The issue of noone voting?

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth:
Education and truth is key.

I see your point. I'm aware of the issues of 9/11, and I think at the very least parts of US government were prepared to sit back and let it happen. I'm not verses enough in engineering to know if WTC 1 & 2 the towers were brought down by explosives, but I certainly think that WTC 7 was brought down deliberately as I've not seen any convincing explanation for why it went down other than planned demolition.

But my point was this.

Say the public become educated and are aware of the truth. What then? Overthrow government? What would you replace it with?

[Rep]

Originally Posted by whypatcondellisntfun:
Say the public become educated and are aware of the truth. What then? Overthrow government? What would you replace it with?

For the avoidance of doubt. I'm not suggesting the overthrowing of any government. I'm simply asking, what practical system could viably replace the governmental system we have now?

[Rep]

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth:
Absolutely !
Out of interest why do you think that really is Westcountryman ?

I'm not entirely sure. It's probably down to the low population density and the fact we're so isolated and "out of the way". It's funny actually how few government initiatives/laws actually affect the rural way of life - our policemen are still very un-PC (except the ones who transfer in) and most people carry on as normal (Health and Safety officers would probably die of a heart attack if they came here). The biggest assault on rural life recently was probably the fox-hunting ban - fox-hunting being something that again few people in the cities actually have any knowledge or appreciation of.

I also put it down to the people in government/Parliament having 0 appreciation for how things work in the countryside or the rural way of life - which of course is fundamentally different to towns and cities (it's amazing how many tourists have no appreciation of how things work like here - for example I am repeatedly asked where the Tesco of the village is - we don't have one.)

I'm a firm believer that the rural way of life is superior to that of the cities, but I may be biased. I wonder how many MPs would be squeamish at the sight of an animal being slaughtered - few people down here would bat an eyelid.

[Rep]

Originally Posted by whypatcondellisntfun:
For the avoidance of doubt. I'm not suggesting the overthrowing of any government. I'm simply asking, what practical system could viably replace the governmental system we have now?

You could still have a fair system of democratic government but one that kept to whatever constitution of that country.

In the case of the U.S and Britain passing illegal laws that is certainly not the case.

For example warantless wiretapping in the U.S, loss of speech laws in the UK and U.S(the 1st amendment in the U.S should protect that), passing powers over to executive branches of government (like the EU treaty here which makes the power of parliament redundant and PDD51 in the States - i.e. Bush declares himself supreme dictator and immune from prosecution(think that's right)).

Basically whenever the government rides roughshot over the constitution, (which has checks and balances in place to prevent governments abusing their power) and ignores the wishes of the people, then it is the right if the people to remove them from office, especially if the government removes the constitution !

And that's not forgetting the other crimes carried out by heads of state such as Blur and Bosh like illegal wars, government sponsored terorism etc etc !

Only when the corrupt system is broken can prosecutions begin.

Still think overthrowing the government is a bad idea ?

But of course the key is to get people involved in real political thinking so "we the people....." (like in the constitution) can be re-form the new political process.

People will wake up eventually, but they'll have suffered one heck of a lot by then - a lot lot more than they realize.

[Rep]

By the way WPCIS, good question !

You'll notice I didn't actually suggest a different political system, just a change of government itself (i.e. if it breaks certain rules, replace them)

I wish I knew more about this whole question - it's a good one I admit.

I don't think that means governements can do whatever they like because they were voted in though - maybe there need to be extra checks and balances but the trouble is, any corrupt system has an annoying habit of corrupting the system and laws which is meant to keep watch over them and execute these said laws - therein lies the problem and how to stop it.....

[Rep]

Originally Posted by Westcountryman:
I'm not entirely sure. It's probably down to the low population density and the fact we're so isolated and "out of the way". It's funny actually how few government initiatives/laws actually affect the rural way of life - our policemen are still very un-PC (except the ones who transfer in) and most people carry on as normal (Health and Safety officers would probably die of a heart attack if they came here). The biggest assault on rural life recently was probably the fox-hunting ban - fox-hunting being something that again few people in the cities actually have any knowledge or appreciation of.

I also put it down to the people in government/Parliament having 0 appreciation for how things work in the countryside or the rural way of life - which of course is fundamentally different to towns and cities (it's amazing how many tourists have no appreciation of how things work like here - for example I am repeatedly asked where the Tesco of the village is - we don't have one.)

I'm a firm believer that the rural way of life is superior to that of the cities, but I may be biased. I wonder how many MPs would be squeamish at the sight of an animal being slaughtered - few people down here would bat an eyelid.

I'm glad you say "It's funny actually how few government initiatives/laws actually affect the rural way of life" - that's a good thing, and actually "having 0 appreciation for how things work in the countryside or the rural way of life" is probably a blessing in disguise.

I say that because my feeling is that governement would like to hurt rural Britain as much as it probably could (could it ?).

I'm sure they'd want large Tesco's to take over the food chain and eliminate the common farmer who grows organic food and move them onto Gm crops at the drop of a hat to seize control of the food chain. Maybe they are......

I hope what you say is true, and rural life remains untampered and unharmed without the state imposing horrible EU regulations everywhere(though it probably does as much as it can)

I'm sure the fox hunting ban was such an attack on the rural way of life and had nothing to do with foxhunting.

[Rep]

Originally Posted by whypatcondellisntfun:
II'm not verses enough in engineering to know if WTC 1 & 2 the towers were brought down by explosives, but I certainly think that WTC 7 was brought down deliberately

Weren't all three brought down by deliberate action?

[Rep]

Originally Posted by Besoeker:
Weren't all three brought down by deliberate action?

Of course they were, but not eveyone believes every single aspect 100%.

For example, despite the undisputed scientific proof, some still want to lie to themsleves and believe a Boeing hit the pentagon. :-)

Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse? Professor

"Unlike WTC7, the twin towers appear to have been exploded �top-down� rather than proceeding from the bottom � which is unusual for controlled demolition but clearly possible, depending on the order in which explosives are detonated. That is, explosives may have been placed on higher floors of the towers and exploded via radio signals so as to have early explosions near the region where the plane entered the tower. Certainly this hypothesis ought to be seriously considered in an independent investigation using all available data."

"The occurrence of nearly symmetrical, straight-down and complete collapses of the WTC 7 and the Towers is particularly upsetting to the �official� theory that random fires plus damage caused all these collapses. Even with explosives, achieving such results requires a great deal of pre-planning and expertise."

Sorry too much to post - just read the article....

[Rep]

I vaguely remember watching a programme on TV that mentioned a friendship between Osama Bin Laden and some Amercian people. Could it be that Osama was paid and that the whole issue surrounding Twin Towers was a complex set-up becuase of the state of the building, perhaps because it had become a white elephant in the eyes of the insurers?

Add to that the lack of emotion when Bush in a classroom was apparantly told about what had just happened, kinda like men faking surprise even though I know about my surprise Birthday party...

[Rep]