NEWS: I Would Like Rove And Bush To Eat My Asshole

Try reading my post again, you know the part about BUSH STEALING the ELECTIONS,yes thats plural.
As for Nader he may have had good intentions but he never stood a chance in hell. He would of better served the people by joining the Dems and working form the INSIDE to change things. I hope this is not what an OR education does for ones comprehension. Though after 2 and 1/2 years here I'm afraid it does

I think u missed my point, I didn't question the check and balance system in place.I simply stating the corruption that's prevelant. And Yes I can spend my money better than the fuckin corrupt congress. Yes,there needs to be a certain amount of government. But right now it's out of control and too big.

i wish there really was a "Gay Bomb." i'd drop it on DC to see if that might shake things up.

Democracy.

de·moc·ra·cy [di-mok-ruh-see] noun, plural -cies.
1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.
3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
4. political or social equality; democratic spirit.
5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.

I fear for the future of the USA. Your so called democracy... land of the free my ass! How can you call yourselves free when your entire political spectrum consists of just two political parties. One bunch of extremely right wing but totally spineless drones and the other even more right wing bunch of imbecilic religious nut jobs.

I guess that old saying is true (in America at least): If voting could really change anything, it would be illegal!

My eyebrow is raised so high it's capturing radio signals.

well...I'm sure that Hillary is savvy enough to challenge the actions of this "corrupt" White House. Oh, that's right...she, and Bill and Al Gore have a pretty shady record too (when it comes to campaign finance and fundraising).

I'm going to put this one in the anti-Bush column. I might have had more respect for you, and this article....had you done a piece presenting the corrupt practices of the current administration, illustrations of the past corruptions by previous administrations, and what precisely you think we can do to fix the problem. Clearly McCain-Fiengold was not a reform of any kind, but merely a greenlight to the .org groups like MoveOn (and swiftboat vets) to drop as much coin on false claims and smear tactics as they like.

First of all, Mr. Education Man, it's would HAVE, not would OF. You're also missing an apostrophe in "one's." I don't like playing grammar police, but you set yourself up there.

Second, Demorats [sic] didn't need Nader to lose the election in 2002 and 2004. They did it fine on their own. The problem with Demorats [sic] is not Nader--the problem with Demorats is that they're spineless rats. They need to grow a backbone and stop playing to a fickle, opinion poll "center." That way, at least they'll be spineful [sic] rats.

A historical perspective? I nearly burst out laughing when I read that one! You seriously need to learn more about US history.

Sure, America has a great deal of freedom. It just comes with three conditions:

1) You must be white.
2) You must be Christian
3) You must be hetrosexual

Fail to meet any/all of these criteria and you WILL have trouble finding yourself truly free in the United States. And this is in modern times. In the glorious early years of the USA (ignoring the genocide and slavery) failing to meet any of these conditions could have gotten you hung/stabbed/shot and seen your killers go free.

Now I'm not going to say that Europe has a problem free history: That would be a lie. But please don't get high and mighty about America being a free country. You still had "whites only" restaurants as little as 50 years ago, you still don't have gay marriage, and you still have no real say in how your country gets run because you simply don't have the choice. Anyone who has an opinion that doesn't fit with your two political parties (between which the difference is hardly visible) simply doesn't count.

I do not believe that Americans are so shallow and unintelligent that the views of your entire society can be truly represented by two, nearly identical, political parties.

You call yourself a liberal. Well why don't you try opening your mind as well as your mouth. You might find that your society is (or at least, has the potential to be) even greater than you think. This potential is just not reflected in your narrow political spectrum.

I'm not saying America is not a republic, just pointing out that it is a democracy. It keeps surprising me how many people think that republic and democracy are mutually exclusive terms.

/slap

As opposed to continental Europe, which has always been accepting of non-white, non Christian, non-heterosexuals. Europe has given us:

(A) the Holocaust
(B) the Crusades
(C) the Inquisition
(D) the Pale of Settlement
(E) Nationalism
(F) Fascism
(G) Nazism
(H) Stalinism

Thanks but no thanks, Fuckers.

Oyaji;

Well said.

I was going to opine that I cannot wait for 8 years of liberal "leadership" in the White House so we can see what kind of bullshit they bring upon us, and then I can laugh in all the liberal posters' faces (libs, conservatives, they're all the fucking same corrupt fucks), but I decided to just give you kudos for your excellent verbal assault. Great stuff.

Please feel free to stick your head back in the sand and join Mr Nader in
your la la la la I can't hear you land. And I only mentioned Nader in reference to the 2000 Presidential election. Nowhere did I say anything about '02. Like I said previously try reading a post before responding la la la la

And bye the way Naders relevance expired with the PINTO

"cunt" is a pleasure word, for me

Source for that one, please? (I'm genuinely interested.)

It's true.

Well said,Thank you

Well first of: Thanks. This is by far the mos interesting debate I have yet had here on SG.

My only request is that you try to curb the insults a little bit.

But I digress.

I did say : Now I'm not going to say that Europe has a problem free history: That would be a lie.

(Note I even linked a reference to the Holocaust there.)

OK. We are in agreement. So far.

Just to explain my point of view: The Federal Government Level is the level at which your government interacts with the rest of the world. This is the face of America we see every day.

The federal government does indeed have (even severe) limitations on it's direct power. This however does not preclude it from having a great deal of direct influence. Decisions made at the federal level can, and almost always do, have a filtered down effect at the level of local government. The same shit happens here in Europe with the EU. (Most members of which don't even get elected by the people but appointed by individual governments. So you definitely win on that count.)

I actually am aware of this. And if anything it proves my point that greater political diversity is needed at the federal and executive level.

As a question: Is it not also the case that local government is compiled (predominantly) out of members of these two political parties?

You pretty much hit the nail on the head here. Though I would go a step further and say that it is not just your laws but also your founding principles that have been poorly enforced.

(I especially like the bit about:
when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.)

I would like to invite you to explain this statement in more detail. Specifically giving any argument why this is a problem in Europe, but is not one in the United States? Because from my point of view we both have problems with Nationalism and intolerance. I just see the problems in America as being much more prevelant than they are here in Europe. Especially when it comes to the representation of your (diverse) population in federal government.

For the most part (those who have cleared immigration, which I will admit is a total pain in the ass and could be run a LOT better) are actually doing reasonably well. Of course the golden rule here is the same as in the USA: Good News never makes the News. The only stories we (and I do mean both of us) hear about are the ones where things have gone horribly wrong.

Pretty bad. Though I believe Poland and Russia actually have the worst of it these days.

How are things State side?

OK. I risk offending a few people here, but most of my French friends didn't vote for him so I figure I'll be fairly safe.

The French government has long been a thorn in the side of Europe and the world at large. Despite being a founding member of the EU they have in the past blatantly discarded EU regulations and generally been quite pig-headed about how things should be done. In the kind of "My way or the Highway" attitude your current president is so fond of. Not a good thing in my opinion, so please don't judge all of Europe by the French government.

You do.

Shall we call it a tie, when it comes to historical evils? We are, after all, BOTH full of them.

Something more Americans should do.

From your own Declaration of Independence: experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

In my opinion this "availing of rights" could best be done by increasing the choices you have as to who gets elected into federal government.

No, there is no central committee. But it is the case that these two political factions decide who gets placed into political office. Since these representatives will (in order to get party approval) be of a particular ideology it is through the beliefs of the political parties that the first steps of the law making process are altered.

Undoubtedly local government will better reflect the population over which it governs. My main question really is: Why can this not be done at the federal level? I honestly do believe it would be the best thing for the United States and it's people.

My issue is not with your system of government, but with the level of representation you population has within this system. I actually think your system is quite good. I just think there is not enough political diversity (at a federal level) to make it work to it's fullest potential.

Here, I am afraid, we simply disagree.

Well, the United States hasn't been around that long (from a historical perspective) so to say your system is the most robust may be a slightly premature statement.

As for protectingIndividual rights. Tricky topic... I would want to read up a little more on that before debating it.

Now Civil Rights (those granted by government) are another matter. True civil rights, as we know them today, are a fairly recent concept. It was only during the post WWII era that true civil rights came into to play ANYWHERE in the world and are as you say:

Nor do I believe it is the root of your problems. I do however believe that it is a major hindrance to your nations progress and the resolution of your problems.

On a side note:

Yeah. That's why it's experts from this second rate marshland that are being drafted into New Orleans to try and make sure some decent flood defenses get built.