main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

A better government

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Ghost, Oct 7, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Beowulf

    Beowulf Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    May 28, 1999
    Symbolic victory does not equal a better government.
     
  2. Warsie

    Warsie Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    Oct 23, 2005
    But it can be a sign to the people. Just like when LBJ saw the massive protests in front of the White House during the Vietnam War.

    It can also rally people.
     
  3. Espaldapalabras

    Espaldapalabras Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 25, 2005
    A symbolic victory for terrorists perhaps.
     
  4. Warsie

    Warsie Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    Oct 23, 2005
    I believe you forgot how "one man's terrorist is another man's Freedom Fighter"
     
  5. Beowulf

    Beowulf Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    May 28, 1999
    You do realize that the Vietnam War did not end until the Nixon administration, don't you? How did protesting get a symbolic victory during LBJ's term? The answer is that it didn't.

    If you want to rally people, get people from 18-35 to vote more. That would be a symbolic and literal victory.

    You put too much faith in people. The common man will not rally around any kind of high-profile and illegal act.
     
  6. Lowbacca_1977

    Lowbacca_1977 Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Jun 28, 2006
    And I believe you forgot what terrorist means. Terrorism is a tactic, not a position. Those that are fighting against NATO forces in Afghanistan, for example, are not engaged in acts of terrorism, because they are fighting against a military with the intent to defeat. The attack against the U.S.S. Cole would not, by my view, be terrorism, it was a military target. Terrorism is intentional attacks against a civilian populace with the primary intent being to create fear.


    Have you also considered how many people would rally AGAINST that? How many people, either on the other side, or just that disagree with those methods, that would be immediately polarised?
     
  7. Lowbacca_1977

    Lowbacca_1977 Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Jun 28, 2006
    Number one, the 10,000 claim was not found when I looked through that site, so I again challenge you to back that up through a credible source.

    As for the second, you just cited speculation as fact. DId you even read that article that you linked to to claim the bodies were being burnt?
    Allow me to translate this: "I'm looking for suspicious things. However, nothing suspicious is happening. But Bush is involved, therefore something suspicious must be happening."
    He said its strange that there's no suspicious fires. This is utter paranoia and you're ignoring that, again, you cited speculation as though its proof of what is being speculated upon.
     
  8. Warsie

    Warsie Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    Oct 23, 2005
    Yes, I know that. They point was that LBJ realized he would lose when he saw all those people protesting outside the white house.

    And protesting was a symbolic victory when LBJ didn't decide to re-run after the 1968 Democratic National Convention beatdown then rioting.

    1. That didn't help the last two presidential 'elections' so will i now?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy_and_irregularities

    And 2. If 1/3 of America believes the Bush Aoministration ALLOWED 9/11 to happen, then yes it seems lke the people will revolt.
    http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll

    It didn't take much for the Rodney King Uprising

    Yes, I know the textbook description of terrorism. Often, one of the main things people accuse guerrillas of during rebellions is calling them 'terrorists' for propaghands, that's where the saying applies.

    Would they do anything about it? Would they actively oppose your actions?

    Ahh.....I can't find it. I withdraw that claim.

    [/quote]

    Okay. what about this:

    Why were Morticians forbidden to go to New Orleans?
    http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15147862&BRD=1817&PAG=461&dept_id=68561&rfi=6
     
  9. Lowbacca_1977

    Lowbacca_1977 Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Jun 28, 2006
    Rodney King wasn't an uprising, it was a riot. With looting. An uprising or revolt involves trying to overthrow an authority, which the Rodney King riots did not contain.
    I'd also point out that only 7% more are angry with the government in 2006 vs 1995.

    If you claim to know what it means, then use the word properly. The reason we have definitions is so that we can communicate.

    Given that I suspect a large portion of those that would oppose those actions probably own guns, I'm going to suspect so.

    Again, are you reading these articles? First of all, morticians being forbidden to go to New Orleans would prove nothing about burning bodies. Second, your article doesn't even prove morticians being forbidden to go to New Orleans.
    The very person that was turned away directly admits that the reason he was is because FEMA only allows those that they have certified in so that they know who it is they are letting in. In fact, the very fact that there is a certification process implies strongly that other morticians WERE let in, just not that particular one.
     
  10. Warsie

    Warsie Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    Oct 23, 2005
    It seems that I really messed up this thread. I give up :):_|[face_peace]

    Maybe I'll get to this again
     
  11. Lowbacca_1977

    Lowbacca_1977 Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Jun 28, 2006
    I think you're misunderstanding the thread and forum in general, if you think you've messed it up.
    The nature of the senate isn't just to give an opinion and leave it at that, its to have ideas discussed, disected, and debated. The idea that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and also will be given a lot of scrutiny, is a key element here.
    Naturally, the ideas you're putting forward are going to get a high level of scrutiny, and that is something you will have to both realise and accept if you're going to take such stances.
     
  12. Radical_Edward

    Radical_Edward Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    May 2, 2002
    In a no-doubt hopeless attempt to get the thread on-topic, going back to the opening post, I have a big problem with the polarization of governments into dictatorial and democratic. I'm going to be guilty of a very similar thing in one moment, so I'll apologize in advance, but here we go:

    This all is highly skewed to a US point of view. Didn't really have time to go into detail on Western Europe, much less the rest of the world.

    Democracy isn't just democracy, it needs a qualifier. Most simply, you've got Liberal Democracies and Illiberal Democracies. Lib Dems, which have dominated the US and Western Europe are distinguished not only for having the trappings of democracies, like elections, division of power, a pool of eligible voters that includes nearly all adult citizens, courts, often constitutions, often a balance of power, and all that fun stuff. More importantly, and what makes it liberal as opposed to illiberal, is the presence of Constitutional Liberalism, which involves the presence of freedoms, liberties, rights, and securities guaranteed to the people and their activities. Examples of this are the laws set out in the US Bill of Rights, the UN Human Rights Charter, and many of the stipulations of international organizations and agreements like the WTO and the European Community.

    Illiberal democracies have the trappings (the elections, the framework of a democratic government, the courts) but they lack the constitutional liberalism. Almost universally, the rights and liberties or people living in illib dems, which is what we've been seeing emerge in Latin America and Africa for the last century, and to varying degrees in Eastern and Southern Europe and Asia, have been abridged or ignored. Even more than that, the people of illib dems typically get to elect their leaders, but once they're in power, there is very little if any oversight or accountability in their actions, and they tend to act in what way they see fit, not how the electorate wishes them to act (see Iran). This situation also tends to result in a corruption of the only bits of democracy that are really democratic in these poor countries, like the courts, the justice system, and most of all, the elections. Once the elections are corrupted, an illiberal democracy is a tyranny wearing pretty clothes (see Mexico pre-2000, Belarus, and more recently, Turkmenistan) This is also how you get candidates winning over 90% of the popular vote in supposedly free and fair elections.

    While since 1974, the world has seen an incredible wave of dictatorships turning to democratic systems of government, over half of these new democracies could be classifies as illiberal democracies. In the last few years, many have been adding constitutional liberalism to their systems, becoming respectable liberal democracies (Chile, South Africa, Liberia) we've seen a disturbing trend of liberal democracies, including ancient bulwarks of full democracy corrupting themselves into illiberalism and giving up on the beautiful, supremely-important constitutional liberalism that made them so desirable in the first place.

    I hate to politicize this post, but IMO this growing trainwreck (which I can show has been in the works since at least the Ford administration) really hit its stride in December 2000 when the US Supreme Court, a non-elected body of cloistered elitist lawyers, selected a leader for the United States in accordance with their own politics, and completely disregarding the national popular vote. While at the time I couldn't have cared less for Gore, he did win the US popular vote, even without Florida. Just to add insult to the injury that is the US Electoral College, our vaunted Supreme Court decided to disregard proper procedures for vote-counting in the contested territories. Sorry...don't know where I was going with this. Getting back to the subject at hand.

    Western Democracies, the bastions of liberalness in an illiberal world, particularly the United States, have been demonstrating with increasing brashness a disregard for not onl
     
  13. Beowulf

    Beowulf Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    May 28, 1999
    Yes, and polls are a real "accurate" gauge of the people. Show some actual facts written by accredited sources, then your point will be proven. Polls are very inaccurate because of how easily they can be manipulated.

    Now to get back on track...

    Another suggestion to make a better government would make the vote a literal popular vote instead of the Electoral College.
     
  14. Warsie

    Warsie Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    Oct 23, 2005
    Yes, I realize that. I realized that a long time ago, been debating on forums for 2 years. Also part of the Cross-ex Debate Team.

    I simply got tired (and have a cold now) so I gave up.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.