Just an aside: I was reading today about an urban legend concerning the Seal of the President of the United States, that the side the eagle faces changes during war, towards the arrows; in peacetime it faces the olive branch. Purely a myth, based on the fact that it seems to be changed after wars. I think it's a great idea, though!
I'm an Olberman fan, he can be hilarious at times too.
PeakOil is You
THE Rush Limbaugh Thread (merged)
Re: Limbaugh vs Olbermann
by TheDude » Sun 22 Oct 2006, 23:32:41
-
TheDude - Expert
- Posts: 4896
- Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
- Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia
Re: Limbaugh vs Olbermann
by Carlhole » Mon 23 Oct 2006, 05:51:32
I've been reading a little Middle East history lately.
The latest chapter in the book I'm reading talked about how the Isreali Knesset is structured. And even though I'm neither pro or anti-Israel, I have to wonder how our politics in the US would be different if we played by Israeli Knesset rules.
In Israel, voters don't vote for individuals; they vote for parties. As long as a party can muster at least 1.5% of the vote, they can get seats in the 120-person Knesset. Any number of different parties are allowable.
In each party, members are ranked in a formal rankings list. If a given party wins, say, 30% of the national vote in an election, it's corresponding proportion of top-ranking members win seats in the Knesset. So within each party there is tremendous competition to be ranked highly. Thisusually means toeing the party-line rigorously.
(The book I'm reading did not say just how the parties actually compile their member-rankings; I'm sure it must be some complicated algorithm that only an Israeli politician understands).
However, in the Knesset itself, more than just two parties prevail; There could easily be 5 or more parties whose dogmas differ from one another significantly. This seems like a system that creates a real churn-kettle of ideas - exactly the opposite of the stultifying environment that the US two-party system creates.
The latest chapter in the book I'm reading talked about how the Isreali Knesset is structured. And even though I'm neither pro or anti-Israel, I have to wonder how our politics in the US would be different if we played by Israeli Knesset rules.
In Israel, voters don't vote for individuals; they vote for parties. As long as a party can muster at least 1.5% of the vote, they can get seats in the 120-person Knesset. Any number of different parties are allowable.
In each party, members are ranked in a formal rankings list. If a given party wins, say, 30% of the national vote in an election, it's corresponding proportion of top-ranking members win seats in the Knesset. So within each party there is tremendous competition to be ranked highly. Thisusually means toeing the party-line rigorously.
(The book I'm reading did not say just how the parties actually compile their member-rankings; I'm sure it must be some complicated algorithm that only an Israeli politician understands).
However, in the Knesset itself, more than just two parties prevail; There could easily be 5 or more parties whose dogmas differ from one another significantly. This seems like a system that creates a real churn-kettle of ideas - exactly the opposite of the stultifying environment that the US two-party system creates.
- Carlhole
Re: Limbaugh vs Olbermann
by venky » Mon 23 Oct 2006, 13:45:26
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', 'I')'ve been reading a little Middle East history lately.
The latest chapter in the book I'm reading talked about how the Isreali Knesset is structured. And even though I'm neither pro or anti-Israel, I have to wonder how our politics in the US would be different if we played by Israeli Knesset rules.
In Israel, voters don't vote for individuals; they vote for parties. As long as a party can muster at least 1.5% of the vote, they can get seats in the 120-person Knesset. Any number of different parties are allowable.
In each party, members are ranked in a formal rankings list. If a given party wins, say, 30% of the national vote in an election, it's corresponding proportion of top-ranking members win seats in the Knesset. So within each party there is tremendous competition to be ranked highly. Thisusually means toeing the party-line rigorously.
(The book I'm reading did not say just how the parties actually compile their member-rankings; I'm sure it must be some complicated algorithm that only an Israeli politician understands).
However, in the Knesset itself, more than just two parties prevail; There could easily be 5 or more parties whose dogmas differ from one another significantly. This seems like a system that creates a real churn-kettle of ideas - exactly the opposite of the stultifying environment that the US two-party system creates.
The latest chapter in the book I'm reading talked about how the Isreali Knesset is structured. And even though I'm neither pro or anti-Israel, I have to wonder how our politics in the US would be different if we played by Israeli Knesset rules.
In Israel, voters don't vote for individuals; they vote for parties. As long as a party can muster at least 1.5% of the vote, they can get seats in the 120-person Knesset. Any number of different parties are allowable.
In each party, members are ranked in a formal rankings list. If a given party wins, say, 30% of the national vote in an election, it's corresponding proportion of top-ranking members win seats in the Knesset. So within each party there is tremendous competition to be ranked highly. Thisusually means toeing the party-line rigorously.
(The book I'm reading did not say just how the parties actually compile their member-rankings; I'm sure it must be some complicated algorithm that only an Israeli politician understands).
However, in the Knesset itself, more than just two parties prevail; There could easily be 5 or more parties whose dogmas differ from one another significantly. This seems like a system that creates a real churn-kettle of ideas - exactly the opposite of the stultifying environment that the US two-party system creates.
True; there might be a diversity of opinion, but the weakness with a parliamentary democracy; coming from one, is instability and frequent elections; giving even fringe groups the power to make or break governments as they hold the balance of power. Its allright if there are 4-5 parties that can dominate the election; but it gets really bad if there are dozens of splinter groups each with their own agenda.
An answer maybe the system in Canada where the largest party gets to form a minority government........
I play the cards I'm dealt, though I sometimes bluff.
Only Man is vile.
Only Man is vile.
- venky
- Tar Sands
- Posts: 819
- Joined: Sun 13 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Re: Limbaugh vs Olbermann
by Carlhole » Mon 23 Oct 2006, 23:11:11
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('venky', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', 'H')owever, in the Knesset itself, more than just two parties prevail; There could easily be 5 or more parties whose dogmas differ from one another significantly. This seems like a system that creates a real churn-kettle of ideas - exactly the opposite of the stultifying environment that the US two-party system creates.
True; there might be a diversity of opinion, but the weakness with a parliamentary democracy; coming from one, is instability and frequent elections; giving even fringe groups the power to make or break governments as they hold the balance of power. Its allright if there are 4-5 parties that can dominate the election; but it gets really bad if there are dozens of splinter groups each with their own agenda.
What I dislike about the two-party system is that it tends to define all issues in black/white, yes/no, off/on, right/wrong, left/right, liberal/conservative, us/them terms - when life and politics are clearly far more complicated and nuanced than that.
Obviously, there is something very, very wrong with the US system just by looking at the demographic make-up of the individuals serving in Congress. Both houses are mostly rich white guys; especially the Senate.
I have nothing against white guys - I'm one myself - but the populace of the US is much more diverse than the composition of our elected representatives suggests. This diversity shows up also in the lack of diverse ideas that circulate in and from Washington.
I'm interested in the ideas that the Libertarian Party puts forth - but that party has virtually no chance of being included in presidential debates or being heard from a mainstream platform. It's considered a non-entity by politicians in Washington even though it is probably the MOST principled party of any ever formed and has probably the most gifted intellectuals willing to lend their minds to its positions.
I'm interested in what the Green Party has to say also but that party has even less chance of being heard in Washington or the nation at large than the Libertarians. And it is odd, since the ideas about global warming, peak oil, ecological destruction vs sustainability, population growth, consumerism, etc. are very powerful ideas which ought to be discussed very seriously. These ideas would seem to be a natural for the Green Party but that party can't seem to incorporate them into an aggressive platform and even if it did, it couldn't get anywhere in Washington.
If the Green Party had access to national funds (as a party in Israel would have under its rules), it would have at least a modest platform from which to bark out warnings about ecological destruction, our ingrained lifestyle dependence on foreign oil, the great possibilities for an American renewable energies program, etc.
As it is, the two-party system that we have in this country becomes deadlocked on issues every time almost by design. This is why we have this Limbaugh vs Olbermann type counterposition on just about everything.
- Carlhole
Re: Limbaugh vs Olbermann
by NEOPO » Tue 24 Oct 2006, 00:00:34
no no no no no!!! 
Olbermann is not the far left ......there is no real far left .
This is the far right calling what little there is left of the left the far left follow?
yer right though - the two party system seems to have failed.
Anyone get the feeling we are marching?
I guess it kinda failed when "we" can shoot our president and "lose" his brain
just part of the trance is all.......
Burning Beard
"It's just as I've feared. I have, I have come undone"
Olbermann is not the far left ......there is no real far left .
This is the far right calling what little there is left of the left the far left follow?
yer right though - the two party system seems to have failed.
Anyone get the feeling we are marching?
I guess it kinda failed when "we" can shoot our president and "lose" his brain
just part of the trance is all.......
Burning Beard
"It's just as I've feared. I have, I have come undone"
It is easier to enslave a people that wish to remain free then it is to free a people who wish to remain enslaved.
-
NEOPO - Permanently Banned
- Posts: 3588
- Joined: Sun 15 May 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: THE MATRIX
It'll be fun to listen to Rush Limbaugh now.
by Zardoz » Wed 08 Nov 2006, 11:12:17
This should be hilarious. He's been nearly hysterical lately in the runup to the election as the indicators pointed towards a Democratic victory. I've been checking in on him fairly often, and there's been a stridency and shrillness in his voice that didn't used to be there.
What'll he be like now? For that matter, what will all of those Neocon apologist media jackals (particulary the Fox News bunch) have to say about this?
I hope the Senate goes to the Dems just to see how the lot of them react.
What'll he be like now? For that matter, what will all of those Neocon apologist media jackals (particulary the Fox News bunch) have to say about this?
I hope the Senate goes to the Dems just to see how the lot of them react.
"Thank you for attending the oil age. We're going to scrape what we can out of these tar pits in Alberta and then shut down the machines and turn out the lights. Goodnight." - seldom_seen
-
Zardoz - Expert
- Posts: 6323
- Joined: Fri 02 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: Oil-addicted Southern Californucopia
Re: It'll be fun to listen to Rush Limbaugh now.
by mekrob » Wed 08 Nov 2006, 11:34:23
It will be quite funny. I'm not sure about Limbaugh, but I know Fox has only been around during the latter years of Clinton and with that exception, it's been all GOP all the time.
I want to put out the fires of Hell, and burn down the rewards of Paradise. They block the way to God. I do not want to worship from fear of punishment or for the promise of reward, but simply for the love of God. - Rabia
- mekrob
- Expert
- Posts: 2408
- Joined: Fri 09 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Re: It'll be fun to listen to Rush Limbaugh now.
by Fishman » Wed 08 Nov 2006, 16:54:28
Fox will love this situation. A nightly "see how these Democrats are screwing up while in power". That is if you feel Fox is biased. The folks on CNN (Commie News Network) were gleeful to the point of ecstacy last night.
-
Fishman - Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 2137
- Joined: Thu 11 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Carolina de Norte
Re: It'll be fun to listen to Rush Limbaugh now.
by AgentR » Wed 08 Nov 2006, 17:12:01
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mekrob', 'I')t will be quite funny. I'm not sure about Limbaugh, but I know Fox has only been around during the latter years of Clinton and with that exception, it's been all GOP all the time.
Rush predates Fox.
His show is much funner when there are democrats who actually have to propose policy and legislation for him to whack away at.
So I suspect he'll do fine.
Yes, we are. As we are.
And so shall we remain; Until the end.
And so shall we remain; Until the end.
-
AgentR - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1946
- Joined: Fri 06 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
- Location: East Texas
