North Carolina wants state religion

[bbeljefe]

(03-04-2013 09:55 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 09:45 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  What does it matter by whom? If the owners of corporations no longer had the state to point guns at people for them, they'd not be happy.

And that's a great question.... who indeed is the shield against tyranny? Whoever it is, they're not doing a very good job right about now.

I agree with that. As it stands right now the ultimate shield against tyranny is the participation of the people represented. If more people actualy bothered to get involved on any level (even just voting) I think things would be markedly different.

If every eligible voter in the US had been willing to vote in the last Presidential election, would that have changed the available choices?

Would that make voters eligible to vote for or against legislation in the congress?

[Revenant77x]

(03-04-2013 10:02 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 09:55 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  I agree with that. As it stands right now the ultimate shield against tyranny is the participation of the people represented. If more people actualy bothered to get involved on any level (even just voting) I think things would be markedly different.

If every eligible voter in the US had been willing to vote in the last Presidential election, would that have changed the available choices?

Would that make voters eligible to vote for or against legislation in the congress?

Actually if they had been involved in primaries yes it would have affected who was on the ticket. As for legislation in congress if enough people actually bother calling their congressman or senator yeah it can change their vote. The rule of thumb that most politicians use is for every letter and call they receive there are 50 people that feel the same way but haven't written. If they get flooded with phone calls, emails, letters, ect... yeah it can scare 'em into doing their job and actually representing the people instead of a corporation.

[HU.Junyuan]

The word 'eligible' is interesting.

Black people without a photo ID seemed not 'eligible' for the last presidential election in some states in the States, right?

Before, women were not 'eligible'.

Before, white men not qualified for a certain property requirement were not 'eligible'.

And after all, 57.5% 'eligible' voters voted in the last presidential election. What happened to the rest 42.5% 'eligible' voters?

Never mind. Just a little curious.

[Hafnof]

In Australia voting is mandatory and no-one is disqualified. Polling is on a Saturday and prisons and hospitals are visited by mobile voting booths. In the US polling is done during the working week, people with a criminal record are excluded in many states, and voting is not compulsory.

[Chas]

(04-04-2013 06:31 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  In Australia voting is mandatory and no-one is disqualified. Polling is on a Saturday and prisons and hospitals are visited by mobile voting booths. In the US polling is done during the working week, people with a criminal record are excluded in many states, and voting is not compulsory.

Ooooh, mandatory voting: the very definition of freedom.


Not.

[Chas]

(03-04-2013 10:41 PM)HU.Junyuan Wrote:  The word 'eligible' is interesting.

Black people without a photo ID seemed not 'eligible' for the last presidential election in some states in the States, right?

Before, women were not 'eligible'.

Before, white men not qualified for a certain property requirement were not 'eligible'.

And after all, 57.5% 'eligible' voters voted in the last presidential election. What happened to the rest 42.5% 'eligible' voters?

Never mind. Just a little curious.

Your not-very-veiled criticism might carry more weight if it weren't coming from a single-party totalitarian.

When there is a legal opposition party, then we can talk.

[HU.Junyuan]

(04-04-2013 06:31 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  In Australia voting is mandatory and no-one is disqualified. Polling is on a Saturday and prisons and hospitals are visited by mobile voting booths. In the US polling is done during the working week, people with a criminal record are excluded in many states, and voting is not compulsory.

Interesting thing in Australia, mandate to implement democracy.

Interesting thing in the States too.

Freedom is not without a cost.

What happens if you are not willing to pay the cost on the working and voting day?

[I and I]

(04-04-2013 07:57 AM)Chas Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 10:41 PM)HU.Junyuan Wrote:  The word 'eligible' is interesting.

Black people without a photo ID seemed not 'eligible' for the last presidential election in some states in the States, right?

Before, women were not 'eligible'.

Before, white men not qualified for a certain property requirement were not 'eligible'.

And after all, 57.5% 'eligible' voters voted in the last presidential election. What happened to the rest 42.5% 'eligible' voters?

Never mind. Just a little curious.

Your not-very-veiled criticism might carry more weight if it weren't coming from a single-party totalitarian.

When there is a legal opposition party, then we can talk.

As opposed to having two very similar parties supported by the same corporate interests?

Raul Castro commented on the recent election, he said: that the U.S. is a single party system that has two different groups representing it, the people choosing between the democrats or republicans is like people choosing between me and my brother.

I agree completely, the U.S. has a one party system, and having different faces and a farce election doesn't make it any more free of an election.

[Chas]

(04-04-2013 09:09 AM)I and I Wrote:  

(04-04-2013 07:57 AM)Chas Wrote:  Your not-very-veiled criticism might carry more weight if it weren't coming from a single-party totalitarian.

When there is a legal opposition party, then we can talk.

As opposed to having two very similar parties supported by the same corporate interests?

Raul Castro commented on the recent election, he said: that the U.S. is a single party system that has two different groups representing it, the people choosing between the democrats or republicans is like people choosing between me and my brother.

I agree completely, the U.S. has a one party system, and having different faces and a farce election doesn't make it any more free of an election.

There are more than two parties. But more to the point, it is up to the people to make the parties relevant. We are, in fact, free to vote any way we choose, or not at all.

That is very different from voting for one Commie or another Commie. Or being required to vote.

[I and I]

(04-04-2013 09:23 AM)Chas Wrote:  

(04-04-2013 09:09 AM)I and I Wrote:  As opposed to having two very similar parties supported by the same corporate interests?

Raul Castro commented on the recent election, he said: that the U.S. is a single party system that has two different groups representing it, the people choosing between the democrats or republicans is like people choosing between me and my brother.

I agree completely, the U.S. has a one party system, and having different faces and a farce election doesn't make it any more free of an election.

There are more than two parties. But more to the point, it is up to the people to make the parties relevant. We are, in fact, free to vote any way we choose, or not at all.

That is very different from voting for one Commie or another Commie. Or being required to vote.

So choosing between two capitalists that are supported by the same corporate interests is somehow different than choosing between two communists?