As opposed to the flawless Parliamentary system where no party has any power or an agenda they can set because they spend all their time and influence coaxing other parties' members to get on their side so they can have a majority on a single issue?
You say that like it's a bad thing. On the other hand, people could say that's a truer representation of democracy and compromise. The situation you described is generally known as a minority government, and those aren't very common either. Some of Canada's more productive governments. Lester Pearson, a Nobel Peace prize winner and one of the more productive Canadian PMs (introducing health care, a national pension plan, student loans, immigration reform and the Canadian Maple Leaf flag, as well as lowering unemployment rates) and he never held a majority government. There is more chance of compromise leading towards progress in such a system than there is in, say, when Clinton faced a Republican congress where progress stalled. In such situations, every vote means a lot, so one's representative plays a more vital role.
These kinds of governments are also rare, with most elections resulting in majority governments where the opposition parties are still able to hold the ruling party accountable.
No, that makes you naive. Sure a select few can help the world and maybe you can help a few people along the road of life. The truth is the world will still have its faults.
The fact that the world is inperfect does not mean that everyone should ignore everyone but themselves. For example, people will always shoplift no matter what, does that mean that if you steal jewelry it's perfectly ok?
In addition, I think we can be pretty certain that Fit of Rage contributes more to society than the original poster (whoever he is). In such extreme situations there is nothing particularly pretentious about telling such a person to contribute something to society. It surely has more justification than, for example, telling someone to get a life over SS.
I'm not extremely familiar with Canada's specific government so I won't pretend to be. What I was saying, however, was because of that accountability factor and the numerous parties increases the time it takes for legislation to be dealt with (I'm mainly talking about French or British government here since I know those a little better). Clinton had a little trouble with some issues after the mid-term election of '94 and Gengrich's Campaign for America or whatever that shitfuck called it but it didn't render the administration useless - it mainly affected hot issues like health care.
I wasn't trying to say America's government was all better I was saying that it's not necessarily worse and pointing out an aspect that makes America's government more effective/fast but possibly in return less accountable.
3:Mega Newbie> bam ashlee whats wrong taking nude pictures???
3:Mega Newbie> its an art!!!!!!!!
3:Mega Newbie> only jealous girls and gays dont like it!!
-
1:megaman89> WOW IF U WERE TRAPPED IN A FIRE I WOULD RUN AND SAVE U ASH
1:Cape> then ud throw her back when she says she still isnt givin it up
-
tim> .?squad tim
BAM__ Ashl> ?squad tim
Squad: timo<3ashlee
-
MODERATOR WARNING: bam__ Ashlee is a sex machine -Mithrandia <ER>
3:Mega Newbie> bam ashlee whats wrong taking nude pictures???
3:Mega Newbie> its an art!!!!!!!!
3:Mega Newbie> only jealous girls and gays dont like it!!
-
1:megaman89> WOW IF U WERE TRAPPED IN A FIRE I WOULD RUN AND SAVE U ASH
1:Cape> then ud throw her back when she says she still isnt givin it up
-
tim> .?squad tim
BAM__ Ashl> ?squad tim
Squad: timo<3ashlee
-
MODERATOR WARNING: bam__ Ashlee is a sex machine -Mithrandia <ER>
Comment