Russia plans to arm Venezuela to counter US backed Colombia.

[Sava]

the right hates Chavez so much because the Venezuelan people ELECTED HIM...

The right HATES DEMOCRACY when their guy doesn't win.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
Mr. Striker.

I beg your pardon, but are you saying that this is NOT a new Cold War?

DUH

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Sprayber


how about hyper-neo-colonialism or super duper-neo-colonialism.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned
We have been on the line bravely defending democracy with out blood and treasure in the world since FDR. We believe that we have some sort of manifest destiny to bring democracy to the world.

We have been on the line bravely exploiting the world with their blood and treasure since FDR. We believe that we have some sort of manifest destiny to empose our capitalist system on the world.

Wow! That sounds a lot like what you said, but much closer to the truth.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Shawn, thousands of people lost their votes in Florida due to technicalities? Really??????

Ask the Gore supporters about overseas military whose votes were not counted due to just such technicalities.

Very few military votes weren't counted. The problem to which you are refering is the fact that the Democrats correctly challenged illegal absentee ballots, some of which were opened, most were unwitnessed, some sent after the election date, all clear violations of Florida law. However, the Dems backed down when the Repugs squealed about Gore screwing the military, and 3,000 illegal votes were counted when they should not have been.

On the other hand, at least 50,000 non-felons were pured from the voting roles on something more sinister than a technicality. They were deliberately purged even when the company during the purging informed the Secretary of State, Kate Harris, Bush's Florida Campaign manager, that they were getting a lot of false positives (which is illegal under Florida law). That wasn't a technicality, that was vote fraud. So we have to major cases of vote fraud which clearly aided Bush in 2000.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
IIRC, the US Civil Rights Commission conducted an investigation and concluded there was no violation.

Incorrect. They did find a violation, and that was the basis for the NAACPs successful lawsuit against the State of Florida. Florida reached a Court settlement with the NAACP without admitting any wrong doing in return for ensuring the voter list would be fixed by 2004. It is only because of the media here in Florida that Florida has not violated that consent decree, as they did the State's job for them and found many of the incorrectly listed people.

To repeat, there is a underlying assumption here that felons are Democrats.

A disprotportionate number of the people on the list are Black, and most Black people are Democrats. When I crunched the numbers three years ago, about 55% of the people on the list would be Democrats if they skewed towards normal demographics (80% of Blacks voting Democrat, etc).

[Serb]

Re: Russia plans to arm Venezuela to counter US backed Colombia.

Originally posted by Tripledoc
Russia-Venezuela Alliance Takes Flight

by Humberto Márquez
CARACAS - The Venezuelan army plans to acquire 40 Russian helicopters within the next few months in the first step towards a new "strategic alliance" with Moscow promoted by President Hugo Chávez, who is further marking his distance from Washington.

Great news.

Another local academic, Aníbal Romero at the Simón Bolívar University, cited rumors according to which Venezuela may try to acquire MiG-29 combat planes and light arms from the Ukraine after purchasing the Mi-26 helicopters.

Mi-26 is the largest and most powerfull transport helicopter in the world, not combat. They should buy Ka-50 or Mi-28 instead.
Mi-28- kickass.

[Ned]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous


I don't. I would hope that those in power don't either.

A two-parties is hardly a democracy.

I'm pro-Democracy, pro-America, anti-American democracy. You'd probably think I'd make a "bad" monitor.

If I understand you correctly, you dislike the structure of our government. Do you prefer the Westminster form?

[vodkakov]

... this could make an interesting civ scenario... hypothetical Cold War in South America with a Russian-funded Venezuala trying to gain a foothold against the US-backed nations and the neutrals...

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kidicious


We have been on the line bravely exploiting the world with their blood and treasure since FDR. We believe that we have some sort of manifest destiny to empose our capitalist system on the world.

Wow! That sounds a lot like what you said, but much closer to the truth.

Typical communist propaganda. Communists know that with democracy comes free enterprise and it is free enterprise that they hate. Thus they oppose democracy and they oppose America.

[Ned]

Che, thanks for the informative posts. If the Civil Rights Commission found a violation, so be it.

However, I have heard to the contrary. I wonder why?

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Ned: I dislike the control of the executive branch, whose control stems from either an agreement or a disagreement with the Legislature. I think the President has too much power, and that derives from the two-party system. You either agree with your party or you seperate from it: that's not how I believe government should be run.

Take Zell Miller for an example. He has "seperated from his party" in his decisions, often aligning with the Republicans. However, he isn't a Republican. The same with Jim Jeffords. They shouldn't have to "seperate" from their party in order to get thing accomplished. A stable government works together to solve things, and all perspectives are respected, not just TWO.

[Ned]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
Ned: I dislike the control of the executive branch, whose control stems from either an agreement or a disagreement with the Legislature. I think the President has too much power, and that derives from the two-party system. You either agree with your party or you seperate from it: that's not how I believe government should be run.

Take Zell Miller for an example. He has "seperated from his party" in his decisions, often aligning with the Republicans. However, he isn't a Republican. The same with Jim Jeffords. They shouldn't have to "seperate" from their party in order to get thing accomplished. A stable government works together to solve things, and all perspectives are respected, not just TWO.

IIRC, prior to Jackson, there was effectively only one party in the US. People within the party argued issues of states rights and central banking. Jackson changed that, fracturing the party into the Democrats and the Republicans (Whigs). So, both American national parties can trace their roots back to Jefferson.

Over time, the parties seem to change their positions on fundamental issues. For generations, the Democrat Party was the party of States Rights and Separate But Equal. They obviously have changed when the Southern Democrats revolted in '68 and backed Wallace. The decline of the power of the Southern Democrats then began and continues even 'till this day.

The benefits of a two party system seem obvious. The parties have the hue to the center in order to get elected. Radical opinions and views are never endorsed. So society is relatively stable.

The presidency is a powerful office, indeed. It was intended to be.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

1.) You said a great deal. Doesn't mean I support it.

2.) Jackson seperated us from 1 to 2 parties, apparently. Does that mean that Jackson was right?

3.) Parties shouldn't HAVE to "hue to the center"...that's not what politics should be. That doesn't mean that's not what politics is...I just have a different opinion of what it should be.

4.) The President may be powerful but was not intended to be the be all, end all as the two-party system has shown him to be...GWB, for example, has far too much power because Congress, controlled by the Republican party, has granted him too much power, far more than he was given by anyone in our first 100 years of existence.

5.) Just because history is on the side of the president does in no way mean that I need to support it. Same goes for the two-party system.

6.) Jackson apparently changed how things operated by making two parties. Is it inconceivable that things change again to create the possibility of more parties having say?

Don't give me a history lesson...I know history. My opinion is not based on history, but based on current issues and current motives that lead me to conclude that the two-party system, in today's increasingly polarized and insteresting political world, is highly flawed.

[Ned]

Emperor Fab, Bush doesn't really control the Senate as it takes 60 votes to cut off a "filibuster." Nothing gets out of Congress that is not a compromise.

BTW, the presidency in its powerful current form was created by Jackson as all prior presidents had deferred to Congress. Jackson changed that by leading the nation and telling Congress what he wanted done. If Congress balked, and they did at times, he worked hard to change the results.

As to the central balance that results from a two party system, I still see that as a strength, not a weakness.