 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Stefan Viljoen wrote:
>> And the entire world seems to want to take a crap on them about it...
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plyS8sIUjmQ
Yep, that's it. I guess the big diff here is that when you prevent a
Christian or a Hindu or a Buddist or Norse pagan from following an aspect of
his religion, in -general- you won't get into real, live-threatening
trouble.
Do that to some more traditional Muslim groupings, and you may very likely
carry your teeth home in your hat.
--
Stefan Viljoen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stefan Viljoen <pov### [at] polard com> wrote:
> I see the Swiss apparently voted 57% "nay" on this.
> And the entire world seems to want to take a crap on them about it...
Of course the entire world takes a crap on them about it. It's "racism"
and "intolerance".
Naturally, at the same time prohibiting public display of crucifixes in
Italian schools is not "racism" nor "intolerance" (but in fact, the contrary).
Democracy and freedom of speech are a bad thing because it allows people
to cast the "wrong" votes and express the "wrong" opinions.
And this is not just related to multiculturalism. It's related to everything.
For example, the Irish people voted against the European constitution and
everything that would have followed from that. Of course this was the "wrong"
result, and thus unacceptable. What did they do to fix the problem? Easy:
More "education" and a new election. This time it worked: Now the "right"
vote resulted.
That's a rather efficient (although quite transparent tactic): Keep
organizing new elections until the right answer pops up eventually. This
way the people are fooled into thinking that they actually have a saying
on matters happening to their own country because, after all, they "voted"
for it.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stefan Viljoen <pov### [at] polardcom> wrote:
> Do that to some more traditional Muslim groupings, and you may very likely
> carry your teeth home in your hat.
And society will consider *you* guilty, not the people who mistreated you.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Democracy and freedom of speech are a bad thing because it allows people
> to cast the "wrong" votes and express the "wrong" opinions.
I was on vacation once, and the tour guide mentioned the country had an
election, but the wrong people won, so they were having another right away.
(This was Switzerland, if I remember, but it might have been a reference to
some other european country that the guide was talking about.)
That seemed very wrong to me, coming from the USA where we have a
constitution saying how often people can get elected and the procedures for
doing so. Indeed, the whole "Supreme Court stole the election for Bush"
nonsense is nonsense for just that reason: they simply said you can't have a
new election because the constitution says everyone has to vote the same day.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> That seemed very wrong to me, coming from the USA where we have a
> constitution saying how often people can get elected and the procedures for
> doing so. Indeed, the whole "Supreme Court stole the election for Bush"
> nonsense is nonsense for just that reason: they simply said you can't have a
> new election because the constitution says everyone has to vote the same day.
What does the constitution say about the situation where two candidates
get the exact same number of votes?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> What does the constitution say about the situation where two candidates
> get the exact same number of votes?
http://www.270towin.com/blog/electoral-college/what-happens-if-there-is-a-tie-in-the-electoral-college
Remember that US citizens don't actually vote for president. They vote for a
group of people called "The electoral college", which in turn votes for the
president. Mostly a left-over from before electronic communications.
In sort, the President gets elected by one part of the legislature and the
VP by the other, if there's a tie.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > That seemed very wrong to me, coming from the USA where we have a
> > constitution saying how often people can get elected and the procedures for
> > doing so. Indeed, the whole "Supreme Court stole the election for Bush"
> > nonsense is nonsense for just that reason: they simply said you can't have a
> > new election because the constitution says everyone has to vote the same day.
>
> What does the constitution say about the situation where two candidates
> get the exact same number of votes?
>
> --
> - Warp
According to the 12th amendment if no person has a majority of the electoral
vote, the House of Representatives will choose the president from the three
candidates with the highest vote.
Isaac
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>
http://www.270towin.com/blog/electoral-college/what-happens-if-there-is-a-tie-in-the-electoral-college
So the constitution of the United States says that if the votes tie,
the president is elected by the congress?
Why didn't that happen in 2000?
> Remember that US citizens don't actually vote for president. They vote for a
> group of people called "The electoral college", which in turn votes for the
> president. Mostly a left-over from before electronic communications.
Sounds rather complicated. Especially if it could happen that the person
who people voted to vote for them changes his mind and votes for someone
else.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Clarence1898 <cla### [at] comcastnet> wrote:
> According to the 12th amendment if no person has a majority of the electoral
> vote, the House of Representatives will choose the president from the three
> candidates with the highest vote.
So what exactly happened in 2000? (I have to admit I didn't follow that
debacle too closely.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I couldn't find any quote of the proposed law (anyone?), so I have to
guess about its content. I assume, that it is a law govering allowance of
building religious buildings with a certain appearance resembling
"typical" minarets. I really wonder what defines that and if you build a
minaret with the appearance of a church tower if it doesn't fall under
that law.
So is this an aesthetical question? Because that is the only way this law
could be defined in a nondiscriminating way. If it is about forbidding
muslims to have a tower to signal the start of a prayer - like christians
do - than yes, I think this is xenophobic and the outcry of people in
whole europe is fully justified.
Am Wed, 02 Dec 2009 12:29:56 -0500 schrieb Warp:
> Stefan Viljoen <pov### [at] polardcom> wrote:
>> I see the Swiss apparently voted 57% "nay" on this.
>
>> And the entire world seems to want to take a crap on them about it...
>
> Of course the entire world takes a crap on them about it. It's
> "racism"
> and "intolerance".
>
> Naturally, at the same time prohibiting public display of crucifixes
> in
> Italian schools is not "racism" nor "intolerance" (but in fact, the
> contrary).
Why should the state take a stance on religious issues? In germany 32% of
the people don't belong to any organized religious group. Why should the
schools financed and used by this people buy crucifixes which don't mean
anything to them? Is the state only for the less than 68% of christs?
(Replace numbers by the italian ones - the basic problem doesn't change)
>
> Democracy and freedom of speech are a bad thing because it allows
> people
> to cast the "wrong" votes and express the "wrong" opinions.
Direct democracy might lead to emotionally charged unreasonable
decisions. Why do people assume each political question is so easy, that
anyone can answer it after having heard three talks? BTW one side effect
of direct democracy in Switzerland was the late introduction of womens
ability to vote - sure, if you are in the majority (of voters) you can
prevent the minority frome exercising their rights.
>
> And this is not just related to multiculturalism. It's related to
> everything.
> For example, the Irish people voted against the European constitution
> and everything that would have followed from that. Of course this was
> the "wrong" result, and thus unacceptable. What did they do to fix the
> problem? Easy: More "education" and a new election. This time it worked:
> Now the "right" vote resulted.
So what do you think happened? Did the people feel embarassed for voting
"wrong" the first time, "correcting" it the second time? Or could it just
be that in the time between those elections reasonable arguments were
made and people were *convinced*? While I agree, that elections should be
accepted and not repeated at will, I also think that after a reasonable
time or after some changes (AFAIK they didn't vote the same thiing, did
they?) people can be asked again. If you assume competence from the
people in the first (secret) election you should assume it in the second
election as well.
>
> That's a rather efficient (although quite transparent tactic): Keep
> organizing new elections until the right answer pops up eventually. This
> way the people are fooled into thinking that they actually have a saying
> on matters happening to their own country because, after all, they
> "voted" for it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
