The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Politics => Topic started by: Wretched Excess on June 01, 2008, 02:36:24 PM
-
it just gets worse and worse for scotty. this silly little man is getting used like the only bic in a crack house. :whatever:
McClellan gives no new evidence
Scott McClellan's most explosive charges about the Iraq war are based not on any new evidence but rather on his reading of books and magazine articles after leaving the White House and on a period of "reflection."
On morning talk shows this morning, Mr. McClellan repeated a statement from his book: that he charges President Bush with a misleading the country into war based on reading a book by reporter Bob Woodward.
Mr. McClellan said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that he realized Mr. Bush had in late 2001 made up his mind to invade Iraq "when the president did interviews with Bob Woodward for his book."
Yet Mr. McClellan also called on other public officials to "come forward and share their candid insights about what they lived and what they learned from it."
During the interview, the 40-year old former Bush administration press secretary defended his portrait of Mr. Bush as "too stubborn to change and grow," but also admitted he should have voiced his doubts and questions about the march to war in 2002 and 2003.
Mr. McClellan made no effort, however, to bolster the sourcing for the most serious charge in his book, that the president based the case for war on possible weapons of mass destruction only to hide his true motivation: the introduction of "coercive democracy" in the Middle East.
This charge has been given great authority because of Mr. McClellan's former status as a White House insider.
But a close reading of his book, "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washingtons Culture of Corruption," shows that he reveals no new information about the presidents motives.
The White House and many of Mr. McClellan's former colleagues have honed in on this issue in the days after several newspapers obtained copies of the book on Tuesday night, several days in advance of its official release today.
More (http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/jun/01/mcclellans-charges-based-old-evidence/)
-
This will all be forgotten by Thursday. The MSM is embarrassing themselves and they know it. We can look for this "book" to do an Orwellian disappearing act real fast.
**No one expected the White House to defend themselves on this - with good reason. This "book" thing isn't working out like the plan.
-
thirty pieces of silver!
-
This will all be forgotten by Thursday. The MSM is embarrassing themselves and they know it. We can look for this "book" to do an Orwellian disappearing act real fast.
**No one expected the White House to defend themselves on this - with good reason. This "book" thing isn't working out like the plan.
ah, but I heard all over the internets and all around that MSM that it is the #1 selling title on amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books/ref=sv_b_3) ; just ahead of the latest installation of a "young adult saga", and the dungeons and dragons rule book. :whatever: :whatever: :whatever: :whatever: :whatever:
-
My guess is they're going to slowly leak bits and pieces of 'scandalous'-sounding headlines to keep this going as long as possible... like this one:
McClellan: Bush should have fired Rove (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080601/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_mcclellan_book)
WASHINGTON - President Bush broke his promise to the country by refusing to fire aide Karl Rove for leaking a CIA agent's identity, said Scott McClellan, the president's chief spokesman for almost three years.
"I think the president should have stood by his word and that meant Karl should have left," McClellan said Sunday in a broadcast interview about his new tell-all book, a scathing rebuke of the White House under Bush's leadership.
McClellan now acknowledges he felt burned by Rove, Bush's top political adviser, and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff. He said Rove and Libby assured him they were not involved in leaking CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity, and he repeated those assurances to reporters.
-
I see nothing wrong with "introducing democracy" in the Middle East.
In fact, I think that's an admirable goal, and don't understand why primitives don't see it that way too.
-
I see nothing wrong with "introducing democracy" in the Middle East.
In fact, I think that's an admirable goal, and don't understand why primitives don't see it that way too.
were these people we "introduced" it to given a choice in the matter?
-
I see nothing wrong with "introducing democracy" in the Middle East.
In fact, I think that's an admirable goal, and don't understand why primitives don't see it that way too.
were these people we "introduced" it to given a choice in the matter?
no, see, they were being oppressed by dictators and tyrants at the time. that's sorta the whole freaking point. if you think that's such a great life, I encourage you to try it.
-
I see nothing wrong with "introducing democracy" in the Middle East.
In fact, I think that's an admirable goal, and don't understand why primitives don't see it that way too.
were these people we "introduced" it to given a choice in the matter?
In case you haven't noticed it, they voted for it. Several times.
Removing Saddam Hussein served our and the world's interests, while simultaneoulsy giving a chance to the Iraqi people. Hope is one hell of a powerful gift to give someone who has never had it, and by removing Saddam Hussein not only did GWB give hope to Iraq, he provided that to the region.
A student of history understands the significance.
-
My guess is they're going to slowly leak bits and pieces of 'scandalous'-sounding headlines to keep this going as long as possible... like this one:
McClellan: Bush should have fired Rove (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080601/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_mcclellan_book)
WASHINGTON - President Bush broke his promise to the country by refusing to fire aide Karl Rove for leaking a CIA agent's identity, said Scott McClellan, the president's chief spokesman for almost three years.
"I think the president should have stood by his word and that meant Karl should have left," McClellan said Sunday in a broadcast interview about his new tell-all book, a scathing rebuke of the White House under Bush's leadership.
McClellan now acknowledges he felt burned by Rove, Bush's top political adviser, and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff. He said Rove and Libby assured him they were not involved in leaking CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity, and he repeated those assurances to reporters.
Karl Rove didn't leak the name of a CIA agent.
-
I see nothing wrong with "introducing democracy" in the Middle East.
In fact, I think that's an admirable goal, and don't understand why primitives don't see it that way too.
were these people we "introduced" it to given a choice in the matter?
In case you haven't noticed it, they voted for it. Several times.
Removing Saddam Hussein served our and the world's interests, while simultaneoulsy giving a chance to the Iraqi people. Hope is one hell of a powerful gift to give someone who has never had it, and by removing Saddam Hussein not only did GWB give hope to Iraq, he provided that to the region.
A student of history understands the significance.
The vote wasn't about whether or not they wanted a democracy.
Regardless, after we inevitably leave Iraq, their government will succumb to the same kind corruption that plagues other Arab countries.
-
I see nothing wrong with "introducing democracy" in the Middle East.
In fact, I think that's an admirable goal, and don't understand why primitives don't see it that way too.
were these people we "introduced" it to given a choice in the matter?
In case you haven't noticed it, they voted for it. Several times.
Removing Saddam Hussein served our and the world's interests, while simultaneoulsy giving a chance to the Iraqi people. Hope is one hell of a powerful gift to give someone who has never had it, and by removing Saddam Hussein not only did GWB give hope to Iraq, he provided that to the region.
A student of history understands the significance.
The vote wasn't about whether or not they wanted a democracy.
Regardless, after we inevitably leave Iraq, their government will succumb to the same kind corruption that plagues other Arab countries.
people said the same thing about japan and germany . . . . what is your problem with the natural attractions of democracy and individual liberty for all the countries of the world?
-
I see nothing wrong with "introducing democracy" in the Middle East.
In fact, I think that's an admirable goal, and don't understand why primitives don't see it that way too.
were these people we "introduced" it to given a choice in the matter?
In case you haven't noticed it, they voted for it. Several times.
Removing Saddam Hussein served our and the world's interests, while simultaneoulsy giving a chance to the Iraqi people. Hope is one hell of a powerful gift to give someone who has never had it, and by removing Saddam Hussein not only did GWB give hope to Iraq, he provided that to the region.
A student of history understands the significance.
The vote wasn't about whether or not they wanted a democracy.
Regardless, after we inevitably leave Iraq, their government will succumb to the same kind corruption that plagues other Arab countries.
Of course it was. What was the vote for then?
Who said we are leaving?
-
I see nothing wrong with "introducing democracy" in the Middle East.
In fact, I think that's an admirable goal, and don't understand why primitives don't see it that way too.
were these people we "introduced" it to given a choice in the matter?
In case you haven't noticed it, they voted for it. Several times.
Removing Saddam Hussein served our and the world's interests, while simultaneoulsy giving a chance to the Iraqi people. Hope is one hell of a powerful gift to give someone who has never had it, and by removing Saddam Hussein not only did GWB give hope to Iraq, he provided that to the region.
A student of history understands the significance.
The vote wasn't about whether or not they wanted a democracy.
Regardless, after we inevitably leave Iraq, their government will succumb to the same kind corruption that plagues other Arab countries.
people said the same thing about japan and germany . . . . what is your problem with the natural attractions of democracy and individual liberty for all the countries of the world?
There is no natural attraction to democracy. That's a myth invented by Wilson. If there was such a natural attraction for it, then why didn't any stable democracies exist until some 200 years ago? I've had family members that have lived under democracy and dictatorship. They preferred the dictatorship, simply they thought there was more security under it. People care about security and stability more than they care about individual liberty.
-
I see nothing wrong with "introducing democracy" in the Middle East.
In fact, I think that's an admirable goal, and don't understand why primitives don't see it that way too.
were these people we "introduced" it to given a choice in the matter?
In case you haven't noticed it, they voted for it. Several times.
Removing Saddam Hussein served our and the world's interests, while simultaneoulsy giving a chance to the Iraqi people. Hope is one hell of a powerful gift to give someone who has never had it, and by removing Saddam Hussein not only did GWB give hope to Iraq, he provided that to the region.
A student of history understands the significance.
The vote wasn't about whether or not they wanted a democracy.
Regardless, after we inevitably leave Iraq, their government will succumb to the same kind corruption that plagues other Arab countries.
Of course it was. What was the vote for then?
Who said we are leaving?
whether they wanted shiites in power or sunnis. If a democrat wins, we will probably leave soon.
-
I see nothing wrong with "introducing democracy" in the Middle East.
In fact, I think that's an admirable goal, and don't understand why primitives don't see it that way too.
were these people we "introduced" it to given a choice in the matter?
In case you haven't noticed it, they voted for it. Several times.
Removing Saddam Hussein served our and the world's interests, while simultaneoulsy giving a chance to the Iraqi people. Hope is one hell of a powerful gift to give someone who has never had it, and by removing Saddam Hussein not only did GWB give hope to Iraq, he provided that to the region.
A student of history understands the significance.
The vote wasn't about whether or not they wanted a democracy.
Regardless, after we inevitably leave Iraq, their government will succumb to the same kind corruption that plagues other Arab countries.
Of course it was. What was the vote for then?
Who said we are leaving?
whether they wanted shiites in power or sunnis. If a democrat wins, we will probably leave soon.
Uh, that is not democracy? (it was a little more than that by the way)
I am so confused as to our upcoming Novembers elections are for then...........
-
I see nothing wrong with "introducing democracy" in the Middle East.
In fact, I think that's an admirable goal, and don't understand why primitives don't see it that way too.
were these people we "introduced" it to given a choice in the matter?
In case you haven't noticed it, they voted for it. Several times.
Removing Saddam Hussein served our and the world's interests, while simultaneoulsy giving a chance to the Iraqi people. Hope is one hell of a powerful gift to give someone who has never had it, and by removing Saddam Hussein not only did GWB give hope to Iraq, he provided that to the region.
A student of history understands the significance.
The vote wasn't about whether or not they wanted a democracy.
Regardless, after we inevitably leave Iraq, their government will succumb to the same kind corruption that plagues other Arab countries.
Of course it was. What was the vote for then?
Who said we are leaving?
whether they wanted shiites in power or sunnis. If a democrat wins, we will probably leave soon.
Uh, that is not democracy? (it was a little more than that by the way)
I am so confused as to our upcoming Novembers elections are for then...........
my point is their democracy was imposed on them. They had no choice in the matter.
-
I see nothing wrong with "introducing democracy" in the Middle East.
In fact, I think that's an admirable goal, and don't understand why primitives don't see it that way too.
were these people we "introduced" it to given a choice in the matter?
In case you haven't noticed it, they voted for it. Several times.
Removing Saddam Hussein served our and the world's interests, while simultaneoulsy giving a chance to the Iraqi people. Hope is one hell of a powerful gift to give someone who has never had it, and by removing Saddam Hussein not only did GWB give hope to Iraq, he provided that to the region.
A student of history understands the significance.
The vote wasn't about whether or not they wanted a democracy.
Regardless, after we inevitably leave Iraq, their government will succumb to the same kind corruption that plagues other Arab countries.
people said the same thing about japan and germany . . . . what is your problem with the natural attractions of democracy and individual liberty for all the countries of the world?
There is no natural attraction to democracy. That's a myth invented by Wilson. If there was such a natural attraction for it, then why didn't any stable democracies exist until some 200 years ago? I've had family members that have lived under democracy and dictatorship. They preferred the dictatorship, simply they thought there was more security under it. People care about security and stability more than they care about individual liberty.
Karl Marx, is that you?
People care about FREEDOM. Say it with me, I know you can -- F-R-E-E-D-O-M.
Freedom and democracy kind of go hand in hand.
-
There is no natural attraction to democracy. That's a myth invented by Wilson. If there was such a natural attraction for it, then why didn't any stable democracies exist until some 200 years ago? I've had family members that have lived under democracy and dictatorship. They preferred the dictatorship, simply they thought there was more security under it. People care about security and stability more than they care about individual liberty.
^ ^ ^ I have found it! The most stupid statement CC has hosted yet.
-
I see nothing wrong with "introducing democracy" in the Middle East.
In fact, I think that's an admirable goal, and don't understand why primitives don't see it that way too.
were these people we "introduced" it to given a choice in the matter?
In case you haven't noticed it, they voted for it. Several times.
Removing Saddam Hussein served our and the world's interests, while simultaneoulsy giving a chance to the Iraqi people. Hope is one hell of a powerful gift to give someone who has never had it, and by removing Saddam Hussein not only did GWB give hope to Iraq, he provided that to the region.
A student of history understands the significance.
The vote wasn't about whether or not they wanted a democracy.
Regardless, after we inevitably leave Iraq, their government will succumb to the same kind corruption that plagues other Arab countries.
people said the same thing about japan and germany . . . . what is your problem with the natural attractions of democracy and individual liberty for all the countries of the world?
There is no natural attraction to democracy. That's a myth invented by Wilson. If there was such a natural attraction for it, then why didn't any stable democracies exist until some 200 years ago? I've had family members that have lived under democracy and dictatorship. They preferred the dictatorship, simply they thought there was more security under it. People care about security and stability more than they care about individual liberty.
that post actually started off almost semi-sane. it certainly didn't end that way.
-
I see nothing wrong with "introducing democracy" in the Middle East.
In fact, I think that's an admirable goal, and don't understand why primitives don't see it that way too.
were these people we "introduced" it to given a choice in the matter?
In case you haven't noticed it, they voted for it. Several times.
Removing Saddam Hussein served our and the world's interests, while simultaneoulsy giving a chance to the Iraqi people. Hope is one hell of a powerful gift to give someone who has never had it, and by removing Saddam Hussein not only did GWB give hope to Iraq, he provided that to the region.
A student of history understands the significance.
The vote wasn't about whether or not they wanted a democracy.
Regardless, after we inevitably leave Iraq, their government will succumb to the same kind corruption that plagues other Arab countries.
Of course it was. What was the vote for then?
Who said we are leaving?
whether they wanted shiites in power or sunnis. If a democrat wins, we will probably leave soon.
Uh, that is not democracy? (it was a little more than that by the way)
I am so confused as to our upcoming Novembers elections are for then...........
my point is their democracy was imposed on them. They had no choice in the matter.
Of course they did. We removed their dictator, and allowed them to chose which form of government they wanted for their country. They chose democracy.
They had no choice in Saddam Hussein and his regime. That was imposed on them. Their elections were not free. Please know the difference.
-
I see nothing wrong with "introducing democracy" in the Middle East.
In fact, I think that's an admirable goal, and don't understand why primitives don't see it that way too.
were these people we "introduced" it to given a choice in the matter?
In case you haven't noticed it, they voted for it. Several times.
Removing Saddam Hussein served our and the world's interests, while simultaneoulsy giving a chance to the Iraqi people. Hope is one hell of a powerful gift to give someone who has never had it, and by removing Saddam Hussein not only did GWB give hope to Iraq, he provided that to the region.
A student of history understands the significance.
The vote wasn't about whether or not they wanted a democracy.
Regardless, after we inevitably leave Iraq, their government will succumb to the same kind corruption that plagues other Arab countries.
people said the same thing about japan and germany . . . . what is your problem with the natural attractions of democracy and individual liberty for all the countries of the world?
There is no natural attraction to democracy. That's a myth invented by Wilson. If there was such a natural attraction for it, then why didn't any stable democracies exist until some 200 years ago? I've had family members that have lived under democracy and dictatorship. They preferred the dictatorship, simply they thought there was more security under it. People care about security and stability more than they care about individual liberty.
that post actually started off almost semi-sane. it certainly didn't end that way.
nice response. Instead of discussing something rationally, you descend into name-calling.
-
I see nothing wrong with "introducing democracy" in the Middle East.
In fact, I think that's an admirable goal, and don't understand why primitives don't see it that way too.
were these people we "introduced" it to given a choice in the matter?
In case you haven't noticed it, they voted for it. Several times.
Removing Saddam Hussein served our and the world's interests, while simultaneoulsy giving a chance to the Iraqi people. Hope is one hell of a powerful gift to give someone who has never had it, and by removing Saddam Hussein not only did GWB give hope to Iraq, he provided that to the region.
A student of history understands the significance.
The vote wasn't about whether or not they wanted a democracy.
Regardless, after we inevitably leave Iraq, their government will succumb to the same kind corruption that plagues other Arab countries.
people said the same thing about japan and germany . . . . what is your problem with the natural attractions of democracy and individual liberty for all the countries of the world?
There is no natural attraction to democracy. That's a myth invented by Wilson. If there was such a natural attraction for it, then why didn't any stable democracies exist until some 200 years ago? I've had family members that have lived under democracy and dictatorship. They preferred the dictatorship, simply they thought there was more security under it. People care about security and stability more than they care about individual liberty.
that post actually started off almost semi-sane. it certainly didn't end that way.
nice response. Instead of discussing something rationally, you descend into name-calling.
no, name calling would be "YOU are ****ing insane". I merely implied that your POST was ****ing insane.
there is a difference.
-
I see nothing wrong with "introducing democracy" in the Middle East.
In fact, I think that's an admirable goal, and don't understand why primitives don't see it that way too.
were these people we "introduced" it to given a choice in the matter?
In case you haven't noticed it, they voted for it. Several times.
Removing Saddam Hussein served our and the world's interests, while simultaneoulsy giving a chance to the Iraqi people. Hope is one hell of a powerful gift to give someone who has never had it, and by removing Saddam Hussein not only did GWB give hope to Iraq, he provided that to the region.
A student of history understands the significance.
The vote wasn't about whether or not they wanted a democracy.
Regardless, after we inevitably leave Iraq, their government will succumb to the same kind corruption that plagues other Arab countries.
people said the same thing about japan and germany . . . . what is your problem with the natural attractions of democracy and individual liberty for all the countries of the world?
There is no natural attraction to democracy. That's a myth invented by Wilson. If there was such a natural attraction for it, then why didn't any stable democracies exist until some 200 years ago? I've had family members that have lived under democracy and dictatorship. They preferred the dictatorship, simply they thought there was more security under it. People care about security and stability more than they care about individual liberty.
that post actually started off almost semi-sane. it certainly didn't end that way.
nice response. Instead of discussing something rationally, you descend into name-calling.
no, name calling would be "YOU are ******* insane". I merely implied that your POST was ******* insane.
there is a difference.
yet it was a "non-response" nonetheless. Tell me, why did democracies as we know them not emerge until recently in history? Since people naturally want to have them, why didn't they emerge 3,000 years ago?
-
There is no natural attraction to democracy. That's a myth invented by Wilson. If there was such a natural attraction for it, then why didn't any stable democracies exist until some 200 years ago? I've had family members that have lived under democracy and dictatorship. They preferred the dictatorship, simply they thought there was more security under it. People care about security and stability more than they care about individual liberty.
^ ^ ^ I have found it! The most stupid statement CC has hosted yet.
interesting. Do you know anyone who has lived in a country that was a dictatorship, which then had a violent revolution, and then became a less than stable democracy?
-
I see nothing wrong with "introducing democracy" in the Middle East.
In fact, I think that's an admirable goal, and don't understand why primitives don't see it that way too.
were these people we "introduced" it to given a choice in the matter?
In case you haven't noticed it, they voted for it. Several times.
Removing Saddam Hussein served our and the world's interests, while simultaneoulsy giving a chance to the Iraqi people. Hope is one hell of a powerful gift to give someone who has never had it, and by removing Saddam Hussein not only did GWB give hope to Iraq, he provided that to the region.
A student of history understands the significance.
The vote wasn't about whether or not they wanted a democracy.
Regardless, after we inevitably leave Iraq, their government will succumb to the same kind corruption that plagues other Arab countries.
people said the same thing about japan and germany . . . . what is your problem with the natural attractions of democracy and individual liberty for all the countries of the world?
There is no natural attraction to democracy. That's a myth invented by Wilson. If there was such a natural attraction for it, then why didn't any stable democracies exist until some 200 years ago? I've had family members that have lived under democracy and dictatorship. They preferred the dictatorship, simply they thought there was more security under it. People care about security and stability more than they care about individual liberty.
that post actually started off almost semi-sane. it certainly didn't end that way.
nice response. Instead of discussing something rationally, you descend into name-calling.
no, name calling would be "YOU are ******* insane". I merely implied that your POST was ******* insane.
there is a difference.
yet it was a "non-response" nonetheless. Tell me, why did democracies as we know them not emerge until recently in history? Since people naturally want to have them, why didn't they emerge 3,000 years ago?
I would like to think it is a product of mankind's innate and never ending desire for improvement; improvement of the self, of the soul, and of our social arrangements.
we also tolerated slavery for a eons until we were able to overcome that moral wrong. that doesn't make it "preferable" or "superior", and simply not "natural", simply because it came first.
-
There is no natural attraction to democracy. That's a myth invented by Wilson. If there was such a natural attraction for it, then why didn't any stable democracies exist until some 200 years ago? I've had family members that have lived under democracy and dictatorship. They preferred the dictatorship, simply they thought there was more security under it. People care about security and stability more than they care about individual liberty.
^ ^ ^ I have found it! The most stupid statement CC has hosted yet.
interesting. Do you know anyone who has lived in a country that was a dictatorship, which then had a violent revolution, and then became a less than stable democracy?
You mean the United States? How long did it take our Republic to take shape?
-
There is no natural attraction to democracy. That's a myth invented by Wilson. If there was such a natural attraction for it, then why didn't any stable democracies exist until some 200 years ago? I've had family members that have lived under democracy and dictatorship. They preferred the dictatorship, simply they thought there was more security under it. People care about security and stability more than they care about individual liberty.
^ ^ ^ I have found it! The most stupid statement CC has hosted yet.
interesting. Do you know anyone who has lived in a country that was a dictatorship, which then had a violent revolution, and then became a less than stable democracy?
you're mixing some things here. a country that throws off a dictatorship is usually unstable for a period of time, not the least reason being that social frictions, being suppressed like everything else, are suddenly allowed to vent themselves.
-
There is no natural attraction to democracy. That's a myth invented by Wilson. If there was such a natural attraction for it, then why didn't any stable democracies exist until some 200 years ago? I've had family members that have lived under democracy and dictatorship. They preferred the dictatorship, simply they thought there was more security under it. People care about security and stability more than they care about individual liberty.
^ ^ ^ I have found it! The most stupid statement CC has hosted yet.
interesting. Do you know anyone who has lived in a country that was a dictatorship, which then had a violent revolution, and then became a less than stable democracy?
I've known people who suffered in the USSR, Cuba, and China before moving to the greatest nation this world has ever known, the US of A. I don't know anyone you describe.
Why do you ask? Is there something about such a scenario that causes some to lose their grip on reality and they just happen to be related to you?
-
There is no natural attraction to democracy. That's a myth invented by Wilson. If there was such a natural attraction for it, then why didn't any stable democracies exist until some 200 years ago? I've had family members that have lived under democracy and dictatorship. They preferred the dictatorship, simply they thought there was more security under it. People care about security and stability more than they care about individual liberty.
^ ^ ^ I have found it! The most stupid statement CC has hosted yet.
interesting. Do you know anyone who has lived in a country that was a dictatorship, which then had a violent revolution, and then became a less than stable democracy?
you're mixing some things here. a country that throws off a dictatorship is usually unstable for a period of time, not the least reason being that social frictions, being suppressed like everything else, are suddenly allowed to vent themselves.
yes well that country revolted over 40 years ago and is still as corrupt and unstable as ever. The reason my family member said that is because before the revolt, it was safe to go out in the streets at night. After it, and for until she finally left that country, it was not.
-
There is no natural attraction to democracy. That's a myth invented by Wilson. If there was such a natural attraction for it, then why didn't any stable democracies exist until some 200 years ago? I've had family members that have lived under democracy and dictatorship. They preferred the dictatorship, simply they thought there was more security under it. People care about security and stability more than they care about individual liberty.
^ ^ ^ I have found it! The most stupid statement CC has hosted yet.
interesting. Do you know anyone who has lived in a country that was a dictatorship, which then had a violent revolution, and then became a less than stable democracy?
I've known people who suffered in the USSR, Cuba, and China before moving to the greatest nation this world has ever known, the US of A. I don't know anyone you describe.
Why do you ask? Is there something about such a scenario that causes some to lose their grip on reality and they just happen to be related to you?
that has nothing to do with what I asked. Nice insult btw.
-
There is no natural attraction to democracy. That's a myth invented by Wilson. If there was such a natural attraction for it, then why didn't any stable democracies exist until some 200 years ago? I've had family members that have lived under democracy and dictatorship. They preferred the dictatorship, simply they thought there was more security under it. People care about security and stability more than they care about individual liberty.
^ ^ ^ I have found it! The most stupid statement CC has hosted yet.
interesting. Do you know anyone who has lived in a country that was a dictatorship, which then had a violent revolution, and then became a less than stable democracy?
I've known people who suffered in the USSR, Cuba, and China before moving to the greatest nation this world has ever known, the US of A. I don't know anyone you describe.
Why do you ask? Is there something about such a scenario that causes some to lose their grip on reality and they just happen to be related to you?
that has nothing to do with what I asked. Nice insult btw.
It has everything to do with what you asked. Thank you.
-
There is no natural attraction to democracy. That's a myth invented by Wilson. If there was such a natural attraction for it, then why didn't any stable democracies exist until some 200 years ago? I've had family members that have lived under democracy and dictatorship. They preferred the dictatorship, simply they thought there was more security under it. People care about security and stability more than they care about individual liberty.
^ ^ ^ I have found it! The most stupid statement CC has hosted yet.
interesting. Do you know anyone who has lived in a country that was a dictatorship, which then had a violent revolution, and then became a less than stable democracy?
you're mixing some things here. a country that throws off a dictatorship is usually unstable for a period of time, not the least reason being that social frictions, being suppressed like everything else, are suddenly allowed to vent themselves.
yes well that country revolted over 40 years ago and is still as corrupt and unstable as ever. The reason my family member said that is because before the revolt, it was safe to go out in the streets at night. After it, and for until she finally left that country, it was not.
oppressive regimes oppress criminals, too. you don't have anything over me here, matrix. I lived in the PRC in the 80s. i have seen this up close. and it was only safe to walk the streets at night if you had the right political beliefs, or at least kept your mouth shut, and did at you were told. the second you stopped being completely obedient, you disappeared.
are you really trying to argue this point?
-
There is no natural attraction to democracy. That's a myth invented by Wilson. If there was such a natural attraction for it, then why didn't any stable democracies exist until some 200 years ago? I've had family members that have lived under democracy and dictatorship. They preferred the dictatorship, simply they thought there was more security under it. People care about security and stability more than they care about individual liberty.
^ ^ ^ I have found it! The most stupid statement CC has hosted yet.
interesting. Do you know anyone who has lived in a country that was a dictatorship, which then had a violent revolution, and then became a less than stable democracy?
you're mixing some things here. a country that throws off a dictatorship is usually unstable for a period of time, not the least reason being that social frictions, being suppressed like everything else, are suddenly allowed to vent themselves.
yes well that country revolted over 40 years ago and is still as corrupt and unstable as ever. The reason my family member said that is because before the revolt, it was safe to go out in the streets at night. After it, and for until she finally left that country, it was not.
(http://flyboyz.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/communist-manifesto.jpg)
-
You know it really isn't safe to walk the streets of Detroit at night either.
Damn those founding fathers!
-
yes well that country revolted over 40 years ago and is still as corrupt and unstable as ever. The reason my family member said that is because before the revolt, it was safe to go out in the streets at night. After it, and for until she finally left that country, it was not.
oppressive regimes oppress criminals, too. you don't have anything over me here, matrix. I lived in the PRC in the 80s. i have seen this up close. and it was only safe to walk the streets at night if you had the right political beliefs, or at least kept your mouth shut, and did at you were told. the second you stopped being completely obedient, you disappeared.
are you really trying to argue this point?
Amen. This is the point I wanted to make, but I'm too tired to formulate it in my head. Thanks! :cheersmate:
-
yes well that country revolted over 40 years ago and is still as corrupt and unstable as ever. The reason my family member said that is because before the revolt, it was safe to go out in the streets at night. After it, and for until she finally left that country, it was not.
oppressive regimes oppress criminals, too. you don't have anything over me here, matrix. I lived in the PRC in the 80s. i have seen this up close. and it was only safe to walk the streets at night if you had the right political beliefs, or at least kept your mouth shut, and did at you were told. the second you stopped being completely obedient, you disappeared.
are you really trying to argue this point?
Amen. This is the point I wanted to make, but I'm too tired to formulate it in my head. Thanks! :cheersmate:
you should drink more. :-)
-
I see nothing wrong with "introducing democracy" in the Middle East.
In fact, I think that's an admirable goal, and don't understand why primitives don't see it that way too.
were these people we "introduced" it to given a choice in the matter?
In case you haven't noticed it, they voted for it. Several times.
Removing Saddam Hussein served our and the world's interests, while simultaneoulsy giving a chance to the Iraqi people. Hope is one hell of a powerful gift to give someone who has never had it, and by removing Saddam Hussein not only did GWB give hope to Iraq, he provided that to the region.
A student of history understands the significance.
The vote wasn't about whether or not they wanted a democracy.
Regardless, after we inevitably leave Iraq, their government will succumb to the same kind corruption that plagues other Arab countries.
people said the same thing about japan and germany . . . . what is your problem with the natural attractions of democracy and individual liberty for all the countries of the world?
There is no natural attraction to democracy. That's a myth invented by Wilson. If there was such a natural attraction for it, then why didn't any stable democracies exist until some 200 years ago? I've had family members that have lived under democracy and dictatorship. They preferred the dictatorship, simply they thought there was more security under it. People care about security and stability more than they care about individual liberty.
Karl Marx, is that you?
People care about FREEDOM. Say it with me, I know you can -- F-R-E-E-D-O-M.
Freedom and democracy kind of go hand in hand.
President Wilson, is that you?
if they cared so much we woudn't have to go in and give it to them.
-
I see nothing wrong with "introducing democracy" in the Middle East.
In fact, I think that's an admirable goal, and don't understand why primitives don't see it that way too.
were these people we "introduced" it to given a choice in the matter?
In case you haven't noticed it, they voted for it. Several times.
Removing Saddam Hussein served our and the world's interests, while simultaneoulsy giving a chance to the Iraqi people. Hope is one hell of a powerful gift to give someone who has never had it, and by removing Saddam Hussein not only did GWB give hope to Iraq, he provided that to the region.
A student of history understands the significance.
The vote wasn't about whether or not they wanted a democracy.
Regardless, after we inevitably leave Iraq, their government will succumb to the same kind corruption that plagues other Arab countries.
people said the same thing about japan and germany . . . . what is your problem with the natural attractions of democracy and individual liberty for all the countries of the world?
There is no natural attraction to democracy. That's a myth invented by Wilson. If there was such a natural attraction for it, then why didn't any stable democracies exist until some 200 years ago? I've had family members that have lived under democracy and dictatorship. They preferred the dictatorship, simply they thought there was more security under it. People care about security and stability more than they care about individual liberty.
that post actually started off almost semi-sane. it certainly didn't end that way.
nice response. Instead of discussing something rationally, you descend into name-calling.
no, name calling would be "YOU are ******* insane". I merely implied that your POST was ******* insane.
there is a difference.
yet it was a "non-response" nonetheless. Tell me, why did democracies as we know them not emerge until recently in history? Since people naturally want to have them, why didn't they emerge 3,000 years ago?
I would like to think it is a product of mankind's innate and never ending desire for improvement; improvement of the self, of the soul, and of our social arrangements.
we also tolerated slavery for a eons until we were able to overcome that moral wrong. that doesn't make it "preferable" or "superior", and simply not "natural", simply because it came first.
If that were true then democracies would never fail.
-
I see nothing wrong with "introducing democracy" in the Middle East.
In fact, I think that's an admirable goal, and don't understand why primitives don't see it that way too.
were these people we "introduced" it to given a choice in the matter?
In case you haven't noticed it, they voted for it. Several times.
Removing Saddam Hussein served our and the world's interests, while simultaneoulsy giving a chance to the Iraqi people. Hope is one hell of a powerful gift to give someone who has never had it, and by removing Saddam Hussein not only did GWB give hope to Iraq, he provided that to the region.
A student of history understands the significance.
The vote wasn't about whether or not they wanted a democracy.
Regardless, after we inevitably leave Iraq, their government will succumb to the same kind corruption that plagues other Arab countries.
people said the same thing about japan and germany . . . . what is your problem with the natural attractions of democracy and individual liberty for all the countries of the world?
There is no natural attraction to democracy. That's a myth invented by Wilson. If there was such a natural attraction for it, then why didn't any stable democracies exist until some 200 years ago? I've had family members that have lived under democracy and dictatorship. They preferred the dictatorship, simply they thought there was more security under it. People care about security and stability more than they care about individual liberty.
that post actually started off almost semi-sane. it certainly didn't end that way.
nice response. Instead of discussing something rationally, you descend into name-calling.
no, name calling would be "YOU are ******* insane". I merely implied that your POST was ******* insane.
there is a difference.
yet it was a "non-response" nonetheless. Tell me, why did democracies as we know them not emerge until recently in history? Since people naturally want to have them, why didn't they emerge 3,000 years ago?
I would like to think it is a product of mankind's innate and never ending desire for improvement; improvement of the self, of the soul, and of our social arrangements.
we also tolerated slavery for a eons until we were able to overcome that moral wrong. that doesn't make it "preferable" or "superior", and simply not "natural", simply because it came first.
If that were true then democracies would never fail.
I'm not at all sure that is true, man being fallible and all. but, just for the sake of argument, when was the last time an authentic democracy did fail?
-
President Wilson, is that you?
if they cared so much we woudn't have to go in and give it to them.
Tenneman Square really proves your point here. Those folks don't need any help. The communist Chinese government caved under the pressure and today all Chinese people are in charge of their own lives. I hear tell they can even have a second child now - as long as there first state-authorized child was killed in an earthquake.
:whatever:
-
I see nothing wrong with "introducing democracy" in the Middle East.
In fact, I think that's an admirable goal, and don't understand why primitives don't see it that way too.
were these people we "introduced" it to given a choice in the matter?
In case you haven't noticed it, they voted for it. Several times.
Removing Saddam Hussein served our and the world's interests, while simultaneoulsy giving a chance to the Iraqi people. Hope is one hell of a powerful gift to give someone who has never had it, and by removing Saddam Hussein not only did GWB give hope to Iraq, he provided that to the region.
A student of history understands the significance.
The vote wasn't about whether or not they wanted a democracy.
Regardless, after we inevitably leave Iraq, their government will succumb to the same kind corruption that plagues other Arab countries.
people said the same thing about japan and germany . . . . what is your problem with the natural attractions of democracy and individual liberty for all the countries of the world?
There is no natural attraction to democracy. That's a myth invented by Wilson. If there was such a natural attraction for it, then why didn't any stable democracies exist until some 200 years ago? I've had family members that have lived under democracy and dictatorship. They preferred the dictatorship, simply they thought there was more security under it. People care about security and stability more than they care about individual liberty.
that post actually started off almost semi-sane. it certainly didn't end that way.
nice response. Instead of discussing something rationally, you descend into name-calling.
no, name calling would be "YOU are ******* insane". I merely implied that your POST was ******* insane.
there is a difference.
yet it was a "non-response" nonetheless. Tell me, why did democracies as we know them not emerge until recently in history? Since people naturally want to have them, why didn't they emerge 3,000 years ago?
I would like to think it is a product of mankind's innate and never ending desire for improvement; improvement of the self, of the soul, and of our social arrangements.
we also tolerated slavery for a eons until we were able to overcome that moral wrong. that doesn't make it "preferable" or "superior", and simply not "natural", simply because it came first.
If that were true then democracies would never fail.
I'm not at all sure that is true, man being fallible and all. but, just for the sake of argument, when was the last time an authentic democracy did fail?
The Weimar Republic is the most glaring example, where they voted away democracy. Some of the French Republics failed. Several countries in the Caribbean/South America seem to be in a cycle of democracy/dicatorship. A good example would be Venezuela.
-
President Wilson, is that you?
if they cared so much we woudn't have to go in and give it to them.
Tenneman Square really proves your point here. Those folks don't need any help. The communist Chinese government caved under the pressure and today all Chinese people are in charge of their own lives. I hear tell they can even have a second child now - as long as there first state-authorized child was killed in an earthquake.
:whatever:
how about the Berlin Wall?
-
President Wilson, is that you?
if they cared so much we woudn't have to go in and give it to them.
Tenneman Square really proves your point here. Those folks don't need any help. The communist Chinese government caved under the pressure and today all Chinese people are in charge of their own lives. I hear tell they can even have a second child now - as long as there first state-authorized child was killed in an earthquake.
:whatever:
how about the Berlin Wall?
Russians built it to keep people from escaping to the west. BUT- that wasn't your point, was it.
Funny thing, the Cold War. We fought it using all sorts of meathods other than bullets. We broke the Soviet bank and the Eastern block fell apart.
Did it happen without our help?
Depends on if your name is johnmatrix, CU troll.
-
President Wilson, is that you?
if they cared so much we woudn't have to go in and give it to them.
Tenneman Square really proves your point here. Those folks don't need any help. The communist Chinese government caved under the pressure and today all Chinese people are in charge of their own lives. I hear tell they can even have a second child now - as long as there first state-authorized child was killed in an earthquake.
:whatever:
how about the Berlin Wall?
Exactly. Its existence was a testament to the natural human yearning for freedom.
-
President Wilson, is that you?
if they cared so much we woudn't have to go in and give it to them.
Tenneman Square really proves your point here. Those folks don't need any help. The communist Chinese government caved under the pressure and today all Chinese people are in charge of their own lives. I hear tell they can even have a second child now - as long as there first state-authorized child was killed in an earthquake.
:whatever:
how about the Berlin Wall?
Exactly. Its existence was a testament to the natural human yearning for freedom.
yes, if the people of the country really wanted to. We didn't go into East Germany to "introduce democracy"
-
I see nothing wrong with "introducing democracy" in the Middle East.
In fact, I think that's an admirable goal, and don't understand why primitives don't see it that way too.
were these people we "introduced" it to given a choice in the matter?
In case you haven't noticed it, they voted for it. Several times.
Removing Saddam Hussein served our and the world's interests, while simultaneoulsy giving a chance to the Iraqi people. Hope is one hell of a powerful gift to give someone who has never had it, and by removing Saddam Hussein not only did GWB give hope to Iraq, he provided that to the region.
A student of history understands the significance.
The vote wasn't about whether or not they wanted a democracy.
Regardless, after we inevitably leave Iraq, their government will succumb to the same kind corruption that plagues other Arab countries.
people said the same thing about japan and germany . . . . what is your problem with the natural attractions of democracy and individual liberty for all the countries of the world?
There is no natural attraction to democracy. That's a myth invented by Wilson. If there was such a natural attraction for it, then why didn't any stable democracies exist until some 200 years ago? I've had family members that have lived under democracy and dictatorship. They preferred the dictatorship, simply they thought there was more security under it. People care about security and stability more than they care about individual liberty.
that post actually started off almost semi-sane. it certainly didn't end that way.
nice response. Instead of discussing something rationally, you descend into name-calling.
no, name calling would be "YOU are ******* insane". I merely implied that your POST was ******* insane.
there is a difference.
yet it was a "non-response" nonetheless. Tell me, why did democracies as we know them not emerge until recently in history? Since people naturally want to have them, why didn't they emerge 3,000 years ago?
I would like to think it is a product of mankind's innate and never ending desire for improvement; improvement of the self, of the soul, and of our social arrangements.
we also tolerated slavery for a eons until we were able to overcome that moral wrong. that doesn't make it "preferable" or "superior", and simply not "natural", simply because it came first.
If that were true then democracies would never fail.
I'm not at all sure that is true, man being fallible and all. but, just for the sake of argument, when was the last time an authentic democracy did fail?
The Weimar Republic is the most glaring example, where they voted away democracy. Some of the French Republics failed. Several countries in the Caribbean/South America seem to be in a cycle of democracy/dicatorship. A good example would be Venezuela.
I intentionally used the word "authentic" for a reason. but you have identified a historic anomaly or two. and I asked the question for a reason; most of the "failed" democracies that I knew you would point out are more stable democratic forms of government now.
I think we can safely categorize the conditions in germany that gave rise to the nazis as a on-off. the fact east and west germany are reunified and democratic now actually supports my original point, and militates against yours.
and france was in a constant period of revolution throughout the failed republics that immediately followed the overthrow of louis. and they are a stable democracy now. one more time, this point goes to me.
and nothing about south america is especially stable right now. just for the sake of argument, I will concede that one to you.
-
President Wilson, is that you?
if they cared so much we woudn't have to go in and give it to them.
Tenneman Square really proves your point here. Those folks don't need any help. The communist Chinese government caved under the pressure and today all Chinese people are in charge of their own lives. I hear tell they can even have a second child now - as long as there first state-authorized child was killed in an earthquake.
:whatever:
how about the Berlin Wall?
Exactly. Its existence was a testament to the natural human yearning for freedom.
yes, if the people of the country really wanted to. We didn't go into East Germany to "introduce democracy"
there may not have been an actual invasion, but what did you think the cold war was all about?
-
I see nothing wrong with "introducing democracy" in the Middle East.
In fact, I think that's an admirable goal, and don't understand why primitives don't see it that way too.
were these people we "introduced" it to given a choice in the matter?
In case you haven't noticed it, they voted for it. Several times.
Removing Saddam Hussein served our and the world's interests, while simultaneoulsy giving a chance to the Iraqi people. Hope is one hell of a powerful gift to give someone who has never had it, and by removing Saddam Hussein not only did GWB give hope to Iraq, he provided that to the region.
A student of history understands the significance.
The vote wasn't about whether or not they wanted a democracy.
Regardless, after we inevitably leave Iraq, their government will succumb to the same kind corruption that plagues other Arab countries.
people said the same thing about japan and germany . . . . what is your problem with the natural attractions of democracy and individual liberty for all the countries of the world?
There is no natural attraction to democracy. That's a myth invented by Wilson. If there was such a natural attraction for it, then why didn't any stable democracies exist until some 200 years ago? I've had family members that have lived under democracy and dictatorship. They preferred the dictatorship, simply they thought there was more security under it. People care about security and stability more than they care about individual liberty.
that post actually started off almost semi-sane. it certainly didn't end that way.
nice response. Instead of discussing something rationally, you descend into name-calling.
no, name calling would be "YOU are ******* insane". I merely implied that your POST was ******* insane.
there is a difference.
yet it was a "non-response" nonetheless. Tell me, why did democracies as we know them not emerge until recently in history? Since people naturally want to have them, why didn't they emerge 3,000 years ago?
I would like to think it is a product of mankind's innate and never ending desire for improvement; improvement of the self, of the soul, and of our social arrangements.
we also tolerated slavery for a eons until we were able to overcome that moral wrong. that doesn't make it "preferable" or "superior", and simply not "natural", simply because it came first.
If that were true then democracies would never fail.
I'm not at all sure that is true, man being fallible and all. but, just for the sake of argument, when was the last time an authentic democracy did fail?
The Weimar Republic is the most glaring example, where they voted away democracy. Some of the French Republics failed. Several countries in the Caribbean/South America seem to be in a cycle of democracy/dicatorship. A good example would be Venezuela.
I intentionally used the word "authentic" for a reason. but you have identified a historic anomaly or two. and I asked the question for a reason; most of the "failed" democracies that I knew you would point out are more stable democratic forms of government now.
I think we can safely categorize the conditions in germany that gave rise to the nazis as a on-off. the fact east and west germany are reunified and democratic now actually supports my original point, and militates against yours.
and france was in a constant period of revolution throughout the failed republics that immediately followed the overthrow of louis. and they are a stable democracy now. one more time, this point goes to me.
and nothing about south america is especially stable right now. just for the sake of argument, I will concede that one to you.
The Peron Government in Argentina is another example, he was a fascist who was elected. Salvador Allende in Chile was a Marxist who was also voted into power. Are you just counting all of SA as one?
-
President Wilson, is that you?
if they cared so much we woudn't have to go in and give it to them.
Tenneman Square really proves your point here. Those folks don't need any help. The communist Chinese government caved under the pressure and today all Chinese people are in charge of their own lives. I hear tell they can even have a second child now - as long as there first state-authorized child was killed in an earthquake.
:whatever:
how about the Berlin Wall?
Exactly. Its existence was a testament to the natural human yearning for freedom.
yes, if the people of the country really wanted to. We didn't go into East Germany to "introduce democracy"
there may not have been an actual invasion, but what did you think the cold war was all about?
it was an ideological conflict. The people in E. Germany did want a change from their Authoritarian government. They rose up and changed it. Do you think that if a majority of the people in china actually rose up against their government today, instead of a handful of students, that they would try to suppress them in the same manner?
-
President Wilson, is that you?
if they cared so much we woudn't have to go in and give it to them.
Tenneman Square really proves your point here. Those folks don't need any help. The communist Chinese government caved under the pressure and today all Chinese people are in charge of their own lives. I hear tell they can even have a second child now - as long as there first state-authorized child was killed in an earthquake.
:whatever:
how about the Berlin Wall?
Exactly. Its existence was a testament to the natural human yearning for freedom.
yes, if the people of the country really wanted to. We didn't go into East Germany to "introduce democracy"
there may not have been an actual invasion, but what did you think the cold war was all about?
it was an ideological conflict. The people in E. Germany did want a change from their Authoritarian government. They rose up and changed it. Do you think that if a majority of the people in china actually rose up against their government today, instead of a handful of students, that they would try to suppress them in the same manner?
and BOTH of those cases are examples of the natural human desire for individual liberty and democratic government. one just worked, while the other failed.
do you recall what the original discussion was about?
-
President Wilson, is that you?
if they cared so much we woudn't have to go in and give it to them.
Tenneman Square really proves your point here. Those folks don't need any help. The communist Chinese government caved under the pressure and today all Chinese people are in charge of their own lives. I hear tell they can even have a second child now - as long as there first state-authorized child was killed in an earthquake.
:whatever:
how about the Berlin Wall?
Exactly. Its existence was a testament to the natural human yearning for freedom.
yes, if the people of the country really wanted to. We didn't go into East Germany to "introduce democracy"
there may not have been an actual invasion, but what did you think the cold war was all about?
it was an ideological conflict. The people in E. Germany did want a change from their Authoritarian government. They rose up and changed it. Do you think that if a majority of the people in china actually rose up against their government today, instead of a handful of students, that they would try to suppress them in the same manner?
and BOTH of those cases are examples of the natural human desire for individual liberty and democratic government. one just worked, while the other failed.
do you recall what the original discussion was about?
yep, but my examples of countries giving up democracy with a vote counter that.
-
if they cared so much we woudn't have to go in and give it to them.
Wow. Seriously?
Please explain humanitarian missions for me. You'll get to the seriously flawed reasoning behind your statement there, but I believe it is going to take some considerable work.
-
President Wilson, is that you?
if they cared so much we woudn't have to go in and give it to them.
Tenneman Square really proves your point here. Those folks don't need any help. The communist Chinese government caved under the pressure and today all Chinese people are in charge of their own lives. I hear tell they can even have a second child now - as long as there first state-authorized child was killed in an earthquake.
:whatever:
how about the Berlin Wall?
Exactly. Its existence was a testament to the natural human yearning for freedom.
yes, if the people of the country really wanted to. We didn't go into East Germany to "introduce democracy"
there may not have been an actual invasion, but what did you think the cold war was all about?
it was an ideological conflict. The people in E. Germany did want a change from their Authoritarian government. They rose up and changed it. Do you think that if a majority of the people in china actually rose up against their government today, instead of a handful of students, that they would try to suppress them in the same manner?
Uh, yes.
I guess prisoners really like those 3 square meals a day too, cause they do little about their situations either.
THE PILLARS OF DEMOCRACY
Sovereignty of the people.
Government based upon consent of the governed.
Majority rule.
Minority rights.
Guarantee of basic human rights.
Free and fair elections.
Equality before the law.
Due process of law.
Constitutional limits on government.
Social, economic, and political pluralism.
Values of tolerance, pragmatism, cooperation, and compromise.
You want to try again with your list of failed democracies?
-
President Wilson, is that you?
if they cared so much we woudn't have to go in and give it to them.
Tenneman Square really proves your point here. Those folks don't need any help. The communist Chinese government caved under the pressure and today all Chinese people are in charge of their own lives. I hear tell they can even have a second child now - as long as there first state-authorized child was killed in an earthquake.
:whatever:
how about the Berlin Wall?
Exactly. Its existence was a testament to the natural human yearning for freedom.
yes, if the people of the country really wanted to. We didn't go into East Germany to "introduce democracy"
there may not have been an actual invasion, but what did you think the cold war was all about?
it was an ideological conflict. The people in E. Germany did want a change from their Authoritarian government. They rose up and changed it. Do you think that if a majority of the people in china actually rose up against their government today, instead of a handful of students, that they would try to suppress them in the same manner?
and BOTH of those cases are examples of the natural human desire for individual liberty and democratic government. one just worked, while the other failed.
do you recall what the original discussion was about?
yep, but my examples of countries giving up democracy with a vote counter that.
that just doesn't track with history or reality. typically, what happens is that a country elects a leader that later manipulates the apparatus to create a thugocracy from what was a democracy.
not quite the same.
-
President Wilson, is that you?
if they cared so much we woudn't have to go in and give it to them.
Tenneman Square really proves your point here. Those folks don't need any help. The communist Chinese government caved under the pressure and today all Chinese people are in charge of their own lives. I hear tell they can even have a second child now - as long as there first state-authorized child was killed in an earthquake.
:whatever:
how about the Berlin Wall?
Exactly. Its existence was a testament to the natural human yearning for freedom.
yes, if the people of the country really wanted to. We didn't go into East Germany to "introduce democracy"
there may not have been an actual invasion, but what did you think the cold war was all about?
it was an ideological conflict. The people in E. Germany did want a change from their Authoritarian government. They rose up and changed it. Do you think that if a majority of the people in china actually rose up against their government today, instead of a handful of students, that they would try to suppress them in the same manner?
and BOTH of those cases are examples of the natural human desire for individual liberty and democratic government. one just worked, while the other failed.
do you recall what the original discussion was about?
yep, but my examples of countries giving up democracy with a vote counter that.
that just doesn't track with history or reality. typically, what happens is that a country elects a leader that later manipulates the apparatus to create a thugocracy from what was a democracy.
not quite the same.
The ones I listed, especially the south American ones, openly ran as Marxists/fascists. The people knew what they were getting into.
-
FWIIW, scottie mctraitor has already fallen off the news pages. his 15 minutes of fame are up and now he has a lifetime of infamy to look forward to.
-
if they cared so much we woudn't have to go in and give it to them.
Wow. Seriously?
Please explain humanitarian missions for me. You'll get to the seriously flawed reasoning behind your statement there, but I believe it is going to take some considerable work.
Humanitarian missions aren't about democratizing the people.
-
President Wilson, is that you?
if they cared so much we woudn't have to go in and give it to them.
Tenneman Square really proves your point here. Those folks don't need any help. The communist Chinese government caved under the pressure and today all Chinese people are in charge of their own lives. I hear tell they can even have a second child now - as long as there first state-authorized child was killed in an earthquake.
:whatever:
how about the Berlin Wall?
Exactly. Its existence was a testament to the natural human yearning for freedom.
yes, if the people of the country really wanted to. We didn't go into East Germany to "introduce democracy"
there may not have been an actual invasion, but what did you think the cold war was all about?
it was an ideological conflict. The people in E. Germany did want a change from their Authoritarian government. They rose up and changed it. Do you think that if a majority of the people in china actually rose up against their government today, instead of a handful of students, that they would try to suppress them in the same manner?
and BOTH of those cases are examples of the natural human desire for individual liberty and democratic government. one just worked, while the other failed.
do you recall what the original discussion was about?
yep, but my examples of countries giving up democracy with a vote counter that.
that just doesn't track with history or reality. typically, what happens is that a country elects a leader that later manipulates the apparatus to create a thugocracy from what was a democracy.
not quite the same.
The ones I listed, especially the south American ones, openly ran as Marxists/fascists. The people knew what they were getting into.
fine. then the south americans are the exceptions that prove the rule.
I'm not sure that bizarre forms of government found in 2 or 3 chaotic little south american countries are anything but a footnote in the face of the ever expending democratization of the rest of the PLANET, but if you want to hang onto your banana republics as incontrovertible proof that basic human nature craves to be oppressed by despots, then knock yourself out.
-
if they cared so much we woudn't have to go in and give it to them.
Wow. Seriously?
Please explain humanitarian missions for me. You'll get to the seriously flawed reasoning behind your statement there, but I believe it is going to take some considerable work.
Humanitarian missions aren't about democratizing the people.
Answer the question.
-
President Wilson, is that you?
if they cared so much we woudn't have to go in and give it to them.
Tenneman Square really proves your point here. Those folks don't need any help. The communist Chinese government caved under the pressure and today all Chinese people are in charge of their own lives. I hear tell they can even have a second child now - as long as there first state-authorized child was killed in an earthquake.
:whatever:
how about the Berlin Wall?
Exactly. Its existence was a testament to the natural human yearning for freedom.
yes, if the people of the country really wanted to. We didn't go into East Germany to "introduce democracy"
there may not have been an actual invasion, but what did you think the cold war was all about?
it was an ideological conflict. The people in E. Germany did want a change from their Authoritarian government. They rose up and changed it. Do you think that if a majority of the people in china actually rose up against their government today, instead of a handful of students, that they would try to suppress them in the same manner?
Uh, yes.
I guess prisoners really like those 3 square meals a day too, cause they do little about their situations either.
THE PILLARS OF DEMOCRACY
Sovereignty of the people.
Government based upon consent of the governed.
Majority rule.
Minority rights.
Guarantee of basic human rights.
Free and fair elections.
Equality before the law.
Due process of law.
Constitutional limits on government.
Social, economic, and political pluralism.
Values of tolerance, pragmatism, cooperation, and compromise.
You want to try again with your list of failed democracies?
Anytime you are ready.