Where can I meet the king of Iceland, Switzerland or Finland?
Advertisement
by Volnotova » Sun Jan 01, 2012 6:56 pm
by Allrule » Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:00 pm
by Milks Empire » Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:01 pm
by Tatec » Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:02 pm
by Volnotova » Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:03 pm
by Jinos » Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:11 pm
Mike the Progressive wrote:Jinos wrote:
It doesn't matter that our politicians are still democratically elected. The system is jury rigged to lock these people into their seats. And our media has us convinced we're still electing people who represent US.
Of course, it matters. What the hell are we even talking about if it doesn't matter that our politicians aren't democratically elected? What else is democracy but the will of the people by majority? Save your rants of discontent for elsewhere.
The only thing that I see our system doing is preventing radical shifts, and you know what? That's a good thing. Rarely do things go well when when the scene is chaotic and the system volatile. No, our system isn't perfect. But the idea that it's not democratic, why?
Again, the media is the media, so what? Would you have it run by the state, who could easily influence it? I'd rather have a corporation control it rather than a bureaucrat, whose only concern is survival. But again, the media being biased as sin doesn't mean there is no democracy.
The system having restrictions isn't anti-democratic, if people wanted a 3rd party enough, they could have won.
Again, because the few can't overcome the majority, doesn't mean we aren't democratic. In fact, I'd say that is what democracy is.
by Shofercia » Mon Jan 02, 2012 3:01 am
ArghNeedAName wrote:The Economist Intelligence Unit does an annual assessment of how democratic countries are. It sorts them into four categories: full democracy, flawed democracy, hybrid regime and authoritarian regime.
Top 10 most authoritarian countries:
- Erm, I forgot?
- Chad
- Turkmenistan
- Uzbekistan
- Burma
- Equitorial Guinea
- Saudi Arabia
- Central African Republic
- Iran
- Syria
by Allrule » Mon Jan 02, 2012 3:06 am
Shofercia wrote:ArghNeedAName wrote:The Economist Intelligence Unit does an annual assessment of how democratic countries are. It sorts them into four categories: full democracy, flawed democracy, hybrid regime and authoritarian regime.
Top 10 most authoritarian countries:
- Erm, I forgot?
- Chad
- Turkmenistan
- Uzbekistan
- Burma
- Equitorial Guinea
- Saudi Arabia
- Central African Republic
- Iran
- Syria
Assuming that the first one is North Korea that means that Chad, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan all came ahead of Congo and Zimbabwe on the authoritarian scale. Remind me again, why are we taking the Economist seriously?
Of course you're welcome to assume that the first one is Congo or Zimbabwe, but that would still mean that two out of the three countries, Congo, Zimbabwe, North Korea are less authoritarian than Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Chad, which is bullshit.
by New Chalcedon » Mon Jan 02, 2012 3:14 am
Kalaspia-Shimarata wrote:This is stuffed up!
Russia IS deomocratic, Australia is NOT that high on the democracy index and there is no way in hell North Korea is 1.8/10 when the lowest is 1 and the highest is 10 and there is no way that the US can rank so high.
This is not a list of democracy, this is a list of UN puppets!
by Meowfoundland » Mon Jan 02, 2012 3:16 am
New Chalcedon wrote:Kalaspia-Shimarata wrote:This is stuffed up!
Russia IS deomocratic, Australia is NOT that high on the democracy index and there is no way in hell North Korea is 1.8/10 when the lowest is 1 and the highest is 10 and there is no way that the US can rank so high.
This is not a list of democracy, this is a list of UN puppets!
Do explain why Australia is not that high on the democracy index.
Wait, this is you - it's because Gillard is still in government. Clearly, after the 2010 elections produced a hung parliament, she should have stood back and crowned Tony "The Mad Monk" Abbott the eternal Prime Minister of Australia, as is the natural, biological right of every leader of the Liberal Party. Then we'd be a democracy.
by Allrule » Mon Jan 02, 2012 3:18 am
Meowfoundland wrote:New Chalcedon wrote:
Do explain why Australia is not that high on the democracy index.
Wait, this is you - it's because Gillard is still in government. Clearly, after the 2010 elections produced a hung parliament, she should have stood back and crowned Tony "The Mad Monk" Abbott the eternal Prime Minister of Australia, as is the natural, biological right of every leader of the Liberal Party. Then we'd be a democracy.
Remember, NC- Even if you win the popular vote and control the most seats, you're still not elected unless you gain the support of the person that matters most: an angry teenager from Sydney.
Russia IS deomocratic
by Greater Mackonia » Mon Jan 02, 2012 3:18 am
by Allrule » Mon Jan 02, 2012 3:23 am
Greater Mackonia wrote:Who makes the democracy index ...the UN which is controlled by US of course they are going to make russia look bad
by Shofercia » Mon Jan 02, 2012 3:33 am
Allrule wrote:Shofercia wrote:
Assuming that the first one is North Korea that means that Chad, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan all came ahead of Congo and Zimbabwe on the authoritarian scale. Remind me again, why are we taking the Economist seriously?
Of course you're welcome to assume that the first one is Congo or Zimbabwe, but that would still mean that two out of the three countries, Congo, Zimbabwe, North Korea are less authoritarian than Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Chad, which is bullshit.
Fail. That list is in DESCENDING order of authoritarianism; e.g. the #1 country would be the most authoritarian of them all, and the #10 country would be the least authoritarian of them all.
by Milks Empire » Mon Jan 02, 2012 5:19 am
by World Liberal Alliance » Mon Jan 02, 2012 7:02 am
ArghNeedAName wrote:[*]To my knowledge, only three Muslim-majority nations are classified as democratic: Indonesia (60th), Mali (62nd) and Malaysia (=71st). Turkey, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Iraq and a few others are hybrids.
by Potarius » Mon Jan 02, 2012 7:11 am
Shofercia wrote:Remind me again, why are we taking the Economist seriously?
by Gravlen » Mon Jan 02, 2012 7:55 am
Herskerstad wrote:I find it funny how Norway is the most democratic 'emphasis on the word democratic' when the alliance that came into power had less votes than the opposition.
by Hydesland » Mon Jan 02, 2012 7:57 am
Shofercia wrote: This means that, according to the Economist, two out of the following three, i.e. North Korea and Congo, Congo and Zimbabwe, or North Korea and Zimbabwe, are actually less authoritarian, than either Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan or Chad.
Now, Allrule, can you please tell me what that has to do with whether the order is descending or ascending? Or will you admit to yet another failed strawman?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aadhiris, Big Eyed Animation, Blitheness, Camtropia, Click Ests Vimgalevytopia, Kostane, Lagene, New Temecula, Not New nor Old Temecula, Ohnoh, Ors Might, Plan Neonie, Risottia, The Huskar Social Union
Advertisement