[Little Sheba]

Yoda, on Jun 6 2006, 03:57 AM, said:

What silly talk. Why do you have such venom? Why the American insults? You think that United States is a crappy country and its people are stupid.

I certainly do know what I am talking about, I was a history teacher in an Auckland School.

One may oppose liars with illeagal wiretappings on ones own innocent citizens, and an illegal war on Iraq that most of the world opposes, and many free countrys including New Zealanders, call Bush on his facist like, "your with me or your the enemy!" regime, that he and his ilk have setup in the USA since he stole the american election of 2000, and then in the name of the true tragedy 9/11, he goes after Iraq instead of Bin Lauden, and lies about it all to everyone, you poor dear!

:sad: I don't think your people know (or is it they are afraid to question authority?) about what is really going on whatsoever, sorry you are not open to others points of view! :sad:

This post has been edited by Jason Vines: 05 June 2006 - 07:13 PM

[Jason Vines]

Little Sheba said:

it has become a land of the meek and those afraid to speak out the truth about anything since Bush and Cheney have negated your American Constitution and Bill of Right's!

Let's not exaggerate: The Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, has retained its force. American tradition clings so tightly to it that no single administration could obviate it. Most of the Constitution shapes American life as much as it always has.

Many Americans are concerned, though, about the Bush administrations encroachment on some areas of the Constitution. We also worry about setting a precedent for the executive to violate the Constitution at will.

Little Sheba said:

So if your amoungst the super-rich and/or the Elite ruling class...

"The rich" don't control this country as much as some people think they do.

First of all, money doesn't necessarily buy elections. Examination of the patterns of wins and losses in federal elections reveals how much candidates spend doesn't matter as much as whether voters like them. A rich man can't spend his own or someone else's way into office.

Popular candidates receive the attention of wealthy donors looking to accrue influence. Wealthy donors don't create popular candidates.

(For more elaboration, see Freakonomics pp. 9-12 by Stephen D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner.)

Furthermore, so many factions exist amongst Washington lobbyists, pulling lawmakers in so many directions, they cancel out each other. They rarely can pull Washington this way or that. (See Government's End by Jonathan Rauch.)

Little Sheba said:

The modern day Roman Empire shall certainly fail and fall when enough of the little people rise up and have had enough, quite enough, It is the lesson of history....... maybe some have been on vacation the last six years?

All the people have to do is vote to effect change. Unfortunately, voter apathy saps the public of strength to challenge the government. That is one of the primary reasons the status quo persists: The voters don't care enough to make the politicians change.

So the "little people" aren't being suppressed so much as they are suppressing themselves.

Little Sheba said:

you rob from the poor and give to the rich

Nothing of the kind happens here. Not taking quite so much from the rich or the middle class doesn't constitute stealing from anybody.

Little Sheba said:

before it crumbles into the dust and ashes of history as all totalitarian regimes eventually must.

The United States doesn't have a totalitarian regime. It's still a republic that largely respects freedom. Take it from someone who lives here.

[Jason Vines]

Yoda, on Jun 5 2006, 10:57 AM, said:

What silly talk. Why do you have such venom? Why the American insults? You think that United States is a crappy country and its people are stupid.

I wonder why some neoconservatives have so little confidence in the United States, they must call anyone who criticizes their nation anti-American instead of engaging in constructive debate. These neoconservatives seem to believe perceptions of the US as a good country would wither under rational discussion. How sad that they think so little of their home.

[Jason Vines]

Little Sheba said:

I certainly do know what I am talking about, I was a history teacher in an Auckland School.

That might have equipped you to know about New Zealand's history, but how deeply would you have studied that of the United States?

Little Sheba said:

...then in the name of the true tragedy 9/11, he goes after Iraq instead of Bin Lauden, and lies about it all to everyone, you poor dear!

That's not an outright insult, but frankly, it's as condescending as the perennial accusations of anti-Americanism from the US right-wing.

[Sim]

Jason Vines, on Jun 5 2006, 06:24 PM, said:

Let's not exaggerate: The Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, has retained its force. American tradition clings so tightly to it that no single administration could obviate it. Most of the Constitution shapes American life as much as it always has.

Many Americans are concerned, though, about the Bush administrations encroachment on some areas of the Constitution. We also worry about setting a precedent for the executive to violate the Constitution at will.

And that's one of America's great strengthes: The idea of freedom is rooted so deeply in the American people that one single administration will hardly be able to destroy it. Occasionally, things are taken too far in the US -- but so far, America has always learned from its mistakes and corrected them, be it internment of innocent Japanese in WW2, be it McCarthyism -- and I have no doubt the same will happen to Bush's cuts into civil rights, which are on par with the previously named, IMHO.

Let's hope this won't take too long.

Quote

First of all, money doesn't necessarily buy elections. Examination of the patterns of wins and losses in federal elections reveals how much candidates spend doesn't matter as much as whether voters like them. A rich man can't spend his own or someone else's way into office.

Popular candidates receive the attention of wealthy donors looking to accrue influence. Wealthy donors don't create popular candidates.

(For more elaboration, see Freakonomics pp. 9-12 by Stephen D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner.)

Well I haven't read "Freakonomics", but I do believe the influence of powerful lobby groups is indeed one of the greatest weaknesses of our current capitalistic-republican systems in the West, especially their combined influence on politics and the media.

Huge corporations such as Rupert Murdoch's media empire obviously are in a silent deal with the Republicans: They get political advantages, and in exchange, they use their huge media influence in order to support the administration. I really don't see any other explanation for Murdoch's extreme partisanship, which ignores all journalistic responsibilities, turning Fox News and his other news sources into a huge propaganda machine for the Republicans.

Another example would be Berlusconi and his media empire in Italy: Maybe lobby groups can't create candidates, but they are indeed powerful enough to influence public perception of certain candidates by means of propaganda through the media. Berlusconi's loss in the election shows that this power is not unlimited, but on the other hand, it's obviously considerable: That he lost only so narrowly is proof enough, IMHO. That a candidate who has such a bad record regarding his economic bilance after 5 years of government, who is obviously corrupt, who openly abused his powers and his immunity as elected official to protect himself from legal persecution, was almost re-elected wouldn't have been possible in any other country where he wouldn't have had such a big media support.

And maybe lobby groups can't buy officials all that easily -- but they sure can buy their time in the "free" media. That's in the nature of private-owned news sources. Also, private donations by large companies to political parties are a form of permanent, indirect corruption, IMHO. As long as such is legal, lobby groups naturally have overproportionate power compared to "common" citizens.

Indeed I think our Western Constitutions are flawed when it comes to limiting private media. When the idea of free, constitutional countries was created in the 18th and 19th century, the media was not yet powerful enough to be considered a threat for freedom. But today, IMHO, it should be considered as the 4th branch besides executive, legislative and judicative -- and separated and controled by the others. This only would warrant that news won't be turned into propaganda machines of certain kinds.

Quote

All the people have to do is vote to effect change. Unfortunately, voter apathy saps the public of strength to challenge the government. That is one of the primary reasons the status quo persists: The voters don't care enough to make the politicians change.

So the "little people" aren't being suppressed so much as they are suppressing themselves.

Well maybe the corporate media, trying to push certain political preferences, does indeed play a crucial role in this.

Quote

Nothing of the kind happens here. Not taking quite so much from the rich or the middle class doesn't constitute stealing from anybody.

There is an old German saying: "Having and not giving is sometimes worse than stealing" (see, Germans are socialists in their heart ). But of course this is a matter of opinion. Probably a majority of Americans doesn't agree to this saying, and of course Americans should be free to organize their state however they want it to.

But unlike in America, most continental European countries have an overwhelming majority in public opinion in favor of solidarity of the rich with the poor, believing social security systems favoring the unfortunate is not only a nice, charitable contribution by the rich, but a ethical and compulsory necessity.

IIRC, a poll showed recently that about 90% of the Germans say that "solidarity" and "social security" is one of the main responsibilities of the state.

Quote

The United States doesn't have a totalitarian regime. It's still a republic that largely respects freedom. Take it from someone who lives here.

Generally, I agree. But that you live there is not necessarily a qualification to judge the state of the US.

For example, many East Germans now romantize communist East Germany, sometimes saying things like "it was a police state? When I lived there, I didn't realize that. No bad things happened to me. On the other side, I always received my welfare money in time. That doesn't happen today."

Even in the worst kind of dictatorship, a certain number of people will hardly be confronted with the aspects of that state which make it a bad state. Indeed, dictators have to keep a large base of the people content, for that they will be able to keep their power.

So it would be well possible the US wouldn't be free anymore one day, without most of the people taking notice of it.

Again, that doesn't mean the US aren't a relatively free country anymore -- but of course that's only relative. Some of the cuts into basic human rights are indeed most worrying, IMHO.

This post has been edited by Sim: 05 June 2006 - 07:20 PM

[I am Da Man]

[quote name='Sim' date='Jun 5 2006, 07:19 PM' post='4896']
[quote name='Jason Vines' post='4883' date='Jun 5 2006, 06:24 PM']
[quote]First of all, money doesn't necessarily buy elections. Examination of the patterns of wins and losses in federal elections reveals how much candidates spend doesn't matter as much as whether voters like them. A rich man can't spend his own or someone else's way into office.

Popular candidates receive the attention of wealthy donors looking to accrue influence. Wealthy donors don't create popular candidates.

(For more elaboration, see Freakonomics pp. 9-12 by Stephen D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner.)[/quote]

Well I haven't read "Freakonomics", but I do believe the influence of powerful lobby groups is indeed one of the greatest weaknesses of our current capitalistic-republican systems in the West, especially their combined influence on politics and the media.

Huge corporations such as Rupert Murdoch's media empire obviously are in a silent deal with the Republicans: They get political advantages, and in exchange, they use their huge media influence in order to support the administration. I really don't see any other explanation for Murdoch's extreme partisanship, which ignores all journalistic responsibilities, turning Fox News and his other news sources into a huge propaganda machine for the Republicans.

Another example would be Berlusconi and his media empire in Italy: Maybe lobby groups can't create candidates, but they are indeed powerful enough to influence public perception of certain candidates by means of propaganda through the media. Berlusconi's loss in the election shows that this power is not unlimited, but on the other hand, it's obviously considerable: That he lost only so narrowly is proof enough, IMHO. That a candidate who has such a bad record regarding his economic bilance after 5 years of government, who is obviously corrupt, who openly abused his powers and his immunity as elected official to protect himself from legal persecution, was almost re-elected wouldn't have been possible in any other country where he wouldn't have had such a big media support.

And maybe lobby groups can't buy officials all that easily -- but they sure can buy their time in the "free" media. That's in the nature of private-owned news sources. Also, private donations by large companies to political parties are a form of permanent, indirect corruption, IMHO. As long as such is legal, lobby groups naturally have overproportionate power compared to "common" citizens.

Indeed I think our Western Constitutions are flawed when it comes to limiting private media. When the idea of free, constitutional countries was created in the 18th and 19th century, the media was not yet powerful enough to be considered a threat for freedom. But today, IMHO, it should be considered as the 4th branch besides executive, legislative and judicative -- and separated and controled by the others. This only would warrant that news won't be turned into propaganda machines of certain kinds.
[/quote]

Actually, the Washington Redskins decide that (and if anyone says something about the 2004 season, read the title of this thread). For me, Bush is near equivalent to his Taiwanese counterpart- secretively criminalistic, and frankly dumb and look what the major newsline for Taiwan is (copy paste this into google: 倒扁). However, I feel Bush is definately much better, since Taiwan merely picked the lesser of two evils, but more dangerous altogether as he controls such a large population.