The real Threat to American safety?

[Spider AL]

Nairb:

Actually Spider, Democracy in its purist form is anarchy,

Actually mate, anarchy is a state in which there is no governance. Democracy in its purest form is still democracy, it elects political authority based on the will of the majority- one man, one vote- which is not what we have now.

 

I disagree with your statement about apathy being a logical choice. Being apathetic is understandable, but it is an unacceptable solution, therefore it is not logical.

Well for a start, apathy IS a solution if it gets you what you want out of life. It's not MY solution, but that's neither here nor there. Many people recognise that they simply have no impact on the established political system of their country, and short of starting an armed uprising, they never will. Apathy therefore is their solution.

 

I prefer to ignore politics and play within the arena that I eke out. In other words, to take advantage of whatever political situation I find myself in, to further my own goals and morals. Politics can be stifling to a country's population, but to an individual it's merely a puzzle to be solved, an obstacle to overcome.

 

If the public adopts apathy as an election policy then the power hungry powers that be have won and will control everything thus ruining the lives of everyone.

Since they already DO control everything including the minds of the gullible, there would be no difference.

 

Toms:

The only thing i can think of to improve things is to change the proccess to have less career politicians involved and more of the common man. Maybe a jury duty type process that selected people at random (for one house) to serve for a year. I don't know....

Yep, that would be one way of improving the political framework. The elected officials would still be self-serving however, because we all are.

[Nairb Notneb]

Ignoring the politics is part of the problem and is exactly what the power hungry want. You have played right into their hands friend. You are correct, apathy is a solution I agree, it is the worst solution however. I disagree when you say that a person can do nothing about politics, one person can make a very big difference, especially in your town politics. I will agree that it is extremely difficult to make a noticeable difference in the federal realm of politics, but it can be done. Have you tried? If you voted in your last election then you did make a difference.

 

That it is an interesting idea for a jury style of government. One problem I see is that changing the government with no party affiliation like that is that there will be no loyalty and no stability. The laws will randomly change with every changing of the officials. You also take away the voice of the people. Maybe the idea can be altered in some way. I will give it some thought.

 

Here are some of my ideas.

 

http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=137649

[Spider AL]

Ignoring the politics is part of the problem and is exactly what the power hungry want. You have played right into their hands friend. You are correct, apathy is a solution I agree, it is the worst solution however. I disagree when you say that a person can do nothing about politics, one person can make a very big difference, especially in your town politics. I will agree that it is extremely difficult to make a noticeable difference in the federal realm of politics, but it can be done. Have you tried? If you voted in your last election then you did make a difference.

No offence, but I consider that to be foolishness. In our political system- if we're being REALISTIC- we get to choose between two parties only. They are both made up of power-hungry, corrupt individuals for reasons previously specified. Furthermore, one person one vote is NOT in effect due to our systems of proportional representation, electoral college etcetera.

 

Now bearing all these factors in mind, do you REALLY think that voting in an election makes any difference at all? You'd have to be delusional to think so.

 

I might make a difference by raising a rabble large enough to take over the nation, but if I were to do that it would merely be suborned by power-hungry individuals for their own ends, and we'd be right back where we started. Systems of governance are irrelevant, goverment IS corrupt by definition. The only alternatives are lawless anarchy, in which the strong would quickly band together to form another corrupt government... and benevolent dictatorship which is perhaps the most effective and beneficial form of government for the people... but hey, tyranny's tyranny.

[iamtrip]

You completely misunderstand the system.

Votes can only be considered pointless after the result is announced. Before such time, each vote has the potential to be invaluable.

 

If enough people realised that Bush is a incompetent moron and voted against him, then yes the vote would count.

By presuming that the election is going to be won one way or another, therefore casting your vote aside as pointless, you would have to be idiotic.

 

Just think how different the result would be if everybody voted.

[kipperthefrog]

To tell you the truth, All polititions are in it to make money! no matter WHO you vote for, they all are RICH, the president, and all the senaters are rich, the governer of each state are rich. THEY all have ONE porpose: "How can we make us rich people richer?". Here are some examples:

 

-NAFTA was passed so people from Mexico can work here in the us for mexican pay. an a Mexican will work for $2.00 while an American won't work for less than $5.40. The whole reason that NAFTA was passed is so rich people can get cheap labor. it may not be to the best of Americans, our jobs go south!

 

-Microsoft was gettig sued for reasons we all know, the judge simply got paid off! Polititions just do what the rich want! see?

 

- I heard that Bu$h's tax break$ favor the rich.

 

-I also hear that Bu$h ha$ $hare$ in the oil companie$ $o he'$ letting the oil compane$ charce ridiculu$ fee$ for ga$! $tore$ have to charge more for thing$ becau$e of the tran$portation it take$ to $hip product$ in our $tore$! not only the price of ga$ goe$ up, but ALL price$ goe$ up!

 

even if Bu$h gets voted out, John Kerry is rich too, he'll favor the rich too! voting makes no difference! ALL the politics are going to favor the rich.

[Spider AL]

iamtrip:

You completely misunderstand the system.

Hardly.

 

Votes can only be considered pointless after the result is announced. Before such time, each vote has the potential to be invaluable.

What is this, the "Schrodinger's cat" in the ballot box? A vote's a vote.

 

I am one man. In a system like the electoral college, my vote doesn't even necessarily get heard, let alone "make a difference". The system is intentionally shambolic, so that it might facilitate the stomping of the individual.

 

If enough people realised that Bush is a incompetent moron and voted against him, then yes the vote would count.

 

By presuming that the election is going to be won one way or another, therefore casting your vote aside as pointless, you would have to be idiotic.

Idiotic eh? That's crossing the line.

 

As to your point, MY previous point addressed this fully: Both major parties are corrupt, so exactly what difference do you think voting makes? Bush is an idiot yes, but the people who control him are not. Kerry may be more intelligent, but if elected he'd just be controlled by the same type of people as Bush, the fossil fuel consortiums, the pharmaceutical corporations, the wealthy, the established, all those who wish to safeguard their positions.

 

Just think how different the result would be if everybody voted.

Hmm, changed your tack a little from "your one vote counts" eh...

 

Well once again, the reason some people who don't vote, don't vote, is that:

 

a: The only people they can elect are necessarily corrupt

b: The only parties strong enough to win an election are the two major parties... who are corrupt

c: Even IF there were politicians who weren't corrupt, in uncorrupted alternative parties that WERE even CLOSE to being strong enough to win an election, the system of proportional representation devalues individual votes to the point of making them futile, so my voting for these mythical paragons of virtue wouldn't do any good anyway.

 

When faced with these points AND MORE, one can see that there's a strong case indeed for not voting.

[iamtrip]

Do you not understand that if more people vote one way rather than another, a different party will be elected? If you or a larger group of people all with your mindset didn't bother to vote, then the party with the majority of a minority of people actually voting will be elected. Hence the government is not truly representational.

 

I'm not sure what your arguing about over the electoral system.

If you're arguing in favour for PR, which I suspect you are, then that system is as equally problematic. A system where 40% vote Democrat, 35% vote Republican and the remaining 25% voting other parties creates a government without a majority. Coalition governments are formed and dissolved and nothing gets done.

 

 

I'm not sure if you're arguing against government as a whole.

But, yes, not voting is really going to help matters. (***warning, sarcasm has been used, I understand your detection of such a construction can be problematic***).

Whether you like it or not, a regime will be elected to power. People are asked to decide which of the two regimes they want. How exactly will abstaining change or effect anything? The choice is to select 'the lesser of two evils.'

 

 

Simply grouping both parties into one lump is a rather ignorant idea, albeit an idea I've read on countless conspiracist's websites.

Both regimes might seem equally similar, but there are subtle differences. Differences which I understand are hard for most uninformed people to recognise.

 

 

All in all, I don't see any case whatsoever for not voting. Your suggestions did summon the image of a toddler jumping up and down and throwing his teddy out of the cot.

A parody which seems quite accurate for all abstentions.

[Spider AL]

Do you not understand that if more people vote one way rather than another, a different party will be elected?

Am I posting in invisible ink or something? I've addressed this "point" twice already, please read more carefully.

 

Okay, one more time:

 

I have asserted before and I'll assert again: Both major parties (the only parties we can reasonably expect to elect) are corrupt and self-serving. Consistent policy continues DESPITE the party in power, not because of them.

 

I'm not sure what your arguing about over the electoral system.

Look iam... I'm tired of repeating all my points concerning the electoral system for your benefit, and I'm not going to anymore since you obviously can't be bothered to read them, even though I have posted them three different, ever-more-simplified ways. If you're "not sure" by now, you never will be.

 

Whether you like it or not, a regime will be elected to power. People are asked to decide which of the two regimes they want.

I think that sums up my point quite admirably. People in our countries are asked to decide which of two strikingly similar groups of corrupt individuals gets to pocket our taxes for the next four or five years... and individual votes don't even count. That's our system of government. HOORAY FOR DEMOCRACY!

 

How exactly will abstaining change or effect anything? The choice is to select 'the lesser of two evils.'

Naive... this is an election to select a figurehead, not much more. But even IF one of the parties would commit less evils than the other AND you were able to tell in advance which one... they're still "evils". So how will NOT abstaining change or affect anything?

 

Simply grouping both parties into one lump is a rather ignorant idea, albeit an idea I've read on countless conspiracist's websites.

How silly. I suppose you desire to permanently elect the Democrats into the white-house? I wonder how long you think it would be until the Republicans started seeming like the lesser evil... even to you.

 

Both regimes might seem equally similar, but there are subtle differences. Differences which I understand are hard for most uninformed people to recognise.

Implication implication implication... In one paragraph you both

 

a: immaturely imply that those who hold an opposing view to yours are "uninformed", and

 

b: fail to detail exactly what these "subtle differences" are. Please enlighten us as to their specific nature, so that we might disabuse you of your notions.

 

All in all, I don't see any case whatsoever for not voting. Your suggestions did summon the image of a toddler jumping up and down and throwing his teddy out of the cot.

Aww, he's getting angry. So people who don't agree with you on this issue are all toddlers throwing tantrums, are they? How mature of you. At least this frees me to remark- on a personal level- that your attempts to debate are poor in the extreme IMHO.

 

If you or a larger group of people all with your mindset didn't bother to vote, then the party with the majority of a minority of people actually voting will be elected. Hence the government is not truly representational.

I find the fact that you think that the current US government elected under the current system, is "truly representational" to be odd.

 

I also find the fact that you believe that everyone in your entire country voting is an excellent idea, when most of the populace is gullible and suggestible enough to be induced to vote for anyone with a sufficiently well-stuffed pocket-book, odd.

 

Oh, and FYI I've never said that I don't vote. I merely understand the reasons of those that don't.

[iamtrip]

Originally posted by Spider AL

At least this frees me to remark- on a personal level- that your attempts to debate are poor in the extreme IMHO.

 

Perhaps I would have understood your argument had you constructed it coherently.

It's to the extreme, not in the extreme.

 

 

Of course I recognise a good arguement, but simply stating 'Omg this isn't democracy, lets not vote' is in no way going to change matters. In fact, parties would actually prefer potential abstainers not to vote as they at least have the ounce (perhaps a hyperbolic representation) of sense required to actually think before scribbling in the box.

 

Both parties have their problems. Both regimes will dissapoint some people in different ways. And yes, both parties want to gain power. This is by no means some kind of fresh perspective on the electoral process.

 

But despite their underlying similarities, the parties have their differences. For example, Hoover's idea of 'rugged individualism' was swiftly changed by Roosevelt, with the development of state aid and his alphabet agencies.

 

George Bush's regime of bomb the world and call me great was contrasted by Clintons more reserved and less radical approach to international relations.

Yes of course both parties want power.

Yes, of course both parties have their darker side.

But its how these parties approach power and how they act when given powers. Suggesting both are exactly the same is an extremely uninformed opinion, albeit an opinion that is yours to keep.

 

I fail to see how abstaining will ever effect anyone. Hence the parody of a spoilt child not having his or her way.

 

 

That said, the option is not one to elect a party which carries a persons interests. It is merely an option of choosing a party that won't damage them as much.

[Spider AL]

Perhaps I would have understood your argument had you constructed it coherently. It's to the extreme, not in the extreme.

OOOoooh, an attempt to pick me up on GRAMMAR, is that the best you can do? Run out of actual arguments have we?

 

Well sonny, all I can tell you is that over here where we possess the original language, my sentence would be perfectly acceptable. I don't know (nor do I care) what sort of phrases you can and cannot use over the pond.

 

Bear in mind now that I'll be watching your grammar very closely, and while not publically sinking to your level, I might or might not be laughing heartily to myself at every mistake you make. You'll never know.

 

Of course I recognise a good arguement

I think I might start chuckling at this point however.

 

simply stating 'Omg this isn't democracy, lets not vote' is in no way going to change matters.

Nor is voting. Try it and see!

 

Perhaps I should make clear the UK situation... We voted out some horrible conservatives a few years back, and there WERE some naive idealists around that thought that things would get better under a more liberal government with more liberal policies. I was not among them.

 

Well, only a few months after the election these naive people were rudely awoken to the fact that most of the major policies the previous, conservative government had instituted were continuing unabated under the new, labour government. Why? Because these policies were expedient to the goals of what used to be known as the civil service... the people that aren't elected and DON'T play musical chairs along with the elected officials of the two major political parties. Both our countries have 'em.

 

George Bush's regime of bomb the world and call me great was contrasted by Clintons more reserved and less radical approach to international relations.

If you check your history you might note that Clinton's leadership of the bombing campaign against the former Yugoslavia met with a severe amount of international displeasure.

 

Your presidents are rarely dissimilar where it matters, Bush is merely a freak oddity because he's so unusually and obviously stupid. Not since Ronald Reagan has such a mungbean acted as a figurehead for the world's most powerful businesses. With his antics and his lack of public relations skill outside the US, Bush has provided the world with a target for their ire. But what most people forget is the fact that he, like all politicians before him, merely serves the interests of those with REAL power... Money. The people that fund the parties. YES there are changes in western politics, but those changes have more to do with the business climate than any moralising from the essentially amoral politicians.

 

Suggesting both are exactly the same is an extremely uninformed opinion

You still haven't made much headway in explaining what you consider the differences between them to be. Little task for you there.

 

I fail to see how abstaining will ever effect anyone. Hence the parody of a spoilt child not having his or her way.

Don't tell me you ACTUALLY believe that most people who abstain do so because they want to affect anything... They abstain because they see the futility of voting for one pack of liars over another, that's all.

 

You stand by calling abstainers "toddlers throwing tantrums" then? You still persist in casting negative, immature and vaguely insulting comments around?

 

You're not going to get a rise out of me with them, so you're only making yourself look small.

[iamtrip]

Originally posted by Spider AL

OOOoooh, an attempt to pick me up on GRAMMAR, is that the best you can do? Run out of actual arguments have we?

 

[...]

 

Well, only a few months after the election these naive people were rudely awoken to the fact that most of the major policies the previous, conservative government had instituted were continuing unabated under the new, labour government. Why? Because these policies were expedient to the goals of what used to be known as the civil service... the people that aren't elected and DON'T play musical chairs along with the elected officials of the two major political parties. Both our countries have 'em.

 

I was merely siting the reasons why I could not follow your arguement. Cohesion please.

 

The party elected into power in 97' was New Labour. Not a liberal government and definitely not a Labour government. As a breed of champagne socialists, New Labour set about their conservative policies behind the screen of a Labour government. I would have thought this was obvious.

What you're arguing here is no dissimilar than arguing that UKIP has similar policies to a fascist party. Of course they act similarly in power. They're of the same political orientation.

 

There are of course certain permanent positions within government, but more specifically, within each party. The permanent secretary within each party can effectively control policy through selecting ministers and leaders. Ultimately the 'face' of a part is just that. A face. The real power does lie with these permanent positions. (I wasn't aware this was revelation-ary either...).

 

Despite this, each party can force a change of policy.

Lets think about this logically. If all the parties are the same, would the SPD have annexed The Saar and Austria, invaded the Sudetenland, Poland and Russia? Would McDonald's government have joined WW1?

 

Perhaps you want some less radical examples?

Why did America pull out of Vietnam? Why did the British welfare system form after a change in government? Why was post WW2 reconstruction biased towards workers, rather than maintaining the paternalistic status quo? Why was there an obvious strive to welfare over 'rugged individualism' from Hoover to Roosevelt?

 

If all these regimes are the same (note all examples are comparisons from within the same country) then why are there obvious changes in policy and clear counterfactuals? I think it's more than clear that different governments, different parties and different politicians all have different political orientations. I doubt Henderson would be happy you're grouping him with Lloyd George.

 

 

 

 

Whether you agree with it or not, a party will be elected into power. Your vote and many others may sway the election one way or the other.

Again, ultimately the choice is to pick which party will damage your interests the least. Not which party will aid you the most.

 

Edited to remove excessive quoted material (the post being quoted is directly above this one). Quoting an entire post, particularly when the two posts are adjacent or even on the same page, is redundant and wastes page space. Cheers --SkinWalker

[Spider AL]

Quoting the entire message in one block? Ugly, and bad form.

 

Indeed. So is pointing out the grammatical & spelling errors of your opponant. --SkinWalker

 

I was merely siting the reasons why I could not follow your arguement.

Nope, you were trying to be clever... You were wrong, and it was immature. Shame on you.

 

And you still haven't managed to spell "argument" correctly.

 

New Labour set about their conservative policies behind the screen of a Labour government. I would have thought this was obvious.

Firstly the policies I referred to were held by the conservative government preceding the "new" labour government... but that doesn't make the policies inherently conservative. Secondly I did SAY that it was obvious... to me.

 

Not reading carefully enough again are you...

 

What you're arguing here is no dissimilar than arguing that UKIP has similar policies to a fascist party. Of course they act similarly in power. They're of the same political orientation.

All parties are of the same political orientation my friend, it's called "get into power and then serve the same interests the previous government served, but present ourselves ever-so-slightly differently".

 

If all the parties are the same, would the SPD have annexed The Saar and Austria, invaded the Sudetenland, Poland and Russia?

Are you seriously comparing the post-WW1 economic fracture of Germany and the xenophobic resentment felt by the battered and abused German people that allowed Hitler's hard line faction to take power... to the minor annoyance of the modern day fatted sheep that populate our western nations? Absurd. It'll be the French revolution next...

 

We have been discussing western democratic states, specifically the UK and the US. I'm sure you could find a plethora of extreme examples from ancient Egypt in a vain attempt to support your case, but they too would be irrelevant. Keep it to the topic.

 

Why did America pull out of Vietnam?

Because the Viet-cong kicked their behinds and it was no longer politically expedient to continue the campaign due to the death of servicemen becoming more and more unpopular at home...

 

Why did the British welfare system form after a change in government?

If you're referring to Atlee's government, you are once again relying on the upheaval of the second world war to bolster your arguments, as it was due to the aforementioned war and its aftermath that major social restructuring became an option for government... But here again you fail, as the real roots of our welfare state can be found in the late Victorian period and the anti-socialist German welfare model, not in Atlee's government much later. If you're referring to Lloyd George and his pensions on the other hand, it was a change of chancellor, not government. And it STILL wasn't the true root of the British welfare state. That was a natural progression over time and successive governments, not one huge all-in-one reform.

 

And on the topic, all parties respond to one thing and one thing only... necessity. By changing faces every so often, the essentially faceless government preserves the illusion of change in the minds of the populace. Each new government tries to sell old policies in a new and interesting way. This does not make their policies new. It does not make them less corrupt. It does not make those who vote for them any less deluded.

 

Whether you agree with it or not, a party will be elected into power. Your vote and many others may sway the election one way or the other.

Since they are both equally corrupt, why am I supposed to vote again?

 

And you STILL haven't come up with any differences between the current major US parties... For shame sirrah.

 

Again, ultimately the choice is to pick which party will damage your interests the least. Not which party will aid you the most.

There's no way of knowing that beforehand with any accuracy. Your vote may as well be a basketball thrown in the dark.

[iamtrip]

I fail to see the point of quoting phrases and saying "What I was about to say," "I was thinking the same thing," "No, you are ... And your... And....".

To avoid the appearance of a 6 year old with a restrictive vocabulary, struggling for words, please retort with some kind of original material, rather than a "No you are" mentality.

 

 

Unfortunately, I don't have the time (or incentive) to format my posts with shorter quotes. But you can keep it up. Looks good .

 

I said I won't quote, but here's an exception.

 

We voted out some horrible conservatives a few years back, and there WERE some naive idealists around that thought that things would get better under a more liberal government with more liberal policies. I was not among them.

 

Well, only a few months after the election these naive people were rudely awoken to the fact that most of the major policies the previous, conservative government had instituted were continuing unabated under the new, labour government.

 

Idealists...Labour... forgive me for thinking you were referring to New Labour .

As stated previously, I believe the comparison of Conservatism and New Labour is flawed, as both the parties are of the same orientation.

 

 

You say don't compare post WW1 Germany as its somehow not valid. You've stated that all political parties ultimately desire the same thing. You placed no time frame or restriction on this statement, therefore, quite clearly the comparison between the SPD and National Socialist policies proves your declarative obtrusively untrue.

Unless of course you would like to provide some kind of limitations regarding time and country? Some point in time when parties agreed they should all stand for the same things?

 

 

The Welfare comparison was as I said, referring to the foundations of the Welfare state. I understand how you may have confused this with reforms under Atlee.

 

The reformations quite obviously occurred 1905-1914. The introduction of Pensions, Education Acts and some incapacity and unemployment grants, are widely regarded as the founding years of the Modern Welfare state, but again sorry for being too presumptuous.

The construction of a welfare state was not primarily a cumulative process. Under the conservatives, the greatest achievement was perhaps 'The Poor Law'. Liberalism provided a wider and more nationalised approach to welfare as opposed to welfare on a local scale.

 

So yes, as you so eloquently put it, the changes could be regarded as an 'all in one reform' due to the rapid and massive (although not far reaching by today's terms) overhaul of a practically non-existent welfare system. There was not a gradual build towards aiding the public, quite the opposite.

"A strive to construct the foundations of the modern Welfare state" (Lynch)

 

Why was there such an obvious switch in policy if all the parties are the same?

 

To site yet another example, the differences between parties are clearly presented in terms of Roosevelt's reforms and Alphabet polices, in stark contrast to Hoover's 'Rugged Individualism' during the 30's.

 

 

 

 

The policies of modern US presidential candidates are similar, but not the same.

For example, whereas Bush will focus on Iraq, primarily through reconstruction and trade (aiding multinational business), Kerry has promised to focus on terrorism throughout the world, including countries not rich in natural resources and ripe for colonisation ...errr... Liberation.

Whereas Bush has the appearance of an incompetent fool, Kerry at least looks intellectual.

If Bush was any more stupid, you'd have to water him twice a week. Not a good spokesperson considering he represents the collective will of 250 million Americans.

 

Both parties serve multinational businesses. Yet again, your choice is to decide whether the US serves the armament trade or pharmaceuticals industry. Which will serve your interests the most. Cheaper, more widespread healthcare or higher taxes to fight a few thousand miles away.

 

If you vote, you can either say "Darn, I was wrong," (giving you the right to whine) or, "This party has served my interests well."

Either way, its better than not voting at all. In my eyes, such people have no right to complain. They of course could have helped elect a different regime.

[Spider AL]

I fail to see the point of quoting phrases and saying "What I was about to say," "I was thinking the same thing," "No, you are ... And your... And....".

That's the most sense you've made all week.

 

 

To avoid the appearance of a 6 year old with a restrictive vocabulary, struggling for words, please retort with some kind of original material.

Still insulting, still unaware of your own linguistic failings. It's so depressing.

 

Unfortunately, I don't have the time (or incentive) to format my posts with shorter quotes. But you can keep it up. Looks good .

Tell it to the moderators, babe.

 

Idealists...Labour... forgive me for thinking you were referring to New Labour .

I'm getting the impression you misunderstood quite drastically... the idealists I was referring to were voters, like yourself. I didn't say the politicians were idealistic in any way, at any point. You should read more closely.

 

I believe the comparison of Conservatism and New Labour is flawed, as both the parties are of the same orientation.

Well that's what I've been saying, and that's what you've been arguing against, the fact that the two major parties in our countries are nearly identical. I'm glad you've admitted that it's true of the UK, now all you have to do is admit that it's true of the US, and TOTALLY contradict yourself.

 

You say don't compare post WW1 Germany as its somehow not valid. You've stated that all political parties ultimately desire the same thing.

Of course they desire the same thing, power. All parties aspire to take control of a country. What's not VALID, is comparing today's political climate with post-Great War Germany.

 

You placed no time frame or restriction on this statement

I think you'll find that the phrase "Both major parties are the same" is in the present-tense... Still trying to slip that killer ancient-Egyptian angle into the debate, aren't you.

 

The Welfare comparison was as I said, referring to the foundations of the Welfare state. I understand how you may have confused this with reforms under Atlee.

I can understand how I could have been confused by your misbegotten and unclear babble as well. But since I was aware of this possibility and covered both reforms in my reply, it's neither here nor there, is it? Don't make me repeat myself as much as you do...

 

Why was there such an obvious switch in policy if all the parties are the same?

I'd hardly call a consistent societal change first exemplified elsewhere in Europe, being adopted in part by the UK and taking a full half-century (and successive administrations of different ideologies) to come to fruition as what we currently know as the "welfare state", a sudden "switch" in policy. Natural social evolution would be nearer the mark.

 

The policies of modern US presidential candidates are similar, but not the same.

For example, whereas Bush will focus on Iraq, primarily through reconstruction and trade (aiding multinational business), Kerry has promised to focus on terrorism throughout the world.

I did ask for ACTUAL differences, not rank gullibility. Politicians don't necessarily deliver what they promise. Of COURSE Kerry will say these things to get elected. He may even believe them, but once in office he will merely be a figurehead for the controlling interests, as you yourself have admitted. It'll be up to THEM what happens, not him or the voters.

 

Both parties serve multinational businesses. Yet again, your choice is to decide whether the US serves the armament trade or pharmaceuticals.

Not strictly correct... they serve both AND MORE to varying degrees. What's your point?

 

"One serves THIS type of evil, the other serves THAT type of evil. YOUR CHOICE IS CLEAR!"

 

Clear as mud.

[iamtrip]

Originally posted by Spider AL

Perhaps I should make clear the UK situation... We voted out some horrible conservatives a few years back, and there WERE some naive idealists around that thought that things would get better under a more liberal government with more liberal policies. I was not among them.

 

Well, only a few months after the election these naive people were rudely awoken to the fact that most of the major policies the previous, conservative government had instituted were continuing unabated under the new, labour government.

 

You can't say 'all the partie are the same' and cite the example of New Labour and the Conservatives. How many times need I repeat it? New Labour is a conservative party. Its like saying:

"The BNP and UKIP want the same sort of thing, OMG EVERYONES THE SAME!!1"

 

Of course if you pick two parties from the same end of the political spectrum they will want the same kind of things. Why is this blatently obvious to everyone but yourself?

 

The Conservatives are flagging behind the Liberals at the moment. Britian is definately not a two party state at this time.

 

 

Well once again, the reason some people who don't vote, don't vote, is that:

 

a: The only people they can elect are necessarily corrupt

b: The only parties strong enough to win an election are the two major parties... who are corrupt

 

You said that. "People who don't vote".

People abstained thoughout the lives of the Western democracies, yet obviously different parties have had different manifestos and ideas. Obviously changes in government have brought about countless changes in poilcy, as stated previously.

 

The elected officials would still be self-serving however, because we all are.

 

Implying elected officials have and always will be self serving. Evidently not (read previous posts).

 

I can understand how I could have been confused by your misbegotten and unclear babble as well. But since I was aware of this possibility and covered both reforms in my reply, it's neither here nor there, is it? Don't make me repeat myself as much as you do...

 

I distinctly stated foundations. For some unknown reason you took that to mean Atlee's government, some 40 years past the topic at hand .

 

 

I'd hardly call a consistent societal change first exemplified elsewhere in Europe, being adopted in part by the UK and taking a full half-century (and successive administrations of different ideologies) to come to fruition as what we currently know as the "welfare state", a sudden "switch" in policy. Natural social evolution would be nearer the mark.

 

This is incorrect. By 1914 Britain's welfare system rivalled Germany's and in some ways exceeded it (Bismark's state socialism legislation was discriminatory and hadn't sufficiently increased to counter inflation). Of course the welfare system needed expanding. The system was in its infancy.

However, in just 8 years Briatin had gone from having a non-existent welfare system to one which rivalled Germany's, created some 25 years previously.

 

This is one tiny sector of the Liberal regime. Home Rule, the advancement of women's suffrage and the Parliament Act (heavily contested by the conservatives...but sure, I bet they would have tried passing this act too if they were in power ).

 

All strongly opposed by the Conservatives (Hell they even renamed to the Unionists they opposed the policy so strongly).

 

Perhaps people use power for thier own interests. I'm sure Asquith's interests including 22 million Britains and 8 million Irish.

 

But I bet the Conservatives would have passed all these acts too

 

 

 

 

The fact is, the two US parties have different vested interests. You claim they want the same, without any real foundation.

I've suggested multiple instances where policies between regimes have differed and several occaisions where there is a clear cut change soon after a new party is elected.

You don't seem to be able to retort with fact. You haven't challenged the prospect of the definite change after Hoover. You haven't challeneged the reasons why there was a swift change in British policy post-1905 (unless your about to disagree with the majority of Historians, AJP Taylor, Lynch, Tanner, Seaman, Pugh, Hay, Powell to name but a few). You haven't provided any examples why every party is the same, and there are many.

All that you do seem to do, is reiterate your unsupported statements of opinion.

 

I'm afraid I have to be repetetive, as I fear you simply cannot consider multiple points. Before you hastily type "No, US=UK, Bush=Kerry; OMG EVERYONE'S THE SAME!" Please try to present a little more fact, a little less opinion.

[Spider AL]

You can't say 'all the partie are the same' and cite the example of New Labour and the Conservatives.

First of all I never said "all the partie are the same", because I spelled it much gooder than that thar thingy.

 

Secondly since they're the two major parties, of course you can... I dealt with the issue fringe parties in previous posts. Read up as necessary. All four major parties in our countries ARE at the same end of the political spectrum... the self-serving and corrupt end.

 

Obviously changes in government have brought about countless changes in poilcy, as stated previously

Changes in economics and social climate will bring about changes in policy, not who's in the white house. It's self-evident.

 

Implying elected officials have and always will be self serving. Evidently not

Of course elected officials will be self-serving. Everyone is, none more than those who desire power. Now I'm not saying there aren't exceptions every so often, hooker with a heart of gold and all that. I AM saying that one cannot tell the difference between a politico who is remarkably good at dissembling, and an oh-so-rare genuinely honest fellow until AFTER you have elected them. So that invalidates your idea.

 

I distinctly stated foundations. For some unknown reason you took that to mean Atlee's government, some 40 years past the topic at hand

You're not reading carefully enough again... you really must work at that. As stated previously, I covered both of the reforms you might have been referring to in your gibberish, AND pointed out the glaring fact that the ACTUAL roots of the British welfare state first appeared under neither of them. QED, you lose, goodnight.

 

However, in just 8 years Briatin

Eight years my behind. It took until at LEAST the nineteen-fifties for what we now call the welfare state to come to fruition. It wasn't a one-night-wonder and so-called "liberal" governments were not wholly responsible for it as you yourself were forced to admit. And since the whole idea of a contemporary welfare state was conceived in order to put down left-wing unrest, I'd hardly call it a truly liberally motivated policy.

 

But I bet the Conservatives would have passed all these acts too

Whether they would have or not is fairly irrelevant, as they performed their own actions with their own "positive" effects.

 

The fact is, the two US parties have different vested interests. You claim they want the same, without any real foundation.

Pshaw and fiddlesticks. The best you've been able to come up with to differentiate between them is that they might each serve mildly different kinds of EVIL.

 

The "real foundation" for my belief is in their behaviour and continuation of idiotically nazi policy instituted by previous, supposedly diametrically opposed administrations. Let's wait and see if the "democrat" government repeals the patriot act, shall we?

 

YOU have claimed that they're not the same, and all you've been able to come up with to support your position is vague references to ancient Egypt and a healthy dose of "I TRUST KERRYYY!!!11 HE ARE THE TRUTHMAN!!"

 

You haven't challeneged the reasons why there was a swift change in British policy post-1905 (unless your about to disagree with the majority of Historians, AJP Taylor, Lynch, Tanner, Seaman, Pugh, Hay, Powell to name but a few

I don't think I challenge any historians by saying that your cut-and-paste interpretation of British history leaves something to be desired... But yet again, I've gone over this already.

 

I'm afraid I have to be repetetive,

Admission of repetitiveness.

 

Before you hastily type "No, US=UK, Bush=Kerry; OMG EVERYONE'S THE SAME!" Please try to present a little more fact, a little less opinion.

Well thank you for your thoroughly mature input, we'll take it under advisement here at Spider AL And before you retort with "THE LOVERLY DEMONCRATS WILL SAEV US!!!" and a few ill-disguised personal slurs, please try to present a little less of a biased viewpoint.

 

I've knocked you six ways from sunday so far. Your attempts to pick me up on my grammar backfired badly, your ideologically tinted and blatantly biased stabs at political history are a hindrance to your attempts to seem well-informed, and you have ignored all of my counter-points, merely blaring your dogma over and over again, each time blaming that on ME.

 

Still, it's good for a laugh, isn't it. Carry on.

[iamtrip]

I dealt with the issue fringe parties in previous posts

 

I haven't picked you up on grammar since the moderators asked me not to.

By the way, partie is a misspelling, not a grammatical error.

 

 

As yet, you haven't countered any of my examples.

 

Hoover and Roosevelt (read above)

Swift changes to British Welfare Policy (1905-194)(read above)

Immense changes post-Weimar rule (read above).

Furthermore, you have consistently failed to cite examples of parties acting in the same ways, of which there are also many.

 

I AM saying that one cannot tell the difference between a politico who is remarkably good at dissembling, and an oh-so-rare genuinely honest fellow until AFTER you have elected them.

 

Fair enough, but don't impose your personal short comings in sweeping statements.

 

You're not reading carefully enough again... you really must work at that. As stated previously, I covered both of the reforms you might have been referring to

 

Of course I read your ambiguous rant about Atlee's policies. I merely wondered how anyone with an ounce of knowledge could confuse these reformations with the actual creation and foundations of the welfare state, some 40 years before. How much more specific can I be. Fear not, I know now to presume you have no historical knowledge.

 

Eight years my behind. It took until at LEAST the nineteen-fifties for what we now call the welfare state to come to fruition. It wasn't a one-night-wonder and so-called "liberal" governments were not wholly responsible for it as you yourself were forced to admit. And since the whole idea of a contemporary welfare state was conceived in order to put down left-wing unrest, I'd hardly call it a truly liberally motivated policy.

 

This is fundamentally incorrect. Atlee merely reformed the state to create what we would now call The Modern Welfare State. Prior to this, Asquith and Lloyd George created the foundations of the welfare state. These foundations actually exceeded the German system in 1914 in many ways, in particular, insurance acts against accidents and unemployment.

 

Perhaps you could release notes on your own, warped version of History.

 

The fact that you have the stupidity to disagree with the majority of Historians, orthodox and revisionist over the issue typifies your ignorance as a whole. Fortunately, some of us are blessed to have read a few Historians views. Just because I happen to know various interpretations, there is no reason to tar me with the same brush as your good self.

 

 

Whether they would have or not is fairly irrelevant, as they performed their own actions with their own "positive" effects

 

How was women's suffrage beneficial? Most women were very conservative, especially middle-class housewives and land owners, the first to be given the vote. Even the conservatives were against women's suffrage.

How was giving the Irish Home Rule beneficial? The Liberals had relied on the nationalists to create a Liberal majority in parliament. Removal of the Irish removed the majority. The conservatives, or Unionists were firmly against Home Rule.

 

The Liberals passed radical policies, policies that were in no way self serving and policies that were opposed by the conservatives.

 

 

Now, don't do as you have done in the last 3-4 posts. Please respond to the example, with a mixture of fact and opinion.

 

Merely repeating dull waffles of "they are all the same," "they are all self serving" and providing no examples or counter arguments is becoming very tedious.

[Spider AL]

iamtrip:

I haven't picked you up on grammar since the moderators asked me not to.

Hee hee, you got busted...

 

And since that quote is irrelevant to your point, and is only notable for a missing word, I'd say you're still immaturely trying to pick me up on grammar. Which still means you're unaware of how idiotic your own errors make you look after accusing others of making errors, in the first instance, wrongly.

 

By the way, partie is a misspelling, not a grammatical error.

You get a gold star for being able to tell the difference... But I fear I must deduct marks for your insinuation that I am somehow unaware of the fact. I don't think you'll find an instance of my confusing a spelling error with a grammatical error at any point in that post.

 

2-0 to me...

 

Fair enough, but don't impose your personal short comings in sweeping statements.

Dear dear, your comprehension needs some work... I never said that I PERSONALLY was unusually unable to discern the difference between a scheming suit and a saintly suit, far from it. I simply stated that people can't tell the difference between them. Oh, and especially naive souls like yourself who wilfully blind themselves to the effective similarity of the two major parties in our nations in order to staunch the flow of their abject fear of the truth that their vote doesn't make a damn bit of difference in the world.

 

I know now to presume you have no historical knowledge.

Since your entire argument is based entirely on presumption without cause, I must confess to not being shocked.

 

Of course I read your ambiguous rant about Atlee's policies. I merely wondered how anyone with an ounce of knowledge could confuse these reformations with the actual creation and foundations of the welfare state, some 40 years before. How much more specific can I be.

 

Actually you asked this question:

 

Why did the British welfare system form after a change in government?

Now I'm not psychic trip. I don't have the ability (thank god) to stare into the mucus-soaked recesses of what we would loosely term as your "mind". So you'll have to forgive me when I point out the fact that the word "foundations" is nowhere to be found in your question... It's fine for you to be "specific" now, and by "be specific" I mean "exhibit frantic backpedalling"...

 

But regardless of this, I heroically anticipated your blunder and very kindly covered the earlier period you might have been referring to in my initial answer AS WELL as Attlee's government. Read up, and don't be such an ingrate. Just because you choose to gloss over my argument without making a valid counterpoint, doesn't mean I haven't addressed your historical examples, which while being irrelevant to the topic at hand, still prove my case better than they do yours.

 

4-0...

 

Furthermore, you have consistently failed to cite examples of parties acting in the same ways, of which there are also many.

Since their policies are so glaringly similar, from foreign policy to crime at home, and the inexorable march of each party towards the political middle ground is the subject of the decade, I would have thought that the burden of proof was on you to prove them different rather than on me to prove them the same.

 

I'm glad you admit that they act in the same manner though.

 

The fact that you have the stupidity to disagree with the majority of Historians

Actually I think it's a mark not only of intelligence but of common horse-sense and moral fortitude to disagree strenuously with ONE ranting, biased pseud who, due to his lack of cogent arguments and debating skill, feels the need to sink so low as to directly call his opponents "stupid".

 

Damnit, now I've lost count of how many points I've won on...

[Kain]

Originally posted by Spider AL

Damnit, now I've lost count of how many points I've won on...

 

6, but don't you think its a bit...I dunno...odd that you don't live in the US and yet you seem to want to take part in...US Political debates?

 

Wait a damn minute - this isn't even a political debate! This was supposed to be about the media and their damned want to be everywhere a person in power is, leading the assassins and other ill-doers that way!

[Spider AL]

6, but don't you think its a bit...I dunno...odd that you don't live in the US and yet you seem to want to take part in...US Political debates?

Perhaps... though the world is in many ways under the yoke of the US anyway, so we can call George Bush OUR president just as well as Americans can.

 

Wait a damn minute - this isn't even a political debate! This was supposed to be about the media and their damned want to be everywhere a person in power is, leading the assassins and other ill-doers that way!

Evolution, Morpheus... evolution...

[SkinWalker]

If it weren't for the liberal use of ad hominem remarks among you two, this would qualify as one of the more scholarly debates I've seen in the Senate in some time.

 

It's a shame you two guys spend a third of your posts ribbing each other of grammer and indirectly/directly insulting one-another.

 

It does give me an idea, though. One of these days, when I have a bit of time, maybe I'll look through the Senate since day 1 and cull out some of the best debates and discussions to create a "Hall of Fame" thread that links to them.

 

Showcasing past debates could serve the purposes of seeing how we've evolved, learn from past posts, and provide a source of information on a variety of topics. Many of these threads included a plethora of links and citations to primary and secondary sources.

[iamtrip]

Spider AL:

 

Actually I think it's a mark not only of intelligence but of common horse-sense and moral fortitude to disagree strenuously with ONE ranting, biased pseud who, due to his lack of cogent arguments and debating skill, feels the need to sink so low as to directly call his opponents "stupid".

 

Possessing stupidity does not necessarily make you stupid. You have stupid opinions and weak/no argument, but that doesn't necessarily make anyone stupid.

 

 

Why did the British welfare system form after a change in government?

 

Form. To form, to create, to compose, to conceive, to concoct.

What do you think it means? Perhaps you confused this with reform.

 

 

Nonetheless, you still haven't addressed why there was such a swift change in policy once the Liberals were empowered in 1905. Stop dodging the question, for about the fifth time. It is you who is in fact glossing over the argument.

The most expansive you've been is:

If you're referring to Lloyd George and his pensions on the other hand, it was a change of chancellor, not government. And it STILL wasn't the true root of the British welfare state. That was a natural progression over time and successive governments, not one huge all-in-one reform.

 

This is simply ridiculous.

Firstly, the creation of the welfare state was not a natural progression. During 1905-14 the state was created. Founded. Formed. Concocted. The acts passed during this period can be regarded as the foundations of the welfare state. After WW1 and up to the present day, the welfare state has been reformed and improved. The development of the welfare state may be regarded as a gradual progression, however its foundations most certainly cannot.

 

Secondly, the idea that such changes were brought about by Lloyd George are preposterous. If you ever wanted a good example to back up your argument, Lloyd George would be your man. He was definitely not a "hooker with a heart of gold" as you so expertly put it.

 

So yet again, the issues you dismally fail to address. If the Liberals were self serving (apart from Lloyd George, who you regard

Why did the Liberals support Home Rule? Why was the act passed pre-war?

Why did the Liberals support such a forward thinking welfare system? Why did the Liberals give women suffrage? (Read above).

 

None were in the Liberal's interests (theory of self service). All seemed preposterous to the Unionists.

 

 

 

Instead of awarding yourself with some kind of ego-enhancing brownie points, for your personal interpretations of mine and your own posts (Do you get a badge at 10?), please answer the questions at hand.

[Spider AL]

SkinWalker:

It's a shame you two guys spend a third of your posts ribbing each other of grammer and indirectly/directly insulting one-another.

Hey, he started it. OMG I'm so mature. It's breathtaking.

 

iamtrip:

Possessing stupidity does not necessarily make you stupid.

First of all if a person, let's say for argument's sake... you, possessed the quality of stupidity, which is defined as "The quality or condition of being stupid", yes, it would imply that he or she was INDEED stupid.

 

So once again you're wrong. And you said this:

 

The fact that you have the stupidity to disagree

Now this doesn't say "you said something stupid" nor "you made one stupid mistake", no, you quite clearly CALL ME stupid. You can't weasel out of it now, you got annoyed because you're losing the debate, you threw a tantrum and said something silly that you now regret and are desperate to disassociate yourself from. Own up to it for god's sake! Be a man! Admit your immaturity in trying to pick your opponent up on issues of grammar! (wrongly.)

 

Form. To form, to create, to compose, to conceive, to concoct.

Exactly, what WE call the welfare state only appeared in its entirety in the middle of the last century. The fact that its component parts were floating around before then does not make them "the welfare state" that we all know and love today now, does it.

 

Nonetheless, you still haven't addressed why there was such a swift change in policy

Don't be silly, I addressed it about FIVE POSTS AGO. Along with my remarks on Atlee. How many times...

 

You can read above. I'm tired of repeating myself over and over, I won't say it again.

 

The development of the welfare state may be regarded as a gradual progression, however its foundations most certainly cannot.

AH, thank you. What you forget is that foundations do not make a house. I think that's your fundamental error.

 

Instead of awarding yourself with some kind of ego-enhancing brownie points,

It's 11-0 now.

 

I'm still waiting for you to cite major differences between the republican/democrat & conservative/labour parties in our two nations by the way. And don't go digging up the sands of Giza please. Current affairs are the order of the day. The clock is ticking.

[iamtrip]

I picked you up on your poor grammatical technique as it was critical to the explanation of your argument. Your poor phrasing made a nonsense of your ideas. My misspelling of 'partie' was hardly critical to the core of my argument.

But feel free to continue awarding yourself invaluable points. I really don't mind.

 

Obviously your argument lays in ruins as you still have yet to retort to my 5+ examples or selfless motivation and disunited party policies.

 

 

Your brief comment on Atlee's reforms are irrelevant to the argument and your dismally vague explanation of the foundations of the welfare system are well... dismally vague.

 

This is becoming tedious. Yet again, please re-read and reply.

 

Spider AL said:

If you're referring to Lloyd George and his pensions on the other hand, it was a change of chancellor, not government. And it STILL wasn't the true root of the British welfare state. That was a natural progression over time and successive governments, not one huge all-in-one reform

 

 

This is simply ridiculous.

Firstly, the creation of the welfare state was not a natural progression. During 1905-14 the state was created. Founded. Formed. Concocted. The acts passed during this period can be regarded as the foundations of the welfare state. After WW1 and up to the present day, the welfare state has been reformed and improved. The development of the welfare state may be regarded as a gradual progression, however its foundations most certainly cannot.

 

Secondly, the idea that such changes were brought about by Lloyd George are preposterous. If you ever wanted a good example to back up your argument, Lloyd George would be your man. He was definitely not a "hooker with a heart of gold" as you so expertly put it.

 

So yet again, the issues you dismally fail to address. If the Liberals were self serving (apart from Lloyd George, who you regard

Why did the Liberals support Home Rule? Why was the act passed pre-war?

Why did the Liberals support such a forward thinking welfare system? Why did the Liberals give women suffrage? (Read above).

 

None were in the Liberal's interests (theory of self service). All seemed preposterous to the Unionists.

 

[Kain]

Originally posted by iamtrip

Your brief comment on Atlee's reforms are irrelevant to the argument and your dismally vague explanation of the foundations of the welfare system are well... dismally vague.

 

Actually, if you want to get technical, both of your comments are irrelevant to the discussion about the media playing a key role in American safety...which is AFTER ALL what this topic is about.