hi my name is Jennifer aka EmO eLmO and i am wrighting to you because i get in trouble at school for wearing an ABORTION IS HOMMOSIDE shirt to school and if i was to wear it again i can get expelled and do you think it is write to have freedom of speach in schools today i think its your religion or its what you believe in you should do what you want and speak your own piece of mind i want to wear it so bad cause you no thats how i feel and if the dean of students doesnt like it he can kiss of cause its not fair you should have wrights to wear whatever you want
thank you thats my story

firstly, learn how to spell.
and secondly, wearing a shirt like that is different then just voicing your opinion, it may upset someone.
It's kind of like wearing a shirt that supports the KKK or something, you just don't know who you will trigger.

No we Vote for Parties who have political platforms, and if the leader of the party strays to far, the party deals with them. So, we are voting for a group of people who watch eachother's behavior.

how do you figure you have more protection? so instead of voting in 10 different people with different ideas you vote one party of 10 people that probably all have the same ideas? that seems like a worse situation. now dont take my whole 10 people concept literal, its just a random figure.

Being from Canada I like a socialist system. I think the Canadian form of Democracy works the best, I like that we vote for parties not individual people, it gives us a bit more of protection.

so what changes would you make to democracy? i guarentee that if the constitution was clear cut, to the point and non-negotiable most people wouldnt like it. they like being able to manipulate the system as much as they can so they can get away with as much shit as possible. the real difference between our system and most of the rest of the world is that the power is given to the people to choose who they see fit to run our country. yeah there are flaws in our system, but democracy is, i guess you could say, the least flawed. can show me another system that actually works better than democracy (and not just on paper because if that was the case then communism would be gold) but maybe we should just have one family run it for the rest of our lives. or perhaps faschism, or communism suites your needs.

quote:

Originally posted by katalinacmnacha89:
I see. See, what you've just realized is that our system is not perfect. Innocent people get convicted, and guilty people go free. Judges and juries make bad rulings all the time. But compared to European and Asian systems of government and the judiciary, ours is the best. Its not perfect, but it is certainly the best system out there, and until someone can suggest something else, this is what we're stuck with.

Look, you're free to wave your reformation flag all you want, but nothing is changing, nor should it, until something better comes along. And don't count on it any time soon.

Uh, Yeah, I've realized that things don't work. And I think its rather... uh... arrogant to say that your system of government, or judicial system is the best. I'm not saying that I know of a better alternative to the american system, but I'm not about to say its the best without knowing what else is out there.

And I'm not technically calling for change, what I'm calling for is for people to look at things critically and not to blindly except things for how they are. I don't think the system is that effecient, for example I think that the Supreme Court being appointed by the government is wrong because the the Supreme court is the one that interpretes the Constitution, so really they are telling us what our rights are and are not.

I just want people to think, I am aware that things aren't going to change, you guys are way to caught up in your beuacracy and tradition to make any real changes to your government anyway.

Although many European systems function very similarly to that of the American judiciary, there are some systems that rely on one or multiple judges for criminal cases. I also don't believe tha many systems require the burden of proof. I just think that a jury of peers with the prosecution's burden of proof in place is a better alternative to this.

quote:

But compared to European and Asian systems of government and the judiciary, ours is the best.

can you explain why you think it's better than European systems? (just out of curiosity)

I see. See, what you've just realized is that our system is not perfect. Innocent people get convicted, and guilty people go free. Judges and juries make bad rulings all the time. But compared to European and Asian systems of government and the judiciary, ours is the best. Its not perfect, but it is certainly the best system out there, and until someone can suggest something else, this is what we're stuck with.

Look, you're free to wave your reformation flag all you want, but nothing is changing, nor should it, until something better comes along. And don't count on it any time soon.

Kat, see this is where me and you differ. I don't except things just because thats the way they are.

And you know what for your question I don't have the answer, because I don't pretend to know everything, or know how to solve all the worlds problems, all I'm saying is things aren't right the way the are.

I understand that, Trisscar. What I am asking you is if it is not up to one person to decide, who's decision is it?

By the way, it doesn't matter whether you think the Supreme Court represents us or not, because that is how it works.

Oh.. I'm sorry Kat, for not responding in the way you would like me to.

I have responded, you're not understanding what I'm trying to say.

Oh.. and the fact that the Supreme court is indirectly representing us, just doesn't do it for me.

Here is what I said

quote:

what I was saying is that it isn't right for the law to decided what is pure and passive, its the same with government stating what sexual orientation is right, or whether women should be allowed the right to choose an abortion. Once the government starts telling you what you can and can not do with your life, or what you're allowed to beleive there is a problem. I know that it is the school that gets to choose what is "pure".. ect. but this also opens up problems in soceity, as the government and other authority start to control what we are allowed to say, this starts censorship and controlling us as a people.

quote:

there has to be some balance to the situation, I don't not agree with law and order, there has to be some standard, one standard being hate-related comments or slurs toward specific groups isn't right. The point I was trying to make is in general people take censorship too far.

quote:

It is not up to ONE person to set out the rules for society, it has to be collective, everybody has a different take on what is acceptable.

You are asking me to state what the rules are, and like I said, its not up to one person to state that.

Trisscar- the government is elected by the people, so, indirectly, the Supreme Court is a representative of the people.

Anyway, if you wouldn't mind responding to my previous posts, as I've been asking you to do for quite a while now.

I was just pointing out that direct democracy is not impossible.

Can I just say that the supreme court is NOT elected by the people but appointed by the the government? So technically they are not a representation of the people?

Atleast they are in Canada.

Without trying to get too far off track here, Switzerland does have a parliament, but you are right that many issues are directly democratic. However, it should be noted that Switzerland does not have near the diversity of the United States.

But again, this doesn't change the fact that laws are out there because we cannot just "suck it up" and get along. From what I can tell from Trisscar's confusing rhetoric, she believes that the people, not one individual should decide what is good and bad. What she fails to recognize is that the people did make these decisions, indirectly, through the Supreme Court, which, by the way, is made up of more than one person. Unfortunately for her, her method of "letting the people decide what is acceptable" would be impossible to apply, because cases are decided on an individual basis, and the "people" can't be present at every trial.

Unless I'm mistaken, Switzerland is a direct democracy, and it's doing quite fine.

The problem is, your solution is not practical. As you stated yourself, people are always going to have different beliefs. If they didn't, there would be no need for law.

From what I understand, you are either an anarchist or in support of a pure democracy. Neither will work, which is why we have representation in government in the first place.

So, explain to me, how will this apply to our society? What will we do with the people who are stubborn? You can't just tell them to "suck it up" any more than you can tell people of one religion or creed to "suck it up" because that is not at all practical and will not work. So give me a real way to make it happen, instead of avoiding the question.

quote:

Look, you can say that all you want.

quote:

So, what practical solution would you apply to this situation?

I already answered you weren't listening.

quote:

It is not up to ONE person to set out the rules for society, it has to be collective, everybody has a different take on what is acceptable.

quote:

finally there are some people who are extremely stubborn and no matter what you say, no matter how you present your case it is impossible for them to accept it, for some reason these people have a sense of self importance, that they're better than everybody else and so discredit or refuse to acknowledge what other people have to say.

See... my point exactly.