WAR ! or, NATIONAL REFERENDUM ?

You are right, they will not give it to us. We must "insist" on it, by not taking no for an answer! If the people want it, the people are entitled to it...

GENERAL, our government is us, we are the government. therefore, we'll decide.

The world if rife with the threat of peril, and there is usually a downside to everything. However, the people are experiencing only downside at this time, while others are monopolizing all of the upside, by corrupting legislators. We have nothing left to lose at this point, and everything to gain via national referendum.

Every country must consider (per capita cost) relative to population, Switzerland included.
The cost of a national referendum is minute relative to the amount of money which is at stake, and which is currently flying out of our big "tax dollars" window!

However, if we institute mail in ballots, along with online voting, the cost would be insignificant! There is nothing to fear, but fear itself. Doing nothing, is NO LONGER an option.

If that were the case , than a state could secede from the union if it be the choice of the people.

The idea of the government being us is one steeped in idealism vs the system that is actually in place , little by little the people's power continues to be eroded.

Much of the problems with the money being spent is how its being spent and accounted for , for example in canada there is a ombudsman who acts as the citizens protector in these matters in the federal government and every province , there is also the office of the auditor general who oversees the use of public funds on the behalf of the people.

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/admin_e_41.html

The costs of a referendum is quite expensive if it has not been done regularly. I suspect switzerland has invested a lot of money in a infrastructure that can support such a situation however for a nation who does not perform such acts on a regular basis yes the price will be high. In 1995 the Quebec referendum not including money spent by the political parties for and against the situation came in a 70 million for a population around 6-7 million at the time adjusting for 16 years and the fact that the main american sources of news is not a publically funded company the number if referendums were held more often than once every 4 years would easily reach a billion dollars per referendum a number the electorate and the govt wont easily ignore especially in these days and times and that also brings up another important concern , what issues are worthy of a referendum and how do we choose?

once again, the white knight! or, is that the RIGHT knight? lol

I Do not question the cost of the referendum , i just know that it will become a political issue , especially when comparisons are made too the 400 referendums the swiss have had and given that no clear idea having been presented as too how often these proposed referendums would be kept in the U.S

On the topic of a referendum on iraq , one must remember that at the beginning of the iraq war president bush was trusted and as early as december 2001 they began linking iraq to al-qaeda in the aftermath of september 11th people were out for blood and vengeance people blinded by their anger and told that saddam was preparing weapons of mass destruction.Showing satellite footage on tv of where they thought there was WMD's i would submit too you that a referendum on the iraq war at that time could not be conclusively argued that the people would have chosen against it.

As for your site , ill respond to that as soon as i have ample time to read through it.

have a good one sparky

god bless.

Thx! I allow for the possibility that we may be forced to provide for a referendum vote a la "the old fashioned way".

The logic follows: after we referendum vote for complete campaign finance reform, we then have the only lawful pressure to insist that Holder investigate the justices for impropriety, and admonish them into recusal; even if that too requires a referendum vote (we may be changing the laws on supreme court conduct), and then proceed with a revote.

Once we have the power of referendum, (OH, and right of congressional recall as well), and have prohibited any and all corporate contributions to legislators, we'll have a much easier road effecting other necessary changes. But, it will require more constant citizen vigilance than has been effected lately.

I think you'd admit that all sounds rather implausible and impossibly laborious. How about in reverence to our colorful political past we tar and feather them, and run them out of town on a rail?
(I think Justice Roberts, who is secretly a little kinky, might quite enjoy the honor of that actually...)

I would approve tar and feathering if it were plausible, and in the end, it may indeed come to that. However, if the people truly unite sufficiently to demand reform, I do not think this is implausible or too costly. What is too costly, in my view, is accepting status quo and waiting on voting as usual to remedy what it hasn't so far been able to do!

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.
Thomas Jefferson

You are entirely right about the cost of accepting the status quo and on the interminable delay for the marginal chance to affect real change by the passive, (and sadly, easily manipulated) mode of voting every four years.
It's tragic that the democratic republic a few gifted colonists tried to form has come to this.
Well, they were aware of that. "A republic" they said, "if you can keep it."
They were deeply aware of current and historical tyrannies and familiar enough with the failures of men to understand it was a tenuous venture and one that would require periodic revolutionary intervention.
Good on you for your efforts.
There is a lot at stake here and much to be done.
You have my hands and heart for anything I can do to help.

thx. partner! good lookin...

your kind and generous, but thank you.

glad to be back...