Author Topic:  (Read 667 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 257,485
« on: January 31, 2014, 08:50:22 AM »

Support the USO

Offline olde north church

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,136
« Reply #1 on: January 31, 2014, 09:09:18 AM »
Yet "We the People" remain silent.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2014, 09:09:39 AM by olde north church »
Why?  Well, because I'm a bastard, that's why.

Offline Relic

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,967
« Reply #2 on: January 31, 2014, 09:29:42 AM »
Yet "We the People" remain silent.

We are the outliers. The people who pay attention, care, and agonize over these moves.

The average American, doesn't know, doesn't want to know, and doesn't care. Just don't interrupt their smart phone service.

Offline olde north church

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,136
« Reply #3 on: January 31, 2014, 09:32:05 AM »
We are the outliers. The people who pay attention, care, and agonize over these moves.

The average American, doesn't know, doesn't want to know, and doesn't care. Just don't interrupt their smart phone service.

It was only 30% 250 years ago.
Why?  Well, because I'm a bastard, that's why.

Offline Relic

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,967
« Reply #4 on: January 31, 2014, 09:46:26 AM »
It was only 30% 250 years ago.

There is no comparison. Back then, the average person couldn't care, they didn't have time to care, they were too busy trying to stay alive.

The 30% were the 30% that mattered, the press, the political class, and much of the business leaders.

Today, that class favors the communist way.

Offline Chieftain

  • AMF, YOYO
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,633
  • Your what hurts??
« Reply #5 on: January 31, 2014, 10:16:36 AM »
Yet "We the People" remain silent.

Here's a hot news flash: "We the People" is a myth that has existed since 1914 when the 17th Amendment was enacted, dealing the States out of the "Checks and Balances" that up until that time kept the Federal Government pretty much reined in.  After that the two political parties took charge of the Federal Government and the People no longer mattered. 


Offline olde north church

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,136
« Reply #6 on: January 31, 2014, 11:13:56 AM »
Here's a hot news flash: "We the People" is a myth that has existed since 1914 when the 17th Amendment was enacted, dealing the States out of the "Checks and Balances" that up until that time kept the Federal Government pretty much reined in.  After that the two political parties took charge of the Federal Government and the People no longer mattered.

Can you explain the difference to me and I'm a bit more informed on the civic system.  If people elect the legislatures of the states and then the legislatures choose the Senators how is there a difference?  Presuming members choose members of the same party.  Look at the parliamentary House of Lords.  Basically a place for the favorites of the governments to end their days.
Why?  Well, because I'm a bastard, that's why.

Offline EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 23,836
  • Cats rule. Dogs drool.
« Reply #7 on: January 31, 2014, 11:30:36 AM »
Look at the parliamentary House of Lords.  Basically a place for the favorites of the governments to end their days.

That is new, or newish - basically our version of the 17th.

Prior to 1993 (I think), the house of lords consisted of 4 distinct groups. The Lords Temporal were split between hereditary peers, who may well have had their seat rights since 1066, and life peers, who owed their seat to whatever party was in power when they were elevated. The Lords Judicial are the senior judges, which are appointed by the Queen on recommendation from the Bar Association (not the politicians). The Lords Spiritual are the senior Bishops of the CoE, again, no political input into their selection.

The Blair government unseated the hereditary peers, one of the biggest checks in the system. It is now appointed life peers only for that leg of the triumvirate. It seems a small thing, and why should someone who's distant ancestor wiped William the Bastard's backside be so important?
The hereditary peers were more impartial. Life peers are beholden to their party. The Judicial and Spiritual are still impartial, but rarely attend the house sessions - they do actually have jobs to do.
The universe doesn't hate you. Unless your name is Tsutomu Yamaguchi

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink

Offline katzenjammer

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,513
« Reply #8 on: January 31, 2014, 11:42:05 AM »
Yet "We the People" remain silent.

The vast majority of WtP have no idea that any of this is even going on.

Offline katzenjammer

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,513
« Reply #9 on: January 31, 2014, 11:45:27 AM »

Offline olde north church

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,136
« Reply #10 on: January 31, 2014, 01:02:37 PM »
That is new, or newish - basically our version of the 17th.

Prior to 1993 (I think), the house of lords consisted of 4 distinct groups. The Lords Temporal were split between hereditary peers, who may well have had their seat rights since 1066, and life peers, who owed their seat to whatever party was in power when they were elevated. The Lords Judicial are the senior judges, which are appointed by the Queen on recommendation from the Bar Association (not the politicians). The Lords Spiritual are the senior Bishops of the CoE, again, no political input into their selection.

The Blair government unseated the hereditary peers, one of the biggest checks in the system. It is now appointed life peers only for that leg of the triumvirate. It seems a small thing, and why should someone who's distant ancestor wiped William the Bastard's backside be so important?
The hereditary peers were more impartial. Life peers are beholden to their party. The Judicial and Spiritual are still impartial, but rarely attend the house sessions - they do actually have jobs to do.

There is a benefit to hereditary seats, sometimes.  If people lived to be 1000 years old they would have a much different outlook than the current 100, if you're lucky.  People generally have a longer term view. 
Why?  Well, because I'm a bastard, that's why.

Offline EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 23,836
  • Cats rule. Dogs drool.
« Reply #11 on: January 31, 2014, 02:28:23 PM »
There is a benefit to hereditary seats, sometimes.  If people lived to be 1000 years old they would have a much different outlook than the current 100, if you're lucky.  People generally have a longer term view.

I miss the hereditary peers. Not all of them would sit, of course, they are people with lives to lead and some of them are wastrels or simply not interested, but most of them did take the longer view. Having an estate in the same family for generations, where your job is to conserve and expand it for the next, does tend to encourage that!

Not saying they wouldn't vote their interest! But their interest tended to be broader than the politics of the day.
The universe doesn't hate you. Unless your name is Tsutomu Yamaguchi

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink

Offline olde north church

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,136
« Reply #12 on: January 31, 2014, 04:57:56 PM »
I miss the hereditary peers. Not all of them would sit, of course, they are people with lives to lead and some of them are wastrels or simply not interested, but most of them did take the longer view. Having an estate in the same family for generations, where your job is to conserve and expand it for the next, does tend to encourage that!

Not saying they wouldn't vote their interest! But their interest tended to be broader than the politics of the day.

Just look at the Rothschilds, one banker 300 years ago.  Even Herr Schicklegruber gave a few of them a pass.
Why?  Well, because I'm a bastard, that's why.


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf