Why is it that Americans have always been paranoid about Communism? I have always been confused by this because I thought that freedom of speech, religion, etc were protected in their constitution and laws but they seemed to be thrown out of the window when it came to this.
Because communism & capitalism are like nite & day. true communism would be a perfect form of Gov't but since true communism does not exist we have a problem(read George Orwells book animal farm)where all the animals are equal but some are more equal than others.Capitalism on the other hand is also funneled by greed once someone has reached the top(gained great wealth therefore is able to sit at the golden buffee)he or she is able to help dictate their wishes down to the others it's like having a box with a rat in it as long as you feed the rat & keep it happy everythink would seam to be OK.once the rat gains knowledge he will try to get out of the box insearch of an Etopia as is the case of people in so called western countries.no form of gov't on Earth has proven it's self to be perfect till anything better comes along I personaly will stay in America even though I don't agree with alot of what's been going on here lately.thank you Joe49
...and in fact, as soon as communism in general, and the communists party in Italy, lost their importance, we (in Italy I mean) began to have a "nice" prime minister that is really eating a lot at the golden buffet ...and by chance he is a great friend (so he stated several times) of the president of USA.
you residents of Italy never learn as is effident by electing Alessandra Mussolini grand daughter of Benito Mussolini.from her picture on the national vanguard(nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=3989)she would take a good nude picture. If that's a current photo.
you are right Joe49, think that we keep doing what USA asks us to do, which of course is the most stupid thing to do....
However, the Alessandra Mussolini picture is quite current I guess
Although Communism and Capitalism are like night and day, you are forgetting about dawn and twilight. There are things in between. The UK for instance has a current government that favours more government intervention in the economy than the preceding government and definitely more than the USA. There are examples of non capitalistic and non democratic governments working successfully.
Communism and Capitalism are as different as night and day, but there is also dawn and twilight, ie. things in between. There are examples of successful non capitalist and non democratic governments.
One way the Italians could get back at America is by re-instating their monarchy. The Americans forced Italy to become a republic during the last world war, something theyhad no right to do. They are just upset they left the greatest empire in the history of the world and felt left out that so try to bring everyone down to their level. They tried to do the same in Japan as well.
To DevilDog and 25467, if anybody should be questioning their age it is the two of you. I too do not agree fully with Tiw, but if you don't agree with somebody, why turn to personal attacks. Heres an idea; come up with an alternative arguement.
I guess though that if either or both of you are American, you do have an excuse - that is how your elections work. Don't bother argueing the merits of your policies, just tear down the other guy!
Oh, now it all makes sense to me. I really thought 25467 was asking about his schooling. (Can you detect the sarcasm). No matter how intelligent 25467 or DevilDog think Tiw is, they still turned it into a personal attack.
They could have instead something like, I think Tiw's arguement sucks as a monarchy is simply a more pleasant form of dictatorship. It doesn't give people any rights or control, and can mean the direction of a country can change dramatically depending on who is at the top, whereas most modern democracies at least have some form of moderation in terms of laws having to be passed by all of parliament.
Instead they asked how old Tiw was. Who is the more intelligent one?
Just to be a bit more precise, USA did not force Italy into monarchy: italian people chose republic by means of a referendum, in other words we voted and we preferred reublic to monarchy.
On the other hand USA influenced very much the following years, succeding in the unfair enterprise of avoiding the communist party to govern Italy. After the war italians have always been split mainly into 2 sides, the communist side, and the chatolic side. The last, being supported by USA, won almost every eletionship, but not with a big difference in numbers, and nor the winners, neither the losers, ever wanted monarchy back. The only ones who wants it are the Savoia family and a few fans they have.
Tiw, to me it seems mkcerusky knows more about this subject than you do. You said you are from England; maybe you should worry more about Americas influence over your government!
At least the British monarchy has been reduced to a toothless lion with just a figurehead role.
Why do you doubt I am from England? I admit I don't know everything about this world, I just read and unless I find the information to be wrong or incorrect I have no reason to doubt it. I do know that our own monarchy has been reduced in ability and has less power but maybe they can get it back again. They couldn't do a worse job than our current government. At least when royals rule they have an interest in seeing the country prosper because they own most of it but an elected official will only be in charge for a few years and is then out on his ear, he doesn't have to plan the land to hand down through the generations like with a Royal family.
Tiw, I was not questioning that you were from England, merely acknowledging that fact before talking about your governemt. As for the monarchy getting their power back, get real. Given the modern world, the monarchy will rise and fall on popular opinion, but people will never give up the rights and powers they now have. I agree with you that agood monarch will look after the country better than an elected official, but you just need to look at the history of european monarchs, including England, to see that you can't guarantee a good monarch.
Besides, do you realy want a king with power who cheated on his wife and talks to trees?
I know the system isn't perfect but no system is. I would love to know why American Presidents are only allowed two terms in office, it seems to me that once they win the second term they have nothing to gain by doing well as they have no chance to be re-elected in the future so the pressure is off them whereas our PM can stay in power as long as he is re-elected, even with a monarchy therewould be the threat of revolution as with the peasants revolution of our history (I cannot remember the date right now though).
I actually agree with everything you said (believe me, I am shocked too), but I don't think the threat of a revolution is as much a deterant as the threat of not being re-elected.
Can anybody answer Tiw's question as to why US presidents are only allowed two terms? I am curious also, and agree with his reasoning. If the US democratic system is so great why do they have the backstop of kicking a president out after 8 years?
I cannot say either way but I think I know what the French king (Louis XIV?) would have preferred when he lost office. The leader of a country (any country) is only as effective as the people he surrounds himself with and only usually knows what they tell him. The most powerful people in the British Government are the senior civil servants because they stay in office no matter who is elected and they only tell the PM what they want him/her to know and I would imagine it is the same with America and any other country you would care to mention because these elected officials are only in office for about a few terms at best (unless the system isn't working very well). As mentioned above the British PM has an unknown shelf-life but the American President has a maximum of two full terms. As a side-note, if Bush's vice-president took over now for some reason, would he be allowed to serve two full terms of his own is he was elected or would this term count as one of those?
I'm not to sure but I think it's just so that somebody else can get a kick at the can in office. Traditionally the vice president takes over leadership of the ruling party and runs for office next time around. Kinda scary when you think that'll be Dick Cheney (if his ticker holds up). I've wondered about the eight years thing. If you get voted in the second time and you know thats gonna be it then why not get all the personal gain out of it that you can. Who really cares if the country goes for a shit. It won't be your problem anymore. This to me is the double whammy for having Bush in office for another four years.
Tiw, agreed that the outcome of a revoultion is going to be worse for the leader of a country than simply not getting re-elected, but the chance of a revolution is less.
From the outside, it appears the only reason Bush won another four years is that there was no real strength in the opposition. The same thing happened against Gore. It would be an interesting study to see if any other president (or other countries leaders also) had won two elections by such narrow margins.
I think the issue with Bush is not so much how mush he has sent to Switzerland, but how many contracts get awarded to companies of which he has a finger in the pie!
Speaking of fingers in the pie,I don't think Americans knew that sex involved women and men.Thank god the Italians taught them something the Greeks didn't know.I guess thats why Americans say "It's all Greek to me"
No Tiw, I don't believe he has the intelligence for that!
16875, I echo Tiw's question, Why? Do you really believe that or are you just spouting off some random saying you have heard without really thinking about what it means?
