|
|
you can leave any time you want
I didn't say I was upset with America, although I used Washington as an example of what seems to be a problem world-wide. There would be no point in leaving the USA to go to the UK if they have just more of the same nonsense. That said, if you can point me in the direction of a country where the elite aren't systemically raping the middle/lower classes I'll have my bags packed by Tuesday.
That hails back to your 'human condition' point - which unfortunately is true.
I was hoping Scotland would lead the way in a bloodless fix for the problem.
Herd mentality won out to keep the players in power and it is that same herd mentality that will bring them down.
When that happens I'll have to get cable.
|
|
|
|
|
MehGerbil wrote: It becomes government when the annoyed party isn't permitted to leave.
No, that's a dictatorship.
If the 'annoyed' bitch slaps the 'annoyer' that is much closer to government. If the 'annoyer' then charges it's welcome to capitalism!
|
|
|
|
|
Nagy Vilmos wrote: If the 'annoyed' bitch slaps the 'annoyer' that is much closer to government. If the 'annoyer' then charges it's welcome to capitalism!
Actually, that's closer to a certain type of escort service... Can't think of a KSS way to describe that...
|
|
|
|
|
It's not far off a few bars in NY I can mention. :innocentWhistle:
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm... Where did we meet, again? Down near Port Authority, right? Yeah... That'd be the right area for that. One of them, at least.
|
|
|
|
|
Nagy Vilmos wrote: If the 'annoyed' bitch slaps the 'annoyer' ...
You've given that a totally different meaning by missing out the hyphen from "bitch-slaps". 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
I think out problems are beyond simple secession, but I can't tell you what it would take for change. We can't unite because we are fed lies by the media, are having our rights taken away silently and are satisfied with our iPhones and the belief that it won't happen here and to us.
New version: WinHeist Version 2.1.0 Beta
Have you ever just looked at someone and knew the wheel was turning but the hamster was dead?
Trying to understand the behavior of some people is like trying to smell the color 9.
I'm not crazy, my reality is just different than yours!
|
|
|
|
|
MehGerbil wrote: Our federal governments are too big, too powerful, and too disconnected.
Just like the EU. And part of Salmond's great plan for independence was to get Scotland free from the UK so it could join the EU. The whole plan was rubbish from start to finish, and based largely on falsehoods and misconceptions.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard MacCutchan wrote: The whole plan was rubbish from start to finish, and based largely on falsehoods and misconceptions.
That pretty-much sums up every plan ever drawn up by any government anywhere in the world.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
That does sound like a bad plan.
|
|
|
|
|
I had another thought about this matter and your perspective.
Let's grant that you're correct (I wouldn't know either way, TBH). Let's say Salmond is a lunatic and that he was actually pitching a bass-ackwards plan that was nothing but a steaming pile of lies. That all said, he still managed to get 45% of the vote and with a mere 5% change in the wind he'd of won this thing. In short, only 5% of the Scottish folks kept ya'll from getting crazy.
This is how people like Hitler arise (oh god, not that again). Imagine what the vote would have been had the economy really been in the toilet. I think we should be concerned with the world-wide rise of nationalism - all the signs are there that we're heading for another really big problem and I'm going to have to blame our current governments for this mess. They'd better start listening to the people again.
|
|
|
|
|
MehGerbil wrote: he still managed to get 45% of the vote
Largely because he was appealing to the nationalists, who voted with their hearts and not their heads. They (somewhat erroneously) believed that independence would give them freedom and control over their own affairs, but they tended to ignore the associated responsibilities that they and their new government would be forced to adopt.
MehGerbil wrote: They'd better start listening to the people again.
I'm not sure that any government has ever really done that. And, to be fair to them, the people rarely speak with one voice, as any election or plebiscite will show.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collin Jasnoch wrote: while they buy out our elected officials and make them disconnected
I read that, but I'm still not sure what is wrong with the free market? You reference it and then blame bribed elected officials?
Seems to me the problem isn't the free market, but corrupt politicians and bribery. Can that situation be prosecuted by the law?
If you prefer some sort of collectivism... that is subject to corruption as well.
modified 19-Sep-14 11:09am.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can you please define True Democracy (government model), and can you suggest your alternative to the Free Market (economic model)?
You do realize that the House/Senate mix was a compromise because small states wanted equal say in government and large states wanted more say in government. Dissolving one, but not the other will not solve anything, it is just a relative shift if power to the smaller states (if you remove the House).
The corruption in the House is the same as the corruption in the Senate. Why remove one over the other? Just because they campaign every 2 years instead of every 6? One represents localities, the other represents the state. I think term limits would go a lot farther to limiting corporate bribes than dissolving one or the other.
Collin Jasnoch wrote: just seems that the branch of government that is suppose to represent the peoples voice more directly has been corrupted beyond repair. Put the peoples voice directly there.
I'm not sure I agree here. All three are pretty much out of control... judicial activism is overturning laws voted in by 60% and 70% majorities (people voting here, not congress)... and an executive branch that increasingly ignores the balance of powers (and I'm not just talking about just the current administration).... and a dysfunctional congress that is controlled by who has the best lawyers and can manipulate the session rules of order the best.
|
|
|
|
|
Collin Jasnoch wrote: our nation has already fought a very bloody civil war over this
You should ready the history of Britain....
You have no limits on election funding, we have. It helps, a bit, but govt has to be more visible.
|
|
|
|
|
It is of my personal opinion, that I would not be surprised that the United States and England did not have some influence in the vote turnout. Again, this is my personal opinion.
modified 19-Sep-14 14:17pm.
|
|
|
|
|
the US influenced the Scottish vote?
do tell
|
|
|
|
|
make allowances, his foil hat slipped
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
|
|
|
|
|
I've already seen one online petition with a few thousand supporters calling for the vote to be re-held because of the clear evidence of corruption that in the counting that led to the no result.
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
|
|
|
|
|
you have to laugh or you would go mad
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
|
|
|
|
|
Talking of which Salmond has quit.
No confirmation he's going to be the new Fulham manager.
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Losinger wrote: the US influenced the Scottish vote?
do tell
Although no one has proof one way or another, I do know for a fact that the global interests (U.S., England, China, Canada, Australia, etc.....) outweigh the interests of Scotland.
It would have been a great inconvenience to the United States and England and other countries, both economically and militarily, if Scotland would have voted "yes". So, I am not surprised in the slightest that Scotland voted "no".
Am I way off based in my thinking or opinion, without any facts or supporting truths?...Yes, maybe, probably not...who knows.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
