Stephen Harding wrote:
> Chuck Anderson wrote:
>
> > Kevan Smith wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 27 May 2003 20:07:06 GMT, "Dashi Toshii" <
[email protected]> from AT&T Broadband wrote:
> > >
> > > >> Canada, Iceland, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, Germany, Ireland, New Zealand, Denmark,
> > > >> Finland, .....
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm sure there are others I don't have knowledge of.
> > > >
> > > >Why are they better?
> > >
> > > More freedom. More democratic governments. More humane policies.
> >
> > Thank you. It gets tiring pointing out the obvious.
>
> Oh yeah, that's obvious all right!
>
> > America's government is bought and paid for.
>
> Says you!
>
> > This is barely a democracy.
>
> Says you!
>
> > And now the patriot act (and especially it's followup) is burying our basic "American" freedoms.
>
> Then you're clearly a very brave person! I presume you have your bags already packed for your soon
> to come trip to the Gulag for saying such things?
What Gulag. Oh, you mean Gitmo?
I'm not muslim or Arabic.
But then, you know the old saying:
First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out – because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the communists and I did not speak out – Because I was not a communist. .......
Then they came for me – and there was no-one left To speak out for me.
> > You can not begin to say that America has the best system in the world.
>
> Don't know that it's the "best" system of governance in the world, but
But?!? ..... *That* was the argument. I was debunking the following statement:
>>> as Dashi Toshii wrote: Unfortunately there isn't a better political system in the world
>>> right now.
That's the thread.
> It is certainly a capable one, being the oldest democracy in the world IIRC.
Oldest in the world? Hmmmmmmm. Democracy started in Greece, .... IIRC.
A capable democracy? I suppose I could not completely disagree with that statement, although
"how capable" is very questionable when corporate money tells you who to vote for (limits you to
2 bad choices).
> It has quite a bit of inherent stability to it (a typical weakness of democratic government), is
> extremely adaptable, largely transparent in its actions, and a lot more.
Of the people? By the people?
> European style democracy is certainly quite functional as well. The parliamentary form can
> sometime result in paralysis of action, at the very time one needs decisive action during times of
> crisis, or give inordinately large amounts of decision-making power to narrow fringe groups with
> small amounts of public backing because they are simply a critical part of a coalition government.
Sounds like the US Senate and the Bush Administration to me.
> But all in all, European democracy seems to work pretty well too, but certainly not "superior" to
> the American implementation.
I disagree. How about the election fiasco in 2000? That was an example of a superior democracy? We
couldn't even get an honest tally of the actual votes. No one will ever know the truth of those
events. I'm sure there are democracies that are much more capable than that.
--
**********************************************
Chuck Anderson • Boulder, CO
http://www.CycleTourist.com Tolerance is recognizing that other people
have different ideals and needs than you. Compromise is acting on that knowledge.
***********************************************************