machievelli Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 To the President of Iran. the nation of Iran agreed to host an Islamic conference which will determine whether the holocaust actually occurred or not. Showing the spirit of International amity, the Mississippi school board, which banned the book Uncle Tom’s Cabin from libraries in the state back in 1999 on the grounds that slavery was never practiced in the United States, has called upon all of the other states that once comprised the Confederacy to have a conference to examine evidence that suggests that Mississippi might be right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mace MacLeod Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego Varen Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it? I heard that when I was learning about history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hallucination Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 Wow... These people are dense... Damn poliricians! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC-1162 Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 Poliricians are the morons of the present world, theres not much to be said. move along now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremia Skywalk Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 Sounds like the whole friggin history of Latvia. Yeah, of course, we joined USSR just for the kicks of it and there were no military force or occupation involved at all. Americans and other big countries don't want to anger russians, so 'history' stays as it is (even though more than million people can tell synchronized stories about what realy happened.) Very nice proff about that 'history is written by winners' stuff. (I still think we would have won if proportion latvians:russians would be something closer to 1:1 and we would have had more than 2 guns on 3 people.) Sorrz, i usualy don't go all patriotic, but this just sounded too familiar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
machievelli Posted October 29, 2006 Author Share Posted October 29, 2006 My second favorite is Averill Harriman as Ambassador to the United Nations in 1948, calling on the Jews and Arabs to stop fighting 'like Good Christians'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerbieZ Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 WTH is a polirician. Sounds like really good engrish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSR Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 I think he might have meant "politicians", but that may be just be me being naive;) . Its probably due to those poliricians being so influential these days. @phision- Quiet you, easy typo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phision Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 i think you might mean "politicians", they are influential, theyve become less like leaders and more like tabloid news stars. nobody cares what policies that government decides to implement what everyone really wants to know nowadays is where tony blair went on holiday. oh unless theres a war on. then suddenly everyone suddenly becomes political correspondents for channel 4 news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSR Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 what i dont get is why there is an uproar when someone is killed in this war. ffs, its war, not a "Lets go in there and take over, theyre not going to put up any resistance" situation. We're invading their country, of course they are going to fight back. And then they are portrayed as evil by this propoganda we call media, when we are the ones invading their way of life. Democracy can only be substained after it has been obtained, and the whole point of it is to have equal oppurtunities and a fair say in things. That would happen if the country had a general opinion of that being how they wanted. Its ironic how we are trying to improse democracy through war. was that maybe a bit too offtopic? *heads to senate chambers" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phision Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 was a bit off topic but still i agree with what your saying, the most ironic thing about Iraq is that we, and the americans, and the spanish who most people have forgotten backed the invasion, are trying to dictate democracy. thats the biggest oxymoron i have ever seen in my life (other than planned spontaneity). anyway to try and get this back on track... "we must.stop.the terror. I call upon all nations to do everything they can to stop these terrorist killers.... now watch this drive."-George W Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mace MacLeod Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 Sadly, in modern society politics rarely attracts the best people for the job and even more rarely brings out the best in whoever's there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phision Posted November 4, 2006 Share Posted November 4, 2006 this is true but surely there must be someone up to the task of leading a country without some scandal. pretty much every leader has had some kind of sleaze either in their term in office or out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSR Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 Yes. They're called actors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phision Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 LMAO the best president ive ever seen other than morgan freeman, (hes the best president/God actor) was the dude that played david palmer in 24. gonna start a thread on 24 so n e one who likes it check it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 Its ironic how we are trying to improse democracy through war. Ironic, perhaps, but then neither did Germany or Japan have any true, or at least lasting, experience with democractic style government before 1945. Perhaps the Arabs can adapt also. It remains to be seen whether western style govt can be "imposed" from top down, rather than rising from the bottom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phision Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 the germans did have a democracy, complete democracy which they were obviously not ready for. in the years of the weimar republic Germany was completely democratic. which actually allowed Hitler and his nazi party to gain control within the reichstag (parliament). Hitler was able to actually destroy democracy from the inside out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
machievelli Posted November 13, 2006 Author Share Posted November 13, 2006 the germans did have a democracy, complete democracy which they were obviously not ready for. in the years of the weimar republic Germany was completely democratic. which actually allowed Hitler and his nazi party to gain control within the reichstag (parliament). Hitler was able to actually destroy democracy from the inside out. H. Beam Piper in Space Vikings said it best. The problem with democracy is that it is so easily subverted from within. Both Hitler and Napoleon came to power in the same manner, using an electoral system to either vote them the title of emperor (Napoleon) of allowed the man powers in an emergency that allowed them to take full control as occured in Germany and Russia. Oddly enough, the biggest problem Japan has is the constitution we wrote for them and forced the Diet to Ratify. Article 9 was so tightly written that when the US decided to help them rearm in the mid 50s, they couldn't even call it a military. They had to call it a Self Defense Force. I think that was part of our problem in Iraq. We tried to get them to write their own constitution, then in the very first true election after it was ratified, we didn't want the person the people had chosen. If the terrorists and insurgents would leave them alone for even a month, it would work out. As it is I can forsee it breaking into four separate nations, and that would be both better and worse than what we have now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 the germans did have a democracy, complete democracy which they were obviously not ready for. in the years of the weimar republic Germany was completely democratic. which actually allowed Hitler and his nazi party to gain control within the reichstag (parliament). Hitler was able to actually destroy democracy from the inside out. That was why I said lasting. The Weimar government wasn't around long enough for Germany to get too attached to the concept of democratic style government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
machievelli Posted November 13, 2006 Author Share Posted November 13, 2006 That was why I said lasting. The Weimar government wasn't around long enough for Germany to get too attached to the concept of democratic style government. But the Bonn government has survived for almost 60 years now. Besides, unlike Russia, the Kaiser's government had the equivilant of a parliament with some power. The Duma (Russian form) could only suggest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phision Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 But the Bonn government has survived for almost 60 years now. Besides, unlike Russia, the Kaiser's government had the equivilant of a parliament with some power. The Duma (Russian form) could only suggest. the Duma was weak because of the Tsars obstinate belief in divine right, because most of the tsars believed that God had personally chosen them to rule Russia they could not share power, if they did then they would a) be seen as a weak leader and b) they would anger God. the funny thing is Germany was almost completely opposite to Russia, in that, Germany was not ready for democracy, and russia was so ready for democracy that it had 4 or 5 different revolutions, some within the same year, and yet both still ended up in dictatorship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth InSidious Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 Actually, the divine right thing was almost unique to Niklaus II. Certainly his parents weren't as obsessive. The Weimar Republic was also about as stable as a jelly on a crashing X-Wing, and is surely a warning of the dangers of proportional representation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phision Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 Actually, the divine right thing was almost unique to Niklaus II. Certainly his parents weren't as obsessive. The Weimar Republic was also about as stable as a jelly on a crashing X-Wing, and is surely a warning of the dangers of proportional representation. the weimar republic could have worked if it were not completely doomed by the allies after the first world war. Germanys problems after 1918 all boiled down to the harsh sanctions put upon them in the treaty of versailles, if the weimar republic did not have so much to deal with, for example hyperinflation, increasing public unrest and trying to convince everyone that what they were doing was for the good of the country, then it may have been able to succeed. however with these problems the weimar republic was seen as a weak government. looking back on it now, its funny how the democracy that we try to impose on people now is the kind of thing that we managed to help destroy in 1939 when hitler gained power. although i agree with your point about proportional representation being dangerous many people wouldnt, the advantages of proportional representation and the disadvantages are all really a point of view, depending on how near to the wings of the spectrum you are. proportional representation can only really work effectively if there are absolutely no radical elements within the electoral system i.e. no Hitlers, mussolinis, etc. (lenin doesnt count here as he actually took power through force.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JediMaster12 Posted November 14, 2006 Share Posted November 14, 2006 My second favorite is Averill Harriman as Ambassador to the United Nations in 1948, calling on the Jews and Arabs to stop fighting 'like Good Christians'. Eh? Now that is dumb. Why do people keep referring to Jews as if they are a separate race? They are not. Jew is a religious denotation. It has nothig to do with the parameters that define ethnicity such as geography and topography. That's as bad as Hitler's master 'Aryan' race when really Aryan is nothing more than a linguistic thing. People you got me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.