M. Porcius Cato Posted August 28, 2006 Report Share Posted August 28, 2006 M.P. Cato: Although they may have been born 'poor', none of the men you cited were 'poor' at the time they ran for the presidency or were appointed to office. I think the point of reference here, is that a 'good' man with his head on right and his pockets empty could never be 'elected' or 'appointed' to any office. Actually, many of the people on my list did have empty pockets, and they were no better for it either. Frankly, I'd rather elect someone who can succeed on his own financially. A fellow who can't even manage a used car dealership has no business handling a budget and organization the size of the executive branch. The current occupant of the White House failed in one business venture after another, and his string of failures should have been a red flag to his poor judgment rather than a recommendation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted August 28, 2006 Report Share Posted August 28, 2006 The perfect system is the one were the majority feels comfortable with itself and its surroundings, it doesnt really matter in what country you live in. ...To sum it up it is utter nonsense that this or that is closest to perfect system. But this is an obvious self-contradiction. If the perfect system is the one where the majority feels comfortable, then nations where the majority are not comfortable are less perfect than the ones where they are. BTW, nations differ dramatically in how comfortable the people are. If you ask people, "how happy are you with your life" (and the wording of the questions differ from study to study with little effect), they'll gladly tell you and even rate their happiness on a scale. This measure of subjective well-being (SWB) can then be the metric by which you could judge a system, according to your own premise. This data is continually being collected, analyzed, published, and scrutinized by scholars around the world. But there are two findings that are consistent across all of them--rich nations are happier than poor nations, and the US is always in the top 5 (and typically the first) most happy in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Octavius Posted August 28, 2006 Report Share Posted August 28, 2006 MPCato: Not when they ran for the highest office. Ex Harry S Truman, most of them had already feasted on the public purse. Agree with the rest - so long as they made it honestly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted August 28, 2006 Report Share Posted August 28, 2006 Not when they ran for the highest office. Ex Harry S Truman, most of them had already feasted on the public purse. If by "feasted on public purse", you mean "collected a government salary", then your original complaint becomes even more absurd--you seemingly want a person to be voted the highest government office with neither any success in the business world OR success in government! I can't imagine a better description of someone wholly unsuited for the presidency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Octavius Posted August 28, 2006 Report Share Posted August 28, 2006 Not when they ran for the highest office. Ex Harry S Truman, most of them had already feasted on the public purse. If by "feasted on public purse", you mean "collected a government salary", then your original complaint becomes even more absurd--you seemingly want a person to be voted the highest government office with neither any success in the business world OR success in government! I can't imagine a better description of someone wholly unsuited for the presidency. Please be so good as to check out my "Tut! Tut!" thread in the Arena. Thus, I will comport myself with its suggested precepts and not post any absurd comments. Please do me the kindness of re-reading my earlier post. It needs no translation in the mind of the reader. Feasting on the public purse generally is taken to mean that a politician allots favors to a person who then rewards the grantor, or his assignees, with an emolument of some value. The Gentleman from California, who was granted a yacht and an apartment springs to mind. Then, perforce, the recent Indian money affair should be considered in this vein. A 'certain party' of not so recent Halliburton infamy also advances from the recesses of my memory. Thank you for your most civil retort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlapse Posted August 28, 2006 Report Share Posted August 28, 2006 Just ask yourselves, do you want to live in a place where your life and all the challenges that accompany it are your own responsibility, or do you want a universal utopia at the cost of real freedom? If you eliminate hardship from life, whats the point? How does one build real self-esteem? If you take the prescribed path, you might suceed with a minimal ammount of challenge - but did you make your own way or did you just step in line and put your mind to sleep? Did you find your own meaning for your life or did you just take the one handed to you? Right to pursue happiness, not a right to happiness as Roosevelt would put it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Octavius Posted August 28, 2006 Report Share Posted August 28, 2006 Right to pursue happiness, not a right to happiness as Roosevelt would put it. Is that how Roosevelt WOULD have put it? Which one, Teddy or Franklin? Actually, as a capitalist, I prefer laying on my backside collecting dividends and clipping coupons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tflex Posted August 28, 2006 Report Share Posted August 28, 2006 (edited) Viggen... <sarcasm> poverty rate in the western world? In the western world it's lowest by far. crime rate under western societies? There is crime, but still lower than the rest of the world, remember most countries don't have accurate crime reports, simply because most crimes are not reported officially, especially in developing countries. not been able to play proper soccer? I'm in agreement with you on this one, but I can see you've been Americanized, it's not soccer, it's football for god's sake. The perfect system is the one were the majority feels comfortable with itself and its surroundings, it doesnt really matter in what country you live in. A monk in Nepal might live (in our eyes) in terrible poor conditions, but still he might be happier then all the beverly hill chicks with implants, artificial lips and fat wallets... A goat farmer in central turkey might have no money but a little herd of goats and his family and friends, still he might be happier then the wall street broker that has just divorced for the third time... As a system the U.S. is the best, again I don't want to keep expaining why the system is so great, especially when you have the proof right there. Is it so dumb? Yes, I gave you examples contrary to your daft statement, then you come back and tell me Israel kills indiscriminately and is intolerant. No, either you're ignorant of facts or you have something personal against Israel, I think it's the latter since you purposely ignore facts that contradict your baseless claims. The israeli activities in Gaza and the West Bank - incursions by gunships, the indiscriminate massacre of civilians, seizing the politicians of another country and detaining them; the invasion of a sovereign state (Lebanon) on two occasions without any attempt to gain international sanction beforehand - this is "Night and Fog" on an incredible scale. Good for you to be living in England, and not understand what it means to live side by side with terrorists who scream death to the Jews everyday, Israel doesn't have the luxury to wait for Kofi Annan to come save them, not after there's been countless resolutions that have not been enforced by the corrupt and useless UN. And the indiscriminate thing is good propoganda, just a label from you. Sharon practically created the most recent statge of the intefada by his visit to the Temple Mount before becoming Prime Minister - an insensitive and inflammatory gesture reminiscent of Dr Goebells. So, because Sharon visted a holy Jewish site, that gave Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade to blow themselves around civilians. And as for its politics and democracy - I find Jordan a more wholesome example of a country seeking to establish a democratic state. The impact in Israel of orthodox, conservative, right wing parties is appalling. Are you saying a monarchy is more democratic than a democracy, or are you just clueless. Democracy can be lost - through military coups, cultural stagnation; intolerance; persecution; invasion; population change/immigration etc. In English terms (if we conservatively say that modern English history started in AD 1066, the USA today is at about the AD 1300 mark - don't expect a smooth run over the next millenium and look at the symptoms of decay now. Things are smooth right now, why? because the U.S. learned from history's mistakes, especially old europe. I'm sure a lot of people like yourself would like to think the U.S. is going through it's dark ages, if these are the dark ages, then I hope they never leave. Anyways, since your problem is personal or you're just ignorant of facts, it's pointless to debate this subject with you. Edited August 28, 2006 by tflex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tflex Posted August 28, 2006 Report Share Posted August 28, 2006 (edited) 1. Most any dictionary definition will suit me. A nation or state in which the clergy exercise political power and in which religious law is dominant over civil law. Iran led by the Ayatollah Khomeini was a theocracy under the Islamic clergy. Answers.com I think perhaps you're mixinig up Israel with Iran and Saudi Arabia. 3. I refuse to get in-between peoples ears. You don't have to, just ask yourself why so many Cubans are in Florida, is it human nature to be happy with being forced to obey your government? is it human nature not to be able to freely express yourself? is it human nature to be held prisoner in your country? Cubans can't leave Cuba for a holiday and comeback without being called counter-revolutionaries? No, you don't need to get in between anyone's ear to know that communism is contrary to happiness. Edited August 28, 2006 by tflex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viggen Posted August 28, 2006 Report Share Posted August 28, 2006 In the western world it's lowest by far. Very Wrong! According to the US of Census there are 40 million americans living below the poverty line, thats more then 10% which is unheard of in western europe There is crime, but still lower than the rest of the world, remember most countries don't have accurate crime reports, simply because most crimes are not reported officially, especially in developing countries. I can assure you, western europe is fully capable of reporting crimes and they are much lower then the USA, As a system the U.S. is the best, again I don't want to keep expaining why the system is so great, especially when you have the proof right there. Ah ok so you dont want to discuss, you are just right, period, good to know, no need to talk any longer then... cheers viggen p.s. btw Liechtenstein has the much better system anyway... but i wont explain this, you know, because that how it seems to work in discussion those days, you just claim something and then dont back it up... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tflex Posted August 28, 2006 Report Share Posted August 28, 2006 (edited) Very Wrong! According to the US of Census there are 40 million americans living below the poverty line, thats more then 10% which is unheard of in western europe I can assure you what the U.S. considers 'below the poverty line' is not the same as the rest of the world. I can assure you, western europe is fully capable of reporting crimes and they are much lower then the USA, If you read my posts you would know that I also consider western Europe as model systems, it's just that Phil picked out the U.S. and Israel part, because it annoyed him. So, everything positive you're saying about western europe I agree with. Ah ok so you dont want to discuss, you are just right, period, good to know, no need to talk any longer then... Thats only because I've been talking about it in various threads for the last few months, and don't want to keep repeating myself. Edited August 28, 2006 by tflex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil25 Posted August 28, 2006 Author Report Share Posted August 28, 2006 tflex - your response to my points on Israel simply demonstrates what is wrong with that intolerant and racist state. IIf any country should have learned from the recent history of its inhabitants and their relations, it is israel, ironically enough - they have learned nothing. On monarchies - a constitutional monarchy can be even more democractic and stable than a republic, as Britain demonstrates. Don't knock them in ignorance. On the US and Dark Ages - your response has an odour of smugness, if I may put it that way!! It will be another 800 years before the swearing in/inauguration of an American President has the antiquity of the coronation of a British monarch. Much can and will happen in that time and simply saying "don't bash the US, it's OK at the moment", misses the point. I was looking at a perspective of the next 200 years or so - and what happens now can and will influence that - isolationism, unthought-through policies at home or abroad, fundamentalism in religeon at home. Indeed, look at the history of Europe and learn. I think America has always lacked one thing that has denied it maturity and balance as a country, and that is a strong and competitive neighbour. Britain had France. France had Germany and Spain etc etc. That develops a need for sophisticated relationships. Mexico and Canada have never offered the USA competitiion in an equal sense - and I think that has led to a deep misunderstanding and lack of deftness in foreign policy over generations. So no my points were not "daft" and your initial statement still beggers belief. Take the blindfold off and take a look at the real world. Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted August 28, 2006 Report Share Posted August 28, 2006 (edited) [According to the US of Census there are 40 million americans living below the poverty line, thats more then 10% which is unheard of in western europe The official poverty rate of any country is set by domestic standards, not by international ones. Therefore, you can't use domestic estimates of poverty to make international comparisons. It's comparing apples and oranges. You do realize this, don't you? On monarchies - a constitutional monarchy can be even more democractic and stable than a republic, as Britain demonstrates. Don't knock them in ignorance. Britain is a ceremonial monarchy. With free elections, a multi-party government, and an independent judiciary, the House of Windsor is simply a museum piece with no practical signficance whatever. British stability owes its existence to the Glorious Revolution that crippled the monarchy not from some ermine-wrapped dowager. Edited August 28, 2006 by M. Porcius Cato Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tflex Posted August 28, 2006 Report Share Posted August 28, 2006 (edited) On monarchies - a constitutional monarchy can be even more democractic and stable than a republic, as Britain demonstrates. Don't knock them in ignorance. I'm inclined to agree with Cato on this one, I mean the monarchy in England is nothing but ceremonial, and I would have at least expected you to be more informed about your country's form of government. Now, you see why I can't take your other Israel-Nazi statement seriously, especially after I gave you examples and you ignored them. I believe it is you who needs to return from Mars back to the real word. Edited August 28, 2006 by tflex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Octavius Posted August 28, 2006 Report Share Posted August 28, 2006 Moonlapse: I don't believe that the Reichsbank serves the same purposes as the Federal Reserve System. One might just as easily say that the FRS was patterned after the Bank of England. The FRS came about as a result of the financial crises of the 19th century. The 'reserves' of the smaller banks were kept in larger banks and so on up a line to a major money center bank. If this last bank failed, then all below had a tendency to fail, thus creating 'runs' and additional failures. (The 'reserve' function was taken over by the Fed.) This failure was repeated during the Great Depression when the Fed tightened the money supply rather than loosening the reins. The Fed's actions increased the depth of the depression and caused a need for social programs to protect the U.S. from itself. Abraham Lincoln said that the purpose of government was to do for the people that which they cannot do for themselves. The vast majority of the people could not or did not save for emergencies or old age or lost their savings to the stock market inflation of the 1920's, and the subsequent collapse. The U.S. Army did not adopt the Prussian General Staff system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts