sexual_chocolate Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 Hey! Don't involve me in your quarrels! 100% of the voting public does not agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COL._Von_Spanker Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 Big Lou for President. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 yes and in the process he forgot to mention that winning a political contest with significantly less than 50% participation cannot confer any legitimacy to perform rollbacks and take decisions in spite of public opinion. These are truly the policies wanted by a minority. Â So are you saying that anytime less than 50% of the registered voters actually decide to do so, that the government is illegitimate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 Terror is an emotion. Terrorism is a policy. Neither is a target nor an enemy. Let us then nominate something we can shoot at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 Hey! Don't involve me in your quarrels! 100% of the voting public certainly does not agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 So are you saying that anytime less than 50% of the registered voters actually decide to do so, that the government is illegitimate? Â Hey, I already said that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 you gettin' flustered SC? Feel the buzz around your balls? Bwahahaha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 "The cost of the sale are generalized to the public through the USFS and the cost of to public land, yours and mine, is distributed to all of us, not the generator of the problem."" Â In this we agree, logging costs should not be subsidized, roads and infrastructure built on public lands should be fully funded by those removing the timber. Â This issue still does not indicate only timber companies benefit, however, only that the benefit is not accurately costed to customers, due to market distortion by subsidy. We both agree the subsidies should be ended. Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 I don't get it, Tarasque. What you mean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 Go clean up and I'll explain it to ya. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 It's funny, an anagram of "jingoism" is "in go jism." Â Dirty! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 douche' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 So are you saying that anytime less than 50% of the registered voters actually decide to do so, that the government is illegitimate? Â I did not go that far, although it seems like a debatable point. Â Yet it seems clear the very low turnout does not confer legitimacy to concentrate power in the executive branch to orchestrate systematic policy rollbacks or make major policy decision that still divide the nation (in spite of a media campaign attempting to ensure a concensus). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 It has been said that if you are not a socialist by twenty, you have no heart; and if you are still a socialist at thirty, you have no head. Guru say: If you are not a curmudgeon by eighty, you have not been paying attention. Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 yes and in the process he forgot to mention that winning a political contest with significantly less than 50% participation cannot confer any legitimacy to perform rollbacks and take decisions in spite of public opinion. These are truly the policies wanted by a minority. Â Well, fuckstick, can you name the last election that DID have greater than 50% voter turnout? Just because people chose not to participate in our electoral system does not legitimize the results. You seem to be under the mistaken idea that our federal government is based on popular majorities - we are REPUBLIC OF DEMOCRATIC STATES whose federal governing body is based on REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. Get with it, ya twit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 (edited) Using j_b's logic, I can't see that any presidents, or congressional, stances in the last several decades at least, have *ever* been supportable on that basis. If we decide that in order to legitimize elections an actual majority of all possible voters must agree, we can certainly rule out anything Clinton did, anything reagan did, or carter, or ford. Â I actually like the idea of this though, because sticking to that line of reasoning it means very little, if any, federal action would ever be valid. This is the problem with demanding majority rule in actuality. Â that "significantly less" than a 50% majority "cannot" confer legitimacy is entirely dependent on your view of the philosophy of govt anyway. I didn't see what can or cannot confer legitimacy in an election written down as a universal constant anywhere. I don't find that a majority confers legitimacy anyway in a great many things. Edited January 4, 2003 by MtnGoat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 Some call it a problem, some don't. You see it as such. Â And why are you guys beating a dead horse? I think jb is simply missing out how democracy works, and that has already been established. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 can you name major politicy rollbacks taken by say Clinton that went against the majority of public opinion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 That is a bullshit question. "Public opinion" (i.e., on-th-street opinion polls) has no bearing in REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. Only constituent voices to representatives. The President (no matter whom) operates on public opinion; that is not how the job is set up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 That's not the point. By becoming president, he has a mandate, and, technically, the authority to enact that mandate, as long as it conforms with the strictures imposed by our laws and constitution. But, if the president has any concern for our country, he wouldn't embark on a unilateral (domestically speaking) path. It is the role (I hope!) to be a representative for the interests of individual Americans, Americans as a whole, and, for the interests of the world at large (Kyoto agreement, International Criminal court, NATO, etc.), because that is where we live, in the world. There is no isolation anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 funny how your conception of democracy is convoluted, not that I am surprised at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 Greg W, you're pooping instead of talking again. Take it to the toilet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 SC - I would agree with your assessment of how the President should operate; his priorities should be just as you listed them: Americans first, America second, everyone else THIRD or lower. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 How is his view convoluted? I already know it is, but we still need proof for your position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 We are speaking past each other. You seem to think that the Federal Government is a democracy; you're wrong right here. Go back and review your Constitution, Federalist Papers, et cetera. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.