Quote: Original post by Talroth
And all of this is why I actually like the idea of an Absolute Monarchy. We all know that who ever we elect are going to screw things up, so lets save ourselves the time and expense of continued elections. Just give a few people the power to rule.

Then we'll 'vote' every now and then with bloody rebellion if the ruling party screws up too much in a given space of time. Then we elect a new king and found a new royal family. If we're lucky we could get several generations of stable and productive rule out of a lucky pick.


Of course, I would never actually support such a plan, as I would expect someone to screw up within a year.

I disagree! And I'll tell you why. With our parliamentary systems in place, there's not a lot that gets done. For example the senate of NY basically did absolutely nothing for a month because of a 51/51 split of Democrats and Republicans last month. Why is this a good thing? Well, when government can't do anything because it's too busy arguing with itself, it's very difficult for them to become tyrants :D. An absolute monarch could turn on martial law in the blink of an eye. In the US we'd have months of arguments and sound bites before anything actually happens. That's really why congress was originally the only body able to declare war. Of course now that they've turned into cowards, they let the president do whatever the hell he wants with the military... that bothers me.

Quote: Original post by Eelco
OMG, shock and horror. A newspaper article critical of obama. Damn that conservative media!

Oh wait. Isnt this kindof like 'the exception that proves the rule'?

You missed the point, wherein the writer of the article basically stretched the truth to a point where it's safe to call her a liar.

Besides, there's tons of criticism against Obama right now, even from his own party. Which is why I trust the Democrats a lot further than the Republicans, the dems will stand up against people in their own party if there's something wrong. The republicans will just sit there and remain in lock-step with the leadership even if they know it's wrong. Notice how the criticism of Bush from that side only appeared once they realised that they were going to need a scapegoat for the shit they caused over the past 8 years, and they had a convenient lame duck.

Quote: Original post by Mithrandir
Same thing with the German Nationalist Socialist Party; the party was dying and Hitler seized the opportunity to change the ideals of the party to fascism, so they were no longer socialist. So the next time someone godwins a discussion by saying that the nazi's were socialists, you can tell they didn't do their research :)

That is, if we buy the implicit premise that socialism and fascism are mutually exclusive. I guess the reason you didnt make that premise explicit, is because ofcource you realized, no one will buy that.

I certainly dont. Any socialism, actual or theoretical, is necessarily authoritorian, and non-voluntary. If youd want to call that fascism is up to you, i couldnt care less, but lets not pretend the two have nothing in common.

Quote: Original post by Mithrandir

Quote: Original post by Eelco
OMG, shock and horror. A newspaper article critical of obama. Damn that conservative media!

Oh wait. Isnt this kindof like 'the exception that proves the rule'?

You missed the point, wherein the writer of the article basically stretched the truth to a point where it's safe to call her a liar.

She has a radically different interpretation of the facts than you do. No less retarded than yours either, so the two of you have a lot in common. Thats all there is to it. Any factual issues she touches upon that you wish to dispute?

Quote:
Besides, there's tons of criticism against Obama right now, even from his own party. Which is why I trust the Democrats a lot further than the Republicans, the dems will stand up against people in their own party if there's something wrong. The republicans will just sit there and remain in lock-step with the leadership even if they know it's wrong. Notice how the criticism of Bush from that side only appeared once they realised that they were going to need a scapegoat for the shit they caused over the past 8 years, and they had a convenient lame duck.

Uhm, lol?

Quote: Original post by Mithrandir

Quote: Original post by Talroth
And all of this is why I actually like the idea of an Absolute Monarchy. We all know that who ever we elect are going to screw things up, so lets save ourselves the time and expense of continued elections. Just give a few people the power to rule.

Then we'll 'vote' every now and then with bloody rebellion if the ruling party screws up too much in a given space of time. Then we elect a new king and found a new royal family. If we're lucky we could get several generations of stable and productive rule out of a lucky pick.


Of course, I would never actually support such a plan, as I would expect someone to screw up within a year.

I disagree! And I'll tell you why. With our parliamentary systems in place, there's not a lot that gets done. For example the senate of NY basically did absolutely nothing for a month because of a 51/51 split of Democrats and Republicans last month. Why is this a good thing? Well, when government can't do anything because it's too busy arguing with itself, it's very difficult for them to become tyrants :D. An absolute monarch could turn on martial law in the blink of an eye. In the US we'd have months of arguments and sound bites before anything actually happens. That's really why congress was originally the only body able to declare war. Of course now that they've turned into cowards, they let the president do whatever the hell he wants with the military... that bothers me.

Yeah, but you missed the point about voting by bloody revolution. A Tyrant isn't a BAD thing at the core of it. If there is no one wanting to challenge a tyrant, and they have nothing to fear other than the general population, then it should be natural that they want to keep the people happy and productive. If they fail, and keep failing for too long, then they lose their crown, removing it by starting just below the chin so to speak.

The key is to indoctrinate the military with the rights and freedoms of the public, and likely include something about military leaders who attempt to take control of the government for themselves are to be shoot on sight as traitors. This takes the terror edge from the Monarchy, but they still have control over things, they just can't order the mass murder of civilians. And really, what unchallenged ruler really would want that?

Quote: Original post by Eelco

Quote: Original post by Mithrandir
Same thing with the German Nationalist Socialist Party; the party was dying and Hitler seized the opportunity to change the ideals of the party to fascism, so they were no longer socialist. So the next time someone godwins a discussion by saying that the nazi's were socialists, you can tell they didn't do their research :)

That is, if we buy the implicit premise that socialism and fascism are mutually exclusive. I guess the reason you didnt make that premise explicit, is because ofcource you realized, no one will buy that.

I certainly dont. Any socialism, actual or theoretical, is necessarily authoritorian, and non-voluntary. If youd want to call that fascism is up to you, i couldnt care less, but lets not pretend the two have nothing in common.

k.

Socialism is designed to help everyone live a better life dude. Not sure why you can't see the difference between using the government to make everyones life better and using the government to repress and brutally kill millions of people.

Slight difference there. If you look hard I'm sure a bright guy like you can see it.

Quote: Original post by Eelco

Quote: Original post by Mithrandir

Quote: Original post by Eelco
OMG, shock and horror. A newspaper article critical of obama. Damn that conservative media!

Oh wait. Isnt this kindof like 'the exception that proves the rule'?

You missed the point, wherein the writer of the article basically stretched the truth to a point where it's safe to call her a liar.

She has a radically different interpretation of the facts than you do. No less retarded than yours either, so the two of you have a lot in common. Thats all there is to it. Any factual issues she touches upon that you wish to dispute?

Nice. Don't have an argument so call me a retard. Look, read the damn article. She's full of whargarbl shit. Obama's point was that the people of the former soviet bloc realised the soviet way of life just was not going to work out, and they were able to bloodlessly overthrow all of those governments and create more democratic ones.

Hungary, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Poland, East Germany, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Moldava, Ukraine.

Every single one of those countries from 1989 to 1991 peacefully and bloodlessly overthrew the soviet-style governments in their countries. Cheney is pissed off because Obama didn't fellate Reagan and say that he personally caused those revolutions. She's pissed off because Obama had the audacity to say that the eastern europeans were the ones who overthrew their oppressors, and not Saint Reagan.

It's one of the biggest pieces of lying bullshit I've ever seen, and the fact that you're defending it shows that you either didn't read it, or have such a massively skewed view of history that you shouldn't even be debating it.

Quote:
Besides, there's tons of criticism against Obama right now, even from his own party. Which is why I trust the Democrats a lot further than the Republicans, the dems will stand up against people in their own party if there's something wrong. The republicans will just sit there and remain in lock-step with the leadership even if they know it's wrong. Notice how the criticism of Bush from that side only appeared once they realised that they were going to need a scapegoat for the shit they caused over the past 8 years, and they had a convenient lame duck.

Uhm, lol?

Guess you don't read the news much, then. K.

Quote: Original post by Mithrandir
Hungary, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Poland, East Germany, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Moldava, Ukraine.

Every single one of those countries from 1989 to 1991 peacefully and bloodlessly overthrew the soviet-style governments in their countries. ...

Iirc, some blood was spilled in Romania. And Belarus still isn't completely free.

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by Mithrandir
Hungary, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Poland, East Germany, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Moldava, Ukraine.

Every single one of those countries from 1989 to 1991 peacefully and bloodlessly overthrew the soviet-style governments in their countries. ...

Iirc, some blood was spilled in Romania. And Belarus still isn't completely free.

Really. I had always thought that the only Eastern European countries that had trouble were the Yugoslav republics excluding Slovenia and Croatia. I'll have to brush up on my research again.

Quote: Original post by Eelco

Quote: Original post by Mithrandir
Same thing with the German Nationalist Socialist Party; the party was dying and Hitler seized the opportunity to change the ideals of the party to fascism, so they were no longer socialist. So the next time someone godwins a discussion by saying that the nazi's were socialists, you can tell they didn't do their research :)

That is, if we buy the implicit premise that socialism and fascism are mutually exclusive. I guess the reason you didnt make that premise explicit, is because ofcource you realized, no one will buy that.

I certainly dont. Any socialism, actual or theoretical, is necessarily authoritorian, and non-voluntary. If youd want to call that fascism is up to you, i couldnt care less, but lets not pretend the two have nothing in common.

Quote: Paraphrased post by Eelco
OMG the government makes me pay taxes BAWWWWWWWW

Seriously. In the real world, the countries that have any claim to being "socialist" today can't plausibly be labelled as anything like "fascist". Canada? Norway? Uh-huh. Sure.