|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2006 9:57 pm
Waterunleashed I believe in the old democracy ya know for the people by the people where our government wasn't as corrupt basically if you ask me if I like Bush I call the monkey reject and idiot whose mind has wandered off the map. I like looking into things and researching our history and the history of the world along with our current events and at the moment I think this civilization is going to be just like Rome with the way we are going. But thats just my opinion... All great civilisations fall. Just look at Rome, Greece, Egypt, Briton, Mongolia, Korea, Inca, Aztec, Maya, Briton, France, etc. It's inevitable that U.S. will fall. It's just a matter of when and how. Rome just got too big to control itself. The Inca Empire was destroyed by advanced Conquistadors, Briton also got too big. I think that we should treat other countries a bit less like s**t so that when we eventually fall they won't treat us like s**t also.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2006 10:01 pm
LadyMikoSakura As for the rest of my political beliefs... I think that the government is obligated to protect me...from exploitation at the hands of all-powerful business... I want my vote to count toward ousting the Neoconservatives from leadership of the party in 2008. You sure you got the right party?!? Republicans?!? Protecting you from businesses?!? Don't make me laugh...Not that the Democrats are much better. Next election, I'm going Green. It's not like my vote matters anyway. My state is so blue there's no way the Republicans have a chance. I just want to send a message. I want a third party. Two is much too little. Actually, when you think about full-fledged democracy is perfect. If people don't care enough to vote about a topic, then they can't complain about the outcome. Of course, you'd need a secretary or something to come up with the topics and discussions, and maybe a political class just to make necessary, quick decisions that will suffice until a popular vote can be counted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 10:37 pm
Lethkhar Waterunleashed I believe in the old democracy ya know for the people by the people where our government wasn't as corrupt basically if you ask me if I like Bush I call the monkey reject and idiot whose mind has wandered off the map. I like looking into things and researching our history and the history of the world along with our current events and at the moment I think this civilization is going to be just like Rome with the way we are going. But thats just my opinion... All great civilisations fall. Just look at Rome, Greece, Egypt, Briton, Mongolia, Korea, Inca, Aztec, Maya, Briton, France, etc. It's inevitable that U.S. will fall. It's just a matter of when and how. Rome just got too big to control itself. The Inca Empire was destroyed by advanced Conquistadors, Briton also got too big. I think that we should treat other countries a bit less like s**t so that when we eventually fall they won't treat us like s**t also. Very true I completely agree I just think its coming alot sooner than people expect most think we are all powerful, our downfall will most definately be greed by those in power and our civilizations ignorance, the CIA is erasing our history while no one looks the president is trying to sell US soil ports to Arabs and we have no economy because all of our buisness is over seas
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 11:01 am
Lethkhar LadyMikoSakura As for the rest of my political beliefs... I think that the government is obligated to protect me...from exploitation at the hands of all-powerful business... I want my vote to count toward ousting the Neoconservatives from leadership of the party in 2008. You sure you got the right party?!? Republicans?!? Protecting you from businesses?!? Don't make me laugh...Not that the Democrats are much better. Next election, I'm going Green. It's not like my vote matters anyway. My state is so blue there's no way the Republicans have a chance. I just want to send a message. I want a third party. Two is much too little. Actually, when you think about full-fledged democracy is perfect. If people don't care enough to vote about a topic, then they can't complain about the outcome. Of course, you'd need a secretary or something to come up with the topics and discussions, and maybe a political class just to make necessary, quick decisions that will suffice until a popular vote can be counted. I voted green in 2000 (Nader) and Democrat in 2004. In the one governor's election I have voted in (2004), I voted for a Republican, but that's because I met Kathleen Blanco (a democrat) and she impressed me with her absolute lack of anything resembling sense or intellect. I am a registered Republican because I'd like to have a voice in the development of that party. The takeover of one of the two major parties of America by the neoconservative movement has to be opposed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 9:23 pm
LadyMikoSakura Lethkhar LadyMikoSakura As for the rest of my political beliefs... I think that the government is obligated to protect me...from exploitation at the hands of all-powerful business... I want my vote to count toward ousting the Neoconservatives from leadership of the party in 2008. You sure you got the right party?!? Republicans?!? Protecting you from businesses?!? Don't make me laugh...Not that the Democrats are much better. Next election, I'm going Green. It's not like my vote matters anyway. My state is so blue there's no way the Republicans have a chance. I just want to send a message. I want a third party. Two is much too little. Actually, when you think about full-fledged democracy is perfect. If people don't care enough to vote about a topic, then they can't complain about the outcome. Of course, you'd need a secretary or something to come up with the topics and discussions, and maybe a political class just to make necessary, quick decisions that will suffice until a popular vote can be counted. I voted green in 2000 (Nader) and Democrat in 2004. In the one governor's election I have voted in (2004), I voted for a Republican, but that's because I met Kathleen Blanco (a democrat) and she impressed me with her absolute lack of anything resembling sense or intellect. I am a registered Republican because I'd like to have a voice in the development of that party. The takeover of one of the two major parties of America by the neoconservative movement has to be opposed. Good point. Personally, I think that the neo-conservatives and the conservatives should break up into two seperate parties. As you can probably tell by this and former posts I want another party. Not just for more options and opinions, I just think that the two-party government isn't effective. There's a black-and-white line with a lot of gray on either side. It's stupid. Our government seems to work best when the parties are forced to work together. With three parties, they'd be forced to work together on every decision. We'd reach compromises and middle-lines where everyone can be happy. *sigh* Stupid spineless unopportunistic Democrats...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2006 1:43 pm
Democrat. Slightly Liberal. Not conservative. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:14 pm
SunkenCide Democrat. Slightly Liberal. Not conservative. sweatdrop Most of the time. Look at Joe Lieberman.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 1:59 am
Well I don't know what I'd affiliate with. I don't like most political parties that exist, even the independent ones.
But as for an ideology, I think I like the idea of a Constitutional democratic nation-state of variant philosophy. Here's the idea:
Every 100 years - Re-approve a written Constitution through individual item voting via popular vote, no governmental veto power. A certain number of options would be made available for each item in the Constitution, suggested by the previous leader(s) of government over the course of the preceding 15 years before the vote. 67% of the vote is required for a result. Otherwise, chaos will be allowed to ensue (anarchy as an alternative is generally a good incentive for voter turnout).
Every 20 years - Allow for drastic restructuring of economic policies and governmental agencies, thus even allowing a capitalist state to become communist at this 20 year period. However this change could be as little as restructuring the Social Security program in place. Again this would involve a popular vote, but instead of a Constitutional change, this would just be a list of laws or acts that would be voted upon, item by item, by the general public.
Every 4 years - Elect (a) new head(s) of state. Also no political position at ANY level of government should have a single term lasting more than 4 years (none of this 6 year crap with senators). Term limits are not necessary, as long as eligible voter turnout for representative elections are above 67%.
Of course this is the short explanation of something that would take a VERY long book to explain. Like any good governmental system, this would require LOTS of legal text to iron out to a working manner, especially based on its chaotic nature. Although the chaotic nature of the concept could allow for a construction of the idea that is fairly freestyle in form, allowing for more implicit interpretations (interpretations which should be what was described above).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time-traveling Shapeshifter
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 11:29 pm
jessicamundi Well I don't know what I'd affiliate with. I don't like most political parties that exist, even the independent ones.
But as for an ideology, I think I like the idea of a Constitutional democratic nation-state of variant philosophy. Here's the idea:
Every 100 years - Re-approve a written Constitution through individual item voting via popular vote, no governmental veto power. A certain number of options would be made available for each item in the Constitution, suggested by the previous leader(s) of government over the course of the preceding 15 years before the vote. 67% of the vote is required for a result. Otherwise, chaos will be allowed to ensue (anarchy as an alternative is generally a good incentive for voter turnout).
Every 20 years - Allow for drastic restructuring of economic policies and governmental agencies, thus even allowing a capitalist state to become communist at this 20 year period. However this change could be as little as restructuring the Social Security program in place. Again this would involve a popular vote, but instead of a Constitutional change, this would just be a list of laws or acts that would be voted upon, item by item, by the general public.
Every 4 years - Elect (a) new head(s) of state. Also no political position at ANY level of government should have a single term lasting more than 4 years (none of this 6 year crap with senators). Term limits are not necessary, as long as eligible voter turnout for representative elections are above 67%.
Of course this is the short explanation of something that would take a VERY long book to explain. Like any good governmental system, this would require LOTS of legal text to iron out to a working manner, especially based on its chaotic nature. Although the chaotic nature of the concept could allow for a construction of the idea that is fairly freestyle in form, allowing for more implicit interpretations (interpretations which should be what was described above). Actually, I kind of like it...But why 67%?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 8:46 am
Lethkhar jessicamundi Well I don't know what I'd affiliate with. I don't like most political parties that exist, even the independent ones.
But as for an ideology, I think I like the idea of a Constitutional democratic nation-state of variant philosophy. Here's the idea:
Every 100 years - Re-approve a written Constitution through individual item voting via popular vote, no governmental veto power. A certain number of options would be made available for each item in the Constitution, suggested by the previous leader(s) of government over the course of the preceding 15 years before the vote. 67% of the vote is required for a result. Otherwise, chaos will be allowed to ensue (anarchy as an alternative is generally a good incentive for voter turnout).
Every 20 years - Allow for drastic restructuring of economic policies and governmental agencies, thus even allowing a capitalist state to become communist at this 20 year period. However this change could be as little as restructuring the Social Security program in place. Again this would involve a popular vote, but instead of a Constitutional change, this would just be a list of laws or acts that would be voted upon, item by item, by the general public.
Every 4 years - Elect (a) new head(s) of state. Also no political position at ANY level of government should have a single term lasting more than 4 years (none of this 6 year crap with senators). Term limits are not necessary, as long as eligible voter turnout for representative elections are above 67%.
Of course this is the short explanation of something that would take a VERY long book to explain. Like any good governmental system, this would require LOTS of legal text to iron out to a working manner, especially based on its chaotic nature. Although the chaotic nature of the concept could allow for a construction of the idea that is fairly freestyle in form, allowing for more implicit interpretations (interpretations which should be what was described above). Actually, I kind of like it...But why 67%?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time-traveling Shapeshifter
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 3:23 pm
jessicamundi Lethkhar jessicamundi Well I don't know what I'd affiliate with. I don't like most political parties that exist, even the independent ones.
But as for an ideology, I think I like the idea of a Constitutional democratic nation-state of variant philosophy. Here's the idea:
Every 100 years - Re-approve a written Constitution through individual item voting via popular vote, no governmental veto power. A certain number of options would be made available for each item in the Constitution, suggested by the previous leader(s) of government over the course of the preceding 15 years before the vote. 67% of the vote is required for a result. Otherwise, chaos will be allowed to ensue (anarchy as an alternative is generally a good incentive for voter turnout).
Every 20 years - Allow for drastic restructuring of economic policies and governmental agencies, thus even allowing a capitalist state to become communist at this 20 year period. However this change could be as little as restructuring the Social Security program in place. Again this would involve a popular vote, but instead of a Constitutional change, this would just be a list of laws or acts that would be voted upon, item by item, by the general public.
Every 4 years - Elect (a) new head(s) of state. Also no political position at ANY level of government should have a single term lasting more than 4 years (none of this 6 year crap with senators). Term limits are not necessary, as long as eligible voter turnout for representative elections are above 67%.
Of course this is the short explanation of something that would take a VERY long book to explain. Like any good governmental system, this would require LOTS of legal text to iron out to a working manner, especially based on its chaotic nature. Although the chaotic nature of the concept could allow for a construction of the idea that is fairly freestyle in form, allowing for more implicit interpretations (interpretations which should be what was described above). Actually, I kind of like it...But why 67%? Well, I'm more of a "70%-75%" kind of person, but I like the idea. Of course, maybe 100 years is a bit long...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 7:19 pm
Just call me an "extreme moderate". Because damnit, we need to compromise. domokun
Actually, if someone doens't know me, I'll just say Democrat because the party has a chance of winning. Kinda' like sports- I root for birth-home teams just because they're from home.
Or the Bucaneers because they're cool. pirate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 25, 2006 5:33 pm
I love democracy...but i don't like the U.S.
I think Socialism is good in theory but could never work.. In a matter of fact nazisism and monarchy hiarchy are all good in theroy. So is Democracy but the U.S. proves that democracy can be curropted too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
