Vile Requiem Posted May 14, 2005 Report Posted May 14, 2005 http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memo.html I love being right. This idiot needs to be impeached. Now.
Paine Posted May 14, 2005 Report Posted May 14, 2005 yet somehow, he's back in power after our last elections. DEMOCRACY DOESN'T WORK!
MonteZuma Posted May 16, 2005 Report Posted May 16, 2005 I think democracy works. If Bush, Blair or Howard lied about tax cuts, petrol prices or inappropriate sexual conduct with their secretary there'd be rioting in the streets and the governments would have been turfed out. Unfortunately they only lied about their plans to breach international law and place our soldiers lives on the line for some hair-brained scheme to overthrow some hair-brained dictator in some backward middle-eastern nation. Most people in the US and the UK and other tag-along countries like Australia just don't seem to care about Iraq and the world-wide problems that the conflict there has caused. Most people are shallow. The people are being represented perfectly - with equally shallow leaders. Fortunately though, much of continental Europe and other places like Canada and New Zealand have leaders that are a little more compassionate and forward-thinking insofar as the concept of world peace is concerned.
Dav Posted May 16, 2005 Report Posted May 16, 2005 yet somehow, he's back in power after our last elections. DEMOCRACY DOESN'T WORK!<{POST_SNAPBACK}> accually it does, without his big majority he cant do everything too easily now, there are enough lib dems, labour back bench rebels and (if they exist) sencible conservaties to oppose them.
MonteZuma Posted May 16, 2005 Report Posted May 16, 2005 accually it does, without his big majority he cant do everything too easily now, there are enough lib dems, labour back bench rebels and (if they exist) sencible conservaties to oppose them.Unfortunately this is not the case in Australia. The pro-Bush Liberal government in Australia won even more seats at the last election and has a majority in both houses of parliament.
Manus Celer Dei Posted May 16, 2005 Report Posted May 16, 2005 The greatest arguments both for and against democracy are our elected leaders.
NBVegita Posted May 19, 2005 Report Posted May 19, 2005 Democracy obviously works, more or less depending on how you feel about the issue. Yes the majority of people online, or even in your community might be anti bush, but... HE DID GET VOTED IN. lol Basically that means that guess what, the greater half of america still wanted bush in power. And thats democracy at its finest. It just doesn't seem that way to you right now. Just wait til you find one of those pro bush communities, its prolly more like a cult. They'll stone you from the square and hang you from a street sign to warn tresp!@#$%^&*ers.
MonteZuma Posted May 19, 2005 Report Posted May 19, 2005 Basically that means that guess what, the greater half of america still wanted bush in power. And thats democracy at its finest. It just doesn't seem that way to you right now.Perhaps. But for the sake of discussion... It isn't strictly correct that the greater half of America wanted GWB. At the last US election there was a 60% voter turnout, so only about 30% of eligible US voters chose Bush. I think a large proportion of those that didn't vote probably don't like either of the major parties. Whatever the reason, the usual low voter turnout means that GWB has the support of considerably less than 50% of the US population. The body in charge of elections in the US should work harder to get a bigger voter turnout.
NBVegita Posted May 20, 2005 Report Posted May 20, 2005 True, but its all a matter of the % of voting citizens. Its a shame that more people don't exercise our right to vote.
Manus Celer Dei Posted May 20, 2005 Report Posted May 20, 2005 I fail to see how G.W. Bush (or anyone else) as a democratically elected leader is any improvement over choosing leaders by a 100m sprint, and vice versa. That was the point of my original post. 40,000,000 votes cast by idiots do not an intelligent choice make.
Greased_Lightning Posted May 20, 2005 Report Posted May 20, 2005 I stood in line for 3 hours to vote, even got my face on TV when the local newsies came by to check out the long lines ... as for political parties, I dont think they're a good idea but it ain't gonna change anytime soon. I vote who I support, not political affiliation. Cuts down on political party phone calls too
deadonarrival Posted May 21, 2005 Report Posted May 21, 2005 if you think democracy doesnt work please feel free to move to cuba, i'm sure you will love the dictatorship, opression and constant threat of death if you dare to think by yourself do you really think bush+blair+others would really have gone to war if they didnt TRULY believe iraq had wmd's? would they really put their jobs on the line for no reason... please think before you speak... also okay so iraq had no wmd's at the time of the war but what if they got them afterwards if we then had to stop them (as i think we would, you cannot trust power-hungry madmen with weapons of such power) there would have been far many losses on both sides although the things which annoy me most are 1- people who complain about govenrments then don't vote and 2- people who say all politicians are liars (they learn to think for themselves, not just listen to the media)
Manus Celer Dei Posted May 22, 2005 Report Posted May 22, 2005 if you think democracy doesnt work please feel free to move to cuba, i'm sure you will love the dictatorship, opression and constant threat of death if you dare to think by yourself do you really think bush+blair+others would really have gone to war if they didnt TRULY believe iraq had wmd's? would they really put their jobs on the line for no reason... please think before you speak... also okay so iraq had no wmd's at the time of the war but what if they got them afterwards if we then had to stop them (as i think we would, you cannot trust power-hungry madmen with weapons of such power) there would have been far many losses on both sides although the things which annoy me most are 1- people who complain about govenrments then don't vote and 2- people who say all politicians are liars (they learn to think for themselves, not just listen to the media)<{POST_SNAPBACK}> I assume this is addressed to my post, so I'll just clarify a few things: 1. Please do not intimate that i believe that democracy doesn't work, i never said it didn't and I believe that democracy does work, any successfully run election is proof of that. 2. My point was Democracy does not necessarily work BETTER. I see no evidence that a democracy such as the Untied States is better run than a cons!@#$%^&*utional monarchy like the UK or New Zealand, or a dictatorship like Singapore. I'd write more points concerning the rest of your post, but i think I'll wait for monte to do so and just agree with him, like i usually do.
MonteZuma Posted May 22, 2005 Report Posted May 22, 2005 do you really think bush+blair+others would really have gone to war if they didnt TRULY believe iraq had wmd's?Yes. Iraq truly didn't have WMDs and yet they went to war against Iraq. Even if they believed Iraq had WMDs, the fact is they were wrong. A blunder of that order of magnitude should be enough to get them kicked out of office. At the very least it should convince people that they need to question their government more often. would they really put their jobs on the line for no reason... please think before you speak...Maybe they wanted a page in the history books? maybe they thought a swift victory over a tyrant would win them votes? Maybe they were so blinded by certain issues that they couldn't see the big picture? Politicians make mistakes. there would have been far many losses on both sidesHow do you know? The soviet empire was toppled without any significant US casualties. although the things which annoy me most are 1- people who complain about govenrments then don't vote and 2- people who say all politicians are liars (they learn to think for themselves, not just listen to the media)The thing that annoys me the most are politicians that mislead the public.
MonteZuma Posted May 22, 2005 Report Posted May 22, 2005 I'd write more points concerning the rest of your post, but i think I'll wait for monte to do so and just agree with him, like i usually do.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>Awww....
Manus Celer Dei Posted May 23, 2005 Report Posted May 23, 2005 Awww.... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Most of it. It's nice to hear a voice of reason amongst board members. But you're so much more eloquent than myself I find you've already said everything i would say in your place by the time i finish thinking out how to write it.
Aileron Posted May 23, 2005 Report Posted May 23, 2005 Actually Manus there is repeated historical proof of democracies being better than functional monarchies. (The UK doesn't count as a functional monarchy because the royal family has no official power). Throughout Europe's history, Great Britain was almost always one step more democratic than their mainland peers, and have always been better off economically. Similarly throughout Russia's history they were always less democratic then western Europe and always worse off economically. North America was settled by democratic Britain and France. South America was settled by fuedal Spain and Portugal. In the Napoleonic Wars, a democratic France defeated all of Europe put together. This was mostly because French officers were chosen and promoted on merit, whereas everyone else was doing so on family ties. The important differences between democracy, monarchies, and dictatorships are in the organization of the group of people in charge, not the one man on the top. Dictators cannot run a country all by their lonesome. A dictator needs cronies to impose his will on people, and thus he needs to keep his cronies happy. I use "cronies" incorrectly here...the word implies about two dozen or so, but in reality the group is usually an entire race or a political party. To do this, dictatorships generally rob the rest of the country and give that money to the cronies. These countries are worse off economically because the dictatorship requires wealth to be unevenly distributed. These countries are worse off militarly because the only people willing and capable of defending the country are the cronies, and what's worse...if too many cronies die in war the rest of the populace might slip out from under their controll. Monarchies are generally non-functional in modern times. Like the dictator a monarch couldn't run his country all by his lonesome. However, the method to a monarchy was to have a group of independent nobles who competed with each other. The monarch would controll the nobles by routinely rewarding the most loyal nobles at the expense of the less loyal nobles. The nobles in turn would run their underlings in a similar manner. The advantage this has over the dictatorship is that in monarchy, the monarch has a relationship with all of his people, whereas in the dictatorship the dictator serves only the cronies. Monarchies are worse off than democracies economically because they create strict limits on how certain individuals advance in society. They are worse off than democracies militarily because in a monarchy, it is really the nobles who determine the size of the army, and they may or may not be willing to fight, even if the country is being invaded. Theocracies are a suprisingly powerfull government. Like the democracy, the theocracy survives by mimicing the will and beliefs of the people. The only flaw with the theocracy is that it only mimics the will of the majority religion only. Its fundimental weakness is that it disenfranchises minorities. Also, it is not an independant governmental system...there has to be another system that decides who is in charge. Of the three, theocracy CAN work...if the nation has no real minorities. Still democracy works just as fine with minorities, making it the superior system. Don't doubt everything Manus. There are times where "it just is" or "because I say so" is really all one should need, because every statement can be disected enough to reach an axiom. And thinking one self smarter than 40,000,000 people is usually nothing but shear arrogance.
Manus Celer Dei Posted May 23, 2005 Report Posted May 23, 2005 Throughout Europe's history, Great Britain was almost always one step more democratic than their mainland peers, and have always been better off economically. Similarly throughout Russia's history they were always less democratic then western Europe and always worse off economically. North America was settled by democratic Britain and France. South America was settled by fuedal Spain and Portugal. In the Napoleonic Wars, a democratic France defeated all of Europe put together. This was mostly because French officers were chosen and promoted on merit, whereas everyone else was doing so on family ties.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> These points are cir!@#$%^&*stantial. It can be argued that democracy was the primary motivator for these outcomes, but it can just as easily be argued that other factors were responsible instead. If you can provide a link to a study that provides a definitive proof that democracy was the main factor in these situations then i will concede the point. That is the problem with arguing the merits of various systems of government, they are linked inextricably to a large number of outside factors, almost none of which can be quantified in any meaningful manner. Don't doubt everything Manus. There are times where "it just is" or "because I say so" is really all one should need, because every statement can be disected enough to reach an axiom. And thinking one self smarter than 40,000,000 people is usually nothing but shear {sic} arrogance <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't doubt everything, but I find it hard to take many things on faith merely because the statement/action is repeated often and loudly. I'm sure if we picked 40 million people at random, a large number of them will be smarter than myself, but the point stands without my intervention.
Dr.Worthless Posted May 30, 2005 Report Posted May 30, 2005 Man, if even .01% of the claims the left wing media has made against this president and his administration were true you'd have a !@#$%^&*ing SLAM dunk case to not only remove him from office but throw him in jail. To bad accusations have been made ever since the day after he was elected, yet he's been in office for what, 5 years? Do not kid yourselves, if even a s!@#$%^&*ch of this was true the democratic party in the country would be all over it like stink on !@#$%^&*, just like they would have been if any other of the accusations against the president had been true. The very fact that nothing has been done is even more proof that even though the democrats are ALWAYS right (in their minds) and the president can do no right, they could not be further detached from reality.
MonteZuma Posted May 31, 2005 Report Posted May 31, 2005 Man, if even .01% of the claims the left wing media has made against this president and his administration were true you'd have a !@#$%^&*ing SLAM dunk case to not only remove him from office but throw him in jail.You mean like the lies about WMDs?
SeVeR Posted May 31, 2005 Report Posted May 31, 2005 Some things are just very difficult to prove in a court of law.
Dr.Worthless Posted June 4, 2005 Report Posted June 4, 2005 Earth to Montezuma, this is the year 2005, if there was solid proof that the Bush Administration made up a WMD threat, it would have been acted upon when the accusation came up, 2 years ago. I realize you think you're smart and all, but please, take a step back, and let reason replace your blind hatred.
MonteZuma Posted June 4, 2005 Report Posted June 4, 2005 Earth to Montezuma, this is the year 2005, if there was solid proof that the Bush Administration made up a WMD threat, it would have been acted upon when the accusation came up, 2 years ago.The proof of the pudding is in the eating. There were no WMDs. As I said, either they exaggerated the threat or they made a momentous stuff-up. Either way, that should make any thinking person question the government's honesty or competence.
Recommended Posts