Slick Emperor of the West is slick.. oily, even.

[Juliette]

http://nos.nl/l/tcm:5-922247/
(Disregard the Dutch text, video should start automatically.)


Has anyone else noticed how mr. Obama's remarks about 'protesters in the streets', 'will of the people', and 'legitimacy to lead' seem awfully familiar to what goes on in streets in American cities all over the continent? After all, it is not the 'entire' Libyan people which rose in rebellion against Qaddafi; it was just a few tribes, across various parts of the country, about 40% of the entire Libyan population. Would Barack Obama relinquish power if 40% of the American people would say "No, we don't want you"? Unlikely. Granted, it is equally unlikely that he would attack them right away, but if these 'anti-Obamists' were to 'take cities' and 'declare independence' from the USA, there would definitely be war in the streets.
So we can all be thankful that the American people are more domesticated than the statistically-not-so-average Libyan.

Notice how this year's rebellions are all small leaps from where we are now, to a continuous crescendo of dissent..

[Kit-Fox]

Removed

[Jack]

And I believe you'll find that act lead to what is called the American civil way today.

No such law exists. You are, of course, free to quote the statute proving me wrong.

[Juliette]

You are addressing Kit-Fox, right?

[Jack]

Of course.

[Ra]

Don't give the 'Tea Party' nutjobs any ideas Ms. Universe.

[Cole]

There's a difference between both leaders/cases though, unsatisfied Americans can still find counter-candidate for 2012, they can replace him by electing a republican candidate, that's why, in my opinion, it's rather unlikely something like taking cities by arms would happen. Not to mention the key role of Congress elections/midterms, etc...

Khadafi, however, accessed power in 1969, and Libyan people cannot elect another president if they are unhappy with him. They don't have the same options that Americans have.

Don't give the 'Tea Party' nutjobs any ideas Ms. Universe.

These guys would make appear my country's far right party and its followers like a bunch of fluffy bunnies.

[Juliette]

viewtopic.php?f=167&t=180129
It would appear Mittenz decided to make a similar thread. Funny how that works.

Don't give the 'Tea Party' nutjobs any ideas Ms. Universe.

*grin* They are meek sheep compared to those Libyan Qaddafi-lynch mobbing rebels. But when something like this were to happen, I would *LOVE* to hear the news from China's news stations instead.

[MEZZANINE]

http://nos.nl/l/tcm:5-922247/
(Disregard the Dutch text, video should start automatically.)


Has anyone else noticed how mr. Obama's remarks about 'protesters in the streets', 'will of the people', and 'legitimacy to lead' seem awfully familiar to what goes on in streets in American cities all over the continent? After all, it is not the 'entire' Libyan people which rose in rebellion against Qaddafi; it was just a few tribes, across various parts of the country, about 40% of the entire Libyan population. Would Barack Obama relinquish power if 40% of the American people would say "No, we don't want you"? Unlikely. Granted, it is equally unlikely that he would attack them right away, but if these 'anti-Obamists' were to 'take cities' and 'declare independence' from the USA, there would definitely be war in the streets.
So we can all be thankful that the American people are more domesticated than the statistically-not-so-average Libyan.

Notice how this year's rebellions are all small leaps from where we are now, to a continuous crescendo of dissent..

Politicians get into power with far less than 40% of the population voting for them, it could be said that rebellion is more democratic than our so called democracies.

In last years UK election the winner ( Conservatives ) received just 36% of the votes with 65% voter turnout so effectively got into power with only 23.4% of the registered voters voting for them, only 16.5% of the population. Our politicians have wet dreams out getting 40% of the population supporting them, and if 40% of the population were united against them they would be ousted.

[Cole]

In last years UK election the winner ( Conservatives ) received just 36% of the votes with 65% voter turnout so effectively got into power with only 23.4% of the registered voters voting for them, only 16.5% of the population.

Well, that's the difference with president-based elections like USA, France, Poland..we don't have such crazy situations.

[Juliette]

In last years UK election the winner ( Conservatives ) received just 36% of the votes with 65% voter turnout so effectively got into power with only 23.4% of the registered voters voting for them, only 16.5% of the population.

Well, that's the difference with president-based elections like USA, France, Poland..we don't have such crazy situations.

Did you forget your lessons in statistics again, Coolio?

[Cole]

In last years UK election the winner ( Conservatives ) received just 36% of the votes with 65% voter turnout so effectively got into power with only 23.4% of the registered voters voting for them, only 16.5% of the population.

Well, that's the difference with president-based elections like USA, France, Poland..we don't have such crazy situations.

Did you forget your lessons in statistics again, Coolio?

Maybe I'm wrong for USA and Poland, but not for France.
16% Abstained in 2007, Sarkozy won by about 53% out of 84% voting voters, the opposite candidate did lost by 46.9% out of 84% voting voters.
44.5% in favor of Sarkozy, rather bigger than those 23.4%...

My point was, presidential elections with two rounds, unless turnout rate is really low, doesn't have same issues that single round multi parties competing elections where the winner is rarely more than a third of the voting people.

[MEZZANINE]

In last years UK election the winner ( Conservatives ) received just 36% of the votes with 65% voter turnout so effectively got into power with only 23.4% of the registered voters voting for them, only 16.5% of the population.

Well, that's the difference with president-based elections like USA, France, Poland..we don't have such crazy situations.

Did you forget your lessons in statistics again, Coolio?

Maybe I'm wrong for USA and Poland, but not for France.
16% Abstained in 2007, Sarkozy won by about 53% out of 84% voting voters, the opposite candidate did lost by 46.9% out of 84% voting voters.
44.5% in favor of Sarkozy, rather bigger than those 23.4%...

My point was, presidential elections with two rounds, unless turnout rate is really low, doesn't have same issues that single round multi parties competing elections where the winner is rarely more than a third of the voting people.

The new proposed 'Alternative Voting System' we may get in the UK will allow for 2nd and 3rd choices so I suppose that will be the same as having 3 rounds of voting in one go but IMO 'Proportional Representation' is the only method for true democracy.

[Jack]

Democracy can die in a fire.

[Juliette]

Democracy can die in a fire.

It usually does. And then it comes back. Democracy is like a bad disease.