Post by: gronne on November 05, 2004, 04:59:00 PM
Democracy has been as natural as breathing air to the well developed countries. We are not at the state of questioning democracy anymore. Ever since democracy was introduced in Greece 2500 years ago it's grown stronger, and the society has become more intellectually aware. Democracy had an incredible boost when book-printing was made possible in the late 15th century, and the combined efforts of book and democracy have given us e.g. the computer and the television.
In democracies you let the people get presented to parties with various ideologies, and choose thereafter. In order to elect a party you must have more than 50% per cent or you will have to team up with others. This is the case of most democracies. The choice the people make should somewhat reflect their opinions. Most people would say this will further the society, and should therefore be it's purpose; to further the society. The obvious question then is; What is of favour to the society? Well that can be wildly discussed.
2. Where can the purpose of democracy fail?
In my opinion a democracy fails when less than 80% vote. It happens in many elections, but should be considered as a minimum. And there should be some kind of proof of political understanding, but then 80% wouldn't vote in the first place. In a democracy there should be basic rules of what can be presented in a political agenda e.g. a Nazi party would install a dictatorship. But there should be other rules all democracies MUST follow e.g. no prefered religion. A democracy should have at least four big parties.
3. Where has democracy failed?
We have seen several elections where the government controls the votes e.g. Iraq under Saddam. But the most important democratic failure happend when USA re-elected George W Bush. A president which has been proven to have mislead its people into war, and murdered innocent civilians. A president who fails to recognize any problems with pollution. A president who puts his religion as the most important factor. A president who use fear to get votes. A president who opposed of UN. A president who has LIED to his countrymen, was re-elected.
The most similar event I can come to think of is when Hitler's NSDAP was elected, only people didn't know very much about him, and he was considered as the man to face Stalin. However you (should) know about Bush after four years, but obviously you approve of his serious lies that have cost the lives of about 100,000 men in Iraq. Yet people often complain about how the germans could be so stupid to elect Hitler. Such irony.
Now, you really didn't have more than two candidates to choose between, which is a great failure in itself. And both are devoted catholics. But even if you had ten serious candidates you would probably still choose Bush. And that's a proof democracy really can fail.
Many americans don't even know who was your first president. How can such people vote? I met a then 28 year old american women about a year ago, and she believed europeans used Fahrenheight, and americans used Celsius... She was going to vote Bush... I doubt most americans are THAT stupid, but you get the point. You have access to such much information, yet know so little, that's really sad.
4. Is there a better alternative to democracy?
Well I don't really know, but something must be done. The only option I see as of now is to develop democracy further, and I'm talking about a huge leap. There are way too many problems with the current state. I have written some of my ideas in the text. Democracy should still be considered natural, but I would be very glad if the media wouldn't take it's current form for granted, but instead started discussing a more advanced basic form of democracy (yes, advanced basic form). UN should make a new definition of how to apply democracy. And then every nation that approves of this international form will have obvious benefits.
Post by: Ween311 on November 05, 2004, 05:30:00 PM
I don't think there is anything wrong with the state of Democracy. I think its working just fine in the US. Sure, there are some uneducated people here, but I think you'll find morons in any country you travel to.
Will you ever consistantly have 80% of the population vote? I don't know how you can make more people vote. I don't think you can force people to vote. Some people either don't care, are uninformed, or just don't want to have to choose between 2 candidates that they don't like. I also don't think there should be a test for people to vote. People still claim discrimination exists in standardized testing in school (i.e. SAT, FCAT, and other standardized tests) and those tests don't even have anything to do with your basic rights (like your right to vote).
Post by: gronne on November 05, 2004, 06:36:00 PM
| QUOTE (Ween311 @ Nov 6 2004, 02:33 AM) |
| Would you be singing the same tune if Kerry would have won the election? I don't think there is anything wrong with the state of Democracy. I think its working just fine in the US. Sure, there are some uneducated people here, but I think you'll find morons in any country you travel to. Will you ever consistantly have 80% of the population vote? I don't know how you can make more people vote. I don't think you can force people to vote. Some people either don't care, are uninformed, or just don't want to have to choose between 2 candidates that they don't like. I also don't think there should be a test for people to vote. People still claim discrimination exists in standardized testing in school (i.e. SAT, FCAT, and other standardized tests) and those tests don't even have anything to do with your basic rights (like your right to vote). |
Would I be singing the same tune if Kerry got elected? No, did you read my text? If Kerry would've been elected I would recognize it as a working process in democracy. Now he mightn't have been a good candidate, but my purpose of the text was to say that if it would've been a healthy democracy you would NEVER re-elect Bush. What I'm saying is that maybe we should bring up thoughts on how democracies should work.
And to say the american democracy is just fine must be a joke. This election was considered "strong". If less than 60% of the people vote, it's not a "strong" democracy. No matter how you twist it, it cannot be considered a fine democracy.
And I'm not saying you should force anybody to vote, I'm saying it's not much of a democracy if only half of the population vote. That depends on something. You have the power to elect the most important person in the world, and even if this president has been extremely controversial, you can't manage to get more than 60% of the people to vote. That's not a fine democracy. What this depends on I'm not sure, but one factor is definitely because you only have two big parties. In my country we now have seven big parties to choose from. Several european countries have too low votes as well. But they don't claim to be the world's greatest democracy like USA do.
I didn't say there SHOULD be a test, but it was something to think about. I'm not satisifed with the current state of democracy in almost any country. Something must be done.
Post by: melon on November 07, 2004, 01:58:00 AM
The only thing i would say is that the electoral vote system does seem strange. I think maybe a change should be made so the popular vote wins (i know that would still be Bush), it just seems the fairer way to do things. Your system was setup long ago and times have chaged, maybe it could do with an overhaul.
The only thing that worries me about the whole election is that the rest of the world see it as the American public, by re-electing Bush, supporting his actions over the last four years. I have seen people being openly more hatefull towards your citizens since the election and it is worrying to think what Africa and the Middle East is thinking about now.
The level of hatred for America has just gone up and that is not a good thing.
Post by: Das Waffen-SS on November 07, 2004, 01:19:00 PM
| QUOTE (melon @ Nov 7 2004, 11:01 AM) |
| I think maybe a change should be made so the popular vote wins (i know that would still be Bush), it just seems the fairer way to do things. |
Tyrannei des Majorität
Post by: K98 on November 07, 2004, 08:00:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| The only thing i would say is that the electoral vote system does seem strange. I think maybe a change should be made so the popular vote wins (i know that would still be Bush), it just seems the fairer way to do things. Your system was setup long ago and times have chaged, maybe it could do with an overhaul. |
I think it's a big strange that you have a queen when she has no power what so ever. The idea of a monarchy is outdated and times have changed. Your system needs overhauled. I think its also strange how England has no single written Consitution of your rights. That is outdated as well.
| QUOTE |
| Would you be singing the same tune if Kerry would have won the election? |
No chance in HELL.
Post by: pedro on November 08, 2004, 07:29:00 AM
think about it...the way it is now, they only campaign in the few battle ground states. even as it is they dont go to the majority of the states to rally support, they only worry about battle ground states....
when you dont live in a BG state (i live in kentucky), it makes you feel like your vote doesnt even matter because I know that no matter if I go vote or not, my state will always be red. It is a currupt system, and i think part of the reason we dont have larger voter turn out. think about it. if you live in an historically red state, and you are a republican then you are going to think "it doesnt matter if I go vote or not, I know my state will vote republican" and if you are a demicrat you think the same thing. that in itself is what discourages voters...
I'm not saying the EC should be done away with because that would be a drastic change and change isnt always welcome. but it does need some serous restructuring.
1. all states should have a number of electorial votes proportional to their population (sort of true now but not in all states)
2. votes should be split in an appropriate ratio in relation to the voting of the state but not including fractions of votes. for example, if a state has 8 electorial votes, and 40% of the people vote democrat, 50% vote republican, and 10% vote independant, then the 80 electorial votes should be devided accordingly (3 votes to democrat, 4 to republican, and one to the indapendant party. disteguarding the fractional parts of votes).
it would just make more sense like this.
Post by: Extreme Agony on November 08, 2004, 08:07:00 AM
Post by: Baner on November 08, 2004, 01:16:00 PM
Let's compare
Saddam went to war with other nations with no jurisdiction.
Bush went to war for the same reason Clinton had his doubts about Saddam, WMDs.
Saddam murders his own people if they talk against the government.
Yet to see Bush do anything of the sort.
Saddam was placed in power.
The American people voted Bush in.
And somehow, Bush being in power is a worse example of democracy than Saddam!?
Sure, you talked to one moron who's a Bush supporter, I'm sure you could find the same amount of Kerry huggers that are just as stupid. Here's an idea, ask every person in America a few simple questions, and who they support, and have an accurate poll to post on this site for once.
I can't believe people are still making stupid excusses and comparing Bush to total dictators still. Get over it.
PS. Gronne, you didn't even help decide our president, why should you have a say in how we determine how our country runs?
Post by: melon on November 08, 2004, 03:08:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| I think it's a big strange that you have a queen when she has no power what so ever. The idea of a monarchy is outdated and times have changed. Your system needs overhauled. I think its also strange how England has no single written Consitution of your rights. That is outdated as well. |
er the queen is outdated noone would say otherwise. I dont know why but foriegn leaders are still in awe of her, even your own Bush when he met her was very apolagetic and bowing. I dont get it? She is more of a tourist attraction than anything else and it keeps the grannies happy. And technically the queen still has a great deal of power, but it is never used in practice.
About the constitution of rights, i really dont know what the american version contains so i couldnt answer..
Post by: pepsik on November 08, 2004, 05:16:00 PM
| QUOTE (pedro @ Nov 8 2004, 04:32 PM) |
| I'm not saying the EC should be done away with because that would be a drastic change and change isnt always welcome. but it does need some serous restructuring. 1. all states should have a number of electorial votes proportional to their population (sort of true now but not in all states) 2. votes should be split in an appropriate ratio in relation to the voting of the state but not including fractions of votes. for example, if a state has 8 electorial votes, and 40% of the people vote democrat, 50% vote republican, and 10% vote independant, then the 8 electorial votes should be devided accordingly (3 votes to democrat, 4 to republican, and one to the indapendant party. disteguarding the fractional parts of votes). it would just make more sense like this. |
That is dependent on state legislature. California just approved a similar kind of voter reform in the state constitution. Our EC votes go the to the top vote getter whether that person be in a bi-partisan party or in a "no name" third party.
We are not dividing the electoral college votes but making it a little more democratic as the previous legislature only allowed the EC votes to go to bi-partisan candidates.
a small step in a very bloated and flawed system.Post by: gronne on November 09, 2004, 10:56:00 AM
| QUOTE (Baner @ Nov 8 2004, 10:19 PM) |
| I liked the fact that Gronne mentioned Saddam being placed in power, and how that's corrupt, but when our president is voted in with the popular vote and electoral vote, it's hectic. Let's compare Saddam went to war with other nations with no jurisdiction. Bush went to war for the same reason Clinton had his doubts about Saddam, WMDs. Saddam murders his own people if they talk against the government. Yet to see Bush do anything of the sort. Saddam was placed in power. The American people voted Bush in. And somehow, Bush being in power is a worse example of democracy than Saddam!? Sure, you talked to one moron who's a Bush supporter, I'm sure you could find the same amount of Kerry huggers that are just as stupid. Here's an idea, ask every person in America a few simple questions, and who they support, and have an accurate poll to post on this site for once. I can't believe people are still making stupid excusses and comparing Bush to total dictators still. Get over it. PS. Gronne, you didn't even help decide our president, why should you have a say in how we determine how our country runs? |
Saddam comes from a country where you can't really say they've ever got a democracy. During Saddam's reign it couldn't be more faked. What Saddam did when he invaded Iran and Kuwait was to say the least terrible. But when USA is claiming to have a working democracy, and still re-elect the man that is the cause of about 100,000 peoples deaths in Iraq, something is VERY wrong. In the seventies there was a LARGE group of americans who realized the war in Vietnam was very wrong. Today, nothing resembles to that opposition. Sure, Bush is a hated man by the lefties in USA as well, but where's the organisation behind them? No one really fights him. The reason I think Bush getting re-elected being worse is his tremendeous power to rule other nations but USA. Btw, Bush had no legal jurisdiction from UN to invade Iraq. I wouldn't care much about USA if it wasn't because of USA's illegal international actions and for not giving a DAMN about the pollution. If you don't think we (non-americans) have the right to care about stuff that heavily affetcs us, you should reconsider yourself. So I don't care how you run your country apart from when it affects us. And the war in Iraq and your naive thoughts on the world pollution, does affect us. And we will continue to fight you on those issues.
TV-networks that are heavily partisan like Fox news shouldn't be legal in any democratic nation (Yes, I also refer to left-wing networks), at least not when they claim they're fair and balanced.
Colonel: I didn't say there was something better than democracy, but I really think we shouldn't take it for granted without questioning it. Democracy is considered to make it's third reform now, but I don't see much improvement.
Post by: Baner on November 09, 2004, 11:48:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| re-elect |
Exactly, the majority voted for the man they wanted, that's what a democracy is supposed to do, many people do base their votes on one event (ie the Iraq war), but us residents of America have other topics we have to base our vote on too. We have internal problems just like every other nation.
| QUOTE |
| was a LARGE group of americans... Today, nothing resembles to that opposition. |
Except for the 48% of the voters who voted aginst Bush. Look at some facts before you make assumptions.
| QUOTE |
| because of USA's illegal international actions |
I'm quite happy that Bush took the intiative to do something about Saddam. The UN are jsut a bunch of cowards who are too afraid to do anything, in fear of another World War (refer to the League of Nations). He had sanctions on him, we've seen the facts against him, and finally someone stepped up and took him out of power.
| QUOTE |
| TV-networks |
I agree, TV networks suck, that why I stay away from TV news, but with our first Amendment, the networks have their right to give whatever sided news they want.
Post by: damam on November 09, 2004, 11:58:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| Sure, you talked to one moron who's a Bush supporter, I'm sure you could find the same amount of Kerry huggers that are just as stupid. Here's an idea, ask every person in America a few simple questions, and who they support, and have an accurate poll to post on this site for once. |
I actually talked to someone who voted for kerry yesterday that does not understand why Clinton wont run again. She was stunned to find out the presidents can only serve 8 years in office barring a national crisis, and thought it was a stupid and outdated law. I can now see how Rome went from a republic to a dictatorship.
Post by: pepsik on November 09, 2004, 02:46:00 PM
| QUOTE (Baner @ Nov 9 2004, 08:51 PM) |
| I'm quite happy that Bush took the intiative to do something about Saddam. The UN are jsut a bunch of cowards who are too afraid to do anything, in fear of another World War (refer to the League of Nations). He had sanctions on him, we've seen the facts against him, and finally someone stepped up and took him out of power. |
I don't think he took the initiative, I believe it was Daddy Bush asking him to clean up some of his mess from the previous administrations he was involved with. Afterall it was G. Bush Sr. as head of the CIA along with John Aschroft that sealed the iraqi weapons deal in order to keep pressure on Iran.
Baby Bush was a member of an advocacy group while he was still governor of texas pushing president clinton to invade Iraq. Iraq was a hidden agenda for him and always on his mind even before his presidency. The attacks on 9-11 just gave him an oppurtunity of twisting public opinion towards the invasion. White House officials that quit after the attack on 9-11, did so because the evidence pointed towards Afghanistan and the guy only had Iraq on his mind.
Saddam had it coming, my only issue with the invasion is that too much of the security is on our hands. Then take into consideration 10 years of famine and disease becuase of the sanctions blocking food or medicine into the country. In the end that equals bad news for our soldiers. But Kudos to GW for doing what he wanted to do in the first place.
Post by: gronne on November 09, 2004, 05:38:00 PM
| QUOTE (Baner @ Nov 9 2004, 08:51 PM) |
| Exactly, the majority voted for the man they wanted, that's what a democracy is supposed to do, many people do base their votes on one event (ie the Iraq war), but us residents of America have other topics we have to base our vote on too. We have internal problems just like every other nation. Except for the 48% of the voters who voted aginst Bush. Look at some facts before you make assumptions. I'm quite happy that Bush took the intiative to do something about Saddam. The UN are jsut a bunch of cowards who are too afraid to do anything, in fear of another World War (refer to the League of Nations). He had sanctions on him, we've seen the facts against him, and finally someone stepped up and took him out of power. I agree, TV networks suck, that why I stay away from TV news, but with our first Amendment, the networks have their right to give whatever sided news they want. |
When I adress something you always quote one word without answering the rest. It's not black and white. I use one word and then watch it from another p.o.v. Please don't quote if you won't answer the full context.
If you say you're not happy with the current situation, then why the hell didn't you vote someone else???
| QUOTE |
Except for the 48% of the voters who voted aginst Bush. Look at some facts before you make assumptions. |
Again you didn't get the message. I said there's no organisation behind them. No one really says THIS IS ENOUGH!!! There's been a lot of hate towards Bush, but the opposition is not at all as organized as in the seventies. 48% is only a number, what actions did they take against Bush? Way too little acted in purpose of switching opions. (I like how you say "voted against Bush", instead of "voted for someone else". It's true alright, but funny).
| QUOTE |
I agree, TV networks suck, that why I stay away from TV news, but with our first Amendment, the networks have their right to give whatever sided news they want. |
OK, but you won't question yourself whether something actually could be wrong with the amendments, right? And the thing with Fox is that they haven't oficially announced they are republicans, instead they say "fair and balanced", and "we let you decide". If they could at least say they were republicans the issue wouldn't be that important. In my country the news stations don't have the right to fool people like Fox do. We had a reporter (for a small company) saying it would be bad if Bush got re-elected, and she got tossed out immediately. I mean if it was about swedish candidates I could understand it, but her opinion couldn't affect the american election. But I think it's good, so people can make up their minds on their own, instead of having Fox telling them what to think.
You might be happy Bush took care about Saddam, but the 100,000 innocent people that died, probably wouldn't agree with you. You see Saddam killed 300,000 people during his almost 30 years in power, when it only took Bush 1½ year to kill 100,000.
100,000 people, do you realize how many that is? Yet you defend Bush's action like it's nothing. You only react when american soldiers come home in coffins "What, do they die in war???".
Many americans can't understand why you are so hated in the world. For example, is it strange the french hate you when you say "France is shit, hate them, don't drink their wine, we want "freedom fries"". When Clinton was in power parts of Europe started taking a liking of you, but when Bush came to power we HAD to hate you. Yet you only say "penis envy", well why didn't we hate you that much during Clinton's presidency?
Post by: EverythingButAnAnswer on November 09, 2004, 07:26:00 PM
| QUOTE (gronne @ Nov 10 2004, 02:41 AM) |
| 100,000 people, do you realize how many that is? |
Do you realize that that figure is only an estimate?
| QUOTE (gronne @ Nov 10 2004, 02:41 AM) |
| And the thing with Fox is that they haven't oficially announced they are republicans, instead they say "fair and balanced", and "we let you decide". If they could at least say they were republicans the issue wouldn't be that important. |
That would be fine, as long as the rest of the major media networks admitted they were liberal or biased (CNN, CBS, BBC, Al-Jazeera, etc.). Anyone who wants an unbiased report should watch CSPAN.
| QUOTE (gronne @ Nov 10 2004, 02:41 AM) |
| In my country the news stations don't have the right to fool people like Fox do. |
Oh the irony.
Post by: K98 on November 09, 2004, 09:57:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| We had a reporter (for a small company) saying it would be bad if Bush got re-elected, and she got tossed out immediately. I mean if it was about swedish candidates I could understand it, but her opinion couldn't affect the american election. But I think it's good, so people can make up their minds on their own, instead of having Fox telling them what to think. |
Speak your mind and lose your job in Sweden. I guess they dont like free speech there. Censorship is the key to a good society of sheeple. Sweden has shown me the way. I doubt you've even watched the American stations to even know what to think.
Post by: damam on November 10, 2004, 08:48:00 AM
| QUOTE (gronne @ Nov 10 2004, 02:41 AM) |
| Again you didn't get the message. I said there's no organisation behind them. No one really says THIS IS ENOUGH!!! There's been a lot of hate towards Bush, but the opposition is not at all as organized as in the seventies. 48% is only a number, what actions did they take against Bush? Way too little acted in purpose of switching opions. (I like how you say "voted against Bush", instead of "voted for someone else". It's true alright, but funny). |
what are you talking about
This election saw the largest protest demonstrations of any election against the president. You appear to be totally ignoring the countless left leaning 527's who were very well organized and very well funded. Not to mention propaganda blitzes like Farenheit 911, and the steady stream of anti-bush books that started coming out about a year ago, and got tons of undeserved attention ( I read quite a few of them so I know ). I live in a pretty conservative state, and moveon.org still managed to visit me at my house twice, and get to me in several parking lots in their efforts to sway my vote. I imagine it was far more pervasive in other larger states. As a matter of fact, I saw the left as so well organized, that I honestly did not believe Bush had a snowballs chance in hell.
What would have told you that they were saying "enough", attempted assassinations? As far as I am concerned, they did everything they legally could, and were very successful in rallying people. But at the end of the day, they are still in the minority. End of Story.
Edit added below
| QUOTE |
| You might be happy Bush took care about Saddam, but the 100,000 innocent people that died, probably wouldn't agree with you. You see Saddam killed 300,000 people during his almost 30 years in power, when it only took Bush 1½ year to kill 100,000. 100,000 people, do you realize how many that is? Yet you defend Bush's action like it's nothing. You only react when american soldiers come home in coffins "What, do they die in war???". Many americans can't understand why you are so hated in the world. For example, is it strange the french hate you when you say "France is shit, hate them, don't drink their wine, we want "freedom fries"". When Clinton was in power parts of Europe started taking a liking of you, but when Bush came to power we HAD to hate you. Yet you only say "penis envy", well why didn't we hate you that much during Clinton's presidency? |
We are never happy that people are dying. Putting that aside, this war has seen the fewest civilian casualties of any war we have been involved with. If the jihadists dont want to die, then they should not pull the trigger. Rules of Engagement state we cant fire, until fired upon. Most of them shouldnt even be there in the first place cause they are not even Iraqi's. If you are talking about the iraqi's killed during the war, we gave them ample and unprecedented opportunities to surrendor. Opportunities that put our soldiers into greater risk. And we did this in the interests of saving lives.
| QUOTE |
| Many americans can't understand why you are so hated in the world. For example, is it strange the french hate you when you say "France is shit, hate them, don't drink their wine, we want "freedom fries"". When Clinton was in power parts of Europe started taking a liking of you, but when Bush came to power we HAD to hate you. Yet you only say "penis envy", well why didn't we hate you that much during Clinton's presidency? |
Clintons relationship with france was better, Ill admit that. Buts thats only because Clinton sent in our troops to solve French and UN problems that really were not in the best interests of America. And gave our tax dollars to those causes as well.
Post by: pug_ster on November 10, 2004, 09:04:00 AM
The fact is that most of you Bush voters are brainwashed to think that Kerry is the son of the Devil or something. Bush can't run his election by making himself look good all the time so he make Kerry's record look bad. Unfortunately, this president's 'my way or the highway' approach won't garner himself more popularity, especially for people who voted against him.
Post by: damam on November 10, 2004, 09:23:00 AM
| QUOTE (pug_ster @ Nov 10 2004, 06:07 PM) |
| The fact is that most of you Bush voters are brainwashed to think that Kerry is the son of the Devil or something. Bush can't run his election by making himself look good all the time so he make Kerry's record look bad. |
Bush did not have a monopoly on this approach. Both candidates did that.
As a bush voter, I dont think that Kerry is the devil - this country is bigger than even the president. It would not have been the end of the world if kerry got elected. The thing is that most of you kerry supporters are acting like it is the end of the world now that bush is in office.
Every election, some group of people says that if X gets elected im moving to Y country. They get my hopes all up, then when X gets elected, they totally let me down by staying. Thats the problem -> no follow through
Post by: pug_ster on November 10, 2004, 10:01:00 AM
| QUOTE (damam @ Nov 10 2004, 06:26 PM) |
| Bush did not have a monopoly on this approach. Both candidates did that. As a bush voter, I dont think that Kerry is the devil - this country is bigger than even the president. It would not have been the end of the world if kerry got elected. The thing is that most of you kerry supporters are acting like it is the end of the world now that bush is in office. |
I do think that Bush is going to push us to the end of the world if he stays in Office. Bush is always saying we should focus on Terrorism. How about Nuclear proliferation? We have been fortunate that even during the Cold war that there was never a nuclear war. The thing is that Bush is putting in a half-ass effort towards nuclear proliferation while countries like Iran and North Korea has building its nuclear ability in the first 4 years of Bush's Presidency. The only person whom that I seen is doing a half-ass effort is Colin Powell trying to convinence China to ask NK to disarm. If one of these countries has throws a nuclear missile at another country, it will surely start WWIII.
| QUOTE |
| Every election, some group of people says that if X gets elected im moving to Y country. They get my hopes all up, then when X gets elected, they totally let me down by staying. Thats the problem -> no follow through |
Yes, there's always talk like that. But it won't happen because there will be moderate repubs and democrats who will oppose his conservative views. So if we don't have a president who don't reach out to the other side, we will end up having another Lame Duck President.
Post by: damam on November 10, 2004, 10:45:00 AM
| QUOTE (pug_ster @ Nov 10 2004, 07:04 PM) |
| I do think that Bush is going to push us to the end of the world if he stays in Office. Bush is always saying we should focus on Terrorism. How about Nuclear proliferation? We have been fortunate that even during the Cold war that there was never a nuclear war. The thing is that Bush is putting in a half-ass effort towards nuclear proliferation while countries like Iran and North Korea has building its nuclear ability in the first 4 years of Bush's Presidency. The only person whom that I seen is doing a half-ass effort is Colin Powell trying to convinence China to ask NK to disarm. If one of these countries has throws a nuclear missile at another country, it will surely start WWIII. |
Cant we just get the UN to write nasty letters of disapproval to get them to stop? Its worked so well in the past. They can probably figure out a way of embezzling money in the process too.
Seriously though, I agree with you, Nuclear proliferation is and has been a big problem. A bigger problem is that when we try to stop these countries from developing it many see it as the U.S. trying to keep them down. Mao Tsetung in his little red book declared that america without a monopoly on Nuclear Weapons is a paper tiger. Most of the world views this as being true. Hence there eagerness to have a nuclear capability. I am actually more concerned with deployment capabilities then with actual nuclear processing knowledge.
but you cant convince me that kerry would have done it differently. what did he say about iran - something to the effect of we'll supply them with all the uranium they want, and if they dont return the waste in proper quantities, we'll know where they REALLY stand on the matter. So first we'll arm our enemies, then well just stand back smuggly knowing we were right all along.
That stance is just ludicrous.It is my belief that WWIII is over (that was the cold war) - and one of these nuclear missiles would simply be an attack in a war that is already going on WWIV. None-the-less, I really dont want to see it happen. So we really should step up on this since it appears that no one else in the global community has the balls to do it.
Post by: Baner on November 10, 2004, 11:02:00 AM
| QUOTE ("pug_ster @ Nov 10 2004, 01:04 PM") |
| The thing is that Bush is putting in a half-ass effort towards nuclear proliferation while countries like Iran and North Korea has building its nuclear ability in the first 4 years of Bush's Presidency. |
Wouldn't you say that's a pretty hypocritical statement?
Weren't you one of the many who are completely against the Iraq war? Didn't we take out a Tyrant who wanted to develop WMDs and a means to launch them? Yet you say Bush did nothing to stop nuclear proliferation. We are only one nation, and considering that everytime we do anything that might somehow effect another nation in a bad way we're called the devil, it's kinda hard to do a lot.
Post by: pug_ster on November 10, 2004, 11:30:00 AM
| QUOTE (Baner @ Nov 10 2004, 08:05 PM) |
| Wouldn't you say that's a pretty hypocritical statement? Weren't you one of the many who are completely against the Iraq war? Didn't we take out a Tyrant who wanted to develop WMDs and a means to launch them? Yet you say Bush did nothing to stop nuclear proliferation. We are only one nation, and considering that everytime we do anything that might somehow effect another nation in a bad way we're called the devil, it's kinda hard to do a lot. |
Yes, it is a hypocritical statement because he is doing a half ass job. There's no way for Iraq to have nuclear weapons, unless you disagree and have proof that they are able to deliver nuclear missiles. I don't know what kind of WMD's you are talking about, but compared to conventional, biological and chemical weapons, nuclear weapons is the most deadly and longest lasting effect. So the US should lead an international effort to get rid of it...
http://www.wagingpea...n-examining.htm
That being said, I guess we will never know how Kerry would do about Nuclear Proliferation since he is not president. One of the things that Kerry said that he would've done was that having a bi-lateral talks with North Korea, not just a six-party talks involving other nearby Asian countries.
Remember how the cold war got started? Us build some nuclear weapons pointing to the USSR and USSr build some nuclear weapons point the US. It never stop until when Reagan have peace talks during his 2nd year of presidency. And now Bush wants to undo what Reagan did by developing nulear 'bunker busting' bomb. Other 'axis of evil' countries will see as developing nuclear programs as a necessity because US are doing it.
It is not just the more powerful countries like China and Russia having nuclear weapons but these smaller countries like North Korea who seems to have less to lose when using these weapons is what I am afraid of.
Post by: damam on November 10, 2004, 11:53:00 AM
| QUOTE (pug_ster @ Nov 10 2004, 08:33 PM) |
| Yes, it is a hypocritical statement because he is doing a half ass job. There's no way for Iraq to have nuclear weapons, unless you disagree and have proof that they are able to deliver nuclear missiles. I don't know what kind of WMD's you are talking about, but compared to conventional, biological and chemical weapons, nuclear weapons is the most deadly and longest lasting effect. So the US should lead an international effort to get rid of it... http://www.wagingpea...n-examining.htm That being said, I guess we will never know how Kerry would do about Nuclear Proliferation since he is not president. One of the things that Kerry said that he would've done was that having a bi-lateral talks with North Korea, not just a six-party talks involving other nearby Asian countries. |
From the website you provided:
| QUOTE |
Senator Kerry has set forth a plan to create a consortium to supply Iran with the fuel it needs for peaceful purposes with the agreement that Iran would return the spent fuel to the consortium, thus eliminating the threat that this material would be converted to use for weapons. |
this is absurd
This may seem off topic so bear with me I have a point:
Let's say a police officer walks into a garage. The garage is filled only with the chemical glassware required to make Meth. The police officer notices some shelves and on the shelves only chemicals required to make Meth are present. On a counter top, all the glassware is arranged just as you would expect it to be if someone were making meth. On the wall, is a sheet of instructions title "How to Make Meth" followed with step by step instructions on how to make meth. But, at long last no meth is found on the premises.
Now do we have a meth lab here? The answer in the eyes of the Law, is NO. In order to have a meth lab, meth must be present at the site. But what does common sense tell us? Answer: in all likely hood somebody was making meth in this garage.
labs just like this were found all over iraq, the only issue is that they never found any weaponized chemicals. they just found labs that appeared to be all setup, have the right chemicals etc. So what does common sense tell you? Were there WMD's?
Post by: Ween311 on November 11, 2004, 11:28:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| They air Leno one week later here and I just watched the episode when Bush had won, and he did the "Jay-walking". For crying out loud, how stupid are people? They say the most amazing things. He asked them to follow up "It's better to have loved and lost...", and one woman knew it " ...than to have never loved at all". The rest of them had no idea, and one of them was a therapist. |
Hahahaha....Jaywalking. I like to watch that too. You do know that those are edited. They only show the dumbest people to make it funny. If they showed all the people getting the right answers, what would be funny about that. Don't base you opinions about the intellect of our country on a television comedy show. What if we based our opinions of Swedes on the Muppet Show? Swedish Chef anyone?
Post by: Baner on November 11, 2004, 11:37:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| What the hell? That's not the california I live in (I'm in LA). Black men? Blacks aren't even a majority here, let alone men. |
| QUOTE |
| You scumbag racist. It's not hard to see why you love Bush. You've never thought the white men have created the violent and criminal black men? The violent black americans are a direct result of the white mens action towards them, especially before the sixties. They have never asked to take part of the american society, so I can see why they are pissed at you. However there are a lot of black people that are not violent, or criminal. Maybe if you treated them better they might assimilate better in the white society, but I can surely understand if they don't want to. |
Only a retard would think that someone saying that Blacks aren't the majority is a racist remark... All he was saying was around the area he lives in, the Blacks aren't the majority. It's people like you that keep racism alive. You always have to bring it up if the topic ever ends up on minorities.
I live 30 minutes outside of Atlanta, if I go into town, 5 to every 1 person is Black. Is that being racist? The crime rate of our state is highest in Atlanta. Now am I being racist? A man that works for my dad was attempted to be robbed (long story) by a black man. Am I any more racists? If I am, then that's funny, cause everything I've said is fact.
| QUOTE |
| Who wants america to be the world police? Americans? |
I've heard, so many time in so many places, the America needs to do "blank" to this country. And America did "blank" wrong. I've heard it here, from elders, from school teachers. I don't want America to be the world police, it gives us a bad name. If we do go into a country, trying to restore peace, or give people better lives, all you hear about later is the amount of "American inflicted civilian casualities" and for what?
I wouldn't mind a world police (hmm isn't that what the UN and Nato are suppose to do?), but the group we have in charge of that rely too much on begging, and too little on actions.
About the fuel rods and Iran, I thought America didn't negotiate with terrorists. Bribing them not to obtain nuclear weapons is doing just that isn't it?
Post by: The unProfessional on November 11, 2004, 11:52:00 AM
| QUOTE |
What the hell? That's not the california I live in (I'm in LA). Black men? Blacks aren't even a majority here, let alone men. |
You
| QUOTE |
You scumbag racist. It's not hard to see why you love Bush |
You've got issues, Gronne. I merely mentioned that black men aren't the majority here. That's racist? Hispanics are the growing majority in LA, and in my area, probably Asians as well.
Jesus.
It's people like you who feed racism in a bogus front to stop it. Someone mentions the word black and you go ape shit. Way to go... Hey, my car's black... (ooooh)
Post by: damam on November 11, 2004, 11:57:00 AM
| QUOTE (pug_ster @ Nov 11 2004, 07:31 PM) |
| Like Foxnews and CNN, there's always 2 sides for every story. Aljazeera represents voices in the Arab countries. And I am sure that most arabs would want to read news that is concerned to them. |
Im not trying to silence their voice. The point is that they should state their biases somewhere instead of claiming to be Journalists. And they should only report stories that are true.
Just as all the reporters/journalists at CNN and FoxNews should as well. To Give an example, no one is ignorant to the fact that Combs is a moderate liberal, or that Rush Limbaugh is a conservative. They state it themselves, so everything they say from that point on can be evaluate with that in mind.
Really I think journalism is dead. I would much rather listen to commentators from the left and right, then journalists claiming to be neutral. Its just more honest.
Second, I dont care whether your arab, american, British, or ethiopian, wouldnt you at least like to read or see stories that have actually happened from your news source? Al Jazeera has flat out lied at times, putting them in the realm of the national inquirer and the star. But unlike the national inquirer and the star who right there stories with a nudge and wink, they still claim to journalists reporting the truth. They never offer retractions, and the untrue stories are almost always anti-american.
| QUOTE |
| but the group we have in charge of that rely too much on begging, and too little on actions. |
Never underestimate the power of nasty letters of disapproval
Post by: The unProfessional on November 11, 2004, 12:07:00 PM
CBS, CNN, Fox, Al Jazeera, the list goes on. Everyone has a political agenda, these days, and journalism is their front.
The public tends to believe what they see on the "news"... after all, we should. The media has taken advantage of an age-hold obligation and flipped us all the bird. We're reaching a point in time where people are becoming increasingly keen to news organizations' tactics, but their reign continues.
Essentially, people just need to be aware that anything they don't see with their own eyes should be taken with a grain of salt. The fascinating thing about it is that as technology improves, the global quality of information diminishes. One would think to expect the opposite.
Basically, the moral of the story is f*ck 'em all.
Post by: pug_ster on November 11, 2004, 12:49:00 PM
| QUOTE (damam @ Nov 11 2004, 09:00 PM) |
| Im not trying to silence their voice. The point is that they should state their biases somewhere instead of claiming to be Journalists. And they should only report stories that are true. Just as all the reporters/journalists at CNN and FoxNews should as well. To Give an example, no one is ignorant to the fact that Combs is a moderate liberal, or that Rush Limbaugh is a conservative. They state it themselves, so everything they say from that point on can be evaluate with that in mind. Really I think journalism is dead. I would much rather listen to commentators from the left and right, then journalists claiming to be neutral. Its just more honest. Second, I dont care whether your arab, american, British, or ethiopian, wouldnt you at least like to read or see stories that have actually happened from your news source? Al Jazeera has flat out lied at times, putting them in the realm of the national inquirer and the star. But unlike the national inquirer and the star who right there stories with a nudge and wink, they still claim to journalists reporting the truth. They never offer retractions, and the untrue stories are almost always anti-american. |
Yeah, I think what Jon Stewart says that News is not what it used to be. Instead of the News organizations tries to bring news with some information, they just want to bring short headliners. During the election you will probably hear news anchor saying that 'Bush called Kerry a flipflop and Kerry called Bush Incompetent.' Is this kind of news that has any informational value, of course not.
I think it has to do with Bush's Administration where they do not really comment on anything on what they are doing... For example, after Bush's victory on his 2nd election, he had a conference with reporters about spending his 'political capital.'
http://www.whitehous...20041104-5.html
Notice in the conference about Bush talking about his '3 question rule.'
When reporters have the chance to ask questions to Bush, Bush ducked most of the questions that is critical to his administration... If you remember the days before the election, there was a scandal about the missing explosives, this news was basically censored because Bush won't comment on it when it is something obviously important and it doesn't seem any effort to try to investigate... No news organizations, not even CNN doesn't have anything new so they won't report it.
Post by: gronne on November 11, 2004, 01:09:00 PM
| QUOTE (The unProfessional @ Nov 11 2004, 08:55 PM) |
| You've got issues, Gronne. I merely mentioned that black men aren't the majority here. That's racist? Hispanics are the growing majority in LA, and in my area, probably Asians as well. Jesus. It's people like you who feed racism in a bogus front to stop it. Someone mentions the word black and you go ape shit. Way to go... Hey, my car's black... (ooooh) |
Oh, I will have to apologize. My understanding of english is probably not what it's supposed to be. I was refering to the last part of your line...
| QUOTE |
Blacks aren't even a majority here, let alone men. |
Since you were talking about black males I thought your last line "let alone men" refered to the black men as a less worthy people. To be honest I don't know what that line would mean otherwise, in case you refer to men as men in general being a minority to women. Really sorry for that misunderstood accusation. I figured it seemed logical with your other awful statements about muslims.
I'm really sorry OK? It just seemed very bad to me.
/me goes studying english.
Post by: EverythingButAnAnswer on November 11, 2004, 02:53:00 PM
Post by: gronne on November 11, 2004, 03:17:00 PM
| QUOTE (EverythingButAnAnswer @ Nov 11 2004, 11:56 PM) |
| Go play: |
You have to love nazi's, right? You always make comments about nazi's. And when you blame socialists for racism, something's very wrong with your understanding of socialism.
Post by: EverythingButAnAnswer on November 11, 2004, 03:51:00 PM
| QUOTE (gronne @ Nov 12 2004, 12:20 AM) |
| You have to love nazi's, right? You always make comments about nazi's. And when you blame socialists for racism, something's very wrong with your understanding of socialism. |
You hate Jews, you are a socialist, and you think anyone whose opinion differs from yours is unfit to live and intellectually/morally inferior, how again are you not a Nazi?
Post by: The unProfessional on November 11, 2004, 09:17:00 PM
| QUOTE |
Blacks aren't even a majority here, let alone men. |
Yes, you misunderstood me. It was mentioned that black men, specifically, were the majority here. My point was that blacks weren't the majority... so therefore, black men were not he majority (# black men < # of total african americans)
Post by: EverythingButAnAnswer on November 11, 2004, 11:44:00 PM
Post by: gronne on November 12, 2004, 11:54:00 AM
| QUOTE (EverythingButAnAnswer @ Nov 12 2004, 08:47 AM) |
| He's a Nazi, you can't reason with a Nazi. They will, no matter what you say or what credible sources your provide, think their arguement is always superior to yours. |
I don't know what you're trying to get out of all this, but anyone with a brain bigger than a popcorn would realize that I, as a socialist, hate nazi's.
None of you provide credible sources, unless you claim Fox is credible.
This is not about whose argument is being the best. When it comes down to innocent peoples death, arguments can never win over that.
I feel awful every time I hear muslim terrorists killing innocent jews. And I feel awful every time I hear of jewish counter-attacks. But asking me which side I'm on, I will always choose the palestinian side, for countless reasons. I don't want Israel to be dissolved, but they should immediately draw back the borders to '67, and work it from there. Occupying someone's land can't be accepted.
I have to add I like when some of you americans say us europeans shouldn't try to affect your election, as it's apparently none of our business, and then you try to decide how Iraq should be ruled. Such irony.
Please elaborate for me how socialists have ANYTHING to do with National Socialists. Yes, I hate jews thinking they have the right to a stolen country, but I don't have anything against jews realizing it's a sick occupation.
I can guarantee you Hitler would like american capitalists a lot better than socialists. You definitely share more with Hitler than I do.
Post by: EverythingButAnAnswer on November 12, 2004, 12:34:00 PM
Post by: damam on November 12, 2004, 12:46:00 PM
| QUOTE (gronne @ Nov 12 2004, 08:57 PM) |
| I don't want Israel to be dissolved, but they should immediately draw back the borders to '67, and work it from there. Occupying someone's land can't be accepted. Yes, I hate jews thinking they have the right to a stolen country, but I don't have anything against jews realizing it's a sick occupation. |
Lets not forget how this occupation came to be way back in 1967. Taken from the "Peace encyclopedia", and was collaborated by a show I saw on the history channel about the 6 day war.
May 14, 1967: Egypt's President Gamal Nasser demands the withdrawal of United Nations force--established in 1957 as an international "guarantee" of safety for Israel--from the Sinai peninsula. The UN meekly obeys; the United States and Britain fail to rouse the Security Council to take action.
May 15: Three Egyptian army divisions and 600 tanks roll into the Sinai. World community does nothing.
May 17: Cairo Radio's Voice of the Arabs: "All Egypt is now prepared to plunge into total war which will put an end to Israel."
May 18: Voice of the Arabs announces: "As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is a total war which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence."
May 18: Nasser announces blockade of Straits of Tiran in the Red Sea, severing Israel's southern maritime link to the outside world. Israel considers the closure an act of war. (US President Lyndon Johnson later says: "If a single act of folly was more responsible for this explosion than any other it was the arbitrary and dangerous announced decision that the Straits of Tiran would be closed.")
May 20: Syria's defence minister (now president) Hafez el-Assad says: "Our forces are now ready not only to repulse the aggression but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united ..."
May 27: Nasser: "Our basic objection will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight."
May 30: Nasser : "The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel."
May 30: Jordan's King Hussein signs a five-year mutual defence pact with Egypt and the two set up a joint command, making clear its stance in any future conflict.
My 31: Egyptian newspaper Al Akhbar reports: "Under terms of the military agreement signed with Jordan, Jordanian artillery, co-ordinated with the forces of Egypt and Syria, is in a position to cut Israel in two ..."
May 31: Iraqi President Rahman Aref announces: "This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear--to wipe Israel off the map."
June 4: Iraq joins Nasser's military alliance against Israel.
June 5: Israel lunches a pre-emptive strike on Jordan, Iraq, Syria, and Egypt by taking out there airforce.
This is how it started. And, I might add, this was the second time they had tried to do this. If they, meaning Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq had not been the agressor the palestenians would not even exist today. They would still be egyptians. This is to a large extent, self inflicted.
Post by: Baner on November 12, 2004, 12:59:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| I have to add I like when some of you americans say us europeans shouldn't try to affect your election, as it's apparently none of our business, and then you try to decide how Iraq should be ruled. Such irony. |
It's one thing when the country is well-developed (note the US being a 1st world country) and another when the country cannot supply basic water and electricity to many of its residents. When your leader is interested more on war, then to the well-being of his citizens at home, then your country is in need of a reform. The US government has been able to make it's own choices since its creation. Iraq has proven that it cannot.
Post by: gronne on November 13, 2004, 05:05:00 PM
It had elements of socialism, but it can NEVER be considered socialism if it's not for everyone, that's the whole purpose of socialism. They killed dissabled and mentally dissabled people, that's anti-socialism. And it's funny when you've decided Nazi-Germany was socialistic, you mention Mussolini's economy, but you don't mention Hitler got the economy running pretty damn well.
I am a DEMOCRATIC socialist. I guess I have to add democratic every time otherwise you think I sympathize with Stalin, Mao and other totalitarian leaders. By saying Hitler was a socialist you redicule yourself, and Hitler as well. My country is socialistic but not even the right-wingers would consider it totalitarian. We have the greatest tax wage in the world, which I think is great. Since my family is more rich than the average I'm also glad we have to pay more tax than the average.
Baner: During the debates Bush rhetorically asked if USA should let african nations decide whether USA should go to war or not. Well, why not? USA had no more reason to attack Iraq than any other nation. If USA was attacked by Iraq, I could at least understand you would want to attack, but as we all know Iraq has never attacked USA. And if you seriously think we shouldn't try to interfere, then I hope you pay our nations for what it costs in terms of asylum seekers and so on. Many iraqies now want Saddam back in power, I guess they don't mention that too often in Fox. And when you have forced the iraqies to democracy, they will elect a totalitarian leader anyway. The Bush administration obviously didn't think that far.
And what is a well-developed country? A country that automatically knows better, especially running other countries? You don't understand muslims, so why force them upon something they most likely don't want?
Post by: EverythingButAnAnswer on November 13, 2004, 06:11:00 PM
, you might want to read Animal Farm sometime).
Post by: EverythingButAnAnswer on November 13, 2004, 06:22:00 PM
| QUOTE (gronne @ Nov 14 2004, 02:08 AM) |
| We have the greatest tax wage in the world, which I think is great. Since my family is more rich than the average I'm also glad we have to pay more tax than the average. |
That is called a progressive tax, as income increases your tax rate increases, which is a pretty bad thing considering taxes are harmful to the economy because they are leakages, and they cause consumers to save (to prepare for the next round of taxes) instead of purchasing (inputting) goods or services. Although one can argue that the government purchases enough goods and services (i.e., public works programs, etc.) through taxes that they are able to counterbalance that effect, thus bringing the market back in the equilibrium. In reality, the market will never reach full potential because the consumers are discouraged for purchasing goods and services as a result of high taxes, and thus are unwilling to input back into the economy. Again I just want to restate that in reality (not ideology) socialism/communism and fascism are the same, because their main focus is big government.
Post by: gronne on November 13, 2004, 06:48:00 PM
| QUOTE (EverythingButAnAnswer @ Nov 14 2004, 03:14 AM) |
| No, socialism/communism is not leftwing or "liberal", it is statism. There are 4 main political ideologies (conservatism, libertarianism, liberalism, and statism (you)) not two (conservative/liberal). Fascism, just like socialism/communism, is also statism, because its focus is big government (although they might differ in respect to their ideology, when they have been applied in reality, they are the same, BIG GOVERNMENT). So again you are a Nazi. Hitler (also the reason I failed to mention his economy was because it was implied, i.e. socialist) hated the communists, not the socialists, after all the acronym Nazi stands for Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers' Party). Socialism and Fascism are the same, in both, the public are tools of the government (and everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others , you might want to read Animal Farm sometime). |
I don't need to read animal farm as I already have, a pretty good book should I mention, eventhough it has nothing to do with democratic socialism. Communism/socialism is definitely not considered liberal as in politically liberal, and I've never stated otherwise.
I bet you can place communism/socialism differently in various systems. Since you only have two big parties in USA I suppose you don't use a left/rightwing-scale like we do. Sure socialism is statism, but it's also extreme left. Socialism is left in any country, you know. I very well know nazi is a short for national socialism, as I wrote it in an earlier post, however I don't get how you can accuse a socialist for being a nazi, when nazi's are the ones I hate THE VERY most. I hate them even more than more moderate right-wingers(regular capitalists). I don't know where you're going when you're accusing me of being a nazi, but you're barking at the wrong tree my friend, comprade? It's kind of funny how you really think socialists have anything in common with nazi's. We have increased fights between socialists and nazi's in Sweden, because the nazi's fight immigrants. None of the sides have anything in common. The nazi's don't even seem to know what they believe in, they only hate immigrants.
ADD: I will take Sweden as an example of our left/rightwing-scale. Since we have 7 big parties we must use that kind of scale, eventhough other things should be taken in consideration. From the left to the right: VänsterPartiet(communists), socialdemokraterna(social democrats), Miljöpartiet(social democrats focusing on the environment), Centerpartiet(liberals), Kristdemokraterna(liberals with christian/conservative values), Folkpartiet(liberals) and Moderaterna(conservatives/capitalists with liberal views). So our system might appear weird to you where our conservatives are liberal.
Post by: gronne on November 13, 2004, 07:20:00 PM
| QUOTE (EverythingButAnAnswer @ Nov 14 2004, 03:25 AM) |
| That is called a progressive tax, as income increases your tax rate increases, which is a pretty bad thing considering taxes are harmful to the economy because they are leakages, and they cause consumers to save (to prepare for the next round of taxes) instead of purchasing (inputting) goods or services. Although one can argue that the government purchases enough goods and services (i.e., public works programs, etc.) through taxes that they are able to counterbalance that effect, thus bringing the market back in the equilibrium. In reality, the market will never reach full potential because the consumers are discouraged for purchasing goods and services as a result of high taxes, and thus are unwilling to input back into the economy. Again I just want to restate that in reality (not ideology) socialism/communism and fascism are the same, because their main focus is big government. |
It's not progressive in the way that it exactly differs in percentage. Low incomers pay 33%(in reality it's a lot more, but that's if you take other facts in consideration), high incomers pay 65% in tax(me), and really wealthy pay "wealth"-tax which is directly progressive.
| QUOTE |
Again I just want to restate that in reality (not ideology) socialism/communism and fascism are the same, because their main focus is big government. |
Not in reality either. From an economic pov, whatever, not the moral pov that is the only thing that matters. USSR (which was sick, undemocratic communism) had elements that resembled a lot to the nazis, more than what communism really stands for. USSR was outspokenly anti-semitic, and killed people who had a different pov. Democratic socialism doesn't resemble much to that. I think it's very good to hear others thoughts, otherwise it's status-quo. There are intelligent capitalists as well, they only lack moral.
Post by: Baner on November 13, 2004, 10:37:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| Baner: During the debates Bush rhetorically asked if USA should let african nations decide whether USA should go to war or not. Well, why not? USA had no more reason to attack Iraq than any other nation. If USA was attacked by Iraq, I could at least understand you would want to attack, but as we all know Iraq has never attacked USA. And if you seriously think we shouldn't try to interfere, then I hope you pay our nations for what it costs in terms of asylum seekers and so on. Many iraqies now want Saddam back in power, I guess they don't mention that too often in Fox. And when you have forced the iraqies to democracy, they will elect a totalitarian leader anyway. The Bush administration obviously didn't think that far. And what is a well-developed country? A country that automatically knows better, especially running other countries? You don't understand muslims, so why force them upon something they most likely don't want? |
Hmm...
Ok, so we have the UN right? and their suppose to tell nations when they can and can't go to wars. They're also suppose to keep nations in-line by placing sanctions on them, which, when the nations don't comply are suppose to use force to put them in-line, considering everything else they've done didn't work. So with Iraqs outstanding number of sanctions (17 if I remember), the UN were suppose to do something about it right? When the USA first went to war with Iraq, the UN agreed (the UN being a coalition of many nations). So when the UN backed down from doing its duty, the US (and the rest of the nations that createdthe coalition at the bigining of the war) picked up its slack. So Americas reason for attacking Iraq was to do the Un duty tht they were to scared to do. Sure, Iraq never attacked the USA, but they did break international laws, but for some reason, you think its ok to do that. The Iraqi's didn't vote for Saddam in the first place (unless I'm wrong), the US placed him in power, this discussion happened in another thread.
I got a question for you Gronne, if I murdered a person, should I go to jail?
How about Hundreds of thousands of people?
Would it be ok if I was a tyrant, and my reason for killing these people was because they spoke out against me, ohh wait... I mean, because they are traitors?
A well developed country, is a country with the ability to provide the modern nessicities for people to live good lives (running water, electricity, ample food), a country that can provide protection to its people (standing army, working police fire and perimedic forces), one that can give people the right to live properous lives, aslong as they have the initiative.
You're right, I don't know muslims, but you don't seem to know people. Everyone does't want the same thing. I'm a Roman Catholic, but that doesn't mean what I want, is what every other Roman Catholic wants.