Close

Results 1 to 19 of 19
  1. #1
    Moderator Mtnjim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    SAN DIEGO
    Posts
    2,481
    Rep Power
    8334

    Default We Won't Take it Anymore

    visit-red-300x50PNG
    Address by

    Mayor Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson on October 27, 2007



    Salt Lake City, Utah --

    Today, as we come together

    once again in this great city, we raise our voices in unison to say to President Bush, to Vice President Cheney,

    to other members of the Bush Administration (past and present), to a majority of Congress, including Utah's entire

    congressional delegation, and to much of the mainstream media: "You have failed us miserably and we won't take it

    any more."

    "While we had every reason to expect far more of you, you have been pompous, greedy, cruel, and

    incompetent as you have led this great nation to a moral, military, and national security abyss."

    "You have

    breached trust with the American people in the most egregious ways. You have utterly failed in the performance of

    your jobs. You have undermined our Constitution, permitted the violation of the most fundamental treaty

    obligations, and betrayed the rule of law."

    "You have engaged in, or permitted, heinous human rights abuses of

    the sort never before countenanced in our nation's history as a matter of official policy. You have sent American

    men and women to kill and be killed on the basis of lies, on the basis of shifting justifications, without

    competent leadership, and without even a coherent plan for this monumental blunder."

    "We are here to tell you:

    We won't take it any more!"

    "You have acted in direct contravention of values that we, as Americans who love

    our country, hold dear. You have deceived us in the most cynical, outrageous ways. You have undermined, or allowed

    the undermining of, our constitutional system of checks and balances among the three presumed co-equal branches of

    government. You have helped lead our nation to the brink of fascism, of a dictatorship contemptuous of our

    nation's treaty obligations, federal statutory law, our Constitution, and the rule of law."

    "Because of you,

    and because of your jingoistic false 'patriotism,' our world is far more dangerous, our nation is far more

    despised, and the threat of terrorism is far greater than ever before.

    It has been absolutely astounding how

    you have committed the most horrendous acts, causing such needless tragedy in the lives of millions of people, yet

    you wear your so-called religion on your sleeves, asserting your God-is-on-my-side nonsense - when what you have

    done flies in the face of any religious or humanitarian tradition. Your hypocrisy is mind-boggling - and

    disgraceful. What part of "Thou shalt not kill" do you not understand? What part of the "Golden rule" do you not

    understand? What part of "be honest," "be responsible," and "be accountable" don't you understand? What part of

    "Blessed are the peacekeepers" do you not understand?

    Because of you, hundreds of thousands of people have been

    killed, many thousands of people have suffered horrendous lifetime injuries, and millions have been run off from

    their homes. For the sake of our nation, for the sake of our children, and for the sake of our brothers and

    sisters around the world, we are morally compelled to say, as loudly as we can, 'We won't take it any more!' "



    "As United States agents kidnap, disappear, and torture human beings around the world, you justify, you

    deceive, and you cover up. We find what you have done to men, women and children, and to the good name and

    reputation of the United States, so appalling, so unconscionable, and so outrageous as to compel us to call upon

    you to step aside and allow other men and women who are competent, true to our nation's values, and with high

    moral principles to stand in your places - for the good of our nation, for the good of our children, and for the

    good of our world."

    In the case of the President and Vice President, this means impeachment and removal from

    office, without any further delay from a complacent, complicit Congress, the Democratic majority of which cares

    more about political gain in 2008 than it does about the vindication of our Constitution, the rule of law, and

    democratic accountability.

    It means the election of people as President and Vice President who, unlike most of

    the presidential candidates from both major parties, have not aided and abetted in the perpetration of the illegal,

    tragic, devastating invasion and occupation of Iraq. And it means the election of people as President and Vice

    President who will commit to return our nation to the moral and strategic imperative of refraining from torturing

    human beings.

    In the case of the majority of Congress, it means electing people who are diligent enough to

    learn the facts, including reading available National Intelligence Estimates, before voting to go to war. It means

    electing to Congress men and women who will jealously guard Congress's sole prerogative to declare war. It means

    electing to Congress men and women who will not submit like vapid lap dogs to presidential requests for blank

    checks to engage in so-called preemptive wars, for legislation permitting warrantless wiretapping of

    communications involving US citizens, and for dangerous, irresponsible, saber-rattling legislation like the recent

    Kyl-Lieberman amendment.

    We must avoid the trap of focusing the blame solely upon President Bush and

    Vice-President Cheney. This is not just about a few people who have wronged our country - and the world. They were

    enabled by members of both parties in Congress, they were enabled by the pathetic mainstream news media, and,

    ultimately, they have been enabled by the American people - 40% of whom are so ill-informed they still think Iraq

    was behind the 9/11 attacks - a people who know and care more about baseball statistics and which drunken starlets

    are wearing underwear than they know and care about the atrocities being committed every single day in our name by

    a government for which we need to take responsibility.

    As loyal Americans, without regard to political

    partisanship -- as veterans, as teachers, as religious leaders, as working men and women, as students, as

    professionals, as businesspeople, as public servants, as retirees, as people of all ages, races, ethnic origins,

    sexual orientations, and faiths -- we are here to say to the Bush administration, to the majority of Congress, and

    to the mainstream media: "You have violated your solemn responsibilities. You have undermined our democracy, spat

    upon our Constitution, and engaged in outrageous, despicable acts. You have brought our nation to a point of

    immorality, inhumanity, and illegality of immense, tragic, unprecedented proportions."

    "But we will live up to

    our responsibilities as citizens, as brothers and sisters of those who have suffered as a result of the imperial

    bullying of the United States government, and as moral actors who must take a stand: And we will, and must, mean it

    when we say 'We won't take it any more.'"

    If we want principled, courageous elected officials, we need to be

    principled, courageous, and tenacious ourselves. History has demonstrated that our elected officials are not the

    leaders - the leadership has to come from us. If we don't insist, if we don't persist, then we are not living up

    to our responsibilities as citizens in a democracy - and our responsibilities as moral human beings. If we remain

    silent, we signal to Congress and the Bush administration - and to candidates running for office - and to the

    world - that we support the status quo.

    Silence is complicity. Only by standing up for what's right and never

    letting down can we say we are doing our part.

    Our government, on the basis of a campaign we now know was

    entirely fraudulent, attacked and militarily occupied a nation that posed no danger to the United States. Our

    government, acting in our name, has caused immense, unjustified death and destruction.

    It all started five

    years ago, yet where have we, the American people, been? At this point, we are responsible. We get together once

    in a while at demonstrations and complain about Bush and Cheney, about Congress, and about the pathetic news media.

    We point fingers and yell a lot. Then most people politely go away until another demonstration a few months later.



    How many people can honestly say they have spent as much time learning about and opposing the outrages of the

    Bush administration as they have spent watching sports or mindless television programs during the past five years?

    Escapist, time-sapping sports and insipid entertainment have indeed become the opiate of the masses.

    Why is

    this country so sound asleep? Why do we abide what is happening to our nation, to our Constitution, to the cause of

    peace and international law and order? Why are we not doing all in our power to put an end to this madness?

    We

    should be in the streets regularly and students should be raising hell on our campuses. We should be making it

    clear in every way possible that apologies or convoluted, disingenuous explanations just don't cut it when

    presidential candidates and so many others voted to authorize George Bush and his neo-con buddies to send American

    men and women to attack and occupy Iraq.

    Let's awaken, and wake up the country by committing here and now to

    do all each of us can to take our nation back. Let them hear us across the country, as we ask others to join us:

    "We won't take it any more!"

    I implore you: Draw a line. Figure out exactly where your own moral breaking

    point is. How much will you put up with before you say "No more" and mean it?

    I have drawn my line as a matter

    of simple personal morality: I cannot, and will not, support any candidate who has voted to fund the atrocities in

    Iraq. I cannot, and will not, support any candidate who will not commit to remove all US troops, as soon as

    possible, from Iraq. I cannot, and will not, support any candidate who has supported legislation that takes us one

    step closer to attacking Iran. I cannot, and will not, support any candidate who has not fought to stop the

    kidnapping, disappearances, and torture being carried on in our name.

    If we expect our nation's elected

    officials to take us seriously, let us send a powerful message they cannot misunderstand. Let them know we really

    do have our moral breaking point. Let them know we have drawn a bright line. Let them know they cannot take our

    support for granted - that, regardless of their party and regardless of other political considerations, they will

    not have our support if they cannot provide, and have not provided, principled leadership.

    The people of this

    nation may have been far too quiet for five years, but let us pledge that we won't let it go on one more day -

    that we will do all we can to put an end to the illegalities, the moral degradation, and the disintegration of our

    nation's reputation in the world.

    Let us be unified in drawing the line - in declaring that we do have a

    moral breaking point. Let us insist, together, in supporting our troops and in gratitude for the freedoms for which

    our veterans gave so much, that we bring our troops home from Iraq, that we return our government to a

    constitutional democracy, and that we commit to honoring the fundamental principles of human rights.

    In defense

    of our country, in defense of our Constitution, in defense of our shared values as Americans - and as moral human

    beings - we declare today that we will fight in every way possible to stop the insanity, stop the continued

    military occupation of Iraq, and stop the moral depravity reflected by the kidnapping, disappearing, and torture

    of people around the world.
    Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite.
    --Lazarus Long

  2. #2
    Moderator idesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Middle Kingdom
    Posts
    2,400
    Rep Power
    6383

    Default

    I was hoping to read something

    reasoned and intelligent, not boilerplate. Glad I don't have his "shared values", what bunk. I don't even know

    where to start in laying this kind of rhetoric to shambles. It would be nice if he actually said something to

    respond to rather than just the usual politico-speak.

    The country is not "sound asleep", it is finally getting

    past the stranglehold of the very same "mainstream media" that he denigrates, forgetting that it was that same media

    which allowed the advance, unfiltered and unchallenged, of the very same agenda that he espouses.

    Sorry Jim, I

    respect your views, but this guy, whoever he is, is just another player.

  3. #3
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    52
    Rep Power
    5931

    Default

    I wonder if it was possible

    would Bush be elected for the third time...

  4. #4
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex157 View Post
    I wonder

    if it was possible would Bush be elected for the third time...
    No, it isn't possible. It's illegal.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  5. #5
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    52
    Rep Power
    5931

    Default

    yes, sure. But IF it was

    possible? I have heard that Rusevelt was elected three times in a row or I am wrong?

  6. #6
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8516

    Default

    The law was changed after that.

    But you are right. If I was Bush, I wouldn't run for another term, even if allowed. As a matter of fact, I

    wouldn't have run in the first place. What kind of lunatic would want such a miserable job?
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  7. #7
    Phero Guru Rbt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Midwest US
    Posts
    1,579
    Rep Power
    7196

    Default

    But you can get your picture on a

    stamp after you're dead! Wouldn't that be cool?

    The opposite of love isn't hate.
    It's apathy
    .

  8. #8
    Administrator Bruce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Eugene, Oregon
    Posts
    7,109
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Last time I heard, Bush's "approval

    rating" was very low. I can't imagine him being reelected "if" he were allowed by law. The question is rather

    whether any Republican could get elected now.
    To enjoy good health, to bring true happiness to one's family, to bring peace to all, one must first discipline and control one's own mind. If a man can control his mind he can find the way to Enlightenment, and all wisdom and virtue will naturally come to him.

    - Buddha


    Yoga in Eugene
    Fair Trade crafts from Peru

  9. #9
    Moderator idesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Middle Kingdom
    Posts
    2,400
    Rep Power
    6383

    Default

    The approval rating of the

    current Democrat controlled Congress is even lower than Bush's. Its a wonder anyone gets re-elected.

    Those who

    want the job should not be allowed. Politicians should be drafted from among those who do not want the job,and are

    proven to be successful in the private sector, where results matter. They will only be allowed out if they do the

    job, ie, lower taxes, smaller gov't, and less regulation and intervention.

  10. #10
    Phero Guru Rbt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Midwest US
    Posts
    1,579
    Rep Power
    7196

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex157 View Post
    yes, sure. But

    IF it was possible? I have heard that Rusevelt was elected three times in a row or I am wrong?
    There was

    an ad button/pin done up by the opposition (maybe not "official") at the time that read:

    "No man is good three

    times."

    It was for the 1940 campaign. Roosevelt-Wallace vs Willkie-McNary. Roosevelt won the 1944 campaign

    (Roosevelt-Truman vs Dewey-Bricker) but he died in office.


    And yes, before Roosevelt I believe is was

    possible for someone to be elected more than twice in a row. This was the event that created the new laws about

    it.
    The opposite of love isn't hate.
    It's apathy
    .

  11. #11
    Moderator idesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Middle Kingdom
    Posts
    2,400
    Rep Power
    6383

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rbt View Post
    There was an

    ad button/pin done up by the opposition (maybe not "official") at the time that read:

    "No man is good three

    times."

    It was for the 1940 campaign. Roosevelt-Wallace vs Willkie-McNary. Roosevelt won the 1944 campaign

    (Roosevelt-Truman vs Dewey-Bricker) but he died in office.


    And yes, before Roosevelt I believe is was

    possible for someone to be elected more than twice in a row. This was the event that created the new laws about

    it.
    And not too long before that there was an attempt by FDR to increase the size of the Supreme Court so

    he could stack it in his favor. It failed, and became known as the "Switch in Time to Save Nine".

    Its funny how

    little memory (or education) there is concerning politics. There is a current "controversy" about the firing of

    several US Attorneys by the Bush administration. What is not mentioned in the press is that one of the first things

    Clinton did when assuming office was to fire EVERY US Attorney in the country and appoint his own. How political

    was that?
    Last edited by idesign; 01-05-2008 at 07:26 PM.

  12. #12
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    52
    Rep Power
    5931

    Default

    The job is a bit nervous, but

    there are some light sides in it too...

    "No man is good three times."

    Oh, it means that a woman can be

    elected three times on end. What about Hillary for a strart?

  13. #13
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by idesign View Post
    The

    approval rating of the current Democrat controlled Congress is even lower than Bush's. Its a wonder anyone gets

    re-elected.

    Those who want the job should not be allowed. Politicians should be drafted from among those who do

    not want the job,and are proven to be successful in the private sector, where results matter. They will only be

    allowed out if they do the job, ie, lower taxes, smaller gov't, and less regulation and intervention.
    In

    general I agree with you except that the representatives of the people should be drawn from the population as a

    whole. Eliminate those with serious criminal backgrounds and obvious mental issues then use a simple lottery to

    select the president, vice president, the congress and senate. That way, we would have people in office who truly

    represented us, people who know what it is like to pay $3 for a gallon of gas while trying to save a few dollars

    towards sending their kids to college and still putting food on the table and keeping the lights on. Its hard to

    imagine doing any worse than what we have now.

    One of the biggest problems with our current government is that

    it is run by a pack of elitists who have never had to scrape for a living. They are out of touch with the people

    they supposedly represent. The founders of this country, I believe, never intended it to be run by career

    politicians. I think most the intent was to return government to the people, allowing the power to remain in the

    hands it rightfully belongs.

    While I think the media has already weighed in on the side of the democrats, I

    think this election is going to be another one where we are offered a list of who to vote against rather than who we

    are going to vote for. The overall field of potential candidates is dismal at best. Once the mud all settles and

    each party has selected their 'Most likely to be electable' candidate, it is going to come down to a choice of who

    has the fewest negative points. So far, I can't see anybody with potential to actually win who would be worth

    voting for. There are a good number that I already am ready to vote against, though not one has earned my voting for

    them. Most scare the crap out of me.

    That said, in my opinion, the two biggest flaws in the current system are

    voter apathy and party politics and they are related issues. So many people are saying "Why bother when we are going

    to get screwed no matter what we do?". They believe that the only real choices are to vote for either the democratic

    or the republican candidate regardless of other, possibly more qualified, potential candidates. Unless a candidate

    has managed to get the nomination from one of the two major parties, no matter how good he or she may be, they have

    no chance of being elected so many people vote for the lessor of evils and its back to business as usual. The

    general public and the nation as a whole loses, as usual, while the power games continue unabated. In my opinion,

    this is a recipe for disaster that can go one of several ways if allowed to continue, but none of the possible

    outcomes are good ones.

    I'd like one day to see a campaign and election that is fair and balanced, allowing

    every potential candidate an equal opportunity to be elected. One possible solution would be complete campaign

    finance reform. Completely eliminate all donations and only allow candidates to use funds from a pool that each has

    equal access too. Once a person has some number of demonstratable supporters (maybe based on petitions?) they have

    the exact same number of dollars to campaign with as every other candidate. Then, make each and every candidate

    liable for campaign finance fraud and slander of opponents. Break campaign finance law, get your funds revoked and

    your tail end tossed in jail for the balance of the election. Anybody within your campaign makes a false statement

    about another candidate and you lose your funds. It would solve many problems. It would, of course, create a few

    more but would take a lot of the dirty tactics and outright fraud out of politics once a few of them had to sit out

    the campaign while watching it on the bigscreen TV in the dayroom of a federal prison.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  14. #14
    Moderator idesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Middle Kingdom
    Posts
    2,400
    Rep Power
    6383

    Default

    I was being a little facetious,

    but your reply is very thoughtful and mostly accurate I think.

    Agree about the two-party system we've become,

    its created just what you said about having no real choices. Even when a viable third candidate emerges, it tends

    to throw votes to one of the others, as is Clinton's win when Perot ran.

    Voter apathy derives from this exact

    point, and it will not change until there is a real choice.

    I don't really care if its an "elitist" or a

    farmboy, as long as they listen to and implement what is really known as the interests of the populace. Read, lower

    taxes, less gov't spending, less intrusion of the gov't into private lives.

    It seems to me that social

    issues, aka social engineering, is driving to much of politics.

  15. #15
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    52
    Rep Power
    5931

    Default

    I think that unfortunately only

    the two-party system is stable.

  16. #16
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8516

    Default

    Why should we care if the party

    system is stable? Esecially when that system is becoming less and less for the people and is steadily stealing more

    and more of our rights while digging deeper into pockets that cannot afford it?

    Do you realize that between all

    the taxes, fees, assessments and so on, the government takes MORE THAN 50% of our earnings? Both parties are

    guilty of causing this. Both parties are also guilty of the outright theft of our retirement funds because they are

    incapable of balancing a budget. So long as we have this 'stable' two party system without outside influence we

    will continue to see the government grow and consume ever increasing amounts of money for the sole purpose of self

    propagation. The two party system is creating massive instability in our nation and eventually must collapse of its

    own sheer weight.

    Sound alarmist? Many of the citizens of the Soviet Union thought so too. Follow it to a

    logical conclusion.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  17. #17
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    52
    Rep Power
    5931

    Default




    Why should we care if the party system is stable?


    The two party

    system is creating massive instability in our nation and eventually must collapse of its own sheer weight.


    Well, I think that it means

    that you just don’t find the two-party system the stable one






    Esecially when that

    system is becoming less and less for the people and is steadily stealing more and more of our rights while digging

    deeper into pockets that cannot afford it?
    Do you realize that between all the taxes, fees, assessments and so on,

    the government takes MORE THAN 50% of our earnings?





    Where is a guarantee that

    another system will take less?





    Sound alarmist?

    Many of the citizens of the Soviet Union thought so too.
    Follow it to a

    logical conclusion.





    The Soviet Union was a special case. In the Soviet

    Union you might to know about the Caribbean crisis twenty years later. When the German army stayed at its borders

    ready for an attack at June 21, nobody thought about it because the newspapers wrote about something else. Americans

    are able to suggest some substitution for the two-party system openly…

  18. #18
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex157 View Post






    Well, I think that it means that you just don’t find the two-party system the

    stable one
    You were the one who said it was stable. Stability is a relative thing.

    Is it stable today? How about yesterday and what about tomorrow? How about when we toss in a few variables?

    Personally, following the trends we see I do not believe the system can support its own weight over a long period.

    It becomes less stable with time.





    Quote Originally Posted by Alex157 View Post
    Where is a

    guarantee that another system will take less?
    Who offered you a guarantee? I didn't.

    However, the system is broken and is getting worse. Are you suggesting that because you do not have a fully reliable

    solution we should accept our flawed one? As a matter of record, newer governments tend to be less intrusive and

    cheaper to operate. There are a number of reasons for that.




    Quote Originally Posted by Alex157 View Post
    The Soviet Union was a special case. In the Soviet Union you might to know about the Caribbean crisis twenty

    years later. When the German army stayed at its borders ready for an attack at June 21, nobody thought about it

    because the newspapers wrote about something else. Americans are able to suggest some substitution for the two-party

    system openly…
    It isn't such a special case. Our system is becoming more intrusive and

    oppressive all the time. Think 'Politically Correct" Again, follow the trends out in a logical fashion and you see

    us reaching more or less the same state of affairs. The critical factor is several conditions. One is the ever

    increasing size of the government, which is a parisite on the economic engine. Sooner or later the engine can no

    longer pull the load of the weight placed on it and dies. As more and more people are awarded greater entitlements

    and fewer people are less productive you see less vigor in the economy. Recession becomes a state of being rather

    than a normal variation in the economy. Functionally it acts like a positive feedback loop in an amplified circuit,

    gaining in amplitude with each iteration.

    Another related factor is confidence. As the reduced number of true

    producers are forced to shoulder a great portion of the burden while the 'disenfranchised masses' vote themselves

    bread and circuses the producers become less and less productive. Read up a little on the apathetic attitudes many

    people had towards their work in the USSR prior to the eventual collapse. They simply quit trying because they could

    never get ahead. There are many notable differences but there are many important similarities.
    Last edited by belgareth; 01-09-2008 at 10:36 AM.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  19. #19
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    52
    Rep Power
    5931

    Default




    You were the one who said it was stable.





    Yes, sure it was me and I continue to say it until I am shown the better

    option. The choice is between a more left party and a more right one. As soon as there is a third party it just

    increases chances of the one which represents its flank alone.





    Stability is a

    relative thing. Is it stable today? How about yesterday and what about tomorrow? How about when we toss in a few

    variables? Personally, following the trends we see I do not believe the system can support its own weight over a

    long period. It becomes less stable with time.

    Well, America

    is at war. Maybe Mr. Bush should be thanked for it, maybe not, but who, for example, interned Japanese during WWII?

    Was it democratic?





    Who offered you a guarantee? I didn't. However, the system is

    broken and is getting worse. Are you suggesting that because you do not have a fully reliable solution we should

    accept our flawed one? As a matter of record, newer governments tend to be less intrusive and cheaper to operate.
    There are a number of reasons for

    that.




    I am not in a position to suggest anything for the US . It was not me

    who created the two-party system too.





    It isn't such a

    special case. Our system is becoming more intrusive and oppressive all the time.





    Again, it is a war. When the enemies of the US get the bomb it will be

    much worse.






    Read up a little on

    the apathetic attitudes many people had towards their work in the USSR prior to the eventual collapse.





    No, I don’t want to read anything about the USSR . I am quite fed up

    with it as it is . Now it is not much better, though.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •