To those who voted.

[gahult]

K.

[Tubetwang]

You guys have to set your goals higher!

Don't worry about the wind...adjust the sails...

We need a new grid...

We have to stand behind the people...

I believe the wealthy should help the poor...

I don't understand your line of tought...this here" I worked hard...I've made it, fuck the rest" mentality...

This way of thinking his heading for a crash!!!
Big time!!!

Days of big automobile is over folks!!!

Be positive and move forward before it is too late...

Classical background here...i'm going to keep the faith.

[bnwitt]

Help the poor your own way Tubetwang. Manage your own charity and quit trying to force others to follow your dreams. No one said screw the poor. I help the poor of my own free will. If you don't understand a person's desire to keep the government from mandating charity in a socialist or communist bent you have a very closed mind and cannot grasp the simple concept of a democracy. The democratic way of thinking is certainly not wrong minded and not doomed as you think. Your statements are similar to what one would see on the cardboad sign of a doom predicting bum in New York City. "The end is Near!" Really out there friend. You're a real beauty.

[Tubetwang]

Hey man...i live in a democracy!

That New-York Dude was right

Was'nt he?

[Tubetwang]

Hey man were's your spirit?

Ain't it Thanksgiving week-end???

Too much Turkey???

[bnwitt]

Hey man...i live in a democracy!

Well now see, you proved my point. If you think Canada is a real democracy then you are really confused about what a democracy is.

Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, is the sovereign and head of state of Canada, and gives repository of executive power, judicial and legislative power; as expressed in the constitution: the Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen. However, sovereignty in Canada has never rested solely with the monarch due to the English Bill of Rights of 1689, later inherited by Canada, which established the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty in the United Kingdom. Nonetheless, the monarch is still the sovereign of Canada.
In Canada's federal system, the head of state is not a part of either the federal or provincial jurisdictions; the Queen reigns impartially over the country as a whole, meaning the sovereignty of each jurisdiction is passed on not by the Governor General or the Canadian parliament, but through the Crown itself. Canada is a constitutional monarchy. Thus, the Crown is "divided" into eleven legal jurisdictions, eleven "crowns" – one federal and ten provincial. The Fathers of Confederation viewed this system of constitutional monarchy as a bulwark against any potential fracturing of the Canadian federation.

[bnwitt]

Ain't it Thanksgiving week-end???

Yep, and I'm giving thanks that you left leaning Canadians can't vote in our elections.

[Tubetwang]

We still have elections here...

While the Queen is away...we play!

The beauty of our election system is that you do not need to be a billionaire to run for office...

That, my friend IS democracy!!!

[bnwitt]

Yeah boy the queen is really hurting for some cash!

I bet if I check the net worth of everyone who has held the office of Prime Minister of Canada there won't be a pauper in the bunch

I wouldn't hold Canada up against the U.S. for comparison. I'm sure they'd both be lacking.

As far as I'm concerned, you can have Canada. I've been there a few times and it didn't do anything for me.

I'm sure you feel the same about America too, by the way you've criticized our way of thinking. Make you a deal... you guys do your thing and let us do ours. We don't need your criticism and you don't need ours either. We don't want to be Southern Canada any more than you want to be the 51st state.

[Tubetwang]

Point well taken...

I won't be bugging you nomo...

[Structo]

For better or worse the libs have their Obama.

Lets see how well they like him in a few very short years........

[bnwitt]

For better or worse the libs have their Obama.

Lets see how well they like him in a few very short years........

I hate to break this to you Tom, but we have him too.

[Cygnus X1]

Democracy=Mob Rules.

I much prefer a Constitutional Representative Republic.

It always makes me wince when someone who lives in the United States refers to our system as a Democracy.
The founders fought hard to prevent anything even resembling such!

The Federalist Papers ought to be required reading for every US citizen.

[bnwitt]

Democracy=Mob Rules.\.

Now that's just silly. Never in the history of this country has a "mob" been large enough or long lasting enough to equal the majority and rule. Maybe you mean the “biggest group of uninformed dummies” may rule if they get out and vote. I think we just witnessed that but I must admit the two choices were both poor.

I much prefer a Constitutional Representative Republic.

Well what you have is a semi-democracy by definition but it is pretty close to your preference. I would much prefer a democracy and having some requirement of governmental knowledge and a test for potential voters before anyone can vote. We would then have a democracy of the people "who qualify" making the decisions.

Somewhat elitist, I know and it will never happen so perhaps your way is easier albeit you have to trust the “representatives” to make good decisions in the interest of the country. I haven’t seen that done in my life time. These discussions always bring me back to “due to the nature of man, we are screwed no matter how we go.”

It always makes me wince when someone who lives in the United States refers to our system as a Democracy.
The founders fought hard to prevent anything even resembling such!

First of all, everyone 18 or older with minimal qualifications gets to vote. That is as close as you get to democracy with the exception that we are only voting on the persons making the decisions rather than the decisions themselves. While it is true that the restrictions our founders put on the right to vote did produce something less than a pure democracy at our country's inception, I believe they did this as they were very concerned with illiterates and transients having a say in government. What was created was still a democracy of sorts but of only the "qualified people". I must say that after seeing interviews with some Americans at the poles this year, (which showed many didn't even know who has the majority in both houses of congress) I was made to feel that voting restrictions would be a good thing.

The Federalist Papers ought to be required reading for every US citizen.

Well I can't argue with that at all. I too encourage everyone to read them but the current question is when reviewing them, "Can you press 2 for Spanish?":

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federal ... dindex.htm

Of course there is always two sides to every story and it is a good idea to hear all arguments. The Antifederalist papers are a must read as well:

http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/index.htm



From my perspective, the founding fathers intended for the Federal government to have say in only federal issues not local ones. We are so far from that in this country now it is pathetic. The best form of government would be what our founders intended. A limited power federal government with local governments and elections putting decisions of matter into the hands of the people (who pass a test) rather than just voting for representitives.

[stelligan]

I hate to appear pessimistic about elections and the sophistication of the electorate in the U.S.. Both candidates lost my support when these "bail outs" were rushed into. My opinion is that rewarding poor performance or bad judgment is a bad precedent. Perpetuating a philosophy that no one should be allowed to fail - in banking, business, government, school, or other endeavor. A notion that seems to be becoming more popular it seems. I would prefer a tough love approach. Let some lean and mean business swallow up the dregs at a bargain and create a success from it. Allow the fit to survive and the weak to perish. I believe, however, that opportunity should be provided for anyone to succeed. I do not mind a small bail out - a helping hand. The extent to which others should be required to "help" must be carefully monitored. Continued and long term support of failing businesses and failing individuals that have been given all reasonable opportunity to succeed is not what I am for. A rather gloomy quote that has recently resurfaced and seems relevant(whose origins are uncertain) is:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage."


Very over the top pessimistic stuff. I do not want to believe that it is true. It does seem our nation is at a very divided "tipping point". I want current leadership to succeed. To help us all succeed and prosper. I am more concerned about supporting the success of hard work and capitalism and the successes of those that retool to succeed. American made automobiles seem to have gotten bigger since the gas lines I remember in the seventies. It's a crying shame.

For a perhaps less eloquent quote, but my view in a nutshell. Albert Collins:
"Get your bidness straight, Baby - I'm tired of messin' round with you".