He's probably not a moron, but definitely insane. No matter, he's pretty amusing. And heck, if the Bush administration could claim that Saddam's Iraq harboured terrorists (which is obviously way off), Fischer can claim the 'zionist' US government blew up the twin towers themselves. Difference is of course that Fischer doesn't actually have the capabilities to do something about his views.

On a sidenote, Fischer was always a strange one. More of an autistic person than a genius, actually...he was brilliant at chess, but he didn't have any background/interest in much else. Compare that to a guy like Kasparov, who's an awe-inspiring thinker in many fields that aren't related to chess....So, basically, Fischer = rain man.

Fischer = (rain man + some ability to survive on his own) - (innocence + honesty)

Ok, I had written this really long post then I reorganized my thoughts for a briefer post.

There are 2 different scenerios that hindge on how Texas views gay marriage.

#1
Steve marries Dan in California and they get a "Marriage Certificate"
Steve goes to Texas to get married to Jill.
Texas does not marry Steve to Jill because Steve already has a "Marriage Certificate" in California and Texas would then be breaking Caliornia polygamy laws.

In this case they dont have to recongize the gay marriage but they do recongize the "Marriage Certificate". In this case when we say "Texas does not recognize gay marriage" it means that if Steve and Dan were to move to Texas, Texas would say "they are just friends" and not a married couple. Therefore their marriage would be null and void in Texas were they trying to live there. The "Marriage Certifacte" is what Texas law acknowledges regaurdless of what sex the people are the certifacte stand and Texas is not allowed to marry Steve to anyone.

#2
Steve marries Dan in California and they get a "Marriage Certificate"
Steve goes to Texas to marry Jill.
Texas marries Steve to Jill because they dont recoginze the marriage certificate in California because its a homosexual couple.
Steve then has commited polygamy according to California law.

In this case Texas wipes their ass with Californa's "Marriage Certificate"

Clearly the States would need to agree to certain laws. I mean you could very well have a State like Utah, that allows polygamy then what? Then Steve could have 1 marriage in Californa, 10 in Utah, 1 in Texas, etc.

Really this question is more about polygamy then gay marriage.

There probably is no better way than the way we have it now to tell you the truth.

More state powers could lead to civil war. More national power leads to coruppt government and a totalian system.

I think the office of the president should be broken into 3 or 4's instead of 1.

personally, I think that the federal government has too much power. I'd like to see more power in the states.

I would also like to see the powers of congress scaled back a bit. At very least, I'd like to see a law that mandates a maximum number of terms for people in Congress, like there is for president. 2, 5, whatever. Anything is better than the same corrupt congressman being elected for 60 years.

Bleh, maybe I'm just bitter.

yea. Its just a 2 part system is so flawed. Need more parties. People just lob onto 1 side or the other because they have no other representation.

You need at least 3 mayor parties for a functioning democracy. The current situation in the US can never lead to a good democracy.

Interesting. I never knew enough about the US political system to see it as disfunctional and clean. If only i had the time to do some reading.

Of course a two-party system is flawed. Then again, plural democracy (the kind most European mainland countries have) isn't all that awesome either. (it mostly lacks executive power/speed) The funny thing is that the US isn't a two-party system as such, but it really comes down to one. The democrats/republicans smother all other political attempts easily.

That's also where the danger is in such a political system: it's easy to achieve total control. Bah. I don't feel like talking politics.

Suffice to say: flawed as democracy is, it's usually the best long-term measure. An englightened ruler is probably better on short-term, but even then there are some drawbacks. You can never do good for everyone, and if you're a sole ruler you really personify what's 'wrong' for ppl. And ppl tend to look more at it as 'wrong' than 'good', so you'll always be faced with resistance in the population.

not necessarily. You've got a pretty negative few of people there, Ox. :p In some instances, the populace loves a leader completely, regardless of any screwups. From American history, we have several examples...

JFK and Roosevelt (the one that served 4 terms).

There are similar examples elsewhere, I'm sure. But basically these peoples' popularity was profound. The populace would have followed them to the end of the earth, I think.

Assuming the person is a good leader (as in, has the needs of the people first), resounding popularity is great. It gives them the power to really accomplish stuff. Of course, the reverse can be true as well (*cough*Hitler*cough*)

Hehe, I don't think it's that negative...really, take a simple example: do you hear ppl in the West -who're arguably really well off in general- talk about how great we have it and shit? No, we sit around complain all day about this and that. Taxes, the weather, other ppl, you name it. So I think a government/leadership will always have its opposition.


The thing with the ppl you named is that they were still elected, so their opposition didn't have much reason to go guerilla on their asses. (unlike with a regime) Besides, I think that we in the West have become too enlightened/nihilistic to adore one person or president for 20 years. Back then ppl were more naïve, trust in the government was big. And didn't JFK become famous more for his death than anything else? Sure, he was very popular, but he only was president for 2 year. Hard to say how he would have done if he served longer than that.

Don't get me wrong, I certainly see merit in such a system if it's worked out well, but I don't trust the people. You'd need to have a sort of gestapo to keep some groups in check, and that kinda passes the point of benevolent dictatorship. If you do things for the ppl, the establishment is pissed off. If you help the establishment, the ppl are pissed off. The establishment always wants to keep its power, the ppl always want more rights. Balancing that seems virtually impossible to me.

(yeah I know that's a very, very broad generalization of the composition of a society but you get the point )

oh no, it's easy... There are many ways to tackle the problem.

First, on JFK, I wasn't alive at the time, of course, but my understanding was that he was immensely popoular prior to assassination. The assassination only managed to catapult him to even greater heights.

Anyway, as I was saying.

Establishment vs populace. There are several ways to take care of any conflict in interests.

Kill off the establishment
Kill off the populace (either or, not both)

Curry the favor of the establishment while fooling the populace into thinking you're helping only them
The reverse.
Both but neither.

Field a secret police army that finds anyone talking shit, removes their genitals and then mails it to other people suspected of harboring anti-Satis sentiments.

-------------------------
in a non-totalitarian regime:

the establishment isn't supposed to have power anyway. And besides, almost by definition, the establishment is a serious minority and, when you boil it down to numbers, have no real power. The power lies with the majority. So....

strip the establishment of its clout, piece by piece. Make it very showy and newsworthy, and be sure your spin-makers are working doubletime so the people know you're one of them and you're destroying all the things that make life suck. Once the establishment has been de-toothed, you can then move ahead and implement the reforms that every American wants but can't get because of some lobby or other.

Unfortuanetly, you'd virtually have to own congress or do away with it before you could really do those sorts of things, since it's them that are owned by the special interest groups and lobbies. The most overpaid and ineffectual gathering of people in the world.

Yea America loved JFK. Even though he had many affairs with other women include Maryln Monroe and was involded in the Bay of Pigs, people still love him. Kind of like Clinton. Clinton lie straight up under oath in front of a grand jury and people still love him. If he lied in front of a jury, what makes you think he didnt lie to the America people?

I think people like Kennedy for who he was not his Presidendacy. I dont know.

I think that's the case with most popular leaders. Barring serious accidents, their policy really isn't as determining as their charisma/PR.

Look at Roosevelt. He was even 'suspected' of communist measures (New Deal), something that didn't go down too well in the America of the 1950's, but he survived all that. And Reagan was an awful president in terms of policy (Reaganomics were a disaster) but was generally popular.


Anyway; Satis, I think we pretty much see eye to eye on the general point of a benevolent dictatorship (that it can work and how it could work), and I agree with your ideas about ways to get there; we probably just disagree on the % of potential succes it has. Both to succeed or to have a long-term future.

I'd love to get a shot at doing so, for one. And get a little credit from the populace.

Actually the Reagan years, economical, where some of the best years in American history.

I mean whats better? For government to tax the crap out of the people and have bureaucrats decided where to spend it?

or

Let people keep more of their own money and spend it in place where they need it?

The later puts money back in the economy directly and instantly.

yea, the reagan years were economically prosperous. However, typically the state of the economy during a presidential term is really determined by the prior president's policies. It takes several years for economic policies to really make a difference. Reagan's ideas on trickle-down economics were, imo, very flawed, and had something to do with the economic problems in the 90s.

To each their own. I still liked (and continue to like) Ronnie as president. He certainly had his problems, but he was a badass when he had to be. Him and Olliver North...now that guy was damn near a national hero, despite the fact he was made fallguy for the whole Iran-Contra thing.