Hiroshima & Nagasaki - On the 65th Anniversary of Nagasaki

[eyeball]

I doubt you have the cognitive ability to actually know which side the fense you sit on on any given day...your confused and addled positions defy reason and logic..

And your ad hominems defy principles and integrity.

Anyway, prove me wrong..where have you advocated a referendum of something inplace today that we don't have direct control over and you personally endorse?

I say the only time you have ever trumpettted a referendum is over something that personally irks you....everything else is fine as it is.

I've said Canadians should be given the opportunity to vote on a range of issues many times but I've never said these issues should only be issues I personally endorse. You're the liar who's saying that.

Budget

Buy Canadian

War

Handguns

Climate

Election

Notice how easy it is to back up my claim that you are a liar with no principles or integrity whatsoever?

[M.Dancer]

Budget

You don't support the budget

Buy Canadian

You want a referendum on free trade which you do not support

War

You don't supprt the war...or any war...

Handguns

You don't support the idea of guns...big surprise

Climate

You don't support the governments inaction or position of the climate

Election

You don't support the governments policies

Notice how easy it is to back up my claim that you are a liar with no principles or integrity whatsoever?

I notice it took you a long time and managed to allow yourself to look stupid again.

As I said and asyou have just proved...you only support referendums on issues you are opposed to...

whether it is the federal budget, free trade, war etc...

Thanks Eyeball...

[M.Dancer]

Notice how easy it is to back up my claim that you are a liar with no principles or integrity whatsoever?

I noticeed how hard it was for yo so instead you thought you would fudge the issue...speaks alot about your own lack oh honesty.

Lets try again...

I take it you support our abortion position...have you ever proposed a referendum to change it?

I don't recall ever seeing you say so...

I alos believe you support our position on capital punishment

Have you ever proposed a referendum?

....get to work redefining your position...

[eyeball]

...you only support referendums on issues you are opposed to...

Prove it, provide a link to a post of mine that says I only support referendums on issues I am opposed to.

I've said repeatedly that I advocate using referenda on a range of issues, never have I said only mine however. It's an outright lie to imply otherwise and you are a proven liar.

[eyeball]

I noticeed how hard it was for yo so instead you thought you would fudge the issue...speaks alot about your own lack oh honesty.

Excuse me, but fudge what issue?

[bloodyminded]

You don't support the budget

You want a referendum on free trade which you do not support

You don't supprt the war...or any war...

You don't support the idea of guns...big surprise

I notice it took you a long time and managed to allow yourself to look stupid again.

As I said and asyou have just proved...you only support referendums on issues you are opposed to...

whether it is the federal budget, free trade, war etc...

Thanks Eyeball...

This is a really unfair response. You tick off the subjects eyeball lists...but his personal stance on these subjects is irrelevant to the notion of referenda. That is, even if his personal stance on these subjects, or some of them, were the opposite of what they are, you could make the same fallacious criticism.

Edited August 19, 2010 by bloodyminded

[g_bambino]

You are a liar.

Please provide a link to a post where Dancer said he was a liar.

[eyeball]

Please provide a link to a post where Dancer said he was a liar.

I'm the one who called him a liar.

[g_bambino]

I'm the one who called him a liar.

I know. I was illustrating the futility of comments like this:

Prove it, provide a link to a post of mine that says I only support referendums on issues I am opposed to.

[eyeball]

I know. I was illustrating the futility of comments like this:

Prove it, provide a link to a post of mine that says I only support referendums on issues I am opposed to.

It's not my fault he doesn't leave much room for latitude when he insists three or four times in a row on making unsupportable claims and implications about what I've said or not said.

[M.Dancer]

Prove it, provide a link to a post of mine that says I only support referendums on issues I am opposed to.

I've said repeatedly that I advocate using referenda on a range of issues, never have I said only mine however. It's an outright lie to imply otherwise and you are a proven liar.

I never claimed you said it. I claim you do it. You only support a referendum in the hopes of changing things you don't like.

Here's my proof

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?app=core&module=search&section=search&do=quick_search&search_app=core&fromsearch=1

You are just not smart enough or honest enough to admit...something like "d'oh who would want a referendum to change what we like" instead you get all bent out of shape and start hurling insults....because you know damn well it's true.

Then you would have my agreement.

[M.Dancer]

Excuse me, but fudge what issue?

By providing links to posts where you propose a referendum on an issue you disagree with. I can only assume you thought no one would check.

[ToadBrother]

There's imagination and common sense but you're way to boxed in by your own misplaced concreteness for these.

No, I'm constrained by reality. You seem not to have that problem.

Excuse me but where did I say we run purely by referenda? You and others consistently spin this strawman argument but its not what I've advocated at all.

So tell me, how is it that we decide when to hold a referendum? Who chooses?

And I'd say you're right, which is why I don't advocate governing ourselves through pure referenda.

No, you've also talked about experts who would apparently have some indeterminate role in decision-making. It's often hard to keep track, because you come up with so many ludicrous ideas.

Speaking of straw and concrete, notice how the rigidity of your own cement-headed logic lead you and others to suggest that I must also be advocating we do something so stupid as to vote on whether we should defend our borders from direct attack from an invader.

What if an ally gets attacked by an invader?

The weirdest counterargument I think I've ever heard though is the notion that before any country could use referenda on whether to go to war they'd have to take over the world and force it to do the same. Leading me to ask, since when did Switzerland take over the planet?

No, that's not what we said. What we said is that unless the entire planet uses this system, all it takes is one nasty guy to lead his country into invasion, and while everybody is getting out there Whiz Bang Ross Perot 2000 voting machine to decide whether to help an ally or not, Hitler Jr. is happily bombing countries into the stone age.

Even worse, it would mean someone would have to have the unilateral power to go after a non-compliant state, so that when Hitler Jr. fakes a referendum, or simply seizes control of his country to start his annexation of his neighbors, apparently some United Nations Version 2.0 will have an armed forces to make him hold a referendum on invasion.

But even more interesting. Let's say Hitler Jr. runs New Athens, and the people there decide to democratically vote to invade. Democracy is always right, right?

Afghanistan for one, and please don't try to tell me our strongest allies through their unprincipled wheeling, dealing and machinations don't contribute greatly to much of the worst conflicts underway in the world. We should be ashamed to count some of these as our allies and its why I'd like to see our so-called defense treaties and formal alliances put to public review and vote on whether to maintain them.

Who should we be ashamed to have as allies?

Edited August 19, 2010 by ToadBrother

[bloodyminded]

Even worse, it would mean someone would have to have the unilateral power to go after a non-compliant state,

One country in particular has already claimed this right--even to "protect [their] resources" (accidentally under other people's feet). They even boasted about this unilateral "right."

Blair and Harper were in agreement.

[Wilber]

I'll ask the Swiss and of course the Swedes, who I doubt will ever be letting their government declare war anytime soon.

The only reason Sweden, Switzerland and Spain were allowed to remain neutral in WW2 was because both sides needed them to be neutral. Neutrality did dick for Belgium in WW1 and both Belgium and Holland in WW2. Like someone else said, read a history book.

I suppose Poland should have held a referendum on Sept 2, 1939.

Edited August 20, 2010 by Wilber

[Wilber]

Neutrality didn't help Norway or Denmark much either.

[DogOnPorch]

The only reason Sweden, Switzerland and Spain were allowed to remain neutral in WW2 was because both sides needed them to be neutral. Neutrality did dick for Belgium in WW1 and both Belgium and Holland in WW2. Like someone else said, read a history book.

I suppose Poland should have held a referendum on Sept 2, 1939.

Swenden walked a fine line in WW2 with the iron-ore exports and handing over their rail system for German military use...etc. Saw what happened to Norway, I guess...lol. Luckily for Sweden, it wasn't like Finland with Mother Russia right next door forcing the issue of who is on whose side. It was a bit of a haven for fleeing Jews...which is a mark on the good side of the ledger.

[eyeball]

I never claimed you said it. I claim you do it.

You're the one who said it, right here.

You only support a referendum in the hopes of changing things you don't like.

I support using referendums, and not just to change some old things but to also determine some new ones too. I'm not afraid to put issues that are dear to me to referendum. Just because you can't maintain a consistent principle doesn't mean others can't.

Here's my proof

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?app=core&module=search&section=search&do=quick_search&search_app=core&fromsearch=1

I guess it figures there's nothing there.

You are just not smart enough or honest enough to admit...something like "d'oh who would want a referendum to change what we like"

Your premise and question are a little garbled but I've honestly admitted time and time again that a citizen's assemblies process similar to the one we used in BC could determine what should or should not be put to referendum. But instead of acknowledging that you use ad hominems to attack me when attacking my suggestion falls apart, as it does when it's pointed out that other countries are and have been doing almost exactly what I'm proposing for years and years.

Those who say it cannot be done should not interrupt the person doing it, or in this case pointing to clear examples of other people doing it.

instead you get all bent out of shape and start hurling insults....because you know damn well it's true.

Then you would have my agreement.

I'm not the one who's getting all bent out of shape and hurling insults at the suggestion we change something you like, you are.

[eyeball]

No, I'm constrained by reality. You seem not to have that problem.

Referendum's are a reality. Do you have a problem with that statement?

So tell me, how is it that we decide when to hold a referendum? Who chooses?

See my response to Morris.

No, you've also talked about experts who would apparently have some indeterminate role in decision-making.

That's right, but not that indeterminate. Again see my response to Morris.

What if an ally gets attacked by an invader?

We help them if we have a defense treaty with them. Of course I would suggest we first determine who and why our allies should be our allies in the first place and whether we should have treaties with them. I would say the country that bloodyminded is alluding to definitely shouldn't make the cut.

No, that's not what we said. What we said is that unless the entire planet uses this system, all it takes is one nasty guy to lead his country into invasion, and while everybody is getting out there Whiz Bang Ross Perot 2000 voting machine to decide whether to help an ally or not, Hitler Jr. is happily bombing countries into the stone age.

You didn't seem to disagree with bambino's assertion when he said,

every country on Earth would have to be required to hold referenda on maintaining treaties (whatever that actually means) and sending troops abroad in war for it to work, here or anywhere else, and such a rule would need a world dictator to enforce it on everyone.

Who should we be ashamed to have as allies?

Countries that behave like New Athens. The one bloodyminded alluded to comes to mind which is obviously the U.S.

[ToadBrother]

Referendum's are a reality. Do you have a problem with that statement?

Save in a handful of countries, referendums are only used for very explicit issues. Frankly, I think they could be abused horribly. The Swiss minaret vote being an awfully good example.

We help them if we have a defense treaty with them. Of course I would suggest we first determine who and why our allies should be our allies in the first place and whether we should have treaties with them. I would say the country that bloodyminded is alluding to definitely shouldn't make the cut.

I see, so NATO would be immune from the necessity for votes to go to war defend fellow treaty countries, right?

Countries that behave like New Athens. The one bloodyminded alluded to comes to mind which is obviously the U.S.

You mean the country that rebuilt Europe and Japan, and kept Canada safe from the Soviets?

"Fair weather friend" doesn't even begin to describe your sentiments.

And you missed the point of "New Athens". Athens quite democratically, in fact using a referendum (it was, after all, a direct democracy) decided to go to war against Sparta. I thought this is how you wanted decisions like wars decided. I'm confused now.

Edited August 20, 2010 by ToadBrother

[eyeball]

Save in a handful of countries, referendums are only used for very explicit issues. Frankly, I think they could be abused horribly. The Swiss minaret vote being an awfully good example.

There's nothing that says we can't learn from the occasional faux pas. This is the sort of thing I see experts advising citizen's assemblies on when determining what should or shouldn't be put to referendum.

I see, so NATO would be immune from the necessity for votes to go to war defend fellow treaty countries, right?

I guess that would depend on what people decided after reviewing the alliances they have.

You mean the country that rebuilt Europe and Japan, and kept Canada safe from the Soviets?

No I mean the country that did things like overthrow democratically elected governments and prop up dictators in the name of protecting freedom and democracy.

"Fair weather friend" doesn't even begin to describe your sentiments.

Principled friend describes them much better.

And you missed the point of "New Athens". Athens quite democratically, in fact using a referendum (it was, after all, a direct democracy) decided to go to war against Sparta. I thought this is how you wanted decisions like wars decided. I'm confused now.

I didn't miss your point of associating Hitler Jr. with New Athens but I guess I conflated your point with that other well known Jr. that decided to go to war too.

Edited August 20, 2010 by eyeball

[eyeball]

Athens quite democratically, in fact using a referendum (it was, after all, a direct democracy) decided to go to war against Sparta. I thought this is how you wanted decisions like wars decided. I'm confused now.

Like the issue of minarets, this is the sort of thing I can see experts advising citizen's assemblies on when determining what should or shouldn't be put to referendum.

[ToadBrother]

Like the issue of minarets, this is the sort of thing I can see experts advising citizen's assemblies on when determining what should or shouldn't be put to referendum.

I think the Swiss knew perfectly well the issues, and because their system affords them the ability to do these sorts of things anyways, they quite happily abused the rights of a minority. Your "expert adviser" crap is nothing more than something you've pasted on in a rather vapid attempt to deflect criticism of your idea. If the voters can ignore the expert advisers, just like Athens ignored Socrates who told them they were being foolish, so to it would seem to me an unconstrained direct democracy will do the same with, say, minority rights.

Direct democracies are not a panacea. In fact, their history is rather mixed, I'm afraid.

Edited August 20, 2010 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

No I mean the country that did things like overthrow democratically elected governments and prop up dictators in the name of protecting freedom and democracy.

To protect their democracy, and ours. It might have been wrong, and in some cases like Iran, positively negative, but they were dealing with an enemy who had no particular principles at all.

I'd love to know how you would have dealt with the Soviet threat.

I didn't miss your point of associating Hitler Jr. with New Athens but I guess I conflated your point with that other well known Jr. that decided to go to war too.

I wasn't associating them, I was giving, on the one hand, an example of a situation in which your referendum-based democracy system would be at a severe disadvantage (Hitler Jr. bombing the snot out of countries and annexing them while those countries' allies sat around voting booths). You haven't really answered this question at all.

On the other hand I gave an example of a direct democracy that democratically started an unwinnable war with a much more powerful (and, probably because it needs repeating, very undemocratic) city state. You haven't even dealt with this issue in the least.

[g_bambino]

No, that's not what we said. What we said is that unless the entire planet uses this system, all it takes is one nasty guy to lead his country into invasion, and while everybody is getting out there Whiz Bang Ross Perot 2000 voting machine to decide whether to help an ally or not, Hitler Jr. is happily bombing countries into the stone age.

You didn't seem to disagree with bambino's assertion when he said,

every country on Earth would have to be required to hold referenda on maintaining treaties (whatever that actually means) and sending troops abroad in war for it to work, here or anywhere else, and such a rule would need a world dictator to enforce it on everyone.

Of course he didn't disagree, considering he repeated almost exactly what I said; but, then, that's only evident if you don't selectively edit out salient parts of people's communications. What TB said in full was:

What we said is that unless the entire planet uses this system, all it takes is one nasty guy to lead his country into invasion, and while everybody is getting out there Whiz Bang Ross Perot 2000 voting machine to decide whether to help an ally or not, Hitler Jr. is happily bombing countries into the stone age.

Even worse, it would mean someone would have to have the unilateral power to go after a non-compliant state, so that when Hitler Jr. fakes a referendum, or simply seizes control of his country to start his annexation of his neighbors, apparently some United Nations Version 2.0 will have an armed forces to make him hold a referendum on invasion.

The only difference is the TB says "unilateral power" and "United Nations Version 2.0" where I said "world dictator".

Three people have come to the same conclusion after analysis of your proposal and all you can do is stick your fingers in your ears and tell yourself we're just idiots.