And thank God for that.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

No way. This is first I'm hearing of that.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

By your "definition" everything can be defined as tyranny.

Yeah, when it is within a democratic framework it isn't tryanny. Because it isn't unjust.



With a typical non-answer. Which I guess is convenient, because you cant be proven wrong if you don't give an actual answer.


Would it be rational for me to claim I am living under tyranny because the rules of the forum are imposed on me in order for me to post here? Gimme a break.

Obviously living under someone else's rules alone does not necessarily mean you are living under tyranny. That seems like common sense to me. And to the dictionary as well.



Anyone we believe is a threat to us, directly or indirectly.

Saddam was a volatile dictator who was hostile to us...it was reasonable to assume he would cooperate with our enemies, especially considering the many times he interfered with inspections. We were correct not to give him the benefit of the doubt. Despots have no rights anyway.


Then you're really not going to enjoy the next few decades. It is likely to get worse before it gets better.



What economic gain are we getting from the Cuban embargo?


Then I support recognizing you as a democracy, and as equals.


We don't say it unless we really believe it. I have no reason to believe Serbian elections are rigged.


When they are in control of their own government, I do.

Example: I oppose any US intervention in Venezuela, because I believe their elections are legitimate. Chavez hates us, but that is irrelevant, because he was democratically elected. Venezuela has a legitimate government and is a democracy, and therefore an equal.

The vast majority of Americans agree with me, which is why the US has not even hinted at military action against Venezuela, despite the fact that they are kissing up to our enemies. It would be unthinkable to us. We really do recognize them as a sovereign nation. It isn't just lip service the way it is with Iran or China.


Who said it has to be our style? Spain has a Constitutional monarchy. But the Constitution is under the control of the Spanish masses. Since their monarch is subordinate to it, that makes Spain a democracy. Not only do we recognize them as legitimate, but they are a NATO ally as well.

Obviously we don't insist that democracy be our "style". Even Iraq does not use our own system, and we're the ones who installed it. All that is required to be a democracy is that the government is under the control of the masses. The specific mechanics beyond that are irrelevant to us.



Those we not democracies by modern definition anyway, since they had slaves. By definition, and state that allows the ownership of human beings cannot be a democracy, since not all people have representation.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

Not true. It was democracy, since the slaves were not citizens of the polis. Human rights were "discovered" in the 20th century. Respecting human rights has to do with the rule of law and the so-called "legal state", not democracy.

The greatest contribution to "the rights of children" (for example) was given by communist countries, Soviet Union primarily. And Soviet Union was not democracy, was it?

Don't mix terms. Democracy is the rule of the people, and representation was invented later. The original (Greek) democracy refers to participation of all citizens(!) of the polis, not all people. Human rights are a thing of a legal sphere, it is a consequence of democracy. Since people in democracy can vote, they are enabled to change any law that discriminates certain categories.

Hypothetically, in democracy people can choose a totalitarian system by voting for it. Or they can vote for non supporting the human rights of a minority, for example. You get the point

Allow me to educate you:

Emphasis mine.

Notice how the word "citizen" does not appear anywhere in the definition. It only refers to People. Slaves are people.


Nope. The children were slaves of the state...you consider that children's rights?



I just posted a link to the term.



Representation is a pre-requisite for democracy. Read the definition. If there is no representation, there is no democracy.


Which is why I said MODERN definition. Read what I said:


They used the word "citizen". We do not.



If they succeed, the government is no longer a democracy.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

The slaves and the folks living in the Jim Crow south would love to hear that. I bet you could really convince them, too.

Please quote where I stated such.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

Their treatment was unfair, but not tyranny. They had representation. They were not enslaved. They had the option to leave and to work for change. People under real tyranny do not.

Am I living under tyranny because I cant legally marry another man?


You basically said that anything is tyranny, because it is entirely subjective. If I am wrong, tell me how you define tyranny.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

Sadistic, your link is bullcrap and has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

The etymology of the term "democracy" refers to "the rule of the people", but in Greece, where democracy was invented, it was only applied to their citizens, and their type of democracy considered direct participation of the people, there were no representatives.

Greek assembly (parliament) consisted of roughly 6000 people and they all voted on certain matters. They did not vote for delegates to represent them in the assembly, every citizen was a delegate.

Human rights, on the other hand, are a consequence of such a form of government. But it took centuries for humans to achieve the level of human right acknowledgment that is known today, although democracy as a form of government is almost 4000 years older than the "human rights" we know and (some of us) respect nowadays.

Sorry you dont agree with the dictionary. But that is how the word is commonly used in America and most of the Western world.


We aren't discussing what the greeks thought. We are discussing what the word means right now.


Good for them. What does that have to do with us?

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?