On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 21:16:14 GMT, Deep Frayed Morgues
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >The only real way for anyone to have any confidence in the US election
    >system ever again is to massively overhaul it.
    >The only way for anyone to have any confidence in the US intelligence
    >services is to massively overhaul them.
    >The only way for anyone to have any confidence in corporate America
    >ever again is to massively overhaul it.

You left out the legal system.

    >Aren't you guys due for a revolution soon?

As demographics and the realities of free trade overtake the ability
of European nanny states to maintain their level of support for
non-producing citizens, I'd bet France and Germany are far more likely
candidates.

Gordon

Deep Frayed Morgues writes:

    > Aren't you guys due for a revolution soon?

Democracies don't undergo revolutions; they usually gradually
self-destruct, voluntarily turning over control of the society from the
people to a small group of rulers or often even a single dictator. The
interesting thing about this pattern of decline is that the population
always gives up freedom voluntarily.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Gordon Forbess writes:

    > As demographics and the realities of free trade overtake the ability
    > of European nanny states to maintain their level of support for
    > non-producing citizens, I'd bet France and Germany are far more likely
    > candidates.

That will not cause revolutions. The extensive support systems will
simply be curtailed or abolished.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

In article <[email protected]>, Mxsmanic
<[email protected]> wrote:

    > Deep Frayed Morgues writes:
    >
    > > Aren't you guys due for a revolution soon?
    >
    > Democracies don't undergo revolutions; they usually gradually
    > self-destruct, voluntarily turning over control of the society from the
    > people to a small group of rulers or often even a single dictator. The
    > interesting thing about this pattern of decline is that the population
    > always gives up freedom voluntarily.


Besides countless Sci-fi references, what real world model do you point
to as an above example ? Which State has: "self-distruct" ?

jay
Sun Oct 17, 2004
mailto:[email protected]

Go Fig writes:

    > Besides countless Sci-fi references, what real world model do you point
    > to as an above example ?

Ancient Rome and Germany in the last century spring to mind. The U.S.
is showing signs of the same thing: the overall trend over the past two
centuries has consistently been towards greater centralization and an
ever-more-powerful chief executive, with Congress regularly giving up
more and more of its Constitutional powers to judges, administrators,
and the President.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

In article <[email protected]>, Mxsmanic
<[email protected]> wrote:

    > Go Fig writes:
    >
    > > Besides countless Sci-fi references, what real world model do you point
    > > to as an above example ?

(it is frustrating that you deliberately 'cut' your reference)
    >
    > Ancient Rome and Germany in the last century spring to mind.

They may spring to mind, but they were not established democracies.


    > The U.S.
    > is showing signs of the same thing: the overall trend over the past two
    > centuries has consistently been towards greater centralization and an
    > ever-more-powerful chief executive, with Congress regularly giving up
    > more and more of its Constitutional powers to judges, administrators,
    > and the President.

The Constitution is not a democracy, it is just a by-product of one.

Go Fig wrote:
    > In article <[email protected]>, Mxsmanic
    > <[email protected]> wrote:

    >>Deep Frayed Morgues writes:

    >>>Aren't you guys due for a revolution soon?
    >>Democracies don't undergo revolutions; they usually gradually
    >>self-destruct, voluntarily turning over control of the society from the
    >>people to a small group of rulers or often even a single dictator. The
    >>interesting thing about this pattern of decline is that the population
    >>always gives up freedom voluntarily.

    > Besides countless Sci-fi references, what real world model do you point
    > to as an above example ? Which State has: "self-distruct" ?

He's not claiming that the state self-destructs but that the democracy
does. Germany between the wars is a good example.

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 15:25:48 -0700, Gordon Forbess
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 21:16:14 GMT, Deep Frayed Morgues
    ><[email protected]> wrote:
    >>The only real way for anyone to have any confidence in the US election
    >>system ever again is to massively overhaul it.
    >>The only way for anyone to have any confidence in the US intelligence
    >>services is to massively overhaul them.
    >>The only way for anyone to have any confidence in corporate America
    >>ever again is to massively overhaul it.
    >You left out the legal system.

Isn't that part of the election system?

    >>Aren't you guys due for a revolution soon?
    >As demographics and the realities of free trade overtake the ability
    >of European nanny states to maintain their level of support for
    >non-producing citizens, I'd bet France and Germany are far more likely
    >candidates.

I am betting that America's wealthy class can milk more money from
American taxpayers than France and Germany's pensioners could.
---
DFM

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:22:53 GMT, Deep Frayed Morgues
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >>You left out the legal system.
    >Isn't that part of the election system?

That's the probable outcome of dispatching thousands of lawyers to the
polls (as I cited in the Times article) in the upcoming contest.
Actually I was thinking of the criminal justice system which many
people on both sides of the political spectrum agree is badly broken.

    >>>Aren't you guys due for a revolution soon?
    >>As demographics and the realities of free trade overtake the ability
    >>of European nanny states to maintain their level of support for
    >>non-producing citizens, I'd bet France and Germany are far more likely
    >>candidates.
    >I am betting that America's wealthy class can milk more money from
    >American taxpayers than France and Germany's pensioners could.

No surprise as the cow is closer to going dry in France and Germany.
And besides, if the guy who's married to the Queen of Catsup gets in,
he's promised to raise taxes only on the rich. :-)

Gordon

In article <[email protected]>,
Frank F. Matthews <[email protected]> wrote:
    >Go Fig wrote:
    >> In article <[email protected]>, Mxsmanic
    >> <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>Deep Frayed Morgues writes:
    >>>>Aren't you guys due for a revolution soon?
    >>>Democracies don't undergo revolutions; they usually gradually
    >>>self-destruct, voluntarily turning over control of the society from the
    >>>people to a small group of rulers or often even a single dictator. The
    >>>interesting thing about this pattern of decline is that the population
    >>>always gives up freedom voluntarily.
    >> Besides countless Sci-fi references, what real world model do you point
    >> to as an above example ? Which State has: "self-distruct" ?
    >He's not claiming that the state self-destructs but that the democracy
    >does. Germany between the wars is a good example.

Right, but the claim is that democracies "usually" self-destruct.

Go Fig writes:

    > The Constitution is not a democracy, it is just a by-product of one.

Time will tell. In the meantime, the very least you can do is try to
keep an eye on whatever liberties remain to you.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

    > A couple of pundits, one of them a Brit, said on TV that while
    > foreigners have separated Americans from Bush's policies -- that is, not
    > blaming the American people from what this president is doing -- if we
    > re-elect Bush, then they can no longer hold Americans blameless.

Nonsence. The popular media in Europe is no more reliable or honest than
that in the US. Most in Europe are well aware that with terrorists heading
to Iraq to fight American Soldiers these terrorists are also unable to kill
unarmed Europeans.

Some european media seem to believe that if a Socialist such as Kerry is
elected that they (various countries in europe) will have more of a say in
US affairs and decisions.

In article <[email protected]> ,
Sven Paderkksson <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> A couple of pundits, one of them a Brit, said on TV that while
    >> foreigners have separated Americans from Bush's policies -- that is, not
    >> blaming the American people from what this president is doing -- if we
    >> re-elect Bush, then they can no longer hold Americans blameless.
    > Nonsence. The popular media in Europe is no more reliable or honest than
    >that in the US. Most in Europe are well aware that with terrorists heading
    >to Iraq to fight American Soldiers these terrorists are also unable to kill
    >unarmed Europeans.
    > Some european media seem to believe that if a Socialist such as Kerry is
    >elected that they (various countries in europe) will have more of a say in
    >US affairs and decisions.

I don't think that "socialist" is a very accurate characterization of
Kerry, but at any rate, the Europeans loved Clinton, not because he
was a "socialist" but because his actions were seen as far less boobish
and "blundering cowboy" than Bush's.

Sven Paderkksson writes:

    > Nonsence. The popular media in Europe is no more reliable or honest than
    > that in the US.

True, but it has more axes to grind, which allows one to get a slightly
broader point of view in reading it (if one reads all of it, which isn't
easy since that requires quite a knowledge of languages).

    > Some european media seem to believe that if a Socialist such as Kerry is
    > elected that they (various countries in europe) will have more of a say in
    > US affairs and decisions.

They are probably right.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Bill Moore writes:

    > I don't think that "socialist" is a very accurate characterization of
    > Kerry, but at any rate, the Europeans loved Clinton, not because he
    > was a "socialist" but because his actions were seen as far less boobish
    > and "blundering cowboy" than Bush's.

Clinton was a lot more intelligent (like Nixon, not coincidentally).

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.