpoints. I'm betting that your own municipality doesn't even do that. Then you throw in county/parish, state and federal. The workload to stay up to date on all of issues at hand would reduce our GDP to near nil because that's all we would be doing. It would be complete grid lock.

  • Mr. shores the courts have been political since our nation began so nothing new in How things are done.
    It appears to me given my limited life experience that the Parties are more divided and more demanding because of the divide and that is also reflected in whom is considered for a judgeship. Some time a single issue such as abortion will make or break a person attempt at office (either way) However as I have not lived but a short period of our nations history I can not say such division or party control is a new thing and given we had a civil war perhaps it is not that new in how much divided we are as a people.

    While I dislike the two party system or now two within the GOP and one in the Demo and how dysfunctional it has driven our country the idea of allowing or requiring a vote of the masses before the Gov. could act is simply impractical and would cause our country to be a laughing stock even more than it is today.

    I would support a vote to use arms of force by the majority to "continue or start a conflict" that a president and both houses had agreed on like Iraq. Immigration would be worth of a vote as well as would a default of the Gov or even a shut down of the Gov to tell politicians where the boundaries are that their jobs are demanded to reach. Min wage, health care, globalization are other choices that could be put up on a vote of majority.

    Again each with choices like min wage increase yes or no If yes win then an amount would also be listed giving several choices to voters like 4 different amounts or % and time frame.

    You would I am sure end up with situation where a state like yours would vote one way and the nation another thus your elected rep. would have to support not his state or area but the whole country.

    The time frame would be the biggest problem and state lossing out to the nation would surely increase the divided nature of our country not improve it. Dangerous but different lol

  • Without going through my entire diatribe,

    My solution is to let the citizens vote on the bills before they become law.

    In a democracy, a true democracy, every citizen gets to vote on each issue.

    A republic is supposed to emulate that end result. But ours has been corrupted.

    So, I support democracy, even with all of it's faults it's much better than the dedrater communism we have now.

    Our current approach contains so much moral hazard, that my fear is that a continuation may end in fragmentation and may even come with much bloodshed.

    We need to change paths to one that the majority of citizens can support issue by issue.

    Just my take.

    Best of luck,

    Barbershores

  • Mr. Rogere,

    Both the article and my posting point out that it is both the democrat and republican parties that are stacking the court system.

    As such, the intended purpose of the courts according to the constitution have been compromised.

    In this particular article, it clearly states that the reason that the recent court ruling went against Obamacare was because the republicans had effectively stacked that court.

    It also stated that it expected, that on appeal to the next higher court, the recent court shall overturn the recent court ruling, because, the democrat party has quite effectively stacked that court.

    If what was predicted actually happens, then the title of the article is correct. Harry Reid will have saved Obamacare by his changing of the administrative rules of the senate allowing the democrat party to effectively stack the courts with left leaning justices.

    If so, in this case, the democrat party will have out stacked the republican party.
    ----------------------------------------------
    My question is: Is this really the way we want our government to run? With our so called representatives in both parties shoving their agenda at every opportunity, and stacking the courts so the other party cannot stop them?

    To me, the end result of the matter the courts are deciding, is far far less important than the fact that the end result is the product of political chicanery instead of court justices adhering to constitutional law.

    That's my take anyway.

    Power to the citizens,

    Barbershores

  • Reply to

    OT BS alternative power costs

    by barbershores Jul 28, 2014 3:10 PM

    Hi Mr. Yezov,

    From my research of thorium power, uranium was chosen by the US government solely because of the weapons grade materials that were made available. So, all the development at the cost and blessing of the US government was using uranium. That became the standard. That is where the development was perfected. That is where the "approvals" were given.

    Several countries have been working with thorium. Results have been very positive. However, we live in an environment where new nuclear reactors are difficult if not impossible to build due to environment concerns and regulatory issues. Thorium just can't seem to get the impetus to really get going. Thorium isn't perfect. But, appears to resolve the vast majority of issues with uranium.

    But, in a world where so many are anti nuclear, building nuclear plants with a substituted radioactive fuel doesn't get us over the perception hurdles.

    Pilot/prototype plants have been built, the process has been demonstrated. It works. It needs more refinement. But, can we go large scale with a new fuel? I don't think we are ready today. But, with time, and changes, maybe it will be the way.

    If we can find a way to store electricity, lots of it, at point of use and point of generation, so individual homes and businesses can generate their own electricity on a constant output without connection the a grid for back up, we would probably be better off. The cost and inefficiency of the grid and central plant generated power could make up for the cost of on site generation.

    Just my take.

    Best of luck,

    Barbershores

  • "I'll go with the 320 million."

    That's very populist of you. So, what's your solution or are you the type of person whose forte is identifying a problem and walking away. I gave you my idea.

  • Mr. BS spare me the "I do not have a side" the fact you posted what you did and your comments about Harry Reid displayed clearly what your side is on this vote. You sir may not be registered voter to any party but you clearly by past post have shown yourself to very libertarian in your views and clearly a man who can and does vote GOP but still you fain NO SIDE? Come BS stand up and be counted instead of lurking and taking your shots then claim you never fired a round. What happened to the old BS who didn't mind showing his "side" to all. Your 5,000 Dow under Obama was wrong but at least a "side" you believed.

    ACA is the ONLY Liberal agenda I see that has come from Obama unless of course you count the "Liberal"
    eco views which has given us not a 5,000 dow but a 17,000 Dow and frankly I am glad for that since it has made me a lot of money that GW recession took away from me.

    The majority is alive and well and has spoken in 2012 and will again speak in 2014 and then 2016.
    A Side will win and you claim you will be one of the few American's who have no side in the results?

    You actually believe that or have you got so defensive lately that you feel only comfortable when hiding behind such a foolish statement. We all have a side.

  • Hi Mr. Rott,

    From your post: "So your issue isn't with the representative government but whom gets represented? "
    ---------------------------------------
    The short answer is "yes". But, what is happening is a stealth assault on the American people. The "democratic" party, is not a democratic institution. But, they use the name to give the impression that they are.

    Likewise, the "republican" party does not govern itself as a republic, but they use the name to give the impression that they are consistent with our being a republic.

    All of our past presidents refer to our form of government as a democracy. But, the real core basis of democracy has been effectively usurped. The actual definitions have been corrupted. The core concept in "democracy" is governance according to the will of the majority of the citizens. But, what we have, is governance according to the current power ebb between two warring factions of party leadership, each having only between 6 and 10 people. Basically, our country is being run by about 16 people, 8 on each side in a battle of red rover.

    Whom is smarter?
    The 16 considered party leadership, or,
    320 million American citizens?

    I'll go with the 320 million.

    Just my take.

    Best of luck.

    Power to the citizens,

    Barbershores

  • Hi Mr. Rogere,

    From your post: "You do not seem to mind the majority 2-1 decision against ACA"
    -------------------------------------------------
    I have "not" voiced any opinion on the recent court ruling. You have no basis to claim that I "do not seem to mind". The point here being, as discussed in the article, that the ruling went against Obamacare "because" in that court, the judges had been stacked against it by the republicans.

    Also from your post: "You want a democracy only when your side wins"
    ----------------------------------------------
    This is absolutely a false statement. For one thing, I don't have a side. I am not a republican, a democrat, a libertarian, or even an independent. I am not a member of any party. I don't see Obamacare as being an ideological issue to the American people. Of course it is an ideological issue to the leadership of the democrat and republican parties, but not to the most of us.

    If, on an issue, I find myself on the minority, and there is a very clear majority view, in my opinion we should follow the will of the majority. It could be that I am just wrong, or it could be that my position is correct, but out of favor. Regardless, the action should be with the majority.

    The point of my posting this, is to point out how corrupted our politics are. Where the parties suck up all the political power in order to cram their agenda on the American people, and attempt to block the other party from doing the same. If, in order to further their agenda they need to stack the court system with political hacks, they will do this.

    This action undermines the intended democracy, republic, representative democracy, and purpose of the constitution of the the United States of America.

    Perhaps you just think things are fine the way they are. Lately, we have been getting the majority of the agenda cram from the left, which seems to be what you want.

    I would like to see the will of the majority become important again.

    BOL BS

  • Reply to

    OT BS alternative power costs

    by barbershores Jul 28, 2014 3:10 PM

    Hi Mr. Dan,

    From your post: " If each of us simply became more conscious of the energy we use and made efforts to be more efficient, the impact would be huge. "
    -------------------------------------------------------------
    First off, I am all for efficiency. I think living a less ostentatious life is preferable to flamboyance.

    But, I am not sure what you think the impact would be huge on.

    1. energy use
    2. energy costs
    3. global warming

    1. energy use. If we as a nation, consume less energy, our energy use would fall. That, of course, is a given. But a huge impact? I don't think so.

    2. energy cost. If we consume less energy, our energy use would fall, and one would normally expect energy costs to fall, but so much of global pricing is controlled by Russia and OPEC. These guys are in collusion to set prices. The current administration seems keen on exposing the US to global prices as much as possible, to keep prices up to cause a reduction in use, so even if we were to drop energy use, prices will still climb. So, no huge impact on energy costs.

    3. global warming. Following the current conventional wisdom, global warming is directly connected to carbon-dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, there will be no huge impact caused by conservation . The reason for this is that we are generating carbon-dioxide at a rate of over 1000 times as much as the planet can metabolize.

    If globally, we were to reduce our energy use by 10%, a truly huge number, it would not have a particularly significant effect on carbon-dioxide concentration increases. Because, we would still be generating carbon-dioxide at a rate of over 900 times the level that the planet can metabolize. Sure, there would be a lot of cheering and back slapping with our success, but the practical realities would be that the concentration would still be building in the atmosphere at about the same rate. Global warming "would not" be stopped.

    Just my take.

    Best of luck,

    Barbershores

  • So your issue isn't with the representative government but whom gets represented?

    The Citizens United case threw alot of the old rules/guide;lines out the window. The fix seems rather simple to me. Only voters should be able to give to campaigns and only to candidates whom they would be represented by. General inform ads would be cut off a month or two prior to the election.

  • Reply to

    OT BS alternative power costs

    by barbershores Jul 28, 2014 3:10 PM

    Mr. Shores,
    I've heard of the element, but have never heard or read of thorium being used for power generation. If the tech exists to make it feasible I wonder why it is not being promoted by the power industry.....maybe because NG is available and much cheaper to construct for.
    Sounds like a good proposal for negotiators over Iran's nuke program.

  • "If you actually believe we live in a democracy, you are living your life with your eyes closed.'
    Mr. Shores,
    yes, so true.
    Over the past fifty years, both parties have moved from common ground to partisan tactics . The dems over the years, in my opinion, have radicalized their party by moving too far to the left causing the GOP to move further to the right, leaving a no ,man's land in the middle.
    The current president and his predecessors have not helped. Eventually the nation may split.

  • Giroux in an effort to be fair the south has always been poorer than other area's of the USA and this do to how folks lived (rural) and how the states developed or remain the same after civil war. South very racist so cheap black labor meant cheaper white labor pay as well. South both Demo and GOP ruled by folks with money and have been pro business and pro money and anti labor rights thus keeping labor wages down and again until 60's the law allowed less pay for blacks than whites for same job and less pay to whites or black get your job. Demo's ran the south in the 60's so do not blame GOP for that part of history. The rich whites merely swapped parties starting in the late 60's as demo's went for civil rights and all means possible has been used since to keep pay low and profits high.

    Some area's of the West has same patterns (NM, Az,col) where Hispanic were used for cheap labor.
    Texas has both Hispanic and black cheap labor but unlike most of the rest of the south has a lot of industry which pushed up labor wages.

    Both parties over the last 100 years have been anti labor and pro capital but clearly starting with FDR we see the Demo party being the party of the working man and the common folk with SS, labor laws, safety laws which protect and help the worker. Many in the Tea Party have benefitted from these "liberal" laws and take the benefits and hate the party that gave it to them lol.

  • Hi Mr. Rott,

    From your post: "If you recite the Pledge of Allegence you'll find that the US is a republic. "
    ------------------------------
    This is inconsistent with my view point. Another name for the classical republic, is a representative democracy. However, we don't have that.

    In a republic, aka representative democracy, the citizens vote for a representative to represent their, the citizens, view point. This function has been hijacked by political parties. When a citizen votes for say a US senator for their state, that senator "does not" represent that citizen. Instead, that senator now votes for the source of their success in that election. That is the political party that has a bazillion canvassers out giving and getting signatures, and provides a bazillion dollars to the campaign.

    What comes through, instead of the view of the citizen, is the agenda of the party that got that senator elected. So, coming into the election, that senatorial candidate must align with party agenda, and stay aligned, or the party will not support that candidate.

    This is the cause of the polarization of politics in America.

    The citizens are far far less polar than our elected officials, because, most of us aren't staunch conservatives, or staunch liberals.

    However, the view of the majority is constantly thrown under the bus. Because, our so called representatives, in representing their parties, vote according to their personal views, party ideology, and specific party agenda, and in no way represent the wishes of their constituents.

    The absolute best indication of this, is how the leadership of each party puts so much effort into stacking the court system.

    This action by the political parties, has all but killed the US constitution.

    So, since in my opinion, only a small percentage of the population are able to see the reality of the impact of party politics, when an article comes out demonstrating it so well, I post it.

    Just my take.

    BOL

    PTTC

    BS

  • Nah, they're all blue tie losers just welching on their debt....so used to handouts, just waiting for some new entitlement program or an "o" exec order to bail 'em out.

  • Mr BS once again you claim to be for democracy then you show clearly you are not. I would like for you to show me examples of when a decision of the court of appeals 3 judge panel is not appealed to the full court.
    You can not be so dense as to not know that is how our court system works can you? It is not Demo or GOP because they both do it and MUST if the decision is to be appealed to the SC unless in rare cases the SC can agree (by 5-4 at least) to hear the case)

    You do not seem to mind the majority 2-1 decision against ACA but you start to rant and rave the loss of democracy IF the whole court by a MAJORITY findings reverse the decision. Which democracy ruling do you favor? The case MAY reach the SC and if it does your conservative side has a 5-4 majority so maybe you will again enjoy democracy if they rule 5-4 the way you favor.

    Not so much about democracy or whatever you want to call it. What it really is in your case and mine and with almost ALL American's is does the decision, law, election, favor the way I want things.

    You want a democracy only when your side wins. If your side losses the majority feelings then you love a house of Rep. who do not at all represent the will of the majority of the people as the House of Rep ratings is the lowest of all. Lower than the Senate and Lower than the President. Your majority saying clearly throw the bums out but alas given the corrupt system of safe seat only new bums would win and that thanks to a SC ruling . You do want a democracy or republic you want to win as do most of us and try to find ways not to have to put it such a way that shows our on self interest right or wrong.

  • A couple of pre-coffee points;
    - If you recite the Pledge of Allegence you'll find that the US is a republic.
    - If the US was a true democracy we would have had a President Gore in 2000 because he won the popular vote.

    The rest of your post assumes that with a democracy there won't be any "agendas" when you know full well that there will be. There would still be people who vote for the loser who are convinced that person would do a better job.

FRO
2.49+0.05(+2.05%)Jul 29 4:01 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.