 |
|
Play Bingo Online and more than 80 other games at Jackpotjoy for a chance to win one of our huge jackpots or just play for fun!  PoliticsForum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics. All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc.. As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself. *"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned." *Don't beat a dead horse. If the horse is declared "dead" by the moderator, let it lie. Není vám dovoleno psát zprávy do tohoto klubu. Minimální úroveň členství vyžadovaná pro psaní v tomto klubu je Brain pěšec. Mód: Každý může psát
9. listopadu 2009, 19:07:06  Ahhhh on a survey of 27 countries around the world by the BBC only 11% were happy with the way capitalism is at the mo. the majority by far feel we need more regulation and reform. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/8347409.stm 9. listopadu 2009, 19:18:28 Subjekt: Re:  (V): And there is very strong support around the world for governments to distribute wealth more evenly. That is backed by majorities in 22 of the 27 countries. This sounds scary. And it proves to me again that the majority of people are complete idiots. 9. listopadu 2009, 21:27:59 Subjekt: Re:This sounds scary. And it proves to me again that the majority of people are complete idiots.  Pedro Martínez: I totally agree. 10. listopadu 2009, 03:44:19 - prohlíží hlavní stránku - Subjekt: Re: Pedro Martínez:  OMG!!!! I was totally ready to give a quick post about how stupid the majority of the people are, and then I read your and ADs posts.... LMFAO!!!! 10. listopadu 2009, 03:59:40 Subjekt: Re:  Czuch: KMFDM Keine Mitgleid für die Mehrheit No pity for the majority 10. listopadu 2009, 04:41:34 Subjekt: Re: Pedro Martínez: > it proves to me again that the majority of people are complete idiots If that is the case, can democracy be justified? If the majority are idiots, isn't dictatorship better then? 10. listopadu 2009, 04:45:15 Subjekt: Re: Übergeek 바둑이: A pure democracy is probably a bad idea for that very reason. 10. listopadu 2009, 08:18:01 Subjekt: Re: Artful Dodger: In other words, since the masses are stupid, it is better to let the oligarchic elite make all the decisions while the masses are merely convinced that they have political power when in reality they don't. I imagine then that Obama passing legislation for health care reform through Congress can be justified. The majority of the American public opposed the legislation, but then the majority is rather stupid so Obama is justified in forcing through unpopular legislation. Then the complaints we hear from the public are nothing more than a reflection of their ignorance and stupidity. If this is the case, imposing an unpopular policy over the population is acceptable when the masses are ignorant and fail to understand the policy. Subverting democracy is justified for the greater good. 10. listopadu 2009, 12:52:01 Subjekt: Re: Übergeek 바둑이: Someone said, democracy is not perfect, but it's the best system so far. The majority are use to being played, in certain respects they play on our hard wiring.. Thinking is discouraged in certain areas. Politicians play the game and so do the media.. and of course... the adverts selling stuff. ... a tv show did a test re in-store advertising on 'special offers'. To cut a long story short.. make sure they are real 'special offers', as most of those put to the test didn't and spent more then just going for regular stock. 10. listopadu 2009, 16:55:03 Subjekt: Re: Změněno uživatelem Übergeek 바둑이 (11. listopadu 2009, 01:15:50) (V): I was trying to get to the fact that those who right now are telling us that the majority is stupid will be the first to complain about "big" government and the government "telling us what to do". I grew up in Guatemala under a real distatorship. The kind that sent tanks into the streets, made people disappear and massacred 300,000 people just to keep the capitalist elite in power. Anybody who thinks that the majority is stupid is just arrogant. Just because the majority of the people hold a view opposite to mine it does not mean that they are stupid. It is like saying "I am smart and the rest of the world is stupid". It is just arrogance. The masses might not be well informed. They might hold backward views. They might be easily manipulated by demagogues and the media they control. They might choose undesirable people to lead them. However, if the masses are stupid, then why promote democracy or freedom? Why send 1.5 million Iraqis to their deaths? 1.4 million Afghans? 6 million Vietnamese? 3 million North Koreans? If the masses are stupid, then it is impossible to justify those wars fought to "protect freedom and democracy". 10. listopadu 2009, 21:43:04 - prohlíží diskusní kluby - Subjekt: Re:  Übergeek 바둑이: now you are a man that KNOWS what he is talking about instead of the usual CCP...thank god, it is so refreshing 11. listopadu 2009, 14:23:48 Subjekt: Re: Übergeek 바둑이: the masses ain't stupid, nowadays there is no such thing as a totally contolled media, even in 'restricted' populations. Misled at times.. yes. Fear is a powerful tool and can result in a 'don't care' situation where governments can do things that are 'invisible' .. That time is ending.. the internet saw to that, as does the old word of mouth. Communities talk, just wish the media moguls would stop perverting events.  12. listopadu 2009, 07:09:35 Subjekt: Re: (V): "The masses" could do some stupid & dangerous things long before we had this infiltration of the right-wing radicals poisoning the airwaves. The masses in the Southern US voted consistently for segregation of blacks & whites in the 40s, 50s, & 60s. They also voted against interacial marraige by huge majorities. It took "activist" courts to purge the nation of such overt discrimination. Fast forward to today & the "activist" courts may have to provide similar protection for Gays. Its called a system of checks & balances. 12. listopadu 2009, 07:53:26 Subjekt: Re: Ferris Bueller: "The masses" could do some stupid & dangerous things long before we had this infiltration of the right-wing radicals poisoning the airwaves. Spoken like a true believer in freedom of speech and an advocate of tolerance. The masses in the Southern US voted consistently for segregation of blacks & whites in the 40s, 50s, & 60s. And the masses in the Country opposed the oppressive tactics of the South. The majority of the Country were against such nonsense. They also voted against interacial marraige by huge majorities. It took "activist" courts to purge the nation of such overt discrimination. The courts cannot purge anyone of discrimination and it's people who discriminate. In some areas, interracial marriages are still frowned upon. It's an attitude of people. It wasn't a reflection of the masses. It was a reflection of many, but certainly not all. And what's changed is not what the courts imposed, but the times. People's attitudes have changed through a number of factors. A court order cannot change someone's heart. Fast forward to today & the "activist" courts may have to provide similar protection for Gays. If you favor an activist court, then you must also agree with the past court decisions against Blacks? Or is it that you just favor activist rulings that you find agreeable with your own views? Be careful what you wish for: Activist judges could just as easily rule against your left wing bias. Its called a system of checks & balances. BS. Judicial activism is NOT a part of the checks and balances. That is a purely ignorant statement. 12. listopadu 2009, 08:21:48 Subjekt: Re: Artful Dodger: Our gov't of checks & balances INCLUDES an exucutive branch, a legislative branch, and yes, a JUDICIAL BRANCH. All of which are suppose to even things out if something is wrong. As for the rest of your assertions, I agree to disagree. 12. listopadu 2009, 18:09:16 Subjekt: Re:All of which are suppose to even things out if something is wrong. Ferris Bueller: You can disagree all you want. You act in exactly the same way as those radicals with whom you disagree. You, like the nuts on the far right, use pejorative language to make your points. Just like those that poison the air waves, you poison the discussion with your vitriolic rants. And in your post you connected judicial activism with Constitutional checks and balanaces. That is pure nonsense. Judicial activism occurs when the system is corrupt. It is not the job of the judiciary to make laws (which is what judicial activism does). As I pointed out, If you favor an activist court, then you must also agree with the past court decisions against Blacks? Or is it that you just favor activist rulings that you find agreeable with your own views? Be careful what you wish for: Activist judges could just as easily rule against your left wing bias.
12. listopadu 2009, 20:35:41 Subjekt: Re:Judicial activism occurs when the system is corrupt. It is not the job of the judiciary to make laws (which is what judicial activism does). Artful Dodger: Courts can make legal precedent. I'm reasonably positive this is not the only way courts can influence law. 12. listopadu 2009, 20:46:09 Subjekt: Re:Judicial activism occurs when the system is corrupt. It is not the job of the judiciary to make laws (which is what judicial activism does). (V): Setting legal precedent and making law are two different things. It's one thing to set legal precedent (an unavoidable thing) and another to set an unexisting law into motion through judicial activism. 12. listopadu 2009, 20:49:33 Subjekt: Re:Judicial activism occurs when the system is corrupt. It is not the job of the judiciary to make laws (which is what judicial activism does). Artful Dodger: A legal precedent can lead to complete law changes or ways things are done in the judicial system. It may not be intentional law making, but can lead to it. 13. listopadu 2009, 01:16:24 - prohlíží hlavní stránku - Subjekt: Re:Judicial activism occurs when the system is corrupt. It is not the job of the judiciary to make laws (which is what judicial activism does). (V): Its true.... again the gay marriage debate... The courts made their rulings on it, and then the legislation is made, then the people vote it all down! But if we had not voted it down, then the courts would have definite influence on the law. 13. listopadu 2009, 02:34:46 Subjekt: Re:Judicial activism occurs when the system is corrupt. It is not the job of the judiciary to make laws (which is what judicial activism does). (V): Laws are changed by law makers. 13. listopadu 2009, 11:19:56 Subjekt: Re:Laws are changed by law makers. Artful Dodger: And in the past.. who made the laws? Back in da old days those who implemented the law were often the ones making it. I see people getting laws through Parliament. Judges saying old laws don't apply. You can argue this point all you like, it will not make it true.  12. listopadu 2009, 10:36:15 Subjekt: Re:The masses in the Southern US voted consistently for segregation of blacks & whites in the 40s, 50s, & 60s. Ferris Bueller: Throwback to slavery unfortunately, still the idea that white is God.. or as in today's world.. hetro and American. 10. listopadu 2009, 19:00:18 Subjekt: Re: Übergeek 바둑이: I'm just guessing but I suspect that what is really meant is that in some cases and in some attitudes, people don't think through the consequences of decisions. I don't think the masses are really stupid but on some issues, many are. You can't run a government with a pure democracy. That's why the US isn't set up that way. It's a representative government. And in this consideration, the masses are ignorant. Representatives are sent to govern and expected to understand the issues and make policy that will benefit the masses. Most people don't have a grasp of all the ins and outs of policies and how certain decisions will affect society in the long run. Someone must represent the masses. The US is not a democracy. It's a Republic and it was set up that way specifically because pure democracy is simply impossible to sustain. 10. listopadu 2009, 19:28:08 Subjekt: Re:  Artful Dodger: Yes, unfortunately, I don't think a lot of people actually research who they are voting for. Many people go with a name just because they've heard of it. (All those people waving signs at intersections right around election days). Or they know their friend/mom/uncle/boss is voting for someone, so they go the same way. Or with incumbents, people won't actually find out what their voting record is, and ask themselves if that is the way they want the person representing them to vote. Or people get "stuck" in their party. I imagine there are a lot of moderate republicans, or moderate democrats who might actually find there is someone in the "opposite" party who would actually be a good match. (I'm not a big fan of the 2 party system) In other words, there just aren't enough responsible voters. Plus, let's face it, the majority isn't always "correct".. They just have the numbers.  10. listopadu 2009, 20:35:19 Subjekt: Re:Plus, let's face it, the majority isn't always "correct".. They just have the numbers. rod03801: Exactly right. And I'll bet we can show many instances in the history of governments where the majority clearly had it wrong. (Slavery in the South for example). The US House just passed a huge health care bill by just a couple of votes. That means that 1/2 of the reps were against it. How can that be viewed as a victory? It's certainly not a consensus. It actually shows more division than it does unity. That sort of thing can't be good for any country. 11. listopadu 2009, 13:52:10 Subjekt: Re: Artful Dodger: If you are not a democracy, and you find as such "impossible to sustain"... .. why does your governments go putting it on others. And as such, a republice is just a variation on democracy surely. A representative democracy instead of a direct one or a deliberative democracy. And these days.. is there such a thing as a pure democracy? 12. listopadu 2009, 07:19:47 Subjekt: Re: (V): My comment had to do with stupid people-(more precisely, people thinking stupidly). In a Democracy, if you have a majority of "stupid people" then they can rule the minority. In a Republic, all voices can be heard. Even a minority can pass rulings over the objections of the majority. It's the reason a Republican form of government is better than a Democratic form. They differ in that one aspect. As for the US: the US promotes self-rule and opposes oppressive governments (when it is able). At one time this may have been good foreign policy, but I'm not so sure these days. We've plenty to deal with on the home front. And not all nations are able to have democratic forms of governing. And I do think it's bad policy for any country to impose its own ideals on others unless they ask for the help. At least when the US does it, there is freedom in view. Take East Berlin for an example. An imposed democracy is certainly better than an imposed communist government. In the US, people flocked to our shores from all points in the world. In East Berlin, people were murdered for trying to get out of the city. The government had to keep them in as a prison. If a country were to impose its ideals on another, one is certainly preferred over the other. That said, I say leave other countries alone unless they ask for help. And to that I'd include any $$ help as well. I'd give the world exactly what they want. Stay out of their business except where it concerns our shared interests. 12. listopadu 2009, 10:45:48 Subjekt: Re:if you have a majority of "stupid people" then they can rule the minority. In a Republic, all voices can be heard. Artful Dodger: So can we over here. Our laws allow a civilian to put forward proposals and law changes through their MP or a campaign, etc. "t least when the US does it, there is freedom in view. Take East Berlin for an example." The cold war caused oppressive dictatorial governments to be set up/supported by both the free west and the communist east. Who's freedom? If a country is used in order to maintain one's borders it's not free. People flocked to the UK after WWII and still do, even though other Euro states will take them, the UK is the preferred destination. "Stay out of their business except where it concerns our shared interests." ChAoS theory applies to such a view. 12. listopadu 2009, 18:10:16 Subjekt: Re:if you have a majority of "stupid people" then they can rule the minority. In a Republic, all voices can be heard. (V): "Stay out of their business except where it concerns our shared interests."
Explain 12. listopadu 2009, 20:18:36 Subjekt: Re:if you have a majority of "stupid people" then they can rule the minority. In a Republic, all voices can be heard. Artful Dodger: .. A stone makes ripples in a pond, they say through six people we know everyone. In other words.. how sure that where there appears to be no shared interest there is no shared interest or an indirect effect. 12. listopadu 2009, 18:08:06 Subjekt: Re: Změněno uživatelem Übergeek 바둑이 (12. listopadu 2009, 18:08:25) Artful Dodger: > In a Democracy, if you have a majority of "stupid people" then they can rule the minority. > In a Republic, all voices can be heard. Even a minority can pass rulings over the objections > of the majority. It's the reason a Republican form of government is better than a Democratic form. > They differ in that one aspect. Not all democracies are republics, and not all republics are democracies. The UK is a democracy, but not a republic. The Soviet Union was made of republics, but they were not democracies. I think that you are referring to James Madison's definition of a republic as a representative democracy, in contrast to a direct democracy. Well, we can edify ourselves if we have some patience to read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic One thing I will say, make sure you don't confuse republicanism with the Republican Party, and democracy with the Democratic Party. The names of those parties have little to do with the actual definition of republic or democracy. 10. listopadu 2009, 12:40:17 Subjekt: Re:This sounds scary. And it proves to me again that the majority of people are complete idiots. Pedro Martínez: Yes it is.. but there is also the consideration on how much money does one need? A couple over here won £45 million in the Euro lottery. That's £2 million a year in interest. Footballers wanting £100K a week in wages. One got slammed for moving club over being paid only £55K a week. I don't think those who've got 100's of millions+ would miss a 0.1% contribution to a local scheme, whether local council or to local charities. |
Datum a čas
Přátelé on-line
Oblíbené kluby
Společenstva
Tip dne
|
|
Copyright © 2002 - 2010 Filip Rachůnek, všechna práva vyhrazena. Zpět na vrchol |