Print Page - Why Western-Style Democracy Sux

Title: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Anonymous on October 19, 2014, 02:56:31 PM

I found this little gem recently. My biggest complaints about universal suffrage are;

1. People without skin in the game get to decide how money is spent. There should be restrictions on people without jobs or property voting.

2. All votes are equal. Are all people of equal intelligence? Do all people contribute equally to society/taxman? Pure fucking madness!!

One of the foundations of democracy is the assumption that all votes are equal. Well, that's the theory—but in fact it is rarely so (more on that later). It assumes that all opinions are worth the same, which is quite a big leap of faith, since we are putting the same value on the opinions of the educated and the ignorant, and the law-abiding citizens and crooks. Even if you think that all people are created equal, it is obvious that their environments are very different—and as a result, so is their character. By assuming that all opinions are equal you are also assuming that most people are able to reach a rational, informed decision after seriously exploring all pros and cons.

A common criticism of democracy is that in the end it devolves into a popularity contest. Polls don't decide who is right—that's simply decided by whoever is most willing to say what people like to hear. As a result, many candidates to political office resort to populism, pursuing policies that focus on the immediate satisfaction of whims instead of long-term improvements. Populist leaders focus on emotion before reason and "common sense" over more academic wisdom, which often produces bad ideas that will be defended with the stubbornness of a mule, regardless of whether they are good or bad.

Let's be honest here: mankind has not evolved much since the Stone Age. Yes, we have tamed the forces of nature and discovered a lot of things—and this Internet business is amazing. But human nature remains the same, more or less. We still think in tribal terms, "my people vs. your people". Call it class struggle, xenophobia, nationalism, or whatever you like—the thing is that most of us identify with one group or another, and almost every meaningful group has alliances or enmities with other groups. This is part of human nature, and can work peacefully . . . or not.In a democracy, tribal mentality is very dangerous, because it will make you vote "for your team" instead of voting according to issues. That means that whoever leads "your team" can rest assured that they have your vote, and instead of focusing on your interests, they can proceed to deal with their own. Unfair legislation can be passed if there are vocal groups in the majority (by oppressing the minority) or in the minorities (by entitling them to privileges that the majority can't enjoy).

Another side-effect of democracy is that if the State starts providing a service or a pay to someone, they begin to feel entitled to it. So if someone tries to stop providing it—well, they just made a large number of deadly foes. When Margaret Thatcher cut coal subsidies, for example, coal miners felt that their jobs had been threatened and became bitter enemies of Thatcher and her ilk. Most people will never vote for the party of someone who "took their jobs", no matter how long ago this might have happened.

An unrestricted democracy means that the majority decides over the minority. This leaves the minority relatively powerless—and the smaller it is, the less power it wields. Which means that the smallest minority of all—the individual—is effectively depending on his agreement with the majority. To account for this problem, mature democracies have developed a set of checks and balances in an attempt to make sure that it doesn't happen; chief among these is the separation of the powers of the State. But this actually makes a system less democratic, since it interferes with the principle of "people's power."

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Anonymous on October 19, 2014, 10:08:40 PM

~~Quote from: "Shen Li"~~I found this little gem recently. My biggest complaints about universal suffrage are;

1. People without skin in the game get to decide how money is spent. There should be restrictions on people without jobs or property voting.

2. All votes are equal. Are all people of equal intelligence? Do all people contribute equally to society/taxman? Pure fucking madness!!

One of the foundations of democracy is the assumption that all votes are equal. Well, that's the theory—but in fact it is rarely so (more on that later). It assumes that all opinions are worth the same, which is quite a big leap of faith, since we are putting the same value on the opinions of the educated and the ignorant, and the law-abiding citizens and crooks. Even if you think that all people are created equal, it is obvious that their environments are very different—and as a result, so is their character. By assuming that all opinions are equal you are also assuming that most people are able to reach a rational, informed decision after seriously exploring all pros and cons.

A common criticism of democracy is that in the end it devolves into a popularity contest. Polls don't decide who is right—that's simply decided by whoever is most willing to say what people like to hear. As a result, many candidates to political office resort to populism, pursuing policies that focus on the immediate satisfaction of whims instead of long-term improvements. Populist leaders focus on emotion before reason and "common sense" over more academic wisdom, which often produces bad ideas that will be defended with the stubbornness of a mule, regardless of whether they are good or bad.

Let's be honest here: mankind has not evolved much since the Stone Age. Yes, we have tamed the forces of nature and discovered a lot of things—and this Internet business is amazing. But human nature remains the same, more or less. We still think in tribal terms, "my people vs. your people". Call it class struggle, xenophobia, nationalism, or whatever you like—the thing is that most of us identify with one group or another, and almost every meaningful group has alliances or enmities with other groups. This is part of human nature, and can work peacefully . . . or not.In a democracy, tribal mentality is very dangerous, because it will make you vote "for your team" instead of voting according to issues. That means that whoever leads "your team" can rest assured that they have your vote, and instead of focusing on your interests, they can proceed to deal with their own. Unfair legislation can be passed if there are vocal groups in the majority (by oppressing the minority) or in the minorities (by entitling them to privileges that the majority can't enjoy).

Another side-effect of democracy is that if the State starts providing a service or a pay to someone, they begin to feel entitled to it. So if someone tries to stop providing it—well, they just made a large number of deadly foes. When Margaret Thatcher cut coal subsidies, for example, coal miners felt that their jobs had been threatened and became bitter enemies of Thatcher and her ilk. Most people will never vote for the party of someone who "took their jobs", no matter how long ago this might have happened.

An unrestricted democracy means that the majority decides over the minority. This leaves the minority relatively powerless—and the smaller it is, the less power it wields. Which means that the smallest minority of all—the individual—is effectively depending on his agreement with the majority. To account for this problem, mature democracies have developed a set of checks and balances in an attempt to make sure that it doesn't happen; chief among these is the separation of the powers of the State. But this actually makes a system less democratic, since it interferes with the principle of "people's power."

I don't really know what to say about this..

What I do know is that my father spent time in jail in Taiwan when he was a very young man because he wanted Taiwanese people to have the right to elect their own government.

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Anonymous on October 20, 2014, 11:03:14 AM

^^Hardly anaologous. He had to deal with a repressive dictator.

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Romero on October 20, 2014, 02:33:12 PM

So Western democracy sucks, people should be restricted from voting, yet you're going to vote. What kind of argument is that?

Ya know, there are some people who would say those who weren't born in Canada shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Obvious Li on October 20, 2014, 08:44:15 PM

Quote from: "Romero"So Western democracy sucks, people should be restricted from voting, yet you're going to vote. What kind of argument is that?

Ya know, there are some people who would say those who weren't born in Canada shouldn't be allowed to vote.[/quote]

and what is wrong with that.....there should be a set of criteria you have to meet prior to being allowed to vote....i prefer to include canadian citizenship, property ownership, payment of taxes, person of means, education, be used as the main criteria....country of birth is not so important but could be a consideration.....as a result of recent world events i would summarily exclude muslims and natives who proclaim non-canadian status......from the right to vote.....

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Romero on October 20, 2014, 10:29:45 PM

All right then! You say there's nothing wrong with restricting those who weren't born in Canada, so that's Shen Li. Shen Li says there should be restrictions on people without a job, so that's you. You've both denied each other the right to vote!

But of course, you two would exempt each other. How convenient. This is as far from an actual argument as it can get. You two only want to restrict voting for those you don't like. There's nothing reasonable about this ridiculous idea.

How many Canadians would agree with your combined ever-growing list of Canadians you don't like? Not even 1%. Talk about a fringe minority with delusions of grandeur.

I hate to break this to ya, but you're not better than the average Canadian. You're both simply playing pretend dictator. Your silly lists are like making lists of celebrities you'd like to fuck. Complete fantasy.

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Obvious Li on October 20, 2014, 11:11:16 PM

~~Quote from: "Romero"~~All right then! You say there's nothing wrong with restricting those who weren't born in Canada, so that's Shen Li. Shen Li says there should be restrictions on people without a job, so that's you. You've both denied each other the right to vote!

But of course, you two would exempt each other. How convenient. This is as far from an actual argument as it can get. You two only want to restrict voting for those you don't like. There's nothing reasonable about this ridiculous idea.

How many Canadians would agree with your combined ever-growing list of Canadians you don't like? Not even 1%. Talk about a fringe minority with delusions of grandeur.

I hate to break this to ya, but you're not better than the average Canadian. You're both simply playing pretend dictator. Your silly lists are like making lists of celebrities you'd like to fuck. Complete fantasy.

not sure about you Homy...which of those multiple criteria i listed would you be able to meet...?????

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Anonymous on October 20, 2014, 11:18:17 PM

~~Quote from: "Romero"~~All right then! You say there's nothing wrong with restricting those who weren't born in Canada, so that's Shen Li. Shen Li says there should be restrictions on people without a job, so that's you. You've both denied each other the right to vote!

But of course, you two would exempt each other. How convenient. This is as far from an actual argument as it can get. You two only want to restrict voting for those you don't like. There's nothing reasonable about this ridiculous idea.

How many Canadians would agree with your combined ever-growing list of Canadians you don't like? Not even 1%. Talk about a fringe minority with delusions of grandeur.

I hate to break this to ya, but you're not better than the average Canadian. You're both simply playing pretend dictator. Your silly lists are like making lists of celebrities you'd like to fuck. Complete fantasy.

I am a Canadian citizen now and both OL and I are property owners. We're good to go.

Voting should be a privilege for those that have earned it. Being a Canadian citizen is not enough to decide how resources should be allocated.

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Anonymous on October 21, 2014, 09:54:56 AM

~~Quote from: "Romero"~~All right then! You say there's nothing wrong with restricting those who weren't born in Canada, so that's Shen Li. Shen Li says there should be restrictions on people without a job, so that's you. You've both denied each other the right to vote!

But of course, you two would exempt each other. How convenient. This is as far from an actual argument as it can get. You two only want to restrict voting for those you don't like. There's nothing reasonable about this ridiculous idea.

How many Canadians would agree with your combined ever-growing list of Canadians you don't like? Not even 1%. Talk about a fringe minority with delusions of grandeur.

I hate to break this to ya, but you're not better than the average Canadian. You're both simply playing pretend dictator. Your silly lists are like making lists of celebrities you'd like to fuck. Complete fantasy.

One of those non house owners can have my vote, I have a job and own a house.

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Romero on October 21, 2014, 02:18:13 PM

That's kind of you! A lot nicer than some people who egotistically and selfishly believe they can take away the rights of others.

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Obvious Li on October 21, 2014, 02:53:38 PM

~~Quote from: "Romero"~~That's kind of you! A lot nicer than some people who egotistically and selfishly believe they can take away the rights of others.

what rights??? .....voting is an earned privilege.....not a right........if you do not contribute it only makes sense you can't be part of the decision making process of govt.......get a grip homy.... ac_beating

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Romero on October 21, 2014, 03:32:58 PM

Voting is a constitutionally guaranteed right in Canada. Making a list of people you hate isn't going to change that.

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Anonymous on October 21, 2014, 10:22:06 PM

We put restrictions on driving, serving in the army, jury duty, people who can enforce our laws, so why should there NOT be standards on people that choose our lawmakers?

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Romero on October 21, 2014, 10:45:37 PM

What a great point you didn't intend to make. People without your "skin in the game", the unemployed and those who don't own property are not restricted from driving, serving in the army, jury duty, and law enforcement.

Canadians have the constitutional right to do all that and the right to vote. Having the right to vote isn't quite the same as being some drunk driver.

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Renee on October 21, 2014, 10:50:52 PM

~~Quote from: "Obvious Li"~~
~~Quote from: "Romero"~~That's kind of you! A lot nicer than some people who egotistically and selfishly believe they can take away the rights of others.

what rights??? .....voting is an earned privilege.....not a right........if you do not contribute it only makes sense you can't be part of the decision making process of govt.......get a grip homy.... ac_beating

Your buddy Homy is completely ignorant on how voting rights were originally designed to work.

He doesn't realize that what we have today is the result of political pandering on the part of career politicians who will do anything to remain connected to the political trough. He thinks just because you draw breath you should automatically given the power of the vote. Here in the US we have reached a tipping point where people who contribute nothing or next to nothing have realized that they can vote themselves more than their fair share of the pie. The election disaster that saw voting along racial lines in 2008 and 2012 was a direct result of voting rights/privileges gone horribly wrong. Unfortunately it is too late to be put right as it was originally intended.

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Anonymous on October 21, 2014, 10:59:45 PM

~~Quote from: "Romero"~~What a great point you didn't intend to make. People without your "skin in the game", the unemployed and those who don't own property are not restricted from driving, serving in the army, jury duty, and law enforcement.

Canadians have the constitutional right to do all that and the right to vote. Having the right to vote isn't quite the same as being some drunk driver.

oh I had every intention of making that point and I knew you would take the bait. Try getting into the army or cops without ever holding a job? NEXT APPLICANT Please.

I know we in the West with the best of intentions have made a huge error by giving the right to vote to those who have not earned it. Choosing how our money is spent and our laws are the most decisions that can be made. We force people to pass a test to drive a car, but not vote. We make sure people who enforce our laws are qualified to carry out their duties, but we set no benchmark for those who select our lawmakers. We disqualify people from serving on juries for mental problems or convictions, but we allow those same people to decide the fate of our finances.

Just about everything has standards except the most important one at all...deciding how and how much of our money is spent. This is outdated.

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Anonymous on October 21, 2014, 11:02:01 PM

~~Quote from: "Renee"~~
~~Quote from: "Obvious Li"~~
~~Quote from: "Romero"~~That's kind of you! A lot nicer than some people who egotistically and selfishly believe they can take away the rights of others.

what rights??? .....voting is an earned privilege.....not a right........if you do not contribute it only makes sense you can't be part of the decision making process of govt.......get a grip homy.... ac_beating

Your buddy Homy is completely ignorant on how voting rights were originally designed to work.

He doesn't realize that what we have today is the result of political pandering on the part of career politicians who will do anything to remain connected to the political trough. He thinks just because you draw breath you should automatically given the power of the vote. Here in the US we have reached a tipping point where people who contribute nothing or next to nothing have realized that they can vote themselves more than their fair share of the pie. The election disaster that saw voting along racial lines in 2008 and 2012 was a direct result of voting rights/privileges gone horribly wrong. Unfortunately it is too late to be put right as it was originally intended.

We all know this Renee including Romero.

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Romero on October 22, 2014, 01:17:17 AM

~~Quote from: "Renee"~~Your buddy Homy is completely ignorant on how voting rights were originally designed to work.

Oh, I'm quite well aware of how there have been and still are those who believe certain people they don't like shouldn't have the right to vote. But it doesn't work that way in a modern democracy. Women didn't have the right to vote. Shall we bring that back?

If you don't like democracy, equality, freedom and liberty then just say so. Don't bother arguing that democracy, equality, freedom and liberty weren't "originally designed" to work the way they're supposed to.

You guys aren't any better or more entitled than the average American or Canadian. Aw, reality can be such a mean bitch some times. Stop being such poor losers. You haven't lost anything. I'm terribly sorry you're nothing special. Want a blankie?

~~Quote from: "Renee"~~The election disaster that saw voting along racial lines in 2008 and 2012 was a direct result of voting rights/privileges gone horribly wrong.

There's that white privilege again! How dare they vote for a black man! You did not approve but they did it anyway!

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Romero on October 22, 2014, 01:20:48 AM

~~Quote from: "Shen Li"~~oh I had every intention of making that point and I knew you would take the bait. Try getting into the army or cops without ever holding a job? NEXT APPLICANT Please.

Don't bother trying to claim you baited me. Being currently unemployed is not a restriction for joining the army or police. Having little work experience or qualifications is completely different from just being unemployed. The unemployed are in no way restricted from driving, serving in the army, jury duty, and law enforcement. That's a fact.

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Renee on October 22, 2014, 09:52:52 AM

~~Quote from: "Romero"~~
~~Quote from: "Renee"~~Your buddy Homy is completely ignorant on how voting rights were originally designed to work.

Oh, I'm quite well aware of how there have been and still are those who believe certain people they don't like shouldn't have the right to vote. But it doesn't work that way in a modern democracy. Women didn't have the right to vote. Shall we bring that back?

If you don't like democracy, equality, freedom and liberty then just say so. Don't bother arguing that democracy, equality, freedom and liberty weren't "originally designed" to work the way they're supposed to.

You guys aren't any better or more entitled than the average American or Canadian. Aw, reality can be such a mean bitch some times. Stop being such poor losers. You haven't lost anything. I'm terribly sorry you're nothing special. Want a blankie?

~~Quote from: "Renee"~~The election disaster that saw voting along racial lines in 2008 and 2012 was a direct result of voting rights/privileges gone horribly wrong.

There's that white privilege again! How dare they vote for a black man! You did not approve but they did it anyway!

Typical leftard blather. As soon as your ridiculously namby-pamby view of the world is challenged you fall back on your default mantra of crying racism and accusing people of hate. Get some new material because no one is listening any longer.

Do you really think that creating whole voting blocks of people whose only purpose is to vote for the candidates or party that promise them more free shit and more handouts is good for society? Do you think those who wrote the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the US Constitution wanted voting rights to be used as the political perversion they are today? If so you are a bigger fool than any of us could have ever dreamed.

Oh and BTW, it wasn't voting for a black man that was bad, it was the reason a black man was voted for that I and anyone with a brain or an ounce of integrity objects to. Most of the nitwits who voted for Obama voted for him solely for his race. If you think that's okay then you and all your sickening leftist ilk need to shoot yourselves in the face. So don't give me this "white privilege" shit unless of course you like looking like a complete race baiting moron.

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Renee on October 22, 2014, 09:54:15 AM

~~Quote from: "Shen Li"~~
~~Quote from: "Renee"~~
~~Quote from: "Obvious Li"~~

what rights??? .....voting is an earned privilege.....not a right........if you do not contribute it only makes sense you can't be part of the decision making process of govt.......get a grip homy.... ac_beating

Your buddy Homy is completely ignorant on how voting rights were originally designed to work.

He doesn't realize that what we have today is the result of political pandering on the part of career politicians who will do anything to remain connected to the political trough. He thinks just because you draw breath you should automatically given the power of the vote. Here in the US we have reached a tipping point where people who contribute nothing or next to nothing have realized that they can vote themselves more than their fair share of the pie. The election disaster that saw voting along racial lines in 2008 and 2012 was a direct result of voting rights/privileges gone horribly wrong. Unfortunately it is too late to be put right as it was originally intended.

We all know this Renee including Romero.

I know it, you know it and OL knows it but Romero?????

You better look again.

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Chickenfeets on October 22, 2014, 07:16:22 PM

Plato's The Republic.

Get some.

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Anonymous on October 22, 2014, 08:42:29 PM

~~Quote from: "Chickenfeets"~~Plato's The Republic.

Get some.

The 4 books and 5 classics, you get some Blurt.

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Anonymous on October 22, 2014, 08:57:26 PM

~~Quote from: "Renee"~~Do you really think that creating whole voting blocks of people whose only purpose is to vote for the candidates or party that promise them more free shit and more handouts is good for society? Do you think those who wrote the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the US Constitution wanted voting rights to be used as the political perversion they are today? If so you are a bigger fool than any of us could have ever dreamed.

Oh and BTW, it wasn't voting for a black man that was bad, it was the reason a black man was voted for that I and anyone with a brain or an ounce of integrity objects to. Most of the nitwits who voted for Obama voted for him solely for his race. If you think that's okay then you and all your sickening leftist ilk need to shoot yourselves in the face. So don't give me this "white privilege" shit unless of course you like looking like a complete race baiting moron.

At the end of the day, universal suffrage means leaving the rule of the land and the people's money to the ignorant masses.

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Anonymous on October 22, 2014, 10:20:46 PM

Of the fundamental rights - the right to vote, the freedom of speech, religion and press etc - the right to vote is the least important. Free speech occured long before universal suffrage, as did freedom of press and religion. Even little kids have the right to free speech, but not the right to vote.

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Anonymous on October 23, 2014, 09:47:59 AM

~~Quote from: "seoulbro"~~Of the fundamental rights - the right to vote, the freedom of speech, religion and press etc - the right to vote is the least important. Free speech occured long before universal suffrage, as did freedom of press and religion. Even little kids have the right to free speech, but not the right to vote.

In the 1970's and 80's in Taiwan, one had free speech as long as it was not critical of the KMT..

Taiwan had freedom of the press too as long as it did not report anything negative of the KMT..

Taiwanese could vote for anyone too then as long as it was the KMT.

ac_unsure

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Obvious Li on October 23, 2014, 10:10:42 PM

~~Quote from: "Fashionista"~~
~~Quote from: "seoulbro"~~Of the fundamental rights - the right to vote, the freedom of speech, religion and press etc - the right to vote is the least important. Free speech occured long before universal suffrage, as did freedom of press and religion. Even little kids have the right to free speech, but not the right to vote.

In the 1970's and 80's in Taiwan, one had free speech as long as it was not critical of the KMT..

Taiwan had freedom of the press too as long as it did not report anything negative of the KMT..

Taiwanese could vote for anyone too then as long as it was the KMT.

ac_unsure

sounds good to me ....and coincidentally my initials are KMT...... ac_beating

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Anonymous on October 23, 2014, 11:42:55 PM

~~Quote from: "Obvious Li"~~
~~Quote from: "Fashionista"~~
~~Quote from: "seoulbro"~~Of the fundamental rights - the right to vote, the freedom of speech, religion and press etc - the right to vote is the least important. Free speech occured long before universal suffrage, as did freedom of press and religion. Even little kids have the right to free speech, but not the right to vote.

In the 1970's and 80's in Taiwan, one had free speech as long as it was not critical of the KMT..

Taiwan had freedom of the press too as long as it did not report anything negative of the KMT..

Taiwanese could vote for anyone too then as long as it was the KMT.

ac_unsure

sounds good to me ....and coincidentally my initials are KMT...... ac_beating

ac_toofunny

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Chickenfeets on October 25, 2014, 02:02:31 PM

~~Quote from: "Shen Li"~~
~~Quote from: "Chickenfeets"~~Plato's The Republic.

Get some.

The 4 books and 5 classics, you get some Blurt.

Yes, I've read those, too, Shen (field of study was Asian religion and Western philosophy, remember?).

But I expect they're not as familiar to Western readers as is The Republic.

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Anonymous on October 25, 2014, 03:44:48 PM

~~Quote from: "Chickenfeets"~~
~~Quote from: "Shen Li"~~
~~Quote from: "Chickenfeets"~~Plato's The Republic.

Get some.

The 4 books and 5 classics, you get some Blurt.

Yes, I've read those, too, Shen (field of study was Asian religion and Western philosophy, remember?).

But I expect they're not as familiar to Western readers as is The Republic.

I don't give a flying fuck what you've fucking read, you waste of fucking skin. Westerners are ideological while we are pragmatic. This would explain why you would rather see your fellow Canadians die at the hands of the vile ideology called Islam than surrender your illogical Western leftist dogma.

GET CANCER AND FUCKING DIE YOU USELESS WASTE OF FUCKING SKIN!! ac_beating

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Chickenfeets on October 26, 2014, 03:00:28 AM

Yes, and by pragmatism, I assume you mean looking for ways to take away from Canadian citizens the right to vote?

No thanks, Shen.

A fine pair you are, you and CC; one wants to be a dictator and the other an exterminator.

You guys sure you got off at the right airport when you left your respective countries?

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Anonymous on October 26, 2014, 05:44:58 AM

~~Quote from: "Chickenfeets"~~Yes, and by pragmatism, I assume you mean looking for ways to take away from Canadian citizens the right to vote?

No thanks, Shen.

A fine pair you are, you and CC; one wants to be a dictator and the other an exterminator.

You guys sure you got off at the right airport when you left your respective countries?

I mean reognizing the fucking obvious you fucking idiot.....THEY WANT US FUCKING DEAD!! You gutless piece of shit can hand them the knife all you want, but I choose NOT to suck Islam's fucking ass the way you do. It is a vile ideology that is worse than anything the KKK/Nazis have to offer. If one openly proclaims this vile ideology that should automatically bar them from entry to Canada.

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Romero on October 26, 2014, 02:52:24 PM

~~Quote from: "Shen Li"~~GET CANCER AND FUCKING DIE YOU USELESS WASTE OF FUCKING SKIN!! ac_beating

My, what a hateful ideology you've got there.

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Anonymous on October 26, 2014, 03:44:33 PM

~~Quote from: "Shen Li"~~
~~Quote from: "Chickenfeets"~~Yes, and by pragmatism, I assume you mean looking for ways to take away from Canadian citizens the right to vote?

No thanks, Shen.

A fine pair you are, you and CC; one wants to be a dictator and the other an exterminator.

You guys sure you got off at the right airport when you left your respective countries?

I mean reognizing the fucking obvious you fucking idiot.....THEY WANT US FUCKING DEAD!! You gutless piece of shit can hand them the knife all you want, but I choose NOT to suck Islam's fucking ass the way you do. It is a vile ideology that is worse than anything the KKK/Nazis have to offer. If one openly proclaims this vile ideology that should automatically bar them from entry to Canada.

I do not believe many Canadian Muslims are anything like that.

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Anonymous on October 26, 2014, 07:35:16 PM

~~Quote from: "Romero"~~
~~Quote from: "Shen Li"~~GET CANCER AND FUCKING DIE YOU USELESS WASTE OF FUCKING SKIN!! ac_beating

My, what a hateful ideology you've got there.

Guilty as charged, I hate the hateful ideology called Islam.

~~Quote~~I do not believe many Canadian Muslims are anything like that

A fucking backbone, grow one. ac_beating

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Anonymous on February 16, 2015, 10:55:48 PM

I was watching the PM of Denmark go out of her way NOT to blame Islam for her country's latest terror attacks. Western style liberal democracy does not have the fucking stones to deal with the single greatest threat to the civilized world.

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Anonymous on February 17, 2015, 08:49:11 AM

~~Quote from: "Shen Li"~~I was watching the PM of Denmark go out of her way NOT to blame Islam for her country's latest terror attacks. Western style liberal democracy does not have the fucking stones to deal with the single greatest threat to the civilized world.

Terrible tragedy.

ac_crying

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Anonymous on February 17, 2015, 10:34:04 AM

~~Quote from: "Fashionista"~~
~~Quote from: "Shen Li"~~I was watching the PM of Denmark go out of her way NOT to blame Islam for her country's latest terror attacks. Western style liberal democracy does not have the fucking stones to deal with the single greatest threat to the civilized world.

Terrible tragedy.

ac_crying

The terrible tragedy is the Danish PM dancing around where the blame lies. It is not with individual Muslims, extremists or mental cases. IT'S THE ISLAMIC IDEOLOGY ITSELF STUPID!!!

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Renee on February 19, 2015, 12:06:46 PM

~~Quote from: "Shen Li"~~
~~Quote from: "Fashionista"~~
~~Quote from: "Shen Li"~~I was watching the PM of Denmark go out of her way NOT to blame Islam for her country's latest terror attacks. Western style liberal democracy does not have the fucking stones to deal with the single greatest threat to the civilized world.

Terrible tragedy.

ac_crying

The terrible tragedy is the Danish PM dancing around where the blame lies. It is not with individual Muslims, extremists or mental cases. IT'S THE ISLAMIC IDEOLOGY ITSELF STUPID!!!

Didn't you know that in order to stop Islamic extremism we need to address the "grievances" that Muslims have with our society. We need to give them jobs and after school programs and free goat pussy and shit. ac_rollseyes

Believe it or not; that's The Community Organizer and Chief's latest moronic PC solution. All we need to do is organize a Muslim job fair or a Halal barbecue and we will be rid ISIS. Sounds pretty easy, eh?

You can't make this shit up; you can only laugh OR watch in horror at the willful and blatant stupidity. ac_dunno

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Romero on February 19, 2015, 02:23:06 PM

"Many here today have devoted their lives to the fight against global poverty, and you know the stakes. We fight against poverty because hope is an answer to terror. We fight against poverty because opportunity is a fundamental right to human dignity. We fight against poverty because faith requires it and conscience demands it. And we fight against poverty with a growing conviction that major progress is within our reach.

We will challenge the poverty and hopelessness and lack of education and failed governments that too often allow conditions that terrorists can seize and try to turn to their advantage."

- George W. Bush

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Anonymous on February 19, 2015, 03:52:36 PM

~~Quote from: "Romero"~~"Many here today have devoted their lives to the fight against global poverty, and you know the stakes. We fight against poverty because hope is an answer to terror. We fight against poverty because opportunity is a fundamental right to human dignity. We fight against poverty because faith requires it and conscience demands it. And we fight against poverty with a growing conviction that major progress is within our reach.

We will challenge the poverty and hopelessness and lack of education and failed governments that too often allow conditions that terrorists can seize and try to turn to their advantage."

- George W. Bush

George W. Bush also called Islam "a religion of peace". Nuff said.

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Anonymous on February 19, 2015, 03:57:01 PM

~~Quote from: "Renee"~~
Didn't you know that in order to stop Islamic extremism we need to address the "grievances" that Muslims have with our society. We need to give them jobs and after school programs and free goat pussy and shit. ac_rollseyes

Believe it or not; that's The Community Organizer and Chief's latest moronic PC solution. All we need to do is organize a Muslim job fair or a Halal barbecue and we will be rid ISIS. Sounds pretty easy, eh?

You can't make this shit up; you can only laugh OR watch in horror at the willful and blatant stupidity. ac_dunno

As Obongo would word it, "we need to invest"(tax) hard working law abiding Americans so that we can waste more of your hard earned money on people who want to destroy and kill us.

However, buying a one-way flight home for followers of Islam is something I would enthusiastically invest in. ac_drinks

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Renee on February 19, 2015, 04:40:29 PM

~~Quote from: "Romero"~~"Many here today have devoted their lives to the fight against global poverty, and you know the stakes. We fight against poverty because hope is an answer to terror. We fight against poverty because opportunity is a fundamental right to human dignity. We fight against poverty because faith requires it and conscience demands it. And we fight against poverty with a growing conviction that major progress is within our reach.

We will challenge the poverty and hopelessness and lack of education and failed governments that too often allow conditions that terrorists can seize and try to turn to their advantage."

- George W. Bush

Hey pinhead that quote from GWB was in response to global poverty, especially in the M.E.

The addressing "grievances" shit that your boy Odumbo has recently tried to pass off as a terrorist fighting strategy came out of a Whitehouse summit focusing mainly on domestic radical extremism. There is a big difference in calling for the world to help educate and provide opportunely for the unwashed scum in their shithole countries compared to catering to Muslims living in the US.

It's all about Obongo dumping the responsibility of addressing these so-called "grievances" onto the feckless UNGA. And furthermore, what the fuck are these "grievances"? Obama like you has no real clue what they are. For your information most of the "grievances" against the west that are exploited by terrorists have nothing to do with jobs, poverty or youth basket ball. ac_rollseyes Most of them stem from a combination of 12 century politics and the creation and existence of Israel.

The radical ideology that drives ISIS and it's recruits goes all they back to the Islamic split between Shia and Sunni and they could care less if some UN sponsored program provides them with volley ball nets and paint by numbers activity books for their school age kids. They could careless about getting a job driving a cab or herding goats. It's all about establishing an Islamic state that spreads all over the world. That is their only aim and as long as the major portion of most Islamic education systems are nothing but reading from the Koran FOR 6 hours a day and spending another 2 hours with your ass in the air on a prayer rug, ignorance will run rampant and Islamic extremism will flourish.

BTW, just because GWB said some bullshit about terrorists and poverty that doesn't mean he had a clue either. Western politicians are still struggling to comprehend what they are dealing with and many refuse to see the reality of the situation. Most of those reality challenged politicos are on (SURPRISE!) the left. Much like you, they are more interested in not offending the enemy than they are in defeating them. They are part of the problem just as people like YOU are part of the problem.

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Anonymous on February 19, 2015, 05:04:09 PM

~~Quote~~The radical ideology that drives ISIS and it's recruits goes all they back to the Islamic split between Shia and Sunni and they could care less if some UN sponsored program provides them with volley ball nets and paint by numbers activity books for their school age kids. They could careless about getting a job driving a cab or herding goats. It's all about establishing an Islamic state that spreads all over the world. That is their only aim and as long as the major portion of most Islamic education systems are nothing but reading from the Koran FOR 6 hours a day and spending another 2 hours with your ass in the air on a prayer rug, ignorance will run rampant and Islamic extremism will flourish.

BTW, just because GWB said some bullshit about terrorists and poverty that doesn't mean he had a clue either. Western politicians are still struggling to comprehend what they are dealing with and many refuse to see the reality of the situation.

Islamism is about conquering, not alleviating poverty. CC said that Islam's greatest advantage is our weakness. Unfortunately, our leaders in the West are weakest among us. They are also the most disingenuous among us.

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Lance Leftardashian on February 19, 2015, 07:57:20 PM

~~Quote from: "Renee"~~
~~Quote from: "Romero"~~"Many here today have devoted their lives to the fight against global poverty, and you know the stakes. We fight against poverty because hope is an answer to terror. We fight against poverty because opportunity is a fundamental right to human dignity. We fight against poverty because faith requires it and conscience demands it. And we fight against poverty with a growing conviction that major progress is within our reach.

We will challenge the poverty and hopelessness and lack of education and failed governments that too often allow conditions that terrorists can seize and try to turn to their advantage."

- George W. Bush

Hey pinhead that quote from GWB was in response to global poverty, especially in the M.E.

The addressing "grievances" shit that your boy Odumbo has recently tried to pass off as a terrorist fighting strategy came out of a Whitehouse summit focusing mainly on domestic radical extremism. There is a big difference in calling for the world to help educate and provide opportunely for the unwashed scum in their shithole countries compared to catering to Muslims living in the US.

It's all about Obongo dumping the responsibility of addressing these so-called "grievances" onto the feckless UNGA. And furthermore, what the fuck are these "grievances"? Obama like you has no real clue what they are. For your information most of the "grievances" against the west that are exploited by terrorists have nothing to do with jobs, poverty or youth basket ball. ac_rollseyes Most of them stem from a combination of 12 century politics and the creation and existence of Israel.

The radical ideology that drives ISIS and it's recruits goes all they back to the Islamic split between Shia and Sunni and they could care less if some UN sponsored program provides them with volley ball nets and paint by numbers activity books for their school age kids. They could careless about getting a job driving a cab or herding goats. It's all about establishing an Islamic state that spreads all over the world. That is their only aim and as long as the major portion of most Islamic education systems are nothing but reading from the Koran FOR 6 hours a day and spending another 2 hours with your ass in the air on a prayer rug, ignorance will run rampant and Islamic extremism will flourish.

BTW, just because GWB said some bullshit about terrorists and poverty that doesn't mean he had a clue either. Western politicians are still struggling to comprehend what they are dealing with and many refuse to see the reality of the situation. Most of those reality challenged politicos are on (SURPRISE!) the left. Much like you, they are more interested in not offending the enemy than they are in defeating them. They are part of the problem just as people like YOU are part of the problem.

Muslims cannot be blamed for turning to ISIS recruiters within their no go zones in Europe when they feel the sting of Islamophobia on a daily basis.

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: cc on February 20, 2015, 12:55:25 AM

♪♪ ♫♫ ♪ where have all the good trolls gone? ♪♪ ♫♫ ♪

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Renee on February 20, 2015, 12:49:46 PM

~~Quote from: "Lance Leftardashian"~~
~~Quote from: "Renee"~~
~~Quote from: "Romero"~~"Many here today have devoted their lives to the fight against global poverty, and you know the stakes. We fight against poverty because hope is an answer to terror. We fight against poverty because opportunity is a fundamental right to human dignity. We fight against poverty because faith requires it and conscience demands it. And we fight against poverty with a growing conviction that major progress is within our reach.

We will challenge the poverty and hopelessness and lack of education and failed governments that too often allow conditions that terrorists can seize and try to turn to their advantage."

- George W. Bush

Hey pinhead that quote from GWB was in response to global poverty, especially in the M.E.

The addressing "grievances" shit that your boy Odumbo has recently tried to pass off as a terrorist fighting strategy came out of a Whitehouse summit focusing mainly on domestic radical extremism. There is a big difference in calling for the world to help educate and provide opportunely for the unwashed scum in their shithole countries compared to catering to Muslims living in the US.

It's all about Obongo dumping the responsibility of addressing these so-called "grievances" onto the feckless UNGA. And furthermore, what the fuck are these "grievances"? Obama like you has no real clue what they are. For your information most of the "grievances" against the west that are exploited by terrorists have nothing to do with jobs, poverty or youth basket ball. ac_rollseyes Most of them stem from a combination of 12 century politics and the creation and existence of Israel.

The radical ideology that drives ISIS and it's recruits goes all they back to the Islamic split between Shia and Sunni and they could care less if some UN sponsored program provides them with volley ball nets and paint by numbers activity books for their school age kids. They could careless about getting a job driving a cab or herding goats. It's all about establishing an Islamic state that spreads all over the world. That is their only aim and as long as the major portion of most Islamic education systems are nothing but reading from the Koran FOR 6 hours a day and spending another 2 hours with your ass in the air on a prayer rug, ignorance will run rampant and Islamic extremism will flourish.

BTW, just because GWB said some bullshit about terrorists and poverty that doesn't mean he had a clue either. Western politicians are still struggling to comprehend what they are dealing with and many refuse to see the reality of the situation. Most of those reality challenged politicos are on (SURPRISE!) the left. Much like you, they are more interested in not offending the enemy than they are in defeating them. They are part of the problem just as people like YOU are part of the problem.

Muslims cannot be blamed for turning to ISIS recruiters within their no go zones in Europe when they feel the sting of Islamophobia on a daily basis.

No-go zones don't exist. Get with the "denial monkey", program, dumbass. ac_toofunny

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: RW on February 20, 2015, 02:17:47 PM

I read the beginning bit and skipped the rest because I got lazy. Sorry if this is a repeat but I'm going to toss my opinions in:

The whole argument about cherry picking voters reeks of Orwell's Animal Farm. There are VERY few voters out there who understand everything there is to know about their political choices or the implications of those choices. I would include ALL of us in that category.

The concept of earned right to vote is a load. How was my right to vote earned? By making it to the age of 18?

We are electing parties here people. We aren't voting on actual decisions in these elections - just who we like best to run our country. You could be a half retarded monkey and still check a box with a decent chance of getting someone even slightly worthy of a vote.

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Anonymous on February 20, 2015, 04:52:33 PM

~~Quote from: "Real Woman"~~I read the beginning bit and skipped the rest because I got lazy. Sorry if this is a repeat but I'm going to toss my opinions in:

The whole argument about cherry picking voters reeks of Orwell's Animal Farm. There are VERY few voters out there who understand everything there is to know about their political choices or the implications of those choices. I would include ALL of us in that category.

The concept of earned right to vote is a load. How was my right to vote earned? By making it to the age of 18?

We are electing parties here people. We aren't voting on actual decisions in these elections - just who we like best to run our country. You could be a half retarded monkey and still check a box with a decent chance of getting someone even slightly worthy of a vote.

Universal suffrage is a noble idea on the surface, I won't deny that. However, it's evolution has gone beyond that idea. Our system is ALL about the next election, not a long term vision. This requires pandering to people to win over their vote in the next election. That is not visionary and it is not usually in the national interest, but all the big parties on this continent do it if they want a chance of forming government.

Do I think the West will ever admit that the foundation of their system might not be best? Fuck no, the West is ideological to it's very core. I think it is obsene that you have to prove you meet basic standards to drive, but you don't when it comes to how your neighbour's money is spent.

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: RW on February 20, 2015, 05:18:47 PM

I agree that 4 years is not enough to implement a long terms vision - one which can be turned on a dime with a new party being elected. It would be nice come election time if we were asked as voters what our priorities are with a government working towards those issues.

I admit that our system might not be the best. I believe it wouldn't work in every country and I wouldn't strive to push for it either.

I think you give voters more credit for "money spending" than you should. It's generally all the same shit Shen.

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Anonymous on February 20, 2015, 05:36:29 PM

~~Quote from: "Real Woman"~~I agree that 4 years is not enough to implement a long terms vision - one which can be turned on a dime with a new party being elected. It would be nice come election time if we were asked as voters what our priorities are with a government working towards those issues.

I admit that our system might not be the best. I believe it wouldn't work in every country and I wouldn't strive to push for it either.

I think you give voters more credit for "money spending" than you should. It's generally all the same shit Shen.

We will never become a de facto one party state like the PAP in Singapore or even the KMT on Taiwan....ever. I know if anything we will continue lowering the voting bar(I can see 16 year olds eventually "earning" the right vote as politicians see an easy demographic to pander to). I could live with government through consultation prioritizing a few issues instead of being everything to everyone. However, I see that being hijacked by well-funded NGO's, business interests and so on.

Bottom line is I want to see fundamental change in our democracy, but under our current system I can easily see it being sabotaged by self-interest. ac_unsure

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: RW on February 20, 2015, 06:28:39 PM

Lobby organizations are nothing new Shen.

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Anonymous on February 20, 2015, 06:42:39 PM

~~Quote from: "Real Woman"~~Lobby organizations are nothing new Shen.

Their wealth and influence over government appear to have increased. The problem with our democracy is that the squeaky wheel gets greased. Universal suffrage is immoral. Singapore on the other hand doesn't have this particular problem while citizens there are getting better value than either Canadians or Americans for their tax dollars. As I said, I don't expect the West to make any changes other than more pandering and lowering the voting bar even further.

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Romero on February 20, 2015, 06:54:37 PM

~~Quote from: "Renee"~~
~~Quote from: "Romero"~~"Many here today have devoted their lives to the fight against global poverty, and you know the stakes. We fight against poverty because hope is an answer to terror. We fight against poverty because opportunity is a fundamental right to human dignity. We fight against poverty because faith requires it and conscience demands it. And we fight against poverty with a growing conviction that major progress is within our reach.

We will challenge the poverty and hopelessness and lack of education and failed governments that too often allow conditions that terrorists can seize and try to turn to their advantage."

- George W. Bush

Hey pinhead that quote from GWB was in response to global poverty, especially in the M.E.

The addressing "grievances" shit that your boy Odumbo has recently tried to pass off as a terrorist fighting strategy came out of a Whitehouse summit focusing mainly on domestic radical extremism. There is a big difference in calling for the world to help educate and provide opportunely for the unwashed scum in their shithole countries compared to catering to Muslims living in the US.

It's all about Obongo dumping the responsibility of addressing these so-called "grievances" onto the feckless UNGA. And furthermore, what the fuck are these "grievances"? Obama like you has no real clue what they are. For your information most of the "grievances" against the west that are exploited by terrorists have nothing to do with jobs, poverty or youth basket ball. ac_rollseyes Most of them stem from a combination of 12 century politics and the creation and existence of Israel.

The radical ideology that drives ISIS and it's recruits goes all they back to the Islamic split between Shia and Sunni and they could care less if some UN sponsored program provides them with volley ball nets and paint by numbers activity books for their school age kids. They could careless about getting a job driving a cab or herding goats. It's all about establishing an Islamic state that spreads all over the world. That is their only aim and as long as the major portion of most Islamic education systems are nothing but reading from the Koran FOR 6 hours a day and spending another 2 hours with your ass in the air on a prayer rug, ignorance will run rampant and Islamic extremism will flourish.

BTW, just because GWB said some bullshit about terrorists and poverty that doesn't mean he had a clue either. Western politicians are still struggling to comprehend what they are dealing with and many refuse to see the reality of the situation. Most of those reality challenged politicos are on (SURPRISE!) the left. Much like you, they are more interested in not offending the enemy than they are in defeating them. They are part of the problem just as people like YOU are part of the problem.

(//%3C/s%3E%3CURL%20url=%22http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/uploader/image/2015/02/20/Bush-Obama-Islam-ver3.jpg%22%3E%3CLINK_TEXT%20text=%22http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/stat%20...%20m-ver3.jpg%22%3Ehttp://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/uploader/image/2015/02/20/Bush-Obama-Islam-ver3.jpg%3C/LINK_TEXT%3E%3C/URL%3E%3Ce%3E)

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Romero on February 20, 2015, 06:57:12 PM

~~Quote from: "Shen Li"~~Universal suffrage is a noble idea on the surface, I won't deny that. However, it's evolution has gone beyond that idea. Our system is ALL about the next election, not a long term vision. This requires pandering to people to win over their vote in the next election. That is not visionary and it is not usually in the national interest, but all the big parties on this continent do it if they want a chance of forming government.

Do I think the West will ever admit that the foundation of their system might not be best? Fuck no, the West is ideological to it's very core. I think it is obsene that you have to prove you meet basic standards to drive, but you don't when it comes to how your neighbour's money is spent.

Nobody's forcing you to vote!

Don't you believe that immigrants who come here should adapt and respect our values?

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Anonymous on February 20, 2015, 07:50:08 PM

~~Quote from: "Romero"~~Nobody's forcing you to vote!

Oh fucking love that wouldn't ya? The makers stay home leaving no opposition to the takers getting more. Bring in ple

~~Quote~~Don't you believe that immigrants who come here should adapt and respect our values

What in the fuck are you babbling about? Are you trying to insuate that pandering to every asshole with their handout is a Canadian value? Maybe for your ilk, but not for the silent majority who pay the bills. Maybe you should go shopping for another country as you do not conform to Canadian values. ac_razz ISIS is always looking for a few good Western apologists.

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Romero on February 20, 2015, 08:27:58 PM

~~Quote from: "Shen Li"~~Are you trying to insuate that pandering to every asshole with their handout is a Canadian value?

Nope, Western-style democracy and universal suffrage are Canadian values. You should conform to our values and customs! It's been like this since well before you got here, and preferred by likely over 99% of Canadians. You can move to Singapore or back to China if you can't fit in!

ISIS doesn't like Western democracy and universal suffrage either.

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Lance Leftardashian on February 20, 2015, 11:36:35 PM

We must spread the good of democracy to the rest of the world so that they too can live like us.

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Anonymous on February 21, 2015, 09:08:22 AM

~~Quote from: "Lance Leftardashian"~~We must spread the good of democracy to the rest of the world so that they too can live like us.

I don't vote myself, but I don't know if it can be transplanted abroad..

Taiwan went from dictatorship to democracy, but can this be replicated in other places like the Middle East?

The Arab Spring did not become what was hoped of it.

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Anonymous on February 21, 2015, 05:41:15 PM

~~Quote from: "Romero"~~
~~Quote from: "Shen Li"~~Are you trying to insuate that pandering to every asshole with their handout is a Canadian value?

Nope, Western-style democracy and universal suffrage are Canadian values.

Canada's first PM John A. Macdonald opposed any extension of the vote beyond those who owned property. I guess he lacked your Canadian values. ac_toofunny

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Romero on February 23, 2015, 02:57:34 PM

~~Quote from: "Shen Li"~~
~~Quote from: "Romero"~~
~~Quote from: "Shen Li"~~Are you trying to insuate that pandering to every asshole with their handout is a Canadian value?

Nope, Western-style democracy and universal suffrage are Canadian values.

Canada's first PM John A. Macdonald opposed any extension of the vote beyond those who owned property. I guess he lacked your Canadian values. ac_toofunny

~~Quote~~While debating the 1885 Electoral Franchise Act in the House of Commons, legislation he later called "my greatest triumph", Macdonald proposed that "Chinamen" should not have the right to vote on the grounds that they were "foreigners" and that "the Chinese has no British instincts or British feelings or aspirations." When a member of the opposition asked whether naturalized Chinese ceased to be "Chinamen", Macdonald amended his legislation to exclude "a person of Mongolian or Chinese race." The opposition object that the Chinese were "industrious people" who had "voted in the last election," or had "as good a right [to] be allowed to vote as any other British subject of foreign extraction." This led Macdonald to make clear that Chinese exclusion was necessary to ensure European dominance. He warned, "if [the Chinese] came in great numbers and settled on the Pacific coast they might control the vote of that whole Province, and they would send Chinese representative to sit here, who would represent Chinese eccentricities, Chinese immorality, Asiatic principles altogether opposite to our wishes; and, in the even balance of parties, they might enforce those Asiatic principles, those immoralities . . . , the eccentricities which are abhorrent to the Aryan race and Aryan principles, on this House." He then claimed that the Chinese and Europeans were separate species: "the Aryan races will not wholesomely amalgamate with the Africans or the Asiatics" and that "the cross of those races, like the cross of the dog and the fox, is not successful; it cannot be, and never will be." Chinese exclusion was necessary or, as he told the House, "the Aryan character of the future of British America should be destroyed . . ."

//http://activehistory.ca/2015/01/john-a-macdonalds-aryan-canada-aboriginal-genocide-and-chinese-exclusion/

If that's the Canada you want, pay your head tax and don't vote!

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Anonymous on February 23, 2015, 05:10:17 PM

^So predictable!! I knew you would post that.
~~Quote~~The CBC chose Tommy Douglas as "the greatest Canadian of all time", for establishing our national healthcare plan. Unfortunately, Tommy Douglas was a supporter of Social Darwinism. He wrote his Master's thesis at McMaster University on the topic of Eugenics. Mr. Douglas wanted to do away with "subnormal people". He advocated health certificates for marriage, forcing people to prove that they were not "subnormal", or diseased. He also propagated segregation, in order to separate such people from the general population, so that they would not procreate and thus, erode the level of strength and purity of mankind. He offered further solutions of sterilization, "castration for homosexuals and chronic criminals", and abortion to stop unwanted pregnancies.

http://www.charlesdarwin.ca/expelled.htm

The greatest Canadian of all time according to the CBC propagated segregation and sterilization of homos??

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Renee on February 23, 2015, 06:51:42 PM

~~Quote from: "Shen Li"~~^So predictable!! I knew you would post that.
~~Quote~~The CBC chose Tommy Douglas as "the greatest Canadian of all time", for establishing our national healthcare plan. Unfortunately, Tommy Douglas was a supporter of Social Darwinism. He wrote his Master's thesis at McMaster University on the topic of Eugenics. Mr. Douglas wanted to do away with "subnormal people". He advocated health certificates for marriage, forcing people to prove that they were not "subnormal", or diseased. He also propagated segregation, in order to separate such people from the general population, so that they would not procreate and thus, erode the level of strength and purity of mankind. He offered further solutions of sterilization, "castration for homosexuals and chronic criminals", and abortion to stop unwanted pregnancies.

http://www.charlesdarwin.ca/expelled.htm

The greatest Canadian of all time according to the CBC propagated segregation and sterilization of homos??

What do you expect from a prog like Romero? Thinking ain't his forte, being one of the flock is.

He still thinks abortion is a noble and moral cause when the reality is, abortion and the birth control movement here in the west has it's roots in the eugenics movement of the 19th and early 20th centuries. The exact same eugenics movement that influenced the Nazi's and their plans for creating a master race. In fact the founder of Planed Parenthood was a self-professed proponent of eugenics who's overriding aim was to decrease the black population in order to maintain white social supremacy. Today people like Romero hail Margret Sanger as a social innovator when in reality she was a proponent of mass murder who thought blacks, the poor and various other "undesirables" had no place in society.

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Romero on February 23, 2015, 07:25:14 PM

~~Quote from: "Renee"~~What do you expect from a prog like Romero? Thinking ain't his forte, being one of the flock is.

He still thinks abortion is a noble and moral cause when the reality is, abortion and the birth control movement here in the west has it's roots in the eugenics movement of the 19th and early 20th centuries. The exact same eugenics movement that influenced the Nazi's and their plans for creating a master race. In fact the founder of Planed Parenthood was a self-professed proponent of eugenics who's overriding aim was to decrease the black population in order to maintain white social supremacy. Today people like Romero hail Margret Sanger as a social innovator when in reality she was a proponent of mass murder who thought blacks, the poor and various other "undesirables" had no place in society.

You're accusing me of supporting eugenics just because I support a woman's right to choose?

No problem!

Because oops. You don't know what you're talking about. Margaret Sanger was a proponent of contraception, but she was anti-abortion.

~~Quote~~Sanger's family planning advocacy always focused on contraception, rather than abortion. It was not until the mid-1960s, after Sanger's death, that the reproductive rights movement expanded its scope to include abortion rights as well as contraception. Sanger was opposed to abortions, both because they were dangerous for the mother in the early 20th century and because she believed that life should not be terminated after conception. In her book Woman and the New Race, she wrote: "while there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization."

//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger#Abortion

So according to your very own logic, you support eugenics!

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Renee on February 24, 2015, 09:59:42 AM

~~Quote from: "Romero"~~
~~Quote from: "Renee"~~What do you expect from a prog like Romero? Thinking ain't his forte, being one of the flock is.

He still thinks abortion is a noble and moral cause when the reality is, abortion and the birth control movement here in the west has it's roots in the eugenics movement of the 19th and early 20th centuries. The exact same eugenics movement that influenced the Nazi's and their plans for creating a master race. In fact the founder of Planed Parenthood was a self-professed proponent of eugenics who's overriding aim was to decrease the black population in order to maintain white social supremacy. Today people like Romero hail Margret Sanger as a social innovator when in reality she was a proponent of mass murder who thought blacks, the poor and various other "undesirables" had no place in society.

You're accusing me of supporting eugenics just because I support a woman's right to choose?

No problem!

Because oops. You don't know what you're talking about. Margaret Sanger was a proponent of contraception, but she was anti-abortion.

~~Quote~~Sanger's family planning advocacy always focused on contraception, rather than abortion. It was not until the mid-1960s, after Sanger's death, that the reproductive rights movement expanded its scope to include abortion rights as well as contraception. Sanger was opposed to abortions, both because they were dangerous for the mother in the early 20th century and because she believed that life should not be terminated after conception. In her book Woman and the New Race, she wrote: "while there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization."

//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger#Abortion

So according to your very own logic, you support eugenics!

"Sanger's writings echoed ideas about inferiority and loose morals of particular races that were widespread in the contemporary United States. In one "What Every Girl Should Know" commentary, she references popular opinion that Aboriginal Australians were "just a step higher than the chimpanzee" with "little sexual control," as compared to the "normal man and Woman."Elsewhere she bemoaned that traditional sexual ethics "... have in the past revealed their woeful inability to prevent the sexual and racial chaos into which the world has today drifted."

The above quote is from your own link, you moron. Next time read more than the first couple of paragraphs. ac_toofunny She was a vile person and you people revere her because it fits your agenda. Just shuffle the morally reprehensible stuff under the rug, eh prog. Your kind and their hypocrisy and their penchant for denying the truth is disgusting to put it mildly.

Margret Sanger was a racist, a proponent of eugenics and an abortionist. She founded P.P. on the idea that women of the 19th century needed a safe and clinical place to get an abortion and receive contraception. She wasn't against abortion, she was against the dangerous conditions in which they were performed. Her objective was two fold and safe accessible abortions and contraception were the tools she promoted to further the practice of eugenics. The practice of eugenics was promoted by liberals and progressives right up to WWII when it was finally discredited after the discovery of the horrors the Nazis and their cohorts perpetrated on people who they felt were of inferior race and ethnicity. Unfortunately you people are too stupid to recognize that much of your vaulted "women's right to choose" is based on morally dubious concepts.

The typical prog tactics of twisting and deflecting the truth isn't good enough to defend your morally bankrupt ideology this time, proggy.

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Romero on February 24, 2015, 02:06:13 PM

Ha ha, twisting and deflecting is trying to equate liberals and progressives with racism, eugenics and Nazism. Those are against liberal and progressive values.

Margaret Sanger and Nazism?

~~Quote~~The first thing I want to say in relation to my attitude regarding the present War and World Peace is that before Hitler came into power in Germany I was one of the few Americans who joined the Anti-Nazi Committee and gave money, my name and any influence I had with writers and others, to combat Hitler's rise to power in Germany.

When Hitler got into the saddle and burned all books he considered (not immoral) but dangerous to the State, my three books were destroyed and have not been allowed to circulate in Germany. The publisher and translator were put into concentration camps and I have never heard of them since.

//http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/webedition/app/documents/show.php?sangerDoc=240246.xml

Oops again! The Nazis burned her books and sent her publisher and translator to concentration camps.

You can't twist the fact that Nazism is a far-right ideology!

Twisting and deflecting is you refusing to accept the fact that Sanger was anti-abortion.

~~Quote~~While there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization.

I also assert that the responsibility for these abortions and the illness, misery and deaths that come in their train lies at the door of a government whose authority has been stretched beyond the limits of the people's intention and which, in its puritanical blindness, insists upon suffering and death from ignorance, rather than life and happiness from knowledge and prevention.

It needs no assertion of mine to call attention to the grim fact that the laws prohibiting the imparting of information concerning the preventing of conception are responsible for tens of thousands of deaths each year in this country and an untold amount of sickness and sorrow. The suffering and the death of these women is squarely upon the heads of the lawmakers and the puritanical, masculine-minded persons, who insist upon retaining the abominable legal restrictions.

Try as they will they cannot escape the truth, nor hide it under the cloak of stupid hypocrisy. If the laws against imparting knowledge of scientific Birth Control were repealed, the 1,000,000 or 2,000,000 women who undergo abortions in the United States each year would escape the agony of the surgeon's instruments and the long trail of disease, suffering and death which so often follows.

"He who would combat abortion" says Dr. Hirsch, "and at the same time combat contraceptive measures may be likened to the person who would fight contagious diseases and forbid disinfection. For contraceptive measures are important weapons in the fight against abortion.

//http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/webedition/app/documents/show.php?sangerDoc=232534.xml

Pro-contraception but clearly anti-abortion. Let's see you find any Sanger quote supporting abortion. You can't, twisty!

Now, are you seriously against women having access to contraception?

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Renee on February 24, 2015, 03:55:13 PM

~~Quote from: "Romero"~~Ha ha, twisting and deflecting is trying to equate liberals and progressives with racism, eugenics and Nazism. Those are against liberal and progressive values.

Margaret Sanger and Nazism?

~~Quote~~The first thing I want to say in relation to my attitude regarding the present War and World Peace is that before Hitler came into power in Germany I was one of the few Americans who joined the Anti-Nazi Committee and gave money, my name and any influence I had with writers and others, to combat Hitler's rise to power in Germany.

When Hitler got into the saddle and burned all books he considered (not immoral) but dangerous to the State, my three books were destroyed and have not been allowed to circulate in Germany. The publisher and translator were put into concentration camps and I have never heard of them since.

//http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/webedition/app/documents/show.php?sangerDoc=240246.xml

Oops again! The Nazis burned her books and sent her publisher and translator to concentration camps.

You can't twist the fact that Nazism is a far-right ideology!

Twisting and deflecting is you refusing to accept the fact that Sanger was anti-abortion.

~~Quote~~While there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization.

I also assert that the responsibility for these abortions and the illness, misery and deaths that come in their train lies at the door of a government whose authority has been stretched beyond the limits of the people's intention and which, in its puritanical blindness, insists upon suffering and death from ignorance, rather than life and happiness from knowledge and prevention.

It needs no assertion of mine to call attention to the grim fact that the laws prohibiting the imparting of information concerning the preventing of conception are responsible for tens of thousands of deaths each year in this country and an untold amount of sickness and sorrow. The suffering and the death of these women is squarely upon the heads of the lawmakers and the puritanical, masculine-minded persons, who insist upon retaining the abominable legal restrictions.

Try as they will they cannot escape the truth, nor hide it under the cloak of stupid hypocrisy. If the laws against imparting knowledge of scientific Birth Control were repealed, the 1,000,000 or 2,000,000 women who undergo abortions in the United States each year would escape the agony of the surgeon's instruments and the long trail of disease, suffering and death which so often follows.

"He who would combat abortion" says Dr. Hirsch, "and at the same time combat contraceptive measures may be likened to the person who would fight contagious diseases and forbid disinfection. For contraceptive measures are important weapons in the fight against abortion.

//http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/webedition/app/documents/show.php?sangerDoc=232534.xml

Pro-contraception but clearly anti-abortion. Let's see you find any Sanger quote supporting abortion. You can't, twisty!

Now, are you seriously against women having access to contraception?

I didn't say she was a Nazi, you dumbass or even politically aligned with Nazism. That's you trying to deflect and squirm out from under the truth again. ac_toofunny

Margret Sanger was a noted and documented proponent of eugenics as were the Nazis. That doesn't make them one in the same, it merely makes them connected by a discredited scientific concept and by virtue.......absolutely disgusting. There is a lot more to a political affiliation than sharing just one fucking idea or don't you get that?

As for me being against contraception. I'm not but unlike you I'm not dumb enough to sit there and try to deny where the concept and social movement has it it's roots. Also unlike you I don't support the concept blindly. It has it's place and for reasons other than racial purity. You and your ilk don't care about that because to your kind, abortion and contraception is nothing more than part of a sociopolitical agenda.

"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."

Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race

(Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)

Blacks..."human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people

The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)

In her "Plan for Peace," Sanger outlined her strategy for eradication of those she deemed "feebleminded." Among the steps included in her evil scheme were immigration restrictions; compulsory sterilization; segregation to a lifetime of farm work; etc. Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 107

The above quotes come from the mind of a monster that progs like you revere as a social innovator. As I've said dozens of times, people like you are a real problem.

Progressives - a more morally lost, disingenuous, hypocritical group of fools have never existed in modern society. ac_toofunny

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Romero on February 24, 2015, 04:16:56 PM

~~Quote from: "Renee"~~I didn't say she was a Nazi, you dumbass or even politically aligned with Nazism. That's you trying to deflect and squirm out from under the truth again. ac_toofunny

I never said you did. You equated the ideology of Sanger, and foolishly myself, liberals and democrats, with a Nazi ideology. You're the one who brought the Nazis up!

I've never revered Sanger for anything, liar. You really can't carry on any discussion without making up stuff, eh? I'm against eugenics and your baseless allegations can't change that.

You're not against contraception? Yet you've been arguing that the birth control movement here in the West has its roots in the eugenics movement! Oops!

Don't bother accusing me of supporting a woman's right to contraception because of "racial purity". Your "I just know you do"s are becoming more ludicrous by the day. When you need to make up stuff your argument has already failed.

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Renee on February 24, 2015, 05:57:40 PM

~~Quote from: "Romero"~~
~~Quote from: "Renee"~~I didn't say she was a Nazi, you dumbass or even politically aligned with Nazism. That's you trying to deflect and squirm out from under the truth again. ac_toofunny

I never said you did. You equated the ideology of Sanger, and foolishly myself, liberals and democrats, with a Nazi ideology. You're the one who brought the Nazis up!

I've never revered Sanger for anything, liar. You really can't carry on any discussion without making up stuff, eh? I'm against eugenics and your baseless allegations can't change that.

You're not against contraception? Yet you've been arguing that the birth control movement here in the West has its roots in the eugenics movement! Oops!

Don't bother accusing me of supporting a woman's right to contraception because of "racial purity". Your "I just know you do"s are becoming more ludicrous by the day. When you need to make up stuff your argument has already failed.

Read, pinhead. You obviously can't separate the issue from it's basis and conception. It would be very nice if you could separate the practice from it's conceptual roots but this is the real world and it doesn't fly.

If you support contraception or abortion without understanding or acknowledging the basis of the concept and movement, then you are a dimwitted fool. Unfortunately eugenics was very much a part of the progressive sociopolitical movement of the early 20th century which BTW, spawned the contraception and abortion movement. Trying to distance yourself from that fact while supporting the ideas that are based in the concept of eugenics is disingenuous. But then again, we all know that you are all about being disingenuous. I don't think I've ever seen anyone weasel and worm their way around the truth as much as you. ac_toofunny

Have you ever considered a career in politics? You would be well suited for it.

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Romero on February 24, 2015, 06:16:10 PM

There you go again! I've never once supported any idea that is based on the concept of eugenics. I've never once supported contraception for racial purity.

I don't need to distance myself from your ludicrous accusations because they're ridiculous. Accusations are all you've got.

Funny how you're pretending to be on the side of blacks when it's convenient, but you can't distance yourself from the statements you've actually made.

~~Quote from: "Renee"~~The ironic thing is most blacks in the urban centers of the US don't vote, unless of course the local democratic political machine coerces them with free rides to the polling centers.....and packs of cigarettes and promises of bigger welfare checks.

What surprises me is that certain people still refuse to admit that there is a cultural issue in the black community that helps to perpetuate illiteracy.

70% of the prison inmates in the US are black. I wonder what racial demographic makes up the bulk of the illiterate inmates.

This is the future of the black community so if you think its bad now, just wait a few more years, it's going to only get worse.

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Anonymous on February 24, 2015, 06:31:19 PM

Margaret Sanger was a racist to her very core

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Renee on February 25, 2015, 11:18:29 AM

~~Quote from: "Romero"~~There you go again! I've never once supported any idea that is based on the concept of eugenics. I've never once supported contraception for racial purity.

I don't need to distance myself from your ludicrous accusations because they're ridiculous. Accusations are all you've got.

Funny how you're pretending to be on the side of blacks when it's convenient, but you can't distance yourself from the statements you've actually made.

~~Quote from: "Renee"~~The ironic thing is most blacks in the urban centers of the US don't vote, unless of course the local democratic political machine coerces them with free rides to the polling centers.....and packs of cigarettes and promises of bigger welfare checks.

What surprises me is that certain people still refuse to admit that there is a cultural issue in the black community that helps to perpetuate illiteracy.

70% of the prison inmates in the US are black. I wonder what racial demographic makes up the bulk of the illiterate inmates.

This is the future of the black community so if you think its bad now, just wait a few more years, it's going to only get worse.

Thanks for quoting me. For once your recognized the truth. ac_toofunny Will wonders never cease? ac_rollseyes

BTW, everything you quoted was in defense of blacks; you're just too stupid to recognize it. I want to see blacks succeed as a demographic and in order to do that we can't be like your kind and just shuffle their issues and problems under the rug. I know you far left idiots want to ignore the black issues that don't fit into your agenda because it keeps them tied to your sick and corrupt liberal system of entitlement, dependence, illiteracy and crime.

http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/122805_BlackAmericaStagnation.pdf

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Romero on February 25, 2015, 02:45:45 PM

Ha ha, falsely accusing most blacks of only voting when they get free rides, cigarettes and welfare checks is not defending them. I'd say you were trolling if it wasn't for the fact that you always assume silly stereotypes are the reality.

You have absolutely no evidence that most blacks in urban centres will only vote if they get free stuff. You're making it up!

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Renee on February 25, 2015, 03:42:25 PM

~~Quote from: "Romero"~~Ha ha, falsely accusing most blacks of only voting when they get free rides, cigarettes and welfare checks is not defending them. I'd say you were trolling if it wasn't for the fact that you always assume silly stereotypes are the reality.

You have absolutely no evidence that most blacks in urban centres will only vote if they get free stuff. You're making it up!

Go troll someone else if you are going to be this stupid.

You could maybe fill a thimble with what you know about black communities in the US or the left-wing politicians that prey upon them, so STFU. Keep reading the Huff-Puff, the Far left view of the US you get from that is perfect for a dope like you.

BTW, Exit polling showed that one of the big reasons blacks went over to Obama (besides skin color), was the promise of stuff like FREE healthcare. Those of us that work pay taxes and know better understand that NOTHING is free, least of all Obamacare. Need anymore proof, dumbass? Organizations like Acorn have been prosecuted for going into black and other minority communities, registering voters multiple times and bribing them with money, cigarettes, and false promises of free shit.

"Some Americans believe they are entitled to vote more than once in order to exact revenge against a society they feel did them or their ancestors wrong. Some left-wingers say that election fraud is justifiable because in a sense it compensates the poor for having little political power. This attitude dominated the leadership of the now-defunct Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN)."

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/matthew-vadum/celebrating-voter-fraud/

http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/04/michelle-obamas-closing-argument-to-black-voters-dont-think-vote-for-democrats/

^ This one is great. Racist cocksucker Obama - Vote democratic and then go eat fried chicken (Shen Li should approve) ac_toofunny

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/14/romney-blames-loss-on-obamas-gifts-to-minorities-and-young-voters/?_r=0

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/2/campaign-flyer-tells-blacks-alabama-vote-or-face-h/?page=all

http://pamelageller.com/2008/10/prosecute-acorn.html/

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Anonymous on February 25, 2015, 03:50:44 PM

~~Quote from: "Renee"~~
BTW, Exit polling showed that one of the big reasons blacks went over to Obama (besides skin color), was the promise of stuff like FREE healthcare. Those of us that work pay taxes and know better understand that NOTHING is free, least of all Obamacare. Need anymore proof, dumbass? Organizations like Acorn have been prosecuted for going into black and other minority communities, registering voters multiple times and bribing them with money, cigarettes, and false promises of free shit.

"Some Americans believe they are entitled to vote more than once in order to exact revenge against a society they feel did them or their ancestors wrong. Some left-wingers say that election fraud is justifiable because in a sense it compensates the poor for having little political power. This attitude dominated the leadership of the now-defunct Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN)."

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/matthew-vadum/celebrating-voter-fraud/

http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/04/michelle-obamas-closing-argument-to-black-voters-dont-think-vote-for-democrats/

^ This one is great. Racist cocksucker Obama - Vote democratic and then go eat fried chicken (Shen Li should approve) ac_toofunny

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/14/romney-blames-loss-on-obamas-gifts-to-minorities-and-young-voters/?_r=0

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/2/campaign-flyer-tells-blacks-alabama-vote-or-face-h/?page=all

http://pamelageller.com/2008/10/prosecute-acorn.html/

As much as our version of democracy has turned into a joke it is still preferable to the US variety. Romney took a lot of heat for his 47% comment, but he was pretty close to the truth.

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Romero on February 25, 2015, 05:04:46 PM

~~Quote from: "Renee"~~BTW, Exit polling showed that one of the big reasons blacks went over to Obama (besides skin color), was the promise of stuff like FREE healthcare.

False. No exit polling has ever asked if anyone voted to get free stuff. Bribing voters is against the law. You got a source for that fib?

~~Quote from: "Renee"~~Organizations like Acorn have been prosecuted for going into black and other minority communities, registering voters multiple times and bribing them with money, cigarettes, and false promises of free shit.

~~Quote~~Four different independent investigations by various state and city Attorneys General and the GAO released in 2009 and 2010 cleared ACORN, finding its employees had not engaged in the alleged criminal activities and that the organization had managed its federal funding appropriately.

//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now

You need to try using some logic instead of just believing crazy assumptions. Since black voters don't get free health care, money, cigarettes etc. for voting, they know they're not going to get that stuff for voting.

African Americans have had full voting rights since 1965 and they've never been given free stuff. You must think they're pretty stupid.

Why only blacks, Renee? Why are you trying to prove they're worse citizens than whites?

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Renee on February 25, 2015, 05:29:41 PM

~~Quote from: "Romero"~~
~~Quote from: "Renee"~~BTW, Exit polling showed that one of the big reasons blacks went over to Obama (besides skin color), was the promise of stuff like FREE healthcare.

False. No exit polling has ever asked if anyone voted to get free stuff. Bribing voters is against the law. You got a source for that fib?

~~Quote from: "Renee"~~Organizations like Acorn have been prosecuted for going into black and other minority communities, registering voters multiple times and bribing them with money, cigarettes, and false promises of free shit.

~~Quote~~Four different independent investigations by various state and city Attorneys General and the GAO released in 2009 and 2010 cleared ACORN, finding its employees had not engaged in the alleged criminal activities and that the organization had managed its federal funding appropriately.

//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now

You need to try using some logic instead of just believing crazy assumptions. Since black voters don't get free health care, money, cigarettes etc. for voting, they know they're not going to get that stuff for voting.

African Americans have had full voting rights since 1965 and they've never been given free stuff. You must think they're pretty stupid.

Why only blacks, Renee? Why are you trying to prove they're worse citizens than whites?

You're an idiot; funny how I keep having to say that. ac_rollseyes Do you really think exit pollsters are going to ask if a vote was cast on the basis of "getting free shit?" ac_toofunny Are you a total retard?....... Don't answer that, I already know the answer.

They ask questions like what was the determining factor in your decision to vote for a particular candidate. They then record the answers. Obviously you are as naive as you are stupid or you just never voted. Either one wouldn't surprise me.

African Americans have had full voting rights since way before 1965, you fucking tool. ac_lmfao The 15th Amendment which prohibited federal and state governments from restricting voting rights based on race, creed or color was ratified in 1870. You really have no clue, do you? It's typical of your ignorant kind.

If you are that ill-informed regarding voting rights in the US, I suggest you just STFU now and save yourself any further embarrassment.

BTW, It's true African Americans haven't truly been given anything for free any more than most other racial demographic but that doesn't stop left-wing politicians from making promises of entitlement protection and entitlement expansion just to corral the black vote. And worst of all, it doesn't stop blacks for falling for the same lies time and time again. It's a common tactic used by liberal democrats and they do the same thing with the elderly when it comes to social security. Everyone with a brain (that leaves you out) understands that this happens.

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Anonymous on February 25, 2015, 06:00:20 PM

~~Quote from: "Renee"~~

BTW, It's true African Americans haven't truly been given anything for free any more than most other racial demographic but that doesn't stop left-wing politicians from making promises of entitlement protection and entitlement expansion just to corral the black vote. And worst of all, it doesn't stop blacks for falling for the same lies time and time again. It's a common tactic used by liberal democrats and they do the same thing with the elderly when it comes to social security. Everyone with a brain (that leaves you out) understands that this happens.

This pandering shit makes me fucking sick to my stomach. It's a natural byproduct though of universal suffrage, but it still makes makes me sick. Earn your vote for fuck sakes. acc_angry

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Romero on February 25, 2015, 06:15:10 PM

~~Quote from: "Renee"~~Do you really think exit pollsters are going to ask if a vote was cast on the basis of "getting free shit?"

Hello, you're the one claiming they do.

"BTW, Exit polling showed that one of the big reasons blacks went over to Obama (besides skin color), was the promise of stuff like FREE healthcare."

And now you're calling your own claim totally retarded. In the likely case you're going to twist this around some more, remember that respondents can't give their own personal answers. They aren't asked if they voted for free stuff, and they can't answer that they voted for free stuff. So where are you getting this idea that they do? And why just mostly blacks?

~~Quote from: "Renee"~~African Americans have had full voting rights since way before 1965, you fucking tool.

~~Quote~~The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a landmark piece of federal legislation in the United States that prohibits racial discrimination in voting. It was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson during the height of the American Civil Rights Movement on August 6, 1965, and Congress later amended the Act five times to expand its protections. Designed to enforce the voting rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the Act allowed for a mass enfranchisement of racial minorities throughout the country, especially in the South. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the Act is considered to be the most effective piece of civil rights legislation ever enacted in the country.

Section 2, for instance, prohibits any state or local government from imposing any voting law that results in discrimination against racial or language minorities. Additionally, the Act specifically outlaws literacy tests and similar devices that were historically used to disenfranchise racial minorities.

//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965

If African Americans had full voting rights since way before, why would there need to be a Voting Rights Act of 1965? Mass disenfranchisement and discrimination of racial minorities are not full voting rights.

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Renee on February 26, 2015, 10:17:44 AM

~~Quote from: "Romero"~~
~~Quote from: "Renee"~~Do you really think exit pollsters are going to ask if a vote was cast on the basis of "getting free shit?"

Hello, you're the one claiming they do.

"BTW, Exit polling showed that one of the big reasons blacks went over to Obama (besides skin color), was the promise of stuff like FREE healthcare."

And now you're calling your own claim totally retarded. In the likely case you're going to twist this around some more, remember that respondents can't give their own personal answers. They aren't asked if they voted for free stuff, and they can't answer that they voted for free stuff. So where are you getting this idea that they do? And why just mostly blacks?

~~Quote from: "Renee"~~African Americans have had full voting rights since way before 1965, you fucking tool.

~~Quote~~The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a landmark piece of federal legislation in the United States that prohibits racial discrimination in voting. It was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson during the height of the American Civil Rights Movement on August 6, 1965, and Congress later amended the Act five times to expand its protections. Designed to enforce the voting rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the Act allowed for a mass enfranchisement of racial minorities throughout the country, especially in the South. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the Act is considered to be the most effective piece of civil rights legislation ever enacted in the country.

Section 2, for instance, prohibits any state or local government from imposing any voting law that results in discrimination against racial or language minorities. Additionally, the Act specifically outlaws literacy tests and similar devices that were historically used to disenfranchise racial minorities.

//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965

If African Americans had full voting rights since way before, why would there need to be a Voting Rights Act of 1965? Mass disenfranchisement and discrimination of racial minorities are not full voting rights.

The voting rights act of 1965 was about prohibiting voter suppression which covered ANY minority or ANY affected racial demographic, NOT just blacks. Blacks already had the constitutional and legal right to vote for almost 100 years before the Voter Rights Act of 65. The 1965 legislation was not meant to augment or revise actual voter rights. It was meant to enhance access to voter registration and election polling places.

If you really want to play like this you're going to have to back to the "Civil rights Act of 1957" which allowed the US Attorney General to sue on behalf of anyone claiming their right to vote was suppressed. Then you have to look at the "Civil Rights Act of 1960" which allowed the federal courts to appoint observers and supervisors at places of voter registration which were allegedly refusing or known to refuse the registration minorities. And whether you know it or not, most of those places where minorities were turned away from registering were in liberal democratic (Dixiecrats) strongholds.

So don't go waving the history of US voter rights in my face. For me this is HS civics 101 and I've forgotten more info on the subject than you will ever accumulate in your pea-sized brain. Stop trying to squirm out from under your ignorance of US voter rights. You're obviously talking out of your ass. ac_toofunny

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Romero on February 26, 2015, 02:27:26 PM

~~Quote from: "Renee"~~The voting rights act of 1965 was about prohibiting voter suppression which covered ANY minority or ANY affected racial demographic, NOT just blacks. Blacks already had the constitutional and legal right to vote for almost 100 years before the Voter Rights Act of 65. The 1965 legislation was not meant to augment or revise actual voter rights. It was meant to enhance access to voter registration and election polling places.

If you really want to play like this you're going to have to back to the "Civil rights Act of 1957" which allowed the US Attorney General to sue on behalf of anyone claiming their right to vote was suppressed. Then you have to look at the "Civil Rights Act of 1960" which allowed the federal courts to appoint observers and supervisors at places of voter registration which were allegedly refusing or known to refuse the registration minorities. And whether you know it or not, most of those places where minorities were turned away from registering were in liberal democratic (Dixiecrats) strongholds.

So don't go waving the history of US voter rights in my face. For me this is HS civics 101 and I've forgotten more info on the subject than you will ever accumulate in your pea-sized brain. Stop trying to squirm out from under your ignorance of US voter rights. You're obviously talking out of your ass. ac_toofunny

We appear to have different definitions of full voting rights. For me, full voting rights means full voting rights. For you, "full voting rights" include poll taxes, literacy tests, grandfather clauses, removal from electoral rolls, fraud and intimidation.

Why did African Americans protest for full voting rights if they already had full voting rights? Why would Congress pass the Voting Rights Act of 1965 if there were already full voting rights?

"So long as I do not firmly and irrevocably possess the right to vote I do not possess myself. I cannot make up my mind — it is made up for me. I cannot live as a democratic citizen, observing the laws I have helped to enact — I can only submit to the edict of others.

So our most urgent request to the president of the United States and every member of Congress is to give us the right to vote."

- Martin Luther King, Jr., 1957

What a strange thing to say for someone you claim to have had full voting rights.

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Renee on February 26, 2015, 03:42:02 PM

~~Quote from: "Romero"~~
~~Quote from: "Renee"~~The voting rights act of 1965 was about prohibiting voter suppression which covered ANY minority or ANY affected racial demographic, NOT just blacks. Blacks already had the constitutional and legal right to vote for almost 100 years before the Voter Rights Act of 65. The 1965 legislation was not meant to augment or revise actual voter rights. It was meant to enhance access to voter registration and election polling places.

If you really want to play like this you're going to have to back to the "Civil rights Act of 1957" which allowed the US Attorney General to sue on behalf of anyone claiming their right to vote was suppressed. Then you have to look at the "Civil Rights Act of 1960" which allowed the federal courts to appoint observers and supervisors at places of voter registration which were allegedly refusing or known to refuse the registration minorities. And whether you know it or not, most of those places where minorities were turned away from registering were in liberal democratic (Dixiecrats) strongholds.

So don't go waving the history of US voter rights in my face. For me this is HS civics 101 and I've forgotten more info on the subject than you will ever accumulate in your pea-sized brain. Stop trying to squirm out from under your ignorance of US voter rights. You're obviously talking out of your ass. ac_toofunny

We appear to have different definitions of full voting rights. For me, full voting rights means full voting rights. For you, "full voting rights" include poll taxes, literacy tests, grandfather clauses, removal from electoral rolls, fraud and intimidation.

Why did African Americans protest for full voting rights if they already had full voting rights? Why would Congress pass the Voting Rights Act of 1965 if there were already full voting rights?

"So long as I do not firmly and irrevocably possess the right to vote I do not possess myself. I cannot make up my mind — it is made up for me. I cannot live as a democratic citizen, observing the laws I have helped to enact — I can only submit to the edict of others.

So our most urgent request to the president of the United States and every member of Congress is to give us the right to vote."

- Martin Luther King, Jr., 1957

What a strange thing to say for someone you claim to have had full voting rights.

Read the 15th Amendment before flap your yap. That is the ultimate legal authority on the issue. It grants full voting rights to blacks, former slaves and minorities born in the US.

What you are talking about is voter suppression which is an illegal act and a VIOLATION of the VOTING RIGHTS granted under the 15th Amendment. The points you are hung up on are racist acts that were once committed in select southern states.

It's amazing; you don't even understand what you are quoting.

MLK acknowledges that there are laws in place that give him the right to vote but because of the "edict of others" he and his people are stopped from voting. Look up the word "edict".......it's a mandate or proclamation and not necessarily a "legal" one, and certainly it's NOT a "legislative" LAW. In other words, a bunch or racist, redneck fucks kept blacks from voting in violation of constitutional law and in turn he was asking the legal authority (congress) to put an end to the illegal practices of voter suppression.

BTW, your buddy Obama is famous for governing by "edict". He routinely by-passes the legislative branch of the government to enact laws based on his personal whim. In most cases it is completely illegal and unconstitutional.

You really are stupid. I can't believe that had to be explained to you and worst of all I can't believe I've wasted so much time responding to your inane ignorance driven horseshit. Black citizens were give the right to vote with the ratification of the 15 Amendment in 1870; END OF STORY. Anything that prevented blacks from voting, post ratification, was a violation of the law.

What don't you understand? Not for nothing but I'm guessing it's probably to many fucking things to cover in the time allotted in a week. ac_umm ac_lmfao

BTW, don't ever try that leftist bullshit practice on me of demonizing your opponent with lies and false assumptions. My Idea of voter rights comes from the US Constitution and all the rights granted there in. Any form of voter suppression then or now is and was ILLEGAL, you fucking liberal tool.

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Romero on February 26, 2015, 05:43:33 PM

~~Quote from: "Renee"~~What you are talking about is voter suppression which is an illegal act and a VIOLATION of the VOTING RIGHTS granted under the 15th Amendment.

Poll taxes, literacy tests, grandfather clauses, removal from electoral rolls etc. were often common and legal across the South, until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 finally put a stop to all that.

The 15th Amendment was supposed to prohibit the federal and state governments from denying any citizen the right to vote based on race. It didn't work in the states and jurisdictions which found ways around it, and found ways around it they did.

You're correct that blacks had "full voting rights" on paper, but if they are indeed denied their vote and they can't do anything about it, they do not have full voting rights. Many African Americans in many states didn't officially get full voting rights until 1965.

If you were ever turned away from the polls you wouldn't say you had full voting rights!

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Renee on February 26, 2015, 07:30:21 PM

~~Quote from: "Romero"~~
~~Quote from: "Renee"~~What you are talking about is voter suppression which is an illegal act and a VIOLATION of the VOTING RIGHTS granted under the 15th Amendment.

Poll taxes, literacy tests, grandfather clauses, removal from electoral rolls etc. were often common and legal across the South, until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 finally put a stop to all that.

None of the practices you listed were constitutionally legal. I don't care if they were common in the south; "common" doesn't mean legal. A lot of laws are on the books, in many states, that are directly counter to the rights granted in the US Constitution, it doesn't make them legal. Politicians and bureaucrats routinely create ordinances that do not stand up in court. Unfortunately that is a byproduct of electing leaders who are more concerned with an agenda than they are in upholding and defending the law of the land.

I still maintain that the Voter Rights Act of 1965 provided NO additional voting rights to blacks or anyone else. It merely dealt with and put an end to illegal and unconstitutional laws and voter suppression practices.

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Romero on February 26, 2015, 07:42:32 PM

~~Quote~~The Voting Rights Act, signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson (1908-73) on August 6, 1965, aimed to overcome legal barriers at the state and local levels that prevented African Americans from exercising their right to vote under the 15th Amendment (1870) to the Constitution of the United States. The act significantly widened the franchise and is considered among the most far-reaching pieces of civil rights legislation in U.S. history.

The act banned the use of literacy tests, provided for federal oversight of voter registration in areas where less than 50 percent of the nonwhite population had not registered to vote, and authorized the U.S. attorney general to investigate the use of poll taxes in state and local elections (in 1964, the 24th Amendment made poll taxes illegal in federal elections; poll taxes in state elections were banned in 1966 by the U.S. Supreme Court).

Although the Voting Rights Act passed, state and local enforcement of the law was weak and it often was ignored outright, mainly in the South and in areas where the proportion of blacks in the population was high and their vote threatened the political status quo. Still, the Voting Rights Act gave African-American voters the legal means to challenge voting restrictions and vastly improved voter turnout. In Mississippi alone, voter turnout among blacks increased from 6 percent in 1964 to 59 percent in 1969.

//http://www.history.com/topics/black-history/voting-rights-act

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Renee on February 27, 2015, 01:30:14 PM

~~Quote from: "Romero"~~
~~Quote~~The Voting Rights Act, signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson (1908-73) on August 6, 1965, aimed to overcome legal barriers at the state and local levels that prevented African Americans from exercising their right to vote under the 15th Amendment (1870) to the Constitution of the United States. The act significantly widened the franchise and is considered among the most far-reaching pieces of civil rights legislation in U.S. history.

The act banned the use of literacy tests, provided for federal oversight of voter registration in areas where less than 50 percent of the nonwhite population had not registered to vote, and authorized the U.S. attorney general to investigate the use of poll taxes in state and local elections (in 1964, the 24th Amendment made poll taxes illegal in federal elections; poll taxes in state elections were banned in 1966 by the U.S. Supreme Court).

Although the Voting Rights Act passed, state and local enforcement of the law was weak and it often was ignored outright, mainly in the South and in areas where the proportion of blacks in the population was high and their vote threatened the political status quo. Still, the Voting Rights Act gave African-American voters the legal means to challenge voting restrictions and vastly improved voter turnout. In Mississippi alone, voter turnout among blacks increased from 6 percent in 1964 to 59 percent in 1969.

//http://www.history.com/topics/black-history/voting-rights-act

You're still not showing where the 1965 voter rights act increased or added additional voting rights that weren't already granted under the 15 Amendment. All it did was prohibit and remove the unconstitutional laws and practices used in a select few states. Your argument holds no water because outside certain southern states, black citizens in the US had full access (no restrictions) to voter registration and the polls. The 15th Amend was and still is the law of the land, end of story.

The problem with people like you is you can't distinguish actual reality from the emotional reality that you let run wild in your head. To people like you, logic and reason take a back seat to semantics and hysterics. This is why debating people like you is usually futile.

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Anonymous on February 27, 2015, 01:44:40 PM

~~Quote from: "Renee"~~The problem with people like you is you can't distinguish actual reality from the emotional reality that you let run wild in your head. To people like you, logic and reason take a back seat to semantics and hysterics. This is why debating people like you is usually futile.

Romero is an ideologue. He doesn't care about facts or practical solutions. Never deviate from ideology no matter how impractical staying the course may be or how inaccurate your position is.

Skinny little white guys need to hit the gym and drink lots of pragmatism shakes afterwards.

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Renee on February 27, 2015, 01:47:50 PM

~~Quote from: "Shen Li"~~
~~Quote from: "Renee"~~The problem with people like you is you can't distinguish actual reality from the emotional reality that you let run wild in your head. To people like you, logic and reason take a back seat to semantics and hysterics. This is why debating people like you is usually futile.

Romero is an ideologue. He doesn't care about facts or practical solutions. Never deviate from ideology no matter how impractical staying the course may be or how inaccurate your position is.

Skinny little white guys need to hit the gym and drink lots of pragmatism shakes afterwards.

That's what YOU call him. ac_toofunny

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Anonymous on February 27, 2015, 01:55:04 PM

~~Quote from: "Renee"~~
~~Quote from: "Shen Li"~~
~~Quote from: "Renee"~~The problem with people like you is you can't distinguish actual reality from the emotional reality that you let run wild in your head. To people like you, logic and reason take a back seat to semantics and hysterics. This is why debating people like you is usually futile.

Romero is an ideologue. He doesn't care about facts or practical solutions. Never deviate from ideology no matter how impractical staying the course may be or how inaccurate your position is.

Skinny little white guys need to hit the gym and drink lots of pragmatism shakes afterwards.

That's what YOU call him. ac_toofunny

Yes, I do.

"an adherent of an ideology, especially one who is uncompromising and dogmatic".

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Renee on February 27, 2015, 01:57:56 PM

~~Quote from: "Shen Li"~~
~~Quote from: "Renee"~~
~~Quote from: "Shen Li"~~
Romero is an ideologue. He doesn't care about facts or practical solutions. Never deviate from ideology no matter how impractical staying the course may be or how inaccurate your position is.

Skinny little white guys need to hit the gym and drink lots of pragmatism shakes afterwards.

That's what YOU call him. ac_toofunny

Yes, I do.

"an adherent of an ideology, especially one who is uncompromising and dogmatic".

ac_rollseyes Yeah I know.

My previous response was meant to be a joke because what I call him isn't nearly as nice.

Come on Shen, stay with me. ac_toofunny

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Anonymous on February 27, 2015, 02:00:29 PM

~~Quote from: "Renee"~~
ac_rollseyes Yeah I know.

My previous response was meant to be a joke because what I call him isn't nearly as nice.

Come on Shen, stay with me. ac_toofunny

Well fuck, I try ya know. Our English abilities are not exactly on an even level though.

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Romero on February 27, 2015, 02:03:46 PM

~~Quote from: "Renee"~~Your argument holds no water because outside certain southern states, black citizens in the US had full access (no restrictions) to voter registration and the polls.

Why the heck would you think we were discussing only outside certain states? I was talking about full voting rights across the entire country. Sounds like someone knows she's wrong and she's twisting and deflecting!

Time to win this argument once and for all. What great timing!

~~Quote~~It's been almost 50 years since the historic civil rights marches in Selma, Alabama, and Congress is ready to celebrate the people who made it possible.

Lawmakers have overwhelmingly passed a bill to award the Congressional Gold Medal to the thousands who marched on Bloody Sunday, Turnaround Tuesday and the final stretch of the 54 miles from Selma to Montgomery -- the movement that served as the catalyst for passage of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act.

The bill sailed through the Senate on Thursday with so much support it didn't even get a vote. It passed the House 420-0 earlier this month. The only thing left is for President Barack Obama to sign it into law.

"This bill, I believe, is a fitting honor that recognizes the courage and determination of the civil rights marchers at Selma 50 years ago," Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) declared on the Senate floor. "It was a very historic day, and it marked an alteration in the history of America. It changed an unacceptable abuse of American rights: the right to vote."

//http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/26/selma-voting-rights-act_n_6764820.html

ac_smile

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Renee on February 27, 2015, 02:05:51 PM

~~Quote from: "Shen Li"~~
~~Quote from: "Renee"~~
ac_rollseyes Yeah I know.

My previous response was meant to be a joke because what I call him isn't nearly as nice.

Come on Shen, stay with me. ac_toofunny

Well fuck, I try ya know. Our English abilities are not exactly on an even level though.

Sorry Lucy;.....Oops....I mean Shen; I keep forgetting that. ac_biggrin

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Renee on February 27, 2015, 02:13:57 PM

~~Quote from: "Romero"~~
~~Quote from: "Renee"~~Your argument holds no water because outside certain southern states, black citizens in the US had full access (no restrictions) to voter registration and the polls.

~~Quote from: "Romero"~~Why the heck would you think we were discussing only outside certain states? I was talking about full voting rights across the entire country. Sounds like someone knows she's wrong and she's twisting and deflecting!

Time to win this argument once and for all. What great timing!

ac_wtf, You really are an idiot, it's official.ac_toofunny Do you even understand what the 15 Amendment is and how the US Constitution is applied across the entire nation? Do you understand the difference between constitutional and unconstitutional??????

Your reading comprehension is obviously as bad as it gets. Tell me dipshit, is English your first language? ac_hithere

If you think you won something you go right a head and give yourself a gold star for stupidity on me. I'll even staple it to your forehead if you want me to.

BTW, I'm still waiting for you to show were the 1965 voters act ADDED or INCREASED the voting rights granted under the 15th Amendment. Until you do that you haven't won anything. Do yourself a favor and learn to read before the next time you flap your yap.

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Romero on February 27, 2015, 02:25:41 PM

You want more of my win and more of your fail? You got it!

~~Quote~~114th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 431

AN ACT

To award a Congressional Gold Medal to the Foot Soldiers who participated in Bloody Sunday, Turnaround Tuesday, or the final Selma to Montgomery Voting Rights March in March of 1965, which served as a catalyst for the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Section 1.Findings

The Congress finds the following:

(1)March 7, 2015, will mark 50 years since the brave Foot Soldiers of the Voting Rights Movement first attempted to march from Selma to Montgomery on Bloody Sunday in protest against the denial of their right to vote, and were brutally assaulted by Alabama state troopers.

(2)Beginning in 1964, members of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee attempted to register African-Americans to vote throughout the state of Alabama.

(3)These efforts were designed to ensure that every American citizen would be able to exercise their constitutional right to vote and have their voices heard.

(4)By December of 1964, many of these efforts remained unsuccessful. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., working with leaders from the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, began to organize protests throughout Alabama.

(5)On March 7, 1965, over 500 voting rights marchers known as Foot Soldiers gathered on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama in peaceful protest of the denial of their most sacred and constitutionally protected right—the right to vote.

(6)Led by John Lewis of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and Rev. Hosea Williams of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, these Foot Soldiers began the march towards the Alabama State Capitol in Montgomery, Alabama.

(7)As the Foot Soldiers crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge, they were confronted by a wall of Alabama state troopers who brutally attacked and beat them.

(8)Americans across the country witnessed this tragic turn of events as news stations broadcasted the brutality on a day that would be later known as Bloody Sunday.

(9)Two days later on Tuesday, March 9, 1965, nearly 2,500 Foot Soldiers led by Dr. Martin Luther King risked their lives once more and attempted a second peaceful march starting at the Edmund Pettus Bridge. This second attempted march was later known as Turnaround Tuesday.

(10)Fearing for the safety of these Foot Soldiers who received no protection from federal or state authorities during this second march, Dr. King led the marchers to the base of the Edmund Pettus Bridge and stopped. Dr. King kneeled and offered a prayer of solidarity and walked back to the church.

(11)President Lyndon B. Johnson, inspired by the bravery and determination of these Foot Soldiers and the atrocities they endured, announced his plan for a voting rights bill aimed at securing the precious right to vote for all citizens during an address to Congress on March 15, 1965.

(12)On March 17, 1965, one week after Turnaround Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Frank M. Johnson ruled the Foot Soldiers had a First Amendment right to petition the government through peaceful protest, and ordered federal agents to provide full protection to the Foot Soldiers during the Selma to Montgomery Voting Rights March.

(13)Judge Johnson's decision overturned Alabama Governor George Wallace's prohibition on the protest due to public safety concerns.

(14)On March 21, 1965, under the court order, the U.S. Army, the federalized Alabama National Guard, and countless federal agents and marshals escorted nearly 8,000 Foot Soldiers from the start of their heroic journey in Selma, Alabama to their safe arrival on the steps of the Alabama State Capitol Building on March 25, 1965.

(15)The extraordinary bravery and sacrifice these Foot Soldiers displayed in pursuit of a peaceful march from Selma to Montgomery brought national attention to the struggle for equal voting rights, and served as the catalyst for Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which President Johnson signed into law on August 6, 1965.

(16)To commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Voting Rights Movement and the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, it is befitting that Congress bestow the highest civilian honor, the Congressional Gold Medal, in 2015, to the Foot Soldiers who participated in Bloody Sunday, Turnaround Tuesday or the final Selma to Montgomery Voting Rights March during March of 1965, which served as a catalyst for the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

//https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr431/text

ac_smile

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Renee on February 27, 2015, 02:39:25 PM

~~Quote from: "Romero"~~You want more of my win and more of your fail? You got it!

~~Quote~~114th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 431

AN ACT

To award a Congressional Gold Medal to the Foot Soldiers who participated in Bloody Sunday, Turnaround Tuesday, or the final Selma to Montgomery Voting Rights March in March of 1965, which served as a catalyst for the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Section 1.Findings

The Congress finds the following:

(1)March 7, 2015, will mark 50 years since the brave Foot Soldiers of the Voting Rights Movement first attempted to march from Selma to Montgomery on Bloody Sunday in protest against the denial of their right to vote, and were brutally assaulted by Alabama state troopers.

(2)Beginning in 1964, members of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee attempted to register African-Americans to vote throughout the state of Alabama.

(3)These efforts were designed to ensure that every American citizen would be able to exercise their constitutional right to vote and have their voices heard.

(4)By December of 1964, many of these efforts remained unsuccessful. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., working with leaders from the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, began to organize protests throughout Alabama.

(5)On March 7, 1965, over 500 voting rights marchers known as Foot Soldiers gathered on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama in peaceful protest of the denial of their most sacred and constitutionally protected right—the right to vote.

(6)Led by John Lewis of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and Rev. Hosea Williams of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, these Foot Soldiers began the march towards the Alabama State Capitol in Montgomery, Alabama.

(7)As the Foot Soldiers crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge, they were confronted by a wall of Alabama state troopers who brutally attacked and beat them.

(8)Americans across the country witnessed this tragic turn of events as news stations broadcasted the brutality on a day that would be later known as Bloody Sunday.

(9)Two days later on Tuesday, March 9, 1965, nearly 2,500 Foot Soldiers led by Dr. Martin Luther King risked their lives once more and attempted a second peaceful march starting at the Edmund Pettus Bridge. This second attempted march was later known as Turnaround Tuesday.

(10)Fearing for the safety of these Foot Soldiers who received no protection from federal or state authorities during this second march, Dr. King led the marchers to the base of the Edmund Pettus Bridge and stopped. Dr. King kneeled and offered a prayer of solidarity and walked back to the church.

(11)President Lyndon B. Johnson, inspired by the bravery and determination of these Foot Soldiers and the atrocities they endured, announced his plan for a voting rights bill aimed at securing the precious right to vote for all citizens during an address to Congress on March 15, 1965.

(12)On March 17, 1965, one week after Turnaround Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Frank M. Johnson ruled the Foot Soldiers had a First Amendment right to petition the government through peaceful protest, and ordered federal agents to provide full protection to the Foot Soldiers during the Selma to Montgomery Voting Rights March.

(13)Judge Johnson's decision overturned Alabama Governor George Wallace's prohibition on the protest due to public safety concerns.

(14)On March 21, 1965, under the court order, the U.S. Army, the federalized Alabama National Guard, and countless federal agents and marshals escorted nearly 8,000 Foot Soldiers from the start of their heroic journey in Selma, Alabama to their safe arrival on the steps of the Alabama State Capitol Building on March 25, 1965.

(15)The extraordinary bravery and sacrifice these Foot Soldiers displayed in pursuit of a peaceful march from Selma to Montgomery brought national attention to the struggle for equal voting rights, and served as the catalyst for Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which President Johnson signed into law on August 6, 1965.

(16)To commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Voting Rights Movement and the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, it is befitting that Congress bestow the highest civilian honor, the Congressional Gold Medal, in 2015, to the Foot Soldiers who participated in Bloody Sunday, Turnaround Tuesday or the final Selma to Montgomery Voting Rights March during March of 1965, which served as a catalyst for the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

//https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr431/text

ac_smile

Where does any of that say that the voting rights act of 65 added rights, amended rights or increased rights that were already granted under the 15th Amendment?

This is the last time I'm going to ask the question. If you can't answer it, stop grandstanding and just say you can't answer the question.

Nobody will think any less of you because everyone here already knows you are a far left ideological fool. ac_toofunny

Again, NO additional voting rights were granted under the 1965 voter rights act. The act prohibited states and jurisdictions from putting unconstitutional and many times illegal prohibitions in place that prevented blacks and minorities from exercising their rights granted under the 15th Amendment.

"President Lyndon B. Johnson, himself a southerner, urged Congress on March 15, 1965, to pass legislation "which will make it impossible to thwart the 15th amendment."

"Passed by Congress February 26, 1869, and ratified February 3, 1870, the 15th amendment granted African American men the right to vote."

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=44

What don't you get?

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Anonymous on February 27, 2015, 03:04:48 PM

Renee,

I don't feel like sifting through a shitload of obliqueness. What is Ro saying here? Blacks only earned the legal vote in 1965? Not making voting a birth right will lead to apartheid, the 4th reich or the Canadian caliphate? What's this bullshit about?

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Renee on February 27, 2015, 03:17:19 PM

~~Quote from: "Shen Li"~~Renee,

I don't feel like sifting through a shitload of obliqueness. What is Ro saying here? Blacks only earned the legal vote in 1965? Not making voting a birth right will lead to apartheid, the 4th reich or the Canadian caliphate? What's this bullshit about?

He doesn't understand the difference between the 15th Amendment to the US constitution and the rights granted under the amendment and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The 15th Amend was part of the post civil war reconstruction period and it granted all US born black men the right to vote (women of any race couldn't vote back then).

In the 95 years between ratification of the 15th and the voter rights act of 1965 some southern states passed unconstitutional laws barring blacks from registering to vote unless they could pass literacy tests, pay poll taxes (completely illegal) or were grandfathered in from previous registration.

The 1965 voters act put an end to the unconstitutional practices in the southern states that were activity barring blacks from voting. Romero doesn't get that the voters act did not grant additional rights it only removed the unconstitutional and many times illegal practices that limited the black vote. He thinks that because a few southern states prevented blacks from voting, blacks in the US didn't have full voting rights until 1965 when they indeed did because they were granted under the 15th Amendment. The fact that some southern states unconstitutionally prevented black male citizens from voting doesn't change the fact that they already had the constitutional right to vote. He is too stupid and wrapped up in his liberal semantics to understand the logical and legal realities of the situation.

He also doesn't seem to understand what a constitutional right is. A constitutional right once granted cannot be taken away without amendment to the constitution and subsequent ratification of that amendment. Preventing someone from excising their constitutional right is illegal and can be challenged in court. If you remove the illegal prevention of said rights, it doesn't grant additional rights it just allows for the exercising of the granted right.

Romero is a left wing moron and wants to win a debate on hysterics simply because he THINKS he is right. Unfortunately for him opinion does not trump fact.

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Romero on February 27, 2015, 03:23:22 PM

~~Quote from: "Renee"~~"President Lyndon B. Johnson, himself a southerner, urged Congress on March 15, 1965, to pass legislation "which will make it impossible to thwart the 15th amendment."

As in the 15th Amendment was thwarted. As in the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was needed to ensure African Americans and other minorities had full voting rights.

~~Quote from: "Shen Li"~~What is Ro saying here? Blacks only earned the legal vote in 1965? Not making voting a birth right will lead to apartheid, the 4th reich or the Canadian caliphate? What's this bullshit about?

The 15th Amendment was supposed to give African Americans full voting rights, but southern states found ways around it with poll taxes, literacy tests, grandfather clauses, removal from electoral rolls, fraud and intimidation. It wasn't until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 put a stop to all that and finally gave African Americans full voting rights.

For some reason, Renee thinks African Americans had full voting rights the whole time even though thousands upon thousands were denied their right to vote over decades.

It's pretty simple. If one is denied their right to vote, they do not have full voting rights.

I can't possibly imagine what Renee thinks Martin Luther King, Jr. and all those Selma marchers were protesting for. Free cigarettes, I guess.

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Renee on February 27, 2015, 03:48:54 PM

~~Quote from: "Romero"~~
~~Quote from: "Renee"~~"President Lyndon B. Johnson, himself a southerner, urged Congress on March 15, 1965, to pass legislation "which will make it impossible to thwart the 15th amendment."

As in the 15th Amendment was thwarted. As in the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was needed to ensure African Americans and other minorities had full voting rights.

~~Quote from: "Shen Li"~~What is Ro saying here? Blacks only earned the legal vote in 1965? Not making voting a birth right will lead to apartheid, the 4th reich or the Canadian caliphate? What's this bullshit about?

The 15th Amendment was supposed to give African Americans full voting rights, but southern states found ways around it with poll taxes, literacy tests, grandfather clauses, removal from electoral rolls, fraud and intimidation. It wasn't until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 put a stop to all that and finally gave African Americans full voting rights.

For some reason, Renee thinks African Americans had full voting rights the whole time even though thousands upon thousands were denied their right to vote over decades.

It's pretty simple. If one is denied their right to vote, they do not have full voting rights.

That's the hysterical and misinformed logic of someone who doesn't understand constitutional law, constitutional rights, what those rights grant or how they are applied. This is why people like you think you can pass laws like complete gun bans (i.e. Washington DC) and get away with it. Unfortunately for your kind shit like that doesn't hold up in the courts.

~~Quote from: "Romero"~~I can't possibly imagine what Renee thinks Martin Luther King, Jr. and all those Selma marchers were protesting for. Free cigarettes, I guess.

^ More liberal hysterics. ac_toofunny

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Anonymous on February 27, 2015, 04:09:58 PM

Renee has clearly proved that Blacks had the constitutional right to vote long before 1965.

Anyway, birthright citizenship and voting should be abolished.

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Renee on February 27, 2015, 04:34:50 PM

~~Quote from: "Shen Li"~~Renee has clearly proved that Blacks had the constitutional right to vote long before 1965.

Anyway, birthright citizenship and voting should be abolished.

Unfortunately, that's not going to happen.

I would be happy if people would just stop voting on the basis of empty promises of "free shit". Nothing is free and it's time people woke up and realized that. This is the first year people who don't have healthcare and didn't sign up for Obamacare will face the first of the tax penalties under the "Affordable Care Act" ac_toofunny.

I can't wait to here the moaning and groaning from the tards that voted for Obama and didn't get their "FREE" healthcare and now have to fork over portions of their tax return to Uncle Sam. ac_toofunny

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Romero on February 27, 2015, 04:44:45 PM

~~Quote from: "Shen Li"~~Renee has clearly proved that Blacks had the constitutional right to vote long before 1965.

(//%3C/s%3E%3CURL%20url=%22http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/civil-rights-act/images/ActTitles-TitleVIII.jpg%22%3E%3CLINK_TEXT%20text=%22http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/civil-right%20...%20leVIII.jpg%22%3Ehttp://www.loc.gov/exhibits/civil-rights-act/images/ActTitles-TitleVIII.jpg%3C/LINK_TEXT%3E%3C/URL%3E%3Ce%3E)

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Renee on February 27, 2015, 04:55:08 PM

Romero bases what is legally constitutional on what he sees on protest posters. ac_lmfao

A bigger moron never existed.

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Anonymous on February 27, 2015, 05:17:17 PM

~~Quote from: "Renee"~~Romero basis what is legally constitutional on what he sees on protest posters. ac_lmfao

A bigger moron never existed.

That is the height of intellectual laziness. You backed up your argument with the US constitution and the other guy posts the equivalent of porn to evoke emotions.

It's the same fucking thing with these OPEC stooges like Mike Huddema of Greenpeace when they are bashing Canada's oilsands achievements. They so show picture of a 30 year old mine with an upgrader beside it. Unfortunately, this is how far too many people get their "information" these days. Why learn about science or law when all you need to do is cherrypick a misleading image off the net. It's deceitful bubblegum for the mind.

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Renee on February 27, 2015, 06:06:53 PM

~~Quote from: "Shen Li"~~
~~Quote from: "Renee"~~Romero basis what is legally constitutional on what he sees on protest posters. ac_lmfao

A bigger moron never existed.

That is the height of intellectual laziness. You backed up your argument with the US constitution and the other guy posts the equivalent of porn to evoke emotions.

It's the same fucking thing with these OPEC stooges like Mike Huddema of Greenpeace when they are bashing Canada's oilsands achievements. They so show picture of a 30 year old mine with an upgrader beside it. Unfortunately, this is how far too many people get their "information" these days. Why learn about science or law when all you need to do is cherrypick a misleading image off the net. It's deceitful bubblegum for the mind.

Not exactly sure if that stuff you just said is the same as Romero's stupidity but I like your new avatar; it's really you. ac_biggrin

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Anonymous on February 27, 2015, 06:10:40 PM

~~Quote from: "Renee"~~
~~Quote from: "Shen Li"~~
~~Quote from: "Renee"~~Romero basis what is legally constitutional on what he sees on protest posters. ac_lmfao

A bigger moron never existed.

That is the height of intellectual laziness. You backed up your argument with the US constitution and the other guy posts the equivalent of porn to evoke emotions.

It's the same fucking thing with these OPEC stooges like Mike Huddema of Greenpeace when they are bashing Canada's oilsands achievements. They so show picture of a 30 year old mine with an upgrader beside it. Unfortunately, this is how far too many people get their "information" these days. Why learn about science or law when all you need to do is cherrypick a misleading image off the net. It's deceitful bubblegum for the mind.

Not exactly sure if that stuff you just said is the same as Romero's stupidity but I like your new avatar; it's really you. ac_biggrin

It was in response to the lazy tards that post pics to a counter a position like Romero did. It's deceitful and means nothing.

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Renee on February 27, 2015, 06:21:48 PM

~~Quote from: "Shen Li"~~
~~Quote from: "Renee"~~
~~Quote from: "Shen Li"~~
That is the height of intellectual laziness. You backed up your argument with the US constitution and the other guy posts the equivalent of porn to evoke emotions.

It's the same fucking thing with these OPEC stooges like Mike Huddema of Greenpeace when they are bashing Canada's oilsands achievements. They so show picture of a 30 year old mine with an upgrader beside it. Unfortunately, this is how far too many people get their "information" these days. Why learn about science or law when all you need to do is cherrypick a misleading image off the net. It's deceitful bubblegum for the mind.

Not exactly sure if that stuff you just said is the same as Romero's stupidity but I like your new avatar; it's really you. ac_biggrin

It was in response to the lazy tards that post pics to a counter a position like Romero did. It's deceitful and means nothing.

Did you see the one sign that says "Negros are Americans too, they need protection"?

I hope Romero doesn't think blacks in the US are like spotted owls or some other species that needs to be put on the protected list. ac_lmfao

Title: Re: Why Western-Style Democracy Sux
Post by: Gary Oak on February 28, 2015, 12:26:20 AM

~~Quote from: "Renee"~~
~~Quote from: "Shen Li"~~
~~Quote from: "Renee"~~

Not exactly sure if that stuff you just said is the same as Romero's stupidity but I like your new avatar; it's really you. ac_biggrin

It was in response to the lazy tards that post pics to a counter a position like Romero did. It's deceitful and means nothing.

Did you see the one sign that says "Negros are Americans too, they need protection"?

I hope Romero doesn't think blacks in the US are like spotted owls or some other species that needs to be put on the protected list. ac_lmfao

That little pansy EU posts pictures all the time along with pathetically fagtard comments. ac_drinks ac_cool ac_drinks

THeBlueCashew

General Discussion => The Flea Trap => Topic started by: Anonymous on October 19, 2014, 02:56:31 PM