.

[skaiserbrown]

paikea is more liberal than i am.

this is uncommon.

[Paikea]

and how much was bush expected to lose the election by...according to the corporate media approval ratings, that is?

Actually Bush was expected to take the election by ease, until the first debate came resulting in Bush not being able to put together a coherent answer.  And the networks split screen didn't help him either. 

After that, it was a dead heat and it was anyones guess who would win.

Kerry, though, was expected to take a close Ohio, but the outcome of that state's vote is a story for another day. 

[skaiserbrown]

and how much was bush expected to lose the election by...according to the corporate media approval ratings, that is?

Actually Bush was expected to take the election by ease, until the first debate came resulting in Bush not being able to put together a coherent answer.  And the networks split screen didn't help him either. 

After that, it was a dead heat and it was anyones guess who would win.

Kerry, though, was expected to take a close Ohio, but the outcome of that state's vote is a story for another day. 

diebold is now legally allowed to do anything as repayment for their services in the last election. this includes any neccessary satanic rituals.

[FossilJ]

their will be a people's government in the middle of the kingdoms of syria and saudi arabia...and the theocracy of iran.
and the idea of having a democracy is a contagious disease.

I'm sorry.  Democracy is inherently superior to monarchy and theocracy... why?

[SCgrad]

you must lead rich life.

Not you enjoy bickering?

[FossilJ]

their will be a people's government in the middle of the kingdoms of syria and saudi arabia...and the theocracy of iran.
and the idea of having a democracy is a contagious disease.

I'm sorry.  Democracy is inherently superior to monarchy and theocracy... why?

because it's the system we've got?

Sure, it's the system you've got.  But why is it inherently better than monarchy or theocracy?

[SCgrad]

their will be a people's government in the middle of the kingdoms of syria and saudi arabia...and the theocracy of iran.
and the idea of having a democracy is a contagious disease.

I'm sorry.  Democracy is inherently superior to monarchy and theocracy... why?

because it's the system we've got?

Sure, it's the system you've got.  But why is it inherently better than monarchy or theocracy?

Why isn't it?

[FossilJ]

their will be a people's government in the middle of the kingdoms of syria and saudi arabia...and the theocracy of iran.
and the idea of having a democracy is a contagious disease.

I'm sorry.  Democracy is inherently superior to monarchy and theocracy... why?

because it's the system we've got?

Sure, it's the system you've got.  But why is it inherently better than monarchy or theocracy?

Why isn't it?

Ah ah ah.  Burden of proof is on you.

But since you asked, all three systems of government are inherently equal, depending on a particular cultural weltanschaung.  There are nations that choose to remain monarchies; this includes many of these Middle Eastern countries, such as Saudi Arabia, for one.  Theocracies are valid in countries where religion is fairly homogeneous. 

Of course, there are limits to any system.  Tyranny and oppression are some; others include corruption, subjugation, and blatant political discrimination (the latter a particular danger in theocracies).

For all the faults these systems possess, democracy has its own myriad weaknesses.  Remember, just because you and I think people should be able to choose representatives to govern themselves does not make it a universal ethic.  Nations have gotten along fine and actually prospered for centuries without democracy.  The notion that democracy is somehow superior to other systems of government is fostered by the "Whiggish" myth of progress, a teleology that maps its own imperial, industrial roots onto the global canvas without regards to context and streamlines a historical narrative so torn with tautologies that it obscures all perspective and reason.  In a twisted way, it reasons that that which is not part of itself (industrialized, democratized, "civilized") is, prima facie, barbaric and primitive. 

We're agreed that Saddam's dictatorship was atrocious, and we're (probably) agreed that someone had to put an end to it at some point (whatever the motives behind such a move).  What I take issue with is the idea that, somehow, democracy is now the salvation of a nation that doesn't even want its "saviors" around. 

The problem is not the system, it's those who abuse the system.  And that goes for any system.


*Disclaimer:  This is not to count as a slight to any soldiers posted anywhere for any reason.  To serve your country takes courage, something which I'm short on, so kudos to you.  Ideology and tactics versus the man posted on the front: these concepts are far removed from each other.  Need proof?  World War I.

[SCgrad]

their will be a people's government in the middle of the kingdoms of syria and saudi arabia...and the theocracy of iran.
and the idea of having a democracy is a contagious disease.

I'm sorry.  Democracy is inherently superior to monarchy and theocracy... why?

because it's the system we've got?

Sure, it's the system you've got.  But why is it inherently better than monarchy or theocracy?

Why isn't it?

Ah ah ah.  Burden of proof is on you.

But since you asked, all three systems of government are inherently equal, depending on a particular cultural weltanschaung.  There are nations that choose to remain monarchies; this includes many of these Middle Eastern countries, such as Saudi Arabia, for one.  Theocracies are valid in countries where religion is fairly homogeneous. 

Of course, there are limits to any system.  Tyranny and oppression are some; others include corruption, subjugation, and blatant political discrimination (the latter a particular danger in theocracies).

For all the faults these systems possess, democracy has its own myriad weaknesses.  Remember, just because you and I think people should be able to choose representatives to govern themselves does not make it a universal ethic.  Nations have gotten along fine and actually prospered for centuries without democracy.  The notion that democracy is somehow superior to other systems of government is fostered by the "Whiggish" myth of progress, a teleology that maps its own imperial, industrial roots onto the global canvas without regards to context and streamlines a historical narrative so torn with tautologies that it obscures all perspective and reason.  In a twisted way, it reasons that that which is not part of itself (industrialized, democratized, "civilized") is, prima facie, barbaric and primitive. 

We're agreed that Saddam's dictatorship was atrocious, and we're (probably) agreed that someone had to put an end to it at some point (whatever the motives behind such a move).  What I take issue with is the idea that, somehow, democracy is now the salvation of a nation that doesn't even want its "saviors" around. 

The problem is not the system, it's those who abuse the system.  And that goes for any system.


*Disclaimer:  This is not to count as a slight to any soldiers posted anywhere for any reason.  To serve your country takes courage, something which I'm short on, so kudos to you.  Ideology and tactics versus the man posted on the front: these concepts are far removed from each other.  Need proof?  World War I.

That's one way of looking at it.  If you are going to use anecdotal evidence, care to gander at the countries that are considered "best off" now (standard of living, etc).  Most are democratic.  America is the most powerful country (debatable, but at least one of them) of all time and it is directly correlated to its democracy.  Many nations have seen success come with newer, more democratic governments (China) and all the former world powers who were not democratic are now dwindled.  So while I cannot argue that other forms have not produced results in the past, you can’t argue with the current situation either.  I'm not endorsing ignoring the past, but you can't live by it.

[SCgrad]

Many nations have seen success come with newer, more democratic governments (China) and all the former world powers who were not democratic are now dwindled. 

dude, did you just call China a democratic government?  or am i just confused about what you're trying to say again?

1. Not exactly  2. Yes, read the bold.