Americans. Would you let the rest of the world vote for your president?

America affects people who are not American, thus; Non-Americans should have the right to vote on issues which concern them.

The same should go for any other issue that occurs anywhere on this planet.

I imagine that you won't agree with my original point, so would you at least consider compromising with me on this?

reply to post by Anti-Tyrant


yes i agree if we influence people they should have a say. but where i differ is that americans should not be influencing the rest of the world we should be taking care of america here. i would close all overseas military bases, close down our borders increase trarifs to kill free trade and bring back manufactoring jobs here, because i am a nationalist. i care about america and my people here. i also care about people in other places of the world but i believe they should be free to make their own decisions and that it is none of my business what they do.

globalist are why we are in every corner of the globe meddling in everyones business. starting wars and exsploiting people. they are the problem. they have taken over our government. the answer to globalism isnt more globalism in my opinion.

reply to post by TheRepublic


Really?

You have actually highlighted TWO different forms of globalism, the first - the type you're focusing on - is the type that allows Corporate America to take advantage of others in the world.

The type that i'm focusing on here is the type that can be seen even here, on the internet.

Why is it that the methods of which power is weilded is not placed under the same importance that many of the issues which are discussed on the internet are?

The answer is simple;

The Internet has provided us with the means to consider issues despite the problem of not being members of the host state, something which to me seems like a valuable asset to human society.

I say we should have more.

I say that the way in which issues are treated, in an international capacity on this here internet, is far greater than the localised method we employ currently.

How often is it, after all, that solutions to problems have been discussed upon (and in some instances, found quite worthy) on the internet that have gone unnoticed by the powers that be?

They said the internet had the power to revolutionise the way the world thinks, and i believe it.

*hits self over the head*

Of course, i have no real say in the proceedings of this thread, as i said - i'm not American.

If this happened our new national anthem would go like this...

Out of the night,
When the full moon is bright,
Comes the horseman known as Zorro.
This bold renegade
Carves a "Z" with his blade,
A "Z" that stands for Zorro.

Zorro, Zorro, the fox so cunning and free,
Zorro, Zorro, who makes the sign of the Z.

He is polite,
But the wicked take flight
When they catch the sight of Zorro.
He’s friend of the weak,
And the poor and the meek,
This very unique senor Zorro.

Zorro, Zorro, the fox so cunning and free,
Zorro, Zorro, who makes the sign of the Z.

Zorro, Zorro, Zorro, Zorro, Zorro.

You will never acheive progress by threatening people with punishment.

Indeed, you are certainly right; far better to give them last rights after you tack them to a tree. The time for threats has long passed in America.

It has been said there are three boxes in American politics: the soap box, the ballot box and the cartridge box; the first two have failed. The American Resistance Movement grows.

reply to post by SGTChas


So then, you think you can do it?

You think you can take a stand where so many others have fallen?

I suppose, at the very least, you are confident in your own abilities.

This actually sounds pretty good.

But like others have said, it would never work in the way the world is now, wait a few more years (15 - 50 years or so) then we will see.

[edit on 10-6-2008 by _Phoenix_]

reply to post by _Phoenix_


Ah, but it can if we merely wish it.

Who is it that carries the true power, the Government or the People?

Originally posted by Anti-Tyrant
reply to post by _Phoenix_

 

Ah, but it can if we merely wish it.

Who is it that carries the true power, the Government or the People?

Ah, yes of course. But change takes "time" I truly believe time is key to these things. We live in a time of huge change, the new technologies etc will change the world, and in time change how we think and how the goverment is.

So many new technologies, like nanotechnology for example. You will be amazed by the theories of nanotechnology. For example making computers billion times faster or inserting nano technology into out body to heal disease, or even make us live longer, hundreds to thousands of years. etc etc, possibilities are endless.

In my opinion, these new technologies like nano technology and others, in time will make a HUGE change to the world, we just have to sit it out, and see what happens.

For those of you who want change, wait a few years and see how technology changes the world, and see how we can change the world from there.

We live in interesting times for sure.




[edit on 10-6-2008 by _Phoenix_]

reply to post by Anti-Tyrant


Not in my abilities alone; there are NUMEROUS Americans who have been preparing for many years now. Many, such as myself, have been well trained by the very ones who thought they had us on a leash. Ex Special Forces, Marines and just plain ground pounders who did NOT forget that they swore to protect the Constitution and Bill of Rights from ALL enemies, both foreign and DOMESTIC! Just look up the 'American Resistance Movement' on the Internet.

You might also research the fact that when Clinton first announced his attempt to take assault weapons from Americans, more ammunition, primers and weapons were sold in America over the next couple of years then were used by ALL the combatants involved in WWII. It was the FEAR of just where all that ordinance went that brought thoughts of an all out weapons grab to an end in America.

We did not forget that our Second Amendment was NOT about duck hunting .Unlike our British brethren, who seemed to have forgotten what the Magna Carta was for.


[edit on 6/10/2008 by SGTChas]

[edit on 6/10/2008 by SGTChas]

Originally posted by SGTChas
We did not forget that our Second Amendment was NOT about duck hunting .Unlike our British brethren, who seemed to have forgotten what the Magna Carta was for.
[edit on 6/10/2008 by SGTChas]

Mate, the Magna Carta was written up to stop judges from administering local laws (oops, i meant punishments) for local people*.

Nearly 200 years before the first settlers arrived in America too.

I think you fellows there might have taken it and blown it way out of proportion, but that's just my way of thinking.

Originally posted by _Phoenix_

In my opinion, these new technologies like nano technology and others, in time will make a HUGE change to the world, we just have to sit it out, and see what happens.


[edit on 10-6-2008 by _Phoenix_]

Why can we not use the technology we have (i.e; the internet) to help speed that process up?




*Ultimately, that was the premise, at the least.

[edit on 10-6-2008 by Anti-Tyrant]

Originally posted by Anti-Tyrant


Why can we not use the technology we have (i.e; the internet) to help speed that process up?

I think that has already started in a way. These things take time thou. And usually great changes comes with many unwanted things for it to happen, for example, deaths...

For me it's time, all I can do really is wait and watch. And enjoy what I have in life.


[edit on 10-6-2008 by _Phoenix_]

reply to post by Anti-Tyrant

It explicitly protected certain rights of the King's subjects, whether free or fettered — most notably the writ of habeas corpus, allowing appeal against unlawful imprisonment.

While I agree that the Magna Carta did not as such declare the right of subjects of the British Crown to bear arms, it was hailed as a guarantee of the right of all British subjects to bear arms. It was for this reason that the Minute Men took to the Lexington Green. It was also why the founding fathers of my nation made the second amendment so iron clad.

We will not be chipped, we will not bow to the New World Order and we will not kneel. Better to die on your feet than to kneel as a slave.

Originally posted by _Phoenix_

I think that has already started in a way. These things take time thou. And usually great changes comes with many unwanted things for it to happen, for example, deaths...

For me it's time, all I can do really is wait and watch. And enjoy what I have in life.


[edit on 10-6-2008 by _Phoenix_]

I see.

I would like to see much more change, infact i would like to see so much change i can no longer keep track of it.


Of course, i'll probably be dead long before then.

reply to post by SGTChas


The Magna Carta is actually a remarkably worthy tool to use in your quest, considering it's birth was one of fire.

It's very creation was a weapon for us to use against our royalty.

reply to post by Anti-Tyrant


Why thank you. It is my hope that you will perhaps check out the world wide resistance movement to the New World Order. Prison Planet has much info on the movement and information is the beginning of true freedom.

You might also check out General George Washington's Vision for America. He foresaw not only the Civil War, but the coming Second American Revolution. We win.

[edit on 6/10/2008 by SGTChas]

Originally posted by jedimiller
Not a NWO idea. But think about it. If the US president has so much power around the world, shouldn't those other nations have a saying on who should be the next president? I think it would be a great idea to have France, Germany and China to vote for our next president. And if so, who do you think they would vote for? And what of opening up to the rest of the world to our voting system? failure or success?

Who would Iraq vote for?
Who would Germany Vote for?

And why.

[edit on 9-6-2008 by jedimiller]

what a GREAT idea!! i mean, hell... obviously we suck at choosing our president and since it DOES affect the rest of the world, i concur w/ the idea brought forth here!! if we (generically speaking of course) are adament on "policing" the world (which is WHAT we are doing), then it stands to reason that the world has a say so in who is our president.

i get what you are saying and think that is a fabulous point that you have brought forth. unfortunately, the powers that be are the ones that have to be appealed to.

Originally posted by jedimiller
I disagree. I think other countries could choose a better leader for us. they know better than we do. America is a young nation. We don't know anything here.

Unless you find a person older than 232 years old, that's pretty irrelevant. All voters can only rely on their knowledge of history and individual philosophy. Do we ignore votes from nations younger than the U.S.? Canada- Australia?
Do we ignore Russia's vote because they've only been on their current system for less than 20 years...and China's vote for less than 100? Do other nations get more of an electorial vote for age?

We all learn from each other. Other nations have modeled their constitution from America's. Countries that are older are not more advanced spiritually, the citizens of each nation are equally old. We didn't have to be alive when Newton started Calculus to make rockets. Everything we know, we learned from others and built upon them. Everything we know we learned our lifetime. I am not my country. The person I am has been learning and changing since 1982, not 1776. And during that time I was not a Republican for 17 years and a Democrat for 8.

Originally posted by jedimiller
Europeans been around for longer than we have.

Europeans have been around because there have been people living on that continent. If the Europeans did more wrong than America- there would still be Europeans. Whoever wins wars is not the most noble. Do we ignore Spain and France's votes for their imperialism and murder of Native Americans? Do we count the U.K. in its present form (1922) or when Ireland was included (1801)? Or do we count England's age for the U.K? Or can we ignore them for fighting in Iraq? Do you count Croatia as older or younger than the U.S.? And the Vatican...

Originally posted by jedimiller We think democracy works, but what if it doesn't? what if the founding fathers had a dream and it wont really work?

Did democracy get us into Iraq? Would a monarchy have? Would communists have invaded Afghanistan? in 1980? Maybe democracy or a republic isn't the best, but what is? Or maybe they can work, but our leaders break the law or are immoral and unaccountable. When we vote for our representatives, they don't always represent us. The founding father's dream is not our law, we can change it and have several times.

Originally posted by jedimiller We think democracy works, but what if it doesn't? what if the founding fathers had a dream and it wont really work? we can't ignore everyone else and create our own system anymore, we have to learn from other countries.

We shouldn't ignore everyone else, nor should we do what they tell us. Those are extremes.
Everyone else does have their own system.
We should learn from other countries- like Japan did. We should also learn from our own mistakes.

Please don't take my criticism as believing America is fine. I don't like what is going on. I don't think we have it right, or anyone else. Perhaps America is more wrong than all other nations. Spiritually I don't think we are the worst, but we have power to force people. What if other unimposing nations had our might, would they sit their peacefully? What if Iraq had the abilities of our military? We probably wouldn't have invaded, but would Iraq be sitting there peacefully?

It would be nice if America could get slapped or spanked for bullying. Perhaps by a U.N. army. It would be nicer if we cleaned up ourselves.

Do you believe that a country should not impose its will on another...or just America shouldn't? Why should we take a majority of other nation's will for our leader imposed on us? But your idea is not balancing power- it's just reversing the roles.