How to destroy the United States

[jon_j_rambo]

Notice a theme...American will destroy America. Where's the H.G. Wells Time Machine?

[JerseyJohn]

Originally posted by Fraktion Armee:

"Lots of men with mullets and bad purple tracksuits partying while listening to David Hasslehoff."

LOL

What a scary vision! :eek:

[JerseyJohn]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

the rest of the world certainly hopes so too!!

That's the hell of it, the United States can't pull itself down without screwing up the rest of the world too.

-- The flip side is, if it pulls itself up the rest of the world also benefits.

An unfortunate situation as the United States doesn't seem to have much in the way of great leadership available at the moment.

[JerseyJohn]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

Notice a theme...American will destroy America. Where's the H.G. Wells Time Machine?

Agreed. That's always been the trend in societies, a few great men get things started and whatever follows is just random luck. It's true in representitive governments the same way it's true in monarchies. Wealth and power tend to stay within a limited number of families, be they royalty or not, and those descendants become empowered over the rest of the citizens, either officially or through political clout or wealth. Great men rarely produce great successors. And republics have not proven to be the answer -- they're too easily manipulated by special interests.

[Exel]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

And republics have not proven to be the answer -- they're too easily manipulated by special interests.

At least they are manipulated by more special interests and more equally than in any other form of government. That, and those subject to the manipulation (legislators and executives) can be changed periodically by the public.

As Churchill said; "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried".

[JerseyJohn]

Agreed, Excel.

I don't know what a perfect form of government would be, and obviously nobody else does either.

We can only hope that, if we're living in a republic, it's cleaned up and operating at it's most idealistic settings.

-- Unfortunately, when allowance needs to be made for ultra quick defense responses, and secret organizations need to be created to protect it from espionage (while conducting espionage of its own), things start to stray away from the ideals.

My guess is a government, any government, is never stronger than those who are running it. If the citizenry is fairly represented and looked out for, they're a lucky bunch.

[jon_j_rambo]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with our form of government. The problem is the leaders themselves!

[TaoJah]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

There's absolutely nothing wrong with our form of government. The problem is the leaders themselves!

I think a presidency and a parlement is indeed the best form of governement.

But the problem in the US is the voting system : only half the population care to vote.

And of those 50%, 20% will vote Democratic, 20% will vote Republican and 10% are swing votes. That means that your entire political system is based on who gets those 10% (the numbers aren't accurate, but the argument is valid for 8, 10 or 15%).

I prefer a system where you HAVE to vote (like in my country). Sure, you can argue that "if you're not intrested enough in politics to vote, you shouldn't have a say", but on the other hand : it are the 50% that don't vote that are send to Iraq to die for oil, whose jobs are lost due to economic politics, who will pay off the debt that the US is piling up to give to Haliburton.

And while you're at it : the only vote that should matter is the popular vote, not the rigged elections that you got going at the moment. And certainly not a decision of the 11 70-something judges.

Now stop posting here and go play my next email turn !

[Moonslayer]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

That's the hell of it, the United States can't pull itself down without screwing up the rest of the world too.

-- The flip side is, if it pulls itself up the rest of the world also benefits.

An unfortunate situation as the United States doesn't seem to have much in the way of great leadership available at the moment.

Is that a serious post? I hardly think the US has that kind of influence over the world economy. As far as governments go true communism is easily the 'best' system... works brilliantly for several insect species... problem is Humans aren't insects and are nowhere near altruistic enough for it to work. Democracy seems to work well for many of us in the West (but definately not all).

[JerseyJohn]

Okay, Moonslayer, I defer to your greater insight, the United States has little or no influence outside of it's own borders.

[SeaMonkey]

JJ, now you've done pretty good up to this satirical comment, simmer.....we must account for all opinions.

TJ, absolutely agree, one of the most insightful comments, of a political nature, I've ever read from you.

For what its worth...my compliments.

[Scrogdog]

*decloaks*

I prefer a system where you HAVE to vote (like in my country). Sure, you can argue that "if you're not intrested enough in politics to vote, you shouldn't have a say", but on the other hand : it are the 50% that don't vote that are send to Iraq to die for oil, whose jobs are lost due to economic politics, who will pay off the debt that the US is piling up to give to Haliburton.

Having people that are not interested in the subject matter vote anyway does not make them become interested... it makes them check off random boxes. Heck, that doesn't prevent wars or corporate graft, in fact it could actually lead to them. Voting without thought is just that.

And while you're at it : the only vote that should matter is the popular vote, not the rigged elections that you got going at the moment. And certainly not a decision of the 11 70-something judges.

No, we can't do that in a Federalist system because that would mean that the candidates would only campaign in the 5 or 6 most populous states in the union... and always the same ones.

And the Supreme Court did not elect Bush. It simply upheld the US Constitution as it is tasked to do.

Carry on.

[arado234]

You guys are all crazy.Global warming is going to wipe us all out.

[TaoJah]

Originally posted by Scrogdog:

Having people that are not interested in the subject matter vote anyway does not make them become interested... it makes them check off random boxes. Heck, that doesn't prevent wars or corporate graft, in fact it could actually lead to them. Voting without thought is just that.

That's not true, experience over here proofs that. It doesn't say "we, the intrested people" on your Constitution or "we, the informed people" or "we, the people that read the rich-men-owned papers".

People will care when they got the hope that their votes matters. Have a little faith in "we, the people" !

Also, I don't agree that politicians will only campaign in the most populated parts of the country. Again, experience here shows otherwise. A place where 100.000 people live will get more attention then a place where 20.000 people live, of course, but all those 20.000 towns add up, you know...

[Moonslayer]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Okay, Moonslayer, I defer to your greater insight, the United States has little or no influence outside of it's own borders.

I didn't say that

Your comment seemed to suggest that if the US economy crashes then the rest of the world is in for a similar fate. That is simply not the case. Of course there would be some rather big ripples as the US does have a pretty big influence... but to say we are all dependent on the US is a little blinkered to say the least.

[Moonslayer]

Originally posted by Scrogdog:

Having people that are not interested in the subject matter vote anyway does not make them become interested... it makes them check off random boxes. Heck, that doesn't prevent wars or corporate graft, in fact it could actually lead to them. Voting without thought is just that.

I agree 100%. I never vote simply as I have little interest in politics and fail to see any differences whatsoever between the major political parties here in the UK. The only time I would be persuaded to vote would be if it looked as if an extremist party seemed to be gaining support. Then I would vote against them to keep them out of office. Until that happens I will leave the voting to those that give a damn.

[Exel]

Mandatory voting is in most cases unnecessary and as such should be avoided. Not voting is a statement of opinion as well as voting, and should be permitted in a democracy.

[Desert Dave]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with our form of government. The problem is the leaders themselves!

LOL, yeah boy,

Old Idaho Ivanho,

Of late,

[Hey! teetering Stilt Man, ain't it

A sad Mad, hate-gay Parade! ]

And especially these last several decades,

Most shame-less-ly,

Them there kill-shy shill-meisters

Are... bought... and... sold!

As so many

1950's era Baseball Cards are

Over the ether E-Bay.

O my aching *ss, Fred Myrkle!

What you gotta pay!

For a 1958 card-set issue

**(... REAL-deal ball

player likeness - in a circle,

Remember JJ?

Alas, couldn't do that

sort of PIC now - heads are so swole

from throwing 'roids down the gape-hole,

they wouldn't FIT should

the card be -> bill-board size :eek: )

Anyhow, a REAL ball-player card

Of, say, one of 'em true Cool Cats

Outta Dee-troit City - marv Harv Kuenn,

Or slick-mitt'd Al Kaline, even!

Coot Veal and/or Ozzie Virgil!

(... depending on how much loot

ya got to spare... 'course, this omits

VERY many now who ain't even able

to cadge together

rent & med monies )

Why, it's a psycophantic crime!

See, IF the LAWS of the Land,

In this FAST devolving, teeny-tiny-D

"democracy,"

Were to be strictly, fairly administered,

Hell's bells, Mr Swell,

There wouldn't BE any 'em lying thieves

We got usurping all over the place

These last 6 years,

In the White House nor

In 'at Zoo

AKA: ape-walk Congress,

Save, maybe,

One or 2 or - three?

LOLOL!

BTW: No need to tell me to "simmer"

SeaMonkey,

From what I ken tell,

Yer all confused about WHAT is "free"

Market

And what is or is not:

Monopoly,

Gamed System,

Birthright decrees,

Ivy League pedigree,

Stolen from Workers kind of Lucre,

And the like,

See what I mean? LOL!

[Ottosmops]

I think that one flaw of the democratic systems that we have in the western world is the fact, that we can only elect an 'all inclusive package', be it a party or a person.

I like the system they have in Switzerland, where they have regular referendums on important topics.

But to introduce such a system elsewhere will not be easy: The parties in power don't want to share their power.

[Exel]

Oh my god. I think my brain just melted reading your post Desert Dave. :eek:

Mass referendums have two huge problems, one practical and one political.

First, organizing referendums in large countries is expensive as hell. Plus, involving the mass populace in constant referendums would probably sink the electoral activity even further as people would tire in constant voting (look at the US for example).

Second, how to translate difficult political questions into simple YES/NO polls to be called on by the public in referendums? He who formulates the question has tremendous power.

[n0kn0k]

The internet will solve all of that You can do bank business, submit your taxes and buy everything on it already. So why not vote?

Not everything is suitable for a yes no vote, but then the Poll comes in mind. Solution a b c d etc. So many ways to do that.

An interesting read btw

http://www.thelocal.se/5578/20061122/

[Exel]

Originally posted by n0kn0k:

Not everything is suitable for a yes no vote, but then the Poll comes in mind. Solution a b c d etc. So many ways to do that.

The practical power in that would still lie with whoever formulates the poll. The referendum would become little more than a formality or a rubber stamp for the government - especially if the voting is made mandatory. Also the vast majority of decisions taken up by the government require specialist knowledge that you can't possibly imagine the general population to possess - if such a matter is subjected to a referendum, the voters will in turn become subjects for manipulation by the political elite, not being able to form an informed opinion of their own.

In direct democracy the elite control the masses. In representative democracy the masses control the elite.

[Desert Dave]

Oh my god. I think my brain just melted reading your post Desert Dave. :eek:

What the dickens Exel?

Melt?

In that... icen enclave AKA: Land

Of the Finns? LOL!

Well,

Another Cold Cat ain't like baseball, eh?

That's alright,

I ain't liked it since, oh,

'Round about 19 and 69.

[... 'cept for the little leaguers,

then the parents aren't around ]

I got another one for yer fragile noggin,

Been meaning to post it up

Since the war boys with their

War toys been shoutin'

For more!

Young blood, well,

That what ain't their own,

Or,

ANY of their OWN kids, that is,

As for instance,

99% of the craven cowards who are running

A Great collection

Of 50 States - the hell

Into the ground, of late.

____________________________________

The following composed by

Brian Turner,

An infantry team leader

In Iraq, for a year.

In 2005, he published a collection of poems, "Here, Bullet," quite likely

to endure long after

the shrill arguments about the war have been forgotten.

Here is one Turner poem, whose title means "friend" in Arabic,

prefaced with a quotation from Sa'di, the 13th century Persian poet:

__________________________________

"Sadiq"

It is a condition of wisdom in the archer

to be patient because when the arrow

leaves the bow, it returns no more.

It should make you shake and sweat,

nightmare you, strand you in a desert

of irrevocable desolation, the consequences

seared into the vein, no matter what adrenaline

feeds the muscle its courage, no matter

what god shines down on you, no matter

what crackling pain and anger

you carry in your fists, my friend,

it should break your heart to kill.

_______________________________

Some folks KNOW,

Been around,

Elbows are scarred,

Knees are abraded,

Got the hands dirty,

The heart fired

In kilns of ecstasy, and,

Travail,

Learned stuff the hard way,

And yet... still

And sore fiercely - holding dear

Such defunct - very nearly,

Dumb considered ideas

As:

Honor,

Decency,

Dignity,

For all!

[... and I DO mean... every... single

living thing... this,

all our one and only Earth)

Others,

As events make evident,

These last two to four-score

And more!

Years... aint' got... a frickin' clue.

[n0kn0k]

Polls awnsers can be setup by the political parties For example you got a goverment with more then two parties, like in most Euro countries. Those can set up coalitions to reach a certain threshold to be able to submit a poll proposal. Then the people vote on the solutions that the different parties come up with.

Ofcourse it's not suitable for expert stuff. But for example things like the following it's suitable, if you inform the people good enough:

The deathpenalty

Immigration

Defense Projects

Joining the EU

Sadly most people are so used to people thinking for them now, that they wouldn't even participate or know what to do. A prime example of this is the USA. If you ask anyone there why they are voting for someone they only name the headlines from the campaigning. In the model i just suggested people get to know alot more about who's representing them and what they stand for, and they also get alot more involved.

[Ottosmops]

n0kn0k,

well explained.

Exel,

I think that your argument, that the badly informed masses should leave the decisions to the experts is not valid.

Firstly, to every interesting topic there are different experts with different opinions.

Secondly, isn't it also more unreliable to first authorize a politician to authorize an expert to make a decision for me, than to make the decision myself in the first place?

The experts should have the duty to explain the problems to the ordinary people, not to incapacitate them.