Gothic.net News Horror Gothic Lifestyle Fiction Movies Books and Literature Dark TV VIP Horror Professionals Professional Writing Tips Links Gothic Forum




Go Back   Gothic.net Community > Boards > Politics

Politics "Under democracy, one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule -and both commonly succeed, and are right." -H.L. Menken

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-31-2005, 04:58 PM   #76
Soul_Immortal
 
Soul_Immortal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 554
O.O

Do it.

Excercise your freedom of speech and do it!
__________________
*Insert witty quote about something goth here*
Soul_Immortal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2005, 11:54 AM   #77
Rosie
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 433
Republicans, dudes, an overwhelming majority of the world disagree with you. Deal with it.

I for one am sick of how I can no longer have a debate on an internet forum without some ultra conservative jackasses ganging up on me.
Rosie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2005, 01:01 PM   #78
edible_eye
 
edible_eye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,795
aw, you've taken a poll and... heh. you've taken a poll....

"an overwhelming majority of the world disagrees with you..." - and yet, it was a republican voted into the white house, twice in a row. the rest of the world? bah. thay have no say in what happens here on our soil. where'd you learn that, anyway? ted kennedy? john kerry? howard dean? hillary clinton? bill clinton? going door-to-door and... taking a poll?

fuck republicans, anyway. if the current republican party is any reflection on what republicans have become, i'll stick with the libertarian / libertine party.
__________________
"How many times can I say I'm not sorry? And how many ways can I show I don't care?" - Type O Negative
edible_eye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2005, 01:28 PM   #79
Rosie
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 433
Quote:
"an overwhelming majority of the world disagrees with you..." - and yet, it was a republican voted into the white house, twice in a row. the rest of the world? bah. thay have no say in what happens here on our soil.
That's exactly the problem. Yet the US has a say in what happens on other people's soil?

And I learnt that from paying attention to the surroundings outside of my own country.
Rosie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2005, 01:48 PM   #80
Peter
 
Peter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK, Middlesbrough
Posts: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by edible_eye
aw, you've taken a poll and... heh. you've taken a poll....

"an overwhelming majority of the world disagrees with you..." - and yet, it was a republican voted into the white house, twice in a row. the rest of the world? bah. thay have no say in what happens here on our soil. where'd you learn that, anyway? ted kennedy? john kerry? howard dean? hillary clinton? bill clinton? going door-to-door and... taking a poll?

fuck republicans, anyway. if the current republican party is any reflection on what republicans have become, i'll stick with the libertarian / libertine party.
There were many polls, yes.
Peter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2005, 03:32 PM   #81
edible_eye
 
edible_eye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,795
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosie
That's exactly the problem. Yet the US has a say in what happens on other people's soil?
And I learnt that from paying attention to the surroundings outside of my own country.
it's a problem only as far as your own ideology goes.

and as far as the u.s. having a say about some others, not all - that's part of life, yes. it's the way parts of the world have progressed. it would be nice if we could pull all our men and women back inside our borders and let others fend for themselves, but then, of course, we'd hear incessant bitching and moaning about how horrible the u.s. is for not helping out across the world.

perhaps you should pay a little more attention to your own country and stop biting your nails about what others outside the u.s. are crying about. don't believe the hype - remember that little tid-bit of advice?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peter
There were many polls, yes.
there are always a variety of polls - pro or con. anyone can support almost any statement made if they survey the spectrum of polls taken and apply results they find to whatever they believe. couple that with sources who tout various polls to reflect what they believe is important, especially in the news and ouala! - you've got some sweet, ol' propaganda, baby. it's what makes the world go 'round.

i'm glad you didn't leave, peter.
__________________
"How many times can I say I'm not sorry? And how many ways can I show I don't care?" - Type O Negative
edible_eye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2005, 01:23 AM   #82
Peter
 
Peter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK, Middlesbrough
Posts: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by edible_eye
there are always a variety of polls - pro or con. anyone can support almost any statement made if they survey the spectrum of polls taken and apply results they find to whatever they believe. couple that with sources who tout various polls to reflect what they believe is important, especially in the news and ouala! - you've got some sweet, ol' propaganda, baby. it's what makes the world go 'round.

i'm glad you didn't leave, peter.
I have left according to what I proposed as me leaving when I stated I was? What you mean?

Yes, there were a variety of polls, most showing a strong bias against GW, you're suggestion there wasn't one was rather unfair. I do trust some polls and don't think they're propaganda, Gallup for example.
Peter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2005, 04:52 AM   #83
edible_eye
 
edible_eye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,795
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
I have left according to what I proposed as me leaving when I stated I was? What you mean?

Yes, there were a variety of polls, most showing a strong bias against GW, you're suggestion there wasn't one was rather unfair. I do trust some polls and don't think they're propaganda, Gallup for example.
a while back you said you were leaving - i'm glad you didn't, even though we really have never quite hit it off.

and yes, you're absolutely right. there are a few polls which carry universal acceptance as being legitimate, gallup for example. human tides wax and wane, however and a negative poll following a negative event doesn't necessarily hold true as time goes on. i don't follow polls though, mainly for that reason. people in general have a hard time finding their core convictions and sticking by them. and in that vein, mass opinion, to me, is a faulty measure of what's acceptable or not at any given moment.
__________________
"How many times can I say I'm not sorry? And how many ways can I show I don't care?" - Type O Negative
edible_eye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2005, 01:54 AM   #84
Binkie
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Beautiful U.S. of A.
Posts: 1,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosie
I for one am sick of how I can no longer have a debate on an internet forum without some ultra conservative jackasses ganging up on me.
To rehash some of your own advice, "Deal with it." You don't think alot of Republicans clash with the same folks? Or that alot of Democrats don't clash with the "ultra liberal jackasses?" I'd say to you, "If you don't like forums frequented by 'ultra conservative jackasses,' go to one where you can surround yourself with folks from your own party/political ideology/whathaveyou," but the fact of the matter is you're going to have to deal with the far opposite end of the spectrum of extremism when you do that. So no matter where you end up, you're going to fight with someone and chances are at some point you'll be out-numbered. But numbers don't win an arguement.
__________________
"[Brian Blair] was a punk. I can break his fucking back - break his back and make him humble and then fuck his ass ... Suplex him, put him in a camel clutch, break his back, and fuck his ass - make him humble. Teach him to respect the Iron Sheik. And I didn't do it, because for the God and Jesus, and Mr. McMahon." -Khosrow Vaziri (The Iron Sheik)
Binkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2005, 11:34 AM   #85
edible_eye
 
edible_eye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,795
Quote:
Originally Posted by Binkie
But numbers don't win an arguement.
this is true.

but to revisit the point you're bringing up, neither does throwing a temper tantrum like so -

Quote:
Originally Posted by rosie
Republicans, dudes, an overwhelming majority of the world disagree with you. Deal with it.

I for one am sick of how I can no longer have a debate on an internet forum without some ultra conservative jackasses ganging up on me.
to this, i say - waaah, waaaah, waaaah...
__________________
"How many times can I say I'm not sorry? And how many ways can I show I don't care?" - Type O Negative
edible_eye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2005, 06:02 PM   #86
edible_eye
 
edible_eye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,795
Quote:
Originally Posted by TStone
But what if it’s what the people want?
this, to me, is the only important point here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tstone
Think of the government as the parental unit, and the people as the kids dependent upon the parents to make (some) choices for them, for their own benefit. The kid may want candy 24/7. The kid may want to play video games until his or her body wastes in entropy, veins clog up from inactivity, until one breaks free—shots up to the brain, and kills the kid stone cold right in the middle of freeing the +5 Bastard Sword from the icy cold waters of El’Cheeto, located at the base of Mt. Deweth.

It’s up to the parental unit to provide some measure of guidance to ensure that kind of shit doesn’t happen.
i know you're formulating an analogy, but i can't wrap my hands around this concept here and wave it like a flag. too many citizens view the government exactly as you put it right there and it makes them lazy, lazy, lazy, good-for-nothing leeches. and that situation is only getting worse.

"i don't have to do anything cuz mommy and daddy gonna take care of me just fine. i got MY MONEY (a phrase i loathe) coming at the beginning of the month."

and they DO sit in front of the television until their legs and bellies swell, eating buckets of food and candy and ice cream while they do nothing except fill their mu-mu's to the point of splitting their stitches. some have kids they lock in closets or leave at home while they're out scoring drugs or hanging out at the liquor store. it's a whole sect of society living on the dole, despite their ability to work and they're raising their children to follow suit. they very literally view the government as a parent who will take care of them and they view you and i as saps and idiots for getting up every morning and heading off to work.

that growing sect is one component that has led to a government so full of itself they no longer see the citizens of this country as a threat to their job - except at the time of election. and they have the working class by the balls, make no mistake about it - raising taxes whenever they see fit to add on a program here or there or to welcome in a substantial number of new recruits who are ready to park their worthless asses on couches they did nothing to earn.

i'd like to see a government that takes care of the basics in this country - leaving those who are able to fend for themselves alone to do so. legitimate needs aside, and i'm sure we can all come to terms on what constitutes legitimate need - the government should not be spoken of as a parent.
__________________
"How many times can I say I'm not sorry? And how many ways can I show I don't care?" - Type O Negative
edible_eye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2005, 08:38 PM   #87
edible_eye
 
edible_eye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,795
Quote:
Originally Posted by TStone
I see where you could have a problem wrapping your brain around the concept of government as a parental authority. In reading your response I see that you associate the concept, automatically, with bad and abusive parents.
bad, yes - abusive, perhaps but mostly in terms of and applied to the good kids in the home. they're the ones that are penalized.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tstone
The best government is a government that governs the least. The best populace is one that understands they must do for themselves, before they ask others to do for them.
agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tstone
A good set of parental units will allow their children to mature at a natural rate, to experience and learn within their environment without being oppressive, and suppressing only when absolutely needed.
true - and it should be established within the context of the home so that when the members of the populace leave their parents to do for themselves, the government can continue to govern in the least intrusive and encompassing way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tstone
As parents you and your wife have set up a pseudocity(ies)-state, complete with a semblance of legislative, executive, and judicial branches. You’re not elected per-say, but I’d hazard a guess it’s not quite a totalitarian regime, either. Possibly a diarchy, maybe a monarchy (but that would indicate a chirocracy, and I just don’t see you like that) but most families fall under arithmocracy, and if everyone wants to go to the beach for the weekend, then the beach it is.
i love this paragraph because i don't inderstand all those terms and the fact you can roll them off without hesitation is fuckin' hot. i understood the last sentence and you hit the nail on the head.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tstone
So government really isn’t that different from parenthood, and just like parenthood, you have your ups and downs, the good and the bad…and the ugly.

Which you were able to illustrate in your previous example.
ah, opinions diverge here. government shouldn't be involved in trivial matters such as whether or not families are heading to the beach on their days off, other than to ensure that the roadways are safe and free of damage SHOULD a family desire a trip along them. and i'm using the finite point of that example in a universal sense. our government should not be sending monthly checks to families who refuse to carry their own weight, figuring out what they need in terms of monthly allotments for food and pleasure, taking care of their medical needs and pharmacy needs just because said individuals and families don't feel like getting out there into the work force, or doing for themselves.

our government is involved in that and a whole bunch more just like it. our government is hell-bent on perpetuating a sense of helplessness amongst communities that scream they have no way of making it and that it's everyone else's fault for them being in such a state. our government welcomes the whining, lazy masses to come suck at the teat of our tax dollars and we, the ones who pay those taxes, have not a word to say about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tstone
As for what the people want, that would be great, it would be divine—if people weren’t lied to and tricked into believing they wanted something, which they really didn’t. This isn’t they people’s fault, they can’t help being ignorant most of the time due to the fact they have a plethora of their own problems, not to mention their own government to run at home.
i don't agree. if we, as a people, were brought up to respect the choices and chances we are given here in this country, while at the same time knowing full well that we sink or swim once the doors of school slam shut behind us and it's time to make it or break it - there'd be a much greater propensity for individuals to take stock of what's going on around them. as it is, the government has become a "don't worry, we'll take care of it" type of institution and THAT is the message that gets pounded into people's heads every day - and a message like that promotes laziness, distraction and apathy about what goes on in the government over time. why care when someone else will take care of things? why care when you don't have to? you can bet those who founded this country paid attention to everything going on and when needed, they had their say.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tstone
Which is why we invest our power in someone else. We pay attention just long enough to see which person has our best interests at heart, we cast our votes, and let him or her do his or her job. From time to time we’ll check in on him or her, to make sure the job is still being done, and then go back to doing our job.
there's no way we can check on whether or not the government is doing its job. "the government" encompasses something so massive today, even "the government" can't be sure it's doing its job. all they can do is hope the machine is running fairly smooth and all we can hope for at this point is that we'll know or hear if it isn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tstone
If there were no term limits people would (and you’ve already alluded to this) become lazy and comfortable, and they would not worry so much if a job was being done, and would not put so much effort in finding another candidate when they could just cast a vote for the same one over and over again.
The probability of an elected official abusing that trusts, of fleecing as it were, the populace, becomes greater with each subsequent election…because our elected officials are people too, and are subject to the same lazy and comfortable code of ethics we apply to our own selves.

So it will happen if term limits are lifted, with greater frequency.
with the way the government is now - you're exactly right. scaling down what we have out there is the only way to bring what you said above into something manageable for all of us, you, me and everyone else to deal with effectively. in a way, we're all dependant on the government at this point because it essentially runs all of our lives whether we want it to or not.

is that going to happen? not at the rate we keep expanding. shit, we've started to install governments into other countries now, for christ's sake. bigger and bigger and bigger. how, exactly, are we supposed to check and see if they're doing their job correctly in that instance? according to the constitution, we have no business doing such a thing and yet - ouala - here we are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tstone
Our founding fathers realized this, our founding president was against unlimited term limits, and it just makes sense.
that's fair, however i feel differently. and to put it into perspective, they'd just fled a country where a king was a king for life. it only makes sense that their line of thought would carry them in a different direction. if there was a vote to determine what people in this country wanted now as far as term limits were concerned - you know, a democratic sounding board inside this democratic nation instead of the government just saying "don't worry, we'll take care of it" - i would vote for unlimited term limits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tstone
yeah, i agree. i'm friggin' beat and i'm going to bed when i'm done.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tstone
Lastly, the government as the people’s parents, their legal representation, has been a notion since the drawing of the constitution. Think not of the elected officials as the parental units, but that slip of paper; the constitution, as the highest authority in the land, and we the people elect amongst ourselves the people we believe best suited to represent it, us, and all we stand for.

It has been our guidance for the last 230 years, the parental hand of our founding fathers, and I hope it lasts for another bajillion.
i wholeheartedly agree with the distinction of the constitution as the guiding hand, or parental figure in this scenario. the politicians have desecrated what it once was though, making up what they will when it suits their fancy. 230 years is not that long of a time and for what it's worth - the changes that have gone on internally just during the time i've grown up are huge. the last 20 years, give-or-take.

yes, the constitution was provided as a backbone for what this country was supposed to be - and unfortunately i find myself believing that it has become the backbone only in reference, an old piece of paper encased in glass and hanging on a wall (figuratively) out of sight, while politicians sip their booze and walk away from it when they really need to talk about the country.
__________________
"How many times can I say I'm not sorry? And how many ways can I show I don't care?" - Type O Negative
edible_eye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2005, 09:00 AM   #88
Peter
 
Peter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK, Middlesbrough
Posts: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by TStone
As for you saying it’s not integral for America to be America, that it was only added around the middle of the last century; it is true it was only added then, but prior to that it was an unstated truth, spoken very loud by our first president, which was not challenged until FDR’s time, but that’s a whole ‘nother ball of wax.

So why argue about term limitations, when the idea was clearly integral, and meaningful, to the Founding Fathers? Well, I can see the reason to argue; discussions are the proofing grounds for validity, but you can not balance power in a quasi-democracy without term limitations restricting the amount of power an elected official accumulates.
Well, it would depend how integral, the founding fathers were also insistent that the Constitution would change over time to adapt to modern society. I would also argue that you can have balanced power without the 22nd, really, why not?, if one president is clearly more popular than another (in a democracy, not cheerocracy way) and has done better for America, why not?, when a viable alternative happens, they'll get elected if they can offer better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TStone
Which is why we have term limitations, and why I respect President Washington’s decision, or declaration, on the matter when asked to run for a third term in 1796. It takes a fortification of will, an extreme love of the people, and extreme restraint to decline the power invested by the people…and instead, chose for the greater good of the people.

Now if (Peter) you are asking we juxtapose (for a moment) Washington and Bush, and decide who had the right(er) idea on term limitations...ah think I’ll have to go with the President who did the most for this country.
But again, it depends on the validity of the 22nd at a particular time, afterall, there's good reason the Constitution can be altered at the same time it's supposed to be being upheld.

Not sure I think comparing government to parental .. ness is apt though, there's too many big differences to be a good comparison.
Peter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2005, 10:42 AM   #89
edible_eye
 
edible_eye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,795
fair 'nuff, bro. i'm heading out to the gym to clear my head as well. this day has pretty much sucked so far.
__________________
"How many times can I say I'm not sorry? And how many ways can I show I don't care?" - Type O Negative
edible_eye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2005, 02:13 AM   #90
OdinicRite
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Westville, Ok
Posts: 29
For an American citizen to hate the United States government would be to hate the citizens of the United States because our government was formed on the notion that it is for the people, by the people, and of the people. But for one to hate the politicians which have corrupted and misused our people's government would be the proper place for your hate to be directed towards. Because, without the American people there would be no government but the politicians would still be there. Wouldn't you agree?

-Axl
OdinicRite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2005, 02:39 AM   #91
Peter
 
Peter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK, Middlesbrough
Posts: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by OdinicRite
For an American citizen to hate the United States government would be to hate the citizens of the United States because our government was formed on the notion that it is for the people, by the people, and of the people. But for one to hate the politicians which have corrupted and misused our people's government would be the proper place for your hate to be directed towards. Because, without the American people there would be no government but the politicians would still be there. Wouldn't you agree?

-Axl
While I can certainly see your point, that would only work if the government was actually by, for, and of the people. However, I don't really think that reflects the reality of any government. Like the old addage goes, power corrupts etc.
Peter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2005, 07:05 AM   #92
Soul_Immortal
 
Soul_Immortal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 554
There is one for you...corruption of power. To say the least, it would be a long time coming if NONE of that were happening anywhere on this planet.
__________________
*Insert witty quote about something goth here*
Soul_Immortal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2005, 08:30 AM   #93
edible_eye
 
edible_eye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,795
Quote:
Originally Posted by OdinicRite
For an American citizen to hate the United States government would be to hate the citizens of the United States because our government was formed on the notion that it is for the people, by the people, and of the people.
two, separate entities. if voting records for all political positions continually and habitually reflected 100 % of the country, there might be some validity to that statement - but as things stand now, voting percentages are low and as such, many politicians retain their offices by default. such a situation breeds overconfidence in one's position and as such, an eventual abuse of power.

Quote:
Originally Posted by odinicrite
But for one to hate the politicians which have corrupted and misused our people's government would be the proper place for your hate to be directed towards.
see above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by odinicrite
Because, without the American people there would be no government but the politicians would still be there. Wouldn't you agree?-Axl
2 things here:

1.) the term "the american people" puts a bee in my bonnett, to quote disfunction. we are american citizens, all of us, including the politicians who use that term and the reporters as well. using a term such as that puts - pay attention to this - the rest of america at a distance, thusly verbally elevating anyone who utters it above everyone else, in my opinion. saying "we, as americans" is more accurate.

2.) the question was phrased awkwardly, but i believe what you're saying is - the people who would have been voted in as politicians would still be there, just not as politicians? is that right?

anwway, bottom line is - if there was never a government established to bring cohesion to the states, this country would have been acquired by another nation or nations long ago, piece-by-piece, and there would be no america today.
__________________
"How many times can I say I'm not sorry? And how many ways can I show I don't care?" - Type O Negative
edible_eye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2005, 09:18 AM   #94
OdinicRite
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Westville, Ok
Posts: 29
Yes, power does corrupt, but while the corrupted turn powerful most citizens sit back and do nothing. We were given the constitutional right to break down and rebuild said government in the case in which it oversteps its given power and place. Our forefathers gave us these rights as a way to keep our government the way that it was meant to be. Thomas Jefferson once said, "the tree of liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots." It was written in the Declaration of Independence that "it is our right and DUTY as American citizens to break down and rebuild our government if it is to step out of lines, whether it is through diplomacy or war..." But most people sit back and complain that the governmental element in our country is out of line but they are unprepared and too lazy to even think about using the rights given to us by the founders of this country, who themselves, came here to get away from a corrupt government, fought that machine and won, and build the foundations that our country rests on. To say that my previous post was somewhat irrelevant because of the corrupt elements in our contemporary government is understandable. But in that same frame of mind, without the people there is no government. People can survive without a government but a government cannot survive without its people.

-Axl
OdinicRite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2005, 02:10 AM   #95
Peter
 
Peter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK, Middlesbrough
Posts: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by TStone
Now, anyone can break out of their class system and either go up or down the chain. That is irrefutable, which is why we are not, per say, a product of our environment. However, going up IS a lot more difficult than coming down. Always has been, always will be. When you factor in discrimination; the good old boy equation doesn’t leave much room at the top. Then you have single mothers straight out of high school with no skills, no education to speak of, no way to attain these things because any free time they do have is devoted to child care. We have a penal system that embraces minority majority without actually addressing their needs, and a majority minority that is born suspicious, which inevitably begets more of the same criminal fodder.

Meh, it’s just so goddamn frustrating.

Peter, you are correct, but only insofar as you can ink the idea on paper. If, hypothetically, such a system existed then the people would need more power to balance the scales. Think of it this way, the figurehead in that scenario would be limited in power, and make only those decisions the people he or she represented agreed with. There would need to be a direct line, of some form, of communication between the leader and the people, without the bureaucracy of a Senate and House of Representatives. When the people were dissatisfied with their leader, they would be able to immediately vote him or her out and appoint a new leader. So a true Figurehead, of the people, by the people.
I have two thoughts for you, the first in regards to the first paragraph.

Always have, and always will is a fallacy, it is only that way if you take the most convenient, easiest, and shortest route. This can happen at any time which is why systems tend to become corrupt - even when they start off fantastically due to a few good men or women (for example, the founding fathers). As a nation, as humanity, groups must always strive to become better and to fix the problems with our societies and society in general. The trick is not to step backwards, solving a problem by reverting to a greater one. For example, the welfare system, if you scrap it, you simply create more problems that the ones you solve, i.e. yeah, people wouldn't be able to take advantage of welfare, but then the people who can't work, or want to work, but haven't had a break yet suffer. Or if you disagree with that example, there are many more. A friend of mine put forth the class system as a solution to the youth social problems in England. Unfortunately, bringing back the class system would bring back all the problems associated with it, like, being stuck in shitty jobs based not on your qualifications, but who your parents were. While parts of the class system still obviously exist (old money families etc.) bringing back all the unfairness would be detrimental to society in a much more profound way than a group of the disaffected. As we progress, new problems and new loopholes and ways to game the system come in to play, but this is no reason to keep turning back the clock to times that never existed where everyone lived in rural paradise.

Now the second.

The thing is all systems are only ideal on paper. I do, however, think you're looking in the wrong direction for a 'solution'. First though, is that solution thing, there isn't one, what we can do however, is start off with a good system and make improvements, that's about it. As we've seen so far over the world, the elected representative system, despite all its flaws seems to work better than any others tried so far. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try other things to see if their time is right, in fact, it's inevitable, all of the leading countries and governments have social reforms on a regular basis and we rarely become far worse off because of them. So, in my opinion the way to make things better would be to go in the other direction, instead of more power and to create, essentially, a short lived beneficial dictatorship in the hopes that if the power is handed around quickly they won't fuck up too badly is to have more choice, in the US specifically, (although this applies to all the other leading democracies) to break down the two party system and by doing so, allow the people to be heard more directly rather than by two, rather inflexible voices. Personally, I think this is inevitable. When there are more voices representing the public, there will be more sway between parties which means a minority that will vote strategically rather than for who represents them can't force a party to do things their own way. First things first, attitudes need to change and presidents (not just the current one) need to stop making policy like they have a mandate of all the people, and start acting like employees.
Peter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2005, 02:24 AM   #96
Peter
 
Peter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK, Middlesbrough
Posts: 155
To go further with regards to systems, one system does not work for all. For example, here in England, your system has parts which aren't as important as they would be for the US, and vice versa. Case in point is the seperation of church and state, which while I'd like to see it everywhere isn't as neccessary in the modern UK as church, whilst actually having seats in the actual House Of Lords (if you're unfamiliar, think of them as a filter for decisions the elected House Of Commons make, sort of like a supreme court, but filteration and less powerful), the religious people see their position as one of moral purpose, rather than one of religious significance and therefore, are not generally a problem and don't get in the way due to their religious backgrounds. I personally dislike this, but it isn't a problem.

Perhaps this is why there is no perfect system, as system and culture must go hand in hand, and culture changes, so system must change with it as the change in culture kills off old problems and creates brand new ones.

To use an analogy, raising your first child well, does not mean you won't make new and interesting mistakes that wouldn't have even applied to your first-born. However, you'll probably fix those problems faster than perhaps with your first. We work as a whole in the same way, we gradually improve, but mistakes are still made, and new problems created.
Peter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2005, 10:19 AM   #97
soggypicklemuncher
 
soggypicklemuncher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 353
I'd like to see a multi-party system emerge in the U.S. That way larger political parties would have more reason to move more toward the middle ground to try to gain support from smaller yet powerful groups. Right now minorities have too small a voice.

Eh, not really about Constitutional rights but I felt like saying that.
__________________
You've got red on you.

You only see what you want to believe
When you creep from the back
I got tricks up my sleeve
24/7 the devil's best friend
It makes no difference
It's all the same in the end

-"Same in the End" by Sublime
soggypicklemuncher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2005, 03:46 PM   #98
MrMaelstrom
 
MrMaelstrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 1,608
Very interesting thought Tstone. Kind of a continuing referendum the people vote on?

Very often I think most people I see aren't bright enough to know the repercutions their vote will cast, I'll have even more of a difficult time believing them to be capable to make their own decisions.

It sounds totalitarian of me, of course, but representative government isn't all about the logistics of it. It's also about having (hopefully) the most qualified people in terms of negotiations, in terms of knowledge of international relations, economy and strategy...

I just wanna be king... ever since I saw Mel Brooks as Louis the whatevereenth grabbing some womans arse from behing, sighing, looking us in the eye and saying with a brooklin accent: -It's good to be the king!
__________________
Undead again...
MrMaelstrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Asserting your rights when you’re stopped by the cops Ben Lahnger Politics 7 04-04-2010 04:23 AM
Constitutional militia movement Deadmanwalking_05 Politics 60 09-24-2009 08:21 AM
U.N. rights envoy sees Israeli war crimes in Gaza CptSternn Spooky News 0 03-20-2009 04:40 AM
Rights group: Israel uses incendiary bombs in Gaza CptSternn Spooky News 0 01-11-2009 11:24 PM
Abuse Of Human Rights And Privacy Violations cambriane Politics 7 06-12-2008 12:59 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:25 AM.