What are the best and worst things that the current leader of your country have done since they were in power? You have to state which country you're from, as well as who the current leader of your country is.
Can I just say my government in general? I'm from the United States. The worst thing my government has done probably occurred minutes after my birth. They claimed ownership of me, called me a citizen, gave me a number, told me that when I grew up I'd have to pay taxes to support them. All this was done before I could focus my eyes, without my volitional consent, and because I happened to be born in the geographical region they claimed ownership of. In a world where the first thing I own is myself, and myself completely, this axiom was violated, inherantly violating all my other rights simultaneously, and even making it commonplace so that in the future they could systematically violate my right several times, and claim to do it for, ironically enough, the protection of my rights. The best thing they've ever done is set up debt traps for third world countries, given out loans to corrupt dictators they've put into place (the money doesn't actually get to the countries people), charged high interest rates, and undercut foreign sellers of grain, all so that my standard of living raised about | | <-- yea much whilst they keep other nations under economical oppression.
Hum... Tony Blair... Worst Thing: Joining Bush's 'war on terrorism' and sending troops to Iraq. Best Thing: The way he has handled the recent bomb attacks in London.
The worst thing Blair has done is to send troops to Afghanistan and Iraq without even withdrawing when the time came that it would be for the best, and generally sucking up to the Republicans. The best thing that he's done is the role that he played in the 2012 Olympics bid.
Holland best: euro (yes i really love that, its alot cheaper to buy stuff from the US because of the high value against the US dollar) legalising soft drugs, it really works out great, it proofs that the green stuff is not addicting (only mental, but that could be with any substance) and it hasnt killed a single person (unlike alcohol wich killes dozens of people everyday) allowing gay people to marry, there is nothing wrong with that, and it maddens me even to think that anyone could think differently (that is racism you know) worst: dropping alot of stuff from the ensurance when you turn 18 (dentist, doctor) now you have to pay €15 everytime you go to the dentist for a checkup even though your insured. lowering social security (so less mony) while everything is getting more and more expensive (not becouse of the euro, but becouse of the shops who use the euro as an exuse to change the prices (1 euro should be 2.20371 guilders, most shops made 1 guilder one euro while everyone's income stayed the same.
Are you disputing the necessity of taxes simply because you couldn't agree to them at the time of your birth? I don't mean to sound rude, but you can use all the big words you want to -- doesn't change the fact that taxes are a necessary evil for almost every country. Unless, of course, you want to live in worst possible conditions imaginable. You claim they violate your rights... the very rights given to you by this country that are not given to all peoples in the world. You can argue human rights, yet not all countries give their citizens basic human rights. And yes, the loans you listed as a "positive" (is someone a bit anti-establishment?) are easy to say in hindsight, but tell me -- could you have been certain of that at the time? And, to say we've put corrupt dictators into power is silly. Yes, the United States has contributed to a few "corrupt dictators," but mostly when they were already in power to begin with. Anyways, I would say one of the best things the Bush administration has done (in my opinion, at least, there are other things) is getting us out of a treaty that Clinton signed -- the treated that called for an international court system. This would have let the international courts set the standard for laws for the entire world to abide by, whether they were involved in the court or not. It also would have allowed former prosecuters of these "laws" be tried and convicted based upon what the court feels is correct. I guess the ironic thing would be that Bush pulled out of this, whereas if he wouldn't have Kerry would have gone to this court and undoubtidly be sentenced to life or death. The worst I would say is probably the Patriot Act. While I think some liberties need to be toned down for more protection, what the Patriot Act has done is made more useless invasions of privacy than what we are given back. There isn't much purpose to most of the Patriot Act, to be honest with you. I would go into the War in Iraq, but I think there are positives and negatives associated with that, so I just picked two things that I viewed as absolute positive or negative.
You use large words. [/b][/quote] Link reminds me of the Architect from The Matrix Reloaded. Not that that's a bad thing. It's good to have a large vocabulary.
Best;The best thing the government has done in the UK is probably the smallest thing they have done. In a bid to clamp down on street thugs / skaggs / chavs they have begun to ban hoodies from public places, and other small "laws" to help protect the streets. It's a big issue for me, and i think it's good that they are finally taking notice of how bad the streets are with crime etc. Worst;The worst thing our government does is the benefits system, which i don't agree with. More and more money each year is going to low income families, single parents & unemployed parents because most of the time, they can't be arsed to get a job and earn for their kids and themselves. Now, i understand that it's not always the case and people do need benefits, but most of the time it's jus lazy, unmotivated parents who have no resposability. The best part about this is, that it comes out of the tax payers pocket, so the people who work, who actually go out and earn their money have to pay these people for doing fuck all. So, where does the money go once they get it? well, what's supposed to be put towards looking for a job, their kids & basic products to get by on is usually spent on cigarettes, drugs and going out at the weekend to get drunk. Again, not everybody, just the majority. It's all a bit sad when the people who don't work are earning just as much, if not more in cases than those who go out to work for their money. It's not so bad when they have worked before, put money into the system, because the benefits the get back in return would have been put there by themselves, but alas, most of the time none of these people have worked a day in their life and just immediately sponge off the system as soon as they get the chance. I was reading a story a while ago, where a family was earning over £40,000 in benefits, because they had 10 kids. What the fuck. Don't have the kids if you can't support them, for god's sake just stick on a fucking condom. Then in comparison you have a just married couple with one child struggling to get by despite both working full time because they have to actually pay for everything, i.e health care, mortgage and anything else, whereas the family who doesn't work get everything for free, why? Because everytime they shoot out another kid the Government shits out more money for them, out of the workers pocket. Yes, in cases the benefits can help out and can be usefull for those who intend on getting work, but most of the time it's nothing but a way of avoiding responsibility and work ethic.
Link reminds me of the Architect from The Matrix Reloaded. Not that that's a bad thing. It's good to have a large vocabulary. [/b][/quote] Ergo, a massive vocabulary is a requisite of a comprising a colloquial affirmation involving the injustices done upon humans and the ownership of thier humanity at birth. Holla. edit: oh yeah. Best: It's been 200-some years. I'm sure they've done some good, it's probably not well documented. Worst: stopping that whole "every 20 years a president get shot" thing
That's probably the dumbest law I've seen ever since that law that was passed in some US city that made it so you couldn't show your boxers when wearing jeans (it was removed, but still, it was dumb law); 'Cause we all know that whoever wears a hoodie is a 'street thug'. :whistle:
I know no such thing as a "necessary evil." I don't know about you, but my existence does not require the presence of evil to function soundly. You don't realize that a country and a government cannot GIVE me anything. They can only take away what I already have, or let me keep what I already have. The latter is what they call "giving freedoms", or "allowing freedoms." There is nothing the government "gives" me that I could not possess at better quality via a private vendor. And you're right, I'm highly "anti-establishment." I am an anarchist.
That's probably the dumbest law I've seen ever since that law that was passed in some US city that made it so you couldn't show your boxers when wearing jeans (it was removed, but still, it was dumb law); 'Cause we all know that whoever wears a hoodie is a 'street thug'. :whistle: [/b][/quote] yeah. i think that is a bad law. i wear hoodies and i don't commit crime. but still, what can they do? they can't ban certain people from places because they look like they are going to commit a crime... anyhow! England Worst: We are still in Iraq. why? Best: How they handled the recent bombings.
I know no such thing as a "necessary evil." I don't know about you, but my existence does not require the presence of evil to function soundly. You don't realize that a country and a government cannot GIVE me anything. They can only take away what I already have, or let me keep what I already have. The latter is what they call "giving freedoms", or "allowing freedoms." There is nothing the government "gives" me that I could not possess at better quality via a private vendor. And you're right, I'm highly "anti-establishment." I am an anarchist. [/b][/quote] Wow... I don't even know where to begin with that. You know no such thing as a "necessary evil"? Well, tell me how your anarchy will function, then. A leader is a necessary evil of anarchy. The only forms of anarchy that have succeeded had a leader -- namely Native American tribes. Name me one instance in which anarchy was what you would consider "successful" where there was no leader. Thus, you do know such thing as a "necessary evil," even if you don't want to admit it. And, you are wrong that the government cannot give you anything. By way of the constitution, the United States government provides a standing army to protect all of its peoples. One of the primary problems with anarchism is that there is no police or military forces. Tell me how your anarchism deals with this... and before you say self-defense, it doesn't work when it's another country. The economy will also suffer in anarchism -- look it up, it's history. So are you telling me you want to live defenseless and in extreme poverty simply because you don't want to pay taxes? With anarchsim you probably wouldn't have the money to pay taxes to begin with. If you state that everyone needs to work towards a common goal, then you're leaning towards socialism or communism -- obviously not anarchism. To say that you can be afforded a better form of protection via a private vendor instead of a government is rather silly, if you ask me. Whatever, though... back to the topic... I won't interrupt it anymore.