Democracy is big nonsense

[hot enough]

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

The Bible says Christians must obey those in authority unless of course they do something which is against God's teaching in the Bible such as killing innocent people as Hitler and the Nazis did.

The US has slaughtered over 20 million in its over 70 illegal invasions since WWII. Go back to its tawdry, evil origins and the toll mounts even higher. 

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, hot enough said:

The US has slaughtered over 20 million in its over 70 illegal invasions since WWII. Go back to its tawdry, evil origins and the toll mounts even higher. 

You have a one-track mind and the same old same old keeps coming out on here.  What is an illegal invasion to you might not be to the western world.  It's might be a matter of point of view.  If you are on the opposite side you probably would say that.  The U.S. does what is necessary for it's security.  A few things might be debatable.  But then you even say the war against terrorism is wrong.  You would rather see terrorists like al Qaeda run rampant with no opposition.  You lost all credibility on the subject of 9-11 and al Qaeda.  If you had picked certain things you might have convinced someone of some things;  but when you called everything illegal, including the war on terrorism, you lost it.

Edited October 26, 2017 by blackbird

[hot enough]

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

You have a one-track mind and the same old same old keeps going through it.  What is an illegal invasion to you might not be to the western world.  It's might be a matter of point of view.  If you are on the opposite side you probably would say that.  The U.S. does what is necessary for it's security.  A few things might be debatable.  But then you even say the war against terrorism is wrong.  You would rather see terrorists like al Qaeda run rampant with no opposition.  You lost all credibility on the subject of 9-11 and al Qaeda.

You have a zero track mind. It is illegal under international law to illegally invade sovereign nations. That is the law established by the US at Nuremberg after WWII. 

The US security meme is total nonsense. It's the US stealing from other nations which the US is worried about. The idea that the USA's security is threatened is the most fatuous idea ever put forward.

Things are debatable. Planned genocides are not. There is no war on terrorism. There was a fiction created to replace the commie boogeyman. 

Why do so many cowards suggest the 911 issue is settled but they have never once provided any evidence in support of the USGOCT [US government official conspiracy theory].

Up to today, there has never been any evidence that isn't immediately contradicted by reality and other evidence. Just try providing some. There have been two threads on this very issue and still no evidence. I suspect you have been there and you know how vacuous is the USGOCT.

 

[Antares]

On 08/08/2017 at 8:44 PM, scribblet said:

I'd rather have our (Canada) style of Democracy than a dictatorship, even a benign dictatorship.

I don't think there's a hard-and-fast distinction between democracy and dictatorship. After all, democracy could be described as dictatorship by the majority. (To those whose views are ignored, what difference does it make that their dictators are numerous?) It's also worth bearing in mind that the majority of people are either of below-average intelligence or of below-average knowledge (of whatever is relevant to making political decisions) or both. Therefore, democracy could be seen as the dictatorship of the stupid-or-ignorant.

On a personal note, I've seen no practical difference in my own life between democracy and dictatorship, since no-one I've ever voted for has taken office. (In other words, I've always been in the minority.) So I would probably have been better off living under a benign dictatorship.

[?Impact]

On 12/18/2017 at 6:26 AM, Antares said:

I've seen no practical difference in my own life between democracy and dictatorship, since no-one I've ever voted for has taken office.

I have elected two governments, the Mike Harris one and the Justin Trudeau one. Harris messed up badly in his second term, Trudeau is only doing so-so and failed miserably on one of the main points I elected him (first past the post).

[JamesHackerMP]

hot enough, did you know that, according to the Hague Convention, it's illegal to bomb from aircraft? What does that say about the world's willingness to follow a standard of "legal" and "illegal" invasions?

Hot Enough: Was the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor legal or illegal? Was the US's action against the Barbary Pirates under Pres. Jefferson legal or illegal? There was no declaration of war in the latter.

Technically it is illegal for the US to have a permanent standing army if you read our constitution.

Was the 1991 Gulf War legal or illegal?

And weren't we discussing Democracy?

Edited December 22, 2017 by JamesHackerMP

[taxme]

On 8/8/2017 at 7:43 AM, Altai said:

Democracy is a big nonsense because having more votes does not make something right. When we have the same informations, we all will end up with the same logical results. In some aspects of life, for example in politics, there are soo much information and therefore people in general does not bother themselves to reach in deep information and they simply choose the informations which fits with their personal ego to build their perspective. This topic is directly related with my another topic "There is nothing to discuss". 

We dont make true or false decides. We are just realizing or missing the logic. Logic is always there, even if we miss or reject to recognize it when it does not fit with our personal interests/ego.

Just about everything in this world today is all nonsense because they the people have allowed it to be so. The globalist elite warmongers and their lackey puppet on a string politicians have assisted them into making the world a lousy place to live. Democracy only exists on fake and phony paper only. A paper not worth wiping your azz with. When the people start to give a chit and start to say enough already, and really get out there and fight for real freedom then democracy will give us and allow us to live in peace and harmony. That should take another little while yet. Just saying. 

[blackbird]

On 10/25/2017 at 3:29 PM, hot enough said:

The US has slaughtered over 20 million in its over 70 illegal invasions since WWII. Go back to its tawdry, evil origins and the toll mounts even higher. 

How do you define an illegal invasion?  Who decides what is illegal?  Would fighting ISIS be legal or illegal?

[JamesHackerMP]

The problem with democracy is that it entitles all qualified citizens to vote--and qualified in a democracy means that you're not in jail or so mentally handicapped that you're a ward of the State, as long as you are 18 years of age it's a green light for you to go vote.

It doesn't take into account your intelligence, or even better, whether or not you will be CAREFUL in your decision (like actually pick up a frikkin newspaper once in a while, do a little research before you mark your ballot). But no one has yet invented a form of government that would actually force or even encourage people to be a little more careful in their choices.

If people were more careful when they voted, if everyone turned out armed with extensive knowledge of the issues and the candidates, would that change things? Perhaps; it might put a stop to some of the feel-good "silliness" of democracy. But currently there's no way to ensure that.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, JamesHackerMP said:

The problem with democracy is that it entitles all qualified citizens to vote--and qualified in a democracy means that you're not in jail or so mentally handicapped that you're a ward of the State, as long as you are 18 years of age it's a green light for you to go vote.

It doesn't take into account your intelligence, or even better, whether or not you will be CAREFUL in your decision (like actually pick up a frikkin newspaper once in a while, do a little research before you mark your ballot). But no one has yet invented a form of government that would actually force or even encourage people to be a little more careful in their choices.

If people were more careful when they voted, if everyone turned out armed with extensive knowledge of the issues and the candidates, would that change things? Perhaps; it might put a stop to some of the feel-good "silliness" of democracy. But currently there's no way to ensure that.

Some sort of quiz on the ballot paper might be an idea.  If the questions, regarding general knowledge of current events are not answered correctly, then the vote is not counted.

The questions could be picked by an independent body and reviewed by all parties before the election.

 

[JamesHackerMP]

I'm sure that would present its own problems. "all parties" I assume would mean "all political parties"? Same problem, then.

 

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, JamesHackerMP said:

I'm sure that would present its own problems. "all parties" I assume would mean "all political parties"? Same problem, then.

 

Not at all.  Any party that couldn't agree on a set of questions by the deadline would either forfeit their right to run, or turn the issue over to an independent arbitrator. 

I'd be happy to be the arbitrator.

[Boges]

2 hours ago, JamesHackerMP said:

The problem with democracy is that it entitles all qualified citizens to vote--and qualified in a democracy means that you're not in jail or so mentally handicapped that you're a ward of the State, as long as you are 18 years of age it's a green light for you to go vote.

It doesn't take into account your intelligence, or even better, whether or not you will be CAREFUL in your decision (like actually pick up a frikkin newspaper once in a while, do a little research before you mark your ballot). But no one has yet invented a form of government that would actually force or even encourage people to be a little more careful in their choices.

If people were more careful when they voted, if everyone turned out armed with extensive knowledge of the issues and the candidates, would that change things? Perhaps; it might put a stop to some of the feel-good "silliness" of democracy. But currently there's no way to ensure that.

This would be all solved it we only let Land owners vote then. 

In theory, you could have to pass an aptitude test to register to vote. But that would be seen as discriminatory. 

I'm pretty sure people don't vote for shits and giggles. They usually have a reason for voting, even if it's a superficial reason. Any attempt to curtail people's right to vote simply creates an oligarchy. 

[JamesHackerMP]

The big question is, is there a "good" oligarchy of sorts? If there were a way of truly weeding out those who--by the metric of wisdom or lack thereof--shouldn't be allowed within 200 feet of a polling booth in the first place; would it be worth doing so? I'm just asking for the sake of asking (for shits and giggles truly) not because I think that it ought to be done.

After all, there are civil service exams...I think one of you alluded to something like that above.

Edited December 29, 2017 by JamesHackerMP

[Argus]

On ‎12‎/‎28‎/‎2017 at 2:54 PM, Boges said:

This would be all solved it we only let Land owners vote then. 

In theory, you could have to pass an aptitude test to register to vote. But that would be seen as discriminatory. 

I'm pretty sure people don't vote for shits and giggles. They usually have a reason for voting, even if it's a superficial reason. Any attempt to curtail people's right to vote simply creates an oligarchy. 

As someone who is politically interested and has been all my life, I can say that it's been a rare experience to run into anyone else who is like minded. Almost everyone I know basically ignores 95% of what's going on in government at all levels. Most couldn't name their city councilor, their provincial MPP or their federal MP to save their lives. I have two nieces in their twenties who, at a recent Christmas dinner, had no knowledge of the #metoo thing, had never heard of it or any of the complaints about actors. They didn't know anything about any government scandals or controversies at either the federal or provincial levels. They knew about 'global warming' sort of, that it basically is because of using oil, and were happy the government was doing something to take care of that. They knew Ontario's minimum wage was being raised and were happy about that. They had no idea about federal or provincial budget deficits nor had ever thought about the implications, nor cared to.

We need to make voting more difficult. Voting should not be an absolute right but a privilege reserved for those willing to put a little effort into it.

 

[OftenWrong]

On 23/12/2017 at 5:54 PM, taxme said:

Just about everything in this world today is all nonsense because they the people have allowed it to be so. The globalist elite warmongers and their lackey puppet on a string politicians have assisted them into making the world a lousy place to live. Democracy only exists on fake and phony paper only. A paper not worth wiping your azz with. When the people start to give a chit and start to say enough already, and really get out there and fight for real freedom then democracy will give us and allow us to live in peace and harmony. That should take another little while yet. Just saying. 

Fight for freedom? No thanks, I'm too fat and lazy. Wife, pass me another beer. Son, pass me a joint.

[Michael Hardner]

19 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Fight for freedom? No thanks, I'm too fat and lazy. Wife, pass me another beer. Son, pass me a joint.

Warmongers ?  Fight for real ?  So confusing.

[taxme]

18 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Warmongers ?  Fight for real ?  So confusing.

Yes you are.  Just saying. 

[taxme]

18 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Fight for freedom? No thanks, I'm too fat and lazy. Wife, pass me another beer. Son, pass me a joint.

Yup, that about sums it up with most Canadians. And don't forget about the wives who appear to only think about going shopping or trying to get some pajama party going.  

[taxme]

21 hours ago, Argus said:

As someone who is politically interested and has been all my life, I can say that it's been a rare experience to run into anyone else who is like minded. Almost everyone I know basically ignores 95% of what's going on in government at all levels. Most couldn't name their city councilor, their provincial MPP or their federal MP to save their lives. I have two nieces in their twenties who, at a recent Christmas dinner, had no knowledge of the #metoo thing, had never heard of it or any of the complaints about actors. They didn't know anything about any government scandals or controversies at either the federal or provincial levels. They knew about 'global warming' sort of, that it basically is because of using oil, and were happy the government was doing something to take care of that. They knew Ontario's minimum wage was being raised and were happy about that. They had no idea about federal or provincial budget deficits nor had ever thought about the implications, nor cared to.

We need to make voting more difficult. Voting should not be an absolute right but a privilege reserved for those willing to put a little effort into it.

 

And I will bet you that your nieces were probably sitting there playing with their cellphones, right?  

[blackbird]

7 hours ago, taxme said:

And I will bet you that your nieces were probably sitting there playing with their cellphones, right?  

 

On 12/29/2017 at 2:18 PM, Argus said:

As someone who is politically interested and has been all my life, I can say that it's been a rare experience to run into anyone else who is like minded. Almost everyone I know basically ignores 95% of what's going on in government at all levels. Most couldn't name their city councilor, their provincial MPP or their federal MP to save their lives. I have two nieces in their twenties who, at a recent Christmas dinner, had no knowledge of the #metoo thing, had never heard of it or any of the complaints about actors. They didn't know anything about any government scandals or controversies at either the federal or provincial levels. They knew about 'global warming' sort of, that it basically is because of using oil, and were happy the government was doing something to take care of that. They knew Ontario's minimum wage was being raised and were happy about that. They had no idea about federal or provincial budget deficits nor had ever thought about the implications, nor cared to.

We need to make voting more difficult. Voting should not be an absolute right but a privilege reserved for those willing to put a little effort into it.

 

 

On 12/29/2017 at 2:18 PM, Argus said:

As someone who is politically interested and has been all my life, I can say that it's been a rare experience to run into anyone else who is like minded. Almost everyone I know basically ignores 95% of what's going on in government at all levels. Most couldn't name their city councilor, their provincial MPP or their federal MP to save their lives. I have two nieces in their twenties who, at a recent Christmas dinner, had no knowledge of the #metoo thing, had never heard of it or any of the complaints about actors. They didn't know anything about any government scandals or controversies at either the federal or provincial levels. They knew about 'global warming' sort of, that it basically is because of using oil, and were happy the government was doing something to take care of that. They knew Ontario's minimum wage was being raised and were happy about that. They had no idea about federal or provincial budget deficits nor had ever thought about the implications, nor cared to.

We need to make voting more difficult. Voting should not be an absolute right but a privilege reserved for those willing to put a little effort into it.

 

Voting provides an outlet for many who might be anarchists otherwise.  Democracy is a somewhat poor system to choose leaders with, but then there is no system that is any better.

[Argus]

14 hours ago, blackbird said:

Voting provides an outlet for many who might be anarchists otherwise.  Democracy is a somewhat poor system to choose leaders with, but then there is no system that is any better.

We have anarchists anyway. The only purpose democracy serves is as a brake on incompetent, corrupt or dictatorial government. That does not require universal voting. Suppose instead you eliminate most political offices. Let the departments be run by the experts, not by fumbling amateurs. Then you have an oversight board which can appoint or fire bureaucrats as well as the prime minister for corruption, incompetence or abuse of power Then the task is how to form the oversight board.

I would suggest we have a member appointed by voting among union members (not public service unions), one representing the legal community, one the medical community, two from the business community (big business and small business). One would be voted on by members of the scientific community, one by veterans, and then half a dozen by anyone whose name appears for tax purposes, on municipal tax rolls (Ie, land owners). 

This last group would also vote, separately, for the prime minister, or president, or whatever he or she is called. This individual's purpose would be to decide on policy changes in accordance with the needs and will of the electorate.

Edited December 31, 2017 by Argus

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

We have anarchists anyway. The only purpose democracy serves is as a brake on incompetent, corrupt or dictatorial government. That does not require universal voting. Suppose instead you eliminate most political offices. Let the departments be run by the experts, not by fumbling amateurs. Then you have an oversight board which can appoint or fire bureaucrats as well as the prime minister for corruption, incompetence or abuse of power Then the task is how to form the oversight board.

I would suggest we have a member appointed by voting among union members (not public service unions), one representing the legal community, one the medical community, two from the business community (big business and small business). One would be voted on by members of the scientific community, one by veterans, and then half a dozen by anyone whose name appears for tax purposes, on municipal tax rolls (Ie, land owners). 

This last group would also vote, separately, for the prime minister, or president, or whatever he or she is called. This individual's purpose would be to decide on policy changes in accordance with the needs and will of the electorate. 

It would probably turn out to be corrupt.  Because of it's complexity and potential for outside control, it would be impossible to be fair or seen as fair.  Too much power would be in the hands of too few people and the voters would have no control over them.  Whatever system you choose, I can see there would be enormous problems, even as we have now with the shiny pony calling all the shots.  As it is now, one man has so much power and if he is a little bizarre, we are stuck with him.  He has been able to stall or kill 100 billion dollars worth of energy projects.  That is unprecedented and bizarre.

[Argus]

24 minutes ago, blackbird said:

It would probably turn out to be corrupt.  Because of it's complexity and potential for outside control, it would be impossible to be fair or seen as fair.  Too much power would be in the hands of too few people and the voters would have no control over them.

The voters would have the same control over them as they have now. Only there'd be fewer of them to keep track of. And the voters, all being either taxpayers (and thus incentivized to keep an eye on politicians) or members of a particular group like unions or lawyers, who would also find it easier to keep track of what 'their' guy is doing.

24 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Whatever system you choose, I can see there would be enormous problems, even as we have now with the shiny pony calling all the shots.  As it is now, one man has so much power and if he is a little bizarre, we are stuck with him.  He has been able to stall or kill 100 billion dollars worth of energy projects.  That is unprecedented and bizarre.

Under my system the council could fire him.

[taxme]

On 12/31/2017 at 1:14 PM, blackbird said:

It would probably turn out to be corrupt.  Because of it's complexity and potential for outside control, it would be impossible to be fair or seen as fair.  Too much power would be in the hands of too few people and the voters would have no control over them.  Whatever system you choose, I can see there would be enormous problems, even as we have now with the shiny pony calling all the shots.  As it is now, one man has so much power and if he is a little bizarre, we are stuck with him.  He has been able to stall or kill 100 billion dollars worth of energy projects.  That is unprecedented and bizarre.

There should be no PM or any other politician in Canada being able to have the power to stall or kill energy projects. On the contrary, the PM and politicians should be there to encourage energy creating projects and the jobs that will be created from those projects. Unless a project was going to have a some kind of detrimental impact on the environment or destroy people's lives in some way then all should be a go.