Anyone witness the protests on the news last night?
What amazed me were the number of policemen/women surrounding the runners with the torch.
Good job it wasn't here. Where you find enough gardai fit enough to run?
Good job it wasn't here. Where you find enough gardai fit enough to run?
would 100 be enough?
[broken link removed]
That's good to know we have 100 fit gardai - were they there in time for the French protest?
Anyone witness the protests on the news last night?
What amazed me were the number of policemen/women surrounding the runners with the torch.
The torch relay has turned into a debacle. The IOC will almost certainly ban it in future as the sponsers are raging with the negative publicity that it has attracted.
I guess that rules out a lot of the major Western powers too...Or the IRC could try not awarding the games to totalitarian police states who invade and oppress their neighbours...
I guess that rules out a lot of the major Western powers too...
Like those who led or participated the Western invasion of Iraq based on disinformation.Like who?
Like those who led or participated the Western invasion of Iraq based on disinformation.
I'd imagine that those who are locked up in Guantanamo Bay without any access to lawyers or courts might not think it is such an absurd comparison.Good point, but they are not totalitarian police states and while their actions in Iraq are at the very least questionable attempting to establish a moral equivalence between a free and democratic country and an oppressive police state is absurd.
They would if they were thinking logically.I'd imagine that those who are locked up in Guantanamo Bay without any access to lawyers or courts might not think it is such an absurd comparison.
They would if they were thinking logically.
What do you think, do you think it's an apt comparison?
Well, I accept that perhaps 'totalitarian' is a bit over the top, but then again, perhaps 'democratic' is a bit over the top to describe the USA. How democratic is that country really? Voters have a choice between a right wing or a centre right party, both of which are effectively owned by their corporate funders. Both parties are tripping overthemselves to keep their funders sweet by handing over piles of cash to their funders through privatisation and outsourcing of all aspects of their operations, including now, outsourced war. It is the best democracy money can buy.They would if they were thinking logically.
What do you think, do you think it's an apt comparison?
The Democratic party has a system where so-called "Super Delegates" have a huge proportion of the vote when they decide who their presidential nominee is. A large proportion of these delegates are from the labour unions. This is much like the process used by the British Labour party in the 70's and 80's. While the electorate in America are generally right-wing the Democratic party in certainly not. It makes the odd rightwing noise but it could not be described as a centre-right party.Well, I accept that perhaps 'totalitarian' is a bit over the top, but then again, perhaps 'democratic' is a bit over the top to describe the USA. How democratic is that country really? Voters have a choice between a right wing or a centre right party, both of which are effectively owned by their corporate funders. Both parties are tripping overthemselves to keep their funders sweet by handing over piles of cash to their funders through privatisation and outsourcing of all aspects of their operations, including now, outsourced war. It is the best democracy money can buy.
Are you certain about the superdelegates coming from the unions? I confess to knowing SFA about the delegate system, but from a bit of Googling, all I can find is that the superdelegates are senior party officials. Do you have another source?The Democratic party has a system where so-called "Super Delegates" have a huge proportion of the vote when they decide who their presidential nominee is. A large proportion of these delegates are from the labour unions. This is much like the process used by the British Labour party in the 70's and 80's. While the electorate in America are generally right-wing the Democratic party in certainly not. It makes the odd rightwing noise but it could not be described as a centre-right party.
There is a huge difference between the social partners (who hold their positions through representation of substantial parts of the community) and funders who buy their positions.As for looking after their funders, we have gone one further; we have institutionalised the lobby groups and given them a seat at the table (and fundamentally undermined or democracy in the process). This system is called "Social Partnership".
They send some of their public officials to jail for breaking the rules. They choose to ignore the fact that the most senior of politicians in the Bush regime continued to break conflict of interest rules by retaining shareholdings in companies that profited from the outsourcing of the war. For the record, I'm not throwing stones and claiming we are without sin.As for American democracy, it is important to remember that they are a federal republic and more than one president has been elected who lost the popular vote (JFK springs to mind). They also send their public officials (and white collar criminals) to prison for breaking the rules, maybe we could take a leaf out of that book. Vincent Browne wrote an excellent article about corporate crime at the weekend. The same article could have been written about politics. When it comes to throwing the first stone at American politics we are not without sin...
I think you are correct, and I was incorrect; they merely court the unions so that they endorse a particular candidate.Are you certain about the superdelegates coming from the unions? I confess to knowing SFA about the delegate system, but from a bit of Googling, all I can find is that the superdelegates are senior party officials. Do you have another source?
The social partners all counted together sill represent a minority of the population. That’s not the point though, the NRA in America represent millions of people but they don’t get what amounts to a veto on government policy.There is a huge difference between the social partners (who hold their positions through representation of substantial parts of the community) and funders who buy their positions.
We ignore conflicts of interest and we don’t send anyone to prison unless they can’t throw a few hundred thousand into a high profile legal team at the high court.They send some of their public officials to jail for breaking the rules. They choose to ignore the fact that the most senior of politicians in the Bush regime continued to break conflict of interest rules by retaining shareholdings in companies that profited from the outsourcing of the war. For the record, I'm not throwing stones and claiming we are without sin.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?