Thank God!

In theory, his idea would work without limiting free speech. (You have up to X amount of money for commercials and advertising, for instance - use it wisely and get your point across, or waste it mudslinging, it's your choice.)

In practice, there are enough "supporting" groups that it wouldn't make much difference. Besides, websites are cheap.

What's wrong with a pure democracy? Why shouldn't we (the voters - who EMPLOY the people in government - including all presidents, prime ministers and suchlike) have a real say in who gets in?

What we have now is not 'free' speech. He who has the most money can make the most noise. That discriminates against those who might have a better idea of how to help the country, even though they don't have a degree and a rich Dad.

But maybe I'm the only one here who resents being ruled by the 'haves'...

RobG

No. In Johnnie's case, it would have been a pigeon coop... :-) His first time in office was 'decided' by our thrice-damned preferences system, where, depending on who's in bed with who, your vote for any one party could end up going to someone you wouldn't wish on Iraq. But, like the US system, it works, sort of!

RobG

It's not stable. In a pure democracy, factionalism inevitably produces chaos and paralysis, which last until the people get fed up and elect a dictator.

Problem with your arguement is that no one is being forced to say it. All they have to do is not say it while others do. I for one was/am proud to say it, and and proud of my belief in God.

Is there a problem with this ?

FWIW Last figures I saw indicate the Socialistcrats out spent the Republicans by quite a margin. Remember Hungarian Millionaire George Soros and some other rich socialists (now there is a conflict of interests if there ever was one) contributed multi millions to Kerry & Co. Now who do you define as the party of the rich???

Bill Shuey

"Rob Grinberg" wrote in news:418c2dcd snipped-for-privacy@news.chariot.net.au:

This is one of the reasons that I dislike Democrats so much and why that will have lots of trouble getting a majority again. Just because someone disagrees with your wouldview and has a different one you automatically assume that they are somehow ignorant and subhuman. Aside from the fact that those with that view aren't fit to rule free men, it is a proven recipe for failure.

So keep up the hate speech and derogatory comments. Than take a long long at the map. Even the blue states have a lot of red in them.

And just remember if Bush is a dope what does it make you guys. He's foxed you twice. Folks outsmarted by an idiot (twice) aren't people I want in responsible positions.

Fianlly your bigotry is no different than Klan bigotry, even if you dress it up in higher education degrees and $1000 suits.

LOL !

And very much true !

Whenever I hear people talk about racism, I tell them to listen to Jessie Jackson, or Al Sharpton sometime. Some of the most racist people I've ever heard speak ! If they were white, most surely people would be all over them immedately. These two almost seem to WANT to prepetuate racism and division, my only reasoning is that if they didnt, people would actually take a look sometime at what they are really doing, and then get really upset !

And if you compare the 2000 and 2004 maps you'll see that the amount of red has increased in the blue states.

Heck, even Karl Marx, and Friedrich Engels were snotty, spoiled, rich kids. Most of the "heroes" of the Left, seem to also be. This article is quite enlightening:

For one thing, it's mob rule.

Since I live in a small state (Arkansas) I have more of a say with the Electoral College system than I would with a direct vote.

Tell it to the Swift boat vets...

The internet was a great equalizer in this election and its influence will only get greater in the future.

I don't necessarily resent being 'ruled' by the haves so long as they don't try to pretend that they're something they're not. That, IMO, was one of Kerry's biggest problems.