Thank you President Clinton...
-
Ain't that the truth. The rulers only have the power that the people let them have, but since 9/11 (I still can't read that without seeing 9 Nov) the american people have just handed themselves over to the leadership like sheep. Bush (not the US) is going to war with Iraq whether they meet the conditions of the UN or not, he is so desperate to have his pound of Saddam its ridiculous. I am not defending Saddam, but its amusing that all the axis-of-evil countries are those that have no truck with what the US want. And as for the US being the only worlds superpower. I am sorry but what about China? If it came to picking a war between the US and China I'd choose to fight the US. Why? well as soon as American soldiers started getting killed the US leadership will be undermined my grass-roots pressure to have their boys home. If it wasn't for 9/11 the US would be happily withdrawing from the rest of the world like the republicans appeared to want to when they entered office. oh and you might just enjoy this - there about 6 flash thingies controlled by the buttons at the bottom http://www.foulds2000.freeserve.co.uk/bushv6.htm[^]
Technically speaking the dictionary would define Visual Basic users as programmers.
But here again, a very generalized, liberal definition is being employed and it's wrong
- just plain wrong - Tom Archer 5/12/02I agree. That bushifier thing is great! :)
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
"Desktop Bob told me to start fires" - thematt
-
I admit! I just google'd for "Atta Clinton" ;) Why is "left-wing" always "anti-american", and vice versa? The "free world" is in a sad state, when "left wing" and even "liberal" tend to be used defamatory. Why leader of the free world? Is the USA the only free country of the world? OldRob wrote: Such a casual dismissal Well, most of the points dealt with sexual activity of the leader of a part of the free world. I keep it with the ultra-left-wing treehugging* hippie John Lennon here: "Violence is obscene. The human body is not" OldRob wrote: IMHO Clinton was arguably... very poignant (sp? tr? meaning?) Nicely illustrates the irky feeling that presidency in the US has nothing to do with politics. *) This is not intended as reference to Yoko :cool:
If I could find a souvenir / just to prove the world was here [sighist]
peterchen wrote: OldRob wrote: IMHO Clinton was arguably... very poignant (sp? tr? meaning?) Nicely illustrates the irky feeling that presidency in the US has nothing to do with politics. [Dictionary definition] Politician: One who is interesed in personal or partisan gain and other selfish motives [/Dictionary definition] "mothers may still want their favorite sons to grow up to be President, but.. they do not want them to become politicians in the process" - John F. Kennedy IMHO the presidency NEEDS to have a good deal less to do with politics than it generally (and I certainly don't exclude GWB here) does... peterchen wrote: Why leader of the free world? Is the USA the only free country of the world? I did put it in quotes.. the phrase is frequntly used in the (US) media, but I do agree that it arrogantly usurps a status likely not granted by all the other democratic nations in the world. :)
-
Colin Davies wrote: I don't wanna appear rude, but you'll probably not find them acceptable. I do not see why you consider this rude. Actually I do find it acceptable. But keep in mind how many are fearful of our military and this just makes that group much more powerful. Colin Davies wrote: The electoral college system of the US is better than the popular vote however it really benefits only the two main political parties who consistently have party hacks running for the top job. Agreed. How about going back to the original plan and the VP was the top vote on the other side. I personally would like to remove "Stright Party" as a voting option. I also would like a requirement that a short explaination of why you voted for each candiate be required. The form could be filled out by you in advance and given for each position you will be allowed to vote for. Form letters would invalidate your vote. "I will find a new sig someday."
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Actually I do find it acceptable. But keep in mind how many are fearful of our military and this just makes that group much more powerful. Add "Or other national public service with a minimum of three years served in another country (same requirement for training in government)" ( the peace corps comes to mind...) and it becomes more palatable as an "upper house voter elegibility criterion" IMHO. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: How about going back to the original plan and the VP was the top vote on the other side Don't think it would accomlish much, other than giving the opposition party the "tie breaker" vote in the upper house. VP would likely be isolated in the successful administration, and I would fear that it would encourage radical elements on either side to see assasination as a viable way to "correct" an election result. Instead: 1. Change the term of office for President and VP to 6 yrs, no consecutive second term allowed, maximum of two lifetime terms. VP does not serve as president of the Senate, instead runner-up for President does, and VP serves as Secy of State. (would Bush have chosen Powell over Cheny in this case?) 2. Disallow ALL group (corporate, union or public/private interest org) contributions to political parties or candidates. Only individual contributions with a maximum contribution of say $20k per individual including the candidates themselves . Michael A. Barnhart wrote: personally would like to remove "Stright Party" as a voting option. I agree!!! Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I also would like a requirement that a short explaination of why you voted for each candiate be required. The form could be filled out by you in advance and given for each position you will be allowed to vote for. Form letters would invalidate your vote. I agree with the thought, but likely impractical, they can barely count the votes correctly as it is... Add: Limit of two consecutive terms, three lifetime terms for both houses, no consecutive terms that "bridge" from a maximum in one house to serve in the other.
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Actually I do find it acceptable. But keep in mind how many are fearful of our military and this just makes that group much more powerful. Add "Or other national public service with a minimum of three years served in another country (same requirement for training in government)" ( the peace corps comes to mind...) and it becomes more palatable as an "upper house voter elegibility criterion" IMHO. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: How about going back to the original plan and the VP was the top vote on the other side Don't think it would accomlish much, other than giving the opposition party the "tie breaker" vote in the upper house. VP would likely be isolated in the successful administration, and I would fear that it would encourage radical elements on either side to see assasination as a viable way to "correct" an election result. Instead: 1. Change the term of office for President and VP to 6 yrs, no consecutive second term allowed, maximum of two lifetime terms. VP does not serve as president of the Senate, instead runner-up for President does, and VP serves as Secy of State. (would Bush have chosen Powell over Cheny in this case?) 2. Disallow ALL group (corporate, union or public/private interest org) contributions to political parties or candidates. Only individual contributions with a maximum contribution of say $20k per individual including the candidates themselves . Michael A. Barnhart wrote: personally would like to remove "Stright Party" as a voting option. I agree!!! Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I also would like a requirement that a short explaination of why you voted for each candiate be required. The form could be filled out by you in advance and given for each position you will be allowed to vote for. Form letters would invalidate your vote. I agree with the thought, but likely impractical, they can barely count the votes correctly as it is... Add: Limit of two consecutive terms, three lifetime terms for both houses, no consecutive terms that "bridge" from a maximum in one house to serve in the other.
OldRob wrote: Add "Or other national public service with a minimum of three years served in another country (same requirement for training in government)" ( the peace corps comes to mind...) and it becomes more palatable as an "upper house voter elegibility criterion" IMHO. That is a very good modification. It may even increase the interest in doing work for everyones good. OldRob wrote: I agree with the thought, but likely impractical, they can barely count the votes correctly as it is... I agree with impractical. They would not really be read, but some indication that the voter actually thought about what they, the voter was voting for. "I will find a new sig someday."
-
Colin Davies wrote: I don't wanna appear rude, but you'll probably not find them acceptable. I do not see why you consider this rude. Actually I do find it acceptable. But keep in mind how many are fearful of our military and this just makes that group much more powerful. Colin Davies wrote: The electoral college system of the US is better than the popular vote however it really benefits only the two main political parties who consistently have party hacks running for the top job. Agreed. How about going back to the original plan and the VP was the top vote on the other side. I personally would like to remove "Stright Party" as a voting option. I also would like a requirement that a short explaination of why you voted for each candiate be required. The form could be filled out by you in advance and given for each position you will be allowed to vote for. Form letters would invalidate your vote. "I will find a new sig someday."
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Agreed. How about going back to the original plan and the VP was the top vote on the other side. But wouldn't that also weaken the Presidential position? Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Actually I do find it acceptable. But keep in mind how many are fearful of our military and this just makes that group much more powerful Wow, generally I find so many Americans are afraid of change that any suggestion of change, leads to comments of heresy. :-) Note: I am suggesting honorably discharged individuals, and not active service members. I don't know if they would be smarter than the average voter, but I think generally they would take their vote more seriously. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I personally would like to remove "Stright Party" as a voting option. I also would like a requirement that a short explaination of why you voted for each candiate be required. I understand what you are suggesting, and can see uses for it, but I think it would be difficult to administer. Here in NZ, we sort of celebrate when the secret ballot was introduced. However I now think that if we vote we should have to stand beside our decisions. I'd like here to have a vote of no confidence that is recorded as well as a valid option if no candidates are appealing enough to vote for. If the no confidence vote was to ever win an election their would need to be a showing of totally different and new candidates in the next election. As to the US, currently I believe it is getting more difficult to pass constitutional ammendments, and it is unlikely that anything will happen in the future. So I guess here in NZ we are a bit luckier on that front. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Actually I do find it acceptable. But keep in mind how many are fearful of our military and this just makes that group much more powerful. Add "Or other national public service with a minimum of three years served in another country (same requirement for training in government)" ( the peace corps comes to mind...) and it becomes more palatable as an "upper house voter elegibility criterion" IMHO. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: How about going back to the original plan and the VP was the top vote on the other side Don't think it would accomlish much, other than giving the opposition party the "tie breaker" vote in the upper house. VP would likely be isolated in the successful administration, and I would fear that it would encourage radical elements on either side to see assasination as a viable way to "correct" an election result. Instead: 1. Change the term of office for President and VP to 6 yrs, no consecutive second term allowed, maximum of two lifetime terms. VP does not serve as president of the Senate, instead runner-up for President does, and VP serves as Secy of State. (would Bush have chosen Powell over Cheny in this case?) 2. Disallow ALL group (corporate, union or public/private interest org) contributions to political parties or candidates. Only individual contributions with a maximum contribution of say $20k per individual including the candidates themselves . Michael A. Barnhart wrote: personally would like to remove "Stright Party" as a voting option. I agree!!! Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I also would like a requirement that a short explaination of why you voted for each candiate be required. The form could be filled out by you in advance and given for each position you will be allowed to vote for. Form letters would invalidate your vote. I agree with the thought, but likely impractical, they can barely count the votes correctly as it is... Add: Limit of two consecutive terms, three lifetime terms for both houses, no consecutive terms that "bridge" from a maximum in one house to serve in the other.
OldRob wrote: the peace corps comes to mind.. Yes, I was thinking along similar lines. As to the "training in Government", what horrifies me most about voters worldwide, is they often have no idea of what they are voting for or why. Often they turn out to vote misguided in thinking it's better to vote without logic or reason, then to not vote. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
-
I received the contents in an e-mail from my previous employer, who received it from someone else... Urban Legend no doubt. It struck a chord within me when I first read it, which is why I posted it here. I wasn't too concerned about the Atta accusation - I don't really believe that link is valid. In retrospect, I probably should've removed that paragraph. Unfortunately, its written in the first person. I probably should've included a disclaimer at the beginning. Awhile back I posted a Dear Abby letter also written in the first person, and received a lot of comments and suggestions that indicated that the readers believed that I was talking from personal experience. Go figure... I also chose the Soapbox instead of the lounge. It did promote some discussion however which I feel is always good. Steven J. Ackerman, Consultant ACS, Sarasota, FL http://www.acscontrol.com steve@acscontrol.com sja@gte.net
Thanks for esxplaining that. :-) Maybe I was just being pendantic, but if you had written it, I would commend you on creating such great prose. Steven J. Ackerman wrote: It did promote some discussion however which I feel is always good. Agreed. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Agreed. How about going back to the original plan and the VP was the top vote on the other side. But wouldn't that also weaken the Presidential position? Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Actually I do find it acceptable. But keep in mind how many are fearful of our military and this just makes that group much more powerful Wow, generally I find so many Americans are afraid of change that any suggestion of change, leads to comments of heresy. :-) Note: I am suggesting honorably discharged individuals, and not active service members. I don't know if they would be smarter than the average voter, but I think generally they would take their vote more seriously. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I personally would like to remove "Stright Party" as a voting option. I also would like a requirement that a short explaination of why you voted for each candiate be required. I understand what you are suggesting, and can see uses for it, but I think it would be difficult to administer. Here in NZ, we sort of celebrate when the secret ballot was introduced. However I now think that if we vote we should have to stand beside our decisions. I'd like here to have a vote of no confidence that is recorded as well as a valid option if no candidates are appealing enough to vote for. If the no confidence vote was to ever win an election their would need to be a showing of totally different and new candidates in the next election. As to the US, currently I believe it is getting more difficult to pass constitutional ammendments, and it is unlikely that anything will happen in the future. So I guess here in NZ we are a bit luckier on that front. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
Colin Davies wrote: But wouldn't that also weaken the Presidential position? I do not think it would that much. The VP does not really do that much other than admin duties until the president is incapacited. This would however put a balancing reminder to the president in everyday contact. Colin Davies wrote: I think it would be difficult to administer. It actually would be impossible to administer (and count). It could still be in secret and no names attached. However I would hope it would make people at least think about why they are voting. (I can dream can't I) I see this as an issue world wide. Colin Davies wrote: As to the US, currently I believe it is getting more difficult to pass constitutional ammendments, and it is unlikely that anything will happen in the future. Yes it is a very difficult and lengthy process. But it was supposed to be to keep emotional impacts to a minimum. So yes no time soon, but just being reminded may be good. "I will find a new sig someday."
-
Colin Davies wrote: But wouldn't that also weaken the Presidential position? I do not think it would that much. The VP does not really do that much other than admin duties until the president is incapacited. This would however put a balancing reminder to the president in everyday contact. Colin Davies wrote: I think it would be difficult to administer. It actually would be impossible to administer (and count). It could still be in secret and no names attached. However I would hope it would make people at least think about why they are voting. (I can dream can't I) I see this as an issue world wide. Colin Davies wrote: As to the US, currently I believe it is getting more difficult to pass constitutional ammendments, and it is unlikely that anything will happen in the future. Yes it is a very difficult and lengthy process. But it was supposed to be to keep emotional impacts to a minimum. So yes no time soon, but just being reminded may be good. "I will find a new sig someday."
My real criticism of our Government systems is that we often consider that we have the best system possible. Unfortunatly small tweaks to the system can often make the system worse and the transition can be expensive. Currently our country doesn't have a written constitution, so we can change what we like when we like, however poiticians can easily abuse this power. However if NZ were to ever have a written constitution I'd like to see that it had a replacement policy or reratification, every 50 yrs. The process of changing the constitution should take maybe 15 - 20 yrs. my 2 cents. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
-
My real criticism of our Government systems is that we often consider that we have the best system possible. Unfortunatly small tweaks to the system can often make the system worse and the transition can be expensive. Currently our country doesn't have a written constitution, so we can change what we like when we like, however poiticians can easily abuse this power. However if NZ were to ever have a written constitution I'd like to see that it had a replacement policy or reratification, every 50 yrs. The process of changing the constitution should take maybe 15 - 20 yrs. my 2 cents. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
Colin Davies wrote: Currently our country doesn't have a written constitution, so we can change what we like when we like, however poiticians can easily abuse this power. Initially I just skipped over this. You may not have a document by that name but you must have some formal document (Core Laws, etc.) that give each segment of you government the authority to do their job. Even my mothers garden club has a "constition" (by-laws of the organization) that states how each segment is allowed to function. So the only difference is how easily those fundamentals can be modified. Or am I missing something? "I will find a new sig someday."
-
Colin Davies wrote: Currently our country doesn't have a written constitution, so we can change what we like when we like, however poiticians can easily abuse this power. Initially I just skipped over this. You may not have a document by that name but you must have some formal document (Core Laws, etc.) that give each segment of you government the authority to do their job. Even my mothers garden club has a "constition" (by-laws of the organization) that states how each segment is allowed to function. So the only difference is how easily those fundamentals can be modified. Or am I missing something? "I will find a new sig someday."
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: You may not have a document by that name but you must have some formal document (Core Laws, etc.) No, there is no such document. The unwritten consitution is based on the Magna carta, British common law, New Zealand precedents, a treaty with the indiginous people, and where New Zealand has agreed to international treaties. but their is no "Core" just a hodge podge of paper, and in some cases hearsay, as with tribal law cases where nothing is written but given by oral histories. Legally I am a "subject" of New Zealand still and not a citizen. The parliament is the self declared supreme power. I expect you'll find this strange. But only because nobody has really bothered to challenge the New Zealand Parliaments legality has there never been a constitutional crisis due to this. (in theory it could happen) I believe the United Kingdom and Israel also have unwritten constitutions. Most other western countries have added constitutions in the past, but ours hasn't and as its currently not in the Parliamentarians best interests to do so, I doubt it will happen. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: You may not have a document by that name but you must have some formal document (Core Laws, etc.) No, there is no such document. The unwritten consitution is based on the Magna carta, British common law, New Zealand precedents, a treaty with the indiginous people, and where New Zealand has agreed to international treaties. but their is no "Core" just a hodge podge of paper, and in some cases hearsay, as with tribal law cases where nothing is written but given by oral histories. Legally I am a "subject" of New Zealand still and not a citizen. The parliament is the self declared supreme power. I expect you'll find this strange. But only because nobody has really bothered to challenge the New Zealand Parliaments legality has there never been a constitutional crisis due to this. (in theory it could happen) I believe the United Kingdom and Israel also have unwritten constitutions. Most other western countries have added constitutions in the past, but ours hasn't and as its currently not in the Parliamentarians best interests to do so, I doubt it will happen. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
I will say thanks for the education. I really know nothing of New Zealand other than travel posters, etc. No formal constitutions I comprehend, as the UK, but what I call "Core" are the building blocks, such as starting with the Magna carta and going on to documents from the English Civil war, etc. I had not really thought of the case where you have a mixture, such as treaties with the indiginous people and verbal tribal law being very much a "core" itself. Take Care, Mike:) "I will find a new sig someday."
-
I will say thanks for the education. I really know nothing of New Zealand other than travel posters, etc. No formal constitutions I comprehend, as the UK, but what I call "Core" are the building blocks, such as starting with the Magna carta and going on to documents from the English Civil war, etc. I had not really thought of the case where you have a mixture, such as treaties with the indiginous people and verbal tribal law being very much a "core" itself. Take Care, Mike:) "I will find a new sig someday."
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I will say thanks for the education. You're welcome :-) I'd love to hear about the anomalies involved in Texas. Like the Texan rangers, (All I have seen is Walker) Michael A. Barnhart wrote: such as starting with the Magna carta and going on to documents from the English Civil war, etc. Yeah, the UK has technically two pre parliament charters one being the Magna Carta and the other Edward the first's "Great Charter Act". Note the GCA was repealed moments after Neil Armstrong landed on the moon. However the Brits also have the long forgotten "The Declaration of Rights" Here is a good list of International Constitution statii if you are interested. http://www.intellnet.org/resources/cia_worldfactbook_00/fields/constitution.html[^] Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I will say thanks for the education. You're welcome :-) I'd love to hear about the anomalies involved in Texas. Like the Texan rangers, (All I have seen is Walker) Michael A. Barnhart wrote: such as starting with the Magna carta and going on to documents from the English Civil war, etc. Yeah, the UK has technically two pre parliament charters one being the Magna Carta and the other Edward the first's "Great Charter Act". Note the GCA was repealed moments after Neil Armstrong landed on the moon. However the Brits also have the long forgotten "The Declaration of Rights" Here is a good list of International Constitution statii if you are interested. http://www.intellnet.org/resources/cia_worldfactbook_00/fields/constitution.html[^] Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
Colin Davies wrote: I'd love to hear about the anomalies involved in Texas. Not sure I can answer this with thinking about it for a while. What is obvious since you live here, may be unique to others. Colin Davies wrote: Like the Texan rangers, (All I have seen is Walker) Now that is Hollywood. But I guess we need to keep our image:-D. My wife just will not let me put a set of horns above our fireplace:(. "I will find a new sig someday."