AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2009-12-03, 21:14   Link #4861
Kamui4356
Aria Company
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo View Post
You misunderstood me. If authorities know the man killed randomly, and they know he can do it again, then it's only fair that he receives the same punishment because he has already killed. I'm not saying someone should be thrown in jail because he is a potential danger, but he because he is in fact dangerous and has been proven to be so. I also apologize if I misunderstood you. If you always meant that the cop killed unintentionally, then the circumstances do change. I was referring to a case where the murder, while not premeditated, was intentional. I have only been referring to policemen who wrongly feel they are above the law because they represent it. If the murder was unintentional, it depends on the circumstances. If he admits what he's done and pleads guilty, death isn't warrented, but an extensive amount of time in jail is. If he hides the fact and pretends it never happened, it's the same as casting away the guilt and pretend that it meant nothing, in which case, the crime can't be forgiven by a mere 20 to 30 years in prison.
Yeah I think we're talking about too different things. Though I can sum up my position this way, if a cop shoots someone, the fact that they're a cop should not be used to treat them differently than a civilian. If it's murder if a civilian does it, it should be murder if a cop does it.


Quote:
I did say people who can kill at random (and intentionally) are more dangerous.
It's very very rare that someone kills at random though. Even in the case of mass murders where someone goes someplace and shoots into a crowd, it's not completely random. They're usually trying to target specific people, or a specific type of person at least.

Quote:
That is a case of self defense, it has nothing to do with what I was discussing. My argument was against those people who commit an act of murder, not an act of self-defense.
It does show that state of mind is considered in determining if a crime takes place and the severity of it. Though yeah I think we're talking about different things here.


Quote:
It still wouldn't absolve him from the crime he's committed, that being to intentionally kill someone at random because he believes he has the right to. Of course, this was said for the sake of argument, nothing more.
Things like that are rather rare in developed nations though.
__________________
Kamui4356 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-12-04, 00:21   Link #4862
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kusa-San View Post
I think the main question is : "Is that really bad to want to protect the culture of our country" "Is that really bad to want a France which is french and and arab country which is arab" "Is that really bad to want the diversity of different country ? "

Personnaly and I will be honest, I want this diversity, I want an arab country which is arab, I want my country to be french. I don't want to go in an arab country and seing what I saw in France. Diversity is what I want.
Oddly enough... I wish for this too. I do not want to travel the world and on every corner see - Walmart, McDonalds, Starbucks. Or see alien religions or cultural motifs occupy more than a small part of a region. I want Japan to remain Japan, Denmark to remain Denmark, India to remain India, so forth and so on. Move into the 21st century sure.... but there should be a give and take when migrating into a new region. If *I* move somewhere else I'd be an ass for demanding it change to suit me.

I'm mixed on the minarets... I understand they're a symbol similar to Xtian church steeples ... but both are powerful political statements as much as anything else historically.
__________________
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-12-04, 00:27   Link #4863
Shadow Kira01
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: PMB Headquarters
Hatoyama says plan to move Futemma base to Henoko 'still alive'

Quote:
Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama said Friday that a plan under the existing Japan-U.S. deal to relocate U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Futemma within Okinawa Prefecture is still ''alive.''
__________________
Shadow Kira01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-12-04, 01:56   Link #4864
monir
cho~ kakkoii
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: 3rd Planet
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinto View Post
In my mind it did not. Everyone can shoot the target because he/she is frightened the target could be armed. But that is not professional, that is putting one's own life above the targets (who's guild is not proven yet and who's danger is not imminent... no weapons visible).



So 2 wrongs make a right or how am I meant to understand that?



Okay, so why do you bring it - enriched by your own POV - into the discussion in the first place? (just a rhetorical question)
I can ask you the same: why exactly do you bring your own point of view into the discussion? The answer is you have an opinion based on your own outlook and you obviously want to share. You live in Germany, right? So how much knowledge do you possess about the US in regards to the generic Law Enforcement departments and how an officer supposed to approach any scenarios? Do you really think the only time officers can draw their gun and engage in a shooting upon seeing a firearm? For that particular shooting, the involved officers were acquitted from any criminal wrong-doing.

Jinto, are you asking me to change your opinion, or is this discussion about exchanging ideas? Reading your replies thus far, it doesn't seem like you are open to any other point of view. You've already made up your mind. So I'm just going to drop this since arguing for the sake of arguing doesn't tend to go any where.
__________________
Eat and sleep! And Solace. Sig by RRW.
Space Brothers Executive member of the ASS. Ready to flee at the first sign of trouble.
monir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-12-04, 02:13   Link #4865
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slice of Life View Post
You're being polemic. No, obviously not whatever personality test he is given. Though I'm willing to put more trust into the decision of a psychologist who's looking into the case in 10 years than any layman in front of his TV now.


What if I rape and kill someone. What if you got run over by a bus tomorrow. Risks have to be assessed and evaluated. There is no such thing as a no risk society.
No, but someone who's proven he can do it is obviously riskier than someone who hasn't.

Quote:
Representative democracy is not by the people but on behalf of the people. And who is to judge if it's for the people. Of course the final legitimation comes from the people and not god or whoever. It's just not the first and final legitimation.
What else is there? Even the constitution was voted on, if not by the people, by those they elected. At least, I hope so.


Quote:
Representative democracy does not make any distinction between "the elite, who rule" and "ignorant rabble".
Maybe not, but that's pretty much what I hear from those who object to the votation: that Joe Six Pack's good enough to vote for his representative and its platform, but not good enough to vote for the laws of his country. (Not to mention the assumption that it's Joe Six Pack who voted the law in the first place, while Joe PhD voted against it. It's probably not that clean cut, but I'm willing to let that one stand.)

Quote:
Thoughout the text I detect a lot of malice in your words. I wonder if you still remember that minarets in Switzerland weren't built by shady elites or corrupt politicians or whatever haunts you.
Malice against what? Minarets? I don't care, and as I said, I'd have voted against their ban. Politicians? Well, yes, I do think a good part of them are shady. But I don't mind that much. I see them cooking the books as an inevitable part of the system.

Quote:
I think it is generally agreed on that to what degree a democracy "sucks" depends strongly on how exactly it is constructed. You could end your sentence in "... if there are independent judges or not." "... if human rights are respected or not." and your argument would be exactly as (in-)valid,


I'll leave that as it stands.


For the time being, it does count. Can you name a Swiss politician who said "this result is wrong and should not count"? Or do you principally object any criticism?
No, but I object to cries to revote till they get the result they like. It's one thing to say the law is unfair, or unwise. Another to say it's not their mistake to make.

Quote:
Do you object to constitutionally limit direct democracy, not in the cases when SoL doen't like the result, but principally?
No, as long as the constitution is voted on, rather than decreed by you.

Quote:
Will you object the ECHR ruling when it comes?
As long as it's just talk? No.

Quote:
Closer to me in what way?
Educated. Am I wrong in assuming you are?

Quote:
I didn't say anything about setting up rules of who should be elected into office. I'd rather like to see level-headed experts in office though.
So would I. But if we elect morons... well, them's the break.

Quote:
I'm not an expert of anything useful in a parliament or a cabinet nor am I level-headed enough.



Excuse me? Representative democracy is all about balancing powers. It does not give a simple majority in parliament the right to change the constitution or interfere with justice for example. It gives a framework to solve conflicts. "Let's vote" is just another way of saying "I'm not willing to talk about that." Which is necessary if you want results at all. As method of first choice its a recipe for the disintegration of society. Yes, I know, you don't care as long as its not your fault (and as long as some rebel faction's tanks don't roll through your living room I suppose).


In so far as it shapes your worldview. I'm just saying a man with leukemia would probably be less interested in the abstract beauty of the principles of his health care system and more in the chances of survival it offers. How is this ad hominem?
You're saying that because I've never been helpless, my opinion on government systems is somehow less valid.

Quote:
I'm saying that certain decisions should be left to certain institutions and others to others. That does hardly make me an anti-democrat, or is any person who did ever participate in formulating a constitution an anti-democrat too. I don't know where you got the idea from that certain people should be denied to right to vote or (as you claimed above) the right to be elected. Certainly not from what I wrote.
Maybe I am projecting a bit. I have read other anti-votation comments which were rather more explicit about it being made by the ignorant masses, and thus invalid.
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-12-04, 03:14   Link #4866
WordShaker
In scientific terms only.
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Over a hand lens
Age: 20
Send a message via MSN to WordShaker
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
No, but someone who's proven he can do it is obviously riskier than someone who hasn't.
True, but riskier =/= justification to lock someone up for life without a chance to reform and re-enter society.


Quote:
What else is there? Even the constitution was voted on, if not by the people, by those they elected. At least, I hope so.
Right, but upon passage of the constitution, the people have self-imposed limits on their power. I think it's necessary that these limits be upheld even against the majority, or at least broached in a separate debate rather than ignored at will to maintain the illusion of constitutional limits.

Quote:
No, but I object to cries to revote till they get the result they like. It's one thing to say the law is unfair, or unwise. Another to say it's not their mistake to make.
Just as a matter of curiosity, has any Swiss politician actually said that?

Quote:
No, as long as the constitution is voted on, rather than decreed by you.
Er, just as a matter of fact, I'm fairly sure the Swiss constitution includes some provisions for freedom of religion, at least implicitly. I'd venture there's a pretty strong argument on the minaret ban breaching that freedom.

Ignore this post, however, if I'm completely misunderstanding and babbling away.
WordShaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-12-04, 03:23   Link #4867
Cyrus17
Impostor Cutie
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kusa-San View Post
I think the main question is : "Is that really bad to want to protect the culture of our country"
Let's be honest, the ban isn't about "protecting the culture", it's the result of general public perceiving muslims as evil terrorists (side-effect of certain propaganda campaign). If you were able to hold "Let's bomb muslim countries in the stone age with atomic bombs" referendum, you'd be very surprised of the outcome

Actually, let's wait a year or two and see how many of these "culture protectors" will with the same zeal support attack on Iran.
__________________
Oversized signature, meet underfed bunnies.
Natsuru:
- This cake is great. But I don't think I could eat the rest of it by myself.
Black Seppuku Bunny:
- Want us to help you?
Harakiri Tiger:
- We'd be happy to take a piece.
Natsuru:
- Can you even digest it with your guts hanging out like that?
Cyrus17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-12-04, 04:16   Link #4868
Narona
Emotionless White Face
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
What I'm against, ultimately, is the separation of the people in two castes:
- the elite, who rule.
- the ignorant rabble, who shouldn't meddle in the affairs of the state, and should just shut up and take it no matter what it costs them.
That's basically the arguments of those who didn't want a popular referendum for the new europe treaty. Basically, for them we're just morons who don't understand it and so can't vote. Of course they won't spend time to explain it to us, we're a lost cause

That was extremely insulting. And they use that excuse a lot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wassupimviet View Post
Just as a matter of curiosity, has any Swiss politician actually said that?
You're talking about the minarets? If you're talking about the two other results, and for more infos, you can check the links that JMvS posted ealier.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JMvS View Post
Reminds me when we voted to make the provisions on pedophilia harsher, and when we voted for violent offenders to be kept in custody for life (each time with a popular initiative).

Unsurprisingly, each were depicted as huge blows from the emotional population toward the reasonable government, and incompatible with "Human Rights".
Narona is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-12-04, 04:18   Link #4869
Tsuyoshi
Disabled By Request
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Great Justice
Send a message via AIM to Tsuyoshi Send a message via MSN to Tsuyoshi
Quote:
Unsurprisingly, each were depicted as huge blows from the emotional population toward the reasonable government, and incompatible with "Human Rights".
I like how people persistently talk about human rights to defend people from the same suffering they inflicted on others. It's the basis of plenty a weak argument.
Tsuyoshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-12-04, 04:29   Link #4870
Narona
Emotionless White Face
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo View Post
I like how people persistently talk about human rights to defend people from the same suffering they inflicted on others. It's the basis of plenty a weak argument.
Like..... bombing countries in the name of liberty and human rights? =D
Narona is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-12-04, 04:33   Link #4871
Tsuyoshi
Disabled By Request
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Great Justice
Send a message via AIM to Tsuyoshi Send a message via MSN to Tsuyoshi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Narona View Post
Like..... bombing countries in the name of liberty and human rights? =D
Case in point
Tsuyoshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-12-04, 05:49   Link #4872
SaintessHeart
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinto View Post
Which makes the decission to use lethal force even worse. There was no weapon visible... this is typical shoot first then ask mentality.
Well I don't know how your views are, but it is smart to shoot when the person's back is facing you and his hand is reaching to his waist. When tasers aren't available and you aren't sure, don't aim for the head. Enforcement procedures provide details on WHERE to shoot actually and all enforcers practice that, I would share if it wasn't for the Official Secrets Act.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Narona View Post
Like..... bombing countries in the name of liberty and human rights? =D
Eh actually yes. See the number of Qassam rockets dropped into Israel everyday. "Liberating the Palestinians and remove the oppressors from their rights?" Pfft....bullshit.

If it wasn't for such referendums, every damned extremist Muslim would have bombed any tall building without a minaret on it.
__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.

Last edited by SaintessHeart; 2009-12-04 at 06:02.
SaintessHeart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-12-04, 06:40   Link #4873
Kusa-San
I'll end it before April.
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx View Post
Oddly enough... I wish for this too. I do not want to travel the world and on every corner see - Walmart, McDonalds, Starbucks. Or see alien religions or cultural motifs occupy more than a small part of a region. I want Japan to remain Japan, Denmark to remain Denmark, India to remain India, so forth and so on. Move into the 21st century sure.... but there should be a give and take when migrating into a new region. If *I* move somewhere else I'd be an ass for demanding it change to suit me.
Totally agree with you. The truth is I don't like the globalization (in fact, I absolytely hate it ) . For me, it's killing the culture of country.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyrus17
Let's be honest, the ban isn't about "protecting the culture", it's the result of general public perceiving muslims as evil terrorists (side-effect of certain propaganda campaign). If you were able to hold "Let's bomb muslim countries in the stone age with atomic bombs" referendum, you'd be very surprised of the outcome
will with the same zeal support attack on Iran.
I don't agree. We can't say that, for me it's a simplification to a complex problem which is dangerous. It's more complicated. I think that there are many reasons for this result. It's true that for some people, it's maybe because of the fear of terrorism but I think it's also true that for some of them it's for defending their country etc...What I don't like with the debate around this ban, is that for many people it's an racist or xenophobic act. But for me it's not true.

As I said earlier, I think many people want their country to remain the same, to have its culture intact. You can be agaisnt minaret and whatever you want and not be racist, xenophobic etc...All, these kind of people like me ask, is "Hey, you're in France, so you need to adapt to your culture not the contrary". As a french, I'm very very proud of the culture of my country and I don't like at all when I see that my country is starting to lost its identidy because of stupid such as globalization.

And I'm really scared, that one day, when I will go in a foreign country, I will just see the same thing that I saw in my country. I mean what's the differnce now between the building we build in France and USA ? Nothing. If you want to find huge differnce in building between two state you need to look for building from the past >_> Why ? Because of the globalization.

Btw, because of that, I'm wondering something : Will it be easier to accept minaret and other bulding like that, if the building is made with the same building material than the building material of the country ? (Don't know if I'm clear enough )
__________________
Kusa-San is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-12-04, 08:28   Link #4874
Tsuyoshi
Disabled By Request
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Great Justice
Send a message via AIM to Tsuyoshi Send a message via MSN to Tsuyoshi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kusa-San View Post
Totally agree with you. The truth is I don't like the globalization (in fact, I absolytely hate it ) . For me, it's killing the culture of country.
Globalisation is a time bomb just waiting to explode. The first and primary aspect that people aren't liking about globalisation is that it's completely destroying the middle class. With globalisation, you'll begin to see more and more franchises operating worldwide. Small coffee shops owned privately by a family are slowly being replaced by large corporations like Starbucks. Small corner shops owned by someone will suffer when a franchise decides to create its own chain of shops. Small businesses are suffering because of globalisation.

The other thing I think some people don't realise is that globalisation can be a good thing as these franchises I speak of operate worldwide and people can benefit from them. It's connecting countries together through a world economy, something that did not exist up to 3 or 4 centuries ago to the same extent as we have now. People see this as a benefit to the world economy. For all these reasons, globalisation could even become the bane of world economy. Globalisation is creating a web connecting all the countries in the world. If a piece of that web is broken, all the other knots will come away and the web will be destroyed. We experienced a taste of it in this recession. As globalisation spreads, I expect the entire world will become more prone to these recessions because of this interconnection.

What's more is that it's destroying specialties. Different countries have different resources, different things they can contribute if one wants world trade to flourish, but globalisation isn't taking advantage of that. It's merely outsourcing labour where it is cheaper and then exporting it back to the original location, foregoing opportunities that can be best exploited in Europe, for instance.
Tsuyoshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-12-04, 08:45   Link #4875
Slice of Life
eyewitness
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
No, but someone who's proven he can do it is obviously riskier than someone who hasn't.
Do tell. That's why one guy is in jail in the first place and the other isn't. Does that contradict anything I wrote?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
What else is there? Even the constitution was voted on, if not by the people, by those they elected. At least, I hope so.
You're simply equating direct legimacy with indirect legitimacy coming to conclusions that are misleading at best. "Government by the people".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
Maybe not, but that's pretty much what I hear from those who object to the votation: that Joe Six Pack's good enough to vote for his representative and its platform, but not good enough to vote for the laws of his country. (Not to mention the assumption that it's Joe Six Pack who voted the law in the first place, while Joe PhD voted against it. It's probably not that clean cut, but I'm willing to let that one stand.)
"We should couple voting rights to a PhD." (or IQ or whatever) That is what you are "pretty much hearing"? Really? Obviously, the people you hear talking are not the same people I hear talking.

People I hear talking against referenda are concerned with the scope of possible referenda (e.g. from civil rights as in this case to anything) not with who's eligible to vote. If you want to summarize that as "Joe (independent of education and drinking habits) is not good enough" to decide on minarets so be it. There are legislative bodies I elect on four levels: local, state, national, and union level. Each come with a list of competences, shared or exclusive. They all are "good enough" as you put it to decide some issues but not others. So?

The people I hear talking pro referenda are often enough angry individuals are self-declared representatives of "the people", poorly informed and blindly raging against "the corrupt elite". They consider any suggestion that good governance is a result of a carefully crafted system as a personal insult. Instead they want to monopolize decision making, disdain compromises, and also concepts like fair trials (as long its not their own) or civil rights (dito) and generally everything that might come in the way of their idea of "real" democracy. They're also incedibly irresponsible. They don't care for anything that isn't their fault, and nothing is ever their fault, its always the upper/lower/middle class they not consider themselves part of, or politicians, lobbies, foreign powers, ... . If anything else fails, its the government's fault for not having them informed enough as if that wasn't their own obligation. (Tick of what applies to you, I see a few points.) And considering that they voice their opinions in more or less orthographically and gramatically correct sentences and in the comment sections of respectable newspapers (not tabloids) I suppose there are more Joe PhDs than Joe Sixpacks among them. Still, I do not want to let those people "directly" legislate into my personal sphere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
No, but I object to cries to revote till they get the result they like. It's one thing to say the law is unfair, or unwise. Another to say it's not their mistake to make.
I don't know what the Swiss constitution says about re-votes. They can probably vote for and against as long as they like. But its not as if they bear the consequences of their mistakes in the first place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
As long as it's just talk? No..
So referenda > rule of law? Make another tick above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
You're saying that because I've never been helpless, my opinion on government systems is somehow less valid.
I do not use ad hominem. I'm not saying your opinions are wrong because you voice them. I say your opinions are wrong, period. I think your naive and irresponsible. You wouldn't if your history was different. That doesn't mean I'd for you finding out the hard way.
__________________
- Any ideas how to fill this space?

Last edited by Slice of Life; 2009-12-04 at 08:59.
Slice of Life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-12-04, 08:55   Link #4876
Narona
Emotionless White Face
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slice of Life View Post
I don't know what the Swiss constitution says about re-votes. They can probably vote for and against as long as they like.
Maybe, but one thing I saw in the case of the Irish (about the Lisbon Treaty) is that a government can actually "choose" to re-vote as long as they like till they get the results they want.

But the opposite is not true. Example:

- The Irish voted by referendum in 2008. They rejected the treaty.
- The government made them vote again in 2009. They accepted the treaty.

And given what was said, they would have re-voted it till it passes. But they will not re-vote to see if people are still ok with that treaty or not. Now that it passed, No new vote is allowed.

So, it's not really fair and democratic imo.


In France, we did even better. Since we rejected the european constitution once, Sarkozy didn't even allow the people to vote about the lisbon treaty. His government imposed it, and people had just the right to shut up.
Narona is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-12-04, 09:14   Link #4877
bladeofdarkness
Um-Shmum
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: at GNR, bringing you the truth, no matter how bad it hurts
Age: 30
the trouble with referendums is that
a)its a very complicated and bureaucratically heavy way to run any country (its a nightmare to get anything done)
b)most of the people who vote have very little of the actual facts, and much less then the government (given that the public does not know everything)

democracy through popular mandate is the preferable way to referendums as a rule, because the people elected actually have to think about more then what the average person sees in the papers
you'd be amazed just how stupid and emotionally driven mob opinion can get at time, especially since people tend not to look more then two days ahead about anything
__________________
bladeofdarkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-12-04, 09:23   Link #4878
Narona
Emotionless White Face
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness View Post
the trouble with referendums is that
a)its a very complicated and bureaucratically heavy way to run any country (its a nightmare to get anything done)
b)most of the people who vote have very little of the actual facts, and much less then the government (given that the public does not know everything)

democracy through popular mandate is the preferable way to referendums as a rule, because the people elected actually have to think about more then what the average person sees in the papers
you'd be amazed just how stupid and emotionally driven mob opinion can get at time, especially since people tend not to look more then two days ahead about anything
Good, when your government is run by good people.

I see two problems:

- When your politicians are nowhere clean and good. Of course, you realize it once you voted for them already because they won't do what they promised to do.
- When they act like little dictators when they do things that most people will disagree with if they were asked to vote for it.

Now maybe you live in a country in which your government is good, clean, and work for its country "and people".

In my case, I can't say I am happy to see people like Mitterrand being able to enforce/impose laws (he's on the way to impose Hadopi-2), to see him criticizing the morals of the common people, while being a horrible hypocritical, and surely corrupted person.
Narona is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-12-04, 09:39   Link #4879
bladeofdarkness
Um-Shmum
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: at GNR, bringing you the truth, no matter how bad it hurts
Age: 30
1)there is no such place where the people who run the government are "good" people
you dont get that far ahead in politics without being a bastard
the hope one should have when voting for someone is that in the big picture, they would end up doing more good then harm

2)the advantage of the democratic system is that if someone gets voted into office and then backstabs the people who voted for them
they would not get re-elected because of it
complaining is fine and protesting is fine, because these methods show the people in charge that the public is displeased with their actions and that their future in politics is in jeopardy
but once you let "the people" run the country, you make it impossible for the country to actually work
__________________
bladeofdarkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-12-04, 09:44   Link #4880
Narona
Emotionless White Face
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness View Post
1)there is no such place where the people who run the government are "good" people
you dont get that far ahead in politics without being a bastard
the hope one should have when voting for someone is that in the big picture, they would end up doing more good then harm

2)the advantage of the democratic system is that if someone gets voted into office and then backstabs the people who voted for them
they would not get re-elected because of it
complaining is fine and protesting is fine, because these methods show the people in charge that the public is displeased with their actions and that their future in politics is in jeopardy
2) Not when all the condidates propose approximatively the same things on some topics. As you would see in France nowadays, Sarkozy is everything but popular. Fact is, he might get re-elected because the other possible candidates so far are even worse than him. And when an election happens, we can't say "all the canidates suck, so this election is not valid". No, we can't. So, even if only 10% of people vote, the election is valid.

Protesting? Yeah sure. As I said, in France, we did cut heads once. It might happen again if politicians from whatever party they are continue to play the dictators who think they can do whatever they want because they got the power to do so.

Quote:
but once you let "the people" run the country, you make it impossible for the country to actually work
Care to prove that Switzerland does not work?
Narona is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
current affairs, discussion, international, news

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:23.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.