- This topic has 6 voices and 24 replies.
-
Posts
-
... our revolution predated our civil war. So, it seems to me the Confederacy fits the parameters of this discussion; it came into being rather quickly. ....
Quite right, and I'll agree with most of your statements. However the fact that the CSA governmental structure was a virtual mirror of the USA structure seems to negate the extrodinariness of it's creation in time of war or not. My take only.
Mirrored images of goverments? I forgot the original question. Was it not new goverments created by war, or something like that? Was the form, the sturucture discussed? New regimes often reflect the form which they were spawned; they mirror the past, which is generally a bad thing, as it has been in this country for decades.So my question is: Should we accept or rebuke our current politcal infastructure? If yes, why? And, if no, why?
....So my question is: Should we accept or rebuke our current politcal infastructure? If yes, why? And, if no, why?
Not the structure but the players... re-elect no one; nor the spouses of past officers.
So my question is: Should we accept or rebuke our current politcal infastructure? If yes, why? And, if no, why?
No, because they are not oppressive (or as oppressive as some governments that require/required change). We still have, contrary to some's opinions, our basic human liberties.But I am all for not re-electing the same ones over and over again. (+1 to Wally for that)
....No, because they are not oppressive (or as oppressive as some governments that require/required change). We still have, contrary to some's opinions, our basic human liberties.....
So far... the thought of going strictly by the Constitution scares the average pol sh*tless... most of what is accepted as Constitutional Law these days is neither constitutional nor legal. BTW, thanks for the +1... many would argue that I'm sure... ;DWally
....So my question is: Should we accept or rebuke our current politcal infastructure? If yes, why? And, if no, why?
Not the structure but the players... re-elect no one; nor the spouses of past officers.
I do not agree. It is the stucture, rather than the players, that allows the current politcal mess. JMHO. 🙁And anything less than the constitution is arguing against it. What was your problem with the constitution? And what specific segment bothers you?
Indeed… and so it is with me.[edit] My point it is the Constitution that is being perverted by the players; not that the document is flawed.
HF, what's wrong with the structure? Are you saying our political system is destined for failure? I can understand the reelection part (Feinstein, Pelosi for example keep getting reelected HOW???)Personally, it's not our system, it's the people who expect the government to solve all their problems instead of taking reponsibility for themselves (our system is set up for the latter, IMO)
Ski,You've pretty much summed up my thoughts on the matter.As far as the re-election issue this may explain why many of the founders weren't so keen on the average citizen having so much power (explains the electoral college and the fact senators weren't directly elected until the progressive era). Also it is after all the right of the people to elect whomever serves them best and none can argue the folks named don't serve their backers. 😉 Too bad their backers are sheeple only looking at what they will be given.If one reads Liberal Fascism much will become clear about how we've gotten to the current point. While the title seems a an oxymoron it's not; the socialism and social engineering is the key to understanding.HF... this might be worth your time, a good read. So, too, might the Constitution itself (if you consider Jefferson and his point of view).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
