|
Scott Weiser says:
=================== Liberty is good for us, and the freedom to choose Coke is an excellent exercise of that liberty. ====================== We could have a more meaningful discussion of "liberty" if we are able to define what limits, if any, there are on liberty. And exactly "who" has this liberty? For example, is a woman at liberty to choose what happens to her body? Am I at liberty to hold loud parties which distrub my neighbors' sleep? Am I at liberty to operate a car repair service in an otherwise residential neighborhood? Can we really say, as a blanket statement, with no caveats, that, "Liberty is good for us...." Cheers, frtzw906 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ |
TnT says:
================ But I would be interested in knowing how your world view would define the various political systems if not capitalism and socialism ================ What you're referring to are not political systems but, rather, economic systems. IMHO, it is dangerous to confuse the distinctions. Further, I think it useful to begin by agreeing that no economic system exists in a pure form. We might put the systems on a continuum from less socialist to more socialist, but most developed nations -- including the USA -- would be located on this continuum. Most right-wing Americans, for example, are reluctant to admit that the defense industry is one of the most socialistic endeavours to be found on this globe. If you don't believe it, ask yourself how many research facilities are propped up by government money. How many firms in the munitions and aircraft industry would not exist were it not for massive government funding? Marx talked about "government (the people) owning the means of production." In the USA, the government may not "own", but it certainly "controls" the means of production in more than a few cases [historical note: what was the deal with the Krupp industries in the Germany of the 1940's? Is that or is that not a parallel?] The control is clear: without government monies, these firms go under. And where are the right-wing Americans when government money is doled out in corporate welfare to huge agri-business concerns? This money comes, too often, in the form of cheap water sold (given?) to these businesses at prices way below the market price. Why is it that the American right-wing can get their knickers in a knot over welfare to unemployed poor people, but thinks nothing about cramming more money than they need into the pockets of agri-business executives. Now that's socialism! Capitalism is a long lost and forgotten ideal (not a very practical or viable one either, BTW). Cheers, frtzw906 |
BCITORGB wrote: TnT said: ============== But I also know that some bearded warlord in Afganistan does affect us as well. I suspect that was part of the biggest shock to many Americans on 9/11. Our bubble burst. We all live in a world where we affect one another. ================= I don't mean to appear callous, but I think part of the problem lies with a nation that has lived virtually untouched by the reast of the world for 2 centuries. A nation that could afford to practice isolationist policies. When your "bubble burst", you couldn't believe it. And you likely over-reacted (see other posts putting the casualities into perspective -- and I truly mean no disrespect to the innocent victims of the bearded warlord). Other nations, not isolated from neighbors by a huge ocean, better understand the interconnectedness. By all means, go after the warlord (as you know, most other nations supported you in those efforts). But don't try to con the world into believing that a secular dictator has anything in common with a religious fundamentalist (in this case, I'm referring to Osama) who despises secularism. That, and WMD were thinly veiled excuses to gain control of oil. TnT says: =============== That does not mean that we should just go along with the other parts of the world, but that we should attempt to influence them with what we believe. ================== That's a tad arrogant, don't you think? When should I expect American troops strolling down my boulevard and knocking on my door so as to "influence" me to "believe" in the American dream? Cheers, frtzw906 I thought we were talking primarily about political differences and activities, not military actions. For most of the two hundred years of our country, we have been involved with the rest of the world as they sent immigrant to our shores. My heritage is Scotch-Irish, German, French, and a few others thrown in. My wifes grandparents were Norwegian and Slavic. And that is just my family, there are millions of families. We have folks here from all around the world affecting our politics, and outlook on politics "back home." Now that they are citizens of US they vote also, and a majority of them voted for Bush. Obviously the isolation of distance across the ocean, is not as much these days, and we are being impacted daily by the EU, South America, Africa, and Asia. The days stockmarket start in Japan, and go on around the world from their. My in-laws have a sugar beet farm in Mn, and the price they get for their sugar is determined by world markets. The price of surgar is down, they don't buy the tractor. Down even more, they could lose the farm. Many have lost their farms and had to find work elsewhere because of the price of sugar in South America. The N. Korean Nuclear threat is very real, but we have not gone storming in there, and are trying to get them to the negotiating table with their neighbors such as S. Korea, China, and Japan. No one here wants to fight that battle, but we cannot be held hostage either, but we would rather see the asiatics solve the issue. I do not expect to see our troops marching down the EU boulevards, since they are civilized and appear willing to solve their own issues. However they were not so willing to stop the fighting in Bosnia, or now the Sudan. It is easy to set in your Ivory Palace, and say that you are above getting your hands dirty with all this military stuff. But where would you be if the US had not spent Billions if not Trillions after WW2, maintained troops in Europe, and political pressure on the Iron Curtain countries to take down the Wall. We eventually saw the Wall come down, and recently we have see historic elections where they have never been seen before. Perfect, no! But a big step forward for mankind. The safety in isolation we felt because of the ocean was burst on 9/11. It is not that we were unaware of you. Now we are even more on guard! We understand our vulnerability to oil supplies, and will attempt to protect them from tyrants. Oil recently in history has been a big factor for fighting wars as countries became more industrialized. Which sort of brings us back to the OP of this thread. The Middle East is central in any discussion of oil, I don't care where on earth you are politically. And the Middle East is central in many religious issues, including Christianity, and in particular Fundementalist Christianity. So the stage is being set for a titan struggle like the world has never seen before. Are you ready? TnT |
BCITORGB wrote: TnT says: ================ But I would be interested in knowing how your world view would define the various political systems if not capitalism and socialism ================ What you're referring to are not political systems but, rather, economic systems. IMHO, it is dangerous to confuse the distinctions. I see them as two sides of the same coin, you don't have a political system without an economic system. They are joined at the hip. You can't deal with one, without dealing with the other. Though I can understand your fine line distinction. Further, I think it useful to begin by agreeing that no economic system exists in a pure form. We might put the systems on a continuum from less socialist to more socialist, but most developed nations -- including the USA -- would be located on this continuum. I would agree with you on this one, though the identifying characteristic of the US indicates stronger individual participation in the social model. It may be in individual corruption, instead of mass corporate corruption, but even that is changing as we watch Enron, etc. Most right-wing Americans, for example, are reluctant to admit that the defense industry is one of the most socialistic endeavours to be found on this globe. If you don't believe it, ask yourself how many research facilities are propped up by government money. How many firms in the munitions and aircraft industry would not exist were it not for massive government funding? Marx talked about "government (the people) owning the means of production." In the USA, the government may not "own", but it certainly "controls" the means of production in more than a few cases [historical note: what was the deal with the Krupp industries in the Germany of the 1940's? Is that or is that not a parallel?] The control is clear: without government monies, these firms go under. And where are the right-wing Americans when government money is doled out in corporate welfare to huge agri-business concerns? This money comes, too often, in the form of cheap water sold (given?) to these businesses at prices way below the market price. Why is it that the American right-wing can get their knickers in a knot over welfare to unemployed poor people, but thinks nothing about cramming more money than they need into the pockets of agri-business executives. Now that's socialism! Capitalism is a long lost and forgotten ideal (not a very practical or viable one either, BTW). Cheers, frtzw906 Eisenhower warned us of the growing military/industrial complex after WW2. We have seen creeping socialism more and more in USA. Not just Defense, but Education, Arts, Interior resources like national forest and oil. All we need to do is go out and try to drill an oil well on your own land, and we would have all kinds of federal visitors telling us we can't do that. Or try starting a grade school without approval of some agency. Try starting a resturant, and here come the food inspectors. And anyone can get a grant for some crazy scheme as long as you are willing to have Uncle Sam looking over your shoulder. I am self employed small business owner. If I get too big, I would have to incorporate, which is just another way that Uncle Sam is always there. So yeah there is plenty of social involvement in our government. I choose to stay small and below the radar. I don't take any handouts, which may mean I will never make the top 500 companies, but that is the price of freedom, but then my knickers are not in a knot! I also find that generally the conservatives try to go down the socialistic slide slower than the liberals, at least in areas that normally affect me on a daily basis! Selfish isolation, I know, but I just want to be left alone. Red or Blue, I really don't care the color of the hat of the task masters! TnT |
Wilko wrote: BCITORGB wrote: Scott Weiser says: ============ We are under no obligation to conform to your liberal socialist agenda ================ I don't recall having said anything about "socialism". What suddenly brought that up? Oh, and by the way, what do you mean by "socialism"? He usually does... That's his way of labelling everyone who's not as explicitly extreme right wing politically as he is. Wilko, are you acknowledging that you are right wing, not just "explicitly extreme right wing?" TnT Don't dare to point out the obvious wrongs and shortcomings of the U.S., or he'll take this we're "superior" stance... and he probably believes it as well. :-) -- Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe ---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.--- http://wilko.webzone.ru/ |
BCITORGB wrote: TnT says: =============== You say though that we are out of step with the prevailing global position. Can you share what you feel that opinion generally would amount to. I have heard so much scuttlebut about left and right, red an blue, that I am interested in your fresh insight. That way we could discuss specifics. ================== There is too much to comment on. Let's start by recalling polling done in many (I can only assume all) western, developed nations. In not one poll did the people of these nations prefer Bush over Kerry. In fact, had the election been global, it would have been a clear landslide for the Democrats. But now, even Sorros, the arch Democrat and supporter of Kerry in the last election, has come out and acknowledged that Kerry was not the right man for the job. As to polls in general, they only show what the pollsters are trying to present. We had a poll recently, it was called the election, and it is the only poll that counts, at least as far as we are concerned. As to specifics, there are too many to mention. Here's a few (comparing Republican doctrine with prevailing western attitudes outside of the USA): abortion, capital punishment, decriminalization of recreational drugs, gay unions, possession of unnecessay firearms, Kyoto,..... and on, and on, and on.... Other than Kyoto, these are all internal issues that are our business. How are they your concern. Try abortion, or capital punishment, decriminalization of rec drugs, gay unions, or firearm unless you plan on invading us. How do thes affect world politics. Regarding Kyoto, it would have been a terrible treaty for us to become a part of, and even the recent blue president recognized that, and luckily the Congress as well. Should we just agree to something because the rest of the world says it is good for them if we are hamstringing ourselves. Come up with a win/win treaty and you may get more support. What else is in the "on, and on, and on?" I would still like specifics that affect the global position. TnT Cheers, frtzw906 ========== |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Scott Weiser says: ============ We are under no obligation to conform to your liberal socialist agenda ================ I don't recall having said anything about "socialism". What suddenly brought that up? It's implicit in your arguments. Oh, and by the way, what do you mean by "socialism"? Go find a dictionary. Further, you're right: you are not under any obligation to conform to anyone else's agenda. And, for that matter, neither is the elected government of Afghanistan, for example, under any obligation to conform to western ideals of human rights (including those of women and gays). Quite right. Or, maybe they are? What say you Scott Weiser? Depends. If we view the government of another country as being dangerous to our national interests, or if we feel that the government is a totalitarian regime that oppresses people, we may choose to intervene and facilitate a regime change. All of the above notwithstanding, please do the rest of the world a favor; don't foist your notions on us. Why not? Our notions are good ones, and I have no compunctions about "foisting" them upon tyrants and totalitarian regimes in order that the people who live under oppression are given the opportunity to choose freely what form of government will best security the blessings of liberty for them. Nor will I shrink from "foisting" them upon nations that pose a threat to the security or national interests of the United States. If you don't like that, too bad. If you threaten us, however indirectly, we will act. If that ends up being, for example, a democratically-elected theocracy, so be it. All we require is that the people be given a legitimate opportunity to make that choice freely and that the resulting government not threaten world peace, regional stability or US strategic interests, and that it continue to regularly provide for free elections to validate the choice. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 10-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: are trying to export that what they call "democracy". Wah. Democracy works. Socialism doesn't. The irony is that you didn't even get what he said. Oh but I did. We care deeply what you think. We just think you're deluded and oppressed, and we want to educate you about the benefits of representative democracy and capitalism, which is what makes the US the most powerful, influential and free nation on the planet. So Americans are free and everyone else is oppressed? Pretty much. I guess you've never read the Patriot Act of other gross abuses of freedom. Actually, I have. Have you? Can you cite the "gross abuses of freedom" you claim the Patriot Act includes? American influence is waning because of your arrogance and gradually declining economic status. Every nation has its ups and downs. Still, people are clamoring to get here and buy our products. 100 years ago, Britain was the world power; fifty years later it was broke and losing influence. Why should anyone believe the yanks will last any longer given that they pay almost no attention to the reality of what's going on around them? Not subscribing to the political dogmas of the rest of the world is different than paying no attention. We pay close attention. We choose not to subscribe to policies that we believe are harmful to liberty and freedom. To assume that the US is the only free and democratic nation is both naive and a grotesque misrepresentation of facts. Really? Cite me one single nation other than the US that is both democratic and protects the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. If you don't have a right to keep and bear arms, you are not, ipso facto, free, you are a slave to your government because you do not have the capacity to overthrow it should it become a tyranny. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
TnT says:
============= I would still like specifics that affect the global position ================ Look, your initial question was not about "global positions". You simply asked how or where global public opinion differed from Republican doctrine. I gave you examples. Now you tell me that's not ood enough. Well, why don't you clarify what you want to discuss to begin with. As to your election and polls. Of course it was YOUR election to decide. And, as you'll recall, that was my starting point in this thread. I simply pointed out that the "rest of the western" world would have elected Kerry and the Democrats. I don't need you to point out that our opinion carries no weight in the USA. That's a fact but, more's the pity IMHO. As to whether Kerry was a good candidate or not: that's irrelevant. In the eyes of the "rest of the western world" (and surely also in the eyes of Soros), Kerry, for all his deficiencies, was preferable to Bush. We don't need to argue this as there are plenty of polls which attest to this fact. If you doubt the polls, try listening to media from around the world. Try BBC. Try Deutsche Welle. Try Radio Nederland. Try CBC. Listen not just to the commentators, but listen to the voices of the people (BBC has call-in talk radio). The disdain for your president is palpable. OK. you want one specific. The mood in Canada wrt to drug legalization/decriminalization is light years (editorial opinion on my part) ahead of the USA and fairly close to attitudes in much of Europe. Whenever Canadian politicians make noises about enacting more progressive legislation, Canada needs to listen to "warnings" from the US ambassador about how such policies might have dire consequences for Canada-US trade. You ask me, " How are they your concern." I'll turn that around on you: How or why is Canadian drug policy a concern to the USA.? Cheers, frtzw906 ++++++++++++++++++++++ |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 10-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Are you stating that merely because conservatives of various political and religious persuasions work steadily and organize to achieve their common political objectives that this makes them all members of the "Christian Right?" No but Viguerie includes the Christian Right in the groups that he lumps together. They exist as organized groups that are able to be represented when they whole mess work together. And that's a problem because....? Are you claiming that there is no Christian Right? All Christians are left wingers? No, I merely point out that there is no such thing as the "Christian Right" as an organization. It's a sound-bite label attached to conservatives in general that is used as a device of demonization by the left. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself Wilko wrote:
Michael Daly wrote: On 10-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: are trying to export that what they call "democracy". Wah. Democracy works. Socialism doesn't. The irony is that you didn't even get what he said. Alas, that's not an uncommon occurrance with him and my remarks. That's why I've stopped bothering to respond to anything Scott spouts. Disagreeing with you is rather different than not understanding what you said. So Americans are free and everyone else is oppressed? I guess you've never read the Patriot Act of other gross abuses of freedom. American influence is waning because of your arrogance and gradually declining economic status. 100 years ago, Britain was the world power; fifty years later it was broke and losing influence. Why should anyone believe the yanks will last any longer given that they pay almost no attention to the reality of what's going on around them? My guess is that within my lifetime that becomes very clear to everyone, even to the portion of the U.S. population that seems to have little idea about the existance of the world around them. Or, do we know about the world but choose not to agree with the way things are working elsewhere? I wonder who's next in playing the world's most dominant economy and military power. My bet is on Asia... Maybe our grandchildren will speak fluent Mandarin (or some other fruit) or Spanish as their main language? ;-) You'd better hope not. To assume that the US is the only free and democratic nation is both naive and a grotesque misrepresentation of facts. Today I got this sent to me by a Czech friend, who apologized because she know I have friends from the U.S.. I thought it was funny and in a way I think it's relevant to this discussion: --------------------------------------------------------------- NOTICE OF REVOCATION OF INDEPENDENCE To the citizens of the United States of America, In the light of your failure to elect a President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective today. Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchial duties over all states, commonwealths and other territories. Except Utah, which she does not fancy. Your new prime minister (The Right Honourable Tony Blair, MP for the 97.85% of you who have until now been unaware that there is a world outside your borders) will appoint a minister for America without the need for further elections. Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. Snip Tax collectors from Her Majesty's Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all revenues due (backdated to 1776). And that's WHY we have 270 million privately owned firearms in the US, to prevent any such eventuality. That makes us free, unlike you. Thank you for your cooperation. We'll spank her just like we spanked King George. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
TnT says:
========= I thought I just heard the Saudis had an election. ============= Please acquaint yourself with the nature of that "election". Did they have universal suffrage? Will the elected official have any "power?" That was NOT an election as we know it. Cheers, frtzw906 |
BCITORGB wrote: TnT says: ========= I thought I just heard the Saudis had an election. ============= Please acquaint yourself with the nature of that "election". Did they have universal suffrage? Will the elected official have any "power?" That was NOT an election as we know it. Cheers, frtzw906 But it was a start, and a signal that they are sensitive to the opinion of the rest of the world, and hopefully the needs of their own people. TnT |
Scott Weiser says:
============= Still, people are clamoring to get here and buy our products. ================== On a per capita basis, there are several countries that have more people "clamoring" to get in. Check the global refugee statistcs. Determine where the refugees are going. Then, if the math is not too difficult, divide the number of refugees by the population of the country they're going to. You'll be surprised that the results don't coincide with the oft-repeated mantra of "the world is clamoring to get into the USA". As to buying your products: I can only ask, "have you been in a Wal Mart recently?" It looks like the world is clamoring to buy Chinese products. Cheers, frtzw906 ===================== |
Scott Weiser says:
======================= If you don't have a right to keep and bear arms, you are not, ipso facto, free ============== OK. ROTFL What a load of crap! This sort of nonsense is not worthy of a rational reply. |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
TnT said: ============== But I also know that some bearded warlord in Afganistan does affect us as well. I suspect that was part of the biggest shock to many Americans on 9/11. Our bubble burst. We all live in a world where we affect one another. ================= I don't mean to appear callous, but I think part of the problem lies with a nation that has lived virtually untouched by the reast of the world for 2 centuries. A nation that could afford to practice isolationist policies. When your "bubble burst", you couldn't believe it. And you likely over-reacted (see other posts putting the casualities into perspective -- and I truly mean no disrespect to the innocent victims of the bearded warlord). I must agree here. After visiting Europe in the 80's, where terrorists have been blowing people up for a long time, I concluded that we were abysmally ignorant of the terrorist threat. I always knew that there would be some horrific terrorist attack that would finally wake Americans up. Other nations, not isolated from neighbors by a huge ocean, better understand the interconnectedness. By all means, go after the warlord (as you know, most other nations supported you in those efforts). But don't try to con the world into believing that a secular dictator has anything in common with a religious fundamentalist (in this case, I'm referring to Osama) who despises secularism. Except that Saddam did have a lot in common with Osama. The most important thing they have in common is Islam. The next most important thing they have in common is a hatred of America. The proof of complicity between Osama and Saddam continues to pour in. The UN Oil-for-Food program did little more than fund international terrorism because Saddam diverted the funds into tens of thousands of secret bank accounts across the world and gave terrorists access to those funds. That, and WMD were thinly veiled excuses to gain control of oil. Not true, but even it it were true, so what? Oil is a strategic resource. Every nation on the planet wants to secure strategic resources for its own use. That's the nature of nations. That's the history of the planet. Why should we apologize for deposing a brutal dictator (which was the prime reason) who violated the cease-fire agreement (a secondary reason) and was known, absolutely and without doubt to have had, and used WMD's (a secondary reason) which will also result, we hope, in a nation friendly to us and our strategic needs? TnT says: =============== That does not mean that we should just go along with the other parts of the world, but that we should attempt to influence them with what we believe. ================== That's a tad arrogant, don't you think? No. It's beneficial to world peace. When should I expect American troops strolling down my boulevard and knocking on my door so as to "influence" me to "believe" in the American dream? Don't know. Where do you llive? I'll look it up on the invasion schedule. Then again, I think that our agents-in-place, code-named "McDonalds," "Burger King," and "Wal-Mart" are doing a fine job of subverting your regime. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
TnT says:
======================= I see them as two sides of the same coin, you don't have a political system without an economic system. They are joined at the hip. You can't deal with one, without dealing with the other. Though I can understand your fine line distinction. ===================== But clearly, from what you've said, you canNOT understand the distinction. And it is not a fine line. cheers, frtzw906 +++++++++++++++++ |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
TnT says: =============== You say though that we are out of step with the prevailing global position. Can you share what you feel that opinion generally would amount to. I have heard so much scuttlebut about left and right, red an blue, that I am interested in your fresh insight. That way we could discuss specifics. ================== There is too much to comment on. Let's start by recalling polling done in many (I can only assume all) western, developed nations. In not one poll did the people of these nations prefer Bush over Kerry. In fact, had the election been global, it would have been a clear landslide for the Democrats. Which is why I'm everlastingly grateful that we don't give a flying fart about what they want. As to specifics, there are too many to mention. Here's a few (comparing Republican doctrine with prevailing western attitudes outside of the USA): abortion, capital punishment, decriminalization of recreational drugs, gay unions, possession of unnecessay firearms, There's the important one. Those who are subject to governmental dictates that firearms are "unnecessary" are slaves, and their governments need to be overthrown. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Scott Weiser says: ============ representative democracy and capitalism are the most effective way to ensure liberty, freedom and justice for all. ================ Like the Queen of Hearts, you are free to define words anyway you please. And, yes, I know that you Americans have your own specific definition of "representative democracy". I'd like to suggest, however, that you're playing fast and loose with the definition of "representative". How so? You've had elections where a significant proportion of your electorate (hundreds of thousands? millions? you're the American, you'll know the exact data.) voted Green in the hope that their view of the world would be represented in your Congress. And they lost. That's the way it works. All they need to do is convince enough people to vote their way and they get to enact their agenda. What's unrepresentative about that? But the system of government your hold up as praiseworthy disrespects the ballots of Green voters. How is that representative? How are their ballots disrespected? They are allowed to vote for anyone they choose, and their ballots are counted. Nothing could be more representative. Just because they comprise a minority political party with an agenda not attractive to a majority of voters, and thus they lost in the election doesn't mean that they have not had their due process respected. Or, even more dramatically, in recent history, how was your process "representative" when it ignored the wishes of millions who cast ballots for Ross Perot and the Reform Party. Nobody ignored their wishes. They voted. They lost. That's the way democracy works. Moreover, you mischaracterize our system by making the erroneous presumption that it is impossible for minority political parties to be represented in our government. It's not. Beyond the presidential election, there are innumerable elections at every level of government in which Greens, Democrats, Libertarians, Socialists and politicians of every political persuasion are well represented. Just take Boulder, CO as an example. While the vast majority of Colorado is staunchly Republican and quite conservative, Boulder is a bastion of Green Liberalism. So much so that it's asinine policies (such as its reverence for prairie dogs) is actually destroying both the environment and the economy of the area. And there are independents in Congress, albeit few of them, but that's the choice of the constitutients in their districts. I accept your answer if you tell me that that's the American system, that all candidates and parties are aware of the system, and that everyone has to live with the consequences of that system. Fair enough! It's YOUR system. Indeed. That's precisely how it works. But please don't hold it up as an ideal. Why not? It's worked better than any other system on the planet, ever. Please don't presume to lecture, for example, the Germans, about "representatve" democracy. You'll note that the voices of Greens and Perot-like politicians in German are heard in their parliament. To what effect? Maybe, one day, when you bring your system into the 20th century (never mind the 21st), others will listen. Or, maybe places like Germany will come to see that "inclusiveness" merely for the purposes of political correctness does not serve the interests or needs of the nation. "Representative" indeed! Indeed, and most exactly. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
TnT says:
============= But it was a start, and a signal that they are sensitive to the opinion of the rest of the world, and hopefully the needs of their own people. ====================== It was not a "start". It was bull****! I would have thought that of all people, you, as an American, would be able to tell the difference between a real election and a sham election. I would have thought that you, of all people, would be outraged by sham elections! Whoops! I forgot: no outrage over hanging chads. Pity! frtzw906 +++++++++++++++++++++ |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Scott Weiser says: =================== Liberty is good for us, and the freedom to choose Coke is an excellent exercise of that liberty. ====================== We could have a more meaningful discussion of "liberty" if we are able to define what limits, if any, there are on liberty. There are limits, of course, but in general unless some individual's actions actually harm, or imminently threaten to harm another person, they ought to be at liberty to do as they please. And exactly "who" has this liberty? Everyone. For example, is a woman at liberty to choose what happens to her body? Certainly. The question is, however, is a baby inside her body part of "her body," and if so, when does the child become a distinct and separate "person" imbued with rights? Am I at liberty to hold loud parties which distrub my neighbors' sleep? Maybe. Does your neighbor sleep during the day? Is your neighbor particularly suceptible to noise? Does he make efforts to mask or reduce the noise so that you may reasonably enjoy your property? Am I at liberty to operate a car repair service in an otherwise residential neighborhood? Why not? If it doesn't cause some direct harm to your neighbors, and they don't object, why should the government interfere? Can we really say, as a blanket statement, with no caveats, that, "Liberty is good for us...." Liberty is good for us. I did not mean to suggest that liberty must not be ordered or that unfettered liberty that is harmful to others is permissible. Perhaps the best maxim I can give is "Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose." But, liberty is ALWAYS preferable to tyranny and oppression, without exception. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
TnT says: ================ But I would be interested in knowing how your world view would define the various political systems if not capitalism and socialism ================ What you're referring to are not political systems but, rather, economic systems. IMHO, it is dangerous to confuse the distinctions. Further, I think it useful to begin by agreeing that no economic system exists in a pure form. We might put the systems on a continuum from less socialist to more socialist, but most developed nations -- including the USA -- would be located on this continuum. Most right-wing Americans, for example, are reluctant to admit that the defense industry is one of the most socialistic endeavours to be found on this globe. If you don't believe it, ask yourself how many research facilities are propped up by government money. How many firms in the munitions and aircraft industry would not exist were it not for massive government funding? That does not make them socialistic endeavours. In socialism, the government would not "prop up" defense industries, it would simply take them by force and force the workers to produce the products without compensating them. The US government is merely a consumer of products, albeit a very rich one. Moreover, the "government" is really we, the people. Thus, defense industries are but one more producer of consumer products that customers pay to acquire. The government is merely our agent for the acquisition and disposition of those products. Marx talked about "government (the people) owning the means of production." In the USA, the government may not "own", but it certainly "controls" the means of production in more than a few cases [historical note: what was the deal with the Krupp industries in the Germany of the 1940's? Is that or is that not a parallel?] The control is clear: without government monies, these firms go under. That fact is what destroys your thesis. In socialism, a "firm" cannot "go under" because it doesn't exist as an independent business entity. Thus, communist/socialist governments maintain a monopoly on defense construction and they don't have to pay either the owners (the proletariat) or the workers if they don't want to. And where are the right-wing Americans when government money is doled out in corporate welfare to huge agri-business concerns? Understanding that agricultural production capacity is a strategic resource, that's where. This money comes, too often, in the form of cheap water sold (given?) to these businesses at prices way below the market price. So? Once again, government support of industry is not socialistic. It's merely the people of the US, through their duly elected representatives, choosing to support necessary strategic resources and production capacity. Why is it that the American right-wing can get their knickers in a knot over welfare to unemployed poor people, but thinks nothing about cramming more money than they need into the pockets of agri-business executives. Because welfare queens don't produce anything, agriculture does. Now that's socialism! Capitalism is a long lost and forgotten ideal (not a very practical or viable one either, BTW). Welfare is socialism, which is why it ought to be done away with. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
Scott Weiser says:
================ Except that Saddam did have a lot in common with Osama. The most important thing they have in common is Islam ================== Saddam's regime was a secular regime. Precisely the sort of government Osama despised. frtzw906 +++++++++++++++++ |
One comment only required: you clearly cannot concieve of an electoral
system or a form of government that is both different and better than yours. You belittle the German model. Likely you should study history before you are so quick to dismiss alternate systems. As you likely don't know (judging from your response), the German model was essentially based on the American model. Under the tutelage of Americans occupying Germany, post-WW2, a governmental system was devised. The resulting system took the best parts of your American system and improved on it. I know. That may be difficult for you to comprehend. Yes, some things are better than whatever exists in the USA. frtzw906 +++++++++++++++++++++++ |
SW says:
================= But, liberty is ALWAYS preferable to tyranny and oppression, without exception. ================= There we agree. frtzw906 |
SW says:
================= But, liberty is ALWAYS preferable to tyranny and oppression, without exception. ================= There we agree. frtzw906 |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
TnT says: ============= I would still like specifics that affect the global position ================ Look, your initial question was not about "global positions". You simply asked how or where global public opinion differed from Republican doctrine. I gave you examples. Now you tell me that's not ood enough. Well, why don't you clarify what you want to discuss to begin with. As to your election and polls. Of course it was YOUR election to decide. And, as you'll recall, that was my starting point in this thread. I simply pointed out that the "rest of the western" world would have elected Kerry and the Democrats. I don't need you to point out that our opinion carries no weight in the USA. That's a fact but, more's the pity IMHO. As to whether Kerry was a good candidate or not: that's irrelevant. In the eyes of the "rest of the western world" (and surely also in the eyes of Soros), Kerry, for all his deficiencies, was preferable to Bush. We don't need to argue this as there are plenty of polls which attest to this fact. If you doubt the polls, try listening to media from around the world. Try BBC. Try Deutsche Welle. Try Radio Nederland. Try CBC. Listen not just to the commentators, but listen to the voices of the people (BBC has call-in talk radio). The disdain for your president is palpable. Who cares what a bunch of lefty liberal twits think? Not me. OK. you want one specific. The mood in Canada wrt to drug legalization/decriminalization is light years (editorial opinion on my part) ahead of the USA and fairly close to attitudes in much of Europe. Whenever Canadian politicians make noises about enacting more progressive legislation, Canada needs to listen to "warnings" from the US ambassador about how such policies might have dire consequences for Canada-US trade. You ask me, " How are they your concern." I'll turn that around on you: How or why is Canadian drug policy a concern to the USA.? Because it threatens to cross our border, that's how. If Canada wants to legalize heroin poppy production, that heroin is likely to find its way to the US. We have every right to use our economic and political influence to prevent that. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
TnT says: ========= I thought I just heard the Saudis had an election. ============= Please acquaint yourself with the nature of that "election". Did they have universal suffrage? Will the elected official have any "power?" That was NOT an election as we know it. It's a start. A good start, in fact. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Scott Weiser says: ============= Still, people are clamoring to get here and buy our products. ================== On a per capita basis, there are several countries that have more people "clamoring" to get in. Fine by me. Let them take all the immigrants. In all probability, however, they are clamoring to get in there because they can't get in here. As to buying your products: I can only ask, "have you been in a Wal Mart recently?" It looks like the world is clamoring to buy Chinese products. Yup. Including, interestingly, the Chinese... -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Scott Weiser says: ======================= If you don't have a right to keep and bear arms, you are not, ipso facto, free ============== OK. ROTFL What a load of crap! This sort of nonsense is not worthy of a rational reply. Sorry, but it's true. If the citizenry does not have the capacity to overthrown its own government, then the citizenry exercises its liberties at the whims and caprices of its government. History proves this to be true. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
Scott Weiser writes:
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote: On 10-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: To assume that the US is the only free and democratic nation is both naive and a grotesque misrepresentation of facts. Really? Cite me one single nation other than the US that is both democratic and protects the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. Switzerland If you don't have a right to keep and bear arms, you are not, ipso facto, free, you are a slave to your government because you do not have the capacity to overthrow it should it become a tyranny. You are fuill of **** -- James jamesk[at]homeric[dot]co[dot]uk Cat, n.: Lapwarmer with built-in buzzer. |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
TnT says: ============= But it was a start, and a signal that they are sensitive to the opinion of the rest of the world, and hopefully the needs of their own people. ====================== It was not a "start". It was bull****! The Saudis interviewed at the polls didn't seem to think so. Who are you to judge? I would have thought that of all people, you, as an American, would be able to tell the difference between a real election and a sham election. I would have thought that you, of all people, would be outraged by sham elections! The thing about democracy is that it's like the mustard seed. It can start out very small, but grow quickly once people come to understand the nature and benefits that inhere. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
BCITORGB wrote: Scott Weiser says: ================ Except that Saddam did have a lot in common with Osama. The most important thing they have in common is Islam ================== Saddam's regime was a secular regime. Precisely the sort of government Osama despised. frtzw906 +++++++++++++++++ At least so he says! If you believe everything he says! I've got a bridge I will sell you. I personally thinks he just hates America, and will express that hadred wherever, whenever, and with whomever he can. That is his global position! TnT |
OK, I guess I misread your question. Nonetheless, global or not, I'll
venture that most of us outside of the USA would prefer a president more in tune with our own values. Like so many in the blue states, we "don't get" the value systems of red state voters. We get New York. We get LA. We understand SF, Boston, Seattle, and Portland. But we're left scratching our heads at what goes on in Kansas. You're of course right, whether or not a Kansas school board mandates the teaching of creationism in science classes, is of no global consequence to the rest of us. In a similar sense, whether women in Afghanistan are required to wear a burka or not seems of little global import. Or maybe not. Perhaps you felt outrage at the sight of women in Afghanistan being required to wear burkas. Now bottle that outrage and think about it. That's the outrage many feel when they hear that intelligent science teachers in Kansas are forced to teach religious doctrine in science classes. This is SCIENCE fer crissake! This is about the scientific method and a canon of knowledge derived through that method. The dictates of the Kansas school board are as medieval as the dictates of the Taliban. If you want religion, set up religion classes. But don't ask science teachers teach what they know to be blatantly false. I guess I still haven't answered your question regarding things of major "global" import (I'll get to that another time, perhaps). Right now I'm giving you an example of the visceral reactions your president and his FC followers evoke in people around the globe. We don't want to be dragged back into the Dark Ages. we're quite comfortable in our post modern world. frtzw906 |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
One comment only required: you clearly cannot concieve of an electoral system or a form of government that is both different and better than yours. Because history has demonstrated that there isn't one. You belittle the German model. Guess who imposed the "German model" on Germany? Likely you should study history before you are so quick to dismiss alternate systems. History proves that our system is the best. As you likely don't know (judging from your response), the German model was essentially based on the American model. Under the tutelage of Americans occupying Germany, post-WW2, a governmental system was devised. The resulting system took the best parts of your American system and improved on it. Not really. I know. That may be difficult for you to comprehend. Yes, some things are better than whatever exists in the USA. Nah. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
Scott Weiser says:
=================== Once again, government support of industry is not socialistic. AND Welfare is socialism, which is why it ought to be done away with ====================== Government support of industry is welfare. Welfare is (according to you) socialism. Thus, by your reckoning, government support of industry ought to be done away with. Please explain to the entrepreneur, trying to compete in your free market, how agri-business (for example) deserves to be propped up but his particular industry or firm doesn't. I would have thought that you were of the opinion that the marketplace should determine the allocation of scarce resources. I would have thought that you would argue that government is in no position -- through central planning -- to determine what is or is not a prudent use of society's scarce resources. Apparently you do favor central planning and government intervention in the marketplace. You have argued that government can (and even should) make those choices. Guess what? That makes you a socialist. Cheers, comrade! frtzw906 +++++++++++++++++++ |
Comrade Weiser emphatically asserts:
========================= government support of industry is not socialistic. It's merely the people of the US, through their duly elected representatives, choosing to support necessary strategic resources and production capacity. =============== Congratulations to Comrsade Weiser for so clearly articulating fundamental socialist truths. In the name of The People, the Government CAN and SHALL interfere in the workings of a so-called marketplace. In the name of The People, and in Their strategic interests, the Government must support production capacity in those industries judged to serve The Peoples' interests. As the determination of what is of strategic interest lies with The People and their duly elected Representatives, all firms must be prepared to either benefit or suffer from the Government's interference in the marketplace. The Government will determination how scarce resources, even tax resources, are to be allocated. The Government will do The People's bidding in all matters. Thank you Comrade Weiser for reminding us of the very essence of socialism. Cheers, Comrades frtzw906 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ |
BCITORGB wrote: Comrade Weiser emphatically asserts: ========================= government support of industry is not socialistic. It's merely the people of the US, through their duly elected representatives, choosing to support necessary strategic resources and production capacity. =============== Congratulations to Comrsade Weiser for so clearly articulating fundamental socialist truths. In the name of The People, the Government CAN and SHALL interfere in the workings of a so-called marketplace. In the name of The People, and in Their strategic interests, the Government must support production capacity in those industries judged to serve The Peoples' interests. As the determination of what is of strategic interest lies with The People and their duly elected Representatives, all firms must be prepared to either benefit or suffer from the Government's interference in the marketplace. The Government will determination how scarce resources, even tax resources, are to be allocated. The Government will do The People's bidding in all matters. Thank you Comrade Weiser for reminding us of the very essence of socialism. Cheers, Comrades frtzw906 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ Comrade frtzw906, you are very funny!!! I believe that Comrade Scott did overstate the definition of socialism to include a totalitarian socialism, which we all hopefully agree is not a desirable regime having just escaped from one ourselves in homeland Russia. Here in USA the streets are paved with gold, and there is money to be made everywhere. I don't understand the people that live here for a long time. All they do is bitch about not having a job, and being able to make a living, while they stand in line waiting for welfare check. Then they get in their own SUV and drive to their own home to watch tv. The hardest decision they make is whether to watch cable or satellite channel. Then they can also stop at supermarket to buy groceries where the shelves are full with anything you want to buy, and they complain because the price went up 5 cents since their last trip. I remember when there was nothing to buy, and if there was anything you would pay twice as much for it as last time only month ago. America is really great place to live. Even the soldiers are happy here and do not rob and beat you. They are all actually paid, and have houses for themselves. Some even have their family with them. I live in NYC, and if I want, I can travel to California without getting anyones permission, or carrying papers, and having to bribe border guards to let me pass. It is trully amazing. I do have to pay for my medical attention here, but then there are real doctors, and I can even choose which one I go to. I love America. Comrade TnT |
You said:
============== Alas, that's not an uncommon occurrance with him and my remarks. That's why I've stopped bothering to respond to anything Scott spouts. ================ I should have considered myself warned. As you've said elsewhere "he could talk a bent bar straight" (is that a Dutch expression? -- I like it!). Now that I've unfrocked him as a closet socialist ("government assistance to everyone else is bad, but it's good for me if I need it" is his hypocritical stance. But assistance by any other name is still socialism -- and what's so bad about that?) I'll perhaps retire. Walking off into the sunset while dusting my hands in victory over Scott, I remain, frtzw906 ============================== |
BCITORGB wrote: You said: ============== Alas, that's not an uncommon occurrance with him and my remarks. That's why I've stopped bothering to respond to anything Scott spouts. ================ I should have considered myself warned. As you've said elsewhere "he could talk a bent bar straight" (is that a Dutch expression? -- I like it!). Now that I've unfrocked him as a closet socialist ("government assistance to everyone else is bad, but it's good for me if I need it" is his hypocritical stance. But assistance by any other name is still socialism -- and what's so bad about that?) I'll perhaps retire. Walking off into the sunset while dusting my hands in victory over Scott, I remain, frtzw906 ============================== If you must leave, please paddle. Then I may see you again on the river or lake. TnT |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:20 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com