Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Israel to U.S. : Now Deal with Syria and Iran -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sea_urchin who wrote (16094)	8/16/2007 10:50:49 PM
From: 49thMIMOMander	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 22250

I was thinking of the colonials, sub-colonials as they are called. Plus the the sub-prime-American-politics, only two sub-parties. PS I have often thought, is it good for colonials to have a two-party, winner-takes-all election system, with or without a constitution, or is it better with a strict proportional multy-party-system, as in Israel?? PPS Most post-20th-century and modern democracies seem to have decided on some common sense not-two-party-nor-Israel solution. (nobody has willingly agreed to a USA-style two-party-system since the late, short decades of the 1700s, not even Israel)

To: sea_urchin who wrote (16094)	8/16/2007 11:36:31 PM
From: 49thMIMOMander	Respond to of 22250

Btw, it seems the Iraqis are not yet ready to hand over 75% of their oil to the Bushies (despite the largest embassy built on earth, except for all those mortars) Not even 85% as some have claimed, while the Shah survived on a 50-50% USA deal, until he got sick. BushBoy seems to to have little luck on that major prospect, despite his own surge and Petreus and their newest puppet-government (kebab-government, as they are locally called) PS Although AEI claims a 85% deal I think it seems fairly impossible, not even the Shah (that 50-50% deal) agreed to that with the brittish.