"An armed society is a polite society."
This line was funny.
"Really? Ever been in a bar full of armed people after 3am on a Saturday night? They don't seem so polite then."
So was this.
"And you have been to *how* many American bars after 3AM? I've done my fair share and have not seen what your talking about. Mostly I spend a few of my formative years as a very small band roadie. Maybe it's different in Austrailia or is it Canada? Just can't seem to remember."
This was just drmiler's usual inability to laugh.

Sandy2, it's great to see you back. I hadn't realised you'd unretired!

"I absolutly LOVE that one!"

Thanks ragnarok!

Great stuff, Champas.

You're quite right to bemoan the abysmal level of spelling on this site as well.

Reply #26 By: Champas Socialist - 1/10/2005 7:44:58 AM "An armed society is a polite society." This line was funny. "Really? Ever been in a bar full of armed people after 3am on a Saturday night? They don't seem so polite then." So was this. "And you have been to *how* many American bars after 3AM? I've done my fair share and have not seen what your talking about. Mostly I spend a few of my formative years as a very small band roadie. Maybe it's different in Austrailia or is it Canada? Just can't seem to remember." This was just drmiler's usual inability to laugh. Sandy2, it's great to see you back. I hadn't realised you'd unretired! "I absolutly LOVE that one!" Thanks ragnarok!

That's were you show you don't know me at all. I can laugh and have done so on this board.I just didn't find his comments funny.

It has been tried and failed. Tell me one place where it was tried and *succeded*

China, Vietnam, most tribal cultures, Nicaragua before the American led coup, Yugoslavia.

Never mind that none of those are actually communist in the way described by Karl Marx, which of course just proves another one of the points.

Cheers

You think Stalin was a Marxist. What was he then?

Stalin was a Stalinist, though he claimed he was a Leninist-Stalinist to give himself some credibility.  Believe it or not, Stalin's main philosophy was, he who has the most power, wins.

Cheers

You think Stalin was a Marxist.

Excellent! I've been preaching this one for years. Stalin was only a nominal Marxist. Just like Castro.

You consider yourself superior because you have a job.

And more superior the more that job pays.

You think capitalism is working well, it’s the poor people who aren’t. You think Communism has been tried (and failed).

True Marxism hasn't ever been tried. Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro -- they are all failed socialists, socialists of convienence, or corruptors of Marxism.

Champas,

I am honored!  Thank you for mentioning me.  My only comment is that I would have only done one option on the Pot.  You gave us too many choices!  !

Excellent piece, champas. Even though I disagree with portions of it, I appreciate its humor.

I'll tell you what. You show me a case of where someone got 51% of the popular vote and didn't get the electoral vote and I'll quit beating the horse. But do not use the 2000 election.

Can't do it with 51% and the electoral college, but Grover Cleveland did get the most popular votes in 1888 but lost the electoral college by a landslide.

Also, the way our government is set up (with the three branches) it's hard to determine "mandates." What if the President gets in with 51% but Congress is ruled by the opposing party--is that still an electoral mandate? I wouldn't think so.

Champas--interesting article. I love how people don't get the Communism comment--no one understands it when I make it either.

Well... about communism... there are communist states in India, though I am not entirely familiar with them so I can't talk about them with a great deal of certainty, but it seems to work there. Then again, it is a democracy.

Of course, in the truest form, Communism is also a Democracy.  That's the number one hint that Communism hasn't been tried successfully on a nationwide scale, because none of the so-called Communist States were really democracies.  Of course, neither is the United States nor India, but that's a civics lesson for another time.

Cheers

Reply #29 By: jeblackstar - 1/10/2005 2:56:18 PM It has been tried and failed. Tell me one place where it was tried and *succeded* China, Vietnam, most tribal cultures, Nicaragua before the American led coup, Yugoslavia.

I believe that if you actually talked to people from these countries they would argue with your line of thinking.

Reply #36 By: jeblackstar - 1/10/2005 4:11:13 PM Of course, in the truest form, Communism is also a Democracy. That's the number one hint that Communism hasn't been tried successfully on a nationwide scale, because none of the so-called Communist States were really democracies. Of course, neither is the United States nor India, but that's a civics lesson for another time. Cheers

So from what your saying is that communism has NOT been truly tried.

Yes, I am, but I was allowing your flawed reasoning to carry on to illustrate how flawed it really was.  Wasn't that nice of me?

Oh, and it's You're not your.

Cheers

Champas,

Sorry this has degraded into a political debate.  next time put it under Humor so people wont be so serious with it.

I thought it was clever and I liked it!  But if we here in the states cant call the Democrats liberal, is there anyone here that is?

Dr Guy, Myrrander, Gideon, shadesofgrey, je black, OG San, thanks. There is of course some hyperbole in the article. I thought I would try a new style ;>
Dr Guy, I'm not too bothered really about the debate, it gets me points ;>
shades, it's nice to see though that perhaps that point is starting to get across in this forum.

'll tell you what. You show me a case of where someone got 51% of the popular vote and didn't get the electoral vote and I'll quit beating the horse. But do not use the 2000 election.

I won't even have to. Link

Synopsis: in 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes won the election by 1 electoral vote, and did not have the pouplar vote. Sure, tell me that's digging too deep and I'm extreme. But you did ask for an example, here it is.

Bush and Bin Ladin The wanton boys.

you are a nutcase with the sort of bigoted, closed not to mention naive views on social issues that im sure you yourself find repugnant. i would love to know what gives europeans a right to interfere in us politics when it is not so long ago that millions of americans fought to give them the right to interfere in their own political systems? im sure that you posted this message to get a rise out of people like me...normal people... which you have succeeded in doing so well done. this must be the reason for doing it because it has no intellectual merit whatsoever. and just for the record Kofi annan, michael moore and john kerry all touch kids.
x x x x x x

Synopsis: in 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes won the election by 1 electoral vote, and did not have the pouplar vote. Sure, tell me that's digging too deep and I'm extreme. But you did ask for an example, here it is.

that's not the entire story, in the election itself Tilden had captured 184 electoral votes to Hayes 165 with 20 votes in dispute. One Oregon elector was questioned on a technicality, while the states of LA, SC and FL were too close to call. There was nothing in the Constitution to settle disputed elections. Since the VP had died some believed the President of the Senate should decide, while others thought it should be the Supreme Court. Some Southern Democrats tried to use future President James Garfield to broker a deal for a Republican victory if Hayes would commit to better treatment of the South. Hayes remained non commital. Tilden was hurt by the fact he remained silent on the subject and did not demand that the winner of the popular vote 51-48 % should win. In the end an election commission of 15 members who included five members of the Democratic controlled house (3 Dem, 2 Rep), five members of Republican controlled senate (3 Rep, 2 Dem) and 5 members of the Supreme Court based on region and another selected by the members. The Supreme Court had 2 Reps, 2 Dems and an independent David Davis. Behind the scenes, a 3rd Party and Democratic coalition in the Illinois state legislature had elected Davis to the Senate, which they thought would entice Davis to treat Tilden favorably. It backfired as Davis resigned from the commission and a Grant Republican from the Supreme Court was asked to take his place. The commission met in February and voted 8-7 along party lines. The Democrats threatened filibuster in the Senate, but that was averted. The house rejected the findings of the commission. The senate approved it and along with the Electoral Commission Act had determined the commissions findings were law. Congress met in session until 4:10 am on March 2, just three days before the inauguration (the Constitution of the time put the inaugeration in March instead of January as it is now). Hayes received all 20 disputed electoral votes and the Presidency. Historians believe that Hayes may have come out of the hearings with the Presidency because of the deal to remove troops from the South, which he did ending reconstruction. Link

Reply #43 By: Solnac - 1/10/2005 8:51:53 PM 'll tell you what. You show me a case of where someone got 51% of the popular vote and didn't get the electoral vote and I'll quit beating the horse. But do not use the 2000 election. I won't even have to. Link Synopsis: in 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes won the election by 1 electoral vote, and did not have the pouplar vote. Sure, tell me that's digging too deep and I'm extreme. But you did ask for an example, here it is

Thank you *whoman69*, Okay Solnac try again! Your example has been shown to be faulty at best.

Thank you *whoman69*, Okay Solnac try again! Your example has been shown to be faulty at best

The fact that the election was disputed does not erase the fact that election was won by a person who did not receive as much electoral vote as the other candidate. He gave you your one example of someone who had 51% of the election and lost. Benjamin Harrison won in 1888 despite his oppenent having a majority of the votes. In addition Bush in 2000, B. Harrison in 1888 and John Quincy Adams won elections despite being outvoted by their opponent. In fact Quincy Adams won an election with only 30 % of the votes counted. But it was in a 4 person race where many states still selected electors by the state legislatures and many of those legislatures split their votes. In the original vote Andrew Jackson won 43 % of the counted vote and 99 EC votes, Quincy Adams under 31% of the vote and 84 EC, William Harris Crawford of Georgia won 41 EC with only 13 % of the vote, and Henry Clay who also had about 13 % of the vote and 37 EC. Its interesting to note they were all considered to be in the same party, but 4 years later Quincy Adams would run under the National Republican Ticket, while in 1844 Clay ran as a Whig. Andrew Jackson claimed the election was stolen by a brokered deal between Quincy Adams and Clay, who later became Secretary of State. Clay and Adams denied any complicity.

Benjamin Harrison won in 1888 despite his oppenent having a majority of the votes.

For accuracy in my previous post I should ammend that to say that Harrison won in 1888 despite his opponent having more votes by about 90K out of just over 11 million votes. Cleveland lost because he won big amongst southern coastal states because he supported a tariff that would have helped them. Cleveland won Mississippi, Texas, Georgia and Alabama all with over 65 % of the votes. In South Carolina he polled over 80 %.

jeremy, what I hate about people like you is the way you beat around the bush out of some misplaced sense of diplomacy. If you don't like what I write, come out and say it. Don't hide behind PC terms like "nutcase with the sort of bigoted, closed not to mention naive views on social issues that im sure you yourself find repugnant.".

Truthfully, I simply posted this for a laugh. Many people of your kind (that is to say, evil right wingers) recognised the hyperbole in it.

Now back to the fascinating debate over when is an electoral win not a popular win, or whatever it is you Americans are going on about. It's over my head.

:

citizen hitparade. you posted: "You think Stalin was a Marxist. What was he then? A mass murderer, who justified his acts as the outcome of the inevitable class struggle which is the heart of Marxism. No?" Karl Marx was from Germany, who stated, with others, what came to be known as Bolshevism, and later Communism. He was exiled from his own country and was being chased around the world by stalin, who wanted to kill him. Lenin, friend of Marx, said that stalin should never be allowed to control the communist party. Stalin, who was from Georgia, not russia, was not a marxist at all. Communism was never achieved in russia b/c of class structure, value of money, not having incentives to be productive workers, etc...He was a tyrannical dictator who used communism as a tool to get to power and practiced Stalinism. communism actually works in small groups of peoples who have nothing to benefit for themselves and everything to benefit together. also, social creatures such as ants and bees practice communism. You need to practice being more ethnocentric and be objective, not subjective. that's just an opinion so don't get mad.