|
You could always try a Parlimentry system... |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I've always thought a country would work a lot better with four or five people at president/prime
minister level, all with equal authority. That way one man's mistake doesn't directly affect the
entire country. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
We should find people who agree with us to run the country. Then everything would be OK.
Ooops....sorry, we can't agree with our best friend regarding what constitutes a good song, so that
won't work.
We could get a real leader. Someone who stays in power as long as the want and makes everyone
behave.
Perhaps we should let the Congress run....sorry, that's really stupid.
How about we give every individual one vote on every question and decide all issues by the majority.
Never mind....that would be sick.
Trying to think of something but everything I come up with sucks.
I guess we should probably stick with this system where it only lasts 4 years and the leader doesn't
get to accomplish much other than making everyone glad to get to try someone else. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
You talk like the President can do whatever they want. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The problem lies in Congress giving up/delegating/misusing their Constitutionally given authority.
The original framers of the Constitution did not want what appears today; an Executive branch with
nearly limitless powers; a Judiciary making laws from the bench; and a Congress beholden to those
who fund their campaigns rather than those who put them into office.
What we need is 545 people who will read the Constitution and do exactly what was intended and not
one item more.
[For those questioning my 545 here is the math: 435 in the House, 100 in the Senate, 9 on the
Supreme Court and 1 President.] |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Hey.That doesn't sound very patriotic.What do you expect us to be, communist.Alright, so President
Bush may have made some mistakes but the system has worked for hundreds of years.Have some faith in
your country. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It's more like 536 idiots. Either way, I agree that what we have isn't working, but can't agree
with getting rid of leadership.
It would be interesting, with today's technology, to see what we could do to minimize the number of
fools in DC. The problem is that there is always going to be a way to defraud the system, and who
would be trusted to maintain the technology?
I think we're stuck with what we have for now. It's not like America is going to be a winner with
either of the two main candidates in office. We just have to get through another 4 years and pray
for a miracle in 2012. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The problem is not that we have a president, it is who we have as president. A popular election is
little but a popularity contest, and the potential of any candidate to lead can not be determined
until they take office, except perhaps by their past service.
Instead of leading a different way, we need to select our leaders a different way. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
24 Aug 2008 00:10
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
