Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

The Ideological Government

ThrakkThrakk Athens, GAPosts: 1,226Member
add on or argue

1. Seperation of church and state (I kinda thought that is what we have in the constitution and that seperation of church and state was part of the law of the land, but I continually see the opposite everyday. An example is that boys are not allowed in the boyscouts if their families are known atheists or if they are homosexuals. I realize the boyscouts are a private enterprise but everyone's taxes pay for the boyscouts. There are thousands of private enterprises that are discrimatory. Where do we draw the line?)

2. "we the people".     We should abolish the electoral college. I think we're ready within the next 50 years. The government should allow everyone to have an equal vote and no state bias.

3. The government should be able to change. There should be less compromise for conveinence. We should stick to the logical point even if it requires action that doesnt look pleasent in the short run . And governments should be prepared for anything.

4. de-centralization. i.e. people should make the difference and not smooth talking politicians who favor majorities. This goes back to less  compromise for conveinence. Centralization of wealth and power contributes to social and economic injustice, environmental destruction, and militarization.

5. A government should be open to other parties. For instance, if Republicans favor issue A and B while democrats do not favor issue A and B, then which party do I choose when I faovr issue A but not B, or if I favor issue B but not A. Tradition has put limits on USA government by encouraging a 2 party system to be the only worth while choice. Americans should be able to vote for the issues without having to sacrifice their values by choosing a limited amout of candidates. Also, it is unfair that people are persuaded by whether the candidate openly loves god or not, God should not be the issue but the issues should.

6. find better ways to avoid war and promote world peace.



this is a short list that I quickly wrote, I realize that it is writen poorly and that I might have not done a good job getting the point across, so maybe you all can add on or fix what I was trying to say (if you know what I was trying to say)



.....

Comments

  • ColdmeatColdmeat Omaha, NEPosts: 3,459Member

    Eh, the BSA thing is iffy. If they turn down someone because they're atheist, or gay, no one cares. But if they turned down someone for being black, or hispanic? Oh, the shitstorm would be momumental. Funny, that.

    The thing that worries me most about seperation of church and state is politicians making public policy based on their religious beliefs. They're welcome to believe in FSM for all I care, but when it comes to dictating policy for the entirety of the Nation, then no, they need to put their religion aside. If they aren't able to do that, well, then they need to find a new job.

    Or instances like the President saying the Great White Gawd of North America speaks to him about running the country. No one bats an eyelash, really. Though, watch how fast the Christian runs to the other side of the street when some homeless man starts carrying on about how gawd talks to him.

    As for being open to other parties. We are. It's just that the US voters are, well, lazy, uninformed, apathetic, and in many cases, downright dumb. The media is as much to blame as anyone in this regard. They certainly aren't paying attention to third party candidates.

  • //\//\oo//\//\oo MalboroughPosts: 2,767Member
    Originally posted by Coldmeat


    Eh, the BSA thing is iffy. If they turn down someone because they're atheist, or gay, no one cares. But if they turned down someone for being black, or hispanic? Oh, the shitstorm would be momumental. Funny, that.
    The thing that worries me most about seperation of church and state is politicians making public policy based on their religious beliefs. They're welcome to believe in FSM for all I care, but when it comes to dictating policy for the entirety of the Nation, then no, they need to put their religion aside. If they aren't able to do that, well, then they need to find a new job.
    Or instances like the President saying the Great White Gawd of North America speaks to him about running the country. No one bats an eyelash, really. Though, watch how fast the Christian runs to the other side of the street when some homeless man starts carrying on about how gawd talks to him.
    As for being open to other parties. We are. It's just that the US voters are, well, lazy, uninformed, apathetic, and in many cases, downright dumb. The media is as much to blame as anyone in this regard. They certainly aren't paying attention to third party candidates.



      With the internet, nowadays, there isn't any excuse left for claiming that third party candidates have a lack of coverage. Most people that vote have internet access. Most of the elections in the redneck city I'm living in now even had online options.

     

     

    This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.

  • noname12345noname12345 Austin, TXPosts: 2,267Member
    It's simple. Give the states and the people residing all the power in deciding laws without going against the Constitution and let the Federal government worry about keeping the borders safe and stuff. This way the people have WAY more power.

    ______________________________
    "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
    -cheer leading, flag waving American

  • ThrakkThrakk Athens, GAPosts: 1,226Member

    The point isn’t that third party candidates don't have lack of coverage but that Americans are so stupid in their ways that they basically will only accept a 2 party system. That is because they are afraid of change or assume that republicans and democrats are the best parties because of familiarity. If one day all parties were demolished and all candidates had no previous affiliation with the parties that were demolished than a 10 party system would provide better choices for the American people.



    Also, the fact that church and state is not separate goes way beyond boy scouts. I do think bush likes having church on his side. Who wouldn’t? It promises him more votes and more reasons for hegemony (invading other countires).

  • ColdmeatColdmeat Omaha, NEPosts: 3,459Member


    Originally posted by Thrakk
    Also, the fact that church and state is not separate goes way beyond boy scouts. I do think bush likes having church on his side. Who wouldn’t? It promises him more votes and more reasons for hegemony (invading other countires).

    As far as I've heard, the Religious Right is pretty pissed at ol' Georgie boy since he promised them the usual "Ddo away with abortion, and crucify the homos, commies and heathens" lines, and then did none of that. Though, why a politician reneging on their promises comes as a surprise to anyone is beyond me.


    Originally posted by //\//\oo
    With the internet, nowadays, there isn't any excuse left for claiming that third party candidates have a lack of coverage. Most people that vote have internet access. Most of the elections in the redneck city I'm living in now even had online options.

    See for:


    It's just that the US voters are, well, lazy, uninformed, apathetic, and in many cases, downright dumb.

    When they're having issues with the voting machine itself, I'm gonna guess the intricacies, relatively speaking, of turning on a PC, and double clicking the E, or lil swirly fox thing, etc, are beyond them. I think it's that Any key that's throwing them off.

  • EggFteggEggFtegg Twin Cities, MNPosts: 1,141Member
    Originally posted by Coldmeat

    The thing that worries me most about seperation of church and state is politicians making public policy based on their religious beliefs. They're welcome to believe in FSM for all I care, but when it comes to dictating policy for the entirety of the Nation, then no, they need to put their religion aside. If they aren't able to do that, well, then they need to find a new job.
    Or instances like the President saying the Great White Gawd of North America speaks to him about running the country. No one bats an eyelash, really. Though, watch how fast the Christian runs to the other side of the street when some homeless man starts carrying on about how gawd talks to him.
    As for being open to other parties. We are. It's just that the US voters are, well, lazy, uninformed, apathetic, and in many cases, downright dumb. The media is as much to blame as anyone in this regard. They certainly aren't paying attention to third party candidates.
    I agree with separation of church and state, but I think it is unrealistic to expect a politician of a certain religion not to allow their beliefs to influence their decisions. I don't see that as a problem. In fact many people may have voted for that person based on their beliefs. I don't see why they should be expected to put those beliefs aside any more than any politician should put aside any of the factors that have made them who they are.



    Having said that, nobody should be making laws which force their morals or their religion on others (assuming we can separate morals from social laws to protect citizens from eachother). Any politician who wants to impose that kind of control on others is a danger, no matter what their beliefs are.



    The party system is horribly flawed. I'd like to see political parties abolished, but while two parties hold the power, that's never going to happen.

  • outfctrloutfctrl Jacksonville, FLPosts: 3,619Member

    Dont like Democratic Party?  Dont like Republican Party?  Have doubts on the libertarian Party?

    Then this is for you!!!

    LINK

    image

  • ThrakkThrakk Athens, GAPosts: 1,226Member
    I'm not complaining about what we Americans have. This topic is about a theoretical governemnt that eliminates any bias -- that sort of thing. I vote based on the key issues, so I am neither democratic, republican or libertarian. I usually vote democratic or republican because I rather not throw away my vote on what will never be. If Arnold Schwarzenegger or Bill Maher ran for green party than I probably would vote for one of them to be president (just because then the green party might have a chance). But yeah, it's about issues.
  • ThrakkThrakk Athens, GAPosts: 1,226Member
    flaw # 302 - campaign spending

    flaw #512 - popularity based on things like kissing babies and smooth talk.
  • ColdmeatColdmeat Omaha, NEPosts: 3,459Member

    I vote for myself. Despite my genocidal tendencies, and belief in eugenics, I think that all in all, I'd be a pretty kickass dictator. How often would you get the chance to see the leader of the free world drunk as hell, making the State of the Unit... er Union address? There's be a little counter in the corner to keep track of how many times I said "fuck" or a variation thereof in one hour. Or perhaps a counter to see how many times I could turn the name of a prominent Middle Eastern politician into a sexual innuendo.

    It's also the only way I would be afforded the opportunity to tell Hillary Clinton to, and I quote, "Sit down, and shut the hell up, you two faced, pompous, cuntweasel" on live television.

Sign In or Register to comment.