"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
--

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

SOS Snipped


Bush wanted war. The Republican represantiteves supported him because they
would not get promoted if they voted against him.

Donal you moron. You under estimate the American people. We have had
it with terroists, and threats. Saddam had to go.


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.


Your Irish right?.
Dont you vote in Ireland?
Are you a British citizen or just a Gypsie meddelin in nunya?

Joe










Regards


Donal
--

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

SOS Snipped


Bush wanted war. The Republican represantiteves supported him
because they
would not get promoted if they voted against him.

Donal you moron. You under estimate the American people. We have had
it with terroists, and threats. Saddam had to go.


I bet that you cannot explain the connection berween Terrorists and Saddam.



If you found the "terrorist" challenge too difficult, then I will offer you
an easier test of your knowledge.

I bet that you cannot give us a single exanple of a "threat" from Saddam.





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.


Your Irish right?.

Congratulations!! How long did that take you? Everybody else figured it
out years ago!!


Dont you vote in Ireland?

No, I don't.

Are you a British citizen or just a Gypsie meddelin in nunya?

Uh . oh! What the heck is "nunya"?


Regards


Donal
--

"Joe" wrote

You under estimate the American people. We have had it with terroists, and
threats.

Absolutely. Now if we could just find any decent leadership .....

Saddam had to go.

Why? He had zip to do with the terrorists who attacked us. In fact, they
hated him and his secular government more than they hated us - and vice
versa. Logically, from a pro-America standpoint, we should have paid Saddam
to go after Al Quida. But no, Bush pulled assets away from the war on terror
to go after Osama's other enemy, Saddam. Eliminating one of the terrorists'
enemies makes zero sense from a pro- America standpoint, especially when we
took pressure off our mutual enemy to do it. Now we're in a $trillion
quagmire that looks more like 'nam every day and Osama is laughing up his
sleeve

"Donal" burped....

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 Drunk.


Drunk=Irish

"Scott Vernon" wrote

Drunk=Irish

That's untrue! My paternal grandmother's whole family was Irish and Mormon
(LDS). I recall several of them being sober - not all at once mind you but
whenever the Bishop was coming ..... (c: