Isn't this the exact opposite of democracy? Going against the majority, ironic then how we are supposed to be spreading something we don't even conform to ourselves.
I'm not stating my opinion either way on the subject matter, but just because the larger part of a group of people feel a certain way does not make it fact.
I'm not stating my opinion either way on the subject matter, but just because the larger part of a group of people feel a certain way does not make it fact.
That is true but my point is that is what democracy is all about. I could just as easily say the large part of voters who ellected Blair were wrong too but I'm sure I'd get a lecture about how the masses come before the minorities.
I'm not stating my opinion either way on the subject matter, but just because the larger part of a group of people feel a certain way does not make it fact.
That is true but my point is that is what democracy is all about. I could just as easily say the large part of voters who ellected Blair were wrong too but I'm sure I'd get a lecture about how the masses come before the minorities.
An official is elected for who he is and his ability to make decisions based on his stated platform. Following the results of polls or popular view to the T is not. Sometimes an official in "high office" has access to information the the citizens may not have, so he has to make decisions based on the information he has in total, not how everyone feels.
To qualify what you are saying, yes a pure democracy would be what you just said. But being a democratic country does make you a pure democracy.
Our western versions of 'democracy' have been failing quite a lot lately. We here in Ireland turned out in our thousands to protest against the Iraq war in the largest ever protests seen in this country (some counts put it between 90'000 and 100'000 people). Our Taoiseach still went ahead and allowed US military flights through Shannon and stood side by side with Bush on the eve of the war, he didn't even make a comment to the press to defend himself on the issue at the time.
Why bother to get rid of people like Saddam when our own leaders are beginning to act more and more autocratic themselves?
So then basically a democracy is a country that has a dictator that has been voted in instead of forcing his way in. If that's is the only difference, then why are we bothering fighting for it.
If once voted in a PM can do what ever he likes for 4 years before we can do anithing, regardless of whether the people want it or not is not the type of democracy we should be spreading.
P.S On the point of him knowing stuff we don't, I understand that but why still keep it secret now (in terms of Iraq) and we have already invaded and toppled Sadam so their is no security issues. After all, Blair was responding to people who think the war in Iraq has caused more terrorism.
Isn't this the exact opposite of democracy? Going against the majority, ironic then how we are supposed to be spreading something we don't even conform to ourselves.
He said his view was "not popular", but the "large part of the Western world" which blamed George Bush was wrong.
He was just mad because people were giving George all the credit, when he wanted his place in the history books too. They should tell him not to worry, there's plenty of blame to go around.
I'm not stating my opinion either way on the subject matter, but just because the larger part of a group of people feel a certain way does not make it fact.
True, but when he got elected he didn't say the vast majority were wrong.
It is a simple fact about a democracy. Most of the decisions that are made by the government are far too complicated for the general public to be educated fully on and allowed to come to a decent informed and correct decision. There are simply too many things to be decided for people to know enough about even a fraction of them to make a decent decision.
When the people of the UK were asked to vote on joining the Euro or not the predominant arguments that people were using to decide their vote were.
Against ; We want the Queen on our money, bloody foreigners, xenophobic B.S.
For ; We want to vote for the opposite of whatever the people above are voting for. We want to be 'more European'. Liberal B.S.
NOT what is best for the British economy, importing exporting, the issues with having extra regulations from Europe on setting interest rates etc, for our political standing, how the decision will affect our standing in the EU and therefore our ability to influence future decisions to benefit the UK.
It's a problem with a democracy, the majority are often spectacularly uninformed on issues and therefore will be prone to make stupid and wrong decisions that go against the opinions of the few that actually know what they are talking about.
It's a problem with a democracy, the majority are often spectacularly uninformed on issues and therefore will be prone to make stupid and wrong decisions that go against the opinions of the few that actually know what they are talking about.
Amazingly enough, this wasn't always the case. If you take a look at the pamphlets and newsrags in circulation in the late 1700's, you'll notice a drastic change in tone comparing today's infotainment. People back then around the time of the revolution were remarkably well-informed of what the real issues were, debated lightly and heavily both about political issues and their impacts.
Our founding fathers (in the USA) were nearly unanimously adamant about how a well-educated and informed citizenry was the best defense against tyranny and bad government. It was the primary reason why freedom of speech, gathering, beliefs, and the press was the FIRST amendment enshrined in our Bill of Rights. When a well-informed citizenry ceases to exist, the people are ripe for manipulation and enslavement.
It reminds me of the Kennedy speech where he practically begged the media to retake this role to shine light on what was going on for good or bad, but sadly today the msm is all about profit and walking on eggshells so they don't bite the hand that feeds. This has lead to a dangerously ignorant public in some regards. I'll post it here, but the first half is fairly ambiguous unless you know the real history.
The second half where he talks about media responsibility is dead on accurate.
Last edited by GorillaTicTacs (2007-04-24 05:41:22)
Id like him to explain why the majority of people are wrong. And how going into Iraq was considered fighting terrorism.
Exactly. If the British people are going to be given the 'you're too ignorant to understand this important and complicated issue' approach then at least TRY and explain yourself Tony.
Popular opinion does not make policy. Never has and never will. Sometime leaders need to take unpopular decisions for the good of the nation. If he's wrong then so be it, but i wouldn't want a leader who makes decisions based on public opinion.
Popular opinion does not make policy. Never has and never will. Sometime leaders need to take unpopular decisions for the good of the nation. If he's wrong then so be it, but i wouldn't want a leader who makes decisions based on public opinion.
Example.
Taking every citizens first born is considered best for the country. Hand him over.
The popular opinion is what democracy is, is it not? If the issue is so super duper secret that only a hand full of officials know the real story, is that safe for democracy?
Last edited by Mason4Assassin444 (2007-04-24 05:48:35)
The thing is though you can't cherry-pick policies that you will implement based on public opinion whilst not on others. Our government is forever bringing in new laws that are the result of public opinion (or more accurately media opinion). They were fending off critism about immigration for years until the majority of newpapers started saying we need to do something about it and hey presto they start slowly changing their stance.
Last edited by =OBS= EstebanRey (2007-04-24 05:51:13)
Id like him to explain why the majority of people are wrong. And how going into Iraq was considered fighting terrorism.
Exactly. If the British people are going to be given the 'you're too ignorant to understand this important and complicated issue' approach then at least TRY and explain yourself Tony.
What i don't understand is how he could have played his part in the NI peace process and seen the successful method of preventing terrorism and at the same time tell us we're wrong if we think the methods being used to fight terrorists in Iraq are not working/doomed to failure!
Id like him to explain why the majority of people are wrong. And how going into Iraq was considered fighting terrorism.
Exactly. If the British people are going to be given the 'you're too ignorant to understand this important and complicated issue' approach then at least TRY and explain yourself Tony.
What i don't understand is how he could have played his part in the NI peace process and seen the successful method of preventing terrorism and at the same time tell us we're wrong if we think the methods being used to fight terrorists in Iraq are not working/doomed to failure!
Because the answer is so simple its almost stupid...if it weren't...Bush and Blair have no desire to "win" the War on Terror. When a more suitable foe is found (likely the re-emerging Russia), the War on Terror will amazingly fade into the sunset without even a whimper. Years into Cold War II, we may find ourselves asking during dinner conversation "Did we win the War on Terror or not, I haven't heard anything in years..." And so it goes.
I'm not stating my opinion either way on the subject matter, but just because the larger part of a group of people feel a certain way does not make it fact.
That is true but my point is that is what democracy is all about. I could just as easily say the large part of voters who ellected Blair were wrong too but I'm sure I'd get a lecture about how the masses come before the minorities.
the U.S. government was designed in such a way that the feelings of the people did not influence the decisions made but instead the rational decisions could be made. Rational and emotional are two seperate things and democracies don't exist, only republics, socialist, and commies.