where do we go from here?
No no no!
This only emphasizes how much more we need to remove ourselves from the union!
As you can clearly see, the west coast was all BLUE. Most of us hated Bush. We will not be represented by the Red government, and thus we need to seperate from the union and form our own.
This should give us new reason and resolve to make our own country!
Well, I know it's the urban areas that are. This statement was all made in the broooad generalization of the matter. But I still think the west coast should be a seperate country. That I do stand by.
What do we do from now on?
How about you become relevant to the voters so the Republicans don't keep wiping the floor with you?
I'm sorry, dude, but I can't find much relation to that particular statement, since I'm not even Democrat (third party/indy/secessionist fits my style better, actually).
I mean, what is the point of waging war against the Regressive Conservatives (as opposed to the Progressive Conservatives in Canada) in a presidential system of government that's not even truly federal in its functionings?
I don't hate the US (why would I, even though my ancestors were slaves here), its just that I've come to a total dismissal of American government as "tres passe", as a mere byproduct of colonialism in the Americas (as are most other countries in the same geographic region).
Democracy? Heh, please...
third party/indy/secessionist - No, you're not either of the first two.
</i>Democracy? Heh, please...</i> - Just about says everything about you and how even in California your views would be hated
So are you a neo-falangist or something? I don't know of any other American political parties (since you said you were a third party supporter) which opposes democracy. I don't want to burst your bubble, but most Californians support democracy. If there were a secession, which 99.99% won't happen, the new resulting country would still be a democracy which seems to be what you hate and they won't always vote the way you want to. I think you need to get used to the idea that you will always be fringe, and you need to realize that we are all in this society together. Shrink the society, and we are still in this society together and you are still fringe.
Shouldn't you be in a militia in Idaho or on a flight to some remote African village?
Heh, talk about a misunderstanding gone awry...
Did I actually say in my previous posting that I oppose democracy? I don't think I did, unless my nearsightedness betrays me.
When I made that particular quip that, in some way or another, led you to believe that I'm the spawn of the Black Muslims (sans Malcolm X, of course) or something like that, I was actually directing my remark at the mere notion that the US is actually a democracy.
Considering that most Third World nations in Latin America and Africa (you know, the two geopolitical regions where dictators have had their fun with murdering countless opponents [rich and poor alike] and squandering their countries' resources for personal gain?) have made direct copies of the American style of government (a model which ensures that democracy, in the basic sense, will never truly work in their countries unless they all adopt a parliamentary system), why is it that the US calls itself a true democracy when it cannot directly elect its own head of state? Why is it that the US is the democracy that it is when the act of this country's legislature can be overriden by the mere rejection of the head of state?
Why in the heck is this country a "democracy" when it teaches all of its citizens to trust in our often-corruptible "men on horseback" (like George Washington), our caudillos (like Abraham Lincoln), our "leaders" (like George Bush) and bend the political process around them and their personalities?
Now THAT sounds a bit more "Falangist"/"Fascist" than it is made out to be, doesn't it? But hey, that's the US of A for you...
Thus, how can I be in opposition to basic democracy when it doesn't even exist in this so-called "federal" union? Maybe California will have a better democratic experience if it were to become autonomous? or parliamentary? or even plebiscitary?
I dunno, you tell me...
Well putting aside that America is a representational democracy, like europe, and not a real democracy (and there are none on earth)...
talk about a misunderstanding gone awry...
No, no misunderstanding. It is your belief that a country is not a democracy if people support a politician who you do not. I stand by my suggestion that you do not support democracy, that you are a prime example of a fascist wannabe. Some examples:
why is it that the US calls itself a true democracy when it cannot directly elect its own head of state? The electoral college has never gone against its states votes and rules.
Why in the heck is this country a "democracy" when it teaches all of its citizens to trust in our often-corruptible...our "leaders" ... So you have a problem with people actually trusting someone enough to vote for them, is what you are saying?
If your statement is that we are a democratic republic and not an actual direct democracy - I agree with you. However since there is not one direct democracy on earth, I would be forced laugh at the notion that this warrants secession or even anything more than an academic debate.
So you've mentioned how you like the politics in Canada - another democratic republic - perhaps you are just shooting out hot air, that you really don't belive what you type.
But more likely, as I stated at the beginning of this reply and stated in the previous reply and you have stated yourself although not directly - your problem with calling America a democracy is because the people don't support the candidates you support and don't support the proposed laws you support. What you propose with out directly saying it is fascism - Rayneland.
Give me George Bush... hell, give me a shithead like Brownback over your nightmare of a political ideal any day. Conversation over.
Oh yeah, the super strong majority of The Nation Of Islam DOES support democracy.
*rolls eyes* No, the conversation isn't over until there is an agreement on both sides of the debacle, not just yours alone. Now if you don't mind, let me outline a few discrepancies in your repudiation of basically everything that I said.
First off, how can you relate the fact that I don't support Bush or his policies to any expressed notion that I'm against the existence of the American government? I never said anything like "The American government can go to hell for all I care". There is a difference between dismissing a thing and becoming an activist against it, you know?
Second off, Canada? A republic?! Bwahahaha!!! OMG, and you say that I possess a "nightmare of a political ideal"? I'd simply hate to see your "dream of a political reality", lol.
You know what? You're right. This conversation is definately over, as you have proven yourself to fit the description that you gave to me in the 7th stanza of your last reply.
PS- how would you know about the Nation of Islam? I doubt that you are of even partial African ancestry, and I doubt that you've actually read up on the theology of the NOI as presented by its founder, Wallace Fard, to its prophet, the (dis)Honorable Elijah Muhammad.
You are orally spewing out too much feces, and its making me noxious. Take some laxatives or something, dude.
arguments such as this is why our form of democracy is seen as such a blessing. yes, its not a true democracy, but if it was we would have lost the U in USA long ago.
pseudo-intellectual babbel; so annoying
but so fun
Who needs the U, anyway?
And I found his presentation to be laughable at best. Thus, I didn't *need* to "babble" "pseudo-intellectual"ly; I just do that out of habit with anybody.
*sigh* Everybody's got a problem with big words these days....
Oh yeah, a few other things to add.
arguments such as this is why our form of democracy is seen as such a blessing.
This isn't a democracy.
Even my old private school's Protestant curriculum stated (rather blatantly, might I add) that the "Founding Fathers" were deathly afraid of democracy, even in the process of writing and promulgating the Second Constitution. They regarded it as "mob rule", and were afraid of allowing the commoners to vote on a wholesale basis, as they felt that only those who had money in bank and pocket were, in any possible way, fit to vote candidates into office (go figure).
Thus, if this supposed "federation" were a true "democracy", of course it would've broken up long ago. But whose loss would it have been?
Most certainly not for the residents of California, New York, and these other 48 entities.
I don't get it. Why is it that the United States is seen (and sees itself) as a federation (officially and expressly), but carries itself and operates like a union (as in the name)?
That, fellow LJer, is what baffles me and leads me to question the validity of the United States. If it be pseudo-intellectual, so be it, but it is intellectual nonetheless, and for that I participate in this dialogue wholeheartedly.
mm, bush sure did wipe the floor when he got 25% of the country to vote for him
There is no longer a "republican party" republican=religion it is effectivley the religion party. State sactioned religions are on the way, better start church shopping. Scary isnt it!!