Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think the minutia of voting on every single issue would be impossible. At some point you need to empower people to make decisions on behalf of people. Look at the current state of our people. How many people do you think even know the basic issues? Watch an old episode of Jay Leno's "Jay Walking" and you'll find out that people don't know the basics of American government.
People have proven that they're just not willing to educate themselves on the basic issues. Heck..most people actually think the GOP hates women and minorities...when it was the DNC that rigged an election for an old white woman to beat an old white guy. The GOP? They had a black man and 2 hispanics come close to getting nominated. They nominated a woman Veep 8 years ago. But the media has created the image that the ignorant masses are only too willing to go along with.
Of course, not every little thing...the major stuff.
People don't need to know "Government" in a Pure Democracy.
They certainly do know how they want major issues to be.
You can't ever please everyone...so you please the most possible. That's as fair as you can get. No need for "Political Parties"...that's a MAJOR problem with this system.
Not have less than 1000 people....or 9 people...or one person with "Executive Orders", creating the rules everyone has to live by.
Everyone gets a vote...and no one's vote has any more weight than any other. That's what is truly fair IMO.
I agree the atheist was trying to make a public point. One can argue whether he should have picked that particular battle or not, but there you have it.
On the other hand I can just about guarantee you that Driskell was on a delusional mission from god to "do something" about homosexuality, and was mightily surprised and disappointed at the results. I think you give her too much credit for having many neurons in communication with each other. Given that she's a private party, not a lawyer, and taking on an issue that has been argued about without resolution all over the world since forever, there's quite a bit of megalomania in the picture there. Writing out the thing in longhand is another tip-off. You COULD be right, that she's not whacko and was just trying to score a rim-shot, but I rather doubt it. I've met too many red-faced bellowers like her.
I think both of them learn to live and let live. That's what it really comes down to.
I think one was an attack and the other was to make a point. I don't think they're on the same level in any aspect.
You really kinda need to understand the individual to know what his point was. This kind of nonsense is very typical of him. He thinks he's the smartest guy in the room and he bullies the rest of the state legislature. He routinely makes attacks like this.
You really kinda need to understand the individual to know what his point was. This kind of nonsense is very typical of him. He thinks he's the smartest guy in the room and he bullies the rest of the state legislature. He routinely makes attacks like this.
Of the many numerous things he's done? Do a google search for Ernie Chambers. I'm sure you'll find some articles. He is a career politician that prides himself on being anti-establishment. He was a violent criminal as a young man before entering politics.
Of the many numerous things he's done? Do a google search for Ernie Chambers. I'm sure you'll find some articles. He is a career politician that prides himself on being anti-establishment. He was a violent criminal as a young man before entering politics.
You really kinda need to understand the individual to know what his point was. This kind of nonsense is very typical of him. He thinks he's the smartest guy in the room and he bullies the rest of the state legislature. He routinely makes attacks like this.
I had a quick look and the problem seems to be the misunderstanding of theists to those using their own weapons against them. His suit against God was a response to a lawsuit by a Theist which he thought was frivolous. I won't say how effective this is, but if this all pans out in the end, as i hope and trust, then we can look back and identify in retrospect what were good ideas and bad in winning the campaign.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
