Let Everyone Vote

street228 · October 7, 2004

your so twisted, its pathetic....Truly reminds me of bush. No body is running from your puny ass

October 7, 2004

I think you two need to get a room.

street228 · October 7, 2004

JAQUAR, be sure to explain to the whole community, YOU are the reason I discontinued my MULTIPLAY SERVER, and Ill NEVER come back to this community., nor waste any more time or money fooling with this whole escapade

I really am fed up with this forum. As EVERY SINGLE thing I have posted, since I have been here..has only gotton my character ATTACKED by a complete idiot Ass Hole, who NEED be LEASHED.

I am completely fed up, with the utter STUPIDITY of ONE moderator, and his OFFENSIVE and childish attacks. PERIOD.

3000AD obviously condones, if not encourages this type of behavior, so Im through.

Been fun all. I am outta here for good!!

October 7, 2004

I am the reason that you discontinued your multiplayer server?

Excuse me? I never played on your server, I never LOOKED at your server, I have done nothing to MAKE you have a reason to discontinue your multiplayer server.

That is like saying that Bush is the reason that your unemployed, or Bush is the reason that the terrorists attacked us.

Come on Street, please, get a grip on reality.

Oh, and by the way, I have NOT been a moderator on this forum in quite a while, my moderator privileges were revoked quite a while ago.

And what don't they condone?

Calling you on an obvious lack of knowledge, calling you on calling me ignorant when in fact the opposite was true?

Calling you on something then having you run away from it, and then stating that.

Come on Street, grow up....

Now, if you are done having your little hissy fit, perhaps we can get back onto the subject at hand?

BTW, you started this whole thing with this one arrogant and ignorant statement.

quote:

I fear, more education within these matters would only serve to add to your confusion. Not that there is no hope, for those willing to learn...but first, one must be willing to observe things in an objective perspective. This is something, I do not feel your physiological brain, is capable of doing; however, in this I could be mistaken

Then you hit me with this

quote:

Your argument is total BULL, but based on the established school of thought which Dark has accurately referred.

My discussions DO NOT include you, and your self promoted idea of kowledge. I know this bothers you to some radical degree. As there has not been one post, i have made since attending this forum, you have not shown your utter stupidity, in your attempt to trash.

so give it up and go back to playing with your little yellow duck. Oh...and Tell your daddy I said hi, but am really disappointed in the development of his childs education....

On second thought, dont, Ill tell him myself!!!

Who was the one being childish, who was the one that started in on the personal attacks.

Oh let me count Street's ways.

If you had kept your mouth shut, I wouldn't have caught you in such ignorance and you wouldn't have felt the need to attack me so childishly.

If you are actually going to leave, please, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[ 10-06-2004, 08:50 PM: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

October 7, 2004

And what type of Democracies are they Nomad?

Can you explain their specific functions and how they work?

October 7, 2004

Here, let's take a closer look at the socalled Democracies that you are talking about.

Campton It is a thesis done by one of the graduates, I found it very enlightening.

quote:

The Iroquois Constitution

The Iroquois Confederation probably was complete by 1525, but maybe as early as 1450 (Snow 1996:60.) It is designed to protect the peace within the League, but not necessarily coordinate actions outside the League (Lutz 1998:3.) The Iroquois Constitution, or Great Binding Law [called Ne Gayaneshagowa (O'Brien 1989:18)], is an oral history that describes the political relationship between the Five Nations [six, in 1722, when the Tuscarora from the Carolinas joined as a sort of 'junior member'(O'Brien 1989:18)]; these include the "Older Brothers", the Mohawks and Senecas; the "Younger Brothers", the Cayugas and Oneidas; and the "Keepers of the Council Fire", the Onandangas. (O'Brien 1989:18) The Peacemaker, Dekanawidah, was a Mohawk, and the Mohawk, though having no power greater than the others, are regarded as first among equals. The Onandagas, the tribe of Tadadaho, are the head of the council and the moderators of discussions (O'Brien 1989:18.) Representatives from these five tribes formed the Council of Fifty, led by chiefs, or sachems from each tribe. The Council was the institution of debate, discussion, and decision making amongst the Iroquois.

The clan mothers of the five different tribes appoint Council members to serve. These positions are named after the original holders of the post, and each of the clans are named after animals. The posts are eternal and only the occupants temporal; that is, the office is more important than the office holder is. (Snow 1996:63-64) Certain men could be elevated to the level of Pine Tree Chief or War Chief through great deeds, though they were not allowed to decide matters at the Council Fire, only offer input (Snow 1996:62, and O'Brien 1989:20.) The representation on the Council is not equal amongst the tribes. The Onandaga have 14 members, the Cayuga 10, the Mohawk and Seneca 9 each, and the Oneida 8 (O'Brien 1989:18) Even though membership is not equal in numbers, each tribe is equal in importance at the Council Fire. The Council Fire works on consensus agreement, not majority rule. Essentially, each tribe has veto power, so there is no concern about the unequal numbers of representatives (Snow 1996:61-62.)

Any delegation can bring up any matter for discussion, and if as little as one other tribe wished to discuss it, then the whole Council of Fifty was obliged to hear it. The Older Brothers would consider the topic first, then informed the Younger Brothers of their opinions. If the Younger Brothers, after conferring, agreed, they would pass the opinions to the Onandaga for confirmation or re-referral to the Older Brothers for more discussion. In this way, members were to be of "one heart, one mind, one law." (O'Brien 1989:19) If consensus can not be reached, the Onandaga extinguished the Council Fire, and the tribes are free to act anyway they saw fit, as long as they did not harm the other tribes (Snow 1996:61.) In this way, there is a system of checks and balances amongst the tribes, de-centralization of power, and retention of internal sovereignty of the tribes with the League.

The Onandaga were the Faith Keepers, and held on to the wampum. Wampum were beaded belts that told the history of the Iroquois and were very important features of Council meetings. The Roll Call of the Chiefs and the Condolence Ceremony are key rituals that started each Council meeting (Tooker 1985:xv.) The Roll Call consisted of reading of the legendary names of the first Council members in order to honor their memory. The Condolence Ceremony serves to grieve for the members who had died since the previous meeting, and to confirm, in a sense, the new members appointed by the clan mothers. The meeting spot is a longhouse, built to symbolize and stretch over the entire territory of the Five Nations.

Ne Gayaneshagowa and the U.S. Constitution show a number of similarities. First, both constructs provide for a federal government, with internal sovereignty retained within the larger context of national sovereignty. The original intent of both constructions was similar - to promote peace and harmony within the whole. Representation, debate, checks and balances, servitude (rather than lordship) of the leaders, the sanctity of the office ahead of the office holder, government through persuasion rather than coercion are all qualities that these two forms of government share. Since the Iroquois Confederacy and the Great Binding Law existed here on the American continent prior to the U.S. Constitution, how much influence did Ne Gayaneshagowa have on the Founding Fathers and the development of our government?

The Iriquois confederaccy is actually a representative democracy, with one major change.

If ANYONE wishes to discuss ANYTHING, the council is forced to discuss it.

We have this as well, only in a very different form, and our government was originally designed on the Iriquois model, and used it to a great extent, but that original model has been perverted by the powerful interests within the country.

In Switzerland, it is again a Representative federation.

Switzerland government

I think we have our wires crossed BIG time Nomad.

When I say Democracy, I am talking a real pure Democracy, where everyone votes on everything.

A representative republic, such as we have, the Iroquois have, and the Swiss have are systems that work.

Our system is being preverted into a pure democracy, with the Senators being electerd by the people, instead of the state legislature, the house members doing all that they can to be reelected and therefore sending as much federal money etc back to their states in order to give thier people things from the federal coffers.

Moving in the pure Democracy direction will destroy any country that tries it, and it will slowly but surely destroy the United States as well.

THe Swiss and the Iriquois have NOT perverted thier systems, and they are still a Representative Democracy, that is why they have lasted so long.

SO in this we actually agree, because when you say democracy, I think pure democracy, and that's bad, whereas when you say Democracy, you think Representative Republic, or Representative confederation, or representative federation, which is good.

We agree on this, our definitions of the words are a bit different is all.

Grizzle · October 7, 2004

Well, this used to be a good thread.

October 7, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by Grizzle:

Well, this used to be a good thread.

I think it is salvageable, and Nomad and I will salvage it.

Because we actually agree, he just hasn't realized it yet.

October 7, 2004

You see Nomad, we agree 100% on this.

A representative republic that FAITHFULLY follows what the majority, or what the people actually want is a good thing.

THe US was originally designed to do this.

THe States were all sovereign, and allowed to do thier own thing, as long as they represented the people, that is why each states legislature etc is a bit different.

This is also why the founders made it so that the Senators were appointed or elected by those same state legislatures, to insure that that states rights were protected. At the same time, each representative of a state had a certain number of constituents that looked to him to vote as they wanted him to vote. BUT, the congress then decided that 435 members ws the limit.

Both of those things in essence screwed up the system. Because 435 members CANNOT represent ALL of the people that they represent, and having the Senators Elected by the people steals the states voice in the federal government, whereas the states rights are no longer represented either.

SO what you get is a HUGE minority, anywhere between 40-50% that do and cannot agree with the other 50%, and nothing gets done.

If the house had stayed as it was designed to do, a certain number of people represented by 1 congresscritter, we would have probably 1000 to 1500 congressman. Which would represent a good majority of their constituents, because the people that agreed with him, could move to his district and actually make a difference, whereas that is impossible now, with only 435 reps.

The Senate as well, if the senators were indeed elected or appointed by the state legislatures would be able to protect the states rights as they were meant to do.

The US constitution was excellent, and it used the Iroquois strengths to it's advantage, at the same time, it also gave the federal government the needed power to get things done, but at the same time had the checks and balances there to keep the fed in check.

That is no longer the case, the checks and balances mechanism has been hijacked in the name of democracy and fairness, and power.

This country is NOTHING like the founders originally intended. it is now more of a socalled Democracy, but controlled by a 2 party system, BUT, neither has a majority of the voters in it's camp. each have around 44%. THis leaves those in the middle, around 12% or so, without a party, so they must choose the lesser of 2 evils.

My main problem is that I am to the right of the Republicans when it comes to the federal Government. I believe in the constitution as it was written by the founders, but see no way to reinstate it without allowing the system to collapse, as it is doing, and starting over, or with Armed revolution, which is never going to happen.

There are too many special interest groups etc in control, and too many handouts that the feds are now needed for, for it to stop via voting.

Oh and another checks and balances that is out of control is now the judiciary. When a majority does indeed agree upon something, a judge can take that majority decision, and toss it out, if he feels that it somehow is not constitutional, no matter how inane the excuse he uses.

When the judiciary can legislate from the bench, then no matter what the "People" vote for, their voice can be overridden by an activist judge.

THe checks and balances in the original constitution are now gone, and the system is breaking down.

Our system was hijacked, The Iroquois and the Swiss have not allowed that to happen. In that, they have a huge advantage over us.

October 7, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by nomad:

Good question, Jag :-)

It's not easy, because the texts are full of indian symbology, but nonethless very refreshing to read. The Iroquois Constitution, here you go:

http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/iroquois.html

The swiss people has the right to vote on any matter, admitted that the matter was not object of a previous votation where people abandoned their rights to vote ! Then even if there is a matter where the people can't vote(understand, the government must not call a votation), a sucessfull public referendum may oppose any government decision by obliging a new votation on the specific matter. That's why in international affairs, foreign pression on Switzerland only has limited effects because the country is leaded by its people, the government merely implementing popular decisions or making proposals.

Swiss constitution (last redraw):

http://www.admin.ch/ch/itl/rs/1/c101ENG.pdf

I don't know any other country where the citizens exerce such censuring control on the government. On the other hand, many swiss citizens are quite bored to have to vote so often, and polls turnout is generically median to low. There are still places where people vote in local assemblies by raising the hand... A strange country indeed.

I cut down your post alittle, only because I didn't want huge Quote, but it wasn't easy, because it was an excellent post.

The Iroquois constitution is beautiful in it's simplicity, if you want to call that simple, and it's elegance.

Wonder if they'd take me... LOL

And I just hope to goodness that the Swiss do not continue to change their constitution to be more closely related to ours, because our amended constitution is the road to self destrction, as we are now seeing.

The divide in this nation is getting bigger, one side wants true democracy, and wants to reach into everyones pockets and force "equality" on everyone, a form of socialism, The other wishes to force it's political beliefs and morals on everyone as well.

If the constitution were indeed intact, as it was written, we would NOT be having this problem, because everyone would have a representative that represented thier beliefs or opinions, and people could vote with their feet and move to other states or districts that more closely represented what they believed.

Again, I wonder if I asked really nice, if the Iroquois would take me and my family... LOL

October 7, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

I believe in the constitution as it was written by the founders, but see no way to reinstate it without allowing the system to collapse, as it is doing, and starting over, or with Armed revolution, which is never going to happen.

On the one hand, I sincerely hope that you are right, as an armed US revolt, with current weapons technologies, would not be a pretty sight to behold.

However, I doubt very seriously that the Federal Government could sustain an armed conflict with it's own people, as the US Armed Services WOULD NOT deploy for long against a major US civilian uprising.

Without the support of the Armed Services, the Federal Government loses it's military power over the American people.

So, an armed uprising would be bloody, but I doubt it would ever reach the number of casualties sustained in the first American Civil War.

However, at least in my neck of the woods, desent is rising against the current order of things, within the armed civilian populace.

The next Civil War is closer then anyone can guess..and I'm afraid that it could happen in our lifetime.

To ignore this fact, is to ignore history, thus guaranteeing that history is repeated.

October 7, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by Shingen: