If you've got any great ideas about how to run a country, post them here and I'll add 'em to the poll: you can change your vote, if you want.

Other ideas:

"Other 1" - "Elected Dictatorship", where potential dictators get aptitude testing and ten years of formal job training, and have to pass a rigourous exam before being put forward as a candidate;

"Other 2" - "Educated Democracy"- Elections like we have now, but requiring each voter to have a formal qualification proving they understand the issues in order to vote

Obviously I realize that these are kind of pie-in-the-sky dreams because they'd require current politicians to do the turkey-voting-for-christmas/thanksgiving thing, but if you can't dream, what can you do?

"Other 1" - "Elected Dictatorship", where potential dictators get aptitude testing and ten years of formal job training, and have to pass a rigourous exam before being put forward as a candidate;


Should try that with our judiciary...!!

Are you UK or US-based, Paul?  The judiciary here (in the UK) will have been "on the job" (so to speak) for many, many years to get to become judges...

Are you UK or US-based, Paul?  The judiciary here (in the UK) will have been "on the job" (so to speak) for many, many years to get to become judges...


UK-based, philbo - and whilst 'our learned friends' do meander up the legal ladder for many years (along with a great deal of arse-kissing), I feel at times they do lose touch with the real world...

...which is why you probably don't see many living, or originating from, the odd 'Kitchen Sink' estate...but perhaps that's just me...

Oh, if anyone's interested - I chose 'democracy' for all its faults...

You don't see judges living in the downmarket dives, it's true, but there are those who have that kind of background (not in proportion, but they are there).  I (like most of the country, I wouldn't mind betting) have a lot more faith in the integrity and competence of the judiciary than I do in politicians.

But what it seems like you're after, and I'm not sure it would ever happen, is that those people who wield the power at the top echelons of any society to live alongside its down-at-heel masses - don't know what you'd call that: full equality, maybe?

This thread raises some fundamental issues.  Do you mean representative democracy, or is there another way to assure rule by the people?  In a capitalist "democracy", how do you keep the rich from buying the gov't?  Should representatives vote their own views or those of their constituance?  Should terms in office be fixed, or should those elected by subject to recall?  If there were to be "issues tests" how would the be fairly administered (In the US south not long ago, all blacks were considered illiterate, and denied the vote)?  This is one big can of worms.

Educated, just like the old south.  If we required a certain standard then democrats with all the 'young and stupid' vote would be screwed, while about at least 95% of our people could still vote.  The democrats would scream murder if we did that.  California is 65% liberal, and over half of the people working in L.A. can't read, or so says O'Reilly.

Educated, just like the old south.  If we required a certain standard then democrats with all the 'young and stupid' vote would be screwed, while about at least 95% of our people could still vote.  The democrats would scream murder if we did that.  California is 65% liberal, and over half of the people working in L.A. can't read, or so says O'Reilly.



Hmm....

Like the 'old south', thank you, you have confirmed some of my suspicions...

Hmm....

Like the 'old south', thank you, you have confirmed some of my suspicions...


Now if being ridculous if you believe what I think you do.  I think the old south was correct in required literacy tests before voting, one in which everyone was required to take.  White people who failed were deneined a vote back then to, and besides this isn't the old south, everyone would get a fair shake with a standard set of questions before voting.  Democrats wouldn't like that though as it would mean a loss of a lot of votes for them.  Why do you think Fox News is the #1 rated cable news network?  Why is the New York Post the #1 selling newspaper in New York?  Why is it all the talk-radio hosts are conservative, and get super high ratings, while the lib. net with idiots like Al Franken struggle to get 30 stations are a couple of million listeners (opposed to Limbaugh's 22 million?)  Because republicans are more politically informed.

No, I meant it confirms your elitism, and disdain for Democracy.

You are in support of a Fascist government. You have now openly voiced support for a government not by the People, but by certain parts of society. Mainly the upper class.

The average person in a Democracy has the right to vote. The Constitution says itself you cannot give unequal rights. Every citizen is entitled to the same rights as others.

just like the old south. 

Yup, just like the old south.  Slavery (or is that too "old"?).  Then lynchings, night riders, intimidation, segregated schools, governors with axe handles... Those were the days.  Everyone knew their place. 

   The "representative democracy" of the U.S. certainly does not seem to be adaptable to modern times.

   Somebody once said, "An educated populace is the cornerstone of democracy."  If that's true, and I believe it is, this would be the worst possible time in the history of America to try to give the people more control over their government.  College graduates can't read above the fifth-grade level.  High school graduates can't make change for a dollar.  Membership in the fundamentalist retro-religions is skyrocketing.  Until a few weeks ago, the majority believed that Saddam was responsible for 9/11.  They drive wobbly two-ton trucks that get 7 mpg -- to buy groceries... They petition state governments to establish commissions to regulate professional wrestling "like the other sports."  Do you really want to give these oafs even more power to control your life?

Edited because I'm an idiot...

I think all of those pose their own problems but I went for educated democracy. However, the elite that control how our country is governed may have to do their research fully in all ways before they come to their political conclusion.

Now if being ridculous if you believe what I think you do.  I think the old south was correct in required literacy tests before voting, one in which everyone was required to take.  White people who failed were denied a vote back then to, and besides this isn't the old south, everyone would get a fair shake with a standard set of questions before voting. 


In the old South there were TWO different literacy tests, one for Black one for White.  White people were
able to have someone help them.  The decision as to whether or not the person had passed was up
to the clerk.  Whites were very, very rarely denied the vote,  Blacks were very, very rarely given the opportunity.  That's a fact, jack

Educated, just like the old south.  If we required a certain standard then democrats with all the 'young and stupid' vote would be screwed, while about at least 95% of our people could still vote.  The democrats would scream murder if we did that.  California is 65% liberal, and over half of the people working in L.A. can't read, or so says O'Reilly.

Fascism in America is not based on race or religion, it is based on class.  The sentiments you express here are purely fascist.  Here and in your subsequent post you advocate voting as a reward for correct thinking.  Your talk of illitaracy and "young and stupid" is cowardly code for what you really mean.  
The literacy tests in the dirty Old South were meant to stop blacks and poor people from voting.  You can engineer society so those people don't have a fighting chance at a decent education, an then you never have to worry about anyone out-voting the interests of the the rich white people.
You wouldn't stop with a literacy test either.  You would establish a property ownership requirement.  Why let the rabble who don't own anything vote for their interests?
You would impose a poll tax too.  Having to pony up $100 on election day would do wonders to keep the rabble away.  I have heard right-wing pundits talk about these things for years.  They don't want poor people to vote, they don't want blacks and hispanics to vote.

You know the Republican part has absolutely NO intention of improving the lot of the poor and oppressed in America, other than giving them more company.  You know when you vote Republican, you are voting against the interests of the vast majority of Americans.

On the other hand, you Republicans are most fortunate.  Half the people eligable to vote, don't.   And most voters who vote Republican--ultimately including YOU--are actually voting AGAINST their interests.  So as it is, you've got it made in the shade.  A Republican in the south or the west can get elected with as little as 20% of the electorate, 18% of whom have no business voting Republican in the first place!

Other than that, I find your beliefs horribly ugly.

In the old South there were TWO different literacy tests, one for Black one for White.  White people were
able to have someone help them.  The decision as to whether or not the person had passed was up
to the clerk.  Whites were very, very rarely denied the vote,  Blacks were very, very rarely given the opportunity.  That's a fact, jack




Well-said. That was one of the issues addressed in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But it seems Mr.GWB wants to turn back the clock and undo such legislation. Hell, let's get rid of the Emancipation Proclamation!




Fascism in America is not based on race or religion, it is based on class.  The sentiments you express here are purely fascist.  Here and in your subsequent post you advocate voting as a reward for correct thinking.  Your talk of illitaracy and "young and stupid" is cowardly code for what you really mean. 
The literacy tests in the dirty Old South were meant to stop blacks and poor people from voting.  You can engineer society so those people don't have a fighting chance at a decent education, an then you never have to worry about anyone out-voting the interests of the the rich white people.
You wouldn't stop with a literacy test either.  You would establish a property ownership requirement.  Why let the rabble who don't own anything vote for their interests?
You would impose a poll tax too.  Having to pony up $100 on election day would do wonders to keep the rabble away.  I have heard right-wing pundits talk about these things for years.  They don't want poor people to vote, they don't want blacks and hispanics to vote.

You know the Republican part has absolutely NO intention of improving the lot of the poor and oppressed in America, other than giving them more company.  You know when you vote Republican, you are voting against the interests of the vast majority of Americans.

On the other hand, you Republicans are most fortunate.  Half the people eligable to vote, don't.  And most voters who vote Republican--ultimately including YOU--are actually voting AGAINST their interests.  So as it is, you've got it made in the shade.  A Republican in the south or the west can get elected with as little as 20% of the electorate, 18% of whom have no business voting Republican in the first place!

Other than that, I find your beliefs horribly ugly.



Just like I said, he wants to turn back the clock on Civil rights. Let's get rid of the 19th ammendment too! Women should be barefoot and pregnant!

Mississippi still has not ratified the Emancipation Proclamation. Wonder what they are waiting for?

In the old South there were TWO different literacy tests, one for Black one for White.  White people were
able to have someone help them.  The decision as to whether or not the person had passed was up
to the clerk.  Whites were very, very rarely denied the vote,  Blacks were very, very rarely given the opportunity.  That's a fact, jack

The fact that this guy sings the praises of the Old South tells you all you need to know.  Blatant racism is socially unacceptable thanks to progress.  Classicism is still groovy.  Everybody still laughs when the standup comic cracks jokes about white trash, and says after a hurricane, "God hates trailer parks."  It is still A-OK to blame those deprived of America's largesse for their own plight, prattling on about "personal responsibility."  So that's what GWB does.  He goes for partisan rage.  I don't believe he is fundamentally racist.  I think he has heartfelt respect for Justice Thomas, and Dr. Condoleezza Rice.  He buys the Fox News line that it is "limousine liberals" who deliberately cripple African Americans and Hispanics with welfare programs in order to retain their patronage at the polls.  Now, that paranoid delusion sounds wickedly racist to me, but I don't think GWB sees it as racist.  
When he sited the bogus statistic that over half the workers in L.A. are illiterate he, via Bill O'Reilly, is implicating:
a. Liberal public education
b. Liberal immigration policies
and nothing else.  Elegant isn't it?

It's Hillary Clinton's fault that African Americans are poor and stupid.  Elegant isn't it?

Mississippi still has not ratified the Emancipation Proclamation. Wonder what they are waiting for?

I thought Mississippi did ratify the E.P.....in 1995!
::)
Remember, Ronald Reagan started his 1980 presidential compaign in Mississippi, the only state not to have ratified the Emancipation Proclamation, on a platform of states rights.  What was that song from the '90s, "things that make you go hmmmm"!
:o

I think the Wizard of Id sums it up perfectly in this one:

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/crwiz/2004/crwiz040925.gif

Mississippi still has not ratified the Emancipation Proclamation. Wonder what they are waiting for?


Mississippi is currently (and always will be) ranked the #1 conservative state in the U.S.  But that has nothing to do with it, its a states' right issue.  Now be fair, what would be the point of ratifying that today?

Anyway I found this interesting, D-i-c-k Morris was talking about this.  Every state has a ranking of conservative or liberal, and those rating NEVER change, a democrat would have to win by at least 25 point to carry the most conservative state, and the same for republicans with the liberal states.

Top 3 conservative states (in order):
1. Mississippi
2. Utah
3. Montana

Top 3 liberal states (in order):
1. Rhode Island
2. Massachusetts
3. Maryland

When he sited the bogus statistic that over half the workers in L.A. are illiterate he, via Bill O'Reilly

Bogus?  Oh really.  Read this from The Los Angeles Times:

53% can't read, write or speak English. L.A. County has a population of 10 million people.

Here's some other statistics:

1. A recent story in the Los Angeles times (June, 2002) stated that 40% of all workers in L.A. County are working for cash and not paying taxes. This was because they are predominantly illegal immigrants, working without a green card.

2. Over 2/3's of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal whose births were paid for by taxpayers.

3. Nearly 25% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally.

4. Over 100,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles county are living in garages.

5. The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.

6. Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.

7. 21 radio stations in L.A. are Spanish speaking.

(All 7 from the Los Angeles Times)

I think the Wizard of Id sums it up perfectly in this one:

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/crwiz/2004/crwiz040925.gif


I can't read that small text!

I think the Wizard of Id sums it up perfectly in this one:

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/crwiz/2004/crwiz040925.gif


I can't read that small text!


It says in picture 1 "Register to vote here" on the sign and the guy is asking "Do you have to pass a test to vote?"

picture 2 lhg "no" rhg "Why not?"

picture 3 "Eliminating the ignorant would give too much power to the educated"

I can't read that small text!

The messageboard does have a tendency to shrink pictures... now, if you used a decent browser, you could right-click the picture and open it unscaled in a new window; but IE doesn't give you that option.. it doesn't even have the ability zoom...

Ah well, to those unfortunate enough to be using IE, Click here

Philbo

I use IE and I could read it.

Do you mean unscaled (i.e. do you have good eyesight), or have I missed a simple way of either zooming or opening a picture in IE?

Bogus?  Oh really.  Read this from The Los Angeles Times:

53% can't read, write or speak English. L.A. County has a population of 10 million people.

Here's some other statistics:

1. A recent story in the Los Angeles times (June, 2002) stated that 40% of all workers in L.A. County are working for cash and not paying taxes. This was because they are predominantly illegal immigrants, working without a green card.

2. Over 2/3's of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal whose births were paid for by taxpayers.

3. Nearly 25% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally.

4. Over 100,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles county are living in garages.

5. The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.

6. Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.

7. 21 radio stations in L.A. are Spanish speaking.

(All 7 from the Los Angeles Times)




A recent story in the Los Angeles times (June, 2002) stated that employees in L.A. County are paying cash and not paying taxes. This was because they are hiring and exploiting predominantly illegal immigrants, working without a green card, paying short wages for long hours in squalid conditions reminiscent of pre labor movement Victorian era practices.

Over 2/3's of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal, the hospitals feel that the birth of a child, no matter what it's economic background, is too important to leave at the curb.

Nearly 75% of all inmates in California detention centers are USA nationals.

Over 100,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles county are living in garages, many times paying exorbitant
rent to unscrupulous landlords, who, like their employers, take advantage of their desperation

Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal, even though they are working long hours
they are not able to afford better. A close look may find them working for relatives of HUD bureaucrats.

21 radio stations in L.A. are Spanish speaking.  In America free speech means free speech in any
language one may choose.

53% can't read, write or speak English. L.A. County has a population of 10 million people.

3. Nearly 25% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally.

In other words, you're saying that more than half the people from LA County are non-English speaking illegals, but less than a quarter of inmates are - sounds to me that they're twice as law-abiding as the indigent population...

But surely the main cause of this problem is the people who employ and exploit the illegal immigrants: if they didn't, there wouldn't be the demand for labour?

In other words, you're saying that more than half the people from LA County are non-English speaking illegals, but less than a quarter of inmates are - sounds to me that they're twice as law-abiding as the indigent population...

But surely the main cause of this problem is the people who employ and exploit the illegal immigrants: if they didn't, there wouldn't be the demand for labour?


The main problem is that both President Bush and Senator Kerry are nothing but a farce when it comes to the boarder.  Bush says he'll put more boarder patrol, but that will do jack.  We need that national guard to back up the boarder patrol.  Kerry hasn't said anything on it, but I assume he'll be like every other democrat when it comes to the boarder.  No matter who wins, America loses on the boarder issue.

You're missing my point: while there is demand for illegal labour, they'll get across.  There are only two ways to reduce the problem of illegal immegration: either lower demand or make 'em legal.  Neither are politically attractive, however: lowering demand would imply prosecuting all those "upstanding" members of the community who are employing illegal labour - I wonder how many people who employ a cheap cleaner or child-minder would consider themselves as the major cause of the "problem" of illegal immigration?

Do you mean unscaled (i.e. do you have good eyesight), or have I missed a simple way of either zooming or opening a picture in IE?


Philbo I meant I could read it unscaled.  Maybe I have good eyesight (well with my glasses on anyway!)

A recent story in the Los Angeles times (June, 2002) stated that employees in L.A. County are paying cash and not paying taxes. This was because they are hiring and exploiting predominantly illegal immigrants, working without a green card, paying short wages for long hours in squalid conditions reminiscent of pre labor movement Victorian era practices.

Over 2/3's of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal, the hospitals feel that the birth of a child, no matter what it's economic background, is too important to leave at the curb.

Nearly 75% of all inmates in California detention centers are USA nationals.

Over 100,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles county are living in garages, many times paying exorbitant
rent to unscrupulous landlords, who, like their employers, take advantage of their desperation

Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal, even though they are working long hours
they are not able to afford better. A close look may find them working for relatives of HUD bureaucrats.

21 radio stations in L.A. are Spanish speaking.  In America free speech means free speech in any
language one may choose.




All of these are, clearly, excellant points.  We are, as all of the main stream text books publ;ishers send me tell us, a nation of immingrants (salad bowl or melting pot, whatever), and draw strength from newcomers, whether legal or not.  "Illegals" are the most exploited group of workers in this country, some reduced to little better than slaves.  But heII, its always easier to blame the victim than to goi after the oppressor.

Actually, the answer I most closely believe is not listed.

The US is not a true democracy.  We are a "Representational Republic".

Just like true Communism, a "True Democracy" is not a workable form of government.  This is because "the people" can make stupid, even bone-headed decisions.  And the idea of having representatives to vote "for the people" helps to keep that from happening.

Otherwise, things like Slavery would never have ended here.  More people in the US in 1860 supported slavery then opposed it.  And in 1960, more people opposed the Civil Rights law then supported it.  The idea of having Representatives is to help look out for the welfare of the population, even when they do not see the need.  Otherwise, you may have the majority vote to end Social Security, and not care about how many people are harmed by that action.

One thing I like about our form of Government is that every 4-8 years, we have a peaceful change of power.  For over 200 years now, our Government has changed hands many times peacefully (not counting the results of the 1860 ellection).  That is a pretty good track record I think.

Of course, it is also based heavily on the model given to us by England.  Combine the PM and the Royal Family, and you have the President.  The House Of Lords is most similar to our Senate, and House Of Commons is the basis for our House Of Representatives.

I am glad that that is where the similarity ends though.  I am kinda glad, or we might have had "Queen Hillary".  I can just picture her telling King Bill (after the Blue Dress was found):

"We are not amused."

;D

Government is for pansies! Anarchy for all!  :D :D :D

;D Just joking. I think educated Democracy is best. Otherwise, we have stupid people who vote because they've been told what to think.

Otherwise, we have stupid people who vote because they've been told what to think.


Wow!  Do you know which parties' voters are a PERFECT example of that?

Wow!  Do you know which parties' voters are a PERFECT example of that?


No! DO TELL!

Otherwise, we have stupid people who vote because they've been told what to think.






Wow! Do you know which parties' voters are a PERFECT example of that?


Actually, both parties have unthinking "party line" followers, but I bet more of that type are Repubs than Dems.  There seems to be several on this board who seem to follow Lil' Georgie without question, while none of the Dems have given Kerry, or any Dem, the same unquestioning devotion.  Makes you  wonder.

Actually, both parties have unthinking "party line" followers, but I bet more of that type are Repubs than Dems.  There seems to be several on this board who seem to follow Lil' Georgie without question, while none of the Dems have given Kerry, or any Dem, the same unquestioning devotion.  Makes you  wonder.

The Republican party has always had a much more monolithic and hierarchical structure than the Dems.  This structure has worked wonders for the GOP in the past 10 years since Gingrich and the Contract On America.  Also, I find a mentality much less encouraging of criticism and analysis among Republicans.  It's all about "faith," "freedom," and "the American way of life."  If you point out they hypocrisies or inconsistencies of these things to Republicans, they'll call you a "liberal."  OK with me, that's what I am.  Furthermore, FNC, right-wing talk radio, and conservative periodicals engender a "fan club" mentality among constituents for their Republican leadership.
Though the following is the kind of generalization I usual don't care for, it rings true for the most part.  As Al Franken says, the relationship between a liberal and his or her government is like the relationship between two adults, the relationship between a conservative and his or her government--provided it's a conservative government--is like that between a three year old and his mommy and daddy.

Actually, both parties have unthinking "party line" followers, but I bet more of that type are Repubs than Dems.  There seems to be several on this board who seem to follow Lil' Georgie without question, while none of the Dems have given Kerry, or any Dem, the same unquestioning devotion.  Makes you  wonder.


Are you kidding me?  The democrats even admit Kerry sucks, but are voting for him simply because he is not Bush.  Thats it.  They never questioned this Dukakis-wannabe, instead democrats have blindly followed him knowing he is their best chance to beat President Bush in this election.

Are you kidding me?  The democrats even admit Kerry sucks, but are voting for him simply because he is not Bush.  Thats it.  They never questioned this Dukakis-wannabe, instead democrats have blindly followed him knowing he is their best chance to beat President Bush in this election.


This includes Democrats who crossed the party line to put bushie in.  Their independent streak
now says "he had his chance, he had my vote, he abused it, won't get fooled again."