SackLunch said:Civility please! Let's not go into slapping the 'ol "liberal" label on people.
Please keep that and personal attacks about someone's credibility out of this
SackLunch said:Hehe, I love this response. "Michael Moore is a liar." This is typical pro-Bush Republican-speak. It is also a weak argument to make when Moore presents such overwhelming evidence regarding the real reasons we went to war.
I think people react this way simply because it confronts and criticizes George W. Bush. And people don't like it when poor GW is criticized.
Anyways, newlamb, sorry 'bout that - please forgive me! I should know better really than to continue talking so much about politics. But again, I do hate injustice, and I do feel strongly that injustice is being done in the Republican party right now.
newlamb said:Don't apologize to me, SackLunch. We don't have to agree on everything!
Bush has disappointed me quite a bit recently, with his waffling support of Israel. So the bloom is definitely off the rose. Maybe it's just MM's lack of personal hygiene that disgusts me!
SackLunch said:Civility please! Let's not go into slapping the 'ol "liberal" label on people. Please keep that and personal attacks about someone's credibility out of this
ContraMundum said:As predicted, all critical thought dissapeared from this thread. Now we're into the polarized US name-calling paradigm.
He's a liberal! He's a wing-nut! She's a "conservative". This is a uniquely American phenomena.
What if both sides are complete failures? What if the alternatives end up getting enough money to take it to the big parties and teach them a lesson in what a real liberal (not meaning "lefty", but free) democracy is all about? Where will your little box system be then? (Answer: in another box, the outbox)
Most advanced democracies have manifested multi-party systems because the people have realised that modern society can't possibly be represented by two parties alone and they have gone out and formed new parties. Of course, money didn't control politics when they formed the way that money runs the US system today.
Is there a future for this kind of polarized partisan politics? I think not. Look at the last election- Bush or Kerry? Which puppet to chose? Neither represented the working class, but they kept telling you they did.
Anyway, that's my two cents. Wonder how I will be labelled? A liberal? I don't fit that- I'm a Christian. A conservative? I don't fit that either- because I'm a Christian.
Dark_Lite said:Are you one of those people who thinks the pentagon was hit by a missile?
Harpuia said:I'm a conservative who enjoys a good Michael Moore documentary.
But Fahrenheit 9/11, when I saw it on DVD, was poorly done. He rushed it, didn't take as much time as he should like he did for Bowling for Columbine. There's nothing that tells me he was just trying to put as many Bush-bashing phrases as he could into 2 hours.
That's not a documentary, that's propaganda. Moore can do a lot better...
And yet the country that continues to use the dual party system is the worlds oldest democracy...ContraMundum said:Most advanced democracies have manifested multi-party systems because the people have realised that modern society can't possibly be represented by two parties alone and they have gone out and formed new parties. Of course, money didn't control politics when they formed the way that money runs the US system today.
Scribbler said:And yet the country that continues to use the dual party system is the worlds oldest democracy...
Scribbler said:"Best" is subjective. Age isn't.
It's a credential for determining the strength and a functionality of a political system. The fact we are the Worlds Oldest Functioning Democracy is a testament to the effectiveness of ours.ContraMundum said:Nor is age a credential for assessing value.
Scribbler said:It's a credential for determining the strength and a functionality of a political system. The fact we are the Worlds Oldest Functioning Democracy is a testament to the effectiveness of ours.
That deserves a bignewlamb said:Bush has disappointed me quite a bit recently, with his waffling support of Israel.
Actually, one is an automobile, one is a type of VHS, and one is a System of Government. What do these have in common? Nothing.ContraMundum said:That's like saying Fords are better than BMWs because Ford is an older institution. I know which I'd rather drive. Keep your Pinto.
How about NTSC vs PAL? I know which format I'd rather watch.
Scribbler said:Actually, one is an automobile, one is a type of VHS, and one is a System of Government. What do these have in common? Nothing.
Scribbler said:Actually, one is an automobile, one is a type of VHS, and one is a System of Government. What do these have in common? Nothing.
ContraMundum said:As predicted, all critical thought dissapeared from this thread. Now we're into the polarized US name-calling paradigm.
He's a liberal! He's a wing-nut! She's a "conservative". This is a uniquely American phenomena.
What if both sides are complete failures? What if the alternatives end up getting enough money to take it to the big parties and teach them a lesson in what a real liberal (not meaning "lefty", but free) democracy is all about? Where will your little box system be then? (Answer: in another box, the outbox)
Most advanced democracies have manifested multi-party systems because the people have realised that modern society can't possibly be represented by two parties alone and they have gone out and formed new parties. Of course, money didn't control politics when they formed the way that money runs the US system today.
Is there a future for this kind of polarized partisan politics? I think not. Look at the last election- Bush or Kerry? Which puppet to chose? Neither represented the working class, but they kept telling you they did.
Anyway, that's my two cents. Wonder how I will be labelled? A liberal? I don't fit that- I'm a Christian. A conservative? I don't fit that either- because I'm a Christian.
Well, it was a poor analogy. Youre comparing cars & TV's with Systems of Government, after all.ContraMundum said:Poor dodge of the analogy.
I said this? Does change always equal improvment?ContraMundum said:Right- so then a system of democracy can't be improved upon? Are you sticking with that then?
So hostile. What I said was the US is the worlds oldest Democracy (neglecting, unfortunately, the good people of Iceland). The fact that we have sustained this is evidence to me of a successful system of government.ContraMundum said:Now, can you explain what is so good about having only two parties and keeping it that way? Let's see some onus for that partisan spirit!
OK, Iceland is an older democracy than the US. LOL. You got me.ContraMundum said:Anyway, your comment about the US being the oldest democracy is rubbish. I didn't want to break it to you, but Iceland is older.
Furthermore, Britain had a form of democracy before the US (still tilted towards the landed class, of course) and that led to the famous cry "the rights of Englishmen" etc. The US just shed it's class system first.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?