Thread: Resume

Originally Posted by forreachingme

over a couple of years or so, the price here in Thailand went for the liter at 9 - 12 bahts forward to the actual 30 baht approx... let's say 3 times almost !

I was in the states for the last times in 1995 probably and i try to remember the price of the gallon, i think it was near 50 cents the gallon !

Just few days ago someone told me the price of the gallon is today still 50 cents a gallon over there, possible ? true ?

You must be kidding me. I have never seen gasoline at 50 cents a gallon here. The cheapest in my purchasing life was high school (1987) when regular (yes, some places still sold leaded gasoline) was 69 cents per gallon. Now you pay almost $3.00 and that's by cheating you 10% of your purchase by putting ethanol in it (which has a lower BTU content).

Originally Posted by stroller

It's as close to one as y'all going to find..

Not at all.
Which countries and their electoral system have you compared with the US?
I suspect you are not knowledgable enough to make any comparisons. Also, 'pure' democracy isn't really something to strive for, it's equivalent to "mob rule".

Actually, this would make an interesting new topic, I'll look into this.

I would argue that in a Federal system the electoral college is the best way to assure that highly populated states have some check on their power. In a system like Thailand's a winner takes all system makes sense since the provinces aren't de facto countries like each of the 50 states are.

I think the problem with the electoral system is that many times (Bill Clinton included) that a President gets elected without having a clear majority of the vote. Due to the population distribution of citizens among states a candidate can win the popular vote but not the electoral vote. You have to remember that we have 50 states here cooperating, so, the population of a single state should never determine the outcome of a Presidential election (take CA with over 50,000,000 people...would it be fair for a popular Californian to run for President and get a huge 10,000,000 vote margin that alone would guarantee a win in a winner takes all system? I think not, there are 49 other states that should count as well).

I think the system needs tweaking but not replacement since the USA is unique in it's federal system of power division between states and national government.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

Is this really the case, and if so - how can they get away with this?

Who cares...yawn
Only the pissed-off Dimocrats seem to care because their hero, Blow-Job Bill was Impeaced!

A blowjob vs the right to know if your elected leaders are breaking the law?

You rednecks have strange priorities! Non-copoerative sisters, perhaps?

That should make for an interesting thread.

Is now a good time for me to admit I remember when gasoline (petrol) was 25 cents a gallon in Southern California? That was when I had just started driving and my Volkswagen had no gas gauge, just an "emergency" reserve supply. When I went surfing I used to collect a dollar each from my buddies and that was enough to get us over to Ventura County Line and then back to the Valley.

Lyndon Johnson, another Texan, was President back then. He beat Goldwater with effective marketing, but the Vietnam war did him in, which led to the resurrection of Richard Nixon; a brilliant Republican who was nearly impeached (note the spelling Boon Mee) but who resigned in disgrace after his nefarious attempts to subvert democracy in an attempt to grab power illegitimately. After all, for Republicans it's all about power, isn't it?

Originally Posted by buadhai

.......the resurrection of Richard Nixon; a brilliant Republican who was nearly impeached (note the spelling Boon Mee) but who resigned in disgrace after his nefarious attempts to subvert democracy in an attempt to grab power illegitimately.

Aren't we all glad this kind of behaviour is a thing of the past.......

Originally Posted by Mhz

Marketing is an important subject huh??

I always thought it's damn boring but now I gonna take interest.

You aren't as stupid as your avatar looks!

Originally Posted by stroller

Is this really the case, and if so - how can they get away with this?

The US is not a democracy.

No the US is a democratic republic. I'm surprised that escaped you!

Hasn't been for very long. Remember, a true democracy is representative of all citizens. It wasn't too long ago that blacks and women, even those born here, were denied basic democratic rights.

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Originally Posted by stroller

Is this really the case, and if so - how can they get away with this?

The US is not a democracy.

No the US is a democratic republic.

You mean a two party republic. After all, you are just one party ahead of the communists......

Truth be told there's very little difference.

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Originally Posted by stroller

Is this really the case, and if so - how can they get away with this?

The US is not a democracy.

No the US is a democratic republic. I'm surprised that escaped you!

You mean a two party republic. After all, you are just one party ahead of the communists......

Actually it's a fairly complicated representative electoral college system.
I not an expert but I think it's light years ahead of anything the soviets ever had.

And guess what? The proof of the pudding is.....while not perfect it works fairly well.

The rest of the world is just jealous.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Yes, then came Tricky Dick Nixon who opened up China and was well-served by a fine Vice President name of Spiro T. Agnew who coined the famous expression: "Nattering Nabobs of Negativism" which we see all-too frequently 'round here...

Both of whom resigned in disgrace. The right is fond of their wrongful impeachment of Clinton for lying about an inconsequential blow job but don't like to remember that Nixon resigned when it became clear that he would be impeached and convicted for lying about and trying to cover up the attempts by his party and his government to subvert the electoral process. His acts were criminal, dangerous and cowardly.

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Actually it's a fairly complicated representative electoral college system.
I not an expert but ...

Obviously not.

That's what the Cia fact book has to say about the US:
"Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition"
De facto, it's more like an oligarchy with a 2-party system.
Do you like your fries with ketchup or mayo, Sir? - but fries it's gonna be.

What you need to understand about America is that the right doesn't really value Democracy, Freedom or Liberty. What they value are power, wealth and security. They're always ready and willing to give up the former to achieve the latter.

The left doesn't either. They believe the answer to everything is tax and spend. Take from the wealthy and give to the poor using the power of the government to force redistribution of wealth.

Originally Posted by buadhai

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Yes, then came Tricky Dick Nixon who opened up China and was well-served by a fine Vice President name of Spiro T. Agnew who coined the famous expression: "Nattering Nabobs of Negativism" which we see all-too frequently 'round here...

Both of whom resigned in disgrace. The right is fond of their wrongful impeachment of Clinton for lying about an inconsequential blow job but don't like to remember that Nixon resigned when it became clear that he would be impeached and convicted for lying about and trying to cover up the attempts by his party and his government to subvert the electoral process. His acts were criminal, dangerous and cowardly.

The right didn't care one bit about the reasons why Clinton lied but the fact that he did in the first place (under oath in a court of law). The fonudation of our justice system relies on people telling the truth...from the accused to the police to the ones collecting evidence. A President should not be allowed to lie under direct oath and get away with it regardless of what the lie was about. It's not the lie that matters but the act iof lying that constitutes perjury.

They should have pressed harder on the witness tampering too. He gave Monica a false affidavit to submit to the grand jury. He made leading statements which were suggestive to how she should answer question asked by the grand jury.

Originally Posted by surasak

A President should not be allowed to lie under direct oath and get away with it regardless of what the lie was about.

Unless you're a Republican president, right?

What's always amazed me about the Bill affair was the fact that America voted in a president who went on national tv before he became president and admitted to lying about having had an affair and then were somewhat suprised to find that he would do the same as president...

In a similar vein, the Thai voted in a prime minister who had been convicted of corruption and then were suprised to learn that he was [allegedly] a little corrupt.

You ask me, 90% of the voters in the world are too fucking stupid to vote and we should abolish universal suffrage and introduce a more human kind of system. Say one where you at least must have read the party manifesto before being allowed to vote. With the lemming mentality of most people these days, I doubt they'll mind that much about it anyhow. Indeed, put the right "spin" on it and we could even make it look like we're doing them a favor.

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Originally Posted by surasak

A President should not be allowed to lie under direct oath and get away with it regardless of what the lie was about.

Unless you're a Republican president, right?

Not as far as I'm concerned. If Bush took an oath and lied in a court of law or in front of a Congressional committee under oath then hang him too.

Originally Posted by William

What's always amazed me about the Bill affair was the fact that America voted in a president who went on national tv before he became president and admitted to lying about having had an affair and then were somewhat suprised to find that he would do the same as president...

In a similar vein, the Thai voted in a prime minister who had been convicted of corruption and then were suprised to learn that he was [allegedly] a little corrupt.

You ask me, 90% of the voters in the world are too fucking stupid to vote and we should abolish universal suffrage and introduce a more human kind of system. Say one where you at least must have read the party manifesto before being allowed to vote. With the lemming mentality of most people these days, I doubt they'll mind that much about it anyhow. Indeed, put the right "spin" on it and we could even make it look like we're doing them a favor.

I think the problem is that there's too many people, period. We have more people alive today than at any time in history, yet, where are the Shakespeares? Beethovens? The overall quality of the human experience is getting lower as the least common denominator gets lower due to more people being alive.

I really think like you say: people are just too stupid to think for themselves and follow whatever or whomever is popular. That's why Clinton won. American democracy is a failure when over half of those responding in polls oppose our involvement in Israel, yet, an overwhelming majority of Congress passes a resolution giving Israel a blank check when it comes to bombing Lebanon. It's a disgrace.

We should eliminate universal suffrage and replace it with a test based system. Demonstrate a proficient knowledge of government and you can vote. We require tests for driving a car and owning weapons but allow just anyone to vote? The power to vote is a dangerous weapon.

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Originally Posted by surasak

A President should not be allowed to lie under direct oath and get away with it regardless of what the lie was about.

Unless you're a Republican president, right?

"Democrats are on the precipice of securing their reputation as the Chamberlains of our time. In fact, today's appeasers are worse than Neville Chamberlain : Chamberlain didn't have himself as an example." -- Ann Coulter