The Use Of The Word "fisherman" Is Now Deemed To Be Sexist

[lee G.]

So why do we vote for them, Al? Riddle me that?

dont get me wrong, i agree with you.

[Al Agnew]

So why do we vote for them, Al? Riddle me that?

dont get me wrong, i agree with you.

Simple...about 95% of the time, we vote for what we consider the lesser of two evils.

There has only been one presidential candidate in the last 20 years that I would have wholeheartedly voted for...and he didn't make it out of the primaries. Let's face it, we are not getting the best and brightest running for office, and even if a politician starts out being honest at least, the process of getting elected almost always corrupts them. Most of them don't listen to experts on a given issue, and if they do, they only listen to the "experts" who agree with their political philosophy. Very few of them put the good of the country above partisan politics and getting reelected. And making sure their big donors are happy so that they'll have the money to run in the next election.

This is nothing like what the founding fathers must have envisioned. The costs of running in an election are so astronomical that the vast amounts of money can't help but corrupt the whole process. Back in the old days before radio, TV, and internet, the only costs of running a national or statewide election was in the train and other travel to make stump speeches, which would be covered by the newspapers of the day. The corruption was still there, but it was mostly illegal. Now, money equals speech according to the Supreme Court, and so it's perfectly legal to give a candidate lots of it...and expect access and favors in return. While the rest of us have one vote and that's it.

You want to change the political process? Make it so that only individuals can donate, and then only up to a very modest set amount. No PACs, no special interest groups, no corporate donations. Then take a few dollars out of every taxpayer's tax bill and put them toward financing elections, with an equal amount going to each viable candidate. Require that any TV or radio station that uses the public airways give each viable candidate one hour per week of free air time during the specific election season. Make the primary season start 6 months before the general election, and end 2 months before. No ads before that time. Each potential candidate has one month to achieve a certain number of signatures on a petition in order to run in the primaries.

Then during the general election, have preference voting. Each voter "ranks" the candidates in order of preference. If you really like a third party candidate, but you're afraid that voting for the third party candidate will take votes away from the main party candidate that would be your choice otherwise, this solves it, because you vote the third party candidate as your first choice, the main party candidate that you can live with as your second choice. You're giving your first choice two points, your second choice one point, and the other candidate or candidates that you can't stand zero points. Total points wins the election.

With all this, I don't think you'd need term limits. The incumbent wouldn't have a huge advantage like they do now. The problem with term limits is that it removes the good with the bad.

[On The Fly 6]

Simple...about 95% of the time, we vote for what we consider the lesser of two evils

All elections are between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.

[lee G.]

Al, that would be better than what we are doing now.

I dont see any way to improve the quality of candidate though.

[Al Agnew]

I don't know, but if you take the money out of it, you might bring in people who look upon it as an honorable thing instead of a gravy train.

[Feathers and Fins]

Al, that is part of it but even with term limits and spending restriction as you say it is still very profitable if the person even is in 4 years as they will do what the contributors want, and the politicians will because when they get out the kick backs are and will be there. That's why I have always said they should only be there to get Laws to a point the people can vote on them.

It strikes me strange that in local and state issues tax increases go to the voters for the most part, Like them or not agree with them or not at least the people have a the final word! There has been tax mileages I did not like or agree with but never complained when the voters voices passed them. It was done through the "WILL OF THE PEOPLE" and that is how it should be.

[Wayne SW/MO]

I'm offended, a fisher is a 4 legged animal that crapsnin the woods.

[Robert]

Referring to any person who angles as a fisherman is not sexist. We have become petty if that is the case. I find it hard to believe people fuss over things like this.

[Chief Grey Bear]

keep it going Brian. If you cross Lilley's line, he will let you know. A hell of a lot of folks concur with you, but don't have the guts to say it, to stay PC. The boat is tilting left big time, sometimes you need to move the weight in the boat to the right side to balance it out.

I guess Phil must have let him know. The post is gone.

[Old plug]

Maybe that is it chief. Then again maybe he disobeyed his mother and she took away his computer. .