And you naming yourself Say_Jack in direct imitation of "heypartner" is sarcasm, too, right? No, it's just a petty display of someone trying to be a nemesis of another on a sports bbs. "nemesis?...how freaking melodramatic is that. It's just a bball bbs Say_Jack...for fun...get it? Quit overthinking the effect of your posting in the hangout. It's boring. so, are you done with me now? Just go back to your important D and D talk, and keep trying to convince me that you are being sarcastic about it.
what are you Clutch's bi-uid or something. no, Clutch is to cool for that. You have just finally gotten mature enough to place me on your ignore list, is all, so you don't get in trouble. You are BobRainey, 2 other "Bob's," and Say_Jack and that t19293 thingies, and I alwyas find you. you're the one whose time is limited, if Clutch finds you. You are so petty. You are so petty because you can't resist pecking away at me to get me to notice you. And it always results in Clutch finding you and banning you yet again. One of these days you will realize that you should find another site to talk politics and just play in the GARM here, if not just lurk.
Sam, there is no system more altruistic than a meritocracy. We aren't there yet, but we are steadily moving in that direction. That is the genius of the United States- we have a system that can not only evolve, but survive the evolution. Sam, no nation has done more good for human kind than the United States. I can't believe you even argue this point. No, our forefathers laid down a blueprint, and our society is evolving to that ideal. The way we treated the American Indian was wrong. Slavery was wrong. Jim Crow Laws were wrong. Our society makes progress every year to move toward what is RIGHT. Our actions in WW2 were right. We were limited by our technology, and our freedom and Democracy was worth more than all of our enemies lives. Now, our technology enables us to wage just wars with the ability to ALMOST eliminate collateral damage. Once again, we have evolved toward the ideal- eliminating all war through a strong deterrant and the spread of freedom and Democracy. The world has been reshaped over the last 60 years significantly. Look at a world map in 1938, and see a dominated Arab world, Imperialistic Japan, and belligerant Germany. Look again in 1960, and you see an Iron Curtain, with Maoist influences spreading through Southeast Asia. Marvel at the world map in 2003, and see how our forefather's ideals have released 100s of millions of people from totalitarianism. The process up to this point has been rough at times, and we have made some bad choices, but it is our ability to adapt and move forward, always improving ourselves, that makes us the greatest nation that has ever existed on planet Earth. We are basically a good, unselfish, and benevolent people. Yes we wield an amazing amount of power, but we are mostly just.
Joh, you blather on and on and on about good for humankind because of democracy and meritocracy. So where does that leave the ancient greeks? They have some black marks, too, but they invented the system that allowed us to reap so much good for humankind. So don't they trump all? I mean they had some nasty wars, but their death toll is lower than ours, surely. On your absolutism scale, they must win Johnny, but I imagine you will come up with some silly contorted rationalization to get to the view that you have already decided: That the USA is the best ever in everything, in an absolute sense, absolutely. THat is so silly its almost a caricature. It must be wonderful to live in your world Dr. Pangloss.
No Sam, because without wealth, power, and global reach, our altruism can't be matched by any ancient culture. You can want to give money to charity, but the richer you are, the more you can help. I never wrote that, but it looks nice as one of your posts. Yes, it is. PS I think this discussion has run its course. See you next time.
Yeah, Jean, it's pretty easy to tell when a discussion with you has run its course, you circle the wagons and circle your reasoning about seven times and then we end up back where we started from...such is life the best of all possible worlds. I'll give you credit for staying in the game though, Treeboy and T_j usually run away and hide when somebody calls BS on them.
No Sam, the discussion ends when we reach a dead end and obviously won't agree with eachother. Why keep hammering away at eachother for no reason. I could make the same kinds of snide remarks as your "circle your wagons..and reasoning" but what good would that do? You don't think that America is the most altruistic country in the world, yet you offer no alternative. I do, and offer you my reasons. You reject my reasoning, and the discussion is over. Move on gracefully.
I didn't reject any of your reasoning btw, you never really offered any, but why respond with grace when I can use allusions that go over your head until you google them?
I don't want to shock you, but you haven't sent me running to Google once. When you do, I will let you know.
You don't know what else to say? You can say that you're wrong. Just because this does not conform to American democracy doesn't mean that its not democratic. Here's a little quote that I got for you from the internet, "The Wilhelmine system was not an autocracy, but neither was it a constitutional monarchy...Germany a legislative body that was as democratic as any political system in Europe. " There's the clincher huh? Let me explain since you are only capable of comprehending American concepts. The United States of America is not the great definition of democracy. In fact, it was built so that it wasn't very democratic. The Senate was to be elected by their state legislatures, and the President was to be elected by the Electoral College (indirectly from the people, but not really from the people). The only thing democratic was the election of the House of Representatives. Nowadays we see that the electoral college doesn't operate as the founding fathers wanted it to and its rather useless. There are different types of democracies and Germany had more democratic elements than many other countries because (as I had wrote earlier). "Germany was the most democratic of countries and more democratic than Britain because although Britain had elections and civil liberties, they had no written constitution and no separation of powers..." So Germany had all those aspects. Just because it says they had an emperor doesn't close the case, just like I could say that the only elected officials by the people in the U.S federal government are the U.S Representatives. If you spew crap out of your mouth, someone is going to prove you wrong... Instead of trying to "win" arguments you should keep your mouth shut and try to "understand" first. Google that!
You remind me of the Arabs who claimed that Saddam was a just Democratic ruler, as evidenced by the fact that his people reelected him last year unanimously. Kaiser Wilhelm ruled Germany, and the Reichstag was his plaything. The Kaiser has little regard for the will of the people, and in practice, became a totalitarian ruler in the years leading up to WW1. Your claims that pre WW1 Germany was as Democracy is so foolish that I will not address you again concerning this matter. The fact remains that Democracies don't engage other Democracies (including all forms of Democracy such as a Republic) on the field of battle. If you really want to end suffering and promote world peace, then spreading Democracy is the best way.
Just for the record Africa is not a country. Some countries in Africa have large amounts of some sources, while others have almost no natural resources. Comparing Africa to Japan makes no sense.
It was never legalized in the land that became Canada before Canda existed...and Canada itself, as I said, never practiced it at all. I seriously don't know how to argue this with you...I see from your response that you already know the salinet fact: that slavery, by any means, ended here before Canada began. My point re: Canada remains true, as do all the other points I made...Canada is clearly an example fo a more 'altruistic' nation than the US. Wealthier? No...More powerful? Again, no...But more altruistic...more self-sacrficing for others? Yes.
i'm not saying you're wrong...i don't know...but how are you measuring that? are you putting any time constraints on that statement? seriously..not trying to argue...just curious.
Historical note Re: Pre-WWI Germany... It was certainly a form of democratic principle, but combined with a more monarchial aspect as was found in England at the time, although the actual power of the Emperor exceeded that of the Crown of England in a few areas. Each of Germany's 25 states at the time sent a delegate to the federal council called the Bundesrat, over which the Chancellor presided. At the same time each state retained considerable administrative autonomy ( for example, Bavaria had an independant and quite leberal constitution), and the Reichstag ( German Parliament) maintained exclusive control of the German budget. At the same time the Chancellor was responsible to the Emperor, not to the Reichstag, and the general political tone was more authoritarian than we are used to, but it was by consent...as the popular existance and power of the Social Democrats demonstrates. In short, the form democratic principles took in pre-WWI Germany was as reflective of their cultural priorities as are all the other various evolutions of the practice, from Great britain to the USa to Anceint Greece...and it is typically ceo-centric of some people to suppose that any nation which does not duplicate our own system is therefore not democratic or republican in nature.
LOL. Look, the point here is that just because the German governmental structure look quasi-democratic on paper, does not mean that Kaiser Wilhelm allowed popular will to influence his decision making. After he forced out Bismark, his rule became more authoritarian every year leading up to WW1. By any standard, Germany in practice was not a Democracy. I now know that I am right, because the resident historian MacBeth is equivocating mightily to avoid agreeing with me while trying to relay the true history.
So Japan doesn't set a precendent against the arguement " You can't succeed unless you have a abundance of resources?" Its not what you have, but the opportunistic nature that results within the country's mindset within the citizens and desire to succeed despite hurdles. Thats the difference between those countries looking for a constant handout, and those that do the handing out.
