How would you fix the U.S Government?

Conservatives prefer soldiers over teachers. Isn't that obvious?

of course!

i think that this government and the world is to screwed over and complicated to fix. we should start from scratch! i propose a world government, similar to the un, only with more power and the ability to interfere with all lands.

They don't work; haven't you been informed from what's happened in Europe?

They've created more problems than they can or have solved. Their problems are multiplying - not decreasing.

Have cicerone imposter drive Obama south of the border and don't let either of them re-enter the US.

The prefer terrorists to children too... What is the point??? That they prefer braun to brains??? They want action, and they need change... What they get is all bad, going from worse to worser... I am with them if it means it gets bad all of a sudden with the hope of getting better sooner... It is a choice between suicide or cancer and right now this country has a cancer called the capitalist class...

As long as every nation no matter how small or large has a veto on what they consider injustice on the part of others... It is what we need in this country... Democracy should be defensive and if it does not protect groups or individuals from predation it is not worth spit and cannot be democratic... People need a reason to go along... Everyone should get greased...

isnt world peace reason enough???

No!!! You can have all the peace you want under tyranny... Peace with justice may be the point though rare it is...

tyranny means 1(!) single leader rooting back in greece. a dictator. i dont think the U.S government has a tyrant. also, back in ancient times, a tyrant wasnt necessarily bad, and could sometimes be beneficial to society.

That's true; some kings started out as "tyrants," but allowed more freedoms and equality for his citizens during their rein. I believe that's what happened in England, and how common law was established. There are some examples of that also in some Asian countries.

Tyrant has more the meaning of an illigitimate ruler... Oedipus was Oedipus tyrannus, while his father, whom he killed, was legitimate and king... And even Hitler and Musolini made their claim to popular support... Tyrannies have often claimed to ba acting for the benefit of the common man and demanded their support... The difference between a tyranny and a democracy is the defense given to minorities...

Rather than "defense given to minorities," I'd say it's about equal treatment for everyone under its laws.

well, if you state that you ARENT acting for the good of the common man, then you definitely don't get their support.

Would you not agree that equality under the law is an attempt at the defense of minorities... We know that it fails, and that the only real defense is consensus which can make of any minority so many tyrants... Politically, our system which we call majority rule is not democracy, and it allows any majority formed on any basis the ability to rule as tyrants over the minority... I like the idea of consensus, and not because it is fast, but because it is fair, and no majority no matter how contrived can make meat of the rights of the minority... I like it, and think the best and strongest and most successful democracies were founded on consensus... Everyone should get greased... We should all profit... We should all have a piece of the action, a piece of the commonwealth... Look only at the war in Iraq, what was made to happen on the power of a slight majority managed with lies for which the financial burden is born by the people... Government for the people, by the people and of the people will not exist so long as only a majority needs to be managed to manage the whole country... It may be better than out and out dictatorship, but what sort of advertizement is that??? Majority rule is still rule and not democracy...

I do not recall asking for his support... Hitler promised living space in Russia and gave dying space... What some power gives they can take... I want people to have power in their own lives... The notion that if one has a right, that a majority can take that right is false and stupid, and is ultimately destructive of the entire democracy because it divides people rather than uniting them...

If Aristotle is correct that governments are formed for good, and ours seems to be that as well, then where is the good in dividing the people, and keeping people forever on guard for their rights??? Government if they are for good should defend all rights that are true rights and find the measure of rights... That is: If a person claims a right, and the right harms no one, and even if the right may cause offense to some, then the government must defend the right unless some one can show an injury... We have many rights, called rights at least, that cause much social injury and yet are protected as rights... How can the government protect activity that injures unless it takes the side of the injurer against the injured, and in doing that, how can it be good, or be protective of true rights??? A government which furthers the injury of its citizens based upon ideological grounds is not legitimate...

a government NEEDS people to govern over. the people are in charge of the government.

Good answer. I concur.

In a democracy the people should govern themselves... They are not in charge of the government... They are the government... The fact that the people are neither the government, nor can get the government to respond to their needs is significant... Property, which is to say those with property have priority access to government... We can send any number, but they can corrupt more people than we can send... We can change parties or people in government to a point, but we are working at such long distance in trying to fix anything it is like trying to thread a needle with a fishing pole...

We say: We are a government of laws and not of men... What the hell does that mean??? Are we not supposed to have a government of the people, for the people, and by the people??? Does it mean that people long dead serving the interest of class did bind us with laws we cannot change because we have no power??? Every year has added to the inertia and intractablilty of government... Parties were a curse in England, but they were never considered in the constitution... It was thought enough that the wealthy class could check the popular democracy through the Senate, the Supreme Court, and the Electoral College... Parties are an unofficial arm of government, and to move government the people must first move the parties...The question I have is: Does it work???

The parties limited our democracy... They fixed the numbers of members in the one democratic part of government... Where once we had one representative for every thirty thousand we have now one rep for every 600K+... On top of that, three quarters of those districts have been divided into safe districts, and gerrymandered to stay safe... The parties are doing their best to turn this nation into a land of rotten bouroughs... What sort of government results from the manipulation of the people... My question is: Does it work???

no.