177Views58Replies

Author Options:

the american form of government Answered

Picture of
this a pretty informitive video


50 Replies

user
The Ideanator (author)2009-09-04

Although I feel that mandatory remedial English is a bit mean, I agree that something of that nature is necessary for any educational institution. I cant really find anything about class changes on the website at a glance, but I'm going to have to dig deeper and/or talk to the admins after the weekend.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
The Ideanator (author)2009-09-04

Lolz. Sorry but the headaches, (I ache all over cause of those stupid backless lab stools) My classes are fine so far, but I have a math prof. with a thick polish/french accent, which is sad cause I cant understand him, and also bad cause I need all that math to transfer to UofM. :-(

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
seandogue (author)2009-08-29

That, in my opinion, is one beautiful video. I just wish I could force a few people I know to watch it.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
A good name (author)seandogue2009-09-02

@sean - forcing other people to do things is totaltarianism.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
seandogue (author)A good name2009-09-02

lol....If you knew them you might feel the same, totalitarianism or not.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
A good name (author)seandogue2009-09-02

This video is terrible anyways.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
seandogue (author)A good name2009-09-02

Ah...Ok, you're entitled to your opinion I suppose. I see from your profile that you're just a child. I suppose I should expect those sorts of comments from you. You're naive (that means ignorant, or, in plainer terms, un-educated), so I guess comments like yours are to be expected. I'd suggest that you get a proper education on the topic before you comment on topics that are beyond your educational or conceptual scope. Further, you aren't even American, so it really doesn't involve or apply to you, now does it? (that's what's called a rhetorical question, which means that I neither desire, nor intend for you to reply)

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
The Ideanator (author)seandogue2009-09-04

OUCH! thats got to hurt! sean, dude, try not to be sooo patronizing to others, remember rules #3-9!

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
seandogue (author)The Ideanator2009-09-04

Bad mood rising... patience @ 2.8%

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
The Ideanator (author)seandogue2009-09-04

No coffee this morning, I suspect?

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Rock Soldier (author)2009-08-27

Wait, so in a Republic, unless every one declares the *gun man* guilty, he goes free?

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
wenpherd (author)Rock Soldier2009-08-27

after they have heard evidance from the witnesses, and what if the "gunman" is inocent and all but one of the linchmen just want to see a hanging? that is a democrocy.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Rock Soldier (author)wenpherd2009-08-27

I'm sorry that doesn't answer my question. I'm not saying I am supporting democrocy, I just wanted to see if that's what the Narrator meant.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
trebuchet03 (author)Rock Soldier2009-08-27

In US Law... ALL of your peers must agree the evidence shows you are guilty for a guilty verdict. If even one peer believes you are innocent, then the verdict is not guilty. Colloquially you may have heard "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." This is where law protects you from your fellow man (or woman :p). I can't speak for other countries. But the point was, the process is by law and not mob.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

No, all your peers must decide one way or the other, otherwise the jury is "hung" and a mistrial is declared, then retrial is at the discretion of the DA.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

So basically, if one person believes that your innocent, they go other everything again and again before they all agree?

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

Generally because people are social animals and want approval of the groupo, the dissenter is bullied into submission.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

Gee, haven't you seen Twelve Angry Men? It works the other waydoesn't it?

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
skunkbait (author)kelseymh2009-09-02

Haven't seen twelve angry men, but last time the hotwater heater broke, I saw two dirty boys and a frustrated woman!

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

Doh! That'll teach me to write so late :p

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

BTW I was half expecting you to present the HPV project in Senior Design last night.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

I'm not in O-town anymore (or at least at the moment) :(

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

I usually try to avoid posting early, that's when I've posted some major mistakes, same reason I avoid morning classes ;-).

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Rock Soldier (author)trebuchet032009-08-27

Huh. That prove a major flaw.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
wenpherd (author)Rock Soldier2009-08-28

oh, and if you can come to me with a better form of goverment be my guest

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Rock Soldier (author)wenpherd2009-08-28

That was to trebuckets explenation. When Tool using animal corrected him, my comment basically became invalid. The major flaw was if one person thinks your innocent, then your free to go, meaning you could pay the person to vote not guilty, or the person could be your friend, and vote not guilty because of that.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
wenpherd (author)Rock Soldier2009-08-28

well, they carfully interview the jurry, and they make sure that none of them know anything about the case or about being in the jurry.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Rock Soldier (author)wenpherd2009-08-28

I see. That's a good idea.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
wenpherd (author)Rock Soldier2009-08-28

oh and the only reason your friend would be in there is if he was a characture witness or just plain witness.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
wenpherd (author)Rock Soldier2009-08-28

have you ever seen twelve angry men?

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Rock Soldier (author)wenpherd2009-08-28

I'm sure I have, but just don't remember it,

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Lithium Rain (author)2009-08-27

The Amarican form of government?

I weep for our future...

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
skunkbait (author)Lithium Rain2009-09-02
user

I too weep for our future, especially with the likes of the flat earth society and conservapedia affiliates walking our streets. *checks coming apocalypse survival kit*

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

Think of it like our economy. It gets bad, but it gets better...after a while...Sometimes a long while, but better is still better, no matter how bad it is.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

I meant the misspelling...

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
DJ Radio (author)Lithium Rain2009-08-27

Its not America, its the interwebz and text talk.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

That's why she weeps for the future, not just Amarica's future ;-)

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

Oh, ok. I thought she was implying America's future.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

Well, if she weeps for the global future, that implies she also weeps for the local future.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

I didn't notice that misspelling. At all...i fele stoopid write aboot now.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
PKM (author)2009-08-28

Hmm.. this is a persuasive, rational-sounding argument, certainly- I was expecting something a bit more like The End of the World from the animated bit on the thumbnail.

I was watching for any thinly-veiled references to contemporary political arguing points (NAFTA, gun control, health insurance reform, etc.- the usual things people argue about on the internet) using the past as a metaphor to promote a certain viewpoint and I didn't really catch any besides "small government FTW" which seems to be the whole point. Did anyone with more political acumen than me catch any?

Alternatively, can someone who knows their history/classics comment on how accurate the portrayal of the decline of the roman empire was? I had an idea it was more complicated than the video made it out to be, and "excessive government -> subsidies and trade restrictions -> economic downturn -> issues" has some parallels with what's going on now, though I'm not qualified to comment on possible motivation for drawing this parallel.

Still, it's interesting to learn about the real intent behind the DoI and the Constitution.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
seandogue (author)PKM2009-08-29

I can't say that I have more or less politicial acumen than you, but I suppose if one is opposed to a Republican form of government, then I'm sure they could find fault, but I sure couldn't. I've been arguing much the same point to deaf ears among my contemporaries for years. And I supose if many of them were to watch it, they'd be foaming at the mouth claiming the video is a well-financed product of you'll have to trust me on the foam thing...

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
ItsTheHobbs (author)2009-08-28

So, from what I gather from this video, a republic is the ideal form of government as long as the politicians are good people?

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
ItsTheHobbs (author)ItsTheHobbs2009-08-28

And you misspelled America.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer