a question that's been asked before

[Greg_W]

Jim said:

RobBob said:

From a war standpoint, the protests only take away from the image of a determined adversary

 

I look at the demonstrations as a sign of what we suupposedly stand for, the ability to voice an opinion in a democratic society. Passivity in a society is not a good thing. Democracy is supposed to be a mix of voices, not a sing-a-long.

 

To a degree, Jim. In a democratic republic, the majority voice carries, and once a decision is made ALL have to abide by it. That's how it works. So, I agree with dissent and voicing of opinions; however, I also think that once a decision is made, it should be supported as America's position. We are all Americans, no matter who wants to say "I didn't vote for GWB, I didn't vote for a war, blah, blah, blah."

 

A note on "supporting" our troops: Separate the policy from the personnel. You can still support the soldiers representing and fighting in the name of The United States of America and not agree with the action taken. I know they would appreciate it.

 

Greg W

[To_The_Top]

for Bush!

[allthumbs]

BUSH FOR PRESIDENT

 

BOMB SADDAM

[erik]

Greg_W said:

Jim said:

RobBob said:

From a war standpoint, the protests only take away from the image of a determined adversary

 

I look at the demonstrations as a sign of what we suupposedly stand for, the ability to voice an opinion in a democratic society. Passivity in a society is not a good thing. Democracy is supposed to be a mix of voices, not a sing-a-long.

 

To a degree, Jim. In a democratic republic, the majority voice carries, and once a decision is made ALL have to abide by it. That's how it works. So, I agree with dissent and voicing of opinions; however, I also think that once a decision is made, it should be supported as America's position. We are all Americans, no matter who wants to say "I didn't vote for GWB, I didn't vote for a war, blah, blah, blah."

 

A note on "supporting" our troops: Separate the policy from the personnel. You can still support the soldiers representing and fighting in the name of The United States of America and not agree with the action taken. I know they would appreciate it.

 

Greg W

 

greg i call bullshit on we ALL have to abide.

 

it does not say that anywhere in the constitution or the bill of rights.

 

 

[iain]

agreed. non-violent protest has always been a part of this nation's history.

[Jim]

Greg - I partially agree with you, and it's good to see that you see the distinction between protesting a policy and supporting the safety of the guys on the line. I don't agree with the folks who say you're a commie if you protest policy. But one point - a majority of the voters did not vote for Bushy.

[erik]

but jim all the rich people did!

 

[iain]

erik said:

but jim all the rich people did!

 

actually quite a few poor suckers did too. esp. in the midwest.

[Greg_W]

Jim said: But one point - a majority of the voters did not vote for Bushy.

 

Not to harsh on you, Jim, but I think this is a prime example of the misconception that MANY people have about the architecture of our government and how elections work in the United States. Article II of the Constitution breaks down how Electors are chosen and how each State's Electors shall execute their responsibilities. Each State votes from among the choices of national candidates; with a few exceptions, the corresponding Electors from those States mimic that vote in THEIR vote that is submitted to the President of the Senate. It is by the tabulation of the votes of the Electors that the President and Vice President are elected. This system was set in place by the Founding Fathers to provide some measure of protection for the small states from the large states; it strikes a balance. So, while you may assert that "a majority of the voters did not vote for Bush[sic]", that is an irrelavent argument; it is the vote of the Electors (or Electoral College) that selects the President based on the voters' voices in each state. This is a prime characteristic of a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC versus a pure democracy.

 

Greg W

[Greg_W]

erik said:

 

greg i call bullshit on we ALL have to abide.

 

it does not say that anywhere in the constitution or the bill of rights.

 

Call bullshit all you want, Erik. That is a fundamental tenet of republican (small 'r') democracy (which is what the U.S. is). Laws are passed by the majority and applied to ALL. Similarly are decisions (Executive Orders, Policy Changes, etc.) made by the Executive Branch Administration; the Administration was elected by a majority of Electors (as per the Constitution, Article II). Now, this is MY opinion and belief and interpretation of republican/representative democracy; you can form your own opinions and live by them.

 

Greg W

[Dru]

yes, and no prime minister!

[iain]

Ah the charming GregW government lesson, teaching the ignorant masses how our country works. have not seen one in awhile. I think erik is saying the right to protest this total garbage of an administration is fundamental. Don't want to put words in his mouth though, I'm sure he's got plenty to say on his own.

[Jim]

Thanks for the civics lesson greg - but I was responding to your implied point that the voters put Bush in place, he made the decision, so back off.

 

If we're all supposed to sit on our hands after a decision is made and just nod like bobbleheads then decisions will always be made for and by the elite.

[Greg_W]

iain said:

Ah the charming GregW government lesson, teaching the ignorant masses how our country works. have not seen one in awhile. I think erik is saying the right to protest this total garbage of an administration is fundamental. Don't want to put words in his mouth though, I'm sure he's got plenty to say on his own.

 

Helps to have a pocket version of The Constitution by the computer . I never said anything about Erik's right to protest; I fully support the exercising of your 1st Amendment rights. Just stating my opinion on the matter.

[Jim]

The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. . . . we shall also do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just."

- John F. Kennedy (Link)

 

"Today I weep for my country. I have watched the events of recent months with a heavy, heavy heart. No more is the image of America one of a strong yet benevolent peacekeeper."

- Sen. Robert C. Byrd (Link)

 

 

[minx]

Greg_W said:

Jim said: But one point - a majority of the voters did not vote for Bushy.

 

Not to harsh on you, Jim, but I think this is a prime example of the misconception that MANY people have about the architecture of our government and how elections work in the United States. Article II of the Constitution breaks down how Electors are chosen and how each State's Electors shall execute their responsibilities. Each State votes from among the choices of national candidates; with a few exceptions, the corresponding Electors from those States mimic that vote in THEIR vote that is submitted to the President of the Senate. It is by the tabulation of the votes of the Electors that the President and Vice President are elected. This system was set in place by the Founding Fathers to provide some measure of protection for the small states from the large states; it strikes a balance. So, while you may assert that "a majority of the voters did not vote for Bush[sic]", that is an irrelavent argument; it is the vote of the Electors (or Electoral College) that selects the President based on the voters' voices in each state. This is a prime characteristic of a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC versus a pure democracy.

 

Greg W

 

greg,

 

really this is simple. yes we vote for people to represent our opinions. sometimes we win sometimes we lose. we do not however lose the right or even the obligation to express our dissent. How will our legislators know what their constituents believe if we quit expressing our beliefs in as public a manner as possible.

 

 

[minx]

PullinFool said:

minx said:

 

ok- lets maket his easier, why not quit running this country on oil. the advantages are endless!

 

 

How do you propose to deal with the distribution of goods, air travel, heating, lawnmowing, etc? Not to mention

OUR GOD-GIVEN RIGHT TO BURN RUBBER!!!

 

i propose that we recognize the urgency of moving away from a petroleum based and devote the resources and time to developing alternative fuels and energy sources instead of picking fights w/oil driven countries.

[Jim]

Ah yes, democracy in action. What do the planners really think. An exerpt from the London Times. Notice you haven't seen reference to this leaked government document in any US media.

 

"A classified policy document leaked to the Los Angles Times last week not only doubts the possibility of introducing democracy to the Middle East by 'domino effect' but considers Iraq to be the least likely crucible of reform because of its ethnic and religious divisions. That is why now, when we're perhaps just a few days from war and maybe only weeks from peace, the State department and CIA have still had no meaningful contact with the elected leadership of the Iraqi National Congress, a body which draws from all sects and ethnic groups.

 

The attitude that informs this document, and the State department's institutional contempt for the INC, is at base racism disguised as hard-headed realism. It says: 'The towel heads can't hack it; the only way to achieve stability in the country is to install another strongman drawn from Saddam's Sunni minority.' "

 

 

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

trask said:

 

 

I love bombs, bullits and bullshit

 

Though the scale certainly tips heavily toward the latter ...