 |
| |
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Details. Links. |
Both of these were Constitutional amenedments I and my fellow Floridians voted in (I voted for the first, I lived in Chicago when the 2nd one was enacted).
Bush says he'd skirt class-size limit
Bush threatens to thwart high-speed rail
I can't find our House speaker's current plans to limit our initiatives, but it's been on the radio a lot lately. I'll see what else I can find. Basically, he says it's too easy to get an initiative on the ballot, so he wants to make it harder. That's crap actually. It takes a hell of a lot of effort and you have to get signatures from every stinkin' county, not merely get a certain number of citizens to approve.
Last edited by chegitz guevara on 22-01-2004 at 22:04
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Park Avenue
Just a few observations..
1) They don't support the establishment of a democracy in the Middle East. They'd rather we left Iraq alone. |
Sure they do, they just don't believe that what will be installed in Iraq will be "democracy" any more than what was installed in Guatemala, Chile, or any number of other countries was "democracy".
Everyone I know on the left supports the current Shia protests. Of course if they win then Bush loses because a Shia democracy is unlikely to see things the same way as the US.
quote:
2) Whenever a right-wing group is voted in, the talk is about how "dangerous" or "scary" their policies are, such as the spread of democracy. They don't seem able to accept the result of an election in which "their side" lost. |
I don't believe that has always been true. For a long time in most Western countries the party of the left and the party of the right did not disagree a great deal over the basic direction of policy. For example, for most of my life the left and right agreed over the principles of welfare and state involvement in the economy, but disagreed slightly over how much was required.
However, the right in the last 20 years has taken an increasingly radical posture so that they are now the radicals.
Bush is a good example. He and his followers are basically nutcases. They clearly want to bring God back into politics, a view which has been rejected by all modern states as untenable.
They have moved from prudent fiscal conservatism to a radical program aimed at bankrupting the state so as to force massive government cutbacks in the future which means a radical reduction of the state.
They have rejected the idea (central to liberal democracy) that the state is the only entity that effectively correct for market failures, which means a future of pollution and environmental waste.
They have substituted imprisonment for social programs and have effectively reintroduced slavery by privatizing prisons and exploiting prisoners.
They have substituted religious appeals, prejudices and certaintly for science, reason and scepticism.
They are busy in an attempt to make getting an abortion as difficult as possible without thought for the negative consequences.
They are working to deny individual rights by persecuting homosexuals in the name of the "majority" when such behaviour is what the constitution is explicitly framed to avoid.
They have engaged in mendacity on a scale which I have never experienced before and have leaned on the media to a frightening extent.
They have managed to undermine fundamental civil rights through the patriot act, despite the fact that it isn't clear how this is supposed to help avoid terrorism.
They have decided to destroy international diplomatic institutions (which were not perfect, but were better than nothing) in order to replace them with the law of the jungle.
They have avowed that they seek to dominate the world by force and have accrued to themselves the right to launch aggressive wars on whomever they like, at the same time as proving in Iraq that they are either liars or have such incompetent intelligence that such wars are likely to be either mistaken or immoral.
That's one set of reasons that older style Burkean conservatives are not too happy with Bush.
quote:
3) The majority are against such things as gay marriage or gay adoption, yet the left want to force these things through anyway. |
Because it's a matter of rights and as such the will of the majority has no sway here. If this is anti-democratic then so is the US constitution.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
They don't support the establishment of a democracy in the Middle East. They'd rather we left Iraq alone
|
Not because we prefer malevolent dictatorship to democracy. It is because we dislike war. See my thread on Orwell.
Now that the West has penetrated Iraq, a general consensus I can see would seem to show that we want Iraq to have a functioning system of government decided by the people and their culture before they move out. Whether or not that is democracy, if it is in the best interests of the people, I am satisfied.
quote:
Whenever a right-wing group is voted in, the talk is about how "dangerous" or "scary" their policies are, such as the spread of democracy
|
Where the will of the people wishes for war, or totalitarianism, particularly in times like these I may add, then yes, such parties lead to scary policies. It seems you have already made your mind up though. However, the “left”, by which I assume you mean liberal pacifists (as I'm sure you're aware of the fact that “left” only refers to economic position, not liberalism), are not opposed to the spread of democracy, as long as it, alongside any point of view or subjective cultural feature, is not imposed upon another culture by us.
quote:
They don't seem able to accept the result of an election in which "their side" lost.
|
I think, if I may speak for all liberals, we are used to being losers in this day and age so such things won't really bother us  . In all seriousness, I can't recall to mind any situation of a sore liberal loser in an election. We tend to be of a philosophical disposition anyway, something much of conservatism PA style lacks . Still it is dangerous to generalise, for both of us, therefore you should not attempt to link a particular emotional disposition to a political or philosophical standpoint. A kind of ad hominem en masse.
quote:
The majority are against such things as gay marriage or gay adoption, yet the left want to force these things through anyway.
|
Now you introduce something in critical thinking, inaptly named “the democracy fallacy”. In other words, it is where popular opinion is treated as an objective source of truth. Example. You are on an aircraft. An engine blows out. The pilot takes a poll of the lay passengers, asking whether to crash land or carry on, taking their views in equality with the flight engineer who actually knows what he is talking about. Another. You have an economic decision to make. Whose view do you take more seriously? The consensus of a million lay people, or the consensus of a group of 8 economists (as much of a contradiction in terms that is!)?. Of course, logic dictates you choose the flight engineer or the economists, but in the latter example, the masses have the advantage of being able to overthrow the government. In other words, the democracy fallacy becomes an example of might makes right  .
Note that this does not shame all democracy. As a political method, it is good for choosing a system that the public broadly like, thus reducing the risk of violent revolution. However, when it comes to major decisions within that, where major philosophical, tactical or economic decisions are at stake, I will trust trained intellectuals and experts far more than the subjective and self-interested views of the lay person, whose ease of influence by such sources as the media is perhaps indicative of the shaky nature of their respective foundation of a governments policy.
quote:
The left see themselves as much more intelligent than "the mob" and think they ought to be in a position to dictate policy over the scrubby masses.
|
Put simply, yes. Not more intelligent. More aware of the issues at stake and the factors contributing, and therefore better able to make a decision. Doesn't take a genius to work that one out.
quote:
No, The left realises that most people are stupid, and so allowing people freedoms get's the least interference into their lives.
I think the government, who's job it is is to know about the current issues and decide on them, is more able to decide what is best for the country than the people as a whole. That is why I think we shouldn't have referendums on everything.
And yes, anyone who has an opinion on an issue that they can justify and isn't based on blind prejudice or what they heard someone say in the Sun, is better able to decide than "the mob", who follow a sheep mentality. "A person is intelligent, people are stupid".
|
Well said. Bare in mind the sole motivation of the Sun .
Finally!! Drogue has had a thread deleted, and done something to irritate the mods!!  .
quote:
All that shows is that extreme left wing dictators have had more success than extreme right wing dictators. Says nothing about the general consensus of opinion among the left, nor it's relation to democracy.
|
Indeed, look at singapore.
quote:
But denouncing the decisions of a relative majority when they decide for example that Le Pen is the second most-favoured politician, or when they elect Bush, is what seems left-wingers like to do.
|
When a democracy elects somebody who can govern and govern well, liberals will support! Neocons by definition cannot do that, when they cannot run the economy and go off on international hunting trips.
quote:
I've never known right-wing politicians to say they will refuse to work with people from the left after they were rightfully elected!
|
You're a good government. You have good, sensible, logical policies that will lead to peace, prosperity and longevity. Do you work with a group that has policies that can only be described as idiotic? HELL NO!! Now that my friend, is pragmatism.
quote:
What about the Democratic wing of the Democratic party?
|
Right wing by Howard standards imo.
quote:
Yes. What's wrong with that?
You wouldn't let an average man on the street operate on your brain tumour, why let one run your country?
|
quote:
What fvcking justification is there to suppress religious freedom of expression with something retarded like a headscarf ban??
|
I love you MrFun
quote:
Separation of state and religion, dumbass.
|
How are the views and individuality of a student, teacher of civil servant representative of the state? What is is the curriculum. And since you are being taught to submit to the will of Allah, I don't see a problem here.
quote:
You really think the purpose of invading Iraq was to establish a democracy?
|
 
quote:
Stew, your anti-gay stance does not go unnoticed.
|
Seconded.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrFun
|
 |
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
You have to remember that in Europe, states often had official religions, to which you had to belong or face penalties, and that they had vicious religious wars killing millions. We were founded after all that, and our laws are a reaction to that. So are theirs, but in a different way. |
You know how you hate it when ignorant people associate contemporary communists with crimes against humanity that past communist regimes have committed?
Well, contemporary, mainstream religious people do not like being associated with the inhuman crusades, inquisitions, and so on. They are not likely to want to deny these things, but they are tired of being blamed for things that happened hundreds of years ago.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-01-2004 21:32
|