Every Citizen Needs to Read This

page: 3
46
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


I'm confusered ...didn't I say in the post you replied to that I believe Charley Reese's "545 people" message is a worthy one?


Why is everyone getting so vexed about me looking up sources? I never even said that it takes away from the point being made by the OP.

I just like to know who's talking to me iz all ... sheesh, you guys are acting like I'm trying to debunk hugglez.

Oh and it's Irish coffee ... so both would be the answer.




posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by aristocrat2
reply to post by Blogbuster

In the United Kingdom, they used to have a House Of Lords, the equivalent of the US Senate, which was massively dominated by people who had inherited their title.

Ironically, repeated studies have shown that this lottery of birth created a mix in the House
that had...

- A representation of women much, much closer to the national average than the elected House Of Commons
- A representation of gays and other minority groups almost exactly the same as the national average.
- A much fairer representation of politicians in the minor parties compared to the national voting trends
- A selection of people from all areas of employment rather than the elected chambers that are always dominated by lawyers who have a vested interest in passing as complex legislation as possible so they can be paid fat cheques to sort it out in the courts.
- Black members sitting as Lords long before the Commons

Furthermore, as the Lords owed their seat to no party they...

- Have been almost immune to political lobbying
- Regularly voted against their own party on principle
- Could ignore political posturing to concentrate on the inherent soundness of the Bills
- Passed some great landmark legislation on forgotten issues like protection of small mammals, halting the closure of country school and reform of the prison system
- Have often torn down legislation where civil liberties have been threatened including chucking out the idea of ID Cards many years ago.

Sadly, Blair and Brown tore this all up and replaced them almost all with political yes-men that they appointed.

Maybe the only true democracy could be achieved by randomly selecting members of Parliament/Congress by lottery.


Exactly! I have been working on a model for a complete redesign of society, and I've included several things like you mentioned, where people who are willing to serve in some legislative capacity put their name in a hat and then a random lot is chosen. Each person would have to have a clean criminal record, pass a test and go through a basic governance training course.

I also thought that instead of elections, certain jobs for government would be better decided if there were Contests instead... much like American Idol, where instead of voting just once, each week you get to see the remaining candidates go through the paces, with speeches, debates, problem solving competition, etc. This would be done over the course of 6 months and be shown every week. This might be a better way to select somebody in a top position... at least better than elections where most people just check a box from someone in their party.

Actually, I would eliminate political parties all together because they only encourage laziness from the public, and they discourage real change. They are the equivalent of big corporations, and we all know that most innovations come from small companies.

I'm actually setting up a website that will model this new society model and it would enable people to join it (like ATS or Facebook) and participate in this virtual society. There is also a very innovative economic model that fuels the whole thing...unlike anything we have seen before on the planet (as far as I know).

Anyhow, the screwed up system we have now is so bad that I felt compelled to try and come up with a comprehensive and detailed replacement.



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by aristocrat2
reply to post by Blogbuster


Furthermore, as the Lords owed their seat to no party they...

- Have been almost immune to political lobbying
- Regularly voted against their own party on principle
- Could ignore political posturing to concentrate on the inherent soundness of the Bills
- Passed some great landmark legislation on forgotten issues like protection of small mammals, halting the closure of country school and reform of the prison system
- Have often torn down legislation where civil liberties have been threatened including chucking out the idea of ID Cards many years ago.

Sadly, Blair and Brown tore this all up and replaced them almost all with political yes-men that they appointed.


Oh really and the likes of Major and Thatcher before them didn't. Get real and apolitical if you wish to make a valid point And you seem to be infering that an UNELECTED group of people who are there due to FEUDAL INHERITANCE are more representative.......oh hang on they were predominantly Tory party members as well!!!!! hmmm....... your biased motives are so so clear.



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Blogbuster
 


Well said!



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Blogbuster
 

I am nearing the idea to omit Dr. Paul from the list...



posted on May, 18 2013 @ 07:53 PM
link   
everyone should read this and then take action..

thank you



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 08:29 AM
link   
bump for justice...


get to the source of your problems



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 09:44 AM
link   
Another cut and paste from an email but IMO would solve many vexing problems.


For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. The latest is to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform that passed ... in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn't seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above the law. I truly don't care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever . The self-serving must stop.



Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution: "Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States ..."


It only takes 38 (of the 50) States to convene a Constitutional Convention.



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by mlmijyd
 



War of so-called independence titter titter (oh how you have been had by your much beloved 'founding fathers'),


Good points all but I would have given you a star just for the above quote. Yes, we've been had. Big time.

The founding fathers made the US of A a republic for the specific purpose of keeping power OUT of the hands of the "ignorant masses" (democracy) and in their own. That's because the ignorant masses were so greedy and they, the elite, would never be. /sarcasm

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The second revolution should have come directly on the heels of the first and the anti-federalists knew it. That's why they had to write their condemnations of the federalist plan under aliases.

www.anamericanvision.com...
edit on 20-5-2013 by frazzle because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2013 @ 10:17 AM
link   
The article is well-written and points out some obvious flaws of the system.

Just a couple of remarques from non-US perspective:

1) The taxes are signifantly lower in US than in other first-world nations. Here for example I am paying over 20% sales tax, 21 % income tax, 33% social security tax etc etc.

2) Inflation is mostly not done by government or even the entrepreneurs. In the last years the prices of much raw materials, especially food have risen. It costs more for the producer to make something, so the price they sell it at rises. The chains have to pay more for the products they buy, so they have to raise the prices also. At least it is like that round here. My friend is working at one of the largest foodchains, so explained it to me quite well. The profits are not high and US consumer prices are signifantly lower than round here. Lowering prices is also not possible, as in US the chains earn from the number of people buying the products. The stores can earn same amount as here, with 50% lower prices, so the prices are pretty much as low as they can round there. Earning a couple of cents from every product makes the profits, as so much is sold.

Although I would not be very surprised if the game was rigged upstairs, the price of the raw materials for making something.

The government spending seems really too high, especially looking from here. The spending is extreme, considering how much is spent on military and different other fields without getting much back. The spending in education is nearly 1,3x higher than elsewhere, but results are weaker. Too large part seems to be wasted. Hard to judge though, as I am not from US, just lived there for a while some years ago.
edit on 20-5-2013 by Cabin because: (no reason given)





new topics
 
46
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join