NationStates Jolt Archive

I just saw a clip of Bush talking about the Mumbai attacks and he said India had the support of 'the world's oldest democracy' - since when has Dubya been a spokesperson for Iceland? He can't surely be referring to the US.

I just saw a clip of Bush talking about the Mumbai attacks and he said India had the support of 'the world's oldest democracy' - since when has Dubya been a spokesperson for Iceland? He can't surely be referring to the US.

You should be so lucky.

I think Iceland was bought with that bailout package;)

omg a presidnt cn't b dumb!!/!11

Ancient Greece is supporting India? Well I never.

I just saw a clip of Bush talking about the Mumbai attacks and he said India had the support of 'the world's oldest democracy' - since when has Dubya been a spokesperson for Iceland? He can't surely be referring to the US.Try the Isle of Man, Iceland, or the Six Nations. They all started around the same time, and it's difficult to tell which one actually started first, and which one was a true democracy.

the Six Nations

It's often said rugby tournaments are the oldest democracies.

Wow, I didn't know the Athenian Republic supported India.

It's often said rugby tournaments are the oldest democracies....American Indian nations, not the International Rugby tournament. :p

ITT: Lots of bawwwing because a President can't be arsed to memorise the history of half a dozen countries with populations well below that of a small city, and shortens his sentence by leaving out the word 'Existing'.

The horror.

Eh the Icelanders might well support the Indians, I suppose.

shortens his sentence by leaving out the word 'Existing'.

There are lots of existing countries that have had democracies for waaay longer than the US has existed.

ITT: Lots of bawwwing because a President can't be arsed to memorise the history of half a dozen countries with populations well below that of a small city, and shortens his sentence by leaving out the word 'Existing'.

The horror.

So are you claiming Iceland or the Isle of Man don't exist? :eek:

So are you claiming Iceland or the Isle of Man don't exist? :eek:
The Isle of Man is nothing but IRA propaganda.

Hmm, so a bunch of ancient African/Asian tribes just rose out of the ground to help India? Did not know that. Or was it just Athens. I wouldn't know. Wasn't around with the oldest democracies. I hung out with the Chinese Emperors, not the Athenians. They were too far away to get to by foot.

So are you claiming Iceland or the Isle of Man don't exist? :eek:

ITT: Lots of bawwwing because a President can't be arsed to memorise the history of half a dozen countries with populations well below that of a small city, and shortens his sentence by leaving out the word 'Existing'.Reading comprehension. Making life easier since roughly 3000 B.C.

So are you claiming Iceland or the Isle of Man don't exist? :eek:Or that the United States' definition of democracy only fits the US?

And that the US isn't really a democracy? (Psst, it's a republic.)

Reading comprehension. Making life easier since roughly 3000 B.C.

England, Germany, and many others. Being democracies for longer than America has existed?

He should've said Greatest Democracy.

I don't know about this whole 'oldest' and really if we're talking about wrinkled and flacid democracies. France wins that one.

And that the US isn't really a democracy? (Psst, it's a republic.)

Republics can still be democracies.

France wins that one.

Even though England and many others were democracies before?

Reading comprehension. Making life easier since roughly 3000 B.C.

But he's right...

They are slightly below the population of a well-sized city.

:confused:

President Bush obviously meant the world's oldest, continuous, still surviving, democracy. Ask any sociologist or political scientist, and they will tell you that Iceland was not a true democracy. The fact of the matter is that the USA is the world's oldest, existing, true democracy. Athens was a democracy, but it has been dead for thousands of years, and it wasn't even a full democracy because it only offered voting rights to free males.

England, Germany, and many others. Being democracies for longer than America has existed?I think you're suffering from not entirely insignificant gaps in your memory, as far as it pertains the history of both, England and Germany.

... And that's presuming that you consider Cromwell's reign a 'Democracy', which I tend to find rather questionable.

Edit: And incidentally, I'd argue that the countries of England and Germany are substantially younger than the continent of (North) America.

There. I can do random out-of-context-nitpicking, too.

Republics can still be democracies.The United States is a republic because we elect others to make policy decisions for us.

Even though England and many others were democracies before?

It was a play on words that basically decribed their populations - not political science.

The United States is a republic because we elect others to make policy decisions for us.

Yes, but a democratic republic:P

random shit

Are you forgetting the witan? from over 1,00 years ago where English sherriffs, chruchmen, landholders, archbishops, earls etc voted for the king?

I think you're suffering from not entirely insignificant gaps in your memory, as far as it pertains the history of both, England and Germany.

... And that's presuming that you consider Cromwell's reign a 'Democracy', which I tend to find rather questionable.

what about the Acts of Union in 1707, it created the parliament or the glorious revolution in the 1600s?

Yes, but a democratic republic:PNot compatible, I'm afraid. :D
There's a difference between American 'democracy', and true democracy. It's defined to make the US look like a democracy, but we aren't in a more strict sense of the word.

<More Bawwwing>I am disturbed by your ignorance concerning the emergence of egalitarian tribes of homo sapiens in the great rift valley circa 160000 years ago.

Racist. At least the American democracy includes black people.

bullshit

English democracy includes black people too.

IEdit: And incidentally, I'd argue that the countries of England and Germany are substantially younger than the continent of (North) America.
Yeah, what with it being a continent and formed over hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years. Countries tend to be a little younger than that.

Anyway, a two-party democracy is hardly a stunning example.

English democracy includes black people too.

Isn't UK a Constitutional Monarchy technically?

Anyway, a two-party democracy is hardly a stunning example.

What d'you mean, two? Isn't there one, the Democratic-Republican party?

Isn't UK a Constitutional Monarchy technically?

Yes, but it's a democracy.

Isn't UK a Constitutional Monarchy technically?
There has never been a 'proper' full scale democracy -_-

Let's just call it a democracy and be done with it, although aye, it's really been a Constitutional Monarchy from 1215 onwards.

What d'you mean, two? Isn't there one, the Democratic-Republican party?Not since around 1824.

I am disturbed by your ignorance concerning the emergence of egalitarian tribes of homo sapiens in the great rift valley circa 160000 years ago.
What?

Reading comprehension. Making life easier since roughly 3000 B.C.

I'm afraid it seems to be you that is lacking in reading comprehension - just adding in 'existing' does not make the statement true. Nor does the size of a countries population somehow stop it being a democracy.

Hmm. The oldest surviving democratic institutions are probably the dutch waterschappen. Those date back to the 13th century - but of course they aren't countries.

what about the Acts of Union in 1707, it created the parliament or the glorious revolution in the 1600s?Less than 5% of the population being eligible to vote (These 5% being determined by either title or wealth, no less) amount to a democracy for you, huh?

English democracy includes black people too.Not back then, it didn't. As mentioned before, it only included a remarkably small percentage of the population, and the factors determing who could participate effectively made it an oligarchy, I'm afraid.

Don't you see? He did this on purpose. Now we'll all be so busy trying to figure out what he meant and who the oldest existing democracy really is that we won't notice when he does absolutely nothing.

Not back then, it didn't. As mentioned before, it only included a remarkably small percentage of the population, and the factors determing who could participate effectively made it an oligarchy, I'm afraid.

Well, it didn't in the US back then either, and you've completely skipped my part about the witan in Anglo-Saxon times.

Less than 5% of the population being eligible to vote (These 5% being determined by either title or wealth, no less) amount to a democracy for you, huh?

Slavery until 1865 - how democratic was that - did the slaves get to vote?

Less than 5% of the population being eligible to vote (These 5% being determined by either title or wealth, no less) amount to a democracy for you, huh?

Well, the US allowed less than 50% of its population to vote until the 1920s, if I recall correctly. The first country with full sufferage was in fact New Zealand, in 1893.
So what percentage of sufferage makes a democracy?

Well, the US allowed less than 50% of its population to vote until the 1920s, if I recall correctly. The first country with full sufferage was in fact New Zealand, in 1893.
So what percentage of sufferage makes a democracy?

let's call it 75%

let's call it 75%
NZ it is.

I'm afraid it seems to be you that is lacking in reading comprehension - just adding in 'existing' does not make the statement true. Nor does the size of a countries population somehow stop it being a democracy.I don't know... You're the one who took Bush's maybe slightly boasty statement out of context, and decided to nitpick on the factuality of 'Oldest' (Because yeah, everyone cares about how Shitlandia in Middle of Nowhere totally matters and needs to be recognised not only in scholary debates, but also in day-to-day politics concerning matters entirely unrelated to the historical process of democratisation), when his point was 'We stand by India'.

That aside, I'm not sure how 'Exist or Not' helps you any with 'I forgot the very first sentence you wrote and proceeded to reply in the most ignorant fashion imaginable'. I mean, you haven't even acknowledged its existence.

Less than 5% of the population being eligible to vote (These 5% being determined by either title or wealth, no less) amount to a democracy for you, huh?

No, but if we're going by that than the USA wasn't the first either. The USA wouldn't allow 50% of its citizens to vote until 1920 because of their gender, I don't think that that is democracy either and then there were blacks. In fact it still doesn't allow those under 18 to vote. So if we go by that the USA still isn't a democracy.

Well, the US allowed less than 50% of its population to vote until the 1920s, if I recall correctly. The first country with full sufferage was in fact New Zealand, in 1893.
So what percentage of sufferage makes a democracy?

stop typing so fast....

I don't know... You're the one who took Bush's maybe slightly boasty statement out of context, and decided to nitpick on the factuality of 'Oldest' (Because yeah, everyone cares about how Shitlandia in Middle of Nowhere totally matters and needs to be recognised not only in scholary debates, but also in day-to-day politics concerning matters entirely unrelated to the historical process of democratisation), when his point was 'We stand by India'.
Welcome to NSG?

No, but if we're going by that than the USA wasn't the first either. The USA wouldn't allow 50% of its citizens to vote until 1920 because of their gender, I don't think that that is democracy either and then there were blacks. In fact it still doesn't allow those under 18 to vote. So if we go by that the USA still isn't a democracy.Which still misses Bush's actual point, which was ignored from post #1 on, but yes, it's valid as far as a 'First Democracy?' debate is concerned.

Of course, in such a case, there are, in fact, no democracies whatsoever on the planet - while there are practical limits (How could a three year old vote?), one can circumvent them (Give the parents an additional vote; Incidentally, a concept I support).

Alternatively, one could use degrees of democratisation.

But in all honesty, both detracts from the point I was making, that being that the op is on the silly side of things with his nitpicking on matters that are of absolutely no concern whatsoever for the actual point of the speech/ statement. It's kind of like bitching at John F. Kennedy for having an accent when pronouncing 'Berlin'.

It's kind of like bitching at Lyndon B. Johnson for misspelling 'Tonkin'.

Its like bitching about spelling Tonkin as sndkbgfjngfbgjkhg.

Its like bitching about spelling Tonkin as sndkbgfjngfbgjkhg.I edited to a somewhat more fitting example. Please edit.

It's kind of like bitching at John F. Kennedy for having an accent when pronouncing 'Berlin'.

It's kind of like bitching about Kennedy for pronouncing Berlin fdhkvbhdzxgvkyfdnhjykdsbvcasvwxwe3xplpoaavxabvcnxmjvfmsnkjlklsnmsn

But in all honesty, both detracts from the point I was making, that being that the op is on the silly side of things with his nitpicking on matters that are of absolutely no concern whatsoever for the actual point of the speech/ statement. It's kind of like bitching at Lyndon B. Johnson for misspelling 'Tonkin'.

Let me ask you this : If Russia's president had made a speech about how his country as being the world's first true democracy will support India, don't you think there would be an outcry in the USA about such "baseless boasting"?

Which still misses Bush's actual point, which was ignored from post #1 on, but yes, it's valid as far as a 'First Democracy?' debate is concerned.

Of course, in such a case, there are, in fact, no democracies whatsoever on the planet - while there are practical limits (How could a three year old vote?), one can circumvent them (Give the parents an additional vote; Incidentally, a concept I support).

Alternatively, one could use degrees of democratisation.

But in all honesty, both detracts from the point I was making, that being that the op is on the silly side of things with his nitpicking on matters that are of absolutely no concern whatsoever for the actual point of the speech/ statement. It's kind of like bitching at John F. Kennedy for having an accent when pronouncing 'Berlin'.

It is the topic of this thread. Pointing out that the USA is not the world's oldest democracy and now we are discussing which is the world's oldest democracy and what defines democracy. Of course, no true democracy has ever existed, therefore leading to the discussion of what qualifies a democracy. How is that missing the point? We've moved past Bush's speech no where talking about democracy.

It is the topic of this thread. Pointing out that the USA is not the world's oldest democracy and now we are discussing which is the world's oldest democracy and what defines democracy. Of course, no true democracy has ever existed, therefore leading to the discussion of what qualifies a democracy. How is that missing the point? We've moved past Bush's speech now we're talking about democracy.

fixed spelling/grammar

...American Indian nations, not the International Rugby tournament. :p

It was mostly just the Five Nations--the Tuscarora were total hangers-on. :p

Reading comprehension. Making life easier since roughly 3000 B.C.



That aside, I'm not sure how 'Exist or Not' helps you any with 'I forgot the very first sentence you wrote and proceeded to reply in the most ignorant fashion imaginable'. I mean, you haven't even acknowledged its existence.

I simply asked a question, you replied with a personal attack, then you accuse me of being rude. Welcome to my ignore list.

It's kind of like bitching about Kennedy for pronouncing Berlin fdhkvbhdzxgvkyfdnhjykdsbvcasvwxwe3xplpoaavxabvcnxmjvfmsnkjlklsnmsnI'm afraid not so, but I'll leave yu to your delusions.Let me ask you this : If Russia's president had made a speech about how his country as being the world's first true democracy will support India, don't you think there would be an outcry in the USA about such "baseless boasting"?Indeed, I don't think there'd be. Some giggling, I suppose, although I suspect that quite a lot of people here would point at the comparatively egalitarian Kievan Rus, the existence of 'Councils' as counterbalance to their rulers, and the lack of serfs as evidence of Medvedev being right.

fixed spelling/grammar

Thank you.

Kievan Rus

That's the Ukraine, but thanks for playing anyway.

It is the topic of this thread. Pointing out that the USA is not the world's oldest democracy and now we are discussing which is the world's oldest democracy and what defines democracy. Of course, no true democracy has ever existed, therefore leading to the discussion of what qualifies a democracy. How is that missing the point? We've moved past Bush's speech no where talking about democracy.Actually, I'm reasonably certain that the OP's intention was merely to mock Bush for not being totally and completely cognizant of the entire world's history, since we definitely didn't have enough Bush-bashing over entirely insignificant or even unextant issues in the past eight years.

I admit that debating the history of democracy is a considerably more worthwhile subject than this, though.

Tat's the Ukraine, but thanks for playing anyway.

It was however the beginning of Russia, the fact that Kiev is now in a seperate country really doesn't matter

I'm afraid not so, but I'll leave yu to your delusions.Indeed, I don't think there'd be. Some giggling, I suppose, although I suspect that quite a lot of people here would point at the comparatively egalitarian Kievan Rus, the existence of 'Councils' as counterbalance to their rulers, and the lack of serfs as evidence of Medvedev being right.

Given the general volatility of US public opinion, paired with its raving patriotism linked directly to the somewhat odd claim to be the oldest democracy, I don't see them giggling.
I suspect they'd be pouring vodka down the drains withing a few days, and start calling the "Russian Tearoom" "Democracy Tearoom"...

I don't know... You're the one who took Bush's maybe slightly boasty statement out of context, and decided to nitpick on the factuality of 'Oldest' (Because yeah, everyone cares about how Shitlandia in Middle of Nowhere totally matters and needs to be recognised not only in scholary debates, but also in day-to-day politics concerning matters entirely unrelated to the historical process of democratisation), when his point was 'We stand by India'.


New Zealand isn't really the middle of nowhere. Though they do raise sheep so shitlandia might be accurate. Honestly though NZ can do little but stand by India..relatively close on the map you see.

That's the Ukraine, but thanks for playing anyway.I'm afraid that ultimately, Russia's roots lie in it, anyway - religion, tradition, even its foreign policy over the course of several centuries can be traced to the legacy of the Kievan Rus.

Thus, denied.

Also, yay. Off-topic.

I'm afraid that ultimately, Russia's roots lie in it, anyway - religion, tradition, even its foreign policy over the course of several centuries can be traced to the legacy of the Kievan Rus.

Thus, denied.

Also, yay. Off-topic.
Since the topic was Bush-mocking, can we go back to that?

There has never been a 'proper' full scale democracy -_-

Let's just call it a democracy and be done with it, although aye, it's really been a Constitutional Monarchy from 1215 onwards.

no sadly there has never been a full democracy attempted anywhere.

your forgetting the historic roots of the whole democratic process in Anglo Saxon England, the witan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witan read function and legality), local government (folk moot, a meeting of the people), trial by jury (folk moot again) and the oaths of fealty which were two way oaths

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/feud-oath1.html

Really there has been a form of constitutional monarchy in England since the very conception of England as a nation not since the signing of Magna Carta. All Magna Carta was really was a reaffirmation of already existing rights with slight extension.

the idea of America being either the greatest (as I read earlier in the thread) democracy is a little debatable, a two party system with an inbuilt disproportional representation of the population built into the democratic process through the senate and the electoral college system is hardly a shining example of democracy.

As for the oldest democracy well, hate to break it to bush but most other European nations have had elements of democracy in there systems since the earliest of civilisations.

Given the general volatility of US public opinion, paired with its raving patriotism linked directly to the somewhat odd claim to be the oldest democracy, I don't see them giggling.
I suspect they'd be pouring vodka down the drains withing a few days, and start calling the "Russian Tearoom" "Democracy Tearoom"...I don't know... How big was the outrage when Putin offered them 'Help' with their voting machine problems after the... 2000? 2004? One of the two... Elections.

I think we can gauge from that.New Zealand isn't really the middle of nowhere. Though they do raise sheep so shitlandia might be accurate. Honestly though NZ can do little but stand by India..relatively close on the map you see.True. They're inside the biggest pool on earth.

Pretty neat place, all things considered.

Given the general volatility of US public opinion, paired with its raving patriotism linked directly to the somewhat odd claim to be the oldest democracy, I don't see them giggling.
I suspect they'd be pouring vodka down the drains withing a few days, and start calling the "Russian Tearoom" "Democracy Tearoom"......Have we really sunk to the point where we must compare the United States to Russia on everything?
Dammit, people. Find some new "evil commies" to make fun of.

I think we can gauge from that.True. They're inside the biggest pool on earth.

Pretty neat place, all things considered.
Like the weresheep I saw in the documentary, Black Sheep?

I saw in the documentary

That was a documentary? I thought it was the raw footage.

a two party systemAh, that's been mentioned before - forgot about it.

Lets make it simple.

Not two parties. Over eighty fucking parties. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States)

You can't really blame the state for the people choosing to vote almost exclusively for two major parties. They're not forced to vote for them. They can vote for dozens of other parties.

Not a two-party system.

That only two major parties are voted when there's so many others available to vote for... I dunno... isn't... Being free to choose whom to vote for... A democratic right?

Actually, I'm reasonably certain that the OP's intention was merely to mock Bush for not being totally and completely cognizant of the entire world's history

Oh please. Bush is the president - he should know that the USA is both young and a republic instead of a democracy. He may even have heard of those other existing countries while being supposed to be speaking with them for the past 8 years.

Or that the United States' definition of democracy only fits the US?

And that the US isn't really a democracy? (Psst, it's a republic.)

A Republic is a form of Democracy.

Ah, that's been mentioned before - forgot about it.

Lets make it simple.

Not two parties. Over eighty fucking parties. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States)

You can't really blame the state for the people thosing to vote almost exclusively for two major parties. They're not forced to vote for them. They can vote for dozens of other parties.

Not a two-party system.

That only two major parties are voted when there's so many others available to vote for... I dunno... isn't... Being free to choose whom to vote for... A democratic right?

The fact that there are more than two parties don't exclude the U.S. from being a two-party system. We have third parties yes, but only two parties really compete for power.

You can't really blame the state for the people choosing to vote almost exclusively for two major parties.

Political theory disagrees with you there. The way the US electoral system is organised pretty much guarantees a system where the power is limited to two or three parties.

Ah, that's been mentioned before - forgot about it.

Lets make it simple.

Not two parties. Over eighty fucking parties. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States)

You can't really blame the state for the people choosing to vote almost exclusively for two major parties. They're not forced to vote for them. They can vote for dozens of other parties.

Not a two-party system.

That only two major parties are voted when there's so many others available to vote for... I dunno... isn't... Being free to choose whom to vote for... A democratic right?

is it really democratic to continuously choose between the lesser of two evils? only the gop or the democrats can win so only they get voted for.

anyway back to bush bashing,




actually that's too easy.

A Republic is a form of Democracy. *snip*


Not necessarily, a republic is just a form of government where a person has someone represent them. How that representative got the job is open to any manner of ideas. Rome was a Republic but a lot of the people represented had no say in the person who supposedly represented them.

Why is it news and discussion worthy that Dubyas a dumbshit and says stupid/wrong things? I thought this was accepted fact by now?

cause we are bored.

Ancient Greece is supporting India? Well I never.

Nice

It's a shame that he said that, because it will only increase the collective ignorance of the US, as they stubbornly refuse to accept that they are neither the oldest nor the greatest democracy on earth. By greatest, I won't judge which one is the best, but any country which can do the following:

Ah, that's been mentioned before - forgot about it.

Lets make it simple.

Not two parties. Over eighty fucking parties. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States)

You can't really blame the state for the people choosing to vote almost exclusively for two major parties. They're not forced to vote for them. They can vote for dozens of other parties.

Not a two-party system.

That only two major parties are voted when there's so many others available to vote for... I dunno... isn't... Being free to choose whom to vote for... A democratic right?

And yet has a system that is tailored in such a manner that despite having 81 parties, only 2 parties effectively have a chance of winning (along with the odd independent) as opposed to dozens of countries with multiple viable parties that actually have a chance of winning...

...well, it's hardly the best democratic system, is it then?

ITT: Lots of bawwwing because a President can't be arsed to memorise the history of half a dozen countries with populations well below that of a small city, and shortens his sentence by leaving out the word 'Existing'.

The horror.

I'm a 21 year old undergrad at Santa Cruz, and even I know that Iceland is an older democracy than the USA. The president as I recall graduated from Yale and has been in international politics for almost 8 years.

i don't even try to guess what the shrub means by anything. its usually too screwed up to even bother.

i have no idea what the oldest/earliest democracy might be, by any definician of the term. i wouldn't be a bit surprised if there might have been several in ancient india itself.

oldest constitutional representative federal republic? somehow i seriously doubt the u.s. even qualifies as that, although parlimentry governments, granted weren't the dominant form of government on the planet at time it succeeded from the british empire.

i think that latter is about the only thing i'd feel confident to come close to claiming anything resembling certainty about. and then i wasn't there and have to take the word of obviously politically biased historians (which is why i never entirely liked or trusted history, at least not as it is taught formally or at less then graduate levels)

what about the Acts of Union in 1707, it created the parliament or the glorious revolution in the 1600s?

Erm, Parliament has been about since a lot earlier than 1707.

And that the US isn't really a democracy? (Psst, it's a republic.)

Oh god, not that shit AGAIN. A republic is by definition a democracy. It's a form of democratic government. Republic literally means "public matter".

Oh god, not that shit AGAIN. A republic is by definition a democracy. It's a form of democratic government. Republic literally means "public matter".

It's usually said by people who think that somehow there one of the very few people who have thought of that, and are under the impression they are imparting some great knowledge upon us lesser beings.

A republic is by definition a democracy

like bloody hell it is. even anarchy comes closer.

there's no implication of universallness of representation in representative government.

like bloody hell it is. even anarchy comes closer.

there's no implication of universallness of representation in representative government.

Anarchy? The same anarchy which will inevitably result in warlordism? Yeah, that's real democratic.

Why is it news and discussion worthy that Dubyas a dumbshit and says stupid/wrong things? I thought this was accepted fact by now?

Because we now only have until January 20th to laugh at him, so we need to make the most of it while we still can.

Anarchy? The same anarchy which will inevitably result in warlordism? Yeah, that's real democratic.
no. the same REAL anarchy (which requires a certain commonness of self dicipline, which is a cultural thing) which resaults in nothing of the sort, invariably or otherwise. rather its weakness is its vulnerability do to lack of large standing social organization. which is why they tend to not last long.

warlordism is NOT anarchy at all, other then between warlordates, within them is neither democracy nor anarchy at all. more like absolute, often dictatorially caprecious monarchy generally (which is NOT an-archy, i.e. ABSCENCE of hierarchy!).

no. the same REAL anarchy (which requires a certain commonness of self dicipline, which is a cultural thing) which resaults in nothing of the sort, invariably or otherwise. rather its weakness is its vulnerability do to lack of large standing social organization. which is why they tend to not last long.

warlordism is NOT anarchy at all, other then between warlordates, within them is neither democracy nor anarchy at all. more like absolute, often dictatorially caprecious monarchy generally (which is NOT an-archy, i.e. ABSCENCE of hierarchy!).

You actually believe that bullshit? Please. Humans are going to do whatever's in their own best interests. That "let's all live in harmony" shit that you call anarchism would last about ten minutes before people get ambitious and try to set themselves up as warlords.

Oh god, not that shit AGAIN. A republic is by definition a democracy. It's a form of democratic government. Republic literally means "public matter".
You ought to know full well that it's not. Just because a country is a republic, it doesn't inherently mean that it's democratic. Stating so is just ignorance.

The Republic of Venice, for example, was considered a republic and the Doge was elected by the aristocracy. That's hardly democracy by our standards, is it? Admittedly, to a degree, it is democratic, as it involves the election of a leader by the people, but the aristocracy is hardly a wide segment of society.

The only thing George W. Bush has to say which matters a damn to me now, is his testimony in the Hague.

The will of the US people was plain within a day of the elections. Having a lame-duck President flapping and squawking in the office for so long is a ludicrous tribute to the olden days, when disputes of the electoral college had to be settled by messengers on horseback.

As soon as the result is declared, power should pass to the new President. President-elect = President in fact.

The will of the US people was plain within a day of the elections. Having a lame-duck President flapping and squawking in the office for so long is a ludicrous tribute to the olden days, when disputes of the electoral college had to be settled by messengers on horseback.
The sheer length from the election to the inauguration is a bit odd to me, someone from the UK.

The sheer length from the election to the inauguration is a bit odd to me, someone from the UK.

You say "a bit odd." I say "ludicrous."

You actually believe that bullshit? Please. Humans are going to do whatever's in their own best interests. That "let's all live in harmony" shit that you call anarchism would last about ten minutes before people get ambitious and try to set themselves up as warlords.
yes, humans WILL do whatever is in their best intrest. from time to time they discouver this is NOT beating each other over the head.

(and there ARE examples of it lasting a LOT longer then ten minuetes. try damd near ten thousand years in at least some cases, precisely what indiginous tribal rememberers were brutally murdered so retarded hierarchists and fanatical makiavellians could convincingly deny)

Maybe he just meant 'world's oldest relevant democracy' when he said that.

The only thing George W. Bush has to say which matters a damn to me now, is his testimony in the Hague.

Yeah, that's going to happen. You keep dreaming.

The will of the US people was plain within a day of the elections. Having a lame-duck President flapping and squawking in the office for so long is a ludicrous tribute to the olden days, when disputes of the electoral college had to be settled by messengers on horseback.

It's a two-and-a-half month gap. I know everyone has giant boners in their pants waiting for the Messiah to begin his reign and make everything perfect, but I think you can deal.

It's a two-and-a-half month gap. I know everyone has giant boners in their pants waiting for the Messiah to begin his reign and make everything perfect, but I think you can deal.
But it's weirdly long compared to elections in other countries, which was his point.

It's a two-and-a-half month gap. I know everyone has giant boners in their pants waiting for the Messiah to begin his reign and make everything perfect, but I think you can deal.

It's nothing to do with that, the length of time is just weird.

Example:
1st May 1997 - UK votes in a general election
2nd May 1997 - Labour announced winner of general election
2nd May 1997 - Tony Blair becomes Prime Minister

4th November 2008 - USA votes in a general election
5th November 2008 - Barack Obama winner of general election
20th January 2009 - Barack Obama becomes President

Oh god, not that shit AGAIN. A republic is by definition a democracy. It's a form of democratic government. Republic literally means "public matter".

A republic is a system of government that uses democratic principles. That does not make it a democracy. A country can be a constitutional monarchy and use democratic principles - is it then also a democracy in your eyes ?

Maybe he just meant 'world's oldest relevant democracy' when he said that.

Ah, because the UK, Germany, Greece and piles of others are irrelevant?

Since the topic was Bush-mocking, can we go back to that?

Honestly making fun of politicians is pretty easy, but Bush jr is a goldmine of faux pas fun.

so...

what (national) democracies that existed in 1776 are still in existence today?

great britain was much more of a monarchy then. iceland was ruled by denmark. isle of man was...... oh i dont know what it was then or what it is now....

what are the contenders for making george bush altogether wrong?

the problem is this is a subjective truth.
Americans tend to refer to themselves as the 1st democracy in continual existence until today as a matter of national pride. sometimes the phrase 1st modern democracy was used. The problem being of course this is a subjective statement that plays on national pride and really should not be used in international relations. The reason being is it sends a bunch of nit picky Europeans into Frenzy and it comes across as arrogant.

the problem is this is a subjective truth.
Americans tend to refer to themselves as the 1st democracy in continual existence until today as a matter of national pride. sometimes the phrase 1st modern democracy was used. The problem being of course this is a subjective statement that plays on national pride and really should not be used in international relations. The reason being is it sends a bunch of nit picky Europeans into Frenzy and it comes across as arrogant.
Spot on, man.

the problem is this is a subjective truth.
Americans tend to refer to themselves as the 1st democracy in continual existence until today as a matter of national pride. sometimes the phrase 1st modern democracy was used. The problem being of course this is a subjective statement that plays on national pride and really should not be used in international relations. The reason being is it sends a bunch of nit picky Europeans into Frenzy and it comes across as arrogant.

Thats not arrogant at all either.

Thats not arrogant at all either.
But it insinuates superiority, which tends to annoy.

'the world's oldest democracy' - since when has Dubya been a spokesperson for Iceland? He can't surely be referring to the US.

Not to be a pest, and certainly not to say that the US is the world's oldest democracy (probably the title goes to San Marino), but didn't Iceland spend most of the early-modern period under the Danish crown?

the problem is this is a subjective truth.
Americans tend to refer to themselves as the 1st democracy in continual existence until today as a matter of national pride. sometimes the phrase 1st modern democracy was used. The problem being of course this is a subjective statement that plays on national pride and really should not be used in international relations. The reason being is it sends a bunch of nit picky Europeans into Frenzy and it comes across as arrogant.

I guess you are saying that what constitutes a "democracy" is subjective. Thus, any attempt to date the existence of democracies is also subjective.

Of course, what color is the sky (and pratically any empirical observation) is also "subjective."

Bottom line: Although I do agree the fuss over this is a bit overdone, it was a stupid thing for Bush to say. It is arrogant.

Doing a Google search brings up both Switzerland and St. Marino as the oldest democracies in existence.

President Bush obviously meant the world's oldest, continuous, still surviving, democracy. Ask any sociologist or political scientist, and they will tell you that Iceland was not a true democracy. The fact of the matter is that the USA is the world's oldest, existing, true democracy. Athens was a democracy, but it has been dead for thousands of years, and it wasn't even a full democracy because it only offered voting rights to free males.

NO, NO, NO!
The oldest democracy of the world is the Most Serene Republic of San Marino (Serenissima Repubblica di San Marino) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_marino)
San Marino is the oldest sovereign state and constitutional republic in the world, having been founded on 3 September 301 by Marinus of Rab, a Christian stonemason fleeing the religious persecution of Roman Emperor Diocletian. San Marino's constitution of 1600 is the world's oldest constitution still in effect.

Doing a Google search brings up both Switzerland and St. Marino as the oldest democracies in existence.
THIS i find MUCH more interesting the bush, bashing or otherwise.

i'll bet if we could widen this search to the little known and forgotten we'd come up with a number of really interesting places, even i haven't heard of or imagined.

i don't know, but i just highly suspect the're out there.

I just saw a clip of Bush talking about the Mumbai attacks and he said India had the support of 'the world's oldest democracy' - since when has Dubya been a spokesperson for Iceland? He can't surely be referring to the US.

Iceland? No way. He was clearly referring to San Marino.

wiki snip: San Marino

San Marino is the oldest sovereign state and constitutional republic in the world, having been founded on 3 September 301 by Marinus of Rab, a Christian stonemason fleeing the religious persecution of Roman Emperor Diocletian. San Marino's constitution of 1600 is the world's oldest constitution still in effect.

*Damn, Velka Morava beat me to it.*
There you are.

I guess you are saying that what constitutes a "democracy" is subjective. Thus, any attempt to date the existence of democracies is also subjective.


Actually, not extremely subjective.
Example: the French Republic and the Italian Republic, in the first article of their constitutions (quod wiki), state that they are not just "republics", but "democratic republics".

Btw, the Greeks (called by Mr.Shrub "Grecians") have a single word meaning both republic and democracy, that is demokratia.

Not to be a pest, and certainly not to say that the US is the world's oldest democracy (probably the title goes to San Marino), but didn't Iceland spend most of the early-modern period under the Danish crown?

Yes you are right, I was thinking more in terms of having a parliament. As Greed and Death so rightly points out it is a problem of how we define a democracy.

Thats not arrogant at all either.

can I have no fun ???

can I have no fun ???

No. NSG is a place for serious and boring debate only.

...


...


MUHAHAHAHA!:D

Man!When you think Bush can't be dumber than (insert term here),does the man know ANYTHING at all?Btw,the term democracy is overrated nowdays,there are no actual democracies since the size of countries makes it impractical to implement direct voting and decision making to all the people on any single matter.And for your information the term democracy does not necessarily mean liberalism also,non-citizens,immigrants,minorities can be excluded by the will of the voting people,it is possible to have a restrictive or even racist democracy and still call it one.

Btw,the term democracy is overrated nowdays,there are no actual democracies since the size of countries makes it impractical to implement direct voting and decision making to all the people on any single matter.

Switzerland.

Switzerland.
That's not a real country. For starters, it doesn't really do anything.

That's not a real country. For starters, it doesn't really do anything.

Apart from being extremely rich and controlling half of the world's pharma and half of the world's food industry. Plus watches.

It is a real country enough. Unless you claim that, to be a "real" country, you have to invade some other country on a regular basis.

Apart from being extremely rich
For now.
and controlling half of the world's pharma
Eh having British and American pharmaceutical companies on your land is not the same as "controlling the world's pharma".

Johnson and Johnson, Pfizer, Bayer and GlaxoSmithKline are all larger, richer companies than Novartis, the biggest Swiss company.
and half of the world's food industry.
Fair point, I suppose.
Plus watches.
Whoopedy doo.
It is a real country enough. Unless you claim that, to be a "real" country, you have to invade some other country on a regular basis.
Oh please. It's a weak, overly democratic federation, and its economy may well be on the brink of falling through because the companies based there, for example UBS and Nestlé, have pretty poor business practises.

Oh please. It's a weak, overly democratic federation, and its economy may well be on the brink of falling through because the companies based there, for example UBS and Nestlé, have pretty poor business practises.

That and the banks are about to collapse worldwide.

Switzerland.
You're right,Switzerland and some scandinavian municipalities are an exception.

That's not a real country. For starters, it doesn't really do anything.
What do you mean it's not a real country?

i don't know, but i just highly suspect the're out there.

They probably are. Dubya perhaps needs to learn to use search engines.:D

Ancient Greece is supporting India? Well I never.


That's what I thought too. It just shows Bush is fucking thick as shit.

They probably are. Dubya perhaps needs to learn to use search engines.:D

well a few invasions and collapse of governments in competing democracies and the US can be made the oldest still surviving democracy.

well a few invasions and collapse of governments in competing democracies and the US can be made the oldest still surviving democracy.

Yeah... uhum. That I wouldn't put it past the US, but I'm not into discussing invasions.:tongue:

Yeah... uhum. That I wouldn't put it past the US, but I'm not into discussing invasions.:tongue:

well it is obvious bush was telling those other countries to have brief periods of rule by dictatorships or face US invasion.
American pride does not allow the president to be wrong.

well it is obvious bush was telling those other countries to have brief periods of rule by dictatorships or face US invasion.
American pride does not allow the president to be wrong.

Indeed. But the rest of the world knows the US presidents are, usually, wrong. It's fine, in any case.:wink:

Indeed. But the rest of the world knows the US presidents are, usually, wrong. It's fine, in any case.:wink:

Say we are right or we use bombs to make it right.

Say we are right or we use bombs to make it right.

You're not right, but it's ok. I'll let my government know there will be an incoming US bombing to Spain. :p

You're not right, but it's ok. I'll let my government know there will be an incoming US bombing to Spain. :p

your not competing for the title oldest democracy still standing. the bombs are for San Marino. Our aircraft will avoid flying at cross bow altitude in order to be safe from San Marino's Air defense.

your not competing for the title oldest democracy still standing. the bombs are for San Marino. Our aircraft will avoid flying at cross bow altitude in order to be safe from San Marino's Air defense.

It's funny. Now that you mention it, one never hears anything warlike about the people of San Marino.

your not competing for the title oldest democracy still standing. the bombs are for San Marino. Our aircraft will avoid flying at cross bow altitude in order to be safe from San Marino's Air defense.

Better watch out for the Guard of the Rock as well, and the sheep of course.

Better watch out for the Guard of the Rock as well, and the sheep of course.

Guard of the Rock? :confused:

EDIT: Ah, San Marino's military unit. I see.

Guard of the Rock? :confused:

The San Marino military largely consists of the Crossbow Corps, the Guard of the Rock, and a militia.

The San Marino military largely consists of the Crossbow Corps, the Guard of the Rock, and a militia.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3a/San-mar-mil.JPG
Interesting chart.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3a/San-mar-mil.JPG
Interesting chart.

They could regret not allowing the Crossbow Corps carry out operational duties.

They could regret not allowing the Crossbow Corps carry out operational duties.

Maybe the Crossbow Corps looks a bit Medievalish to the San Marinese.:tongue:

OK, in Dubya's defense, the US is the world's oldest sovereign democracy. IIRC, Iceland was under Danish rule when the US was founded.

I believe democratic republic is a legitimate term. It means a republic with democratic elections. Have any of been living under a rock or did someone on this board just crawl out of a cave?

so is the consensus:

"what a fucking moron george bush is! he thinks that the US is the worlds oldest existing national democracy! good god didnt he ever hear about SAN MARINO? has he been living under a rock? what a fucking embarrassment he is as a world leader."

?

or is there another candidate out there?

so is the consensus:

"what a fucking moron george bush is! he thinks that the US is the worlds oldest existing national democracy! good god didnt he ever hear about SAN MARINO? has he been living under a rock? what a fucking embarrassment he is as a world leader."

?

or is there another candidate out there?

I vote consensus. *rises hand*

Maybe the Crossbow Corps looks a bit Medievalish to the San Marinese.:tongue:

the rest of their military looks Napoleonic to me.


and claiming to be an older democratic republic then the US is an act of war. luckily we have bases and soldiers stationed in Italy.

we are a deeply flawed democracy, as observers of our last election. We had no positive examples and we managed to survive as a democracy or to be technical a democratic republic.

The San Marino military largely consists of the Crossbow Corps, the Guard of the Rock, and a militia.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3a/San-mar-mil.JPG
Interesting chart.

I wonder if the San Marino Armed Forces vanpool to save gas. ;)

the rest of their military looks Napoleonic to me.


and claiming to be an older democratic republic then the US is an act of war. luckily we have bases and soldiers stationed in Italy.

Well, they're way older than the US for many centuries, you know. San Marino was established in AD 301. It's constitution is from 1600. So yes, they're older than the US by a lot.

We have third parties. They are just smaller. We can vote for them, it's just that most people who vote third party don't like the two major candidates that year, like my parents and me for president this year. Nader(mom) Barr(dad) and Baldwin(me)

bush is a village idiot and the stupidest president ever, if you want bush bashing here it is. he should've been impeached. i'm glad he's gone inaguration day. i bet crawford texas will be glad to have its idiot back. woo-hoo

Well, they're way older than the US for many centuries, you know. San Marino was established in AD 301. It's constitution is from 1600. So yes, they're older than the US by a lot.

then we must sadly make that country cease to exist.

We have third parties. They are just smaller. We can vote for them, it's just that most people who vote third party don't like the two major candidates that year, like my parents and me for president this year. Nader(mom) Barr(dad) and Baldwin(me)

In my opinion this is the reason no country actually has democracy, all we do is choose the lesser of two evils, even in nations were we theoretically have credible third parties. that's not democracy that's being given the right to choose between two shit forms of government for the next few years who as soon as they get into office just carry on the poor governmental practice of the previous government

I plan on celebrating the day Bush passes out of public life with a huge party, bottles of champagne some good ale and uncle cid lol

I'm going to hang bushisms around the walls, such as his commendation of the Austrian troops in iraq whilst addressing a rally of Australians.

and this latest ignorance of the rest of the worlds history

then I'm going to proceed to giggle like an idiot and mourn the passing of America's greatest comic act.

:hail:hail to the chimp:hail:

then we must sadly make that country cease to exist.
it is a grievous error to have allowed it to exist this long. surely the new president will take care of that as soon as he straightens out the rest of bush's grievous errors.

it is a grievous error to have allowed it to exist this long. surely the new president will take care of that as soon as he straightens out the rest of bush's grievous errors.

:gundge: yeah death to San Marino.

then we must sadly make that country cease to exist.

It would be interesting to see you try. After all, it would mean attacking Italian soil. I don't think the Italian Mafia in the US would allow that. It'll be epic!:tongue:

It would be interesting to see you try. After all, it would mean attacking Italian soil. I don't think the Italian Mafia in the US would allow that. It'll be epic!:tongue:

well considering we have bases in Italy and they have a population of 28,000 we could start at midnight and be done before most Italians are awake the next day.

well considering we have bases in Italy and they have a population of 28,000 we could start at midnight and be done before most Italians are awake the next day.
we could get it done between the time they get up and when they finish their first cup of coffee.

well considering we have bases in Italy and they have a population of 28,000 we could start at midnight and be done before most Italians are awake the next day.

I thought USians believed in democracy. This would surely be construed as an imperialistic move on the US's part against it's old Italian ally. Remember who are the ones who give you cops, aside from the Irish!:mad:


:D

I thought USians believed in democracy. This would surely be construed as an imperialistic move on the US's part against it's old Italian ally. Remember who are the ones who give you cops, aside from the Irish!:mad:


:D

Well we will fabricate some evidence to blame it on someone else. maybe Russia or Italian natinolist who feel San Marino is Italian territory.
Then of course we the US will place peace keeper in both states and rebuild their government.

OK, I amend my earlier statement. San Marino is in fact the world's oldest democracy, and has been independent far longer than the United States.

The United States of America is, as far as I know, the world's second oldest democratic republic.

Well we will fabricate some evidence to blame it on someone else. maybe Russia or Italian natinolist who feel San Marino is Italian territory.
Then of course we the US will place peace keeper in both states and rebuild their government.

Spoken like a true, democratic American there. Kudos to you!:D

Well we will fabricate some evidence to blame it on someone else. maybe Russia or Italian natinolist who feel San Marino is Italian territory.
Then of course we the US will place peace keeper in both states and rebuild their government.

You are walking on soooo thin ice here...
The US tryed to do something similar in Italy in the '70s - '80s...

The whole "fabricate some evidence to blame it on someone else" was called the "strategy of tension (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_of_tension)".

OK, I amend my earlier statement. San Marino is in fact the world's oldest democracy, and has been independent far longer than the United States.
The United States of America is, as far as I know, the world's second oldest democratic republic.

Switzerland is second - not continuously an independent republic, though.

Spoken like a true, democratic American there. Kudos to you!:D

the new national anthem shall be god bless America. and fuck everyone else.

Switzerland is second - not continuously an independent republic, though.

then it doesn't count. though we could justify occupying them in an attempt to recover holocaust victim's gold teeth.

But then Gerald Ford was never elected to the presidency.

But then Gerald Ford was never elected to the presidency.

he was elected to the vice presidency.

he was elected to the vice presidency.

Actually, he wasn't. He was appointed by Nixon to replace the previous Vice-President, Spiro Agnew, who resigned in the face of corruption charges.

Actually, he wasn't. He was appointed by Nixon to replace the previous Vice-President, Spiro Agnew, who resigned in the face of corruption charges.

i stand corrected. wow. he was a goon anyways.

OK, I propose the following distinction for the US:

The United States is the world's oldest democratic federation.

OK, I propose the following distinction for the US:

The United States is the world's oldest democratic federation.

*scurries off to wikipedia*

Don't you see? He did this on purpose. Now we'll all be so busy trying to figure out what he meant and who the oldest existing democracy really is that we won't notice when he does absolutely nothing.

Same old W's bullshit; different box on the calendar. You hit the nail on the head.

OK, I propose the following distinction for the US:
The United States is the world's oldest democratic federation.

Again, there is the problem with the definition of democracy. Sure the US is the oldest federative republic (or federation of republics?).

the new national anthem shall be god bless America. and fuck everyone else.

Pero qué temple tiene el gringo, qué temple!:D

I wonder if the San Marino Armed Forces vanpool to save gas. ;)

Even better. They walk or ride a bicycle.

Anyway, damn... (wiki) National defence is, by arrangement, the responsibility of Italy's armed forces.

They're SOOO fucked.

btw:
San Marino also had the world's first democratically-elected communist government, which held office between 1945 and 1957.

Pero qué temple tiene el gringo, qué temple!:D

my Spanish is horrendous. but spiced wine is what is keeping me warm at current. I am sure my attempt at understanding didn't go well by the fact i am drunk and only recognize two words.

In my opinion this is the reason no country actually has democracy, all we do is choose the lesser of two evils, even in nations were we theoretically have credible third parties. that's not democracy that's being given the right to choose between two shit forms of government for the next few years who as soon as they get into office just carry on the poor governmental practice of the previous government

I plan on celebrating the day Bush passes out of public life with a huge party, bottles of champagne some good ale and uncle cid lol

I'm going to hang bushisms around the walls, such as his commendation of the Austrian troops in iraq whilst addressing a rally of Australians.

and this latest ignorance of the rest of the worlds history

then I'm going to proceed to giggle like an idiot and mourn the passing of America's greatest comic act.

:hail:hail to the chimp:hail:
You're perfectly right on that!Even in ancient times the critical flaw of democracy was that some times there were no valid candidates and the public was forced to choose the less of two (or three,four,etc) evils.

my Spanish is horrendous. but spiced wine is what is keeping me warm at current. I am sure my attempt at understanding didn't go well by the fact i am drunk and only recognize two words.

I implied that you have quite an ego, American. But it was done in jest.:wink:

I implied that you have quite an ego, American. But it was done in jest.:wink:

i know just as i am claiming we will blow up any older democracies is also in jest.