Subject:
|
Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 20 Jul 2001 16:55:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
650 times
|
| |
|
|
My goodness Scott has been busy, hasn't he? I lost count of his posts this
morning. Including some real gems like "Why?" as the entire body of his reply.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> > Do you think they really could understand how it could work out?
>
> Not the details, but the general idea.
Agreed. Scott is wrong in suggesting that they wouldn't be able to think
ahead, if that's what he's suggesting.
> > How modern
> > media makes politicians almost instantly accountable?
>
> Probably not. But I'm not sure that it is a significant difference in the
> context of protection of freedoms. It is certainly significant from the
> POV of the potential politician.
I tend to disagree that modern media make politicians more accountable. They
may be more accountable for things like who they boinked, but they are less
accountable for the actual issues that matter. Our government has widened in
scope far beyond what the FFs intended. That makes the issues more complex.
Unfortunately our media, as it moves ever more in the direction of McPaper
and soundbites, does a poorer and poorer job of dealing with actual issues.
So Scott is wrong in suggesting that the media makes an effective check, if
that's what he's suggesting.
> > How in transparent
> > systems, like the UK, those funding politicians would be dragged out into
> > the open?
> I just don't know how that works, or really what you mean. Maybe I just don't
> know enough about the differences between our nations.
Can't speak to UK funding but each time we get "campaign reform" the net
effect is that the funding gets more byzantine and the real people funding
campaigns become less visible. So no, Scott is wrong here too. Funding
transparancy isn't there and thus serves as no check.
> > You will have to educate me a little here, did everyone get the vote from
> > day one?
>
> Everyone who counted. Our social context has changed so much that we think
> that old way was seriously bad (and I certainly agree) but they weren't
> excluding people who mattered.
Here Scott actually has a correct assertion and an actual point. The "Great
Compromise" of counting slaves for certain purposes but not giving them
rights was a serious flaw. Almost fatal to the republic. Not sure I'd say
that we weren't excluding people that mattered, either.
> > Men and woman at the same age? African Americans? Native Americans?
>
> No, no, no.
>
> > Were the ballots secret? Did husbands vote for there wives?
>
> I think it varried, and I think not.
>
> But so what? No nation in the world has ever given the vote to all the
> citizens. Yours doesn't and neither does mine. And I think that's an
> abomination, but there it is.
Agreed. We're better than some. However I'd prefer a more restrictive vote.
Maybe proportional to taxes paid???
++Lar
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
| (...) Not the details, but the general idea. (...) Probably not. But I'm not sure that it is a significant difference in the context of protection of freedoms. It is certainly significant from the POV of the potential politician. (...) I just don't (...) (23 years ago, 20-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
182 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
