|
|
|
gezzam
SFN Regular
Australia
751 Posts |
 Posted - 04/18/2004 : 12:26:31 [Permalink]
|
From where I sit and what I see of American Politics, I much prefer our Westminster System that we have here in Australia.
Far from being a two party country, we have smaller parties that often hold the balance of power in the Senate. This reduces the chance of one party holding absolute power and passing legislation on a whim.
Our Prime Minister is held accountable for his decisions in the House Of Representatives and can be asked any question by the opposition. This is broadcast live on television. No hiding behind scripted news conferences.
|
Mistakes are a part of being human. Appreciate your mistakes for what they are: precious life lessons that can only be learned the hard way. Unless it's a fatal mistake, which, at least, others can learn from.
Al Franken |
 |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 04/18/2004 : 13:42:46 [Permalink]
|
Yup.
quote:
Agree again, but lots o' fucking luck.
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/18/2004 : 20:03:24 [Permalink]
|
Ricky wrote:quote:
That is one thing I think that should be changed. All these "Top Secret" documents should be made offical unless containing current intellegence or something that would violate a person's rights (such as displaying private information). All things from past, such as Vietnam and WWII should be immedately turned over to the public. The people should be able to see all the actions of the person who is in power.
A very dangerous idea, frankly. Intelligence-gathering methods don't appear to be exempted, and those are probably the most highly-secretive and valuable things we've got. With them public, there would be no "current intelligence," as our "enemies" (whoever they may be) would know how we're getting our info, and end all such endeavors. Such a declassification would mean an end to several Federal agencies. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Woody D
Skeptic Friend
Thailand
285 Posts |
Posted - 04/19/2004 : 00:12:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
as our "enemies" (whoever they may be) would know how we're getting our info, and end all such endeavors.
That's the 1st thing that came to my mind too when I read that post but.....good grief man, don't you watch movies? James Bond and all like that? Spys know each other, it's a game. And 3rd thought, it's all satilites or infiltraters so what's the BIG secreate?
quote:
Such a declassification would mean an end to several Federal agencies.
Well...Halalulya! If that's the case, open every document there is, the sooner the better. Let's do get rid of some federal jobs that are wasting tax payers money. From what we are hearing, we aren't getting our moneies worth anyway. The CIA or is it the FBI or whoever don't seem to know what they hell they are doing.
I've been writing to my officals from city to county to fed. to let them know I want my taxes cut and I don't care if it means less service BECAUSE I don't see where the money is going. Streets still have pot holes, you can't reach anyone on the phone to get information or service so what the hell are we paying for?
The governments wants to keep us in the dark and pretend they are doing something.....Bullcrap!
nlm |
www.Carabao.net
As long as there's, you know, sex and drugs, I can do without the rock and roll.
Mick Shrimpton
|
|
|
|
Maverick
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
385 Posts |
Posted - 04/19/2004 : 02:53:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Maverick, I agree. I'm proud to say that my kids have only missed an election when they couldn't get to the polls -- not very often. When they were young, I used to take them to the polls with me. They developed an interest at an early age.
I too go and vote everytime. I would feel bad not doing it, actually...
quote:
I think that the larger the turnout, the better government we'll have. The last thing incumbent polititions want is something like 80% voting. There would be too much uncertainty. And I agree strongly that lying in a public statement should be a felony.
Actually here in Sweden the politicians seem to worry that the interest and voter turnout is dropping, and what might happen if it does. It seems like they honestly want everyone to vote. I believe we usually have something like 80%+ turnout or so. |
"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy." -- Carl Sagan |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 04/19/2004 : 17:42:05 [Permalink]
|
"A very dangerous idea, frankly. Intelligence-gathering methods don't appear to be exempted, and those are probably the most highly-secretive and valuable things we've got. With them public, there would be no "current intelligence," as our "enemies" (whoever they may be) would know how we're getting our info, and end all such endeavors. Such a declassification would mean an end to several Federal agencies."
As I said, intelligence that is not crutial to what is happening right now. I'm not saying we should brodcast our soldiers positions as they are attacking on CNN, but I think that we should be allowed to see any and all documents that had to do with past affairs. And if its dangerous, thats not really a bad thing, there was a time when the Earth as the center of the universe was dangerous (litterally dangerous, they would come by and kill you for going against god).
"That's the 1st thing that came to my mind too when I read that post but.....good grief man, don't you watch movies? James Bond and all like that? Spys know each other, it's a game. And 3rd thought, it's all satilites or infiltraters so what's the BIG secreate?"
1.) Never trust Hollywood. NEVER!
2.) Satilites can only take pictures, nothing more. They can't read people's minds etc... hehe. And besides, most terrorist groups don't have satilites :)
|
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/19/2004 : 19:24:10 [Permalink]
|
Ricky wrote:quote:
As I said, intelligence that is not crutial to what is happening right now. I'm not saying we should brodcast our soldiers positions as they are attacking on CNN, but I think that we should be allowed to see any and all documents that had to do with past affairs.
Methods of gathering intelligence are classified for many years for a reason: because some of them are still in use today. I know you weren't advocating the broadcast of troop positions, but handing out "here's how we gathered these pieces of information back in Vietnam" instruction sheets could be as bad, if not worse.quote:
And if its dangerous, thats not really a bad thing, there was a time when the Earth as the center of the universe was dangerous (litterally dangerous, they would come by and kill you for going against god).
Exactly. When there's a time that not having information is good, I'll let you know. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 04/19/2004 : 19:46:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
First of all, what is a bad lie? If you run on a platform as anti-war, and then the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor and you go to war, is that a "lie"? What about if you didn't mean to lie, if you were misinformed? Its not your fault so you shouldn't be punished right?
See the problem here? Its hard enough to tell if a person was lying, but so much harder to tell if they meant to lie.
It's not always so hard, Ricky. Go to, for example, www.factcheck.org to see how both sides distort the truth. For instance, Bush's ads about how Kerry voted for tax increases 350 times is completely distorting the truth. He only arrives at this number by counting any time Kerry didn't vote for the biggest tax cut possible-- even if he did actually vote for a tax cut. Only through Clinton-esque parsing (technicaly, not voting for a big enough tax cut is a vote to increase taxes if a bigger tax cut is offered) does he get away with it. But the message is clear: Bush is trying to make Kerry look as bad as possible (350 time!) by distorting the truth.
Too bad so many dupes with buy the line and go off voting with this distortion in mind. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 04/20/2004 : 18:59:51 [Permalink]
|
"It's not always so hard, Ricky. Go to, for example, www.factcheck.org to see how both sides distort the truth. For instance, Bush's ads about how Kerry voted for tax increases 350 times is completely distorting the truth. He only arrives at this number by counting any time Kerry didn't vote for the biggest tax cut possible-- even if he did actually vote for a tax cut. Only through Clinton-esque parsing (technicaly, not voting for a big enough tax cut is a vote to increase taxes if a bigger tax cut is offered) does he get away with it. But the message is clear: Bush is trying to make Kerry look as bad as possible (350 time!) by distorting the truth."
First of all, is distoring the truth lieing? How are they different?
Second, any Bush supporter (are there any out there?) could simply argue that by not voting for the largest tax cuts aviable, he is increasing taxes from what they could be. It is a little far fetched, but hey, I think it works. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/21/2004 : 06:39:50 [Permalink]
|
Ricky wrote:quote:
Second, any Bush supporter (are there any out there?) could simply argue that by not voting for the largest tax cuts aviable, he is increasing taxes from what they could be. It is a little far fetched, but hey, I think it works.
My wife tells me she saved $20 by buying a $40 sweatshirt on a half-price sale. I tell her, "no, you spent $20."
By not voting for a larger tax cut, Kerry was simply not cutting taxes as much as others would like. And what about the previous elected representatives, who voted to raise taxes to those levels, anyway? If they hadn't done their thing, tax-cutting bills will all necessarily be much smaller to begin with. The difference is, of course, that those people aren't running for office this year, so the "blame" gets dumped on Kerry.
The President complaining about smaller tax cuts when the current government is hemorraging money is somewhat hypocritical, anyway. And the taxes rates in the U.S. are aready very good, when compared to much of the rest of the developed world.
In general, and in an election year especially, there's not a lot of critical thinking that goes into talk about taxes. Everybody's against 'em, yet most people want at least some of the services they provide. Can't really have it both ways. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
