At what point would we the people know that the government has gone so far astray from what we want as foreign policy, that it would be impossible to reel them back in? In less than two years, we have attacked two different countries on the other side of the world, Afganistan and Iraq with the threat of Syria being next. How many other countries would we need to invade before we the people get concerned about what the government is doing and for what reason? Would our collective alarm bells go off only when the invaded country is a democratic one? At what point do we know that the crew running the government and making foreign policy decisions are not acting in our best interest? Do we want to be an aggressor nation in a state of war for the next 5, 10, 20 years?
Well, I suppose if and when we could say that our security and economic situation are quantitatively worse than if action had not been taken. I’ve heard some reasonably compelling arguments that this may be the case already.
It’s not numbers; it’s the quality. 'Scuse me for being cynical, but I have feeling that for many people, the threshold is not so much which countries we might invade but which ones would put up an unacceptable level of resistance.
Come Election Day 2004, ask yourself one question:
Are you and your country better off now than you were four years ago?
Then again, you could always ask that question of yourself at any time.
We’ll know we’re in trouble if George W. refuses to let the next election happen. I wouldn’t worry, otherwise.
I am personally more concerned with the PATRIOT act, and the possible PATRIOT II. While we’re being distracted by war and death, our civil liberties are slipping away. I don’t agree with the war, but I don’t think that our country is doomed for it. Our country is doomed if Secret Service Agents show up at my house tomorrow and arrest me for saying I disagree with the war.
The sad, sad, truth (as i see it) is that the majority of “we the people” don’t care. As long as “we the people” can watch the latest installment of Survivor and grab a drink at the local bar and go about their daily lives as they always have, they simply don’t care.
They don’t care if the rich are or aren’t taxed.
They don’t care if Iraq is being bombed.
They don’t care if ANWAR is being drilled.
They don’t care if Ashcroft takes away civil liberties.
They don’t care if corporate welfare is given at the expense of the citizenry.
The average “we the people” isn’t fazed by caps on malpractice claims or foreign wars in places that they can’t pronounce.
I am resigned to belief that the answer is never. “We the people” will never care about an issue that does not directly and immediately affect them.
Greed is king. This is no different than any other time in history, but now, the only limit on the pigs feeding at the trough is other pigs who want their turn to feed at the trough. “We the people” simply will not mobilize except under the most dire of circumstances.
Government has gone too far if the first order of business on any agenda is not a motion to adjourn.
That sounds flippant, but that’s my honest determining factor.
*Easyphil: ** "At what point would we the people know that the government has gone so far astray from what we **want as foreign policy…*"
** LA Times Poll today:** 78% of Californians, 62% of Oaklanders support the War.
(Hey Easy, don’t you real the papers?)
**EasyPhil : *** In less than two years, we have attacked two different countries on the other side of the world, Afganistan and Iraq with the threat of Syria being next. *
Are you crazy Easy-o? Do you really think that we should liberate Syria from tyranny right now? To hell with them, Easy-o, we need a rest.
*Easyphil: ** "At what point would we the people know that the government has gone so far astray from what we **want as foreign policy…*"
** LA Times Poll today:** 78% of Californians, 62% of Oaklanders support the War.
(Hey Easy, don’t you real the papers?)
**EasyPhil : *** In less than two years, we have attacked two different countries on the other side of the world, Afganistan and Iraq with the threat of Syria being next. *
Are you crazy Easy-o? Do you really think that we should liberate Syria from tyranny right now? To hell with them, Easy-o, we need a rest.
Wow! Thanks a lot! I knew that what I said was important but,
you know, you have always felt that much of what you had to feel was what l wanted to say, which was “Thank You”.
So - the poor beer-swilling slobs cannot be trusted to vote correctly?
We should… what? Come up with a new system to choose our leaders, to make sure they’re right-thinking?
What do you recommend?
Yep. The American people are just too damn stupid to actually decide how to run their own lives. We should figure out what’s best and then MAKE the ignorant sheep follow. It’s not like those greedy bastards should be trusted to VOTE or anything.
And people say the conservatives are elitists…
For starters let’s start placing the president in by the popular vote and international monitors to make sure that the kind of fiasco we had in Florida doesn’t happen again.
No I don’t real the papers, but I do read them. 
What was the actual question posed for the poll? You have to look at that before you can say those high percentages support the invasion of Iraq and the killing of people.
Well, as an outsider looking in, it would apper they cannot be trusted to vote at all 
I would recommend compulsory voting like we have here, maybe then you could call the US a democracy.
Australians certainly don’t feel that it is unreasonable to be expected to take a role determining how their country is run. Here if you don’t vote you are fined (a nominal amount, admittedly). If you seriously don’t want to vote, you can write whatever abusive comment you like on the ballot paper. But you are expected to take part in the democratic process and turn up on voting day.
What about if the next election has widespread use of electronic voting machines, with the potential for untracable electrion fraud?
How about if most of those machines are made by major Republican supporters? Along with the various reports of electronic fraud and untrustworthiness that are already out there?
What would be worse, George W. Bush cancelling the 2004 Presidential elections due to “terrorism threats,” or the 2004 Presidential Elections held completely with ESS-supplied electronic voting machines?
Please no. The abomination that is “compulsory voting” in Australia is the worst thing about this country.
Second to compulsory voting is allowing electionaring on polling day.
If people care, they will vote. If they don’t care they shouldn’t be forced to vote. Having decided to vote, people should not be subjected to corridors of people trying to make you change your mind at the last minute.
Voting should be a right, not an obligation.
Sorry, I do not agree.
We have gone more than far enough down the American path. If you prefer a system where only the educated and informed have a say, move to the US. At least in this system you have no choice but to be aware of the issues. Australians in general are far more politically aware than Americans as far as I can see, and having to make a choice in elections is one of the main reasons.
Probably when it is too late. Nobody wants to learn from history anymore these days and repeating past mistakes is the hip thing to do.
Hmmm, I can hold reasonable debates in the other forums, but for some reason I always become cynical and polemic in Great Debates, heh.
care to elaborate on the issue of everyone must have an informed vote?
it just doesnt happen unless you want it to. ie. care enough to be informed before you vote.
you could write, ‘up yours’ on the ballot paper, it would still count as a vote, but achieve nothing as it would be discarded right? - but at least you had your say., after all you were made to go to the polling booth, under threat of fine,
done it myself.
care to explore, say the case of Peter Garret, lead singer of Australias rock group, ( most/many Americans prob dont know who he is, what he stands for, ) ‘Midnight Oil’ running for Aust senate, getting way more votes than all other parties individually, conservative and labour etc, put together, but when the preferential votes where counted, they had more than him, coz even tho they were arch rivals they banded together, pooled thier votes, so that thiers would count more than his, even tho he easily had the clear majority… just coz he was a no hair radical who scared them.
seemed anti USA - check lyrics of his song, ‘US Forces’ - ( get the nod, its a setback for your country… etc )
- its just yet one more invasion, but they are only there to ‘lend a hand’ right??
friggen game is rigged, they will achieve what they want despite your best efforts…
Zanthor
First up, let me say that I don’t vote and aren’t required to because I am not a citizen, so I don’t need to move anywhere.
I am a citizen of NZ which does not have compulsory voting and recorded a %75 voter turn out for the last election.
I do not believe compulsory voting gives you “no choice but to be aware of the issues”. People who are not inclined to be aware of the issues will remain so regardless of whether they have to turn up to a polling booth and tick a box. What it does do is cause a heap of disinterested voters skew the results by puting whatever they feel like down, rather than thinking about who they want.
If people are not voting and/or don’t take an interest in the issues then the parties need to look at themselves and who they target their campaigns to rather than fining people for being disinterested.