Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Stunaep on December 15, 2003, 08:38:57 am
-
Just thougt I´d share it with you.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=295954
-
http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm
hehehe (found from the link you gave :p )
-
Questioning our leaders during America's time of need after the horrible events of September 11th is disgusting and an outrage. The voices of dissent from the left potentially put our soldiers at risk by delaying the war which would have made Saddam more prepared. It was probably also detrimental to morale of the soldiers. Questioning the war on terrorism is betrayal and is the most despicable thing a person can do at this point and time.
These comments are simply unbelievable. The whole foundation of a western liberal democracy is to remove this sort of stupidity. I've seen them on television before...one person whos comments were on CNN about protesters against the war said they should be arrested for treason.
Well hello! Get a clue...your government says it wants to bring democracy and freedom to Iraq and yet these people don't want it at home if it doesn't agree with their simplistic and narrow minded viewpoint. Unbelievable!
In a democracy the whole point is to question your government, question your populace, and challenge everything right down to the bloody core of the country because thats what you're supposed to do. And it shouldn't be felt less during a time of need but more during a time of need...the right course needs to be decided. United in democracy, divided in opinion. Its a good thing...if only the other 85% of the population could figure the thing out.
Goodness.
-
Why is it that a Canadian understand the basics of American (as in United States) patriotism better than most of the population of the United States right now?
I couldn't have said it better IceFire.
-
coz democracy isn't limited to the USA :doubt:
-
I did not say "why is it that a canadian understands DEMOCRACY...". Pay careful attention to what I said. I said "American patriotism".
Yes, IceFire said "democracy". I was pointing out that he had summed up the very essence of American patriotism and that the rest of my country men didn't understand it.
Given that I never stated or implied that democracy was limited to the USA, what the hell is up with the "doubt" smiley?
-
I was refering to Icefire post. That stuff is the same everywhere.
-
Because we actually pay attention to our neighbours, unlike most of the American population? I dont like to generalise, but when you see things like Rick Mercer's "Talking to Americans", its a little hard not to...
-
I bet this moron has a picture of Hitler on his wall. I read two posts by him and closed the window in disgust. Questioning leaders is an outrage? In America? Yeah, and hell just froze over.:rolleyes:
-
Seems obvious that we all think this fellow's views are somewhat extreme, but there is also such a thing as supporting the troops abroad. I saw news footage of a woman smacking a protester around the head - her husband had just been sent away to serve in Iraq and these people were standing on the dockside screaming 'warmonger' abuse at the sailors and soldiers as if it was their call. That woman got a tip of the hat from me.
And I bet he didn't have a picture of Hitler on his wall.
-
right. But Viggo Mortensen isn't picking on the soldiers. He's accusing the goverment.
-
Yeah, I kind of went a bit OT from what I'd meant to say, which was going to be about the government. I think I'll just go the pub instead.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
I did not say "why is it that a canadian understands DEMOCRACY...". Pay careful attention to what I said. I said "American patriotism".
Ahem (http://www.damnittohell.com/archives/000050.php)
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
Seems obvious that we all think this fellow's views are somewhat extreme, but there is also such a thing as supporting the troops abroad. I saw news footage of a woman smacking a protester around the head - her husband had just been sent away to serve in Iraq and these people were standing on the dockside screaming 'warmonger' abuse at the sailors and soldiers as if it was their call. That woman got a tip of the hat from me.
And I bet he didn't have a picture of Hitler on his wall.
A totally valid point...there is absolutely no valid reason for placing any blame on the troops going off to war or returning from it. They are there to follow orders and do their duty. A strong, proud, and dedicated military tradition runs in many countries to each of those nations benefits and there can be no justification for criticising people who stand up and put themselves in the fire to do something to defend their country. These guys don't make decisions relating to the overall actions of the state...they do make moral and ethical decisions with regards to warfare. I hope they make the right ones but its definately a tough call in almost all situations.
I get mad at the people who suggest that the protests against the war, against the governments leadership and so forth are an act of treason to which they are not and to which are the freedoms that the military has been devised to protect.
Oh and thanks mikhael, I travel quite a bit in the U.S. during the summers so I like to try and know whats going on down there when I can. :)
-
Funny, so how does Congo qualify? It's a democratic republic :doubt:
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
Seems obvious that we all think this fellow's views are somewhat extreme, but there is also such a thing as supporting the troops abroad. I saw news footage of a woman smacking a protester around the head - her husband had just been sent away to serve in Iraq and these people were standing on the dockside screaming 'warmonger' abuse at the sailors and soldiers as if it was their call. That woman got a tip of the hat from me.
And I bet he didn't have a picture of Hitler on his wall.
It's good to support the troops and your country. It's bad to say that questioning anything that the government says and does is an outrage.
-
Originally posted by Drew
Ahem (http://www.damnittohell.com/archives/000050.php)
Your point? I didn't say anything about the US being a democracy, did I? Read again, Drew, and read carefully. Ahem indeed. Schmuck.
-
why don't you people calm down...geez.
-
[color=cc9900]Neo, it's a heated debate, stuff like this happens in the matter of course ^_^
I don't think I'll enter into this little argument. I'm growing tired of being pissed off at US leadership, I just ignore it these days.[/color]
-
it needs to get heated quicker. i want to see some hair on the ground.
EDit: what i said earlier in this thread doesn't matter...Argue Bite each others heads off do as you wish
-
[color=cc9900]Hair...? :wtf:[/color]
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Your point? I didn't say anything about the US being a democracy, did I? Read again, Drew, and read carefully. Ahem indeed. Schmuck.
just clarifying something :rolleyes: i was getting a "USA is a democracy vibe" from IceFire
BTW am i the only conservative liberterian on these boards?
-
[q]BTW am i the only conservative liberterian on these boards?[/q]
Define that for those used to British terminology.
-
That person, although thinking himself a patriot and a good citizen, is in fact a traitor to the spirit of democracy. Quenching dissent is only present in totalitarian dictatorships.
EDIT: The Libertarians are an incredibly conservative party. They're about as right-wing as you can get.
-
Oh. Nope, you're the only one then Drew. :lol:
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
That person, although thinking himself a patriot and a good citizen, is in fact a traitor to the spirit of democracy. Quenching dissent is only present in totalitarian dictatorships.
EDIT: The Libertarians are an incredibly conservative party. They're about as right-wing as you can get.
Even though i despise the ppl who protested; the "Republicans" who accused the protestors of being "traitors" were out insane. They havnt the faintest understanding of the US Constitution.
Huh? Incredibly conservative? Theyre the ones who want to legalize drugs, kill the income tax, free up imagration laws, remove all tarifs (heh, sry), kill most of government spending, run an isolationist forgin affairs and (especially) follow a Strict constructavists interpertation of the constitution (mik should understand). The libertarean party is increddibly distance from both Democrats and republicans.
-
You're still the only one.
-
i know :(
*runz to his secret lair to plan the complete brainwashing and indoctrination of Liberterian policy into the HLP members* :drevil:
-
Sorry, Drew. I got a bit carried away.
Libertarians aren't on the conservative-liberal scale. They're one end of the libertarian-socialist scale, which is 90deg from the conservative-liberal scale. You can be a conservative socialist, a conservative libertarian, a liberal socialist or a liberal libertarian.
My wife is a liberal socialist, whereas I sit rather close to the center, conservative on some things, liberal on others, libetarian on some things and socialist on others.
-
Ah. I was thinking of a diagram I saw once. Now that I think about it, it probably was showing two separate scales.
-
These comments are simply unbelievable. The whole foundation of a western liberal democracy is to remove this sort of stupidity. I've seen them on television before...one person whos comments were on CNN about protesters against the war said they should be arrested for treason.
And that's about what I've come to expect from the far right Republicans in this country. Donald Rumsfeld ring anyones bells?
-
....bump...nah...it'll be bumped sooner or later by someone who cares...
-
That's so complicated in your countries :p
In french we have right wing, left wing, up to extreme right wing ( xenophobist lot ), and extreme left wing ( silver spoon in the ass lot ), then you have centrism ( useless lot ). What's more complicated is that each wing is composed of at least a dozen parties, ranging from moderate ( even using policies from the opposite wing when it seems more appropriate, I'm moderate right wing for most ) to extreme ( -ist :p ) - which are in each case ( right or left ), the worst thing that could happen to our country ( national bankrupt with the leftists, civil unrest with the rightists, that's how I see it, to make a caricature of the thing ).
-
Well nico, honestly it isn't that easy in european countries too...
Your subdivision from the extreme left to the extreme right my be right, but even if there could be a scale from left to right, it is hard to make a scale for the "philosophies" that are the source of those parties.
I think that it would be a great mistake to evaluate usa's politic with european eyese, as big as evaluating european politic with usa's eye
actually I think that our situation is probably more complicated:)
-
ummmm......
I though the US was capitalistic, not democratic?
in a capitalistic country, Money and power do the talking
In a democratic country, Money, Power and the People do the talking.....
-
Capitalism is an economic philosophy. Democracy is a political philosophy.
We're a capitalist republic (representative democracy).
-
I sense stereotypes bubbling.
[q]Donald Rumsfeld ring anyones bells?[/q]
Preferably not.
[q]Well nico, honestly it isn't that easy in european countries too...[/q]
Try British politics, they're all really on the same team.
-
The best thing about politics is that it's all made up as they go along. It's like live T.V.
-
I like pie.
-
GOP Pie no doubt. :p
-
Pecan, Strawberry, and Cherry pies are good
-
Remind me what GOP stands for again?
-
GOP: Grand Old Party. AKA the Republican Party.
-
yet they are the younger of the two.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
GOP: Grand Old Party. AKA the Republican Party.
Huh! I actually never knew that.
-
On a side note, which do you prefer: Presidential Republics, or the British-style Parliamentary Republic?
-
Parliamentary republics confuse me. I honestly don't understand how they work.
Presidential republics like the US has are straightforward and simple. You got this guy. You've got him for four years. Then you do it again. And you can't ever have the same guy more than twice. Underneath that you've got one big mob and one little mob and each of the three groups can tell the other two bugger off.
-
Ain't Parliamentry Governments bassically the same thing, just without the president bit? At least that's the impression I get whenever I see a British Parliament Session on CNN...
-
Troll n. - the type of people in Starcraft who you wished you knew where they lived so you can go beat them in the face with a sharp ended pvc tube.
-
Parliamentary govs are just like Presidential govs but the top guy needs to ask Parliament before making any big decisions. I don't think he's classed as being the supreme commander of the armed forces either.
-
What balances Parliament? IE: who gets to tell Parliament when they're out of line?
The way the US system works:
- when the president is out of line, Congress can nullify it with a bill, or the Supreme Court can declare what he's doing unconstitutional and/or illegal.
- If the Supreme Court is out of line, Congress can either change the law, or change the constitution. The president can selectively override Supreme Court decisions.
- If Congress is out of line, the President can veto them, or the Supreme Court can declare their actions unconstitutional.
Of course this all breaks down when one party or the other controls all three branches.
-
If the PM want's to do anything major, he has to ask Parliament. If the Prime Minister does something and ****s up, Parliament over-rule him. If he keeps doing it, Parliament depose him.
Parliament has final say over just about everything, they leave the day-to-day stuff to the Cabinet and the PM, the courts can 'interpret' laws.
And before any law even gets close to being passed it's gotta go through massive checks, get passed in the Commons and then get passed by the House Of Lords. So they're always perfectly defined to begin with, thus the courts get no say in the matter.
So basically, the PM has day-to-day control but Parliament can always *****-slap him and once they've voted on something their word is final.
-
So there's no institutional, in-progress, day-to-day checks and balances? That description allows for situations where Parliament can pass a law legalizing murder and no one can do anything about it.
-
Hey, we could always use a little more legal murder, eh?
-
....
-
Yup. If Parliament wanted to legalize murder, they could.
But they'd answer for it at the next election.
-
so in the end all the checks are down to the people who vote. in democratic systems, anyway.
-
Not really. If Parliament decided that it'd be a good idea to change the constitution of the UK, got the 70% (IIRC) needed to do so and turned us into a militaristic, dictatorial, war-mongering nuclear power then the public wouldn't get much of a say in the matter.
No system is above abuse, but the way the UK works means that so many people would have to be involved in any coup or action against the people's interests that it'd end up actually being the will of the people.
-
The problem with the checks and balances system America has is that you can elect a republican president and a democratic congress. Then you end up with a president who can't do anything because every law he passes gets struck down by congress.
In the UK the government always has a majority (even if it's slim) but if it tries to pass an unpopular law it would face a backbench revolt. MP's often feel more obliged to their constituency than their party in the UK because it isn't as hard to be an independant MP in the UK if you have popular support (compared with the US where you probably won't get anywhere unless you're with the two big parties). If an MP feels that helping pass a law would get him voted out next term he'll probably go against his own party.
Both systems allow stupid laws to be passed. In America you could pass one if you had the president, congress and the supreme court in favour of it. In the UK you'd need the House of Commons and House of Lords behind it (and the Queen actually because although she rubber stamps everything she does actually have the power to stop any law being passed even if it hasn't been used in centuries).
The numbers of people you'd need to get laws through in both systems are about the same.
-
Originally posted by an0n
Yup. If Parliament wanted to legalize murder, they could.
But they'd answer for it at the next election.
They'd be murdered before the next election.
-
True.
But MI5 would probably 'deal' with them while their methods of doing so were still illegal.
Ah, the glory of having a semi-monarchistic society. All the armed forces and intelligence services are pledged to serve the monarchy, so the government can only **** things up to a certain degree before the old "King and country" thing kicks in and everyone turns on them.