<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: America the Nonpartisan I</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/10/12/america-the-nonpartisan-i/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/10/12/america-the-nonpartisan-i/</link>
	<description>Men&#039;s Rights Activism, MRA Politics, Analysis, Commentary and Global News</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 05:12:59 -1000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Roger F. Gay</title>
		<link>http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/10/12/america-the-nonpartisan-i/comment-page-1/#comment-53065</link>
		<dc:creator>Roger F. Gay</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Oct 2007 10:07:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/10/12/america-the-nonpartisan-i/#comment-53065</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m not enough of a constitutional scholar to provide references and quotes, but I do know that partisan politics was discussed and debated at length when the constitution was formulated. I have to agree with some commentators at the time that partisanship, even if it is informal, is in the nature of the beast. If voters think more in terms of issues than parties however, I believe representatives will be free to and better pressured to represent their communities than their parties. If we can&#039;t do that, then it&#039;s my view that we should embrace partisan politics in a healthier way - by changing the constitution to give us a partisan system of proportional representation. This approach is much more popular in democracies around the world than the simple winner-take-all system of ours.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m not enough of a constitutional scholar to provide references and quotes, but I do know that partisan politics was discussed and debated at length when the constitution was formulated. I have to agree with some commentators at the time that partisanship, even if it is informal, is in the nature of the beast. If voters think more in terms of issues than parties however, I believe representatives will be free to and better pressured to represent their communities than their parties. If we can&#8217;t do that, then it&#8217;s my view that we should embrace partisan politics in a healthier way &#8211; by changing the constitution to give us a partisan system of proportional representation. This approach is much more popular in democracies around the world than the simple winner-take-all system of ours.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Artfldgr</title>
		<link>http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/10/12/america-the-nonpartisan-i/comment-page-1/#comment-53012</link>
		<dc:creator>Artfldgr</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:44:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/10/12/america-the-nonpartisan-i/#comment-53012</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;Constitutional authors intended that each vote would be cast for a person – not a party. The voting process we use today, which identifies party affiliation at the time of voting and makes it convenient to cast a partisan vote, did not begin without controversy. There is no doubt in my mind that this change has led to a more partisan view of politics.&lt;/i&gt;

Hi Roger, 
   There is something else going on here too, and it’s fundamental. You’re so close to realizing it that it’s almost painful for me to watch. 

When we switched over as a populace from voting for individuals to putting into groups instead, we lost fundamental control of our political system. 

If you give your money to an individual, and that individual does not get money from its supporting group, then the American citizen has power in their government. 

Fundamentally the true American power in its political system is NOT the votes, but the ability to give or withdraw favor in monetary form.  

Like water to individuals in a group of plants, the gardener can choose who does better by giving or withdrawing sustenance.  However if the gardener is forced to water the whole group, there is no means of mediating control from that end of the equation, the only thing left is to pull weeds (and our political system is VERY loath to pull weeds – and for good and bad reasons).

If we give our money to a ‘party’ the party leaders decide who goes up and who we get to vote on.  Ever wonder why the candidates are not that liked?  Easy, they are not put up their because they are chosen by us to represent our needs and such going into the future, but are selected by the party for the needs of the party for the purpose of furthering party goals and have no need whatsoever to listen to the constituency since the process makes them all contradictory in their requests anyway. 

The party acts like a collection well that prevents the water from flowing separately into each area based on where its directed from the source. It forces all that value to go through a bottleneck that strips the mandate of the giver, and replaces it with the mandate of the party. 




There is absolutely no way to get power back to the people unless this changes. Fundamentally there is NO way for the people to effect change any more, nor since the start of this practice.   

This is made worse by the fact that state charity, something forbidden by the constitution (just read “not yours to give” from the congressional record), is a means of that party to take 100 dollars out of your pocket and bribe you with 50 dollars of your own money as a rebate, and then take the other part and bribe other states, entities, people, companies, etc. 

Socialism allows them to bribe you with your own money!! 

Funneling the contributions through the party strips the power of the people from the people, while at the same time promising them more participation if they do this. the point is that they will have more personal participation if they stop doing it, and that would be from not having to rely on the lords and ladies to grant such participation for a few as a teaser of potential for the rest to perceive participation. 

It’s a nice job if you can get it. but I would advise washing your hands after and not talking about it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>Constitutional authors intended that each vote would be cast for a person – not a party. The voting process we use today, which identifies party affiliation at the time of voting and makes it convenient to cast a partisan vote, did not begin without controversy. There is no doubt in my mind that this change has led to a more partisan view of politics.</i></p>
<p>Hi Roger,<br />
   There is something else going on here too, and it’s fundamental. You’re so close to realizing it that it’s almost painful for me to watch. </p>
<p>When we switched over as a populace from voting for individuals to putting into groups instead, we lost fundamental control of our political system. </p>
<p>If you give your money to an individual, and that individual does not get money from its supporting group, then the American citizen has power in their government. </p>
<p>Fundamentally the true American power in its political system is NOT the votes, but the ability to give or withdraw favor in monetary form.  </p>
<p>Like water to individuals in a group of plants, the gardener can choose who does better by giving or withdrawing sustenance.  However if the gardener is forced to water the whole group, there is no means of mediating control from that end of the equation, the only thing left is to pull weeds (and our political system is VERY loath to pull weeds – and for good and bad reasons).</p>
<p>If we give our money to a ‘party’ the party leaders decide who goes up and who we get to vote on.  Ever wonder why the candidates are not that liked?  Easy, they are not put up their because they are chosen by us to represent our needs and such going into the future, but are selected by the party for the needs of the party for the purpose of furthering party goals and have no need whatsoever to listen to the constituency since the process makes them all contradictory in their requests anyway. </p>
<p>The party acts like a collection well that prevents the water from flowing separately into each area based on where its directed from the source. It forces all that value to go through a bottleneck that strips the mandate of the giver, and replaces it with the mandate of the party. </p>
<p>There is absolutely no way to get power back to the people unless this changes. Fundamentally there is NO way for the people to effect change any more, nor since the start of this practice.   </p>
<p>This is made worse by the fact that state charity, something forbidden by the constitution (just read “not yours to give” from the congressional record), is a means of that party to take 100 dollars out of your pocket and bribe you with 50 dollars of your own money as a rebate, and then take the other part and bribe other states, entities, people, companies, etc. </p>
<p>Socialism allows them to bribe you with your own money!! </p>
<p>Funneling the contributions through the party strips the power of the people from the people, while at the same time promising them more participation if they do this. the point is that they will have more personal participation if they stop doing it, and that would be from not having to rely on the lords and ladies to grant such participation for a few as a teaser of potential for the rest to perceive participation. </p>
<p>It’s a nice job if you can get it. but I would advise washing your hands after and not talking about it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Roger F. Gay</title>
		<link>http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/10/12/america-the-nonpartisan-i/comment-page-1/#comment-53009</link>
		<dc:creator>Roger F. Gay</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:07:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/10/12/america-the-nonpartisan-i/#comment-53009</guid>
		<description>testing</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>testing</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
