Subject:
|
Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 23 Jul 2001 08:36:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
530 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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.
I am still sure I posted far less than other noise makers around here. :)
>
> 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.
I think they would be able to think ahead. But not 100's of years ahaed.
>
>
> > > 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.
I'm not wrong - you just do not agree. Right now, If I wanted, I could check
the voting record of my MP. Or even drop her an e-mail. A few 100 years ago,
I would have little idea what he (my MP would be male) looked like and I
expect it would take weeks to find out how often he turned up for
parliament. Comparing his performance with MPs in other constituencies would
be impossible.
>
> > > 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.
In the UK, if one donates more than £5000 to a political party one is named
(and shamed). No overseas funding is accepted.
Scott A
>
> > > 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
|
| 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. (...) Agreed. Scott is wrong in suggesting that they wouldn't be able to think ahead, if that's (...) (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
|
|
|
|
