Please prove me wrong, page 4
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times


reply posted on 27-7-2008 @ 04:36 PM by solo1
Originally posted by foremanator
Hi there
I am posting this because I wanted to know if there is something wrong with this idea. I have had this discusion with friends and family and nobody seems to agree with me.
My idea is this.
Almost everyone in north America has either internet or acess to the internet. Why wouldnt we be able to (as a whole) take over the job's that politicians do. What I mean is when it comes to voting on policy and law. Why not let the majority decide on these issues.
For example who agrees that these massive banks that are going bankrupt should recieve massive bailout packages from the taxpayers they stole from in the first place.
Its just a thought. But I wanted to put it out there and get some feedback


Because we have no power

America is in a Constitutional republic
which is not a democracy (SHush ! dont tell the Americans they don't know this)
and Canada is in a socialist democracy

one of these two countries will lose its laws if the North American union proceeds as it surely will as the treaties are already signed sealed and delivered.

Many Americans who are self centered and think they are number 1 will find it a hard pill to swallow when they find out that they are the people who will lose their constitution and laws and that they will be accepting the British based law system of Canada.
which will override any American laws
on the most important issues I believe there should be referendums
so that everyone has the right to vote on an issue, that would be a real democracy.
One thing I can't get out of my mind is that in 2006 When President Bush came to Canada to sign the treaty of the North American Union he was over heard telling our Prime Minister " I am glad to be back home" ?
this puzzles me to this very day .


reply posted on 27-7-2008 @ 09:56 PM by peggy m
reply to post by foremanator



It is the language that the bills are written in that most people would not understand, thus preventing them from making a knowledgeable choice on the matter. The person would then have to rely on the translation of the language, a summary of the bill that would be prejudiced by the opinion of the translator, thus preventing them from making a knowledgeable choice. Not to mention, most people do not posses the education in law, sociology, and economics required to make a knowledgeable choice.

So, why do we not have a direct voting policy? Knowledge.


reply posted on 27-7-2008 @ 10:55 PM by XTexan
Originally posted by peggy m
reply to
post by foremanator



It is the language that the bills are written in that most people would not understand, thus preventing them from making a knowledgeable choice on the matter. The person would then have to rely on the translation of the language, a summary of the bill that would be prejudiced by the opinion of the translator, thus preventing them from making a knowledgeable choice. Not to mention, most people do not posses the education in law, sociology, and economics required to make a knowledgeable choice.

So, why do we not have a direct voting policy? Knowledge.


Once again, I agree... Nothing involving the people can be done unless a mass government/constitution education program is started. The fact that we dont already have one speaks volumes about our country. The powers that be prefer us to have no clue about how/why things work...

[edit on 27-7-2008 by XTexan]
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



Memorial day thoughts.
  Posted 2 days ago with 11 member flags
Global governance and the challenge to the American Constitution
  Posted 10 days ago with 5 member flags
Abraham Lincoln Filed a Patent for "Facebook\' in 1845..? (HOAX)
  Posted 18 days ago with 3 member flags
Explosive Scoop on Obama from Breitbart.com
  Posted 9 days ago with 1 member flags