freedom includes the freedom to choose one's own government, like you've said so many times in this thread. so the iranian anger at the american support of shah pahlavi is justified?
Two party system works great in a court of law, one person challenges another, and the other has to defend himself. It does not work particularly well in the political system as large as the USA's as two parties could have such a grip on the populace that essentially things aren't as challenged as much as they should be. I would say a system that was better suited for making sure each vote counts. I live in a Republican township in a Democratic county and state. My vote counts more if I am republican, because of the primaries on the state and county level but counts more if I was a democrat on the township level.
Now imagine this, you counted up all the votes in the entire country and found that X persons voted for Y third party. And that X is statistically significant that it would mean that the Y should have 3 representative seats and 1-2 senate seats. Then you could reward that party some sort of seat of power to make sure that those views of that party are also heard. As it is now, they don't get the chance, only by joining a Rep or Dem party do they, and then they are just called crazy. I say let them have their voice in the house and senates of states and federal government, where then they can be called crazy on a more formal and debatable level. Right now those voices are silenced. I would be down for even Nazi's or religious nutjubs to have a power in that, where then people actually in power can point out the flaws in chambers of the political system.
Now imagine this, you counted up all the votes in the entire country and found that X persons voted for Y third party. And that X is statistically significant that it would mean that the Y should have 3 representative seats and 1-2 senate seats. Then you could reward that party some sort of seat of power to make sure that those views of that party are also heard. As it is now, they don't get the chance, only by joining a Rep or Dem party do they, and then they are just called crazy. I say let them have their voice in the house and senates of states and federal government, where then they can be called crazy on a more formal and debatable level. Right now those voices are silenced. I would be down for even Nazi's or religious nutjubs to have a power in that, where then people actually in power can point out the flaws in chambers of the political system.
The anger of many people at Americans is justified. I'm certainly not thrilled when any nation, especially my own, supports a non-elected government.Krappyappy wrote:
freedom includes the freedom to choose one's own government, like you've said so many times in this thread. so the iranian anger at the american support of shah pahlavi is justified?
supporting non elected governments is the US's specialty. what pisses other people off is the fact that the US does this while spouting rubbish about freedom and democracy.
hrmm listen to michael savage he will tell ya whats wrong...
i don't need other people to tell me what's right or wrong, especially not conservative radio pundits.
No, the US has plenty of other specialties. Looking at our history one of the best is killing pigmented people. Then again we're also good at inventing the majority of the things that have been invented in the past century.Krappyappy wrote:
supporting non elected governments is the US's specialty. what pisses other people off is the fact that the US does this while spouting rubbish about freedom and democracy.
Even if the actions are somewhat hypocritical sometimes, most of the time when the US supports a government it's supporting one that kills far less people than the alternative.
No thanks, I can think for myself. Unlike most people I can actually form my own opinions and don't been Rush or O'Reilly or Stewart to tell me how to think.Demadin wrote:
hrmm listen to michael savage he will tell ya whats wrong...
haha... george carlin?FeloniousMonk wrote:
No, the US has plenty of other specialties. Looking at our history one of the best is killing pigmented people
i disagree about the us inventing a 'majority' of things in the past century, but that has no bearing on this topic so i won't elaborate.
Carlos Mencia.Krappyappy wrote:
haha... george carlin?FeloniousMonk wrote:
No, the US has plenty of other specialties. Looking at our history one of the best is killing pigmented people
i disagree about the us inventing a 'majority' of things in the past century, but that has no bearing on this topic so i won't elaborate.
well carlin said it first, probably. the man is teh old.
indeed, but still one of the best
3 of the major wars involved fighting those without pigmentation. Civil War, WWI, WWII. Damn Krauts had to start things twice last century.
"All the best white people are not in Europe, they're in America - they haven't won a war without our help since you guys left!" - Mencia
come again????????????????Horseman 77 wrote:
It " appears " to be easily manipulated at best.
Most Citizens in the U.S.A. really don't understand its workings and
don't see its very good points which are many.
I do not really follow or study political science so a good one may already exist ( I am sure it does in fact ).
But it always strikes me that most people here ( even the really provincial thinkers ) seem very bright at best and I'd like to see some thoughts on it.
Try not to measure or evaluate the opposing posters as this is a difficult place to judge people and talk is pretty cheap. Most people just want to make a point or share an opinion.
If it turns into a brawl, what harm done.
Americans and their "evil" communists. Communism was a dream, a very good one at thay (do what you are capeble of, recive what you need...rembemer?). Those who know how Marx vission for the communist state worked. Know that one; the USSR lived up to these ideals for less then one year. Two; That in fact no "true" communsit state have been, ever. Three; It became just that...a dream. And none have come even close.FeloniousMonk wrote:
Doesn't matter if the child hasn't earned it. The parent has achieved that point and is allowed to give his child whatever he pleases. You think that child should be taken away from his family because he didn't "earn" his parents' wealth?
Communists feel the need to fix it by punishing those who are smarter. It's ridiculous to think that suffering can be eliminated; there isn't a single aspect of life on earth that doesn't involve suffering. Either way it still doesn't justify punishing the wealthy. In your mind do two wrong make a right?
I don't give two shits about tournaments, we're talking reality here. If you're touting a position then why aren't you supporting it with your actions? I don't argue a single position that I don't stand by in my daily life.
I know that the social democratic rule in in Norway, Sweeden, Iceland and Danmark works very well. (Norway is still nr. 1 at the HDI ranking.)
Last edited by Speed84 (2005-12-21 23:22:40)
To me, that's the inherent problem with communism. When I'm only given what I need why on earth would I work any harder than what will get me that amount? If my reward is directly proportional to the amount of work I put in then I actually have incentive to bust my ass and produce to the best of my ability.(do what you are capeble of, recive what you need...rembemer?)
Why do the best Canadian doctor's frequently move to the US to work? Because here they actually get paid for being the best doctors around as opposed to earning the same as any dingbat physician that barely manages to keep his patients alive. All those nations you mentioned were once capitalist states and none, especially Sweden, would be able to sustain a socialist lifestyle were it not for the infrastructure and savings from having been a free market in the past.
What about those that can only work 50% and have 4 kids to take care of? In the us, social security is a joke. Not there is anyting funny with it.
Good Norwegian doctores don't move to the us, even if it meens that they get a higher sallery. When it comes to the economy of the Scandianvian states. The social democratic system was adopted in full first after ww2. Howerver social reforms started as early as the 1900. Danmark and Norway had to rebild it's economy from scratch after the war. There was no saveings to speak of. What little was left was used to rebild the nations. But still we bulit the "welfare state". (no easy feat!)
These nations have never been capitalist states on the lines of the us. They use two systems in tandem; planed economy and market economy. Due to the us Marchal plan, they did not take to fully planed economy after the war.
My poit is this; why is it that the ritchest state in the world can not take care of its own citizans? But smaller nations can? (Even Germany makes a better effort!) The capitalist system is exporting jobs to remain "competitive", and still you will hang youre life on a system that is breaking up under your feet...why?
I have been in the us (for a year), and still retian most of the friends I got. So this was no Micael More rant. But if you meen there is something I might be less informed on. When comes to why you (us) dont change things. Please reduce my ignorance of the subject.
Good Norwegian doctores don't move to the us, even if it meens that they get a higher sallery. When it comes to the economy of the Scandianvian states. The social democratic system was adopted in full first after ww2. Howerver social reforms started as early as the 1900. Danmark and Norway had to rebild it's economy from scratch after the war. There was no saveings to speak of. What little was left was used to rebild the nations. But still we bulit the "welfare state". (no easy feat!)
These nations have never been capitalist states on the lines of the us. They use two systems in tandem; planed economy and market economy. Due to the us Marchal plan, they did not take to fully planed economy after the war.
My poit is this; why is it that the ritchest state in the world can not take care of its own citizans? But smaller nations can? (Even Germany makes a better effort!) The capitalist system is exporting jobs to remain "competitive", and still you will hang youre life on a system that is breaking up under your feet...why?
I have been in the us (for a year), and still retian most of the friends I got. So this was no Micael More rant. But if you meen there is something I might be less informed on. When comes to why you (us) dont change things. Please reduce my ignorance of the subject.
Those that can only work 50% shouldn't have four kids. If you can't afford to raise a child then you shouldn't have one. I know it's easier said than done but the point is that those four kids are not my responsibility[.
Because we spend half a trillion dollars on national and international defense so that you don't have to.My poit is this; why is it that the ritchest state in the world can not take care of its own citizans? But smaller nations can?
i hardly think altruism in defense is what motivates congress to spend those untold billions every year. us hegemony is for the benefit of the us, not anyone else.
still not off the communism topic?
still not off the communism topic?
I'm not saying that there is any altruism involved but the EU does inherently benefit this way. Without the presence of the US armed forces every nation in the EU would most certainly be spending more money on their own defense. The UN is only able to enforce its' rules when backed by the strength of the US military.
Spending funds so I dont have to? True during the 50's, in part. Not today (not since 1958) , the reason Norway use G-3, MP-5, MG-3 (german weaponary) is that us support was removed. The only american thing i know of is; B2HB, M72 and the F-16. But the latter two is fased out.
Not your responsebility/shouldn't have four kids? The state is responseble for its citizans. Young and old. You simply forgot it? no! Punish the children due to that their father was laid off (only an example)? Then state that they shouldn't have four kids? Every man for himself? We know how that works...look to a 30% of americas children, living in poverty. Tragic.
The US have never had a presence in Norwar and several other European nations. Norway, Sweeden and Danmark use conscription, due to the fact that we can't rely on help from others. Twice have ny nation sufferd due to that we belived that someone else would help us. If war comes, we hope that NATO wil come...but we wil not be holding our breath!
As for the EU. The fact is that the EU is rasing a common military. (Have trained with 1. German/Dutch Regiment) The UN have never "enfoced" its rules. Thats a very grave missconseption. Member states rattify the conventions, and the member state enfore thise withinn their borders. International law comes from cooperation, not force!
PS: why has the us not rattefied the UN Childrens Rights convention and has broken the US convention against torture? no pwn intended.
Back to the topic:
Who can think of a better system than the Two Party. ?
More local democraty. The US is to vast to have one singe set of legislation, and goverment. Culture and preceptions differs from state to state, and the shear size of the nation makes the individual powerless to shape the his future. On a natinal level.
Not your responsebility/shouldn't have four kids? The state is responseble for its citizans. Young and old. You simply forgot it? no! Punish the children due to that their father was laid off (only an example)? Then state that they shouldn't have four kids? Every man for himself? We know how that works...look to a 30% of americas children, living in poverty. Tragic.
The US have never had a presence in Norwar and several other European nations. Norway, Sweeden and Danmark use conscription, due to the fact that we can't rely on help from others. Twice have ny nation sufferd due to that we belived that someone else would help us. If war comes, we hope that NATO wil come...but we wil not be holding our breath!
As for the EU. The fact is that the EU is rasing a common military. (Have trained with 1. German/Dutch Regiment) The UN have never "enfoced" its rules. Thats a very grave missconseption. Member states rattify the conventions, and the member state enfore thise withinn their borders. International law comes from cooperation, not force!
PS: why has the us not rattefied the UN Childrens Rights convention and has broken the US convention against torture? no pwn intended.
Back to the topic:
Who can think of a better system than the Two Party. ?
More local democraty. The US is to vast to have one singe set of legislation, and goverment. Culture and preceptions differs from state to state, and the shear size of the nation makes the individual powerless to shape the his future. On a natinal level.
There are communist parties that the US citizens can elect but of course we won't because communism is a failure and is never going to happen.
Wake me up when there is Boobs