Your ideal system of Government

[Mirai]

Originally posted by Proteus
The Roman Republic was by far the best form of government ever.

I wouldn't say that.. Longest lasting, yes, but best? Hell no.

Putting a single person in power with as much power as everyone else combined is a recipe for disaster.

[queball]

Originally posted by Proteus
The Roman Republic was by far the best form of government ever.

No way! Medieval Iceland was the best!

[Proteus]

Originally posted by Vermillion
By whose standard? certainly not by the Romans, who got rid of it to create an Empire, and (despite the fiction of the movie Gladiator) never made any serious attempt to return to it.

By my standard, obviously.

And it was the Emperors who got rid of it, not the Roman people as a whole.

Remember Caesar was elected as Emperor, voted that not only by the Sebnate, but by the tribunate.

They didn't exactly have much choice in the matter, seeing as he invaded Italy and conquered their armies.

The republic was messy, bloated and ineficient run through a series of proto-emperors who rules until they died, emperors in all but name. Marius, Sulla and the rest ruled during the time of the republic, but they ruled as Kings. The best of the Republican representatives, people like the Gracchi brothers, were speedily assassinated because they tried to make it a REAL republic.

Only in the first century BC, in the period in which it was failing. Before that the Republic worked perfectly well.

The creation of Caesar, and more formally Augustus as Emperor was not the destruction of the Republic in favour of an Empire, it was simply the formal recognition of a reality which had long existed, Rome was not a Republic.

Yes it was. The supreme executive power was held by consuls elected by the people, rather than a hereditary autocrat.

[G_frog]

Proteus, you probably haven't been here long enough to realise it's not worth arguing with encyclopedia-head.

Exams go well?

[Proteus]

Originally posted by G_frog
Exams go well?

No.

I got the flu and didn't do them.

[ELeeming]

First of all, play www.nationstates.net

secondly, a capitalist anarchy clearly 0wns all

[bobble]

Originally posted by Mirai
Can I take them off to put different ones on?

that would be the only acceptable time, but you only have a 10 second window to do so

[Mirai]

Originally posted by bobble
that would be the only acceptable time, but you only have a 10 second window to do so

Sounds like a little piece of heaven to me.

[Marilyn Manson]

I don't really see the point in this. If it's an ideal, then I could give about any given theoretical 'ideal' I care to think about.

[Black Dog]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
I don't really see the point in this. If it's an ideal, then I could give about any given theoretical 'ideal' I care to think about.

Yes. As a result it's interesting that people have chosen to interpret it more in terms of form that in the social goal to be achieved.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
I don't really see the point in this. If it's an ideal, then I could give about any given theoretical 'ideal' I care to think about.

Surely one ideal is better than another ideal (for you)? I mean, a fascist ideal to me would seem inherently worse than an anarchist ideal since I actually like a bit of multi-culturalism with my chips or the freedom of expression (say).

Obviously every ideal thinks they are best suited to provide happiness for everyone (or most, or some, or some other tangible benefit) but which do you think would be "best"?

[queball]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
I don't really see the point in this. If it's an ideal, then I could give about any given theoretical 'ideal' I care to think about.

Mine has robots \o/

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Surely one ideal is better than another ideal (for you)?

If they 'work' to the same degree, then why should I bother chosing one over the other except as a result of my own personal nuances and frivoloity?

Surely a Fascist ideal would provide full or near to full employment, and so would a Communist one, and so would a Liberal one?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
If they 'work' to the same degree, then why should I bother chosing one over the other except as a result of my own personal nuances and frivoloity?

A system "working" is simply fulfilling it's own criteria. e.g. If I proclaimed a system for producing a purely white Britain then mass non-white exodus from Britain would be sign of it working.

Your personal nuances would seem highly relevent in determining which system you would _want_ to work.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
A system "working" is simply fulfilling it's own criteria. e.g. If I proclaimed a system for producing a purely white Britain then mass non-white exodus from Britain would be sign of it working.

That wouldn't necessarily have to be a component of Fascism, but I get your point.

The creteria of all democratic or semi-democratic ideologies would be the same, or near enough. All that would matter would be the confection and general systems. So it's completely irrelevant to discuss any ideals based on democratic socialism or liberal-conservatism as there's nothing to chose from. As Nod said, if it's an ideal, then it works, and if it works, then it achieves X Y and Z. And X Y and Z will be largely the same for most people here.

Your point is relevant, but it is an exception rather than the rule. There is such a wide consensus on what is the ultimate desirable status of a society that this debate is largely pointless.

[CCSD]

Originally posted by Radical Edward
I like the way that your system is working so much better.

::Looks around at where he lives::

Yup, it's the best so far Corky. Try getting out of the classroom for a few minutes a day.

I still can't believe that there are people debating the merits of Marxism/Leninism. Here you have the greatest nation in the history of the planet just across the pond from you, and you still think Socialism is better, but "it's just not been done right yet". God you people crack me up. I would much rather work for what I have, than have the Government hand it to me.

I'll leave you little communist wannabee's with a nice quote from Victor Hanson.

"Too many Europeans still cherish the belief that they are close to an end to war, hunger, want, and meanness — ideals inseparable from a light work week, cradle-to-grave care, protection by an uncouth American military, and a steady stream of fertile, darker, unassimilated peoples to take out their trash and clean their toilets."

[queball]

Originally posted by CCSD
I would much rather work for what I have, than have the Government hand it to me.

Aren't you a civil servant?

[CCSD]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
No.

What's actually needed is basically to institute a socialist ideology in the working class prior/during action to destroy the state (lo Gramsci) and to build an alternative to the state during the same period (lo Mao).

Individuals (or cliques) can't build a "correct" government. This is one of the flaws in some idealist contemporary Bolshevik theory. The problem wasn't that Stalin wasn't committed enough, or that problems stemmed from his unique personal problems. The problem was immature conditions for socialism (no-ones fault particularly - excluding the imperialist countries making the situation immensely worse) which forced a totalitarian beaureaucracy upon the backward Russia. In any contemporary state (with improved infrastructure, communication, transport) there'd be no justification for the same madness.

Popular involvement is the only way to defend socialism, once institituted. Anything which takes power away from the majority and gives to the minority will be de-facto anti-socialist irrespective of the ideological leanings of the minority in question.

"What's actually needed is basically to institute a socialist ideology in the working class prior/during action to destroy the state (lo Gramsci) and to build an alternative to the state during the same period (lo Mao)."

Once again, completely unsupported theory, without any type of an explanation on how to bring this about, without bloodily forcing a system upon a nation of people, without giving them a choice. Not too big on individual freedom of choice are ya?

"One of the flaws in some idealist contemporary Bolshevik Theory"? The October Revolution was a naked power grab you fool. What planet do you live on?

"The problem wasn't that Stalin wasn't committed enough, or that problems stemmed from his unique personal problems."

"Unique personal problems"? The man was a mass murderer you flaming idiot. He killed more Russians than the Germans, and the Japanese combined, you twit. I dare you to ask any Russians who remember Ioseph, if they would describe the madness of his rule as the result of "unique personal problems" Once you get out of the hospital, you can go hide back in the classroom and come up with some more assinine theory.

"The problem was immature conditions for socialism (no-ones fault particularly - excluding the imperialist countries making the situation immensely worse) which forced a totalitarian beaureaucracy upon the backward Russia."

Ahh I see, the theory was not flawed, it was just the Imperialists fault all along, for it not working. Balls! How can you keep your lunch down when you are typing this ill informed, idealistic nonsense?

"In any contemporary state (with improved infrastructure, communication, transport) there'd be no justification for the same madness."

So what you are trying to say now, is that in order for Socialism to work, you 1st have to have these things? So the reason that it failed, was because it did not have these things, and of course we always blame our failures on the machinations of the Imperialists. How do you get all of the things you named? What system would bring them about? Are you now babbling that Socialism would work, but you need capitalism 1st, in order to bring it about? Finally, at the end of that sentence you say "there'd be no justification for the same madness.", as if what Stalin did was justified? I can't even begin to believe that you actually understand what you are saying.

As far as Antonio Grasci, the Italians made a huge mistake putting him in prison. They created a martyr there, when really all the needed to do was send him to Stalin, if he liked that system so much. As far as Mao, I really can't believe that you would lend any credence to anything that pedophile/mass murderer, said. Then again, reading some of your other ill informed rants on this forum, I can see where you would probably prefer theory over reality. Get out of the classroom kiddo.

[CCSD]

Originally posted by queball
Aren't you a civil servant?

Actually no, I am not. I work for a Sheriff Department, and not the State. Where I live, we need to have at least a Associates Degree in order to work in Law Enforcement. Thus, "Working for what I have". I went a step further after my time in the Military, by getting my Bachelors in Criminal Justice, with a dual minor of English, and History. I'm now 1 year from having my Law Degree, but plan on staying in Law Enforcement.

[MrL_JaKiri]

CCSD, in what way is institutionalised corruption combined with an arrogant and hypocritical attitude towards your own people preferrable to the socialist systems in place in europe?

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
CCSD, in what way is institutionalised corruption combined with an arrogant and hypocritical attitude towards your own people preferrable to the socialist systems in place in europe?

One is a good idea implemented horribly, the other is a horrible idea implemented even worse.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Nodrog
One is a good idea implemented horribly, the other is a horrible idea implemented even worse.

I think he's onto something!

[CCSD]

The former you can change through your right to vote, and question the powers that be. The latter you can not.

[Kurashima]

Originally posted by CCSD
The former you can change through your right to vote, and question the powers that be. The latter you can not.

Democracy is a myth created by people in positions of real power.

To believe otherwise is to see the world in a very blinkered way.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by CCSD
The former you can change through your right to vote, and question the powers that be. The latter you can not.

Yes you can.

You're confusing 'socialism' with 'communism'.

You can, and indeed, many places in europe do, have socialist democracies.

Oh, and do you really believe that all european states are communist? Your reading of my post implies that.

[edit]

In fact, you can change the latter, but you can't change the former.

In most European countries, there exist several political parties of differing leanings.

Tell me how the Republicans and the Democrats differ.

[acropolis]

This one's easy.

the best form of government (ideally) is a totalitarian monarchy ruled by an omniscient, omnipotent, and most importantly benevolent entity.

Were there none such available, a 'very smart, very powerful, and pretty nice' guy would do (as the totalitarian monarch).

Obviously logic & reality preclude such from occurring, but that's beside the point.

Losing the 'ideal' part of the question, and moving to 'best possibility', you realize that the best government is completely dependent on the body it is created to govern.

Hmm.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by CCSD
Are you now babbling that Socialism would work, but you need capitalism 1st, in order to bring it about?

I realise I really shouldn't feed trolls but I had to respond to a few points. On the above point, yes that's exactly what I'm saying which is also coincidentally exactly what Marx said.

On a few other points :

1. At no point did I say Stalin wasn't a mass-murdering psycho. My point was that if you could somehow go back in time and stop him being born this wouldn't necessarily stop some of the horrific problems that developed in the USSR. Some contemporary Bolsheviks (which was my point) do think that it was somehow all Stalin's fault and developed from him being a psycho, which is of course nonsense.

The Russian system followed it's own internal logic. Some of the policies stemmed from previous actions and external conditions. There were vast amounts of mistakes and crimes but the fact they were invaded by (I believe) well over ten imperialist armies at the time didn't exactly help.

If you want to use a "experiment" analogy then while you're trying to test the speed a small car you've built rolls down a hill I'm trying to stamp all over the damn thing, seriously damaging it in the process. When the experiment inevitably fails you can say "See, your car was crap".

2. Gramsci didn't "like" Stalin particularly, or at all. So I don't really know where you are going there.

3. I'm well aware of Mao's shortcomings. However, some of his earlier writings (to do with the state) have some relevance. That's kind of like dismissing Jefferson's writings on the baiss of "LOL, he owned slaves dude".

4. Flaming really does weaken your central argument and tends to reinforce stereotypical ideas of those holding right-wing views. I don't see why it's necessary to resort to it.

5. I'm not actually a "student". Not that is relevent one bit to any of my points, but as you brought it up.

Thanks,

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by CCSD
Try getting out of the classroom for a few minutes a day.

is this your standard insult? you seem to use it on all the people here who aren't actually at university.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
If you want to use a "experiment" analogy then while you're trying to test the speed a small car you've built rolls down a hill I'm trying to stamp all over the damn thing, seriously damaging it in the process. When the experiment inevitably fails you can say "See, your car was crap".

yeah, thats exactly what happened

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Nodrog
yeah, thats exactly what happened

No, that's why it was an analogy rather than a documented event involving a small car. But anyway, every single nation which has "experimented" with abolishing private property (to an extent) via revolutionary methods has been attacked by external powers, one way or another (either before, during or after).

Not that these nations were socialist to begin with, or had the right conditions or even the right ideology, but the above hardly helped. If the land of Nod experimented with abolishing taxation (and thus government spending on the whole) and then you were attacked by various statist powers, wouldn't this make it rather difficult to continue?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Radical Edward
is this your standard insult? you seem to use it on all the people here who aren't actually at university.

He obviously distrusts the school system.

Bloody people with their knowledge and their glasses and their spirograph and their '90210'.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Radical Edward
is this your standard insult? you seem to use it on all the people here who aren't actually at university.

Duh. He's a typical right-wing, small-minded idiot, and therefore considers everyone who is intelligent and educated to be Communists who have no real concept of reality or real life.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
Duh. He's a typical right-wing, small-minded idiot, and therefore considers everyone who is intelligent and educated to be Communists who have no real concept of reality or real life.

that's such a brilliant description of people who hold those points of view. I'll keep it in mind. Thankyou.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Radical Edward
that's such a brilliant description of people who hold those points of view. I'll keep it in mind. Thankyou.

Never underestimate the arrogance and conviction that comes from a position of satisfied stupidity and ignorance.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
Duh. He's a typical right-wing, small-minded idiot, and therefore considers everyone who is intelligent and educated to be Communists who have no real concept of reality or real life.

Its more to do with the state of the Humanities in America actually.

[CCSD]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
Duh. He's a typical right-wing, small-minded idiot, and therefore considers everyone who is intelligent and educated to be Communists who have no real concept of reality or real life.

Well here we go. Please educate me with your tired, and proven wrong time and again, theory.

The fact is, Marxism looked great on paper, which is always a plus when you are working with the academic's. Sorry if I assumed by your rantings that you all must still be on a college campus, and not actually out in the real world yet. I'll plead that I made my assumption based upon the utter stupidity of your statements, and call it even.

I do have some questions for all of you though:

If Marxism was so great, then why does every Marxist country have to build borders not to keep people out, but to keep people in? What's more, why do Communist countries put their people in prison, when those people try to leave those countries?

Why is it that every country in Africa, that was annexed by the Soviets, or China, and had their farms collectivized, suffered incredible famines shortly thereafter?

Why is it, that the largest Department in the KGB, was the one having to do with industrial espionage in the west?

Why is it that the Soviet Union, China, and Cuba, have had to murder millions of their citizens, in order to force Communism down their throats, if it was so great?

Why is it that the Communist countries are unable to give their people the basic human rights, and standard of living that Democratic countries are able to give their citizens?

Why is it that every country on the face of this planet, that has a democratically elected government, has never suffered a famine under that form of government?

Whats more, why is it that the most successful farms in the Soviet Union, were the ones that the state allowed to be privately owned?

I can go on for hours about this subject fellas. To call me a right winger, is about the most laughable statement you could make, besides Dante's statement on how "Communism would work, but Capitalism has to come 1st". I'm more of a independent than anything else. I believe in voting for what works, and not for any particualr party. As a matter of fact, I voted for Clinton in this last election. I really don't care for Bush that much, but I do think he's one hell of a lot tougher on Foreign Policy, than Clinton was. As a past member of the US Military, I traveled all over this world, and managed to see many political systems at work. I've come to the conclusion, not from theory, but from direct experience, that Democracy is still the best system in the world. All I have to do is look around my country to know that.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Why is it you don't know what socialism is?

It's been described on this thread.

Hint: It's not marxism.

[edit]

Russia didn't have to murder millions of people. That was Stalin's choice.

If you look at Leninism, it's a perfect example of a socialist agrarian state.

and so on.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by CCSD

That would have been a ****ing great argument if MM had been claiming communism is a good system that often works. In fact he said that you were assuming everyone with moderately left-wing or in fact simply different opinions was a marxist. You then went on assuming the exact same thing.









PS There has never been a marxist country or even a proper attempt at on (I'd question dante here on which one came closest but as far as I'm aware true marxism just was not attempted).

[MrL_JaKiri]

Marxism will never work, as the expected change in the control of the means of production by economic necessity never occurred, and never will.

[edit]

Back to replying to CSDSCSDD, Clinton and Bush, what's the difference?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
Marxism will never work, as the expected change in the control of the means of production by economic necessity never occurred, and never will.

I never said it would work.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
I never said it would work.

I know. That's why I didn't quote you and phrase it as a counter argument.

Unlike some people.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
I know. That's why I didn't quote you and phrase it as a counter argument.

Unlike some people.

Touche good sir.

[bobble]

Originally posted by Mirai
Sounds like a little piece of heaven to me.

oh it would be.

i dream of it nightly

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by CCSD
Well here we go. Please educate me with your tired, and proven wrong time and again, theory.

Marilyn Manson isn't a Marxist. This is the point. In your original post, because it contained various flames and inflammatory remarks, people respond (even people who agree with you to an extent) by calling you an idiot. This was my point in my last post. It's just easier if you respond to the matter at hand before just calling people idiots and saying "get out of the classroom", etc. General respect for people's ideas when discussing serious matters is the best way to go.

Moving on, there are very few Marxists on this forum, so asking the likes of MrL, MM, etc to defend Marxism seems a bit silly. For future reference the vague Marxists on this forum appear to myself, Tocatta & Fugue, bungle (I think was his name, I forget, he hasn't been around in a while) and this anarchist chap now. It'd be easier if you directed any torrent of abuse towards that group of people.

Most others are divided between capitalist libertarians (Nod, queball, W to an extent I suppose, Tacititus and a few others) and vague social-democrats (i.e. people who vaguely support the European welfare model). It's best if you're aware of people's views before embarking on insulting them.

Anyway, onto your Marxist points :
You seem to confused about what Marxism actually is. It's not the policies embarked upon by the USSR et al. In fact, one of the things that annoys most people about Marx's writings is that he says very little on what a state would like under "socialism" (or communism). Marxism is a tool to analyse society not for building something new, which is why I feel my idea for a society is consistent with Marxism while being completley at odds with what the Bolsheviks, Maoists, etc tried.

One of Marx's key points is that society follows a set patterns of sorts. Generally before a country develops capitalism, feudalism needs to be in place to establish land owning patterns and in late-feudalism patterns of wage-ownership, tenancy, etc. To move from a completley pre-agricultural (say) society to modern equity capitalism would probably be disasterous for example, since society wouldn't have been formed in the correct way, land would have no set ownership, the legal system would be immature, and so on.

Similarly, socialism (says Marx) needs to stem from capitalism. You can't leap directly from feudalism (where the majority of the population are rural peasants) to socialism with no intervening capitalist period. Obviously Lenin, etc thought they could somehow shortcut history, but I'm not sure whether this is possible even where imperialist states or counter-revolution doesn't occur.

If you're interesting in learning more, even the introductary "Communist Manifesto" (Marx/Engels) does discuss this on some level.

But I'm sure it's easier to just respond with "ARE YOU GOING TO APOLOGISE FOR THE KHMER ROGUE!!!!!!!" and other such related comments which really are nothing to do with this thread.

[MrL_JaKiri]

I read a delightful article a few months ago on Marxism; Giles probably threw the magazine containing it out.

[edit]

I keep on wanting to reply 'I wasn't even supposed to be in today' to your longer posts.

[Mirai]

Originally posted by CCSD

I can go on for hours about this subject fellas. To call me a right winger, is about the most laughable statement you could make, besides Dante's statement on how "Communism would work, but Capitalism has to come 1st". I'm more of a independent than anything else. I believe in voting for what works, and not for any particualr party. As a matter of fact, I voted for Clinton in this last election. I really don't care for Bush that much, but I do think he's one hell of a lot tougher on Foreign Policy, than Clinton was. As a past member of the US Military, I traveled all over this world, and managed to see many political systems at work. I've come to the conclusion, not from theory, but from direct experience, that Democracy is still the best system in the world. All I have to do is look around my country to know that.

And all I have to do is look around my country (which magically is the same country as yours) to see democracy failing. I could go into how bush stole the election in a state sponsored coup, how our personal freedoms are being trampled as we speak due to pieves of legislature called the PATRIOT acts, and how we've descended into a climate of eternal fear because our leaders can't apologise for making some incredably bad choices.

Sure, democracy works. Sure it does.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by Mirai
And all I have to do is look around my country (which magically is the same country as yours) to see democracy failing. I could go into how bush stole the election in a state sponsored coup, how our personal freedoms are being trampled as we speak due to pieves of legislature called the PATRIOT acts, and how we've descended into a climate of eternal fear because our leaders can't apologise for making some incredably bad choices.

Sure, democracy works. Sure it does.

I do not share your pessimism. Not because I think your assessment is totally wrong, but because I think it lacks perspective.

I'm also reminded of one of Churchill's quotes on democracy: “Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others that have been.”

[CCSD]

Originally posted by Mirai
And all I have to do is look around my country (which magically is the same country as yours) to see democracy failing. I could go into how bush stole the election in a state sponsored coup, how our personal freedoms are being trampled as we speak due to pieves of legislature called the PATRIOT acts, and how we've descended into a climate of eternal fear because our leaders can't apologise for making some incredably bad choices.

Sure, democracy works. Sure it does.

Yes, I can feel the tentacles of the state closing in on me as we speak.

When was the last time you were harassed by the FBI?

When was the last time you had your phone tapped?

Has this republican administration effected your life negatively in any way as of today? The only effect it has had on me, was a tax return 3 times larger than what I normally get back every year.

Do you even have an idea of what the Patriot Act entails, or are you just mad about it because the republicans came up with it?


Bush did not steal the election. I do not agree with the Supreme Court awarding him the decision on Florida, but if Al Gore was such a sharp cookie, then why in the hell did he not win by a landslide? 40% of this country will vote Democrat, no matter who is running. Likewise 40% of this country will vote Republican, no matter who is running. The people that really matter are the 20% left over. The true independents, who vote using common sense, and not consistently for either party. Those are the people that a presidential candidate has to reach. Al Gore should have won the election, except for one thing. His campaign was for **** from day one. He's got the personality of a box of hammers, and unfortunately Bill Clinton has one hell of a better public persona than Al Gore had. Not that Bush was any better, but Gore was to be quite honest, boring as hell. Clinton knew how to reach that 20% better than Gore or Bush, but unfortunately he had already marginalized himself with that assinine sex scandal.

Now, I do have to disagree with you on something here. You said that Bush got the election by a state sponsered coup. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The Supreme's awarded Bush Florida, by upholding the decision to stop the counting after a cetain amount of time, but there were several states throughout the union, that had a close enough vote tally in favor of Bush, that Gore could have challenged the results. There were also several states that Gore won, where the tallys were close enough for challenge by Bush. Al Gore conceded the election to Bush, based upon the fact that if they started recounting across the US, it would have harmed both parties for years to come, as well as the US's standing in the international community. Personally I think it was a pretty stand up thing he did, and to be honest, 4 years of Bush is not going to make or break this country. I think Gore knew that, and he had the best interests of this country at heart. Look at it this way, if Bush does a really horrible job, the Dems will be a shoo in next time around.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by CCSD
Now, I do have to disagree with you on something here. You said that Bush got the election by a state sponsered coup. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The Supreme's awarded Bush Florida, by upholding the decision to stop the counting after a cetain amount of time, but there were several states throughout the union, that had a close enough vote tally in favor of Bush, that Gore could have challenged the results. There were also several states that Gore won, where the tallys were close enough for challenge by Bush. Al Gore conceded the election to Bush, based upon the fact that if they started recounting across the US, it would have harmed both parties for years to come, as well as the US's standing in the international community. Personally I think it was a pretty stand up thing he did, and to be honest, 4 years of Bush is not going to make or break this country. I think Gore knew that, and he had the best interests of this country at heart. Look at it this way, if Bush does a really horrible job, the Dems will be a shoo in next time around.

I'm sorry, but the scandal of the 2000 elections has been covered in great depth by the british press.

There's no argument about this.

ps.

It's not a matter whether Bush did a good job. It's whether people think he did. And at the moment, 30 odd % of americans believe that they've found WMD in Iraq.

In election terms, that's a landslide.

With the media companies on his side, I don't see how he can fail to win the 'popular' vote.

[Mirai]

Originally posted by CCSD
Yes, I can feel the tentacles of the state closing in on me as we speak.

When was the last time you were harassed by the FBI?

Never, but that's not my point. Point is, millions of people are. I don't care if I'm not being harrassed, if even one person is being harrassed for a crime he didn't commit, for a conspiracy he wasn't in on, or because he belongs to a certain ethnic group, then that's too much. The true test of maturity is to see beyond your own view and care for others. That's something I don't see many republicans having.

When was the last time you had your phone tapped?

You know, as Toccata said, I wouldn't know, seeing as it can be done whenever they want, without a judge's order.

Has this republican administration effected your life negatively in any way as of today? The only effect it has had on me, was a tax return 3 times larger than what I normally get back every year.

The tax cut didn't go far enough. The federal government has no right to collect taxes above a minimal running fee. What we need is a complete reworking of the role the federal government thinks it has. Why are we paying taxes to have a huey factory in Louisiana churn out decrepid helicopters to that they can be flown to Nevada and abandoned? Because a senator wants it. The federal government has too much power, and therefore too much corruption. We need to decrease the amount of control in order to restore true democracy. Republicans are a scourge to this planet, thinking only of themselves and no one else. America wouldn't need protecting if it wasn't for the republicans screwing everything up.

Do you even have an idea of what the Patriot Act entails, or are you just mad about it because the republicans came up with it?

I have a full copy of the patriot act, and the leaked copy of the Patriot act 2 on my computer. I understand that it's trying to 'protect americans', but taking away a personal freedom for some security is by far the worst choice anyone has ever made. Is it any suprise that townships all over the nation (including mine) are denouncing the act and reinstating the true constitution?

Bush did not steal the election. I do not agree with the Supreme Court awarding him the decision on Florida, but if Al Gore was such a sharp cookie, then why in the hell did he not win by a landslide? 40% of this country will vote Democrat, no matter who is running. Likewise 40% of this country will vote Republican, no matter who is running. The people that really matter are the 20% left over. The true independents, who vote using common sense, and not consistently for either party. Those are the people that a presidential candidate has to reach. Al Gore should have won the election, except for one thing. His campaign was for **** from day one. He's got the personality of a box of hammers, and unfortunately Bill Clinton has one hell of a better public persona than Al Gore had. Not that Bush was any better, but Gore was to be quite honest, boring as hell. Clinton knew how to reach that 20% better than Gore or Bush, but unfortunately he had already marginalized himself with that assinine sex scandal.

Now, I do have to disagree with you on something here. You said that Bush got the election by a state sponsered coup. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The Supreme's awarded Bush Florida, by upholding the decision to stop the counting after a cetain amount of time, but there were several states throughout the union, that had a close enough vote tally in favor of Bush, that Gore could have challenged the results. There were also several states that Gore won, where the tallys were close enough for challenge by Bush. Al Gore conceded the election to Bush, based upon the fact that if they started recounting across the US, it would have harmed both parties for years to come, as well as the US's standing in the international community. Personally I think it was a pretty stand up thing he did, and to be honest, 4 years of Bush is not going to make or break this country. I think Gore knew that, and he had the best interests of this country at heart. Look at it this way, if Bush does a really horrible job, the Dems will be a shoo in next time around.

You only have half the story on the election. Fox News is run by Dubya's Cousin. Fox news was the first station to declare Bush the winner. Coincidence? I think not..

Actually, Floriduh started about 2 years before the fateful night. Basically what happened was Bush's campaign manager got Database Corporation (the company the produced the voting cards in florida) to mark off any people who's name, social security number or birthdate were SIMILAR to any convited felons. (magically Jeb Bush's wife still got to vote, although she was convicted of smuggling about $10,000 worth of jewels into the US, a felony). So basically, every black citizen in Forida was effectivly wiped off the voting lists. Black citizens statistically vote overwhelmingly democratically. But they didn't get to this time.

There were other problems, but that's the main one. Some absentee ballots were postmarked past the deadline and still counted, but overall, the obvious racism this 'administration' pushed should get them thrown into jail for a very long time. If I had my way, that is.