Pocket Plane Group

Miscellany, Inc. => Ensign First Class Blather => Topic started by: discharger12 on November 03, 2005, 07:30:16 AM

Title: Madam President
Post by: discharger12 on November 03, 2005, 07:30:16 AM
My history teacher the other day asked a journal question of "Do you think a woman president will ever get elected?" It got me wondering on women presidents in general. I wanted to ask the 'public' what they thought on the good/bad things that would result from a woman becoming the U.S. President. Democrat/Republican/whatever aside.

Even if you're not U.S., I don't care. Cultural diversity, you know?

This isn't meant as a flame thread.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Sorrow on November 03, 2005, 07:46:41 AM
I don't know, I hate presidents anyway.
There was a female candidate in Poland that had big chances of winning the election, but she resigned.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Borsook on November 03, 2005, 08:11:54 AM
I don't know, I hate presidents anyway.
There was a female candidate in Poland that had big chances of winning the election, but she resigned.
Big chances? Who?
PS. About general question, it might happen untill people will stop asking the question "what are benefits/disadvantages of female president" and simply stop perceiving candidates' gender.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: discharger12 on November 03, 2005, 08:18:04 AM
Well, women have a certain problem that men don't have...
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Echon on November 03, 2005, 08:39:18 AM
Well, women have a certain problem that men don't have...

No penis?

-Echon
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Alarielle on November 03, 2005, 09:53:58 AM
Well, women have a certain problem that men don't have...

And that would be?  Women and men are equally capable of leading a country effectively (or, indeed, making a massive balls-up of it), so I don't really see where you think this discussion could possibly go.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: s on November 03, 2005, 09:56:07 AM
My mother always mentions that woman have periods, which could prove very ineffective for some things...
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Grim Squeaker on November 03, 2005, 11:06:43 AM
This debate is utterly ridiculous.  It'll make no difference at all having a female president.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Evaine Dian on November 03, 2005, 11:26:14 AM
...
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: icelus on November 03, 2005, 11:27:39 AM
I think discharger has been watching too much "Commander-in-Chief."
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Ghreyfain on November 03, 2005, 02:06:36 PM
Random story: Kim Campbell was the first woman to become Prime Minister of Canada.  She fucked it up so bad that during the next election the Conservative Party only won two seats.  I think she's an ambassador in Los Angeles or something, now.  I don't think she did poorly because she was a woman, though, but because she was like a mini-Thatcher.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Sorrow on November 03, 2005, 02:30:19 PM
Big chances? Who?

Lady Kwasniewsky:P?
She had some chances, but I think that she was afraid that everyone will know how corrupted is she.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: fcm on November 03, 2005, 02:33:20 PM
There would be no difference between a male and female president, but it would be signifigant in pushing Ameirca farther away from being a pigish, sexist nation. Countries that have had Prime Minsters/Presidents a far shorter time than America has have already had MULTIPLE female leaders.

But hell, we only broke the WASP mold once. All and all, we do not like to change. Not to the left and not to the right.

That's what happens when you have a country full of citizens that have absolutley no real grasp on history. Our attention span is derided internationally, and it should be. We're more concerned about what "Jacko" is doing than we are about who our next Supreme Court Justice is going to be. But yeah, here we are -- completely devoid of introspection and historical knowledge, half of us wanting a version of the past that NEVER HAPPENED and the other half so concerned about nitpicking and whining about specifics without ever taking into consideration the whole picture that nothing gets done.

It's all very depressing, when you think about it. I really despise how poorly educated our country is. ESPECIALLY when it comes to slavery. If there is one thing that we have completley and utterly fucked up (and there is no other word for it, I swear) it's the disgusting mishandling of how we teach one of the singular most important aspects of a historical period that has inexorably made our nation what it is today. Period.

But look at that, a tangent! Woo!

As for a female President . . . yeah. Sexist nation. What are you going to do? Feminists don't get taken seriously because for the most part, the nation feels that the issue is over, that making 70% less than an equally-qualified male and being stunted by an unbreakable glass ceilling is O.K. "Feminist" is a dirty word now, and that's just sad -- because I don't think it's wrong to object to the fact that popular culture dictates that I am to be your perfect little whore AND a businesswoman AND raise a family and not have any complaints about it any which way.

I mean, look. If I am a size 0 and I can't even feel comfortable with my own body, there's something wrong with that. I mean, no one should be made to feel uncomftable about themselves -- but even when you do reach the "ideal," or come near it, there's no satisfaction. Why? Because it's not a goal! It's a construction whose only purpose is to make you feel badly about yourself. There is something fundamentally wrong with the way women are portrayed . . . and before we even talk about president, we need to start thinking about CEO and Senator. And I don't mean 5%, or one, ONCE. I mean proportionatley accurate numbers.

Sometimes this country really pisses me off. We're so apathetic and spoiled. It's unbelievable.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: jcompton on November 03, 2005, 02:42:25 PM
Take heart, fcm. If the brief history of the US executive branch in the 21st century has taught us anything, it is that leadership shall not be judged by race or gender.

Just by the capacity to commit malicious evil.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: fcm on November 03, 2005, 02:46:48 PM
Take heart, fcm. If the brief history of the US executive branch in the 21st century has taught us anything, it is that leadership shall not be judged by race or gender.

Just by the capacity to commit malicious evil.

Oh, well, so long as they're not sexist and stay the hell away from the National Parks System, I'm game!
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Joe on November 03, 2005, 02:50:07 PM
I don't a simple difference of gender is any kind of difference to vote by. I will look at the candidates, male or female, blakc or white or purple, and vote for who it is that I disagree with the least.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Loriel on November 03, 2005, 03:14:55 PM
@fcm
I agree with much of what you said about  people's view of feminism in America.  One thing you said, though, has me asking a question:  what is the "glass ceiling" for women I keep hearing about?  I understand the concept, but I have yet to hear if there is an amount of money that women are supposedly unable to earn.  My experience has been completely opposite.  I make almost half of what my wife makes, and that's only because I started a company that allows me to make more than any job I've ever held in the past.  She has received a consistent raise since before we were married, and there's really no end in sight.  Sometimes I wonder if the "glass ceiling" is really just a way of saying "I think I deserve more money than what I'm making", which could be applied to most Americans (or, indeed, humans of any country), regardless of gender.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: discharger12 on November 03, 2005, 03:43:38 PM
I need to clear a few things up. First of all, I was raised a certain way, which doesn't mean that I'm unopen to new ideas, but that my mother has been raising me to believe that woman should be the one's staying home and the men should go out and get jobs. She believes in voting, going out and getting a job if no man is around, and a few other things. Just basically, anything a man should be doing, like typical man jobs, should be soley for men.

And as for the question, I think a more relevant question would be "Would society except a woman president?"
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Grim Squeaker on November 03, 2005, 03:59:06 PM
Yes, of course they would.  In fact after Bush, they'd accept almost anyone or anything else.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Veloxyll on November 03, 2005, 04:30:02 PM
I need to clear a few things up. First of all, I was raised a certain way, which doesn't mean that I'm unopen to new ideas, but that my mother has been raising me to believe that woman should be the one's staying home and the men should go out and get jobs. She believes in voting, going out and getting a job if no man is around, and a few other things. Just basically, anything a man should be doing, like typical man jobs, should be soley for men.

And as for the question, I think a more relevant question would be "Would society except a woman president?"


Would you care to give examples of typical man jobs?
As for society accepting a woman president. Well. Society claims to be against terrorism and oppression. Yet society seems to accept the dehumanisation, violation of human rights, and torture of Muslim Prisoners. So anything is possible.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Joe on November 03, 2005, 04:47:28 PM

Yet society seems to accept the dehumanisation, violation of human rights, and torture of Muslim Prisoners. So anything is possible.

Anyone who accepts those things accepts them because they are done to people who are perceived to be terrorists, not because they are Muslim.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: discharger12 on November 03, 2005, 05:12:04 PM
Would you care to give examples of typical man jobs?
As for society accepting a woman president. Well. Society claims to be against terrorism and oppression. Yet society seems to accept the dehumanisation, violation of human rights, and torture of Muslim Prisoners. So anything is possible.

Asking my mother on this one, she responded "Anything that requires heavy lifting or dirty work." Trashman, policemen, and construction working, I guess. I think she told me earlier that desk jobs were the most suitable. Cooking, cleaning, and taking care of kids being the woman's job.

So, if you feel like calling me a chauvinistic pig, fine with me. This is coming from my mother, anyway. Rant about her.

@Icelus: I just saw your posts, and I've never actually seen that show. Non-satellite-wise, I just stick to sit-coms and CSI/Law and Order.

Edit: Oh, and I don't need any more personal vendettas, so if you will, do not hate. Please?
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: NiGHTMARE on November 03, 2005, 05:27:52 PM
Anyone who accepts those things accepts them because they are done to people who are perceived to be terrorists, not because they are Muslim.
But several of the people who have such things done to them are perceived to be terrorists primarily because they are Muslim.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Veloxyll on November 03, 2005, 05:32:00 PM

Yet society seems to accept the dehumanisation, violation of human rights, and torture of Muslim Prisoners. So anything is possible.

Anyone who accepts those things accepts them because they are done to people who are perceived to be terrorists, not because they are Muslim.
Uh huh. Ever heard of a thing called Racial Profiling? Not Terroristo profiling but Racial. Also, do you believe that Taliban fighters were Terrorists? Why has no-one from the Secret camps been charged with anything?

And uh. Lets just pretend the Patriot act doesn't exist.

Also, discharger, your mother is a Chauvinistic pig.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: discharger12 on November 03, 2005, 05:43:56 PM
Also, discharger, your mother is a Chauvinistic pig.

Fine, I guess. Honor dictates that I call you an ass for insulting my mother, but I did give you permission. But still, enough mother bashing. I believe that we should respect each other's opinions, even if we don't agree with them. Like your insult. I don't agree with it, but I respect it. (I think)

Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: glain on November 03, 2005, 05:50:33 PM
I need to clear a few things up. First of all, I was raised a certain way, which doesn't mean that I'm unopen to new ideas, but that my mother has been raising me to believe that woman should be the one's staying home and the men should go out and get jobs. She believes in voting, going out and getting a job if no man is around, and a few other things. Just basically, anything a man should be doing, like typical man jobs, should be soley for men.

Discharger, your mother and I are of the same generation, me thinks.  That is exactly how I was raised and was fulfilling my end of the bargin until I found myself a divorced mother of two, three months ago.  I'm afraid that old-fashioned ideals don't have a place in this new era, we may not like it but we do have to respect it.   Course I live in a community where being a stay at home mom is pretty much the norm, a woman working is see as odd, and you do get looked down upon if you work and have children. I still wish I could stay home and raise my kids until they are in high school, but that option has been taken away from me.

I think if a woman wants to go get a job that has heavy lifting or is dirty, then good for her. I believe a woman can do whatever she wants.  
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Bons on November 03, 2005, 06:02:06 PM
One thing you said, though, has me asking a question:  what is the "glass ceiling" for women I keep hearing about?  I understand the concept, but I have yet to hear if there is an amount of money that women are supposedly unable to earn.

There are two aspects to what you are talking about here. The traditional "glass ceiling" issue is that women and minorities have made a huge leap in the percentage that hold managerial roles. The glass ceiling comes into play where executive positions are concerned. The higher the position of power, the less likely you will find a woman or minority holding it in an American corporation.

In terms of salary, there have been ongoing studies since the ERA amendment by groups like the U.S. General Accounting Office comparing the average salaries for men and women performing equivalent job roles. In the 70s, Women earned 59 cents on average for every dollar a man earned performing the same work. As of 2003, this average has increased to 76 cents for every dollar.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Dark Raven on November 03, 2005, 07:30:13 PM
I see no reason why a woman could not be president. The country would benefit from a woman leader and perhaps improve our relations with other countries.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Andyr on November 03, 2005, 07:42:52 PM
We had a woman prime minister once; haven't made the same mistake again. Yet.





(si teh joek :P)
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: NiGHTMARE on November 03, 2005, 07:45:58 PM
While we don't officially have a female PM at the moment, some people would argue that Cheri Blair has more say over how this country is run than her husband :D.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Veloxyll on November 03, 2005, 07:57:06 PM
I need to clear a few things up. First of all, I was raised a certain way, which doesn't mean that I'm unopen to new ideas, but that my mother has been raising me to believe that woman should be the one's staying home and the men should go out and get jobs. She believes in voting, going out and getting a job if no man is around, and a few other things. Just basically, anything a man should be doing, like typical man jobs, should be soley for men.

Discharger, your mother and I are of the same generation, me thinks.  That is exactly how I was raised and was fulfilling my end of the bargin until I found myself a divorced mother of two, three months ago.  I'm afraid that old-fashioned ideals don't have a place in this new era, we may not like it but we do have to respect it.   Course I live in a community where being a stay at home mom is pretty much the norm, a woman working is see as odd, and you do get looked down upon if you work and have children. I still wish I could stay home and raise my kids until they are in high school, but that option has been taken away from me.

I think if a woman wants to go get a job that has heavy lifting or is dirty, then good for her. I believe a woman can do whatever she wants. 
omg. you never said you got divorced! You should've stolen Ghrey at NotCon clearly. After all, can't go wrong with a pirate. Well. aside from their insatiable hunger for booty.

If a lass wants to stay at home and raise her kids etc, that's fine. But if she wants to work, and she posesses the skills etc, who are you (general you, not anyone in particular) to say "you shouldn't work, you should be at home."
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: discharger12 on November 03, 2005, 08:57:56 PM
I need to clear a few things up. First of all, I was raised a certain way, which doesn't mean that I'm unopen to new ideas, but that my mother has been raising me to believe that woman should be the one's staying home and the men should go out and get jobs. She believes in voting, going out and getting a job if no man is around, and a few other things. Just basically, anything a man should be doing, like typical man jobs, should be soley for men.

Discharger, your mother and I are of the same generation, me thinks.  That is exactly how I was raised and was fulfilling my end of the bargin until I found myself a divorced mother of two, three months ago.  I'm afraid that old-fashioned ideals don't have a place in this new era, we may not like it but we do have to respect it.   Course I live in a community where being a stay at home mom is pretty much the norm, a woman working is see as odd, and you do get looked down upon if you work and have children. I still wish I could stay home and raise my kids until they are in high school, but that option has been taken away from me.

I think if a woman wants to go get a job that has heavy lifting or is dirty, then good for her. I believe a woman can do whatever she wants. 

Well, getting divorced if your husband treats you horribly is something my mother supports. And I'm fairly sure the situation you are in would be fine. It is, in my opinion, anyway. Do what you need to do.  :)
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Pigeon on November 03, 2005, 09:56:28 PM
The country would benefit from a woman leader and perhaps improve our relations with other countries.

The magical diplomatic powers of vagina are just what America needs.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: St. Josephine on November 03, 2005, 10:55:14 PM
The country would benefit from a woman leader and perhaps improve our relations with other countries.

The magical diplomatic powers of vagina are just what America needs.

I've got to say that I agree with this bit of sarcasm since I can't understand why people think that a woman president would be better simply because she's a woman.   
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: fcm on November 03, 2005, 11:27:29 PM
The country would benefit from a woman leader and perhaps improve our relations with other countries.

The magical diplomatic powers of vagina are just what America needs.

I've got to say that I agree with this bit of sarcasm since I can't understand why people think that a woman president would be better simply because she's a woman.   

Who knows?

And Bons described the glass ceilling perfectly. Womens wages in professional fields are generally not equal to that of a man's. Your wife is a lucky exception.

As for raising children, I intend to have a career and take a good three years off to raise my children before I go back to work, but other than biologically obvious functions such as giving birth, I don't believe in any "woman's place" nonsense. Even my mom, who grew up in sexist, polygamous, rural Korea doesn't buy that.

Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: jcompton on November 03, 2005, 11:51:59 PM
And Bons described the glass ceilling perfectly. Womens wages in professional fields are generally not equal to that of a man's. Your wife is a lucky exception.

Quote
As for raising children, I intend to have a career and take a good three years off to raise my children before I go back to work

Which is sometimes why there's a wage/salary gap. For a while the gap was larger because of the shift where more women were becoming permanent, long-term fixtures in the workforce (legitimate "two-earner" families rather than the primary breadwinner plus the second spouse working part-time, often intermittently when more money was needed), and there were simply a whole lot more men who had professional/industrial/whatever workplace experience.

Now, the gap is smaller because more women are entering and staying in the workforce more-or-less straight through their adult lives, but then there's the scenario you just described. In a lot of fields, taking years off causes a measurable loss in one's value as an employee. Regardless of the reason for the time off, empirically two 30-year old workers in the same position, one with five years experience and one with two, may well end up being offered different amounts of money--particularly coming out of that idle period.

(Oh, and my wife makes more than I do, too.)
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Eral on November 04, 2005, 12:18:07 AM
Two things have to happen.
We need for all these stupid sexist beliefs to die. For dis to bring up my personal pet-hate about how women's periods incapacitate their functioning is a sad example.(Interestingly, having a period has never been grounds for stopping women from working in their homes and schools and for their families and for charities. Not exactly the places you'd really want someone you believe might do a Lizzie Borden at any minute.)The one about the differences in perceptions b/w men and women=inferiority/superiority has got to go too. Let's not set up impossible expectations and self-fulfilling prophecies. I won't bother listing anymore, because I'm sure we all know lots.

Then we have to change the whole way our political system works. At the moment only a small section of the community enters politics, because the adversarial nature of the game is just not that attractive to people. You have to be quite tough and argumentative and fall into a neat pigeon-hole to be in politics. Then to operate successfully you have to be prepared to lie, manipulate and backstab. Why anyone is in politics is a mystery to me. And there are just not enough women who have been taught it is OK to be Maggie Thatcher - or who want to be her - for there to be another one.

As for the lessons we learned at our mother's knee, it all depends on how happy your mother was with what she got. In America, the "American Dream" was sold very successfully and a lot of women bought it, mainly because they were punished if they didn't, but praised if they did. In other countries where women had a shit time whether thay were obedient or not, you get a different response. My mother -who is a very conservative person - was not allowed to go to school beyond primary level. She always felt this was an injustice. She insisted all of us- son and daughters-  finish secondary school and supported us all through our tertiary educations. If you had suggested she was a feminist she would have been affronted.

The glass ceiling isn't just about pay - it's about promotion and position. The problem can often be that those doing the promoting often operate under the assumptions that dis seems to have so tragically absorbed. "Oh, she won't be focussed on her work because she has children/her period/pre-occupations with her hair." Again, we need to change the way we expect people to operate - that only people who can give uninterrupted service 16 hours a day deserve the top positions. How many times have you heard a woman criticised for being "aggressive"? And yet if she isn't aggressive  -e.g. in politics, she will be dismissed as ineffectual. Glass ceiling. You can't win.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Loriel on November 04, 2005, 02:32:17 AM
While we don't officially have a female PM at the moment, some people would argue that Cheri Blair has more say over how this country is run than her husband :D.

That sounds familiar.  I've heard the same thing about Laura Bush and Hillary Clinton.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Loriel on November 04, 2005, 02:48:43 AM
@Bons
Like I said, I do understand the concept.  Perhaps it's just where I live (Oregon is one of the most liberal states I've seen), but I see precious few examples of that concept being fleshed out around me.  I personally know seven project managers at the various Intel campuses in the area - six of them are women and three of them make six figure incomes, not counting their husband's income.  Of all my friends in the area, only two of the men actually make more than their wives.  Now don't get me wrong, I think it's great that women can and have achieved that much success.  I just don't like hearing about the "glass ceiling" that apparenly only applies to women, because I think that's a terribly sexist and unrealistic thing to say - the other way around.

@fcm
My wife would be pretty upset to hear you call her lucky.  Luck is just another word for being prepared when opportunity hits and then acting on that opportunity.  She has had to work hard to get what she has.  She also hates hearing about the so-called "glass ceiling", because many times the people who talk about it (at least where we live) are just using that as an excuse for being lazy and not putting in the effort to get what they want.  Obviously, if someone is working hard (regardless of gender) and isn't getting anywhere in life, they should probably look at doing something else that will work for them.  It's just been our experience that people who are lazy will use any excuse to explain their lack of success - and the "glass ceiling" for women seems to be a popular one.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: St. Josephine on November 04, 2005, 07:11:37 AM
The country would benefit from a woman leader and perhaps improve our relations with other countries.

The magical diplomatic powers of vagina are just what America needs.

I've got to say that I agree with this bit of sarcasm since I can't understand why people think that a woman president would be better simply because she's a woman.   

Who knows?

Women, just like men, have ideologies and ambition.  Bush sent Karen Hughes to the Middle East to talk to women because he thought they'd relate to a "working mom." It has been a fiasco.  So women aren't necessarily more diplomatic.  They can be just as clueless as men.  Yay for equality!

Would you vote for a woman whose ideology and values are totally different from yours simply because she was a woman?
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: fcm on November 04, 2005, 07:20:53 AM
people who talk about it (at least where we live) are just using that as an excuse for being lazy and not putting in the effort to get what they want.

See, that's where you and I are fundamentally different. We obviously have completely opposite views on this issue. I take it you're not a fan of welfare, either, for the same reason?

Regardless of that, the fact still stands that women make less than men in the professional fields. And Eral put it marvelously that when women act like men, they're considered overly aggressive -- but if they're not "masculine" and "aggressive," they never get anywhere. But . . . Yeah, something seriously makes me doubt that we're going to find any common ground.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: discharger12 on November 04, 2005, 07:39:41 AM
While we don't officially have a female PM at the moment, some people would argue that Cheri Blair has more say over how this country is run than her husband :D.

That sounds familiar.  I've heard the same thing about Laura Bush and Hillary Clinton.

Haven't heard anything about Laura, but a bit about Hillary. Apparently, Bill has/h a few republican ideals, but because his wife was such a strong democrat, he sorta had to lean his way.

@Eral: I apologize, if I offended you. It's just my mother keeps saying some periods can even cause woman to kill. All this, "There's no difference between black and white people, man and woman" is bullshit, to put it bluntly. I mean, I'm not saying that we should go around discriminating blacks if you're white, or whites if you are black. Or men/woman woman/men. There are racial differences! This doesn't mean hatred!

Sorry, that's all. Call me a rascit bastard, I don't give a damn.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Sorrow on November 04, 2005, 07:47:02 AM
Regardless of that, the fact still stands that women make less than men in the professional fields. And Eral put it marvelously that when women act like men, they're considered overly aggressive -- but if they're not "masculine" and "aggressive," they never get anywhere. But . . . Yeah, something seriously makes me doubt that we're going to find any common ground.

Men who "act like men" are considered overly aggressive too, so it isn't a valid argument.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: jcompton on November 04, 2005, 08:42:51 AM
@Eral: I apologize, if I offended you. It's just my mother keeps saying some periods can even cause woman to kill.

Yep. That's why the crime blotter in your local newspaper is absolutely filled with women aged 12-50 committing violent crimes, day in and day out!

Quote
All this, "There's no difference between black and white people, man and woman" is bullshit, to put it bluntly. I mean, I'm not saying that we should go around discriminating blacks if you're white, or whites if you are black. Or men/woman woman/men. There are racial differences! This doesn't mean hatred!

You know, someone was just asking me yesterday, "Jason? Where do you think the next great expert in gender and race biology and sociology is going to come from?" At the time, I didn't have an answer for them.

Now I know!
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Alarielle on November 04, 2005, 09:07:56 AM
@Eral: I apologize, if I offended you. It's just my mother keeps saying some periods can even cause woman to kill. All this, "There's no difference between black and white people, man and woman" is bullshit, to put it bluntly. I mean, I'm not saying that we should go around discriminating blacks if you're white, or whites if you are black. Or men/woman woman/men. There are racial differences! This doesn't mean hatred!

Sorry, that's all. Call me a rascit bastard, I don't give a damn.

You are a racist, because that simply isn't true.  Yes, there are physical differences between people of different races, but there are no inherent differences in mental ability, social responsibility, political prowess or anything else you care to mention.  Why are you even bringing this up?  It has absolutely no relevance in any political discussion.

And can you please stop talking about menstruation?  The only people who find the practicalities of the female reproductive system to be relevant to a woman's ability to function in a useful manner are men.  PERIODS DO NOT MAKE WOMEN KILL PEOPLE.  Female gonadotrophic hormones do not cause aggressive behaviour or violence.  Men who think they do, however...
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: SimDing0™ on November 04, 2005, 09:13:51 AM
I wonder why I wrote that...
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Idobek on November 04, 2005, 09:16:44 AM
All this, "There's no difference between black and white people, man and woman" is bullshit, to put it bluntly. I mean, I'm not saying that we should go around discriminating blacks if you're white, or whites if you are black. Or men/woman woman/men. There are racial differences! This doesn't mean hatred!

Sorry, that's all. Call me a rascit bastard, I don't give a damn.
I really think you should reread this paragraph and think whether this is actually the point you wanted to make. If it is then you're going to have a lot of problems in life. Oh, and if you're just reguritating your mother's views, then I suggest you start reading things like newpapers and start to develop your own views of the world.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: NiGHTMARE on November 04, 2005, 09:26:10 AM
You are a racist, because that simply isn't true.  Yes, there are physical differences between people of different races, but there are no inherent differences in mental ability, social responsibility, political prowess or anything else you care to mention.

That there are no inherent differences in mental ability between different races isn't actually an established fact, and is a controversial issue even amongst biologists.  Besides, it isn't racist to acknowledge differences between races, but rather to think differences make certain races (or a race) "better" than others.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Alarielle on November 04, 2005, 09:36:08 AM
Perhaps, but I doubt that any of those biologists are asserting that any race is less intelligent, as a whole, than any other.  I'm not saying that his acknowledgement of the differences is racist, in fact quite the opposite.  I'm simply disagreeing with his assertion that race is relevant when it comes to politics, much in the same way that religion should have nothing to do with it.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: SimDing0™ on November 04, 2005, 09:38:32 AM
much in the same way that religion should have nothing to do with it.
Really? I'd say religion would be prone to provoking some absolutely appalling political decisions.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: NiGHTMARE on November 04, 2005, 09:46:25 AM
Perhaps, but I doubt that any of those biologists are asserting that any race is less intelligent, as a whole, than any other.
Well, intelligence is acquiring and applying knowledge, and there are many other aspects of mental ability than just those.  Even if members one race were generally less skilled at learning than another, they could more than make up for it with some other mental talent(s), such as imagination, concentration, perception, etc.  After all, it is generally acknowledge that women are better suited to certain mental tasks than men, and visa versa, so there's no reason the same couldn't apply to race.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Alarielle on November 04, 2005, 09:51:13 AM
I'm not arguing with you.  If you want a fight, have it with someone else.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: NiGHTMARE on November 04, 2005, 09:51:56 AM
I'm not arguing with you either, where'd you get that idea? A discussion (even a heated one) and an argument are two different things :).

As I said, it's not racist/sexist/whatever-ist to point out that differences (could) exist, it's only so if you believe differences make one type of person "better" than another/others - and I certainly don't believe such a thing.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Alarielle on November 04, 2005, 10:18:23 AM
I'm not saying it's racist to acknowledge differences, nor that differences do not occur.  I am simply saying that it is racist to say that these differences matter when it comes to politics (i.e. you shouldn't discount a candidate because you think people of that race may or may not have a certain characteristic).  Individual differences should matter, not racial ones.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: NiGHTMARE on November 04, 2005, 10:23:33 AM
Understood :).  I can see one potential thing that does matter in regards to politics, in that candidates will most likely show prefferential treatment to their own race (be it consciously or sub-consciously).  I mean, if/when America finally does get a black President, no matter who he/she is I strongly suspect that President will try to improve things for black Americans.  Obviously that wouldn't be a bad thing, but it's still something to consider.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: jester on November 04, 2005, 10:43:42 AM
One thing you said, though, has me asking a question:  what is the "glass ceiling" for women I keep hearing about?  I understand the concept, but I have yet to hear if there is an amount of money that women are supposedly unable to earn.

...... In the 70s, Women earned 59 cents on average for every dollar a man earned performing the same work. As of 2003, this average has increased to 76 cents for every dollar.

So the average man now earns less?? :P

Elections around the world have yet to surprise me. There is no reason why a women should not be president of anything. That is why there will never be one. The old chaps would not allow it.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Pigeon on November 04, 2005, 11:07:54 AM

Why are you even bringing this up?  It has absolutely no relevance in any political discussion.

Because he's trolling? Why else would he just toss out crap like "women should do women's work, but I won't give any reasons or anything, I'll just say my mother told me" unless he was trying to start shit? Or is he just really, really young, like eight or something.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: fcm on November 04, 2005, 11:15:11 AM
Regardless of that, the fact still stands that women make less than men in the professional fields. And Eral put it marvelously that when women act like men, they're considered overly aggressive -- but if they're not "masculine" and "aggressive," they never get anywhere. But . . . Yeah, something seriously makes me doubt that we're going to find any common ground.

Men who "act like men" are considered overly aggressive too, so it isn't a valid argument.

No they aren't. They're lauded as good businessmen. Men who "act like men" act normal. According to your logic, all men are seen as assholes in the workplace, and they're not.


I had a whole bunch to say, but then everyone else made posts that stole my thunder. !!
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: glain on November 04, 2005, 11:26:06 AM
omg. you never said you got divorced! You should've stolen Ghrey at NotCon clearly. After all, can't go wrong with a pirate. Well. aside from their insatiable hunger for booty.

Who says I didn't try? ;)  ;) ;) 

Quote from: discahrger
Well, getting divorced if your husband treats you horribly is something my mother supports. And I'm fairly sure the situation you are in would be fine. It is, in my opinion, anyway. Do what you need to do.

While that's not the reason for my divorce, I agree that people must do what they need to do. There is a big difference between women who want to work as opposed to women who have to work.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: jester on November 04, 2005, 11:27:00 AM
There is no excuse for stealing fcm's thunder. This means war.



*thundering drums in the surrounding hills*
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: fcm on November 04, 2005, 11:49:35 AM
There is no excuse for stealing fcm's thunder. This means war.



*thundering drums in the surrounding hills*

WARRRRR!
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Regullus on November 04, 2005, 12:01:34 PM
 
I can see one potential thing that does matter in regards to politics, in that candidates will most likely show prefferential treatment to their own race (be it consciously or sub-consciously). I mean, if/when America finally does get a black President, no matter who he/she is I strongly suspect that President will try to improve things for black Americans. Obviously that wouldn't be a bad thing, but it's still something to consider.

 Empirical evidence would suggest that would not necessarily happen. There are plenty of (insert color, race, gender or various economic/social backgrounds) who have showed no preferential treatment to their origins except in a pragmatic sense. For example, "My father was a mill worker, my grandfather was a mill worker, I hear your pain, vote for me." (Add lousy southern drawl).

 Needless to add but I will, people play to interest groups in order to garner votes and have no real intention of fulfilling campaign promises.

 On a personal note, when I was a pregnant I hoped I would have girl. The reason I wished for a girl was not because I wanted a doll, nor did I envision a size 0 mannequin, or did I even think that she would have five days off every month because of 'female' problems', I wanted a girl because in the 21st century, in the US, I thought she had unlimited possibility to be whoever or whatever she wished to become. I thought a girl would have greater flexibility of choice than would be available to a boy. Simply, we, as a society, deliver more conflicting messages on what is a MAN or what is manly, then what is a woman or womanly.

   But then I read this thread and now I realize that Lily will be faced with some misconceptions and will face prejudice on her path in life and I must try to instill in her the sense of infinite possibility.

 Thanks for the lesson.

 
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Joe on November 04, 2005, 12:41:00 PM
Just as long as none of you vote for Senator Clinton.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Veloxyll on November 04, 2005, 01:31:44 PM
@Eral: I apologize, if I offended you. It's just my mother keeps saying some periods can even cause woman to kill. All this, "There's no difference between black and white people, man and woman" is bullshit, to put it bluntly. I mean, I'm not saying that we should go around discriminating blacks if you're white, or whites if you are black. Or men/woman woman/men. There are racial differences! This doesn't mean hatred!

Sorry, that's all. Call me a rascit bastard, I don't give a damn.
So, because the extremes of a race/gender type are different, all members of race/gender have the same strengths and weaknesses? I'm not going to believe that. I know women who are both smarter and dumber than me, So what conclusions can I draw from there. Also, re Glass ceiling, where are the Female CEOs of the larger Corporations? The females on the board of said Corporations? What's that you say? There aren't any? Hmm, looks like women can't earn as much as men quite yet.

At the extremes, there MAY be differences between race/gender a and b. But for every day life, you can assume they're equally skilled. kthxbai.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Sorrow on November 04, 2005, 02:15:49 PM
Regardless of that, the fact still stands that women make less than men in the professional fields. And Eral put it marvelously that when women act like men, they're considered overly aggressive -- but if they're not "masculine" and "aggressive," they never get anywhere. But . . . Yeah, something seriously makes me doubt that we're going to find any common ground.

Men who "act like men" are considered overly aggressive too, so it isn't a valid argument.

No they aren't. They're lauded as good businessmen. Men who "act like men" act normal. According to your logic, all men are seen as assholes in the workplace, and they're not.

That would depend on what "acting like men" means and who the observer is.
They are thought to be overly aggresive, then it meanst that group of men that they are acting like is overly agressive and that persons who aren't overly aggressive perceive them as overly agressive too.
This suggests that all men who "act like men" are overly aggressive and all men who aren't overly aggressive aren't acting like men.
Statement that someone "acts like men" is sexist in itself.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Eral on November 04, 2005, 04:20:01 PM
Whenever someone wants to criticise a woman, they invariably insert a gender-based slur into their criticism. This is so the woman is damned any way she behaves.
Behaviour in a man which is "authoritative" is described by those wishing to criticise the woman as bitchy, aggressive, domineering. Characteristics in a man for which he is admired, are not admired in a woman - by those wishing to keep the woman out of their territory, or make them be quiet. I believe we had a little example of this on this very forum, a few days ago!
Please let's not have a line of argument suggesting that women are biased against men, and men are now suffering awfully at the hands of nasty women who have taken control of the world. As to the suggestion that women are taking over the world, and earning more than men - I WISH!! Damn, that'd be great! No more having to fight the same battles over and over again, no more having to put up with slurs based on my gender, end of the abortion debate! Bring it on!

Jester is right, the old boys won't let a woman in the door. And any woman who wants to go in the door has to be very, very tough and prepared to put up with a lot of personal attacks - about her looks, her clothes, her manner, as well as her decision-making. If Hillary does make it to the White House - and I hope lots of people will vote for her just to annoy the Republicans- it won't be a landmark for women rights. It will be a personal victory for her.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: fcm on November 04, 2005, 05:05:32 PM
Statement that someone "acts like men" is sexist in itself.

So, you're saying that men don't act in a certain way -- that there aren't gender constructions in our society? Be reasonable, for the love of God! And don't assume that just because you put a name to a difference that people percieve (whether it's true or not) instead of ignoring it that it's suddenly an "ism." If you had read the post correctly, you'd realize that I was not condoning the pidgenholing of feminity/mascuinity, but citing a popular perception of what it is.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Aurora on November 04, 2005, 05:52:16 PM
Jester is right, the old boys won't let a woman in the door. And any woman who wants to go in the door has to be very, very tough and prepared to put up with a lot of personal attacks - about her looks, her clothes, her manner, as well as her decision-making. If Hillary does make it to the White House - and I hope lots of people will vote for her just to annoy the Republicans- it won't be a landmark for women rights. It will be a personal victory for her.


The first female president:

She'll have to be tough and aggressive enough that the country can trust her with its safety, but gentle and soft-spoken and well-mannered so that she doesn't intimidate any men.

She'll have to be unattractive enough that nobody claims she got in just for being hot, but attractive enough so that no men are forced to watch an unattractive woman on television when she gives speeches.

She'll have to have an exceptional career and be more politically qualified than any potential male canditate, but she'll also have to be married and have a family and have spent her time raising her children so that we know she's a good mother and not a dyke or anything.


Yeah, I dunno about the chances of that.


but re: personal victory, the way the country will be changed with our first female... or non-white... or non-straight, or non-Christian... president will not only be significant as a personal victory for them. In a country where over 20% of people say they wouldn't vote for a female president simply because of her sex, a female president would indicate that we are, in fact, slowly maturing beyond sexism. Even a particular female president with the exact same politics and beliefs as a particular male president would not only indicate an impressive shift in our society, but set us up for future shifts.

Why? It'll make it possible for any little girls to dream of being president, instead of them knowing the idea of a female president only as a stupid joke. It'll make the idea of a female president a reality, instead of silly fiction on the Sci-Fi channel or ABC.

And the Thatcher joke has already been made in this thread, so I will stop here.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Sorrow on November 04, 2005, 06:03:57 PM
Statement that someone "acts like men" is sexist in itself.

So, you're saying that men don't act in a certain way -- that there aren't gender constructions in our society? Be reasonable, for the love of God! And don't assume that just because you put a name to a difference that people percieve (whether it's true or not) instead of ignoring it that it's suddenly an "ism." If you had read the post correctly, you'd realize that I was not condoning the pidgenholing of feminity/mascuinity, but citing a popular perception of what it is.

Popular perception is irrevealant.
I'm not interested in what cattle thinks.
This popular perception is sexism.
I don't care for gender constructions, despite the fact that embracing them makes finding a partner and friends easier.
I'm not going to tolerate someones stupidity and inferiority just because gender constructions tell them to be stupid and inferior.

Whenever someone wants to criticise a woman, they invariably insert a gender-based slur into their criticism. This is so the woman is damned any way she behaves.

I would say that biased people are biased against people that are of certain gender and they instert gender biased slur into their criticism.
Example:
I was talking with three girls and one of them started to put make-up on her face.
Since to me make-up=filth (literaly), I looked at her with slight disapproval.
They told me that they that wourld would be better if all man died.
Since my disgust towards make-up didn't have anything to do with my gender, it was a perfect example of gender based slur.

Another example are men who think that every stupid behaviour of various women is caused by the fact that they are women, not by the fact that they are badly brought up or inherently stupid as individuals.

I think that it's easier to live with someone that is stupid because he/she is male/female than with someone that is stupid as individual.

Behaviour in a man which is "authoritative" is described by those wishing to criticise the woman as bitchy, aggressive, domineering. Characteristics in a man for which he is admired, are not admired in a woman - by those wishing to keep the woman out of their territory, or make them be quiet. I believe we had a little example of this on this very forum, a few days ago!

Authorative=bitchy, aggressive, domineering.
Not, they are not admired.
People who are aserative is admired.
People who are authorative are rejected, loathed, hated, feared and very unhappy.

Please let's not have a line of argument suggesting that women are biased against men, and men are now suffering awfully at the hands of nasty women who have taken control of the world. As to the suggestion that women are taking over the world, and earning more than men - I WISH!! Damn, that'd be great! No more having to fight the same battles over and over again, no more having to put up with slurs based on my gender, end of the abortion debate! Bring it on!

Now you are authorative and sexist.
I think that we all need to get rid of identyfying with gender.
Personally I don't care who rules, women or men.
To me they are all usurpers that try to enforce their false laws upon me.
I don't care who they are as long as they are weak and too busy with squabling among themselves to create something constructive.
Subhumans, is what they are.
Any man or woman who tries to gain political power is stupid and corrupted by definition.

Personally I think that a good president should listen to metal, have long, wear black jumpsuit/fatigues and be antitheist, gender is irrevelant.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Eral on November 04, 2005, 07:24:00 PM
Sorrow, please don't call me names.

Aurora, that is a very good point: if people do vote for Hillary, it could mean that perceptions are changing and gender-bias is diminishing. That would be a very hopeful and uplifting thing.
I guess my first statement is clouded by cynicism. I feel "Anybody can be president" is really only true now for millionaires with connections to political and big business figures, and really really good advertising campaigns that costs millions of dollars: eliminating all but a few from the race. For women to get backing from the political machine would mean the boys there would have to let go their prejudices - and I just don't see it happening. 
After all these years of women having successful careers in politics, we still only have a handful of women who were or are leaders of countries - they are still exceptions, not precedents. In Australia, every single woman in politics who gets named as a contender for PM gets ruthlessly torn down, rubbished and marginalised - it's a kiss of political death.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: NiGHTMARE on November 04, 2005, 07:55:02 PM
Whenever someone wants to criticise a woman, they invariably insert a gender-based slur into their criticism.
And whenever someone wants to criticise a man, they invariably insert a gender-based slur into their criticism.

Quote
Behaviour in a man which is "authoritative" is described by those wishing to criticise the woman as bitchy, aggressive, domineering.
And behaviour in a woman which is "caring" is described by those wishing to criticise the man as weak, pathetic and homosexual.

Quote
Characteristics in a man for which he is admired, are not admired in a woman - by those wishing to keep the woman out of their territory, or make them be quiet. I believe we had a little example of this on this very forum, a few days ago!
If you're referring to what I think you're referring to, that wasn't an example of this at all.  It was an example of behaviour which is undesirable in both men and women (if you honestly believe that being an arrogant, sarcastic little git is an admirable trait for a man, you couldn't be more wrong), but is more frequently displayed by men.  I still can't believe you consider a man who believe women tend to be more intelligent and socially adept than men to be sexist.

If a man claims women don't share positive character traits with men then he may well be sexist, but I really don't see how it's sexist for a man to say that men tend to have certain character flaws which women do not... or do you believe that a larger number of women should be attempting to bed as many men possible, and paying far more attention to the latest sports results? To clarify, I personaly consider those things flaws in the male gender, not positive attributes - though I am of course aware that certain other men would strongly disagree with me, and indeed start questioning my manhood and/or sexuality for having such beliefs.

Quote
Please let's not have a line of argument suggesting that women are biased against men, and men are now suffering awfully at the hands of nasty women who have taken control of the world. As to the suggestion that women are taking over the world, and earning more than men - I WISH!!
I agree that men aren't exactly suffering at the hands of nasty women, etc, but I strongly disagree with the first part.  Many women are heavily biased against men... to the extent they even consider compliments made by men to be sexist remarks.  Although feminists usually claim to preach equality, many seem to hold (or at least express) extremely sexist beliefs.

Quote
Damn, that'd be great! No more having to fight the same battles over and over again, no more having to put up with slurs based on my gender, end of the abortion debate! Bring it on!
Men suffer slurs based on their gender at the moment, so why would it change for women if they were suddenly "in charge"?
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Dark Raven on November 04, 2005, 08:57:13 PM
Just as long as none of you vote for Senator Clinton.
Certainly not. After her involvement with mods for games like San Andreas, she can kiss my vote good bye.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Imrahil on November 04, 2005, 09:20:02 PM
All this, "There's no difference between black and white people, man and woman" is bullshit, to put it bluntly. I mean, I'm not saying that we should go around discriminating blacks if you're white, or whites if you are black. Or men/woman woman/men. There are racial differences! This doesn't mean hatred!
IMO, I think we need to cut discharger some slack here.  I've seen several posts in this thread, posted after his, which expressed almost the exact same sentiment just *with much better wording*.  He made no judgments based on race/gender, that I could see, just said that differences do exist & then parroted his mom.

I'm guessing he is younger than the average board member (heck, if nothing else just based on the facts that he self-nicknamed as "Red Dragon of Death" & also he can apparantly turn around from the computer & ask his mother's opinion).

Anyone who feels the need to combat his mother's influence should (again IMO) avoid calling him a racist &/or dismissing his views out of hand & should rather address his points & attempt to persuade him, as opposed to just slamming him into oblivion through insults, if you truly want to influence him.

- Imrahil
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Eral on November 05, 2005, 12:30:02 AM
Nah, if we cut him slack it only encourages him. Mind you not cutting him slack only encourages him too. It is for this reason, I believe, sometimes people get cranky with him. He's been young for so long...
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Evaine Dian on November 05, 2005, 04:38:26 AM
[@Eral: I apologize, if I offended you. It's just my mother keeps saying some periods can even cause woman to kill.] All this, "There's no difference between black and white people, man and woman" is bullshit, to put it bluntly. I mean, I'm not saying that we should go around discriminating blacks if you're white, or whites if you are black. Or men/woman woman/men. There are racial differences! This doesn't mean hatred!

Sorry, that's all. Call me a rascit bastard, I don't give a damn.
I really think you should reread this paragraph and think whether this is actually the point you wanted to make. If it is then you're going to have a lot of problems in life. Oh, and if you're just reguritating your mother's views, then I suggest you start reading things like newpapers and start to develop your own views of the world.

And get yourself a good sex education book. You really need it.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: SimDing0™ on November 05, 2005, 06:19:57 AM
I would like the record to show that all opinions I have posted over the last 5 years have been my own and not those of my mother.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Sorrow on November 05, 2005, 07:51:14 AM
Sorrow, please don't call me names.

So, you calling me a "Goth Vampire" thing wasn't calling me names?
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Joe on November 05, 2005, 02:47:10 PM
Sorrow, please don't call me names.

Aurora, that is a very good point: if people do vote for Hillary, it could mean that perceptions are changing and gender-bias is diminishing. That would be a very hopeful and uplifting thing.
I guess my first statement is clouded by cynicism. I feel "Anybody can be president" is really only true now for millionaires with connections to political and big business figures, and really really good advertising campaigns that costs millions of dollars: eliminating all but a few from the race. For women to get backing from the political machine would mean the boys there would have to let go their prejudices - and I just don't see it happening. 
After all these years of women having successful careers in politics, we still only have a handful of women who were or are leaders of countries - they are still exceptions, not precedents. In Australia, every single woman in politics who gets named as a contender for PM gets ruthlessly torn down, rubbished and marginalised - it's a kiss of political death.

I really hope that some of you do not vote for Clinton simply because she is a woman, but I know many people will (as will many who will vote against her for the same reason). That would really be a sad day for the expansion of gender-equality.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Joe on November 05, 2005, 02:48:50 PM
I would like the record to show that all opinions I have posted over the last 5 years have been my own and not those of my mother.

Haha. 8)
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Eral on November 05, 2005, 03:23:16 PM
Her gender would a part of the political sell, just as Colin Powell's skin colour was going to be, and Joe Lieberman's religion was. It's risky because you might alienate a large number of potential voters, but they are doing it for how it looks - "see how forward thinking we are?"  Really, people vote for the candidate representing their party. Republican women aren't going to vote to put a Democrat in the White House. If people don't like a candidate, they just don't vote - isn't that how it works?
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Joe on November 05, 2005, 05:01:12 PM
Yeah, but I can see some people who otherwise wouldn't vote at all try to put Hillary in the White House.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: jester on November 05, 2005, 05:12:31 PM
Or vice versa which I agree would be a shame.


Besides everybody who votes gets a bonus cookie just for doing so.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Eral on November 05, 2005, 10:58:03 PM
If a controversial candidate causes people who wouldn't ordinarily vote to go out on polling day and participate, I think that would actually be a good thing. It's makes the result all the more representative. We have compulsory voting - and though there a number of invalid  and "I don't give a damn" votes every year, we have a pretty good pretence at democracy, where everyone has to participate. Representative vote = good democracy.

Here Little Johnny Howard - the man who just keeps on coming up with new ways to wreck everything good in our society - has let a couple of his minions mention that they thinks we shouldn't have compulsory voting. As the only thing that makes anybody show up on polling day is compulsory voting, I'm wondering why this will be a good idea. We only wants a couple of hundred people to vote?? Australians despise politicians. We vote for the ones we hate least. Every one of us. And if we didn't have to vote, we sure as hell wouldn't. I'm really hoping that others in Parliament who actually have a grasp on how much Australians loathe politics will take Johnny aside at the pub and convince him it's not a good idea.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Joe on November 06, 2005, 01:27:39 AM
If a controversial candidate causes people who wouldn't ordinarily vote to go out on polling day and participate, I think that would actually be a good thing. It's makes the result all the more representative.

Not if they're voting for a reason like whether or not the candidate is man or woman. That is a worthless vote. The person may even be voting against his or her interests.


Quote
We have compulsory voting

Yes, I know, and that is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard of. Compulsory democracy. Say what?

Quote
I'm wondering why this will be a good idea. We only wants a couple of hundred people to vote?? Australians despise politicians. We vote for the ones we hate least. Every one of us. And if we didn't have to vote, we sure as hell wouldn't. I'm really hoping that others in Parliament who actually have a grasp on how much Australians loathe politics will take Johnny aside at the pub and convince him it's not a good idea.

Americans also despise politicians and also vote for the ones we hate the least. That doesn't stop milions of people from voting every year.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Eral on November 06, 2005, 02:51:32 AM
I like compulsory voting. Democracy is a responsibility and a duty, not a preference. There is a body of thought here that says the reason American election campaigns cost so much is, that enormous effort has to be put in to just getting people to vote. We don't have that problem. Once you actually haul your sorry arse to the voting booth, you might as well make it worth your while and vote for somebody you least hate. Of course, not every body does. We have a phenomen called the "donkey vote" - where people vote by numerical order on the ballot paper- and because of this, the list of candidates is made up through a draw, not alphabetically. That's democracy. If Australians are able to say, "People are basically lazy, we had better make them vote or they won't," I say good call. Better have everybody vote, than elect a government with a mandate from only 40% of the population. We have millions of people vote every year too - but I can tell you right now, no compulsory voting, nobody voting. 

I don't think any vote can be a worthless vote: it's still the expression of what people think. However sad. If there's one thing we can say for human beings, they don't vote against their perceived interests. That part of the reason the political process is so annoying. But it's still a lot better than having someone in a uniform deciding for you. And shooting you if you disagree.

Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Andyr on November 06, 2005, 05:03:47 AM
I like compulsory voting. Democracy is a responsibility and a duty, not a preference.

I am not sure I agree that democracy is the best form of government - though I am at present unable to offer a better solution. :)
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Idobek on November 06, 2005, 06:39:26 AM
The "donkey vote" you describe is why I believe there should be a "abstain" option of some sort on voting cards in the UK. I haven't decided one way or the other whether I like the idea of compulsory voting but I don't like the idea of being forced to vote for a candidate I don't want just because all the others are worse. I have to wonder how much of of the current trend of not voting is down to apathy or a dislike of all the candidates. Perhaps poll cards should look more like this:

Joanna Bloggs
John Smith
Neither
Don't Care
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: discharger12 on November 06, 2005, 08:52:28 AM
Heh, go away for two days after starting an unintentionally controversial thread, and you're bound to be accused of trolling. Though I should have known better that anything that I say will somehow come out bad. (Especially a thread like this)

Now I have to go back and forth trying to answer all these people. For better or for worse.  :-\

On we go:

Quote
You know, someone was just asking me yesterday, "Jason? Where do you think the next great expert in gender and race biology and sociology is going to come from?" At the time, I didn't have an answer for them.

Now I know!

Just stating my opinion, Jason. I appreciate your sarcasm, though.

Quote
there are no inherent differences in mental ability, social responsibility, political prowess or anything else you care to mention.  Why are you even bringing this up?  It has absolutely no relevance in any political discussion.

I didn't mean it as relevance in politics. I was just referrring to the fact that people who claim there is absolutely no difference between human races, are stupid, as a side complaint next to there being differences in gender. I believe that some stereotypes are actually true of some races. That doesn't mean that, for example, we need to go around making cracks on black people for liking chicken/watermelon or calling them racist names, but just that we need to acknowledge that there are differences. Actually, the reason stereotypes are bad, is because it claims that a characteristic applies to all people of that race. So, stereotypes aren't utterly true, just partially. And this doesn't mean that I believe in all stereotypes. I'm just saying that the older I get, the more it seems that some are becoming true, before I even was aware it was a stereotype.

This may not make sense to you, and if it doesn't, I'm sorry. If you think I'm racist, I apologize.

Try to change my mind, or don't worry about it.

Quote
I really think you should reread this paragraph and think whether this is actually the point you wanted to make. If it is then you're going to have a lot of problems in life.

Hm, really? I seem to be fine, at the moment. Oh, I should remind you that beliefs shared on the internet aren't so often given out in IRL at my age. How many people do you know that would talk about this at 15? Many? I'd sure like to meet them!

Actually, that's not entirely true. While I was gone I brought up this whole topic with my friend, and I think because I am fairly good at speaking verbally (a bit better then writing) I made my point clearly and he agreed.

So, what problems will I have? Elaborate, please. 

Quote
Oh, and if you're just reguritating your mother's views, then I suggest you start reading things like newpapers and start to develop your own views of the world.

What, you don't take the word of people you trust? (And if you can't trust your own mother, that's truely sad  :-\) And yes, although it doesn't seem like it, I do read newspapers. But do you see many newspapers that touch the topic of racism on this specific topic? Not any I read. But if there are any articles on the subject, please refer them to me.  :)

Quote
That there are no inherent differences in mental ability between different races isn't actually an established fact, and is a controversial issue even amongst biologists.  Besides, it isn't racist to acknowledge differences between races, but rather to think differences make certain races (or a race) "better" than others.

Exactly my point! I don't think that any race is better then one another. And whether any inherent differences in mental ability among the various races do not exist remains to be debated, like NiGHTMARE said.

Quote
I'm simply disagreeing with his assertion that race is relevant when it comes to politics, much in the same way that religion should have nothing to do with it.

As I said before (I think) I didn't mean race is a relevant topic when it comes to politics. Gender, on the other hand, in my opinion is. Hm, actually, I don't know. I'm not going to delve quite into this topic, as my topic has changed. But even if racial differences were a problem, politics greatly outweigh these.

Did I make a religious reference? I don't know if I did, or you're just saying that as an example of what is relevant or not.

Quote
After all, it is generally acknowledge that women are better suited to certain mental tasks than men, and visa versa, so there's no reason the same couldn't apply to race.

Another point that I neglected to mention! Or, well, I didn't even think of including. But, yes, that's very true, IMO.

Quote
Because he's trolling? Why else would he just toss out crap like "women should do women's work, but I won't give any reasons or anything, I'll just say my mother told me" unless he was trying to start shit? Or is he just really, really young, like eight or something.

15, actually. A bit young for a topic like these, but I am not entitled to my opinion? No? Then doesn't that mean that you're discriminating against minors?

The whole idea of this thread was just to ask a question that I hope would go well. But, I was wrong. But in this day and age, I should have realized.

Also, Pidgeon/Sim or whoever you are, as I recall, trolling refers to a person starting a topic and then running away watching the fireworks fly. But, I'm still replying, aren't I?

Quote
While that's not the reason for my divorce, I agree that people must do what they need to do. There is a big difference between women who want to work as opposed to women who have to work.

Oh, I know. My mother supports woman who have to work, but not woman who want to work. I think. I'm mixed on the topic, which I don't think I let anyone know. I believe in a bit of my mother's idea, but I also think that if a woman wants to have a job, then good for her. I'm not quite sure. I love my mother and respect her opinions, but...

Actually, did I ever say that I believed in firmly what my mother has said? I may have implied this, but I don't think I actually said it, but only referred to what she said. I suppose that when you refer to something to support an idea you have it shows that you believe in the idea, but firmly? Ack, I'm confusing myself now.  :P

Quote
So, because the extremes of a race/gender type are different, all members of race/gender have the same strengths and weaknesses? I'm not going to believe that. I know women who are both smarter and dumber than me, So what conclusions can I draw from there.

I believe that up in this post, somewhere, I said that stereotypes are true, but not in a degree of covering all persons in the race that the stereotype describes.

Quote
At the extremes, there MAY be differences between race/gender a and b. But for every day life, you can assume they're equally skilled. kthxbai.

Yes, this is a belief that I hold and in basics what I said earlier.

Quote
If Hillary does make it to the White House - and I hope lots of people will vote for her just to annoy the Republicans
Isn't this statement a bit hypocritical? 

Did you not claim that stereotypes of woman are wrongly made, and yet you imply that all Republican's ideals are evil? Isn't that a bit discriminating? Could be wrong.

Quote
Although feminists usually claim to preach equality, many seem to hold (or at least express) extremely sexist beliefs.


I agree. I think this goes along with how woman plee for equality, just as long as men are still chivalrous . "I want to be treated how men are! But I still expect them to open doors for me!"

Quote
IMO, I think we need to cut discharger some slack here.  I've seen several posts in this thread, posted after his, which expressed almost the exact same sentiment just *with much better wording*.  He made no judgments based on race/gender, that I could see, just said that differences do exist & then parroted his mom.

Yes, a bit.  :)

Quote
I'm guessing he is younger than the average board member (heck, if nothing else just based on the facts that he self-nicknamed as "Red Dragon of Death" & also he can apparantly turn around from the computer & ask his mother's opinion).

15, as I said above, so yes, that makes me the youngest poster next to irenicus. (Though I'm not even sure if she counts as a poster (hey, even if I do annoy people, I still make posts that aren't OMG LOL (anymore  :P)))

The Red Dragon of Death thing just goes with my avatar. I don't consider it very immature, since it kind of goes with the whole RPG thing, doesn't it? Of course, RPGing may be considered immature by some people.

Quote
Anyone who feels the need to combat his mother's influence should (again IMO) avoid calling him a racist &/or dismissing his views out of hand & should rather address his points & attempt to persuade him, as opposed to just slamming him into oblivion through insults, if you truly want to influence him.

I agree, once more.

Thanks for not "slamming" me.

Quote
Nah, if we cut him slack it only encourages him. Mind you not cutting him slack only encourages him too. It is for this reason, I believe, sometimes people get cranky with him. He's been young for so long...

Young for so long on a board filled with adults who hold beliefs quite the opposite of mine. It seems gamers are an angry breed. Not a stereotype either, since there are a few of you out there who are pleasant and forgiving.  ;)

Quote
And get yourself a good sex education book. You really need it.

Hah! I didn't expect to read that. Just because I don't know everything about womens' periods, doesn't mean I don't know anything about sex. It's not like I go into IRC and ask things about vaginal erection. I know more things about sex then most people my age. I know this sounds quite bold, but I know so many, many sexual terms and so much slang. So a sexual education book is something I definently do not need. I don't know how to prove this for you, and since it's very hard for people here to take my word for it, I'll just have to say, a big ol' "whatever" until anyone established that I know what I'm talking about, in this direction.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And I think that's about it... any ideas I posted in this thread are subject to change because I'm not an unreasonable jerk.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: jester on November 06, 2005, 09:18:56 AM
I like compulsory voting. Democracy is a responsibility and a duty, not a preference.

I am not sure I agree that democracy is the best form of government - though I am at present unable to offer a better solution. :)

Yeah, I guess Winston was right.


I believe that a poor choice of candidates, mainly also because some voting systems favour one or two parties, and the low esteem for politicians as a cast -sometimes I think even below child molesters, but candidates may vary- make the abstention from the booth even worse than pure democracy fatigue. Being not represente by your government for a number of reasons does nor bring you immediate death as it may be in other systems. You will miss out on a lot though in the long run.

I would also say that anyone who garners barely 50% on a 60% turnout can hardly claim that the majority of a country is behind them which sometimes happen in Austria and we have compulsory voting. I am not only for compulsory voting, but also for a minimum number of voters requirement, a quorum for the vote if you will.

I am not quite sure how a majority of abstentions could be handled by our systems today?

A free society is one where it is safe to be unpopular.

Adlai Ewing Stevenson


@My mother supports woman who have to work, but not woman who want to work.

My mother says she doesn't want me to support mothers like your mothers or at least not their views.

 I shall free the oppressed even if they don't want it. :P Come on, El Che could have said that.

@And whether any inherent differences in mental ability among the various races do not exist remains to be debated, like NiGHTMARE said.
...I was just referrring to the fact that people who claim there is absolutely no difference between human races, are stupid,

Well you can jot me down as stupid on your list, but I am sure that many sensible people are right to believe that blacks are good at jumping, humping, singing and getting the most time in jail, while Asians shun democracy like the plague and would rather chew their feet off than leaving their job for a holiday.

Gee who would have thought I run out of racial stereotypes so quickly. So I encourage further enlightenment by the people in the know.


@If you think I'm racist, I apologize.

I am afraid that is not the right approach to this matter.



Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: NiGHTMARE on November 06, 2005, 09:29:28 AM
I like compulsory voting. Democracy is a responsibility and a duty, not a preference.
What about those Australian citizens who don't want the country to be a democracy?
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: glain on November 06, 2005, 10:08:57 AM
Well you can jot me down as stupid on your list, but I am sure that many sensible people are right to believe that blacks are good at jumping, humping, singing and getting the most time in jail, while Asians shun democracy like the plague and would rather chew their feet off than leaving their job for a holiday.

Gee who would have thought I run out of racial stereotypes so quickly. So I encourage further enlightenment by the people in the know.

While white-trash isn't technically a racial stereotype, I do offer this top ten list as a light hearted break from the political debating...

10 Ways to tell if a Redneck has been working on a Computer

10. The monitor is up on blocks.
9. Outgoing faxes have tobacco stains on them.
8. The six front keys have rotted out.
7. The extra RAM ports have truck parts stored in them.
6. The numeric keypad only goes up to six.
5. The password is "Bubba".
4. There's a gun rack mounted on the CPU.
3. There's a Coors can in the cup holder(CD-ROM drive).
2. The keyboard is camouflaged.

AND the number 1 way to tell if a redneck has been working on a computer is...

1. The mouse is referred to as a "critter".


Now back to the more serious nature of this thread...  ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Evaine Dian on November 06, 2005, 11:27:48 AM
All this, "There's no difference between black and white people, man and woman" is bullshit, to put it bluntly. I mean, I'm not saying that we should go around discriminating blacks if you're white, or whites if you are black. Or men/woman woman/men. There are racial differences! This doesn't mean hatred!

Sorry, that's all. Call me a rascit bastard, I don't give a damn.
I really think you should reread this paragraph and think whether this is actually the point you wanted to make. If it is then you're going to have a lot of problems in life. Oh, and if you're just reguritating your mother's views, then I suggest you start reading things like newpapers and start to develop your own views of the world.

Hm, really? I seem to be fine, at the moment. Oh, I should remind you that beliefs shared on the internet aren't so often given out in IRL at my age. How many people do you know that would talk about this at 15? Many? I'd sure like to meet them!

Actually, that's not entirely true. While I was gone I brought up this whole topic with my friend, and I think because I am fairly good at speaking verbally (a bit better then writing) I made my point clearly and he agreed.

I'd be very happy if there weren't any people - especially not at such a young age - who make up stupid theories and share them with their friends.



Quote
Oh, and if you're just reguritating your mother's views, then I suggest you start reading things like newpapers and start to develop your own views of the world.

What, you don't take the word of people you trust? (And if you can't trust your own mother, that's truely sad  :-\)

I think it's part of growing up to realize that you can't take the correctness of all the opinions your parents/relatives/friends have told you for granted; either their believes turn out to be "wrong" to you personally or on a general basis. It can be painful to see that people you adored as a child cling to silly, old-fashioned or sometimes even ruthless ideas. That doesn't mean you can't love them anymore; you just shouldn't believe everything you're told, but try to get to the bottom of things and find out what's "right" and "wrong".



Quote
While that's not the reason for my divorce, I agree that people must do what they need to do. There is a big difference between women who want to work as opposed to women who have to work.

Oh, I know. My mother supports woman who have to work, but not woman who want to work. I think. I'm mixed on the topic, which I don't think I let anyone know. I believe in a bit of my mother's idea, but I also think that if a woman wants to have a job, then good for her. I'm not quite sure. I love my mother and respect her opinions, but...

Actually, did I ever say that I believed in firmly what my mother has said? I may have implied this, but I don't think I actually said it, but only referred to what she said. I suppose that when you refer to something to support an idea you have it shows that you believe in the idea, but firmly? Ack, I'm confusing myself now.  :P

Yeah, you sounded as if believed in your mother's ideas (which are IMHO not "up-to-date", to put it nicely), since you mentioned them so often without commenting on them.



Quote
And get yourself a good sex education book. You really need it.
Hah! I didn't expect to read that. Just because I don't know everything about womens' periods, doesn't mean I don't know anything about sex. It's not like I go into IRC and ask things about vaginal erection. I know more things about sex then most people my age. I know this sounds quite bold, but I know so many, many sexual terms and so much slang. So a sexual education book is something I definently do not need. I don't know how to prove this for you, and since it's very hard for people here to take my word for it, I'll just have to say, a big ol' "whatever" until anyone established that I know what I'm talking about, in this direction.

It's bold, yes. There are countries where children have their first sex education lessons in elementary school. Anyway, the sex education I'm talking about is not about kinky positions and dirty language, but about a truly scientific approach to all the superstitious nonsense you said about women and periods. People are more than mere slaves to their hormones.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Joe on November 06, 2005, 02:43:42 PM
I like compulsory voting. Democracy is a responsibility and a duty, not a preference.

A duty that, in a free society, one should have the right to neglect. What if I am so disgusted with the system that I strongly wish to not vote in protest? I couldn't do that in Australia, because I'd be penalized. Fined, I think. I should not be forced to choose someone I hate the least.

Quote
There is a body of thought here that says the reason American election campaigns cost so much is, that enormous effort has to be put in to just getting people to vote.

A fair point, but I don't think it outweighs the violation of liberty.

Quote
Better have everybody vote, than elect a government with a mandate from only 40% of the population. We have millions of people vote every year too - but I can tell you right now, no compulsory voting, nobody voting.

I think that it is ridiculous to believe that Australia is unqiue in the industrialized world, where most nations have voting as an option and still have millions voting, but Australians would show up in the hundreds only. There is no proof of this, other than your statement that, "Australians hate politicians". 
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: jester on November 06, 2005, 02:54:13 PM
Not that hard to find, but I enjoyed reading it:

http://www.aceproject.org/main/english/es/esc07a.htm
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: discharger12 on November 06, 2005, 05:16:46 PM
Quote

My mother says she doesn't want me to support mothers like your mothers or at least not their views.

Nice.

Quote
Well you can jot me down as stupid on your list, but I am sure that many sensible people are right to believe that blacks are good at jumping, humping, singing and getting the most time in jail, while Asians shun democracy like the plague and would rather chew their feet off than leaving their job for a holiday.

Gee who would have thought I run out of racial stereotypes so quickly. So I encourage further enlightenment by the people in the know.

Cute.

Quote
@If you think I'm racist, I apologize.

I am afraid that is not the right approach to this matter.

Hm?

@Glain

I appreciate your light-heartedness. :)

Though, sadly, I don't think it'll help much. Too late, I believe.  :-\

Quote
I'd be very happy if there weren't any people - especially not at such a young age - who make up stupid theories and share them with their friends.

I'd be very happy if there waren't any people -especialy not at such an old age - who make up stupid comments and post them on forums.

Quote
I think it's part of growing up to realize that you can't take the correctness of all the opinions your parents/relatives/friends have told you for granted; either their believes turn out to be "wrong" to you personally or on a general basis. It can be painful to see that people you adored as a child cling to silly, old-fashioned or sometimes even ruthless ideas. That doesn't mean you can't love them anymore; you just shouldn't believe everything you're told, but try to get to the bottom of things and find out what's "right" and "wrong".

Ah, but you see, I do disagree on a fair few things that my mother has suggested. And not just "later bedtimes." But in this case, I believe my mother doesn't exactly have silly, old-fashioned ideas. I'm mixed, but I still don't dismiss it as trash. And wasn't the world alot nicer in the old times?

I've noticed that now, people like you think that every idea they have is superior as long as it stays current.

Quote
Yeah, you sounded as if believed in your mother's ideas (which are IMHO not "up-to-date", to put it nicely), since you mentioned them so often without commenting on them

Read above.
Quote
It's bold, yes. There are countries where children have their first sex education lessons in elementary school. Anyway, the sex education I'm talking about is not about kinky positions and dirty language, but about a truly scientific approach to all the superstitious nonsense you said about women and periods. People are more than mere slaves to their hormones.

My info on woman comes from a woman. Don't you think she kind of knows of what she speaks on this?














Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: jcompton on November 06, 2005, 06:18:37 PM
My info on woman comes from a woman. Don't you think she kind of knows of what she speaks on this?

Until you and Mom provide a substantial body of evidence of crimes whose execution can be directly blamed on fecundity, I think it's pretty clear how seriously you two should be taken.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: discharger12 on November 06, 2005, 06:43:10 PM
My info on woman comes from a woman. Don't you think she kind of knows of what she speaks on this?

Until you and Mom provide a substantial body of evidence of crimes whose execution can be directly blamed on fecundity, I think it's pretty clear how seriously you two should be taken.

I find this very funny actually.  :D

But, can't, sorry. You ask her where she gets her info from.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: icelus on November 06, 2005, 07:41:26 PM
Will Tork have a menstruation banter?
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Eral on November 06, 2005, 11:32:29 PM
discharger, you are such a troll. Let's not pretend otherwise.
*no further discussion will be entered into on this topic*

A duty that, in a free society, one should have the right to neglect. ... violation of liberty.
If it is a duty, that seems to me to mean we have a responsibility to carry it out, and not just say, "Nah, can't be bothered." The idea that all voices be heard is very important. How many marginalised people don't vote because they don't see the point? Not good.  I want to know that it really was a majority of people who picked the country's leader. 
I think there are some things that should be legislated, and I don't see it as a denial of freedom. That "violation of liberty" is a justification for the gun laws in America makes me a little sceptical of it as an argument.
The idea that there should be a "don't care" option is a good one I think. This gives people freedom to properly express their views and for it to be registered. At the moment, the only way I can register my dissatisfaction is to vote for The Greens.

My line about "Australians hate politicians" was meant to be interpreted 2 ways - that here in Australia we talk a lot about how much we hate politicians and it is a fairly universal sentiment, or as light hearted hyperbole.

Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: jester on November 07, 2005, 12:20:02 AM
@Nice. Cute. Hm?

It seems that I should have heeded the advice I have been given quite a while ago that some are not to be reasoned with which I neglected up to now at my own peril. Perhaps you or your relatives have something useful to contibute in the future.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Joe on November 07, 2005, 01:23:44 AM

If it is a duty, that seems to me to mean we have a responsibility to carry it out, and not just say, "Nah, can't be bothered." The idea that all voices be heard is very important. How many marginalised people don't vote because they don't see the point? Not good.  I want to know that it really was a majority of people who picked the country's leader. 
I think there are some things that should be legislated, and I don't see it as a denial of freedom. That "violation of liberty" is a justification for the gun laws in America makes me a little sceptical of it as an argument.
The idea that there should be a "don't care" option is a good one I think. This gives people freedom to properly express their views and for it to be registered. At the moment, the only way I can register my dissatisfaction is to vote for The Greens.

My line about "Australians hate politicians" was meant to be interpreted 2 ways - that here in Australia we talk a lot about how much we hate politicians and it is a fairly universal sentiment, or as light hearted hyperbole.

But you are saying that for now people should be compelled by the state to choose from a list of candidates when a voter may not want *any* of those people in office. Until that "Decline to choose" option is added, not voting is the only way one can freely exercise their right to not vote for people they don't want in office.

This is an extreme example, but I use it to illustrate my point: what if all of the candidates supported the ban of all literature? You're saying that, instead of not voting, I should be forced by the government to choose one of these fuckers?
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Eral on November 07, 2005, 01:43:54 AM
The voter is compelled to show up at the voting booth. Anyone who really doesn't want to vote can castan invalid vote - instructions are posted up all over the place about what an invalid vote is. Every election invalid votes are counted up and the number is discussed in the media. Low number = happy people who have had the process explained to them properly. High number - looks like there's a problem in the system.
I believe compulsory voting is a good practice here in my country, where we are still vestigially a democracy. I am opposed to voluntary voting because I believe apathy would disenfranchise a significant proportion of our population. I am not saying force everyone to endorse a candidate against their will: I am saying it is important that everyone casts a vote, because that is the only effective way of influencing our leaders. Not voting is not a clear message - whereas casting a vote is.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: jcompton on November 07, 2005, 10:09:15 AM
But you are saying that for now people should be compelled by the state to choose from a list of candidates when a voter may not want *any* of those people in office. Until that "Decline to choose" option is added, not voting is the only way one can freely exercise their right to not vote for people they don't want in office.

"Democracy" is being imposed at gunpoint in Iraq. Whether or not attendance at the polls is mandatory seems like splitting that hair pretty fine, given your moral outrage about the latter (but curious lack of concern about the former.)

Quote
This is an extreme example, but I use it to illustrate my point: what if all of the candidates supported the ban of all literature? You're saying that, instead of not voting, I should be forced by the government to choose one of these fuckers?

Failing to vote is an implicit vote for the eventual victor anyway. A bad slate of candidates harms the public whether or not their attendance is required.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Evaine Dian on November 07, 2005, 11:38:39 AM
So much to the theory that you should show patience towards little trolls. ::)


Quote
I think it's part of growing up to realize that you can't take the correctness of all the opinions your parents/relatives/friends have told you for granted; either their believes turn out to be "wrong" to you personally or on a general basis. It can be painful to see that people you adored as a child cling to silly, old-fashioned or sometimes even ruthless ideas. That doesn't mean you can't love them anymore; you just shouldn't believe everything you're told, but try to get to the bottom of things and find out what's "right" and "wrong".

Ah, but you see, I do disagree on a fair few things that my mother has suggested. And not just "later bedtimes." But in this case, I believe my mother doesn't exactly have silly, old-fashioned ideas. I'm mixed, but I still don't dismiss it as trash. And wasn't the world alot nicer in the old times?

I've noticed that now, people like you think that every idea they have is superior as long as it stays current.

People like me? I'm not a person who tries to follow every trend.  I don't say that a theory is necessarily true just because it's new, and older views are not necessarily wrong. I just believe in science and proven facts. I can tell, without any doubt, that your mother's ideas you mentioned here are not based on facts, but rather on superstition.
Oh, and the world was not nicer in the past. It's just our memory that tends to gloss over all flaws, so that we can cling to a romantic past whenever the present looks pretty grim.



Quote
It's bold, yes. There are countries where children have their first sex education lessons in elementary school. Anyway, the sex education I'm talking about is not about kinky positions and dirty language, but about a truly scientific approach to all the superstitious nonsense you said about women and periods. People are more than mere slaves to their hormones.

My info on woman comes from a woman. Don't you think she kind of knows of what she speaks on this?

No, she doesn't.

Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Joe on November 07, 2005, 11:55:57 AM


"Democracy" is being imposed at gunpoint in Iraq. Whether or not attendance at the polls is mandatory seems like splitting that hair pretty fine, given your moral outrage about the latter (but curious lack of concern about the former.)

Firstly, the topic of Iaq has come up. So it would be silly of me to start discussing it when we are talking about compulsory voting.

Secondly, I'd rather compel them into some form of democracy than have left Saddam Hussein in power. It probably could have been done later and should have been done with a different set of people in charge, but I think it is something that was going to have to happen.

Quote
Failing to vote is an implicit vote for the eventual victor anyway. A bad slate of candidates harms the public whether or not their attendance is required.

Not necessarily. If I see no valuable difference between the victor and the loser, what is it to me? I should have the choice to say, "You know what, I ain't votin' for any of these crooks."
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: jcompton on November 07, 2005, 12:08:01 PM
Secondly, I'd rather compel them into some form of democracy than have left Saddam Hussein in power. It probably could have been done later and should have been done with a different set of people in charge, but I think it is something that was going to have to happen.

So let me get this straight.

You approve of imposing "You, as a sovereign nation, must vote" -- at gunpoint.

You do not approve of imposing "You, as a person, must vote" -- with a small economic sanction.

I seriously can't wrap my head around this. Not in a way that's remotely flattering to you, anyway.

Quote
Quote
Failing to vote is an implicit vote for the eventual victor anyway. A bad slate of candidates harms the public whether or not their attendance is required.

Not necessarily. If I see no valuable difference between the victor and the loser, what is it to me? I should have the choice to say, "You know what, I ain't votin' for any of these crooks."

It doesn't matter what it is to you, the fact of the matter is that an uncast ballot represents implicit approval of the winner. If you fail to understand that, then you have a fundamental lack of understanding of the full implications of democratic selection. A system which does not ensure that a fully representative slate of candidates is presented to the electorate is flawed, but the flaw is not made-or-broken by compulsory versus optional suffrage.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Andyr on November 07, 2005, 12:16:35 PM
I (think I) agree with the Comptinator on this one.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Joe on November 07, 2005, 12:37:49 PM

So let me get this straight.

You approve of imposing "You, as a sovereign nation, must vote" -- at gunpoint.

You do not approve of imposing "You, as a person, must vote" -- with a small economic sanction.

It's quite a bit more complicated than that.

Quote
It doesn't matter what it is to you, the fact of the matter is that an uncast ballot represents implicit approval of the winner. If you fail to understand that, then you have a fundamental lack of understanding of the full implications of democratic selection. A system which does not ensure that a fully representative slate of candidates is presented to the electorate is flawed, but the flaw is not made-or-broken by compulsory versus optional suffrage.

I didn't say the flaw was made or was broken by that, I am simply saying that, should I choose not to vote, I should not be penalized.

Choosing not to vote isn't always out of laziness or a lack of responsibility, but can be a legitimate way to express one's own discontent with the choice of candidates. If the missing vote is implicitly in favor for the candidate who wins, that doesn't mean that I, for not voting, have done something morally wrong or that I wanted that guy to win. If I wanted him to win I'd have voted for him in the first place; or against him if I felt that the other guy was even marginally better. Choosing not to vote should be my right.

I feel voting is an important duty, but I should be free from government sanctions if I choose not to vote.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: CORVIS TERRIBLE MOUNTAIN GOD on November 07, 2005, 02:33:27 PM
Dear Everyone,

Shut your fat fucking mouth and make me a god damn egg sandwich.

Sincerely,
Corvis

P.S. Do you like me? Please check one (1):

(Y)

(N)

(Treehouse)
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: CORVIS TERRIBLE MOUNTAIN GOD on November 07, 2005, 02:35:43 PM
Dear Discharger,

You aren't allowed to have opinions anymore.

Neither is your mom.

Sincerely,
Corvis

P.S. Stop lying. We all know you don't have friends.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Imrahil on November 07, 2005, 03:55:02 PM
P.S. Do you like me? Please check one (1):

(Y)

(N)

(Treehouse)

Is this vote compulsory?
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Eral on November 07, 2005, 04:15:14 PM
There should be an option "I am too frightened to say".
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: discharger12 on November 07, 2005, 04:19:17 PM
Quote
I can tell, without any doubt, that your mother's ideas you mentioned here are not based on facts, but rather on superstition.

"Without any doubt"? Now that's a bold statement, indeed!

Quote
Oh, and the world was not nicer in the past.

I'm not referring to the recent past (ie 10-20 years ago) I'm referring to way back. And even so, I'm surprised you aren't agreeing, what with everyone bitching about how much they hate Bush.

P.S. Stop lying. We all know you don't have friends.

I knew you were going to say that at some point!

@Icelus

Is that a request? Because if it is, I'll be sure to credit you for your fine addition to Tork.


Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: clock sendak as guest on November 07, 2005, 05:24:53 PM
don't be silly.  If anyone should actually want to be president, something so meaning less as gender, race, sexual orientation, hair color, and height weight proportions should not even be an issue.  Same thing with marriage- if gay people want to step into what is generally a folly and contrary to natural human condition (which is in small groups rather than couples of two) let them go right ahead.  Plenty of other things to legislate besides taste and preference.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: clock sendak as guest on November 07, 2005, 05:30:48 PM
I need to clear a few things up. First of all, I was raised a certain way, which doesn't mean that I'm unopen to new ideas, but that my mother has been raising me to believe that woman should be the one's staying home and the men should go out and get jobs. She believes in voting, going out and getting a job if no man is around, and a few other things. Just basically, anything a man should be doing, like typical man jobs, should be soley for men.

And as for the question, I think a more relevant question would be "Would society except a woman president?"


one of the great opportunities (and responsibilities I daresay) inherent in being alive is being able to OPEN YOUR FUCKING EYES AND QUESTION THE IDEAS THAT ARE HANDED TO YOU.

if you come to the realiziation that they were right after all, more power to you, but don't waste your (and our) time by being someone's dummy.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Veloxyll on November 07, 2005, 05:45:21 PM
don't be silly.  If anyone should actually want to be president, something so meaning less as gender, race, sexual orientation, hair color, and height weight proportions should not even be an issue.  Same thing with marriage- if gay people want to step into what is generally a folly and contrary to natural human condition (which is in small groups rather than couples of two) let them go right ahead.  Plenty of other things to legislate besides taste and preference.

Shouldn't...but they are.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: clock sendak as guest on November 07, 2005, 05:53:04 PM
Hah! I didn't expect to read that. Just because I don't know everything about womens' periods, doesn't mean I don't know anything about sex. It's not like I go into IRC and ask things about vaginal erection. I know more things about sex then most people my age. I know this sounds quite bold, but I know so many, many sexual terms and so much slang. So a sexual education book is something I definently do not need. I don't know how to prove this for you, and since it's very hard for people here to take my word for it, I'll just have to say, a big ol' "whatever" until anyone established that I know what I'm talking about, in this direction.

I'm guessing that un gran augmento del vocabulario was not what was being suggested "discharger", although since moving up from sarcasm to irony a few weeks ago I suggest you take a closer look at your nom de post.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Cheeky Girl on November 07, 2005, 07:28:30 PM
Oh.My.God!  I go away on a 2 month sabbatical, fry my computer, and manage to take over my friend's (not necessarily in that order); and I almost miss this thread.  I find it appalling that at this day age stupidity is still rampant.  Seriously Discharger, every time I read your posts I can't help but think that they should be accompanied by dueling banjos.   ::)

I'm not gonna waste my time trying to change your inmature and underdeveloped mind.  That is all.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Dark Raven on November 07, 2005, 08:00:24 PM
Dear Everyone,

Shut your fat fucking mouth and make me a god damn egg sandwich.

Sincerely,
Corvis

P.S. Do you like me? Please check one (1):

(Y)

(N)

(Treehouse)

(Treehouse)

:D
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Dark Raven on November 07, 2005, 08:04:21 PM
Will Tork have a menstruation banter?
That is so wrong on many levels dude.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Dark Raven on November 07, 2005, 08:06:50 PM
Monarchy works on so many levels screw democracy. There are those who are fit to lead and those who are fit to serve. A queen would do nicely thank you.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Veloxyll on November 07, 2005, 08:10:25 PM
Unfortunately, the right to lead isn't genetic. One king/queen can be awesome, but their successor can be crap.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: discharger12 on November 07, 2005, 09:57:27 PM
I hope this proves to everyone that I'm not f*cking crazy:

http://www.bodyandfitness.com/Information/Womenhealth/womenhealth.htm


A quote from the page "Reports of many suicides, deaths and murders by women occur during menstruation."

So, this proves that I am not some stupid idiot who has no idea what I'm talking about. You might think "Well it just occurs, like anything else. I could be eating an apple and killing someone. This doesn't mean people who eat apples are killers." So just read the article, kk?

Quote
I'm not gonna waste my time trying to change your inmature and underdeveloped mind.  That is all.

So you just decided to post this? If you don't care, you wouldn't have said anything at all.

Good job.  :)

@Clock Sendak: I really don't understand you at all. Most of your posts don't make sense, and when they do somewhat, they are ridden with grammatical errors and CAPS. If you want to make a point, try not to sound stupid doing it. Even if the things I believe in are ridiculous, I can still attempt at writing correctly.

@Icelus: Notice that 'fine addition' is in italicization. And anyway, I'm seriously doubting that anyone who attempts to play Tork in future won't complain. It doesn't matter if I had the potential to win a Pulitzer (or some sort of book award), I'd still hear the whining.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: icelus on November 07, 2005, 10:05:51 PM
Anyone care to count the typos and grammar errors in the first paragraph of that site?  Also, gotta love the generic Microsoft Office layout theme.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Ghreyfain on November 07, 2005, 10:10:34 PM
Hehehe!  That link is hilarious.  "If you have PMS please get help, PMS will not go away by itself."

You might as well say, "There are reports of many women eating apples during menstruation.  As such, women should not be allowed to work in orchards, lest they deplete the world's supply of apples."

I could come up with more.  They're pretty fun.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Cheeky Girl on November 07, 2005, 10:51:58 PM
Quote
I'm not gonna waste my time trying to change your inmature and underdeveloped mind.  That is all.

So you just decided to post this? If you don't care, you wouldn't have said anything at all.

Good job.  :)

Oh, please!  Don't flatter yourself.  Just like you have a right to post your/your mother's opinion (as asinine as it is), I do as well. :)

So, this proves that I am not some stupid idiot who has no idea what I'm talking about. You might think "Well it just occurs, like anything else. I could be eating an apple and killing someone. This doesn't mean people who eat apples are killers." So just read the article, kk?

Nah, that article just shows that you're not the only stupid idiot who has no idea what you're talking about.  Look kid, finding some random article on the web does not make your point a legitimate one.  Nice try, though.  Please stay in school and pay more attention in health/human anatomy class, mmkay?  ;)
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: cliffette_away on November 07, 2005, 11:56:45 PM

Choosing not to vote isn't always out of laziness or a lack of responsibility, but can be a legitimate way to express one's own discontent with the choice of candidates.

As Eral said, you can choose to express your discontent by donkey voting. The way to do this is to take your ballot paper, draw an extra square, put "Me", "None of the Above" or some other statement of varying amusement next to it, then tick the box you drew. Congratulations, you have just expressed your discontent with all the proposed candidates.

The only thing compulsory voting requires you to do is to show up at the voting booth and have your name crossed off. Your actual vote is anonymous. Nobody can fine you for donkey voting. As for the philosophy behind compulsory voting - well, maybe it would not make you pay closer attention to the candidates at the election, but it might make others (such as me) pay more attention and care a little more about the result, and thus there is some merit in its application.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Grim Squeaker on November 08, 2005, 02:33:04 AM
So your attempt at convincing us is a random drug website, trying to sell us their products?  Wow, that's gonna be unbiased.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Eral on November 08, 2005, 03:50:57 AM
As much as I dislike responding to anything the dis pops on the 'Net for our perusal, it crosses my mind to ask, why is it these people who like to spread the myth that women are victims of their hormones never question the effect of hormones on a man? The biological evidence that men are far more susceptible to being swayed by biological urges in the course of a day never seems to be used as an argument against their participation in public life. So, how about we drop this incredibly stupid line of argument? That will save Alarielle and I the trouble of coming over there and smacking some sense into you.
 
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Sorrow on November 08, 2005, 05:23:14 AM
I hate everyone.
I really hate everyone.
Err...
Not everyone.
Everyone who doesn't share my morals.
Not because I hate people who don't share my morals, but because I have difficulties with finding a girlfriend, because I can't find a girl that shares my morals.
So I hate everyone that doesn't share my morals.
I want to hit someone.
Yeah.
Hitting someone would make me feel better :) .
Why the world must be a rotten cesspool of corruption :'(?

PS
I think that woman shouldn't be a president because they are too emotional :P .
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: CoM_Solaufein on November 08, 2005, 07:38:32 AM
@discharger Look kid, try working on your trolling offline. You are failing miserably at the moment.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: jcompton on November 08, 2005, 08:44:44 AM
All right, all right. Let's not have a "pile on the thread starter" session. I think we'd really best slink off and make those sandwiches before somebody gets a cigar burn.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Veloxyll on November 08, 2005, 08:45:35 AM
YOU SHOULD NOT BE ENCOURAGING SMOKING MR COMPTON!
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: jcompton on November 08, 2005, 08:47:54 AM
I'm not encouraging smoking, I'm encouraging placating the kind of menacing stained T-shirt wearing monster who demands egg sandwiches. You can practically smell his cheap cigar from here.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Andyr on November 08, 2005, 10:54:47 AM
So what've you got against egg sandwiches?
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: discharger12 on November 08, 2005, 11:09:42 AM
http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/psychology/crime_motivation/7.html

Last link, then that's it.

I'm done.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Cheeky Girl on November 08, 2005, 11:52:46 AM
http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/psychology/crime_motivation/7.html

Last link, then that's it.

I'm done.

Wow, just, wow.  So you're just gonna base your assumption of the entire female gender based on a few sporadic instances.  In that case you should ask yourself, is the male gender better off?  C'mon, most mass murderers, serial killers and petty criminals are males.  I don't even know why you keep trying to prove your point.  Your pathetic attempts make you look stupider by the minute. 

Good Job.  :)

And kudos to Ms Wournos for keeping those scumbags off the street.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Joe on November 08, 2005, 03:14:47 PM
As Eral said, you can choose to express your discontent by donkey voting. The way to do this is to take your ballot paper, draw an extra square, put "Me", "None of the Above" or some other statement of varying amusement next to it, then tick the box you drew. Congratulations, you have just expressed your discontent with all the proposed candidates.

The only thing compulsory voting requires you to do is to show up at the voting booth and have your name crossed off. Your actual vote is anonymous. Nobody can fine you for donkey voting. As for the philosophy behind compulsory voting - well, maybe it would not make you pay closer attention to the candidates at the election, but it might make others (such as me) pay more attention and care a little more about the result, and thus there is some merit in its application.

The point is that I should be able to abstain completely without government interference. If people can just botch their votes anyway, what is the point? It encourages people who will voted without any foreknowledge

Voting is a right, but by making it compulsory it becomes less than that; it becomes a state-regulated chore.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Alarielle on November 08, 2005, 03:56:40 PM
Voting is not a right, it's a responsibility :)
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Evaine Dian on November 08, 2005, 04:02:14 PM
You're digging your own grave here, dis. Your article says that those "conclusions drawn during many of the earlier studies were based on stereotypical attitudes and sweeping assumptions of the female sex" and that current research does not support what you're saying.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Eral on November 08, 2005, 04:27:27 PM
*pointedly ignoring the second "article" linked by little discharger*
Like Alarielle says, rights =responsibility. You can abstain if you want to. You get a fine, but you can abstain. Just like you can speed and drink-drive and litter and not wear a seat-belt if you want to.
I accept the need for legislation that contributes to the well-being of the society. I'll agree to voluntary voting when we have voluntary taxes.  

Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Dark Raven on November 08, 2005, 04:47:27 PM
http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/psychology/crime_motivation/7.html

Last link, then that's it.

I'm done.
You're done? You were done before you started. Try better next time.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: jester on November 08, 2005, 05:22:28 PM
Eral, that 's a good point. Not everything we agree on as good and necessary in a society is also carried out accordingly in every applicable situation by the individuals concerned. Rather it is the opposite with many things which allow freeriders. So many generations fought for the right to vote. Universal suffrage is something which should be held in high esteem and not dismissed, because you want to have a picknick or a shoping trip instead.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Andyr on November 08, 2005, 06:21:12 PM
I think re: compulsory voting, one of the points those against it are trying to make is that the system is forcing you to do something - you cannot live outside the system, so it's promises of freedom are not quite that.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Eral on November 08, 2005, 07:20:50 PM
No political system can offer an individual absolute freedom - not even anarchy, where co-operation and accommodation of other's views are essential to the survival of the community. (If I read the anarchy thread correctly.) Democracy doesn't promise you freedom - it offers the opportunity to participate in government and express your views. You are not forced to participate: a financial sanction for failing to vote is not force. 
Putting voting on the list of 'things we think everybody should do' is more a statement of what is valued in the community, along with not owning big guns and driving safely. The "I should be free to do what I want" argument sounds good, especially if you like driving fast and big guns. However, applying it to voting means only those who are interested in the political process and value their ability to contribute will do so. And I don't think that is a beneficial thing for a democracy. France is currently experiencing what happens when a large percentage of the population feels alienated and disenfranchised.

*edit: At what point should we be concerned about Sorrow? I'm feeling that now is the time. But I do tend to get nervous when post-adolescent males sound seriously disturbed and unhappy.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Veloxyll on November 08, 2005, 08:29:31 PM
Clearly you will have to date sorrow to make him feel happy!
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: fcm on November 08, 2005, 08:36:33 PM
Oh man, this is heading in a bad, bad, direction. Even worse than it was before I decided that I had had enough of discussing the particularities of feminity etc.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Cheeky Girl on November 08, 2005, 08:48:53 PM
*edit: At what point should we be concerned about Sorrow? I'm feeling that now is the time. But I do tend to get nervous when post-adolescent males sound seriously disturbed and unhappy.
Clearly you will have to date sorrow to make him feel happy!
Is it just me, or does he sound like a "darker" version of discharger?  Judging from his last post he sounds like he's 15 too.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Joe on November 08, 2005, 09:42:40 PM
Voting is not a right, it's a responsibility :)

'Those are not mutually exclusive attributes.

Like Alarielle says, rights =responsibility. You can abstain if you want to. You get a fine, but you can abstain. Just like you can speed and drink-drive and litter and not wear a seat-belt if you want to.
I accept the need for legislation that contributes to the well-being of the society. I'll agree to voluntary voting when we have voluntary taxes.

That is ridiculous. Of course, physically, I can choose to not to go to the voting booth. Legally, I would be prohibited from doing so. I can stab someone in the neck anytime I wish, but that does not mean it is legal or "allowed".

Drinking and driving and littering are crimes where the law says that a person must not engage in such activities. Mandatory voting involves the law compelling a person to do something. You cannot compare the two.

The point is that I ought to be able to abstain from voting without the risk of punishment from the government or anyone else. 

You are not forced to participate: a financial sanction for failing to vote is not force.

No, it is not physical force.  ::) But it is coercion; you will be punished (no matter how small you think it is) if you do not comply. This is political force.
 
Quote
Putting voting on the list of 'things we think everybody should do' is more a statement of what is valued in the community, along with not owning big guns and driving safely.

There is a difference between "things we think everybody should do" and "things everybody should be made to do".

Quote
The "I should be free to do what I want" argument sounds good, especially if you like driving fast and big guns.

No one is saying "I should be free to do what I want". But we should be free from the government's coercion into voting.

Quote
However, applying it to voting means only those who are interested in the political process and value their ability to contribute will do so.

That is how it should be! One should not vote unless he or she is actually informed.

Quote
France is currently experiencing what happens when a large percentage of the population feels alienated and disenfranchised.

Are you implying that this is because voting in France is not mandatory?
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Loriel on November 08, 2005, 10:12:08 PM
I'd like to give another persepective on the "forced voting" issue.  Please indulge me as I give a brief American history lesson.  I'm sure every country has specific examples of this, but since I live in America, American history is what I'm most familiar with.

The American Continental Army was originally formed in 1775 by Congress.  It originally was slated to have 10,000 soldiers to be stationed in Boston, not including the 5,000 that were already defending various places in New York.  By the end of the American Revolutionary War, the number of soldiers in the Army had grown to a little over 30,000 (Congress had called for 60,000+, but had trouble recruiting that many soldiers).  These were the men whose actions led to the birth of a new nation.

I have tried to find out for some time what the total population of America was at that time, but the earliest information I could get from the US Census Bureau is for 1790, about ten years later.  In 1790, the census reported 3,893,635 people in the 16 states at the time.

Here's my point:  even if the population had doubled in that time between the end of the war in 1778 and the time of the census in 1790, that would mean that this country was formed because less than 1% of the population held such strong beliefs that they were willing to take action and do something about them.  If I was a politician, I would rather have a small percentage of the population that truly believed in my cause and were willing to influence the minds of those around them.  It's the concept of quality vs quantity.  Who wants a multitude of mediocre followers (and then only because they were coerced into doing so)?

EDIT:
Oops, my math was wrong.  If the population had doubled in that time, it would have been 1.5% of the population in the army.

EDIT again:
<Really stupid analogy>My level 40 CHARNAME can rip through millions of gibberlings.  I would rather have CHARNAME than millions of lemmings...er, I mean gibberlings.</Really stupid analogy >
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: jcompton on November 08, 2005, 10:16:05 PM
Joe, if you're going to continue to harp on this, I really do think you could deliver us an explanation of why "I will blow up your country to install democracy" doesn't trouble you, but "I'll give you a parking ticket if you don't vote" does.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Veloxyll on November 08, 2005, 10:39:08 PM
But I don't agree that the 1% should be the only ones allowed to make my decisions for me. At least if I've voted, there's a chance that my views will be somehow represented. if 1% choose for all, that's no more democracy than a Monarchy.

Judging by the latest elections, there's no difference in the quality of the voting results between mandatory and non-mandatory (Bush V Howard). Tho if the whole of the USA had voted, I wonder if Bush woulda won. (If Labor hadn't put LAtham as leader, I wonder if we would've gotten a non-liberal (ha!) government). People voting always for the same party without considering their stance make me sad tho :(
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Joe on November 08, 2005, 11:00:20 PM
Joe, if you're going to continue to harp on this, I really do think you could deliver us an explanation of why "I will blow up your country to install democracy" doesn't trouble you, but "I'll give you a parking ticket if you don't vote" does.


Again, you are simplifying the issue too much. The comparison cannot even be made logically. One deals with war (which is always waged for a plethora of reasons each time), the other deals with the law and votng.

For me, the war was not fought for the sole purpose of bringing democracy to Iraq. In my mind, that is a very nice "bonus" and, after all, something we owe the Iraqi people for removing their entire government from power.

The deaths of innocents do indeed trouble me, but I can't recall too many democracies coming into place without bloodshed. "I will blow up your country" is too simple; "I will blow up those that would oppress you so that you will have more self-determination, but a great many of you may die in the process" is more like it.

I also believe that fewer lives would have been lost if people with any competence ran the post-war preparations and operations.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Veloxyll on November 08, 2005, 11:09:28 PM
Joe, if you're going to continue to harp on this, I really do think you could deliver us an explanation of why "I will blow up your country to install democracy" doesn't trouble you, but "I'll give you a parking ticket if you don't vote" does.


Again, you are simplifying the issue too much. The comparison cannot even be made logically. One deals with war (which is always waged for a plethora of reasons each time), the other deals with the law and votng.

For me, the war was not fought for the sole purpose of bringing democracy to Iraq. In my mind, that is a very nice "bonus" and, after all, something we owe the Iraqi people for removing their entire government from power.

The deaths of innocents do indeed trouble me, but I can't recall too many democracies coming into place without bloodshed. "I will blow up your country" is too simple; "I will blow up those that would oppress you so that you will have more self-determination, but a great many of you may die in the process" is more like it.

I also believe that fewer lives would have been lost if people with any competence ran the post-war preparations and operations.

Australia, Canada. I'm sure there are more bloodless democracies.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Eral on November 08, 2005, 11:10:42 PM
Loriel, fighting in a war and popping down to the local primary school to cast your vote do not require exactly the same level of commitment.
Joe, my arguments are not ridiculous, they're quite well-thought out and logical. No, I am not saying voluntary voting is the cause of the rioting. I am suggesting that the people currently setting fire to their city do not feel as though they belong. I bet they don't bother voting, because they feel so isolated and alienated.

I think we have already discussed that compulsory voting does not involve coercion -people are still free to do as their conscience dictates. I will say one last time, all compusory voting does is say "We believe that everyone should be a part of our democracy." This is not wrong.

Do you want to know why Little Johnny and his silvertail mates want to bring in voluntary voting?? So the riff-raff don't participate. The riff-raff have an unfortunate habit of voting for minor parties with slogans like "Keep the bastards honest." This is not a question of extending freedom. It's about having a better class of people vote. That isn't democracy. Democracy is when everybody votes and you find out your country has a lot of people who fear difference, and so vote for someone like Pauline Hanson. Or John Howard. And then the shame of it all provokes changes in law and attitudes.

Vel, your point about Latham is persuasive. Tragic, but persuasive.

And Joe, jc isn't over-simplifying. If democracy is worth being killed for, compulsory voting is not a violation of freedom.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Loriel on November 08, 2005, 11:29:13 PM
But I don't agree that the 1% should be the only ones allowed to make my decisions for me. At least if I've voted, there's a chance that my views will be somehow represented. if 1% choose for all, that's no more democracy than a Monarchy.

Well, that's why everyone should be allowed to vote.  I just think that forcing them to is such a good idea.  If someone is ignorant enough to not understand that they should vote, I'm not sure I want the goverment forcing them to.  That's how we get laws such as such as no spitting allowed on a bus (http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/~scripts/nph-brs.exe?d=CHAP&s1=12A.12.h2.&Sect6=HITOFF&l=20&p=1&u=/~public/chap1.htm&r=1&f=G) or no selling your children (http://flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0847/Sec0145.HTM) (BTW, I'm not condoning the actions depicted, just stating that it's pretty sad that they have to be laws).

Regardless, I completely agree with your frustration at people who vote the party lines without analyzing and weighing the platforms/issues.  Many times they vote that way simply because it's the way they were raised.  It's somewhat reminiscent of someone driving Fords because their daddy drove Fords (or Chevys, Hondas, Peugots, etc).
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Loriel on November 08, 2005, 11:39:16 PM
@Eral
I realize all too well the difference between being willing to give your life for a cause and making sure there's no hanging chads on your ballot.  What I'm saying is that if a person doesn't care enough to get involved in the politics of their city/state/province/country/etc, then they shouldn't be forced to make a clearly uneducated vote.  In my senior year of high school, we actually voted Mickey Mouse to be our class president because nobody really wanted to vote, but it was required.  Obviously that was stupid, but that's what you get when you make stupid people vote.  It's better if you try to sway/influence the minds of those that are disillusioned, rather than compel them to do something against their will.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Ghreyfain on November 08, 2005, 11:52:25 PM
I stopped reading this thread early in page 6, but I caught a bit about cigars.  Mmm, cigars.  Everyone should smoke cigars (or pipes, if you want).  Cigars are sexy, smell great, and can be used to club muggers if you have a really big one.  Arturo Fuentes are the best I've had, with Romeo i Juliettas being the second best.  Nice 'n mild, with lots of flavour.  Cohibas (your default Cuban cigar, as far as I know) taste a bit too strong if you ask me.  The only time I had one of those, I chased away a huge crowd of faux-cowboys-who-were-actually-yuppies at a horrible country and western bar.  It was great.  Fuentes still taste better, though.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Eral on November 08, 2005, 11:55:59 PM
Everybody goes to the polling booth and votes = representative government.
Only some people go to the polling booth and vote = divided society, unrepresentative government.  

Electing Mickey Mouse for class president = joke.
Electing Mickey Mouse for American President= political statement.

I'm going to repeat, compulsory voting is not forced voting. People can still choose not to vote. I think it is a good thing for a society to say "It is important for everyone to vote " and this makes for a fairer system of government.

Ghrey, you are a pig.


Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: jcompton on November 09, 2005, 12:12:50 AM
For me, the war was not fought for the sole purpose of bringing democracy to Iraq. In my mind, that is a very nice "bonus" and, after all, something we owe the Iraqi people for removing their entire government from power.

The fact of the matter remains that a democracy was installed at gunpoint. Prior to that, a dictator-lite "administrator" was installed at gunpoint. If the imposition of democracy on an individual level is abhorrent to you, why do you consider installing a democracy at gunpoint a "bonus"? Why not simply keep the "administrator" in power? By your reasoning (that mandatory democracy is an abrogation of rights), the administrator is less of an imposition because he wouldn't require anybody to take time out of their busy schedule to vote.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Jyzabyl on November 09, 2005, 12:42:01 AM
Australia, Canada. I'm sure there are more bloodless democracies.

Yep, they're bloodless alright! We'll just ignore the rotting corpses of the indigenous populations of both nations, shall we?
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Loriel on November 09, 2005, 12:52:42 AM
Everybody goes to the polling booth and votes = representative government.
Only some people go to the polling booth and vote = divided society, unrepresentative government.

I would agree with you here if everyone who voted cast a legitimate, educated vote.  Since that doesn't happen in either scenario, I prefer the former because it leaves the government in the hands of people who care enough to educate themselves.

Quote
Electing Mickey Mouse for class president = joke.
Electing Mickey Mouse for American President= political statement.

And all this time I thought getting an education was supposed to prepare you for real life...

Quote
I'm going to repeat, compulsory voting is not forced voting. People can still choose not to vote. I think it is a good thing for a society to say "It is important for everyone to vote " and this makes for a fairer system of government.

Compulsory voting is forced voting.  Check the definition of compulsory (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=compulsory).  In a society that has compulsory voting, a choice to not vote means breaking the law.  That may only mean a misdemeanor and/or a fine, but it still boils down to being forced into voting or else.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: fcm on November 09, 2005, 01:07:27 AM
I stopped reading this thread early in page 6, but I caught a bit about cigars.  Mmm, cigars.  Everyone should smoke cigars (or pipes, if you want).  Cigars are sexy, smell great, and can be used to club muggers if you have a really big one.  Arturo Fuentes are the best I've had, with Romeo i Juliettas being the second best.  Nice 'n mild, with lots of flavour.  Cohibas (your default Cuban cigar, as far as I know) taste a bit too strong if you ask me.  The only time I had one of those, I chased away a huge crowd of faux-cowboys-who-were-actually-yuppies at a horrible country and western bar.  It was great.  Fuentes still taste better, though.

I'm allergic to smoke. SO SAYETH THE DOCTOR!
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Joe on November 09, 2005, 02:07:30 AM
Australia, Canada. I'm sure there are more bloodless democracies.

I never said there were no bloodless democracies. Also, Canada and Australia belong to the Commonwealth; whatever democracy came to Great Britain would eventually come to its white colonies. Let's not act like the history of the British Isles is one without blood.

No, I am not saying voluntary voting is the cause of the rioting. I am suggesting that the people currently setting fire to their city do not feel as though they belong. I bet they don't bother voting, because they feel so isolated and alienated.

This is the greater problem of French society and its failure to properly integrate these people. It has nothing to do with compulsory voting.

Quote
I think we have already discussed that compulsory voting does not involve coercion -people are still free to do as their conscience dictates.

It does involve coercion; the government coerces its citizens into voting lest they suffer consequences.

Quote
I will say one last time, all compusory voting does is say "We believe that everyone should be a part of our democracy." This is not wrong.

It says more than that: "Vote or you'll have broken a law, and you will be punished for it."

Quote
And Joe, jc isn't over-simplifying. If democracy is worth being killed for, compulsory voting is not a violation of freedom.

If you guys insist on equating the two, can I assume that you supported the invasion of Iraq in hopes of building a foundation for democracy there?


I'm going to repeat, compulsory voting is not forced voting. People can still choose not to vote. I think it is a good thing for a society to say "It is important for everyone to vote " and this makes for a fairer system of government.

Do you not understand that force is more than physically exerted power? As Loriel said, the government is using its own power, in whatever form, to force people to vote. The threat of harm (monetary, in this case) is used to compel.

The fact of the matter remains that a democracy was installed at gunpoint.

Yes, that is true. And what is inherently wrong with this? Installing a democracy does not compel anyone to do anything, it merely gives them the choice to participate realistically where they were unable to before. Choice was installed at gunpoint. Rights were installed at gunpoint. You may respond that many thousands are dying without any say in it; but, if successful, these conditions will not last forever. A stable democracy, where people are free to participate in politics in a real way without the threat of death or torture, and where human rights have more respect; if it all works out, that is no thing to sour your face over.

Quote
Prior to that, a dictator-lite "administrator" was installed at gunpoint.

Dictator-lite? Are you serious? What was "lite" about Saddam Hussein's governance? He was a dictator in the likeness of Hitler or Stalin but without the power. He had the mustache though!

Quote
If the imposition of democracy on an individual level is abhorrent to you, why do you consider installing a democracy at gunpoint a "bonus"?

Can we really call it the installation of democracy or the removal of an oppressive dictatorship?

Quote
Why not simply keep the "administrator" in power?

He was an enemy of the United States whom I feel would have come into inevitable conflict with the West. Why should we leave him in power when the reason we went in there in the first place was to unseat him? With the absence of his brutal rule, we could not allow a vaccum to exist for both practical and moral reasons.

Quote
By your reasoning (that mandatory democracy is an abrogation of rights), the administrator is less of an imposition because he wouldn't require anybody to take time out of their busy schedule to vote.

Voting was indeed mandatory in Iraq whilst Saddam Hussein was in power. Of course, he was the only candidate and the ballot had only "Yes" or "No" options, but voting was compulsory. As far as I know, democracy is not mandatory in Iraq currently.

Now we have the foundation for a system where voting is not compulsory, has multiple candidates, and in which millions have already participated. Iraq is not stable and its people are not safe from the dangers of war, but such an undertaking is not easy work.

How absurd to compare compulsory voting, which is the removal of a right, and the removal of a brutal totalitarian government, which is essentially the deliverance of many more important rights.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Eral on November 09, 2005, 02:16:27 AM
Loriel, since the "or else" is a $50 fine, it's not like people feel threatened into voting. Your definition of compulsory DOES NOT APPLY. Australians are happy with our system. We know we wouldn't vote otherwise, and thus not have a democracy. Stupid uneducated people SHOULD vote. They should express what they believe. THAT'S WHAT DEMOCRACY IS. EVERYONE CONTRIBUTING WHETHER THEY ARE STUPID OR SMART, BLACK OR WHITE, MAN OR WOMAN. If it takes legislation to achieve this, GOOD. If you and Joe are happy with a system different to ours, fine. I remain convinced that compulsory voting is a good thing. And it encorages people to exercise their rights, rather than removing them.

I am now only going to enter into discussion on whether Ghreyfain is a pig, and why gratutious abuse is so satisfying.  

Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Joe on November 09, 2005, 02:22:14 AM
Loriel, since the "or else" is a $50 fine, it's not like people feel threatened into voting. Your definition of compulsory DOES NOT APPLY.

It *does* apply. The harshness of the penalty is irrelevant; there should be no penalty at all.

Quote
Australians are happy with our system. We know we wouldn't vote otherwise, and thus not have a democracy. Stupid uneducated people SHOULD vote. They should express what they believe. THAT'S WHAT DEMOCRACY IS. EVERYONE CONTRIBUTING WHETHER THEY ARE STUPID OR SMART, BLACK OR WHITE, MAN OR WOMAN.

If they want to vote, they may go ahead and do so. I have seen no definition of democracy that says every person must participate or it doesn't work. The risk of uninformed voters is great, and the potential to make foolish decicions is real.

Quote
And it encorages people to exercise their rights, rather than removing them.

It's not a right if it is enforced.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Loriel on November 09, 2005, 03:44:58 AM
Loriel, since the "or else" is a $50 fine, it's not like people feel threatened into voting. Your definition of compulsory DOES NOT APPLY. Australians are happy with our system. We know we wouldn't vote otherwise, and thus not have a democracy.

If you are happy with your government's idea of democracy, that's great.  I disagree with you that all Australians think compulsory voting is a good thing.  I happen to have many close friends from Australia that are upset about it.  The $50 fine may not be a big thing to you, but there are those that feel threatened by it.  That wasn't "my" definition of compulsory, btw.  Check the link - it comes from a credible dictionary.

Quote
Stupid uneducated people SHOULD vote. They should express what they believe. THAT'S WHAT DEMOCRACY IS. EVERYONE CONTRIBUTING WHETHER THEY ARE STUPID OR SMART, BLACK OR WHITE, MAN OR WOMAN. If it takes legislation to achieve this, GOOD.

Eral, there is no need to start shouting.  And I didn't bring race or gender into the equation.  If you are comfortable with "stupid uneducated people" affecting the operation of your government, then you have the right to continue to vote in such a way that will allow it.  Your definition of democracy (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=democracy) doesn't quite mesh with I was taught.  Perhaps they have a different definition for different countries?  Freedom of speech does not equal democracy.  It is a common trait, perhaps, but democracy is when the people of a nation are free to elect their public officials and vote on initiatives.  Compulsory voting takes away the "freedom to vote" and makes it a "requirement to vote".

I will agree with you that encouraging people to take part in the system of democracy is good.  I have worked on several political campaigns now and the biggest frustration is that so few of my fellow countrymen/women fail to vote on important issues and candidates.  You know what the fastest growing political campaign in the last election was here?  It wasn't a measure or political candidate - it was just getting people to register to vote.  Forget whether or not they actually voted or not - just registering them.   Talk about frustrating!  Several actors and superstars got on board to endorse the campaign.  Paris Hilton was one of the big stars that "helped" by telling everyone "Register - that's hot!", but then somehow she forgot to register to vote!  I was glad to know that she wouldn't be affecting the outcome of our nation with her vote...

My opinion on the matter is still that giving people the choice of whether or not to vote, while dangerous, is still better than forcing unwilling participants to vote.

Quote
If you and Joe are happy with a system different to ours, fine. I remain convinced that compulsory voting is a good thing. And it encorages people to exercise their rights, rather than removing them.

I disagree that it encourages people to excercise their rights, but then I guess that's part of living in societies where everyone has the right to express their opinions.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Andyr on November 09, 2005, 06:46:34 AM
No political system can offer an individual absolute freedom - not even anarchy, where co-operation and accommodation of other's views are essential to the survival of the community. (If I read the anarchy thread correctly.) Democracy doesn't promise you freedom - it offers the opportunity to participate in government and express your views. You are not forced to participate: a financial sanction for failing to vote is not force. 

But in a way you are forced to participate - you can't exclude yourself from the system, if you wanted to.

EDIT: So I replied to that without reading page 7, and will quote you again:

Quote
I will say one last time, all compusory voting does is say "We believe that everyone should be a part of our democracy."

Yeah, I agree with you here. :) And my point is if you don't want to be part of the democracy for whatever reason, you still have to.

(Though, yeah, emigration etc but there's not really many places you can go and live in a stable society without a government telling you what you can/must do. Perhaps that says governments are required for stable societies, or perhaps it is coincidence. I don't know. But [I think] I think the best government is probably the one that interferes least with the individual.)
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: SimDing0™ on November 09, 2005, 07:12:07 AM
Does the number of people who vote have that much impact on democracy's influence on the individual? Compulsory voting or none, I'd be dissatisfied if I made the effort to go out and vote and everyone else STILL kept electing Bush; and if I didn't care before, then fine, I still wouldn't care. Personally, I'm not too concerned over whether the representation is fair or not-- I'd far rather see effort expended devising a system that keeps idiots out of office.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: jester on November 09, 2005, 08:03:28 AM
Quote
But [I think] I think the best government is probably the one that interferes least with the individual.)

Short of a dictatorship where you are the dictator and said individual, there is just democracy I can think of.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: jcompton on November 09, 2005, 08:49:36 AM
Quote
Prior to that, a dictator-lite "administrator" was installed at gunpoint.

Dictator-lite? Are you serious? What was "lite" about Saddam Hussein's governance? He was a dictator in the likeness of Hitler or Stalin but without the power. He had the mustache though!

Actually, I'm referring to your friend and mine, L. Paul Bremer III. I guess he's fallen off the Fox News radar so we'll have to forgive you for forgetting about him so quickly, but his euphemistic title was "administrator."

Given that

A. You believe that Saddam Hussein should have been replaced,
B. You do not believe that a system of government should be forced upon individuals

I should think you would see the perpetuation of a more "benevolent despotism" as an ideal outcome. You highlighted the dangerous enemy aspect... so why not simply avoid the imposition of democracy and install a more palatable dictator? Unless you believe there's some greater moral good involved in imposing a new system of government, in which case we're back to me being totally confused about why you think it's good to do it to the many but bad to do it to the one.

Quote
Quote
If the imposition of democracy on an individual level is abhorrent to you, why do you consider installing a democracy at gunpoint a "bonus"?

Can we really call it the installation of democracy or the removal of an oppressive dictatorship?

We can most definitely call it the installation of democracy. Bremer (or a suitable replacement) could have simply kept running the country. Without all that nasty, distasteful imposition of voting.

Quote
Quote
By your reasoning (that mandatory democracy is an abrogation of rights), the administrator is less of an imposition because he wouldn't require anybody to take time out of their busy schedule to vote.

Voting was indeed mandatory in Iraq whilst Saddam Hussein was in power. Of course, he was the only candidate and the ballot had only "Yes" or "No" options, but voting was compulsory. As far as I know, democracy is not mandatory in Iraq currently.

The process is, even if the individual practice is not. I fail to see why you believe imposing the process is morally superior to imposing the individual practice.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: jcompton on November 09, 2005, 08:52:11 AM
I will agree with you that encouraging people to take part in the system of democracy is good.  I have worked on several political campaigns now and the biggest frustration is that so few of my fellow countrymen/women fail to vote on important issues and candidates.  You know what the fastest growing political campaign in the last election was here?  It wasn't a measure or political candidate - it was just getting people to register to vote.  Forget whether or not they actually voted or not - just registering them.   Talk about frustrating!  Several actors and superstars got on board to endorse the campaign.  Paris Hilton was one of the big stars that "helped" by telling everyone "Register - that's hot!", but then somehow she forgot to register to vote!  I was glad to know that she wouldn't be affecting the outcome of our nation with her vote...

Yes, frankly, that seems to be the single biggest advantage to mandatory suffrage: the elimination of all the embarrassing registration/don't forget to vote campaigns, from "Rock the Vote" to "Voting, it does a body good" to whatever the hell else.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Kulyok on November 09, 2005, 09:13:11 AM
Quote
Yes, frankly, that seems to be the single biggest advantage to mandatory suffrage: the elimination of all the embarrassing registration/don't forget to vote campaigns, from "Rock the Vote" to "Voting, it does a body good" to whatever the hell else.

"Vote or be a loser" in our case. Or was it "vote or lose"? Sigh. It is good to hear that somebody suffered worse than us, in any case.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Sorrow on November 09, 2005, 10:12:28 AM
*edit: At what point should we be concerned about Sorrow? I'm feeling that now is the time. But I do tend to get nervous when post-adolescent males sound seriously disturbed and unhappy.
Clearly you will have to date sorrow to make him feel happy!
Is it just me, or does he sound like a "darker" version of discharger?  Judging from his last post he sounds like he's 15 too.

Nope, I'm not 15, I'm 21.
I'm not a "darker" version of discharger, I just posted a contradicting message :P .
I wrote that woman shoudn't be a president beacause they women too emotional and I also wrote an extremaly emotional message.
It's a contradiction that invalidates the view that one of genders is emotional and other isn't :) .
Well, I'm unhappy anyway, but that wasn't the point of that post.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: fcm on November 09, 2005, 11:37:57 AM
Are you honestly 21?
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Andyr on November 09, 2005, 12:01:23 PM
Quote
But [I think] I think the best government is probably the one that interferes least with the individual.)

Short of a dictatorship where you are the dictator and said individual, there is just democracy I can think of.

There's the 'anarchism' definition you linked to in the other thread. ;) Though, yeah, perhaps instead of 'government' I should have typed 'societal system', since I guess anarchism is technically non-governed. Or was that your point?
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Sorrow on November 09, 2005, 12:04:24 PM
Are you honestly 21?

Yes.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Joe on November 09, 2005, 01:22:22 PM
Actually, I'm referring to your friend and mine, L. Paul Bremer III. I guess he's fallen off the Fox News radar so we'll have to forgive you for forgetting about him so quickly, but his euphemistic title was "administrator."

You oughtn't to make those kinds of assumptions. In any case, yes, Bremer was an administrator. I don't see how his powers were indicative of a dictatorship of any degree.

Quote
Given that

A. You believe that Saddam Hussein should have been replaced,
B. You do not believe that a system of government should be forced upon individuals

Wrong. I never said a system of government should not be forced on individuals.

Quote
I should think you would see the perpetuation of a more "benevolent despotism" as an ideal outcome. You highlighted the dangerous enemy aspect... so why not simply avoid the imposition of democracy and install a more palatable dictator?

There is no such thing as "benevolent despotism". Our moral obligation after removing Saddam Hussein was to give to the Iraqis a system that they could affect and participate in, not to install another dictator to do whatever he wants. Or a dictator who will answer our beck and call; the Iraqis were owed self-determination.

Quote
Unless you believe there's some greater moral good involved in imposing a new system of government, in which case we're back to me being totally confused about why you think it's good to do it to the many but bad to do it to the one.

There is a greater good in replacing a dictatorship with a democracy. This gives people a choice to participate; compulsory voting takes it away. I am not comparing comulsory voting to a dictatorship, but that is the difference.

Quote

We can most definitely call it the installation of democracy. Bremer (or a suitable replacement) could have simply kept running the country. Without all that nasty, distasteful imposition of voting.

Who was voting imposed upon? I'm not so sure that something was imposed as much as it was taken away. Iraq was not meant to be a territory of the United States or a puppet regime.

Quote

The process is, even if the individual practice is not. I fail to see why you believe imposing the process is morally superior to imposing the individual practice.

Allowing the process is more like it. Iraqis risked death to vote and none of them were forced.

Are you ready to debate the actual topic of compulsory voting rather than diverting the argument to whether or not my reasons for supporting one and not the other make sense to you? The comparison is not justified in any way.

Giving the choice versus taking it away.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: jcompton on November 09, 2005, 01:44:04 PM
Your understanding of democracy and choice appears to be terminally flawed, there is no point in discussing it further with you.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Joe on November 09, 2005, 01:45:09 PM
Your understanding of democracy and choice appears to be terminally flawed

How so?
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: jester on November 09, 2005, 02:18:20 PM
You are basically saying that forcing somebody to vote is bad opposed to forcing somebody to vote which is good.

One reason the citizens of Iraq were not too keen on voting is that they had too many rigged elections not to smell the intentions behind this election. I cannot blame them after decades of keeping our bastards/monarchs/dictators in power when it seemed a good thing for us and hindering fair elections whenever we were sure not to get the desired result for example in Algeria. I think the western powers haven't really established their reputations as impartial arbitrators with this war. Obviously nobody is going to kick you out, but holding dummy elections won't sway people who have next to no electricity, no access to fresh water or medical services and I am not talking about Katrina here.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Joe on November 09, 2005, 02:26:06 PM
You are basically saying that forcing somebody to vote is bad opposed to forcing somebody to vote which is good.

That is not what I am saying at all. Again, I ask: who in Iraq was forced to vote? We are talking about the allowance of a system (democracy) to go forth versus the choice to opt out of participation in said system.

Quote
One reason the citizens of Iraq were not too keen on voting is that they had too many rigged elections not to smell the intentions behind this election.

And yet millions of them still voted.

Quote
I cannot blame them after decades of keeping our bastards/monarchs/dictators in power when it seemed a good thing for us and hindering fair elections whenever we were sure not to get the desired result for example in Algeria. I think the western powers haven't really established their reputations as impartial arbitrators with this war. Obviously nobody is going to kick you out, but holding dummy elections won't sway people who have next to no electricity, no access to fresh water or medical services and I am not talking about Katrina here.

I can't blame them for their distrust of us, either. Especially after Bush 41 hung them out to dry in 1991.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: jester on November 09, 2005, 02:56:29 PM
@who in Iraq was forced to vote?

1. You told the Iraqies that you would stay until they are a democracy.
2. You made it clear that elections is what a democracy is about.
3. A 60% turnout means that without those barred from voting by other circumstances they send you a clear message:

Get out!

Certainly the Kurds and the Shiites don't want you to stay. Perhaps the fact you quoted about 1991 is partially to blame for that. The Sunnites would still have opposed their complete loss of power, but at least in 1991 you would have been more the knights in shining armour that the hawks aspired to be seen as now. On top of that if it turns out to be true that Halliburton at al overcharged the Iraqies for their services it remains to be seen if they feel to thankful for the liberation from an oppressive regime which sucked them dry in exchange for foreign companies which do so.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Eral on November 09, 2005, 11:27:50 PM
Sorry Loriel, I guess I am just getting frustrated. I feel that I am repeating myself. If you go back and read my posts, you will see my definition of democracy is pretty much identical to your dictionary one. Veloxyll and cliffette also describe the practical workings of our system and how it allows everyone to voice their opinion. I believe that unless everybody votes, the government is not representative. Having a small section of the population elect a government is more like an oligarchy than a democracy. I have lots of friends who are Australian too, and none of them would vote unless they had to. And let me tell you, you would be pushing shit uphill to get people here to vote in a voluntary voting system.

*I refer all further questions to my previous posts*



Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Veloxyll on November 09, 2005, 11:35:55 PM
And lets not forget the extremely high numbers of people who picked some of the options on the Constitutional Ballot. Did they understand it was a free election? Or were they voting the way they'd always voted under Saddam?

The UN found the elections were free, so it wasn't deliberate coercion., but whenever you get a result over 90% (or under 10), you MUST ask the question, did the people realise they could choose both yes and no.

Or yeah, Jesters hypothesis, that they voted yes not because they agree with it, but because they want you OUT and you've said this is what has to happen for you to leave.

As for Canada and Australia being part of the commonwealth, that's a national choice. Up until we voted we were under British Colonial Rule AFAIK. then we voted, and were under our own rule. So thus, democracy did come about without bloodshed here. AFAIK there was no Edict issued from the UK saying "You must vote on becoming a Democracy!"

Personally, I'd rather have compusory voting because:
a) it encourages people to take some FUCKING INTREST in the political system. Sometimes at least
b) It gives a more representative vote.

Although Ironically last election Tasmania elected all Labor members, but the Liberals now hold full control over the Upper and Lower houses :'(
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Joe on November 10, 2005, 12:16:20 PM
And lets not forget the extremely high numbers of people who picked some of the options on the Constitutional Ballot. Did they understand it was a free election? Or were they voting the way they'd always voted under Saddam?

The UN found the elections were free, so it wasn't deliberate coercion., but whenever you get a result over 90% (or under 10), you MUST ask the question, did the people realise they could choose both yes and no.

The turnout was not over ninety-percent, so your question about them voting as they always had is moot. As far as " yes" or "no", I believe that many did vote no in this last election. In the first election, " yes" or " no" were not the options; they were choosing MPs.

Quote
Or yeah, Jesters hypothesis, that they voted yes not because they agree with it, but because they want you OUT and you've said this is what has to happen for you to leave.

But it wasn't just about getting us out, yes or no; they have elected their representatives as well. Next month they will be voting again.

If they're showing up to get us out of there, great! They are exercising their right freely and voluntarily.

Quote
As for Canada and Australia being part of the commonwealth, that's a national choice. Up until we voted we were under British Colonial Rule AFAIK. then we voted, and were under our own rule. So thus, democracy did come about without bloodshed here. AFAIK there was no Edict issued from the UK saying "You must vote on becoming a Democracy!"

I never made an argument contradicting what you have said here. But if you think that whatever happened around the UK didn't influence or trickle down at all to its territories, well...

Quote
Personally, I'd rather have compusory voting because:
a) it encourages people to take some FUCKING INTREST in the political system. Sometimes at least
b) It gives a more representative vote.

Why don't we make every voter attend political science classes that examine current events and issues before ballot time?
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Veloxyll on November 10, 2005, 02:12:03 PM
The RESULT in some provinces was over 90%, so please READ what I've typed next time.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Joe on November 10, 2005, 03:59:47 PM
The RESULT in some provinces was over 90%, so please READ what I've typed next time.

In some provinces, yes, and that is not surprising; a lot of the campaigning was along sectarian and ethnic lines.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: jester on November 11, 2005, 05:01:10 AM
@ a lot of the campaigning was along sectarian and ethnic lines.

Which is totally unknown to western countries. :P
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Just passing through on November 11, 2005, 10:46:57 PM
We have a female Prime Minister.  In fact, we've just voted her in again.

This is a weird thread.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Veloxyll on November 12, 2005, 01:55:36 AM
Bloody Kiwis
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Eral on November 13, 2005, 05:06:50 AM
Good spotting, Vel. I couldn't for the life of me think which country it was. Helen completely slipped my mind.

We've had the sad discussion here that the only reason women get voted in is to clean up the mess made by the last disastrous leader. As soon as things start to look a little better, another one of the boys steps in and takes over. 
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Ghreyfain on November 13, 2005, 01:29:13 PM
We've had the sad discussion here that the only reason women get voted in is to clean up the mess made by the last disastrous leader.

Ooh, double standards.  I hope that's the reason it's a sad discussion.  Let's not forget about Margaret Thatcher and Kim Campbell.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Eral on November 14, 2005, 03:07:20 AM
Is that my double standard or someone else's?
Maggie Thatcher wasn't voted in for her womanliness. The reason she was so popular in her party was she was the scariest and nastiest there. She outmanned them all.
I only know what you've told us about Kim Campbell - was she a Maggie too?
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Sorrow on November 14, 2005, 01:13:54 PM
And what being scary and nasty has to being manly?
I would rather call her mighty.
Yes, mighty.
Because might is what is needed to rule.

Anyway, I find all concepts based on feminity and masculity to be flawed.

Man and woman need to be smashed, because they are illusions, platonian crippled souls indeed...
New Human is to be born - mighty and sensitive, efficient and beautiful, striving for love and might.

So I say:
Man and Woman is to be smashed.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Eral on November 14, 2005, 04:54:39 PM
And what being scary and nasty has to being manly?

Just as soon as we can get politicians and their spinmakers to stop believing this we might actually get a political system that works.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Dark Raven on November 14, 2005, 05:04:56 PM
Reasons to have monarchs; woman can get into power and the poor little males have no choice but to accept her.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Joe on November 14, 2005, 05:20:11 PM
Reasons to not have monarchs: see History of the World
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Eral on November 14, 2005, 05:37:25 PM
Just looked up Kim Campbell on the 'net. Apparently some people think the reason she didn't win because people couldn't get over the major stuff-ups of the leader before her. So she wasn't a Maggie. She was popped in to give a different image and clean up the mess. Then she gets bagged for not achieving it in five months. Apparently she did some good things in the 5 months.  :P (That is a raspberry. Just imagine the tongue is in the middle, and it'll work for you.)
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Ghreyfain on November 14, 2005, 06:25:42 PM
Well, I was a kid, so it's entirely possible that I was brainwashed about how bad she was.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Eral on November 15, 2005, 12:38:55 AM
Apparently people thought she was the same as Brian Mulrooney(?) which I believe was pretty much the kiss of death for anyone.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Ghreyfain on November 15, 2005, 11:36:04 AM
Mulroney.  And yeah, he wasn't a very good PM.  Now that I think about it, he might've been the last conservative PM in Canada other than Campbell.  Yeah.  It's been Chretien for 12 years.  Although he hasn't really been in office because he's a stellar leader, but more because the right-wing has been in shambles for the past decade+, trying to rebrand itself, but instead falling into in-fighting and bickering.  The Refoooooorm Party of Canada.  Heh!  Oh, and let's not forget CRAP (The Canadian Reform Alliance Party).
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: MyFinalHeaven on November 15, 2005, 08:11:33 PM
"I just love that word refooooorm"

I miss Manning.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Joe on November 17, 2005, 03:34:06 PM
Sounds like Chretien may be in trouble.








Yes, yes, welcome to four weeks ago, I know.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Ghreyfain on November 17, 2005, 04:45:38 PM
Well, no, it's Paul Martin who's in trouble now, because he took over Chretien's legacy when Chretien retired a while back.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Joe on November 17, 2005, 05:43:06 PM
But I thought the recent report implicated Chretien and not Martin?

I understand the two were rivals within the within the Liberal Party, too.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Ghreyfain on November 17, 2005, 07:22:18 PM
I'm not sure which recent report you're talking about.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Joe on November 17, 2005, 11:04:29 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gomery_commission#First_phase_report
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Ghreyfain on November 18, 2005, 02:07:01 AM
Oh, yes, that.  I doubt anything will come of it.  Nothing ever comes of anything, and third-term PMs usually wind up being pretty arrogant.  Chretien was no exception.  I still liked him better than the alternatives, though.  Those being Martin (Chretien's successor), Preston Manning (founder of the RefoooOOOooorm party), Stockwell Day (dude in charge of the neo-reform party, aka Canadian Alliance), and... that dude who plays Rugby.  Although I think he became disgraced before getting anywhere near becoming leader of the opposition.  And the furthest left mainstream party, the NDP, really isn't fit to be anything other than a balancing force in parliament.  I dread to see what they'd do if they actually came into power.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Eral on November 18, 2005, 02:12:06 AM
I like the broad range of choices you have. Vote for the NDP - they will never come into government, and will prevent the ruling party from doing anything too arrogant.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Ghreyfain on November 18, 2005, 02:14:21 AM
That's what I do, yeah.  The best situation, as I see it, is a minority Liberal government, with the NDP holding enough seats to be the balance of power against the Conservative opposition.  Screw the fuckers from Quebec.  Damn separatists.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Joe on November 18, 2005, 12:51:24 PM
Whenever I see Jack Layton speak, I feel like he's trying to sell me a car. Stephen Harper doesn't have very much charisma, unfortunately. I wonder if he is too young to be taken very seriously? Martin seems to fit into his role as a leader than the other two men.

I have to say that I find it silly and annoying whenever any of them randomly breaks off into French when speaking. Just seems to be pandering to the Quebecois.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Ghreyfain on November 19, 2005, 02:15:12 AM
Yeah, Layton definitely isn't my favourite guy ever, either.  His head seems in the clouds more than anything else.  Unlike a car salesman, however, I think he actually means what he says, despite how impractical it may be.  Harper, on the other hand, makes my skin crawl.  As leader of the opposition he calls the government on all sorts of negative things, but were he in power, he'd be doing just that and more, I have no doubt.  Shudder.

As for the french stuff, I think what you're seeing is just them saying the same thing they said in english, only for the francophone folks.  Which is cool by me, since yeah, they live in our country and everything.  It's not like they're saying "Tax hikes everyone, sorry" in english, and then in french, "Allo allo!  Les tax cuts, oui?"
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Joe on November 19, 2005, 02:35:18 PM
Hahaha, yeah I know why they do it. It just seems odd. Aren't the only francophones in Quebec?
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Ghreyfain on November 20, 2005, 03:23:27 AM
Yeah, but both french and english are the official languages, so for official speeches...  I dunno.  Maybe you need to be Canadian to understand it.  It doesn't bother me.  I think it only really bothers western separatists, who feel all alienated, and are bitter that the Quebecois are better at raising a stink than they are.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Veloxyll on November 20, 2005, 06:37:03 AM
Presumedly because the Quebecans can kick up a stink in french.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Eral on November 21, 2005, 12:43:03 AM
Why is the idea of a state seceding so unsettling to people? Loss of resources? Diminished culture? Loss of power? Dislike of change? Loss of a sense of wholeness? Years ago a loony group in Queensland starting agitating for Queensland to secede from the Federation, and got quite a lot of coverage. Despite the fact it was an inherently ludicrous idea, many people were very upset. I think some of the hostility the Quebec seperatists face from people outside their culture, is due to the inferiority complex the French language seems to generate in some people. Strange, because it's a beautiful language.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Ghreyfain on November 21, 2005, 12:56:50 AM
When it's the province I live in, I don't want it to secede from my country.  As for Quebec, well, it'd probably be better for Canada, actually.  We spend a lot of money there in the form of corporate handouts and stuff, to keep the economy functioning.

On the other side of things, there's the fact that unity's probably a better thing to strive for than dischord (not that I want Canada to meld with the States, mind you).  I can't imagine things would be all that great if Quebec seceded and it turned out their country went to hell.  The anglo/franco hate would just get worse.  I'd be sad to lose Montreal, too.  I'd like to visit it someday, but not if it's part of an anti-english state.  The language laws in Quebec are already a bit scary.  Or were, last time I heard anything about them.  Actually, maybe you'd better not come to me for opinions on Canada, since I'm really not all that up-to-date on everything.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Eral on November 21, 2005, 01:12:12 AM
Yeah, maybe it's the idea of unity that is so important. (You couldn't meld with the US. Two diffeent countries, two different histories.)  Perhaps the problem arises when hatred of the dominant culture is the reason for the desire for secession. And how long the state in question has been a part of the country.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Joe on November 21, 2005, 04:05:48 PM
I think that a French culture, no matter where it is, will be deeply entrenched and hostile to outside influence whether or not it is dominant. Look at the "purification" that the French language undergoes every so often in France and the laws regarding language in Quebec, for example.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Eral on November 21, 2005, 06:04:49 PM
People are allowed to be proud of their culture, and protecting a language so that it retains its essential elements, is not hostile. Chirac didn't say "non" to Bush when he was invited to the war in Iraq because the French hate everybody and are bad, bad people. He did it because they didn't think it was a good idea. If John Howard had guts, he would have said "no", too, and Republicans would be despising Australians and churning out a list of our cultural faults.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Ghreyfain on November 21, 2005, 06:27:43 PM
Don't you get all defensive now.  I think everyone, both socialist and fascist, can agree that the French are terrible, terrible people. :)

Okay!  Is joke!  But really, I think there's a point where preserving a language goes too far.  Sure, you need signs in french for francophone residents, but why does it have to be X percent larger than the english lettering?  That's discrimination against the anglos.  It's all very puzzling.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Veloxyll on November 21, 2005, 07:38:45 PM
People are allowed to be proud of their culture, and protecting a language so that it retains its essential elements, is not hostile. Chirac didn't say "non" to Bush when he was invited to the war in Iraq because the French hate everybody and are bad, bad people. He did it because they didn't think it was a good idea. If John Howard had guts, he would have said "no", too, and Republicans would be despising Australians and churning out a list of our cultural faults.
I think you mean if John Howard wasn't a facist little shit.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Joe on November 21, 2005, 07:49:56 PM
People are allowed to be proud of their culture, and protecting a language so that it retains its essential elements, is not hostile. Chirac didn't say "non" to Bush when he was invited to the war in Iraq because the French hate everybody and are bad, bad people. He did it because they didn't think it was a good idea.

Right, it wasn't financially a good idea for Chirac. Also, Chirac has been essentially trying to restore France to its former glory on the world stage and, through the European Union, counter the influence of the United States in the world.


Quote
If John Howard had guts, he would have said "no", too, and Republicans would be despising Australians and churning out a list of our cultural faults.

Why does Howard have to be gutless? Why couldn't he have agreed that the war was necessary?
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Eral on November 22, 2005, 02:30:14 AM
Joe, it wasn't a financially good idea for anyone. And I say, hurray for the French if that is what they are doing. GW has gotten just a little too big for his britches.
It is becoming very clear now that the excuses for the war were lies - lies, Joe, not a mistake - and we knew ages ago that Little Johnny and his mates knew they were lies. Therefore I say he was gutless - because he rolled and did what GW wanted, rather than following the course set by the UN. Vel's point about Johnny being a fascist little shit is pertinent to this discussion. 

Ghrey, I am trying to avoid defending the rep of the French when it comes to being kind to tourists, as I'm not sure it can be done successfully. The signs are meant to discriminate against English speakers. They do it in Wales and Ireland too.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Joe on November 22, 2005, 03:16:35 PM
Joe, it wasn't a financially good idea for anyone.

Wrong. France, Russia, and Germany had a financial interest in keeping Saddam Hussein in power due to debts and lucrative contracts.

Quote
It is becoming very clear now that the excuses for the war were lies - lies, Joe, not a mistake - and we knew ages ago that Little Johnny and his mates knew they were lies.

I'm not going to argue against the view that Bush and/or those around him fudged some things here or there, but let's not pretend that every respected intelligence agency in the world was in agreement about Saddam Hussein's arsenal. The disagreements centered around how to deal with the dictator.

Quote
Therefore I say he was gutless - because he rolled and did what GW wanted, rather than following the course set by the UN.

The course set by the UN was that which the US and its allies followed.

Quote
Vel's point about Johnny being a fascist little shit is pertinent to this discussion.


It's interesting that George Orwell's 1946 essay, "Politics and the English Language", still has immense relevance 61 years later:

The word Fascism has now no meaning except insofar as it signifies “something not desirable.”
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: jester on November 22, 2005, 04:24:38 PM
Joe, it wasn't a financially good idea for anyone.

Wrong. France, Russia, and Germany had a financial interest in keeping Saddam Hussein in power due to debts and lucrative contracts.

[James Brown voice]

Wow, brothers and sisters. Do we have any true believers in this church??? Say it loud, say it clear. Let your voice soar like an eagle to the sky: Haaalle, I said Haaaaleeee, I said *cough* Halliburton. ::)

[/James Brown voice]

Isn't that sweet, conquering a country and making them hire only your companies  for reconstruction and ripping them off in the process? Then blaming everybody else they had financial interests in the matter?

Quote
Quote
It is becoming very clear now that the excuses for the war were lies - lies, Joe, not a mistake - and we knew ages ago that Little Johnny and his mates knew they were lies.

I'm not going to argue against the view that Bush and/or those around him fudged some things here or there, but let's not pretend that every respected intelligence agency in the world was in agreement about Saddam Hussein's arsenal. The disagreements centered around how to deal with the dictator.

Murtha: 'We spend more on intelligence as the entire ret of the world combined.' I read a very good article once (Should I find it again I will post that link) about a CIA guy who said that in the beginning they were clearly professionals. Now it is just a bureaucracy and it hasn't predicted a single event correctly in recent history. Days before the Berlin wall came down, it said that the state authorities were rock solid, it was wrong about Russian withdrawal from Afghanistan and a whole lot of other incidents too. Bush and his cronies (some more than others) wanted this war. We have been told that the republican guards are like Darth Vader's special forces themselves and would fight on with their bare hands. Actually the people surrendered so fast that the roundup of POW awas one of the main problems in the offensive. The troops got a lot of friendly fire in both Gulf wars as they advanced at a multible speed to what had been predicted. Bush ran on NOT policing the world. He betrayed the American people by turning a 180 degree on that position. I don't agree with Buchanan often, but this republican has done a major disservice to your party in most fields.

Quote
Quote
Therefore I say he was gutless - because he rolled and did what GW wanted, rather than following the course set by the UN.

The course set by the UN was that which the US and its allies followed.

Powell > Security Council > UN... no WMDs? Sorry then it is a good thing to whack dictators anyway right? Right?
Thank God the other token black member of the administration behaved so much better.

Quote
The word Fascism has now no meaning except insofar as it signifies “something not desirable.”
And it rightfully is, if you disagree I will have you and your siblings and everybody who looks like you executed on the spot when the party has the power. Fascism on both sides is possible and a very regrettable fact.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Joe on November 23, 2005, 08:36:40 PM

Isn't that sweet, conquering a country and making them hire only your companies  for reconstruction and ripping them off in the process? Then blaming everybody else they had financial interests in the matter?

I haven't seen any evidence that suggests the US went to war in order to benefit Halliburton. Whether or not that company was wrongly favored once the war began is another story.

Quote
Quote
It is becoming very clear now that the excuses for the war were lies - lies, Joe, not a mistake - and we knew ages ago that Little Johnny and his mates knew they were lies.

I'm not going to argue against the view that Bush and/or those around him fudged some things here or there, but let's not pretend that every respected intelligence agency in the world was in agreement about Saddam Hussein's arsenal. The disagreements centered around how to deal with the dictator.

Quote
Murtha: 'We spend more on intelligence as the entire ret of the world combined.'

Yeah, well as you you continue, you prove that spending money doesn't equal eficiency:

Quote
I read a very good article once (Should I find it again I will post that link) about a CIA guy who said that in the beginning they were clearly professionals. Now it is just a bureaucracy and it hasn't predicted a single event correctly in recent history. Days before the Berlin wall came down, it said that the state authorities were rock solid, it was wrong about Russian withdrawal from Afghanistan and a whole lot of other incidents too.

Yes, the CIA sucks right now. But the US intelligence was in line with that of other nations'.

Quote
Bush and his cronies (some more than others) wanted this war.

I think if they didn't, there wouldn't have been a war a'tall...

Quote
We have been told that the republican guards are like Darth Vader's special forces themselves and would fight on with their bare hands. Actually the people surrendered so fast that the roundup of POW awas one of the main problems in the offensive.

I don't remember being told that the Republican Guard would be like that, and I don't remember hearing that those guys were surrendering in huge numbers. I know that Iraqi regulars surrended in that way. Could be wrong about the Guard, though.

Quote
Bush ran on NOT policing the world. He betrayed the American people by turning a 180 degree on that position.

I'm sure the attacks in 2001 changed his view of the world and its conflicts. I don't think going to war with Iraq was a betrayal of the nation as I still believe it was something that needed to be done eventually. But it has been handled with atrocious inefficiency.

Quote
I don't agree with Buchanan often, but this republican has done a major disservice to your party in most fields.

I don't have a party. Parties are just gatherings of the crooks and the power-hungry. I am registered as a Republican so I can vote in primaries.

Quote
Powell > Security Council > UN... no WMDs? Sorry then it is a good thing to whack dictators anyway right? Right?
Thank God the other token black member of the administration behaved so much better.

The UN had for 12 years called for an end to Saddam Hussein's weapons production and stockpiling without response. It then threatened serious consequences if it did not receive immediate cooperation. I don't see what the problem is.

And how are Powell and Rice token blacks? You do know they are/weren't the only black or minority members of his administration, yes?

Quote
Fascism on both sides is possible and a very regrettable fact.

That it is possible does not mean that any politician who does or says something we don't like is a fascist.
Title: Re: Madam President
Post by: Veloxyll on November 24, 2005, 02:35:16 AM

Powell > Security Council > UN... no WMDs? Sorry then it is a good thing to whack dictators anyway right? Right?
Thank God the other token black member of the administration behaved so much better.

The UN had for 12 years called for an end to Saddam Hussein's weapons production and stockpiling without response. It then threatened serious consequences if it did not receive immediate cooperation. I don't see what the problem is.

And how are Powell and Rice token blacks? You do know they are/weren't the only black or minority members of his administration, yes?

You mean the massive weapon stockpiles that weren't found? be they WMDs or regular arms? Or perhaps you mean the weapon stockpiles listed in the report that USA personell absconded with and edited to an unknown degree. And the UN got immediate co-operation. Before the USA invaded, to the level they were requesting. So uh. I don't see why any invasion was necessary.