I'm not clear on your question. Is "because that's what 'democracy' means" a good enough answer? Democracies quite often vote themselves out of freedom. It happens all the time.
I'll go with this one, although it is oddly worded: "the same Israeli allies that aren't very happy with Israel's internal and foreign policies would unlikely back them up".
I think it is more likely that Israel's allies would support Israel. And by "support" I mean not allow to be invaded and destroyed -- not that they would help with or publicly support the bombing.
The SCUSA said that it was acceptable that the state statutes did not require all the votes to be counted. That is my problem. The number of votes left uncounted, was larger than the margin between the candidates' tallies. Therefore, it was not possible to know who won the election. I don't mean that literally all the votes need to be counted, I mean that figuratively all the votes need to be counted, by which I mean enough votes to be sure of the winner. If the margin between the candidates is X, then Florida need to count all but X-1 votes. Florida did not meet that threshold, and therefore I reject its election statutes as un-Constitutional; the SCUSA should have done the same.
I don't know what you mean by voter fraud. The votes were there, on paper, in a warehouse. They should have been counted. And eventually they were counted, in their entirety, and the winner was not the person who was certified by the state. It is a 100% perfect example of why all the votes must be counted.
You would be embarrassed at the notion of birthright royalty, of course. I sure would be. I'm embarrassed enough at the cultural birth rights we still have in the USA, but actual, literal, legally defined castes? Come on, now, that's embarrassing. You can have "the world's most experienced and respected statesmen" as your figurehead without having a queen. You could elect her, then re-elect hear once per decade if you wanted to; but it's absurd to endow a baby with royal status because of the vagina it came out of.
I accept your chiding, but don't let it rise to actual criticism. Humorous pedantry is one thing, but you don't have enough information for real pedantry. For instance, without seeing the whole program, you don't know whether the immediate previous line of code was
if($year==2012) {
You also don't know if this is code only run during May, June, July, August, and September of 2012, as a special process. So again, ha ha, I laugh with you for ways to make jokes about silly tidbits of code posted to an unimportant story on Slashdot, but the criticism isn't capital-V Valid.
Gore wanted a partial recount, and the court should have rejected that -- and they did.
Bush wanted no recount, and the court should have rejected that -- BUT THEY DIDN'T. That's the problem.
The obvious answer, the only right answer, is to carefully recount all the votes. Duh. That isn't difficult to decide, even though it is difficult to actually do (count). Of course we should count all the votes, duh.
The court should have rejected both parties and demanded a count of all votes.
Neither of the counts you mention counted all the votes cast. That is my problem. The court said, yes, if statute says a state doesn't have to count all the votes, then we, the Supreme Court will uphold that statute. I think they were wrong to do that. My reasoning is this:
1. the Constitution guarantees a republican form of government 2. republican governments are premised on voting for representatives 3. voting is meaningless if you don't count enough votes to make absolutely sure you know who got the most votes 4. therefore, it is not Constitutional to count fewer votes than needed to absolutely certify a winner
Yes, there were procedural issues. The statute said the count had to be done by a certain date. That's great! That's what the statute says in Florida. Well, unfortunately for Florida the Constitution is supreme over Florida statute. All the court had to do was say, hey Florida, did you count all (I mean, enough of) the votes? No? Well then you are out of compliance with the Constitution, and any statutes which say otherwise are invalid. Go get your shit together and count enough votes to make sure you know the winner.
In the case of Florida, if the margin between the candidates was (say) 1000 votes, then Florida needed to count all but 999 votes, because those remaining votes couldn't change the outcome. They didn't do that. Therefore they were in violation of the Constitution, in my opinion.
Yep. That's parliamentarianism. That's politics. Congress tries to shit on the Pres, the Pres tries to shit on Congress. Then it's election time again.
Your premise is mistaken and absurd. Republics are democracies.
However, if you want to argue that the USA is not in fact a republic because of the facts of the state of the country, I will hear you out. But republics are democracies, so I won't hear out anything premised on an alternative definition of Republic.
I know my post was very long, at all of eight sentences, but if you can scrape up the patience to read to the sixth sentence, you will see that I mentioned the situation with Pakistan, and explained why it is an exception to the rule.
Funny. I googled up Magna Carta and it said something about limitations on the monarch. That was cute, because it recognized the existence of a monarch. Ha! Thanks for the chuckle.
Meanwhile, if you are interested in democracy instead of monarchy, there are lots of resources to learn about that, too. Google for them. Good luck.
Yes of course. You know that law is different than statute, right? I never used the word 'law', quite on purpose.
I didn't say anything about pure democracies, either. I used the word "democracy", which (to me at least) implies voting and governing according to vote, which implies counting the votes -- all of them. The Supreme Court disagrees, and thinks its okay not to count all the votes. I think the SC is wrong about that.
Ohai. This is Slashdot. It's not "technology news", it's "news for nerds". The mistake is easy to make, but it is a mistake nevertheless. If you want "technology news" you can try Engadget or TechCrunch or something. Good luck.
You make made a synecdochic mistake. It's not that "the West" is allowed to make nukes, but rather that stable democracies are allowed to make nukes. And by "allowed" I mean that is the policy of the powerful people in the world. The United States wasn't worried that India built the bomb; but it was worried that Pakistan built the bomb.
I'll close with a swipe at the UK, which is allowed to have nukes even though they are a theocratic monarchy, and not a democracy. Chalk that up to cronyism and power politics.
It would be Israel, and the following day the US would put out a statement saying that they didn't know about the bombing plans (lie) but they support it (truth). The actual airplanes which drop the bombs might not have Israeli markings, as they didn't then Libya got nailed, but no doubt it would be Israel.
Because they don't want to get bombed the day after making the announcement. As it is, they're pretty close to getting bombed anyway.
It's cute to talk about the "right" to make nukes, but at the end of the day that's meaningless rhetoric. The point is that the current policy of the people who run the free world, is that only stable democracies are tolerated to have nukes. Iran is neither stable nor a democracy, so the world will not tolerate it having nukes. Well, I mean, the world doesn't want to tolerate it -- Iran can outrun the world by doing an above-ground successful nuke test, at which point they (like Pakistan) will have the deterrent necessary to prevent the bombing which they are otherwise daring the world to carry out.
Up to now, the world has decided to use computer viruses instead of bombings to stymie Iran's efforts. We'll see what happens in 2012.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not clear on your question. Is "because that's what 'democracy' means" a good enough answer? Democracies quite often vote themselves out of freedom. It happens all the time.
I'll go with this one, although it is oddly worded: "the same Israeli allies that aren't very happy with Israel's internal and foreign policies would unlikely back them up".
I think it is more likely that Israel's allies would support Israel. And by "support" I mean not allow to be invaded and destroyed -- not that they would help with or publicly support the bombing.
Could they? I don't know. That doesn't sound like the republican form of government guaranteed by the Constitution.
The SCUSA said that it was acceptable that the state statutes did not require all the votes to be counted. That is my problem. The number of votes left uncounted, was larger than the margin between the candidates' tallies. Therefore, it was not possible to know who won the election. I don't mean that literally all the votes need to be counted, I mean that figuratively all the votes need to be counted, by which I mean enough votes to be sure of the winner. If the margin between the candidates is X, then Florida need to count all but X-1 votes. Florida did not meet that threshold, and therefore I reject its election statutes as un-Constitutional; the SCUSA should have done the same.
I don't know what you mean by voter fraud. The votes were there, on paper, in a warehouse. They should have been counted. And eventually they were counted, in their entirety, and the winner was not the person who was certified by the state. It is a 100% perfect example of why all the votes must be counted.
You need to separate out the specifics of your arguments.
The NDAA is one more nail in the coffin of America's claim to be a free country; but it doesn't at all affect its status as a democracy.
You would be embarrassed at the notion of birthright royalty, of course. I sure would be. I'm embarrassed enough at the cultural birth rights we still have in the USA, but actual, literal, legally defined castes? Come on, now, that's embarrassing. You can have "the world's most experienced and respected statesmen" as your figurehead without having a queen. You could elect her, then re-elect hear once per decade if you wanted to; but it's absurd to endow a baby with royal status because of the vagina it came out of.
I accept your chiding, but don't let it rise to actual criticism. Humorous pedantry is one thing, but you don't have enough information for real pedantry. For instance, without seeing the whole program, you don't know whether the immediate previous line of code was
if($year==2012) {
You also don't know if this is code only run during May, June, July, August, and September of 2012, as a special process. So again, ha ha, I laugh with you for ways to make jokes about silly tidbits of code posted to an unimportant story on Slashdot, but the criticism isn't capital-V Valid.
Gore wanted a partial recount, and the court should have rejected that -- and they did.
Bush wanted no recount, and the court should have rejected that -- BUT THEY DIDN'T. That's the problem.
The obvious answer, the only right answer, is to carefully recount all the votes. Duh. That isn't difficult to decide, even though it is difficult to actually do (count). Of course we should count all the votes, duh.
The court should have rejected both parties and demanded a count of all votes.
Neither of the counts you mention counted all the votes cast. That is my problem. The court said, yes, if statute says a state doesn't have to count all the votes, then we, the Supreme Court will uphold that statute. I think they were wrong to do that. My reasoning is this:
1. the Constitution guarantees a republican form of government
2. republican governments are premised on voting for representatives
3. voting is meaningless if you don't count enough votes to make absolutely sure you know who got the most votes
4. therefore, it is not Constitutional to count fewer votes than needed to absolutely certify a winner
Yes, there were procedural issues. The statute said the count had to be done by a certain date. That's great! That's what the statute says in Florida. Well, unfortunately for Florida the Constitution is supreme over Florida statute. All the court had to do was say, hey Florida, did you count all (I mean, enough of) the votes? No? Well then you are out of compliance with the Constitution, and any statutes which say otherwise are invalid. Go get your shit together and count enough votes to make sure you know the winner.
In the case of Florida, if the margin between the candidates was (say) 1000 votes, then Florida needed to count all but 999 votes, because those remaining votes couldn't change the outcome. They didn't do that. Therefore they were in violation of the Constitution, in my opinion.
Yep. That's parliamentarianism. That's politics. Congress tries to shit on the Pres, the Pres tries to shit on Congress. Then it's election time again.
Your premise is mistaken and absurd. Republics are democracies.
However, if you want to argue that the USA is not in fact a republic because of the facts of the state of the country, I will hear you out. But republics are democracies, so I won't hear out anything premised on an alternative definition of Republic.
The page title of Slashdot.org is "Slashdot: News for nerds, stuff that matters".
I accept your apology; you don't even need to say it.
I know my post was very long, at all of eight sentences, but if you can scrape up the patience to read to the sixth sentence, you will see that I mentioned the situation with Pakistan, and explained why it is an exception to the rule.
Interesting. Recognized by whom? Nobody who is friendly with Israel is very happy with Iran.
Don't make the mistake of assuming this code runs forever in a loop.
Funny. I googled up Magna Carta and it said something about limitations on the monarch. That was cute, because it recognized the existence of a monarch. Ha! Thanks for the chuckle.
Meanwhile, if you are interested in democracy instead of monarchy, there are lots of resources to learn about that, too. Google for them. Good luck.
If she's only a "ruling" monarch, then why do you tolerate her title? Why aren't you embarrassed to have a queen?
Yes of course. You know that law is different than statute, right? I never used the word 'law', quite on purpose.
I didn't say anything about pure democracies, either. I used the word "democracy", which (to me at least) implies voting and governing according to vote, which implies counting the votes -- all of them. The Supreme Court disagrees, and thinks its okay not to count all the votes. I think the SC is wrong about that.
$sec = $sec + (($mon==5) && ($mday = 30));
That was informative, thank you.
Nonsense. The Supreme Court already told us that states don't actually have to count votes, so long as state statute says they don't.
Just don't make the mistake of thinking you live in a democracy. In democracies, they count all the votes.
Ohai. This is Slashdot. It's not "technology news", it's "news for nerds". The mistake is easy to make, but it is a mistake nevertheless. If you want "technology news" you can try Engadget or TechCrunch or something. Good luck.
You make made a synecdochic mistake. It's not that "the West" is allowed to make nukes, but rather that stable democracies are allowed to make nukes. And by "allowed" I mean that is the policy of the powerful people in the world. The United States wasn't worried that India built the bomb; but it was worried that Pakistan built the bomb.
I'll close with a swipe at the UK, which is allowed to have nukes even though they are a theocratic monarchy, and not a democracy. Chalk that up to cronyism and power politics.
It would be Israel, and the following day the US would put out a statement saying that they didn't know about the bombing plans (lie) but they support it (truth). The actual airplanes which drop the bombs might not have Israeli markings, as they didn't then Libya got nailed, but no doubt it would be Israel.
Because they don't want to get bombed the day after making the announcement. As it is, they're pretty close to getting bombed anyway.
It's cute to talk about the "right" to make nukes, but at the end of the day that's meaningless rhetoric. The point is that the current policy of the people who run the free world, is that only stable democracies are tolerated to have nukes. Iran is neither stable nor a democracy, so the world will not tolerate it having nukes. Well, I mean, the world doesn't want to tolerate it -- Iran can outrun the world by doing an above-ground successful nuke test, at which point they (like Pakistan) will have the deterrent necessary to prevent the bombing which they are otherwise daring the world to carry out.
Up to now, the world has decided to use computer viruses instead of bombings to stymie Iran's efforts. We'll see what happens in 2012.