US want to join the EU Convention?

Chaos-Engine

Link to Article

OMG. Influencial US politicans such as Madelene Albright etc are actually telling europe that it is in our best interest to allow US officals be active "observers" in the Debate on the Future of Europe. Now I'm one of those Anti-US peeps and I'm some what EU-critical but an EU federalist at that.
Yes. The other ideas such as closer communication between US institutions and EU ones is a good idea. But telling us whats good for us isn't???
In that case the EU should sent observers to US presidental elections as the ppl of the US are being con-ed by evil dictator bush... narf

uberwolf

its crazy, my anti-american sentiment is at an all time high, how they can presume to lecture or impartially view anything with the level of corruptness over there is beyond belief. Messrs Moore, Chomsky and Palast would be the only americans i'd let enter these borders much less "actively" observe our decision making processes over here in Old-Europe

Hobbes

LOL funniest bit I've read in a while. This from a country that won't even comply with the UN.

Lemming

Dunno whether to laugh or vent!

"No disagreement should be allowed to disrupt our relations with our European allies," the declaration, 'Renewing the Transatlantic Partnership' states.

"Allies" ?? That's hardly the word I've had used a couple of months ago when the current administration showed its true colours on all things european :rolleyes:

the word 'subservient' springs to mind.

The Europeans are urged to do more to reassure Americans that "the union they are completing will continue to make the United States feel welcome in Europe" and the 18 warn against "Europe's new ability to challenge the United States".

Why should we be the ones assuring them when it was they who showed absolute contempt for us?

Also, that final line - is that a thinly veiled threat I see?

Imposter

The Europeans are urged to do more to reassure Americans that "the union they are completing will continue to make the United States feel welcome in Europe" and the 18 warn against "Europe's new ability to challenge the United States".

I'm sure the french and the germans feel very welcome in America! Or maybe that doesn't matter in the American's eyes.

My opinion is shifting very rapidly to an Anti US stance mainly because of this selfish attitude that's coming from America almost on a daily basis now. It seems things are ok once they favour America and on no condition can the same oppurtunites be afforded in the opposite direction. Also their complete ignorance to the fact that other states can have opinions that are contrary to theirs seem to be a problem for these bullies!

bonkey

Originally posted by Imposter
My opinion is shifting very rapidly to an Anti US stance mainly because of this selfish attitude that's coming from America almost on a daily basis now.

I'm as critical of US foreign policy as the next guy, but isnt this taking it a bit far?

Its not a selfish attitude. Its an attmept to consolidate and expand the US' sphere of influence. If you think this is somehow wrong, then consider why they are doing it - to try and limit the EU expanding its' sphere of influence.

If we criticise the US for doing this, we should equally criticise the EU if they refuse, as they are being just as selfish, and seeking only to increase their sphere of influence.

I would be critical of this move if, and only if, the US decides to exert pressure somehow on the EU (trade-based, or in other forms of diplomacy) to accept this, or punish them for declining the offer.

If you look at it from a different perspective, this presents the EU with a golden opportunity to look for reciprocal treatment for anything they are willing to accept. This puts the US in a delicate position - having offered a hand of friendship, will it publicly renounce it just because the EU asks for the same gesture - showing that it wasnt really about co-operation. If, on the other hand, they accepted such reciprocity, I fail to see how it is really in anyone's disadvantage.

jc

Sparks

I would be critical of this move if, and only if, the US decides to exert pressure somehow on the EU (trade-based, or in other forms of diplomacy) to accept this, or punish them for declining the offer.

Would the moving of US bases from Germany and the upcoming trade war over the EU not wanting to import US GM foods count?

xm15e3

Originally posted by uberwolf
its crazy, my anti-american sentiment is at an all time high, how they can presume to lecture or impartially view anything with the level of corruptness over there is beyond belief. Messrs Moore, Chomsky and Palast would be the only americans i'd let enter these borders much less "actively" observe our decision making processes over here in Old-Europe

Actually, she's not even from the same America as the Bush administration (or Planet for that matter). She's democrat, a pure international socialist. In fact I would put here in the same ideological grouping as Chomsky. If you liked Chomsky, you should love this old woman. She just isn't as intelligent as Nome.

Funny how so many "Old Europeans" loved Clinton, but now detest our "corruption". My guess is that most of you are very rational folks who have been fed a load of crap by the BBC and CNN. We get the same crap over here, but have a better point of refrence to catch their bias.

uberwolf

its prob the blatancy of their motivation that irks me so much, what does "active observer" mean? Surely EU exapnsion by democratic means is a purely internal issue which may affect others but gives them no right to meddle if they don't like the fact that Europe may now be developing the will to be economically and militarily dependent.

When i mentioned corruption i wasn't speaking about the politcal/business relationship more the disregard for democracy that moore and now palast are discussing. Active disenfranchisement in Florida and more recently Baltimore is disgusting and displays a disregard for democracy that ought bring a government down, why hasn't it? how can peolpe who come to power by such means presume to hve input in other groups internal affairs?

Sparks

My guess is that most of you are very rational folks who have been fed a load of crap by the BBC and CNN. We get the same crap over here, but have a better point of refrence to catch their bias.

Wow, there's a serious amount of irony or sarcasm or something in there...

Éomer of Rohan

Funny how so many "Old Europeans" loved Clinton, but now detest our "corruption". My guess is that most of you are very rational folks who have been fed a load of crap by the BBC and CNN. We get the same crap over here, but have a better point of refrence to catch their bias

I nearly wet myself at that one !!!
It is funny, in my opinion, how Bush supporters and the other hawks of Capitol Hill, who obviously do not appreciate the results of American foreign policy in the world, seem to say that it is US (ie Europeans) who have the distorted view when it is they who preach for further interventionism.
The USA is blatantly corrupt; the government does not represent the people - corporations sponsor the would-be President and in the end, the amount they can 'donate' to political causes - senatorial and congressional elections, gubernatorial elections, presidential elections etc etc dictates how much clout they have. As has been said by several POTUS's and many reformists within the USA, the government is a plutocracy, not 'government for the people' and sure as hell not 'of the people' given that the class barriers may have changed but the wealth distinction remains and from the foundation of the USA, an average of 72% of high elected posts in the USG are held by men with personal fortunes.

I am neither an old European (whatever the hell THAT means) nor did I like Clinton, given that he represented exactly the same sort of idiocy that all American politicians of modern times seem to personify (except for his charisma, something that I miss greatly since Bush came to power) but I do respect the BBC better than any US news corporations I have ever watched - and that is not bias. So I am asking you,

1) What point of reference do you have to 'catch their bias?'
2) What 'crap' have we been 'fed' that one cannot justify?
3) Do you deny that the US is corrupt, and before you give the old escape, I define it as 'as corrupt as if not more than' whatever 'old European' democracy you care to name.

xm15e3

Originally posted by uberwolf
its prob the blatancy of their motivation that irks me so much, what does "active observer" mean? Surely EU exapnsion by democratic means is a purely internal issue which may affect others but gives them no right to meddle if they don't like the fact that Europe may now be developing the will to be economically and militarily dependent.

What should bother us all is who invited this woman to the party. She has NO diplomatic status, she does not represent the US in an official capacity. She was an embarrassment when she did. She has no place in international affairs outside of the college lecture circuit.

However, someone in European government invited her, and therefore has an alliance with her. And that is some spooky sh!t.

When i mentioned corruption i wasn't speaking about the politcal/business relationship more the disregard for democracy that moore and now palast are discussing. Active disenfranchisement in Florida and more recently Baltimore is disgusting and displays a disregard for democracy that ought bring a government down, why hasn't it? how can peolpe who come to power by such means presume to hve input in other groups internal affairs? [/B]

Man, I hope your not talking about Michael Moore. Really, the rule of law won out in Floriduh. This hanging chad crap is just that, crap. The reason why you cant re-count add infinitum, and therefore the recounts times out..is to limit ballet stuffing. Any study in American elections should involve the Daley Family and Chicago Machine Politics. Daley, a democrat, was overseeing the recounts. His family has pretty much mastered election fraud in this country. His father campaigned on the slogan "vote early, and vote often", they were blatant about it. IMO the Dems were stuff ballots again, and the recounts ended per state law which was upheld by the Fed Courts. Rule of Law won out that time.

Where it didn't was the Kennedy election in '63? And at least two Senator races in South Dakota, the one last year and the year Daschle got elected. Really, if you want to watch ballet stuffing in action, watch the 2004 S.D. Senate Races...it will be ugly, and a travesty for democracy.

xm15e3

Originally posted by Sparks
Wow, there's a serious amount of irony or sarcasm or something in there...

CNN is pro American Left. That is anti-Amercian from my Right Wing perspective. The last few years they have had to adopt a more center-right editorial slant to save ratings, but they are still Ted Turnners baby.

This is the same Ted that gave the UN $1.B, and was married to Hanoi Jane. Really, not only did this woman share a NVA tunnel with Eomer, but she actually named one of her kids after the freak who attempted to bump off Gerald Ford. And Ted married her, when she was old...on not all that hot. Nah, those two were an ideological item, and CNN walks the same line.

Sparks

What should bother us all is who invited this woman to the party.

It wasn't just Albright.
From the article:

The Declaration was endorsed by Madeleine K. Albright, Harold Brown, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Frank C. Carlucci, Warren Christopher, William S. Cohen, Robert Dole, Lawrence S. Eagleburger, Stuart E. Eizenstat, Alexander M. Haig Jr., Lee H. Hamilton, John J. Hamre, Carla A. Hills, Sam Nunn, Paul H. O'Neill, Charles S. Robb, William V. Roth Jr., and James R. Schlesinger.

However, someone in European government invited her, and therefore has an alliance with her. And that is some spooky sh!t.

Incorrect again.
Also from the article:

The Centre for Strategic & International Studies Europe program is supported by the German Marshall Fund.

The German Marshall Fund is not a European government, at least not last time I looked.

Man, I hope your not talking about Michael Moore. Really, the rule of law won out in Floriduh.

That's not what the investigations are saying.

This hanging chad crap is just that, crap.

Damn right. The problem was the irregularities in those voters who were allowed to vote and those that were prevented from doing so by some rather suspicious actions.

which was upheld by the Fed Courts.

And oddly enough, those that voted to elect Bush Jr. were put on the bench by Bush Sr.

Hobbes

Originally posted by xm15e3
Man, I hope your not talking about Michael Moore. Really, the rule of law won out in Floriduh. This hanging chad crap is just that, crap. The reason why you cant re-count add infinitum, and therefore the recounts times out..is to limit ballet stuffing.

Recounting aside, how about the actual documented incidents of police stopping people from voting in Florida? Or how about all those voters who were mysteriously... no wait accidently put onto a "Can't vote because they are a felon" list (when they weren't) and who looked after that list and was funded by the Bush administration (before you ask, they settled out of court afair).

It all boils down to that Bush got voted in based on 12 guys. Not the people. If it had happened in any other country everyone would be claiming it was a dictator taking over. Especially if that same president then brought in laws that protected him from legal action (ref: Repealed a law that was put in after watergate) and added laws which basically stripped the rights of the population and allow you to jail people without rights for as long as you want.

By Bonkey
If we criticise the US for doing this, we should equally criticise the EU if they refuse, as they are being just as selfish, and seeking only to increase their sphere of influence.

Criticise them for what? It's an EU summit. Only EU people. Does the US have "Active Observers" on say the Arab League? Or does the EU have "Active Observers" in the whitehouse (equating States to countries in size). I don't think so.

Anyway most EU summits have their reports posted afterwards. They can read that, or tap the summit like they normally do.

US is only pissed because it looks like (from what I could find about it) what is being discussed is the breaking off/scaling down of military union with the US. TBH I can understand why a few countries are pissed off. You disagree next thing you know the Whitehouse is spreading libel about you.

xm15e3

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan


1) What point of reference do you have to 'catch their bias?'
2) What 'crap' have we been 'fed' that one cannot justify?
3) Do you deny that the US is corrupt, and before you give the old escape, I define it as 'as corrupt as if not more than' whatever 'old European' democracy you care to name.

1. When CNN reports BS on a societal group, technology, or industry I'm familiar with, it is easy to see the inaccuracies. If CNNi reported a blatant lie about the Dublin nightlife, I would have a clue if it true, half truth, or pure unadulterated crap. Sometimes viewing a group from the outside gives you perspective, sometimes it just makes you gullible.

2. I would infer the coverage of the 2000 elections did not leave the Irish people, with a working knowledge of the Electoral College, it's purpose, or the purpose of state election laws setting a freeze date on all recounts.

2a. Eomer, didn't you make a statement on this board to the effect that in all transactions someone get's "Screwed". Implying a zero-sum game in ecomics? That would lead in well to a further discussion of #2.

3. I absolutely do not deny the US is corrupt. I'd say the corruption is rampant in both parties, however, I do not buy into any moral equivalence between the Bush Administration and the Clinton Administration.

xm15e3

Originally posted by Sparks
It wasn't just Albright.

That's not what the investigations are saying.


Damn right. The problem was the irregularities in those voters who were allowed to vote and those that were prevented from doing so by some rather suspicious actions.

And oddly enough, those that voted to elect Bush Jr. were put on the bench by Bush Sr.

Yah, it looks like a political has-been version of Jurasak park.

Uh, what investigations are you talking about? Most of those whent away quitely when they concluded the FC ruling was legal. Had the Florida SC done their jobs this would never have seen the light of day in a federal hearing. The SC violated their state constitution in an attempt to continue the re-counts/ballot stuffing. Oddly enogh they were all Democrats or Janet Reno's ilk.

Éomer of Rohan

I absolutely do not deny the US is corrupt. I'd say the corruption is rampant in both parties, however, I do not buy into any moral equivalence between the Bush Administration and the Clinton Administration

I'd say they are as bad as each other - and given that I think you are a republican, whereas I hate both parties equally, I reckon I am probably less biased.

Eomer, didn't you make a statement on this board to the effect that in all transactions someone get's "Screwed". Implying a zero-sum game in ecomics? That would lead in well to a further discussion of #2

Back this up or rescind it.

xm15e3

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
I'd say they are as bad as each other - and given that I think you are a republican, whereas I hate both parties equally, I reckon I am probably less biased.




Back this up or rescind it.

I'm registerd and vote Republican, so yes, I have a definate biased political opinion. Eomer, Your a socialist, how can you call yourself less biased.

We have conflicting political opinions. That's why we have a dabate.

Now as far as I remeber you made a point about economic transactions being zero sum (my words not yours). It's not an attack, but I am tying in a prior debate to this one. I'll find your exact quote over the weekend.

It's an interesting point, and cuts to the heart of much of the Capitalist/Socialist and America vs. Everyone debates on this board.

But ease up man, I don't understand your hostitlity to that questions.

Meh

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Back this up or rescind it.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=797035#post797035

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan:

Originally posted by Meh:
Why do you assume that every economic transaction involves someone being "ripped off"? That's the exception rather than the rule.

No meh, it is the rule rather than the exception. Ultimately someone in every transaction loses.

*waits for Éomer to try and weasel out of this statement*

Éomer of Rohan

*waits for Éomer to try and weasel out of this statement*

You what? This is not about weaseling despite what you may think. My second point to which he related this was that

Posted by Éomer of Rohan

2) What 'crap' have we been 'fed' that one cannot justify

to which he said...

Eomer, didn't you make a statement on this board to the effect that in all transactions someone get's "Screwed". Implying a zero-sum game in ecomics? That would lead in well to a further discussion of #2

which to my mind implies that what I said - which he quoted - is 'crap' that some audience was being 'fed' - which it obviously isn't given that ultimately in a profit based system, there must be some loss in order to gain; and as I recall, I later made the point that this is generally the LEDC's. Anyway, the reason for my hostility as he put it was that I felt quite insulted by this reference when it was he who was calling the information from a respectable news agency, crap and then comparing my views to this reference.

Meh

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
ultimately in a profit based system, there must be some loss in order to gain

This statement is utterly wrong, as anyone with even the most basic knowledge of economics would know. Please, educate yourself about basic economics before you make statements like this. You're a student, so you have no excuse for ignorance -- go check some first-year economics textbook out from the college library.

This page is also a good introduction to price theory and trade.

xm15e3

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
You what? This is not about weaseling despite what you may think. My second point to which he related this was that

Posted by Éomer of Rohan


to which he said...


which to my mind implies that what I said - which he quoted - is 'crap' that some audience was being 'fed' - which it obviously isn't given that ultimately in a profit based system, there must be some loss in order to gain; and as I recall, I later made the point that this is generally the LEDC's. Anyway, the reason for my hostility as he put it was that I felt quite insulted by this reference when it was he who was calling the information from a respectable news agency, crap and then comparing my views to this reference.

I still don't understand why you wanted me to withdraw a paraphrase that you agree with. Don't matter though.

As Meh pointed out, "ultimately in a profit based system, there must be some loss in order to gain" is wrong. The entire concept of the zero sum game, the idea that ones gain must be at another's detriment is exactly the type of crap that fuels envy politics world wide, including in the US. However, it is much less prevelent in the US then elsewhere (IMO). I suspect the Euro media, which the BBC is a large part of, has played a key roll in spredding this misconception. The BBC could be completey innocent, I just get the filtered NPR version here.

xm15e3

The Glory of the Red and Gold?

That's the funny thing about socialists, they claim it's never been tried, but every time it has been tried it turns into a totalitarian hell. Insanity is trying the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result (everyone does it one time or another).

Human nature is unchangeable, that is the only reason Socialism won't work, it will always degrade into little N. Koreas. It puts to much power in the hands of to few. Finding leaders good enough for a socialist state is like finding honor in a pimp.

If humans can't be trusted running multiple corporations, why would you want to change the world into one big corporation?

Sparks

You know I've been accused of sniping at things without providing alternative solutions myself, but so far never without me being able to show the other guy isn't correct.

So xm15e3, your turn. What system do you propose that will solve the problems that capitalism produces?

ps.

Human nature is unchangeable

That's utter tripe, and even a few minutes contemplation of it will show you why.

xm15e3

Originally posted by Sparks


So xm15e3, your turn. What system do you propose that will solve the problems that capitalism produces?

ps.

That's utter tripe, and even a few minutes contemplation of it will show you why.

I wouldn't propose an alternative system. I like capitalism. I would like to see some changes in they way large corporations are run, I think they tend to get a little "penny wise, pound foolish". This is a result of poor capitalism, rather than a problem with capitalism it's self.

I'd like to see an end to Kensian economics. Debate is great, but some ideas don't work. Von Mises was right, time to acknowlege it and move on.

What problems do you attribute to capitalism?


No, human nature is pretty much unchanging. We can alter our behavour, but not our nature. People are, by nature, better at tending to there own needs then to strangers. (that doesn't mean charity is a bad idea).

Sparks

Human nature is unchangeable

That's utter tripe, and even a few minutes contemplation of it will show you why.

No, human nature is pretty much unchanging. We can alter our behavour, but not our nature. People are, by nature, better at tending to there own needs then to strangers. (that doesn't mean charity is a bad idea).

Well, I guess nine minutes of contemplation is more than I expected... :rolleyes:

Here's why it's tripe.

1) You have to be able to define human nature and observe it directly for a period of time while trying to change it to say that it is unchangeable.
2) To be able to say "people don't change", you have to first assume that all people are the same, and then observe their behaviour throughout their lives.
3) You also have to discount any and all historical incidences of people exhibiting a fundamental change in behaviour.

If you're thinking, by the way, of the psychological theory that says our basic character is set by age 30 and doesn't change, you may want to note that there is new evidence disproving that.

What problems do you attribute to capitalism?

Poverty is the first one that comes to mind.
Capitalism is great fun if you're on top. But frankly, it sucks when you're not, and it's set up to try to prevent you getting to the top.
It's also never actually been tried in it's full form because it wouldn't be a livable system.

xm15e3

Sparks, it's Friday Night. You're Irish, you live in the land of great pubs and legendary beer. Freaking A man! Go get a cold one and chase women!

I'll type you in the morning!

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by xm15e3
What should bother us all is who invited this woman to the party. She has NO diplomatic status, she does not represent the US in an official capacity. She was an embarrassment when she did. She has no place in international affairs outside of the college lecture circuit.

Er, that's crap. Jimmy Carter, Bush Sr., former presidents and cabinet members have every right to get involved in domestic or world affairs as they see fit. I mean heck- look at some of the names there: Will Cohen, Lawrie Eagleburger, even a couple of PNAC wackos.

However, someone in European government invited her, and therefore has an alliance with her. And that is some spooky sh!t.

Spookier than Jed Bush being governor of FL during the election? Or spookier perhaps, than Donald Rumsfeld, the guy who sold Iraq billions of dollars of weapons telling Syria not to do the same 10 years later? How about Haliburton industries(former CEO Dick Cheney) and Chevron (Condi's former meal-ticket, they even named a tanker after her)- how about those two companies being solely awarded contracts to rebuild Iraqi oil infrastructure. Those to me are a hell of a lot spookier than a former Secretary of State pursuing US interests in Europe. The days of the Cold War are over, it's time its relics like Rumsfeld & Wolfowitz wake up and smell the coffee.

Man, I hope your not talking about Michael Moore. Really, the rule of law won out in Floriduh.

And that law is a load of 19th century crap. As is the electoral college itself...for all our government's whiny criticism of the French, freedom fries & all that other bullsh1t- they actually have a more democratic system than we do. One man, one vote for a President. Novel idea huh. Here is one simple reason why the electoral college is retarded beyond belief: the guy with less of the people's votes can win. That's not democracy, it's a farce.

This hanging chad crap is just that, crap. The reason why you cant re-count add infinitum, and therefore the recounts times out..is to limit ballet stuffing. Any study in American elections should involve the Daley Family and Chicago Machine Politics. Daley, a democrat, was overseeing the recounts.

Partisan politics has no place in a presidential recount. Moreover, it illustrates why election reform is so badly needed. A presidential mandate should be a firm one, not decided by a recount in one state. If anything, the popular vote should take precedence over the college in the event of a tie.

Where it didn't was the Kennedy election in '63? And at least two Senator races in South Dakota, the one last year and the year Daschle got elected. Really, if you want to watch ballet stuffing in action, watch the 2004 S.D. Senate Races...it will be ugly, and a travesty for democracy.

You're not answering the allegations of voter tampering, you're merely slinging mud at the Democrats - "Aha! They do it too guys, we're not so bad!" I'm neither Democrat nor Republican incidentally, but I'm sure as hell not in favour of letting Rumsfeld, Cheney and the rest of that corporate corrupt PNAC neoconservative chattel of monkeys ruin my country and its reputation. Our economy is approaching dire straits, that tax credit will bankrupt our treasury, our foreign debt is approaching levels not seen since WWII. We sacrifice American lives and billions of dollars of "defense money" in the name of an overseas war fought over WMDs, weapons that haven't even been found, and we're buying all of it. We should be ashamed of ourselves xm15, f*cking ashamed.

Éomer of Rohan

Well said Bob.

XM15e,

The Glory of the Red and Gold?

That's the funny thing about socialists, they claim it's never been tried, but every time it has been tried it turns into a totalitarian hell. Insanity is trying the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result (everyone does it one time or another).

Human nature is unchangeable, that is the only reason Socialism won't work, it will always degrade into little N. Koreas. It puts to much power in the hands of to few. Finding leaders good enough for a socialist state is like finding honor in a pimp.

If humans can't be trusted running multiple corporations, why would you want to change the world into one big corporation?

It is comments like this make me wonder why myself and the other Socialists who can see that capitalism is wrong bother talking to the other side at all.
You say the only reason that Socialism won't work is that human nature is unchangeable; well then, having read the discussion you had with Sparks, I am unsatisfied. Consider the people who sign up to charities and Médécin Sans Frontieres and so forth and go to Angola and the Congolese Democratic Republic and many other countries. Are they doing that for a profit? That is human nature; the ones who lead giant corporations that pass laws in the USA allowing greater gas guzzling engines, that open the exploitation of Alaska (one are of the world I would say rivals Ireland in beauty - and I have no higher compliment; I took a cruise up that way), that take the ideas of indigenous people's from across the world and patent them in developed countries - making it illegal for the original users to use them under the WTO TRIP Agreement which does not include indigenous peoples, that bankroll governments who ethnically cleanse their people and buy weapons to suppress civil liberties, who employ companies who use child labour, that bribe politicians worldwide in order to secure the destruction of harmful pieces of legislation (an excellent example is the roads industry in the UK; every year they have a party for the Minister of Transport and certain under the table deals go on so that no real government initiatives into public transport get under way) and so on and so on and so on - all those are the minority; a very powerful minority but still a minority. And those too are the problems with capitalism. That it can be run by the minority when even with regard to our government we have accepted that a minority cannot rule - it must be the whole people. That is the foundation behind democracy.

You compare a communist/socialist government to a corporation; go and learn about the posited ideas for future communist/socialist models of government; the point it that all the power is not in the hands of a CEO and a couple of men in the Board - ie the President and his Cabinet. The power is in the hands of the people, and I feel some people, having been used to such a politically stagnant environment where popular protest encourages derision rather than interest, will simply fail to see how this can manifest; that particular aspect has been very successful before - it was called Athens. Admittedly that system had flaws characteristic of all ancient governments ie lack of universal suffrage blah-di-blah but direct democracy can work - and has a few supporters on these boards as I recall. Bonkey asked once why capitalism and democracy could not co-exist and that is an argument for another day BUT I will say that an initial repudiation of such a co-existence is bribery which is rampant in many MEDC's today.

I'd like to see an end to Kensian economics

I am guessing you mean Keynesian Economics, and working from that basis, I am a little surprised. It was ol' John Maynard who saved FDR's ass when it came to the great depression was it not? Keynes predicted that governments would often have to spend their way out of a recession/depression, correct? And this is what governments do - create jobs, small booms start to revive the economy style thing? Now you will forgive my limited knowledge on this topic, on which Meh and yourself are obviously experts I am sure

Meh

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus:
And that law is a load of 19th century crap. As is the electoral college itself...for all our government's whiny criticism of the French, freedom fries & all that other bullsh1t- they actually have a more democratic system than we do. One man, one vote for a President. Novel idea huh. Here is one simple reason why the electoral college is retarded beyond belief: the guy with less of the people's votes can win. That's not democracy, it's a farce.

Actually, the original point of the electoral college was that it wasn't democratic. The writers of the US Constitution were afraid that direct democracy would lead to mob rule, where elections were decided by soundbites and spin-doctors. Good thing we managed to avoid that, huh? </sarcasm>

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
the ones who lead giant corporations that pass laws in the USA allowing greater gas guzzling engines, that open the exploitation of Alaska (one are of the world I would say rivals Ireland in beauty - and I have no higher compliment; I took a cruise up that way), that take the ideas of indigenous people's from across the world and patent them in developed countries - making it illegal for the original users to use them under the WTO TRIP Agreement which does not include indigenous peoples, that bankroll governments who ethnically cleanse their people and buy weapons to suppress civil liberties, who employ companies who use child labour, that bribe politicians worldwide in order to secure the destruction of harmful pieces of legislation (an excellent example is the roads industry in the UK; every year they have a party for the Minister of Transport and certain under the table deals go on so that no real government initiatives into public transport get under way) and so on and so on and so on - all those are the minority; a very powerful minority but still a minority. And those too are the problems with capitalism

Bribery, ethnic cleansing, child labour, unrestricted arms sales and environmental pollution are not an inevitable part of capitalism. Plenty of socialist countries have had these problems as well -- in many cases worse than capitalist countries. And plenty of capitalist countries don't have these problems.

I am guessing you mean Keynesian Economics, and working from that basis, I am a little surprised. It was ol' John Maynard who saved FDR's ass when it came to the great depression was it not? Keynes predicted that governments would often have to spend their way oututf a recession/depression, correct? And this is what governments do - create jobs, small booms start to revive the economy style thing? Now you will forgive my limited knowledge on this topic, on which Meh and yourself are obviously experts I am sure

Actually, Keynesian economics have been discredited since they failed to explain "stagflation" in the 1970's. http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics