"thunder" wrote in message

..... it's called active or participatory democracy, as opposed to our
passive model. For an example, look south towards Venezuela. Remember
the recall election Chavez survived? That is an example of an active
democracy.

Any government subject to recall on the basis of popularity polls is not
stable by anyone's definition. Referring to our system as "passive
democracy" is a red herring indeed. We have, by intent and design, a
constitutional republic. All representatives of the people are elected
within their respective states for stipulated periods of time, not for as
long as they are popular, and we have no officials, none at all, that are
elected on a national basis. Elected officials are sent the seat of
government to conduct the peoples' business. They are expected to exercise
their best judgement on the issues facing the country, and if their
judgement is not deemed acceptable by the majority in their state, they will
not be elected again. They are *not* supposed to poll their constituencies
on every question that arises. Pure democracy was particularly avoided by
the founders specifically so that one-issue rages of public opinion could
not disrupt or overthrow the government.


Also, if you think the press can lead the population around by the nose,
you really don't have much faith in democracy, do you?

The press can, and sometime does, lead the population around when they
choose, and I have damn little faith at all in pure democracy. I've
observed it and partaken of it directly my whole life, in Town Meetings all
over New England. The simple, sad, inescapable fact is that except for
very small towns, democracy doesn't work well or efficiently. Gives a lot
of people lots of feel-good warm-fuzzies, but is utterly wasteful and
innefficient as a management system if you want to get anything done.

On Sat, 13 May 2006 16:59:28 -0400, thunder wrote:

On Sat, 13 May 2006 16:16:27 -0400, John Gaquin wrote:


Great idea, Harry. Institute a system where the existence of the national
government is subject to the whims of public opinion on any popular issue
of the day. We already have a press that publishes only what they want
the public to read. Couple that with your proposal, and you have a system
wherein the press will be empowered to dictate a change of governments.

Where do you hide to dream this stuff up??

I'm not one to mess with our system. Long term systems may have their
faults, but they also provide a stability. However, Harry didn't dream
this up, it's called active or participatory democracy, as opposed to our
passive model. For an example, look south towards Venezuela. Remember
the recall election Chavez survived? That is an example of an active
democracy.

Also, if you think the press can lead the population around by the nose,
you really don't have much faith in democracy, do you? It was James
Madison who said, "Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people
who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power
which knowledge gives." In a democracy, pay attention, or . . .

And since we don't want a Chavez type 'democracy', why not take your
political stuff elsewhere?
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

"John Chaplain" wrote in message

No, the polls shows that many of the many dysfunctional Americans who
voted this poor excuse for a human in are starting to wake up and
realize what a bufoon they put in office. Sorry if you can't face the
reality that America is finally waking up and seeing Bush for the
jackoff he is. You'll just deny it and blame the polls for being all
wrong. Very functional thinking on your part....lol...

Most of us stopped using personal insult as a standard debating tool
somewhere around the age of 12.

My post made no comment one way or the other regarding the efficacy of the
GWB or Clinton administrations. The sole point was that it is pontless or
misleading to ask simplistic poll questions when the two administrations
operated in such markedly different economic and foreign policy contexts.
Hence, grapefruit or fried clams?

On Sat, 13 May 2006 17:54:38 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

thunder wrote:
On Sat, 13 May 2006 16:16:27 -0400, John Gaquin wrote:


Great idea, Harry. Institute a system where the existence of the national
government is subject to the whims of public opinion on any popular issue
of the day. We already have a press that publishes only what they want
the public to read. Couple that with your proposal, and you have a system
wherein the press will be empowered to dictate a change of governments.

Where do you hide to dream this stuff up??

I'm not one to mess with our system. Long term systems may have their
faults, but they also provide a stability. However, Harry didn't dream
this up, it's called active or participatory democracy, as opposed to our
passive model. For an example, look south towards Venezuela. Remember
the recall election Chavez survived? That is an example of an active
democracy.

Also, if you think the press can lead the population around by the nose,
you really don't have much faith in democracy, do you? It was James
Madison who said, "Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people
who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power
which knowledge gives." In a democracy, pay attention, or . . .


While I believe Bush is deserving of impeachment, a trial, and removal
from office, I don't believe the country should have to go through that,
or even as far as Nixon took us before he resigned. Further, Bush's
crimes are far more serious than Nixon's.

I simply believe we need a peaceful way to remove an incompetent or
grossly dishonest president from office. In nations with a parliamentary
system and multiple parties, legislators can hold votes of NO CONFIDENCE
and force elections. But we don't have that here. We have another 2-1/2
years with Bush, and now that he has proved to more than two thirds of
the country that he truly is a bumbling idiot, it would be nice to have
some lawful means to do something about it.

And take this guy and john and mark with you, Thunder.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:

Run anyone but Clinton and one with more brains than Kerry and you win
it.


Kerry has the brains, but he's devoid of charisma.


If I recall correctly GWB actually had a better SAT score and a better GPA
than Kerry at Yale.

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 May 2006 17:54:38 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

thunder wrote:
On Sat, 13 May 2006 16:16:27 -0400, John Gaquin wrote:


Great idea, Harry. Institute a system where the existence of the
national
government is subject to the whims of public opinion on any popular
issue
of the day. We already have a press that publishes only what they
want
the public to read. Couple that with your proposal, and you have a
system
wherein the press will be empowered to dictate a change of governments.

Where do you hide to dream this stuff up??

I'm not one to mess with our system. Long term systems may have their
faults, but they also provide a stability. However, Harry didn't dream
this up, it's called active or participatory democracy, as opposed to
our
passive model. For an example, look south towards Venezuela. Remember
the recall election Chavez survived? That is an example of an active
democracy.

Also, if you think the press can lead the population around by the nose,
you really don't have much faith in democracy, do you? It was James
Madison who said, "Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people
who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power
which knowledge gives." In a democracy, pay attention, or . . .


While I believe Bush is deserving of impeachment, a trial, and removal
from office, I don't believe the country should have to go through that,
or even as far as Nixon took us before he resigned. Further, Bush's
crimes are far more serious than Nixon's.

I simply believe we need a peaceful way to remove an incompetent or
grossly dishonest president from office. In nations with a parliamentary
system and multiple parties, legislators can hold votes of NO CONFIDENCE
and force elections. But we don't have that here. We have another 2-1/2
years with Bush, and now that he has proved to more than two thirds of
the country that he truly is a bumbling idiot, it would be nice to have
some lawful means to do something about it.

And take this guy and john and mark with you, Thunder.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************


http://simplythebest.net/sounds/Midi...one_ranger.mid

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"John Chaplain" wrote in message

No, the polls shows that many of the many dysfunctional Americans who
voted this poor excuse for a human in are starting to wake up and
realize what a bufoon they put in office. Sorry if you can't face the
reality that America is finally waking up and seeing Bush for the
jackoff he is. You'll just deny it and blame the polls for being all
wrong. Very functional thinking on your part....lol...

Most of us stopped using personal insult as a standard debating tool
somewhere around the age of 12.

Except for harry, don, kevin, etc etc.


My post made no comment one way or the other regarding the efficacy of
the
GWB or Clinton administrations. The sole point was that it is pontless
or
misleading to ask simplistic poll questions when the two administrations
operated in such markedly different economic and foreign policy
contexts.
Hence, grapefruit or fried clams?

There are plenty of conservatives (including me) that are unhappy with the
way the present administration is heading. That does not mean that I will
pull the lever for the socialist, i.e. democratic party.

"JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT com REMOVETHIS wrote in message
. ..

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:

Run anyone but Clinton and one with more brains than Kerry and you win
it.


Kerry has the brains, but he's devoid of charisma.


If I recall correctly GWB actually had a better SAT score and a better
GPA
than Kerry at Yale.




Bush also ha a spine, unlike kerry.

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 May 2006 16:59:28 -0400, thunder
wrote:

On Sat, 13 May 2006 16:16:27 -0400, John Gaquin wrote:


Great idea, Harry. Institute a system where the existence of the
national
government is subject to the whims of public opinion on any popular
issue
of the day. We already have a press that publishes only what they
want
the public to read. Couple that with your proposal, and you have a
system
wherein the press will be empowered to dictate a change of
governments.

Where do you hide to dream this stuff up??

I'm not one to mess with our system. Long term systems may have their
faults, but they also provide a stability. However, Harry didn't dream
this up, it's called active or participatory democracy, as opposed to
our
passive model. For an example, look south towards Venezuela. Remember
the recall election Chavez survived? That is an example of an active
democracy.

Also, if you think the press can lead the population around by the nose,
you really don't have much faith in democracy, do you? It was James
Madison who said, "Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people
who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power
which knowledge gives." In a democracy, pay attention, or . . .

And since we don't want a Chavez type 'democracy', why not take your
political stuff elsewhere?

Actually, what we have is a constituionally limited republic. Now if
only the supreme court would follow the constitution.


--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
JimH wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:
Run anyone but Clinton and one with more brains than Kerry and you win
it.

Kerry has the brains, but he's devoid of charisma.


If I recall correctly GWB actually had a better SAT score and a better
GPA than Kerry at Yale.


There's more to brains than GPA's. I dunno about Kerry's SATs, but I have
seen Bush's, and they were atrocious.

I guess I could Google the information but I really don' think it matters
one way or another. Both of them are has been's, with GWB being ahead of
Kerry on points. ;-)