Yes, exactly. McCain had a chance of victory of about 1% by fivethirtyeight.com's numbers after the final set of pre-election opinion polls. There was no way Obama was going to lose, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a historic event and watching it happen wasn't worth it.

What bugged me was all the people that I'm pretty sure only voted for Obama because of: 1)The historical aspect 2)The fact that a lot of famous people said to vote for him and 3)Bush -hatred

Those are less important then, say, the actual issues.

FuzzyLobster wrote:What bugged me was all the people that I'm pretty sure only voted for Obama because of: 1)The historical aspect 2)The fact that a lot of famous people said to vote for him and 3)Bush -hatred

Those are less important then, say, the actual issues.

As opposed to all the people only voting for McCain because he's a Republican and they vote Republican, dammit!, or any of the infinite number of daft reasons people vote for anybody in any election...

Yep.
No matter what, there's always those people who HAVE to vote one way, popular vote or vox populi be damned.

I guess so, but it's like they've tried to turn him into your average celebrity, instead of the one in charge of the entire country. I go to the store and see the Obama's on the front of every tabloid. Every single one!

*sigh*

Apollo wrote:

nathanielandbartimaeus wrote:

Apollo wrote:Those who watched the inauguration should know what I am referring to.

I watched it completely. Still no idea what you are talking about.
For me, the election results & the inaugration were in the morning & night (around 10) respectively. So, I got to see both well.

You didn't hear the preacher dude from somewhere out west (Colorado/Nebraska or something) pronounce Sasha Obama's name with odd emphasis? "Sasssshaaaa..."

I guess I didn't pay enough attention.

Yeah, it was the historical aspect which made me see it live too. And I was scared McCain might win (not that I hate the guy, he's nice, only I was afraid he may follow Bush's footsteps. And Sarah Palin didn't seem knowledgable enough to run the country).

How do you people rate the politicians in your country? Excellent, good, so-so, bad, useless, inept - whatever (Americans please exclude Obama).

Politicians are a problem. The government cannot be trusted to do the will of the people. There's no such thing as a good politician (not even Obama, but he's pretty good as they go).

But do you really loathe the politicians/bureaucrats in your country? I do...

Yes, I do. Self-serving spineless panderers who play the media to look good while they do their own thing and sod the will of the people.
Problem: The government cannot be trusted to do the will of the people.
Solution 1) Sod the will of the people. This leaves you with facism/dictatorships. Not great.
Solution 2) Compromise. Democracy. The idea being that if the government do not do the will of the people they get voted out. Great, but it comes down to a media battle to convince the people the government *are* doing their will, and if they lose, then the opposition party (loads of choice there huh; two realistic options!) get voted in instead and proceed to do exactly the same thing. Also not great. Winston Churchill said "Democracy is the worst political system, except for all the others which have been tried." This leads us neatly to..
Solution 3) Sod the government. Anarchism. The people govern themselves. Policies are decided by popular vote. No politicians, no political parties.

Sentynel wrote:The people govern themselves.

(Democracy)

---------

Problem: The new anarchist dream realized by humanity to solve the problem of government and politicians sends the world spiraling chaotically through space. There isn't much of a law enforcement, and if there is one, it becomes either tyrannically abusive or completely ineffective, both due to know real backbone or chain of command.
Solution 1) "Sod it. Anarchism is perfect!" No outcome.
Solution 2) Go back to democracy. Sure it was flawed, because no system of governance and civilization is perfect, but it is less flawed and more effective than anything else we tried in the past.
Solution 3) Communism. Socialism or any realistic Marxism is impossible at this point.

Maybe our definitions of "anarchism" are different. Explain to me what you mean.

Apollo wrote:

Sentynel wrote:The people govern themselves.

(Democracy)

---------

Problem: The new anarchist dream realized by humanity to solve the problem of government and politicians sends the world spiraling chaotically through space. There isn't much of a law enforcement, and if there is one, it becomes either tyrannically abusive or completely ineffective, both due to know real backbone or chain of command.
Solution 1) "Sod it. Anarchism is perfect!" No outcome.
Solution 2) Go back to democracy. Sure it was flawed, because no system of governance and civilization is perfect, but it is less flawed and more effective than anything else we tried in the past.
Solution 3) Communism. Socialism or any realistic Marxism is impossible at this point.

Maybe our definitions of "anarchism" are different. Explain to me what you mean.

Why do you assume you need a government for law and order? The vast majority of people do not commit crimes, and furthermore do not enjoy having crimes commited against them, yes? So therefore the vast majority of people will be in favour of having law enforcement, so therefore you get law enforcement.

Sentynel wrote:

Apollo wrote:

Sentynel wrote:The people govern themselves.

(Democracy)

---------

Problem: The new anarchist dream realized by humanity to solve the problem of government and politicians sends the world spiraling chaotically through space. There isn't much of a law enforcement, and if there is one, it becomes either tyrannically abusive or completely ineffective, both due to know real backbone or chain of command.
Solution 1) "Sod it. Anarchism is perfect!" No outcome.
Solution 2) Go back to democracy. Sure it was flawed, because no system of governance and civilization is perfect, but it is less flawed and more effective than anything else we tried in the past.
Solution 3) Communism. Socialism or any realistic Marxism is impossible at this point.

Maybe our definitions of "anarchism" are different. Explain to me what you mean.

Why do you assume you need a government for law and order? The vast majority of people do not commit crimes, and furthermore do not enjoy having crimes commited against them, yes? So therefore the vast majority of people will be in favour of having law enforcement, so therefore you get law enforcement.

So we need to have a voluntary police?

Yeah, I think it's the best too. Only, to introduce such a system will need a lot of planning. Also, the democratic government would never agree to it. It will always remain a pie in the sky.

Nero wrote:So we need to have a voluntary police?

Who says voluntary? Nothing stopping you having a fully paid-up police force. You just have to agree to pay for it. If the vote for a police force passes (which, as I said earlier, it's guaranteed to) then people cough up for the police force.

n&b: who says the government has to agree to it? Create an anarchist "party". If they get voted in, they begin the process of disestablishing the government.

Sentynel wrote:

Nero wrote:So we need to have a voluntary police?

Who says voluntary? Nothing stopping you having a fully paid-up police force. You just have to agree to pay for it. If the vote for a police force passes (which, as I said earlier, it's guaranteed to) then people cough up for the police force.

n&b: who says the government has to agree to it? Create an anarchist "party". If they get voted in, they begin the process of disestablishing the government.

Taxes? =P

Sorry, it's just the way it was written (typed) seemed like that.

Sentynel wrote:Why do you assume you need a government for law and order? The vast majority of people do not commit crimes, and furthermore do not enjoy having crimes commited against them, yes? So therefore the vast majority of people will be in favour of having law enforcement, so therefore you get law enforcement.

Many of the vast majority of people do not commit crimes because of the consequences.
And a voluntary police force? They would realize their position of power and become greedy, of course. That leads to nothing good. Certainly not anarchism.

wrote:Create an anarchist "party". If they get voted in, they begin the process of disestablishing the government.

I hope that's hypothetical; an anarchist "party" would have the same chance as Ralph Nader of being voted in.

Nero wrote:Taxes? =P

Sorry, it's just the way it was written (typed) seemed like that.

How the hell else are you going to pay for state services? If people want a police force (and they do), they arrange to pay for one. Whether it's paid as individual taxes or as contributions from businesses, the money has to come from somewhere.

Apollo wrote:Many of the vast majority of people do not commit crimes because of the consequences.
And a voluntary police force? They would realize their position of power and become greedy, of course. That leads to nothing good. Certainly not anarchism.

I choose to believe that people are not necessarily stupid enough that they're incapable of functioning without Big Brother to tell them what to do. If I'm wrong the human race is doomed anyway.
If the police overstep their boundaries, people stop paying for them.

wrote:I hope that's hypothetical; an anarchist "party" would have the same chance as Ralph Nader of being voted in.

I've never pretended I have the slightest hope of seeing an anarchist society, and I have even less that we could convert an existing society to anarchism. But if one had to, that would be the way. Violent revolution leads to leaders.

*Yawn*
I didn't bother reading the page.
Wadaya think blagoyavich is gonna do?

Dansariki wrote:Wadaya think blagoyavich is gonna do?

Pretend he's still govenor.

Blago is going to find a nice island to retire on. Sip some Martinis and slowly die.