Artful Dodger: Which ideas in particular are too radical? Most things are not new in politics, just revamped.

And if I may say so, a problem with politics is such that it is a race to be in power rather then service of the people. I see that your gov suffers from a problem like ours. Transparency.

gogul:

> Republicanism is a social movement. The Republicans, a party of traitors.

I think that passing a simple condemnation of right wing republicanism is rather unfair. While I disagree with many of the things that Republicans (or Conservatives here in Canada and England) stand for, their place in history is different from what many people think. While the "neoconservatives" under George W. Bush are seen in a very negative light outside of the US, the history of the Republican Party is very interesting.

Back in the mid-19th century the Unites States had 3 political parties, and those were divided into factions:

The Whigs were a political party that followed the ideas of John Quincy Admas and they favored the modernization of industry and the banking system. Abraham Lincoln joined this party in 1832 and in 1837 he started campaigning against slavery.

The Republicans were divided into two camps. The "radical REpublicans" believed in agressive modernization of industry and in punishing the souther states harshly in accounts of slavery and the civil war. The "moderate Republicans" believed in a more lenient approach with the south and work to end slavery by reconstruction after the civil war.

The Democrats were divided into the "northern democrats" who favored an end of slavery but who refused to support war against the Confederacy. The "southern democrats" were the dominant political party in the south and they campaigned and fought to keep slavery alive.

Abraham Lincoln joined the Republican Party in 1856 and in 1861 he assumed office as the 16th president of the United States. Abraham Lincoln was extremely influential in the early development of the Republican Party and the ideological basis that led to the end of slavery. Abraham Lincoln also opposed the Mexican-American War and he saw that war as illegal and a form to grab land from Mexico through military expansion.

Lincoln's brilliance as a politician was based on his ability to reconcile several aspects of American politics at the time. He convinced the northern Democrats to stay out of the war, while he held off the aggressive radical Republicans who wanted the south crushed mercilessly. At the same time he moved popular support towards the moderate Republicans who wanted modernization and an end to slavery without crushing the south. As a Republican, Abraham Lincoln was without question the most brilliant politician the US had in the second half of the 19th century.

After the war the Republican party led reconstruction efforts and fought off the Ku Klux Klan which at the time had broad support through the south. The Republican Party came to dominate American politics through the second half of the 19th century.

It is very interesting because in the 19th century the southern states were dominated by the Democrats, while in more recent times the Republicans attract much of the vote in that part of the US.

The change in Republican politics started at around the time of Theodore Roosevelt. He had been Secretary of the Navy during the Spanish-American War and the expansion of American power into places like Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Phillippines and Panama gave him a view of the world in which American naval superiority was the best way to ensure that American political and economic interests were protected outside the US. It is out of his ideological stance that the Republican Party changed its main ideological basis from the 19th century moderates to the more radical views that we see today in the "neoconservatives".

During Theodore Roosevelt's presidency (1901-1909) there was a change in the Democrats too. Many of the "progressives" inside the Republican party defected to the democratic party in view of the rise in more radical Republicanism. This led to the defeat of the Republicans in 1912 when Woodrow Wilson became president under the Democrat Ticket.

As you can see, the Republicans were never quite the same way we see them today. Neither were the Democrats. The Republicans were moderate and became radical. The Democrats were reactionary and became progressive.

(V): The point is that now that his ideas are coming to light, they are falling out of favor with the American people. People that mattered in the election of Obama are now having second thoughts. If the trend keeps up, there will be a shake up in Washington in 2010. And in 2012 the Republicans will regain the White House. These ideas are too radical for the American people. Except those on the far left who love his ideas.

Republicanism is a social movement. The Republicans, a party of traitors.

Obama is just a representative of the US, more or less powerless, exept if it's his choice to stress the world.

Nevadas goldrush. What a mess. They even dare to argue tha new techniologies for a better environmet need gold. You allow suck a joke? Gold is recyclable. Take a look at the fingerring of your lady.

AliforniaCalifornia with the reputation of everything is fine.


For 2.5 % of the residents.

Artful Dodger: Arni is not welcome in Austria anymore. Keep this opportunist where he is.

Governments care about their elites. Fine. I govern the homeless. Laugh at the elite.

gogul: Well I don't care. I loved my times as homeless.

Now that banks are paying back their credits, is Obama thinking about homeless people now?

The biggest problem with every goverment is that they are not decent and full of thieves. Funny that governments ask for respect where none is deserved. What makes a Nicolas Sarcozy think that he deserves respect for example? Is it because he was strong in hiding french money in switzerland? Remember when this joke (Sarcozy) got angry because a reasonable person from the people refused to shake his hand? Well, Sarcozy is criminal enough to be put to jail till the end of his days.

Übergeek 바둑이: Tony Blair made Saddam's threat capability out to be worse than it was to parliament. That's the only way the war was passed.

And yes... Millions marched in peaceful protest regarding the war. We didn't want our troops fighting in a war that just didn't make sense as to the reasons being forwarded by our government.

Czuch: The USA borrowed so much from others in terms of it's set up and constitution I would have to disagree. You still use 'governors'.. Isn't that a spin off from British Colonial rule of the Americas?? Your founders borrowed many ideas of how to govern from forms of democracy past and present... eg .. republic.

I cannot agree unless you show that as such in it's forming the USA is unique.

Even your science... look back at when the hydrogen fuel cell was invented!!

Artful Dodger: Details are in essence never fully known till someone gets into office Art. You know that by nature of information that is at hand to a person running for office who is not in office. That's why the Pres in gets to inform the Pres coming in.

Czuch:

> You make it sound like just having been voted in with a simple low majority
> gives him a blank check to do whatever he pleases, and we should know
> what to expect based on promises, no questions asked?

Every democracy suffers from the same problem. People elect a president (or prime minister or whatever) and once they assume office they do whatever they want. Election promises are often good only for a short time, and once the election is over things change. The "will of the people" counts only for as long as it is politically or economically convenient to those in power.

For this reason I see democracy as a process in which people vote to chose their dictator. There are three main differences between modern democracy and traditional dictatorship.

The first is that the dictator does not have absolute power. He must convince those that oppose him that his ideas are sound and viable. That is the point of congress, senate, parliament, etc.

Second, the dictator is not there forever but only for as long as he can be reelected. In some countries people curtail the length of the dictators stay in powere even more than in the US. For example, many Latin American countries do not allow reelection at all. Others, like Canada, allow as many reelections as possible as long as the political party in power obeys constitutional law.

Third, the dictator must at least pretend to make an effort to follow the people's will and avoid oppressing the people. The dictator does not have to follow the will of the people and more often than not external influences from wealthy and powerful individuals count more. (For example, lobbyists, special interest groups, etc.)

Modern democracy is at best a crude attempt to solve a very old problem. How do you give people power and say in the government without removing all power from the rich and powerful? Modern democracy was born in Europe after the French Revolution, as a response to the people demanding a say in the government and going into revolution if their demands were not met.

The war in Iraq was not imposed or shoved down the throat of the American people. Just before the war 64% of the American public supported the war, and George W. Bush had an approval rating of 82%, the highest in American history.

However, the war was imposed on the people of the UK. Over there over 80% of the population opposed the war. With under 20% support, Tony Blair's decision to go to war was entirely dictatorial.

In Canada 80% of the people opposed the war and Jean Chretien (the prime minister) refused to go to war. The Bush administration criticized him greatly, but he was merely following the will of the Canadian people.

As we can see, democracy is an imperfect system. A lot of people will dislike Obama now, but his actions are not different from those of many other presidents and prime ministers, both in and outside of the US. People who oppose him will feel he is imposing his will, but then many people felt the same way during the Bush administration.

(V): I get your point... I do remember saying that since our representatives voted for the war in Iraq etc.... now support it... blah blah blah.... so thats what you are trying to say, I get it.

I dont think that war was "crammed down our throats" but some would disagree....


I still believe that history will bear out the good a right of the Iraq war, and the wrong of a more socialist US


I can say this... the old "everyone else is doing it" argument, that one just doesnt sit right with me

I dont think the US got to where it got, so far and so fast, following the crowd

(V):  Not true.   The details were never fully known.  Like most presidents, he's already broken many promises. 

Czuch: Thing is.. many country's in the western world, etc are doing the same.

If it was such a bad idea, why are all these governments doing it?

No questions asked.... Please.. it is our right to ask questions, governments are supposed to be accountable to the people... even if they try and be above the law.

(that's a joke at a recent Parliament decision )

Now. Being in the position where your Pres is not republican and you are questioning him. How do you now stand on not questioning your Pres and that he is always right?

(V): Heres the thing.... to get elected, he got a majority, but to get his initiatives passed, he needs to convince more people, many who did not vote for him, not to mention, those who voted for him based on one or two issues... IE, many black voters voted for him simply for the sake of electing the first black man.... now he has to convince them to support certain actions, and some of the tactics used for this include "shoving them down our throat". For example, telling us there is an crisis or emergency, and that any inaction will only make things worse. Most people were signing legislation without even reading it, the same with global warming, some big tipping point where it will be too late if we dont support drastic measures straight away.


If food is appetizing, and tasty, it doesnt need to be crammed down ones throat to get them to eat it... same with good policy, if it is good legislation, then a few days or weeks to actually read it couldnt hurt then?


You make it sound like just having been voted in with a simple low majority gives him a blank check to do whatever he pleases, and we should know what to expect based on promises, no questions asked?

Artful Dodger: But didn't the people of the USA know before hand what your Pres's plans were, and as such "shoving" is not true as they elected him knowing his ideas?

Ferris Bueller:  Glen Beck is one of few that is making sense of the mess that the democrats are shoving down the throats of people in the US.  Rush is far more radical than either Beck or O'Reilly.  O'Reilly shouts a bit but for the most part his views are sensible.

It is 'old tabacco' saying that intel' co-work didn't work during the Bush-Administration. Now, who did let the Bushies walk into the trap? The thesis that the 9/11-terrorists were hosted by sombody able to 'shroud' them to the disabled US-intel, it's possible.

Model: - The CIA is knocked out allready. -Saudis talk out (intellike), look, our black sheep is puting things togheter, looks like a massive thing. -Agents confirm at place. -Computerspecialists get gained for the shield. -The Bushadministration is indeed surprised. -Now, after 9/11, it's up to the character of Bush and co.

Most countries have offices where problems of this kind can be reported. Once reported these offices should move social workers or this kind, but they don't do nothing and let this happen. Send emails to these offices if you see bulling happening in your country. I know a lot of offices which only serve to place lazy boys and girls from the upper class.

Imsoaddicted: Some may live in the "better than the Jones age" but not all. And quite frankly, I feel much (from what I've seen/heard) does not extend from that but from pure frustration of the bullies. Getting attention can give rise to some strange and unfortunate disturbances.

(V): it may be not acceptable but it still goes on

children can be very cruel to each other esp now we live in the must be better than the Jones age

Ferris Bueller: Some states! Here at school there is a country wide ban. It is not acceptable. Also the rules (due to incidents) do extend into the realm of the internet, yet such rules were already there in some respects re the ban on internet stalking and other cyber crimes. Such as spreading hate and 'isms to which several people have found themselves before the beak.

Übergeek 바둑이:  Bullying is a big problem in the US.  Some states have passed laws against it.  Emails & online behavior can be included in the evidence.  I don't know who much it is being enforced & how effective they are.  But, u are correct, it's important for parents to be in touch w/ their kids behavior - both online or off.

Artful Dodger:  Well, I'm glad u can recognize Cronkite's ability to report the news w/out bias.

The author of the AIM commentary was obviously hostile towards WC for expressing his opinion on the Vietnam War during his reporting days, one of the few times WC expressed an opinion on the air.  The commentary was thus laced with distortions & quotes taken out of context.  No one questions that WC's personal views were liberal leaning, and I'm perfectly fine w/ that.  But to claim he was in league w/ the old Soviet Union, for example, is quite a distortion IMHO.

As far as defeating people in the so-called "war of ideas", I cite Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck & other darlings of the far right as targets for defeat.

Übergeek 바둑이: It must be a "sign of the times", but what we have read about teenagers in other parts of the world for so long now seems to be happening in Australia....perhaps it is worse when it happens "in our own backyard"


***and thanks for editing the link***

In case the link below does not work for some of you:
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25817632-2862,00.html

Apparently the problem of cyberbullying has been on the increase in some Australian high schools. I think that in cases where victims are driven to suicide the bullying has been going on for long periods of time and outside of the Internet. The Internet seems to become an aggravating factor and ity is used as a further avenue to victimize those already being bullied in schools.

It seems that the government in Australia is studying the problem and trying to help parents and teachers identify the problem. In one of the stories in that same newspaper it said that teens were using Facebook as a way to bully other children and as a way to spread malicious gossip against their teachers.

I think the only way to deal with this is for parents to pay close attention to what their kids do online. I see no other way to prevent this because once kids are out of school their actions are beyond the control of their teachers.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25817632-2862,00.html

here is the link ....I didnt realise that 4 teenagers from the same school had committed hari-kari.....so sad.

Übergeek 바둑이: so much for parental guidance.

Übergeek 바둑이: she was bullied via the internet and also her school from what I can see.....I will try and find a link.

Bernice:
Do you have a link that might give more details? I am wondering if she was also being bullied in school or in her neighborhood.

We know that in the Internet there is as much if not worse predatory behaviour than there is outside the Internet. Anonimity can provide bullies with a way to shield their actions.

I am curious because if she was being bullied, would just stop using the Internet be easier than suicide? Obviously there were other factors involved besides bullying. I imagine that maybe she was suffering from depression, or she felt that there was no adult she could turn to for help.

As with many cases of bullying, it probably was done by one of her peers. It is probably why she felt it was so devastating. It is quite likely that the problem spread outside just the Internet. Kids who commit suicide because of bullying are often being victimized by several people and in a way that humiliates them physically and emotionally before their peers.

I think that the government would have a hard time regulating this. In a school or neighborhood a bully can potentially be charged with assault, but in the Internet a defense lawyer would simply argue that the girl should just have stopped logging in. As with other forms of bullying, educating children on not doing it and on defending themselves from bullies is probably the only thing the government could do.

what do you think of "cyber bullying?"

A 14 yo school girl committed suicide last friday night after being bullied on the internet.....the Govt. is now investigating what can be done about "bullying" on the internet.

**I'm sorry about bringing it here but couldnt think of anywhere else it would be accepted"**

(V): Thanks man. You know I like these islands northwest of here :)

gogul: http://www.icmacentre.ac.uk/soldier/database/

Here you are.

(V): It was a single dude who made that pressure possible, don't forget that. I'm happy with it.

(V): Now you can even access complete records dating back to the 100 years war, thanks to the UK government of the time wanting to know where their money was being spent.

Interesting. Link please?

The memory of this very board tells that Switzerland is stuck with apartheid. Many work on it

gogul: Only because of international pressure on Swiss banks, as the previous conditions to make a claim were at the least.. scandalous. How could death certificates of those killed in the holocaust be produced??

And shamefully, the Swiss, like the UK turned away many Jews trying to flee to a neutral country (or non-Nazi influenced) to escaped being killed.

History is such a depositary of info!!
Now you can even access complete records dating back to the 100 years war, thanks to the UK government of the time wanting to know where their money was being spent.

It seems that we don't have new books about redindian history. I been told they'll come after a certain numbers of the multimillion trials going on done.

I don't have to talk about ch and wwII. Google Bergier commission.

gogul: illegal drugs or legal drugs?? Legal drugs are worth more then the illegal sort by I would guess quite a factor. And didn't you know.. much of the business in one class has become home grown.

And what about the Swiss banks and a certain organisations gold from WWII.. To which several lawsuits have been raised against Swiss banks

We have a good memory here also.

Ferris Bueller:   Its actually a tribute to the man that he had far left leanings but one never knew that based on his professional reporting.   He reported the news.   He was probably the last of an era of the kind of reporters that we need in this world.   Contrast him with Dan Rather.  Rather wore his politics on his sleeve.

But just read what WC said after his retirement and its clear that he was a far left leaning guy.   I think his ideas are dangerous for all of us.  People who think like him need to be defeated in the battle for ideas. 

One only needs to read the many things he said to discover that he leaned very far left.

Women rights in Libya? Women genital cutting, young girls married to old men, abuse, the daughters and mothers the possession of men? If al-Gaddafi knew about these things, he even could change it, don't he?

(V): Just a matter of outlandish correspondents.

http://www.seitenstark.de/em2008/bilder/wappen/wappen-gross-schweiz.gif

(V): Gibraltar? Drugs, human trafficking, spain italian north african and london/madrd mafia bundled in 50'000 offshore companies. It's drugs that govern the big business deal. Don't you tell me you didn't know that. We have good memory over here, and the London financesuck and british governance, it's too easy to ground it.

gogul: But it's already in place via business deals. Long gone are the days where a country's economy is strictly controlled by those who live there.