Today China has greater economic growth than the United States. I would not measure what will be by the past. With Bush as our leader we should be in financial ruin by the end of his term.
Thats very true, But i'm sure he will pull somthing out of his a$$ at the end of his term so that people wont blame him for it. In acordance to LOSTMIND's post... what deffines america as the most successful nation? they are the richest in this generation but dont forget they are only 200 years old, China has lasted for over 4000 years and during that time was the strongest nation in the world for about 2000 years, and guess what their growing again. All other countries who are old and matured had the same GOLDEN AGES as america has had in the past 30 years but they have burrned out with time as will yours. America is not the most successful nation, they are hated by the majority of the world , they have a fool for a president who is leading them to death after only 200 years of their existence. as for "because it works" I totally disagree, it is already on a decline after such a short existance showing it "Cant and Wont work for long."
Today's media is remarkably objective compared to the media of the late 18th through the late 19th centuries. The political parties had their own newspapers back then. Jefferson contributed his own anonymous articles to the National Gazette, criticizing both Hamilton and Adams, and the managing editor was on Jefferson's payroll for a time at least, and Hamilton established the New York Evening Post as a Federalist newspaper. And these were vicious criticisms, as they accuse the presidents, whether it was the Federalist Adams or the Republican Jefferson, of some pretty ugly things, such as atheist, whore-monger, traitor, and maybe the worst insult you could call a former revolutionary at the time, a Monarchist. The nation has managed to survive so far. As long as the media is not controlled in a one-party system government and there is an Opposition, and there is, and it has a voice in the media, and they do, democracy will survive.
I am certain that the US has many problems with its own Governmental structure and chang is needed. What really scares me is the guy that who is doing it is not qualified to do so. If he has a college degree it is only because his father bought it for him. What I do not understand is how the public of the United States of America could be so ignorant o yes I can they do it in the name of God. All I have to say is God help us all who live here. Personally I think Germany has a good Government nowdays.
At the time no one expected the press to be objective. Today the press is just as bought and sold, as anyone who has worked for a newspaper can tell you. :m:
Thread jack: I didn't want to start a whole new thread, when this is relevant to our democracy anyway. The Enemies Among Us by Mike Whitney published by The Progressive Trail The Enemies Among Us The new Intelligence reform bill is a more stunning attack on the Bill of Rights than the Patriot Act. Most people have no idea how dramatically their "inalienable" rights have been savaged, or to what extent the Congress has sold them out. It's no exaggeration to say that the foundation of personal liberty, guaranteed in the law, is cracking at the base. It'll be a miracle if we can put it back together in time to pass it on to our children. As usual, the role of the media has been pivotal in obfuscating the details of the bill. They've fed the hysteria over the establishment of a NID; (National Intelligence Director) a glamour position that has been represented as vital to stopping another 9-11. What rubbish. Teaching Condi Rice how to read a simple e-mail from bin Laden would be twice as effective. The media has done little to expose the real nature of the conflict between the Pentagon and the 9-11 panel. That battle was a straightforward "turf war" that threatened to take a chunk of money away from Rumsfeld, who presently gets 80% of the Intelligence budget. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) defended Rumsfeld by claiming that "battlefield operations" would be endangered if the bill passed. It was nonsensical argument reflective of Hunter's indebtedness to the Defense industry (Dig around the internet and you'll find that Hunter is even more of a corporate streetwalker than most of his peers) As for Rumsfeld, he just wants his $32 billion, so that he can persist in bankrolling his clandestine detention centers, death squads and propaganda facilities (now called strategic intelligence). In reality, Rumsfeld is conducting his own secret government, and has been for some time. That takes money, and lots of it. Read more here Godless.
there's no point for democracy when ignorance is celebrated political scientists get the same one vote as some Arkansas inbred majority rule, don't work in mental institutions sometimes the smallest softest voice carries the grand biggest solutions -fat mike
Well fat Mike I like your thinking. I do not understand how it has worked in the past. At least in the US but I do think that with King George at the helm we see a perfect example of how it can fail.
I think it has worked with the fear propaganda. As long as you fear for your life you will do what is best for yourself. That, and the people that do fear are the people who vote. Did anyone hear about the new possible way to vote in canada? I think it is great. Canada rules!!:m:
Thats the thing. Its not. There isn't enough financing for the groups who want whats best for everybody.
This is exactly why we need a scientific democracy, "technocracy". The citizen would have to be tested for their intelligence on the available data to prove they did there political homework. There score would be equivalent to there influence. There influence based upon there intelligence of competing candidates for a specific office or their intelligence on general information existing on a specific issue. This would maifest out the spirit of democracy in a more accurate and technical way, in the capitalist spirit. Candidates today have dumb down theories and approaches to catch the largest amount of votes. This is technically retardation of the body politic. Using a technocratic democractic voting system would raise the standards and set more demands of who could be a candidate and what theories they could apply. Why should a citizen who made their decision based upon a few commercials be equivalent to a professor of political studies? This surely doens't represent the peoples interests well enough. We need to leave the philosophical democracy behind and progress the American system to a scientific democracy. You have been informed. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I agree. The past is no basis for action in the future. It is time to have an intelligent leadership and not one who thinks he is John Wayne.
Surrender, Can you quote to me the sixteen UN resolutions violated by Saddam Hussein. Who cares about the incapable United Nations when thousands of innocent Iraqi's are dying. Everyone I think, can agree that we would have stopped the tsunami if at all possible, but Saddam killed over 300,000 civillians with chemical warfare in the 1980's. This is much larger number than the tsunami. Maybe he did not have weapons when we went to war with Iraq. The war started due to the violated resolutions not just the weapons issue. If Saddam did no longer had these weapons all he had to do is prove how he got rid of them. With this one act he could still be in power. Why did he refuse? I think something is very suspitious with this whole situation.
When Saddam killed with chemical weapons the USA was his ally. Don Rumsfeld was in Iraq making nicey nice with Saddam. The US media barely covered the story. The UN did not go after Saddam and some say the USA stopped the UN from giving Saddam the usual slap on the wrist that it deals out to mass killing regimes. When Saddam invaded Iran there was no outrage from the USA. You are naive if you think the the real motives for the war in Iraq had anything to do with WMD or Saddam's being as outlaw mass murderer. Do you see the USA invading Sudan or the Congo to save lives? The people leading the thinking for Bush's foreign policy wanted Clinton to invade Iraq back in the 1990s. This is their website: http://www.newamericancentury.org/ Put "PNAC" in a google search and you will get 225,000 links. Many neocons were not shy about putting their true reasons for invading Iraq out where we can all look at them. When neocons speak of democracy, they mean places where people choose between two candidates chosen through a process that insures that both candidates will support neoliberal economic policies and neoconservative foreign policy. Should democracy fail to deliver the "correct" results the Neocons arround Bush will have no inhibitions about ending the democracy as they did in Haiti.
In order for democracy to work, there must be a constitution, so that the will of the majority doesn't simply vote away the rights of the individual without due process or the such.
Democratic republics have though. They say Rome was an absolute democracy, but I have not read into it, I do not know. After Rome fell, no country is even worth menitioning for about 1200 years.
