Subject:
|
Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 20 Sep 2002 12:37:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1252 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
>
> > I'm just using the same word choice and the same concept as your first
> > president--maybe he was delusional. I'll paraphrase it and try to use my
> > own words--we elect the people we want to run the country for a while. We,
> > as the people, use the power of democracy by voting--we hold the power.
> > Then we say to our representatives (at least he ones who won the election),
> > 'Yeah, we're giving you the power to run our nation for a while, and if we
> > don't like how you're doing it, then we'll kick your heinies out of office
> > the next election.' Shall I try to explain the democratic process in a way
> > that's simpler for you to understand?
>
> I'll tell you what... if you want to explain a process, explain how it is
> that the US has two parties in power which are more similar than they are
> different, and which do everything they can to ensure that no other party or
> set of ideas can rise to prominence or even get a fair shake in the
> election. The system is rigged, has been for some time, and it's getting worse.
>
> If you want to explain the lack of need for the 2nd, explain away how it is
> somehow OK that every other part of the bill of rights has recently been (at
> best) severely watered down by our unelected government in the past year.
First, it's your *elected* gov't. Due to screwups that people are trying to
sweep under the carpet, and others are trying to *not* sweep under the
carpet... is a wee bit of a fiasco. If every Florida citizen petitioned to
have a revote, what--you think it'd fall on deaf ears? And what do you
think is gonna happen 3 years from now? A similar fiasco? I don't think
the citizens will allow that to happen--the citizens have the power to
change the system--use it. Stop bitching about your 'unelected' gov't and
make sure these types of crises do not happen again.
>
> If you want to explain proportional representation, perhaps you can explain
> how gerrymandering is fair?
>
> These have all been raised here, and dismissed by you without real explanation.
>
> No, you've got a lot of thinking to do about the very stuff you're spouting.
> I suggest you go away and do it instead of repeating the same thing over and
> over, and plaintively insisting we haven't got what you're saying.
And I think you should think about what the original thread was--which was
this--the concept of the 2nd ammendment, to me, does not mean little Timmy,
age 5 and little Melissa, age 4, have the rights to own a gun. We were
talking about *concepts* originally, then the *specifics* started to get
worked into the mix. I keep on trying to bring it back to the *concept* of
hte 2nd ammendment, and I was shouted down. Since I really don't care about
being shouted down, if my point is Just, in my opinion, and no one here has
convinced me yet that it isn't, at least by using the same rhetoric the gun
lobby has been using for years, I will keep on hammering away until such
time as a) someone convinces me that I'm wrong, or b) I convince them that
I'm right. So you're kinda stuck with me. Isn't freedom great?
> We get what you're saying already. You just happen to be wrong, and
> repeating it over and over doesn't do anything to convince us that you have
> any clue as to what you're spouting about. So stop spouting.
>
> I have worked (at some level or another) for most of my adult life for
> change in the system. It's been 25 years now that I've been trying, and
> nothing is getting better in our political system, it's getting worse. We
> are getting less free at the same time that much of the rest of the world
> has been moving in the more free direction (expressed as an average,
> smoothed out over time, there certainly have been a lot of bumps and spikes
> though)
>
> It may well be time for another revolution. I'd prefer to keep trying
> though. It's easier and I can say I'm doing my part without nearly as much >mess.
Bingo. Thanks for making my point, Larry. It is easier, less mess *and* it
will work--the power is in the hands of the voters.
I was talking about the *concepts* of the democratic process and how it
*should* work. For the country that points to itself as the shining example
of democracy, I would think that each an every citizen in the United States
would extoll the virtues of the democratic process. If something doesn't
work, the people can *vote* to change it. If your view and/or opinion isn't
getting heard, you haven't convinced enuf people that it's the right one
yet--the power of change is in your fellow person's hands come election time.
The system ain't perfect, but it does work, and it can change. I mean,
wasn't it you who posted the original link about 'automatic cast-off
voting'? Somebody's doing something to fix the problems. My point has been
that pieces of paper written 200+ years ago *can't* change, especially when
they become 'sacred' documents, and yet people and situations *do* change.
I'll look into the other things.
Dave K.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
| (...) Except for having our chief executive having been appointed by the Supreme Court. IOW, while every executive before has been elected (whether fairly or not) this one has actually _not_ been properly elected. With a minority (and no plurality) (...) (22 years ago, 22-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
| (...) I'll tell you what... if you want to explain a process, explain how it is that the US has two parties in power which are more similar than they are different, and which do everything they can to ensure that no other party or set of ideas can (...) (22 years ago, 20-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
220 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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
