a piece of paper

[Elissar]

Canada... No, Realy...

 

[John Uskglass]

Seriously, John, your above statement is a slap in the face of everything the US represents and fought to preserve. You should feel ashamed of yourself as a citizen of a (once-)proud nation.

I am a firm believer in the seperation of powers and checking the power of the president, but modern nations need individuals they can look up to and who represent the country, even if, as in the case of the US, they are not always good and not all that powerful.

You are right, Cheney would have to be similarly impeached for any real benefit to occur, as he's a good portion of the problem.

You really think some kind of benefit comes from such political instibility?

The British Empire, for controlling a substantial portion of more continents than you have ever been on. Very Happy Comparatively, China has been a substantial power long before the US existed, and at a time when the British Empire was still pretty much an island and Brittany. So which quantification do you want for "most powerful", the one that owned more continents, or the one that has had regional influence with a state alone much larger than the entirety of old Europe and for more centuries than either the British Empire or the US put together?

The British Empire never had the economic dominance we have, nor even the naval command: there is no Imperial Germany for us. Not only that, but the Brits could, and did, get their ass handed to themselves in several conventional conflict.

And I say that as a guy with a deep and abiding affection for the British Empire and all it represented, and think it's demise was far, far too soon.

China? Well, maybe, over such a period of time, considering that in a certain part of the world they dominated everything almost all of the time. But they never had global power projection like us or the Brits, and they still don't, and they will not for a while.

Oh yes, because that logic really worked well for the Nazis.

It always comes down to the Nazis.

The diffirence that the power of the President is largely in the fact that he is the President. He is not Peter the Great: in terms of political power he has not that much more then some PMs.

 

[Wooz]

The British Empire never had the economic dominance we have

 

[Brother None]

I am a firm believer in the seperation of powers and checking the power of the president, but modern nations need individuals they can look up to and who represent the country, even if, as in the case of the US, they are not always good and not all that powerful.

You're a democracy, which means that whatever you look up to gets whatever power it can get from being looked up to. Even after being elected Bush needs support from Congress, Congress is drafted from the people, hence Bush needs the people. In so far we're probably agreed.

You're constitutional before you're a democracy, though. And the problem with pretty much any strong leadership, but Bush in particular on this subject, is a disdain for one of the many things that keeps him from added to the long infamous row of horrible nation leaders. Ignore the constitution, ignore you people, you end up a bad leader.

Don't care how strong you end up being, you're still bad.

I prefer weak and good to bad and strong, personally.

The current Dutch MP, for instance, is both weak and bad.

You really think some kind of benefit comes from such political instibility?

You really think the long-term net effects of overthrows and revolutions has led to regression rather than progress?

Does this include the Dutch revolution against Spain or the 1848 revolutions leading to democratisation in a number of countries including the Netherlands? Does this include the colonial revolutions, including the American revolution?

With your kind of thinking, we'd probably all still be ruled by the mongols at this point.

The British Empire never had the economic dominance we have

Hehehehe. That was a joke, right?

nor even the naval command: there is no Imperial Germany for us.

No. But you said most powerful nation in history. So you should include all of the US' history, in which case the USSR stands up for comparison to Imperial Germany.

Not only that, but the Brits could, and did, get their ass handed to themselves in several conventional conflict.

I love it when Americans say conventional conflicts as if that excuses the fact that you consistently kept getting your ass handed to you after WW II.

Fact; it doesn't, you lost, stop whining.

China? Well, maybe, over such a period of time, considering that in a certain part of the world they dominated everything almost all of the time. But they never had global power projection like us or the Brits, and they still don't, and they will not for a while.

Global power projection is just a part of rising trends. But I'm sure you won't mind when people sneer and call their country the most powerful in the history of Mankind because "that pathetic US had no kind of interstellar dominance"

The diffirence that the power of the President is largely in the fact that he is the President. He is not Peter the Great: in terms of political power he has not that much more then some PMs.

Hitler started out democratically too. He didn't care much for constitutions either, though.

Slippery slope.

Sometimes I am surprised by how people blame the Germans for rising Nazism. When I see certain trends rising and falling in Europe and America, even in modern-day Europe and America, I seriously doubt most other countries would've done differently.

The US willingness to lie to invade foreign countries, to view on racial or religious segment as "the problem" and to ignore international treaties and apparently its own constitution shows it's not actually that far above proto-nazi Germany.

 

[Ashmo]

Every German I know has pointed out how much the recent changes within the US resemble the rise to power of the NSDAP.

The only thing missing is the SA, but I'm sure one of your parties can recruit a band of thugs like that.

 

[Roshambo]

The only thing missing is the SA, but I'm sure one of your parties can recruit a band of thugs like that.

Hell, the US already has the SS, fostoring educational activities such as censoring high school student projects about Freedom of Speech and their opinions regarding the president. Given that the piece in question was censored by confiscation after the student was intimidated through interrogation with no guardian present, I think we neatly have our answer.

 

[citizenkhan]

Time to break out the tan shirt!

 

[calculon000]

I'm sure the coke logo has been in more parts of the world than anything else, including the British Empire.

 

[TheWesDude]

actually the US is a republic not a democracy.

we have very few democractically elected offices of which the president is probably the main one.

the rest of the offices are predominantly elected through the republic.


democracy: each layer electing the next layer

republic: public vote determine who wins.


the US house of representatives elects the president, not the people.

 

[Ashmo]

<snip>

Captain Obvious Strikes Again.

Nobody claims the US is a democracy. I don't even know of any democracy that still exists -- I'm not even sure there ever was another one after the Attic Democracy (ancient Athens), but that's totally beside the point.

"Democratic" doesn't mean the same as "identical to the exact structure of a Democracy" and even the noun "democracy" has become much less specific. It's very loosely defined by its litteral meaning: (approximately -- I don't speak Ancient Greek) reign of the people (or population).
It's thus also used to refer to a state with free elections -- even the United States is democratic in THAT sense. It's true you can't elect everyone directly and the whole system is way messy, but even a Republic is democratic in the sense of getting its power from its people rather than from the government itself.

That the vast majority of those who elect the government are sheepish retards doesn't make it any less democratic -- in fact, that's the only true problem there is with democracy (but as long as we don't have an intelligent, altruistic, benevolent, immortal leader any form of tyranny is doomed to be worse).

Could we now stop digressing and go back to how much the late two terms of government have turned the US into 1930s Germany?

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Revolutions very, very, very rarley do anything other then create reactionaries and radicals.

Funny you should say that, because without a revolution your own country wouldn't exist today.

I'd be so bold to say that without revolutions, peaceful and otherwise, there would be no progress. Almost every revolution had a long-term positive effect on humanity, from the French revolution to the October revolution to the 1968 student revolution.

In fact, I believe a good, violent revolution is just what the West needs today.

actually the US is a republic not a democracy.

we have very few democractically elected offices of which the president is probably the main one.

the rest of the offices are predominantly elected through the republic.


democracy: each layer electing the next layer

republic: public vote determine who wins.


the US house of representatives elects the president, not the people.

*gasp* Thanks for the lesson in Politology 101.

 

[Roshambo]

actually the US is a republic not a democracy.

republic: public vote determine who wins.

Given the last two "elections", and with W trying to write himself at least a third into the Constitution, and given the presence of the electoral college system in general, can you still quantify the US as being a Republic?

I didn't think so.

The proper definition is "capitalist oligarchy". Those with money fall into power to provide themselves and their interests with more money. There is none of this silly "republic" shit in their minds, really.

 

[Jebus]

The proper definition is "capitalist oligarchy".

I dunno, I'd call it an "imperialist cleptocracy".