Amerika

[Reveilled]

Right, well that explains my initial confusion: calling the legislature the senate!

 

The biggest issue I see with your proposed neo-Iraq is that you have created a de-facto dictator. Sure, the Chief Executive (Princess) doesn't wield unilateral power, but she has the casting vote in everything AS WELL AS BEING IN CHARGE OF INVESTIGATING CORRUPTION!

 

QUIS CUSTODIET IPSOS CUSTODES?

 

You are setting the poor folks up for a reaming. At the very least you need to have a whole department that investigates the CE. And then you need someone else to investigate them, e.g. the legisalture. Basically you need someone outside the power loop to check on the power loop, then you need the checkers to be generally at the mercy of the legislation like everyone else, and you need to police the boundaries fiercely.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, no, you're misunderstanding. The Chief Executive only has a casting vote in matters of exectutive public spending. The Chief Executive has no say in formulating laws, in preparing the budget, or in approving either. She also has no say in public spending unless two departments who need to exchange resources cannot agree on the manner in which it is done. So if the Health Minister can't agree with the Public Safety minister on how many ambulances should be available in Manchester for 999 calls, then the Chief Executive has the casting vote. If they can agree and compromise on it, then the Chief Executive doesn't even have a vote. The inability of two members of the executive to agree on interdepartmental issues is the only circumstance in which the Chief Executive is actually involved in wielding any power, barring the emergency situation.

 

Also, I don't believe I used the term Senate to refer to the lower Chamber before that last post. "

[metadigital]

...

Also, I don't believe I used the term Senate to refer to the lower Chamber before that last post. "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was trying not to say that I didn't read all the crap you were writing, in the most positive way I could!

I all for abandoning it for a meritocratic utopia.

You wouldn't get my vote (assuming I still had one).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That depends on how you debate this topic ...

Only if the disenfranchised are negatively effected by their disenfranchisement. Would you argue that the mentally ill and criminal elements of society are unjustly disenfranchised? I can see the lawyers for the defence making their briefs now: "My client would be more inclined to follow the laws of this country if he could participate in their legislation, so he wants to be elected for President."

Odd argument. How can the disenfranchised not be affected by being disenfranchised?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In the same way that I don't mind that I cannot dictate Council Refuse Policy, even though I am therefore disenfranchised in the administration of the collection of my rubbish.

Criminals lose their vote and their freedom simultaneously because of their actions.  They recover their full rights (or should do) when they have served their sentences.  As for the mentally ill, they should indeed be allowed to vote - nothing controversial there, I think: Link.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Looks like the Labour party will stoop to any depth in order to get votes ...

[Judge Hades]

Well, here in Iowa Governor Vilsack, overall not a bad governor though not a good one either, pushed a law that any criminal who has paid their debt to society (all fines paid and sentence fulfilled) they are allowed full voting rights again. Republicans here were against it.

 

Personally I think it is a good move. If their debt to society is paid then why continue punishing them?

[metadigital]

Crucifixion. First Offence.

[kumquatq3]

Crucifixion. First Offence.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

"I'm sorry Timmy, but you did clearly J-walk."

[metadigital]

Crucifixion. First Offence.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"I'm sorry Timmy, but you did clearly J-walk."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, you'll probably get away with crucifixion.

[Cantousent]

What's with this crucifixion non-sense? Get back on topic, dammit.

[Volourn]

"Vol, I know emotions are running high, but you've endured a lot worse comments from me, for crying out loud. ...And given some grief as well. Let's try to keep the thread open."

 

I don't want to get into disucssing moderation stuff publicly; but I'm just tryin' to follow the rules. if I am gonna get chastized for flaming and 'personal attacks'; I'll follow the rules and refrain from them to the best of my abilities; but it forces me to report as many indiscrestions as possible of other people.

 

I know it makes your job more difficult; but it's just the rulez.

[metadigital]

The debate has evolved from ideal forms of government into crime and punishment.

 

Get with the times, old man!

[Cantousent]

Fair enough, Vol. ...And you can't teach an old dog new tricks, meta. Evolution is one thing. Speculating on the nature of crucifying? Ugh.

 

Please refrain from personal attacks. Remember, dueling was outlawed in the Obsidian Fora Act of 1851.

[metadigital]

Fair enough, Vol.  ...And you can't teach an old dog new tricks, meta.  Evolution is one thing.  Speculating on the nature of crucifying?  Ugh.

 

Please refrain from personal attacks.  Remember, dueling was outlawed in the Obsidian Fora Act of 1851.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Scene 31: 'Always look on the bright side of life!' "

[kumquatq3]

Remember, dueling was outlawed in the Obsidian Fora Act of 1851.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

How un-patriotic.

 

I mean, the late great "Morgan Man" once shot a programer on the Obsidian front lawn for hording water bottles. (Old-skool reference, in two ways)

 

Taking a arguement to extremes is in our blood!

[Judge Hades]

And its tasty too.

 

Hmmm... Blood...

 

*SLURP!* "

[metadigital]

I think Eldar should stop dragging our threads off-topic with his complaints about off-topicality. "

[kumquatq3]

I second

 

and I withdrawl my nomination of Eldar as best mod until further notice!

[Cantousent]

Swine! All of you! Soon I will be forced to lock this thread, which has obviously been talked out already, and then you will have no choice but to put all this non-sense in the Wildcard thread, which is nothing but non-sense in the first place.

 

...And, to make an on topic comment, the only fascist states we've actually seen were pretty brutal. Saying that Spain's wasn't as bad what they had in Germany and Italy isn't saying much.

[EnderAndrew]

What is the topic?

 

Given the first post was about flag waving, yet others contend the true issue that diverged is democracy, but people now want to talk about crime and punishment, I don't know where the debate stands.

 

I maintain my earlier stand that I think it is silly that a majority or superpower is not allowed to take pride in themselves, while a minority or underdog is allowed to.

 

Imagine how you would react seeing someone yell "Black Power" as opposed to "White Power".

 

For what it is worth, I think Democracy is the greatest form of government we have, and without Democracy, there is little to protect one's rights and freedoms. Russia has reverted on basic rights in the wake of terrorism, as has England, yet while in the US we still have basic freedoms of speech, we act like the sky is falling and scream about the Patriot Act which doesn't really take any basic rights away.

 

We are quite arguably the most free nation on Earth, as well as the nation that brought Democracy and freedom to the rest of the world.

 

People keep maintaining that only an idiot would take pride in this country. I disagree. Only an idiot would say we are a country without flaw. Many of our flaws are not unique to this nation, while some are. But despite our flaws, I remain unabashedly unashamed of my country and I was proud to wear the uniform of a US Marine.

 

I would like to quote myself from a previous thread on a similar topic:

And on this day I am left to ponder the merit of nationalistic pride. Is it bad to feel proud to be an American? If there were no concept of nation, would we have fewer wars? Some have suggested that, but I think wars would still remain on the principles of lifestyles. Wouldn't people fight for the right to a capitalist lifestyle versus a communist way of life? Wouldn't people fight for Christian beliefs versus say Muslim beliefs? Wouldn't people still fight over East Coast rap versus West Coast rap?

 

The belief that your way of life, or nation is superior often leads people to foolish notions that we can only demonstrate our superiority by killing members of the other idealogy. This is the notion that leads to war, not the love of country, or way of life.

 

In that, I have no reservation in saying that despite the flaws our country has, I still love this land. I can only hope though that we as a people, the united people of this fragile little Earth can come to realize that human rights to freely follow our own creed, whatever it may be, should be guaranteed anywhere and everywhere.

http://forums.obsidianent.com/index.php?showtopic=35418&hl=

[Cantousent]

I remember that thread fondly. The topic in this thread can move hither and yon. The topic moves pretty freely in all these threads. I think the levity is good, but I don't want it to get too goofy for purely selfish reasons.

 

I don't want to get angry PMs regarding spam in a serious thread, etc.

 

"People keep maintaining that only an idiot would take pride in this country. I disagree. Only an idiot would say we are a country without flaw. Many of our flaws are not unique to this nation, while some are. But despite our flaws, I remain unabashedly unashamed of my country and I was proud to wear the uniform of a US Marine."

 

I cannot find a way to improve your message and so quote it here.

[Lucius]

Yeah, it's always nice to be allowed to keep your head. 

 

And I work with fascists every day because lots of them believe the army to be the flag worshipping wankfest of their dreams, so many try to join. 

Oh, I thought you weren't in the army yet. Personally I never heard stuff like that in our army, but then again, we've never been ruled by fascism.

 

Yeah, it's a sad fact, the state of foreign languages literacy of the average Spanish. Another leftover from the isolationist dictatorship period, I guess. 

 

No matter though, because, at the present rate, soon everyone will be speaking Spanish again. TEE HEE

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not before we make the Canadians speak Danish.

[Lucius]

We are quite arguably the most free nation on Earth, as well as the nation that brought Democracy and freedom to the rest of the world.

With people like Pat Robertson doing the Lords good work in the name of democracy?

[kirottu]

We are quite arguably the most free nation on Earth, as well as the nation that brought Democracy and freedom to the rest of the world.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

[EnderAndrew]

We are quite arguably the most free nation on Earth, as well as the nation that brought Democracy and freedom to the rest of the world.

With people like Pat Robertson doing the Lords good work in the name of democracy?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

290 million people shouldn't be judged by one individual.

 

Your tactics do not amuse me.

[Walsingham]

Reveilled, I understood your description better this time. However, in future, having a bullet point summary followed by more detailed descriptions could make it easier on people struggling to catch up with four pages of posts.

 

My view:

 

1. Two democratically elected houses is daft.

 

Any trend towards electing fascists or others in one house will be replicated in the other. You are simply paying for more staff.

 

2. Democracy and the right to vote are essential to the preservation of human rights

 

Deprive an individual of the capacity to vote and you deprive them of the capacity to peacefully defend against abuse of their rights and wellbeing. I have said this before and stand by it.

 

HOWEVER

 

3. Practically speaking I believe that a test for suffrage is good.

 

A universally accessible - if not easy - test of commitment to working with others, and an experience of humility and service, can only have a beneficial effect on those who possess the right to vote.

 

What I do not like is the fact that my friends neighbours' kids routinely smash stuff, smear faces on her door, and they will in six months time be accorded the same weight in deciding the government of this country as I do. Ditto for the rich brat wasters stroking one another's egos in London's bistros.

 

I am not talking about demanding that before people can vote they must cut down the mightiest tree in the forest with a herring. Just a year's work in minimal comfort, under supervised discipline doing a bit of hard work or unpleasant tasks.

[Musopticon?]

We are quite arguably the most free nation on Earth, as well as the nation that brought Democracy and freedom to the rest of the world.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Me too comrade, me too.

[Reveilled]

Reveilled, I understood your description better this time. However, in future, having a bullet point summary followed by more detailed descriptions could make it easier on people struggling to catch up with four pages of posts.

 

I used to have a bullet point version and a much more detailed and clearer long version on another forum, but their server broke, and I lost it forever.

 

My view:

 

1. Two democratically elected houses is daft.

 

Any trend towards electing fascists or others in one house will be replicated in the other. You are simply paying for more staff.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But generally the purpose of two elected chambers is not to have differing political views in them, but to balance one aspect of the state with another. In the case of the US, one chamber has representatives elected according to population, and so more populous states have greater representation than smaller ones, while the other chamber has two representatives for every state, to ensure that the needs of smaller states are not ignored by larger states. If California, New York, Florida and a few other populous states all started electing Fascists, they might gain a majority in the House since they get the most representatives, but in the Senate that trend toward electing Fascists could be easily dwarfed by smaller, less populated, but more numerous states electing (small-d) democrats. It would only take a trend towards electing fascists in about ten states to make a fascist House of Representatives, but it would take the same trend in 26 states to make a fascist Senate (and visa-versa; roughtly ten democratic states could keep the house democratic in the face of about 40 fascist ones). Thus the trend towards electing fascists is reflected in both houses, but doesn't have the same effect.