Political discussion thread

The Doctor wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: StyLaZyn wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: The law changes when the majority feels its time for the law to change. People's ideas of right and wrong change. How can we say we have a democracy when anytime the majority want something they're attacked for legislating their morality or just plain have their laws struck down. America has become a rule by the minority. I don't mean rule by "minorities", but what a select group of interest groups or ring of judges think is right is what is legislated and allowed to stay on the books.   ediited: Do you mean the government telling the public what their morality should be?       No, I mean that the principle of democracy is being underminded because the legislative process, the process of the people, and become dominated and subordinate to the judicial.   The government can't tell the public what their morality should be; we don't have though police yet.   The problem with absolute rule by the majority is that majorities can be wrong too.  There has to be a check against tyranny by the majority.  The rights of those who do not belong to the majority must be protected as well.  If you do not protect the rights of those who do not belong to the majority, the minority will rebel against oppression from the majority, and you have chaos in the streets.  I do understand where you are coming from, and I do not agree with bench legislation running rampant in our country (which by the way is not just done from the liberal side; conservatives often legislate from the bench as well) or it does defeat the intent of democracy.  However, sometimes it is absolutely necessary to protect those whom the majority would oppress.

thellama73 wrote: The Doctor wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: StyLaZyn wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: The law changes when the majority feels its time for the law to change. People's ideas of right and wrong change. How can we say we have a democracy when anytime the majority want something they're attacked for legislating their morality or just plain have their laws struck down. America has become a rule by the minority. I don't mean rule by "minorities", but what a select group of interest groups or ring of judges think is right is what is legislated and allowed to stay on the books.   ediited: Do you mean the government telling the public what their morality should be?       No, I mean that the principle of democracy is being underminded because the legislative process, the process of the people, and become dominated and subordinate to the judicial.   The government can't tell the public what their morality should be; we don't have though police yet.   The problem with absolute rule by the majority is that majorities can be wrong too.  There has to be a check against tyranny by the majority.  The rights of those who do not belong to the majority must be protected as well.  If you do not protect the rights of those who do not belong to the majority, the minority will rebel against oppression from the majority, and you have chaos in the streets.  I do understand where you are coming from, and I do not agree with bench legislation running rampant in our country (which by the way is not just done from the liberal side; conservatives often legislate from the bench as well) or it does defeat the intent of democracy.  However, sometimes it is absolutely necessary to protect those whom the majority would oppress.    I agree with this. A Democracy needs some checks and balances so that the majority cannot vote to enslave the minority or other such practices. That's why we have the constitution, to protect certain fundamental rights that cannot be changed by a majority vote. Personally, I am Libertarian and don't believe in legislating morality, so long as it doesn't violate anyone else's rights.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: StyLaZyn wrote:   But truth be it, should the majority of the politicians and judges decide their views are what is needed, amendments could be made. Yes, highly unlikely.   Like Orwell said in Animal Farm "All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others."  This is a satire where the idea of freedom and democracy are used to institute a tyranny.      Democracy wasn't used to institute tyranny, Communism was. Napoleon and Snowball usurped power under the guise of the need for intelligent leaders to organize and set the foundations for a selfsustaining Communistic society. Of course though once they had the power they never gave it back; there was no democracy.

The Supreme Court has no check on power. That's a fundamental flaw in the Constitution. The fact that Bush even thought about nominating that conniving bitch Harriet Miers to the court is a slap in the face.

stonebeard wrote: The Supreme Court has no check on power. That's a fundamental flaw in the Constitution. The fact that Bush even thought about nominating that conniving bitch Harriet Miers to the court is a slap in the face.

Time for a change of topic maybe?

I don't know how much this issue has been discussed, so if I repeat anything that's already been said, I apologise.

1800iareyay wrote: I can kind of see the justification for it's use in WWII (saved more lives in the end, so they say), but not for its use against civilian targets, which is what Hiroshima was. It also led to two countries nearly bankrupting themselves (one pretty much did) in history's biggest "Whose is bigger" contest. Now both countries have hundreds, even thousands of used warheads scattered about until the next arms race begins.

This is one of the big myths of history, as far as I'm concerned. Japan had been considering surrender for some time before the atom bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Their country had been devastated by massive bombing (Tokyo was practically gone) and Japan was looking for a way out, without sacrificing too much of its honour. Based on 700 interviews of Japanese military officers and officials US Strategic Bombing Survey found that:

"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

In fact the Japanese sent a message to their ambassador in Russia, outlining the possible negotiation of a surrender:

"There are only a few days left in which to make arrangements to end the war... As for the definite terms... it is our intention to make the Potsdam Three-Power Declaration [which called for unconditional surrender] the basis for the study regarding these terms."

People say that the Japanese were ready to fight to the death, rather than shame themselves by surrendering. This argument doesn't really convince me, as, if the Japanese were waiting to fight a US invasion to the death or commit mass suicide, why would they suddenly reconsider this position when another (among many already destroyed) couple of cities were raised to the ground?

Personally I think the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were some of the worst war crimes committed during the war, and if the Nuremburg and Tokyo trials were anything near fair, those responsible would have faced charges the same as many in the Japanese and German army and government.

Also, many Japanese did commit suicide when Japan surrendered. Sure, not everyone, but significant amounts of people.

Has Rich's sig been discussed: "The US is the new Roman Empire"? I think that one would be fun

1800iareyay wrote: Also, many Japanese did commit suicide when Japan surrendered. Sure, not everyone, but significant amounts of people. Has Rich's sig been discussed: "The US is the new Roman Empire"? I think that one would be fun

We're not an empire in the sense that we don't own other countries, but Manifest Destiny is nothing short of imperialism. We killed or displaced millions of Native Americans stood in "God's" way. We started the Mexican-American war in order to secure a small piece of territory. We conquered the Philippines and took a piece of Cuba at the start of the 20th century. Many would say the invasion of Iraq is a return to our imperialist ways, since we had absolutely no justification for going. TV pundit and well paid fool Glenn Beck said we entered Iraq in order to prepare for an invasion of Iran years from now. If he's right (and I can only hope he isn't), then that is a ridiculously imperialistic approach. Granted, that is just the speculation of an idiot, but some people believe what he says.

We suffer from the same lack of morality that undid Rome. We may not have public bathhouses, but Las Vegas seems to have captured the rest of Roman delights. Our entertainment is similar. We may not have two people kill each other, but we make them bludgeon each other within an inch of their lives. Ultimate fighting, wrestling, boxing; hell, even NASCAR is violent. I live in the South. All of my family watches that crap. I can assure you here and now, they watch it for the crashes. If you ever doubted that, lay your doubts to rest. Just because we don't feed Christians to lions doesn't mean we've improved.