Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 1111
Joined: 26 Mar 2011, 8:04 pm

Post 03 Jul 2016, 11:35 am

a good list, Ricky. I'm impressed. But in all these cases, are the reasons you listed the result of the structure of parliamentary democracy? or could there be other factors at work?

And is the US, because it's a presidential democracy, automatically doomed to never soar to these exalted heights of good government?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 03 Jul 2016, 2:35 pm

hacker
But in all these cases, are the reasons you listed the result of the structure of parliamentary democracy? or could there be other factors at work
?
We do know that they share their governance structure.
I'm sure they share other things too. (See prosperity index)

hacker
And is the US, because it's a presidential democracy, automatically doomed to never soar to these exalted heights of good government?

.
And I'm certain that describing government that is reasonably responsive and effective as "exalted", is misplaced sarcasm.
The Prosperity Index includes a comparsion of nations on a large number of factors; including governance. http://www.prosperity.com/#!/ranking
Its an interesting way of trying to comprehend how various things affect the citizens lives around the world.
They rank the US #11 on governance. And 11th overall in terms of prosperity.

So, despite the structure of the Constitution contributing to sclerosis in the federal system, and gridlock in Washington, in terms of governance things are still going okay... Better than many parliamentary democracies... Maybe this is part because some States governments and local governments are particularly effective? (I'm thinking California recently...) Maybe its because despite the inherent legislative problems, agencies are still effective.Maybe its because many nations have far bigger problems to deal with than a resource rich, powerful nation like the US?

I'll bet it would surprise you that the US is only 15th on personal freedom and is 33rd on safety and security. Although it strikes me that if there wasn't the gridlock in Washington that perhaps those issues might be better addressed. (In my mind, this includes responsible gun laws, and laws on drug use and abuse. Which, again, some States are leading on... )

http://www.prosperity.com/#!/ranking
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 1111
Joined: 26 Mar 2011, 8:04 pm

Post 06 Jul 2016, 8:38 am

It wasn't meant as SARCASM Ricky I'm sorry if you took it that way.

Again, your problem is that you're not a realist, and you're looking at the United States through the eyes of Canada. Perfectly natural since you're a Canadian citizen (or subject, whatever). But it gets a little annoying when you refuse to open your mind to alternate possibilities.

You have yourself admitted that many of the states have done better than the federal government has. But wait, the States of the United States of America are also PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEMS are they not? Clearly this blows away your theory that the problems inherent in the US federal system are the result of the presidential structure of government. They, too have presidential-style checks and balances.

I have often said myself that the US government would work better if it were "tweaked". The 50 state constitutions were written long after 1787 (the federal constitution was signed Sept. 17, 1787 and became "operative" in the meanest sense on Mar. 4, 1789). Therefore, they had ample time to look at the flaws that developed in the federal Constitution of 1787 and say, hey, this particular clause/whatever could work better IF we did [this] instead.

So clearly, your argument that the US Government is unworkable because it's a presidential system, and would work so much better if it were an Anglo-Canadian-style parliamentary one, is a flawed argument, full of half-truths, full of holes, and ignores a lot of the facts.

Also:

We do know that they share their governance structure.


(In reference to my question about "are there other factors at work"). May I point out that there are many, many variations on parliamentary government that produce different results. Some of these parliamentary governments have produced, and do produce, vastly different results. Iraq is a parliamentary democracy. So is Australia. So is Israel. So is Japan. Japan, contrary to popular belief, is rife with corruption and cronyism that I pray to God your country isn't. Israel is in the Guiness Book of World Records---along with Belgium---for the parliamentary democracy which took the longest to form a coalition government following an election.

Oh, and I checked the CIA World Factbook after looking at your list of shining examples of solid, parliamentary democracies that work better than ours. Costa Rica is a PRESIDENTIAL system. You yourself have pointed out the need for proving positions with sources rather than what you call "mental masturbation". So, before you clean up the jizz you just spewed all over your keyboard, check out the Factbook entry on Costa Rica:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/resources/the-world-factbook/geos/cs.html

(I don't know if that provides a direct link to Costa Rica, just use the drop-down menu.)

And if you don't believe the CIA, here's another favorite source of yours, Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costa_Rica

As for Luxembourg, that's another bad example of parliamentary democracy. It's not a true "Westminster Model", as the monarchy is a lot stronger than most modern parliamentary democracies. The reason for this is that, along with the elected Chamber of Deputies, the "Council of State", appointed entirely by the monarch, "assists" the Chamber and Cabinet in the drafting of legislation. So that's not a good example either. (Though not as terrible an example of "modern" parliamentary democracy as Costa Rica, which isn't a parliamentary democracy at all).

But if you think Costa Rica's such a great government, thank you for proving my point.

NOW: after I asked you what the "other factors at work" were, you were kind enough (for once) to provide me with a list, rather than dodging the question. Your answer was:

a) stronger political parties,
b) corporatist interest organization,
c) tighter principal-agent relationships within the
various arms of the bureaucracy,
d) centralized (national-level) electoral accountability,
e) the capacity for flexible policymaking,
f) a more institutionalized political sphere, and
g) decisive leadership


After you respond to what I just wrote above, I will happily address the 7 points contained in your answer which you kindly styled A through G.

Thanks for at least not dodging the question this time!
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 06 Jul 2016, 9:26 am

hacker
So clearly, your argument that the US Government is unworkable because it's a presidential system

hacker you are tedious.
When did I ever say the system was "unworkable"? Please quote me.
I clearly wrote that it has, at the federal level at least, become sclerotic and gridlocked. (Some state govenrments suffer the same way. But those with clear majorities in the legislatures seem to do better. But I also indicated that this has become a feature of the modern Federal govenrment particularly since the early 90s... and that before that often compromise and respect allowed the system to work. (Historically the gridlock has existed for periods on some issues. Say slavery?)

Probably the model for a recovered state of late would be California. (booming economy and budget surplus...) They managed that with majorities in both houses and the governors office, after years of divided rule. So they got to enact a specific agenda. Its worked out
. Kansas is a state that also enjoys majorities in both houses and the governors mansion under the same party. Their agenda has also been free of gridlock. Unhappily their agenda has been a disaster. I'll bet, with hind sight, a little gridlock in Topeka would have been desirable..

Okay. I'll give you Costa Rica. Note CR holds its parliamnetary elections at the same time as the Presidential elections. Always. And everyone is up for election every 4 years...
Those are tweeks that would improve the US propensity for gridlock and its constant election cycle.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 1111
Joined: 26 Mar 2011, 8:04 pm

Post 06 Jul 2016, 9:49 am

Those are tweeks that would improve the US propensity for gridlock and its constant election cycle.


YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! That's what I have been trying to say all along! A tweak is different from an overhaul or a total replacment of a constitution. And considering that CR is a presidential system, it works via separation of powers like the US not FUSION of powers like the Anglo-Canadian model. Quit calling ME tedious, for shit's sake, because you've been missing every single point I've made. In fact, I strongly suspect you do not even READ what I write. Sheesh! :upset:

When did I ever say the system was "unworkable"? Please quote me.


I'm not going to go through every single post you have made on Redscape but you've said it many times.

California: another bad example in which you failed to check your facts. Since you refuse to do so, I have checked them for you. It took me less than three minutes:

Per capita GDP in 2007 was $38,956, ranking eleventh in the nation.[165] Per capita income varies widely by geographic region and profession. The Central Valley is the most impoverished, with migrant farm workers making less than minimum wage. According to a 2005 report by the Congressional Research Service, the San Joaquin Valley was characterized as one of the most economically depressed regions in the U.S., on par with the region of Appalachia.[166] California has a poverty rate of 23.5%, the highest of any state in the country.


And:

State spending increased from $56 billion in 1998 to $127 billion in 2011.[170][171] California, with 12% of the U.S. population, has one-third of the nation's welfare recipients.[172] California has the third highest per capita spending on welfare among the states, as well as the highest spending on welfare at $6.67 billion.[173] In January 2011 the California's total debt was at least $265 billion.[174] On June 27, 2013, Governor Jerry Brown signed a balanced budget (no deficit) for the state, its first in decades; however the state's debt remains at $132 billion


Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California

You may also want to check out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%9312_California_budget_crisis

They've been talking about a new constitution for California for years.

I'll bet, with hind sight, a little gridlock in Topeka would have been desirable..


Huh! Interesting to see you do a 180 after everything you've written so far. Thank you for proving my point for me! I guess "gridlock" or "obstruction" isn't such a bad thing after all, BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION? :laugh:

PS: California VOTERS passed Prop 8, prohibiting same-sex marriage. It was overturned by the United States Supreme Court. Do you remember that? Hopefully you see our point about "tyranny of the majority" and the need for checks and balances for that exact reason.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 1111
Joined: 26 Mar 2011, 8:04 pm

Post 08 Jul 2016, 8:34 am

Wow, looks like I've pretty much nailed a "Q.E.D." on Ricky.

Or have I? Should I take your silence as a concession of defeat? Or that you have at least reconsidered your position? There's nothing embarrassing about that. Believe it or not Ricky, and I mean this, you've made me reconsider some of my positions. It's only fair.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 09 Jul 2016, 8:32 am

hacker
quote]Huh! Interesting to see you do a 180 after everything you've written so far. Thank you for proving my point for me! I guess "gridlock" or "obstruction" isn't such a bad thing after all, BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION? :laugh:[/quote]
Hacker, you don't retain much.
Here's how I responded to bbauska earlier when he accused me of being selctive about my desire to see a majority govern...
Canada survived Stephen Harper for 9 years.. . For 5 years he had an unchecked majority..
Someone whose ideology I despised. I was all right with him actually being allowed and able to govern the country

In Kansas, brownback and his ilk have had a fairly unchecked ability to govern as they wish. They've run the bus into the ditch.
Although I feel badly for Kansas in that they made a horrible choice, what it clearly shows is that the policies of Brownback and his republican majority were a disaster. Whether Kansas has learned from this and will make a switch or whether Kansas can be cautionary tale for the rest of the US remains to be seen...
But, excepting for the pain and dislocation that Brownbacks policies have caused, I think its a good thing that his policies had an unobstructed run...
Just as I was fine that Harper had an period where his policies had an unobstructed run in Canada. And were thoroughly refuted in the last election....and are now almost completely reversed...And are unlikely to be revived for some time.

Hacker
PS: California VOTERS passed Prop 8, prohibiting same-sex marriage. It was overturned by the United States Supreme Court. Do you remember that? Hopefully you see our point about "tyranny of the majority" and the need for checks and balances for that exact reason.

Again, this was dealt with earlier in this discussion.

Proposition 8 was ultimately ruled unconstitutional by a federal court (on different grounds) in 2010, although the court decision did not go into effect until June 26, 2013, following the conclusion of proponents' appeals.


rickyp to bbauska
The constitution protects the rights of individuals from government enacting legislation that infringes upon their basic rights as enumerated in the Constitution.
Using the Courts to protect one's rights is not the same as using parliamentary procedures and arcane parliamentary rules to thwart legislation. Especially not legislation that is widely supported in the general populace... (the recent "issues" of gun control and Zika funding are examples from either side of the aisle.)


hacker
Or have I? Should I take your silence as a concession of defeat? Or that you have at least reconsidered your position?

My position on the systemic gridlock hasn't changed. I'm just tired of you ignoring the points made in discussion, or rephrasing them in a way that ignores the salient evidence and points I've made.
And so, I'm wholly clear... I've pointed at systemic gridlock and obstructionism as a problem. But I've also volunteered that despite the inherent weaknesses in the systems many things have worked out well for Americans.
I just think that when a govenrment does get a chance to try out policies thoroughly without constant relitigation, things can be improved. Without the evidence of wheterh a policy works or not, the argument about its efficacy can never be resolved. And in the US, you are having the same arguments for decades. (Gun ownership laws?)
Many nations without the natural advantages of the US have achieved a better society . At least as gauged here.... http://www.prosperity.com/#!/ranking

And in part I think its because of the governance structure as indicated by what Ienumerated provides advantages, which you've never addressed.

a) stronger political parties,
b) corporatist interest organization,
c) tighter principal-agent relationships within the
various arms of the bureaucracy,
d) centralized (national-level) electoral accountability,
e) the capacity for flexible policymaking,
f) a more institutionalized political sphere, and
g) decisive leadership
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 1111
Joined: 26 Mar 2011, 8:04 pm

Post 09 Jul 2016, 9:31 am

But, excepting for the pain and dislocation that Brownbacks policies have caused, I think its a good thing that his policies had an unobstructed run...


Again, you just did a 180 on your 180. Sheesh.

Again, you dodged my ENTIRE section on California. Prop 8 has been dealt with? Fine. You didn't deal with the rest of it that i just mentioned. Please explain your disparity between your belief and the facts. Now.

All right, let's get past the personality conflict, and look at the following:

And in part I think its because of the governance structure as indicated by what Ienumerated provides advantages, which you've never addressed.

a) stronger political parties,
b) corporatist interest organization,
c) tighter principal-agent relationships within the
various arms of the bureaucracy,
d) centralized (national-level) electoral accountability,
e) the capacity for flexible policymaking,
f) a more institutionalized political sphere, and
g) decisive leadership


You can still have checks and balances, and still have those advantages simultaneously, can't you?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 09 Jul 2016, 3:02 pm

hacker
California: another bad example in which you failed to check your facts. Since you refuse to do so, I have checked them for you. It took me less than three minutes
:
You shoul have looked a t little harder, and maybe read what you quoted.
Its 2016. The budget crisis was 4 years ago under a republican administration.

LAO Report Predicts $11.5B Surplus for FY 2016-2017

http://californiahealthline.org/morning ... -20162017/

California economy is big, booming June 6 2016
http://wyomingbusinessreport.com/califo ... g-booming/

hacker
All right, let's get past the personality conflict

I couldn't care less about your personality. But when you dispute the point I made about california erroneously because you don't read your own source thats a problem.
Methinks you are too disposed to simply argue the opposite without understanding the central point.
I doubt that a few tweeks can remove the gridlock that exists within the US system of governance.
But it can be improved a little with tweeks.
If you genuinely want to understand why the system developed read
"Political Order and Political Decay".

Here's an example that is fairly uniquely American. Litigation of laws. It is customary for every law that is passed to be challenged in court by some intersted party. Usually a business interest group. So even when a law is passed, it may not be final and it takes years for it to be implemented even it survives all the legal challenges.
Imagine you are a business or an organization that needs to adapt to the new law in some way. Do you immediately adapt or what? Or do you build or open a business in a specific market when you aren't sure what the final outcome of a law or regulation that may mean a significant difference to your business model>? This may not seem like a big deal unless you've had personal experience trying to run a business that must adhere to regulations... One huge advantage for businesses in places without the litigious environment is the ability to count on certainty in order to plan and operate for a period of time...
Thats gridlock too Hacker.. You won't change that with "tweaks".

hacker
You can still have checks and balances, and still have those advantages simultaneously, can't you?

But you don't. The nature of your system is more checks and balances and less of the things I've listed here...
Example.
Political parties are stronger in a parliamentary system because there is party discipline that is enforced on members of parliament. Within various parameters members are expected to adhere to the party platform.
There are also ususally more parties on offer in a parliamentary democracy. This means the parties do not have to be "big tent" parties accomodating a wide range of poltiical philosophy. That also then makes it easier to maintain discipline ...
Party discipline by the governing party ensures stuff gets done.
With the US system, one rougue senator has the power to stop some types of legislation... (A hold) and can do so anonymously... Discipline?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_hold
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 1111
Joined: 26 Mar 2011, 8:04 pm

Post 10 Jul 2016, 2:33 pm

Ricky, I'm getting a little sick of the "my country is better than yours" attitude. It's really starting to rankle, and I think that's why the others dropped out of the thread. Before either of us proceeds any further, I feel I need to say a few things about your conduct on this site.

If you really think I'm beneath you in intelligence--and you've actually said to me and others "You're an idiot" before, remember?--then don't bother anymore. This has nothing to do with which one of us is right about California, or has misread the sources or read them correctly. This has to do with a modicum of respect that you show to no one on this site who has the temerity to disagree with you. Sometimes you've been right and I've been wrong, and I've flat out admitted it. Neither of us is infallible.

Actually, I wanted to start a new thread asking you some questions about your country, about which I assume you know a lot more than I do (an admission you are less willing to make toward Americans about their country). I had such a thread with Sassenach and Danivon, and I learned an awful lot and it filled in much of the immense gaps in my knowledge about the UK. I was hoping you and I could have such an exchange, a thread in which you could inform me about Canada, which you seem to think I lack knowledge in (I do, and unlike yours concerning America, I'll be the first to admit it.)

But now I doubt it would turn out to degenerate into anything other than "Canada Good, USA Bad" like you usually just can't resist. I very much doubt I'm the only American on here who feels this way toward your particular "style" of debate which I have been finding tiring for quite a while. It's easy to see why people have fled the Redscape political forums.

There is a difference between saying "your country has some problems you might want to fix at some point" (to put it mildly) and "Your country is hopeless and mine is better." Now, do you really think I'm so stupid I don't realize how flawed my own political system is? Currently, I'm dealing with one of my own government's departments, trying to get help from it. To say it's as big a pain in the ass as you are, is an understatement. So do you REALLY think I am unaware my country has problems that need fixing? And furthermore, do you really think that I need you to tell me that? You're starting to "rub in" what I already know, and doing it in the guise of intellectual conversation which, by the way, is an arena in which you're lacking in talent.

EVERY other Canadian I have met, online or off, knows the difference between constructive and nonconstructive criticism. This makes your countrymen a lot more polite, considerate and respectful than you. Thank God, because I do still have the desire to visit Canada as soon as I can.

When you travel to a foreign country, you're an ambassador from home to your host country. But a corollary to that is, that you don't need to leave home to do it. You do it every time you meet an American (etc.) on Canadian soil and talk to them. (For Canada's sake, hopefully you don't.) And it's the same on the internet: when you talk to us poor, uneducated, ignorant Yanks online--especially when you take the tone that you have already assumed we are by nature--you're representing Canada to the US.

So may I ask you, how do you rate your performance as an ambassador from Canada to the United States right now?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 10 Jul 2016, 6:34 pm

hacker
Ricky, I'm getting a little sick of the "my country is better than yours" attitude

Hacker I've compared parliamentary democracies... I listed twelve, (one erroneously) after you insisted by making this snark.
rickyp
There are plenty of governments in the world who operate in a parliamentary system with far fewer checks and balances
.
hacker
And I said, really, which ones? Besides, of course, the People's Paradise of Canada


You're the guy who seems to end up having a hard time with critical analysis of two systems without somehow taking it personnally. You never bothered to address anything substantive. like this:
And in part I think its because of the governance structure as indicated by what Ienumerated provides advantages, which you've never addressed.

a) stronger political parties,
b) corporatist interest organization,
c) tighter principal-agent relationships within the
various arms of the bureaucracy,
d) centralized (national-level) electoral accountability,
e) the capacity for flexible policymaking,
f) a more institutionalized political sphere, and
g) decisive leadership


And you're the guy who insisted I respond to your comments on California which I had politely ignored because you'd obviously not bothered to read your own sources dates..
You need to read more, think more critically and stop worrying about being right all the time if you want to actually learn anything. And not take things personnally.
I take shit from Fate all the time, and it doesn't bother me. After all the poor guy grew up next to a freeway before the advent of unleaded fuel. And yet I learn from him .
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 1111
Joined: 26 Mar 2011, 8:04 pm

Post 10 Jul 2016, 6:56 pm

And you're the guy who insisted I respond to your comments on California which I had politely ignored because you'd obviously not bothered to read your own sources dates..


So did you. but nevermind that. Here's this:

You're the guy who seems to end up having a hard time with critical analysis of two systems without somehow taking it personnally. You never bothered to address anything substantive. like this:


Actually, you never bothered to elaborate on those. I asked you to and, again, you dodged.

You need to read more, think more critically and stop worrying about being right all the time if you want to actually learn anything. And not take things personnally.


A statement which could as easily apply to you. And your condemnation of Dr Fate just now indicates how impatient you are with people you think are wrong. And yes, when Fate gives you shit, I've seen you go up the wall. You try your damndest NOT to learn anything from him. I don't always agree with Fate--I usually don't in fact, even on his views on gaydom and Christianity--yet I've remained respectful as one can be under those circumstances.

Take your own advice pal. I'm sorry if you feel I have offended you, my intent was only to bring to your attention the fact that you're offending other people and don't care. Not by the INFORMATION you give me--some of which is actually correct and I've admitted it is before by checking myself---but by your ATTITUDE.

And incidentally, I did, and do, read your sources. I did not ignore them. So what if I have a different interpretation of them? I happen to have a very health dose of skepticism toward any source until I can, in the words of presidential candidate Henry Ross Perot, "touch it, taste it, feel it, smell it, and touch it some more."

You must learn that not everybody will agree with you, or immediately believe (or interpret in the same exact way) the sources you throw at them. It's a fact of life, Ricky. if you cannot accept that, you have no business being on a political debate thread.

Now, if I have anything I should admit, it's that I let this go on much longer than I ought to have. I should have been the bigger man, rather than following you right into the intellectual cul-de-sac of an online personality conflict, because Ricky, admit it, that's what this is between us. And not just us, but a lot of people on Redscape seem to have this problem with you. Bbauska, Freeman, Danivon, Sassenach....none of them put others down the way you do.

I have to say this about you: you're a well-informed person. But well-informed does not equate to "right". So you wonder why I don't automatically agree with everything you present to me? And yes, admit it, it bruises your ego when people don't see what to YOU (and only you) is the "obvious".

So, again, my apologies for letting it get this far when I could have easily been the bigger man.

And by the way, when I grew up, the only types of fuel were "leaded" and "unleaded". That doesn't make unintelligent, does it?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 10 Jul 2016, 7:29 pm

Respectfully concur, Hacker. Your patience is far superior to mine.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 1111
Joined: 26 Mar 2011, 8:04 pm

Post 11 Jul 2016, 5:06 am

Thank you, Brad. It's not easy, sometimes.

But as I said, Ricky, I am willing to concede that it's partly my fault for not attempting to be the bigger adult when it got heated. Now, that doesn't mean I'm calling you a child! But I am saying your style of argument turns people off, or at least it turns me off. THAT is principally the reason for my resistance to your arguments. Politics is like being a chef: you can serve up the most tasty dish that you think everyone would want to listen to, but because it didn't have those little flakes of parsley on it, and the sauce just wasn't the right color or smell, the patrons sent it angrily back to the kitchen thinking they have been served dog shit (and vice-versa with dog shit being concealed as filet mignon).

If you would like to end this thread where it is, or keep going, it is up to you, Ricky. Politics often produces heated passions does it not? So if I heated your passions beyond the breaking point, my apologies, again. It's only fitting that I'm the one who should be Dr Kissinger this time.

As odd as this sounds, I have a favo(u)r to ask you, but it takes a little explanation:

I have never doubted your superiority of knowledge (at least compared to mine or that of the average American) where your Home & Native Land is concerned. My doubt, all along was your insistence on a superiority over all the other poor, naive Americans on Redscape of their own country; not any doubt whatsoever that you knew what you were talking about when it came to Canada.

Now: I remember you saying that you had some experience with your own government---didn't you say you were part of a constituency party? Or was that Sassenach? It might have been either or both of you; I cannot remember.

To explain: A long time ago, I was playing a game of Diplomacy on Redscape (well before the "relaunch"). I was England, and I noticed that Italy was using what I assumed was his boss's email, because it said [HIS NAME]; Sen. Robert Hill at senate dot gov dot au. (So I was like, "Dude, are you using your office email to play Diplomacy And, incidentally, is your office that of an Australian senator?") I knew only a very little about their system at the time, but l at least knew there was a bicameral Parliament with an upper house called the Senate.

I do not remember his Redscape screen name, anymore, and I wouldn't give it if I did for reasons of privacy. But, as it turned out [NAME] was what we would call on the Hill a "staffer"--("Mate, I guess you could call me the office shitkicker," he explained)--and therefore knew a shitload about the Aussie government and constitution, he allowed me to pick his brains about it. I came away knowing a lot about the Commonwealth of Down Under than I had ever imagined I'd known, and I threw more than a few tidbits his way about the United States that he, in turn, found useful. In 2004, he and his girlie went on a world tour, and one of their stops was Washington. Since I live a mere 45 minute drive to the nearest DC metro station, I figured, hey, why don't we meet for a drink? [NAME] and I had GREAT political conversation in several pubs, all while getting foggy-minded.

I'm not asking for you to meet me for a drink---Ontario is a little out of the way of Maryland and vice-versa---but if it's not too much trouble, perhaps you could perform the same utility to me, vis-a-vis the Canadian Government as [NAME OF AUSSIE] did for his own; and Sassenach and Danivon performed for me the same utility regarding the UK?

I promise I will adhere to the following ground rules:

1. It won't degenerate into a Who's Better, Canada or America debate
2. It'll stay totally respectful, and I will take great pains to keep it that way
3. If you bring up a "secondary" source to support your point of view, I won't bitch about it
4. If you use the word "dysfunctional"--as long as it isn't overused--I will keep it to myself if it causes me to roll by eyes
5. I won't get pissed off that you think we're (or at least our Government, or form of thereof) is inferior; since you've already made that painfully clear and we're all used to it by now

And in return, I ask only this:

We are discussing primarily the CANADIAN Government. Let's not delve into its "dysfunctional" counterpart south of the 49th parallel; at least unless a comparison/contrast is absolutely necessary to illustrate a point concerning Canada or her Government.

So: what's the verdict? Can you and I have such a thread about Canada? And as far as any ground rules, do you have a counter-proposal of any kind?

Essentially I am eager to LEARN about your country. That's what we're here for, at least I think so. I haven't *always* been open-minded but, you have to admit, I'm at least quick to diplomatically apologize when I'm not.

So let's both be good ambassadors, shall we?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 1111
Joined: 26 Mar 2011, 8:04 pm

Post 14 Jul 2016, 9:25 am

I'll take that as a "no". If this is some sort of silent-treatment, Ricky, it's awfully childish, especially considering that I apologized to you via private email: not once, but twice.