Americans on the board...

Re: Americans on the board...

Who said the Patriot Act isn't dangerous? Okay, it's from The Onion, not Tom Brokaw. Still pretty funny though.

onion.jpg
 
Re: Americans on the board...

I was referring directly to violence on TV.. in the US its pretty open. Here in Canada of course it is as well. I wouldn't really say violence on TV doesn't affect violence in reality, as I have worked on some shows with Handsoff, a company/society that basically states otherwise with a mountain of those boring facts and figures indicating so.

But.. I know I watched alot of violence on TV and played alot of Insane Videogames, and even listened to Death Metal for a brief period.. and I seemed to have turned out fine, havn't killed anyone yet.
 
Re: Americans on the board...

oh jesus.. I just realized im getting sucked into this damn thread.
 
Re: Americans on the board...

[quote author=Jarred Land link=board=Offtopic;num=1088947258;start=255#261 date=07/07/04 at 13:04:36]I was referring directly to violence on TV.. in the US its pretty open. Here in Canada of course it is as well. I wouldn't really say violence on TV doesn't affect violence in reality, as I have worked on some shows with Handsoff, a company/society that basically states otherwise with a mountain of those boring facts and figures indicating so.

But.. I know I watched alot of violence on TV and played alot of Insane Videogames, and even listened to Death Metal for a brief period.. and I seemed to have turned out fine, havn't killed anyone yet. [/quote]

Gerbner is the big dog in this field, but his work took some major hits in the 1980s. It is not that violence on TV causes no effect, but that its effect is fairly limited to people who are otherwise vulnerable to suggestion. The connection between violence, TV watching, and ADD, which is new to research this year, is the first real window we have had to a model on how TV makes people violent.
 
Re: Americans on the board...

[quote author=Jarred Land link=board=Offtopic;num=1088947258;start=255#262 date=07/07/04 at 13:06:27]oh jesus.. I just realized im getting sucked into this damn thread.[/quote]

Heck, so did I. But if you keep your intellectual center, then you will be OK!
 
Re: Americans on the board...

[quote author=Slapdragon link=board=Offtopic;num=1088947258;start=255#255 date=07/07/04 at 12:41:56]

Profanity in Canada follows the European model rather than the US model, as do ownership of airways.  In Europe, political speech is fairly heavily censored (compared to the US -- compared to Cuba it is free as a bird) and creative speech is relatively free of censorship.  In the US, the bugaboo is over children and their reaction to TV, part of the liberal movement and efforts to control profanity in the media in the 60s and extending to the 80s (remember Tipper Gore?) so you could say the opposite is true.  It all comes from the basic systems and how they started.  I could do a dissertation, but the main issue is that profanity and sex is a no no on public spectrum in the US during the time children may be watching.  [/quote]

Yeah. Here the legal tradition considers political speech to be the most important form of speech to protect, and the prime impetus behind the First Amendment.
 
Re: Americans on the board...

[quote author=Slapdragon link=board=Offtopic;num=1088947258;start=255#258 date=07/07/04 at 12:50:19]

Actualy, in South Carolina, so am I.  Did you know here that misdemeanors are tried in front of a magistrate, without lawyers, and the arresting officer tries the case while the defendent speaks for themselves?

What is your area of practice?[/quote]

To be honest, NOTHING in South Carolina would surprise me. ;D

That's not unheard of in other places. The red light camera tickets in High Point, NC, are heard by a law professor in the employ of the company which makes the cameras. Needless to say, that practice is being heavily contested.

When I practiced, I did landlord/tenant, estate planning, and criminal (briefly). I'm taking the corporate executive route these days.
 
Re: Americans on the board...

[quote author=Tony_H link=board=Offtopic;num=1088947258;start=240#253 date=07/07/04 at 12:37:10]I've never met anyone who prefered the electoral college. While they're there, why don't you ask them why it's better. I'm real curious on that one.
[/quote]
The electoral college is vital and fundamental to our form of government. We are not, after all, a democracy: we are a democratic republic. The US is structured under a republican form of government (note: that doesn't imply the "Republican" party!) and as such, rights and representation are given to the STATES as well as to the PEOPLE.

We don't have direct election of the President (the only national office) by popular vote. We have it by electors, which ensures that the smaller states GET A VOICE. Without the republic/states system, the presidential candidates would basically be free to ignore a large swath of the country. They could focus their attentions on the most populous states, and the interests of NY, CA, and TX do not necessarily intersect with those of New Mexico, Arkansas or Alaska.

If we had a direct popular vote, it's possible that a candidate could focus ALL their efforts on, say, the 10 most populous states, and utterly ignore the 40 least-populous, and still win enough votes to win the national election (I'm making those numbers up, but I'm sure they're not too far off). Whereas with the elector/winner-take-all system, that insures that the candidates have to pay attention to many more states, and give some lip service to all of them.

The interests of a farmer in Nebraska don't reflect the interests of a record producer in Los Angeles, but in the electoral system, the farmer gets his voice heard. Without the electoral system, the farmer would be ignored as candidates would focus their time, energy, and dollars on the few states that carry the most votes.

We are a republic, not a democracy. Nevada gets two senators, and California gets two senators. That gives Nevada and its citizens equal representation as compared to California and its citizens (representing the Republic). In the House, Nevada gets three representatives, and California gets (what is it, 53)? The rights of the individuals are represented, as befits a democratic society, but in the Senate the rights of the states as a republic are recognized.

If you abolish the electoral college and go with a strictly democratic vote, you might as well move to CA or NY or TX, because the rest of the country will be largely ignored.
 
Re: Americans on the board...

Wonderful post Barry. Technically we are a democratic republic, but I thought you did a nice job of discussing the reason for the electoral college.

One of the most interesting things is there was no concern about it before the 2000 election, or at least not enough to raise any waves. At large elections have been discussed for a long time, but no one wants to make the change.
 
Re: Americans on the board...

I don't doubt that political speech is more restricted in some European countries than in America. However, I was here in America after 9/11 and I was in Spain three days after the Madrid bombing. Believe me, political free speech was alive and well in Spain (and London a week later). Yeah, in Franco's days it was a different story, but people in Spain definitely felt free to dicuss politics and slam their government. I'd argue that political speech is more hampered here, not because of government censorship, but because of a political climate in which if you have any criticsm of your own country, you're immediately branded unpatriotic, a traitor, hater of Americans, etc. Of course we're involved in a very divisive war that has people on both sides all upset, so maybe that's to be expected.

Artistic speech is definitely freer in Europe. The Office, as it aired on the BBC, could never air on the major networks here. Also, there are no Page 3 girls in my newspaper.
 
Re: Americans on the board...

And FL.

Had the electoral college system not been in place in 2000, the “popular vote” would likely not have turned out as it did, because the campaigns would have, as Barry so rightly points out, gone in very different directions.  Can I say how it would have turned out?  No.  But the results – the vote counts – would have been different, no question.

Any vote, any time, is a snapshot of conditions as they are on that day.  No one election would turn out exactly the same way twice.
 
Re: Americans on the board...

[quote author=Slapdragon link=board=Offtopic;num=1088947258;start=255#268 date=07/07/04 at 13:48:24]Wonderful post Barry.  Technically we are a democratic republic, but I thought you did a nice job of discussing the reason for the electoral college.

One of the most interesting things is there was no concern about it before the 2000 election, or at least not enough to raise any waves.  At large elections have been discussed for a long time, but no one wants to make the change.[/quote]

It would, of course, require an amendment, which ain't easy to do under the best of conditions. Every state is equal when ratification comes along, and the little states won't go for it.
 
Re: Americans on the board...

What in gods name is going on here? Damn, I go out drinking for a night and come into my office and login and this thread is threatening to oust Matts insanely long thread.

20 Pages long and TH and RK still havent said anything of any substance.

No. No you havent. Sorry.
 
Re: Americans on the board...

[quote author=Josh_Boelter link=board=Offtopic;num=1088947258;start=255#269 date=07/07/04 at 13:48:51]I don't doubt that political speech is more restricted in some European countries than in America. However, I was here in America after 9/11 and I was in Spain three days after the Madrid bombing. Believe me, political free speech was alive and well in Spain (and London a week later). Yeah, in Franco's days it was a different story, but people in Spain definitely felt free to dicuss politics and slam their government. I'd argue that political speech is more hampered here, not because of government censorship, but because of a political climate in which if you have any criticsm of your own country, you're immediately branded unpatriotic, a traitor, hater of Americans, etc. Of course we're involved in a very divisive war that has people on both sides all upset, so maybe that's to be expected.

Artistic speech is definitely freer in Europe. The Office, as it aired on the BBC, could never air on the major networks here. Also, there are no Page 3 girls in my newspaper.[/quote]

Well, here it gets sort of deep, and causes a lot of emotion. In the US, the ideal of political speech is that even political speech that most people would find offensive is protected, while in Europe offensive speech is generally a reason for censorship, if the majority finds it offensive. Now, I am not advocating the messages of these people as good, but in most European nations it is illegal to discuss or incorporate NAZI regalia or ideals in political messages. In Sweden, a priest was arrested and charged with a civil crime when he criticized homosexuality. Brigette Bardot was fined for making comments about a group of people who profaned a Christian church because the court felt she was inciting dislike of arabs. In and of themselves, each may seem like a good idea: who wants hate speech or people insulting homosexuals or NAZI propaganda? But the main issue is that in the US, the solution to these forms of disgusting speech is education and truth.
 
Re: Americans on the board...

[quote author=David Jimerson link=board=Offtopic;num=1088947258;start=270#271 date=07/07/04 at 13:55:23]

It would, of course, require an amendment, which ain't easy to do under the best of conditions.  Every state is equal when ratification comes along, and the little states won't go for it.  [/quote]

I agree that it is unlikely to happen, unless everyone, as Tony claims, agrees it does not work.
 
Re: Americans on the board...

I missed this one.

[quote author=Tony_H link=board=Offtopic;num=1088947258;start=225#229 date=07/07/04 at 12:01:49]
The Washington Post and CNN both said around the time that any way your figure (by popular vote or by electoral) if all valid votes were counted, Al Gore won the election. [/quote]

No, they didn't. In fact, the Washington Post said quite the opposite.

Obviously, a judge (a member of Bush's campaign) ruled Bush the new president, so legally he is, but not if you count all votes casted.
Click to expand...

NO ONE on the Supreme Court was a member of the Bush campaign. That's out-of-the-park absurd.

You can cling to the perceived "popular vote" all you want, but that's not the way it works.
 
Re: Americans on the board...

Dude. David. There is no hope. Forget about it. You'd be best to go bang your skull against a wall; you'd get better results!

Tough. Its like having a debate in neverland.
 
Re: Americans on the board...

[quote author=Tony_H link=board=Offtopic;num=1088947258;start=240#254 date=07/07/04 at 12:39:38]
Yeah, I used to get the CBC when I lived in northern Ohio and I was shocked to hear some of the language they allow. [/quote]

Interesting that you bring that up. I've heard that kind of language late at night on Toledo stations ('coz that's where I grew up). Sometimes they'd show movies uncut. Sometimes they'd show British television.
 
Re: Americans on the board...

"I was referring directly to violence on TV.. in the US its pretty open. Here in Canada of course it is as well. I wouldn't really say violence on TV doesn't affect violence in reality, as I have worked on some shows with Handsoff, a company/society that basically states otherwise with a mountain of those boring facts and figures indicating so.

But.. I know I watched alot of violence on TV and played alot of Insane Videogames, and even listened to Death Metal for a brief period.. and I seemed to have turned out fine, havn't killed anyone yet."

I don't know about that Jarred, you want to kick my ass ;D
 
Re: Americans on the board...

[quote author=John Hudson link=board=Offtopic;num=1088947258;start=270#276 date=07/07/04 at 14:22:52]Dude.  David.  There is no hope.  Forget about it.  You'd be best to go bang your skull against a wall; you'd get better results!

Tough.  Its like having a debate in neverland.  [/quote]
I agree John.  There comes a point when you realize this dog just ain't gonna hunt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top