the new president

[Elrohir]

What is the difference between Democrat and Republican?

[sickofpalantirs]

these days? not a whole lot.

[FingolfinFinwe]

Heads they win, Tails we lose.

[turin08]

I wouldn't say that British people are unpatriotic we are just patriotic in a different way. We don't shout and whoop and place our hands on our hearts and recite oaths to our country but that is partly because of our longer history. Britain as a single, united country has been around a lot longer than most other countries in the world, even compared to the other European countries. So the way that our society and our democracy has been slowly built and fought for over roughyl 1500 years since the Romans left mean that we celebrate it less. Take it this way, with America they established their freedom and their democracy in a sudden and glorious revolution and because of this it is celebrated more and is treasured in a different way. With Britain it has been a slow evolution from all powerful monarchy to democracy. Apart from the occasional sudden jump such as the Magna Carta or the Civil War, British history has been one of the gradual and generally peacefull passing of power from the monarchy to the people. So we don't hype it up and don't celebrate it nearly as much. A good analogy would be that America was like child which very suddenly emancipated itself from its parent and has been celebrating its adulthood ever since whereas Britain is like a child which grew steadily into its adulthood and so doesn't think of its adulthood as anything special but more as just a natural part of its evolution. So how do we show our patriotism? Mainly through how seriously we take our politics and our country. We are very clear that our leaders are people we have voted for to do a job, just like any other job, and if they don't do that we expect answers. I mean just look at Prime Ministers questions. Once a week we can actually watch on TV as our Prime Minister is grilled upon the big issues of the moment, usually quite aggresivly by the other parties. I mean they wouldn't dream of that in the USA because the president as a figurehead is held with a lot more reverance. Plus often our latent Patriotism is channelled into our sport. We our fiercly patriotic when it comes to our sports.

Wow that was a really long post and not really to the point. And no Mr Lurzty Liberalism and socialism are definately not the same thing and to assert that they are merely makes you sound like the steryotype raving, conservative who fires his gun at the first sign of anything 'red'.   

[Elendil!Urukfear]

Ok... exactly how long ago was it that somebody posted something even related to the new president?...

[Thranduil]

Ok... exactly how long ago was it that somebody posted something even related to the new president?...

Alright then, I'll get back to the point.

You know I was talking to someone the other day and I found out something unbelievable. Apparently, the new president is African American!

Thranduil

[Elendil!Urukfear]

Ok, I didn't exactly mean it like that...

[AgentDrake]

@Gil-Estel your Liberalism is America's Conservatism.

Ah, good point to differentiate: "liberal" and "conservative" are highly subjective terms, defined entirely by cultural context. Within the United States, socialism is a popular form of US liberalism. But there are other forms, and what is 'liberal' in one nation is not necessarily 'liberal' in another.

Oh, and something occurred to me today. Societal evolution.

Okay, so people say that base socialist economic systems have never worked. Not that I'm disagreeing here, but....
Societies change in a few different manners.
First is gradual evolution. Societal development, caused by changing conditions, technology, the influence of other cultures, states, et cetera. For example, fashion. Yeah, it's influenced by all sorts of stuff, but there's no huge cataclysmic fundamental shift.
Second is revolution. Think Russian Bolsheviks.
Third is forced adaptation. Think the Japanese, moving from the medieval to the modern world rapidly.

Okay, so let's assume a VERY basic progression of societal poitical/economic development as the norm:

1. Bartering
2. Feudalism
3. Imperialism
4. Capitalism
5. -------------

Okay. This is an evolution, not a sudden shift.

Option 2. Revolution.

Feudalism (Think Tsarist Russia or the Chinese Empire (yeah, "Imperial" China was Feudal, not Imperial, from my understanding of the systems....)) --> Socialism.

We just bypassed both Imperialism and Capitalism.
Not only that, but it happened overnight. The cultures, societies, the people aren't conditioned for this fundamental change to something so utterly foreign.

So of course it doesn't work. And it won;t work for generations, regardless of whether or not it will work as the next societal evolutionary stage after Capitalism.

Not that I'm saying it WILL work. I'm just throwing this out there as something to consider. I still don't believe that socialism, as a base economic system, will work. I just thought this was an interesting argument.

Anyway, back on track. Option 3.
Um... the UAE, Japan, and India conquer the world. UAE's vast resources and wealth, combined with Japan and India's vast technological monopolies render the triumvate an unstoppable force.
The rest of us are all turned into serfs, and we revert to Feudalism.

[Anonymous Prodigy]

See you at the demesne.

[AgentDrake]

See you at the demesne.

Yeah, I'm a raving communist now. Or something like that.

Seriously, though. I don't think socialism as a base economic system ever has, or ever can work. It just occurred to me, though, that one could argue that a "socialism" stage is inevitable. Heck, Bullionism failed miserably, but it was still part of the transition from Feudalism to Capitalism in a lot of civilizations. Again, I'm not saying I like socialism. Just throwing out arguments (in the case of my last post, one that I don't actually agree with... I just came up with it as my mind was wandering in History class....)

[Gate Troll]

What is the difference between Democrat and Republican?

A democrat tends to be a moderate or a liberal. A Republican tends to be a moderate or a conservative.

[Gate Troll]

The sad thing is GT, that not spending money is not the answer. It is like an engine. When the oillevel is low, you must add new oil otherwise the engine will stall. And I also wonder, you say he wants to raise taxes, but this night, at least for me it was night, his plan was accepted which also included the lowering of the taxes of the middle class. And added to that, why do people always combine hard working with having more? People who have less, don't work less hard. That is the case with some, but not with all.
And then again: saying one thing and doing the other isn't it the way of politicians? Just kidding, but those things happen to all of us, and doesn't nessecarelly mean you're a liar, maybe you're just facing the impossibility of something you really wanted.
Also, what I must say, is that opposing is the easiest thing there is. As we say in Holland: if you want to beat a dog, a stick is easily found. Rather think constructive, instead of opposing. It is good to be critical, but he, you have to deal with this guy for some time, than better make it work. It starts with some faith, not that he will succeed, but that he is willing to succeed, for the better of the US, and maybe, for the better of the world. It is all about dealing with any given situation, try to make the best of it!

     About your engine analogy; Obama's 'stimulus' bill  isn't like adding oil to the engine, its like adding imaginary oil. The money doesn't exist. Its called deficit spending. Whereas tax-cuts allow people to keep the real money they already earned this kind of spending is not stimulative and only increases inflation, debt, and loss of jobs. Here's an analogy of mine for you: Imagine theres this village. Now imagine that it is somewhere in Europe (the actual location doesn't really matter) and that its currency is the Euro. This village is very isolated, there are never any strangers and the entire population is only about fifty people and the total of money circulating the village is only about 100,000 Euros. Then, one day, one of the villagers starts secretly counterfeiting money. There's no way of detecting the fraud so every fake bill enters circulation. Eventually the counterfeiter creates 20,000 Euros. The money hasn't been earned either by services or by exchange of goods so the value of the money go's down and prices go up. That's basically what Obama's doing. There's nothing right about taking money from the people who earned it and giving it to others who did not.

     This brings us to another reason why the bill stinks. It's just a pork barrel. It gives money to different corporations so they will support Obama in his next election. You guys give Obama a whole lot more credit than he deserves. Obama isn't a starry-eyed idealist who wants to save the world. He has an agenda that is pure politics. I know its wonderful to think of Obama working for the good of America, but the truth is, is doesn't work like that and it never has. He's a whole lot more shrewd than anyone gives him credit for. This is all about being re-elected and keeping his grip on their power, and you guys seem to naive to see that. The Democrats don't want to work with anyone, they want to stay in power for as long as is humanly possible.  To sum it up: The majority of American politics back through the last century has been a huge power play. Anyone who chooses to ignore that fact will never understand how American politics work at all.

See, there is where I don't agree. I don't see the progression of Liberalism as helping my country.

Well, thank God you're not the president, then... You see, getting in good terms with THE REST OF THE WORLD, for instance, might be "slightly" helpful to your country in the long run (not even THAT long of a run, mind you), and this is surely a good start. Also, making the US a great place (instead of a great place for WASPs) seems like a pretty solid way to run things, even if you don't like it. The problem I have with discussing ANYTHING with north-americans is exactly that: the "my country" part. You put yourselves above the world as a whole, and that's a pretty selfish way to live in the era of globalization, if you ask me (or anyone with a good mind for politics, which I admit to not having, for instance).

#1: I'm tired of hearing you non-Americans tell us how horrible our country is. Don't judge us based on what our media and newsmen; The U.S.A. already is a great place. Looking at Obama's actions I don't think he'll make it any better. I think he'll make it a whole lot worse.

#2: Yep, its America first, and America above all, and I'm not ashamed to say it. Their is nothing wrong or selfish about being fiercely patriotic. We don't owe other contries anything. We don't want to be globalized by anybody. We've fought for our freedom and we will never give up. Don't you all realize that's why we don't want to relinquish our freedoms to the tin-pot dictators that the rest of the world serves (or has served) under. America has protected the world's backside more times than I care to remember, and all we get is a lot of flak about how horrible loyal we are to our country, instead of the d--- U.N.

[sickofpalantirs]

we don't owe any other countries anything? WTF? we owe china whole lot of money for one.  France our freedom (possibly paid back in WWII)  we owe the world for not joining WWII earlier (and one arguably) and for not joining the league of nations.  etc.

[Gate Troll]

we don't owe any other countries anything? WTF? we owe china whole lot of money for one.  France our freedom (possibly paid back in WWII)  we owe the world for not joining WWII earlier (and one arguably) and for not joining the league of nations.  etc.

I'm just saying that we don't owe other nations any loyalty. We definitely owe China money, but thats a very long story thats starts with the rising minimum wage forcing companies to move their production overseas etc. We probably should have joined WW2 sooner, but face it, we weren't ready for war any more than Germany, Italy or Japan and you figure, we gave tons of war materials to Great Britain and Soviet Russia (Giving to Soviet Russia probably was stupid, FDR basically sucked up to them all war, and guess what he got? The Cold War!) The League of Nations was a pathetic organization that did nothing to prevent WW2, and is pretty much seen now as what not do if you're designing an organization of that sort.

[MR. Lurtzy]

Well said, GT.