The amount of Soviet Spuads

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Tue Feb 27, 2001 11:59 am

Originally posted by tsbond:
Ok since the election thing keeps coming up. If you know the United States you will know it is a Republic not a Democracy. Also the electoral votes are in place to insure that the lonely farmer in Iowa can have a fair voice in Presidential Elections.

Fair Voice? The Presidency is supposed to represent all Americans. That's important because Congresspersons do *not* have the total population in mind. They heed the constituency that voted them into office, not the guy across the street, much less the rest of the country. What simpler and more logical way of deciding who should be President than a simple majority vote by the whole country. Were we doing this, the logical thing, Gore would be President now.

frank1970 · Post by **frank1970** » Tue Feb 27, 2001 12:57 pm

To all Americans out there I may have hurt with my "proudness-theory" and want to say sorry.
I am not from the US or GB, so English is not my native tongue. I did not want to say that the Americans are proud because of their mistakes but they are proud although they made this errors.
It might sound a little funny for you reading this from a German, but in Germany we really know, what mistakes we made, and every state in the world is telling us what Germany had done in WW2 (what is 60 years ago), so the German view on the topics belonging to human rights, liberty and democracy is a very sensitive (? I hope this is the right word, meaning a little thoroughfull and easy hurting).
By the way I know quite a large number of Americans, although I have never been in the US.

NEON DEON · Post by **NEON DEON** » Tue Feb 27, 2001 1:01 pm

QUOTE FROM MONI KERR:
You take a statement that is hypothetical and without any evidence turn it into a statement of fact. That requires a complete suspension of all the rules of logic and reasoning, so of course I can't understand it. Now if you could present a reasoned and logical argument with an objective evaluation of the evidence; that I could understand. I might not agree with you, but at least then we could have a rational debate.

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

REPLY:
THE HOUSE MIGHT BLOW UP.

So what your saying is the house might not be a house???

Get a grip.

Yogi Yohan · Post by **Yogi Yohan** » Tue Feb 27, 2001 1:25 pm

Originally posted by tsbond:
Ok since the election thing keeps coming up. If you know the United States you will know it is a Republic not a Democracy

But for heavens sake... A republic is a state were the Chief of State is not a Monarch. A democracy is a state were the government and legislative body is elected by the people. Republic and Democracy are not mutually exclusive.

So a Republic can be a democracy (like the USA) or a dictatorship (like China). And a Monarchy can be a democracy as well, like Great Britain, Sweden, Spain, etc or a dictatorship (like most countries in antiquity).

frank1970 · Post by **frank1970** » Tue Feb 27, 2001 2:55 pm

Some lands had theocraties

others had aristocraties,

the next had anarchies,

some had monarchies,

many like democracies,

but the US have a "judgeocraty" or maybe a "lawyerocraty".
That is the picture the last US-Presidental-Election made in the world.
The US President was not President because of the peoples will but because of the judges will.

[This message has been edited by Frank (edited February 27, 2001).]

moni kerr · Post by **moni kerr** » Tue Feb 27, 2001 9:48 pm

NEON:

You need to learn the basics.

example:

LEAVING THE GAS ON MIGHT CAUSE THE HOUSE TO BLOW UP.

That does not mean the GAS IS ON.

"Air superiority and superior manuverability might enable us to win the battle"

That does not mean that air superiority is a fact. All it means is that it might help win the battle. Nothing more, nothing less. Without further evidence you cannot claim that air superiority is a fact. So if you can produce that evidence THEN you would be right. But not until then.

Optha · Post by **Optha** » Tue Feb 27, 2001 10:10 pm

Frank,

this is not fair, no one knows who have won the President-Election. On the other side, about one-half have vote for Bush. And, what happend thereafter, could only happen in a democraty.

Martinov · Post by **Martinov** » Wed Feb 28, 2001 12:00 am

Tsbond

Thanks - no need to apologise to me, a bit of debate never goes astray, although being called a "Liberal" is a bit harsh - in my country the Liberal Party is the conservative right! (I suspect you'd be a "Liberal" in Aust!)

It'd be a long thread that argued who was more evil, Stalin or Hitler, but at the end of the day Stalin was able to exercise a degree of self-restraint (imagine Hitler in charge of a nuclear soviet union), and did leave a few, a few, benefits to his nation - Hitler just destroyed everything, everything.

VIVE GORE/CLINTON IN 2004!

Yogi Yohan · Post by **Yogi Yohan** » Wed Feb 28, 2001 5:06 am

Originally posted by Frank:
Some lands had theocraties
others had aristocraties,
the next had anarchies,
some had monarchies,
many like democracies,
but the US have a "judgeocraty" or maybe a "lawyerocraty".
That is the picture the last US-Presidental-Election made in the world.
The US President was not President because of the peoples will but because of the judges will.

Actually, the US presidential election embarrasement could have happened that way in other democracies as well. The UK and many other countries have single-seat constituencies (the winner takes it all) for parliamentary elections, so in all those countries you could have a result with one party getting more votes (due to larger majorities in those areas where it won) and another party winning the election.

All it takes then is a close-run election, a less than sterling vote-counting apparatus and voila, you have you're self a pretty mess. But it takes a stable and mature democracy to sort it out peacefully. I have no less respect for US democray and institutions now than before the infamous election. But I do put less stock in their hole-punching machines!

NEON DEON · Post by **NEON DEON** » Wed Feb 28, 2001 6:42 am

That does not mean that air superiority is a fact. All it means is that it might help win the battle. Nothing more, nothing less. Without further evidence you cannot claim that air superiority is a fact. So if you can produce that evidence THEN you would be right. But not until then.

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

Oh brother look who wants to see only what he wants see.

By the way I think you are the only one on the planet who thinks the Red Army had better
mobility then the US Army in 1945.

Again, get a grip.

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Wed Feb 28, 2001 11:18 am

Originally posted by Frank:
To all Americans out there I may have hurt with my "proudness-theory" and want to say sorry.

Don't worry about it Frank, it wasn't *that* bad actually. I've read a **lot** worse on the Art of Wargaming forum. There's some real America-haters over there.

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Wed Feb 28, 2001 11:23 am

Originally posted by Frank:
but the US have a "judgeocraty" or maybe a "lawyerocraty".
The US President was not President because of the peoples will but because of the judges will.

Now that sadly is true. We have way to many lawyers here. More per capita than any other country, I read somewhere.

Juba · Post by **Juba** » Wed Feb 28, 2001 12:41 pm

'Don't worry about it Frank, it wasn't *that* bad actually. I've read a **lot** worse on the Art of Wargaming forum. There's some real America-haters over there. '

That's me!

frank1970 · Post by **frank1970** » Wed Feb 28, 2001 4:56 pm

Nice to find some other "bad guy".

Yogi Yohan · Post by **Yogi Yohan** » Wed Feb 28, 2001 5:42 pm

Originally posted by NEON DEON:
Oh brother look who wants to see only what he wants see.

What else could you possibly want to see?

But seriously, Neon: I'm sorry, but Moni Kerr is absolutely correct in analysing the sentence. "Air superiority might enable us to win" does not mean air superiority exists (or does not exist), only that it is a prerequisite to victory. This is unassailable logic. Just give it up on this point, will you?

moni kerr · Post by **moni kerr** » Thu Mar 01, 2001 12:42 pm

Quote by NEON DEON:

By the way I think you are the only one on the planet who thinks the Red Army had better
mobility then the US Army in 1945.

Reply:

Now how did you ever arrive at that conclusion? Was it something I posted? No! This is just another trip to NEON DEON FANTASY LAND.

frank1970 · Post by **frank1970** » Thu Mar 01, 2001 2:41 pm

Hey boys, be nice guys! You can have different opinions but do you really have to be this aggressive?

NEON DEON · Post by **NEON DEON** » Thu Mar 01, 2001 4:51 pm

Now how did you ever arrive at that conclusion? Was it something I posted? No! This is just another trip to NEON DEON FANTASY LAND.

Oh so the US had superior mobility?

Or, they didnt?

NEON DEON · Post by **NEON DEON** » Fri Mar 02, 2001 6:22 am

Originally posted by Frank:
Hey boys, be nice guys! You can have different opinions but do you really have to be this aggressive?

No Frank we dont

Sorry.