So did Sadam Husseins. It was a system, not one most people would approve of, but it still worked.Quote:
Originally Posted by mkemse
What I'm getting at is just because it's what we have and what is working doesn't make it the best option.
Printable View
So did Sadam Husseins. It was a system, not one most people would approve of, but it still worked.Quote:
Originally Posted by mkemse
What I'm getting at is just because it's what we have and what is working doesn't make it the best option.
:11:Quote:
Originally Posted by idcrewdawg
Quote:
Originally Posted by noam chomsky
True but in this Country you cna vote for who ever you want and not worry asbout being shot, imprisoned ect you have freedom of choice here, in Iraq you realy did not under himQuote:
Originally Posted by IDCrewDawg
Thomas Jefferson said it well: Democracy is an ongoing experiment.
True but our Experiment has for the most part gone pretty well through out our History, the choices may not have been great, but we can vocaly support who we want critisize those we don't want and no end up in jail, beaten or killed for doing soQuote:
Originally Posted by Stealth694
I'd add the caveats 'lately', 'usually', and 'if you're a white male land owner' to that. But that said, America is better than a lot of other places. Mostly what I like about is the geography though. The rest of it is pretty much the same as everywhere else I've been, more or less.Quote:
Originally Posted by mkemse
America... fuck yeah!
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkemse
We pretend to vote for who we want. Even if the popular vote is won, it doesn't mean that person gets into office (as was the case of the Bush/Gore election).
We may not get shot in the street for speaking our mind against a leader, but I can bet you that things become increasingly difficult for you when you do (at least under the current administration).
I love America, I love its people, and I love how imperfect it is and don't want to live anywhere else. I won't however say it is the best at anything over any other country. We just spend more on our military so anyone who does something better suddenly has a change in government.
No I agree we are imperfect but we have managed to survive for over 200years with our system, with no attempt to overthrow the governement (a coupe), no system I have ever seen or read abouti s Perfect but I would like to both think and believe we have the closest system to perfectio of any other Nation on the planet, and i certainlywould not want to live anywhere els,e if for no ther reason, if i did i could not be typing here what I am without fear of me getting into trouble for speaking freelyas far as the current adm, they have made it clearthat they operte on their own rules, they do what they want, when they want, how they want then claim "Excutive Priedge" when Congress tries to investigate, as a matter of fact our current attorney generla was as within the last week or so to appear before Congress regardling the CIA leak, Bush immediately rusfed to allw himto appear invoking "Executive Priveldge" ans withthe except of Thomas Jefferson, if evenb him, NO other President in US Histry has invked Excutive Pridlge as much as Bush has to prevent Congress from interviewing peole who may have broken the lawQuote:
Originally Posted by IDCrewDawg
there is the United States Consistuion, Internation Law, The Geneva Concention and then there are what ever Law(s) the current Adm. wishes to folow on it's own, reffered to I believe as "Bush's Law" which apprently superceedes all other, but this should all end in January of 09
Obama terrifies me. He is an eloquent speaker which I think draws people. He also looks pretty. America is blinded by that. (Not that I am all gung-ho for McCain, but anything is better than the anti-Christ, IMO).
With Obama we can say our final good bye's to a lot of things.
Say good bye to your guns.
Say good bye to justice.
Say good bye to the chance of equality. On many different fields.
Say good bye to the last clinging part of religion in public places. (i.e. Having a personal Bible in school, etc).
Say hello to change. A lot of change. And not for the better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixiedustboo
He will not get rid off all guns, but their is a current issue regarding HAND GUBS not the right to own Rifles ,look at the violence on the streets of Chicago, 99% has been caused by HANDS guns NOT RIFLES, I do not care for guns, does a person have a right to own a gun to defend himself and protect his family and prporty, yes 1000% is there a need to carry a hand gun, no
Justice was gone when the Current Adm took office, Bush has invoked "Excutive Privledge" more then ANY other President In history with the possble exception of Thomas Jefferson, Bush hasallowed illegal wiring tapping, he has set his own rules of Governement, we have not had equalityi n this country for many years, Black are not treated the same as whites, Wooemn gneneraly earn far less in the same jobs then men do, men seem t be permoited more then women, this all goes back years
1 question I do have and I have no seen adressed anywhere, yes the Comstitution gurantees everyone the right to bear arms, BUT where HAND GUNS even around then and if they were not,m then the debate ontherigh to own a hand gun onder the Constition is a MUTE issue as wearedebating about a gun that did not exxist at the time??
There is a Clear Seperation Of Church and State In The Constuttion, I have not seen anything he (Obamam has said about not allowing Bibles In Public School, but to have open Bible Study In Public Schools, in class on Tax Payers Money is a violation of the Seperation of Church and State, State Funded Schools can not under law encourage or Publcy endose 1 religion over anyther, Bible Study does that if a student wishes to carry a Bible with them in a Public School and on HIS or HER own Private time read and study it, that is fine,but to use School time in Class to study and debate the Bible, that Violates the Seperation of Church and State, but that is a different issue, to me no not in Publics Schools that is one of the Various Reaons for Private or Parochial Schools, as a Tax Payer, do I want to "Pay for" or Have Bible Study in Public Schools, no, you need to remian in Priavte schools. I also do not ant to offend anyone by this statement, should the Goverment offer vouchers to attned Private Schools over Pub;lic Scoold. NO thst again would have the stae or states indorsing 1 religion over another which violates the Consistution
My concern with McCain is that he will effectively be 4 more years of Bush, our economy is in terrible shape, more forclosures then any time in hsistory oil is up 450% in 7 years when he (Bush) took office, gas was $1.79 a gallon oil $37.50 a barrel, NO comodity in US History has ever rise 450% in 7 years in US History
We have a lack of choice in Novemmber, but the American People thrugh our Primary system choose who they wanted,maybe not a great choice by any stretch of the imignation but a choice none the less, and unilke MOST countries we did have a choice, we as Americans choose who would run in November, nobody forced anyone to run or not run for office, the Republican Party did not demand we vote for MCCain nor did the Democratic Party Demand we vote for Obama it was an idividual choice, we now have to live with what we decided, as someone onc said "Weall have decsions to make in livfe we then have to livewiththe conciquences of our decsions be they right or rong, and if they arewrng, we can changethings again in 4 years
We has a choice Between a former POW, A Mormon or a Fundamentalist Southern Baptsit on 1 side, on the other Side An African American Male or a Female, and yes therewere other but none ofthen got anywhere, we made as American our decsion who we wanted to run in Novmember, we now have to live with our decsion
Why is the US system any better than our Swedish one for one? To me your system seems too flawed to be anywhere near "the best". Sure it is democracy but you basically have two parties to choose from, and they are both kinda similar. To me perfect would atleast mean more than 2 parties to choose from.Quote:
Originally Posted by mkemse
:je
I did not mean too insinuate we are better then your system,if that is the way i cam across my apologies, it was NOT my intent, what I meant was,We have now and have had in th Past other parties we have had Independnts run, the Librirtarian Party Run, the Green Party Run, but the Public here has decided on their own to stay with the 2 main parties,NO system is 100% perfecr, if there is one that is i have not seen itQuote:
Originally Posted by Logic1
We are not the best, we are flawed and we ppplace are flawns in thefront window forthewhole world to see but we have what MOSt countries do not, and that is CHOICE you do not have choice per sey in Russia, China, Japan, Korea ect no our system is far from perfect but it has lasted over 200 years and if we do not like things we have the chance to change it ever 4 years
I fully support the public being able to own and use hand guns.Quote:
Originally Posted by mkemse
I am not aware of the stats this year but I can guarantee you the public that has CCW's and actually carry their hand guns on their person are not the people America has to fear.
America has to fear those people who don't legally obtain CCW's. Those people who don't legally obtain hand guns...you think if laws are passed to rectify the situation we will be safer? No. We won't. We'll be sitting ducks while the bad guys still get their hand guns. Boom.
thanks for your feedback on the issueQuote:
Originally Posted by pixiedustboo
'Cept for one is the bad guy. :icon176:Quote:
Originally Posted by Logic1
There are only two parties in the U.S. that even have their presidential candidates on the ballots in all 50 states. If the Libertarian or Green presidential candidate isn't even on the ballot, I don't know how you can claim that the people made an informed choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by mkemse
The public never had a choice; people with money chose a two party system because its cheaper... you get the perception of real choice, and the minimum number of candidates to legally bribe with campaign contributions.
Any parliamentary system, like the one Sweden has, is unarguably more democratic than the U.S. system.
LOL! That's hilarious. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by pixiedustboo
Thanks for your comments, they are appreciatedQuote:
Originally Posted by Virulent
BTW how many ACTIVE Poltical Parties does your country have, just curious??
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't Sweden's government a constitutional monarchy, primarly controlled for the most part by one main party; The Social Democratic Party?
(I know Sweden has many other parties, yet I am under the assumtion that the social dems have dominated Swedish politics for 100yrs.)
If that system works fine for Swedes than fine by me.
The United States has many many different parties, just like most governmental systems claiming to be democracys.
Unlike most of the worlds "democracys" the U.S. doesn't use a parlimentary system.
Our system is called direct representative, the individual not the party is elected (as well as other differences), hence no majiority is required to form a government.
This means in the United States, you and your party stand alone. No other parties are going to attach themselves too you for the sake of fulfiling thier own paticular special intrests (because the victor in elections doesnt need them to rule if his party is big enough).
Quite naturally, allmost from the start, a primarly two party system developed to dominant the rest.(strength in numbers)
Our two parties have changed markebly throughout thier individual histories even apparently switching entire political directions. ( at one time it was the dems that were the conservatives and the republicans were the radical liberals)
American politics have allways thrived on controversial stances and lots of fighting between the two main parties.
One time in congress there was even a fist fight between a conservative democrat and an abolisionist (early republican party, see U.S. Civil War for details).
All the low balling and dirty political tricks aside, just can't change the fact that regardless of what type of government system you belong to......that so called "democracy" is just limited voluntary tyranny by any other name.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuskovian
Thanks for your imput and comment
The US is a Republic in order to limit pure democracy. The Founder's did this intentionally, because they recognized that pure democracy is the the tyranny of the majority -- in reality, worse than a dictatorship. Think about it, it's easier to overthrow a dictator than the majority.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virulent
Pure democracy is when seven wolves and a sheep decide what's for lunch. Everybody gets a vote; even the lunch.
1; the Capitalist Party. I'm an American.Quote:
Originally Posted by mkemse
When I die, it will be to no loss; Kuskovian makes me entirely redundant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuskovian
This is true... its important to note though that all of the Founding Fathers were anti-party. Most famously, George Washington's advice: "Let me ... warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally."Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragoczy
The Founding Fathers speeches and writings speak of a republican polity, deferring to state's rights in internal matters, without parties, wherein a vote was for a man not for a party. The Electoral College was created because the Founders believed that there would be numerous candidates, and that the Electoral College was necessary to winnow them down to just a dozen or so.
To be clear though, I'm not saying that the above or any other government would be preferable to the organization that currently takes 28% of my money and spends 22.5% of it on blowing up people who never fucked with me. I don't believe any compulsory statist authority is ethical or advisable.
They did have hand guns back in the days of the founding fathers,, often used in duels, or by highway men and or pirates as well as law abiding citizens,,,,,,just to answer a previous question..
i honestly belive that the corporations are more in charge (even if indirectly) regardless of which party wins in november
i base this in the way our system works
our system is primaraly reactionary, the government responds to stimulus, from several scources, lobbyists, special intrest groups, the media, public out cry, legal case judgements, government burercratic self promotion, and or politically inclined ambitious individuals
the corperate lobbyists make up a numerically small yet advantaged group of these influences, yet is perhaps the most powerful, after all who can afford to "buy" a politician the easist, (much like the roman patron/client system during the republic)
next time you look at who you are voting for, try checking out just who is really backing them finacially one time, its well worth the effort and often enlightening
Well what to say.. what to say.
Whatever form of governing that is the best depends entirely on where it is and who will live by it. There are plenty of countries that democracy just wont work. Take a look at the middle east. The project of enstilling democracy in Iraq is doomed of failure even before it was started. A country like the US or Sweden just isnt gonna work without it cause we have been used to it for so long that our collective minds just cant(or wont) accept anything different.
Iraq actually worked pretty fine with Saddam in power and now it is a hellhole cause that fine balance is desturbed. Different factions are fighting for power and those factions werent powerful enough under Saddams rule to make such a mess as it is now. That is just one example. Yes the Iraqui people werent too fond of him but the truth is that Iraq was a working community and before and just isnt now.
Russia isnt really coping with the democracy that they had. They are a people that seems to need their one strong man.
You might try asking those tens of thousands of people (his OWN people) that Saddam and his sadistic sons had tortured and executed whether their country worked well under Saddam. I doubt they would agree. The same logic applies to Nazi Germany in the 30's. The country prospered under the Nazi rule. For a while. I don't think those who were sent to the camps could be considered happy about that, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Logic1
No, any government which must rule by fear and terror (and that MAY include the US government: the Patriot Act, and others like it, are meant to instill fear in the US population, I believe) can hardly be considered acceptable. At least in a democracy, though, the people can only blame themselves for allowing their government to get out of control.
Coming from you Logic, this seems pretty cynical; do I read you correctly?Quote:
Originally Posted by Logic1
Stability is more important than justice? Peace before liberty?
Would you apply that same criteria to your own nation?
Truth be told we are on the way out of Iraq because the surge worked. That is why the Iraqi government feels stable enough to talk about a US withdrawal timetable.
McCain and others urged the surge years ago and as a military strategy they were right.
At this point there is little or no difference between McCain and Obama as to how the war ends. Both will pull troops from Iraq over the next two years (stability permitting) and redeploy them in Afghanistan.
It really won’t much matter which of them gets elected, the country can survive either. Hell we may have even made it through 4 years of Billary.
Yours
Mad Lews
all you said is true ofcourse. I am not denying that at all. He did kill an awful amount of people but on the other hand the country as a whole was actually prosperous with oil money coming in and with that came way better living conditions than they used to have. We are talking about half of the people, the side Saddam was part of (which I cant remember but I am sure some of you know that better than I do or can be arsed to Google it :p.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
I just might be a cynical one at heart :p.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virulent
I am not sure if stability is better than justice. Sometimes it just might be under certain circumstances. Peace definitely before liberty because without peace there wouldnt be any liberty.
But then again a country that was working although it was under rule of an evil Saddam and then suddenly it was without leadership heading for civil war with all the factions that Saddam was actually making submit to him and no fighting between them.
Now they are fighting eatchother and the invaders.
Is it better? I honestly dont know.. Is it even possible to answer?
Saddam killed lots of Iraqis and attacked Iran and Kuwait which in turn killed loads of people. Now the people there have slim to no future and are falling into the hands of fanatic Islamists or their clan leaders learning to kill their enemies. Tens of Thousands of civilian Iraqis have died from bombings, suicide bombs and other attacks including those killed by american soldiers scared shitless in a faraway place very unlike home.
What is better? I mean, Is that question even possible to answer?
Dont consider me somebody who judges here but as an onlooker getting saddend by all the horror and death happening there.
It looks like you got another Vietnam though and I really hope it can be solved real soon.
:)
The surge in Iraq might have worked somewhat though and letting them govern themselves is hopefully a step in the right direction to peace and stability with a better ruling than they had with Saddam.
Moving troops into Afghanistan to search for Usama will most likely be just another Vietnam again. The Russians failed horribly and bombing civilian weddings sure isnt making the civilian afghans anymore likely to love you and betray Usama for you either.
Again I sure hope it is solved real soon and he is found and brought to justice.
may the best man win in the US :)
I would have voted for Hillary rather than Obama.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Lews
And that would like chopping off my right arm with a spoon.
A dull spoon.
That's rusty.
I disagree, but I respect your opinion; I'm sure you're smart enough to understand the implications.Quote:
Originally Posted by Logic1
I'm full-blooded Swedish; my grandparents emigrated to the U.S. just before WW2. I've always wondered how my viking ancestors turned into the people whom Winston Churchill called "that small, coward country". I wonder why when the Soviets and the Nazis invaded Finland, and tried to starve them to their knees, the Finns gave them Molotov cocktails and Simo Hayha, but my people made bullets and tank parts for the fascist war machine. Is pacifism popular in Sweden?
yeah I am quite aware of what it means thankyou.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virulent
cut and paste makes for a bad quote though but alrightey.
Perhaps if you read the rest you will understand my reasoning. Can you have liberty without peace? Can you have justice without stability? Can you really?
That small coward country as you say that Churchill said didnt have a defence at all back then. "Our defence is good" is what our king and state minister said back then and we had wodden tanks defending our beaches :p.
That started an arms "race" here but we didnt really have anything to defend or attack anything for that matter during WW2. We did however have plenty of Swedes fighting in Finland. "The Finnish cause is ours".
We are a neutral country sitting between the Russians and the west and the Swedish people firmly believes that neutral is the best for us. There are people who wants us to join NATO but the majority dont.
What good would come from us being attacked by the Nazis during WW2? We acted like we had one helluva defence and apparently it worked.
Sweden is a trading people that hasnt really been to war since 1814 and that is well rooted in the Swedish mindset.
Your reply to me seems to indicate that not making a futile war declaration against the Nazis was an act by cowards for some reason. I think the decisions were the right ones at that point in time for us yes.
Not that it has anything to do with the US elections but ;)
Pardon me, I wasn't arguing with the above points in my previous post because, as I said, you're obviously intelligent enough to know what I think already. Just in case I'm wrong though, enjoy the next two paragraphs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Logic1
I absolutely disagree, of course; the absence of safety does not preclude nor make worthless liberty. Just because you don't have the opportunity or inclination to enjoy every freedom you have doesn't mean you shouldn't be mortified at their reduction.
Justice is not only not conditional upon stability, but many stable countries notably sacrifice justice to guarantee stability. The conduct of China towards occupied Tibet is a wonderful example thereof.
I mainly brought it up because I think that Sweden nationally followed the exact same line of reasoning you were inclining yourself towards. The decision that safety is more important than freedom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Logic1
To be clear, I do not believe that Sweden is a nation of cowards, or behaved in a cowardly manner; I just like quoting Winston Churchill. I think its more accurate to say that you're a nation of pragmatists, who behaved in a pragmatic manner.
I do think its important that we have many idealists in this world though, who will do things like fight fascism at the risk of their own lives. You probably already know I think that, especially if you've ever taken the time to read my .sig. In my opinion, a nation of pragmatists is forever at the mercy of those who see them as the means to an end.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virulent
You do have a point absolutely but my point didnt come through as I meant it sadly. What I meant was that just having one or the other makes the "whole" less if you know what I mean. Every liberty is nice but to have both liberty and safety is way better than just the one.
Nowadays lots of western countries seems to sacrifice freedom to have safety and stability which is real sad. Echelon and other ways for the governments to "spy" on their fellow countrymen is definite signs on this.
I am all for all the freedoms we can get though ;)
I haven't posted in this thread due to everyone having their own opinions. I don't think us pulling out of Iraq is going to solve the gas price issue. Even if we started drilling in Alaska or doing offshore drilling it isn't going to be a quick fix whatsoever. I have gone from complaining about gas prices to really looking at exactly how much gas I have used and I have cut it back a lot. I have also started looking at energy efficient cars. This can be a blessing in disguise if one wants to look at that way. Either way both presidential candidates will have one hell of a time fixing what is going on.
I'll drink to that!Quote:
Originally Posted by Logic1
I suppose my opinion is just that I'd much rather have liberty and fight for safety, than safety and fight for liberty.
i think the real reason prices are going up for oil is: the oil companies have forecast the dwindling supply to end sonner than later, so they are squeezing as much money out of it as they can
amen to the first.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virulent
to the second I am really torn. Our government has just about a month ago voted through a law (FRA law) which means that they can monitor all the internet and phone traffic crossing our borders which sure is an infringment in our liberties and it seems that lots of Swedes rather have the "safety" than the freedom to not have your government looking over your shoulder to see what the heck you are surfing/talking about.
I am personally 100% against a law like that. It is not really like I care if they knew that I am surfing the library or whatever but truth to be told they have no business knowing unless I am doing something wrong which I am not.
They claim that it has to do with monitoring Russias phone and internet traffic but it also affects every Swede and even some Danes and Norwegians and Finns. It is one ugly law.. kinda the Swedish version of Echelon if you catch my drift.
imajines goverment officials monitoring the internet and masterbaiting to the posts on this site and laughs until i allmost cum without permission
the way too nasty thing is that it is very easy for governments to actually do that and I am sure it happens in some countries and were not just talking about the dictatorships but countries like yours and mine. Perhaps not looking at this page but watching email and scanning for when you write an email to your friends or tell them that that past party was a bomb! or something.Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
Big brother is definitely here and I for one dont like it.
To of you who posted a reply to this thread and the Poll, thank you for your imput and comments