Lost? How that? I like the left, and i think many europeans do too. The problem is, as usual, the extremism. P.S: Pls kutya, no joke about hands and masturbation
Not getting into the hypocrisy thing..... [edited: intent? you place your qiz in the european forum and then mention that most of the answerers were europeans. Is there an intention in that?] You can't really use Europe vs US comparison when only four US citizens have answered. 3/4 of those are like europeans in opinions. So it's you vs. Europe, and that is somewhat questionable comparison too Actually I'm not. I know where I stand politically, what my opinions are and which party I do vote. No confusion here. If it don't suit to your opinions or view of how world should turn, that is really your personal hell, sorry. IMO US isn't the thing the rest of the world should compare it's politics to. I personally identify Hitler as "dictator". Dictators don't have political agenda. Only that matters to them is power. Their power. If you think that Hitler is "centrist", then you the one that we should feel pity for.... airfax [edited: I'd really love to continue this discussion, but you (and I) have to realize the facts. I can write/understand english only to some level. But if you'd be so kind and change to finnish? Then I could make my points clearer...]
it was the same with me i learned not to take recenas - that made my sleep easier and appetite in the morning better :] generally i'm noticing that 1st half of new day i feel much better then
Bollocks. The Republicans are right-wingers, and the Democrats are centrist with leanings towards the right wing. How is that 'balanced'? What kind of choice is this in politics? Here in Scotland, we usually have about 9 candidates fighting seats. These are made up of; Conservatives - right to extreme right wing Labour - left of centre, but only just Liberals - Centrist Socialists - Left to extreme left UK Nationalists - Right to extreme right Greens - Left I would imagine Scottish Nationalists - Centre, or just to the right So I have all this choice from my political parties, but you believe the US has a more 'balanced' choice that covers a better political spectrum? Yeah, right
i don't know how it really works in the USA, but, from what i've seen and heard, it's more a mass-media-popularity circus than a real election thinking on what offers a candidate. Seems a joke of elections out there....
So you are saying that no definite assumptions have been made. How about this definite assumption: <<analysis>> Step-by-step logical approach to systems/interpretations of democratic government: 1. Government exists as a means to organize individuals into a larger system. Individuals exchange goods/services for protection under the government. 2. The interpretation begins when this subject is raised: "To what extent should individuals exchange goods/services for protection?" 3a. The Left believes that citizens should sacrifice a relatively large amount of wealth (taxes), in exchange for numerous government services. This is the assumption that using the government is the best way to ensure everyone is equal (in a democratic society). 3b. The Right believes that citizens should sacrifice a minimum of wealth in exchange for a small number of government services. This is the assumption that all citizens are equally capable of providing for most needs. 4. The Left and the Right are polar opposites. What I have seen is that Europeans are more inclined toward the system in 3a. Research and this poll have proven it. Americans prefer the system laid out in 3b. The 2004 election results are positive proof of this. <<end analysis>> Do you dispute the above statements? When you respond state which number you disagree with. In the meantime, I am going to demonstrate how the United States has parties which represent both forms of democratic government. I will list questions and simulate the most predictable answers of both American parties. Q. Should individuals be able to rely upon welfare to survive? Democrats: Yes Republicans: No Q. Should individuals be allowed to opt into private accounts for Social Security? Democrats: No Republicans: Yes Q. Is widespread government regulation of the markets a good idea? Democrats: Yes Republicans: No Q. Should abortion be illegal? Democrats: No Republicans: Yes And one final point (using Glas's definitions): Q. Should the government heavily regulate industry with regard to pollution? American Parties US Republicans: No US Democrats: Yes UK Parties Conservatives: No Labour: Yes Liberals: Perhaps Socialists: Yes UK Nationalists: No Greens: Yes Scottish Nationalists: Probably not A two-party system is the most logical way to arrange a country's politics. One either believes that the government should provide most services, or one does not. That is the only division one can make within the whole scope of politics! The American system has two major parties, polar opposites. The UK system seems to have 7 major parties that manage to disagree with each other. How can you have a magnet with seven oppostite poles? BTW, Glas, I have referred and still refer to mainland Europe when I say that "Europe is to the left of the USA." The UK indeed has some parties which have many parallels to the American Republicans. The UK always seems to be the "odd-man out" with respect to the rest of Europe. What I am addressing is the fact that it is almost heresy for a European to believe that people should not live life inside a community when this person lives in a crowded European country. That is one explanation of why Europe is to the left of the USA. Do not be skeptical, it is a major contributing factor. So when you respond, state which part of my analysis you disagree with.
How many WASPs are there in U.S. today? 40%? How many non-WASP presidents has U.S. had in it's whole history? (Well You had one, but a bullet put an end to his cadency- some even say it was E.Hoover's work). Democrats and Republicans are so polarized as my ass is... the're two halfs, separeted by a small space, but nevertheless they constitute a unit called "ass". You limit the division to some recent issues (like the crissis of social security system in U.S.). You mix up interventionism with liberalism (U.S. democrats are not Keynsists for fuck sake... they're more liberal than most of the EU Comitee in terms of their approach to economy). The bipartial system has it's plusses but it's like choosing between two brands in store... not two wares... Just an example... I'm thirsty, I go to 7/11 and i don't want to buy Coke (Democrats), cause I hate it... the only thing the clerk has to offer me is Pepsi (Republicans)... fuck such choice... yeap, I do vote Pepsi, but not because I have a real choice, but only because I consider Coke to be the worse choice. Europe has it's "7/11" fully equipped... from mineral water, through beverages up to beer and vodka... Now that's a choice! And not choosing one because I consider the second a worse option.
The odd-man out you say. How exactly do you mean? You're trying to say they didn't participate in all the wars Europe's been known to have throughout the centuries? You're trying to say Brittain wasn't just like the rest (although partly) occupied by Roman forces (yes yes I know, they never conquered Germany and East of that)? How exactly are the British different? In that they need to take the boat if they want to visit European lands to the East of them? I don't quite see how they're different. You're just saying they are because that fits your side in this discussion. For every British/Scottish party Glas has named I can name a Belgian parallel with an almost exactly similar stance. You see, actually the British-Scottish relationship doesn't really differ that much from the Wallon-Flemish relationship. How does this fit in? People up until today can still be Flemish "nationalists". Guess it's got a little swing of the South vs North over in your country Squirl. No, you're interpreting it that way. It's how you come over that evokes these sorts of reactions for a large part. What you say can be interpreted as the big brother coming in and telling the younger brother's got it all wrong. It almost seems as if you're trying to say we can't even judge to which side our own politicians lean. We live here, you live there, for those reasons alone you will never know as much about European politics as you will about American politics, and vice versa. I don't pretend to know the full spectrum of the American politics, but you pretend to know what the majority of the Europeans think, and more importantly, how their politics work. BTW, most people who vote for the Right in the US of A - at least I've been led to believe - live in small community. Smaller communities, tighter communities, yet they seem to choose the seperatist direction? I find it a bit ironic. <Z>
In England people drive on the left side of the road, they invented a strange measurement system, have different money, will not join the EU, have their own church, and insisted upon drinking tea on D-Day while other Allied troops moved in. At some times geographers insist that the UK is not a part of the European continent and at other times declare that it is part of Europe. One of the most relevant differences between the UK and mainland Europe is the fact that the UK actually has a true right-wing party. I say "true right-wing party" because this is a party that opposes large numbers of government programs and supports lower taxes. All this information was obtained Here. From my reading, I have learned that Margaret Thatcher is a hero of the British Conservatives. They say that she led the UK out of a long period of economic recession by rescuing the nation from "militant unions" and imposing a practice of "hands off" economics. That sure sounds like "real" right-wing to me. I did, however, see this article entitled The Death of Thatcherism?. I am not too surprised to see that the Labour Party has raised taxes and promoted membership to the EU ever since Tony Blair entered office. This is part of the trend of "the leftist Europe." One can see what I am talking about when the British right-wingers call themselves, in their own words, "the forgotten majority." Zembla, as far as communities in the United States go, we have the big cities and the remote small communities. A comedian stated (with a lot of truth) that he lived in an apartment in New York City (a Left-Wing community) and his neighbor lined his own apartment with aluminum foil to "prevent aliens from abducting him" and his other neighbor does not speak more than 10 words in English. While conspiracy theorists and immigrants do not completely represent the Democratic Party in the US, they are in its ranks nonetheless. The southern Republicans are sometimes identified as "rednecks with Confederate (Rebel) flags on their dining room walls and a shotgun in every room." The same goes here: they do not represent the Republican party, but are inclusive in the party. Both parties have their "undesirables," but it seems that is how I can best describe how a southern community differs from a more urban community in the United States.
juices or choices in a way the movie 'matrix' has shown a remarkable change, eventually even progress... although half of the conversation was about the 'choice' someone made or has to make (somehow very related to the 'purpose'), i was amazed to see, that the initial 'choice' was between red and blue. well, it was about time, since the introducing of ntsc with purple and violet colorschemes. i had in addition to think about if red was seen like the colored version of black? which, sine dubio, has historically seen it's roots in the most entertaining hearings of the 50's (still i am sure those were all a self-reminiscent performance of orson the big w., or a late revenge adressed to the brits - btw: does anyone remember the 'shadoqs'?) on topic... the very strong belief in 'the choice' with the unquestionable and best possible result of having done 'the right choice', which to defend against the non-chosen is probably the best choice to deny the aire of doubt, is how i would characterize now the picture i had in younger days of missionaries amongst the wild and 'indigenes'. the greeks had highest doubts in the fragile balance of democracy, which the romans couldn't handle too well. at least i found ancient system of parties well hierarchically structured (certainly i would try to be part of the famous 'bacchus 54'-partysystem) so, if practiced in honest effort or not, an important factor in democracy is not so much the choice. imo it is the doubt, the discussion and the responsibility. and the last goes for inner-party, coalition- and oppositionwise as well as politics responsibility towards the populus (which is said to have got the power...) i can't see a counterpole 2-party-system being a good preliminary for politics beside the marketing of red and blue pills. of course an increasing number of groups always feeds a growing chaos, but well, what better could responsibility been presented than by keeping the balance foggy? whoever is seeing clear to dtermine blacknwhite should realize that neo won't come!
@squirl You talk about snakes after observation of tapeworms. You call lizards dragons. You draw "scientific" debates about penguins after seing some seagulls... What am I talking about? Well, You don't have a clue, but still try to have "one true and irrefutable" facts on hand. You immerse us in shitloads of "facts", "data", "statements", "analises"... worth nothing at all. Face it- You build a collosus on clay legs, when You try to convince a British about how wrong he is about the politics of his own country. The shapeless pulp that is contained within Your posts disgusts me. You're just a schoolboy from some remote U.S.-State, You havn't been to any foreign country yet I suppose. Your desire for discussion is to be marvelled. But the path of the "all-knower" isn't an ally when You try to learn something and you should learn much before trying to talk. As far as the U.S.-demographical (or rather sociological) division goes there's little You know too. The today's division is rather the one of Atlantic coast (from New England till Florida) + California (+mb the Great Lakes) versus the rest (South, Midlands, West, Pacific- California excluded). How can You write something about Europe, without even knowing it?
@ledada Agreed. But even chaos presents some structures in itself, no complete, perfect and sustained state of chaos is possible. So even disbalancing the system will only lead to a balance anyway... provided that the enviroment is stable (the society and the international affairs). A collapse of coalition in a multi-party system leads to a minority government (we have such here for almost a year now) ruling thanks to some support of non-coalition parties or to earlier elections. The bipartial system with its clearly set boundries is weak in this aspect, that it does not allow this natural "flow" of politics and limits the changes and unbalances to the pre-election period. Hence the bipartial system is less flexible and adjustable. In representative democracy the "choice" aspect of the ones who choose their representatives is balanced and biased by the "doubt" factor contained in the fact, that no guaranteed majority is given to the representatives for not a day or two. In a bipartial system this "doubt" is very limited as is the choice of representatives. Any adjustments within the system can be done once in electoral period only. The European model presents greater flexibility at the cost of lesser "momental" stability, while being quite stable in long-term. The U.S. system is less prone to "momental" unstability, but more endangered with unbalances caused by all the events in the pre-election period. The U.S. model would simply not work in Europe as it is now. The question here is wheather or not it would be better for the U.S. to adopt the European system. In my opinion that's a shallow "yes". The whole problem in this discussion is, that Squirl tries to convince us about "his" model's supremacy... while we try to say why it wouldn't work here and why we consider it unusable from our perspective.
eyes wide shut ... in desperate need of matches to keep the 'wide'-factor present i confirm you to be near your spot in the squirls-cross of pol-pass, frog! i wonder if he could be nailed at the litti-comp. i bet anyone could see him shiver every time a synaptic pulse will add more evidence of his analytical mind to him - up to the moment, when it is clear that the unbalanced wingloading of his construct(s) doesn't allow him to zoom up like the other guy did... btw, has there been mentioned religion already? i think when he taught us about the british, hasn't he? bah, that's either historical or traditional... i'd like to read more of the progressive way to praise like to be seen in tele or the political motivations and explanations by interpretations of the book. anyway it happens here or there, as long as one can laugh at the stranger in the mirror... add: i just read 'supremacy' in your thread. when i watched mad daimen in 'bourne supremacy' i thought the whole movie it would be about a peanut girl with superpowers.
We had our measurements, our side of the road for driving on and our money for a long time before a United Europe was even a consideration. Btw we are in the EU rolleyes: ) we just arent part of the exchange rate mechanism or the single currency which (IMO) is an insignificant part of being part of the EU as a citizen. Politicians would disagree, but I dont give a fuck for them. The British public have used our imperial system of measurement and our pounds and pence for a long time now. Were used to them. Inevitably, a large portion of the country (mostly OAPs) are against any form of change which could upset the fragile balance in their lives, so they strive to keep the status quo. The younger generation in the UK however embrace the EU with arms wide open. In fact if pressed, I would consider myself Scottish first, European second and only then maybe British third. I dont care for the Union one way or another. Certainly not as much as I care about a United Europe. MT is actually seen by the conservatives in the UK as being the architect of their spectacular downfall in the 90s btw She was certainly the best leader they had, and was truly right wing as you said, but the gloss had firmly been removed from her veneer before the end of her term in office. She is no 'hero' to anyone in the UK imo these days. Conservatives may hark back to the halcyon days of the 80s when they had almost absolute power in the UK, but not a single one of them would ever suggest reverting to the policies that made Thatcher what she was. It would be political suicide. There's only so much you can get from reading a book squirl. At the moment, the UK economy is one of the strongest in the world. Lowest unemployment ever I believe. Most homeowners, most people in work, most people with savings. New Labour (because that is what they like to be called ) arent too far off what the conservatives were. They may preach more socialist values, but it is what they do in practise that matters. So Labour's success over hte past decade in the UK has got absoultely nothing to do with the trend of Leftist-Europe, and has got everything to do with us electing the people who gave us a strong economy, minimum wage, etc. I could absolutely guarantee you that if 'New' Labour returned to their old socialist values, they would be voted out of office in a minute. Dont get me wrong, you obviously have done your research and have a good amount of knowledge on the political situation in the EU. But you can only learn so much from a book. You really would need to come over here and experience it for yourself. Just ask if there is anything you need to know.
LOL, you dropped in the same linguistic trap that I did. It's the number of those who voted. Majority disagrees with you. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10492-2005Jan14.html More than that, I have no time or interest to continue this discussion. I can't make you understand my points, mostly because you don't want to and/or my english skills betray me. You try to convince me with your tables/polls, and I clearly stated what I think of them. One few more things for you to think. IMO abortion isn't political issue, but religious issue. And England having "own" religion/church? LOL, I don't know if you noticed, but f.e. me, broz and boroda (most likely if he's in church) are all in different religions. airfax
Kyllä, airfax. You are probably protestant (or Laestadian ) I strongly suspect broz to be some kinda catholic , boroda could be unreligious or russian orthodox See, 3 nice examples of guessing based on geographic location.
Well, actually I'm an atheistic member of a lutherian church. Religious things don't do anything for me, but I'm too lazy to resign from it. airfax (still not participant of this thread anymore ) [edited: and yes, broz is somekind of holic for sure ]
