I had a conversation with a few friends today about politics and we all agreed that a Revolt would be the best thing for our checks and balances.
Our Decleration of Independence states "derive their just power from the unanimous consent of the governed." Which means we will vote on who would do the best job FOR THE PEOPLE! It seems to me things have changed to "Help ourselves, to hell with the people!" It sickens me when I see the government living off the people rather than for the people. It looks as if our government does most things that will help their pockets and the rich feed them, while the poorer classes of America struggle to survive and get shat on. I think its time for a civil revolt and a redo of our government to let them know We are the people not their pockets.
If anyone thinks its a bad idea please speak... Tell me what would be best for the people...
__________________
Thank god for grocery stores! If I had to feed my family by hunting, we would all starve....
Close encounters with deer -- 5
Deer missed --- 1
Deer hit -- 0
Keep in mind that one reason why many countries in Latin America are so unstable is because they throw a good old fashioned revolt at the drop of a hat.
__________________
"Shoot him again....his soul is still dancing"
Location: land of the Lilliputians, In the state of insanity
Posts: 24,185
RE: American Revolution?
"You say you want a revolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know you can count me out
Don't you know it's gonna be alright
Alright, alright
You say you got a real solution
Well you know
We don't love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well you know
We're doing what we can
But if you want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell you is brother you have to wait
Don't you know it's gonna be alright
Alright, alright, al...
You say you'll change the constitution
Well you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well you know
You better free your mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow
Don't you know know it's gonna be alright
Alright, alright
It's not the system that is broken. The majority of people spoke and we havewho we have.It is the GREATESTDemocracy this world has ever and will ever know.
What is broken IMO are the people that we have running for these positions. Is this the best that our communities can offer??...........Not on your life! But it has become so polarizing... that if a person has the slightest blackmark in there life or actually is just an everyday Joe (or Jane)trying to change things....Their crucified for it and that's OUR fault. So we end up with agenda drivin' Lawyer's,Banker's etc. that could give a crap about the guy workin' 10 hrs. a day to keep this country strong. Think about that the next cycle when an every day guy that doesn't have this vast amount of experience runs for office and holds close to your value system.
Why would our best and brightest want to go through that BS?
Bill
__________________
Liberal,Independent,Conservative...
I want to ride to the ridge where the west commences,
I can't look at hobbles and I can't stand fences.
DON'T FENCE ME IN.
Cole Porter
Time to end the set number of representatives in the house. We need to go back to 1 rep per 40,000 people. Curently we have 1/800,000.
__________________
John Adams “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”
Ronald Reagan: 'Everybody that is for abortion has already been born'
"I never said I was worth it. I only said I wouldn't do it for less " William F. Buckley Jr.
"derive their just power from the unanimous consent of the governed."
That is an incorrect quote.
Quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. "” 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.
The only place the word 'unanimous' appears in the Declaration is in it's official name:
The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America
As I said in another thread, we've been under the thumb of big business Republicans for the past 8 years, 20 of the past 28 years, and likewise we've endured some version of 'trickle down economics' for that same 20 of the past 28 years. The GOP has gotten deeply into the pockets of Wall St power brokers and has lost touch with mainstream America. As a result, they got voted down. We have a new Democrat gov't coming into power.
So, before launching your revolt, give the Dems a chance.
Which leads to another point. I don't know whether you did or did not vote but there is a thing that needs to be said. Anyone who did not vote has absolutely NO right to complain. Certainly no right to talk of rebellion or civil war.
"derive their just power from the unanimous consent of the governed."
That is an incorrect quote.
Quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. "” 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.
The only place the word 'unanimous' appears in the Declaration is in it's official name:
The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America
As I said in another thread, we've been under the thumb of big business Republicans for the past 8 years, 20 of the past 28 years, and likewise we've endured some version of 'trickle down economics' for that same 20 of the past 28 years. The GOP has gotten deeply into the pockets of Wall St power brokers and has lost touch with mainstream America. As a result, they got voted down. We have a new Democrat gov't coming into power.
So, before launching your revolt, give the Dems a chance.
Which leads to another point. I don't know whether you did or did not vote but there is a thing that needs to be said. Anyone who did not vote has absolutely NO right to complain. Certainly no right to talk of rebellion or civil war.
Hey I'm not launching any revolt it's just a friendly conversation... However I'm very interested in seeing the Democrats do well this term all the pressure is on Obama with the economic crisis and + him being the first mixed president. (he's not black for those that think he is, he is mixed. His father is white from Africa and his mother is from Hawai) that may not be true but I think it is.
Oh and easy there big guy, I didn't copy and paste it from the DOI I just jotted down what it said best to my knowledge...
__________________
Thank god for grocery stores! If I had to feed my family by hunting, we would all starve....
Close encounters with deer -- 5
Deer missed --- 1
Deer hit -- 0
I think FM has a good idea, or something similar, say 1 for 80,000 or 100,000
Dangermouse, I wish I could take some credit for it but here is a great article published about a month or so ago.
Quote:
A MINORITY VIEW
BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2008, AND THEREAFTER
Political Monopoly Power
The Federalist Papers, written by James Madison, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton, is the document most frequently referred to when trying to get a feel for the original intent of the framers of the Constitution. One such intention is found in Federalist 56 where Madison says, "...it seems to give the fullest assurance, that a representative for every thirty thousand inhabitants will render the (House of Representatives) both a safe and competent guardian of the interests which will be confided to it."
Excellent research, found at http://www.thirty-thousand.org/index.htm, shows that in 1804 each representative represented about 40,000 people. Today, each representative represents close to 700,000. If we lived up to the vision of our founders, given today's population, we would have about 7,500 congressmen in the House of Representatives. It turns out that in 1929 Congress passed a bill fixing the number of representatives at 435. Prior to that, the number of congressional districts was increased every 10 years, from 1790 to 1910, except one, after a population census was taken.
We might ask what's so sacrosanct about 435 representatives? Why not 600, or 1,000, or 7,500? Here's part of the answer and, by the way, I never cease to be amazed by the insight and wisdom of our founders: James Madison, the acknowledged father of the Constitution, argued that the smaller the House of Representatives relative to the nation's population, the greater is the risk of unethical collusion. He said, "Numerous bodies ... are less subject to venality and corruption. " In a word, he saw competition in the political arena as the best means for protecting our liberties. If Madison were around today to see today's venal and corrupt Congress, he'd probably say, "See, I told you so!"
In addition to venality and corruption, restricting the number of representatives confers significant monopoly power that goes a long way toward explaining the stranglehold the two parties have and the high incumbent success rates. It might also explain the power of vested interest groups to influence congressional decisions. They only have to bribe, cajole or threaten a relatively small number of representatives. Imagine the challenge to a lobbyist, if there were 7,500 representatives, trying to get a majority of 3,813 to vote for this or that special privilege versus having to get only a 218 majority in today's Congress.
Another problem of a small number of congressmen, with large districts, has to do with representing their constituents. How in the world is one congressman to represent the diverse interests and values of 700,000 people? The practical answer is they don't and attempt to be all things to all people. Thus, a congressman who takes a principled stand against the federal government exceeding its constitutional authority -- whether it be government involvement in education, business welfare and bailouts and $2 trillion dollars worth of other handouts -- is not likely to win office.
Appealing for the votes in a district of 700,000 is a more difficult challenge than appealing for the votes in a district of 40,000 or 60,000 people. Larger sums must be raised requiring a congressman to be wealthy or raise money from vested interest groups. Who is going to give a congressman money and not expect something special in return?
One should not be optimistic about increasing the size of Congress to make it more representative of the American people. There are powerful forces that benefit from the status quo. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lobbyists get Congress to look the other way. Hundreds of other lobbyists get Congress to rig the market, or confer special privileges, to benefit one class of Americans at the expense of another class. I guarantee you that the vested interest groups, who now have a strong grip on Washington, at the detriment of the nation's well-being, wouldn't as easily get their way if they had to scrounge for 3,813 votes as opposed to 218.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
[/align]
__________________
John Adams “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”
Ronald Reagan: 'Everybody that is for abortion has already been born'
"I never said I was worth it. I only said I wouldn't do it for less " William F. Buckley Jr.
American Revolution?
