Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 19, 2005 Posted May 19, 2005 By its very definition, democracy does equate to universal suffrage. Neither the Greek or Venetian, were democracies. The American style of government is not a true democracy either. 340091[/snapback] By its pure definition, democracy equates to universal suffrage. By its practical application - by the Athenians, for example, who DID have a democratic form of governance - it never does. Nor can it, most likely.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 19, 2005 Posted May 19, 2005 Revised Syllogism Democracy is government by the people Veterans protect government by the people Veterans are the only people 340093[/snapback] The "people" would still enjoy all their freedoms without any additional responsibility. They just would not have earned the right to participate in the process.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 19, 2005 Posted May 19, 2005 By its pure definition, democracy equates to universal suffrage. By its practical application - by the Athenians, for example, who DID have a democratic form of governance - it never does. Nor can it, most likely. 340098[/snapback] Exactly. And the Athenian culture thrived for a very long time without "universal sufferage". Q: Exactly what benefit has lowering the voting age to 18 reaped in our society?
Reuben Gant Posted May 19, 2005 Posted May 19, 2005 The "people" would still enjoy all their freedoms without any additional responsibility. They just would not have earned the right to participate in the process. 340109[/snapback] You can have it, just please don't call it democracy or America. Congratulations: you have just created the militaristic state. Tojo would be proud. Militarism is an ideology which claims that military strength is the source of all security, and that the military represents the forward direction of the society as a whole, as it expands into the world, asserting its influence. Militarism asserts that civilian populations are dependent upon (and thereby must be subservient to) the needs and goals of its military. While military preparedness may refer to agreeable and practical matters related to defense, "militarism" connotes the more broad doctrinal views which claim the notion of "peace through strength" as supreme among the interests of society — overriding all others, including diplomacy and issues related to social welfare.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 19, 2005 Posted May 19, 2005 You can have it, just please don't call it democracy or America. Congratulations: you have just created the militaristic state. Tojo would be proud. Militarism is an ideology which claims that military strength is the source of all security, and that the military represents the forward direction of the society as a whole, as it expands into the world, asserting its influence. Militarism asserts that civilian populations are dependent upon (and thereby must be subservient to) the needs and goals of its military. While military preparedness may refer to agreeable and practical matters related to defense, "militarism" connotes the more broad doctrinal views which claim the notion of "peace through strength" as supreme among the interests of society — overriding all others, including diplomacy and issues related to social welfare. 340137[/snapback] Wrong again.... No suspension of civil liberties to those who don't vote. They are just absolved from the RESPONSIBILITY which most of them have already abdicated. They're free to have their opinions, vapid though they may be. In a true militaristic society, no one would have the right to vote, not even eeterans. have you even read Starship troopers?
Reuben Gant Posted May 19, 2005 Posted May 19, 2005 Wrong again.... No suspension of civil liberties to those who don't vote. They are just absolved from the RESPONSIBILITY which most of them have already abdicated. They're free to have their opinions, vapid though they may be. In a true militaristic society, no one would have the right to vote, not even eeterans. have you even read Starship troopers? 340144[/snapback] never read starship Troopers. Only Locke, Jefferson, Montesque, and Federalist Papers, and the Misouri Compromise... How about giving the non-veterans at least 3/5 of a vote?
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 19, 2005 Posted May 19, 2005 never read starship Troopers.Only Locke, Jefferson, Montesque, and Federalist Papers, and the Misouri Compromise... How about giving the non-veterans at least 3/5 of a vote? 340160[/snapback] Oh how witty. Yes, let's inject RACE into the discussion. None of those brilliant men whom you've read could have possibly predicted the idiocy that is pervasive in today's America. Like those who would vote for a man who would have cut funding to our troops in a warzone just because some talking head in the media told them the war was wrong. meanwhile, kids who are out there protecting this mindelss herd get torn to shreds by those same talking heads. the culmination of this negative feedback loop is incredibly detrimental to our society. I think if someone wants the RIGHT to vote, they should have to face the RESPONSIBILITY of protecting the nation that they'd be a citizen of.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 19, 2005 Posted May 19, 2005 Q: Exactly what benefit has lowering the voting age to 18 reaped in our society? 340111[/snapback] What benefit did having it at 21 have to our society? Either way, we keep electing the same idiots. The Athenians at least discriminated on the basis of land ownership. If you owned a piece of Athens, you had a say. At the very worst, that method is only as stupid as discriminating by age.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 19, 2005 Posted May 19, 2005 What benefit did having it at 21 have to our society? Either way, we keep electing the same idiots. The Athenians at least discriminated on the basis of land ownership. If you owned a piece of Athens, you had a say. At the very worst, that method is only as stupid as discriminating by age. 340187[/snapback] So what's your thought on limiting sufferage to those who've served the country militarily? IMO, that would weed out the irresponsible and ill-informed from muddying the ballot box with their mindless vote. Oh, and I'm still waiting for your analysis of Heinlein's masterpiece of SF.
Reuben Gant Posted May 19, 2005 Posted May 19, 2005 Oh how witty. Yes, let's inject RACE into the discussion. None of those brilliant men whom you've read could have possibly predicted the idiocy that is pervasive in today's America. Like those who would vote for a man who would have cut funding to our troops in a warzone just because some talking head in the media told them the war was wrong. meanwhile, kids who are out there protecting this mindelss herd get torn to shreds by those same talking heads. the culmination of this negative feedback loop is incredibly detrimental to our society. I think if someone wants the RIGHT to vote, they should have to face the RESPONSIBILITY of protecting the nation that they'd be a citizen of. 340178[/snapback] My bad. 3/5ths comment is racially loaded, not my intention. I am going to disagree with any idea to disenfranchise 90% of voters. Of course that was inevitable, as I believe that there should be no standing army. Afghanistan I believe was a justifiable war, but to claim that the whole iraq thing is protecting the "herd's" rights is wrongminded. Our soldiers in Iraq are protecting and dying for our Geopolitical Interests not our rights.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 19, 2005 Posted May 19, 2005 Our soldiers in Iraq are protecting and dying for our Geopolitical Interestsnot our rights. 340199[/snapback] our geopolitical interests are directly tied to our rights and our way of life. if we ever want to live in a free, stable world, the Arab world has to be dealt with, and not nicely either. this was just one step in a war to defeat Arab extrmism.
Reuben Gant Posted May 19, 2005 Posted May 19, 2005 our geopolitical interests are directly tied to our rights and our way of life. if we ever want to live in a free, stable world, the Arab world has to be dealt with, and not nicely either. this was just one step in a war to defeat Arab extrmism. 340203[/snapback] none of our rights were threatened by Saddam Hussein We had the bastard contained. This war was volitional. And I can't think any right I have that is more secure now than 5 years ago. I think that if anything, our civil rights have been threatened because of this war.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 19, 2005 Posted May 19, 2005 none of our rights were threatened by Saddam Hussein We had the bastard contained. This war was volitional. And I can't think any right I have that is more secure now than 5 years ago. I think that if anything, our civil rights have been threatened because of this war. 340210[/snapback] it needn't have been that way if our military was not constrained by know-nothing politicians elected by an ignorant populace.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 19, 2005 Posted May 19, 2005 So what's your thought on limiting sufferage to those who've served the country militarily? My thinking is that it's an oversimplification of Heinlein's point so gross it's ignorant. Oh, and I'm still waiting for your analysis of Heinlein's masterpiece of SF. 340197[/snapback] 1) It is, unquestionably, a masterpiece. 2) Last I checked, I don't answer to you, so I choose not to share my analysis.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 19, 2005 Posted May 19, 2005 My thinking is that it's an oversimplification of Heinlein's point so gross it's ignorant.1) It is, unquestionably, a masterpiece. 2) Last I checked, I don't answer to you, so I choose not to share my analysis. 340230[/snapback] Really, now? Well, it's a shame that you think so. One would think that someone with such a firm grasp on literary ideas would be willing to share their lofty ideas with those less fortunate in that area. I mean, I could have gone into the whole idea of eugenic selection, vocational tracking, sacrifice of the self for the greater good, etc.. but I chose to keep it simple so that those who haven't read it wcould have a very basic synopsis of an radical idea presented through a work of fiction. 1) I see your grasp of the obvious is as strong as ever. 2) As i said above, that's a shame. because I was really looking forward to it.
SilverNRed Posted May 19, 2005 Posted May 19, 2005 none of our rights were threatened by Saddam Hussein We had the bastard contained. 340210[/snapback] Contained at what cost? The UN estimated that 50,000 Iraqi children died annually thanks to the embargo against their country and all the while Saddam was living in perfect luxury thanks to some bribes and the Oil-for-Food scandal. His weapons programs were dormant but ready to go as soon as he gave the order (not dismantled like he was required to do following Gulf I). At the very minimum, this war was about cleaning up a mess that we left a decade before - and that many of our 'allies' were helping to maintain.
Reuben Gant Posted May 19, 2005 Posted May 19, 2005 Contained at what cost? The UN estimated that 50,000 Iraqi children died annually thanks to the embargo against their country and all the while Saddam was living in perfect luxury thanks to some bribes and the Oil-for-Food scandal. His weapons programs were dormant but ready to go as soon as he gave the order (not dismantled like he was required to do following Gulf I). At the very minimum, this war was about cleaning up a mess that we left a decade before - and that many of our 'allies' were helping to maintain. 340235[/snapback] But not about our rights.
Tux of Borg Posted May 19, 2005 Posted May 19, 2005 But not about our rights. 340245[/snapback] So Iraq didn't provided safe haven to Al-Zarqawi and other terrorists?
Reuben Gant Posted May 19, 2005 Posted May 19, 2005 So Iraq didn't provided safe haven to Al-Zarqawi and other terrorists? 340487[/snapback] NOPE.
Alaska Darin Posted May 19, 2005 Posted May 19, 2005 none of our rights were threatened by Saddam Hussein We had the bastard contained. This war was volitional. And I can't think any right I have that is more secure now than 5 years ago. I think that if anything, our civil rights have been threatened because of this war. 340210[/snapback] "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." - Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton. - (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Former Vice President Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Former Vice President Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a Rosen course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source
Recommended Posts