Political Crossfire Forums

basher · Joined: 02 Mar 2006 Posts: 1

As with any current political structure comes a recognition of the pieces that make up its past. It is recognized then that our current understanding of appropriate government structure is in a sense a sum of the entirety of its parts; it has been made of and borrowed from other previous political structures that have failed to sustain themselves. We pride ourselves on our ability to adapt and change and push forward honing at all times the methods to which we have survived; by incorporating what works and throwing away what fails. This is clearly acknowledged in the creation of the constitution, which in itself allows for drastic changes, in the form of amendments; so then it can be said that we recognize there is the potential for change if it leads to, say, a more efficient government, a more comfortable society. Even the most stoic of liberals recognize the importance of taxation and economy while likewise the ardent conservatives have a real concern for the welfare of the people. We can agree that there are varying methods with which to propagate these comforts and still acknowledge at least that we want the same things. I believe lock calls this liberty.
Democracy as it is now has proven to be one of the most effective governments to date. The efficiency and adaptability of the constitution and the men who implore its principles have contributed to the luxuries that we see all around us each day. But let us not forget that luck has also played a large roll. The influx of German and eastern European scientists in the early twenties and thirties spawned the technology that gave us the bomb. And luck all the more that our location in the world affords us such independence. While Europe and Asia tore itself apart we sat virtually unscathed drafting containment plans and dividing the winnings. We can still see every day what the spoils that these things have brought us. Now though we enter a new age, we have large trade deficits and watch in quite anticipation as china and other countries rise to our plane. If we continue on with our current political ways I believe not that so much that we will fall but decline and level out finding our voice grow quieter and quieter by the decade. We can no longer afford split party stalemates nor can we accept party inefficiency. In times of crisis we seem to abolish this sluggishness but over all seem fundamentally impotent. With this in mind I propose efficiency be the word of the future, that we may grasp onto to these slipping fibers before we find them out of reach.
In place now we have certain checks and balances that are created to ensure that no single office take complete power. This is the fundamental pitfall of the pendulum democracy and so I address it first as to expose it to public forum and interpretation.
I propose then that instead of two candidates running on each party platform you have five. The office of vice president will be significantly reduced though his vote will stay as important if not more then it is today. The first of these five equally powerful candidates will be the president; who is a direct representative of the voice and will of the people. The second candidate will be the house leader, one elected official (elected through populous ballot voting) Who will be responsible for conveying the opinion and will of the house, though ultimately he stands as head of this office equipped formidably with veto power. The third resides as the leader of the Senate the fourth of the Judiciary branch and the Fifth elected Vice President whose sole purpose is to break a tie if the four previous offices should reach a stalemate. Both the senate judiciary and house elected representatives should act much like our electoral college today in which the representatives of each state are strongly encouraged but not bound to follow majority. In this way each member of each house still stands, elected by the people with the ability to vote though their vote may be over ridden. Furthermore every candidate runs on the same ticket so ultimately one party has five as opposed to the usual two on each ballot. They would serve a three-year term and are forbidden to serve more then two terms.
Why it may be said should there be any interest in creating such an oligarchic government? The simple answer is efficiency. Ideally and I use this word with great caution, with the same party controlling each branch the efficiency of the government would be overwhelming and passing laws would be significantly easier. The will of the people and their benifactors would no longer be stalemated for years on end. I understand that many would then think that this opens the floodgates of corruption but we aren’t throwing our democracy out the door. The people can still recall and I do not believe that they would have too. With shorter terms each party is still dependent on populous vote so the initiatives they passed would be beneficial to everyone and likewise different party initiatives passed that had proven to be successful would obviously be kept as any challenger to the office would be bound by the voting populous to incorporate beneficial policies into their campaign platforms. In this way we can pass a plethora of laws, throw out the bad and keep the good.
In many ways this is simply and upgrade, in the earlier years of this country men created assembly lines and we marveled at how the efficiency of this idea led us into a new generation of power and prominence. It was an upgrade and that is exactly what is proposed now. We should not seek to throw democracy out the door rather we should advance it, bring it out of childhood and into adulthood. The world is changing and we in turn must change with it.
In proposing this change is understood that any such significant change would be spawned directly out of populous demand. People would need to get involved and only through them is significant change possible. For too long we have sat quietly by reacting only to gross infringement of rights but for the most part sat stagnant as laws are passed for us. Through the implementation of communism we saw the will and voice of the people come together to dismantle unfair institutions only to throw themselves back in the hands of tyranny.
When we are young our parents tell us what to do and we follow blindly because we know them to have more answers then we do. We know also that their advice and direction are spawned from love and so we trust that they want only what is best for us. This is because as children we are ignorant and there are things, which must be kept from us, there is no reason that a government cannot be the same way. It is not necessary for us masses to be as informed as our officials it is necessary for us to trust our officials. To trust them in the same way that we trust our own parents. We must put ourselves into their hands, the hands of our elected officials and representatives; we must show them our trust and give them responsibility. Gandhi taught us that through love we can change the face of argument. No longer should it be us vs. them rather it should be us and them for how could they possibly seek to manipulate and destroy their own kin? With this in mind we must implore the same tactics that we use with our own families. It is our responsibility now then to unite mother with son to reunite this broken home, to remember family.

thefranzkafkafront · Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 6:04 pm Post subject:

Spacing is your friend.

ieatfood · Joined: 28 Mar 2005 Posts: 6505

dude, could you sum that up in like 2-3 sentences? there's no way im gonna read all that

usuchamp · Joined: 16 Feb 2006 Posts: 272

I read it. :)

It seems like the primary issue is whether we should vote for a party to head the executive, legislative, and judicial (?) branches. As such, at any time the three branches will always be led by the same party. The goal here is to facilitate policy changes.

May as well just vote for single person with sole authority.

The Advid · Joined: 07 Sep 2005 Posts: 5

I'll begin this by the immortal words of my hero, the most accomplished weatherman to hit the media:

"I asked him if he ever hung out with black guys in high school and he said, 'Well, no. They always had these angry looks on their faces. Who wouldn't look ticked off having to deal with nitwits like him?" - Al Roker.

Of course liberty is a huge part of democracy, but a pendulum swings in two directions, not just one. I believe there are three main parts to this theory: liberty, communism, and absolute monarchies. I do realize that some people will disagree with me, as it is with every theoryl; but hear me out.

Where do you see pendulums? Science classes, psychiatric offices... of course. This lightly implies the need of a college education to fully understand this theory. It is, in all senses of the word, advanced. It's like a game of golf. You swing the club, it hits the ball; but what happens when it doesn't hit? Our system is completely corrupt, in all of the worst ways. Yet the pendulum still swings. Perhaps, if we eliminate pregnant women, ni**ers, and McDonald's. Then, my friends, would you think the pendulum would keep swinging? Well, no. It wouldn't.

What keeps the pendulum swinging is the proverbial finger of America. It prods the pendulum, interrupting its natural course and forging its own. Someone needs to cut off this finger with a hand axe. Now, think with me; why are pendulums famous? Because they are in motion for a long time without being bothered, of course. Which leads me to my next point:

America will still be in motion, even if our government falls into ruin.

We are independant. Some will fall, yes... but we will stand through the debris and fight against the Iraqi's will full force.

Thank you.

Palmolive · Joined: 04 Mar 2006 Posts: 5

A pendulum can swing in a full 360 degree circle, as witnessed in the Academy of Science with that one that moves with the earth's rotation and knocks over the pegs over the course of like, a day or something.

Your pathetic opinion has been rendered irrelevant

YOU LOSE, GOOD DAY SIR.

usuchamp · Joined: 16 Feb 2006 Posts: 272

We should not be like a pendulum, swinging back and forth. We should be continually progressing forward.

Palmolive · Joined: 04 Mar 2006 Posts: 5

I'd like to share with a story about a boy I once knew.

Back in the old country, a close friend of mine, named Dimitriy Vovolochok, was killed in a car accident on his birthday.

He had been driving forwards.

If my friend had decided to drive left, or right, or even backwards, he would still be alive to this day.

Do you want America to follow the same example of my friend Dimitriy, and careen into tragedy?

The Advid · Joined: 07 Sep 2005 Posts: 5

Perhaps if we forge a secondary pendulum. One could switch pendulums as they please, thus protecting oneself from cars, and the downfall of our society.

Also: I am for hire as a theorist. I have many ideas, and can be of much use to an upcoming politician.

Palmolive · Joined: 04 Mar 2006 Posts: 5

Yes, we can have a metaphorical pendulum for upstanding, white Christians, and one for filthy unsaved folk and non-whites. If resegregation won't save America, then truly we have crossed the point of no return.

I like the way you think, Avid.

The Advid · Joined: 07 Sep 2005 Posts: 5

Yes, yes. Of course! But you must remember, the pendulum of sin itself will n ot save America. You have to remember that they have put to use that our former leaders have, naively, given them. We must abolosish these rights and put the blacks where they belong; back on plantations.

Palmolive · Joined: 04 Mar 2006 Posts: 5

An interesting point, well-noted.

You would be a fool to not believe that all the anti-Americanism in this world today is not the wrath of God, punishing our great country for our embrace of homosexuals, non-Christians, and worst of all, non-whites.

There are forces at work that will bring America to its proverbial knees if action is not taken IMMEDIATELY.

I'm sure you're saying to yourself right now, "That's all well and good, but what can I do to help?" For starters, write letters. Long, angry, and descriptive letters that use big words. I've written many letters to my state's senators, requesting immediate arrest of all groups who pose a threat to America (Muslims, gays, negroes, etc), but have yet to receive a response, and I suggest anyone who cares about America do the same.

The Advid · Joined: 07 Sep 2005 Posts: 5

I, too, have written letters of concern to my local representation. Unfortunately, no action has been taken. I have, however, been thinking of my own resolutions. Perhaps... eliminating these threatening groups ourself would be an option? You must be a hunter. I have an assortment of life-size sand **** cut-outs that I use for target practice. Maybe it's time to put them to use in the real life.

Palmolive · Joined: 04 Mar 2006 Posts: 5

Ask any historian, economist, or red-blooded American patriot, and they will tell you it is a solid fact that America's economy went to s**t the day cotton and tobacco were no longer our main industries.

Oh, sure, we can start producing 'baccy and cotton again, but what would be the point? We'd have to use paid labor! There'd be unions! Let's face it. Plantations only produce money when dumb negroes are working on them 12 hours a day with no pay.

America is suffering, and its the fault of abolishionists and human-rights activists. Well, I've got a question for these people. How can you call people who blow up buildings, killing thousands of Americans, who rape innocent white women, rob banks, behead people in cold blood, and deal drugs HUMAN? We can't kid ourself into thinking these filthy God-haters are humans.

Once we win the war on terror, we need to put these subhumans to work, putting our country back on track, so we can get rid of those slant-eyed chinks in China. Those who do not work will be killed, and processed into a slurry of tasty nutrients for feeding to the other workers. This way, even in death, they will be an asset to our country.

Then, my friends, America will be truly great.

Robin Hood · Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 3295

Quote: Ask any historian, economist, or red-blooded American patriot, and they will tell you it is a solid fact that America's economy went to s**t the day cotton and tobacco were no longer our main industries.

Oh, sure, we can start producing 'baccy and cotton again, but what would be the point? We'd have to use paid labor! There'd be unions! Let's face it. Plantations only produce money when dumb negroes are working on them 12 hours a day with no pay.

Slave labour was economically poor for those engaged in farming. When Brazil dropped slavery (late on) and invited over migrants who were paid they did a much better job. Which of course they would because a free man is in a far better state than a slave.