Occupy Wall Street protesters were a group of brave individuals who took a stand on the issues that they believed in, they should never be addressed as occupiers. The individuals that are a part of the Tea Party movement want American citizens to believe that the Occupy Wall Street protestors are nothing but occupiers. If they can control the way American citizens think in issues such as the debt crisis and on how to resolve the deficit than they can persuade the people to choose solutions to the problems that will benefit the party instead of the people. Instead of opening up the argument so that the citizens can have a say in the decision like the occupiers strive to do, they want to close the argument
When the case is proceeding, I sat down and took the notes about the conversation between defendant and judge. I found this kind of open court is so fair and judge could not make any preference on defendant or plaintiff, because everybody is listening. Moreover, I thought everyone should abide by contract, if I had the contract with everybody in the business or something, I should abide by, if I breached the rule of law, then I should pay the compensation. Besides this, I felt that I am one member of the country, and I have the right to protect myself and use law to protect my own rights, therefore in the future, when I graduated from the university, if I did the business and had the contract with any party, I knew how to use the knowledge and skills which I learned from my experience of the court to protect myself and others. I learned that violence could not make things better, the violence only could made things worse.
Faced with all this various obstacles, there’s no way the President will ever become too powerful and thus pose a threat to democracy. The Madisonian system (separation of powers and checks and balances) is strong enough to check and prevent such tendencies. In my perspective, the President isn’t ‘strong enough’ to stand up to the diverse interests in the United States and that’s because the Senate overpowers him. Also because the process to get things done is extremely long, frustrating and never reasoned by the people. The President is a human being like you and I.
Eric Anderson Journalism 310 Professor Boeck 23 November 2008 Should there be a Federal Shield Law? Most people can attest that honesty, loyalty, and integrity all construct the solid foundation for which trust is built upon. If any of these values were to be broken, then trust would become eradicated. Picture yourself being a journalist and a person contacts you with vital information about an internal investigation within the Los Angeles Police department. No officers have been caught engaging in any illegal activity, but the male’s testimony, along with documents provided, can serve as the catalyst for making the corrupt officers ostensible.
If these companies weren’t being government run in some form or another, there would be no immunity to these laws. Nobody else has immunity, thus there has to be a correlation just like the one with the ministries and government in 1984. To sum of the findings of this article, the facts are that these service providers are essentially getting away with breaking the law; however it’s not at the government’s expense, like in the book it’s at the people’s expense, ours. This concept of constant surveillance is the epitome of what this country doesn’t stand for. It’s the “land of the free” not the land of the
For those that believe in the theory a true pluralist society, the rights of interest groups to compete may be seen as none thing short of necessary. This competition is a way to ensure that no one person or group always achieves the goal they set out for. If that right to compete and lobby is taken away then a true pluralism is impossible. Nearly half of all interest groups don’t have that right because it has been taken away by government. In the book A Voice for Nonprofits author Jeffrey M. Berry and David F. Arons does a noteworthy job of doing exactly what the title says: giving a voice to nonprofits.
The movie also addressed the political schemes that happens in this country and the people of the country have no idea what is going on and what is taking place during the mist of the schemes in congress. As the audience I agreed with the political views the movie underlined. The reason I agree with this cause is because of the proof that has been shown that we as the people of the United States had no idea that were going on in out=r own political parties. The movie represents that in such a way by using Shaw and his
I think American government does a fairly good job of compromising with the people. A negative aspect of American government in my opinion is how it makes people feel. I don’t know much about government at all, but I feel like it should bring people together, not put them on opposite sides of the fence. I know that people have different wants and needs with everything in life, including what they want out of a government. But I still feel like something could be done to combine the wants and needs of all people.
But what is this feeling that marginalizes Americans? How can Americans discern this feeling from any other if their entire lives all they have known is a two party system? Arguments from supporters of any emerging third party are only speculations of a better system, in reality there is no concrete proof that in America a multi-party system would work. Americans know this and whatever the desire for change is the current system provides democracy that has been seen, felt, and lived. The two-party system is so resilient because it has become a part of politics that no amount of speculations will
are having their constitutional rights being kept from them which is a serious violation of the inalienable rights guaranteed to every American citizen. With the right to vote being the most important right in a free country, having the right taken away due to the complications of bureaucracy and the polarization of our political parties should make any responsible citizen confused or disgusted. Washington D.C. should be granted statehood because it passes all the requirements for it besides approval from corrupt and broken legislative body. However, there is hope, since we are a democracy, know your next congressman’s stance on this debate and maybe we can restore the American way of life to 600,000 silenced citizens. Works Cited Davis Jr., DeWitt.