I agree. I learned a lot about Germany during the three years i lived over there.

Thanks for clearing that up, heartc:up:Sure am glad I don't live in that America

I tried to tell Skybird how off base he was but he wouldn't listen.

Of course not, it comes naturally when you've been running the world for the last century or so. :)

Cover carricatures are no argument pro or against the content and quality of a printed essay.

Often their carricatures are damn good, nevertheless. And sometimes they are imitations of American originals. ;)

Is there a website where larger sizes of those covers can be downloaded. Some of them are pretty clever. :)

You could be right.


http://www.peakoilassociates.com/Pea...ober6-2007.pdf

CURRICULM VITAE
CLIFFORD J. WIRTH

http://www.unh.edu/political-science/wirth.pdf

I would strongly agree with you, call me weak at soul, but I was actually offended by someone who lived in Holland when I having a chat over ventrilo (yes I know he didn't mean anything by it and no i wasn't pissed, I was more... hurt... perhaps?)

" Your not like most Americans"

"How so?"

"Well, most American's seem to think they own the world and that they are superior"

" What would give you that impression?"

"The news mainly, CNN and the such."

Now, you must think, is it our fault people see us this way? The average American Cit? Are we really that arrogant of a people as a whole?

Perhaps, the newscasters don their cloak of super American patriotism, and prepare to march across other country's feelings in their steel plated boots.

Perhaps even, and most likely in my opinion, it is our current administration, maybe the fact we can't keep our fecking hands to our selves so to say, maybe the fact the dragged several other nations into a war that is mostly un-popular,

Let me tell everyone this here, let me tell everyone something they already know, that perhaps they forget it whenever it is convienant, but we don't vote on these conflicts, we are not a true democracy, we are more akin to a republic, or as they sugar coat it in my school books today, " Represntive Democracy"

We did not vote to go to Iraq! We did not elect a presedent with conquest on our mind! We did not say, "Let's vote for someone who will crusade in foregin lands for us to bring us more oil!"

As I see it, we vote for someone we think will behave a certain way, in a certain situation, and we pray for the best.

Sorry for the soapbox speech :oops:

No need to apologize, Jeremy. This country is not a democracy at all. It is a Republic. Our government is the same as any government on this planet. It is run by human beings, and as such, is fatally flawed. If anyone can think of one, I'd like to know which government on this planet is perfect and totally reflects the feelings and wishes of its average citizen.

Associating the characteristics of a people with the actions of it's government is dangerous. It's been done many times, and, evidently continues unabated. Using that type of logic, the average German citizen under Hitler would have been a megalomaniacal racist. I don't believe that was the case any more than I believe that the average American is whatever the hell George Bush is.

Whether you want to believe it or not, all governments are the same. They are run by out of touch, elite, power hungry people. It's the nature of government. The power attracts the type of people that you see leading us now. The concept of a "public servant", one who strives to do what's best for their people, is a thing of the past.

Edit : As for the graphics not degrading the written work inside the magazine, I agree. The written work inside of any publication isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

Agreed! We have had popular vote over ruled by our own apponted judges on various propositions in this country. Which to me is treasonous! Our representatives often do not do their job and cater to their party rather than the people. The question is what can we do about it? No one seems to know. The system is in need of reformation. Perhaps amendments need to be made to limit terms of the senate. All Judges should be voted in and not appointed to clearly be party biased. The will of the people is what needs to be acted upon and not the will of bankers and other selfish entities.

James Madison wrote in Federalist number 10 about this issue of how much democracy is enough.

Alexis de Tocqueville also wrote about it in "Democracy in America" in 1835

This was not an easy concept to find a solution. The concept of representation in democracies has been studied almost from the very beginning.

Would this country be in a better position if every decision was in line with the Majority viewpoint? Tyranny of the Majority is a term used to describe that.

One of the advantages of a representative government is that the views of both the Majority and the Minority are represented.

Would we have abolished Slavery when we did if our representatives were mandated to follow the majority view?

How about Woman's suffrage?

Civil rights?

Sir Edmund Burke once wrote: A Representative owes his people both his industry and his judgement. He betrays them if he sacrifices either to their opinion.

If a whole bunch of smart dead guys could not come up with an answer, I sure can't. :)

Good points all. Just a shame that our representatives can't be more concerned with where the country is heading and less concerned with whatever it is that consumes their time and energy (mainly getting re-elected and staying wealthy).

A well-founded and relevant argument here;

I had to read this twice to make it into an argument for my own beliefs.:D

In essence, no one can agree how much Federal government is good because the feds have too much power. One way or the other a national government is tyrannical because there will always be people who disagree with it.

Of course, a national government is necessary because nations would otherwise descend into anarchy (the communism of right-wing politics) and then result in totalitarianism of some type or another.

As such, the sovereignty of the individual must be our watchword when creating or maintaining a government. The U.S. constitution is a fine example of this belief, and it was designed by men who were fighting political, social, religious, and economic tyranny. And it can be clearly seen that the U.S. constitution is, more than anything else, a document intended to limit government to the maximum permissable extent.

All government is tyrannical in one way or another. All government ultimately enforces its' will through violence. IMHO, the only solution is to have as little of it as possible.

In the interest of not posting another 10,000 word, mouse-finger-punishing treatise on the subject, I will refrain from expounding upon this further unless someone has a specific question or counterpoint.

There's a reason the U.S. is the de facto leader of the world and it isn't because of our socialist beginnings.
There's also a reason the U.S. is slipping politically and economically and it isn't because we followed our own constitution.

The problem with democracy is that humans are involved. Humans will always have the struggle between what is right for the group and what is right for them.

Term limitations on Congress may make this problem worse. If a member of congress knew that they only have a limited time in office, they would be more likely to put their interests in front of the country's

My opinion: The forefathers were short sighted when it came to designing the system of checks and balances.

At that time, the worst thing congress could do is pass a "bad" law. This is why laws are reviewed by a supreme court and laws are carried out by a different branch of the government (Executive branch)

Unfortunately our forefathers could not foresee today's environment where the worst thing congress can do is spend money (taxes). There is simply no external checks and balances to limit how much money congress can spend.

Perhaps the solution is yet another branch of the government (can't believe I am saying that) that provides oversight and restriction to Congress spending money. Just like the Supreme Court can rule a law "unconstitutional" , this mythical new branch could rule that an expenditure is "unconstitutional".


Just a wacky idea of mine.

I think you call that branch the President with line-item veto power. Granted, he's only one person, but a good president (there's a contradiction in terms) could put a swift end to pork-barrel politics.

Interestingly enough, guess who was involved in the last attempt at it?

Wacky indeed. You just supported everything I said (in temrs of distrusting government) and then proposed that the solution was another branch of government. There is a branch of govenrment that resricts the spending of Gov't. It's called The People of the United States of America. Unfortunately, most of these people are educated by the stae, which in turn means that they are proponents of state values.

The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.

We gave that a good try with the Line Item Veto Act of 1996.

President Clinton used it 11 times to kill 82 expenditures.

In the case of Clinton v. City of New York in 1998, the Supreme Court voted 6-3 that the Line Item Veto was unconstitutional.

Which means that in order to give the President the Line Item Veto power over Congress an the Constitution would have to be amended.

Let's see how that happens. Article V of the Constitution covers ammendments.

Article V

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states...."

So the only two bodies that can propose an amendment are Congress and the States.

Well Congress sure aint gonna propose an amendment that limits Congressional power. So that leaves the States.

If you like the idea of Congressional control through a Presidential Line Item Veto, then start talking to your individual state legislators.

33 states need to propose it
38 states need to ratify it

This might be a good question to start asking your various state representatives when it comes to election time.

Ummmm the guy that all of middle Europe detests???:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:


Anyways, what is great about the United States of America:

1. Where else can you goose step, yelling "Zieg Heil" carrying the nazi flag through a jewish neighborhood and not get arrested for it.

2. Have a two person protest.

3. Have as many babies as you can and have the gubnent support you.

4. Have a constitution written in a language that was never formerly adopted as it's official language.

5. Permitted the concept of Adjustable rate mortgages that cause the housing and some could argue the land's economic downturn.

6. Nancy Pelosi is two cardiac arrests away from being the president.

7. Has more practicing attorneys then any place else.

8. Took 217 years to interpret the 2nd amendment.

9. Has many urban 10th graders who believe proposals to redress the government is a makeover.

10. Finally, still is home to Alec Baldwin, Tim Robbins, Susan Saradon, even after they promised to leave if G W was reelected.

Couldn't picture living anywhere else though!

Not to be argumentative, but the Line Item Veto act of 1996 was proposed by and passed by who? Well, that would be congress wouldn't it? Clinton couldn't have used it if Dole and McCain and others hadn't proposed it to begin with.

But, if the people of America wanted it, they could get it done by electing people who knew that they wouldn't keep their jobs unless they voted for it. Never mind, people would have to do something for it to happen:rotfl:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_Item_Veto_Act_of_1996

Sheesh, I go to a movie and I almost missed all of the fun.:cool:

I agree with August. Every generation of americans has bitched about how the current immigrants were going to wipe out our country. We survived the Irish immgrants, we can survive anything.:rotfl:

So I'm not really worried.