Originally posted by flexmoreHi.
unlike the horror of spain, the australian and u.s. elections both seem to have gone by without disaster!!!!!!!
i had been concerned that something bad would happen.
in a sense it was now or never.
lets hope we have many more peaceful elections (even if the idiots do get reelected)!
🙂
Agreed on your sentiment on elections.
However, if you believe in democracy then you have to accept the people elected by the majority. Calling them idiot is not acceptable.
Gerrit
Originally posted by flexmoreWhy would any terrorist want to disrupt the elections? Bush is doing more to support world terrorism than any other president in history. If I were a terrorist, I'd be sneaking into the country so I could vote for him!
unlike the horror of spain, the australian and u.s. elections both seem to have gone by without disaster!!!!!!!
i had been concerned that something bad would happen.
in a sense it was now or never.
lets hope we have many more peaceful elections (even if the idiots do get reelected)!
🙂
3 edits
Originally posted by ReaperThat's absolutely the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
However, if you believe in democracy then you have to accept the people elected by the majority. Calling them idiot is not acceptable.
If you believe in democracy, you have to refrain from violently overthrowing the elected leaders, yes. However, that is ALL you have to do. You do not have to accept them. You do not have to refrain from criticism of them. You do not have to refrain from insult of them. You do not have to refrain from refusing to obey their unjust orders as an act of civil disobedience. Indeed, each of those methods of dissent is an honorable tradition of democracy.
It is you who rejects democracy by rejecting the right of the minority to heap as much nonviolent scorn as they please on the victors.
Indeed, that is an absolute prerequisite of a functioning democracy, as only by the most vigorous and continuating criticism will the minority have a crack at the next election. As the U.S. Supreme Court once said: "Strong and effective extemporaneous rhetoric cannot be nicely channeled in purely dulcet phrases. An advocate must be free to stimulate his audience with spontaneous and emotional appeals for unity and action in a common cause." NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware, 458 U.S. 886 (1982)
Originally posted by paultopiaThis belief is exactly why your country is now divided against each other. Why people are becoming more confrontational with their arguments. WHY THEY DO NOT LISTEN ANYMORE TO WHAT OTHER PEOPLE ARE SAYING.
It is you who rejects democracy by rejecting the right of the minority to heap as much nonviolent scorn as they please on the victors.[/b]
And I did not say you stop critizing. I will however say that it is more productive to critisize policy/decisions than a person.
Originally posted by ReaperSure. Confrontational: definitely. Ineffective: probably (although it doesn't look like much else is working either).
This belief is exactly why your country is now divided against each other. Why people are becoming more confrontational with their arguments. WHY THEY DO NOT LISTEN ANYMORE TO WHAT OTHER PEOPLE ARE SAYING.
And I did not say you stop critizing. I will however say that it is more productive to critisize policy/decisions than a person.
Carhartic? Also definitely. Consistent with democratic theory? Absolutely.