 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Leaders
 |
•
•
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 820
Reputation: 
Solved Threads: 42
Practically a Posting Shark
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by Aia 
I am afraid I am going to have to quote this whole epic failure from kaninelupus
•
•
•
•
In this [l]and things are different of what your personal philosophy thinks the rest of the World should abide by.
We believe in "No taxation without representation."
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by PetuniaRose
Well, it doesn't, but this actually goes more to the heart of my concern. Both history and psychology agree that people in exalted positions tend to come to believe that they know better than the rest of us about almost everything - and at that point they become dangerous.
Here is Australia (as with many other truly democratic nations), we have the ability to retain a prime-minister for as long as he is doing the job well (or so long as the alternatives - yes there is more than one alternative - are d1cks). But that doesn't give the elected leader (or even any of the elected officials) reason to become complacent, or power hungry. Here, the ability to remove a defective, or "dangerous" leader is built into our political system, and as that power has in fact been used to remove "leaders" and lesser representatives before.
Also, the fact that like most democratic nations, voting is compulsory (a fact I know the Yanks find hard to fathom), teaching our students from an early age about how our political system works is given much higher priority, thus creating a much more informed public.
As an edit, what I also forgot to mention, is that a prime-minister simply does not have the almost absolute power your President enjoys. Like most democratic nations, the Prime-minister cannot simply decree a law or political policy at whim. Here, the senate actually has the power to block any decision the Prime-minister proposes. Thus there is a check-and-balance written right into our democratic/political system far beyond what the US enjoys.
Whilst I understand your concerns about the nature of using the term "Leader" in respect to your elected representatives, please do not blindly assume that all your concerns are global. As much as much of your country likes to think it leads the rest of the civilised and uncivilised world alike, you actually enjoy less legal and political freedoms than almost the rest of the democratic world.
@AIA - sorry, but that country of yours may not be so grand as you like to think... but the rest of us already knew that!
Last edited by kaninelupus; Aug 5th, 2009 at 7:07 am.
•
•
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 15,571
Reputation: 
Solved Threads: 1485
•
•
•
•
It is almost impossible in your country to remove a defective president no matter how bad things get (with the exception of being impeached for serious breach of ethics or laws) - and thus you assume the same is elsewhere.... and wrongly so.
•
•
•
•
Like most democratic nations, the Prime-minister cannot simply decree a law or political policy at whim. Here, the senate actually has the power to block any decision the Prime-minister proposes. Thus there is a check-and-balance written right into our democratic/political system far beyond what the US enjoys.
Don't PM me with questions -- you might get a nasty PM in response. If you have a question then post it in one of the forums.
kaninelupus> "Epic failure"?? Because I could actually construct a well thought out dialogue as to why I disagreed with you??
No. It is because you have removed all possible doubts that you don't know what you are talking about.
No. It is because you have removed all possible doubts that you don't know what you are talking about.
Last edited by Aia; Aug 5th, 2009 at 11:23 am.
"If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it, and if it stops moving, subsidize it" - Ronald Reagan
•
•
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,833
Reputation:
Solved Threads: 503
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by Aia
VernonDozier>I don't have an agenda, I'm not an acolyte, I don't mindlessly repeat things, I don't have malice towards people who don't vote.
Never said such. Read the post once more without the heavy personal investment you read it last. Maybe you'll get what I really said.
•
•
•
•
VernonDozier> The people who vote have more of a right to complain.
The sentiment is that somehow, there's more righteousness, more honor and respect on someone which vote, that someone which doesn't, as a right of citizen. Far from truth. This is tool of deception. Used by some with established agendas, copied by acolytes, repeated by people which haven't thought of the malice emanating from it.
- I'm deceitful.
- I have an established agenda.
- I'm copying acolytes or I am one.
- I have malice.
- I am mindlessly repeating propaganda.
- I haven't thought it through.
I don't know how else to read your statement. If that wasn't your intent, okay.
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by Aia
However, I am quite sure it is not speculation that once a candidate gets elected, it becomes a representative. Representing everyone in the region of stewardship, even for the minority that did not vote for him/her or did not vote at all, to which she or he is employed of, and accountable to.
And if you can not come to terms with this, either you live in another country or you don't know what you are talking about, or both.
Ditto here:
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by Aia
VernonDozier> I just think everyone has an obligation to be informed and participate in their country's government. Part of that is voting.
That's your personal opinion which I called to question. Not because there's not merit on it to certain extend but because of lack of respect of the freedom of others in their decision concerning the right of voting or not. And the easiness (carelessness) with which you are willing to revoke people's rights. Just because it doesn't adhere to your precepts of fairness.
•
•
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,833
Reputation:
Solved Threads: 503
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by kaninelupus
Also, the fact that like most democratic nations, voting is compulsory (a fact I know the Yanks find hard to fathom), teaching our students from an early age about how our political system works is given much higher priority, thus creating a much more informed public.
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by VernonDozier
Yes, this is the one that bugged me originally. It sure seemed like you were saying I either had an agenda, was an acolyte, had malice, etc. I have reread your original posts, as you suggested. Here's your original statement:
I read this as I'm in at least one of the following categories:
- I'm deceitful.
- I have an established agenda.
- I'm copying acolytes or I am one.
- I have malice.
- I am mindlessly repeating propaganda.
- I haven't thought it through.
I don't know how else to read your statement. If that wasn't your intent, okay.
Please, remove the I'm from those bullet points.
Let me break it down:
Aia> The sentiment is that somehow, there's more righteousness, more honor and respect on someone which vote, that someone which doesn't, as a right of citizen.
I don't see much trouble in this part. Your posts has transmitted that message, and while you are not proposing it to be the Law of the Country, certainly you have made abundantly clear that in a personal level that's your thought. Still, the comment was not directed to you, because, hardly, it is not an original idea from you. I had heard it many times before.
And that "before" is import to understand the remainder.
Aia> This is tool of deception.
Which is true. It is a tool very well used by those with an interest in manipulating masses to a wanted sentiment.
Who? Not you. I left on purpose the naming part out, so I would not give the opportunity to others to derail the topic.
Aia> Used by some with established agendas, copied by acolytes,
And have seen this. Was I accusing you of being an acolyte. Ridiculous! Since most likely you don't know even know what I am referring to.
Aia> repeated by people which haven't thought of the malice emanating from it.
This is the important and interesting bit. The one that probably made you think I was accusing you of the nine whole yard. Responsible for your last bullet point: I haven't thought it through."
Never said you haven't thought it through. Never implied that I could read your mind, and that I know what your thoughts are. Nor even that you are not a thoughtful person.
But rather that the people that embraces those sentiments, might not have considered the malice in such promoted feelings and ideas.
What malice? That's for you and anyone to ponder about it, if you haven't. And if you haven't found any, I encourage you to think harder, perhaps, putting yourself truly, in the unthinkable position of those you are willing to scorn. Asking yourself what do that person has to gain by promoting the idea that somehow my rights are inferiors just because I am ignorant or I don't think it is important to be involved in politics.
While this are only some suggested questions there are a few harder, which I don't want to mention. Sufficient the given ones to start exposing the ugliness, if you want to see it.
"If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it, and if it stops moving, subsidize it" - Ronald Reagan
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by Ancient Dragon
Agree with that statement -- its too difficult for us to remove a President from office. But I don't know any alternatives -- our government does not have a monarchy who can dissolve congress and force a re-election.
PetuniaRose said it best> The nice thing about a representative is that when he no longer represents your values or opinions, you can get rid of him reasonably easily. I haven't heard of any way to get rid of a Leader other than by rebellion/revolution of the followers ... so I'm still ding-donging on my original issue.
Have you consider what it would take to remove from a throne a king or queen? History is full of examples.
Last edited by Aia; Aug 5th, 2009 at 1:58 pm.
"If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it, and if it stops moving, subsidize it" - Ronald Reagan
Cant they just have just have a vote of no confidence?
Here you dont elect the man, you elect the party.
Here you dont elect the man, you elect the party.
Last edited by jbennet; Aug 5th, 2009 at 2:11 pm.
If i am helpful, please give me reputation points.
•
•
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,833
Reputation:
Solved Threads: 503
Aia, I appreciate the clarification. Thank you. To further clarify on my end, one has every right, moral and legal, not to vote. So one has every right, as a citizen, to choose not to vote and should not be persecuted, legally or socially, for exercising that right. My personal opinion is that the whole system breaks down without constant vigilance and participation by the general public, so I think it is, in general, irresponsible and even dangerous for someone to completely opt out of all politics. Our elected officials need to be constantly reminded that we are watching their every move.
To me, the people with malice would want people to NOT vote and basically not pay attention and let the elected officials do whatever evil shenanigans they chose to do and leave them alone while the general public just goes on with their lives. If you want leaders without malice, pay attention and vote and get the evil/hateful people out of there. So I'm not understanding the "malice" part of your point.
But again, that's MY opinion (and yes, it's not an original opinion at all. Lots of people have expressed it long before me) and I can't and don't try to decide for everyone else. Everyone gets to decide for him/herself whether to vote and be involved and informed. And some people are so busy that they hardly have any time to pay attention to politicians even if they would like to. I give them some slack. But everyone gets to make their own decision on that and they have a right to. I just don't think it's a very wise or responsible decision and I don't think they have a right to complain if they make that decision.
Anyway, again, thanks for the clarification as to what you were saying.
To me, the people with malice would want people to NOT vote and basically not pay attention and let the elected officials do whatever evil shenanigans they chose to do and leave them alone while the general public just goes on with their lives. If you want leaders without malice, pay attention and vote and get the evil/hateful people out of there. So I'm not understanding the "malice" part of your point.
But again, that's MY opinion (and yes, it's not an original opinion at all. Lots of people have expressed it long before me) and I can't and don't try to decide for everyone else. Everyone gets to decide for him/herself whether to vote and be involved and informed. And some people are so busy that they hardly have any time to pay attention to politicians even if they would like to. I give them some slack. But everyone gets to make their own decision on that and they have a right to. I just don't think it's a very wise or responsible decision and I don't think they have a right to complain if they make that decision.
Anyway, again, thanks for the clarification as to what you were saying.
VernonDozier> Aia, I appreciate the clarification. Thank you.
Cool! Now, let's go back to disagree.
Ironically, in this thread there's more that I agree with you that I disagree, but somehow it got lost in translation.
VernonDozier> Our elected officials need to be constantly reminded that we are watching their every move.
And I understand the more people evolved the better change they (elected officials) get the message. Nevertheless, free agency, and freedom in general is not synonymous of democracy, as very well illustrated in this comment>
Disrespect for that free agency and freedom makes democracy a joke.
Cool! Now, let's go back to disagree.
Ironically, in this thread there's more that I agree with you that I disagree, but somehow it got lost in translation.
VernonDozier> Our elected officials need to be constantly reminded that we are watching their every move.
And I understand the more people evolved the better change they (elected officials) get the message. Nevertheless, free agency, and freedom in general is not synonymous of democracy, as very well illustrated in this comment>
•
•
•
•
Also, the fact that like most democratic nations, voting is compulsory (a fact I know the Yanks find hard to fathom), teaching our students from an early age about how our political system works is given much higher priority, thus creating a much more informed public.
Last edited by Aia; Aug 5th, 2009 at 2:57 pm.
"If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it, and if it stops moving, subsidize it" - Ronald Reagan
|
Similar Threads
- My monitor is green now???? (Monitors, Displays and Video Cards)
- Source Control (IT Professionals' Lounge)
- Source Control Review (Computer Science)
- Suggestions for my web hosting news site? (Social Media and Online Communities)
- thinkin of switching to linux (Getting Started and Choosing a Distro)
- Confused Where to Start? (C++)
Other Threads in the Geeks' Lounge Forum
- Previous Thread: Poll: have you introduced yourself
- Next Thread: Back to Basics
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Latest Geeks' Lounge Posts
- Today's Posts
- Unanswered Threads
Related Forum Features
Tag cloud for Geeks' Lounge
article bankruptcy bear beard beijing children clocks code cognitive_disorder complaint console consoles cracked.com daniweb design development disk election empty facebook feed financialcrisis fun games gaming garbage google grandtheftauto gta halo3 hardware hunting internet java kindle king knife library life linux mad manly marketing mars merger microsoft ms murder netbook networking news nintendo obama odf office operating opinion os outlook pain parenting planning playstation population ps3 ps4 python research rss search security sims software sony source study subversion survey systems tablet thelostanddamned timeisonmyside. unsolved unused usarmy vapid videogames viruses wakoopa wave wii windows windows>all windows_wins world wow www xbox xbox360 zomg_conspiracy
