| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Jeb Can't Let Go | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 17 2005, 10:49 AM (517 Views) | |
| David Burton | Jun 18 2005, 02:51 PM Post #26 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Quirt:
What then may I ask is the limit for those of you on the left? Are your opinions so correct that none can bear any reproof? As for the "snide and insulting references" to your philosophy, can you honestly say that your side is completely innocent of such sneering and jeering? We could just as well take up arms and have another tragic civil war. Instead, we decided to live under a system, which we have been working out for better than 200 years, which isn't a very long time. On this thread I have honestly tried to take you seriously. I have given you the benefit of the doubt concerning your objections to Jeb Bush going after Michael Schiavo. Frankly if I were Mr. Schiavo, I'd consider taking his money and leaving the country. Other suggestions might be holding a referendum on whether the people think he's guilty or not. After such a vote, Mr. Schiavo would at least have the confidence of the majority of his fellow citizens. I'm not making this up or suggesting it out of hand so please don't assume that I'm just some crazy whacko right winger. This is what they used to do in the late middle ages when someone was considered for "the liberty of the city of London" after being accused of a crime. It would be a fair test for anyone set free in a community after being convicted and serving time for being a violent sex offender or child molester as well. |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jun 18 2005, 03:18 PM Post #27 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
No, of course not.
I can't say that either, even about myself. However, I'm trying, I'm trying.
Maybe he doesn't want to do that. He shouldn't be chased out of the country because (according to the polls) a minority of the public thinks, based on no evidence at all, that he had something to do with Terri's collapse.
They may have done that in the Middle Ages, but I like to think we've progressed beyond that. I also sincerely do not believe that anything approaching a majority of the country would find that sort of system acceptable. If you want a real-life, 2005 example of why referenda don't work, look to California. Some of the most ridiculous junk, both liberal and conservative, comes out of California's system of voter-made legislation. Putting aside for a moment questions of tyranny of the majority, since you and I won't agree on that, a basic problem with voter-made legislation or justice is that most voters will not bother to educate themselves on the issues. In Michael Schiavo's case, for example, I doubt that even 10% of the voters would read the autopsy report or the report of the guardian ad litem. How could the voters then hope to express an informed view of Michael Schiavo's guilt or innocence? It's as if a juror could skip the entire trial and then just vote at the end, without regard to any evidence. Another problem with voter-made legislation is that it's functionally impossible to amend the legislation. The stuff voted on in November is what was put on the ballot more than six months earlier, and there's no opportunity to fix any problems that are identified with the proposal during debate over it. Moreover, if I like 95% of a proposal, but think there's one aspect that needs to be fixed, I'm put in the untenable position of having to vote for or against the whole thing. Referenda, it seems to me, turn justice and legislation into a combination marketing-popularity contest. Not, in my view, a particularly effective form of government, and not a terribly fair sort of legal system. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jun 18 2005, 09:11 PM Post #28 |
|
I think David Burton is right on the money with this case, well articulated.
|
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Jun 19 2005, 05:25 AM Post #29 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Jeb's clearly unstable. He shouldn't run a soccer team, much less a state. |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Jun 19 2005, 05:58 AM Post #30 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
Actually, if Jeb could run again, I would think it a certainty he could win re-election. As it is, there are people in the party, some with deep pockets, that are pushing him very hard to run in 2008. If Hillary is the nominee for the Dems, I think Jeb could take her. Now, that would be interesting..... |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| Steve Miller | Jun 19 2005, 07:33 AM Post #31 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
If Hillary is the nominee for the Dems, I think Spongebob Squarepants could take her. |
|
Wag more Bark less | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jun 19 2005, 10:52 AM Post #32 |
|
:lol:
|
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2








4:19 PM Jul 10