November Election

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mkemse

how many ACTIVE Poltical Parties does your country have, just curious??

---

1; the Capitalist Party. I'm an American.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kuskovian

"democracy" is just limited voluntary tyranny by any other name.

---

When I die, it will be to no loss; Kuskovian makes me entirely redundant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ragoczy

The US is a Republic in order to limit pure democracy. The Founder's did this intentionally

---

This is true... its important to note though that all of the Founding Fathers were anti-party. Most famously, George Washington's advice: "Let me ... warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally."

The Founding Fathers speeches and writings speak of a republican polity, deferring to state's rights in internal matters, without parties, wherein a vote was for a man not for a party. The Electoral College was created because the Founders believed that there would be numerous candidates, and that the Electoral College was necessary to winnow them down to just a dozen or so.

To be clear though, I'm not saying that the above or any other government would be preferable to the organization that currently takes 28% of my money and spends 22.5% of it on blowing up people who never fucked with me. I don't believe any compulsory statist authority is ethical or advisable.

They did have hand guns back in the days of the founding fathers,, often used in duels, or by highway men and or pirates as well as law abiding citizens,,,,,,just to answer a previous question..

i honestly belive that the corporations are more in charge (even if indirectly) regardless of which party wins in november

i base this in the way our system works

our system is primaraly reactionary, the government responds to stimulus, from several scources, lobbyists, special intrest groups, the media, public out cry, legal case judgements, government burercratic self promotion, and or politically inclined ambitious individuals

the corperate lobbyists make up a numerically small yet advantaged group of these influences, yet is perhaps the most powerful, after all who can afford to "buy" a politician the easist, (much like the roman patron/client system during the republic)

next time you look at who you are voting for, try checking out just who is really backing them finacially one time, its well worth the effort and often enlightening

Well what to say.. what to say.
Whatever form of governing that is the best depends entirely on where it is and who will live by it. There are plenty of countries that democracy just wont work. Take a look at the middle east. The project of enstilling democracy in Iraq is doomed of failure even before it was started. A country like the US or Sweden just isnt gonna work without it cause we have been used to it for so long that our collective minds just cant(or wont) accept anything different.
Iraq actually worked pretty fine with Saddam in power and now it is a hellhole cause that fine balance is desturbed. Different factions are fighting for power and those factions werent powerful enough under Saddams rule to make such a mess as it is now. That is just one example. Yes the Iraqui people werent too fond of him but the truth is that Iraq was a working community and before and just isnt now.
Russia isnt really coping with the democracy that they had. They are a people that seems to need their one strong man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logic1

Iraq actually worked pretty fine with Saddam in power and now it is a hellhole cause that fine balance is desturbed. Different factions are fighting for power and those factions werent powerful enough under Saddams rule to make such a mess as it is now. That is just one example. Yes the Iraqui people werent too fond of him but the truth is that Iraq was a working community and before and just isnt now.

---

You might try asking those tens of thousands of people (his OWN people) that Saddam and his sadistic sons had tortured and executed whether their country worked well under Saddam. I doubt they would agree. The same logic applies to Nazi Germany in the 30's. The country prospered under the Nazi rule. For a while. I don't think those who were sent to the camps could be considered happy about that, though.

No, any government which must rule by fear and terror (and that MAY include the US government: the Patriot Act, and others like it, are meant to instill fear in the US population, I believe) can hardly be considered acceptable. At least in a democracy, though, the people can only blame themselves for allowing their government to get out of control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logic1

Yes the Iraqui people werent too fond of him but the truth is that Iraq was a working community and before and just isnt now.

---

Coming from you Logic, this seems pretty cynical; do I read you correctly?

Stability is more important than justice? Peace before liberty?

Would you apply that same criteria to your own nation?

Truth be told we are on the way out of Iraq because the surge worked. That is why the Iraqi government feels stable enough to talk about a US withdrawal timetable.

McCain and others urged the surge years ago and as a military strategy they were right.

At this point there is little or no difference between McCain and Obama as to how the war ends. Both will pull troops from Iraq over the next two years (stability permitting) and redeploy them in Afghanistan.

It really won’t much matter which of them gets elected, the country can survive either. Hell we may have even made it through 4 years of Billary.


Yours
Mad Lews

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

You might try asking those tens of thousands of people (his OWN people) that Saddam and his sadistic sons had tortured and executed whether their country worked well under Saddam. I doubt they would agree. The same logic applies to Nazi Germany in the 30's. The country prospered under the Nazi rule. For a while. I don't think those who were sent to the camps could be considered happy about that, though.

No, any government which must rule by fear and terror (and that MAY include the US government: the Patriot Act, and others like it, are meant to instill fear in the US population, I believe) can hardly be considered acceptable. At least in a democracy, though, the people can only blame themselves for allowing their government to get out of control.

---

all you said is true ofcourse. I am not denying that at all. He did kill an awful amount of people but on the other hand the country as a whole was actually prosperous with oil money coming in and with that came way better living conditions than they used to have. We are talking about half of the people, the side Saddam was part of (which I cant remember but I am sure some of you know that better than I do or can be arsed to Google it :p.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virulent

Coming from you Logic, this seems pretty cynical; do I read you correctly?

Stability is more important than justice? Peace before liberty?

Would you apply that same criteria to your own nation?

---

I just might be a cynical one at heart :p.
I am not sure if stability is better than justice. Sometimes it just might be under certain circumstances. Peace definitely before liberty because without peace there wouldnt be any liberty.
But then again a country that was working although it was under rule of an evil Saddam and then suddenly it was without leadership heading for civil war with all the factions that Saddam was actually making submit to him and no fighting between them.
Now they are fighting eatchother and the invaders.
Is it better? I honestly dont know.. Is it even possible to answer?
Saddam killed lots of Iraqis and attacked Iran and Kuwait which in turn killed loads of people. Now the people there have slim to no future and are falling into the hands of fanatic Islamists or their clan leaders learning to kill their enemies. Tens of Thousands of civilian Iraqis have died from bombings, suicide bombs and other attacks including those killed by american soldiers scared shitless in a faraway place very unlike home.
What is better? I mean, Is that question even possible to answer?

Dont consider me somebody who judges here but as an onlooker getting saddend by all the horror and death happening there.
It looks like you got another Vietnam though and I really hope it can be solved real soon.
:)
The surge in Iraq might have worked somewhat though and letting them govern themselves is hopefully a step in the right direction to peace and stability with a better ruling than they had with Saddam.
Moving troops into Afghanistan to search for Usama will most likely be just another Vietnam again. The Russians failed horribly and bombing civilian weddings sure isnt making the civilian afghans anymore likely to love you and betray Usama for you either.
Again I sure hope it is solved real soon and he is found and brought to justice.


may the best man win in the US :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mad Lews

It really won’t much matter which of them gets elected, the country can survive either. Hell we may have even made it through 4 years of Billary.

---

I would have voted for Hillary rather than Obama.

And that would like chopping off my right arm with a spoon.

A dull spoon.

That's rusty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logic1

I am not sure if stability is better than justice. Sometimes it just might be under certain circumstances. Peace definitely before liberty because without peace there wouldnt be any liberty.

---

I disagree, but I respect your opinion; I'm sure you're smart enough to understand the implications.

I'm full-blooded Swedish; my grandparents emigrated to the U.S. just before WW2. I've always wondered how my viking ancestors turned into the people whom Winston Churchill called "that small, coward country". I wonder why when the Soviets and the Nazis invaded Finland, and tried to starve them to their knees, the Finns gave them Molotov cocktails and Simo Hayha, but my people made bullets and tank parts for the fascist war machine. Is pacifism popular in Sweden?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virulent

I disagree, but I respect your opinion; I'm sure you're smart enough to understand the implications.

I'm full-blooded Swedish; my grandparents emigrated to the U.S. just before WW2. I've always wondered how my viking ancestors turned into the people whom Winston Churchill called "that small, coward country". I wonder why when the Soviets and the Nazis invaded Finland, and tried to starve them to their knees, the Finns gave them Molotov cocktails and Simo Hayha, but my people made bullets and tank parts for the fascist war machine. Is pacifism popular in Sweden?

---

yeah I am quite aware of what it means thankyou.
cut and paste makes for a bad quote though but alrightey.
Perhaps if you read the rest you will understand my reasoning. Can you have liberty without peace? Can you have justice without stability? Can you really?

That small coward country as you say that Churchill said didnt have a defence at all back then. "Our defence is good" is what our king and state minister said back then and we had wodden tanks defending our beaches :p.
That started an arms "race" here but we didnt really have anything to defend or attack anything for that matter during WW2. We did however have plenty of Swedes fighting in Finland. "The Finnish cause is ours".
We are a neutral country sitting between the Russians and the west and the Swedish people firmly believes that neutral is the best for us. There are people who wants us to join NATO but the majority dont.
What good would come from us being attacked by the Nazis during WW2? We acted like we had one helluva defence and apparently it worked.
Sweden is a trading people that hasnt really been to war since 1814 and that is well rooted in the Swedish mindset.
Your reply to me seems to indicate that not making a futile war declaration against the Nazis was an act by cowards for some reason. I think the decisions were the right ones at that point in time for us yes.
Not that it has anything to do with the US elections but ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logic1

yeah I am quite aware of what it means thankyou.
cut and paste makes for a bad quote though but alrightey.
Perhaps if you read the rest you will understand my reasoning. Can you have liberty without peace? Can you have justice without stability? Can you really?

---

Pardon me, I wasn't arguing with the above points in my previous post because, as I said, you're obviously intelligent enough to know what I think already. Just in case I'm wrong though, enjoy the next two paragraphs.

I absolutely disagree, of course; the absence of safety does not preclude nor make worthless liberty. Just because you don't have the opportunity or inclination to enjoy every freedom you have doesn't mean you shouldn't be mortified at their reduction.

Justice is not only not conditional upon stability, but many stable countries notably sacrifice justice to guarantee stability. The conduct of China towards occupied Tibet is a wonderful example thereof.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logic1

Sweden is a trading people that hasnt really been to war since 1814 and that is well rooted in the Swedish mindset.
Your reply to me seems to indicate that not making a futile war declaration against the Nazis was an act by cowards for some reason. I think the decisions were the right ones at that point in time for us yes.

---

I mainly brought it up because I think that Sweden nationally followed the exact same line of reasoning you were inclining yourself towards. The decision that safety is more important than freedom.

To be clear, I do not believe that Sweden is a nation of cowards, or behaved in a cowardly manner; I just like quoting Winston Churchill. I think its more accurate to say that you're a nation of pragmatists, who behaved in a pragmatic manner.

I do think its important that we have many idealists in this world though, who will do things like fight fascism at the risk of their own lives. You probably already know I think that, especially if you've ever taken the time to read my .sig. In my opinion, a nation of pragmatists is forever at the mercy of those who see them as the means to an end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virulent

Pardon me, I wasn't arguing with the above points in my previous post because, as I said, you're obviously intelligent enough to know what I think already. Just in case I'm wrong though, enjoy the next two paragraphs.

I absolutely disagree, of course; the absence of safety does not preclude nor make worthless liberty. Just because you don't have the opportunity or inclination to enjoy every freedom you have doesn't mean you shouldn't be mortified at their reduction.

Justice is not only not conditional upon stability, but many stable countries notably sacrifice justice to guarantee stability. The conduct of China towards occupied Tibet is a wonderful example thereof.



I mainly brought it up because I think that Sweden nationally followed the exact same line of reasoning you were inclining yourself towards. The decision that safety is more important than freedom.

To be clear, I do not believe that Sweden is a nation of cowards, or behaved in a cowardly manner; I just like quoting Winston Churchill. I think its more accurate to say that you're a nation of pragmatists, who behaved in a pragmatic manner.

I do think its important that we have many idealists in this world though, who will do things like fight fascism at the risk of their own lives. You probably already know I think that, especially if you've ever taken the time to read my .sig. In my opinion, a nation of pragmatists is forever at the mercy of those who see them as the means to an end.

---

You do have a point absolutely but my point didnt come through as I meant it sadly. What I meant was that just having one or the other makes the "whole" less if you know what I mean. Every liberty is nice but to have both liberty and safety is way better than just the one.

Nowadays lots of western countries seems to sacrifice freedom to have safety and stability which is real sad. Echelon and other ways for the governments to "spy" on their fellow countrymen is definite signs on this.

I am all for all the freedoms we can get though ;)

I haven't posted in this thread due to everyone having their own opinions. I don't think us pulling out of Iraq is going to solve the gas price issue. Even if we started drilling in Alaska or doing offshore drilling it isn't going to be a quick fix whatsoever. I have gone from complaining about gas prices to really looking at exactly how much gas I have used and I have cut it back a lot. I have also started looking at energy efficient cars. This can be a blessing in disguise if one wants to look at that way. Either way both presidential candidates will have one hell of a time fixing what is going on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logic1

to have both liberty and safety is way better than just the one.

---

I'll drink to that!

I suppose my opinion is just that I'd much rather have liberty and fight for safety, than safety and fight for liberty.

i think the real reason prices are going up for oil is: the oil companies have forecast the dwindling supply to end sonner than later, so they are squeezing as much money out of it as they can

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virulent

I'll drink to that!

I suppose my opinion is just that I'd much rather have liberty and fight for safety, than safety and fight for liberty.

---

amen to the first.
to the second I am really torn. Our government has just about a month ago voted through a law (FRA law) which means that they can monitor all the internet and phone traffic crossing our borders which sure is an infringment in our liberties and it seems that lots of Swedes rather have the "safety" than the freedom to not have your government looking over your shoulder to see what the heck you are surfing/talking about.
I am personally 100% against a law like that. It is not really like I care if they knew that I am surfing the library or whatever but truth to be told they have no business knowing unless I am doing something wrong which I am not.
They claim that it has to do with monitoring Russias phone and internet traffic but it also affects every Swede and even some Danes and Norwegians and Finns. It is one ugly law.. kinda the Swedish version of Echelon if you catch my drift.

imajines goverment officials monitoring the internet and masterbaiting to the posts on this site and laughs until i allmost cum without permission

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

imajines goverment officials monitoring the internet and masterbaiting to the posts on this site and laughs until i allmost cum without permission

---

the way too nasty thing is that it is very easy for governments to actually do that and I am sure it happens in some countries and were not just talking about the dictatorships but countries like yours and mine. Perhaps not looking at this page but watching email and scanning for when you write an email to your friends or tell them that that past party was a bomb! or something.
Big brother is definitely here and I for one dont like it.

To of you who posted a reply to this thread and the Poll, thank you for your imput and comments