"Gilligan" wrote in message
link.net...
I'm for any candidate who promises:

" I have no interest in streamlining government or in making it more
efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote
welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but
to
cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed
in
their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial
burden.
I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is needed before I have
first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I
should
later be attacked for neglecting my constituents interests, I shall reply
that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause
I
am doing the very best I can."

Vote Libertarian! Leave the big party-franchise politics to those who are
too cowardly to live or think for themselves.

Gilligan, have you considered moving to the UK?

You could be our Prime Minister! ... Unlike the US, some of us still
believe in personal freedom. However, we don't have any politicians who
will represent our views.

Pack your bags immediately. I shall arrange tickets and some temporary
accommodation.

Come quick! We need you!



Regards


Donal
--

Donal,

It's terrible that personal freedom, a natural right that government can't
grant, is so easily taken away.

We must fight tyranny wherever it is.

I must respectfully turn down the prime minister offer, but if you guys need
a King, I'm your man. I think Benny Hill would be a fine Prime Minister.

Gilligan

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Gilligan" wrote in message
link.net...
I'm for any candidate who promises:

" I have no interest in streamlining government or in making it more
efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote
welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws,
but
to
cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have
failed
in
their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial
burden.
I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is needed before I
have
first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I
should
later be attacked for neglecting my constituents interests, I shall
reply
that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that
cause
I
am doing the very best I can."

Vote Libertarian! Leave the big party-franchise politics to those who
are
too cowardly to live or think for themselves.

Gilligan, have you considered moving to the UK?

You could be our Prime Minister! ... Unlike the US, some of us still
believe in personal freedom. However, we don't have any politicians who
will represent our views.

Pack your bags immediately. I shall arrange tickets and some temporary
accommodation.

Come quick! We need you!



Regards


Donal
--

"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
--

Donal,

What a Stupid Statement that is! You have to be Irish to say something
like that.

How in the hell can a appointed representative be more democratic than a
representative elected by the public.

Donal, if you reply; please find out what Democracy means

Ole Thom

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

What a Stupid Statement that is! You have to be Irish to say something
like that.

How in the hell can a appointed representative be more democratic than a
representative elected by the public.

Easy!


Donal, if you reply; please find out what Democracy means

Let me try to explain my understanding of "Democracy".

Democracy refers to a system of government where the will of the people is
the supreme power.

Most forms of government are based on a "Pyramid of Power".


At the top of the pyramid, we have the chief executive officer. The CEO
may have one of the following titles - "President", "Prime Minister", "El
Dulce", "Emporer", "Fuhrer" ... etc.

The real difference between a Democracy and a Dictatorship is where the real
*power* lies.

In a dictatorship, the dictator has ultimate authority - and the people have
none. In a democracy, the people have ultimate authority - and the CEO (in
theory) has very little.

In a Democracy, the people elect representatives. These "representatives"
should always vote according to their constituents' views. However, they
tend to toe the party line, therefore they behave in an undemocratic
manner. The "CEO" should be responsible to the representatives, however,
in most democracies, the CEO has the ability to confer status upon the
representatives. This means that the elected representatives will place
more weight on the views of their leader than their voters.

Bush wanted war. The Republican represantiteves supported him because they
would not get promoted if they voted against him. The same thing happened
in the UK. Here, most people were against the war. However, because Blair
wanted war, the MP's voted for it.




Regards


Donal
--