Not a good answer all…
Try again
All of our present problems, that amount to anyrhing, can be traced back to one of our three problems.
Too many freedoms make people dangerous and they do, or say, things that are not in the best interest of the majority.
This leads to problems. Our problems.
Think about it.
WOW!!! You are really off base. Where in the world did you come up with that bit of crap???
It helps to prove my case, however.
The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
The nit pickers can rightly claim that these words are not in the constitution itself, but they are here, in this piece of “history”.
OK, you can criticize the government in Canada, but you wouldn’t wanna live there. Got it. OK, I’ll try again.
Sweden? Britain? Australia? New Zealand? Japan? France? Belgium? Spain? The Netherlands? Germany? Switzerland? Norway? Italy? Austria? Luxemburg? Denmark? Finland?
What with all this “the founding fathers wanted…” crap? They were a contentious bunch of argumentative guys who fought over every comma and tittle. The Constitution represents a compromise they more-or-less decided they could live with, not some magnum opus they uniformly supported. Asked if they’d want to abolish or radically alter the current form of American government, some would say yes, some would say no.
I realizing I’m stating the obvious, here, but I feel it’s worth pointing out that many of FFs brought ideas to the table that would seem downright nutty by modern standards. It was the need to come up with something workable and sustainable that the compromised the way they did.
In this forum, V, we’re supposed to debate rather than merely contradicting.
What problem does our society face right now that is more pressing than fuel supply? Any other problem, e.g., crime, or the bird flu, could breed more problems, or kill a few Americans; but a prolonged interruption in the supply of cheap imported oil could bring our economy to a grinding halt.
All that might be perfectly true, but none of our important economic or social, and few of our political problems are rooted in it.
Governments work for the people who control them. If you have a government controlled by only a small minority, only a small minority will benefit. If you have a government controlled by the majority of the people, the majority of the people will benefit.
Think about that.
Agreed. Still, they were able to reach a concensus. They finally had something that, while it was not exactly what everyone wanted, was at least something they could live with, and some of what each wanted. There were probably a lot of hard feelings out there. The federalists, the Jefersonians, Hamilton vs Burr, I doubt they sat around sipping tea and complimenting each other’s brilliance. They all DID get what they wanted up to a point, something they could live with. Apparently, they agreed that if a government no longer served The People, it could be revamped or replaced - preferrably by peaceful means, but violently if absolutely necessary as a last desparate resort. Like if the Gov were taken over by zombie pirate robot ninja clones. Remember, if the Revolution were lost, they would have been tried and executed for rebellion. They had just, effectively, overthrown the government in the soon to be USA.
I believe we have already begun to have “a prolonged interruption in the supply of cheap” oil and I don’t believe it hampered our economy that much. It certainly brought about a change in some of our priorities, but nothing that our country wasn’t able to adjust to.
“A grinding halt”? Far be it.
Can you really visulize foriegn that happening in this day and age?
We have been making plans for alternative fuels for many years and the wheels could be put into motion whenever a serious threat arrives.
No, I don’t believe oil is our number one problem, but the 3 problems I referred to could cause one to believe as you do.
I’m thinking about that and I think you have confussed my thoughts. I need soome help…
Are you saying that our government was NOT put in place by the majority of the people?
I would not like to have to believe that that is our problem. I would rather believe that we have too many people that believe it is okay to not vote a straight ticket.
How can the person, that we feel would do us the most good in the oval office, be expected to succeed without his party being behind him??
No matter what position one holds in life, he needs good people backing him up. People that will help him to make the right choices in order that the majority will benifit.
None of them would appreciate the minority of the people, who for whatever reason would like to feel they are being mis-treated, being defended by, and receiving the majority of the medias attention.
And yet it happens. Day after day. THIS IS A PROBLEM.
How?
Historically speaking, that is too obvious a fact even to mention.
If that were true, why would it be a problem?
Are you talking about the possibility of a situation where one party controls Congress and the other party controls the presidency? We’ve been through that circumstance many, many times and it has never made the presidency completely ineffectual.
Why is that a problem at all?
:wally
It would seem that you forgot our 3 main problems, but simply stated: You only know what the press and the media want you to know.
Vshepherd, let me call attention to a couple of points:
It is generally considered rude to resurrect an ancient and now dormant thread in which one has never participated, simply to add a question. The preferred method is to open a new thread, yourself, with, if pertinent, a link to the original. This avoids the possibility of someone missing the dates on the thread and re-opening old wounds, thinking that another poster has restated an argument that has long been resolved.
Suggesting that other posters “try again” to play some game with you is not appropriate to this Forum: make an argument and defend it; don’t try to be coy.
The use of the “putz” smiley is an insult, and it may not be addressed to other posters outside the BBQ Pit.
If you wish your opinions to be respected, respect those with whom you debate.
If you wish to continue posting, respect the rules.
[ /Moderator Mode ]
But you still have not clearly explained – in fact, I would dispute that you have even obliquely implied – exactly why freedom of speech, press and protest constitute “problems” at all. And it is not clear why press freedom would even be a contributing factor in my knowing only what the media want me to know. Are not people in countries with a free press better informed, on average, than people in countries with state-controlled or censored press?
BTW, V, I would feel much more sanguine about America’s fuel problems if I relied only on mass media outlets (newspapers, newsweeklies, TV). My fear of a fuel crisis is based on sources you have to look for, and put considerable time into reading, which I have done; such as the following:
The Long Emergency by James Howard Kunstler – http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0871138883/qid=1133808411/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-8368367-5191915?n=507846&s=books&v=glance
Out of Gas by David Goodstein – http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393326470/qid=1133808486/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-8368367-5191915?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
Once again someone has pointed out why America is in trouble because of the press and media.
We have more oil beneath the surface of Alaska then all of the other oil producing countries in the world combined.
Why didn’t we began drilling years ago in order that we could become the leader rather then the dependent one.
I would fiind it hard to believe that the reason was to save the animals, but we were told that by the press and media and I believe it was politically inspired and yet it happened in order that money could be made. To hell with the commen man.
Protesters would not protest and perhaps end up becoming terrorists. Soldiers would not have to die because of terrorists and criminals could be dealt with in a manner that they would understand, if only the press and the media would stop interferring with those whose job it is to handle such situations.
We hire people to protect us and then a handful of individuals decide what they did wrong, perhaps in order to sue someone or some department.
Protesters would not bother to protest if they couldn’t get press and media coverage.
Terrorists would not be as willing to die and kill if their deeds were to go untold.
Criminals, including those who drive illegally on our hiways and kill many more innocent people then the wars ever kill, would not do the terrible things they do if the punishment fit the crime. On the first offense. No one should be given a second chance to kill, rape or endanger lives a second time…but, the press and the media have the right to decide by slanting the news.
How could this be??
What kind of a nation are we???
Anyone can live here. They don’t even care enough about us to want to learn our language. They can even obtain drivers licenses, become citizens of the USA and even bear natural born citizens without speaking a word of English, and we allow them to roam freely and maybe even become terrorist and blow themselves and others to kingdom come, and their neighbors will say “I couldn’t believe it. They seemed like such wonderful people.” That only shows that FDR was smarter than our leaders today.
Sorry if I seem to be critical of you, but you are reading articles published for profit. And as our press and media knows only to well, That’s the kind of reading that sells books.
Simply false. It would be interesting to know why you believe this to be the case. (And, of course, if it is true and you are exposing some grand government conspiracy to hide it, it is the First Amendment against which you are railing that is keeping you out of prison.)
As to the rest of your rant, I will be happy to move it to the BBQ Pit if you’d like. I seriously doubt that you will be able to sustain a genuine debate on the topic.