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