Those Tricky Democrats...

The US has one of the most stable democracies in the world, I would say that makes it ONE of the "world's leaders in democracy."

How is the political scale to far to the right? Because the US is not socialized enough and its not a welfare state?

You have to live in my nation before you make judgements about my nation.

Likewise you can't judge several other nations. So how come you say you think your country is "the world leader" or "one of the world leaders" (@ narboza), if you can't judge other nations? That makes no sense.

The US has one of the most stable democracies in the world, I would say that makes it ONE of the "world's leaders in democracy."

And I would disagree. So what makes you more right than me?

It's all pointless if you ask me .

You have to live in my nation before you make judgements about my nation.

Likewise you can't judge several other nations. So how come you say you think your country is "the world leader" or "one of the world leaders" (@ narboza), if you can't judge other nations? That makes no sense.

The US has one of the most stable democracies in the world, I would say that makes it ONE of the "world's leaders in democracy."

And I would disagree. So what makes you more right than me?

It's all pointless if you ask me .

Is there a reason you disagree, or is it just because you do not like the US?

Why would the US be the world leader in democracy? What if I think some country X is the world leader in democracy (hypothetical statement)? What then makes you more right than me? I don't think there's any kind of evidence that either of us is more right or wrong. It's just a pointless discussion.

I never said that the US was THE world leader of democracy, I said that it was ONE of the world leaders of democracy, among others such as the UK, France, Israel...

Someone else did say that. Never mind, it's all pointless to begin with.

"Of the people, by the people, for the people."

That is the credo of the US government. Right now it feels more like "people" should be replaced by "our own agendas."

True democracy has a public referendum on every issue.

While this is of course unfeasible in a nation the size of the US, I'm not quite sure how you can call it a world leader of democracy. What exactly sets it apart from and makes it better than other democratic nations?

Stability, prosperity, and world influence.

How does world influence make the US a better democracy than other countries? Switzerland has zero world influence, yet our system is certainly harder to exploit than yours...

You think Switzerland has zero world influence?

I don't know you tell me DLOTS
http://papers.ssrn.c...tract_id=905759
http://www.creditcar...Cup-Dispute.php
http://query.nytimes...757C0A960958260
http://www.forward.com/articles/4564/

I never under estimate the intellect of a Swiss.

I believe it's one of the most powerful nations in Europe. Even Hitler knew better than to fuck with the Swiss.

You know, I meant Switzerland as a nation, not the swiss companies like our uber banks which rule the world. Switzerland's political decisions don't have any major impact.

And Switzerland wasn't conquered in WWII for a couple of reasons. One being that "we" supplied him with weapons (yeah, war can be very profitable for some). However, it was not because of our leet swiss-ness our the couple tanks at the border.

How about when the Swiss government is the middle man in negotiations?

You know, I meant Switzerland as a nation, not the swiss companies like our uber banks which rule the world. Switzerland's political decisions don't have any major impact.

Read this out loud to yourself and tell me if you think this is funny. I think every major entity has a swiss bank account. If you go look you'll probably find one called US Government.

You just in case our banks go under.

The US has one of the most stable democracies in the world, I would say that makes it ONE of the "world's leaders in democracy."

How is the political scale to far to the right? Because the US is not socialized enough and its not a welfare state?

Norway and Sweden have far more stable democracies. Actually, Time had a list of the most stable countries in the world, the US was 37, just above the UK actually.

The US is a far right state because it honestly doesn't care about its citizens. If you were to ask me if I thought the US would rather 50 citizens die, or lose 50 million dollars, I could tell you without a doubt, they'd let the people die. Conservatism is a backwards looking agenda, it tries to find comfort, success, and safety in the past (Despite the fact we live better than any human has ever lived before), and one of the ways it does that is by empowering business and empowering capital at the expense of the people. The United States would rather lose human beings than a dime, and would never consider extending what is considered basic human rights, the right to health care, to its own citizens. Instead, as long as you present with a gunshot, you'll be patched up and quickly ousted.
Additionally, the United States is a far more socially conservative country than... any in Europe. The US keeps threatening to infringe upon freedom of religion, and naturally, the US government has a vested interest in ensuring that gays cannot be allowed to marry. It would be a sin against god, of course! I, for one, am tired of being daemonized and practically persecuted by the United States; thus, I live in Canada, I plan on getting citizenship here. It's amazing how much more SENSIBLE Canada is, at least they don't call you a communist if you don't support invading other countries, or a terrorist if you question why we're allowed to have our phones wiretapped at will.

And Switzerland wasn't conquered in WWII for a couple of reasons. One being that "we" supplied him with weapons (yeah, war can be very profitable for some). However, it was not because of our leet swiss-ness our the couple tanks at the border.

Six months, an army group, and 50,000 men later, Germany would have their Switzerland. It just wasn't worth it, threatened to be a debacle.

Let's really get it all out on the table. Just because Europe is left wing socialist democracy, doesn't mean the Worlds Leader of Democracy (USA) is gonna measure it's worth against thier example. Absolutely stupid to do so.

There is little comparison of the USA and Europe. Even the falling dollar vs the euro is great news for the USA. It means our goods cost less which balance trade budgets.

Europe lost it's greatest asset long ago, the colony known as the US.

I can't speak for your nation, by my nation is pumping out left wing propaganda left and right. (No pun intended)

You have to live in my nation before you make judgements about my nation.

Jingo fucking nationalism.

I'm an American. I lived in America for my entire life. I'm also a far left social democrat, and I know a thing or two about media.
Turn on Fox News and CNN. The only difference between the two is that Fox News overtly has headlines that say "GENERAL PETRAEUS: Our Hero!!!", shitty reporters who praise George Bush, and Bill O'Reilly who ensures that anyone who disagrees with declaring war on other countries is berated on television. CNN very much peddles the same bullshit covertly.
Time Magazine, weekly, features at least 2 syndicated political columns dedicated to defending the President in his holy crusade against the Muslims.
MSNBC, the most sane news station, hosts Tucker Carlson.
Find me one example of left bias by large scale news media, and I will find you 100 examples of right wing bias.
The only medium the left has is online blogging and, to an extent, NPR (Largely because you have to be smart to work for NPR, not stupid and backwards with your head up your ass). Left wing propaganda? Hardly. And hardly left wing, given the rest of the world.

Another thing, the US dollar falling is extremely good for other countries. Yeah, everything they buy is cheap, but remember, we don't get as much money for it. It's like a sale on cereal, yes, you're selling the cereal, but you're also losing money.


And before you mention it, yes, I'm biased. I'm hopelessly biased. It would take me ten minutes to list all the things which the Republicans don't like about me, I'll start with a few:
1. Atheist
2. Scientist
3. Gay
4. Rather smart
5. Able to put up a decent argument
6. Anti-war
7. Pro-choice
8. Pro-civil rights
9. Anti-racist
10. Anti-business
11. Anti-genocide

The list goes on forever.

Edited by MSpencer, 26 October 2007 - 03:51 AM.

I've compiled over two pages of notes for my next article, Wiich I believe will have to be two artilces, maybe three.

Of which I will adress many issues I have with the left liberals. Stay tuned.

Grand! Another expatriot! Welcome on the team.

I must say that it is rather helpful take a view from the outside. Best done in person, but if you're not to caught up in your everyday life and still have some imagination and empathy going for you, a long chat with someone who's not from around is also helpful to question one's dearly held basic truths of life and slowly come closer to the one and only truth i have come to embrace: There is not One Truth. But, as with everything, the stronger you hold on to something in growing desperation, the more it starts to abuse you with it's bad side.

And the citizens of the U.S.A. have a leading position in holding on to their dearest believes, even over the bodies of their fellows. Which makes us not very different from the ones we persecute for their similiarly rock solid believes.

That is not a healthy diet!

Spence, if i may call you that, you are my personal hero for quite a while to come.

*Yeah Caspa, you got kicked down to 2nd place*

Well it appears this one needs to be better dissected and analysed on a "component" level. From my experience of having been to 15 countries and four continents, I've been around the block abit.

The US is a far right state because it honestly doesn't care about its citizens. If you were to ask me if I thought the US would rather 50 citizens die, or lose 50 million dollars, I could tell you without a doubt, they'd let the people die.

Let us begin the surgery process now. "Nurse, scalpel please" *nurse wipes Doctors Hostiles forehead*

So the first statement implies that the US government and US citizens do not care about the common US citizen. The statement didn't define whether it was only the US government or was it also including it's fellow citizens. Because we all know the fundamental role of the government is not to take care of the people, it's to protect them. There is a huge difference.

The governments role is not to change your babies diapers or pretend they know how to raise your own children better than you do (it's my body right?) It's to protect it against invasion, monopolies, racism and such.

The peoples role is to take care of the people. Not the governments, as clearly stated by the founding fathers of the US in The Constitution. For example...

http://findarticles....119/ai_85106542

More than $3.1 billion was donated to charities to assist the victims and survivors. The Red Cross, for example, pledged to raise and distribute about $850 million in its Liberty Disaster Fund; about $119. million was raised by the "Tribute to Heroes" telethon. The Salvation Army committed $60 million. Various other organizations have announced their contributions.

http://www.usatoday....a-charity_x.htm

Private donations total nearly $2.7 billion just 11 weeks after Hurricane Katrina struck, according to the Red Cross and Indiana University's Center on Philanthropy...

Unable to find total charity donations for California because it's not totaled yet, did find alot of links to contribution of $10-$100 or more from over 50 sources.

See the US people are doing thier job taking care of themselves. They pull together and provide the relief. No need for the government to be socialised, They (the government) simply provide the manpower and machinery (and there is some money involved as well but that finances the forespoken). Private citizens supply the funds.

But the far left doesn't try to form a bipartisan solution, They choose to politise it to thier gain.

Take for example Harry "Asswipe" Reid
http://sayanythingbl...global_warming/

As you know, one reason that we have the fires burning in Southern California is global warming. One reason the Colorado Basin is going dry is because of global warming.

Seeing as EVERYONE in S California knows what Santa Anna Winds are and understand it's a natural cycle, yet this LEADER chose to blame it on Gobal Warming (New Religion of the Far Left) than tried to deny it.

Let us take Barbara Boxer and trying to relate the S California Fires to War in Iraq.
http://newsbusters.o...dfires-iraq-war

"Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer of California complained the ability of the state's National Guard has been compromised because too much of their equipment and personnel is in Iraq. Is that true?"

The job of the National Guard is not to fight fires. And she was also quoted as saying 50% of the equipment was not avaliable since it was in Iraq. What equipment? Firetrucks? Fire fighting aircraft? Axes and shovels? Where did she get 50% from? Nice round number I assume.

California couldn't launch the aircraft because of 101 MPH winds, common knowledge.

See this is nonesense, and these are the leaders of the far left in the US. Also note not one Republican made any mention of politics in thier press confrences. They only promoted bipartisanship. Do your research.

And don't forget Bill O'Reilly was the one who busted the Red Cross for trying to shift 9/11 contributions away from New York and it's victims. I'm being patient, but you're not very upfront or simply not well researched.

Conservatism is a backwards looking agenda, it tries to find comfort, success, and safety in the past (Despite the fact we live better than any human has ever lived before), and one of the ways it does that is by empowering business and empowering capital at the expense of the people.

I suppose in a way it is. It's what founded the basic governing principals of this country. While socially it did not fullfill it's job initially because of the early days observed principals, socially, economically and politically it has solved it's issues over the years.

Measure how hard the people worked in the 1800's and 1900's in the US, only for us to fast foward to today to see people now expecting the government to care of the people instead of the people taking care of themselves or helping each other like in the days of the Great Depression.

When you rely on the government for your sustenance, you are now subject to it's dictations as well.

I suppose this reply means I can cut my newest article into only 2 parts. Wake up people, I'm not Satan, I'm here to enlighten you all. Simply to share alittle insight and truth with the masses.

Don't be fooled by people from the far left and the far right because they incorrect, one click right of center economically and one click left socially is the place to be...

(EDIT) Almost forgot to address the gay marriage issue. See it's redefining the word that is the issue IMO. I don't believe most Americans really care what you do in your own home or what civil contract you sign between two partners. But don't try to change the definition of the word. I cannot call a truck a car or a car a truck. Make up you're own word for it and you'll see it slide by alot easier.

And I've told this to a gay friend of mine and they agreed.

Clearly, tackling 1/12th of the issues and ignoring the things there are no excuses for is the easiest way to win an argument, and stinks of Thatcherian doctrine.

The job of the National Guard is not to fight fires. And she was also quoted as saying 50% of the equipment was not avaliable since it was in Iraq. What equipment? Firetrucks? Fire fighting aircraft? Axes and shovels? Where did she get 50% from? Nice round number I assume.

The National Guard is not supposed to fight fires. The job of the National Guard is to deal with disaster situations and situations where military assistance is required, such as evacuations, preparations for natural disasters, and defence of territory. In other words, the National Guard is CERTAINLY needed to evacuate people, to restore order, and to keep infrastructure going. The National Guard isn't just a bunch of infantrymen, it's also engineers, and they certainly have firefighting capabilities. The job of the National Guard is to respond to natural disasters and threats to the safety of the people within the state at the whim of the governor. If the governor needs soldiers to evacuate people in Southern California, you better bet the National Guard should be there.
Wanted to make this pretty clear:

The Governor of California may call individuals or units of the California National Guard into state service during emergencies or to assist in special situations which lend themselves to use of the National Guard. The state mission assigned to the National Guard is: "To provide trained and disciplined forces for domestic emergencies or as otherwise provided by state law."

That pretty much explains it all.
More things the National Guard is supposed to do:

In January and February 2007, National Guard troops from 8 states were activated to go help shovel snow, drop hay for starving cattle, deliver food and necessities to stranded people in their houses, and help control traffic and rescue stranded motorists in blizzards dropping feet of snow across the country.

Essentially, the National Guard is supposed to do whatever it needs to to get a state back in order. Thatcherian self-help doesn't apply to reality when the world is burning down around you.

About 50% of the equipment being in Iraq? As of August, 2007, less than 25% of the Guard was deployed in Iraq, but that includes the Air National Guard, and I can certainly imagine that the California National Guard, like all the other national guards, didn't have it's full TOE, and thus had to leave with the lion's share of vehicles.

So the first statement implies that the US government and US citizens do not care about the common US citizen. The statement didn't define whether it was only the US government or was it also including it's fellow citizens. Because we all know the fundamental role of the government is not to take care of the people, it's to protect them. There is a huge difference.

The job of the government is to serve the people. Perhaps you're forgetting that. The people empower the government with a special trust and confidence that the government will act in its best interest, be that by protection or social assurance. The job of the military is to protect the people, the job of the government is to run the country and to ensure that all of its citizens needs are met. The government is only in place because the people feel they can be served by it, not protected by it; otherwise we'd all have local militias instead.

The burden of the government is not to just raise a military and provide for the common defence (Some would say that is even pointless), but also to provide for common welfare. I suggest you read Rousseau and Montesquieu.

The governments role is not to change your babies diapers or pretend they know how to raise your own children better than you do (it's my body right?) It's to protect it against invasion, monopolies, racism and such.

And to protect against an unfair system. The current deal is not fair to 99% of the population. 1% of the population holds 80% of the wealth. Health care is commonly denied based on credit; people die because they have no money.
The government should not change diapers, however, the government should try to legislate against a system which prizes currency, and not a fair and harmonious society, as being the ultimate goal of everything. The government should have the best interests of the people in its mind, not the best interests of the most profitable corporation.

And on government disaster relief, and the "great she-elephant who must be obeyed"'s doctrine of self-help:
Is it the responsibility of private citizens to rebuild their own homes after they've just been devastated by a hurricane? Is it their responsibility to do this with only their own money, or with the money that may or may not have made it to them from a charity? No, that is why we have emergency management agencies such as FEMA, which are supposed to help relieve the pressure on people stricken by disaster. Government intervention when there has been a disaster is in no way a bad thing, and certainly government funds should go to those stricken by disasters.
What else does this apply to? Government subsidies. I don't know if you know exactly what the US would be like without farm subsidies. Subsidies are an integral part of every day life, and that's what keeps our economy going at the current rate. So, what is the big issue with subsidizing health care? Or nationalizing health care? At least making health insurance mandatory...
What is the issue with the US government providing its citizens with temporary debt relief? Oh no, that violates the Thatcher doctrine, but the Thatcher doctrine is a bit useless when you can't POSSIBLY help yourself. The government has a social obligation to act in the best interests of the people, and one of those interests is keeping people out of intense poverty.

And don't forget Bill O'Reilly was the one who busted the Red Cross for trying to shift 9/11 contributions away from New York and it's victims. I'm being patient, but you're not very upfront or simply not well researched.

And don't forget:
Bill O'Reilly constantly praises George Bush, you know, the guy who invaded Iraq, has tanked the American economy, and has proven to be the least intelligent and least successful president in American history.
Bill O'Reilly doesn't miss the chance to incite homophobia.
Bill O'Reilly doesn't ever miss the chance to incite racism and xenophobia.
You want more? Check out the 1217 hits at http://mediamatters......ring=O'Reilly
I'm certainly well researched. I just don't think it's worth listing every single one of his sins here. The guy is just ridiculous, and anyone who isn't a WASP is probably a terrorist or a threat to America. It's the warfare doctrine, extremely common Goebbels technique, to isolate a part of the population and make them into non-citizens, even non-humans. He does it with gays, Arabs, Democrats, anyone on the target list.

To defeat your next point, I only have to rely on the greatest President the United States ever had, FDR.

Measure how hard the people worked in the 1800's and 1900's in the US, only for us to fast foward to today to see people now expecting the government to care of the people instead of the people taking care of themselves or helping each other like in the days of the Great Depression.

Except for the fact that the New Deal was perhaps the largest government intervention in an economy ever, and that it was the most successful socialist reform of an economy in the history of western society.

And now we can tackle civil unions.

(EDIT) Almost forgot to address the gay marriage issue. See it's redefining the word that is the issue IMO. I don't believe most Americans really care what you do in your own home or what civil contract you sign between two partners. But don't try to change the definition of the word. I cannot call a truck a car or a car a truck. Make up you're own word for it and you'll see it slide by alot easier.

There is no law on any book anywhere that says marriage is specifically between a man and a woman. Honestly, I don't care about gay marriage, it doesn't matter to me, I'm not religious, I'd rather have civil union laws like France, applying to any couple.
I'm more concerned with the overt homophobia coming from the right. You know, the ridiculous "the gays are the enemy" doctrine, where anyone who is found to be gay is immediately vilified, where gays are actively prevented from being granted the right to have civil unions, where a fundamentally discriminatory amendment to the United States Constitution has been proposed, where no common law charter of human rights and freedoms has been implemented, and where most appallingly, legislation which would make violence based on sexual or gender orientation ("gay bashing") a hate crime is actively opposed by Republicans.
Yeah, America sounds like a very fair and tolerant place. I personally wouldn't want to get married, and I really don't care about gay marriage, but I certainly care about being able to live a productive and fair life in the country I live in, and that's just another reason I'm out of the United States. It's not a fair deal for the people in any way, shape, or form.

Except for the fact that the New Deal was perhaps the largest government intervention in an economy ever, and that it was the most successful socialist reform of an economy in the history of western society.

i was gonna talk about the new deal and keynesian economics vs free market ones(chicago-school style). basically, before the new deal was implemented it was a free market from hell in the US. when the great depression happened, the government did not have any funds to inflate and support a collapsing economy because all the money was privatized and went down the drain. i can claim that free-market economics was the primary cause of the two world wars aswell. The first was caused by more than a prince being shot, and the second was caused by the first.

the last 20 or so years the friedman perspective on free-market economics has been The way to do it. now that we see what Bush has been doing during his time, those economics have started to meet the wall. the problem is that chicago-school economics have done its best to wipe out The New Deal and the theories of keynesian economics - which means that the dangers for a new great depression are greater than they would have been with more social economics.

just look at the dollar, and the house-mortgages disasters in the US. pretty much early warning signs of a too free market fixing itself on the cost of the people it was supposed to help.