jgd85

I was using that description to indicate that a TEST is exactly that, a TEST and it doesnt determine someones intelligence. You, brilliantly, looked past the point i was trying to make by picking one line to insult.

As far as being a philosopher, first you have to UNDERSTAND something correctly. Then you have to be able to express it so that other people might be able to understand it. All you have done is misinterpret and talk ****. And you picked quite a bloody obvious thing to make a comment about. Congratulations on contributing so much to us Plato!

__________________
death makes angels of us all / and gives us wings / where we had shoulders / smooth as raven's claws - jim morrison

Bane of your existence

I don't want to start a new thread for this, so I'm putting it in here.

I have to come up with a persuasive essay by Monday. I'm doing it on changing parts of the U.S. government. Just trying to get some feedback on what else I should write about. All I have now is the electoral college and bipartisanship.

jgd85

imo the executive branch isnt as equally checked as its counterparts... aka has too much power. other than that i would say that amount of campaigning (time and money) and lobbying (all together horrible) is a serious problem with the us government system.

__________________
death makes angels of us all / and gives us wings / where we had shoulders / smooth as raven's claws - jim morrison

Bane of your existence

Ah word up with the that. I should be able to atleast squeeze a page or two out of that.

Trauma

Why does the government not refer to English as the official language of the United States yet require it be written for the citizenship test?

Why are all other languages (even Spanish) grouped into the category foreign languages?

Why are corporations still allowed to donate to political parties whose candidates are running for the Executive branch? Does the country think the two million dollars from Walmart to the Republican Party goes unnoticed?

Why are Congressional hearings so redundant?



All things that came to mind just now.
Whatever.

__________________

The Unfan

Because donating to any party (not just political) is a legal act and restricting it in one off case is nonsensical. Corporation b has the right to donate to party b. Its not really all that bad.

Bane of your existence

It needs to be about the goverment as a whole, not specific laws.

Trauma

When it causes Americans to think of Presidential elections as choosing the lesser of two evils, then yeah, it is bad.
A little restriction wouldn't be unheard of when these political parties are monopolizing (if you will) mainly the Presidential elections, certainly?

__________________

The Unfan

So the "lesser" parties need stronger ad campaigns and support. It is our jobs as citizens to help this process along. I'm sorry that the average American is uneducated about other parties but I don't think the (fair) answer is to tell the other parties to get stupid and quit allowing such great support. The seemingly more correct solution would be to raise more awareness for whatever party you support. You have the right of free speech, use it.

Trauma

My point wasn't exactly to tell the parties to "get stupid" but to limit the amount of funds able to be given to a certain party in order to reverse a two party election.
I see where you're coming from, but that's like saying phones wouldn't be tapped under the PATRIOT Act if citizens petitioned it.
If the government wills it, it's going to happen (don't take that statement the wrong way, but in this case that holds true, especially when a Democratic and Republican party have been the two main parties for Presidential candidates for 170 years or some ****)
What you said is correct and optimistic, but it doesn't seem very realistic at all.

__________________