"Gilligan" wrote in message
ink.net...

I think Benny Hill would be a fine Prime Minister.

I'd have laughed at such a stupid suggestion a few years ago.


Now, I have to agree wuth you.

Regards


Donal
--

Donal wrote:

"Gilligan" wrote in message
ink.net...

I think Benny Hill would be a fine Prime Minister.

I'd have laughed at such a stupid suggestion a few years ago.

Now, I have to agree wuth you.



Benny Hill for Tony Blair?
That exchange just don't seem fair!
A swap like that's not where it's at,
It's just exchanging tit for tat.

--
Flying Tadpole

-------------------------
Learn what lies below the waves of cyberspace!
http://music.download.com/internetopera
http://www.internetopera.netfirms.com

donal,

I've been more than a little ****ed about our Electoral College but
after doing a little study I find the UK has many,many more
Repersentative that are not elected by popular vote than we do!

I guess we are still better off than you are. Our Senate is still
elected by a direct vote of the people. Be damned to your Upper House.

Ole Thom

"Thom Stewart" wrote in message
...
donal,

I've been more than a little ****ed about our Electoral College but
after doing a little study I find the UK has many,many more
Repersentative that are not elected by popular vote than we do!

I guess we are still better off than you are. Our Senate is still
elected by a direct vote of the people. Be damned to your Upper House.

The sad truth is that our un-elected upper house has a fantastic record.

Hindsight shows that they have nearly always been correct when they have
opposed the elected government. They have been a brilliant moderating
force. I cannot defend their existence logically. However, I haven't seen
a system that has worked better.


The unelected peers tend to vote with their conscience because they are very
difficult to control or coerce. They can't be sacked, or de-selected. It
isn't easy to bribe them with offers of promotion either - there aren't
enough senior positions to fill.

They are definitely not a democratic institution, but they have done a
better job of defending democracy and civil liberties than any elected
government has done over the last 100 years.


Regards


Donal
--

Donal,

I'm no expert but I do believe the Irish, many of the Welsh and Scottish
won't agree with you.

Ole Thom

"Thom Stewart" wrote in message
...
Donal,

I'm no expert but I do believe the Irish, many of the Welsh and Scottish
won't agree with you.


You may well be right.

However, I am Irish.

It is easy to look at the House of Lords and say that they are totally
undemocratic. If you take the time to study their voting record, you will
realise that they are far more democratic than the political extremists that
get elected every 5 years.



Regards


Donal
--

"Gilligan" wrote
The political "debate" here is so funny!
Scarcasm noted.

In fact not one of you can name a single President that
has ever reduced the scope of government or extended freedom.
Our founding fathers did exactly that. By not over inflating the role of
government to begin with, they effectively reduced its scope. They should
get credit for that. An example would be the federal government's original
position on education.

I'm for any candidate who promises:
[snip]
Ever see the Ditech commercial where the loan officer *keeps his promise* to
reduce paperwork by removing 1 page from the stack of 10,000 application
pages? Promises are for suckers.

Vote Libertarian! Leave the big party-franchise politics to those who are
too cowardly to live or think for themselves.
Screw the Libertarian's - if you want real change, grow a set, start a
revolution.

Scout

Who are they running. I was going to write in somebody.

"Scout" wrote

Vote Libertarian!

beats me Vito, I gave up on them after the spectacle of Linden LaRouche.
You could always write in . . .
Scout
"a chicken in every pot!"

"Vito" wrote in message
...
Who are they running. I was going to write in somebody.

"Scout" wrote

Vote Libertarian!

BB,

And what makes you so sure that the questions weren't set-up?

I seen the same program and was very impressed but it did seem a little
put on.
I seen that lady in the light brown suit stand up first, time after time
and never called on.

Not to say it wasn't impressive, it was. Then I remember him taking
questions from our press on the WH Lawn and he was nothing like that
performance in the UK Parliament

Ole Thom