US Election and Supreme Court

[Randallw]

Klvino [ORB] said:
You guy's don't have to worry about the republic continuing. You voted yourself out of a democracy and into a monarchy....

Really, so the end process of a democratic election is the loss of democracy. Now I will admit that I am not fond of democracy, but it seems to someone like me that when the majority of the people, through a process intended to discover the majority opinion, choose either one side or the other that democratic process has run as intended. Correct me if I am wrong but I somehow suspect you would not call it the end of democracy if perhaps the other side had won. As for your comment that they chose a Monarchy, are you perhaps referring to the re-elected president being the son of a former president. In this case I must point out that by this definition as soon as the 2nd Adams president was elected the US was a monarchy. Then again I am not priveleged to be a citizen of the so called "Greatest Democracy" in the world so what do I know . If you want to start a discussion pointing out the flaws of Democracy you may well be surprised to find me agreeing with you, however I disagree with your original statement.

Edit: oh look, the thread tripped and is going downhill

[deccan]

I've just finished reading A Strange Valley by Darrell Bain which is set in a near future USA which is dangerously veering to become a religious right theocracy after the presidency of a certain Bush Jr.

Then someone discovers a strange valley inhabited by atheistic, skeptical, rational humans who turn out to have been mutated by unusual prions and the president does everything in his power to stop the prions from spreading including setting off a dirty nuke. Quite a fun read.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

deccan said:
I've just finished reading A Strange Valley by Darrell Bain which is set in a near future USA which is dangerously veering to become a religious right theocracy after the presidency of a certain Bush Jr.

Then someone discovers a strange valley inhabited by atheistic, skeptical, rational humans who turn out to have been mutated by unusual prions and the president does everything in his power to stop the prions from spreading including setting off a dirty nuke. Quite a fun read.

That's another one of those 'if only this happened, everybody would live in peace' stories. Wether it by an invention, a philisophical discovery, a religious ideal or atheism, I don't see the point. The auther sets up the situation that makes something the villian, and then sets up the situation that fixes it. Basically, it's a circular arguement; the auther sets up a philosophy using fiction and then justifies it using fiction.

[deccan]

narf poit chez BOOM said:
That's another one of those 'if only this happened, everybody would live in peace' stories. Wether it by an invention, a philisophical discovery, a religious ideal or atheism, I don't see the point.

Of course, the books fail miserably if one tries to take it as a form of argument. This is certainly a case of "preaching to the choir". Even the anti-theism tirades in the books are simplistic and underwhelming.

But then again, if theists can have and enjoy the smug in-your-face, I-told-you-so satisfaction of the "Left Behind" series and other Christian fantasy stories of angels that get physically stronger through human prayer battling in the streets (and yes, I've read a few of those too), there's no reason why atheists can't have their own equivalent fantasy stories. It's no more or less than an equal and opposite reaction.

The books even base the valley in the middle of the Bible belt and calls it an island of reason and sanity in a sea of insanity. And there's a ridiculous amount of homosexual and group sex in the books. All this is obviously designed to cause the maximum amount of offense to religious sensibilities.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Obviously, people on both sides can have those books. I just won't read them as soon as I realise that's what it's about.

[Raging Deadstar]

Randallw said:
Really, so the end process of a democratic election is the loss of democracy. Now I will admit that I am not fond of democracy, but it seems to someone like me that when the majority of the people, through a process intended to discover the majority opinion, choose either one side or the other that democratic process has run as intended. Correct me if I am wrong but I somehow suspect you would not call it the end of democracy if perhaps the other side had won. *snip*

Of course he wouldn't be saying that if Kerry or his chosen candidate had won, but it's not about who's side that I think he's debating here, it's the man himself. A lot of us in Europe are worried that George W.(TF) Bush and Co will slowly strip away your rights (as he already has been doing) and then use any and every trick in the book to circumvent the rule a maximum of 2 terms as president, if that fails I really hope you don't get stuck with another Republican President in 2008.

As those who frequent the forum might be able to tell, I really don't Like the Bush Administration, Their Policies, Their Methods or even Bush himself.

[Randallw]

Ah well thankyou for explaining the problem. I find it interesting that his opponents on the one hand say he is stupid, and yet at the same time imply that he is secretly planning (with his super villain machinations ) to set up a dictatorship. Surely however if the majority support him then they agree with his policies, or do people perhaps imply that most of the population is unable to see what is happening, in which case can they be judged to be unsuitable to make a choice. Yes, thats it "quick, the population are incapable of making their own choices, break out the stockpiled weapons lets have a coup to set things right " Most perplexing. I must say I have seen no evidence of this supposed plot to remove people rights, however at the same time I don't live in the US to experience these changes nor do I see any need to view documentaries that put forth allegations of such. I don't believe in watching something I already hear opposes my viewpoint when I have no intention of changing my views (It'd be a waste of time, would left wing supporters watch a documentary espousing conservatism ). I have investigated the claims that FOX is biased towards the rightwing, and must admit they do go at it quite blatantly. However I have no doubts leftwing associations are just as biased. There is no such thing as impartiality.

However Deadstar, fear not, I can see the future and it is a glorious bureaucratic union such as I see developing in Europe. Down with celebrity politicians, long live the faceless bureaucrat official working silently to make sure everything is orderly (go on I dare you to name 3 European MPs ). Everything will be fine when the one world state develops, eliminating all cultural differences and giving order to our lives 24/7.

[Raging Deadstar]

I just checked the US Budget thread, this thread is going the same way

RandallW, I would argue with you, but we'd go round in circles and nothing would change, we are set in our respective view points. I believe Bush is a Tyrant and a War Monger, Uses his Religous and Moral Beliefs too openly to influence people, Is Oppressing the American People and using Fear as a Method of Control. You have your own views.

So I'm Adding Fuel to the Fire Some Links for you all to discuss. I'm not claiming any of this has been proven yet, Is True or false, has been dismissed, it's just some stuff I thought i'd throw in for disscussion.

Motion to Remove the 22nd Amendment
Possible Story about the Patriot Act
Ahh, The sheer Clean and Fair Tactics of US Elections.

[geoschmo]

I actually suspect that the Bush's second term will be less radical. He really does appear to see himself as the second coming of Reagan. For those that don't remember, Reagan showed a somewhat softer side in his second term. Going as far as working out arms control treaties with the "Evil Empire" U.S.S.R.

Bush's emphasis will be on his "legacy" and to do that he's going to need to be much more of a moderate. He no longer needs to get elected, so he's no longer beholden to the wishes of the religios right-wing of his party or the neo-cons. There is already talk of a cabinet shakeup, perhaps begining as early as this week.

I have doubts about how sucsesful he's going to be in making this transition. He's going to find it hard to earn trust from those on the other side of the aisle after the Last four years. And I don't believe that there are enough moderates in the congress anymore to really get anything substatnial done.

[Randallw]

Well Deadstar I agree we can agree to disagree..ee..ee Rest assured, in the interests of being friendly I gave your links a look. I found their content interesting, but commenting will just throw wood on the fire.

Let me take this oppurtunity to say how wonderful I find it that even with our diverse community we can agree to disagree without resorting to arguments. Whenever I feel drawn to express my opinion (and usually I refrain, believe it or not) I expect to come back to criticism. I am delighted that replies are always civil.