Good to know that everyone that doesn't agree with you is stupid.
:rolleyes:

The original emphasis that the war started because of slavery was northern propaganda. Yes, it needed to end. Yes Lincoln was an abolitionist. He was not about to start a civil war over it, though.
The money I was talking about was the tarrifs paid primarily by the south in that they were still "colonial" (in the sense of producing raw materials for remote factories. Yes, a lot of that money was from slave labor (which we as a country have never paid them back for, BTW).
IMHO, the slaves needed to rise up themselves. John Brown was right about a lot of things. Their descendants would have had a more equal place in this "equal" society (or, of course, it might have turned out like Haiti).
I suppose this makes me a southern apologist as well as a white liberal. Guess I'll have to go join the ACLU and carry the card around so you can add another label :)

Hey, I voted on the deficit. The vast majority of the federal debt has occured during Republican presidencies.

The Last two Democratic presidents oversaw a shrinking of the yearly deficit.

I've never understood the popular impression that Democratic presidents are fiscally irresponsible while Republican presidents are fiscally responsible, don't match with reality.

Aaron Spink
speaking for myself inc.

Depends on where you are. I'm pretty middle of the road for here - and would be on the "right" if I lived in Australia or NZ - at least as far as the "liberal" part goes. Yes I'm a Caucasian (as in bloodlines from the Caucasus mountains, marker characteristics like that bump on the back of my skull) and would be that where ever I go. Of course the "white" designation might change from place to place.

On a different note - why think I'm trying to make myself look "morally superior"? I have no idea whether I am or not (probably am not) and am not trying to come off that way. Was just expressing my opinion. If you are reacting to some feeling of being morally inferior, don't put it on me. If you mean I'm being smug, I'm certainly not feeling that way, don't mean to express things that way, am just expressing my opinion

BTW, I know you're grumpy, but isn't this a bit "over the line" - or do the stars make it OK?

Not sure why Cheney/Bush folks should be so exercised. You got four more years. Be happy! Rejoice!
If nothing else, you won't have to say "well, we would have won in Iraq if only Kerry hadn't becpme president and [done whatever you'd blame him for]". You get to succeed or fail on your own, now...

this is objectionable ("over the line" ?? why introduce this element ?)
post facto judgment is facile, you would 'credit' only those 'good' deeds done because of the understanding at that moment ?
pfft, bad deeds can also have good results - though not to those exposed at the time


cs, you are correct, I am a cynic due to the education and experiences over my life,
others may have a more felicitous view of the world

agreed, BR is not to my taste at all; nor am I enthused with his appraisal of the content of some (most ?) philosophers; my recommendation was based on the historical overview and the philosophical 'product' of the respective times

Citizenship and Immigration Canada - Welcome :)

***

I was not much interested in which candidate would win, personally. As many Americans have said, neither is good. What I was curious about was how democracy would fair in the election. It was blown away: "other" received less than 1% of the popular vote. We'd expect more from ballot error! I must conclude that US electoral politics have now reached full reduction, voters bound to authorise one wing or the other of what is in effect a unified regime. I'm sure to Americans Bush and Kerry look different. They always stress their differences.

Americans may find positive spin for these bizzarely close contests, to reassure themselves nothing is wrong.

Ironically, the only Americans to sway campaign strategy (and therefore election promises, party policy, and maybe concrete action later) was an unwitting cadre of some undecided voters in a few swing states. They numbered few, and - again a paradox - were found to be politically illiterate. There is your engine of political change.

If they'll let you emigrate, New Zealand or Australia. I'd personally pick NZ, but I'm big on the outdoors and NZ is just jaw-droppingly beautiful, not to mention it's the best place I've ever been to ride a motorcycle (Tazzie in Aus is fairly amazing as well, but the weather changes a bit too quickly for my tastes - and I'm a New Englander).
At least go for an extended vacation...
Hey Cathar, if you're reading this thread, what are chances of a techie getting a work visa to Aus? I know I'm too old (50+), but what are cybersamurai's chances?

Kobuchi
I cannot imagine what else you were expecting
an informed electorate ?
that is a joke, as is the presumed 'Independence' of voters
there is a bedrock core devoted to each party, then those that are left
do not think that political stragetists are "unwitting"

I agree Lincoln was not going to start a civil war over slavery. However, you need to look closer at the South's reasons for succession from the union. Don't think for a second that plantation owners interests in maintain slavery as a business practice was a heavy influence.

Once you see a system of control in place, you will understand why people don’t rise up against authority easily. However, there where uprisings and a few were put down by US troops. Generally, they were limited to the local plantations. If you Google it you will find some good stuff.

I don't knock the ACLU, I think they are a good orgainzation.

If you're white, have a tertiary education, and at least $1M US of assets to your name to prove that you won't be a burden to the country, then the door's wide open.

If you're white, young (<35), with a tertiary education, and have at least $250K US worth of liquid assets, you too can walk right in.

If you're not white but have over about $4M US of assets, you too can walk in with red-carpet treatment.

If you have a tertiary education in some technical/medical field, getting in won't be too hard, but not as easy as above.

All else need to fight with the general masses/boat people.

I reserve comment on my view of the US election result as vehement outburts liberally laced with expletives tends to offend...

Feel free Australia has always been a faithful friend of the US. I'd say you have more that earned the right to be critical.

Just curious...I know Australia has a Republican movement. What is the common person on the streets view on replacing the head of state with a president?

Australia should have been a republic about 4 years ago. John Howard, the Prime Minister that we are "blessed" with, organised a referendum on the matter. Howard is a staunch monarchist though, unlike the previous Prime Minister who set up the path towards the referendum. Sadly he got voted out before he could complete the monumental task of preparing for it, and Howard took steps to derail any change.

Rather than ask two questions, such as:

1) Do you want Australia to become a republic?
2) If Australia becomes a republic, do you want a popularly elected president (US style), or a parliamentary appointed president (much like what the Governer-General position already is today - but just removing the Queen as the next step up)?

Instead Howard worded the question as:

1) Do you want the present monarchy system, a popularly elected president, or a parliamentary appointed president?

Now for a referendum to be made law, 51% of the people, plus 4 out of the 6 states of Australia need to vote in the positive sense for any one option to enact the requires constitutional change.

About 60% of Australia want a Republic, but they were split over the appointed/elected president model. As such, there was not enough support to push either option over the 51%, 4/6 state mark. The monarchy portion got 40%, and the two presidential options got around 30% each.

Howard then had the cheek of declaring this as overwhelming support for keeping the status quo with the Monarchy.

It was all a total farce.

Personally I fall into the parliamentary appointed presidential model myself. Have to remember that a president here would not have the same level of powers as a US president, basically having only the power to dissolve the parliament if he deems them unfit to govern. A popularly elected presidential model would be a waste of resources and voter's time given that they are already electing the parliamentary persons into power who would then choose the president.

I have always wanted to visit NZ and AUS. I think I'll do that and look into citizenship if I think its somewhere I could live. Thanks for the advice. I just got back from Hawaii so I'll have to save up some money first. I don't fit into the 1M of US assets category. But im less than 30 and will have a degree in CS so who knows.

Interesting, is there a big push to get it back on the ballot? It seems your democracy is already structured a lot like the US. If you just did away with the prime minister and voted for a president in a general election there would me no difference.

What are the mechanics of passing laws and what are the roles of your courts in government.

And not having a constitutional monarch has helped us?
I personally think that Ronald Reagan would have made a great constitutional monarch. Someone we all look up to, sort of a collective "Dad" - without too much power. I totally disagreed with most of his policies - and James Watt's free-for-all on federal lands was driving me crazy. IMHO, JFK would have made a good one, too, and maybe even Andy Jackson who was arguably the worst president (in terms of dereliction of duty) we've ever had.

IMHO, the counties I've visited that have constitutional monarchies seem to view their politicians as, well, politicians. Not someone who embodies their state, someone to look up to. Makes it seem worthwhile keeping the monarch around, so long as he/she hasn't got a lot of power. Oh - and putting this in perspective, I don't know anyone else in the states with this opinion (it's not a new england white liberal aclu thing). The only one even slightly close, was Mark Twain, who thought we'd ought to have a royal family of cats. Come to think of it, he eventually became a new englander, so maybe this is a regional thing.

What I'm trying to get at is that the office of president has become somewhat confused with that of monarch. Many people vote for a president because he has kingly qualities - when what we need is a competent politician. Having a separate (somewhat powerless) monarch might keep that tendency in check...

All that said, have I misread the Queen's power in Aus? Is there something she's done in the last twenty years that really changed things for Australians? (note non-rhetorical question - please correct me if she has done something - big apologies for not being as up on Australian history as I'd ought to be.). And feel free to call me names - seems I'm the keeper of unpopular opinions here today/tonight :)

Go now - don't wait like I did. Maybe there's an exchange program. University of Otago at Dunedin's supposed to be pretty good technically. Don't know the Aus schools - Cathar?

Here is my view on it. America has become the wealthiest most powerful country on earth because it divorced it self from the monarchal style of government and the class system that comes with it.

The very nature of a monarchies keep the wealth and power of a nation held by a few based on birth. On the other hand, we can stratify easily and being a self-made man is the ideal not being a member of the lucky sperm club.

No, our democracy is much, much, much closer to the English system.

In the UK/England, the government runs the show, and the Queen is just a figurative head of state.

In Australia we presently have the Governer-General, who is an Australian, as an appointed head of state who is sworn in by the Queen, but who is selected by the parliament.

If Australia became a republic, the only thing that would change is that the Queen bit gets removed, and the Governer-General title gets changed to President, and becomes the highest figure-head of power, but really does nothing other than ensure that the government that does the real job isn't screwing up.

Got that part...served with the Desert Rats for a few months;)

Whose parliament yours or the UK.

Australia's

Ok got it. This seam to be more of a ceremonial issue, I would think most Aussies would be ambivalent about the queen. You seem to have relieved yourselves of the class system, which is still very pervasive in the UK.

The practical legal differences between the American system and Australia's (or just about anywhere else's) stem, I think, from the US Constitution being overarching and archaic. It was conceived in the 18th century. Just look at that old rag.

I suppose we grow ever more attached to anachronisms.

You mean like monarchies :rolleyes:

What part of the United States Constitution would you change?

What's a class system? ;)

To start? The part about a black man being counted as 3/5 of a white.
And before you say it, yes I understand that it came from a compromise and that it gave the South disproportionate political power and was a reason that slavery persisted (not as big as the cotton gin, though).
I'm not 'way hot on the electoral college, either.

On the other hand, there is a lot to say for changing nothing - just to sidestep the issue of unintended consequences, although I can't think what they might be around changing 3/5 to 5/5.

My wife teaches English as a second language - and sometimes we have students from her school as long term guests (started as a dorm room shortage emergency but now we just like having 'em around). Our most recent guest was from Colombia, had degrees in law and was clerking for one of the justices in their supreme court. They're in the throes of changing their constitution and it was very interesting to have an ongoing conversation comparing constitutional law in different countries (their current one is based on the French system and they are attempting to meld it with the US one) particularly as it was not an academic conversation but one focused much more on practical consequences. I'm no lawyer, but was glad to be the sounding board.

Otago is an excellent University (my home town)

www.otago.ac.nz if you want to have a look

As far as the other universities etc are concerned, they're not even close (wrt international recognition). They do have exchange programmes with the US (theres a few, iirc)

Lincon in Canterbury is the big engineering/tech University.
http://www.lincoln.ac.nz/

Victora in Wellington is known for politics/philosophy/commerce.
http://www.vuw.ac.nz/home/index.asp

Auckland university of Techology (Auckland is NZ's biggest city at 1m pop) obviously known for its Tech.
http://www.aut.ac.nz/

Hope that helps someone.

:rolleyes:
The arrogance and incompetence of this administration will catch up. We've already lost our right to privacy, our jobs and the respect of the world. Whats next? More tax cuts? WOW, thats REALLY smart. If people would open their eyes, study the FACTS and most importantly, RESPECT each others lifestyles, we could be happy. Some churches called voting for Kerry a sin. That explains where we are at and it is sad. This is supposed to be "the land of the free". It's more like, "the land of selected freedom". Selected by people who think THEIR beliefs are for everyone. God gave us all one thing, choice. Adam and Eve? Choice. Demonizing gays and shunning them away is the most UN-christian thing anyone could do. I thought God was love, but apparently to most "christians", they have the right to judge people. Censorship has also gotten out of control. But, why should it matter? If you're getting tax cuts, why change all that? Money is ALWAYS more important than freedom. :rolleyes: Over 14,000 "Americans" die every year from guns. Under 100 in Canada. Do we own more guns then Canadians? NO!
The constitution needs to be inforced and it's being pushed aside, thats one of the most UN-patriotic things. People should be outraged, but alas, nobody blinks an eye.

Last time I checked my vote counted as a whole man. Hummm 13th thru 15th Amendments. Yep they are my friends.

The cotton gin and other technical advances would have eventually ended the economics of slave labor.

The electoral collage may seem somewhat undemocratic at first however; you should read the federalist papers see No 68.

I think if you read the federalist papers, you will find that every article in the constitution was well debated. Men who debated every form of government from Direct Democracy in Athens to British Parliament wrote the US Constitution. None of them trusted the masses, a central power or one another and all assume human beings ultimately made decisions based on self-interest. All those premises find their way into the structure of our constitution.

Yeah it sounds like you're all some pretty smart motherfsckers. You make a lot of sense. Thank you for your insight.

I haven't any suggestions. I was leading you to contrast the two. Which part of Her Majesty would you change? :D Would that disturb me so much as revamping the constitution would an American?

See, even kings must die, but it's a real PITA killing an idea. :p

***

@toastyghost. Mean.