General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2279318

    Different systems of government …

    Locked

    by jardinier ·

    I guess it is the Arnie thing that prompted me to start this discussion. No matter how well he may perform as Governor of California, because he was not born in the USA he can never become president. However (and please correct me if I am wrong) if he had been born in America with a father who was part African and part Arab, and a mother who was part Chinese and part Eskimo, he would be eligible to run for President.

    This seems an odd situation to me, as ALL citizens of America (except for the remnants of the indigenous Indians who learnt too late that “White man speaks with forked tongue”) are either immigrants or the descendants of immigrants or slaves. In fact of course it has been the input of immigrants which has largely made America the successful and powerful country that it is.

    But it is virtually impossible to change the Constitution. In Australia it is somewhat easier, although of 44 items put to referendums between 1906 and 1999, only 8 have passed.

    So please: your ideas for the “perfect” government, or the pros and cons of different systems of existing governments, preferably from citizens of those countries.

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #3365113

      An immigrant nation

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to Different systems of government …

      America certainly is an immigrant nation, but the same could be said for almost every nation on earth if one were to go back far enough. Even the indigenous Indians were immigrants, suspected to migrate from Asia into Alaska and down into what is now the continental U.S. Were they the first to walk those beautiful lands? We don’t know for sure. I suppose it’s logical to assume that some people were the very first to step foot upon the land, just as is true for every land. Then over the course of history, they were either pushed off or assimilated.

      For the most part, I believe, this era of conquest has stopped. At what point will the status quo be accepted, and the consequences of the era of conquest be no more than immaterial ancient history?

      Nonetheless, you are correct in what you asserted in your first paragraph. But I don’t think it’s as odd as you do. I don’t know for sure, but I would venture to guess that most nations have a similar rule for their top leader. Could I, for example, go to France or Australia or Great Britain and occupy the top office there? (A real question, as I don’t know the answer.)

      I’m glad the founders put that clause in our Constitution, and, In my opinion, it should remain. All of out Presidents have been born onto this land, even the early ones, although they were born onto it as British subjucts. Our eigth President, Martin VanBuren Was the first to be born an “American citizen”. If there’s ever an attempt to amend that clause, I’ll be quite diligent in my efforts to defeat it. It’s not “impossible”, by the way, to change our Constitution. It is, however, quite difficult. Out of thousands of attempts, only 27 times has it been done.

      More on my “perfect government” later.

      Great discussion topic, by the way.

      • #3365099

        I understand…

        by guruofdos ·

        In reply to An immigrant nation

        Former President Alberto Fujimori of Peru is actually a Japanese national.

        Adolph Hitler wasn’t actually a German, he was Austrian.

        Hang on a minute? Wasn’t Arnie Austrian-born? Not that I’m likening Arnie to Adolph…but perhaps that’s what California needs…a dictator who makes decisions and sees them carried out – or else.

      • #3542235

        Australian Prime Minister …

        by jardinier ·

        In reply to An immigrant nation

        The Prime Minister of Australia is selected (by vote of the governing party) from the House of Representatives. Requirements for becoming a member of the lower house, according to the Australian Constitution Act (1900) are as follows:

        “He must be of the full age of twenty-one years, and must be an elector entitled to vote at the election of members of the House of Representatives, or a person qualified to become such elector, and must have been for three years at the least a resident within the limits of the Commonwealth as existing at the time when he is chosen:
        (ii) He must be a subject of the Queen, either natural-born or for at least five years naturalized under a law of the United Kingdom, or of a Colony which has become or becomes a State, or of the Commonwealth, or of a State.”

        So there is no reference to place of birth, only to citizenship. However I will contact the Australian Electoral Commission during the week to confirm this information.

        • #3542205

          Guru for Aussie PM!

          by guruofdos ·

          In reply to Australian Prime Minister …

          Nah! Somehow I think not! Give the job to Kevin ‘Bloody’ Wilson!

        • #2737953
          Avatar photo

          At least then we all would have a very good

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Guru for Aussie PM!

          Reason to laugh at our Prime Minister. At least Kevin Bloody Wilson is funny, have you ever tried to listed to the current Australina Prime Minister one John Howard when he is talking at length on something? You just fall asleep he is really that booring that you have to excape into unconsciousness to get away from his boring monolog that is dilervered in such a draining voice that it is impossible to maintain interest. Now if only they could bottle his talking our PBS {for the non Aussies here this means the subsisded medical drug list} would be back in the black as it would never be necessary again to get any sleeping pills from your local Doctor.

          And it could also be used for adversion therepy if you don’t tow the line and do as you are told we will make you sit down and listen to the Prime Minister speak or worse still make him put in a personal apperance all 5 foot 9 inches of him and he is as good as deaf as well since he has been this way since early childhood and requires hearing aids to be able to hear what he is told.

          Sometimes I think that his hearing aids aren’t working as he choses to answer a question with something that is totally unrelated to what he was asked but then I remember he is a Politition isn’t he.

          Buy the way Jules good to see that you followed my advice and got a copy of our Constitution, it makes for some interesting reading doesn’t it?

        • #3364276

          Thanks Colin, but …

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to At least then we all would have a very good

          Before your advice I already had stored on my hard drive (for quick reference) the following documents:

          The Magna Carta;
          Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress;
          The Declaration of Independence;
          The Articles of Confederation;
          The Constitution of the United States of America;
          United Nations Declaration of Human Rights;
          Legacy: from the Constitutions of Eleven Nations;

          and of course the Australian Constitution and Amendments.

        • #3387179
          Avatar photo

          Jules I can’t see the Ausie Constitution

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Thanks Colin, but …

          In that lot that you nention However as you have already mentioned the International Charter on Human Rights you will find it interesting that it superceeds and AUstralian Laws once it has been Ratified by the Connomwealth of Australia and these instriments have the force of LAW here in AU that can not be legislated out of existance or changed in any way except by ratifing a new version of the treaty that allows more rights then the previous one did.

          So it is possible for a foregin National who has several children to different Women here in Australia to import Herion {and we are talking in something like a ton of this stuf here} get caught and not be deported because it is not in the best interestes of his children as rulled by the FUll Bench of the High Court here which under the Statute of Westminister is the Highest Court in the land.

          However as you have also mentioned the Magna Carta which is a very interesting Documnet which starts “In Perportituty and for all Time we grant these rights.” We here is the Royal we and stands for any person from the British Crown how at whatever time holds that office and they are bound by this as King James has singed this docqument and made then responsible for its contents for all time. This is a somewhat different aspect that has never previously or since been granted but it does raise an interisting question in the english translation from the Latan that it was written in they have numbered each different right which never was done in the Latan one but I think that it is Item 35 that states that “No Free Man Shall be allowed to have a Complaint Bought Against Them By An Officer Of The Crown” Now that one makes every speeding or trafic ticket ever issued somewhat hard to enforce as if anyone was to demand their right and have the matter Refered to the Court of Original Juristiction which would be the Privi Council in this case as the High Court of Australia doesn’t have Original Jurstiction over English Law only Law written and passed within Australia the Statute of Westmenster could not apply here and the High Court would have to pass this one on to the Privi Council who would have to find that the Police Officer along with others conspired to comit Treason by breaking the terms of the Magna Carta.

          Now wouldn’t it be interesting if someone ever tried this?

        • #3387124

          Magna Carta

          by john_wills ·

          In reply to Jules I can’t see the Ausie Constitution

          It was signed by King John, not King James.

        • #3387177
          Avatar photo

          Jules scrap the reference to

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Thanks Colin, but …

          The Ausie Constitution as you left some space there and it wasn’t on the page as I read it but the rest still stands.

    • #3365100

      Utopia desired

      by jkaras ·

      In reply to Different systems of government …

      The issue with leaders is the temptation of power and money rather than the altruistic need to create a better place. I feel that a politician should come from the poor side of the tracks rather than from an elite family that owes favors to continue the family names. In my opinion only someone who experiences the necessities or lack of life could only understand the important things. Things like affordable insurance that covers whats necessary rather than sorry we cant fix you cause your insurance is lacking so either we do band aid care or sorry cant touch you leaving you for dead when they took an oath that ALL LIFE IS SACRED. Our education system is horrible where kids dont have desks or books, our determination of a good college is based on how much it costs or how good the sports program is. Most families of three cannot afford to send their children to college to give them a fair shot dependant on grants, or scholarships. People live in debt and cannot afford to live debt free live our forefathers did. Nobody can afford to buy a new car without being in debt for years getting screwed on the resale. Women should get paid as much as a man so single mothers could provide a better environment for their children, lets face it the sacrifice they give still falls way way short. Free enterprise, how many people actually can name more than 5 businesses that they frequent rather than the marts or depots for most of their shopping. Lastly I cant for the life of me understand the abandonment to our farmers that work really hard to produce food only to get it subsidised for less money and the destroyed. The farmers are loosing their land and the food that could go to needy countries to ease suffering is destroyed rather than used? I’m sure we could save the money we give for support that barely goes to the suffering that goes into the leaders pocket could be put to better use in other areas. Also the space program can only live up to its expectations if all countries got involved in true collaberation to advance our societies, all can profit, learn to work well with others breaking down racial hatred to name a few. Call me crazy but the world would be a greater place if our leaders actually worked as hard to fix the problems of our world as the comman man does for minimum wage.

      • #3365097

        Well said

        by guruofdos ·

        In reply to Utopia desired

        And I totally agree.

      • #3542442

        If I may address your points – one by one

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to Utopia desired

        You said that our leaders should have, “the altruistic need to create a better place”. One must ask, a better place as defined by whom? And what if a “better place” for you is actually a worse place for someone else? (Or vice-versa)

        You said that only poor people should be able to represent our nation. What about poor people who become rich people. Should they be able to run for office? And in order to achieve this desired end result, should rich people be banned from being able to vote or run for office? (Just like women and other people were?) And who gets to define “rich”?

        Health Insurance: Why should anyone pay for someone else’s health care. That’s the “impression” health insurance gives, when, in fact, we all pay for it – but we only pay more. If the health insurance industry were abolished, and everyone bought health care (not insurance, but just health care) like they buy a loaf of bread, what would happen to the cost of health care? The answer is, the price would drop as fast and as low as Enron stock did. Another “trivia” question. When did health care insurance become “popular” and why? The first to correctly answer will get a prize.

        But you’re right. All life is indeed sacred, so everyone has the responsibility to care for his or her own life accordingly.

        If our education system is indeed horrible, like you said (and I’m not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with you, by the way), and it costs $12,000 per student per year in New York while it costs $4,000 per student per year in Iowa to educate these kids (or to not educate these kids, whichever the case may be), why is that? And who is to blame? Moreover, if you or I have kids who require an education, who is responsible for them? The people down the street? Some other people in the next state? Some person that we may or may not have voted for? Or perhaps you and I respectively? And I’m curious to know, where are the schools (in America) that don’t have desks or books? My guess is that you can’t find any.

        People live in debt because of their need for instant gratification, pure and simple. With the possible exception of one’s home, a person can indeed go through life debt free. (And the home could easily be budgeted in – and paid off in ten years, rather than the normal 30 year mortgage.) It’s all a matter of choice. (Too bad it took me almost twenty years to figure this out.) All too many people make the (wrong) choice to start out their adult life spending (charging) at a level beyond their means. If you can’t afford a new car, then don’t buy one. It’s a lousy deal anyway. The last car I bought (last year) was a 6 year old Cadillac (with very low miles and in great shape, by the way) for which I paid cash. I paid less than $10,000 for a car that’s better than most new ones that would cost 2-3 times that amount – and it will last longer. And I’ll drive that car for another 6 years, no question about it. Moreover, living life without a lien on my car means I can save money (and draw interest instead of paying interest) for the next one, and I don’t necessarily have to pay the huge insurance premiums (liability only). Debt is a choice – the wrong choice.

        Single mothers: Too many women – AND MEN – (together) choose to have children while they’re unwilling or unable to make the sacrifices and commitment necessary to properly raise them. Why should an additional burden be placed on another family who IS taking responsibility for the children they created just to pay for the people who shirked theirs? But as to your point that women should get paid as much as men, I agree if – emphasis on IF – they do the same job with the same results. But I’m under the impression that the pay difference between men and women has been closing steadily for the past few decades, and today is almost equal. What are the differences today? ……..Nevermind. I just looked it up. Women, in general, make about 10% less than their male counterpart in comparable occupations. ( http://tinyurl.com/qhxh ) Interesting. What do you suppose should be done about that? Personally speaking, the women I’ve hired do indeed get paid on an equal scale as men. (Actually I’ve paid many women MORE, since their experience made it appropriate to do so.) I’m doing my part, and I encourage others to do theirs as well.

        Farmers: I’ve read about second and third generation farmers who have indeed lost their farms (and ranches in my state) because upon their parents’ death, they were assessed an inheritance tax of as much as 50% – OR MORE – of the property’s value. Even though the farmer income is not anywhere close to reaching a million dollars (maybe not even close to the six-figure range), today’s value of those farms and ranches can be assessed in the tens of millions of dollars. They are then forced to sell the farm just to pay their tax bill. I even went to one such auction a few years ago. I didn’t buy anything, but I was really saddened, and my heart went out to these folks who were losing the ranch they literally grew up on – just because their parents died and they couldn’t pay the inheritance tax. There were really a lot of tears at that auction. (True story, I swear.) And it’s not just farms and ranches. It might be the family construction company, hardware store, automobile repair shop, and so on. How about repealing the inheritance tax? That would solve the problem, wouldn’t it? (GWB and the Republican Congress have recently taken steps to correct this – but the Democrats want to block it.)

        And as far as sending food overseas, did you know that countries are turning down food from America – even when it’s free – because of genetic modifications American farmers have made, modifications that have increase both the nutritional value and the yield, and food you and I have been consuming for decades? And what about the foreign dictators who intercept food that is sent to the starving people of their country, and they use it to control the population or sell it to further enrich themselves?

        Subsidizing the farmer: We should not pay any farmer anywhere to grow or not to grow anything. Free markets will dictate what’s needed. Free markets will guarantee it’s provided. Free markets will ensure the price remains affordable.

        Free enterprise and the marts and depots: The downfall of the small hardware store, grocery store, lumber yard, and so on was not because the “marts and depots” were built, but because people stopped going to them and chose to go to the “marts and depots” instead. Sure, the consumer would have had to pay more at the small shop, but the consumer is whose to blame, don’t you think? They’re always being selfish looking for ways to save money. (Tongue firmly planted in-cheek)

        Space program: Space is a free country, so to speak. No country is prohibited from going there if they so choose – and if they bear the risks and the cost. Moreover, the international space station, primarily funded by the USA and Russia, is indeed “international” in its conception and continuing mission. (Up there now over 1400 days and counting….) The European Space Agency is only one of five partners in this international endeavor, together with the United States, Russia, Japan and Canada. Astronauts (and scientists) from many nations have been sent there, going up in either America’s shuttle or Russia’s space vehicle, but I can’t really say how many. But absolutely, they’re all invited. And if I remember correctly, one of the Columbia astronauts killed recently was a woman from India who went to space on the USA’s nickel. I believe what you wish for has already come to fruition. But our space experience is still in its infancy, and there’s a looooooooooooooong way to go.

        By the way, have you ever seen that space station fly by overhead at night? It’s really an awesome thing to see – that big and bright “star” moving across the night sky. Do an Internet search for International Space Station, read all about it, and you’ll run across schedules and flight paths that will indicate when it will fly over a neighborhood near you.

        • #2737803

          Points both ways

          by jkaras ·

          In reply to If I may address your points – one by one

          I appreciate your points and understand your meaning. I agree on some points of view but differ. I my opinion our leaders majorily come from rich affluent families. These people never had it tough, never worked for minimum wage, never had to strech a dollar involving sacrifice. They could afford anything they desired, they never earned their way merly having everything handed to them in a privledged lifestyle. My point is that they cant emphisize with the common man and neither do they care. They only desire to continue their lifestyle not empower or champion the weak. Our leaders have an awsome responsibility to care for its people yet next to nothing is ever changed? Money is wasted and our political parties stalemate eachother not because there is a flaw in a proposed plan per se but mainly because they dont want to give the other party credit that hurts their parties pr with the people. If these so called altruistic great leaders are so capable, smart, and want to make a difference then whats the problem? These people know what to do, how to do, and what needs to be done, so why is nothing ever fixed? Answer there is nothing in it for them to do the job. As long as there is problems, there is a need for them. There is no money in it for them to fix anything. They always promise and rarely deliver. If you compare our first 10 presidents vs any after who would be considered better? They werent perfect but they had a vision and desire to create something wonderful and doubt that if they could see how far we have deviated would they be proud or ashamed? I know we have the best system, I just dont believe it getting used properly.
          As for health insurance all peole should/have to/need to receive the proper care to save that life. If someone you love got denied treatment that would have saved their life vs the next best care resulting in unecessary pain or shorter lifespan would you still say its fair? Beacause someone cant afford better care they dont deserve it? Our society can only work with a diversified economic structure for it to work. the blue collar are what makes our country’s lifeblood beat. I feel they deserve at least equal heathcare as the rest. I feel that Do onto others as you would have done for you answers that question. Money isnt always the deciding factor, its made up, people are real. I’m not religious but what would God say was more important, money or life?
          Education is not invested properly in our youth. Look at the literacy rate in our evolved world and tell me we improved. I live in Orlando and here we have issues of not enough desks and teachers only trying to teach kids how to pass the FCAT and most failed horribly in an embarrassing rate only to retrain the kids to pass for funding, not education. Most ghetto schools dont have the proper funding to give them hope, should we say well since they dont want to learn forget them? Maybe its hard to believe in oneself when no one else does. If you polled many parents and asked them how they are going to pay for college what do you think will be their response? How many can truly afford it? You have done well for yourself whether or not you made great choices or had more ability or had more opprotunities to achieve. How many people do you know can have 10 grand ready to buy a car at a drop of a hat? Truth is must cant have more than 3 grand. If you compare being able to purchase a new car off the lot in the 70’s vs now, which had the more buying power with the ability to invest extra money for the future?
          I’ve seen way to many specials involving a single mom barely able to cloth their children living in deplorable over paid rent that is the cheapest they could find. Apartments that are 1 bedroom here in Florida is starting out at $675 without central air and is quite a shoebox. These women cant afford a car payment, rent, child care, investing, and proper care for their chilren to give them a fair shake. But our leaders cant provide them with assistence to go after the deadbeat dads, why? THe cost of basic living is surpassing the basic standards yearly. You want to buy something at this mart or that depot for a cheap price but the workers sure dont get paid well for their hard work and the so called great benifit package eats most of their check for their kids. There is a reason for everyone going to the depot meccas saving a buck, its called necessity. Supply and domand rule economics and their success is proof of why. If everyone could pay more to support mom and pop stores they would to a greater degree but would still frequent the marts. The shopper does desire one stop shopping to free up more time in our lives so it does go both ways.
          I wasnt aware of the inheritance tax, thanks for pointing that out, but who’s fault is it? They turned their back to our farmers thats our backbone causing the situation, whats their excuse? They never heard of Farmaid? Dont they campain in the midwest? Do they listen or merly smile and lie with their promises for votes? I was always told that we buy many produce and other raw materials from other countries that we dont need to assist world economy for relations as well as control universal price for the greater good. Yes these despots cheat its people but why cant the U.N. do anything about it? Again leaders are aware but dont stick their neck out and do the right thing. A lot of leaders dont show up to work as much as someone as a minimum wage employee does yet the minimum wage employee gets harrassed and fired when not performing above and beyond, why not make that same expectation from our leaders is all I’m saying?
          As for the other Utopian post, I was speaking of the general Utopian philosophy that all are entitled to a fair and equal lifestyle nor desires of this generation or that generation. Everyone should have the right at a fair life not at the expense of money. Utopia should be strived for with an honest attempt although never attainable. With world hunger, low education, racial hatred how close are we, how far have we truly strived/achieved, and what legacy will be left when you stare into your childs eyes that they will inhertit a full life, that everythings ok?

        • #3383659

          entitlement to equality

          by john_wills ·

          In reply to Points both ways

          We are not entitled to equal lifestyles, only to equal opportunities to achieve desired lifestyles. Someone who plays loud mindless drumming up and down the street and so ruins his mind does not have a right to the same lifestyle as someone who maintains quiet, keeps his mind working and is willing to learn and work. But the latter person does have the moral right to have the former kept quiet enough for the latter to think. The big problem is children: all children are my children, so somehow I am responsible for the child growing up in an anti-intellectual, wasteful, arrogant environment. In practice a child suffers from his parents’ wrong-doing, not only in poor households but in losing parents when one goes to prison – which is often the fault of corrupt police and prosecutors but more often the fault of a corrupt parent.

        • #3383589

          Hey john

          by jkaras ·

          In reply to entitlement to equality

          The Earth is this way fella, come back to Earth now, its ok. Everyone has a responsibility for themself in proper behavior, thats common sense. The government is in power to HELP/PROTECT its people. Governments role is to ensure fairness due to that they are in control of our society. They set the laws not the people, we trust them to ensure the pursuit of happiness, we then take that opprotunity and make something out of it or not. All the right choices in life cannot help against dying in an emergency room rather than being saved due to money. Dont confuse or blame the youth on todays problems, they are not in power, they dont make rules, adults do and the apathy they express is due to a realization that the adults/leaders have failed dispelling the Brady bunch myth as a lie. The equality I’m speaking about is concerning basic moral rights that we teach our children in home and in church that we dont follow thru on. What year is it? If I didnt know better we still have a medival way of thinking rather than an evolved society. Our world isnt determined on right or wrong but on money and power, why arent you suprised by the youths attitude?

      • #2737890

        Whose Utopia?

        by kay ·

        In reply to Utopia desired

        Lots of political movements promise utopia: “Just
        implement our program, and we’ll usher in an ideal
        world.” Libertarians offer something less, and more: a
        framework for utopia.
        My ideal community would probably not be your utopia.
        The attempt to create heaven on earth is doomed to
        fail, because we have different ideas of what heaven
        would be like. As our society becomes more and more
        diverse, the possibility of our agreeing on ONE plan
        for any whole nation becomes even more remote. In
        any case, we can’t possibly anticipate the changes that
        progress will bring. Utopian plans always involve a
        static and rigid vision of the ideal community, a vision
        that can’t accommodate a dynamic or changing world.
        We can no more imagine what civilization will be
        like a century from now than the people of 1900 could
        have imagined today’s civilization. What we need is not
        utopia, but a free society in which people can design
        their own communities. AMEN?

        I believer that A libertarian society could be a
        framework for utopia. In such a society, government
        would respect people’s right to make their own choices
        in accord with the knowledge available to them. As
        long as each person respects the rights of others, he
        would be free to live as he chose. His choice might
        well involve voluntarily agreeing with others to live in a
        particular kind of community. Individuals could come
        together to form communities in which they would
        agree to abide by certain rules, which might forbid or
        require particular actions. Since people would
        individually and voluntarily agree to such rules, they
        would not be giving up their rights but simply agreeing
        to the rules of a community that they would be free to
        leave.

        Such a framework might offer thousands of versions of
        utopia, which might appeal to different kinds of people.
        One community might offer a high level of services and
        amenities, with correspondingly high prices and user
        fees. Another might be more spartan, for those who
        prefer to save their money. One might be organized
        around a particular religious observance. Those who
        entered one community might forswear alcohol,
        tobacco, nonmarital sex, and pornography. Other
        people might prefer something like Copenhagen’s Free
        City of Christiania, where cars, guns, and hard drugs
        are banned but soft drugs are tolerated and all
        decisions are at least theoretically made in communal
        meetings. One difference between libertarianism and
        socialism is that a socialist society can’t tolerate groups
        of people practicing freedom, but a libertarian society
        can comfortably allow people to choose VOLUNTARY
        socialism. If a group of people–even a very large
        group–want to purchase land and own it in
        common, they would be free to do so. The libertarian
        legal order would require only that no one be coerced
        into giving up his private property. Many people
        might choose a “utopia” very similar to today’s small-
        town, suburban, or center-city environment, but we
        would all profit from the opportunity to choose other
        alternatives and to observe and emulate valuable
        innovations.
        In such a society government would tolerate, as
        Leonard Read put it, “anything that’s peaceful.”
        Voluntary communities could make stricter rules, but
        the legal order of the whole society would punish
        only violations of the rights of others.

        By radically downsizing and decentralizing
        government–by fully respecting the rights of each
        individual–we can create a society based on individual
        freedom and characterized by peace, tolerance,
        community, prosperity, responsibility, and progress. It
        is hard to predict the short-term course of any society,
        but in the long run the world will recognize the
        repressive and backward nature of coercion and the
        unlimited possibilities that freedom allows. The spread
        of commerce, industry, and information has
        undermined the age-old traditional ways in which
        governments held men in thrall and is even now
        liberating humanity from the new forms of coercion and
        control developed by 20th-century governments.

        I’m not sure if the United States or the world will be
        more libertarian–that is, freer–10 years from now. .
        What I do know, if that even our ALMIGHTY GOD
        created human kind with a free will, and, although HE
        also set down rules which HE wants followed, HE still
        allows men and women the free will to follow HIM or to
        reject HIM.

        I choose freely to follow HIM.

        • #2737878

          Very well said

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Whose Utopia?

          I must say that between the last two of your messages that I’ve read (this one and another a different thread), your replies have been very well thought out and made a lot of sense.

          I look forward to reading more from you.

        • #2737876

          You Beat Me To The Punch

          by kay ·

          In reply to Very well said

          I have just finished reading your comments in which
          you addressed a former discussion concerning Utopia
          Desired point by point, and was about to tell you that I
          really enjoyed your responses. It is rare indeed when I
          find someone who truly understands freedom and
          responsibility. I am looking forward to reading more
          from you too, ~~smile~~

        • #2737860

          Stick around

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to You Beat Me To The Punch

          I’ve not seen any messages posted by you until just recently. Welcome to the discussion group. (We sometimes even discuss technology issues, of all things.)

          I hope you stick around. I like your style.

        • #2737825

          Thanks 4 the Welcome

          by kay ·

          In reply to Stick around

          Actually this is the first time I have ever signed up for a site
          such as this, and have been pleasantly surprised to see that
          there are people, such as you, who do not think that big
          government is the answer to all our woes. Thank-you for
          your welcome. I think I will “stick around”, although I can
          not promise how active I wll be on a continual basis. I was
          invited to join by another member, and thought I would
          check it out. first impressions have been favorable.
          ~~smile~~

    • #3365087

      Didn’t someone once say

      by guruofdos ·

      In reply to Different systems of government …

      ‘Government of the people, for the people, by the people’. I think it was Martin Luther King, but I may be wrong.

      There are many forms of government and some work in one context but not another. Some countries like one system, and it works for them, but it may not be appropriate for another.

      Throw out ‘government’ as we know it and let the people do ‘their own thing’ – Anarchy

      Have ONE elected leader who makes all the decisions – Monarchy

      Allow someone to ‘rise to power’, then throw out all the old ways and impose ‘their’ rule – Dictatorship.

      The way it seems to me as far as the US and UK is concerned, and possibly Australia as well from what you have said in the debates, is the problem is not government per se, but the way government works. At the top you have ‘the head man’, big cheese, Prime Minister President or whatever. Technically, he’s EITHER the man/woman who wields the most power OR a ‘figurehead’ like HM Queen Elizabeth II OR both.

      The leader is not only the leader of the nation, but belongs to a ‘party’. Liberal, Labour, Conservative, Democrat, Republican….whatever they call themselves.

      At the bottom of the ‘food chain’ you have you and I. Mr Joe Public. Now, you and I DIDN’T vote for the person at the top, or did we?

      The UK system (which I know most about) uses a ‘first past the post’ system. As I think does America…I’m not sure about Australia.

      I vote for a choice of candidates as my local member of parliament (senator, congressman, representative or whatever the ‘equivalent’ may be in other countries. These candidates belong to their political parties (Lib, Lab, Con, etc.) and stand in their constituency (ward, patch, area, region). In the UK there are 659 MPs each representing their patch. In a general election, we all vote for our local choice. The number of MP’s of each ‘flavour’ are then totted up after the election and whichever party has the majority wins leadership of the country. If there is no clear majority, we have a hung parliament, and to turn a decision or vote in Parliament, the largest parties have to then make deals with the minority parties to gain enough of a majority to get bills passed. A simplification I know, but that’s the gist. Now if in all 659 seats, there is a majority vote for Labour, then Labour win total control of the government and we have NO opposition party MP’s. It has never happened yet, and never will. However in reality, perhaps Labour win 350 seats, the Conservative get 200 and the remainder are split between the LibDems and the remaining minority parties or independant candidates.

      The problem with this is that we end up with Labour rule, although only just over 50% of the country want it. But, and this is the BIG but….the share of power in Government does not fairly reflect the share of the votes cast.

      Labour may win more seats in government, but other parties may have actually got more votes. If two parties contest ten seats, and each seat goes 48:52 on the voting to the same party, the winning party then gets 100% of those seats for only a 52% share of the vote. Hardly representative of the opinions of the people!

      Another way of doing it, which is being considered, is to move away from the ‘one voter – one vote’ idea, and having a three vote system, where you vote for three candidates in order of preference. Points rather than votes are awarded and the election is then based on popular opinion, not actual votes.

      A third method, which the Lib Dems (Britain’s ‘third’ party) want to see is proportional representation, based on the percentage of seats in Government being allotted by the percentage of actual votes that are cast. That way, my ten seat, two party example would see five members from each party, or a 50:50 split. If the average votes went 60:40 then we’d get six of one party, four of the other. This then gives a more representative government.

      Any of these three methods of election still rely on party politics and the MP’s voting the party line when it comes to governing and passing laws or raising taxes.

      I would like to see a system where every voter MUST vote by law. It would be a criminal offence to NOT vote. For every bill or proposal, rather than the MPs in Westminster voting by party loyalty, the MP’s constituants have to register their wishes electronically (on-line, by phone or whatever) to their MP, and the MP is then forced to represent THEIR wishes and not simply toe the party line.

      Govenment for the people, of the people and by the people. I rest my case.

      • #3365084

        Abraham Lincoln – The Gettysburg Address

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to Didn’t someone once say

        Which included the closing, “government of the people, by the people, for the people shall
        not perish from the earth”.

        An absolutely magnificent speech. One of the shortest and best in American history.

        http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/gettysburg.htm

        • #3365064

          Thank you

          by guruofdos ·

          In reply to Abraham Lincoln – The Gettysburg Address

          I knew somebody would put me right and I had a definite feeling I (and my source of information) was wrong! Mea culpa, smacked wrist….I SHOULD have typed it in on Google to get a source for the quotation. My apologies if I upset anyone…Abe was one of the truly ‘great Americans’…nice beard too!

          Unfortunately, we don’t learn much US history in schools here in the UK. Relatively, there isn’t that much of it (time-wise) and we are too busy trying to learn which English King fought which battle in 957 and what his horse was called! An unfortunate thing, and I wish history generally was more ‘global and less ‘domestic’. Domestic history IS important…it’s what makes our respective countries what they are and forms part of our national culture…but there’s a big wide world out there and it would be nice if our children were taught a bit more about how it got there!

          I actually asked my American step-son (in New York…I spoke to him on the phone just before I posted) and asked him who made that speech…he’s studying history in high school and he told me he thought it was MLK!!! So much for HIS memory!

          But as usual Maxwell, you are a fount of knowledge and I thank you for helping me out here!

        • #3365058

          My history classes taught me that. . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Thank you

          Edgar the Peacemaker, son of King Edmund, was the king of England in 957.

          You’re welcome.

      • #3365065
        Avatar photo

        Actually G.O.D.

        by hal 9000 ·

        In reply to Didn’t someone once say

        Over here in AU wehave two systems of voting at the Federal Level the first is proportional Representation where we have to vote for everyone on order of how much we want them or not so even someone that we wouldn’t cross the street to piss on them if they where on fire we have to vote for, kinda of leaves a bad tast in your mouth but what you have said previously generally occures with the exception that they don’t even need 50% of the primary vote and in some cases can have as little as 32% and still win seats. This is the methoid used for our House of Representitives {now theres an Oxymoron if ever there was one} who form the Government something similar to the House of Commons I suspose.

        Then we have a system of people elected depending on what % their party got in the voting and this is used for our Upper House called The Senate something like the House of Lords but they are elected for twice as long as the members in the House of Representitives and don’t get apointed to office {well unless someone retires or dies anyway and then they have to stand for ellection at the next election regardless of wether the original person was going to or not. Also in the Senate there is a somewhat stupid rule that even if the majority of the people present on the day vote for something unless it gains a certain number of votes in this case 38 as a mininum the motion isn’t passed and just disapears or if it is a vote on proposed legislation that has already been passed by the House of Representitives it is returned to the lower house for either admandiment or head kicking to get the required votes. After 3 attempts at passing the Senate it is possible to call a Double Disalusion where all Federal Poltitions have to stand for reelection at a specified date which is sooner than they normally would.

        Currently we have 3 year terms for the House of Rperesentitives and 6 year terms for the Senate. Then te real beauty of the system kicks in if you manage to be elected for 3 terms of office in the lower house you effectively never have to work again even though you may only be as old as 40 years of age {not a common occurance but it is possible,} with the Upper house it is get ellected for a 9 year period and the same applies we literally pay for them for as long as they live and cover not only their income but also traveling expences.

        Then if they where actually leader of the Parliment over here called the Prime Minister {I think that means that they have remained under cooked} they effectively get handed the countries Credit Card and can virtually run uop whatever bills they see fit provided that they don’t buy any property or things like that but they can rack up the frequent flyer points and never get off an airplane unless it is to change to a different aircraft because the other one is low on fuel and it will take too long to refuel so you can just change planes to save time and inconvinence of sitting on the aircraft while it is refueled but you have to be inconvenienced enough to get up off your fat arse and walk some distance even if it’s only to the door of the aircraft where you are picked up by a vehicle and transported elsewhere.

        I don’t know or actually care how it goes in the US as I’m not all that interested in things political but as I live here it is sought of hard to miss the point. Actually there was a joke going around here a while ago about what was the best way to do the country a favour? It was to destroy Parliment when the pollies where voting for their next pay increase as they where all sure to be there just to make sure that they got their pay increase.

        Currently we’ve had people drive their cars/light trucks into the building when they were not susposed to people storm the Prime Ministers house and place bloody big signs on its roof all when the Prime Minister was in residence and the overwelmed guard he had to watch them walk past and ignore him. Unfortatnly they where only interested in making a statment and not doing anything more interesting and benificial for the country like getting rid of the person who passes themself off as Prime Minister {Bloody Greenpeace.}

        I say bring on the Jumbo’s when Parliment is sitting and voting on pay rises for themselves at least it is a good way to improve the man made city in the middle of nowhere and do this country a favour at the same time. It is only another approch to what was tried in the UK by Guy Faux {probably wrong spelling but what the heck.}

        • #3365063
          Avatar photo

          Actually I’m only half serious about

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Actually G.O.D.

          The 747’s as I would consider it a waste of perfectly good aircraft for no real gain other than replacing one lot of Bar-stewards with another lot of the same and on the second occasion they would use the previous events to make themselves more powerful and secure.

          I can clearly remember a joke that was doing the rounds some time ago it went something like this “What is considered a waste? Reply A bus driving off a cliff filled with politions that has some empty seats!”

          Kinda of shows just how interested I’m in any of them dosen’t it?

        • #3365062

          It was Guy Fawkes

          by guruofdos ·

          In reply to Actually G.O.D.

          Remember, remember, the fith of November
          Gunpowder, treason and plot!

          Yes. I’d say MOST politicos today could use a damn good rocket up the arse. They are supposed to represent the people, however they were elected! I think another vote should be held on a monthly basis….to vote on our elected representatives performance, and the outcome of the vote would be reflected in their remuneration.

          That would make them wake up and smell the coffee!

        • #3542243
          Avatar photo

          I remember the 5-11 very well

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to It was Guy Fawkes

          As we used to have a great to June for fire safety reasons as Novemebr is in themiddle of or summer and then the Queensland Government did away with it all together seems that it gave the general population the wrong idea about how to deal with Polititions or so they thought. Actually the PC’s got in their ear and made everything “Safe” for us {read that as no more fun as detirmended by the Governemt.}

          So here now if you are caught with anything resembling a firework you are in big trouble and they try to burry you in paper through the courts. Seems to me that the punishment is worse than if you tried to do what the celiberation was originally started for.

          Now was that an Act of Terrorsum? Like September 11 or could it be nothing more than the fact tha the more things change the more thay stay the same?

      • #3542423

        The Australian way …

        by jardinier ·

        In reply to Didn’t someone once say

        In Australia voting is compulsory at all levels of Government: Federal, State and Local. However the only requirement is that you register at a polling place on voting day (or make a postal vote). If you don?t want to participate, then you cast an informal vote. However, despite this voluntary/compulsory voting, the vast majority of Australians do in fact cast a formal vote. [A fine applies if you don’t vote.]

        PREFERENTIAL VOTING: This applies at the Federal level, and also in some States. You put your preferred candidate first, and then number the boxes in order of your preference. Under the “Two-Party Preferred System” (because, as in America and England, there are only two parties which have enough support to have any chance of forming a government) after the primary votes are counted, the second choices are then distributed. This means in affect that if you choose Santa Claus as your first preference, and Labor for your second, your second preference carries the same weight as your first. This means that, especially in marginal seats, the candidate who wins the most primary votes WILL NOT NECESSARILY win the seat.

    • #3365086

      Winston Churchill said that democracy is the worst . . .

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to Different systems of government …

      …form of Government except all those others that have been tried from time to time.

      A true democracy, however, is not what most (or perhaps all) democratic nations, including the United States, have installed. America’s republic form of government is, in my opinion, the best. But to avoid splitting hairs about what it’s called, the bottom line is that self-government is the best.

      However, self government requires self-responsibility, a challenge many people are either unwilling or unable to meet. Moreover, all to often, our elected representatives either work on the premise or try to convince the constituency that they are unable.

      Self-responsibility, for whatever reason, just scares the you-know-what out of some people. But having government assume that responsibility subsequently infringes on the rights of those who accept it for themselves. Therein lies the problem with the concept, but by no means indicates it can’t be successful. The devil is in the details, so it is said, and working on all the details is an on-going and ever changing challenge.

      More to come……

      • #3364979

        USA Not a Democray – its a Republic

        by jimhm ·

        In reply to Winston Churchill said that democracy is the worst . . .

        It is a Representative REPUBLIC –

        • #3542476

          And if you would have read my message. . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to USA Not a Democray – its a Republic

          …in its entirety, you would have seen that I said the same thing.

          But thanks for backing me up on that one.

        • #2737868

          It WAS a Constitutional Republic

          by kay ·

          In reply to USA Not a Democray – its a Republic

          While many people refer to the system of government in
          the USA as a Democracy, you are correct in refering to
          it as a Republic, at least that is the way our founding
          fathers set it up. Clearly it is becoming more and more
          of a socialistic nation.
          One way I have heard the difference between a pure
          democracy and a constitutional Republic explained is
          that while a pure democracy would be absolute
          majority rule,such as a lynch mob, it would be a
          contitutional republic when the sheriff arrives on the
          scene. It is a representative, contitiutional republic, a
          government of laws upheld by elected representatives.
          That is why we need ot be very careful in electing those
          people to public office who will truly be our
          representatives.

      • #2737872

        Very Well Said!

        by kay ·

        In reply to Winston Churchill said that democracy is the worst . . .

        Once again I realize that I am not alone in believing that
        the government which controls the least controls the
        best. I believe that the only real purpose of
        government should be to protect the life, liberty and
        property of each of it’s citizens from the others, and to
        keep the nation from entangling alliances with other
        nations. With our exceedingly greater global society,
        this may be an ideal, but would be very difficult to
        implement. Any step toward that goal would be a step
        in the right direction, however.

    • #3365078

      Reply To: Different systems of government …

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to Different systems of government …

      And opinions formed on emotion are usually plagued with flaws.

      Reason and logic are the basis for a more successful

    • #3365079

      Reply To: Different systems of government …

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to Different systems of government …

      And opinions formed on emotion are usually plagued with flaws.

      Reason and logic are the basis for a more successful

    • #3365076

      Sorry – the previous two messages. . .

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to Different systems of government …

      …were a result of hitting too many incorrect keys at the wrong time – I screwed up.

      All too many opinions are formed on emotion. And opinions formed on emotion are usually plagued with flaws.

      Reason and logic are the basis for a more successful outcome.

      Any government formed on emotion is doomed to fail.

      • #3365056

        I thought the put

        by guruofdos ·

        In reply to Sorry – the previous two messages. . .

        CTRL-ALT-DEL far enough apart to prevent that happening. Or do you have one of the new “Microsoft, Naturally!” keyboards?

        http://tinyurl.com/pym3

      • #3365013

        It is all relative…

        by onbliss ·

        In reply to Sorry – the previous two messages. . .

        Success is relative. What might be successful in one culture might not in the other. Emotions – heart – I think Governments need them too, not just the intelligence.

        Emotions add both pathos and joy to the life. It is one thing that is highly evolved in Human.

        They say…’Man is a social animal’. To live, contribute to society and receive from society…Humans need to form Governments that have Emotions too. I am not saying that is the only thing needed. As you say we need logic and reasoning. Many a times, logic/reasonings are bound to clash with emotions. We need to elect leaders who can think, at that time, and choose which is important.

        • #3364988

          I disagree

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to It is all relative…

          I never said that man should live without emotion. And I’m not suggesting that emotions shouldn’t (and don’t) play a big part of a person’s life. To the contrary, emotions such as joy and happiness, grief and sadness, and so on are a good – and unavoidable – part of life. But in the formation of a “pact”, and in this case the formation/implementation of a government, emotions only serve to cloud the issues. This is not to say that a government be completely without emotion, although I would call it something else – perhaps compassion.

          An example of a government governing on emotion might be to act as the representative of a compassionate people. Out of our compassion towards others, for example, we give billions of dollars to needy people all over the world year after year after year. But if, as you said, emotion clashes with reason and logic, then reason should always dictate.

          Broken down to the most basic instance – one individual – emotion might tell you to jump into a roaring river to save the life of another who fell in, especially if that person is a loved one. But logic and reason should tell you – no, it should dictate – that you not jump in because you would be swept away as well. Emotion should take a back seat to logic and reason. In this case, run down to the bridge a hundred yards away and hold out a branch for the person to grab hold of.

          Look at how governments and politicians play on one’s emotions to get something passed or someone elected. One has to use logic and reason to establish policy. One should use logic and reason to elect our representatives. Emotions get in the way of making reasonable decisions.

          It might make one’s emotion feel good to support a HUGE welfare system, for example. But logic and reason would lead to the conclusion that such a system would eventually collapse under it’s own weight of responsibility. A better alternative would be, as an old proverb says, give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for life. Sure, it feels good to give him a fish, but how many fish can one person catch, and for how many people, and for how long?

          Another emotional policy might be to tax income (perhaps tax the rich, whoever they are) by 50, 60, 70, 80 percent. Hell, tax ALL of it. But logic and reason would only lead to the conclusion that there’s a point where a higher tax rate will lead to fewer revenues collected. Tax 100% of one’s income, for example, and most people would just stop earning an income. Then the revenue would fall to zero. (Look up the Laffer curve if you’re interested in tax rate versus tax revenue concept.)

          I’m not talking about compassion towards your fellow man; compassion is a good thing. But how many times have you heard that a person got carried away by his or her emotions? Yea, a lot. How many times does a person get carried away by logic and reason? It doesn’t really apply, does it?

          (Okay, maybe I got carried away a little bit there………………just kidding!)

        • #3542458

          Looks like you really agreed :-))))

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to I disagree

          …as i said when there is a conflict…the conflict needs to be resolved…sometimes logic/reasoning would win…sometimes emotions would win.

          though you give more emphasis to logical resoning…i am glad that you give due share to emotions.

          as in the case of fishing…there is no point in teaching the man to fish when he is starving and writhing due to hunger…maybe we need to give him the fish first so that he gets the energy to fish 🙂 and then teach him to fish.

        • #3542440

          Absolutely

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Looks like you really agreed :-))))

          .

        • #2737870

          The Role of Government

          by kay ·

          In reply to I disagree

          There is a role for emotions in everything we do. Life
          cannot go on without emotion, and caring for one
          another is something asked of us in the Bible: Feed the
          hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick and those in
          prison… however, these commands are not given to
          governments, but to individuals. While each of us will
          be held accountable to the LORD for what we have or
          have not done for HIM according to what we have done
          for the “least of our brothers”, by allowing or even
          legislating those things into our civil government, we
          actually take the responsibility away from the individual
          and thus not allow him or her to obey.
          I believe you are on the right track. Keep up the good
          thinking.

        • #3383650

          sodomy

          by john_wills ·

          In reply to The Role of Government

          At least part of the divine law concerning welfare IS directed at governments rather than at persons; more exactly, it is an obligation of persons that they work for society as a whole to fulfil these commands. God destroyed Sodom (Ez 16:49-50) for libertarianism. I imagine that there are in the Bible condemnations of communism and fascism, the other extremes in the political triangle, but I can’t remember them at the moment. At any rate Kay’s libertarianism is not Biblical.

        • #3383597

          Who Will Cast The First Stone?

          by kay ·

          In reply to sodomy

          New Testiment, Biblical Christianity does not only accept
          libertarian principles, it demands them.
          Advocates of religious-right politics present a case that,
          when structuring America?s legal system, the Framers (John
          Witherspoon, John Locke, and William Blackstone),
          influenced by the writings and philosophy of Presbyterian
          minister Samuel Rutherford, frequently used the Bible as
          their primary reference source. They infer the Framers set
          biblical law at the base of the Constitution. They agree with
          liberty-loving Christians that man is inherently evil, so his
          power must be limited. Therefore, I contend the Framers
          based our legal system on Christian principles by limiting
          the citizenry?s ability to deprive minorities of rights (i.e., no
          raw democracy) and restricting government?s ability to
          enact tyrannical legislation (i.e., constitutional republic).
          Considering, “for all have sinned, and come short of the
          glory of God” (Romans 3:23), we certainly need a guideline
          other than sin to determine when behavior is criminal. If sin
          were the guideline, every citizen would be in jail every day.
          Advocates of religious-right politics may claim that mine is
          merely an interpretation of the Framers? intent. Let us
          consult someone who was there, Thomas Jefferson:
          Our rulers can have no authority over natural rights, only as
          we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we
          never submitted. We are answerable for them to our God.
          The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts
          only as are injurious to others. – Thomas Jefferson
          Source: THE HISTORY OF AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL or
          COMMON LAW. 1995, Howard Fisher The Message
          Company, Sante Fe, NM (p. 45)

          Crimes require a victim. Where there is no victim, there is
          no crime, although there may be sin. One who adhered to
          every Judeo-Christian law imaginable would still sin. If
          Witherspoon, Locke, Blackstone and Rutherford ?s biblical
          base for American law reflects Christ?s divinity, they are
          accurate; Christ will lead us through. Let us trust His
          example. Many religionists will claim the previous Jefferson
          quotation is taken out of context. The Danbury Baptists
          wrote Jefferson for fear Baptists would be denied their right
          to worship as their denomination deemed fit. Jefferson
          assured them that they, as well as any other religious sect,
          remained free to worship and practice their faith. A ?wall of
          separation? protected them from governmental intrusion.
          Pretty different from today when many Christians ARE being
          denied their right to worship as they see fit. Huh? Now, an
          excerpt from the letter (a letter current-day Christian Right
          activists conveniently leave archived) of the Danbury
          Baptists to Jefferson:
          Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious
          liberty; that Religion is at all times and places a matter
          between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer
          in name, person, or effects on account of his religious
          opinions, that the legitimate power of civil government
          extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to
          his neighbor.”
          Source: Dave Barton of Wallbuilders.com

          Jefferson proved himself a Godsend to fundamentalists.
          Today, fundamentalists often perceive him as a thorn in
          their sides. To listen to most fundamentalists I know today
          (and I am a fundamentalist), an onlooker could think they
          have always supported the victimless-crimes ideal. The
          Christian Right and its supporters could learn a great deal
          from their Baptist ancestors who merely wanted freedom to
          worship.

          The New Testament makes it clear we are sinners living
          among sinners. Though we are free (constitutionally:
          inalienable rights, biblically: free will) to live apart from
          God, we Christians choose to follow and serve Christ in a
          world that does not. We yield our lives to Christ to live in us
          and radiate to others. One example of living the faith and
          walking the ?walk? will speak abundantly louder than ten
          man-made laws on the books. If one is not free to live
          apart from God, then living a life in God?s order merely to
          appease a penal code is worthless. I believe God?s Son will
          speak and lead the way for the lost through us, His
          followers?not Congress.

          Once Christians accept the godly concept of free will (with
          its unpleasantness), they can accept libertarianism as
          biblically sound. In fact, they will find ?demopublicanry?
          biblically unsound. The libertarian philosophy is the only
          philosophy in which I have witnessed Christian and
          atheistic harmony in keeping with America?s Founders?
          intentions. Atheists enjoy freedom of non-theistic religion .
          Christians enjoy freedom of theistic religion, enabling
          Jesus? light to shine to the others. To believe that
          government can effectively legislate religiosity is to believe
          that:

          a.?????? Congress is more powerful than God?s Holy Spirit
          working in the lives of the body of Christ

          b.????? God may have designed free will, but it is faulty

          c.?????? ?Jesus may have rejected the political power Satan
          offered Him, but political might is how to advance the
          Father?s will.
          ?We generally don?t love ourselves at gunpoint.?
          Dr. Mary Ruwart

          Indeed, libertarianism works. It works with Christianity,
          Judaism, Atheism, and all other religions. And it works well.

          Who is owner of the universe, our lives, our bodies and our
          property? Psalm 24:1; I Corinthians 6:19-20
          ?
          Should we invest our resources in guns, badges and jails to
          arrest prostitutes? Is that what Paul meant? Romans 12:19-
          21
          ?
          Who is owner in earthly matters? Acts 5:4
          ?
          Will laws allow practices Christians reject in their lives? 1
          Corinthians 6:12, Titus 2:11-12
          ?
          What are Jesus? commandments that cannot be done by
          force or coercion? Matt. 22:37-40
          ?
          What about judging people outside the body of Christ? I
          Corinthians 5:12, 13; 1 Thessalonians 4:11
          ?
          Freedom? Revelation 22:17
          ?
          Prodigal Son parable Luke 15: 11-32

        • #3364357

          Why is it Godly to be free…

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to Who Will Cast The First Stone?

          I am wondering what is divine about Free 🙂

        • #3364298

          Perhaps….

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Who Will Cast The First Stone?

          …..We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…..

        • #3387168
          Avatar photo

          Maxwell you amase me

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Who Will Cast The First Stone?

          A direct quote from the Internation Treaty on Human Rights.

          From some of your previous postings I didn’t think that you though much of the UN but to give this quote directly from that Treaty really impresses me and of course you’re right.

          No all we have to do is make others understand that people in different countries have the same rights that we allow ourselves to have.

        • #3387055

          Colin – It was a quote. . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Who Will Cast The First Stone?

          …from America’s very own Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson in 1776.

          The Declaration of Independence is America’s most cherished symbol of liberty (freedom), and is the achievement of which Thomas Jefferson was most proud.

          It surmised that “liberty” is not something granted by a king (or another mere mortal), but rather endowed by the Creator (God).

          ———- Declaration of Independence ———-

          When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

          We hold these truths to be self-evident:

          That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

          He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

          He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and, when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

          He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them, and formidable to tyrants only.

          He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

          He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing, with manly firmness, his invasions on the rights of the people.

          He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining, in the mean time, exposed to all the dangers of invasions from without and convulsions within.

          He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

          He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

          He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

          He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

          He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies, without the consent of our legislatures.

          He has affected to render the military independent of, and superior to, the civil power.

          He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution and unacknowledged by our laws, giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

          For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us;

          For protecting them, by a mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states;

          For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world;

          For imposing taxes on us without our consent;

          For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury;

          For transporting us beyond seas, to be tried for pretended offenses;

          For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries, so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these colonies;

          For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments;

          For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

          He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

          He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

          He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

          He has constrained our fellow-citizens, taken captive on the high seas, to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

          He has excited domestic insurrection among us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions.

          In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms; our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

          Nor have we been wanting in our attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them, from time to time, of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity; and we have conjured them, by the ties of our common kindred, to disavow these usurpations which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too, have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity which denounces our separation, and hold them as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

          We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

        • #3387036

          Max..I don’t need god to tell me…

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to Who Will Cast The First Stone?

          about freedom. Mind you I am not an atheist. I have some faith and belief. But I don’t need to read my religious scriptures or any other thing to know that I need to treat others the same way I expect them to treat me.
          I think it is wrong to steal, kill ….yada-yada.
          I think we should treat each other civily, be nice, kind…etcetra. It comes from my thinking.

        • #3377465

          You should be happy. . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Who Will Cast The First Stone?

          …that you know so much about “freedom”. At one time in history, people were not so enlightened.

          Before the 18th century, it was pretty common, if not universal, in the world that it was governments, whether they be dictatorships, monarchies, or whatever, that “granted” particular freedoms to “individuals”. In other words, the “individual” was not free to do ANYTHING unless it was granted and approved by the “government. The “individual” had no power whatsoever except for what the “government” (the rulers) allowed them to have.

          Then, in the mid to late 18th century, T.J. and the boys (and other “enlightened” minds) had this notion that the “status quo” was bass ackwards. They thought that it was the “individual” who should grant power to the government, not the other way around. Their contention was that liberty (freedom) was something inherently granted to every individual by their mere existence – something their “Creator” had intended all along. Wow, the Creator was the one who granted liberty, not the government – what a concept!

          Believe it or not, not everyone thought the same way. Many people around the world remained firm in their convictions that the government, not the Creator, had the power to grant limited freedoms to the lowly individual. A war was fought over such an idea. Liberty is endowed by the Creator. Powers are granted TO governments BY the people. America was founded, basically, on that principle alone.

          Our liberty is something many take for granted. They don’t realize that with liberty (freedom) comes responsibility. And all too many people are too willing to shirk their responsibility, thereby granting to government all power over everything they do – and expecting that government to exert power over others.

          So it really has nothing to do with religious scriptures or anything like that at all. (Thomas Jefferson, by the way, was not really a “religious” person at all.) Your Creator – however you may or may not define Him/Her/It/Whomever/Whatever – endowed you with the liberty to make all of those choices for yourself – without me, your neighbor, a government, a king, a church, or anyone or anything else having the right to do anything about it. (Unless, of course, your choices infringe on the liberties of others.)

          Thus the comment, “…..We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…..”

          So there ya’ go. Use your liberty to live your life to pursue any happiness you desire. (But just don’t take mine away in the process – i.e. TAXES to pay for other people’s bad choices!!!)

        • #3377432

          Kings were consider God…

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to Who Will Cast The First Stone?

          If you reverse speed further back…people in many cultures believed their Kings/Queens…were incarnations of God, or was from the chosen clan/tribe…whatever. In addition the Kings were revered lot becos of …(I don’t know all the reasons 🙂 may be becos they protected them from the people in other clan/tribes…..

          That could explain the people’s view on the rulers.

          It took ages for the people to know Kings were not God but mere powerful people.

        • #3375896
          Avatar photo

          OH Great

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Who Will Cast The First Stone?

          Now the UN is plagiarising the Declaration of Independence what is the world coming to?

          Well I don?t suppose anyone will be upset as it is so self evident but I take my hat off to you Maxwell.

        • #3383596

          Are you sure she is a libertarian

          by jimhm ·

          In reply to sodomy

          Are you sure she is a libertarian – or is she a consertive or is she a liberal … I can’t tell – do you know the differences – I am a libertarian..

        • #3383567

          The Proof is in the Living

          by kay ·

          In reply to Are you sure she is a libertarian

          America’s Heritage

          Libertarians believe in the American heritage of liberty,
          enterprise, and personal responsibility. Libertarians
          recognize the responsibility we all share to preserve this
          precious heritage for our children and grandchildren.

          Free and Independent

          Libertarians believe that being free and independent is a
          great way to live. We want a system which encourages all
          people to choose what they want from life; that lets them
          live, love, work, play, and dream their own way.

          Caring For People

          The Libertarian way is a caring, people-centered approach
          to politics. We believe each individual is unique. We want a
          system which respects the individual and encourages us to
          discover the best within ourselves and develop our full
          potential.

          Principled; Consistent

          The Libertarian way is a logically consistent approach to
          politics based on the moral principle of self-ownership.
          Each individual has the right to control his or her own body,
          action, speech, and property. Government’s only role is to
          help individuals defend themselves from force and fraud.

          Tolerant

          The Libertarian Party is for all who don’t want to push other
          people around and don’t want to be pushed around
          themselves. Live and let live is the Libertarian way.

          Since these are my beliefs and practices, I am a Libertarian.
          The first time I ran for State Assembly, it was while a
          member of the Libertarian Party. When Ron Paul ran for
          president on the Libertarian ticket iin 1988, his Vice-
          presidential candidate, Andre Marrou even stayed at our
          house while he was in Wisconsin. We also had the
          incredible opportunity to host Marshall Fritz, who was at
          the time the founder for the “Advocates For Self
          Government”. Not unlike the decision of Ron Paul, to re-
          enter the Republican party as a libertarian Republican,
          because to the difficulty in this country to gain recognition
          if you do not belong to one of the two major political
          parties, I also joined the Republican party, and ran in 1990
          as a Republican for State Assembly, garnering what still
          remains the record percentage of Republican votes in this
          assembly district.
          Now tell me your Libertarian background.

          Next question…….

        • #3383548

          Couldn’t of said it better – except tolerance

          by jimhm ·

          In reply to Are you sure she is a libertarian

          I couldn’t of explained it better – except for tolerance – that one I still have problems with, I guess that goes back to my In-Country days… get a little short with stupid people.

          The question was really for John – I didn’t trutly know what your political or personal stance was .. me – I am a Libertarian – but registered Republican (but vote for the best canidate – don’t care Libertarian, Rep, Dem – no Commies) – as for caring for my fellow man – Volunteer over 1,000 hours a year at the local fire station, another 2,000+ as a Medic – along with normal work, home and family responsibilities.

          Just a few hobbies –

        • #3364394

          Kay’s libertarianism

          by john_wills ·

          In reply to Are you sure she is a libertarian

          Her description of the ideal government as excluded from directly helping the poor, leaving that entirely to private organizations, is typical of libertarianism, and of Sodom as described by Ezechiel. Her claim that the NT demands libertarianism is reminiscent of my youthful claims that it demanded socialism. Some serious Christian writers on social matters (e.g. John Ruskin, Pope Pius XI) seem to think that neither socialism nor liberalism (in the proper sense: libertarianism is an exaggeration, as communism is of socialism) but corporatism is the NT-approved way. I here give no opinion, but Kay should look seriously at what Ezechiel says.

        • #3364355

          Do we need these labels….

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to Are you sure she is a libertarian

          I don’t know if us Humans need those kinds of labels slapped on us. Nobody is 100% anything. Once we see the labels it only brings the divisive forces in us. In some cases…it just stops meaningful discussions.

        • #3364293

          You need a label if you’re american

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Are you sure she is a libertarian

          Or so I’ve seen here. Even after stating I don’t take a political stand but rpefer to just look at reality and human nature, I was still tagged.

          I think it was Socialist Liberal or something hated by Americans. Is that good?

        • #3387033

          I don’t know if that is good or bad…

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to Are you sure she is a libertarian

          I just know that sometimes it angers me. By placing labels we restrict the individual to certain boundaries.

          Human mind is vast. It should be allowed to operate freely 🙂

          As far as someone calling me a Socialist. Like capitalism we need socialism too in the world.

        • #3377481

          We need socialism like. . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Are you sure she is a libertarian

          …we need a hole in our hearts.

          We don’t “need” socialism in the world.

        • #3377435

          max…we need …

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to Are you sure she is a libertarian

          everything man….bring all the isms….

        • #3377426

          onbliss – Aren’t you glad. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Are you sure she is a libertarian

          ….that you were born 225+ years after the “enlightenment” resulting in the concept of individual liberty instead of before? I sure am.

          Regards

        • #3377244

          Not really…Max

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to Are you sure she is a libertarian

          I am just happy thats all. With my personality I am sure I must have been happy and sad 1000 years before too.
          225+ yrs does not hold any special significance for me.

    • #3364977

      Where my Bro Oz – What is his perfect form of Government

      by jimhm ·

      In reply to Different systems of government …

      OZ – man here is you chance to tell us what is the perfect form of government you like.

      You know mine – the USA’s Representative Republic …

      Lets hear yours…

    • #3542516

      Where my Bro Oz – What is his perfect form of Government

      by jimhm ·

      In reply to Different systems of government …

      OZ – man here is you chance to tell us what is the perfect form of government you like.

      You know mine – the USA’s Representative Republic …

      Lets hear yours…

    • #3542499

      The best form of government…

      by monkeybutter ·

      In reply to Different systems of government …

      Every citizen is given a hundred virtual “beans”, and may choose to lend these beans to whoever they should so choose, under the proviso that they can be reclaimed at any time.

      At any point where two people come into conflict over anything at all, they compare the number of beans they have. Whoever has the most beans wins. This applies to legal proceedings, personal disputes and governmental decisions. Anyone not accepting the decision of someone with more beans is shot, and ground up for food.

      I guarantee that within three generations of using this system, 90% of the problems that currently face the global community will be no more.

      • #3542473

        So…

        by jkaras ·

        In reply to The best form of government…

        he who has the most wins? Isnt that our problem now? Substitute money for beans, poker chips, or butt plugs it doesnt matter whos right only quantity. He who breeds most has the most beans? That surely kill the wait till marriage arguement!! Not like thats a bad thing mind you. 🙂 “lets get down tonight….”

      • #3377460

        That’s a great idea.

        by mrbill- ·

        In reply to The best form of government…

        I have more rifles than you, give me ALL your beans!

    • #3542421

      The Australian way (2) ….

      by jardinier ·

      In reply to Different systems of government …

      We do not have a separate election for our leader. The leader of each party is elected by ballot amongst the parliamentary members of each party. [In the case of the Labor Party, the leader is chosen by the Caucus ? all members of both houses].

      Come voting time, as I suppose is the case in most countries, the people?s vote is generally determined by the preferred leader, rather than by policies. Also in Australia, as I suppose is also the case elsewhere, poorly performing governments are voted OUT, rather than parties with good policies being voted in.

      As to Maxwell?s question: does the Prime Minister have to be Australian-born? I doubt if this is the case, but I will have to check before I give an affirmative answer.

    • #3542240
      Avatar photo

      My perfect form of Government is

      by hal 9000 ·

      In reply to Different systems of government …

      I’m the boss who has the countries credit card and never have to worry about how much I spend on it because you lot will always pay for any of my excesses.

      Also I’m apointed for life and no one has the right to say anythig against me.

      Now anyone else got a better Idea?

      • #3542239
        Avatar photo

        I almost forgot this one

        by hal 9000 ·

        In reply to My perfect form of Government is

        Computers work well and never break down or show any faults. Better still Microsoft actually works as advertised and there are no such thngs as Security Issues to be heard of.

        Well I can dreram Can’t I?

      • #3542232

        Not bad Colin, but …

        by jardinier ·

        In reply to My perfect form of Government is

        In all seriousness, I have long considered that the perfect form of government would be a benevolent dictatorship. The people in general are not sufficiently well informed, or impartial enough to choose a government that provides for the best interests of all citizens (and the country).

        Well, I can dream too, can’t I?

        • #3364393

          benevolence

          by john_wills ·

          In reply to Not bad Colin, but …

          How do we keep the dictator benevolent? Given benevolence, how do we keep him clever enough to exercise that benevolence?

        • #3387158
          Avatar photo

          Actually with the Countries Unlimited Cred Card

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to benevolence

          And Windows working properly you would have nothing to fear from me unless of course you where named Bill Gates or one of hie workers who was responsible for palming off secondrate software and rushing it into stores just so you could say we got there first and we’ll fix all the bugs latter as and if we can.

          Then you might have a problem but otherwise there is nothing to fear from me as I’m a lovely placid sought of fellow even a couple of days ago when some young girl tried to kill me by running down both my Motor Cycle and me I gave her the benifit of the doubt but now I wished that I haden’t not because of all the damage that she has done and all the parts that are impossible to get but because when I got my wife to ring her to ask for insurance details she didn’t know and the next day her insurance company rang me and insisted that I was “Harrasing Her” and threatned to obtain an Apherended Vilonce Order against me even though I never actually spoke to her after she left the scene of the crime.

          If you want to carry on like that you would find that you had a problem with me as I just don’t like being threatned in any way whatsoever but otherwise I’d leave you alone so you could work hard at your job pay your taxes and let me spend more money on the Countries Unlimited Credit Card.

          However there might be a bit of a problem once I die but then again it would be up to whoever to apoint someone else like me to carry on.

        • #3364288

          Pleaser re-read my posting ….

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Not bad Colin, but …

          “Well, I can dream too, can’t I?”

          Obviously, should a benevolent dictator actually become the ruler of any country, he/she would no doubt be vulnerable to the common maxim: “Power corrupts — absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

          I am certainly no historian, but I am prepared to make an educated guess that benevolent dictatorships (possibly in a monarchist setting)have existed in the past, even if only for short periods.

          Possibly for a time, many of the citizens of totalitarian regimes have actually regarded their leader as a benevolent dictator.

          However what I was expressing was an “ideal” in the sense of “something existing only as an idea.” I am not expecting to see such a system of government arising in my time.

          Strictly speaking the God of Christianity is a benevolent dictator. He has issued instructions as to how people should live, but (New Testament only) is willing to forgive if they err. While forgiveness first requires repentance, there is no limit placed on the number of times a person may be forgiven for repeating the same offence. [Matt 18:22].

          Actually it is the concept of forgiveness which makes Christianity stand apart from all other religions of which I know. Karma of course is unforgiving.

          However in the last chapter of the Hindu Bhagavad Gita we read this declaration by Krishna: “Give up then they earthly duties, surrender thyself to me only. Do not be anxious; I will absolve thee from all thy sin.”

          Has a familiar ring to it, doesn’t it. I regard Mahatma Ghandi as the ultimate example of Christianity in practice, and yet he drew his inspiration from the Gita.

          Was Ghandi a benevolent dictator? Well he certainly laid down a set of ground rules, which many followed unquestioningly.

    • #2737894

      Which Changes?

      by kay ·

      In reply to Different systems of government …

      Many moderate Republicans would love it if Arnold
      Schwarzengger could run for and win the presidency of
      the United States one day and there are still many
      Democrats who would love to vote for Bill Clinton
      again, if fact, there are those who would love to see the
      two candidates run against one another.
      The problems are obvious: Article 2, Section 1 of the
      Constitution limits eligibility for the presidency to those
      who are “natural born” citizens. Arnold
      Schwarzenegger, though he came to the United States
      in 1968 and became a U.S. citizen in 1983, was born in
      Austria and is therefore ineligible. As for Bill Clinton, the
      22nd Amendment says you can only be elected twice.
      ????Now, we all know that there are lots of Republicans
      out there who would love to see Arnold run for
      president. And plenty of Democrats would be thrilled at
      the prospect of another display of Mr. Clinton’s
      formidable political skills.
      ????So as it happens, Republicans have been muttering
      recently about how outdated the “natural born” clause
      is, how fundamentally unfair and without plausible
      justification. When they talk like this, they sound a bit
      like Democrats in their concern for this still-
      constitutionally oppressed class. Similarly, Democrats
      ? sounding like libertarian Republicans concerned
      about overweening governmental restrictions on their
      freedom to choose their political leaders ? ask whether
      it is just to deny people a candidate they want merely
      because he has been popular and successful enough
      to be elected president twice.
      ????The problem is that the Democrats know what the
      Republicans are up to, and the Republicans know what
      the Democrats are up to. So, Democrats would never
      go along with a constitutional amendment lifting the
      “natural born” requirement, no matter how much it
      happened to sound like something a Democrat should
      in principle favor. And, likewise, a Republican would
      never buy into a proposal to lift the term limit, for the
      same reason.
      ????An additional complexity here is that Republicans, in
      the early 1990s, actually talked themselves into
      believing they were in principle in favor of term limits.
      Although this turned out really to be support for term
      limits just as a means of improving their chances in
      congressional elections, it might be a bit embarrassing
      to reverse course. On the other hand, given that many
      Democrats favor voting rights for non-citizens and
      drivers’ licenses for illegal aliens, how exactly they
      would construct an argument in favor of retaining a
      remnant of nativist discrimination in the Constitution is
      likewise a good question.
      ????There’s no way you can take up the questions one at
      a time and succeed in passing constitutional
      amendments ? because I’ll be for mine and against
      yours, and so will you. Although Republicans would
      love a world in which Arnold could run for president
      and Bill Clinton couldn’t, just as Democrats would love
      a world in which Mr. Clinton was eligible but Mr.
      Schwarzenegger wasn’t, neither group can have
      everything it wants. There is one and only one solution:
      a package deal.
      ????Now, of course, there are a couple of obstacles here
      beyond theConstitution.Firstand largest, Mr.
      Schwarzenegger needs to A) win the California
      governorship (One down) B) solve California’s
      multibillion dollar budget crisis (among other crises);
      and C) win re-election in 2006. In other words, he has
      to prove he’s a politician about as good as Ronald
      Reagan (although Mr. Reagan was never in Arnold’s
      league as a movie star, be it noted).
      ????Not that it’s a cakewalk for Mr. Clinton, either. First of
      all, he will have to explain this plan to Mrs. Clinton. It is
      quite possible that her favorite thing about her husband
      at the moment is that he can’t run for president again,
      since it’s her turn. And in this, she would be not unlike
      every other Democrat who aspires to the office.
      ????But both men have extraordinary abilities. I say, give
      them a chance. So, with all due modesty, here is my
      proposal for a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
      ????”Section 1. No person shall be eligible to the office of
      President except a citizen of the United States who
      shall have attained to the age of 35 years and been 14
      years a resident within the United States.
      ????”Section 2. The Twenty-Second Amendment is
      hereby repealed.”
      ????In one fell swoop, we can queue up the Terminator
      vs. the Comeback Kid. Future generations of bored
      high school social studies students will thank us much
      for that.
      ????

      • #2737802
        Avatar photo

        Hi Kay perhaps you could clear something up for me

        by hal 9000 ·

        In reply to Which Changes?

        Wasn’t it Teddy Rosevelt that said he would only stand for two terms of office? Prior to that Presidents could stay in office for as long as people voted for them and through a gaff Teddy made this massive mistake and had to follow it through with admenments to your Constitution so that in future Presidents could only serve two terms.

        You can reply to me through the peer listings or our mutial friend I’m sure they will give you my e-mail address. I’m not out to start another bun fight here it is just I would like this clarified as it was something that I heard mentioned somewhere and I wanted to know how correct it was. Anyway a direct reply might just start something off that takes things way off on a tangent that has no meaning to the original posting so if you feel any disconfort contact me direct.

        Col Luck

        • #2737710

          The other Roosevelt

          by generalist ·

          In reply to Hi Kay perhaps you could clear something up for me

          It was actually the other Roosevelt that indirectly lead to the term limits. FDR was basically unbeatable due to his efforts to get the United States out of the Great Depression.

          I seem to recall that he was in his fourth term when he died.

        • #2737681

          If I remember…

          by kay ·

          In reply to Hi Kay perhaps you could clear something up for me

          The “no third term” tradition was set as a standard
          when Washington was in office. After Washington
          refused to run a third time, there were many other
          presidents who followed his lead. There should be no
          other president to lead the country at a time of strife,
          than the president that was in the office at that time.
          There was no written law that stated that a president
          could not run for a third term. The “no third term” policy
          was just a precedent waiting to be broken. Informal
          amendments aren’t written in stone, therefore, people
          have the right to ignore them. The decision of President
          Washington to refuse a third term as President of the
          United States started a precedent that persisted
          stubbornly until 1940 . Washington felt that even one
          term was a lot, however, he was pressured by everyone
          to finish his second term. He could have run again, but
          he was getting old, and his health and spirit were
          diminished. Washington was no longer able to tolerate
          the quarrelsomeness of the factions within the
          government . Jefferson thought the third term was evil.
          He and many other men during his era had seen too
          much of the absolute monarchy in Europe, and they
          feared that under the US Constitution, a Chief
          Executive could be elected from four years to four years
          until it became a life term. Jefferson was asked, and
          many of his closest advisers nominated him for a third
          term. He declined the offer. Most people believed that
          he declined because he was losing support in the
          government and public due to failure in foreign policy.
          Now that a second president turned down the third term
          nomination, it was an unwritten law, and no one would
          even think of breaking the tradition. The next president
          who turned down the third term nomination was
          Jackson. Grant and Teddy Roosevelt followed him.
          They all had the same things in common. They were
          either burnt out, their policies didn’t fly with the
          opposition, or they just couldn’t cut it anymore as a
          president. Calvin Coolidge was nominated for a third
          term, but Herbert Hoover got the overall nomination.
          Coolidge didn’t receive the final nomination due to
          fatigue.
          FDR made the gutsy move to run in the 1940 elections.
          In 1940, Franklin Roosevelt was re-elected for a third
          term over Wendel Willkie. With much past opposition to
          the third term policy, FDR was a sure shoe in for the
          third term, was elected, but died in office.
          Now, what was your question? ~~smile~~

        • #3383668

          Thanks Kay – Great history lesson

          by jimhm ·

          In reply to If I remember…

          Thanks Kay that was very interesting history lesson … No Kidding .. Thanks

        • #3364414

          Four term president

          by generalist ·

          In reply to Thanks Kay – Great history lesson

          Roosevelt was actually a four term president. He was elected in 1932, 1936, 1940 and 1944 and started his terms in 1933, 1937, 1941 and 1945.

          He died in April of 1945.

        • #3387150
          Avatar photo

          Thanks Kay

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to If I remember…

          I think you have answered my question fully and even thought I’m not a US resident or citizen I do find what goes on that side of the pond interesting some times anyway but if you want to force that built for TV Soap down my through I’m gone as fast as my little Ducati can carry me and that’s preaty fast.

    • #3383786

      Compulsory versus voluntary voting …

      by jardinier ·

      In reply to Different systems of government …

      I daresay many academics have undertaken studies and written weighty tomes on this dichotomy. Quite likely there are pros and cons for both electoral methods.

      I would be very glad to hear any arguments supporting or denouncing either of these two systems.

      • #3383739

        Right To NOT Vote

        by kay ·

        In reply to Compulsory versus voluntary voting …

        ? Just as fundamental as the right to
        vote in a democracy is the right NOT to vote. Every
        individual should be able to choose whether or not they
        want to vote. Some people are just not interested in
        politics and they should have the right to abstain from
        the political process. It can also be argued that it is
        right that voices of those who care enough about key
        issues to go and vote deserve to be heard above those
        who do not care so strongly. Any given election will
        function without an 100% turnout; a much smaller
        turnout will suffice. In a healthy Constitutional Republic
        people will WANT to vote. If they are not voting it
        indicates there is a fundamental problem with that
        government ; forcing people to vote cannot solve such
        a problem. It merely causes resentment.
        People who are forced to vote will not make a proper
        considered decision. At best they will vote randomly
        which disrupts the proper course of voting. At worst
        they will vote for extreme parties as happened in
        Australia recently.

        • #3383519

          Please refer to earlier posting …

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Right To NOT Vote

          “The Australian Way” and note: “In Australia voting is compulsory at all levels of Government: Federal, State and Local. However the only requirement is that you register at a polling place on voting day (or make a postal vote). If you don?t want to participate, then you cast an informal vote. However, despite this voluntary/compulsory voting, the vast majority of Australians do in fact cast a formal vote. [A fine applies if you don’t vote.]

          Note: When I said “a fine applies if you don’t vote,” of course that should have been “if you don’t register on polling day.”

          I talk to many people from all shades of the political spectrum. The majority of Australians take politics very seriously, and I believe that those who do choose to cast a formal vote do so based on a considered opinion.

    • #3383604

      CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT

      by fluxit ·

      In reply to Different systems of government …

      Our Forefather’s put forth the most powerful form of Government the World has ever seen. They spent years researching what works. Surprising to many people a lot of our Governmental structure came from the Judeo/Christian Bible. Fiscal policies were derived from the works of Queen Elizabeth I. The concept of Democracy itself was drawn from the Greeks originating between 600 to 400 B.C. True most of the United States has been drawn from the successful efforts of generations before the creation of the United States.

      But those are efforts in the past and our Forefathers designed the United States Government for the Future. It is from the Future generations in the United States from where our leadership must be drawn.

      It would be horrific to me to think that someone who has had no allegiance to the United States for some portion of his life could run for President? Albeit – Clinton was President but at least he was born here. It is a good thing that our leader and President is a natural born citizen.

    • #3383598

      INTERNET DEMOCRACY

      by fluxit ·

      In reply to Different systems of government …

      There are many forms of Democracy to include Socialized Democracy, Constitutional Democracy, and of course Internet Democracy. The question is how could Internet Democracy enhance or replace our current form of Democracy? Could an Internet Democracy improve or strengthen democracy as a whole? How?

      Would it weaken or even destroy national sovereignty forming virtual regions of influence? Does there have to be a brick and mortar form of Democracy in order for it to be successful?

      • #3383595

        REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY

        by fluxit ·

        In reply to INTERNET DEMOCRACY

        Could everyone have a direct vote on Bills and eliminate the need for congress?

        • #3383588

          Would have to have online voting

          by jimhm ·

          In reply to REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY

          Great idea – but I see a few problems..

          First problem – You would have to have a method to vote online – seeing as how many of us American’s turn out to vote for the president – then bitch about the one elected..

          Second – What would Ted Kennedy do for a living? Or Billary Clinton or any of these life long Senators and Congressmen… Gee they would actually have to work for a living..

          And just think – government for the people – buy the people … hum great idea – I like it..

        • #3383568

          VOTER APATHY

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to Would have to have online voting

          What about voter apathy? Would special interest groups become more powerful? It seems people would need time to research and learn about the bills. This will require a high degree of independent thinkers. However, the National Education Association seems to be taking our future citizens down another path than independent thinkers.

      • #3383560

        Remember

        by kay ·

        In reply to INTERNET DEMOCRACY

        A lynch mob is a democracy. Majority rule.
        The reason that the government of the United States has
        survived for as long as it has is because it is NOT a
        democracy, but a constitutional republic made up of laws
        and elected representatives to legislate, execute and decide
        on the constituionality of those laws. So far, with the
        exception of political activist judges who legislate from the
        bench, the checks and balances of the three branches of
        government, while often seemingly at a stalemate when we
        want some legislation to pass, we can be very thankful is in
        place to keep many bad laws from getting on the books.
        This is without exception the best form of government in
        all the world, and our constitution has held up for the
        longest time too, if I am correct about that.
        There is very little about our constitution that I would want
        to change. The problems, however, can show up when
        activist appointed or elected judges make decisions about
        the interpretation of said Constitution trying to widen the
        scope of their personal opinions.
        I still believe that one of the most important jobs of the
        President of the United States, for that reason, is the
        appointment of judges who are “Strict Constructionists”.

        • #3383524

          DEMOCRACY IN ALL FORMS

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to Remember

          I agree there is importance in the checks and balances. The entire concept for Checks and Balances came from the Judeo/Christian Bible in Isaiah. It is amazing how much influence the Judeo/Christian Bible has influenced our Government up to 1952 when the US Supreme court made its landmark decision to pull prayer from schools based not on precedence but thin air. The court clearly acted in a manner not consistent with its foundings. We have been struggling with this non-constitutional problem since that time.

          Additionally, there is value in Representative Democracy. The Greeks had a vote for each man and were afflicted with short memories when they voted to oust Themistocles several years after defeating the Persians in the first real Naval Battle in the striats of Salamis. Then arrogance eventually lead to thier demise.

          Democracy in all forms is good to one degree or another. Our Forefathers created a polymorphic form of Government in which society can shape itself through participation.

          While a credit to Democracy this polymorphic ability to shape society can be a vulnerability. Radicals either such as Islamics can hold the country hostage and disrupt the economy. We need everyones participation in Government at some level so that one influence does not become entrenched like one did for 40 years.

        • #3383503

          A common misunderstanding …

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to DEMOCRACY IN ALL FORMS

          The term democracy is derived from the Greek words “demos” (the people) and “kratia” (rule). The first democratic forms of government developed in the Greek City-States during the 6th century BC.
          Aristotle’s Constitution of Athens shows that all CITIZENS participated fully in government.

          HOWEVER, 90 per cent of the population (minors, women, slaves and foreigners) were not citizens.

          So it was actually one vote per 10 members of the population. [Of course minors are still excluded from the voting process in modern democracies. In Australia the minimum voting age is 18 years]

        • #3383499

          My comment pointed to…

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to A common misunderstanding …

          The remark was “one man one vote” not each citizen.

    • #3383506

      But he CAN become president

      by oz_media ·

      In reply to Different systems of government …

      As for Arnie NEVER becoming president, a reecent news article (I’ll have to lok it out if I can remember which paper) states that technically HE CAN become president with a few legislative side steps. You guys must know how it works. So that even though doubtful, it is possible for Arnie to be Pres. I’ll post details when I find them again.

      • #3364546

        You’re mistaken – again

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to But he CAN become president

        You said with a “few legislative side steps”??? You don’t know what you’re talking about.

        You’re right, we know how it works, again, you obviously don’t.

        It would take a new constitutional amendment for a foreign born person to be eligible for the Presidency, which is not a “legislative side step”. Look at the Arnie discussion that GuruOfDos started, and the required process is described in detail within that thread.

        http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=139363&start=0

        (You’re really showing your ignorance on this one, Oz.)

      • #3364477

        WRONG – again OZ

        by jimhm ·

        In reply to But he CAN become president

        He is not a native American citizen – IE Born in this country he was born in a foregn country and according to the Constitution of the US he can not run for the Presidency … His children could run for it – or his wife – but not him.

        The only way that would happen is if 2/3 of the states ratify a constitutional admemment that makes foriegn nations eligable to run for that office…

        Again – you are Wrong about what can be done in a country you don’t live in .. but speak as if you wrote the constitution and bill of rights… That would be like me – telling people of Canada what their constitution means…

        Oz – Wrong – Again –

      • #3364455

        ADMENDMENTS?

        by fluxit ·

        In reply to But he CAN become president

        No Admendment has passed that ‘changed’ the fundamental Constitution as originally written. Admendments have only added to it or clarified the meaning. It would be a stretch to have an Admendment pass that changes the fundamental Constitution.

        The part that stipulates who may be President is in Article II: ‘No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.’

      • #3364344

        Oh well once again you all show you’re inability

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to But he CAN become president

        To read a POST. As I said, I don’t know how.
        There was a newspaper article in the Vancouver Sun that stated how he COULD technically run for President. It was considered a looooong shot but was possible.

        As someone else stated it woudl take a 2/3 majority, so be it but it IS possible.
        the artcle I read stated that although many feel it takes a two thirds majority, it really doesn’t. I just don’t remebr the details because I really didn’t care, nor do I now.

        For yuo to all start flaming about mt ignorance etc just shows your inability to comprehend written material, a stunner how any of you are in IT and not politics. You can be a complete idiot and hold a seat in office, I think EVERY country has seen that, it takes written comprehension to exceed at IT.

        My bottom line is not that BUSH should be shot, NOT that we have a better system of government, NOT that you should be more like another country.

        Yuor country is as F&^$%D up as ANY country on the globe. What gets me is that so many American’s will be adamant that the American government is always doing the right thing and others should conform or prepare for attack.

        It is arrogance that the rest of the world sees, just arrogance. Being arrogant about such a messed up system makes yu all look ignorant and waiting to be lead like little lambs to the slaugter.

        I don’t think there is another country on the globe who’s citizens put soooo much faith in their government, they all F-up and make horrendous mistakes and often admit it or at least the citizens do. It seems that Americans have so much faith in the government that they will support the President regardless of mistakes, they won’t admit to making mistakes and get pissed at anyone who sees or points out these mistakes. this is either ignorance or arrogance you choose, it doesn’t really matter which because the rest of the world sees only one or the other.

        Funny how you seem to fight alone these days (no the British didn’t enjoy fighting alongside of Americans in this one) yet when the clean up crews move in, they do it side by side.

        • #3364335

          Mr BC:

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to Oh well once again you all show you’re inability

          I understand your position on the United States. I would not call our actions arrogant as much as in response to misguided leadership elsewhere in the World. In my travels to over 40 countries around the World I have observed the quality of life.

          Once while in one country I watched a Policemen intentionally trip a young attractive woman to get the thrill of an upskirt. She ran off in a panic leaving her packages. In other countries the water was not potable, roads were impassible, and diseases were epidemic. In these places were leadership who thought of themselves over thier people. They did not manage the economies nor fund medical research.

          Where I work is about 1 mile from where Noriega, aka PineApple Face, is being held. He was the leader of the country where I saw the police trip that woman. I also have been to the Arabian Gulf region, Africa, Pacific Rim, and South America. These kind of leaders are everywhere.

          So when people like yourself get on thier high horse and berate the United States as arrogant I suggest in the strongest language to take one of our good ole Texas cattle prods and put it up where the sun does not shine.

        • #3364289

          Too bad it’s not just me

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Mr BC:

          Then I could at least defend myself.

          Unfortunately, I am one of MANY that see American’s as arrogant bigots. You’ve been around the world, as have many of us, and seen some interesting places and people. You have seen third world countries. You have seen poor leaders, you have seen downtrodden citizens. What has any of that got to do with the fact that your Presidential cabinet is a farcicle circus. Yuor people are seen worldwide as srrogant “think-they-know-it-alls” that figure the rest of the world wants to live like them? It’s absolutely crazy! I can’t really see that ANY of you are serious about leading the world into peace and that you are the true powerful force of the world, you have to be joking and just pulling my leg. Time to pull he other one.

        • #3387293

          CLASH OF THE CIVILIZATIONS?

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to Too bad it’s not just me

          It seems to me that pretty much most of the world is following our lead. In 1960 only 6 countries had democracy. Today over 70 countries have democracy although fledging in many cases out of 198 countries world wide. Nearly half the world has come to Democracy without this President.

          So what is it that the United States professes to know that everyone else knows better? What way of life is better than democracy? I am not hearing anything but hollow noise. You lack substance to your complaint. This President happens to be one that is not going to be a spineless worm. When other countries or organizations threaten our existence or fail to act per thier own agreement with us we will answer the call and prevail.

        • #3387136
          Avatar photo

          Very badly put particuarly

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to CLASH OF THE CIVILIZATIONS?

          When America’s best interests are to break the OPEC strangle hold on Middle East Oil which they could with Iraq Oil and break up OPEC.

          What you have so elquelnty described is not for the good of the people of the world but for the US Government even people like Nelson Mandella said so wern’t you listing at the time?

        • #3387056

          THE OIL THING AGAIN

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to Very badly put particuarly

          This oil thing annoys me.

          It seems to me that Sadam originally invaded Kuwait for the Oil to fund his own war machine. It was a dispute over drilling rights and Iraq was drilling at angles underneath Kuwait to get the Oil. The Kuwaiti’s stooped him from doing this. Once he invaded Kuwait the United States viewed its interest were being threatened and responded.

          Likewise, The OPEC states were acting unfairly doing price collusion during the 70’s. It was a national interest that Reagan cause OPEC to publicly compete the price per barrel. This in effect stopped the collusion and made the oil producing nations become competitive. A very capitalistic kind of thing.

          I do not know what the United States has to gain by breaking up OPEC when non-middle eastern countries like Venezuela belong to it.

          Nelson Mandella? What does he have to do with OPEC since his interest are in Apartied and the suffering of his people in South Africa – a Diamond producing country? He has no credibility in this issue. I think Barbara Striesand may have been talking to him.

        • #3377046
          Avatar photo

          Mandella was only one of a very

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Very badly put particuarly

          Long line of people who said the exact same thing. Since I didn’t want to bore people with a complete list I didn’t bother but just why would Iraq drill under Kwaita to get the3ir oil when they couldn’t sell it anyway? Remember prior to the invasion there where embargos against Iraq which where only hurting the people as the post invasion coverage has shown.

          Then there is a very important lesson that is currently being relearned by all parties involved in thsi conflict. It is one thing to invade a country and a totally diffferent thing to hold it once invaded. Germany learnt this lesson in France durring both world wars now we are relearning it all over again but thsi time it is our troops who are bearing the brunt of resistance.

          One day and it may not be all that far off there just may be people in Iraq rewarded for resisting the percieved Invaders and susceeding in throwing them out.

          We are currently seeing this now in a small way now what do you think will happen if the resistance gets any larger? What is even worse is that these people who are resisting think that Sad Man Who Sucks isn’t a despoit but a great leader. Personally I don’t which is more frightening!

        • #3387137
          Avatar photo

          Well if you have traveled so much as a tourist

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Mr BC:

          And not a member of the armed forces than you should have some idea of what is happening in other parts of the world. It is easy to point to the bad areas like you very clearly mentioned they do exist but sinilary others that don’t have these problems do exist as well I notice that you made no mention of countries like the UK, Germany {who I might add started both World Wars,} France or their like only the less than perfect ones and they are a lot of these countries that are a bloody long way from perfect perhaps the Good Ole US of A should treat them like they did Iraq and go in guns blasing to clean out these bad governments who are responsible for mass killings and the torture of their citizens. Would that make you happy?

          But honestly if you have travelled so much you should be very aware of just how people in the civilised world think of Americians in general while I don’t know if I would use the word arogant OZ is correct as the rest of the world treats the US in a different manner to anywhere else which I don’t quite understand but so far OZ’s description on general terms is the best that I’ve heard. Even your movie industry loves to put this across the Loud American comming in to fix things up when there was nothing wrong in the first place. Just why does every movie that has US citizens going overseas give the impression that we are better than you and we are hunbling ourselves to help you?

          I’ve personally meet a lot of Americians and the way they are portrayed in the movies and TV just isn’t the way most of them are but the one that impressed me the most was one guy whoi was on holidays with his family who was very quite asked a lot of questions and had a hell of a lot of time for some young kid staying in the same block. This was one Christmass holidays while I was working away from home and I only saw him occasionaly but almost every time that I saw him he was talking to this kid and explaining something and before anyone gets the wrong idea there where always others present and nothing wrong was going on. Well for christmas thsi young boy got a telescope and he rushed to the dorr of this Americians place and asked him did he want ot look at the moon through the new telescope to which the man declined and claimed he was tired and needed some sleep the boy was a bit crest fallen but carried on regardless. Now I knoe this famile and several months latter I was told that after the holidays finished and they had all returned home a poster arrived for the young boy with this American and several others standing at the bottom of an Appolo Rocket and all had signed the poster seems that they had been the crew of Appolo 11. But he never said anything about what he did and came across as noone important or even gave the belief that he held any sought of semi important work just a regular guy spending time with the wife and kids which impressed me even more than he already had. Now why can’t you’re stupid movie industry show more people like this rather than the loud aggressive sex crased Yank who may exist but in very small numbers.

          But it is shows like these that allow people like Ben Ladden to get a following to rid the world of the infidel which he conceives all Americians to be and what makes it worse is that your Movie and TV industry chrun out this garbage that only supports his ideas and makes it easier for people like him to get a following.

          So while I still don’t fully agree with some of what OZ posts he has hit the nail on the head with this one.

        • #3387042

          TRAVELS

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to Well if you have traveled so much as a tourist

          Mr Brisbane, I have travelled in the service, on vacation, and as a cruise ship officer. In fact, I sailed into Perth and Sidney, Australia. I met perhaps far more people than you. In fact, while in Dubai, UAE at the Sheraton I was invited to a table where a older man and woman were sitting. They were Australians who owned a shipping company and were quite wealthy. Looking at them one would think they were middle to low income by the way they dressed. Quite nice people. I had a long conversation with them and learned a lot.

          National governments do not deal with people they deal with other national governments. These national governments acted up and do things from time-to-time that result is some kind of response from another government. Sometimes its somekind of unfair trade practice, other times it involves the exchange of intelligence, other times it is the selling of weapons or guarded technology. Just because your country may not have a backbone to stand up when wronged does not mean the United States should be the same way.

          As for Militant Combatants such as Usama Bin Laden, he is a Radical Islamic that misuses his faith to advance personal gain and personal issues by duping others to do his dirty work. That son-of-a-bitch is alive while others died for his misguided efforts. His entire issue is that during Desert Storm I the Unites States, infidels in his eyes, desecrated holy Islamic grounds. It just happens that those same grounds are where the Judeo/Christian Bible was formed. The supposed early teachings of the Koran.

          Unfortunately, there are many people around the world who are fed misinformation and develop uninformed opinions. I can only urge you to continue to seek the truth. The evening news rarely has it.

        • #3377017
          Avatar photo

          Actually in my travels I’ve only

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to TRAVELS

          Been scared in two places and both times I was in what you in the US call cabs one time was in Rome where every driver should be committed and never let out ever under any circumstances as thay are all homicidal and the other time was in LA where I found myself in a cage in the back of a cab with several hand guns sliding around on the front seat it was something unexpected that one.

          Even last time I was in Bruni and had the army shove several M16’s or whatever in my face I wasn’t all that concerned and I knew that they didn’t speak english and that they certianly couldn’t read the documents that I had with me that where in english I knew that everything would get sourted.

          But I am confused by some of you above statments. Are you suggesting that we should kidnap the US President when he is over here thanking us for helping in Iraq? To me that would not only be extremly bad manners it would be a pointless excersise.

          But from your posting I get the idea that you think AU should hold the US President for restrictive trade policies and subsidising the inefficent farming comunity in the US. You can’t possible be serrious can you?

          However I do have to agree with you about Bin Laden but you are mising the point that I was trying to make he is a problem but a far bigger problem is the sisutation that allowed him to gain the power that the has for this I see him as a symptom rather than a problem that has to be smashed. For everyone of his kind that you kill off there will be more to take his place and until the breeding ground is stopped the problem will continue.

          The Brits learnt years ago that Gun Boat Diplomicy doesn’t work and right now I think that the US is learning the exact same lesson.

          You have got to learn that when someone critises a Government decission they aren’t in oppersisition to the country in general but not everyone has to agree with every decission made by a Government, it was somewhere here I think that someone said that there was no perfect Governemnt as they could never hope to please all the people all the time and this is perfectly correct. AS an ex forces person you seem to lack the ability to see beyond the obvious and think for yourself in matters relating to Government Policy, certianly if you where to spend any time here in AU you would see many people complain about their present Government but they will vote for them next time anyway, here we don’t have to blindly follow our Government’s Policy and most Americians that I have meet think the same way.

          Just why is it that you seem to think that when I question something that the US Government does I either hate them or am against them can’t you see that I just don’t agree with what they are doing?

          Oh by the way just how many US servicemen and women are in Timor as I don’t believe that there are any active personal there from the US but there are a bloody lot of Aussies there keeping the peace and they aren’t being attacked every day as well. So just out of courtisy don’t refer to Aussies as lacking the Backbane to do what is required.

          There is one very important thing that you will have to learn and that is never under any circumstances piss off an Aussie even the Imperial Japanise Army couldn’t believe what happened when they did this. They just couldn’t understand how they where beaten when they outnumbered their enemy 20 to 1 and had far better equipment it just isn’t a cleaver thing to do. Even the Personal serving in NAM learnt this lesson very quickly.

          Actually why do you feel the need to pick a fight with me anyway?

          I’m a bit confussed on that one. By the way my name is Col or Colin not Mr Brisbane which anyone could easly look up on the peer listing so you are only making a silly statment that is showing how small minded you actually are by trying these childish stunts.

        • #3364324

          OzMentalCase – what a piece of work

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Oh well once again you all show you’re inability

          In the first message you said, “with a few legislative side steps”.

          In a second message you said, “It was considered a looooong shot but was possible”

          So you are suggesting that those two statements, in essence, say the same thing?

          In the first message you said, “You guys must know how it works”

          In the second message you said, “(you) don’t know how” it works.

          You are further suggesting that those two statements, in essence, say the same thing?

          You go on to suggest that it is others who have an, “inability to comprehend written material”.

          You couldn’t comprehend a reasonably written commentary if it bit you in the ass.

          No wonder everyone here knows that you’re no more than a rambling idiot.

          Oz, you’re an arrogant, thinks-he-knows-it-all, holier-than-thou, illiterate and ignorant troublemaker who not only doesn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground, but doesn’t know when to keep his stupid and rambling mouth shut.

          (Okay, come on back with some of your “enlightened” words of wisdom – NOT)

        • #3364279

          Wow Max!

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to OzMentalCase – what a piece of work

          Have you been hanging out with needs-a-raise?
          Your post sure reflects it.

          Funny thing about you Max, one day you offer eloquent and well researched information that creates a healthy and open discussion.
          The next day you stoop as low as this?

          Are you Bi-polar or something?

          “As someone else stated it would take a 2/3 majority, so be it but it IS possible.”

          I actually read it to be MUCH easier than that but you guys know better than any journalist or reporter so I’ll take you word for it. No matter WHAT, Arnold will NEVER be President of the USA. Happy? Actually, you’d be better off letting him run your cuntry.

          “In the first message you said, “You guys must know how it works”

          In the second message you said, “(you) don’t know how” it works.

          You are further suggesting that those two statements, in essence, say the same thing?”

          NOT EVEN CLOSE.

          I said YOU (American citizens know how the government works there).

          I then said I (meaning myelf) Don’t know.

          If you don’t like my quoting based on our newspaper reports, you can write one of your letters to :

          The Vancouver Sun c/o
          Pacific Newspaper Group Inc.
          200 Granville Street, Suite 1
          Vancouver BC V6C 3N3
          Canada

          One of my BEST friends is an editor there, you can mention my name and have him print it with your textbook slander against non-Americans.

          “No wonder everyone here knows that you’re no more than a rambling idiot.”

          Everyone here, meaning Americans that can’t see the forest through the trees, or do you now speak for the world like your President does?

          Have you notified the rest of the world that YOU (aka) MAXWELL EDISON are now the leader of the free world and that all should change their thought process to suit yours or be damned by the masses?

          Funny how all other topics in this site are multinational and open, as soon as politics come into discussion anyone UN-American with a different view is slammed and flamed.

          Does this not support my statement that American’s are politically focused above all else?

          That politics and the American President is ALL that matters to an American?

          “(Okay, come on back with some of your “enlightened” words of wisdom – NOT)”

          There’s no need for a long winded and wordy explanation, that’s for politicians to side step the real issues. I speak for myself and those who I have met and heard similar opinions to mine. If you REALLY think the world LOVES America, visit Canada, England, Germany, Italy, Japan etc. and don’t foget your Ameerican flag, they burn really well.

        • #3387228

          Flamed for Parroting incorrect information

          by jimhm ·

          In reply to Oh well once again you all show you’re inability

          Flamed – because you parrotted incorrect information – and you say you always double check you information …

          You speak as if what you read was the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth… so help you Whomever…

          So when you post be prep’ed for flaming – I always am – I don’t expect anyone to agree with my views and expect someone to attach a flame … but thats the risk – quit crying about it …

        • #3387126
          Avatar photo

          Hey JimHM an I reading this right?

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Flamed for Parroting incorrect information

          That only US born people can become president? Does that aply to the original US born citizens as well?

          Here I mean the Indians {from the US of A not from India} or is there some piece of legislation in place to prevent this from happening as well?

        • #3387027

          Me thinks you got it – including the American Indians –

          by jimhm ·

          In reply to Hey JimHM an I reading this right?

          Native American’s including American Indians are eligable to run for the President position. There were only two foriegn born Presidents (If I remember correctly) G. Washington – and T. Jefferson – all the others were native american.

          IE – Native American – born in U.S.A.

          A naturalized citizen can hold any office except president – or VP …

          As to Native American – I love it when these aholes call with surveys and ask what is your nationality …. Native American.. Oh you’re an Indian – no I am a Native American – I was born in this country. Now if you are asking what is my ancentory – then I am American of German/Serbian descent… Or if you are asking my Race – White – they get so – mad it is too funny.

          Like telling the bouncer that a person is 21 – when they were born in 1993 – Your birthday celibrates your last day of that year… So you are actually going to be starting your 22nd year. Go figure math – hey it work a number of times on the mussel heads… no brains – all bulk… bouncers

        • #3377485

          Also funny is the term ‘Asian’

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to Me thinks you got it – including the American Indians –

          …they think the person is from Chineese Origin.

        • #3377447

          There were no foreign born Presidents

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Me thinks you got it – including the American Indians –

          George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were both born in Virginia – the British colony of Virginia. The first seven Presidents were born in one of the “British colonies”, but all were one of the original 13 states. The first President born into a “United States” was the eigth, Martin Van Buren.

        • #3377412

          Technically

          by road-dog ·

          In reply to There were no foreign born Presidents

          The Constitution prohibits the Presidency to tose not born in the US.

          Well, all Presidents born in the colonies before 1787 (the ratification) were not born in the US.

          I’m really not inclined to do the research and see how many are in this situation, because I doubt that even Al Gore would dispute those early elections.

        • #3377380

          Thanks for the correction – wasn’t sure

          by jimhm ·

          In reply to There were no foreign born Presidents

          Thanks for the correction – wasn’t sure – didn’t believe that cherry tree bs story ..

        • #3377444

          Nationality surveys

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Me thinks you got it – including the American Indians –

          I always leave it blank or check “Other”. (Since there is never an “American” selection.

          I also leave the Race blank. The only way to eradicate racism is to not see race.

        • #3377437

          max: well said…

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to Nationality surveys

          >>I also leave the Race blank. The only way to eradicate racism is to not see race

          Very well said. True!!!

        • #3377378

          It’s interesting in the USA about Race

          by jimhm ·

          In reply to Nationality surveys

          Thats one of the most interesting thing about it here.. The government past a law saying that you’er not to ask it on applications or record it on personnel records but then – the government wants counts by race for when you bid on a government contract. Hum – if I didn’t record it do I have two walk around my company and count..

          Kind of a catch-22 … if you don’t ask and aren’t to record it – but then to bid on government contracts you have to proved it …

          Got to love those government regulations and laws…

        • #3377154

          Speaking of racism

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Nationality surveys

          Why is it that all the street signs depict black people doing stupid things in the middle of the road?

          A black man holding a shovel, black children running across the street, even a black kid bouncing a ball across the street (are they saying that black people can’t afford a Playstation?)

          It’s pretty prejudiced to imply that Caucasians and Asians aren’t a traffic hazard! How about pets? I’ve never sen a CAT crossing sign (except in my driveway), I’ve never actually seen a black man standing in the road shovelling a pile of dirt just for the hell of it. If this sign is supposed to mean that these are city workers, why aren’t they holding a cup of coffee while shooting the shit with another city worker?

        • #3377136

          OzMentalCase – perpetuates racism

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Nationality surveys

          I know you’re trying to be funny, but you’re not.

          Comments like that contribute to the perpetuation of racism.

        • #3375695

          It’s unfortunate that those

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Nationality surveys

          of us who have no sense of humor or feel that being politically correct are offended by those who really don’t care what you think.

          You see, those who do not enjoy to simply laugh at the world and the screwed up ideals that we put upon each other are also those who aren’t any fun to be around.

          Now I understand that your intellectual thought process is far beyond mine, I also feel that as a result of this that you have become someone who can’t enjoy the world for what it really is.

          Unfortunately, your inability to smile and enjoy life has caused you to become one of those stuffy, stuck up and miserable old men that stop the world from rotating.

          If you don’t enjoy life and all it has to offer, that is YOUR perogative. It is sad that those who are around you are subject to your miserable outlook on the world and the people within it, mainly because your analytical skills are atrocious but also because nobody needs a wet blanket to cuddle.

          If you aren’t amused by those you meet, if you can’t laugh at mistakes, if you can’t enjoy the day, that is OK just don’t expect me to follow your miserable example of how life should be. You’re too dry, you’re too concerned and too bitchy for anyone’s benefit.

          Your show exact type of stuffy political mentality that turned the once exciting Vancouver into a no fun zone by removing all the events we had that held the people together.

        • #3375686

          I have a great sense of humor

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Nationality surveys

          And I enjoy life to the fullest.

          But I contend that the only way to eradicate racism is to not see race – even in humor. And no, I’m not one of those “politically correct” types. (But If you had even the slightest idea as to what type of person I really am, you’d know that.) To the contrary, it’s the politically correct types who insist on seeing race; they insist on calling people some hyphenated name based on the color of their skin. No, that’s not me.

          And no, you’re not funny.

          In fact, your defense of yourself actually makes you even more disgusting.

        • #3375672

          are you still talking?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Nationality surveys

          .

        • #3375669

          Humor

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Nationality surveys

          You know Max, you may not find my humor amusing. You don’t have to and probably wouldn’t appreviate dry humor anyhow, judging by American AND CANADIAN TV (with the exception of This Hour has 20 minutes), unless Ernest is falling off a ladder it isn’t funny. Now I agree that the USA has had some funny classic comedy’s but they were just copies of successful British comedies.

          I have actually had a reasonably successful stint at YukYuks, Punchlines and Laughlines here and in Toronto. I just got bored of the industry and got into music touring instead.

          I have NEVER looked for you approval here in ANY of my posts, nor will I in the future.
          I don’t post here for anyone’s benefit except my own, it is my right to express my feelings and thoughts, it is my right to converse with others in this forum. Before you go writing more emails to TR trying to get me removed from the site, think twice, your opinion is just that, YOUR opinion as MY opinion is just MINE.

        • #3375667

          I never sent any emails. . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Nationality surveys

          ..to either you or TechRepublic.

        • #3375662

          Of course not

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Nationality surveys

          You don’t have an IP address either I suppose.
          Maxwell,
          I didn’t mean to imply you had tried to implicate me in the past, by saying ‘more’, but you seem to like writing to the editors and complaining about others. Perhaps it makes you feel important or more involved, it’s not my insecurity.

          Like I said before Max, you and I don’t now nor ever will have anything in common. The ONLY interest we’ve shared is music, but everyone shares an interst in music.
          The Beatles were a great band that poineered many of todays musical tastes, but I don’t give them the musical credit that many still do. There have been many bands with just as much musical influence and talent, if not more, than the Beatles ever had. Especially considering that most of the Beatles music was inspired by Blues musicians and simplified for the general public.

          Other than that, nada.

          Your constant defamation of my character is second to none, you are the reason that I can’t tell people who I work with in the music industry even though some have expressed interest in my contacts and work.

          You are the reason that people cannot speak freely, your constant repression of anyone that disagrees with your views, great job Saddam, make you a perfect candidate for Presidency. So to answer your question from before, if I could pick ANY American to run the country, I’d pick you. You’d at least give the rest of the world a good reason to unite and turn America into a dessert. Your distaste towards anything unAmerican and your ignorance towadr human life is the type of singular personality that causes others to see America in the negative way they do.

          For someone who considers himself the ultimate citizen, you are actually a terrible example of the people. You are a pathetic, miserable old codger that has seen more than enough days of light. Perhaps it’s time for you to rest now and go toward the light.

          As they say on Joe Schmo, MAX, you are dead to me. Too bad it’s only a TV show.

        • #3377029
          Avatar photo

          Thanks JimHM for that

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Me thinks you got it – including the American Indians –

          By the way I was in no way trying to infer that there was a difference between Americians it’s just that I’ve heard the Indians refered to as “Native” so many times that I just whent with the flow but I am in full agreement with you on that one as I do excatly the same thing over here on the very rare occasion that I am rung up now {Seems that I’m on a black list or something} because I don’t give them the answers that they want to hear so they no longer bother me.

          But don’t you just love the way that they respond when you answer their questions literally? They get really confused and don’t seem to understand.

          I suspose it is all because they constantly want to seperate people into different little boxes rather than treat them as people with the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else.

          This is one thing that I hate with a vengence the way people are treated differently just because of their race or whatever I think everyone should be treated equally with special attention directed to needy areas rather than just throwing money at a certian race because it looks good but really does next to nothing to help.

    • #3377409

      No Government Is Perfect..

      by tomsal ·

      In reply to Different systems of government …

      …or can be. Since the government applies to a large number of people the addage “Can’t please all the people all the time” comes to mind.

      Since you can NEVER please *ALL* the people all the time a government will never, nor can it ever hope to be, perfect — someone will always find something to complain about; no matter how large or small the beef might be.

      That all said, an “Improved” government according to me would include:

      + True democratic elections for Presential campaign; no electoral college deciding who is President. However I’d like to actual minimal requirements beyond age for voting. I really think when you register to vote you should have to take some kind of pre-screening test. If you fail the test you can’t vote.

      +Social programs like Welfare would have STRICT requirements and you’d have to actively prove that you are trying to improve yourself (get a job, increased education, etc.) or you are kicked out of the program. PERIOD.

      +Justice system would be completely re-vamped. If sufficient evidence existed that one was guilty of a capital offense – they are tried as an adult, the only exception would be for those younger than 10 years old. No more serial killers on death row for decades either, make that system efficient — empty those cells, ease the burden on tax payers.

      +Immigration control wouldn’t be a joke. Like it is today. There would be REAL border controls.

      I could go on and on…

      • #3377333

        ARE YOU NUTS?

        by fluxit ·

        In reply to No Government Is Perfect..

        No electoral college? Then there would be no representation of states like Idaho or Montana. Only large cities like New York, Chicago, or LA would run the country. Politicians would not even campaign anywhere else but those places. I would not want large cities to run the country! They are already hosed up and most are left wing radicals.

        As far social programs, hasn’t that happened since 1992?

        As for the death penalty, you need to ask yourself does the law influence the lawless? Would the death penalty deter crime if the lawless have no respect for life or the law? Due process is important. After DNA testing they discovered dozens of death row inmates who were innocent. It would be heresy to implement a death penalty without some sort of sound moral doctrine.

        Immigration – agreed. This has been politicized by political parties to increase votes. Liberals tend to open the flood gates and let anyone in because they typically vote for liberal causes. Although the Cubans are bitter since the days of Kennedy and vote almost unanimously conservative.

        I think the current track the Unites States is on moves us closer to an ideal Government.

        • #3375610
          Avatar photo

          As I’m not a US resident or citizen I’ll leave

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to ARE YOU NUTS?

          Out any reference to those political items that where discussed but I will offer this coment about the death penelty.

          Here in Queensland AUstralia the last person hung for a capatol offence was found to be inconent several years latter and the real guilty person was caught. What could the Governemtn do to rectify this situtation Say sorry and everything was alright?

          The only problem with the death penelty is you have to be absoulty sure he/she has done it before you carry out the penelty as once the penelty has been carried out it is far too late to try to correct any misscarrages of Justice and fix the mess that has been made.

        • #3377084

          death penalty

          by john_wills ·

          In reply to As I’m not a US resident or citizen I’ll leave

          Col Luck is right to be horrified at the mistaken application of the death penalty, but this seems not to happen in the U.S. The campaigners against the death penalty have not, to my knowledge, brought up a case of a person found after execution to have been innocent – although there have been some near misses – and they surely would have done so if they knew of any such case, and they’ve been working so long at it that they surely would have found a case had there been one. Of course, Mumia may give them the ammunition: we already know he’s innocent because the real murderer has confessed, but somehow this isn’t getting Mumia off death row. Police and proseuctorial corruption are in evidence here, as very often in the U.S., mainly because one cannot sue a government officer for malicious prosecution; as a consequence there are many frame-ups. And if Mumia is eventually released, he will still have sufferred a decade or two in prison despite innocence.

        • #3377019

          Guilty or innocent

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to death penalty

          “The campaigners against the death penalty have not, to my knowledge, brought up a case of a person found after execution to have been innocent – although there have been some near misses”

          How many cases are continued AFTER the death of the condemmed? How much time and resources are used AFTER the death penalty is carried out?

          It is VERY common to release the condemmed BEFORE the death penalty is carried out. It happens more and more each year as forensic science advances.

          Given the fact that the government, the lwayers and the prosecutors are constantly wrong in conviction of the guilty or freedom of the innocent, how can one say that the death penalty should be in place?

          I agree that there are some that we don’t feel we can rehabilitate and due to our limited knowledge of the human brain, we choose to lock them up or sentence them to death I study forensic pathology quite extensively as well as the criminal mind, as a hobby. There are too many questions and doubts in the fields to accurately sentence someone to death, we have the ability to kill a man but not to know why.

          Death penalty -NO
          Fixing the judicial system -YES.

          Once we can assertain without a doubt (not a reasonable doubt but with NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER) that people have committed a crime, we cannot persecute them in this way.

        • #3375231

          post-mortem vindication

          by john_wills ·

          In reply to Guilty or innocent

          Outside the U.S. there have been quite a number of post-mortem vindications; in the UK during the 1990s someone named Bennet was cleared after having been put to death in the 1950s. It was because of a number of such cases in the 1940s and 1950s that the UK abolished the death penalty in the 1960s. Relatives of the condemned DO continue their interest after execution. But there seems to be no such case in the US, where the abolitionist argument must therefore, if it is to be rational, run differently.

      • #3377285

        No Electoral College – bad idea

        by jimhm ·

        In reply to No Government Is Perfect..

        No Electoral college – bad idea, then you would have area’s like New York and California electing the President – Forget about a majority of the states – And just look how screwed up NY and Ca is – CA just recalled one Bozzo and elected Arnie the Governator…

        And forget about any canidate tromping through low populated states …

        The Electoral College was created to ensure that all states were represented and had a vote in the President…

        As for reform and Prisions – Yes some major reform needs to be done, from ending most of these programs to ending life long appeals..

        And Boarders – there is way to much work needed to even begin to discuss that.

        • #3377230

          Pardon me…

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to No Electoral College – bad idea

          …for my ignorance. But, would’nt people electing the President be more like what the majority of the population need?

        • #3377148

          CIVICS CLASS 101

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to Pardon me…

          Why would we want one or two states like New York and California run the country? Should all the states have representation?

          Per our Constitution we have such a thing called State Rights. The Federal Government does not deal directly with the people. The feds only deal with the state governments where the majority rules at that level. Then each state cast a number of votes based on how its population votes.

          One thing that I have noticed is that so many people really need a CIVICS class. TOO MANY PEOPLE LACK THE MOST BASIC UNDERSTANDING OF OUR GOVERNMENT. If you desire I will tutor you via email.

        • #3377080

          direct election

          by john_wills ·

          In reply to CIVICS CLASS 101

          In direct election of the President – of which, for the record, I do not approve – California and New York would not elect the President: in both those states some people would vote for each candidate. At present the majority in each state gets all the votes for that state; in direct election that would no longer be so, but a Californian vote would be worth the same as an Iowan vote. However, if the votes in the electoral college were split up in proportion to the popular vote in each state – as already happens in NH – we would still have weighting by state but no longer dominance by the big states. And there is a way that I think better still, but we can discuss that elsewhere.

        • #2741426

          Problem is the population

          by jimhm ·

          In reply to direct election

          The problem is the population – if lets say New York votes75% for Billary Clinton … it would take a number of states to kill that vote – where as with an Electroial college – NY only gets lets say 7 votes…

          Also why would politicans do anything for the small states – no votes there – I’ll take care of California – New York – Texas – George … the rest can get bent…

        • #3364897

          vote seeking

          by john_wills ·

          In reply to Problem is the population

          Candidates should not direct themselves to the peoples of distinct states, and probably would not in a direct-vote system. Getting one more vote in Wyoming, the smallest state, would be just as useful as getting one more vote in California, the biggest state. Right now that vote in Wyoming is a step towards less than a tenth as many electoral votes as the vote in California.

        • #3364876

          It isn’t the one more vote

          by jimhm ·

          In reply to Problem is the population

          We aren’t talking about the one more vote – we are talking that the canidate will not worry about the less populated states, during the election and after – I have X dollars to spend on ad’s – where is the biggest bang for my ad dollars going to come from – Cal, Ny, Florida and Texas …as for Az, Wy and the others I will spent almost zero…

          My Travel dollars – where is the biggest bang going to be for my spending – Same states – Those that are populated.

          Thus you don’t have a representation of the country as a whole.. Where even thou the Electroial college may have its problems it is better than the popular vote method.

          Once elected why worry about these less populated states – they will not carry any weight during my re-election … If I carry NY – and CA I can take the election… Thats what it designed to prevent.

        • #2741427

          Ah the American Public School System

          by jimhm ·

          In reply to CIVICS CLASS 101

          Ah – the American public school system – or is the pubic ses-pool system…

          Kids can’t read – teachers can’t teach – and parents don’t care…

          We are going to have one great group of people to lead our – Stupid children into the future… And people wonder why Corporations are going to the H1 and H1B’s visa…

          Duh – Mr how much is 2×2 … duh I don’t have my calculator… But I teach Math in High School..

        • #2741409

          NEA

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to Ah the American Public School System

          If you review the history of the National Education Association, NEA, you will note a very definite radical left wing agenda to prepare our youth for a One World Government and destroy national soveignty. Look at their publications in the 40’s and 50’s. It is real scary and has carried over to today. The outcome of that is stupid people.

          It really bothers me. I recall high school Problems of Democracy Class in the 70’s where my teacher only taught that liberals were good and Conservatives were bad. Everything was government programs and the need to help defendless people. Conversely from 1976 to 1980 we had the worst economy and one national disgrace after another while under the radical left wing rule of Jimmy Carter and the Liberal Peoples Republic of Congress. I recall double digit inflation, unemployment, and nearly every profession was on strike. Truckers blocked the freeways. Coal miners and steel workers were on strike. Auto workers went on stike. In fact, my teachers wildcat striked in the middle of the school year. They would urge me not to attend school while picketing. I really have a difficult time trusting the public schools system.

        • #2741385

          Interesting comments

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to NEA

          I made similar, yet not eloquently stated, opinions of the American school system some time ago after talking with a friend who taught American History at UCLA. He finally left after seven years due to the one sided and misleading information he was told to teach.

          I have made the argument that American kids are taught political bias in school and that they are not really educated to the workings of the rest of the world as much as they are with American politics.

          This argument was slammed due to my nationality and diregarded as ignorant because it was coming from a non-American.

          Now I see the same argument from an American with yet another American in agreement.

          I agree, but it the psychology behind it is very interesting. Thanks for being honest about a flaw in the American school system and agreeing that there needs to be improvement. Now if they would only stop teaching the mating habits of the Canadaian beaver(yes the animal, you pigs) here!

        • #2741340

          THE NEA TALK

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to NEA

          CIRCA 1948 there was a conference in which a 50 year plan was laid out to bring on a New World Order. It heavily involved educating the youth to accept this one world government. The NEA was heavily involved. Fortunately, it has not occurred.

          1946: The Teacher, World Government and editor from the NEA publishes, “…In the struggle to establish an adequate world government, the teacher can do much to prepare the hearts and minds of children for global understanding and cooperation. At the very heart of all the agencies which will assure the coming of world government must stand the school, teacher, and and the organized profession.”

          1946 the American Education Fellowship writes “… establishment of the new world order, an order in which national sovereignty is subordinate to world authority.”

          Folks this nuts are still here today. New world Order is not being used becasue its taboo. So now they call it Global Governance. Hey Did the Bible not prophetize something about this? Oh well I should not worry about Global Governance since I will be gone at the Rapture. Anyhow it was something about the ‘Anti-christ’, new Babylon, World Government headquarters… some people think that is about the United States, United Nations, and immoral leaders? But that Bible thing is not real as some of you put it.

        • #2745023

          Thanks for the offer..

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to CIVICS CLASS 101

          …but I will pass the offer this time. In the real world only a real real few know the workings of any government.

        • #2744743

          REAL WORLD?

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to Thanks for the offer..

          Understand. I have had some minor of experience working in the real real world with real real Governments. I am only serving as a US Naval Reserve Officer and have deployed to many places during real world events. I have about 40 combat days on my DD214.

          I currently work for a combatant commander, a politican\warrior. Coincidentally, General Peter Pace (current Vice Chairman of JCS) was one of then Combatant Commanders I did work for in the past – although not a direct report I did speak with him occasion. My experience with these Generals has spans C4 systems, Operations (I was on watch on 911 in the Crisis Action Center as the right hand man to the Current Operations Group Commander), and I have served as a Information Operations and Geopolitical Analyst. Currently, I am advancing a vision of mine I call the Adaptive Organization as a technical lead.

          I have an idea of what goes on with our the Joint Doctrine, Congressional Affairs, and State Department. I did write an example of some C4 doctrine I thought we should have when I briefed the Under Secretary of Defense at a conference some 4 years ago.

          Some of the events I have been involved with span combat operations, humanitarian aide, Nation Building, and a variety of MOOTW ops.

          I about 5 years ago I served as a Military Escort for about 7 Ambassadors during a conference. I normally do not hob nob with them but they seemed like nice people. Although one got a little arrogant with me when I did not recall his name.

          I am still learning but perhaps I can share some vague understanding that I may have with you.

      • #3377074

        Re: Death Penalty

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to No Government Is Perfect..

        Personally, I’d prefer to see the death penalty abolished.

        I don’t think it’s right to take a life, whether the person or entity taking the life is an individual (a criminal), a doctor, or a state.

        Taking a life in self defense, of course, would be my only exception. The military fighting in battle would fall under this category, as would abortion – but ONLY to save the life of the mother.

        In any and all other cases, I’d prefer to see more respect for life.

        I don’t like the alternative to the death penalty either, at least not the current day alternative as it would be in America. A “living death penalty” might me more appropriate – and possibly more of a deterrent to crime. Bring back the penal colony of devil’s island, crush boulders into rocks, crush rocks into pebbles, move pebbles back and forth, no hope for escape or parole, etc.

        Banishing an evil doer from society doesn’t mean we have to kill him.

        • #3377036

          Death penalty doesn’t work

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Re: Death Penalty

          The Death penalty is acceptable when we look at Cliffor doLsen, Jeffrey Dahmer, etc. These people have without ANY question taken the lives of others and shown little or no remorse for their actions. The world doesn’t seem to put a precidence into the psycological problems of these men and simply chooses to lock them up due to lack of ability to do better for them.
          If this be the case, I’d rather see them put to the death penalty as oppsed to sucking the taxpayers money for 50 years, look at Clifford Olsen particularly. This man just offers information about another child he’s killed each time he needs some cell improvements, no joking, the Canadaian government (and the taxpayers) have paid over one hundred thousand dollars to this man for information about the lives he took!

          In this case, end his life, and save our money.

          PROBLEM:

          The judicial system is so sorrupted and inaccurate that we have placed MANY men/women on death row, only to find out that they are innocent after being locked up for 11 years.

          Until the judicial system improves to impecable accuracy I cannot condone the death sentence.

          The problem isn’t the punishment, the problem is the courts and lawyers who warp the facts to either create doubt in the jury’s mind, thus releasing the criminal, or create a misleading trail of evidence that sees an innocent citizen found guilty for a crime he/she didn’t commit.

          Forget the sentence, fix the laws.

        • #2741433

          unjust convictions

          by john_wills ·

          In reply to Death penalty doesn’t work

          I understand that in the U.S. there is no known 20th-Century case of an innocent person being put to judicial death: the death penalty is so serious that the innocent, usually after many tribulations, are exonerated.
          However, there are myriads of cases of innocent people being convicted for lesser crimes, where there is no concentration of lawyers etc. trying to get them off. In the U.S. at least an important part of the cause of this is prosecutorial corruption; I have personally had a prosecutor conceal the location of an important witness in the hope of convicting me (she dropped the case when her chief witness, a bent cop, turned out to have a record such that no jury would believe him). This would happen less if those who, like me, found out the prosecution had been malicious could sue for it, but in the U.S. they can’t. California Government Code Sec. 821.6 protects the traitors. In Canada the equivalent rule is “No Servant of the Queen may allege that the Queen ordered him to commit any tort.”, so there is less malicious prosecution. If Sec. 821.6 were changed to read “No Servant of the People of the State of California may allege that the People ordered him to commit any tort.” we would see a gradual improvement in prosecutorial behavior, then in police behavior, then in the behavior of the social groups most victimized by police and prosecutorial misbehavior. And we would have far fewer innocent people convicted.

        • #2741432

          appropriate death penalty

          by john_wills ·

          In reply to Death penalty doesn’t work

          In societies without prison systems the death penalty is appropriate for nearly all crimes (see the article on hangwite in my book Albatross 0-595-19418-4). It beomes less often appropriate as the criminal-justice system improves. Imho, the only appropriate application of the death penalty by most states nowadays is for someone who murders under color of office, e.g. Edmund Calley (a soldier who murdered the villagers he had been sent to protect), the murderers of Ahmadou Diallou, etc. Alas, these traitors are in practice usually prosecuted incompetently if at all.

        • #2741404

          The age old question – Eye for an Eye

          by jimhm ·

          In reply to Death penalty doesn’t work

          Look at the Muslim countries – where a thief has his hand cut off, or a women is stoned for infedelity, or in India where a man can murder his wife for not obeying his commands.

          Hum – the age old question – of Crime and punishment. Is it better to coddle the prisioner in a just and humain way – or make it so nasty that any person in their right mind wouldn’t want to be there.

          Neither has worked – it has nothing to do with the courts – or lawyers – or laws …

          It all comes back to the persons upbringing – yes there are those 1 in a thousand that are screwed in the head – but you can trace most crimals back to bad parenting – no guidelines or rules at a young age – no displine …

          The death penilty works … but not to deter crime – but to keep that individual from ever doing it again… Someone kills one of my loved ones – will answer to my death penitly – not the courts… They will never harm another person – again.. That is what the death sentance accomplishes –

        • #2741394

          You’ve missed the argument Jim

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to The age old question – Eye for an Eye

          The argument at this point in the thread is regarding the ability to correctly convict the right person and not those who have been screwed by a crappy judicial system.

          Until we can nail the right guy without doubt, we cannot sentence someone to death. Now to hear this coming from someone with such religious beliefs as yourself is quite surprising.

          Yes I agree 150% ! If I caught someone harming any member of my family or friends, I would kill them myself without any remorse and would happily serve any prison time as a result of saving my loved ones.

          Clifford Olsen was a neighbour of mine at one time when I lived in Richmond, he had a neice that played with my neice and he wasn’t that different than anyone else. If I had killed him, after discovering his other crimes, I would have been put on a pedastal as a hero and not a jury in the country would have convicted me.

          As it stands, he gets treated well, has his own cell (complete with satellite TV, a computer “for his studies” and a tonne of money goes to his family every time he releases info about another he killed. This man deserves to die.

          Those who are convicted on a shoestring of a case are often found to be not guilty MANY, MANY years after the sentence. This is a strong indication that we have no business in sentencing someone to death until we can resolve the issues that block fair trial and the corruption of the courts, police and prosecutors.

        • #2741367
          Avatar photo

          What you are actually saying is

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to You’ve missed the argument Jim

          That the courts don’t work because instead of seaking justice which they where originally set up to do they have degenerated into I must will at all costs and a proscituer or lawer who constantly winns is considered as a sucessful person.

          When the adversiarl system is removed and we begin to see pure justice where everyone works towards getting the truth that is the only time things will start to improve. Then we will not have people believe sometimes quite rightly that the police are out to get them, the police won’t be put under preasure to catch a wrong dooer at any cost and the proscitution will not be under any obligation to winn at all costs. Of course the same has to happen on the other side as well so the privilage must go as anyone who willingly defends a person who they know is guilty is not working for justice but their own ends.

          What we need is some humanity back in the court sustem rather than the current winn at all costs. Until this is changed there will be no justice only chaos.

        • #2741344

          Hear hear

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to What you are actually saying is

          I second the motion Colin, nicely said.

        • #2741331

          adversarial vs inquisitional

          by john_wills ·

          In reply to What you are actually saying is

          Do you really think that jurisdictions with inquisitional criminal procedure, e.g. Austria, are more humane than jurisdictions with adversarial criminal procedure, e.g. New Zealand? It might be interesting to make comparative lists. I rather think that communist and Islamic states have both tended to inquisition, though I stnd open to correction. Of course, even in adversarial systems the prosecution is usually obliged to make exculpatory evidence available to the defense.

        • #3364973
          Avatar photo

          That is taking the case to the other extreme

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to What you are actually saying is

          Why can we as man never find the middle ground where things work in a fair and just manner?

          The listing you have placed here is at the other extreme of the current US & AU Judical System. Exactly is it that every thime that some form of anything is concerned it has to be taken to the extreme? I can remember here when Lionel Murphy drew up the blueprint for our Family Court which incidently now is a total disater but as at the time I was very well know to this man he tried to get a system where the Legal Whores wern’t involved or at least only in a minimual manner and it worked for all of 6 months before the legal whores got their grubby little hands into the system and distorted it to their own ends for profit. Here it isn’t even wim at all costs but get as much money as possible out of the suckers when they are at their most vunerable which is surely the best time for these vultures to swoop in and make a killing.

          When this court was originally setup there was susposed to be simple rules where the everyday person could get up and get justice so there where no hard and fast rules put in place that you keeded a legal degre to work the system it was all very laid back for any court system and it was this very fact that has been its undoing as the legal whores have got hold of these very lose rules and distorted them into something that now bears no resimbelance to what was originally intended they now get up and say some stupid things like “My Cleint is scared of the way their ex is looking at them” junk like this would be imediatly thrown out of any other court because when you are in a room and the person is giving evidence it is only normal the everyone looks at them but now it is an offence as it intimidates the wittness. This has been so screwed up since its introduction that the Judges who sit over this court are driving Political Correctness to the extreme so that one even tried to have me charged with Contemp of Court after I had ben forced to give evidence and he then approched me in a lift with his body guards and being unhappy with my testominy he asked me a question about what I thought of his actions. Well I’m nor all that subtle at the best of times and particuarly after being forced to waste half my day for some stupidity I told him exactly what I thought of his stupid ideas and the absolute crazy way he ran the court I think I even mentione that he should and would be certified if he didn’t preside in that court. Now as I answered a direct question that was asked of me by the Judge out of court he then attempted to have me charged with Contemp of Court to which I replied how can I be in contempt when the court is already in contempt odf the law or something like that. This fool then demanded that one of his bodyguards arrest me to which I replied I was only answering a direct question placed by him to me out of a court and while the court wasn’t sitting. He then claimed that I was threating him to which I asked how I’m standing in a corner of a lift I haven’t moved and I certianly haven’t even raised my voice unlike you. The body guards tended to agree with my position and some even laughed but it does show just how silly things have got when these people do things like this and expect to only hear glowing reports of their actions as if they can do no wrong. ANyway the Lift ended its ride and I insisted to the senior bodyguard to have him removed as I didn’t want to move in case he fell over and I got the blame for his inability to walk through a lobby. While this only infurated the Judge even more his body guards tended toagree with me and removed him from the lift and one stayed with me until he had cleared the area. I was then told by that person I wish I could say what you’ve just said as he diserves it.

          Incidently the children who he awarded back to the mother again after she had deserted them several time previously all died within the next 6 months in a house fire while they where unattended and their mother who had custody was out having a good time.

          Now maybe it’s just me buy I see this as little better than manslaughter by the Judge as the mother had done the exact same thing at least 6 times previously and on one occasion she came into my house and asked my wife could she look after the children while she went to the doctors for about 1 hour six days latter when she returned she seemed oblivious to all the problems that she had caused and even complained that we had gone into her unlocked house to get clothes for her children, the youngest of which was then only a few months old.

        • #3364859

          First of all

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to What you are actually saying is

          This isn’t a question of which legal system or judicial system is correct. It doesn’t matter WHAT system is in place if it is corrupted and therefore NOT part of the system.

          Unfortunately, this is seen worldwide on a massive scale.

Viewing 17 reply threads