opposed to current government. Yes or No?

[Achilles]

I accept your challenge

[Darth InSidious]

"I think it was in the Rose Garden where I issued this brilliant statement: If I had a magic wand —but the president doesn't have a magic wand. You just can't say, 'low gas.' "

 

En garde, sir.

[Achilles]

Oh, him. I thought the topic was self-governance, not specific, soon to be self-corrected results.

[Darth InSidious]

Well, if you're going to classify current events as 'soon to be self-corrected results', how about Smoot-Hawley, then?

[Achilles]

But again, this doesn't address the larger philosophical issue that you raised, self-governance. I'm sure if I really wanted to, I could cherry-pick less than stellar choices made by members of your government (both current or past), however I also know that such an argument would have very little to do with building a case against monarchy (if I were inclined to do so).

 

I'm willing to bet that if we're both honest, we'll agree that no form of government is perfect. My contention would be that all government is inherently self-government and that "hands on self-government" is less reckless than "hands off self-government", which would speak more directly to the discussion I thought we would be having

[Darth InSidious]

Mmm... nope, sorry. I was just implying that the US should be run directly from Whitehall.

 

 

But again, this doesn't address the larger philosophical issue that you raised, self-governance. I'm sure if I really wanted to, I could cherry-pick less than stellar choices made by members of your government (both current or past),

You and me both...

 

however I also know that such an argument would have very little to do with building a case against monarchy (if I were inclined to do so).

Building a case against monarchy? I think I missed the turning that led to that... >.>

I'm willing to bet that if we're both honest, we'll agree that no form of government is perfect.

In all honesty, yes, I'd agree to that. It's a bit too easy a position to argue, though.

 

My contention would be that all government is inherently self-government

It depends on whether you count colonies and dominions as part of 'self', I suppose...

 

and that "hands on self-government" is less reckless than "hands off self-government", which would speak more directly to the discussion I thought we would be having

... Would it save time if I just said 'yes'?

[Sigundr]

Erm...

 

All those dates are in the eighteen hundreds. I'm referring to modern day America.

[Druganator]

yes thank u for the clarification i had never thot of it like that now i can tell all of my conservative frends that complain about it being democrats fault nothing gets done to suck my expletive

[Achilles]

Mmm... nope, sorry. I was just implying that the US should be run directly from Whitehall.

I'm sure that you and I both have some ideas about what it would take to make the world a better place. One or two of them may even overlap

 

You and me both...

You already have.

 

Building a case against monarchy? I think I missed the turning that led to that... >.>

No, you didn't. As I qualified earlier, "if I were inclined to do so".

 

In all honesty, yes, I'd agree to that. It's a bit too easy a position to argue, though.

It is, which is why I felt confident accepting your challenge.

 

It depends on whether you count colonies and dominions as part of 'self', I suppose...

Yes, if one considers such labels as a key part of the point.

 

... Would it save time if I just said 'yes'?

Oh indeed! A great many discussions could be truncated by simply agreeing with me at the onset :xp:

[ForeverNight]

Perhaps he was giving him a break due to his nievete[/Quote]

 

That hurts, Ender, that really hurts!

 

But, with everything I've read over Carter's years in the Whitehouse compared to what I know about Bush's years in the Whitehouse... Carter did more damage than Bush has -as far as I think.

 

Clinton... Well, do I really need to explain that one?

 

Oh, the way the government should work is that the three branches of government share power and keep a check on the other. So the real power should be with all of the above. Over the years, especially the past seven, more and more power has been wrestled away from the legislative and even the judicial by the executive branch.

[/Quote]

 

And yet the Legislative Branch can force the President into making deals.... Wow, that's a whole lotta power the Executive Branch has...

 

Don't get me wrong, the Executive Branch has power, but in order to get stuff done, you need the Legislative Branch at least sated enough to follow your suggestions.

 

:lol:[/Quote]

 

Alright... what does that mean? I'm not that well versed in speaking with Smilies, so if you could type out what you're trying to say that would help me out a little bit.

[mimartin]

And yet the Legislative Branch can force the President into making deals.... Wow, that's a whole lotta power the Executive Branch has...[/Quote] One word: Veto!

 

So the executive branch really isn’t forced into anything. The two branches should have to work together to get laws passed. Checks and Balances.

 

Not good enough two words: executive privilege. Opps. Got around the Legislative branch with that one.

 

More? Two more words: Signing Statement. Now the president has the power to modify the meaning of a law. Sounds like the Judicial and legislative branch lost a little power there to me.

Don't get me wrong, the Executive Branch has power, but in order to get stuff done, you need the Legislative Branch at least sated enough to follow your suggestions.[/Quote] Yes and your point. Sounds like you are saying the Executive Branch does not have real power unless it is a dictatorship. The system is design so that the Executive and Legislative branches must work together to get anything done. The problem is Presidents try to get around this little detail in order to push their agenda. In reality they should be working together to push the Americans people agenda through.

Alright... what does that mean? I'm not that well versed in speaking with Smilies, so if you could type out what you're trying to say that would help me out a little bit.

I thought you made one of the best jokes I've read here in a while. The was in off chance you were serious.

[ForeverNight]

Ahhh.... nope, sorry to disappoint, no joke. But, thanks, I don't spend as much time in forums where smilies are used a lot in order to read them and understand.

 

One word: Veto![/Quote]

 

Veto's can be overturned by a 2/3's majority in the Senate.

 

executive privilege. Opps. Got around the Legislative branch with that one.[/Quote]

 

Correct me if I'm wrong (And I have the feeling I am) but the two times (off the top of my head) that Executive Privilage has been claimed, it's been shot down... maybe I'm just not thinking of the right times... in any case, it bears further reading.

 

Signing Statement. Now the president has the power to modify the meaning of a law.[/Quote]

 

And then the court of Public Opinion comes in. If the President modifies it too much, then the Public will go nuts, and the President could be in some serious trouble next election cycle. (Unless he's in his second term). And we all know how much Politico's love getting into office.

 

Yes and your point. Sounds like you are saying the Executive Branch does not have real power unless it is a dictatorship. The system is design so that the Executive and Legislative branches must work together to get anything done. The problem is Presidents try to get around this little detail in order to push their agenda. In reality they should be working together to push the Americans people agenda through. [/Quote]

 

However, in order for this to work, Congress must want to get along with the President. And, not trying to say that only Congress is guilty of this, since they're not, the President must want to get along with Congress too.

 

But, in the case of where the Congress is controlled by a wide margin by the Opposite Party, then the President's going to have to make a whole lotta deals and make a whole lotta overtures to the people in control.

 

Oh, and the period after point, was that supposed to be a comma?

[jrrtoken]

Communism, anyone? Contrary to popular belief, pure communism really hasn't been implemented yet. Sure, Lenin attempted it, but his mistake was introducing communism overnight (so to speak). If communism was to be truly implemented, it should be done so gradually over the period of many years, so that the people can gradually learn to accept lack of personal space.

[mur'phon]

Ever wondered why "pure" communism haven't been implemented? It isn't for a lack of trying;)

[Achilles]

If communism was to be truly implemented, it should be done so gradually over the period of many years, so that the people can gradually learn to accept lack of personal space.

Meh, I respectfully disagree. You may be right, however I suspect that "true" communism only works on small scales. I think the problem with large-scale communism is that it doesn't account for human nature. Once in-group bias begins to take over, it's difficult to maintain any sense of altruism.

 

But that's is my opinion and nothing more.

[Jae Onasi]

Communism--where working hard to try to get ahead doesn't matter because it's all going to get taken from you and given to the lazy (non)workers who don't care anyways.

[Achilles]

Communism--where working hard to try to get ahead doesn't matter because it's all going to get taken from you and given to the lazy (non)workers who don't care anyways.

Yeah, I remember seeing that in the Communist Manifesto also

[KinchyB]

Welfare, Social Security--where working hard to try to get ahead doesn't matter because it's all going to get taken from you and given to the lazy (non)workers who don't care anyways.

 

Corrected

 

Grrr^10 to welfare...that's all I can muster.

[Achilles]

At least in communism, they expect everyone to contribute.

[mimartin]

Corrected

Welfare maybe, but how do you possibly put Social Security in that category when it is money that we have paid into the system.

 

Also not every person on welfare are on it because they are lazy. Some are on welfare because their jobs are now being done over seas in order for stockholder to make one more dollar in dividends.

 

At least in communism, they expect everyone to contribute.

Surely, you are not suggesting that the rich and corporations should actually pay taxes. For shame.

[Jae Onasi]

Yeah, I remember seeing that in the Communist Manifesto also

 

The ideal is a wonderful picture of utopian peace, harmony, and happiness--but as you noted it doesn't take into account human nature.

 

@KinchyB--WI implemented workfare so that the recipient has to do something in the work sector to earn the welfare check. That I can live with, even if the work rules are, I think, overly lenient. I know some people just have really bad things happen to them through no fault of their own, and I'm happy with welfare/workfare being there as an emergency sort of safety net. However, that's all it should really be--just used for emergencies, not as a long-term lifestyle.

 

Edit: I agree with mimartin--Social Security I've paid into already, though I doubt I'll see the return of the dollars I've paid in when I actually retire after the baby boomers burn through it all.

[Achilles]

Welfare maybe, but how do you possibly put Social Security in that category when it is money that we have paid into the system.

We have money paid into welfare too. It doesn't come out of our paychecks separately like SS does, but still.

 

Also not every person on welfare are on it because they are lazy. Some are on welfare because their jobs are now being done over seas in order for stockholder to make one more dollar in dividends.

Agreed. My mom was on welfare and working full time. I think they call the demographic "working poor" nowadays.

 

I suspect that wasn't Kinchy's point though.

 

Surely, you are not subjecting that the rich and corporations should actually pay taxes. For shame.

You're right. I don't know what came over me there.

[KinchyB]

Welfare maybe, but how do you possibly put Social Security in that category when it is money that we have paid into the system.

 

Once Social Security is optional it'll be off my "things I really hate and wish would go away more than Texas" list. 'Til then, Social Security is a complete waste of my money. Simple fact of the matter is when I'm at a point in my life when I need it most (After contributing Thousands of dollars to it that are better invested in other endeavors to begin with) it won't be there. Quite honestly, if someone isn't smart enough to save money for retirement they shouldn't retire.

 

Also not every person on welfare are on it because they are lazy. Some are on welfare because their jobs are now being done over seas in order for stockholder to make one more dollar in dividends.

 

Alright, channeling Achilles...Fallacy of False Cause.

 

Edit:

I suspect that wasn't Kinchy's point though.

 

Nope...specifically...going to get personal for a sec...some of my family is on welfare. Not because they have to, but because they choose to. And they have been for a while. Every now and again someone well also get a call from them asking for money...no hi, how are you...how are things...just straight to the dinero. They are a complete drain on society and for the most part a waste of space. So, when I think of welfare... I think of them...then I get irritated.

[jrrtoken]

[Druganator]

Dear Everyone,

 

I apologize for my former lack of grammar, spelling and, of course, punctuation in this and other threads. I will strive to use correct grammar and punctuation in my future posts.

 

Sincerely,Druganator