But I Went to Harvard Law School!

[RetiredGySgt]

Here we go, from the lead off page of your link...

See where I am going now? Your basic McUSA's at best are part of a vast hiring committee. Yet, we cannot fire those we elect to federal office. Some feel that by not reelecting them we are in effect firing them. I disagree and would say that we are simply hiring (by committee) a different person once the contractual obligation was met. Did you notice that the McUSA's also had a very limited choice of job applicants and no say at all when interviews (campaigns) began.

We the people do not set performance or conduct standards for our elected officials. The Foley scandal demonstrated this. We don't have the authority or ability to tell any official how they are to act.

Likewise accountability for performance. If you elect Senator Umptyfratz of the State of Intoxication because he opposes gun control, and he votes instead to tighten regulations and introduce new ones; What can you do? Nada, nothing, zip etc. He is under no legal obligation to live up to his campaign promises. Imagine if you will a job applicant who lied about his qualifications and intentions during the interview process. Read My Lips, He's outta there if you are the boss. In this case, we aren't.

Oh, and remember the vast hiring committee? Technically speaking you are not even entitled to that without a very liberal interpretation of the text of the constitution. I understand that a few amendments imply a right to vote. However it isn't explicitly stated. And of course in the case of presidential elections, it's all about the electors, not us

Now tell me again how this person does not think our system sucks and that we should now be some kind of direct democracy? You are of course aware a direct democracy where we all vote on every issue would never work for 300 million people, I hope.

And some more...

Here's the down and dirty.

No federally elected or appointed office to my knowledge works for "we the people". Certainly you would not claim the Supreme Court works for the people. As certain, you would not claim that Members of Congress or even the President works for us. Why? Because to claim that our elected officials work for us would imply an Employer/Employee relationship. For example:

An Employer hires and terminates employees.
An Employer sets the standard for his employees.
An Employer can hold his employees accountable for job related performance.

http://the--realist.blogspot.com/2007/02/they-dont-work-for-us.html

A reasonable person can see by reading this that this person does not think the average voter is capable of reasoning out who should represent them, yet he wants us to "hire and fire" on a whim.

Further he wants term limits because again, we are just to STUPID to be trusted to know who to vote for.

 

[pegwinn]

Here we go, from the lead off page of your link...



Now tell me again how this person does not think our system sucks and that we should now be some kind of direct democracy? You are of course aware a direct democracy where we all vote on every issue would never work for 300 million people, I hope. I absolutely oppose a direct democracy. Your interpretation is waaaaaaaaay off. But, let's continue.

And some more...



http://the--realist.blogspot.com/2007/02/they-dont-work-for-us.html

A reasonable person can see by reading this that this person does not think the average voter is capable of reasoning out who should represent them, yet he wants us to "hire and fire" on a whim.


Further he wants term limits because again, we are just to STUPID to be trusted to know who to vote for. I guess I don't get your thought process at all. I never called anyone stupid. I pointed out that when you say "they work for us" it isn't factually correct.

Apparently you didn't read the entire post on my blog. The final para states (emphasis added) that:

So the bottom line dear readers is that the feds don't work for us. That means that as you scrutinize who you are going to (we hope) be allowed to vote for it's just that much more important to get it right.

I am glad that our disagreement is purely philosophical. Under that standard you are entitled to your opinion and I will respect that. I will also give you quite a bit of personal respect for being honest enough not to assert that what I wrote wasn't factually correct.

Before I respond to a poster I normally read as much of their stuff as possible so I don't misunderstand and jump to an erroneous conclusion. If I decide they are stupid, I simply don't bother wasting keystrokes or effort to carry a discussion. I'd invite you to read some of the other blog entries as well. Then you will have a broader base to decide if your opinion of my view of government is a valid one. BTW, I don't do hidden messages or subtlety when I post. I work real hard to make it blunt enough that you don't need to worry about reading into it.

C'ya round Guns.

 

[Annie]

I've visited Pegg's site, numerous times. I always come away with something to think about, though am rarely in agreement, which is weird, for on the boards we are sympatico. His site though is great and gets better the more you read it.

 

[pegwinn]

I've visited Pegg's site, numerous times. I always come away with something to think about, though am rarely in agreement, which is weird, for on the boards we are sympatico. His site though is great and gets better the more you read it.

rarely am in agreement? Aaaagh! Shot thru the heart I am. The blog (political posts) is intended to be brutally truthfull. It's also intended to provide a solution to what appears to be insoluable issues in todays USA. Since I am not posting with anyone..... and folks are staying away in droves....... guess I am harmless LOL

 

[William Joyce]

Yes. And, unlike you, I'm colorblind about discrimination. It shouldn't happen regardless of which side of the color spectrum your skin happens to be.

Noble daughter of Moses, did you win?

I am all for reverse discrimination cases. It is true that in principle, I don't like anti-discrimination laws because I believe in maximum freedom of association. But given the times we're in, that's not likely to happen, so we as whites might as well get ours. In fact, if there's one area of law in America that's actually UNDER-litigated, it's anti-white discrimination cases. The problem is that most whites say "who cares", even when they've got a slam-dunk case, and don't want to look like a whiner.

I also think reverse discrimination cases are often easy. I can tell you MY OWN was like shooting fish in a barrel (done before I ever went to law school). That's because in this day and age, people actually BRAG about keeping whites out, whereas with blacks, it's much harder to show. Nobody puts on their website that "we at Big Corp actively reject blacks for jobs, and we're proud of our commitment to white power!" No, it's... "we at Big Corp support a diverse workplace, and we're willing to do whatever it takes to achieve that."

 

[Annie]

rarely am in agreement? Aaaagh! Shot thru the heart I am. The blog (political posts) is intended to be brutally truthfull. It's also intended to provide a solution to what appears to be insoluable issues in todays USA. Since I am not posting with anyone..... and folks are staying away in droves....... guess I am harmless LOL

I knew you would be brutalized by my honesty, (I know you weren't), both of us recognize where we are. Regardless, not in spite of, I consider you a friend and someone I look up to, as a citizen, parent, and person!

 

[jillian]

Noble daughter of Moses, did you win?

I am all for reverse discrimination cases. It is true that in principle, I don't like anti-discrimination laws because I believe in maximum freedom of association. But given the times we're in, that's not likely to happen, so we as whites might as well get ours. In fact, if there's one area of law in America that's actually UNDER-litigated, it's anti-white discrimination cases. The problem is that most whites say "who cares", even when they've got a slam-dunk case, and don't want to look like a whiner.

I also think reverse discrimination cases are often easy. I can tell you MY OWN was like shooting fish in a barrel (done before I ever went to law school). That's because in this day and age, people actually BRAG about keeping whites out, whereas with blacks, it's much harder to show. Nobody puts on their website that "we at Big Corp actively reject blacks for jobs, and we're proud of our commitment to white power!" No, it's... "we at Big Corp support a diverse workplace, and we're willing to do whatever it takes to achieve that."

I just think fair's fair... regardless of color.

And, no... unfortunately, we got our butts kicked. Judge made a preliminary ruling that no evidence of the way the plaintiff was treated prior to a certain date could go into evidence. The jury never got to hear the background. I was only second-seating initially. It wasn't my case and I got called in of counsel for the trial. But... the judge kind of got the jury pissed off at my senior counsel, so he tossed me in to try to salvage the case. In reality, there should have been an interlocutory appeal on the evidentiary ruling well before I got involved in the acse.

As for the noble daughter of Moses thing... that's the nicest thing you've ever said to me.