Tulkas, if we were in an alternate universe and you were actually willing to read and educate yourself, I would suggest the book How Democratic is the American Constitution by Robert A. Dahl. Any library should have it (Opps. I forgot you don't use those). It's also required reading in many low-level poli-sci courses. It demonstrates pretty clearly that newer democracies, specifically some European ones, have much higher developed and representative forms of government than the US, and the conclusion is that the biggest thing limiting advancement and reform in America is the view that current policies are 'sacred.'
</strong><hr></blockquote>
As I was replying to a post by Harald about African-Americans being denied the vote, my question about the relevancy of that do the debate about US national security issues was valid. Harald wanted to bash the US for policies that existed decades ago. Fine. It has nothing to do with national security, or even US policy to project it's influence across the globe. It was simple US bashing. For the record, I think your form of government has major flaws. I think you are right, too many people hold them sacred. I also think, that if the US had not been a superpower in the last century, you would have a very different political structure now. And I think many countries, including my own, owe the US, for defending our freedoms and forms or government, whatever form they take on.
[quote]Originally posted by giant:
<strong>
This is also why it is so crazy that so many in the US think our form of government is so just. You can easily pick out which people have never studies non-US democratic systems, or democratic theory at all, by looking at those that support US political imposition on soveriegn states. It's also funny that these same people tend to be the ones that think we have nothing to learn from foreign governments. Why should we? The reason we are so successful is BECAUSE our government is so just, benevolent and rational, they say. How about not. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, my poli-sci courses discussed Canadian, British, French and US systems of government. They were very limited survey courses, bird courses actually, as most poli-sci courses are. Does that automatically rule me out from discussion on US policy? Wow, your arrogance is amazing.
Again, I think you systems has major flaws. I think you can learn from others. Do I think your form of government is manevolent, unjust, or irrational in general. No. The fact that you do shows your bias, with or without your vast resources.
As for your broad statement about being able to pick out anyone that hasn't studied this field by their position in the matter, you really think Rumsfeld, Myers, Wolfowitz, Powell, Tenet and maybe Kissinger have not studied "non-US democratic systems, or democratic theory at all"? Does the arrogance of your liberal arts acadamia extend to them as well, that you say they they are unstudied in political systems?
But if you?re able to laugh at peoples death, then all the credit to you. I live with death on an almost daily basis. I still don?t see what's funny about it, as jaded as I am about the whole thing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're probably in the wrong thread because what you're saying pertains to nothing in this one.
Does that automatically rule me out from discussion on US policy?
<hr></blockquote>
yes. You are spewing as much BS as I would if I tried to talk about the anatomy of the spinal cord with a doctor.
[quote]
you really think Rumsfeld, Myers, Wolfowitz, Powell, Tenet and maybe Kissinger have not studied "non-US democratic systems, or democratic theory at all"? Does the arrogance of your liberal arts acadamia extend to them as well, that you say they they are unstudied in political systems?<hr></blockquote>
Obviously they are highly intelligent. And since you are ignoring what the actual policy is, you really aren't in the position to understand what the debate is about. I should add that Powell does not support the policy, and, again, you would know that if you were even a little informed.
It sure as hell seems like it. However, I still can not believe, with your resources at work, with your lively social life, you can not find anyone, other than here, that supports the war and is willing to discuss it with you.
yes. You are spewing as much BS as I would if I tried to talk about the anatomy of the spinal cord with a doctor.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, because the doctor is not dealing with a opinion of the spine. More akin to me discussing a piece of music with a music major. The music major would have vastly more knowledge on the nuances and technique used in the piece and could probably bring up many comparative references for the piece. That wouldn't mean my opinion is less valid. Again, your arrogance is amazing.
[quote]Originally posted by giant:
<strong>
You can easily pick out which people have never studies non-US democratic systems, or democratic theory at all, by looking at those that support US political imposition on soveriegn states
Obviously they are highly intelligent. And since you are ignoring what the actual policy is, you really aren't in the position to understand what the debate is about. I should add that Powell does not support the policy, and, again, you would know that if you were even a little informed.
Their intelligence wasn't questioned, I questioned their level of study, based on your statement that anyone that supports current policy, hasn't studied varied political systems.
[quote]However, I still can not believe, with your resources at work, with your lively social life, you can not find anyone, other than here, that supports the war and is willing to discuss it with you.<hr></blockquote>
Trying to divert attention, ay?
Anyway, like I said, I don't know anyone who supports the war. A main part of it is because they know the actual facts surrounding it and the lack of logic. For example: Rumsfeld's promotion of a theory-evidence intelligence method (Iraq has WMD, even if there is not evidence) that is a perfect example of a victim of the Oedipus Effect. Any educated person knows why this method is not only fatally flawed, but also contrary to the basics of any emperical experiment.
Please stick to the topic from now on.
As for your music analogy: how about not. Were are not discussing political culture, we are discussing political science. And if you want to discuss how aesthetically beautiful or ugly the policy is (whatever the hell that would entail), start a tread about it. Here we are talking about policy.
Anyway, like I said, I don't know anyone who supports the war. A main part of it is because they know the actual facts surrounding it and the lack of logic. For example: Rumsfeld's promotion of a theory-evidence intelligence method (Iraq has WMD, even if there is not evidence) that is a perfect example of a victim of the Oedipus Effect. Any educated person knows why this method is not only fatally flawed, but also contrary to the basics of any emperical experiment.
Please stick to the topic from now on.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Dude, I was trying to stay on topic..you stated lashing out at me as a moron as I don't have the same liberal arts education, nor a work environment that allows me the resources or time to read up as much as you. For you to put forward that you are better informed, fine. But it was your arrogance that took us off topic, and onto a discussion of your job.
[quote]Originally posted by giant:
<strong>
As for your music analogy: how about not. Were are not discussing political culture, we are discussing political science. And if you want to discuss how aesthetically beautiful or ugly the policy is (whatever the hell that would entail), start a tread about it. Here we are talking about policy.
Oh please, political science is as much a science as the study of music.
And I was trying to discuss the policy with you, before you launched into your tirade, spewing off about your job deriding my opinions because of our different backgrounds. You want the thread on topic, how about keeping it on topic yourself.
Giant, to try and get you back on track. You never did answer my question, but went on your rant about your job. I will repost my questions here:
<strong>
And your reasons for the longevity of the American political system? Assume for a moment you were not a superpower...do you imagine you would have your current system?
Reality check. Your current system is protected by your stature as a superpower. How is it wrong/immoral/scary/unexpected that a superpower would wish to protect it's pre-eminence, given the alternatives provided by other recent superpowers and rising superpowers? It is a natural state of order that the strong wish to remain strong.</strong>
Your response was limited to:
<strong>The US has only been the sole superpower for a little over a decade.
The US only became a superpower ~70 years ago.
</strong>
and then wondered down into a rant about your job, your raises, what a gov depository is, you boss on tv etc...
But I am the one "Trying to divert attention, ay?"
You are obviously educated in this field, and I sincerely want to read you thoughts on it, and have tried pressing your for them, not just rants about your job/girlfriend/roommate etc.
And your reasons for the longevity of the American political system? Assume for a moment you were not a superpower...do you imagine you would have your current system?
<hr></blockquote>
Yes. When was the last time a large, advanced, non-superpower democracy was taken over? In fact, I think it's extremely clear that our government as we know it is under the biggest attack right now. Our feedoms are being rapidly diminished. There is now the fear of being labeled 'un-patriotic' if you call into question any action of the government (hell, you just got on someone's case saying they were bashing the US). You don't even live in this country, so no wonder you haven't run into it. We have had numerous briefings on what do to if the FBI (we are told not to give them anything, even if they have a warrant. They need to go through University Counsel). Many Arab students here have been interrogated needlessly. I should add that goes against everything I was brought up thinking about the striving for equality of race. A man was recently arrested in a library's computer lab and interrogated (before being released) for making 'anti-Bush' comments on a chat room.
I also think it's pretty clear that an offensive, agressive and OPPRESSIVE US policy will eventual lead to violence against Americans at home. In fact, the motivating factor behind the WTC attacks was a perception of american oppression. So what are these people proposing to stop it? Throw more fuel on the fire.
The whole point of the debate is that the US will not be the sole superpower forever, and we need to keep that in mind. China and India are right behind us. China accounted for 77% of last year's economic growth. As one US politician put it, we should be using this 'magic moment' to solidify our relations with our allies, not pushing them away and saying we don't need them. Some people point out that the Bush admin has set back diplomatic relations by decades. This is very dangerous.
Yes. When was the last time a large, advanced, non-superpower democracy was taken over?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
France?
[quote]Originally posted by giant:
<strong>
In fact, I think it's extremely clear that our government as we know it is under the biggest attack right now. Our feedoms are being rapidly diminished. There is now the fear of being labeled 'un-patriotic' if you call into question any action of the government (hell, you just got on someone's case saying they were bashing the US). You don't even live in this country, so no wonder you haven't run into it. We have had numerous briefings on what do to if the FBI (we are told not to give them anything, even if they have a warrant. They need to go through University Counsel). Many Arab students here have been interrogated needlessly. I should add that goes against everything I was brought up thinking about the striving for equality of race. A man was recently arrested in a library's computer lab and interrogated (before being released) for making 'anti-Bush' comments on a chat room.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Both side call each other names. So, they call you unpatriotic, so what? I guess because I wasn't raised in a country that has a history of being rabidly patriotic (not a slam, just an observation), being called unpatriotic doesn't seem like that big a deal to me. When it gets to the point of being arrested only for wearing a peace t-shirt, that is a problem.
Refusing law inforcement access, even with a search warrant seems petty. If you are fighting for the rule of law, then obey the rule of law. It is says they can search with a search warrant, then they can. I don't see how the University Counsel is given the authority to decide to submit to a search warrant or not.
Student groups are always interview/interrogated duign times of disruption. A great thing about universities is that they are fertile ground for discussion. They are also fertile ground for radical ideals. This is also a wonderful part of university society. But, since radical islamic groups also take advantage of the openness of univeristies to recruit members, doesn't it make sense to speak to arab students? I would think if they were investigating radical rightwing militia groups with known presense on campuses, they would speak to people on campus about them too.
[quote]Originally posted by giant:
<strong>
I also think it's pretty clear that an offensive, agressive and OPPRESSIVE US policy will eventual lead to violence against Americans at home. In fact, the motivating factor behind the WTC attacks was a perception of american oppression. So what are these people proposing to stop it? Throw more fuel on the fire.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
There is nothing you could do to apease these groups, regardless of your policy. Some hate you because you aren't muslim, some because you support Israel, some (many)simply because you are a superpower. That's all they need.
[quote]Originally posted by giant:
<strong>
The whole point of the debate is that the US will not be the sole superpower forever, and we need to keep that in mind. China and India are right behind us. China accounted for 77% of last year's economic growth. As one US politician put it, we should be using this 'magic moment' to solidify our relations with our allies, not pushing them away and saying we don't need them. Some people point out that the Bush admin has set back diplomatic relations by decades. This is very dangerous.
Comments
<strong>
Tulkas, if we were in an alternate universe and you were actually willing to read and educate yourself, I would suggest the book How Democratic is the American Constitution by Robert A. Dahl. Any library should have it (Opps. I forgot you don't use those). It's also required reading in many low-level poli-sci courses. It demonstrates pretty clearly that newer democracies, specifically some European ones, have much higher developed and representative forms of government than the US, and the conclusion is that the biggest thing limiting advancement and reform in America is the view that current policies are 'sacred.'
</strong><hr></blockquote>
As I was replying to a post by Harald about African-Americans being denied the vote, my question about the relevancy of that do the debate about US national security issues was valid. Harald wanted to bash the US for policies that existed decades ago. Fine. It has nothing to do with national security, or even US policy to project it's influence across the globe. It was simple US bashing. For the record, I think your form of government has major flaws. I think you are right, too many people hold them sacred. I also think, that if the US had not been a superpower in the last century, you would have a very different political structure now. And I think many countries, including my own, owe the US, for defending our freedoms and forms or government, whatever form they take on.
[quote]Originally posted by giant:
<strong>
This is also why it is so crazy that so many in the US think our form of government is so just. You can easily pick out which people have never studies non-US democratic systems, or democratic theory at all, by looking at those that support US political imposition on soveriegn states. It's also funny that these same people tend to be the ones that think we have nothing to learn from foreign governments. Why should we? The reason we are so successful is BECAUSE our government is so just, benevolent and rational, they say. How about not. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, my poli-sci courses discussed Canadian, British, French and US systems of government. They were very limited survey courses, bird courses actually, as most poli-sci courses are. Does that automatically rule me out from discussion on US policy? Wow, your arrogance is amazing.
Again, I think you systems has major flaws. I think you can learn from others. Do I think your form of government is manevolent, unjust, or irrational in general. No. The fact that you do shows your bias, with or without your vast resources.
As for your broad statement about being able to pick out anyone that hasn't studied this field by their position in the matter, you really think Rumsfeld, Myers, Wolfowitz, Powell, Tenet and maybe Kissinger have not studied "non-US democratic systems, or democratic theory at all"? Does the arrogance of your liberal arts acadamia extend to them as well, that you say they they are unstudied in political systems?
<strong>
But if you?re able to laugh at peoples death, then all the credit to you. I live with death on an almost daily basis. I still don?t see what's funny about it, as jaded as I am about the whole thing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're probably in the wrong thread because what you're saying pertains to nothing in this one.
Does that automatically rule me out from discussion on US policy?
<hr></blockquote>
yes. You are spewing as much BS as I would if I tried to talk about the anatomy of the spinal cord with a doctor.
[quote]
you really think Rumsfeld, Myers, Wolfowitz, Powell, Tenet and maybe Kissinger have not studied "non-US democratic systems, or democratic theory at all"? Does the arrogance of your liberal arts acadamia extend to them as well, that you say they they are unstudied in political systems?<hr></blockquote>
Obviously they are highly intelligent. And since you are ignoring what the actual policy is, you really aren't in the position to understand what the debate is about. I should add that Powell does not support the policy, and, again, you would know that if you were even a little informed.
[ 03-05-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
<strong>
I'm sure I do more in a day than you do in a month.
[ 03-05-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
It sure as hell seems like it. However, I still can not believe, with your resources at work, with your lively social life, you can not find anyone, other than here, that supports the war and is willing to discuss it with you.
<strong>
I should add that Powell does not support it, and, again, you would know that if you were even a little informed.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Again, a disturbing oblivionessness (ness ness, ness ness) to reality.
[ 03-05-2003: Message edited by: zKillah ]</p>
<strong>
yes. You are spewing as much BS as I would if I tried to talk about the anatomy of the spinal cord with a doctor.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, because the doctor is not dealing with a opinion of the spine. More akin to me discussing a piece of music with a music major. The music major would have vastly more knowledge on the nuances and technique used in the piece and could probably bring up many comparative references for the piece. That wouldn't mean my opinion is less valid. Again, your arrogance is amazing.
[quote]Originally posted by giant:
<strong>
You can easily pick out which people have never studies non-US democratic systems, or democratic theory at all, by looking at those that support US political imposition on soveriegn states
Obviously they are highly intelligent. And since you are ignoring what the actual policy is, you really aren't in the position to understand what the debate is about. I should add that Powell does not support the policy, and, again, you would know that if you were even a little informed.
[ 03-05-2003: Message edited by: giant ] </strong><hr></blockquote>
Their intelligence wasn't questioned, I questioned their level of study, based on your statement that anyone that supports current policy, hasn't studied varied political systems.
Trying to divert attention, ay?
Anyway, like I said, I don't know anyone who supports the war. A main part of it is because they know the actual facts surrounding it and the lack of logic. For example: Rumsfeld's promotion of a theory-evidence intelligence method (Iraq has WMD, even if there is not evidence) that is a perfect example of a victim of the Oedipus Effect. Any educated person knows why this method is not only fatally flawed, but also contrary to the basics of any emperical experiment.
Please stick to the topic from now on.
As for your music analogy: how about not. Were are not discussing political culture, we are discussing political science. And if you want to discuss how aesthetically beautiful or ugly the policy is (whatever the hell that would entail), start a tread about it. Here we are talking about policy.
[ 03-05-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
<strong>
Trying to divert attention, ay?
Anyway, like I said, I don't know anyone who supports the war. A main part of it is because they know the actual facts surrounding it and the lack of logic. For example: Rumsfeld's promotion of a theory-evidence intelligence method (Iraq has WMD, even if there is not evidence) that is a perfect example of a victim of the Oedipus Effect. Any educated person knows why this method is not only fatally flawed, but also contrary to the basics of any emperical experiment.
Please stick to the topic from now on.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Dude, I was trying to stay on topic..you stated lashing out at me as a moron as I don't have the same liberal arts education, nor a work environment that allows me the resources or time to read up as much as you. For you to put forward that you are better informed, fine. But it was your arrogance that took us off topic, and onto a discussion of your job.
[quote]Originally posted by giant:
<strong>
As for your music analogy: how about not. Were are not discussing political culture, we are discussing political science. And if you want to discuss how aesthetically beautiful or ugly the policy is (whatever the hell that would entail), start a tread about it. Here we are talking about policy.
[ 03-05-2003: Message edited by: giant ] </strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh please, political science is as much a science as the study of music.
And I was trying to discuss the policy with you, before you launched into your tirade, spewing off about your job deriding my opinions because of our different backgrounds. You want the thread on topic, how about keeping it on topic yourself.
<strong>
And your reasons for the longevity of the American political system? Assume for a moment you were not a superpower...do you imagine you would have your current system?
Reality check. Your current system is protected by your stature as a superpower. How is it wrong/immoral/scary/unexpected that a superpower would wish to protect it's pre-eminence, given the alternatives provided by other recent superpowers and rising superpowers? It is a natural state of order that the strong wish to remain strong.</strong>
Your response was limited to:
<strong>The US has only been the sole superpower for a little over a decade.
The US only became a superpower ~70 years ago.
</strong>
and then wondered down into a rant about your job, your raises, what a gov depository is, you boss on tv etc...
But I am the one "Trying to divert attention, ay?"
You are obviously educated in this field, and I sincerely want to read you thoughts on it, and have tried pressing your for them, not just rants about your job/girlfriend/roommate etc.
[ 03-05-2003: Message edited by: Tulkas ]</p>
And your reasons for the longevity of the American political system? Assume for a moment you were not a superpower...do you imagine you would have your current system?
<hr></blockquote>
Yes. When was the last time a large, advanced, non-superpower democracy was taken over? In fact, I think it's extremely clear that our government as we know it is under the biggest attack right now. Our feedoms are being rapidly diminished. There is now the fear of being labeled 'un-patriotic' if you call into question any action of the government (hell, you just got on someone's case saying they were bashing the US). You don't even live in this country, so no wonder you haven't run into it. We have had numerous briefings on what do to if the FBI (we are told not to give them anything, even if they have a warrant. They need to go through University Counsel). Many Arab students here have been interrogated needlessly. I should add that goes against everything I was brought up thinking about the striving for equality of race. A man was recently arrested in a library's computer lab and interrogated (before being released) for making 'anti-Bush' comments on a chat room.
I also think it's pretty clear that an offensive, agressive and OPPRESSIVE US policy will eventual lead to violence against Americans at home. In fact, the motivating factor behind the WTC attacks was a perception of american oppression. So what are these people proposing to stop it? Throw more fuel on the fire.
The whole point of the debate is that the US will not be the sole superpower forever, and we need to keep that in mind. China and India are right behind us. China accounted for 77% of last year's economic growth. As one US politician put it, we should be using this 'magic moment' to solidify our relations with our allies, not pushing them away and saying we don't need them. Some people point out that the Bush admin has set back diplomatic relations by decades. This is very dangerous.
[ 03-05-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
<strong>
Many Arab students here have been interrogated needlessly.
[ 03-05-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe we should have had them take bus no.37 to school.
[quote]Originally posted by giant:
<strong>
Yes. When was the last time a large, advanced, non-superpower democracy was taken over?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
France?
[quote]Originally posted by giant:
<strong>
In fact, I think it's extremely clear that our government as we know it is under the biggest attack right now. Our feedoms are being rapidly diminished. There is now the fear of being labeled 'un-patriotic' if you call into question any action of the government (hell, you just got on someone's case saying they were bashing the US). You don't even live in this country, so no wonder you haven't run into it. We have had numerous briefings on what do to if the FBI (we are told not to give them anything, even if they have a warrant. They need to go through University Counsel). Many Arab students here have been interrogated needlessly. I should add that goes against everything I was brought up thinking about the striving for equality of race. A man was recently arrested in a library's computer lab and interrogated (before being released) for making 'anti-Bush' comments on a chat room.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Both side call each other names. So, they call you unpatriotic, so what? I guess because I wasn't raised in a country that has a history of being rabidly patriotic (not a slam, just an observation), being called unpatriotic doesn't seem like that big a deal to me. When it gets to the point of being arrested only for wearing a peace t-shirt, that is a problem.
Refusing law inforcement access, even with a search warrant seems petty. If you are fighting for the rule of law, then obey the rule of law. It is says they can search with a search warrant, then they can. I don't see how the University Counsel is given the authority to decide to submit to a search warrant or not.
Student groups are always interview/interrogated duign times of disruption. A great thing about universities is that they are fertile ground for discussion. They are also fertile ground for radical ideals. This is also a wonderful part of university society. But, since radical islamic groups also take advantage of the openness of univeristies to recruit members, doesn't it make sense to speak to arab students? I would think if they were investigating radical rightwing militia groups with known presense on campuses, they would speak to people on campus about them too.
[quote]Originally posted by giant:
<strong>
I also think it's pretty clear that an offensive, agressive and OPPRESSIVE US policy will eventual lead to violence against Americans at home. In fact, the motivating factor behind the WTC attacks was a perception of american oppression. So what are these people proposing to stop it? Throw more fuel on the fire.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
There is nothing you could do to apease these groups, regardless of your policy. Some hate you because you aren't muslim, some because you support Israel, some (many)simply because you are a superpower. That's all they need.
[quote]Originally posted by giant:
<strong>
The whole point of the debate is that the US will not be the sole superpower forever, and we need to keep that in mind. China and India are right behind us. China accounted for 77% of last year's economic growth. As one US politician put it, we should be using this 'magic moment' to solidify our relations with our allies, not pushing them away and saying we don't need them. Some people point out that the Bush admin has set back diplomatic relations by decades. This is very dangerous.
[ 03-05-2003: Message edited by: giant ] </strong><hr></blockquote>
But, is it wrong for the US to try and maintain it's position for as long as possible? Or would it be better to just concede the position to another?
<strong>
Maybe we should have had them take bus no.37 to school.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why not you?
<strong>
Why not you?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have. I just think their turn is way over due.
<strong>
I just think their turn is way over due.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Muslim students need to die?
<strong>
France?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I would also add Russia and Germany to the list.
<strong>An arab student that has nothing to do what is going on in Israel?</strong><hr></blockquote>
How do you know this?
<strong>
Muslim students need to die?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Only if they wish too. It seems many do.
Assuming innoncent until proven otherwise. Or are all muslims or arabs evil?
"All americans should try a taste of their own medicine by sitting inside a building while Timothy McVeigh blows it up"
"Why? They aren´t terrorists"
"How do you know?"