Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 178
  1. #61  
    Just had a flash of brainwaves. (a rarity: i haven't had my coffee yet)

    Americans often wonder why other countries get PO'd when the president (not the rest of us) decide that the Kyoto treaty or the ICC isn't in the government's best interest.

    I just realized why: Other countries literally have to share space, borders, and most importantly, resources with their neighbors. They have learned through the years that playing nicely is better than shutting themselves off from the world.

    The US, on the other hand, has all the resources it needs and shares borders with two relatively mute countries. This kind of geographic isolationism often gives rise to isolationism from the government.

    (Don't take it personally, Canadians. I know you guys have given the US a lot (especially that hilarious Colin Mochrie) but in terms of influencing US foreign policy, the Canadians (and Mexicans) are almost non-existent).
  2. #62  
    Terry, I'd have to agree with other international posters here that they DO have a stake in American politics- just as we often have in stake in theirs. What one country does more and more affects others.

    A 15 party system sounds cumbersome to me, but I can see the advantages to it. Our system is a compromise. There ARE other parties in America, but they get no air time (unless they are whacko or rich- most have been both), often run no national candidates, and are generally thought of as jokes by the average American.

    Then there is the whole Electoral College issue, which further removes us from direct participation and primaries, where we narrow our own choices from a field of candidates that actually represent options to just two- who rarely really represent the majority but are all we have left.

    Of course, the sheer size and diversity of America complicate matters, but that is a matter of degree and is experienced by everyone (except possibly Lichenstein or Vatican City- and probably even them!)

    If anyone ever figures out a PERFECT system that would both work, and be 'sellable' to the powers-that-be, just write www.whitehouse.gov and share it with them!
    Do what you can, with what you have, where you are at!
  3. #63  
    Originally posted by terrysalmi
    With the 'American' system, you can atleast vote for who represents 'you', instead of having to choose democrat or republican. You get to vote split-ticket (Republican for Congress, Democrat for Senate, etc.) if you want, and you don't have to be satisfied with the party's choices as congressman. It gives people with no political experience the chance to be in the Congress (Hey, it is the CITIZEN's GOVERNMENT!)
    -Name one Congressperson in the past ten years with no prior political experience.
    -Voting "split ticket" as you desribe is still voting either Democrat or Republican. Even though one may not be voting all Dem or All Rep it is still almost always "Dem" or "Rep." Even worse when the Dem candidate gets on the ticket for another party -- you can vote Libertarian, but you're still voting for the Dem candidate! (That's just an example. I'm not singling out Libertarians or Democrats.)
    The competition no longer exists. The candidates have become interchangeable in the past fifteen years.

    b) No, your opinion only matters if you participate and actively vote in the American system of government. I could care less what Australians or Canadians think of the job our President is doing, because you don't have to live with his every action. We do.
    Silly boy. Isolationism is one of the causes of the Great Depression.
    As others have said, other nations do have to live with the actions of our President.
    For example, if country A is friends with country B, country C, country D and with the US. The US chooses to enter into yet another undeclared war, for whatever cause or reason, with country B as the "enemy." Countries C and D tell Country A that they will follow its lead. Country A then has to choose whether to side with country B, or with the US, knowing that if they side with B they may be next, and that if they side with the US that country A will feel betrayed and may go to war with them.


    I have no interest in helping immigrants who have come to this country illegally, or have no interest in becoming citizens, while planning not to leave.
    A somewhat undemocratic and xenophobic viewpoint, although I do agree. This is actually why there are Visas for long-term visitors to foriegn nations (such as the US).

    It seems you have bought my arguments about the Kyoto treaty - You've all shut up about it all of a sudden.
    sounds like the Chewbacca defense to me, your honor.
    The light at the end of your tunnel has been disconnected due to non-payment. Please remit funds immediately for restoration of hope.
  4. #64  
    When has Bush (or anyone in the U.S.) threatened to invade the Hague? I am sure if the Court gains 'power' and tries to try an American Civilian, all hell will break loose on the 'negotiating tables' and not in military action. The reason the U.S. has such a strong military is because it can scare people into doing what we want, without having to use the power.

    In terms of American Politics when it comes to international treaties or courts, you could have a legitimite opinion. But chances are that the people at top will listen to what American's are saying before what the International community is saying. This might sound bad, but it is true: AMERICA COMES FIRST.

    Our system is a Compromise! Exactly right, Madkins! That is why it is so great! That is why we have three government branches with checks and balances. That is why we have two equal branches of Congress, one that favors the smaller states with equal representation: The Senate, and one that favors the larger states with proportional representation: The Congress. (I know some have been bad, like the 3/5ths compromise, but it worked at the time)

    The original Constitution did not say anything about political parties, and the framers were against it in the language they used. Their original plan was to have the President be the person with the most electoral votes, and the Vice-President be the person with the second-most. People soon realised this was a very bad idea, as the President and Vice-President would hate eachother and nothing would get done. That is why the country has slowly evolved as it has, with the party system, where two strong pre-made coalitions battle against eachother, and one is almost guaranteed to take a majority of the votes. If this does not happen, the THREE top vote-getters are taken to the House of Representatives, where the people's congressman vote who wins (with each state having one vote). That is why America has never had to have special elections in the middle of a term, and why the Government's power is not questioned, like it is in a Parliament's system.

    The Party system has also evolved from where the people had no say to where we get to vote for who the party nominates! What better way is there? Sure, we might not like the two candidates that remain, but obviously, a lot of the people in the country do, and are likely to get a large amount of votes. This is better than 15 people running for President, with the top person getting about 20-30% of the votes. Then, someone would sure to be complaining, a lot more than they are now.

    The electoral system was originally used because the framers realized that the majority of the small country did not have the education to make a reasonable choice to government, and this was true. However, times have changed. I for one still support the Electoral College, as it has the 'potential' to give smaller states a say in the election, but only if it is reformed to the way Nebraska and Maine currently use it: Where instead of the winner of the state takes 'all' the states votes, it takes only the districts it wins, and the two 'senate' votes. I don't support the winner-take-all-of-a-states-votes method.

    The 10 other candidates for President in America do not get air time because they do not have the political support of the people in America, or else they would recieve donations to pay for the air time. The smaller candidates also get GOVERNMENT funds to pay for their election campaign - (and was enacted by a two party system...).

    Israel is a great system of Democracy, if you ever go over there and study their system (as I have). And both sides do not want war and blood, only one does. This is the misconception of the International Media (which is pro-arab). The Israeli people just want peace, and to go about their daily lives without worry of suicide bombers. On the other side, a recent poll has shown that 48% of Palestinians believe the intifadah should DESTROY the state of Israel, not just create their own state.

    The Palestinian people and their supporting Arab States do NOT WANT PEACE. They want ISRAEL DRIVEN INTO THE SEA. They have been given many chances to declare their own state and live side-by-side with Israel, including in 1948, when the UN gave the recognition of dividing the area into a Israeli and Palestinian state. The Israeli's took this and used it to declare independence in the areas the UN gave them, while the Arabs used it as an excuse to go to war. In 1953 and in 1967 and in 1973, the Arab states surrounding Israel all declared war and immediately advanced on Israel. In every time they were turned away. In the case of the 1967 war, over 10 arab states advanced on Israel, on every side of the small nation. The tiny, outnumbered, Israeli Forces overran every single on of these countries, defeated every one of these forces in just 6 Days, while enlarging their country by 150% by the time the peace treaty was signed. Not bad for a war you didn't start. The Arabs have been wanting this land back ever since, though it was fairly won in war. Israel would be willing to trade land for peace, but the Arabs don't want peace. They want Israel destroyed. That is why the Oslo Agreements failed - it was the Palestininians best chance to declare statehood, but instead, they went against the treaty and continued to have suicide bombers attack Israel.

    America's two-party choice is not what split-ticket voting is about. The choice that you have of voting for a Republican for President, while voting in all other seats Democrats, is. This is the choice you have. You do not have to accept what the party gives you as your delegate, you get to choose yourself. You cannot do this in a parliamentary system.
    Blue Visor Deluxe ~ Clie T615 ~ Zire 71 ~ Treo 650 ~ Palm Centro
  5. #65  
    As much as I respect your right to voice your beliefs on our political system or the middle-eastern situation, I have to admit that your notes are becoming so long winded that I'm only reading the first sentence of the paragraph to see if it's worth my time to read. Fortunately, your note below got some read-time from me.

    First of all: I hate to think that we "scare" other countries into doing what we want them to do. We believe in doing the right thing. What the "right thing" is up for debate, but simply sending a carrier group to the Arabian sea isn't going to convince Iran to abandon its anti-western stance.

    However, taking a tiny percentage of our defense budget (say, a billion dollars?) and building 1000 new schools in Iran that are fully connected to the rest of the world would be a huge step in convincing them "sure, we're a big ol' superpower with nuclear weapons and huge aircraft carriers that would pulverize your country into pig feed in 5 minutes, but we also think you guys are worth having as friends."

    I believe our total aid to Israel stands at several billion dollars more than that. Our investment in Israel has given us a foothold in a democracy in the region as well as several technological advancements. Who's to say that similar investments in arabic countries wouldn't reap similar dividends?

    Second: Your history regarding the development of the two party system is essentially correct. However, you need to realize that the Vice President, per the Constitution, only has two functions: 1) replace the president if s/he is incapacitated or dies and 2) preside as president of the Senate and provide a tie-breaking vote. The VP did not really become a significant office until the rise of the "media age" where the VP became a de facto spokesperson for the president.

    At the risk of sounding like a Clinton apologist (which I am not), One could argue that Clinton was the greatest politician who ever had the office of President (notice: i didn't say greatest president or person).

    Clinton always *knew* what the hot button issues were. He was able to steal the issue from the republican-controlled Congress by beating them to the punch and being able to frame legislation that was acceptable to both parties (eg. welfare reform). The issues that he addressed would otherwise have died in partisian debate.
  6. #66  
    The 10 other candidates for President in America do not get air time because they do not have the political support of the people in America, or else they would recieve donations to pay for the air time. The smaller candidates also get GOVERNMENT funds to pay for their election campaign - (and was enacted by a two party system...).
    You've pointed out the problem right there. Our system is entirely based on money.

    Guess who gets the most from big corporations? The Good Ol' Party. That's who.

    And both sides do not want war and blood, only one does.
    It takes two to fight. And they've been fighting for 50 years.

    You do not have to accept what the party gives you as your delegate, you get to choose yourself.
    If the party picks a candidate, that's the only candidate that will get any support (ie MONEY) from said party. You, of course, can still vote for whoever you want to.
    We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
    -David Byrne
  7. #67  
    Originally posted by homer

    You've pointed out the problem right there. Our system is entirely based on money.

    Guess who gets the most from big corporations? The Good Ol' Party. That's who.
    So what do you suggest? Getting rid of the campaign and having a debate in every single town for everyone to hear? News Flash: That costs money!

    What's your point if the GOP gets money from corporations? Guess who gets the most from big unions? The Good Ol' Donkeys. Is this any better than Corporations?
    It takes two to fight. And they've been fighting for 50 years.
    It takes one to fight. It takes one person to keep defending itself from all the attacks, in order to protect their way of life.

    Tell me one time Israel has ever invaded another countries land without being first invaded by that country. Tell me one time Israel has done rocket attacks, etc. without first having their children and citizens being blown up when on their way to school or work, or just enjoying a friday night on the beach at a disco?

    Tell me America would not be doing the exact same thing if they were being attacked as constintly as Israel was. IMHO, Israel has done a great job at showing military restraint.

    If the party picks a candidate, that's the only candidate that will get any support (ie MONEY) from said party. You, of course, can still vote for whoever you want to.
    You get to help pick the party's candidate: remember?
    Blue Visor Deluxe ~ Clie T615 ~ Zire 71 ~ Treo 650 ~ Palm Centro
  8. #68  
    Originally posted by homer
    It takes two to fight. And they've been fighting for 50 years.
    If you were walking on a street and someone came up to you and started beating you up because he personally wanted your life, would you stand there and let him?

    P.S. I agree with Terry about Israel, but NOT about American politics. I don't want to get caught seeming as if I was part of the Republican crowd .
    -Bernie

    "One word sums up probably the responsibility of any vice president, and that one word is 'to be prepared'.
    -Dan Quayle
  9. #69  
    Originally posted by terrysalmi
    [...] The 10 other candidates for President in America do not get air time because they do not have the political support of the people in America, or else they would recieve donations to pay for the air time.
    OK, Terry, as a recent high school graduate, you may or may not be familiar with this situation: How do you get credit without a credit history? How do you get a job without previous job experience? How do you get political support for a message, if no one can hear the message?
    The smaller candidates also get GOVERNMENT funds to pay for their election campaign - (and was enacted by a two party system...). [...]
    Since when? Last I checked, you only got _matching_ funds (for what you raise, up to a certain limit, and limited in spending abilities) if you were able to secure above a certain percentage in two consecutive presidential elections.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  10. #70  
    Originally posted by ernieba1


    If you were walking on a street and someone came up to you and started beating you up because he personally wanted your life, would you stand there and let him?
    Not a good analogy...
    a better one:
    Say you get the backyard of your neighbour by power of the local council. Your neighbour does not agree and tries to defend his property...
    You have legal rights to that property now so you defend yourself by killing you neighbour, killing his family and taking over his front yard too.
    Then the neighbours nephew comes in with molotof cocktails and burns the place including himself, so you go and kill his family too.
    This will make his cousin opset and he goes in bombs the place again... etc etc...

    Yes, you had the legal right over the backyard, but things got out of hand and both are fighting and looking for revange...
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  11. #71  
    Originally posted by terrysalmi
    When has Bush (or anyone in the U.S.) threatened to invade the Hague? I am sure if the Court gains 'power' and tries to try an American Civilian, all hell will break loose on the 'negotiating tables' and not in military action. The reason the U.S. has such a strong military is because it can scare people into doing what we want, without having to use the power.
    By canceling the ICC treaty and saying the US will rescue any US cititcen when the get tried abrought he basically say, try to trial on of our guys and we'll invade you.
    Wether that is just bluff or not does not matter... the attitude is the same... Bush is basically a big bully.... Great example for a country... not...

    Originally posted by terrysalmi
    Our system is a Compromise! Exactly right, Madkins! That is why it is so great! That is why we have three government branches with checks and balances. That is why we have two equal branches of Congress, one that favors the smaller states with equal representation: The Senate, and one that favors the larger states with proportional representation: The Congress. (I know some have been bad, like the 3/5ths compromise, but it worked at the time)
    All systems are a compromise... I'm not saying a 15 party is better, I'm just saying it is more democratic... one of the values that america prides itself for... But who does say a communist in the US vote for? is there a communist party? who does a 'green' person vote for?
    The 2 party system only gives choise to rightwing voters... not very democratic if you ask me...
    (and no I am NOT left wing, but I do believe all people should have a choice)


    Originally posted by terrysalmi
    The Party system has also evolved from <snap> This is better than 15 people running for President, with the top person getting about 20-30% of the votes. Then, someone would sure to be complaining, a lot more than they are now.
    You know what happens if you ***Ume?
    In a 15 party system is not about 15 people running for president... it is a about the party, not the person. The role of the president is a lot smaller. The president generally comes from the biggest party but not neccesarily...the best person gets the job...


    Originally posted by terrysalmi
    The 10 other candidates for President in America do not get air time because they do not have the political support of the people in America, or else they would recieve donations to pay for the air time. The smaller candidates also get GOVERNMENT funds to pay for their election campaign - (and was enacted by a two party system...).
    As said before politics in the US is all about money... without that you don't stand a chance.. again not very democratic...
    In the Netherlands all parties get goverment funding so they have equal opportunity...

    Originally posted by terrysalmi
    Israel is a great system of Democracy, if you ever go over there and study their system (as I have). And both sides do not want war and blood, only one does. This is the misconception of the International Media (which is pro-arab).
    Israel started off with a great system... nowaday it all is a bit f-ed up...
    The international is NOT pro-arab, but not Pro-israel either... they see both sides of the story...

    Originally posted by terrysalmi
    The Israeli people just want peace, and to go about their daily lives without worry of suicide bombers. On the other side, a recent poll has shown that 48% of Palestinians believe the intifadah should DESTROY the state of Israel, not just create their own state.

    The Palestinian people and their supporting Arab States do NOT WANT PEACE. They want ISRAEL DRIVEN INTO THE SEA. They have been given many chances to declare their own state and live side-by-side with Israel, including in 1948, when the UN gave the recognition of dividing the area into a Israeli and Palestinian state. The Israeli's took this and used it to declare independence in the areas the UN gave them, while the Arabs used it as an excuse to go to war. In 1953 and in 1967 and in 1973, the Arab states surrounding Israel all declared war and immediately advanced on Israel. In every time they were turned away. In the case of the 1967 war, over 10 arab states advanced on Israel, on every side of the small nation. The tiny, outnumbered, Israeli Forces overran every single on of these countries, defeated every one of these forces in just 6 Days, while enlarging their country by 150% by the time the peace treaty was signed. Not bad for a war you didn't start. The Arabs have been wanting this land back ever since, though it was fairly won in war. Israel would be willing to trade land for peace, but the Arabs don't want peace. They want Israel destroyed. That is why the Oslo Agreements failed - it was the Palestininians best chance to declare statehood, but instead, they went against the treaty and continued to have suicide bombers attack Israel.

    I agree the arabs missed plenty of opportunity and that makes me angry.. but to portray Israel as the innocent victim is not reality either... Israel turned into a vindicious power that started invading more and more terretories and use the same razia techniques as the germans did in WWII....isn't it ironic?
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  12.    #72  
    Okay, sorry I haven't been posting recently but I have been chugging through the last of my school work (ARGH!!!) Anyhew...Me not responding to the Kyoto Accord? Oh Yes I have, you must of missed them and as for that in the very beginning of this post I posted one HUGE post listing off all the things Bush and his friends have done. In that list of about 20 things you pick one thing, the Kyoto Accord. YOU haven't even responded to any of the other ones, so quit being hypocritical, it's degrading and weakens you point. Oh and while your story of you familie's heritage is touching, relying on past examples and other people's examples is a fallacy, so try not to do stuff like that to strengthen your argument, in a formal debate mushy emotional stuff like that would be dismissed. As for Bush's actions not affecting me. Well that's bull. Heard of the Softwood Lumber Treaty? Of course not because the American government has covered it up. Basically we used to export you lumber (At a really good price, and environmentally sound too, oh wait I forgot, American's don't care about the environment), but because some American mills whined about it, You Heavenly government slapped unrealistic fines and tariffs on our lumber. The immediate effect was about 100,000 workers in B.C. being layed off (But since we're not American, than the American government had nothing to do with it right?). But in the long run it turned out to be you guys who screwed yourself over. Currently we are in negotiations with China, India and Japan too buy 3 times the lumber and at much better costs than you greedy Americans ever did and now you American's have to pay on average $3000-$5000 more for a home because of the local lumber...I laugh at you guys sometimes.
    Alex.

    Now I get to go back and read those other posts I skipped over...
  13. #73  
    Originally posted by terrysalmi
    You get to help pick the party's candidate: remember?
    The only people who get to vote for a party's candidate are members of that party. And you cannot be a member of more than one party. Ergo, the Republican candidate is chosen by the Republican party's members, and the Democratic candidate is chosen by the Democratic party's members. Those who are not members of either said party don't get to help pick the party's candidate.
    Unless something's changed and I didn't get the memo.
    The light at the end of your tunnel has been disconnected due to non-payment. Please remit funds immediately for restoration of hope.
  14.    #74  
    Originally posted by terrysalmi
    When has Bush (or anyone in the U.S.) threatened to invade the Hague? I am sure if the Court gains 'power' and tries to try an American Civilian, all hell will break loose on the 'negotiating tables' and not in military action. The reason the U.S. has such a strong military is because it can scare people into doing what we want, without having to use the power.
    Bush's foreign advisor said in a press conference that if an American civilian was taken to the Hague then the American government would use any means nessecary to get him out. When asked by reporters if the military would get involved he replied if it needs to. He only stopped short of saying that nukes would be involved...but I know how much Terry loves them. Go hug your nuke.

    I believe that America's two party system is based purely on the fact that most American's can't a) count past two and b) understand how there can be more depth than just good guys vs. the bad guys.

    Also a two party system makes corruption a lot easier...you only have two parties to infiltrate. I already have a plan for Canada to take over America...it would be SOOO easy (I've probably just been red-flagged by the FBI's computers, oh well). If you really want to know I'll tell..but maybe not because I might use it someday..wouldn't you all just love to be peaceful, loving, beer-drinking Canadians? Sure you would...
    Alex.

    P.S. I am not taking any of this overly serious...I could actually care less if American's want to promote the collapse of America by voting in people like Bush....I just think of all the states Canada could snap up when the American government collapses.

    P.S.S. So I can't have a good argument eh? need I remind you who started the whole thing? and got the fires burning?
  15. #75  
    People, please refrain from personal attacks....
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  16. #76  
    Boy - I go to work for 4 hours and I get 5 pages of printed text (it seems) bashing me in every single way!

    Can't we all just get along!?

    The only people who get to vote for a party's candidate are members of that party. And you cannot be a member of more than one party. Ergo, the Republican candidate is chosen by the Republican party's members, and the Democratic candidate is chosen by the Democratic party's members. Those who are not members of either said party don't get to help pick the party's candidate.
    Isn't that why you join a party? You don't have to pay anything, just mark a box on a piece of paper. Should we change this? No. What would happen if Democrats can vote in a Republican Primary? They vote for the weaker candidate, that would be able to lose to their candidate. This is not right. (It's the way California does it, and is one reason they are so messed up).

    The American Party System is basically two pre-made coalitions that would exist in a Parliament. You are not expected to like everything that happens - there are just too many different groups combined in the party. However, you can pick the 'lesser of two evils' and pick the party that supports you the most. If you want a voice, you have to join the party. Otherwise, you are not going to help elect someone, but help make sure someone does not get elected (Ralph Nader caused Al Gore to lose the Presidency: If the people that voted for Nader voted for Gore (as they would have if there was no Ralph), he would of won the election, and support their views more than Bush is)

    All systems are a compromise... I'm not saying a 15 party is better, I'm just saying it is more democratic... one of the values that america prides itself for... But who does say a communist in the US vote for? is there a communist party? who does a 'green' person vote for?
    The American system still allows for 15 people to run for President - they just do it in 'shifts' (primaries, etc.) to make sure the two strongest people go on to the final election and to help make sure a clear winner will be decided.

    The Parliament system is all about the party. THIS IS WRONG! You get to vote for the party, but the party, if small, will still have to join the coalition or have their views ignored, and will often have to give up some of what they think to join the coalition. American politics basically does this all beforehand.

    In a Parliament system, you cannot SPLIT-TICKET vote, as I have described before.


    Tantousha: I don't have time to explain President Bush's reasons for doing everything you said. But I urge you to research each one of those items you described and find out why Bush did it. It isn't because he hates libraries, so he cut their funding. Often, it is giving them less money than they wanted in a budget, while still more money than they got last year, and is above inflation. That is a big topic in Nebraska with the Budget right now, as Madkins will attest.

    OK, Terry, as a recent high school graduate, you may or may not be familiar with this situation: How do you get credit without a credit history? How do you get a job without previous job experience? How do you get political support for a message, if no one can hear the message?
    You get credit by making loans that you don't need and paying them off on time
    You get a job at a place like Burger King or a mailroom which requires no experience, and then move up within the company or outside.
    How do you get political support for a message that noone can hear? Hmm. Ask all the people that run for mayor or state legislature or U.S. Congress with no prior political experience. You get a group of your friends together and manage a campaign.

    Say you get the backyard of your neighbour by power of the local council. Your neighbour does not agree and tries to defend his property...
    An even better analogy:
    You build your backyard before anyone else gets their. You are promised by the city council that it will alway's be your land.
    Someone from another city moves in, and forces you out of your land, because they are stronger than you. This forces you to go without a home for 2,000 years, facing hardships in other people's countries. A long time later (around the First World War), you slowly start coming back to your own land which is currently being ruled temporarily by another conquering power (the British), only to find the people that took it from you took the worst care of it, and it is not liveable. You start cleaning up, planting trees, and making gardens out of swampland, and the desert liveable, while trying to live in peace with the neighbors that took you over in the first place. About 50 years later, one of the other cities your people are still living in decides that you are the cause of all your problems and decides to kill you and your entire family of 6,000,000. After this is over, the world community realizes the need for your family to have your own country, so such a massacre will not take place again. The world community realizes the British are about to leave the city, as they promised when the took control, so the world decides to 'partition' the land to allow the original conquerers to control part of the land, which was considered the better part, while your family got the desert and remaining swamps. You accept this as it was better than nothing and you have a willingness to work the land. Your neighbor does not accept this, and vows to kill you and to drive you into the sea, and tries multiple times, but fails, though they are bigger than you and have newer weapons and have the support of the Soviet Union. At the same time, you stay on your land, trying to live peacefully, unfortunately having to have a strong military just to battle for the land that was rightfully yours from the beginning.
    Last edited by terrysalmi; 06/11/2002 at 10:35 PM.
    Blue Visor Deluxe ~ Clie T615 ~ Zire 71 ~ Treo 650 ~ Palm Centro
  17.    #77  
    I am not bashing you (well maybe a bit, sorry , bad day at school) but we are trying to get you to open up to our point of view...Your great guy, remember the conversations we had about University and High School. I would like to admit that I myself am more of a capitalist than and socialist (that word makes me shudder) but I think Bush has gone too far in a lot of areas...
    Alex.

    P.S. Guys please try to stay away from the whole Isreal vs. Palestine thing, the more research I do into it, the more I realize there IS no right answer...
  18. #78  
    Originally posted by terrysalmi
    Boy - I go to work for 4 hours and I get 5 pages of printed text (it seems) bashing me in every single way!
    I'm not bashing you nor will I (as a mod) allow that to happen...
    All we're doing is giving you our view and try to reason with argument why your view makes no sense...
    Just because you are in the minorty does not mean we are bashing you, allthough a may feel like that to you..

    Can't we all just get along!? [/B][/QUOTE]
    I can get along with you, just have a different opinion on a couple of things..

    Originally posted by terrysalmi

    The American system still allows for 15 people to run for President - they just do it in 'shifts' (primaries, etc.) to make sure the two strongest people go on to the final election and to help make sure a clear winner will be decided.
    Same in a 15 party system.. only 15*15 people can run for president...

    Originally posted by terrysalmi
    The Parliament system is all about the party. THIS IS WRONG! You get to vote for the party, but the party, if small, will still have to join the coalition or have their views ignored, and will often have to give up some of what they think to join the coalition. American politics basically does this all beforehand.
    Coalitions are a neccesary evil, without it chances are small you get the mayority of the votes. however a coalition allows smaller parties to be part of the goverment while otherwise they would not have any chance at all. even at the cost of compromizing a bit it is still better than nothing...
    right now in the US if you start a party and you are not a charismatic milionair you have no chance at all.... it is politics not a prom queen contest
    US politics are all about money and image, political views have very little to do with who wins ....

    Originally posted by terrysalmi
    In a Parliament system, you cannot SPLIT-TICKET vote, as I have described before.
    You can, when you vote different for the senate and congress...
    The role of the president is a lot smaller, which is the way it should be...
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  19. #79  
    Originally posted by ToolkiT

    Coalitions are a neccesary evil, without it chances are small you get the mayority of the votes. however a coalition allows smaller parties to be part of the goverment while otherwise they would not have any chance at all. even at the cost of compromizing a bit it is still better than nothing...
    right now in the US if you start a party and you are not a charismatic milionair you have no chance at all.... it is politics not a prom queen contest
    US politics are all about money and image, political views have very little to do with who wins ....


    You can, when you vote different for the senate and congress...
    The role of the president is a lot smaller, which is the way it should be...
    The Coalition in a Parliament System is the same thing as an American Party - America just gets all the groups together beforehand.

    The role of the President is a lot smaller. The President basically only has the power to tell the Prime Minister and the 'majority' party to create a Government. On the other hand, the role of the Prime Minister, which is the job the top leader in the 'majority' party takes IS a lot important.

    You can't split-ticket vote, you only vote for the party. Then the seats are divided between the parties based on the vote, with the top leaders in each taking the seats.
    Blue Visor Deluxe ~ Clie T615 ~ Zire 71 ~ Treo 650 ~ Palm Centro
  20. #80  
    Originally posted by terrysalmi
    The Coalition in a Parliament System is the same thing as an American Party - America just gets all the groups together beforehand.
    With the difference that the american 'coalitions' are static... this only works if you society is static too...

    Originally posted by terrysalmi
    The role of the President is a lot smaller. The President basically only has the power to tell the Prime Minister and the 'majority' party to create a Government. On the other hand, the role of the Prime Minister, which is the job the top leader in the 'majority' party takes IS a lot important.
    Eeehm, the Prime minister is the 'president'...
    The head of state it the queen who basically only has a ceremonial role..the only real power she has it so appoint the person to create the coalition...

    Originally posted by terrysalmi
    You can't split-ticket vote, you only vote for the party. Then the seats are divided between the parties based on the vote, with the top leaders in each taking the seats.
    Not true you vote on a person, if you don't know any personally or don't have a favorite most people vote on the nr 1 candidate, how ever you can vote on any candidate and if they receive enough votes they will end up in congress/senate...
    1 person per seat based on nr of votes received by candidate...
    150 seats in total...
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?

Posting Permissions