HOME | DD

Drangdmisc In reply to ??? [2011-08-17 22:34:59 +0000 UTC]

Yes more often than not, but it's quite pathetic that Politics in America have become more or so pandering to cry baby activists than actual intellectual debate, and where things matter.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

hippo2 In reply to Drangdmisc [2011-08-18 11:18:46 +0000 UTC]

In Germany we often had a similar problem: We have two houses: The Federal Diet (like your House of Representatives) and the Federal Council (like your senate). The ruling party (or coalition) has the majority in the Federal Diet, but if they don't have the majority in the Federal Council as well, the opposition can blockade any new law. Unlike in the US (where you have the midterms after two years), we have every year elections in some of our member states. That means, that the majorities in the Federal Council can change really fast.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Drangdmisc In reply to hippo2 [2011-08-18 18:34:35 +0000 UTC]

Wow I think one day you guys might have to invade us and tell us to stop. It's almost like the former junkie (Germany with Hitler and Nazism) who runs his own company and has his life together (Independence has stability and has surpassed many in the political process) has to beat the living tar out of his brother (America) who was once a big shot(our Imperialism, and Economic Success) to quit (our Paralyzed Political Process, and our denial of our issues and problems we are causing for ourselves and others).

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

hippo2 In reply to Drangdmisc [2011-08-18 20:38:44 +0000 UTC]

That won't happen. Our politician act like america's lap dogs. The continuation of politics with other means isn't an option for us anymore.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Drangdmisc In reply to hippo2 [2011-08-18 22:24:32 +0000 UTC]

Ah well it at least it was worth a thought.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

hippo2 In reply to Drangdmisc [2011-08-19 13:29:00 +0000 UTC]

Currently, there is a discussion among our politicians if it was legal, that we send a small special commando to Lybia to evacuate german citizens when the war started. The Commies would rather hand over our people to Ghadafi than rescue them.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Drangdmisc In reply to hippo2 [2011-08-19 18:24:21 +0000 UTC]

How would that be illegal? your ensuring the safety of your citizens it's not like your going in their to attack people just for your own.

However with that being said I don't think that's a communist belief that sounds more of a anti-war, pro-peace argument being made by hippies or anti-conflict advocates. In fact I think Real Communists would support going in to other territories and conquering them, Since communism has an imperialistic nature to itself.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

hippo2 In reply to Drangdmisc [2011-08-19 20:22:00 +0000 UTC]

I think it's too easy to say communism is imperialistic in nature.

You should read at least some texts from communists like Lenin, who called imperialism the "last stage of capitalism". Imperialism means, that you control and exploit other people for the benefit of your own people. That was never the intention of communism. Communism wanted to end all wars by uniting all humans under their own ideology. Once all nations become communists, there will be no more reason to go to war. And since it will destroy the power of capitalist exploiters, nobody will need to suffer anymore or to go hungry. So much for theory.

The attempts to realise communism were a different story: Stalinism wasn't what Marx had in mind. Stalin was more Russian than Communist when it comes to his foreign policies. He followed the old, russian ideology of panslawism, which means, that all slavic people should be united under the rule of Russia. The Czars followed this ideology, the russian communists did and and so do the current leaders of Russia. Putin said about the Ukrain, that it wasn't a real state. So, the expansionism after WWII was rather typically for Russia then for communism. Communist parties in a communist country supported communist parties and movements in other capitalist countries.

Let's have a look on some examples of proxy wars during the Cold War:

Vietnam: Here you have to look on the backstory. Most of South-East Asia was a French colony called Indochina. It included Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. During WWII it was occupied by the Japanese. The French promised the people of Indochina liberty and independence if they would fight against the Japanese. The Vietnamese formed a national movement for the liberation of Vietnam called the "Vietminh", which fought against the Japanese. Ho-Chi-Minh was a communist, but he fought as a Vietnamese Nationalist for the independence and liberty of his country. But after the war, France returned to old colonial rule. The struggle for power between the Vietminh and the French lead to the Indochina-War (1946-1954). Despite support by the USA, the French were defeated. The Indochina-conference decided that there should be free elections and the foundation of an independend Vietnam. Since the communists would most likely win this election, Ngo Diem seized power in a coup d'etat and a faked election in 1955. Despite the fact, that he murdered about 12.000 people between 1955 and 1957, he was supported by the US, which thought he was the lesser evil, compared to Ho-Chi-Minh. Since the US supported the dictator Diem, Ho-Chi-Minh received support from communist China and Russia. This lead to the tragic Vietnam War (1965-1975).

The Israel-Arab conflict in the middle east: The conflict started with the installation of the state of Israel in 1947. From an arab point of view it looked like this: The old colonial powers installed a puppet state (Israel) in the heart of arab territory. They even took away the third-holiest place of the muslims (Jerusalem). It was old colonialism, only in disguise. During these years, arab leaders, like Nasser in Egypt, thought to emancipate their nations from the old colonial powers, like Great Britain and France and from the new colonial Power, the USA. The only support he would get was from the Communists. Again the dangerous mixture of nationalist interests and communist ideology lead to war.

Cuba: Here, the backstory resembles Indochina. In 1952, the dictator Fulgencio Batista seized power in a coup d'etat. As a reaction, Fidel Castro formed a resistance against Batista. His first attack failed, and Castro was imprisoned by the Batista Regmie, while many of his comrades were murdered. Still, the USA made good profits with the Batista-Regime. Later, Castro was set free and reorganised his resistance movement in Mexico. Castro was eventually successful in 1958 and overthrew the Batista regime. The new leaders of Cuba made land reform and seized American property without compensation. This lead the USA to take a position against the Castro Regime and supported exil-cubans, which had fled to the US. In this situation, Castro turned towards the
USSR for political and military support, especially since the USA started a secret war of sabotage against Cuba. The American envolvment cumulated in the Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961. This bound Cuba even closer to the USSR.
In 1962 Chrushchev most likely placed the missiles in Cuba to get rid of the american missiles in Turkey. The stakes where high, maybe too high, but in the end, Chrushchev got what he wanted. After the Cuban missile crisis, the USSR didn't try to extend it's influence in Latin America.

The Afghan War of 1979: Before 1973, Afghanistan was a monarchy with a feudalistic and very underdeveloped society. In 1973, the monarchy was overthrown by a revolt and Afghanistan became a republic. But the country remained underdeveloped. In 1978, the Marxist PDPA party seized power and started a program to modernize the society: Land reforms, more right for women, secularisation. Moscow supported the PDPA. But soon, resistance of the mudjaheddin, supported by the CIA arose, and the struggle between fractions of the PDPA lead to a civil war. When the government of the PDPA called Moscow for help and when several hundered citizen of the USSR were killed, the USSR send an invastion force to support the PDPA. This was the beginning of a war in Afghanistan that last until today.

You see, that communist expansionism or imperialism is an too easy explanation: You always have a dangerous mixture with nationalist interests, fights against colonial powers or just the try to keep a balance of powers. Also keep in mind, that the USA on the one hand heralded national self-determination as the heritage of the American Revolution, but on the other hand supported colonial powers (France) or dictators (Diem, Batista). This made the USA very un-trustworthy. For many countries in the third world, which had been exploited by european colonial powers until the end of WWII, the USA appeared as just the next colonial power, while the USSR and communism appeared as the "wave of the future", the promised real independence and selfdetermination.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not pro communism. This ideology has many flaws, but it is not imperialistic per se.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Drangdmisc In reply to hippo2 [2011-08-19 20:53:01 +0000 UTC]

#1 Not all countries are communist as you stated in your first paragraph so it would give them a reason to go to war. (The German Communists)

#2 What do you call all those satellite nations that the Soviet Union had? I think your confusing Imperialism with Colonialism even though they go hand in hand in a lot of cases they are not identical.

#3 Marx did advocate violence numerous times in his book "The Communist Manifesto" about the struggle of the lower class or the proletariat of an Armed Revolution against the bourgeoisie. In principle that does endorse a sense of revolution or Imperialism of Ideology in his book he mentions just nations, but when put in a bigger practice and according to his philosophy/principle it is implied to be spread across the globe.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

hippo2 In reply to Drangdmisc [2011-08-19 21:40:26 +0000 UTC]

About Marx: Yes, he intended to spread communism over the globe. But not to build an empire like the British Empire in the late 19th centry, but to liberate all workers from exploition and form a new class-less society. In this society, there will be no more wars. When we speak of imperialism in German, we speak about the empires of the last 19th century, and the ideas behind it: The great european nations had to expand over the globe or they would lose their position. Exploitation of the colonies was a cornerstone of this time. (That's what imperialism mean in German - maybe it has a different meaning in english).
Still, the communist revolution would most likely be forceful. Either the borgeouisy would step aside or it would be overthrown by force. I just say, that you will find no example, when a communist nation invaded another nation for the sole purpose to spread communism.

The USSR conquered eastern europe as they pushed back the nazis. By doing this, the USSR would fulfil the plan of panslavism. Just as these countries would have become subjects to the Czar in the 19th century, the became subjects to the communist rulers in Moscow. In both cases, the russian social system would have been adopted.

And in all the other examples, the communist movements had other intentions as well, usually nationalist intentions. It's this combination that caused many of the conflicts of the cold war.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Drangdmisc In reply to hippo2 [2011-08-20 03:13:39 +0000 UTC]

Imperialism in a modern sense at least in America is a spread of anything, It could be power, Economic, Influence, Ideology, corruption, etc.

There is Economic Imperialism, You don't need to invade another country with Arms to take it over it can be done economically which is what America Did to much of South Americas Governments Infrastructure creating Puppet Governments.

Imperialism is to spread, or take over. It isn't always through violence and or a military Invasion, It can be done through many other means.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

hippo2 In reply to Drangdmisc [2011-08-20 06:32:00 +0000 UTC]

With that description, you can say that the sovjet bloc was imperialistic, though the sovjet bloc wan't one monolithic unit all the time. The Chinese broke with Moscow and this neary lead to a war between USSR and China in 1969.

Back to the german left:
Their economic ideas are strongly influenced by communism: Nationalisation of all key industry. Guidance of the economy of the state. They prohibited the use of nuclear power in Germany despite the fact that we need energy. Now that's communism. Also the idea of a world without wars is derived from the communist ideal.
Of course the later is also the idea of the hippie movement. But keep in mind, that the hippie movement used forms of living they developed from communist ideas: Living in communes without private property. Even women and men didn't belong to one partner only.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Drangdmisc In reply to hippo2 [2011-08-20 06:54:51 +0000 UTC]

I understand you disagree but no that isn't communism that is environmentalism, their are communists that have no disregard for the Environment, and their are Environmentalists that have no care or regards for communism. The Green movement originated from the Left-wing but it doesn't mean its necessarily communist.

The tenants of The Green movement is to ensure the preservation and the protection of the Planet from pollutants, destructive industrialization, Harm to the eco-system, and anything that might endanger the wild life. Of course I agree and disagree with them on many different levels. But nothing in their suggests any Economic model of any kind, they are more activist than they are politically motivated.

And I am aware of Communes, they are places where people who go to them get stoned for the rest of their life and waste it, paying for nothing and leeching off one another.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

hippo2 In reply to Drangdmisc [2011-08-20 07:16:22 +0000 UTC]

The historical developement of the Green party in Germany is closely tied to the Hippie movement (Or rather movement of 1968 as it is called in Germany). During the 1970s the 68-movement dispersed in Germany. The majority was absorbed by the social-democrats but the hard core split into two parts.

One part formed the communist terror organisation RAF (Red-Army-Fraction). They blew up department stores, kidnapped and assasinated managers and were responsible for the hijacking of a german pasanger jet in 1977. (The actual hijackers were Palestinians supporting imprisoned RAF-Members). This terrorist organisation aimed to transform the FRG into a socialist state like the GRD by terrorist acts.

The other half formed civil right movements, against nuclear power, against armament, for women rights, for environmentalism etc. They eventually founded the Green party in 1980. Currently, you have members from different backgrounds in the Green party. There are younger members, who are environmentlist, but not communist. And there are the older members, who originate from the Hippie movement and even from communist organisations. Thus we say that the party is devided into a realist wing and fundamentalist wing. The fundamentalist wing has close ties to communist organisations while the realist wing is more open to coalitions with other parties, usually the social democrats.


Ironically, the abandonment of nuclear power was realised this year by the conservative party. Could you imagine to repuclicans to abandon a technology by federal decree?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Drangdmisc In reply to hippo2 [2011-08-20 07:39:52 +0000 UTC]

Despite that history, it holds little significance to their global impact and ideology they are an entirely separate agenda from the communists, I'm sure In Germany they tag teamed and helped one another out but they are separate. I'm not big fans of them but I like to distinguish battle lines, boundaries, and labels accurately. I don't like things fuzzy or blazed or even worse misinterpreted or misread. I am fully aware that even In America they did team up to a degree but often times Separate Ideologies do that for their own political gain but they are still separate, their motives in the end are entirely different distinguishable colors.

It would never happen, America is in a different position then that of Germany.

And hippo2 Even though I am not a big fan of Removing Nuclear energy their are plenty of Alternatives, I am not the type to cling to things, I always find alternatives "when life closes a door, another one opens". It's not a total loss when you must give something up and must look for something new.

For instance Libertarians and Republicans in America always team up on a constant basis for economic purposes, but they are still distinguishable. Though they do agree on certain issues they agree on it for different reasons. Just as the Libertarians on the same note give aide to the Democrats on Social issues. But they are still separate.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

hippo2 In reply to Drangdmisc [2011-08-20 07:55:21 +0000 UTC]

In Germany, the current political situation is most likely broken in three parts:

We have the Conservative party and the Liberals on one side. The Liberals have tied themselves very closely to the conservatives, as they know they won't have a chance to win an election by themselves. This goes that far, that they accept everything, even if it is anti-liberal.

Then we have the left side, which consists of the four larger parties Social Democrats, Greens and The Left. Here Social Democrats and Greens distinguish themselves from the Left, as the Left wants to change the German Society into a socialist society by democratic means. In Federal elections, the Social Democrats always promise to never allie with the Left. But in State elections in eastern Germany, the had already build coalitions with the Left.

About the use of nuclear power: I'm aware that nuclear power has no future in the long run. It has great risks (see Fukushima) and uranium will run out, just like coal and oil. So, in the long run we need alternatives, like sun, water and wind. But I'm not happy what the green have in mind. If they would be allowed, the would switch off all nuclear powerplants and all combustible plants (coal, oil, gas) at once. I'm afraid that power shortages will become normal in the next years.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Drangdmisc In reply to hippo2 [2011-08-20 08:24:04 +0000 UTC]

In Modern politics its become Ironically -Party over ideology-, even though Parties were started for the opposite purpose. People Always turn on their base to win elections just as Democrats do in Red-states and Republicans do in Blue-states.

Do they propose alternatives? Or are they just "advocates with demands but no solutions" type.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

hippo2 In reply to Drangdmisc [2011-08-20 08:43:38 +0000 UTC]

The Liberals promote economic liberalism as well as political liberalism. When the conservatives want to take away more civil rights, they usually are very concerned about it. But when it comes to take political actions, they rather sell them selves than stuck to their principles. Recently, our conservative chancelor is giving vast amounts of money to the south europeans. But the liberals said nothing against it. If the would have threatened to break the coalition, they would have gained a lot of sympathy. But instead, they were too afraid to loose their position in the government.

The greens and the left promote either a rather radical environmentalist course or a socialist society. The green's idea is too dangerous in my opinion, since the can't count. If the would realise their very ambigious plans, they would need more money than we will ever haver. A slower pace would be more realistic.
And the left... Socialism in the GDR was already a failure. But they want to go back there. A few days ago, it was the 50th aniversary of the construction of the Berlin Wall. Over 100 refugees has been shot by GDR soldiers between 1961 and 1989. Still some politician of the left party says the wall was a good instalation. Do you have any more questions?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Drangdmisc In reply to hippo2 [2011-08-20 08:57:14 +0000 UTC]

I'm not surprised, A lot of Politicians bring up controversial comments and start up very questionable allegiances of organizations and political groups. And Of course I'm taking about America. Such as Presidential Candidate Rick Perry who is apart of an organization that believes the earth is flat. And Sarah Palin whose husband who used to be part of the Alaskan Independence political party which is a neo-conservative Party focused on secession from the states.

And Yes that answers my question and no I don't have anymore, the length in which the green in Germany is astonishes me. It's just I'm more used to Right-wing Liberal Economic lunacy rather than your Left-wing Tyrannical Hypocrisy.

In America the Conservatives and Right-wing are the crazy barbarians of the Political system, that Cry wolf and get everything they want. They have Obvious ties with the Banks and the Big businesses.
For you in Germany I am guessing the Communists, the Greens, and the Left, are the unreasonable hypocrites that complain and get everything they want.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

hippo2 In reply to Drangdmisc [2011-08-20 10:12:56 +0000 UTC]

Actually, it often depends on the people on top of the party. Under chancelor Schroeder, the SPD did some painful cuts to the social and the working system. But these cuts allowed the german economy to get through the last two economic crisis (2008 and 2011) rather unharmed. During this government, a coalition of SPD and Greens, Germany took part in the wars in Kosovo and in Afghanistan. Looking back, these politicians look rather reasonable, while our current chancelor Merkel just seems to turn her coat according to the public opinion.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Drangdmisc In reply to hippo2 [2011-08-20 17:22:06 +0000 UTC]

I think its due to the situation, Even the most proudest of Party leaders would sell out their ideology if the times called for it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

hippo2 In reply to Drangdmisc [2011-08-20 22:41:12 +0000 UTC]

Honesty doesn't seem to be a common feature of politicians.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Drangdmisc In reply to hippo2 [2011-08-21 01:39:30 +0000 UTC]

It isn't honesty, it's loyalty to the their own political mission and ideology, in which they turn on, its like a company that goes back on the very reason they entered the market business for.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

hippo2 In reply to Drangdmisc [2011-08-21 06:28:52 +0000 UTC]

As a voter, I look for a party that I can rely on. The party should stick to what it promised before the election. If the party or it's leaders change their oppinion too radically, I feel betrayed. When our current chancelor was elected for the first time, there was a debate to raise the VAT by 2%. She said that she won't raise the VAT if she was elected. After the election, the first thing she did was raising the VAT by 3%. And that was just the first time she lied to us and changed her position.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Drangdmisc In reply to hippo2 [2011-08-21 17:57:44 +0000 UTC]

What is VAT? out of curiocity.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

hippo2 In reply to Drangdmisc [2011-08-21 18:02:34 +0000 UTC]

Various Article Tax. It's a tax on the price on every ware or service you purchase. It's currently at 19% of the price.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Drangdmisc In reply to hippo2 [2011-08-22 02:28:59 +0000 UTC]

So how did your ideology/party/opinions hold up so far within Germany?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

hippo2 In reply to Drangdmisc [2011-08-22 15:00:28 +0000 UTC]

I'd like to support the liberals but as I told you, the have no spine at the moment.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Drangdmisc In reply to hippo2 [2011-08-22 18:02:42 +0000 UTC]

Ah so your a libertarian, I don't know what it is about "Liberals" but they seem to loose their spine at times. Of course our Liberals are more in reference to Left-wing Politics rather than libertarian politics.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

hippo2 In reply to Drangdmisc [2011-08-23 10:49:34 +0000 UTC]

Basically, yes. Thought the term "liberal" is a political direction. It means as much freedom as posible for everybody. For me, this means basic rights and a state that doesn't interfere more than absolutely necessary. An example: When the EURO was introduced, the majority of the german population was against it. Still, the elected chancelor and parlament scrapped our good money (Deutschmark) for the crappy EURO. They did it with the arrogant attitude, that the people don't know what is good for themselves and thus must be forced to do the "right thing". Why do we have elections anyway, I ask you?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Drangdmisc In reply to hippo2 [2011-08-23 18:01:07 +0000 UTC]

I honestly don't have an opinion about the matter internationalizing currency I haven't given it much thought. But what I do know is that sometimes political leaders will do things that are unfavorable upon their election no matter how the public thinks of it. Such as their obligation as being Commander-in-Chief the overwhelming majority of Americans were against the Iraq war and yet we went and stayed. Some of the roles and obligations leaders take are simply out of our control. It's part of being a leader, in Some cases and circumstance their decision will be based off of strictly what the people want, and other times it will be what they believe is best.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

hippo2 In reply to Drangdmisc [2011-08-23 18:53:20 +0000 UTC]

I understand that a 100% democracy is important in a large country. There is a concept called Soviet Republic, but it has many setbacks. It would require, that all voters must discuss every toppic all the time (besides their normal job). Here the representative democracy is better.
But there are some desicions, that are just too important not to ask the people. Giving up your money, on which the wealth of your nation and thus, your personal wealth depends on, is such an desicion. It's like the USA giving up the Dollar and installing a currency that would include all american nations including Latin america (maybe except Cuba). Would you like to leave such a desicion to the representatives alone? I'd have liked to have a direct vote on this matter.

At the moment, many Germans feel betrayed and sold-off by their representatives. When the EURO was introduced in 1999, the deal was, that no member of the EURO zone will ever get bailed-out by the others. There were strict limits to the national dept. Now, it turns out that Greece has faked it's bilances over the last 10 years and now, the EU has decided on a bail-out for Greece. And there are the other PIGS-States too (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece Spain), which have dept problems too.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Drangdmisc In reply to hippo2 [2011-08-23 19:30:54 +0000 UTC]

Would you argue that because of their incompetence they should be kicked out of office? or their right to do such actions should be removed?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

hippo2 In reply to Drangdmisc [2011-08-23 19:44:49 +0000 UTC]

I'd argue that we need some better checks and balances. For example: The chancelor (head of executive) always has the majority in the Federal Diet (legislative). Still, the Federal Diet passed as resolution that is against instruments of financial aid like the EURO-bonds. But the chancelor didn't care about this resolution. Now, we have to put our hopes in the Federal Constitutional Court and hope that they will decide fast enough before it is too late.

It would have been better to let the people vote directly on this matter.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Drangdmisc In reply to hippo2 [2011-08-23 20:06:29 +0000 UTC]

Well be grateful you have a more or less Form of Direct Democracy, Representative Democracy is quite a load of crap at times.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

hippo2 In reply to Drangdmisc [2011-08-23 20:17:44 +0000 UTC]

You don't get me: We have NO direct democracy at all! After 1949, the politicians decided that the german political system (at least the federal one) should have no element of direct democracy. The argument: Hitler used the plebiscit to gain popularity and they feared that the germans could follow another "Führer". In other words: The German people is not mature enough to have a direct democracy.
Honestly, in 1950, the german Democracy was very young and many Germans thought, that Nationalsocialism was basically a good idea, but realised terribly wrong. Under these circumstance, it made some sense to restrain from direct democracy. But that was 60 years ago.
Recently, a politician said about the people's concerns about the financial aid: "Yes, there are concerns but we have to push them aside." WTF?!?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Drangdmisc In reply to hippo2 [2011-08-23 20:37:01 +0000 UTC]

OH I see, I assumed because most European countries, had Direct Democracy, I assumed Germany had it as well. Then what kind of Democracy do you have? Social, Representative, Inclusive democracy, Liberal, Participatory, Consensus?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

hippo2 In reply to Drangdmisc [2011-08-23 20:41:51 +0000 UTC]

A representative. Every four years, the voting cattle is driven to the ballot boxes and that's it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Drangdmisc In reply to hippo2 [2011-08-23 20:44:47 +0000 UTC]

ouch okay so you guys have the same crap we have

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

hippo2 In reply to Drangdmisc [2011-08-23 20:50:54 +0000 UTC]

There's one big difference. Neither the Chancelor nor the President is elected directly by the people. We elect the Federal Diet and the Federal Diet elects the Chancelor. Thus, the Chancelor always has the majority in the Federal Diet (unless his own coalition topples him - it happened in 1982). So, the chancelor usually doesn't have to cope with a strong opposition in Federal Diet, as your President has sometimes to cope with in the House of Representatives and Senate.

The President (only a representative office) is elected by the Federal Assembly, which consists of the Federal Diet and the Federal Council.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Drangdmisc In reply to hippo2 [2011-08-23 21:30:22 +0000 UTC]

I take it back yours is far more "representative" than ours

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Drangdmisc In reply to ??? [2011-08-13 08:40:22 +0000 UTC]

Okay so it's happened to you, well at least I know I'm still sane since I haven't become a military junkie.

It's hard to be creative when its related to your job. And its even harder when you almost never get to leave your job.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

hippo2 In reply to Drangdmisc [2011-08-13 08:48:54 +0000 UTC]

I don't know how much of real fighting you have seen so far. But being in the paramedic service means that you see a lot of terrible things. I know that I won't be the same as seeing a real battle, though some crash sites I was at looked like battle fields: torn appart vehicles, injured and maimed people, blood everywhere - it's an impression you can't describe, can only live it. For some of these events, I just need to close my eyes and the pictures are back. But I can go back to the service any time since it gives me the feeling to do the right things. There's nothing comparable to the feeling when you save another life.

I think, I could write about the paramedic service since I have an overall positive view on it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Drangdmisc In reply to hippo2 [2011-08-13 09:08:17 +0000 UTC]

I honestly grow wary of writing at least currently, I am an optimist by nature, and sometimes I become so infatuated with my optimist nature that I neglect to put in conflicts of course later I put them in but I feel like I'm bending my own arm. Because I hate drama, depression, and problems, I can do it for creative reasons but living it (well not personally but being surrounded by it such as the Veteran Warrant officers and the combat vets that now serve under me) and expecting to be creative at the same time puts me in a awkward position. Creativity for me is about escaping into my minds imagination but it isn't the same when I can actually blend the two.

And as for my experience I really haven't seen that much, When I went to Iraq for 6 months to guard the safe house's for the Air force I never fired a single bullet(in a combat situation Of course plenty of times on the range). And there is nothing comparable to the feeling when you take a life as well, I have taken one In the most unlikely of all situations. And you can distinguish who retains humanity and who becomes a junkie. I have seen some battle fields but after a while most people who see or experience massed death take on the perspective of "It is out of my control, we can only save those who we can, we aren't god, we can't save everybody" I think you may have this perspective, or maybe not. My issue is not being personally convicted of having depression and war, its being surrounded by people convicted and going through depression of war, my superiors some of my men, and others who hang around the base.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

P-z-p-Z In reply to ??? [2011-08-13 07:25:50 +0000 UTC]

Nice, very nice, nice of Sami to give the group a fair chance.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

hippo2 In reply to P-z-p-Z [2011-08-13 07:30:19 +0000 UTC]

But yes, since Sami is with Martha, he has developed some human qualities. It seems she has an influence on him too.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

P-z-p-Z In reply to hippo2 [2011-08-13 07:34:22 +0000 UTC]

Okay, makes sense.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

hippo2 In reply to P-z-p-Z [2011-08-13 07:39:47 +0000 UTC]

Maybe both will develope some acceptable personalities: Sami would be a genie that will at least understand humans. And Martha will see her self as a genie with a very strong humanity. That would be a nice couple!

And yea,the Order of the Stick might survive the attack.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

P-z-p-Z In reply to hippo2 [2011-08-13 07:41:02 +0000 UTC]

Right.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

hippo2 In reply to P-z-p-Z [2011-08-13 07:28:11 +0000 UTC]

Yeah... Fair chance against a horde of vikings in the 9th century...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1