The GOP Convention - NYC 2004

Pangloss,

democracy does not need opposition, it simple needs the will of the people, opposition, parties, stereotypes, hatred competition in fact impeded a government from making proper decisions.
 
Of course it does. Not only does democracy need opposition, it can't exist without it.

Hatred, stereotypes, contradictors, sure, those we can do without. Like about 50%+ of what's posted here, in fact, with the exception being the high-post-count types, who at least make an effort to back up their points. (But you guys lose points with me when you marginalize independents as hidden ideologues, or when you defend the transient bomb-throwers that come through here.)

But issues opposition is necessary. When someone takes a point of view on an issue, it's important to look at that position and determine if it's correct, and/or if it is influenced by non-relevent issues. That kind of opposition is important and necessary.

And you think so too, or we wouldn't be talking here.
 
ok and what happens if a point of view is selected (say a new law is to be legalized) and everyone agrees it should be legalized, where is the opposition? Opposition is not required in democracy it is simple a occurrence.
 
Issues From Abroad
British, Canadian columnists sound off on GOP convention and coming election

First of all, praise to both of these international neighbors. In the Great North, my Canadian neighbor Tim Harper, of the Toronto Star, asks compelling questions regarding the implications of "four more years". From across the pond, Mark Steel checks in with scathingly vicious humor.


Arguably, however, W could also stand for Where? — as in where would four more years of Bush take America and the world?

There can be only two certainties at this point.

One is that another Bush term would further deepen the already profound political fault lines that divide this country.

Second, a renewed mandate for the commander-in-chief in the war on terror likely would bring more assaults on personal liberties at home and tighter controls at the Canadian border.

But would it also mean four more years of a Bush doctrine that equates security at home with the spread of freedom and democracy at the point of a gun elsewhere in the world?

Source: Toronto Star
Click to expand...

Harper's article passes reasonably well the test of serious journalism, and is an interesting read. However--

Surely the Americans didn't go to all that bother of fighting a war of independence just so they could indulge in this bollocks in New York. In 1775, the radical Tom Paine inspired the revolutionary American army with the lines: "These are the times that try men's souls, but the tougher the conquest, the more glorious the triumph."

But there must have been another bit that went, "For the spirit of those who are slain shall be forever entrenched in the bosom of sickly-pure girls in spangly purple Lycra waving pom-poms and shrieking the names of doddery senators. That, my brethren, shall be just reward for our struggle."

The American constitution is supposed to be a document oozing with historic ideals. But there must be sections such as "To ensure the fair and equitable distribution of the power of franchise, no candidate may be presented before the people until such time as his name has been printed on 20 million cards and waved about by thousands of fat women." . . . .

. . . . The level of banality was displayed by the thunderous cheer given to Arnie Schwarzenegger when he yelled, "America is back." But what did he mean? The bloke he's supporting is already president, so where was it before it came back? And, in any case, the original line was "I'll be back," which is nothing like "America is back." But despite this making no sense at all, they all yelped and wet themselves. They'd have done the same if Michael Caine had come on and yelled, "I only told America to blow the bloody doors off," or if someone had come on dressed as Darth Vader and said, "I've got a message for John Kerry," and then done some heavy breathing.

Source: Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Click to expand...

--Mr. Steel has obviously set aside any claims to serious journalism with this article, and the first part cracks me up. He needs a couple more drinks, for sure. Steel does have some criticisms of Kerry, but they are rather sobering; better make it three drinks.

Enjoy.
_____________________

• Harper, Tim. "'Four more years' could mean ...". Toronto Star, September 5, 2004. See http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...020&call_pageid=968332188854&col=968350060724
• Steel, Mark. "Brits and Iraqis, too, ought to be able to vote in US". Seattle Post-Intelligencer, September 5, 2004. See http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/189401_vote05.html
 
I don't disagree with your definition of opposition. Although looking back obviously our agreement is not semantic in nature -- my mistake. You think opposition is a byproduct, an occurrence in democracy. I see it as lifeblood; a necessity.
 
But opposition is not necessary because there are times in a democracy were it does not occur.
 
But opposition is not necessary because there are times in a democracy were it does not occur.
Click to expand...

That sounds interesting. Can you give me an example?
 
I gave one above a few posts ago.
ok and what happens if a point of view is selected (say a new law is to be legalized) and everyone agrees it should be legalized, where is the opposition?
Click to expand...
 
I meant a specific example -- an issue on which that occurred ("everyone agreed").

You're looking at the result, not the process that got "everyone" to that point.

While there may be specific instances where everyone immediately agrees on the proper course of action, I believe that such are rare in a free society.
 
Well when I was in my townships democratic primaries we would all vote yes or no on what we thought were policies the democrats should strive for (such as protect unions, protect the environment, enforce renewable energies, balance the budget, ect) and on many of those issue we all would agree. I think the chances of all argeeing go down as the number of people go up (for example repesent 11 people), and thus its rare to see on a state or national level.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top