Regardless, the system’s good. The abuse of it is bad. But it’s a great system. – Spirit of 1776 on October 16, 2008 at 3:16 PM

The best in history. So why the hell has any newly formed country other than us adopted it in the past 200 years? Can someone please answer that?

One should be more like the format that Rick Warren did, with questions that are secret and which reflect what Americans are curious about, not what any journalists think Americans are curious about.

The second should be where candidates point out their differences/strengths…like a debate, but with 2 or more moderators who fact check them as the event goes on. Fact checkers could be flagrantly Rep and Dem, as long as they know their stuff and can fact check their side’s opponent. That way, a Biden can’t lie his way through to a Stepanopoulos-rated victory and viewers can see who is trying to spin and who isn’t. It would serve to keep the candidates honest and eliminate a lot of the ”who won” crap once it’s over.

The current type of debate we have now has lost it’s purpose. We need change. Ha.

It certainly is the best system the world has ever seen

I wholly agree. Speaks quite favorably of England’s intellectual heritage as well I think.

Regardless, the system’s good. The abuse of it is bad. But it’s a great system.

Spirit of 1776 on October 16, 2008 at 3:16 PM

It certainly is the best system the world has ever seen, regardless of my preference for confederacy.

Actually, I’d really prefer an absence of government, but that’s another debate….. ;)

It’s a complex history, and simply saying “confederacy = bad, federal union = good” really misses the mark.

I don’t see your point. The proponents of the Constitution were called Federalists, the ones that preferred the status quo were anti-Federalists. Don’t take my word for it, that’s what they cast the issue as. We went, in their language from a confederacy to a federalist system. What we went to is a Union. States operating with one accord on issues that were bigger then themselves. Without that, we’d have had more wars similar to the previous French & Indian war.

They concluded that they needed to rebuild the constitution in order to strengthen the fabric of the confederacy.

They didn’t “rebuild” it. They scrapped it.

“states’ rights”, the fundamental vestiges of confederacy, which were pretty much annihilated after the States’ War.

Yeah, people say that a lot, but it’s not really relevant. The south started an insurrection (the war didn’t come after secession, it came after firing on Ft. Sumpter) and the Constitution gives power to put down insurrection. So the government acted within their power.

Here’s the bottom line: the states run up to the federal teat and do what the central government wants. You can’t blame that on federalism, if the states agree in principle with the national government. Blame it on the decisions.

Regardless, the system’s good. The abuse of it is bad. But it’s a great system.

Hannity should have moderated.

ROFL.

Constant Parrhesia on October 16, 2008 at 2:20 PM

Amusing as it would have been, we neeeeeeeeeever would have heard the end of it!

*eats*

The confederation was so bad, the founders concluded the very idea was fundamentally flawed if the nation were to survive.

Spirit of 1776 on October 16, 2008 at 2:42 PM

Not really. They concluded that they needed to rebuild the constitution in order to strengthen the fabric of the confederacy. The weak confederate bonds of the original Articles were identified as being responsible for the breakdown. Merely calling something a ‘confederacy’ and expecting it to magically ‘work’ is not enough, surprisingly. Given that America was such a radical experiment I’m hardly surprised they had such a snafu.

Even when the new consitution was penned and ratified, the architecture it represented was still essentially a confederacy. Pro-federalist influence was strong, and led to a far greater role for the central federal government, nevertheless, the principles of confederation were still enshrined in federal limitations per the 9th & 10th amendments – leading to the concept commonly known as “states’ rights”, the fundamental vestiges of confederacy, which were pretty much annihilated after the States’ War.

It’s a complex history, and simply saying “confederacy = bad, federal union = good” really misses the mark.

All COOL biologists have to sport a beard to get some kind of street cred.

Heh, I grew mine so that I would look older (Lots of grey in the beard) and be taken more seriously.

Marine_Bio on October 16, 2008 at 2:49 PM

Hey, you already had street creds with me! All this time, I assumed you were a marine. I’m not sure what I thought the bio part was — so much for non-spacey biophysicists — doh!

(Yes, he has a beard.)
Y-not on October 16, 2008 at 2:35 PM

All COOL biologists have to sport a beard to get some kind of street cred.

Heh, I grew mine so that I would look older (Lots of grey in the beard) and be taken more seriously.

LimeyGeek on October 16, 2008 at 2:20 PM

True, but the poles show differently. All most undecided needed is a reason to vote for McCain, and he gave them that reason. It is not that he “won” the debate, he gave many people a reason to vote, where Obama was basically the same.

“Why would the country be better off if your running mate became president rather than his running mate?”

Yes they want to play up the “inexperience” slant again even though Sen. McCain’s running mate has more experience then Sen. Obama himself.

A tad superficial, but if you’re happy…..

LimeyGeek on October 16, 2008 at 2:34 PM

What further facts would you like? The confederation was so bad, the founders concluded the very idea was fundamentally flawed if the nation were to survive.

Lab oriented disciplines like cellular biologists tend to be less flakey than the field oriented like marine biology, but I have no idea why.

Marine_Bio on October 16, 2008 at 1:52 PM

I think it’s like the difference between chefs and pastry chefs. (Pastry chefs have to measure their ingredients.) Cell biologists, biochemists, biophysicist, etc deal with things on a microscopic and atomic scale so they tend to be precise (or A-retentive) and more like physical scientists and engineers.

Having said that, it may be cliche but “some of my best friends” are ‘real’ biologists (animal behaviorists, ecologists). My favorite scientist studies chickadee language. Cool stuff. (Yes, he has a beard.)

Tried it, it didn’t work. Worse then not working, it was disastrous.

Spirit of 1776 on October 16, 2008 at 2:32 PM

A tad superficial, but if you’re happy…..