well i wanna see what do u think why Democracy is good, offcours if u think that Democracy is good for our countrys for people.
Well i hope im not the only one here that don't agree with democratic system, for Democracy is alsmot same as any otehr system that gives ppl freedom
but one thing i really dislike in this syste are Elctions, how can u count vote fo some doctor, some inginier or some magister same as vote of some village man whos knows shit about politic, and knows nothing about anythign that ain't related wiht hes work at village
and also they count vote os man who dunno how to read or how to wrrite same as vote of doctors and inginiers and learned ppl

whats youre opinion about this

Written by akatana on 23.05.2006 at 19:54

In conclusion I must add that not the political doctrine of a systems fails but the people fail when interpreting and acting upon these ideologies ... because hidden deep in all human beings are dangerous and irrational desires and fears which always find a way to destroy ideas in a selish matter .. communism, capitalism, socialism, theocracy etc could all work but not applied on the human race.

You've obviously not met our resident communist yet, have you? He's a funny one...I wonder where he went? I enjoyed his optimism, all be it, jaded.

A good thread! I'll enjoy watching it progress.

umm, communism is strange. where applied, people become really corrupt(china is the out lier, and doesnt follow the patter), and people start living below the poverty line. the only way above it is selling drugs, or prostitution. not really an honest way to live. take cuba for example. communims doesnt work. democracy may be good to eliminate the difference between the rich and the poor, becuase it brings everyone to one level. but if that is done, then people tend to loose motivation, and interest. they just dont care anymore. i mean, if i work really really hard, and im getting 5 bucks a day, does it make sense for someone else to get the same when he/she doesn jack shit, and just sits in the corner and smokes all day long? i dont think so. so if i see him/her getting 5 bucks a day for doing jack shit, ill do the same.

china on the other hand works in a strange way. not that china is bad. i mean, over the last 50 years, china made it HUGE. there once was a time when chinese things fell apart instantly. now, almost everything is made in china. i wont be surprised if my kids would havea tatoo saying 'made in china' in a few years. on top of that, if you ever had a chinese new commer in your class, you would notice how dedicated they are to thei books. these people, if they arent smart, then they try really hard. since everyone is supposedly equal in china, parents force their kids to become better than everyone else. and when everyone is trying to be better than everyone else, you get kids who are insanly smart, or unique or do insane stuff. so democrasy is actually doing good for china.(atleast i think so)


democracy on the other hand works. i have a few pet peeves with democrazy though. i mean, if you take america for example. say 45% of america votes for person A and 55% of the people vote for person B. so person B wins. what i dont like about the system is that the 45% of the people that voted for person A, HAVE to live under person B for the nest 4-8 years. i prefer the canadian version of it though. like instead of just 2 parties running for election, we have 6 or more parties running. and say the smallest partie gets elected with just 5% of the total votes, that party would have 5% of the say in the canadian law/government etc. and that way, hardly anyone can have the veto over the other party. the winner of the election may get the final say, but that party has to talk to all the toehr parties before they make a statement.

Written by EddieGunner on 23.05.2006 at 17:36

Well i hope im not the only one here that don't agree with democratic system, for Democracy is alsmot same as any otehr system that gives ppl freedom

Either that sentence wasn't formulated properly or your sentence was just lame.
''Democracy is the same as others because it gives people freedom''? Sorry but that is just LAME what you just said. It wouldn't have been if you had said something intelligent to back it up, but I guess that didn't come to mind.

I do agree that the majority is not always the best suited to choose who should represent it or to choose what is best for itself. That is one of the inconveniences of democracy.

Of course, as a system, it is not flawless (there are no flawless systems) but it seems to be that democracy is a system that gives a chance to every individual, which is what freedom is all about (although the author of the thread seems to think that that is a bad thing, even though he cannot elaborate about it).

I believe Sir Winston Churchill is on the mark : "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Well, I'm pretty much against Democracy. It has way too many flaws (just like most, if not all, government systems). First of all, Democracy works like the cave from Plato's allegory. What people are shown, are just shadows on the wall. They aren't told enough truth to make a valid choice in such important things as voting for president. Much rather they are lied to.
Not to mention all the idiots that appear in the politics.
In my opinion, Technocracy is a much better system. It gives power to intelligent people, those who know what they're supposed to do.

But all in all I'm an anarchist. The only reason why I think Anarchy wouldn't work is because sooner or later someone would try to build a government anyway. Asides that anarchy gives more freedom to people, allows them to pay what they want to pay for (like not military, researches on bio-hazardous substances and the like), removes possibility of war, point in terrorism and greatly reduces crime... Governments are unneeded, in my opinion.

Anarchy would be an absolute failure. Think about the consequences of just a town living in a state of absolute anarchy.

For starters, money would have zero value. There would be no government to back up the funds to make the money even worth the paper it's printed upon.

So would bartering. If I want what you have, and I am bigger/stronger/more well armed, what is to encourage me to barter with you... why shouldn't I just shoot you dead and take what I want?

Terrorism WILL exist- just in different form. Armed gangs with a charismatic and intelligent leader would simply play king of the neighborhood.

Who would put out fires?

Who would fix the roads?

Who would produce food?

Who would build shelters?

But at least you got one fact right - there would be a great reduction in crime - BECAUSE THERE IS NO LAWS. I could rape your mother then shoot you in the head, and it's all A-o-freaking-kay.

Anarchy is even more pitifully idyllic than Communism. "Peace, Love, Harmony, and Granola c'mon now smile on your brother everybody time to love one another right now" hippy bullshit. It is an undeniable fact that there are evil bastard people who will always take advantage of and prey upon those they see as weaker. Period. The absolute lack of laws would simply remove all impediments to them steamrolling and crushing everyone to get what they want.


Governments are not needed?

Are you nuts?

I can't even begin to discuss this with you. I find your statement absolutely mind boggling.

All I know is without the government, there would be no protection from 'adult bullies', nothing to guarantee that my employer paid me, my home was built safe, my car wouldn't explode if i backed into a fire hydrant at 5mph, my food that I buy is safe, that we would have money at all with which to equalize and facilitate the transfer of goods and services.

Without organized governments we would all still be living in caves.

Back on topic - I find Democracy to be the only form of government that is acceptable.

The will of the people should be the basis of government.

I will state that I think a democracy has to be built in a manner similar to the US Government (not saying you need to follow our exact blueprint or you're wrong... I am citing it as example simply because it is the one with which I am most familliar - and I am pretty positive Canadian and European governments work in a similar fashion)...

The democracy has to have checks and balances, and be designed to slowly adapt to change. This would prevent any one side/party from becoming overpowered and merely wiping out those who disagree. Slow adaptation to change simply protects against mob mentality reactions to hotbutton issues.

A democracy should also guarantee people basic human rights as well.

Thank you, Bitter COld, for bringing sense to this thread.

I'm originally an American, and I have a great respect for the government and its complex inner workings, which may not make much sense on the outside.

Written by BitterCOld on 25.05.2006 at 02:41


The democracy has to have checks and balances, and be designed to slowly adapt to change. This would prevent any one side/party from becoming overpowered and merely wiping out those who disagree. Slow adaptation to change simply protects against mob mentality reactions to hotbutton issues.

A democracy should also guarantee people basic human rights as well.

Exactly. By law, everyone with a voice is heard. The government evolves naturally with the times. The guys who came up with this system were positively brilliant, much more realistic in their thinking than most leaders or political theorists. Of course, America is a very young country but we can already see how successful it has been. Other nations have ripped off America's ideas and have made great progress.

This is not to say that every country is ready for democracy. No. But I think many get to a point where their citizens begin to demand it, and that is when it works best.

@Bitter COld: There are actually anarchistic societies that work without any problems.
For example crime. First of all, as human psychology tells us, a lot of crime is caused by hierarchistic structure of society. Second, people would be built into small communities, where rotatingly, everyone would be doing security duty. In places where it was used, crime was greatly reduced, while organised crime simply disappeared (obviously).
To answer who would put out fires, there's no problem in community gathering to decide on payment for firemen, which would then protect them.
And what you said isn't even terrorism. That's a starting phase of building a government. Something I pointed out as the only reason why Anarchy wouldn't work.
And since when does any government system stop anyone from aiming a gun at someone's head and taking his belongings? As far as I know in Democracy it's happening all the time.
And as the actual history of money tells us, no government is needed for those.

Then take a look at differences between Democratic countries, where government makes minimal interference and those where it makes a lot of it. The ones with minimal interference tend to have better developped economy.

I'd understand if you said "People are too lazy to decide on everything on their own" and I'd understand such point, but you called me nuts after making statements, which were overthrown by many Anarchists before. I wasn't pro-anarchy before, but then I decided to actually look up what the Anarchists had to say before making any unsupported judgement.

@SilentScream
yeah gives freedon to live and to think, not like it was in Staljins time, u couldnt do anythign that he desagree or that party desagree with that, but thats one point

Anyway, no one dind't said anything about vote countin, Election sux on the way they r now, solution is to put IQ test with election ticket and how manny points u get on test that how much is youre vote worted.

Anarhy is good but only at movies. Imagine that u must bring Kalasnjikov Gun alway when u goin to buy food or when u goin on coffe or to school, that would be real pain in the ass,

Someone said that Democrycy only works at small countrys , well thats a little true, but bosnia is small country but at same time we were in shity war, theres so much small country and they have lame democracy, Serbia, Croatia,
And comunis isn't a system that creats more poors at world i thing democrycy is to blame for that, and capitalism, thers no Capitalism in Comunisam

Written by EddieGunner on 25.05.2006 at 19:34

Imagine that u must bring Kalasnjikov Gun alway when u goin to buy food or when u goin on coffe or to school, that would be real pain in the ass,

Where did that idea even come from? And what does it have to do with Anarchism?

Written by EddieGunner on 25.05.2006 at 19:34

@SilentScream
yeah gives freedon to live and to think, not like it was in Staljins time, u couldnt do anythign that he desagree or that party desagree with that, but thats one point

And this freedom is a bad thing...?
You lost me.

ok maybe i will flamed for this opinion but still, here is mine:

i think democracy as it is now is not necessarily a good thing,
the reason is this, democracy exists because the nation should be able to decide for itself what is best for it, however, what if the nation itself doesnt know what is the best for it? lets face it, the world is full of retarded people, and these people have the right to vote, however it is quite possible, or even predictable that they will cast their vote not for the one with the most realistic ideas, but the best-sounding ideas, or they wont even inform theirselves about the actual idea but vote for the politician they like better (for example strong christians voting for a strong christian rather then an agnostic) i think not all people should be allowed to vote, however the question is how to choose the people who are not allowed to do so...of course we cant base this decision on superficial things, like religion, skin colour, gender etc. because those say nothing about how far the voter thinks when voting, however we could have a system where only people with a certain IQ number are allowed to vote...however i think it will be impossible to do this for now

@Bas: Overthrowing Democracy and using Technocracy instead would be much easier, and with better results...
Democracy itself requires educating citizens, rather than disallowing some to vote. Of course in practice this fails miserably, but otherwise it is no more Democracy. The government itself works great - but only for those with power.

Written by Guest on 25.05.2006 at 22:37

@Bas: Overthrowing Democracy and using Technocracy instead would be much easier, and with better results...
Democracy itself requires educating citizens, rather than disallowing some to vote. Of course in practice this fails miserably, but otherwise it is no more Democracy. The government itself works great - but only for those with power.

well actually i would prefer technocracy over democracy, at least i would be sure that the people making the decisions know what they are actually doing,

and about democracy requiring educated citizens, of course you are right here, but there simply are people that dont really think much when voting and just vote for the person they find more sympathetic, and others that vote without having informed themselves very much, if we would only let the smartest people vote we will be sure that they do the right thing, however it would be extremely hard to determine who would be able to vote and who not, that's why i think it cant be done

Another problem would be people protesting. It wouldn't go through without a massive damage. And what if it turned out education is dependant on skin colour? The government would be called racist.

@ Draklar
Anarchy = no law
so everybody can do wahtever they wannt so if u wanna protect youre sefl better buy some guns

Democracy is variable...it depends on how you apply it.It can take many forms, and many things can be offered for example to people in former communist countries pretending to be democracy.And another thing, democracy is not absolute freedom...absolute freedom cannot be reached anywhere in the world today.

Written by Bas on 25.05.2006 at 22:47

Written by Guest on 25.05.2006 at 22:37

@Bas: Overthrowing Democracy and using Technocracy instead would be much easier, and with better results...
Democracy itself requires educating citizens, rather than disallowing some to vote. Of course in practice this fails miserably, but otherwise it is no more Democracy. The government itself works great - but only for those with power.

well actually i would prefer technocracy over democracy, at least i would be sure that the people making the decisions know what they are actually doing,

and about democracy requiring educated citizens, of course you are right here, but there simply are people that dont really think much when voting and just vote for the person they find more sympathetic, and others that vote without having informed themselves very much, if we would only let the smartest people vote we will be sure that they do the right thing, however it would be extremely hard to determine who would be able to vote and who not, that's why i think it cant be done

Okay, I have to confess that I find technocracy to be an unbelievably stupid idea. First of all, the idea that everyday citizens are not intelligent enough to vote is incredibly arrogant. It wasn't that long ago that even in America anybody that wasn't a white, land-owning male was not thought to be intelligent enough to vote. So you suggest that the best form of government would be one where only a person holding a high degree in some form of engineering or science would be intelligent enough to vote? No way.

I realize that it is employed in certain countries like China. This doesn't take away the fact that it is a biased system with no respect to the intelligence of those who do not hold degrees, are not friends of "smart" people, and who have not held a "respectable" job. The idea of democracy is that the people create their own destiny and call the shots on the direction of their society. Anyone can rise to a government position. Anyone, ideally, can become a governor or a president. Some people find this prospect frightening and think that silly rules should be in place to stop the everyday person from achieving a position of power. So you think that a Harvard graduate can rule the country better than, say, me? Here's the thing--competition is so great that highly intelligent, respectable people are usually the ones who find their way into office anyway. Human nature causes us to elect the ones we think are the most capable. But I don't appreciate any law or system that creates innate barriers against the everyday person. The everyday person is the one who keeps the country on its feet, not the scientists or engineers, but the people who take blue-collar jobs. Have you ever heard the saying, "No farmers=No food"? In other words, "No workers=no anything".

Don't act like people don't deserve to be in control of their own government.

More criticism for technocracy: many government decisions are not technical at all, but political (obviously); decisions that can be reached only by taking note of human values and social costs. The future is not certain and many decisions are subjective. You can't take a scientific approach to the game of foreign policy, for example.

Democratic governments depend on the approval of the general populace. That is how officials get elected--by their policies on issues. But a technocrat may only be concerned with issues related to his/her area of expertise, for example, the environment. They may know little about any other issues, and may ignore the other issues in favor of the one.

Also, technocracy would easily be in danger of becoming self-promoting and would disregard the opinions and concerns of the people--perhaps because it would see those people as not being "intelligent" enough to have opinions and concerns.

Written by EddieGunner on 26.05.2006 at 16:23

Anarchy = no law

Anarchism != Anarchy
They're different things and it would be better not to confuse them.

@Proud Autumn: First of all, USA is the best example why Technocracy is better than Democracy. Let's face it, there's lousy education there. I mean seriously, there are many educated Americans who don't even know where Mexico is, while some think it's somewhere in Europe. Giving such people the ability to choose about their country? Doubtful idea.
Second, Democratic governments depend on the approval of the general populace. True. Do they do what they promise to general populace? That's another case. Plus all those things mentioned by Bas.

Written by Guest on 29.05.2006 at 19:00

More criticism for technocracy: many government decisions are not technical at all, but political (obviously); decisions that can be reached only by taking note of human values and social costs. The future is not certain and many decisions are subjective. You can't take a scientific approach to the game of foreign policy, for example.

I know that argument, to look at the version from wiki:

Quote:
One essential criticism of technocracy is that many governmental decisions are not technical, but political in essence. A technical decision is one that may be reached through know-how, expertise and experience, using rational arguments. A political decision is one that reflects some subjective choices, for instance regarding human values, or some choice regarding some very uncertain future.

For instance, a technocrat may follow neoclassical economics and decide that some factory is not economically efficient and thus that it should be closed. Still, closing this factory will result in a local social disaster, with many people forced out of jobs and the usual consequences. A political decision will have to take human distress into account.

One of the funniest arguments against Technocracy I ever heard.
In economic studies it is made very important to reduce the unemployment. Fully educated economist wouldn't strive for increasing efficiency on the cost of employment if he hadn't really good reasons to do so. On the contrary, I've noticed Democratic government in my country do just the oposite. If something isn't efficient, it removes it. Actually, there are simple methods to reduce unemployment, which are known to any economist, but for some unknown reason the government just doesn't use those.
Another case from my country: enforced army service. General populace doesn't want it, economists don't want it, army representantives don't want it. Only government wants it, apparently.
That's "Democracy" in practice.

Written by Guest on 29.05.2006 at 19:18

Written by EddieGunner on 26.05.2006 at 16:23

Anarchy = no law

Anarchism != Anarchy
They're different things and it would be better not to confuse them.

Umm... Explain? Your statement makes no sense at all to me. The very definition of anarchy is a state of lawlessness.

The very definition of anarchy is a state of lawlessness, yes. The very meaning of it, isn't.
Anarchy means "Without Rulers", which is what Anarchism is about and has absolutely nothing to do with state of disorder or anything of this sort.

Taken from wiki:

Quote:
The word "anarchy", as most anarchists use it, does not imply chaos, nihilism, or anomie, but rather a harmonious anti-authoritarian society that is based on voluntary association of free individuals in autonomous communities, mutual aid, and self-governance. It is a form of bottom-up democracy as contrasted with top-down democracy.

My point is, anarchism has nothing to do with the meaning of anarchy that the society seems to believe in.

Written by Guest on 29.05.2006 at 19:37

@Proud Autumn: First of all, USA is the best example why Technocracy is better than Democracy. Let's face it, there's lousy education there. I mean seriously, there are many educated Americans who don't even know where Mexico is, while some think it's somewhere in Europe. Giving such people the ability to choose about their country? Doubtful idea.
Second, Democratic governments depend on the approval of the general populace. True. Do they do what they promise to general populace? That's another case. Plus all those things mentioned by Bas.

Written by Guest on 29.05.2006 at 19:00

More criticism for technocracy: many government decisions are not technical at all, but political (obviously); decisions that can be reached only by taking note of human values and social costs. The future is not certain and many decisions are subjective. You can't take a scientific approach to the game of foreign policy, for example.

I know that argument, to look at the version from wiki:

Quote:
One essential criticism of technocracy is that many governmental decisions are not technical, but political in essence. A technical decision is one that may be reached through know-how, expertise and experience, using rational arguments. A political decision is one that reflects some subjective choices, for instance regarding human values, or some choice regarding some very uncertain future.

For instance, a technocrat may follow neoclassical economics and decide that some factory is not economically efficient and thus that it should be closed. Still, closing this factory will result in a local social disaster, with many people forced out of jobs and the usual consequences. A political decision will have to take human distress into account.

One of the funniest arguments against Technocracy I ever heard.
In economic studies it is made very important to reduce the unemployment. Fully educated economist wouldn't strive for increasing efficiency on the cost of employment if he hadn't really good reasons to do so. On the contrary, I've noticed Democratic government in my country do just the oposite. If something isn't efficient, it removes it. Actually, there are simple methods to reduce unemployment, which are known to any economist, but for some unknown reason the government just doesn't use those.
Another case from my country: enforced army service. General populace doesn't want it, economists don't want it, army representantives don't want it. Only government wants it, apparently.
That's "Democracy" in practice.

Look, Mister, I'm an American citizen. Don't start bashing America's democracy. I may not like a lot of things about my country, but the government itself is something that I enjoy and will defend. And what do you know about the quality of education here, asides from statistics? No, wait, never mind. It's cool to hate America and hate everything about the country. It's cool to think that America isn't doing anything good. That's right, we're supposed to think that everything's just shit in America.

If you want technocracy in Poland, more power to you. Hope that works out.

Written by Guest on 29.05.2006 at 19:51

Look, Mister, I'm an American citizen. Don't start bashing America's democracy. I may not like a lot of things about my country, but the government itself is something that I enjoy and will defend. And what do you know about the quality of education here, asides from statistics? No, wait, never mind. It's cool to hate America and hate everything about the country. It's cool to think that America isn't doing anything good. That's right, we're supposed to think that everything's just shit in America.

Statistics? No, the opinions I stated here come from actual Americans and Poles who went to USA. For example, the Mexico case I heard from my Logics professor who had the pleasure of talking with the "highly" educated Americans while his stay there.
From Americans I know that it's still nothing compared to some of the stuff there.

Written by Guest on 29.05.2006 at 20:10

Written by Guest on 29.05.2006 at 19:51

Look, Mister, I'm an American citizen. Don't start bashing America's democracy. I may not like a lot of things about my country, but the government itself is something that I enjoy and will defend. And what do you know about the quality of education here, asides from statistics? No, wait, never mind. It's cool to hate America and hate everything about the country. It's cool to think that America isn't doing anything good. That's right, we're supposed to think that everything's just shit in America.

Statistics? No, the opinions I stated here come from actual Americans and Poles who went to USA. For example, the Mexico case I heard from my Logics professor who had the pleasure of talking with the "highly" educated Americans while his stay there.
From Americans I know that it's still nothing compared to some of the stuff there.

Yeah. Personal opinons, based on personal feeling, are obviously better than statistics and facts 'midst a political debate.

So in order to jump on the band wagon (the, I haven't a clue, therefore I will attack a persons country of origin with neither knowledge or tact bandwagon) lets take a look at Poland -after all, she has been needlessly attacked in the past, if I can recall correctly?

--

You see what I mean?

Simple-minded comments such as that breed nothing but simple-minded answers.

You can feel free to continue this line of debate by either (a) bringing up Englands successful campaigns against my country or (b) realise that you have no point at all, not even a silly one, and back down; returning to the question of democracy in hand.

So far, you have proven nothing but that; you know nothing of democracy. Perhaps it is your economics or you logistics professor who needs to be on here answering the questions for you? Afterall, it is their opinion above all; above your own, that you seem to admire and cherish so.

You can now look upon this reply of mine as a rhetorical one, as I shall not be returning again to further the point.

Cheers.

Cool, I suppose you can then point out statistics which show how American education is sufficient for Democracy? Do I really have to point out you criticized me for not using those, without using them yourself?

In reality I believe people who deal with the problem in their everyday life, more than statistics (although as far as I remember, in this case statistics also show higher education within Europe, than USA)

If you want to show me how I know nothing, do it via debate, not personal attacks. Just saying "you know nothing of democracy." wont work, sorry.

well democracy as system a value of that system is what i wanted to be discussed here,not only about US democracy (personly i think Us democracy is so lamne)

@Draklar
well to me that was same, but im gona try find some more books or stuff to read it and then everything will be cleared to me about Anarchism and Anarchy

Written by akatana on 29.05.2006 at 20:46

Written by Guest on 29.05.2006 at 19:51


Look, Mister, I'm an American citizen. Don't start bashing America's democracy. I may not like a lot of things about my country, but the government itself is something that I enjoy and will defend. And what do you know about the quality of education here, asides from statistics? No, wait, never mind. It's cool to hate America and hate everything about the country. It's cool to think that America isn't doing anything good. That's right, we're supposed to think that everything's just shit in America.

If you want technocracy in Poland, more power to you. Hope that works out.

Read my first post ..

the main reasons people hate america are in my oppinion:
America as a country lacks modesty....
History of war:
* Nagasaki & Hiroshima

(did the US start that war? have you ever considered JAPANESE CIVILIAN CASUALTIES should the US have invaded the mainland? How 'bout the fact that the Japanese officers tried to overthrow the Emperor to continue fighting AFTER both the atmoic bomb had been dropped...just to continue fighting? THe casualty figures at Stalingrad/Volgograd FAR exceed BOTH bombings... and give a good approximation of the death toll per city should the US have engaged in a land war. Never mind that more died in Dresden through conventional bombing than either Hiroshima or Nagasaki)

* Biological Weapons

(not only the US, and currently the US is pursuing TREATMENT to bio weapons, as in todays society with one day global transit, they represent a threat to all life)

* The Land Mine Treaty
* The Arms Trade

(only the US? did you know the French provided most of Saddam's arsenal? Funny how noone brings up that point, huh?)

* tons of other military conflicts started and supported by the usa

(nevermind the fact that EUROS started two MASSIVE conflicts in the past 100 years that have killed off something to the effect of 60 million people... but the US is evil for Iraq? FUCK Europe. You were so fucking scared of another WWI you EMPOWERED Hitler. we have a LONG way to catch your body count you self righteous fucks. Have you ever had a peaceful century in Europe? How about a peaceful 50 year period - prior to the arrival of the US? Yeah, what I thought... a continent of Pacifists... it wasn't until 1776 that you had to deal with aggressive foreign powers.)

Oil, Bush, Kyoto

(who doesn't use oil? and Kyoto solves nothing... seeing as 'developing' nations like India and China could just pollute at will. When Europe stops using oil, I will listen to their hypocrisy)

The arrogance of americans .. most of them never bother to speak any other language

(funny, we are on a continent which primarily speaks, gasp, English.... we don't need to know more than one language to drive 100 miles in any direction...)

Heavy handed commercial aggression

(as opposed the colonization of the rest of the fucking globe by the Euros? Outside of Antarctica, is there any continent you haven't tainted with your scourge? America would still belong to the Native Americans if you hadn't crossed the seas... Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't many European nations still have COLONIES following WWII... and you judge us? One has to wonder what the state of Africa would be if not for European colonization.)


Patriotism & Self Righteousness

(as opposed to the nationalism which sparked, say, WWI and WWII?)

World War 2: although the USA lost less troops than romania it is one of the most self-glorifying

(well, we kinda did significantly help with the defeat of the Germans - giving credit to Russia. Canada, and England where credit is due, protect Western Europe from Stalinist aggression, and did manage to defeat Japan, with help from the Aussies. The contribution isn't measured entirely on body count... for all their defiance- and much respect to the Romanians for it - how much territory did they reclaim from the Nazis? Maybe my history books might be watered down with fervent patriotism, but I do not recall the Romanians pushing the Nazis out of Northern Africa, Italy, the beachs of France, nor back into their own backyard.

How many Swiss died? Did they even FIGHT? Oh, wait, uh, nevermind, in Switzerland... Cha-Ching >>> Dead Jews. Sure, you mobilized troops to defend your borders, but so long as the death and murder was "NIMBY" [Not In My Back Yard] you did NOTHING.)

Obesity .. the most obese nation in the world by far

(so you hate fat people just because they are fat? Don't worry, Europe, I've read reports showing you, too are getting fatter and fatter.)

UN criticism of the United States' Children's Rights

(and the UN enables tons of countries to get away with far worse... never mind PROFITED by selling Saddam crap in the Food for Oil scandal?)

Rape and violent crime statistics - also the 2nd amendment and the cronic fear of americans of being attacked so they must attack first(a issue also seen in michael moore's bowling for columbine)

(and if Michael Moore says it, it must be true. Realize he is a fucking propagandist the likes of Leni Riefenstahl - do you also take "Triumph of the Will" as fact? Well, given your banks' acceptance of Nazi gold, I am inclined to think you did...)

Foreign Aid: USA is stingiest of the 22 most developed countries

(define stingy... show me statistics. Didn't the US bankroll almost ALL of the military bill for defending Western Europe against the Warsaw Pact? gee, think that might have contributed to the prosperity the region? Nevermind you fail to realize the American fucking public and American Corporations donate an absurd amount of money... but I guess all the cash I donate to various international causes doesn't reflect upon our nation as it's not issued by the US government? And how much good would the Tsunami relief monies have done without the US fucking Military's ability to exert itself across the globe and directly apply that aid? Money won't put food and water on the table if noone can deliver the food and water...)


Support of obnoxious regimes

(Aren't you Swiss? How much Nazi gold went through your country? $890,000,000 or so is the guesstimate. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland_during_the_World_Wars] Isn't the stain of 11,000,000 dead Jews and other Ethnic minorities also on YOUR government and bankers hands? 11,000,000. Say that number again. And you have the audacity to criticize us? ELEVEN FUCKING MILLION JEWS, GYPSIES, CATHOLICS, HOMOSEXUALS, ETC. DEAD. DEAD. DEAD. DEAD. DEAD.



And YOUR nation PROFITTED. 11,000,000 human beings were slaughtered while YOUR COUNTRY accepted the gold of their MURDERERS just so you could claim your pathetic moral high ground by remaining "neutral." Either your nation is one of amoral capitalists of the highest order - for which you criticize the US- or a nation of absolute cowards without the balls to stand up against a genocidal regime for fear it might mean tanks on your streets.)

http://www.adl.org/Braun/dim_14_1_neutrality_europe.asp

International discord and contempt of the UN

(And the World would be in perfect harmony without us... there isn't much of a US military presence in Africa right now... aren;t they the utopian ideal? ANd as long as you stay neutral and accept their gold, you claim innocence? THeir discord is the result of YOUR [Euro] colonialism. Hypocrit.

Support for Israel and the atrocities they commit while occupying by force a land that is NOT theirs

(it actually is, historically. Dating thousands of years before either "Switzerland" or the "US" meant anything. The term "Palestinian" is actually an ancient Roman bastardization of "Philistine", for whom they named the country after conquering the Jews in the 1st century AD... the Jews put up such a struggle that the Romans named it for their worst enemies. The "Palestinians" themselves didn't move into the region until long, long after... THEY have no claim and use their anti-semitic [as well as ANYTHING not Islamic] agenda to war with Israel)

this is merely a list .. if you wnt to read more and have a detailed explanation on each point search in google .. you will find plenty .. or go here http://www.vexen.co.uk/USA/hateamerica.html

and I think this hate for ameircans was further fueled when bush won for a second time .. the whole world didn't believe that people could be that stupid but somehow the americans prooved the world wrong.

(and the whole world doesn't know squat about American politics. I won't judge the entire Swiss populace based upon your next election)

Don't understand me wrong .. not all americans are hypocrites and ignorant ... but the majority is .. and the fault is that of the government .. it is it's policy to keep the people voting for them by enslaving them mentally , letting them get more and more stupid, feeding them with propaganda and cheeseburgers, maintaining them in a constant state of fear while selling them and the world weapons to kill eachother ... you are a bright young lady so you will understand that bashing america is not the issue here .. it might be cool to hate america but there are plenty of reasons to really hate america ... open your eyes .. these are facts and cannot be denied

And not all swiss are Nazi-supporting, Jewish murdering "neutral for hire" amoral wastes of air. But there are still plenty or reasons to hate a country without the balls to take as stand. And to quote my esteemed amigo here, "THESE ARE FACTS AND CANNOT BE DENIED."


PS .. this is off-topic .. i appologize ..

Yeah, and hate the fucking Swiss for remaining "neutral" and willingly allowing the slaughter of other human beings just because their bankers stand to profit from "neutrality."

It must be awfully nice to live in a country that somehow thinks itself above the fray and above horrible attrocities just because it does not participate in them directly... even though it bankrolls them.

Fact: roughly 36,000 Iraqi civilians have died in the two years since the invasion to remove Saddam began (http://www.logictimes.com/antiwar.htm)

Fact: roughly 100,000 Iraqi civilians would have died had the US (and other coalition forces) not intervened, based upon the typical rate of death over his reign. (see previous link)

Fact: 7500 Jews and other ethnic minorities died DAILY during WWII at the hands of the Nazis. More people died in ANY FIVE DAY PERIOD betwen 1942 and 1945 at the hands of the Germans than have died in the entirety of the invasion of Iraq.




Perhaps you should read those figures and look at those pictures over and over (and over and over if needed) before casting any stones across the ocean, chuckles.

This is off-topic but I wanted to point out to Bitter Cold that when comparing the atrocities committed by Nazis and the atrocities committed by Stalin then surely Soviet Union butchered more people during WWII than Third Reich yet US clearly looked another way in the WWII because communists were so valuable allies. So we see that big countries actually usually don´t care about the smaller ones and US was no exception. They only care about what´ s useful for them whether they are democratic or not.

As for democracy, I am a supporter of anarchism (in a sense of Kropotkin and to a lesser extent, Bakunin), which, as idealistic it may be, is a only poltical theory that tries to eliminate any kind of external force mechanisms on people. It surely is at least possible to live without government and state authority - just look those so-called "primitives". Saying that without government humane life would definitely be "miserable, brutish and short" (Hobbes) is surely false. It may even be another way around

Since anarchism can be considered as a form of democracy, I wasn´t off-topic here.