Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jude]

Jude makes me smile.
please inform me where in Chinese law you see inalienable rights, or Sharia law, or Soviet law, or...................too easy.

i have a game for everyone, please do a search on Jude and american imperialism in these threads, see how he rages against the evil US telling other countries how to operate..........

Jude makes me smile.  Can anyone here show me the law that states its unconstitutional for a public building to have a religous symbol on it?  Please dont say seperation of church and state, cuz its nowhere in the law.  Congress hasnt established a state religion.  Congress hasnt passed a law demanding everyone conform to a religion for citizenship or rights.  Congress hasnt passed any forced religious donations (sorry the goto jail or pay health care tax doesnt count...i know  i know, it SHOULD but).........

oh, wait, it IS constitutional to have christian symbols on public land ( sorry jude )
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-aphorisms15-2008nov15,0,5276432.story
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1500.ZS.html

Jude makes me smile.



/endtroll

I'm glad you added "endtroll" at the end of your post to let me know that you're kidding, and that you're not actually dumb enough to write that post in seriousness and thinking that it's a good argument against what I'm saying.

Also, on the depressing off-chance  that you actually did mean that post, G-Flex already ripped it to shreds in mostly the same way I would have

[Earthquake Damage]

You couldn't directly vote for senators.

For good reason, actually.  It guaranteed the states some power in the federal government.  It's part of that old checks and balances thing.  Unfortunately, Joe Public didn't know and understand it and/or eventually nobody in government gave a damn, so it's a direct election now.

[Dwarf]

“Minarets are our bayonets. The domes are our helmets, the mosques our barracks and the believers our army”
-- Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan.

The very same person was sentenced of Volksverhetzung. A fact which some like to ignore (I'm not accusing you of being an ignorat of course. I speak about politicians)

[G-Flex]

You couldn't directly vote for senators.

For good reason, actually.  It guaranteed the states some power in the federal government.  It's part of that old checks and balances thing.  Unfortunately, Joe Public didn't know and understand it and/or eventually nobody in government gave a damn, so it's a direct election now.

I can understand the concept of indirect election; you can't trust the general populace with everything, and senators were elected by the state legislatures (I think?), which were closely tied to the people of the state anyhow.

I wasn't saying I do or don't agree with it, but direct election DOES give a bit more direct "freedom" to the common man, in that sense.

[Duke 2.0]

“Minarets are our bayonets. The domes are our helmets, the mosques our barracks and the believers our army”
-- Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan.

The very same person was sentenced of Volksverhetzung. A fact which some like to ignore (I'm not accusing you of being an ignorat of course. I speak about politicians)

Indeed. It seems more of a nationalist saying than a threat to other countries anyway. But do note how it could be taken the wrong way.

 I await the comparison of Switzerland to Afghanistan by showing the religious towers that are banned in both countries. That should shock some people.

[Jude]

You couldn't directly vote for senators.

For good reason, actually.  It guaranteed the states some power in the federal government.  It's part of that old checks and balances thing.  Unfortunately, Joe Public didn't know and understand it and/or eventually nobody in government gave a damn, so it's a direct election now.

Of course, the system as it is now still gives hugely disproportionate power in the senate to people in states with low population (which in practice = Republicans, by and large) since one densely populated state gets two senators even while its population is more than the combined total of like 15 other states, each of which get two whole senators themselves. The fact that it favors Republicans in this case is coincidence, of course, but still. It may have made sense back in the 1780s but I have doubts about how worthwhile of a system it is to preserve anymore.

[G-Flex]

The disporportionate power (see: the electoral college) is intentional, as the purpose isn't simple, direct, population-based representation.

You don't just want to represent what the majority wants; you want to represent what the majority of different areas want. You can say it's unfair to give equal weight to areas with vastly different population, and you'd have a point, but it's also unfair for less-populated areas to get totally washed out by the major cities, which are bound to be culturally different.

[Jude]

The disporportionate power (see: the electoral college) is intentional, as the purpose isn't simple, direct, population-based representation.

You don't just want to represent what the majority wants; you want to represent what the majority of different areas want. You can say it's unfair to give equal weight to areas with vastly different population, and you'd have a point, but it's also unfair for less-populated areas to get totally washed out by the major cities, which are bound to be culturally different.

Well, the house of representatives has numbers of reps based on population, which seems to make more sense. If the cities get more representation, that matches the number of people living there. Whereas the senate privileges places that have few people living there.

I know about the original purpose. I'm not sure how big the disparities of population were back then, although I doubt they were anywhere near as extreme as they are now. At some point it seems to make sense to start questioning things like that. Not that it will happen, of course.

[G-Flex]

Well, that's why there's a mix of the two systems. In the end, the more-populous states still get an advantage over the less-populous ones, but the less-populous ones still get representation.

The problem with going strictly by population is that the cities and the more rural areas are bound to have different culture, and you have to represent both; you need to reach a consensus for what most kinds of people need or want, not just what most people by population want.

[zchris13]

“Minarets are our bayonets. The domes are our helmets, the mosques our barracks and the believers our army”
-- Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan.

 Well, nice to know they didn't just ban this one thing outta' their asses. Still, this is horrific stuff. The only possible way this could ever be a good thing is if Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan get really offended and the Swiss go "We'll revoke this if you revoke your ban on Cathedral towers." That is a bit much to ask of a majority vote without everybody knowing.

 I'm more scared about googling this and finding most comments on neutral sites supporting this crap. This means the feeling is present in the international community. Or American, in which case I must again say "Cut that crap out you idiots!" to my fellow Americans.

Switzerland's small enough and it's Europe so who knows they might actually be in on the joke.

[Jude]

Well, that's why there's a mix of the two systems. In the end, the more-populous states still get an advantage over the less-populous ones, but the less-populous ones still get representation.

But that's the thing. The house of reps, or anything involving popular vote, just gives representation straight up based on number of people. The way the Senate is elected is far more skewed. The less populous ones SHOULD get less representation insofar as there are less people living there; as it is, the mere fact that you live in a less populated state means you have more influence in the senate than someone who lives in a densely inhabited state.

Doing it by pure numbers wouldn't favor either.