What's new

Indian democracy loses to Chinese efficiency - by 160 votes

chausim said:
It is the people that makes difference, not the system.

The system doesn't matter when the leaders are benevolent and intelligent.

It matters a lot when the the leaders are inept, insidious or even just old. Weimar Republic proved that; Hitler never got more than a 1/3rd of the support of the German people yet he managed to destroy the system from within, because the system wasn't robust enough.

Perhaps proof of the system mattering is the inability of Christian conservatives in the USA from creating their own theocratic utopia. If it were up to the majority of conservatives, abortion would be unconstitutional, immigration would be near zero and Christianity would be an official religion.
 
I am curious about the background of this CAPITAIN AMERICAN dude. He certainly doesn't write like a native English speaker.
 
So much for someone who got high scores in GRE. I wonder if he has passed GED yet.

Someone who has graduated from any decent high school should be able to construct a sentence properly.

However our 70 year old friend seems to have great difficulty with this... :azn:
 
I am curious about the background of this CAPITAIN AMERICAN dude. He certainly doesn't write like a native English speaker.

Apparently he is "part" Native American in terms of ethnicity.

So if he grew up in America he should have English as a first language, I would think.

However his sentence construction and spelling/punctuation are so poor that I wonder if maybe he dropped out of high school or something similar?

The bottom line is that he has already admitted to being a troll, a 70 year old man who admits to wanting to "pull kids legs on the internet". (Bad sentence construction again).

Sounds pretty sad for an old man to ADMIT to trolling forums on the internet, and to write racist posts, but it's his life. It's funny if you picture it though, an old lonely man trolling the internet. :rofl:
 
Apparently he is "part" Native American in terms of ethnicity.

So if he grew up in America he should have English as a first language, I would think.

However his sentence construction and spelling/punctuation are so poor that I wonder if maybe he dropped out of high school or something similar?

The bottom line is that he has already admitted to being a troll, a 70 year old man who admits to wanting to "pull kids legs on the internet". (Bad sentence construction again).

Sounds pretty sad for an old man to ADMIT to trolling forums on the internet, and to write racist posts, but it's his life. It's funny if you picture it though, an old lonely man trolling the internet. :rofl:

I dont get into personal attacks, especially with snot nose kids that are still wet behind the ears that like to bully people on the internet.
 
I dont get into personal attacks, especially with snot nose kids that are still wet behind the ears that like to bully people on the internet.

Come on, don't you think it's funny that an "old man" openly admits to trolling "kids" on the internet? :lol:

("Sad" is a better word though).

Maybe you should get a hobby and try to meet people who want to talk to you? Surely that is more productive than going on the internet and being racist towards Chinese and Indian people?

When I say "being racist" I mean like what I replied to in this post below, when you implied that all Chinese people were rude, just because they are Chinese:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/67624-clock-ticking-usa-21.html#post1040592
 
Last edited:
Chaps please try to refrain from all this personal attacks, it derails the thread and serves no purpose. Lets just have a good debate yet respect one another, if you feel strongly about something just point it out to the Mod.
 
Chaps please try to refrain from all this personal attacks, it derails the thread and serves no purpose. Lets just have a good debate yet respect one another, if you feel strongly about something just point it out to the Mod.

Fair enough. :cheers:

Back on topic, I think that Democracy is almost always better than Authoritarianism.

The caveat... is that Democracy works best when a nation is already developed. For example, Japan and Taiwan developed first, and THEN gained Democracy.

If they are not developed, yet they try to become democratic, it can lead to problems. Like in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nigeria and Colombia which are all "democracies".... but they are not yet developed.

So to sum up, I think it's best to develop FIRST, and then become Democratic. That is the best way.
 
The system doesn't matter when the leaders are benevolent and intelligent.

It matters a lot when the the leaders are inept, insidious or even just old. Weimar Republic proved that; Hitler never got more than a 1/3rd of the support of the German people yet he managed to destroy the system from within, because the system wasn't robust enough.

Perhaps proof of the system mattering is the inability of Christian conservatives in the USA from creating their own theocratic utopia. If it were up to the majority of conservatives, abortion would be unconstitutional, immigration would be near zero and Christianity would be an official religion.

Oh, they are getting there by the way it is going, don't worry about it.
United States Myths - and their realities

By Rey Barry

"The US separates church and state"

American school children are taught this nation was founded by pilgrims seeking religious freedom. Every competent historian knows they were seeking freedom for themselves and religious tyranny over others, but the second part doesn't make the textbook.

In early Massachusetts you could belong to but one church. If you didn't and you wouldn't join, you were escorted to the Rhode Island line.

Because people enjoyed tobacco it was thought to be the devil's weed. In 1630 outdoor pipe smoking was banned in Massachusetts.

Following the thread of religious tyranny through United States history to the present day is essential to understanding this country, because it's the most important thing in our land today.

We do hear that descendants of these settlers in Salem and other towns went silly over witchcraft and, after trial by jury with much the same pomp of trials today, hanged (not burned) at least 36 women they absolutely believed in their heart were witches.

Is that the last time our religious tyrants were heard from? Hardly. For most of our history they were in control.

Ever hear of Sunday blue laws? For close to 350 years no business in this land could open on Sunday. Baseball and other sports could not be played on Sunday. In some towns you could be jailed for mowing your lawn or gardening or cutting hair on Sunday. "The Lord's Day" totally intertwined church and state until the courts finally struck most of the laws down in the 2nd half of the 20th century.

When I grew up in Connecticut it was illegal to sell condoms. Pharmacists could be fined and jailed for it. Why? Catholics controlled the legislature. They demanded everyone be bound by the rules of their church. The law was almost universally ignored. Pharmacies sold condoms under the counter, and many Catholics bought them like everyone else.

The Connecticut legislature could never muster the patriotism to repeal the law, nor could the state supreme court. The US Supreme Court had to do it.

For generations, taking an oath in America required swearing on a Christian Bible. Today that's still the norm, although non-biblical affirmations are permitted.

The US Congress, possibly all 50 state legislatures, and many local governing bodies open their sessions with a prayer, commonly a prayer specific to one religion.

Legislatures have been forcing daily prayer and the symbols of one religion on public schools for ages. Most of these legal requirements are struck down by supreme courts when the court majority respects the separation.

Religious fundamentalists never let up pressure to control this nation. During the war between the states in the 1860s they mustered the votes in Congress to require that "In God We Trust" be placed on all United States currency. Since then, to use our currency you must spread a religious message.

"Under God" was not part of the pledge to the flag until 1954 when a Republican Congress dictated it had to be included. Many Americans exercise a right of silence and won't say it. Scientist Carl Sagan was outspoken on that. It's a matter of patriotism. Parroting Congress's religious concept undercuts the freedom to worship.

Only in the second half of the 20th Century did a branch of government, the Judiciary, begin to break the grip of religion on secular life. Shopping malls, NFL football, restaurants and bars are all part of Sunday now. That's so new that the backlash against the new secularism is the leading political movement of our day.

There are two Americas, the free and the fundamentalist, fighting to control. Children in public school are still routinely given Christian indoctrination on school time in the fundamentalist bible belt. It's happening in Waynesboro, VA, 25 miles from here. It's unconstitutional, but religious fundamentalists - Christian no less than Muslim - see the constitution and our open way of life as their enemy.

In the 21st century the Texas Republican Party, the one most closely associated with President Bush, officially declared the US "a Christian nation" and dismissed the separation of church and state as a "myth."

We are living through an American rebellion, but which side is rebelling?

They are not there yet, but are getting momentum fast.
Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula: A Legal Guidebook: Dewolf, Meyer, and DeForrest
Intelligent design movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Creationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

43 percent of Americans considering evolution to be at least probably true (General Social Survey) doesn't seem so hard to reconcile with 48 percent of Americans believing in some form of evolution, guided or unguided (Gallup). But now consider a 2001 Gallup poll that used very different wording, explicitly mentioning “evolution” instead of speaking of life forms having “developed” over time. When the question took this form—"Would you say that you believe more the theory of evolution or the theory of creationism to explain the origin of human beings, or are you unsure"—the respective results were 28 percent, 48 percent, and 14 percent, with 10 percent saying they didn’t know. Here the level of affirmative support for evolution came out dramatically lower, an effect that seems attributable to question wording and the differing choices presented to poll respondents.
CSI | Polling for Intelligent Design
 
Last edited:
What about Japan? After WWII, they became democratic and then developed. Same with Germany.

Well it's certainly possible.

India for example is doing very well by combining a developing economy with a democratic government.

The question is, will that work for China? Secondly, how can we achieve it without bloodshed and civil war?

All in all, I would prefer to wait, in order to give us a better chance of having a "peaceful transition" to democracy.
 
chausim said:
They are not there yet, but are getting momentum fast.

No. Your source proves this -- they have always been around, denying the existence of separation of church and state. With modern media and the Internet around they are simply louder. They want you to think there is momentum, but there really isn't. They already tried to put intelligent design into school textbooks and lost in court. Their only hope now is to slowly indoctrinate youth over a period of many generations. An attempt which will fail. As each generation passes youth are more liberal than their parents, and immigration injects more religions and more voices. Every indication is America has figured out a winning formula to prevent extremism. Religion is simply not "hip" or "cool" and other than Islam number of believers in America is not growing.
 
Last edited:
What about Japan? After WWII, they became democratic and then developed. Same with Germany.

Democracy in Japan after WW II was superficial at best. Even though it has a parliamentary system similar to Europe. Both the government and the Legislative Branch were run by LDP unopposed. It was not until 1993, LDP's domination in politics had ended. Therefore it had a de facto one party system. All the minority parties before 1993 were too small to pose any real threat to LDP reign.
 
Last edited:
No. Your source proves this -- they have always been around, denying the existence of separation of church and state. With modern media and the Internet around they are simply louder. They want you to think there is momentum, but there really isn't. They already tried to put intelligent design into school textbooks and lost in court. Their only hope now is to slowly indoctrinate youth over a period of many generations. An attempt which will fail. As each generation passes youth are more liberal than their parents, and immigration injects more religions and more voices. Every indication is America has figured out a winning formula to prevent extremism.

We will see what happens in the future though. I do not want to see this from happening though, but the trend is really worrying me. However in the age of nowadays, don't you think that it is ridiculous that almost half of the entire population would choose not to believe theory evolution and believe in something fall out of sky?

Each time when those cases were dismissed by the courts including supreme court, they only came after it harder the next time. Somehow should those people just give up after many of those failed attempt and embrace the reality?
 
Ultimately the type of governance best suited for a country is based on its culture and values.

Just taking a page from Hong Kong, Singapore & Taiwan. Chinese societies typically have higher then its fair share of vices (especially gambling) which is quite quickly controlled by organized crime. Hong Kong had its government controlled by the British which made it less susceptible to influence. Singapore had a lot of issues with organized crime but the Prime Minister (Can be considered a benevolent dictator) took steps to eradicate it. Taiwan still has organized crime in its societies which is so entrenched that its already part of its political system.

If China had took on democracy early on, considering the size of the country and its resources I don't believe it would have benefited as much as it would have the bigger problems with organized crime then any of the above had considering the population and land mass. China's current communist/open market system is actually done very well in light of the difficulties faced in the early years.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom