RE: The French are rioting again!

RE: The French are rioting again! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

bounty44 -> RE: The French are rioting again! (5/4/2016 12:59:40 PM)
as I assume, unless dizzychick shows otherwise, are most countries around the world who have national legislatures...

mnottertail -> RE: The French are rioting again! (5/4/2016 1:00:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 but to your point, yes id be happy to have all the liberals move to cuba or Sweden. and my wanting them to move doesn't involve any "arrogance" on my part. its not a real plan that involves actual cooperation from the other countries, its just an illustrative point I make that conservatives and libertarians would be happier without them here. The illustrated point of course is very flawed, because nutsucker-libertarians would lose their welfare if the liberals left, they are by far the largest recipients of it. Nutsucker-libertarians would starve and die of shitting their pants in less than an hour.

bounty44 -> RE: The French are rioting again! (5/4/2016 1:32:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 as I assume, unless dizzychick shows otherwise, are most countries around the world who have national legislatures... only a very few countries have one political party. the overwhelming majority of countries have political parties, and within that, most have more than two. presumably, these parties differ with each other if not in ends, than at least means, causing the same "right/left, conservative/liberal" fights there, as we have here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ruling_political_parties_by_country

Politesub53 -> RE: The French are rioting again! (5/4/2016 4:23:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Polite! quote: I had to chuckle at the notion "politics seems a simple excuse" since you suggest Scargill wanted for force a political election. You cant have a trade union continually causing chaos to bring down an elected government, that simply isnt how democracy works. The Miners had to be stopped. I inferred from your suggestion that the Parties could not permit Scargill's actions that it was not good for the parties, never mind the workers. I still see it that way. And why can't a trade union try to bring down the elected government? Isn't that the way your system was meant to represents interests? And hadn't Labour failed to represent the working man as Thatcher proceeded with plans to close the mines and shift consumption to cheaper offshore coal while she set about privatizing transport. Maggie was no champion of the common man, was she? I agree with your view on austerity measures. They are harmful (to say the least) to pensioners. The Miners Union was elected by the Miners, to represent the Miners. No more and no less. No one asked them to do us all a favour and bring down a democratically elected government. The time to do that was at the following General Election by public vote. I am unsure how you get the fact the Miners doing what they pleased was any part of the democratic system. The notion Thatcher wasnt champion of the common man is naive, who do you think elected her into office three times on the spin. She must have been doing something right. The left have done little for the working man since the 60s, the class war was is and will always be a failure. Just look at the following point, posed as a question. Who privatised more jobs while in office, given a similar time span, was it Thatcher or Brown/Blair (New Labour) ?

DesideriScuri -> RE: The French are rioting again! (5/4/2016 5:08:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick hey, there may be the odd Yank that pays attention and takes the time to educate themselves Like I said, good luck. lol

thompsonx -> RE: The French are rioting again! (5/4/2016 6:35:02 PM)
ORIGINAL: bounty44 only a very few countries have one political party. the overwhelming majority of countries have political parties, and within that, most have more than two. Only a phoquing moron would believe that there is any substantive difference between the republicrats and the demopubs. Consider that since the articulate big eared phoquer took office we are still in the sand box and we are still in gitmo. We are still going around the world poking our nose into the internal affairs of soverign nations. What the phoque has changed?

Real0ne -> RE: The French are rioting again! (5/4/2016 7:08:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 as I assume, unless dizzychick shows otherwise, are most countries around the world who have national legislatures... only a very few countries have one political party. the overwhelming majority of countries have political parties, and within that, most have more than two. presumably, these parties differ with each other if not in ends, than at least means, causing the same "right/left, conservative/liberal" fights there, as we have here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ruling_political_parties_by_country the difference of course is they at least understand they have overlords, unlike people in the US who in delusion believe they are somehow free from them.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: The French are rioting again! (5/4/2016 9:56:02 PM)
quote: you are course are very invited to show evidence that all the places in the world who have parliaments, congresses, or other legislative bodies at the state level, also don't have political parties representing various and often conflicting views. That isn't what the comment was about, but nice try at rephrasing it. The comment was regarding the left/right dsichotomy that obsesses the US. That is something that simply does not exist in most countries, which have a far more nuanced political landscape and a more mature political system than "with us or agin us".

blnymph -> RE: The French are rioting again! (5/5/2016 2:47:10 AM)
The majority of democracies have proportional voting systems which do not favour big parties, thus have usually multi-party parliaments. The British tradition of majority voting system based on a single winner principle favours the development of a two-party-system. Both systems have certain advantages and specific disadvantages. The US two party system in all its consequences is pretty unique these days. Its consequences on the mindset of the voters can be watched here (and elsewhere).

bounty44 -> RE: The French are rioting again! (5/5/2016 3:50:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: you are course are very invited to show evidence that all the places in the world who have parliaments, congresses, or other legislative bodies at the state level, also don't have political parties representing various and often conflicting views. That isn't what the comment was about, but nice try at rephrasing it. The comment was regarding the left/right dsichotomy that obsesses the US. That is something that simply does not exist in most countries, which have a far more nuanced political landscape and a more mature political system than "with us or agin us". um, im following up on something I said, which was about political "systems." my original: quote: personal shortcomings and failings aside, conflict can almost inevitably be traced back to competing/conflicting social/political worldviews. to suppose one is "above the fray" and not into the whole "left/right" thing is to either be more or less rudderless, ultimately disingenuous, or upon closer examination, essentially not true. tj's reponse: quote: this is the system your country decided to follow.. as long as y'all keep dividing yourselves into right & left camps my reply: quote: its a system that to my knowledge, most countries in the world that are not run by dictators have decided to follow. your joining in: quote: Actually it's not so im not rephrasing anything; im simply elaborating on my original position influenced by tj's response and understanding to my statement. most countries around the world have legislatures inhabited by people of differing political parties, presumably that are at odds with each other. what is a "system" otherwise? given the conversation immediately proceeding yours, what direction did you think the conversation would go? you could either accuse me of some self-serving "rephrasing" or you can actually read the conversation subsequent to your post more carefully and give some grace. if that is not what you originally intended, by all means, steer the conversation back to your point. and to that point---unless youre a world traveler who spends significant time in each of the countries around the world, or has read authors who are in the know about it, I can see no way that you could actually know how, or that, the united states is different or unique in regards to its "obsession."

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: The French are rioting again! (5/5/2016 6:25:32 AM)
quote: I can see no way that you could actually know how, or that, the united states is different or unique in regards to its "obsession." I am not at all surprised by that fact.

vincentML -> RE: The French are rioting again! (5/5/2016 9:07:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Polite! quote: I had to chuckle at the notion "politics seems a simple excuse" since you suggest Scargill wanted for force a political election. You cant have a trade union continually causing chaos to bring down an elected government, that simply isnt how democracy works. The Miners had to be stopped. I inferred from your suggestion that the Parties could not permit Scargill's actions that it was not good for the parties, never mind the workers. I still see it that way. And why can't a trade union try to bring down the elected government? Isn't that the way your system was meant to represents interests? And hadn't Labour failed to represent the working man as Thatcher proceeded with plans to close the mines and shift consumption to cheaper offshore coal while she set about privatizing transport. Maggie was no champion of the common man, was she? I agree with your view on austerity measures. They are harmful (to say the least) to pensioners. The Miners Union was elected by the Miners, to represent the Miners. No more and no less. No one asked them to do us all a favour and bring down a democratically elected government. The time to do that was at the following General Election by public vote. I am unsure how you get the fact the Miners doing what they pleased was any part of the democratic system. The notion Thatcher wasnt champion of the common man is naive, who do you think elected her into office three times on the spin. She must have been doing something right. The left have done little for the working man since the 60s, the class war was is and will always be a failure. Just look at the following point, posed as a question. Who privatised more jobs while in office, given a similar time span, was it Thatcher or Brown/Blair (New Labour) ? Come on now, the miners could not "bring down the government" without a no confidence vote of a simple majority in the House. Thatcher was at the beginning of the neoliberal reaction just as Reagan was in the States, so a comparison to the damage done by Clinton/Brown-Blair/Bush is hardly equitable. Furthermore, how do you count as a "good" the swing to privatization and the export of labor? Are you keen on the recent austerity imposed on your Health Emergency Rooms? Do you think our privatized health care is superior to your NHS? Curious to know your opinions.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 4 [5]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875