1. sj, 3 June 2014 04:16)
    Glad you studied US history in a university, do not know of many in the US that teach Malaysian history or even Australian history for that matter. Proves that the US has been a big part of your life.
    I also studied US history not only in primary but secondary school and also in college. but more than that I have had the privilege of living it for 59 years now.
    But having studied it does not make you an expert and I say you are wrong on your insinuations. Benjamin Franklin did disagree with some of the Constitution but he also encouraged all members of the Constitutional Congress to sign it. I thought the claims of them having someone to follow him around very rich though, don't suppose you have anything to back that up, do you?
    But you see the US does not need your approval for its form of govt, but you can claim it is not a democracy if you want, just like I can claim you are full of crap and in the end the sun will rise tomorrow and life goes on.
    (pss, 3 June 2014 14:21)

    # Comment link

  2. (pss, 2 June 2014 14:09)

    I understand your system very well as I studied US history at University many years ago and itís interesting to note that even Benjamin Franklin had great reservations about the US system to the point that the powers of the day had an official accompany Franklin to monitor what he said. Franklin preferred a broader democracy because under the existing system itís very easy to turn into a dictatorship.
    The Electoral College was set up to ďfilterí only suitable gentry into power. It set up to ensure that only landed gentry to attain that power. That has since been refined into allowing only the Republicans and Democrats into power Ė but if I am wrong tell me which party has won office other than these two????
    What you have is called democracy but it does not follow the true spirit of that ideal. When you have four or five parties fight it out for power on equal footing in the media and then you have democracy not this sham that has lasted over 160 years.
    (sj, 3 June 2014 04:16)

    # Comment link

  3. (sj, 2 June 2014 05:36
    I can understand your confusion, you are use to a system where you have 2 main players and 40-50 insignificant parties. The 2 battle it out and get the most votes they can then they gather in back rooms out of public eye and make promises of what kind of state cars and apartments the leaders of the other group will get if they join the coalition and abandon their party ideals. Then which ever is in office goes through and charges the financial supporters and leaders of the opposing party with corruption, once they have weakened them hold "early" elections so that they can rid their coalition of any riff raff they were forced to buy inorder to get into power in the first place. Have it about right?
    As far as the electoral college, from your comment, you have no clue at all what it is and how it works, you have read some piece published by another nit wit and took it to heart. I would rather have the president elected by popular vote only but the electoral college still reflects the choice of the people only in a proportioned way to keep the larger populated states from having all the power and the low populated states with none.
    Peggy, as far as simpleton, best you stick with the bigotry and hate speechs and leave adult conversations to others.
    (pss, 2 June 2014 14:09)

    # Comment link

  4. (pss, 30 May 2014 20:57)


    All I can say is that I understand completely what democracy is, but you have no idea as what you have quoted comes right out of some spin document especially the part about checks and balances.

    But let me just say that when you have both parties subservient to conjurations the rest is totally immaterial.

    To have true democracy you need more than just two parties and each party must have equal time in the media, not this sham where outsiders (some else than democrats or republicans) are made to look like fools. Secondly you have to remove the Electoral College as that ensures only the anointed get elected. The deference between Communist system and yours is you have 2 candidates instead of one.
    (sj, 2 June 2014 05:36)

    # Comment link

  5. And what do you call the US system that has had one party and two conservative branches in power for over 160 year? Democracy? LOL.
    (sj, 30 May 2014 00:32
    I would call it a democratic system beyond the level of your comprehension abilities.
    ===…==
    What a simpleton.
    (Peggy, 1 June 2014 22:51)

    # Comment link

  6. And what do you call the US system that has had one party and two conservative branches in power for over 160 year? Democracy? LOL.
    (sj, 30 May 2014 00:32
    I would call it a democratic system beyond the level of your comprehension abilities.
    You have 2 opposing views one conservative and one liberal with some common ground on both sides(such as both sides condemned the aggression of Serbia against the citizens of Kosovo and both sides support an independent Kosovo)
    You have a checks and balance system to keep any branch of government from becoming too powerful. You have a system that limits the length of office for the President not one where he can name his puppet successor and then retake the office insuring he is totally in control of the country. A govt that is not paralyzed for months after an election so that a whole new system is set up. A govt that when one party is in office they cannot call new elections to remove any opposition.
    An electoral process where people are free to vote without coercion at the polls. A system where when one party gets in office the other does not have the power to go through and charge all the others with corruption to remove the competition (sound extremely familiar?)
    A country that has had the same constitution for 225 years that cannot be changed at whim by the people in office at the moment. And again a system that is beyond your limited comprehension abilities.
    (pss, 30 May 2014 20:57)

    # Comment link

  7. @ RATKO, 2 Questions for you;
    1) 2) Why does your name have rat in it?
    (T, 30 May 2014 10:55)

    WHY DONíT YOU ASK HIM WHY HIS NAME ASLO HAS (NOT HAVE) THE ONLY LETTER OF YOUR NAME ? I GUESS ALL BECAUSE IDIOTISM IS ALWAYS CHRONICAL. FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE !!!


    icj1

    YOU DONíT NEED TO SIGN YOUR COMMENTS AS YOU NEVER CHANGE Ö FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE !!!
    (rote, 30 May 2014 16:21)

    # Comment link

  8. @ RATKO,
    2 Questions for you;
    1)Do you always feel the need to make snidy, and quite frankly pointless, remarks when someones opinion doesn't suit you.
    2) Why does your name have rat in it?
    (T, 30 May 2014 10:55)

    # Comment link

  9. That is Serbia's future.
    The NATO-EU is a bankrupt, fraud-ridden, war-mongering organisation.
    (Michael Thomas, 29 May 2014 14:19)

    Kosovo's can't agree more with you here... Imagine if Serbia had been member of NATO or EU. In that scenario Kosovo would have still been under Serbia today. Luckily enough for Kosovo, there are Serbs who think like you that Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan are Serbia's future... good luck with that!
    (icj1, 30 May 2014 04:38)

    # Comment link

  10. Eurasion Union. All I can make out from this picture is 3 dictators walking side by side. Whatever Putin may claim it is definitely reminiscent of the old soviet block. At least Kiev had the good sense to say NO to this lot.
    (T, 29 May 2014 14:12)
    And what do you call the US system that has had one party and two conservative branches in power for over 160 year? Democracy? LOL.
    Better take a long and hard look mate becasue they are the risiing powers not the windbags from washington/
    (sj, 30 May 2014 00:32)

    # Comment link

  11. This is a true sign that BRICS is a failed project. Russia cannot function in a group that is meant to unite its economy with China and one that is meant to combat the influence of the China economy Of course the same fools that have been saying the future of Serbia is with the BRICS countries (eventhough there was never any sign they were even being considered) suddenly have determined that the Eurasian Union is best for Serbia.
    (just a note, 29 May 2014 20:45)

    # Comment link

  12. "The Eurasian Economic Union is a dead project. I hope that Russia will be more and more isolated."
    (Emanuel from Romania, 29 May 2014 18:01)

    No, I think there are some more former Soviet republics governed by autocrats that are economically dependent from big mother Russia who might join, more or less voluntarily, Putin's union.
    (Comm. Parrisson, 29 May 2014 20:20)

    # Comment link

  13. The European Union is a very successful project and it has a bright future.

    The greatest achievements of the European Union are the Schengen Area, the Euro and the four freedoms.

    On 1 January 2015 Lithuania will adopt the Euro. The Eurozone will have 19 Member States.

    LONG LIVE THE EUROPEAN UNION!!!!!!!!!

    The Eurasian Economic Union is a dead project. I hope that Russia will be more and more isolated.
    (Emanuel from Romania, 29 May 2014 18:01)

    # Comment link

  14. @ T

    T is short form for TROLL
    (Ratko, 29 May 2014 17:08)

    # Comment link

  15. That is Serbia's future.

    The NATO-EU is a bankrupt, fraud-ridden, war-mongering organisation.
    (Michael Thomas, 29 May 2014 14:19)

    # Comment link

  16. Eurasion Union. All I can make out from this picture is 3 dictators walking side by side. Whatever Putin may claim it is definitely reminiscent of the old soviet block. At least Kiev had the good sense to say NO to this lot.
    (T, 29 May 2014 14:12)

    # Comment link