As an outsider, I feel I must warn you

[laserburn]

To IamDavid: Thank you for your post, it was very insightful. Naive, but insightful.
I very much doubt that American foreign policy has changed under Bush. If Saudi Arabia would give more bases for US soldiers I believe it would smooth out all the differences between them and US. Yes, you noticed well that war in Iraq was about oil. What other reason? Democracy? NO Arab country is democratic. Iraq?s chemical weapons? Israel has much more of those. When Sadam realized he?s a goner he allowed UN inspection teams in, but it was too late.
It is very difficult to say if American economy is booming. For example production figures are dropping. America is not making things. Yes, I wouldn?t mind living in US myself, but I?d rather live in some western European country.
When it comes to saving a**es Serbs fought valiantly on same side as America in both world wars and endured terrible casualties. Result: At the beginning of 20th century there were as many Serbs as there were Englishman. Today, at the beginning of 21st century there are ten times more English than there are Serbs.
You are partially right about resent civil war in Yugoslavia. Yes, it was stupid. Yes, it did end thanks to American efforts. But, I bet you didn?t know about this: before the war in Bosnia even broke out there was a conference in Geneva, Switzerland where Serbs, Croats and Muslims tried to settle their differences. Just as they were about to sign an agreement in came American emissary Worren Zimmerman and talked in private with Muslim leader Izerbegovic for about five minutes. Next thing we now Muslims refuse the deal and war breaks out. And during all other peace talks Muslims always demanded American envoy present. American also provided training for Muslim soldiers. That together with help from other Islamic countries and Al Kaida, helped them achieve their goals.
And about MS: Do you really think they were punished enough?
To HJD1: I am not trying to sway anybody?s opinion, I am simply stating my own. One thing I don?t like about American government is that it tries to sway public opinion instead of listening to it.

 

[Zebo]

I don't argue that money plays a key element in the party system, but if people wanted to really change it they could

How? A california Senate seat costs a minimum of 10 million. We never see or get to choose candidates even in the primarys who hav'nt spend millions. As far as I know the only people who can afford 35,000 dinners are millionares. Which is why as you admit "money plays a key element. " Who is representing the non-millionares then? Unions? PACs? Are all fragmented and only work for certain legislation, ususally one piece concering thier members.

I want to be senator , where do I start and why would a group of millionares give me any money?

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Candidate A: 31%
Candidate B: 33%
Candidate C: 36%

Candidate C wins, despite the fact that 64% of the country voted for someone else other than Candidate C = no political mandate. If you think a simple majority, 50% + one vote, is a tough situation for a political mandate, think of how it would be when the winning candidate only got 36% of the vote. It permits candidates to cater to a small but well-organized minority and be elected. This was in no small part what the founders were trying to prevent by devising the electoral college.

This can be solved simply by adopting a Proportional Represnetaion system. In order to get 50% or more of votes in parliament, Party C would have to build a coalition with A or B, in which case close to 70% of the people who voted will have a representative in the ruling coalition.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. Having a multiparty PR system is much more democratic than the FPTP system that is used in Canada and the US.

Quebec will adopt a PR system before their next election and I hope Canada can do the same within a decade.

A multiparty system still gives control to a minority. I will take a 2 party system which forces partys to change over time(stability) over a multiparty system which can cause drastic change overnight(chaos).

You see, that is simply not the case. Smaller parties in coalitions have much less clout and hold fewer cabinet positions, thus while their views are expressed in the coalition, they do not rule the coalition.

Your stability can actually be bad, since once you choose a president you're stuck with him for 4 years.

 

[IamDavid]

Originally posted by: laserburn
To IamDavid: Thank you for your post, it was very insightful. Naive, but insightful.
I very much doubt that American foreign policy has changed under Bush. If Saudi Arabia would give more bases for US soldiers I believe it would smooth out all the differences between them and US. Yes, you noticed well that war in Iraq was about oil. What other reason? Democracy? NO Arab country is democratic. Iraq?s chemical weapons? Israel has much more of those. When Sadam realized he?s a goner he allowed UN inspection teams in, but it was too late.
It is very difficult to say if American economy is booming. For example production figures are dropping. America is not making things. Yes, I wouldn?t mind living in US myself, but I?d rather live in some western European country.
When it comes to saving a**es Serbs fought valiantly on same side as America in both world wars and endured terrible casualties. Result: At the beginning of 20th century there were as many Serbs as there were Englishman. Today, at the beginning of 21st century there are ten times more English than there are Serbs.
You are partially right about resent civil war in Yugoslavia. Yes, it was stupid. Yes, it did end thanks to American efforts. But, I bet you didn?t know about this: before the war in Bosnia even broke out there was a conference in Geneva, Switzerland where Serbs, Croats and Muslims tried to settle their differences. Just as they were about to sign an agreement in came American emissary Worren Zimmerman and talked in private with Muslim leader Izerbegovic for about five minutes. Next thing we now Muslims refuse the deal and war breaks out. And during all other peace talks Muslims always demanded American envoy present. American also provided training for Muslim soldiers. That together with help from other Islamic countries and Al Kaida, helped them achieve their goals.
And about MS: Do you really think they were punished enough?
To HJD1: I am not trying to sway anybody?s opinion, I am simply stating my own. One thing I don?t like about American government is that it tries to sway public opinion instead of listening to it.

You doubt America's foreign policy has changed much from the previous administration?? That is absolutely obscene.. You haven't a clue what your talking about..

 

[laserburn]

To everybody: Try not to take any of this personaly. And even if you think that everything I said here is wrong, try to think my way for about 15 minutes. Some interesting questions may occur to you.
And know that majority of people in US is not happy with present political system, and they don't vote. If less that 50% of the people would vote in my country, elections would be invalid. When was the last time you had 50%?
To tcsenter: There were American weapons in Iraq. But yes, you are right, there were more French, British, Yugoslav, Russan and Chinese weapons there. Point remains that they were using Iraq against Iran. US also provided logistical support and training in Iraq and Afganistan.
To IamDavid: Yugoslavia used to be one of the larger weapons manufacturer and exporter, but I do not know weather it is still the case.
To jjones: Did it come to you that thing you call eurotrash might actualy be true? We have a saying: If one man tells you that you are a horse forget about it. If a houndred men tell you that you are a horse get a saddle.

 

[KenGr]

Welcome Laserburn,

I sincerely hope life is improving in all the areas that were once Yugoslavia. I have several Yugoslavian friends in the US. They found ways out in the 70's to escape the oppression and lack of opportunity but they always said it was a beautiful place.

Everything you said has a thread of truth. However, I think your view of the US has been focused through an Anti-American international press. I'm an American but I have lived outside the US for extended periods of time and I have visited about 20 different countries, primarily in Europe and Asia. I've never found a country I found remotely as free as the US. Freedom has nothing to do with having free medical care or free housing. That's an issue of social systems. Your statement that "You do not have health insurances provided by the government, nor any serious social programs for helping less fortunate" is just plain false. We have Medicaid, Medicare, and an incredible jungle of social programs, some useful and some not. No, we don't have universal socialized medicine and we have people coming to the US from all over the world to escape their socialized medicine systems and get better care under our system.

Weighing in on the two party system. There is a single reason why the US does not develop a meaningful third party. The two major parties are not idealogically rigid. They flow with the changing times and mood of the public because they have one overriding goal - to stay in power. You can argue for or against that, but the reality is that as soon as a meaningful third party arises, one of the major parties evolves to engulf it's issues.

 

[laserburn]

To IamDavid: Unfotunately, I do. During Bill Clinton administration US attacked Yugoslovia. So on the next election all the Serbian Americans voted republican. And what happened? George Bush came and attacked Iraq. Like I said America is run by big corporations. Your votes don't mean squat. Weather your president is democrat or republican, they will still get what they want.
Well, this has been fun but it is 3 a.m. here and I heed some sleep. I'll pick up where I left of tomorow.

 

[KenGr]

Originally posted by: laserburn

And know that majority of people in US is not happy with present political system, and they don't vote. If less that 50% of the people would vote in my country, elections would be invalid. When was the last time you had 50%?

I call a logic foul on this one. A majority of people in any civilized country would express disatisfaction with the politicians. It's human nature and usually a national sport. This doesn't mean people are unhappy with the overall political system. Does not voting indicate people don't like the system? On the contrary, it can be taken to mean people believe the system is so strong that their vote is not necessary. The amazing thing is how resilient and self compensating the American system is. The assassination of a President causes only a blip in our system. The crimes of Richard Nixon weren't able to screw it up. The incompetence of Jimmy Carter caused no lasting harm. We've survived Clinton's moral vacuum. In spite of the hand wringing on the left, George Bush is not changing the basic American character.

 

[Gage8]

[/quote]

Well it's a good thing you started posting here because we were all just in this idiotic stupor thinking that the US was a perfect country. If anything important comes up, either in my personal or professional life, I'll be sure to get in contact with you immediately. You are obviously the second smartest person on this board (Moonbeam being the smartest, of course).

Thank God laserburn is here.[/quote]

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: CPA

3) Kind of a potpourri of issues here. Yes, two major parties, but that is what the public lives with.

Wrong. You try starting a third party. Just look at Ralph Nader -- he had a surprisingly large base of support, yet he failed to garner more than, what, 5% of the vote? A two-party system is pretty detrimental and IMO it's due to the immense corruption and convolution of the campaign finance situation.

A 2 party system is not perfect, but I would have to say it is more stable than an n-party where drastic swings in goverment can and will occur.

Not to mention that the candidate for whom a clear majority did not vote can be elected. Three party system:

Candidate A: 31%
Candidate B: 33%
Candidate C: 36%

Candidate C wins, despite the fact that 64% of the country voted for someone else other than Candidate C = no political mandate. If you think a simple majority, 50% + one vote, is a tough situation for a political mandate, think of how it would be when the winning candidate only got 36% of the vote. It permits candidates to cater to a small but well-organized minority and be elected. This was in no small part what the founders were trying to prevent by devising the electoral college.

As far as our Yugoslavian friend's take on our country, I wouldn't have expected anything less from him. Same old, tired, worn-out, discredited, antiquated, 19th century, bankrupt socialist European thinking.

Yawn...

In this scenario, at least a large majority of the population voted. That is an improvement in itself. As it stands in the US now < 30% choose the leaders.

It seems to me certain ideas are @ssbackwards here:

1) Fewer parties promote stability. Somewhat true, depending on whom you are talking about. It makes politicians jobs easier, either you rule or you don't, however it eliminates the need for good diplomatic and listening(voter concerns) skills. I wonder if US voter's low turnout is related to the lack of real choices?

2) Multi-Party systems promote instability. Can be true, such as in Italy where you probably couldn't name all the elected parties from memory, but not always true. Canada has a multi-party system that works well(IMO), though it could be argued to be a 2 party system based on the record(hell, it's close to a 1 party system at times). A strength of multi-party systems is that it forces the ruling party to consider issues from competing parties even if the ruling party rules with a clear majority. Multi-party systems allow governments to see trends and growing concerns of the voting public. It's a concrete poll supported by public action(votes).

Electoral systems that require 50% +1(not of "cast" votes, but of voters) in order to elect are best for Democracy, IMO. Sure, they often require a run-off election, but at the end of the day you can point to the results and know that the majority have chosen the person(s) elect. You can't get more "legitimate" of a government.

 

[UltraQuiet]

How does a free and democratic society force people to vote?

Do we consider it a civic responsibility like jury duty and force people to participate?

I mean that works really well since people never complain about or try to avoid jury duty.

 

[BarneyFife]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: CPA

3) Kind of a potpourri of issues here. Yes, two major parties, but that is what the public lives with.

Wrong. You try starting a third party. Just look at Ralph Nader -- he had a surprisingly large base of support, yet he failed to garner more than, what, 5% of the vote? A two-party system is pretty detrimental and IMO it's due to the immense corruption and convolution of the campaign finance situation.

Oh please, Ralph Nader? If he only garnered 5% of the vote, then that means he didn't have a large base of support and probably because of his radical leftist ideals.

I don't argue that money plays a key element in the party system, but if people wanted to really change it they could. Nothing, including money, forces anybody to pull that lever for a Dem or Repub.

Face it. We are forced to live with a 2 party system and nobody can do anything about it. Why were Buchanan and Nader locked out of the debates? Whenever someone else tries to say something they are either labeled a nazi or communist. The fact is that other countries have 5 way debates while we are stuck with the same 2 cast of characters. I wanted to hear Nader and Buchanan but Gore and Bush were scared.

 

[Moonbeam]

Welcome, Laserburn. Clearly you are at least the second smartest person here. You have to forgive us Americans one thing, however. We are completely blind. We have live our whole lives in a profoundly powerful propaganda machine, millions and millions of commercials and rah rah America is the greatest spots on TV. We are deeply asleep living our consumer dream. Please use extraordinary caution when awakening us. We are like a rattlesnake on a hot rock. Poke us only if you have a venom antitoxin. I like the horse saddle bit, but you see we are a herd. We see the horses ass in front of us and know which way to go. Make sure, if I may say so, when you post, that you do it for love and not for results. Almost al of us feel so badly about ourselves that we see criticism, not as a friendly hand, but a condemnation to hell. That's why we respond with such calm. "Hands across the water."

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
How does a free and democratic society force people to vote?

Well, that's an entirely different issue, some do though(not sure how they enforce it though). Jail is way too harsh even a fine seems too much, perhaps some sort of incentive like a tax break, cash voucher or such. A good start would be an appeal to ones civic duty or even if the politicians stopped acting like 2 year olds looking for attention and affection.

 

[AnImuS]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Welcome, Laserburn. Clearly you are at least the second smartest person here. You have to forgive us Americans one thing, however. We are completely blind. We have live our whole lives in a profoundly powerful propaganda machine, millions and millions of commercials and rah rah America is the greatest spots on TV. We are deeply asleep living our consumer dream. Please use extraordinary caution when awakening us. We are like a rattlesnake on a hot rock. Poke us only if you have a venom antitoxin. I like the horse saddle bit, but you see we are a herd. We see the horses ass in front of us and know which way to go. Make sure, if I may say so, when you post, that you do it for love and not for results. Almost al of us feel so badly about ourselves that we see criticism, not as a friendly hand, but a condemnation to hell. That's why we respond with such calm. "Hands across the water."

now i see why everyone says your the smartest person!

 

[Moonbeam]

I would be forced to vote if there was anybody worth voting for. Democrats and republicans are the party of big business with slightly different and insignificant seasoning as laser pointed out.

When you can't see yourself, get somebody completely culturally anomolous to see for you or spend a fortune on deprogramming. This is Cult America.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Welcome, Laserburn. Clearly you are at least the second smartest person here. You have to forgive us Americans one thing, however. We are completely blind. We have live our whole lives in a profoundly powerful propaganda machine, millions and millions of commercials and rah rah America is the greatest spots on TV. We are deeply asleep living our consumer dream. Please use extraordinary caution when awakening us. We are like a rattlesnake on a hot rock. Poke us only if you have a venom antitoxin. I like the horse saddle bit, but you see we are a herd. We see the horses ass in front of us and know which way to go. Make sure, if I may say so, when you post, that you do it for love and not for results. Almost al of us feel so badly about ourselves that we see criticism, not as a friendly hand, but a condemnation to hell. That's why we respond with such calm. "Hands across the water."

See what I mean. This kind of intelligence and insight into the American psyche is priceless. I couldn't hope to become this smart if I lived to be 150 years old.

 

[Moonbeam]

It has nothing to do with intelligence, UQ, or minimally so. It has to do with questioning everything you believe till you're left with nothing at all. Learning is unlearning. Ask yourself what you believe and why. It will take you to the silence of infinity where all that's left is everything. But if you love the matrix you won't really want to be flushed. The blue pill is the one for you.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
It has nothing to do with intelligence, UQ, or minimally so. It has to do with questioning everything you believe till you're left with nothing at all. Learning is unlearning. Ask yourself what you believe and why. It will take you to the silence of infinity where all that's left is everything. But if you love the matrix you won't really want to be flushed. The blue pill is the one for you.

I'm overwhelmed. Is it OK if I cut and paste all your posts into a Word document. I want to print them out and put them on the walls of my cubicle at work. That way my coworkers and I can study them whenever we want, hoping and praying that one day I will have just a fraction of your high levels of smartness.

 

[Moonbeam]

But of course. If you are going to profit from them though, you really must start first with why you feel so stupid. One of the first things you learn when you deprogram is to look for the external manifestations of inward unconscious bias. These are, of course to be seen in our assumptions. Remember I said to question them. See. the first thing you learn when you say somebody has high levels of smartness is that you feel inwardly that you don't. We always ridicule others for what we feel is wrong with us. This is a hard and unpleasant truth because we are filled with such bitterness that we just have to let go at somebody. It's quite embarrassing to see just what it is we feel we are. In fact it's so hard and unpleasant that not too many are willing to consider it as true. So pin this one up too and read it often. Express to it freely just what a wonderful truth it is. Your opinion will be a window into your self. In it you will see what you are.

When you see that I am you it will help you want to die.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
But of course. If you are going to profit from them though, you really must start first with why you feel so stupid. One of the first things you learn when you deprogram is to look for the external manifestations of inward unconscious bias. These are, of course to be seen in our assumptions. Remember I said to question them. See. the first thing you learn when you say somebody has high levels of smartness is that you feel inwardly that you don't. We always ridicule others for what we feel is wrong with us. This is a hard and unpleasant truth because we are filled with such bitterness that we just have to let go at somebody. It's quite embarrassing to see just what it is we feel we are. In fact it's so hard and unpleasant that not too many are willing to consider it as true. So pin this one up too and read it often. Express to it freely just what a wonderful truth it is. Your opinion will be a window into your self. In it you will see what you are.

When you see that I am you it will help you want to die.

I'm blowing this one up to poster size and having it framed.

Thank you.

 

[Moonbeam]

You are very welcome. And don't forget if you should get discouraged. Whatever negative it is that you feel about yourself is a lie. You are really very smart. Make this one double sized.

 

[freakflag]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
But of course. If you are going to profit from them though, you really must start first with why you feel so stupid. One of the first things you learn when you deprogram is to look for the external manifestations of inward unconscious bias. These are, of course to be seen in our assumptions. Remember I said to question them. See. the first thing you learn when you say somebody has high levels of smartness is that you feel inwardly that you don't. We always ridicule others for what we feel is wrong with us. This is a hard and unpleasant truth because we are filled with such bitterness that we just have to let go at somebody. It's quite embarrassing to see just what it is we feel we are. In fact it's so hard and unpleasant that not too many are willing to consider it as true. So pin this one up too and read it often. Express to it freely just what a wonderful truth it is. Your opinion will be a window into your self. In it you will see what you are.

When you see that I am you it will help you want to die.

If nothing else, you are a master of irony.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
How does a free and democratic society force people to vote?

Well, that's an entirely different issue, some do though(not sure how they enforce it though). Jail is way too harsh even a fine seems too much, perhaps some sort of incentive like a tax break, cash voucher or such. A good start would be an appeal to ones civic duty or even if the politicians stopped acting like 2 year olds looking for attention and affection.

The thought of paying the uninformed to voted seems like a real bad idea.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
How does a free and democratic society force people to vote?

Well, that's an entirely different issue, some do though(not sure how they enforce it though). Jail is way too harsh even a fine seems too much, perhaps some sort of incentive like a tax break, cash voucher or such. A good start would be an appeal to ones civic duty or even if the politicians stopped acting like 2 year olds looking for attention and affection.

OTOH, do you really want a government with elections that are affected by a bunch of idiots that see voting as a free $20? People punching the card for the person with the best name doesnt seem like a benefit