Well I'm sure there will be a point on which we seperate. But I don't care if we ever ask the UN about anything. We did not diminish their power because they HAVE no power. They are essentually a debating society. They couldn't even pass a resolution supporting the U.S. during the Cuban missle crisis for goodness sakes. The only time we ever managed to use the U.N. effectively was 1991.
I don't think we undermine our credibility with issues like Turkey because the rest of the world doesn't operate like we do. It would seem asinine that Turkey would wish to not have a hostile dictator taken off their own border. However Turkey wanted aide and voted it down because they wanted even MORE aide.
Nick
We are a sovereign nation and have every right to decide to go to war on our own...until we submit ourselves to the authority of the UN by ASKING THEIR PERMISSION.
And all Empires eventually "go" themselves. You'd better get used to that.
One day, fat Ugandan tourists will ogle the Grand Canyon and go on sex-tourist jaunts to Miami to shag your hungry great great great granddaughters. Mongolian kids will snicker at the sweetly hubristic Statue of Liberty and put stills from Hollywood movies on their walls as ironic pokes at the past. Your government will bleat about the starving millions in Minnesota and the dust bowl and how international trade means it can't feed everyone. On some bulletin board a Scandinavian in London will bitch about how the Africans learned nothing about the past. A smug Nigerian will tell him to stick it and get used to it.
You'd better get used to it.
Seriously, I'm glad you're finally admitting what's up, but a couple of points:
Firstly, Empires function by killing to achieve their economic means. Save that bullshit about your American values from now on because your country is selling out everything that made it great. All gone if you're an Empire.
Secondly, if it's international terrorism or death of Americans in the continental US you're worried about, having an Empire is just about the best way I can imagine to get shitloads of both from just about every source.
Harald Chill.... chill...
First of all it seems you are speaking with rather a bit of bigotry towards the american people....
In case you are not aware Matsu is Canadian.
If you will notice within the thread I have used a very level headed mindset over this issue. You seem to skip over my moderation and choose to attatch yourself to a fit of rage over the words of Matsu (again a Canadian) and you seem to condemn all of the american people in the process.
Never said anything about values, I argue that "values" is entirely inefficient as a rhetoric in this case, actually.
And yes, what you say about empires dying is true, so then, how could you begrudge America a little protection?
As for "my" American values. Haven't any, and I have no great desire to be an American, though I like the people and their money. I live in a comfortable province, in the unimportant reaches of Americas great empire and am perfectly happy there. Nor am I patriotic enough to stick around for tough times, I woul,d retire to Europe before then.
Harald being a tad melodramatic. Meh. I don't see anyone saying such things about england or France, and they're fallen empires. I only imagine by reason alone that when the US comes down to earth from being the world'sonly superpower (superpower being analogous to empire, I can accept that in theory), it won't drop into poverty or the sea or anywhere else except into a similar situation as those countries.
First of all it seems you are speaking with rather a bit of bigotry towards the american people....
You have been chill and level headed here FCiB. Thanks. Matsu being Canadian does change things.
However ...
I have no bigotry toward US people. I love em.
The word "seriously" in my rant should have made it clear which bit was designed as a semi serious poke, although yes, designed to get under the skin of some here who walk around with stunning blinkers.
The other points I absolutely believe in. America has been "great" as I wrote; extra judicial 'justice' is an oxymoron; empires and any moral highground are incompatible; current US foreign policy will make a huge pile of bodybags in the US.
You have been chill and level headed here FCiB. Thanks. Matsu being Canadian does change things.
However ...
I have no bigotry toward US people. I love em.
The word "seriously" in my rant should have made it clear which bit was designed as a semi serious poke, although yes, designed to get under the skin of some here who walk around with stunning blinkers.
The other points I absolutely believe in. America has been "great" as I wrote; extra judicial 'justice' is an oxymoron; empires and any moral highground are incompatible; current US foreign policy will make a huge pile of bodybags in the US.
Hey man no hards feelings. Thanks for your follow up and explaining your earlier post. I view myself in the minority here but I too see many problems with the political system in America. Although curruption and deception are ubiquitous in politics I seek to correct the problems. Rather than wish america harm due to said flawed system as practiced I wish for the system to be purged of the lies and curruption. I consider myself a strident critic of lies and deception (from any source) and living true to my word I will not vote "For" Bush in the next election. I may sit out the entire election if I see nothing to vote for. My pessimism stems from erroneous platforms of the political parties in the United States. Those who run for office are sadly self serving. The sad state of the political landscape in the US leads to a public cynical of political figureheads, bereft of optimism and hope the voter turnout declines. This must change if America is to remain a democracy.
Circimstances be they flawed as they are, I wish for correction not destruction. I get this idea of restoration from my faith. I hold this view in a universal light. The American public as well as American leadership must make a conscious effort (meaning a moral effort) in world affairs,, not just an effort.
Those are some of my thoughts and again I thank you Harald for your addressing of my earlier post.
The sad state of the political landscape in the US leads to a public cynical of political figureheads, bereft of optimism and hope the voter turnout declines. This must change if America is to remain a democracy.
Actually, no. This must continue. Low voter turn out has been proven to indicate a general satisfaction. While a malaise exists, it does not rise above a general contentment -- that you might erroneously characterize as apathy -- with the current state of affairs. People still feel they have enough, food, alcohol, ass, not as much as they could have, but not worth the effort of a protest, yet. We also have to account for inertia: life was good, but we still have nostalgia to spare, enough in fact to gloss over present inquities. When voter turnout is high, it is always a sign of dissatisfaction. Chronically dissatisfied constituencies, tend to come from areas with deep troubles, and around the world, in poverty, they tend to come from dangerously unstable areas. When these people vote, in protest, they just as easily destroy democracy as they create it, all over the world it takes numerous false starts before democracy can be truly embedded, and that makes for pain and dissapointment.
Low voter turn out, no matter what the current feel good public service message might be, ALWAYS indicates a working democracy (when it comes to developed countries.
Come on guys, you don't need a poly-sci degree for this.
Low voter turn out, no matter what the current feel good public service message might be, ALWAYS indicates a working democracy (when it comes to developed countries)
Fantastic. So how low voter turn out does it take to have a perfect democracy? 0%
Fact: At elections in Denmark we have a voter turn at 80-90% at every election and danes have shown to be the most satisfied people in the world when it comes to the results of the political system.
Fact: Disadvantaged people vote less than advantaged. And when the turnout is low its the disadvantaged that fall away. So the advantaged are more dissatisfied with society than the disadvantaged Of course not. Some people are just better capable of using the power they have strategic than others.
The mistake you make is to presume that the population see elections as the or just a way to gain influence. And if they don´t vote it must be becuase they are satisfied. I don´t hope this comes as a bomb for you but a lot of people don´t see it like this. In the real world people use different strategies to try to change their situation. And voting is one of the more abstract ways to do it. So when advantaged people vote and disadvantaged doesn´t it indicates one cause and one effect.
The cause is that some people are unable to see voting as a way to gain influence. That means that there is a cleft between what people see as their role and possibilities as citizents based on their socio-economic position. You have to think how this came around. Somewhere there must have been a breach in the communication between ?society? and ?its? citizents.
The effect is that this cleft leaves relative more political power to the advantaged people than the disadvanced than if the turnout was higher.
We have mandatory voting & one of the oldest democracies in the world..
It might not be the best system, but it does mean no-one can use the excuse " we don't vote " because we are are oppressed and therefore are unlikely to be heard or fairly represented.
We have mandatory voting & one of the oldest democracies in the world..
It might not be the best system, but it does mean no-one can use the excuse " we don't vote " because we are are oppressed and therefore are unlikely to be heard or fairly represented.
Mandatory voting would only be acceptable to me if the following to options were available on every ballot: none of the above and abstain.
Two options that exist in our system, along with mandatory voting.
How are the none of the aboves counted? Must someone have a 50% + 1 majority in order to win? That would be the only way to make the none of the aboves count. If no one receives 50% + 1 of the votes, the top two are forced into a runoff and if they still can't get 50% + 1 of the votes, both candidates are scrapped.
In our system, each voter is marked against a register.
They can then choose to vote for the listed candidates & or parties.
Because it is a secret ballot each voter has the right to vote any of the candidates or parties they wish for.
Our system also allows for an informal " non of the above " by allowing voters to "spoil " their electoral papers. Ie not fill them in, etc.
Also some people vote " donkey '" ie 1,2,3,4,5 etc as ranked. It is their choice.
In a 50/50 tussle, we have a system whereby our 2nd choices are distributed according to each voters own personal choice..not that of the party whom they voted into first rank on their ballot paper. So the 2nd..even 3rd ranked distributions can have a fair bearing on the overall outcome of a close contest.
Minority parties do well under our system. In fact two minority parties hold the balance of power in a number of state & federal seats. It helps to keep the bigger parties on their toes, & helps the otherwise maginal or dissaffected minorities to get a hearing.
No Anders. If you you are unsatisfied with your lot in society and you do not vote, then you clearly are not dissastisfied enough. The government/society is doing something right to keep you from protesting. But these are all the wrong pronouns, for it sounds as if I speak of individuals, and I agree that many of those fell "helpless". Rather, I think of mass trends in developed (first world) countries. Knowing the psychology of the people, if conditions were to reach a point where they spurned large numbers of voter turn out (basically protest vote) that does not show that democracy has been working. In the more global picture democracy is irrelevant, what we mean when we say democracy is our society, our political society. It has done badly enough by us -- NOT ENOUGH, Medicine, Education, Food, Toys, Ass, etc etc... -- that now we must vote. Protest votes demonstrate that things have been going badly so far not that Democracy is working, democracy is working if the elections are held and not obstructed. You may, however, legitimately view my side of the argument as a form of abstracted obstruction -- impedance via guilded dissatisfaction. I would not disagree with you.
But you have to realize that people are not really interested in freedom or democracy or any lofty ideal. They only kling to lofty ideals when life goes to shit. Hence, the founding fathers were interested in lofty ideals, black southerners were interested in freedom, liberty, justice, as were the sufferagettes, as are palestinians, or the Irish, or South Africans to name but a few. But this idealism is transient. Freedom is only appealing as it pertains to the availability of food, toys,and ass. It is a means to an end, hence the most brilliant phrase of the American constitution, "pursuit of happiness."
Low voter turnout in America always indicates sufficient happiness, even if that happiness is rather superficial.
To paraphrase Machiavelli: populations always get the government they deserve.
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
Well I'm sure there will be a point on which we seperate.
I don't think we undermine our credibility with issues like Turkey because the rest of the world doesn't operate like we do. It would seem asinine that Turkey would wish to not have a hostile dictator taken off their own border. However Turkey wanted aide and voted it down because they wanted even MORE aide.
Nick
We are a sovereign nation and have every right to decide to go to war on our own...until we submit ourselves to the authority of the UN by ASKING THEIR PERMISSION.
Originally posted by Anders
Please elaborate what you mean by bulldoze.
UN definition (1991):
US definition (2003):
Originally posted by Harald
And all Empires eventually "go" themselves. You'd better get used to that.
One day, fat Ugandan tourists will ogle the Grand Canyon and go on sex-tourist jaunts to Miami to shag your hungry great great great granddaughters. Mongolian kids will snicker at the sweetly hubristic Statue of Liberty and put stills from Hollywood movies on their walls as ironic pokes at the past. Your government will bleat about the starving millions in Minnesota and the dust bowl and how international trade means it can't feed everyone. On some bulletin board a Scandinavian in London will bitch about how the Africans learned nothing about the past. A smug Nigerian will tell him to stick it and get used to it.
You'd better get used to it.
Seriously, I'm glad you're finally admitting what's up, but a couple of points:
Firstly, Empires function by killing to achieve their economic means. Save that bullshit about your American values from now on because your country is selling out everything that made it great. All gone if you're an Empire.
Secondly, if it's international terrorism or death of Americans in the continental US you're worried about, having an Empire is just about the best way I can imagine to get shitloads of both from just about every source.
Harald Chill.... chill...
First of all it seems you are speaking with rather a bit of bigotry towards the american people....
In case you are not aware Matsu is Canadian.
If you will notice within the thread I have used a very level headed mindset over this issue. You seem to skip over my moderation and choose to attatch yourself to a fit of rage over the words of Matsu (again a Canadian) and you seem to condemn all of the american people in the process.
I am only saying relax.
Fellowship
And yes, what you say about empires dying is true, so then, how could you begrudge America a little protection?
As for "my" American values. Haven't any, and I have no great desire to be an American, though I like the people and their money. I live in a comfortable province, in the unimportant reaches of Americas great empire and am perfectly happy there. Nor am I patriotic enough to stick around for tough times, I woul,d retire to Europe before then.
Like I said, I have an amoralist's view.
Originally posted by Harald
Here's the link.
"We never said it was about anything other then oil"
Disgusting if you want my opinion.
who cares
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Harald being a tad melodramatic.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Harald Chill.... chill...
First of all it seems you are speaking with rather a bit of bigotry towards the american people....
You have been chill and level headed here FCiB. Thanks. Matsu being Canadian does change things.
However ...
I have no bigotry toward US people. I love em.
The word "seriously" in my rant should have made it clear which bit was designed as a semi serious poke, although yes, designed to get under the skin of some here who walk around with stunning blinkers.
The other points I absolutely believe in. America has been "great" as I wrote; extra judicial 'justice' is an oxymoron; empires and any moral highground are incompatible; current US foreign policy will make a huge pile of bodybags in the US.
Originally posted by Harald
You have been chill and level headed here FCiB. Thanks. Matsu being Canadian does change things.
However ...
I have no bigotry toward US people. I love em.
The word "seriously" in my rant should have made it clear which bit was designed as a semi serious poke, although yes, designed to get under the skin of some here who walk around with stunning blinkers.
The other points I absolutely believe in. America has been "great" as I wrote; extra judicial 'justice' is an oxymoron; empires and any moral highground are incompatible; current US foreign policy will make a huge pile of bodybags in the US.
Hey man no hards feelings.
Circimstances be they flawed as they are, I wish for correction not destruction. I get this idea of restoration from my faith. I hold this view in a universal light. The American public as well as American leadership must make a conscious effort (meaning a moral effort) in world affairs,, not just an effort.
Those are some of my thoughts and again I thank you Harald for your addressing of my earlier post.
Fellowship
Originally posted by Anders
Please elaborate what you mean by bulldoze.
http://billmon.org.v.sabren.com/archives/000172.html
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook " ubiquitous "
Cool word there Fellows....
I am going to havta learn me some mower speechify..
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
The sad state of the political landscape in the US leads to a public cynical of political figureheads, bereft of optimism and hope the voter turnout declines. This must change if America is to remain a democracy.
Actually, no. This must continue. Low voter turn out has been proven to indicate a general satisfaction. While a malaise exists, it does not rise above a general contentment -- that you might erroneously characterize as apathy -- with the current state of affairs. People still feel they have enough, food, alcohol, ass, not as much as they could have, but not worth the effort of a protest, yet. We also have to account for inertia: life was good, but we still have nostalgia to spare, enough in fact to gloss over present inquities. When voter turnout is high, it is always a sign of dissatisfaction. Chronically dissatisfied constituencies, tend to come from areas with deep troubles, and around the world, in poverty, they tend to come from dangerously unstable areas. When these people vote, in protest, they just as easily destroy democracy as they create it, all over the world it takes numerous false starts before democracy can be truly embedded, and that makes for pain and dissapointment.
Low voter turn out, no matter what the current feel good public service message might be, ALWAYS indicates a working democracy (when it comes to developed countries.
Come on guys, you don't need a poly-sci degree for this.
I would still maintain that people sit out elections for reasons you point out as well as reasons I point out.
Fellowship
Originally posted by Matsu
Low voter turn out, no matter what the current feel good public service message might be, ALWAYS indicates a working democracy (when it comes to developed countries)
Fantastic. So how low voter turn out does it take to have a perfect democracy? 0%
Fact: At elections in Denmark we have a voter turn at 80-90% at every election and danes have shown to be the most satisfied people in the world when it comes to the results of the political system.
Fact: Disadvantaged people vote less than advantaged. And when the turnout is low its the disadvantaged that fall away. So the advantaged are more dissatisfied with society than the disadvantaged
The mistake you make is to presume that the population see elections as the or just a way to gain influence. And if they don´t vote it must be becuase they are satisfied. I don´t hope this comes as a bomb for you but a lot of people don´t see it like this. In the real world people use different strategies to try to change their situation. And voting is one of the more abstract ways to do it. So when advantaged people vote and disadvantaged doesn´t it indicates one cause and one effect.
The cause is that some people are unable to see voting as a way to gain influence. That means that there is a cleft between what people see as their role and possibilities as citizents based on their socio-economic position. You have to think how this came around. Somewhere there must have been a breach in the communication between ?society? and ?its? citizents.
The effect is that this cleft leaves relative more political power to the advantaged people than the disadvanced than if the turnout was higher.
We have mandatory voting & one of the oldest democracies in the world..
It might not be the best system, but it does mean no-one can use the excuse " we don't vote " because we are are oppressed and therefore are unlikely to be heard or fairly represented.
Originally posted by aquafire
Might be an idea to make voting mandatory.
We have mandatory voting & one of the oldest democracies in the world..
It might not be the best system, but it does mean no-one can use the excuse " we don't vote " because we are are oppressed and therefore are unlikely to be heard or fairly represented.
Mandatory voting would only be acceptable to me if the following to options were available on every ballot: none of the above and abstain.
Originally posted by BR
Mandatory voting would only be acceptable to me if the following to options were available on every ballot: none of the above and abstain.
Two options that exist in our system, along with mandatory voting.
Originally posted by nixi
Two options that exist in our system, along with mandatory voting.
How are the none of the aboves counted? Must someone have a 50% + 1 majority in order to win? That would be the only way to make the none of the aboves count. If no one receives 50% + 1 of the votes, the top two are forced into a runoff and if they still can't get 50% + 1 of the votes, both candidates are scrapped.
They can then choose to vote for the listed candidates & or parties.
Because it is a secret ballot each voter has the right to vote any of the candidates or parties they wish for.
Our system also allows for an informal " non of the above " by allowing voters to "spoil " their electoral papers. Ie not fill them in, etc.
Also some people vote " donkey '" ie 1,2,3,4,5 etc as ranked. It is their choice.
In a 50/50 tussle, we have a system whereby our 2nd choices are distributed according to each voters own personal choice..not that of the party whom they voted into first rank on their ballot paper. So the 2nd..even 3rd ranked distributions can have a fair bearing on the overall outcome of a close contest.
Minority parties do well under our system. In fact two minority parties hold the balance of power in a number of state & federal seats. It helps to keep the bigger parties on their toes, & helps the otherwise maginal or dissaffected minorities to get a hearing.
But you have to realize that people are not really interested in freedom or democracy or any lofty ideal. They only kling to lofty ideals when life goes to shit. Hence, the founding fathers were interested in lofty ideals, black southerners were interested in freedom, liberty, justice, as were the sufferagettes, as are palestinians, or the Irish, or South Africans to name but a few. But this idealism is transient. Freedom is only appealing as it pertains to the availability of food, toys,and ass. It is a means to an end, hence the most brilliant phrase of the American constitution, "pursuit of happiness."
Low voter turnout in America always indicates sufficient happiness, even if that happiness is rather superficial.
To paraphrase Machiavelli: populations always get the government they deserve.