The right to b1tch and whine is NOT earned by simply paying taxes, but by involving oneself in the democratic process... ie, VOTING. If one does not wish to involve themselves in the process of electing a political leader they have NO right to then b1tch and whine when either the leader elected is not to their liking, or things don't go their way... PERIOD!!

Gotta agree with you on this one. Checks and balances are useless without an informed population that participates. If you can't be bothered to make an attempt to be informed and vote, don't bitch about bad leadership.Ummm.... how is retaining an excellent president/prime minister, who brings prosperity and economic stability to a country, even remotely equate to dictatorship? Dictatorships only exist where the population cannot remove an ineffective leader!

It's not remotely close to a dictatorship, but when you keep re-electing the same people over and over again, there are a lot of problems. The problem is the fact that we keep retaining the ineffective leaders, not just excellent ones. Combine a two party system with gerrymandering and you get bizarre voting precincts where you can virtually guarantee which party will win ahead of time. Combine THAT with the fact that for some odd reason, it's considered high treason within the parties to challenge the incumbent of your own party for the nomination, plus incumbent advantages like mailing lists, fund-raising, pork-barrel spending, name recognition, having the bully pulpit, etc., and you are basically in Congress for as long as you want even if everyone thinks you're doing a really lousy job. Term limits isn't the best answer in the world, but it's probably the best we figure out something else. Incumbency is so advantageous that it's almost impossible to lose.

VernonDozier> If you can't be bothered to make an attempt to be informed and vote, don't bitch about bad leadership.

You are assuming people that do not vote do not have a conviction or reason for not doing so. Speculation!
Your allegation is they don't want to bother as if they don't care. Speculation!
And even if you can demonstrate that this two cases are in general true, how can you know that if they bitch about it, they haven't voted. More speculation!

Now, if we decide to continue with speculations, let me do my own. I speculate that it is most likely for someone involved in politics and that goes to the booth, that for someone which doesn't, to complain about leadership and those "elected officials". Since it is most likely for someone that doesn't "bother to vote" to not care about it, according to your statement. And furthermore, I speculate, that neither of you have come with this "original" way of thinking on your own.

However, I am quite sure it is not speculation that once a candidate gets elected, it becomes a representative. Representing everyone in the region of stewardship, even for the minority that did not vote for him/her or did not vote at all, to which she or he is employed of, and accountable to.
And if you can not come to terms with this, either you live in another country or you don't know what you are talking about, or both.

VernonDozier> If you can't be bothered to make an attempt to be informed and vote, don't bitch about bad leadership.

You are assuming people that do not vote do not have a conviction or reason for not doing so. Speculation! Your allegation is they don't want to bother as if they don't care. Speculation! And even if you can demonstrate that this two cases are in general true, how can you know that if they bitch about it, they haven't voted. More speculation!

I'm speculating somewhat, but also talking from my experiences from talking to people/listening to people. I have some respect for people who have thought it over and purposefully decide to not vote as a way of registering their displeasure with the system or all candidates. That's reasonable. That's also a minority of the people who don't vote, I think. It may be speculation or at least extrapolation from my own conversations/experiences with people, but I think it's true. Most people who don't vote aren't doing it out of protest. They simply aren't informed and don't bother to participate for whatever reason. For those people, if they can't be bothered, they have no right to complain.

Plenty of people who bitch have voted. I never suggested otherwise. I may listen to their gripes. I tune out most people once I find out they didn't vote. The people who vote have more of a right to complain.However, I am quite sure it is not speculation that once a candidate gets elected, it becomes a representative. Representing everyone in the region of stewardship, even for the minority that did not vote for him/her or did not vote at all, to which she or he is employed of, and accountable to.
And if you can not come to terms with this, either you live in another country or you don't know what you are talking about, or both.

I live in the U.S., I vote, I know what I'm talking about, and I came to terms with this long ago.

I like your last response in the form that you draw of your own experience. And there's nothing wrong of creating your own ideas out of your on experience, nor can be reputed, nor refused that you have had them. Nevertheless, certain apprehension should accompany the reliability of our own experiences, since it might betray us with conclusions away from reality. Making us feel right when we are wrong. And you are wrong with this one:
VernonDozier> The people who vote have more of a right to complain.

The sentiment is that somehow, there's more righteousness, more honor and respect on someone which vote, that someone which doesn't, as a right of citizen. Far from truth. This is tool of deception. Used by some with established agendas, copied by acolytes, repeated by people which haven't thought of the malice emanating from it.

I like your last response in the form that you draw of your own experience. And there's nothing wrong of creating your own ideas out of your on experience, nor can be reputed, nor refused that you have had them. Nevertheless, certain apprehension should accompany the reliability of our own experiences, since it might betray us with conclusions away from reality. Making us feel right when we are wrong. And you are wrong with this one: VernonDozier> The people who vote have more of a right to complain.

The sentiment is that somehow, there's more righteousness, more honor and respect on someone which vote, that someone which doesn't, as a right of citizen. Far from truth. This is tool of deception. Used by some with established agendas, copied by acolytes, repeated by people which haven't thought of the malice emanating from it.

Pot calling the kettle black. You're one of the most self-righteous, judgmental people I've ever come across, completely confident in the rightness of every opinion you express. It bugs you when people assume things about you, but you make assumptions about other people. You don't make any kind of an argument. Just "You are wrong". You don't know me. I live in the U.S., I'm fully aware that representatives are supposed to represent everybody, I've thought my opinions through, I don't have an agenda, I'm not an acolyte, I don't mindlessly repeat things, I don't have malice towards people who don't vote. I just think everyone has an obligation to be informed and participate in their country's government. Part of that is voting. Find someone you like to vote for. If you can't, vote for the lesser of two evils. If they're both equally evil, I don't know, go on a hunger strike, chain yourself to city hall, write a letter to the editor, run for office yourself, do SOMETHING to be part of the solution. Otherwise, don't complain. I have the same attitude towards people who complain about how the school PTA runs the Canned Food Drive, but don't volunteer to run it themselves. People need to step up or shut up.

VernonDozier> You're one of the most self-righteous, judgmental people I've ever come across, completely confident in the rightness of every opinion you express.
That's your opinion of me, not mine. However you might convince me to change my mind.

VernonDozier> It bugs you when people assume things about you, but you make assumptions about other people.
No it doesn't bug me. I simply point it out when I don't have anything else to do.

VernonDozier>I don't have an agenda, I'm not an acolyte, I don't mindlessly repeat things, I don't have malice towards people who don't vote.
Never said such. Read the post once more without the heavy personal investment you read it last. Maybe you'll get what I really said.

VernonDozier> I just think everyone has an obligation to be informed and participate in their country's government. Part of that is voting.
That's your personal opinion which I called to question. Not because there's not merit on it to certain extend but because of lack of respect of the freedom of others in their decision concerning the right of voting or not. And the easiness (carelessness) with which you are willing to revoke people's rights. Just because it doesn't adhere to your precepts of fairness.

And since it goes hand to hand with your previous post declaration:
VernonDozier> They simply aren't informed and don't bother to participate for whatever reason.
Do you feel you are better informed? Do you feel those that go to vote are better informed that those than don't? Do you think ever why they don't "bother to participate?"

I summit that it is possible that if we all were more properly informed maybe we would be discouraged next time we are told to go and cast a ballet. Just a thought.

VernonDozier> If they're both equally evil, I don't know, go on a hunger strike, chain yourself to city hall, write a letter to the editor, run for office yourself, do SOMETHING to be part of the solution. Otherwise, don't complain. I have the same attitude towards people who complain about how the school PTA runs the Canned Food Drive, but don't volunteer to run it themselves. People need to step up or shut up.
That's your own opinion. And it is their own prerogative to do so if they chose so. However, your PTA example is rendered irrelevant by the fact that everyone doesn't get taxed by PTA, nor PTA is supposed to represent us, all.

VernonDozier> You don't make any kind of an argument. Just "You are wrong". You don't know me.
Yes, I made my argument, as clearly and precised as this medium allows me. I specifically told you were you were wrong and why. Yes, I don't know you, nor do I need to know you to tell you, you are wrong in that specific instance.

Browser error.

I am afraid I am going to have to quote this whole epic failure from kaninelupus

"Epic failure"?? Because I could actually construct a well thought out dialogue as to why I disagreed with you?? Would you rather I simply used the tactics you have used throughout this "discussion" and simply call you a moron??In this [l]and things are different of what your personal philosophy thinks the rest of the World should abide by.
We believe in "No taxation without representation."

What you "believe" in and what your legal system actually support are really two different things!! As to the rest of your tired old drivel, it's really not worth responding to.Well, it doesn't, but this actually goes more to the heart of my concern. Both history and psychology agree that people in exalted positions tend to come to believe that they know better than the rest of us about almost everything - and at that point they become dangerous.

It is not unusual to hear this coming from Americans. But what is also unfortunately uncommon from Americans is the realisation that of ALL the truly democratic nations, you and your nation's citizens actually enjoyless democratic freedoms than almost ANY other democratic nation. You get to choose to vote for an elected representative, and you get the right to speak your mind and protest (just so long as the elected representitive doesn't find your comments or protests too offensive, then even that right can disappear). If a President does a lousy job, he does one term. If a good job, two terms (even if thing change when the president gets a second run at things). It is almost impossible in your country to remove a defective president no matter how bad things get (with the exception of being impeached for serious breach of ethics or laws) - and thus you assume the same is elsewhere.... and wrongly so.

Here is Australia (as with many other truly democratic nations), we have the ability to retain a prime-minister for as long as he is doing the job well (or so long as the alternatives - yes there is more than one alternative - are d1cks). But that doesn't give the elected leader (or even any of the elected officials) reason to become complacent, or power hungry. Here, the ability to remove a defective, or "dangerous" leader is built into our political system, and as that power has in fact been used to remove "leaders" and lesser representatives before.

Also, the fact that like most democratic nations, voting is compulsory (a fact I know the Yanks find hard to fathom), teaching our students from an early age about how our political system works is given much higher priority, thus creating a much more informed public.

As an edit, what I also forgot to mention, is that a prime-minister simply does not have the almost absolute power your President enjoys. Like most democratic nations, the Prime-minister cannot simply decree a law or political policy at whim. Here, the senate actually has the power to block any decision the Prime-minister proposes. Thus there is a check-and-balance written right into our democratic/political system far beyond what the US enjoys.

Whilst I understand your concerns about the nature of using the term "Leader" in respect to your elected representatives, please do not blindly assume that all your concerns are global. As much as much of your country likes to think it leads the rest of the civilised and uncivilised world alike, you actually enjoy less legal and political freedoms than almost the rest of the democratic world.

@AIA - sorry, but that country of yours may not be so grand as you like to think... but the rest of us already knew that!

It is almost impossible in your country to remove a defective president no matter how bad things get (with the exception of being impeached for serious breach of ethics or laws) - and thus you assume the same is elsewhere.... and wrongly so.

Agree with that statement -- its too difficult for us to remove a President from office. But I don't know any alternatives -- our government does not have a monarchy who can dissolve congress and force a re-election.Like most democratic nations, the Prime-minister cannot simply decree a law or political policy at whim. Here, the senate actually has the power to block any decision the Prime-minister proposes. Thus there is a check-and-balance written right into our democratic/political system far beyond what the US enjoys.

Why do you not believe the same checks-and-balances are not available here in USA? What exactly are the laws you think our President makes? Our President, like your Prime Minister, can not just make laws as he sees fit. Only Congress can make laws -- the President can only carry them out.

kaninelupus> "Epic failure"?? Because I could actually construct a well thought out dialogue as to why I disagreed with you??
No. It is because you have removed all possible doubts that you don't know what you are talking about.

VernonDozier>I don't have an agenda, I'm not an acolyte, I don't mindlessly repeat things, I don't have malice towards people who don't vote. Never said such. Read the post once more without the heavy personal investment you read it last. Maybe you'll get what I really said.

Yes, this is the one that bugged me originally. It sure seemed like you were saying I either had an agenda, was an acolyte, had malice, etc. I have reread your original posts, as you suggested. Here's your original statement:VernonDozier> The people who vote have more of a right to complain.

The sentiment is that somehow, there's more righteousness, more honor and respect on someone which vote, that someone which doesn't, as a right of citizen. Far from truth. This is tool of deception. Used by some with established agendas, copied by acolytes, repeated by people which haven't thought of the malice emanating from it.

I read this as I'm in at least one of the following categories:I'm deceitful.
I have an established agenda.
I'm copying acolytes or I am one.
I have malice.
I am mindlessly repeating propaganda.
I haven't thought it through.

I don't know how else to read your statement. If that wasn't your intent, okay.

However, I am quite sure it is not speculation that once a candidate gets elected, it becomes a representative. Representing everyone in the region of stewardship, even for the minority that did not vote for him/her or did not vote at all, to which she or he is employed of, and accountable to. And if you can not come to terms with this, either you live in another country or you don't know what you are talking about, or both.

This one seemed to come out of left field to me. Of course a representative doesn't just represent the people who voted for him and is accountable to everyone. My lack of respect for most people who don't vote doesn't mean I think they should be stripped of their legal rights. I just get tired of hearing them complain.

Ditto here:VernonDozier> I just think everyone has an obligation to be informed and participate in their country's government. Part of that is voting.
That's your personal opinion which I called to question. Not because there's not merit on it to certain extend but because of lack of respect of the freedom of others in their decision concerning the right of voting or not. And the easiness (carelessness) with which you are willing to revoke people's rights. Just because it doesn't adhere to your precepts of fairness.

Again, I'm not proposing that they be stripped of their rights and that they don't have have the freedom to not vote. I'm not suggesting the "revoking" of anyone's rights. You make it sound like I want to round them up and send them to concentration camps or something. Not true. I just have a fairly low opinion of their decision not to vote.

Also, the fact that like most democratic nations, voting is compulsory (a fact I know the Yanks find hard to fathom), teaching our students from an early age about how our political system works is given much higher priority, thus creating a much more informed public.

Now THAT's a bad idea. FORCING you to vote doesn't make for a more informed public. Folks who don't want to vote SHOULDN'T vote, and I'm glad they don't. If the Australians are anything like a lot of people I know here, if they're forced to vote, but don't want to, they'll just vote for Mickey Mouse, Robert DeNiro, Barney The Dinosaur, Heinrich Himmler, anything to make a mockery of the election (no disrespect intended to DeNiro. I think he'd probably be fantastic. Just thinking of someone famous who ISN'T RUNNING). Or worse, they'll pick someone who IS RUNNING who they feel would be a BAD president, just to rebel. No, we're better off if these people just stay home on voting day.

Yes, this is the one that bugged me originally. It sure seemed like you were saying I either had an agenda, was an acolyte, had malice, etc. I have reread your original posts, as you suggested. Here's your original statement:

I read this as I'm in at least one of the following categories:

• I'm deceitful.
• I have an established agenda.
• I'm copying acolytes or I am one.
• I have malice.
• I am mindlessly repeating propaganda.
• I haven't thought it through.

I don't know how else to read your statement. If that wasn't your intent, okay.

If you truly got offended, allow me to apologize, hoping that in our disagreement you have learned that I am true to my word. It was never my intent for you to take as a personal offense.
Please, remove the I'm from those bullet points.

Let me break it down:
Aia> The sentiment is that somehow, there's more righteousness, more honor and respect on someone which vote, that someone which doesn't, as a right of citizen.

I don't see much trouble in this part. Your posts has transmitted that message, and while you are not proposing it to be the Law of the Country, certainly you have made abundantly clear that in a personal level that's your thought. Still, the comment was not directed to you, because, hardly, it is not an original idea from you. I had heard it many times before.
And that "before" is import to understand the remainder.

Aia> This is tool of deception.

Which is true. It is a tool very well used by those with an interest in manipulating masses to a wanted sentiment.
Who? Not you. I left on purpose the naming part out, so I would not give the opportunity to others to derail the topic.

Aia> Used by some with established agendas, copied by acolytes,

And have seen this. Was I accusing you of being an acolyte. Ridiculous! Since most likely you don't know even know what I am referring to.

Aia> repeated by people which haven't thought of the malice emanating from it.
This is the important and interesting bit. The one that probably made you think I was accusing you of the nine whole yard. Responsible for your last bullet point: I haven't thought it through."

Never said you haven't thought it through. Never implied that I could read your mind, and that I know what your thoughts are. Nor even that you are not a thoughtful person.
But rather that the people that embraces those sentiments, might not have considered the malice in such promoted feelings and ideas.
What malice? That's for you and anyone to ponder about it, if you haven't. And if you haven't found any, I encourage you to think harder, perhaps, putting yourself truly, in the unthinkable position of those you are willing to scorn. Asking yourself what do that person has to gain by promoting the idea that somehow my rights are inferiors just because I am ignorant or I don't think it is important to be involved in politics.
While this are only some suggested questions there are a few harder, which I don't want to mention. Sufficient the given ones to start exposing the ugliness, if you want to see it.

Agree with that statement -- its too difficult for us to remove a President from office. But I don't know any alternatives -- our government does not have a monarchy who can dissolve congress and force a re-election.

Why is too difficult to remove a President from office? If [s]he is doing according to what is established by the Law there's not reason to remove her/him. And if [s]he is not doing according to it, Congress can remove her/him speedily. On the other hand if [s]he is not doing well according to constituency, [s]he will be not elected next time.

PetuniaRose said it best> The nice thing about a representative is that when he no longer represents your values or opinions, you can get rid of him reasonably easily. I haven't heard of any way to get rid of a Leader other than by rebellion/revolution of the followers ... so I'm still ding-donging on my original issue.

Have you consider what it would take to remove from a throne a king or queen? History is full of examples.

Cant they just have just have a vote of no confidence?

Here you dont elect the man, you elect the party.

Aia, I appreciate the clarification. Thank you. To further clarify on my end, one has every right, moral and legal, not to vote. So one has every right, as a citizen, to choose not to vote and should not be persecuted, legally or socially, for exercising that right. My personal opinion is that the whole system breaks down without constant vigilance and participation by the general public, so I think it is, in general, irresponsible and even dangerous for someone to completely opt out of all politics. Our elected officials need to be constantly reminded that we are watching their every move.

To me, the people with malice would want people to NOT vote and basically not pay attention and let the elected officials do whatever evil shenanigans they chose to do and leave them alone while the general public just goes on with their lives. If you want leaders without malice, pay attention and vote and get the evil/hateful people out of there. So I'm not understanding the "malice" part of your point.

But again, that's MY opinion (and yes, it's not an original opinion at all. Lots of people have expressed it long before me) and I can't and don't try to decide for everyone else. Everyone gets to decide for him/herself whether to vote and be involved and informed. And some people are so busy that they hardly have any time to pay attention to politicians even if they would like to. I give them some slack. But everyone gets to make their own decision on that and they have a right to. I just don't think it's a very wise or responsible decision and I don't think they have a right to complain if they make that decision.

Anyway, again, thanks for the clarification as to what you were saying.

VernonDozier> Aia, I appreciate the clarification. Thank you.
Cool! Now, let's go back to disagree. ;)
Ironically, in this thread there's more that I agree with you that I disagree, but somehow it got lost in translation.

VernonDozier> Our elected officials need to be constantly reminded that we are watching their every move.
And I understand the more people evolved the better change they (elected officials) get the message. Nevertheless, free agency, and freedom in general is not synonymous of democracy, as very well illustrated in this comment>
Also, the fact that like most democratic nations, voting is compulsory (a fact I know the Yanks find hard to fathom), teaching our students from an early age about how our political system works is given much higher priority, thus creating a much more informed public.
Disrespect for that free agency and freedom makes democracy a joke.