posted
something for the ladies. there are always picture threads for the men showing women..
Posts: 103 | From: America | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: ^Black Kings of Arabia...
Eh, what do you say, my darling Lioness?
the people who run Arabia are extremely decadent. Monarchy is backward ans sharia is dumb. Other than that it's very nice to see our people in positions of power
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: Democracy ain't providing any stability either with the Europeans and the Americans beholding to the Communist Chinese for economic assistance.
I know you don't care much for communism, but what about theocracy? The rule of the first principle (whatever that is for you)... over the people.
What do you think? [/QB]
Despite the current economic situation democracy is remarkable in that no democratic countries have ever gone to war with each other. The amount of diverse religions in America is remarkable yet there have been no religious civil wars. That is not to say America has not done some terrible things but these things do not have to do with the democratic system. Democracy has provided far more stability on a relative basis to the world than any other governemental system and is most suited to the modern world. A theocratic system means that a state is run by relgious laws which are not to be questioned. All sorts of harsh abuses occur when there is no flexibility for people of diverse values to question or update laws. Clerics do the interpreatation not consulting or representing the common people. Also if a ruler is doing a terrible job there is no recourse for the people to throw them out, they must simply live with them or be beaten with clubs. Some countries may not be ready to make one full step from monarchy to democracy. They may have to transition to another less oppressive monarchy. You might roll the dice and get a good king. Usually you wind up with a not so good king and often you are stuck with that king or his family for the rest of your life. A king is often just a dicatator who wears fancy robes. A single man should not be given too much power or be regarded as divine or infallible. It's different when you reminisce nostalgically on a king who lived before your time and in a country you did not come from. They may have been good and that's luck but once you set up monarchy as acceptable you are then stuck with luck when it is bad for a very long time or when good men or women get corrupted by power.
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Despite the current economic situation democracy is remarkable in that no democratic countries have ever gone to war with each other.
This is true, what they do is attack others for their resources. Then they divide those resources up amongst themselves. When you start to read and learn about history you will find out, generally speaking wars are fought over resource. Not religion, not the color of one’s skin, but resources.
The amount of diverse religions in America is remarkable yet there have been no religious civil wars.
That is true no civil wars based on religion, neither has any other country. Wars are fought for resources. What the simpleton, western mind such as your fails to realize is the crap you see on t.v. is propaganda. NO one gives a crap if you bow your head down 5 times a day, rock back and forth towards a wall, or make the sign of the rising and setting sun across your chest (Christians). Wars are fought because one group wants or needs the resources another group has, doesn’t matter what color, religion or creed. Look at Southern Sudan for example. Traditional religions make up the majority of the south, followed by Islam and then a SMALL minority of Christians who are insignificant to even speak of. Yet the North fought the south, despite the fact there were southerner Muslims, so why? RESOURCES. You post on the internet which means you can read (though your comprehension of the material may be called into question). Do some research, enlighten yourself.
That is not to say America has not done some terrible things but these things do not have to do with the democratic system. Democracy has provided far more stability on a relative basis to the world than any other governmental system and is most suited to the modern world.
Pure stupidity, it has provided stability for whom? Democracy is good for those countries that have allied themselves together. It has not been good for those who have had to stand by and watch their resources get raped while the western governments divvy up the spoils. Besides, you need to do research, western democracy is YOUNG. Remember, Europe was in the throes of savagery until the African and then Arab Muslims taught them how to behave in a civilized manner. It was after this time they took the knowledge and used it to subdue the known world. But we are talking what, 600 years or so, relatively young. Egypt on the other hand was 3500 years , Ancient Kush, older than that. When the western world reaches that point, then brag about how great the system is, it hasn’t been long enough to have truly been tried and tested. Also, western democracy is made up of the capitalistic system, and it’s a savage system which they can either reform or allow it to be their down fall (as we are seeing now). We can’t look at parts of a system and claim it to be the best. We must take the system as a whole, in its totality. The scary thing is, people like you are allowed to vote, yet you know nothing of history, economics, finance, etc. How can you put someone in a job when you, yourself don’t even understand what that job entails? That’s the problem with democracy. It allows morons to vote for things they don’t understand. So then they end up voting based on non-essential things, like George Bush says he loves/believes in Heru/Jesus so now he must be good, let’s vote for him. Or this other guy says he loves how the constellations, opps I mean the twelve apostles wrote x, y and z. Oh he must be God fearing, lets vote for him. The system is flawed beyond belief, but propaganda has allowed the western mind to think otherwise. Education would help alleviate this misunderstanding, but you, like most will be unwilling to do the research to properly understand what’s going on.
A theocratic system means that a state is run by relgious laws which are not to be questioned. All sorts of harsh abuses occur when there is no flexibility for people of diverse values to question or update laws. Clerics do the interpreatation not consulting or representing the common people.
More asinine words, with little to no meaning. They don’t allow polygamy in America, why? That is not based on any man made law derived by rational debate. That is based on supposed Christian religious doctrine and the people up hold it because they think America is a Christian nation (it never was). They don’t allow a man to bugger another man in many states, why? Again based on religious law. On the flip side, there are some man made laws in the states that are beyond retarded. A man serves his time in prison, serves his “debt to society” as the American says, yet their rights are not fully restored, is that just, I think not. As for laws in places like Iran, before regurgitating what you heard on some know nothing’s YouTube channel, do real research. Let me take that back, do research, show your findings to someone who has the ability to think rationally that you trust and then have them explain it to you.
Also if a ruler is doing a terrible job there is no recourse for the people to throw them out, they must simply live with them or be beaten with clubs. Some countries may not be ready to make one full step from monarchy to democracy. They may have to transition to another less oppressive monarchy. You might roll the dice and get a good king. Usually you wind up with a not so good king and often you are stuck with that king or his family for the rest of your life. A king is often just a dicatator who wears fancy robes. A single man should not be given too much power or be regarded as divine or infallible.
I don’t know of any king in Africa or the Middle East who was or is thought of as being divine or infallible and neither do you. But I guess this is what we do when we lack knowledge, we make up fairy tales. The question then becomes, do you understand the meanings of the words you are using or is it you’re your talking out of your arse based on half-truths and misinformation? I guess IF we both knew history and IF we both were rational then we could argue the same can be said for democracy. You get a president who does horrible things, people protest and get mishandled by the authorities, you can always hope to vote them out. But then you roll the dice and hope that new person doesn’t continue along the same path or takes it somewhere even worse. IF we were both rational, we could even argue the players change but the game remains the same. So then the question becomes, whose game is it? Dare I say certain financial and corporate institutions who write American laws? The Average American is a neo serf i.e. a debt slave, being proud of a system that sucks its citizen’s dry is bizarre to say the least.
It's different when you reminisce nostalgically on a king who lived before your time and in a country you did not come from. They may have been good and that's luck but once you set up monarchy as acceptable you are then stuck with luck when it is bad for a very long time or when good men or women get corrupted by power.
Yep, that never happens in the west *chuckle*. Reminds me of those whites who refer to the good old days in America. But when the rational mind looks at these “good old days” you would be hard press to forget, those good old days meant back of the bus, jim crow and ramped racism for minorities. Your problem is an inefficient mind and a lack of historical knowledge. You can overcome the historical short coming but the mind, well, it is what it is.
P.S. Let me say though, I don’t wish for the over throw of the American government, nor do I want to see the downfall of the government. I personally don’t care what happens one way or the other. Milk and honey starts flowing in the rivers, then hey let me go grab my cup. If it burns down tomorrow, then let me install a sprinkler system in my house. Whatever happens, happens and the American public has to deal with whatever comes.
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
typeZeiss, your critique is of little value unless you can point to a governing system that is better than democracy.
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: prince bandar
Sheikh Saad Abdullah Al-Salem, Kuwait
^Pheww! GayRABS. It's hard to tell where this prevalence of homosexuality comes from amongst these Arab nations. It could be a product of the Romans/Greeks/Persians/Turks or a product of their indigenous black arab ancestors.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: Democracy ain't providing any stability either with the Europeans and the Americans beholding to the Communist Chinese for economic assistance.
I know you don't care much for communism, but what about theocracy? The rule of the first principle (whatever that is for you)... over the people.
What do you think?
Despite the current economic situation democracy is remarkable in that no democratic countries have ever gone to war with each other. The amount of diverse religions in America is remarkable yet there have been no religious civil wars. That is not to say America has not done some terrible things but these things do not have to do with the democratic system. Democracy has provided far more stability on a relative basis to the world than any other governemental system and is most suited to the modern world. A theocratic system means that a state is run by relgious laws which are not to be questioned. All sorts of harsh abuses occur when there is no flexibility for people of diverse values to question or update laws. Clerics do the interpreatation not consulting or representing the common people. Also if a ruler is doing a terrible job there is no recourse for the people to throw them out, they must simply live with them or be beaten with clubs. Some countries may not be ready to make one full step from monarchy to democracy. They may have to transition to another less oppressive monarchy. You might roll the dice and get a good king. Usually you wind up with a not so good king and often you are stuck with that king or his family for the rest of your life. A king is often just a dicatator who wears fancy robes. A single man should not be given too much power or be regarded as divine or infallible. It's different when you reminisce nostalgically on a king who lived before your time and in a country you did not come from. They may have been good and that's luck but once you set up monarchy as acceptable you are then stuck with luck when it is bad for a very long time or when good men or women get corrupted by power. [/QB]
England is a monarchy. One of the oldest surviving monarchies in the world, today. So also is Luxembourg; Holland, Belgium, Italy, Germany, Spain, even Liechesten.
America is a false democracy which is why it is called a representative democracy instead of a direct democracy.
Democracy as a direct system of government has never been practiced any where on earth yet, as such it is not correct to talk about a concept that exists only in the ideal world.
Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: typeZeiss, your critique is of little value unless you can point to a governing system that is better than democracy.
uhuh
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: England is a monarchy. One of the oldest surviving monarchies in the world, today. So also is Luxembourg; Holland, Belgium, Italy, Germany, Spain, even Liechesten.
America is a false democracy which is why it is called a representative democracy instead of a direct democracy.
Democracy as a direct system of government has never been practiced any where on earth yet, as such it is not correct to talk about a concept that exists only in the ideal world. [/QB]
Queen Elizabeth is Queen of the United Kingdom. The government is democratically elected. The PM has to show matters of state to the Queen before passing - she has no 'actual' power however - it is a courtesy and a tradition. the monarch is a figurehead,with very little political power. Though the ultimate executive authority over the government of the United Kingdom is still by and through the monarch's royal prerogative, these powers may only be used according to laws enacted in Parliament, and, in practice, within the constraints of convention and precedent.
Direct democracy was very much opposed by the framers of the United States Constitution and some signatories of the Declaration of Independence. They saw a danger in majorities forcing their will on minorities. As a result, they advocated a representative democracy in the form of a constitutional republic over a direct democracy. The United States, where, despite being a federal republic where no direct democracy exists at the federal level, almost half the states (and many localities) provide for citizen-sponsored ballot initiatives (also called "ballot measures" or "ballot questions") and the vast majority of the states have either initiatives and/or referendums. A monarchy is certainly less democratic than a represrentative democracy. In Switzerland the instruments of Swiss direct democracy at the federal level, known as civic rights (Volksrechte, droits civiques), include the right to submit a constitutional initiative and a referendum, both of which may overturn parliamentary decisions. By calling a federal referendum a group of citizens may challenge a law that has been passed by Parliament, if they can gather 50,000 signatures against the law within 100 days. If so, a national vote is scheduled where voters decide by a simple majority whether to accept or reject the law. Eight cantons together can also call a referendum on a federal law. Similarly, the federal constitutional initiative allows citizens to put a constitutional amendment to a national vote, if they can get 100,000 voters to sign the proposed amendment within 18 months.Parliament can supplement the proposed amendment with a counter-proposal, with voters having to indicate a preference on the ballot in case both proposals are accepted. Constitutional amendments, whether introduced by initiative or in Parliament, must be accepted by a double majority of both the national popular vote and a majority of the cantonal popular vote
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't be fooled about the Queen of England. She is no figure head, even if they seek to brainwash you to believe that. She has all the power, cause her picture is on the paper note of the world's most powerful currency. It is her money, her own toy monopoly money call the pounds sterling.
Do you think she receives a royalty for the use of her picture on each pound note? Would you be able to assess that royalty?
Do you know who owns most of the landed estates of United kingdom? Do you know who floated and chartered the bank of England?
Do you know who owns all the servants, workers and slaves in this present world? Do you know the woman clothed in rouge sitting like a drunken whore on the beast of apocalypse?
Follow the money...
-------------------- Lionz Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
America is a Republic, not really a "Democracy" there are too many people in the States for it to be a "Direct Democracy" hence why we have "elected officials" and hence America being a Republic.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: America is a Republic, not really a "Democracy" there are too many people in the States for it to be a "Direct Democracy" hence why we have "elected officials" and hence America being a Republic.
Jari
How does a republic differ from a democracy? I am just curious to know you definition.
Lion
Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
You don't have acess to a dictionary, a Republic involves Elected officials to represent the people and make laws(Senate and House of Representatives) while Direct Democracy as in Ancient Athens involved people directly making laws with control over who ruled them.
quote:Direct democracy (or pure democracy)[1] is a form of government in which people vote on policy initiatives directly, as opposed to a representative democracy in which people vote for representatives who then vote on policy initiatives
America is a Republic not a Direct Democracy..
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic