A One-Party System

Originally posted by generalissimo
when did Obama kill his own people because of their beliefs?

He hasn't yet. Give him time.

Originally posted by scherzo
He hasn't yet. Give him time.

When did Bush kill his own people because of their beliefs?

Originally posted by generalissimo
When did Bush kill his own people because of their beliefs?

Oh, you know, the 9/11 aftermath, Iraq, Afghanistan, the American people from ISM who tried to break the Gaza siege, you know ...

Originally posted by scherzo
He hasn't yet. Give him time.

Obama seems to be good, unlike bush, I agree with you about bush killing his people.

Originally posted by Emashi
Obama seems to be good, unlike bush, I agree with you about bush killing his people.

Nice to have you back.

I think that if the recount in Iran still shows ol' Mahmoud as winner, it'll end up starting a rise in tensions that may unfortunately culminate in "Vietnam III"

EDIT: For an Israeli, read "Lebanon III"

Originally posted by Emashi
Obama seems to be good, unlike bush, I agree with you about bush killing his people.

Do you seriously think it is fair to compare Bush to Stalin?

Originally posted by generalissimo
Do you seriously think it is fair to compare Bush to Stalin?

Godwin's law should have a parallel for Stalin comparisons.

Originally posted by sh76
Godwin's law should have a parallel for Stalin comparisons.

Originally posted by scherzo
He killed way less than any US president, with the possible exception of ... well, he killed way less than any US president.

Scherzo claimed US presidents (Bush included) killed their own people because of their beliefs, according to him they killed more than Castro.

Originally posted by generalissimo
Do you seriously think it is fair to compare Bush to Stalin?

Nah ... Stalin was better than that.

Originally posted by scherzo
Nah ... Stalin was better than that.

and yet you call yourself a democracy advocate, what a joke.

Originally posted by generalissimo
and yet you call yourself a democracy advocate, what a joke.

I never called myself a democracy advocate. That's spruce you're thinking of.

Originally posted by scherzo
I never called myself a democracy advocate. That's spruce you're thinking of.

There you go, scherzo is not in favor of democracy, he wants a repressive regime like Stalinist Russia.

and yet he is in favor of elections when it suits him.

Originally posted by generalissimo
There you go, scherzo is not in favor of democracy, he wants a repressive regime like Stalinist Russia.

and yet he is in favor of elections when it suits him.

I'm saying, you have no right to call a country's elections undemocratic when they're democratic.

And Russia under Stalin was no more repressive than the US under Bush.

Originally posted by scherzo
Advantages: Efficiency; little if any controversy in the country/region; no election years or mud-throwing; no filibustering

Disadvantages: Quelling of dissent; usually a lack of personal freedoms and democratic elections; not always truly governed by the people

Seems to me the scales are pretty balanced! What if we had several one-party states, with e ...[text shortened]... eed with the platforms could go to live in the countries with the parties that best suited them?

I can't get my mind wrapped around this one. If it is a one party system then what is the point of the party? I would rather there be a no party system. Eveyone that runs for election has to take sides on the real issues that way. Candidate x is pro abortion, pro second amendment rights for citezens to own fire arms, against gay marriage, and believes less govenment is more. Candidate y is against abortion, against the right to bear arms, sees nothing wrong with gay marriage, and thinks government should do our thinking for us as well as provide tons of money for social systems. The combinations would be limitless, and the voters wont have such a compromise. The way it is now is that if a voter feels strongly enough about certain issues they will vote for the candidate even though they are aware of the negative baggage that comes with it. How many times have you heard people say they are voting for the lesser of the two evils?

Originally posted by joe beyser
I can't get my mind wrapped around this one. If it is a one party system then what is the point of the party? I would rather there be a no party system. Eveyone that runs for election has to take sides on the real issues that way. Candidate x is pro abortion, pro second amendment rights for citezens to own fire arms, against gay marriage, and believes les ...[text shortened]... h it. How many times have you heard people say they are voting for the lesser of the two evils?

Well, that's what a one-party system prevents. Except without the lack of parties that's a step towards anarchism.