Dante v Gump: Constitutional Republic v Parliamentary Democracy

[Procrustes Stretched]

Dante v Gump: Constitutional Republic v Parliamentary Democracy

Which is better suited for a nation like the USA; the system we now use, or one like our formerly, criminal cousins from the back of beyond use? Would the USA function better, and would we Americans like it better, if we used a system similar to what Wikipedia describes as a "federal parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy."?

We have here at USMB (not Australia Beyond the Backwoods) a member who I suppose is arrogant and pompous enough to lecture the USA on how we could do it better.

I bring you Dr Gump

--------------

Isn't it strange

in life that when a person can pick several candidates to do a job - any job - there are certain people that will pick the least qualified or worst person, to do the job.

Life is curious...

Why is your voting such

a fucking mess? Not talking about the EC etc, but the actual process of voting. Saw a doco on it last night. I actually felt sorry for you guys. No wonder some of you guys are so cynical about fraud etc. And why 2000 was so contentious....

------------------

primer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism#Australia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_democracy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States

and special: Australian Politics: Features Of A Democratic Electoral System

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

This will go on from now and over the weekend as Gump has requested.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

"the pros and cons of new laws on the USMB?" New laws

We could start a new thread for clarity:

Dante versus Gump: Pros and Cons of new laws on the USMB

The subject's wording picked by Gump and the challenge taken up by Dante.

---------------

New laws? Gump's perception of things is different than Dante's?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Dante v Gump: Constitutional Republic v Parliamentary Democracy

Which is better suited for a nation like the USA; the system we now use, or one like our formerly, criminal cousins from the back of beyond use? Would the USA function better, and would we Americans like it better, if we used a system similar to what Wikipedia describes as a "federal parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy."?

We have here at USMB (not Australia Beyond the Backwoods) a member who I suppose is arrogant and pompous enough to lecture the USA on how we could do it better.

I bring you Dr Gump

--------------

Isn't it strange

in life that when a person can pick several candidates to do a job - any job - there are certain people that will pick the least qualified or worst person, to do the job.

Life is curious...

Why is your voting such

a fucking mess? Not talking about the EC etc, but the actual process of voting. Saw a doco on it last night. I actually felt sorry for you guys. No wonder some of you guys are so cynical about fraud etc. And why 2000 was so contentious....

------------------

primer:
Republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia

Federalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Parliamentary system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States

and special: Australian Politics: Features Of A Democratic Electoral System

A few clarifications first...

1) I thought we were starting a thread of the pros and cons of new laws on the USMB?
2) As much as I like reading Toro's posts - one of the sanest people on these boards - are these debates supposed to be one on one.
3) While I have resided in Aussie for just over five yeas, I am a NZer, and lived there for 39. While you Yanks might think we all look the same, our political systems - while both having tenets of democracy - are vastly different. I think the Aussie system is superior to the US one, but NZ's it better than both. So which one are we discussing?

As for arrogance - what can I say - having spent the past 46 years being told how great the US is, how it is the best country in the world etc , well I guess arrogance breeds arrogance...

Let us first clarify that you are capable of and willing to try to, respond to what I am actually posting and not what you would like me to be posting.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

No need to get your panties all in a bunch Doc.

Phrasing: The pros and cons of the new USMB rules. I'll take the negative on that.

The negative on the pros and cons? New rules?

We can clear up your mess after we get started.

I will start a new thread: Doc Gump's Rules Riot

agreed?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Doc? Gump? I'll meet you over yonder way. Bring a change of diapers.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

2) Constitutional Rep vs NZ Constitutional Monarchy. I'll be taking the latter, obviously.

Only if we argue which is better for the USA or NZ, otherwise we'd be comparing misfits and midgets

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

2) Constitutional Rep vs NZ Constitutional Monarchy. I'll be taking the latter, obviously.

Only if we argue which is better for the USA or NZ, otherwise we'd be comparing misfits and midgets

No, just the merits of each system. Both could be used in either country...

The merits? Theory? I'm talking about how we've seen systems work and how we can extrapolate certain things from experience. Like isn't it a fruity idea to think that our system of democracy could work in a nation as large as China?

Every system has merits to recommend them depending on the outcome sought. Where things get hairy is when systems do not play out all that well, merits or not, in the real world. Think Communism in the 20th century..

Any system can be used in any country. But...


The founding fathers of the USA fought a war of independence. They initiated a loose confederation of states that was proving disastrous. So the framers took it upon themselves to offer the nation a new model, based on real experiences versus what the French later did, a new model based on ideals and abstract nonsense (not my original take on it. forget who to credit).

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

But the problem with your founding fathers - while they were certainly ahead of their time - is that they were fallable, but you would think so the ay some of the people act on here. At the end of the day, the strict constitutionists who inhabit this messageboard only seem to spruik framers of the founding document and all /theyholds dear, but conveniently forget that they were slave owners, only wanted a certain gender and class to vote, and in the case of Hamilton (I think) wanted to make George Washington king.

Your system was founded on flaws, yet for some reason the far right on this board and others seem to think the US Constitution is not only the most important document ever written in the US, but the world, and for some warped reason believe it is the epitome of which freedom is founded - not only in the US, but the world.

I say nay! It is a good document, but has more holes than a block of Swiss cheese...

seeing things in America through the eyes of the far right only makes you more of a reactionary than you probably were before you came here.

All the framers were not slave holders. Only a certain gender and class ran the world back then: Context.

Hmmm, Hamilton wanted to make Washington a King? The myth I heard was that it was Adams. you are too funny

all systems have flaws and the framers actually commented upon that, so if you want to appear to be less ignorant try to read what the framers said, not right wingers in the 20th and 21st centuries.

do you suffer penis envy too?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

seeing things in America through the eyes of the far right only makes you more of a reactionary than you probably were before you came here.

All the framers were not slave holders. Only a certain gender and class ran the world back then: Context.

Hmmm, Hamilton wanted to make Washington a King? The myth I heard was that it was Adams. you are too funny

all systems have flaws and the framers actually commented upon that, so if you want to appear to be less ignorant try to read what the framers said, not right wingers in the 20th and 21st centuries.

do you suffer penis envy too?

We are agreeing on the same thing. The framers were flawed. Now, just tell your fellow Americans who are on the right that. They seem to hold onto every word the FF's said and if you appear to even slightly disagree with them, then you are anti-American or don't believe in the constitution - yadda yadd yadda...

And if I am not seeing the argument through the eyes of the far right, then this debate is pointless because that is the main point of it - talk about too funny..

Oh, and just as a heads up, when I put the words "I think" in brackets, it means I'm not 100 per cent sure. Mocking somebody who openly admits they are not sure on something says a lot about the person doing the mocking. None of it good..

As for penis envy, in your case? Not at all

You always recommend people bang their heads against brick walls?

Your opinion is duly noted, but it is only an opinion, an opinion masquerading as accepted truth.

This from a fool who called Americans pompous and arrogant?

Dante Fevah?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

No need to get your panties all in a bunch Doc.

Phrasing: The pros and cons of the new USMB rules. I'll take the negative on that.

The negative on the pros and cons? New rules?

We can clear up your mess after we get started.

I will start a new thread: Doc Gump's Rules Riot

agreed?

Doc? Gump? I'll meet you over yonder way. Bring a change of diapers.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Did Gump just hump Dante's leg?