rdx-fx wrote:
Democrat or Republican - Same 6' stack of shit, same $5000 suit, different colored tie.
It has never been a Democracy.Shahter wrote:
but... but, but, but, it's DEMOCRACY!!11!!!!one!1!11
True.RTHKI wrote:
Could be worse. Could be russia
Fire rips through huge Moscow skyscraperRTHKI wrote:
Could be worse. Could be russia
Moscow's night sky was lit up by flames as a fire broke out in a skyscraper which is planned to be Europe's tallest building.
Authorities say the fire started on the 67th floor of city's Federation Tower, which is under construction and is due to have 93 floors when it opens in 2013.
For much of the night, a huge orange plume of flames and smoke could be seen on the top of the tower as the fire burned over several floors.
Four helicopters joined the effort to extinguish the fire, which is now under control.
For several hours they hovered above the Moscow River, using buckets to pick up water and then climbing above the tower to douse the flames.
Officials say because the skyscraper was under construction it had no fire prevention system.
Strong winds and an abundance of construction materials were fuelling the fire.
So far, no injuries have been reported.
The building is part of a group of skyscrapers that make up Moscow's new financial district.
I see a bright future.Jaekus wrote:
Fire rips through huge Moscow skyscraperRTHKI wrote:
Could be worse. Could be russiaMoscow's night sky was lit up by flames as a fire broke out in a skyscraper which is planned to be Europe's tallest building.
Authorities say the fire started on the 67th floor of city's Federation Tower, which is under construction and is due to have 93 floors when it opens in 2013.
For much of the night, a huge orange plume of flames and smoke could be seen on the top of the tower as the fire burned over several floors.
Four helicopters joined the effort to extinguish the fire, which is now under control.
For several hours they hovered above the Moscow River, using buckets to pick up water and then climbing above the tower to douse the flames.
Officials say because the skyscraper was under construction it had no fire prevention system.
Strong winds and an abundance of construction materials were fuelling the fire.
So far, no injuries have been reported.
The building is part of a group of skyscrapers that make up Moscow's new financial district.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracyThe modern social democratic movement came into being through a break within the socialist movement in the early years of the twentieth century. Speaking broadly, this break can be described as a parting of ways between those who insisted upon political revolution as a precondition for the achievement of socialist goals and those who maintained that a gradual or evolutionary path to socialism was both possible and desirable. Many related movements, including pacifism, anarchism, and syndicalism, arose at the same time; these ideologies were often promulgated by individuals who split from the preexisting socialist movement, and held a variety of quite different objections to Marxism.
One of the key founders of contemporary social democracy was Eduard Bernstein, a proponent of reformist socialism and a revisionist of Marxism. Bernstein had originally been a Marxist and had held close association to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, but he saw flaws in Marxian thinking and began such criticism when he investigated and challenged the Marxian materialist theory of history. Bernstein criticized Marxism's concept of "irreconciliable class conflicts" and Marxism's hostility to liberalism. Bernstein challenged Marx's position on liberalism by claiming that liberal democrats and social democrats held common grounds that he claimed could be utilized to create a "socialist republic".
On the issue of class conflict, Bernstein believed that economic class disparities between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat would gradually be eliminated through legal reforms and economic redistribution programs. Bernstein rejected the Marxian principle of dictatorship of the proletariat, claiming that gradualist democratic reforms will improve the rights of the working class. According to Bernstein, unlike orthodox Marxism social democracy did not seek to create a socialism separate from bourgeois society but instead sought to create a common development based on Western humanism. The development of socialism under social democracy does not seek to rupture existing society and its cultural traditions but to act as an enterprise of extension and growth. Furthermore, he believed that class cooperation was a preferable course to achieve socialism, rather than class conflict. On the issue of class conflict and responding to the Marxian principle of dictatorship of the proletariat, Bernstein said:
"No one thinks of destroying civil society as a community ordered in a civilized war. Quite to the contrary, Social Democracy does not want to break up civil society and make all its members proletarians together; rather, it ceaselessly labors to raise the worker from the social position of a proletarian to that of a citizen and thus make citizenship universal. It does not want to replace civil society with a proletarian society but a capitalist order of society with a socialist one." Eduard Bernstein
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-04-03 02:02:11)
fixed. democracy is impossible.rdx-fx wrote:
rdx-fx wrote:
Democrat or Republican - Same 6' stack of shit, same $5000 suit, different colored tie.It has could have never been a Democracy.Shahter wrote:
but... but, but, but, it's DEMOCRACY!!11!!!!one!1!11
Nothing is impossible, just some things not necessarily likelyShahter wrote:
fixed. democracy is impossible.rdx-fx wrote:
rdx-fx wrote:
Democrat or Republican - Same 6' stack of shit, same $5000 suit, different colored tie.It has could have never been a Democracy.Shahter wrote:
but... but, but, but, it's DEMOCRACY!!11!!!!one!1!11
Last edited by War Man (2012-04-03 05:56:31)
That's just stupid.War Man wrote:
Time to vote for the first time today.Nothing is impossible, just some things not necessarily likelyShahter wrote:
fixed. democracy is impossible.rdx-fx wrote:
It has could have never been a Democracy.rdx-fx wrote:
Democrat or Republican - Same 6' stack of shit, same $5000 suit, different colored tie.
are you going to homeschool your own children?War Man wrote:
Time to vote for the first time today.
AspergersWar Man wrote:
Time to vote for the first time today.Nothing is impossible, just some things not necessarily likelyShahter wrote:
fixed. democracy is impossible.rdx-fx wrote:
It has could have never been a Democracy.rdx-fx wrote:
Democrat or Republican - Same 6' stack of shit, same $5000 suit, different colored tie.
Only if you let everyone vote.Shahter wrote:
Democracy is impossiblepractical.
Disenfranchisement -> loss of political legitimacy -> ??? -> bad thingsrdx-fx wrote:
Only if you let everyone vote.Shahter wrote:
Democracy is impossiblepractical.
Need to weed out the uninformed, intellectually challenged, psychotically unempathetic, emotionally imbalanced, and mentally immature.
Y'know, the core constituency of the modern US Democratic and Republican parties...
I'd (half-jokingly) suggest a written test requirement to become a licensed voter.
Multiple choice test on government structure, current events, candidate positions, and such.
Oh, and proof of citizenship, proof of residency.
Or.. just go back to a modified version of "only property owners can vote", removing the race and sex restrictions.
Probably not.AussieReaper wrote:
are you going to homeschool your own children?War Man wrote:
Time to vote for the first time today.
but... but but but FASCISM!!11one1111!1!rdx-fx wrote:
Only if you let everyone vote.Shahter wrote:
Democracy is impossiblepractical.
Need to weed out the uninformed, intellectually challenged, psychotically unempathetic, emotionally imbalanced, and mentally immature.
Y'know, the core constituency of the modern US Democratic and Republican parties...
so, basically, you suggest a "pay-to-vote" system, huh? you know, you already have one of those right there - your elections are outright bought. what's the point?I'd (half-jokingly) suggest a written test requirement to become a licensed voter.
Multiple choice test on government structure, current events, candidate positions, and such.
Oh, and proof of citizenship, proof of residency.
Or.. just go back to a modified version of "only property owners can vote", removing the race and sex restrictions.
direct democracy → voting by every idiot with a malformed half-assed opinion spoonfed to them by mass media → Idiocracy → worse thingsMacbeth wrote:
Disenfranchisement -> loss of political legitimacy -> ??? -> bad things
