ianrobo1 Posted May 24, 2008 Share Posted May 24, 2008 you reckon peopel in china are allowed to do this in a poltical thread ? or debate Tibet ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted May 24, 2008 Share Posted May 24, 2008 most peopel in this country are NOT university educated are they ? I believe the government target is to get to reach that(which was the point I was making!). most normal people in this country went straight into work after school What is it with this 'normal'? Excuse me if I'm wrong, Ian, but your point seems to be that you, personally, feel under (if not un-) represented by poiticians. If I must have a democracy then I would rather like something which has a pretence at being that; I want those who are elected to govern to be those who have been given the job legitimately, i.e. those who have been chosen to be the best at doing it by the electorate in each constituency. And I would hope that the electorate would have enough wit to elect those who would be best at the job (that obviously is where this ideal falls down). I do not want a government elected within quotas. Were we to do something along those lines then we would officially have become the country of morons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted May 24, 2008 Moderator Share Posted May 24, 2008 most peopel in this country are NOT university educated are they ? most normal people in this country went straight into work after school to have the cabinet and shadow be what nealry 100% uni educated is unrepresentative of this country got nothing to do with class at all as all class's go to uni but politics now is for the professional and thus a lot are out of touch in what the rest of the country do or think Sorry Ian, I didn't realise you wanted thick words removed running the country, people go to university to get educated, the only thing that stops you getting a university education is a lack of ability these days. Of course not having a university education shouldn't preclude you but seriously there aren't many people that would want to run the country that also wouldn't have wanted to go to university at the age of 18. To do either you need to have a degree of ambition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted May 24, 2008 Share Posted May 24, 2008 you reckon peopel in china are allowed to do this in a poltical thread ? or debate Tibet ? What the hell has that to do with the price of a cup of tea? We might be more 'free' than someone without any 'freedoms' but it does not make us 'free'. Again, I'll ask you a few questions and will look forward to reading the answers in the new thread which I expect you to start on the concept of freedom and its connection/correlation with democracy. Do you mean free will? Do you mean not being physically in chains? Do you mean not being mentally shackled by the society in which you are living? Do you mean not being constrained in the way in which one chooses to live by peer pressure, arbitrary government influence or a nagging 'other half'? Do you mean being in the position of perfect knowledge so, as a 'consumer' (urgh), you are free to make a throughly informed decision about the purchase of a product? Do you mean free to walk through walls? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted May 24, 2008 Share Posted May 24, 2008 Royalist here, all the way. Apart from the automatic right to get in, the automatic right to be an officer, the zero chance of them getting failed on the training courses, it's a good argument for a Republic Like Prince 'failed the Commando Course and Royal Marine selection' Edward? Give over mate. Let the Windsor Family earn a living like everyone else I'd argue that they do and more, but to stick with the example of the Princes' who are currently serving, Harry was an FAC in Afghan. You know better than most that is not a role for a man who isn't extremely capable in a military sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted May 24, 2008 Share Posted May 24, 2008 you reckon peopel in china are allowed to do this in a poltical thread ? or debate Tibet ?There was an interesting comment from someone in China on the radio the other day. (Being radio, of course they stopped the discussion from taking place, quickly moving on to more trivial issues). They were challenging the unthinking western assumption that a one-party state must necessarily offer less political choice than a multi-party state. The argument is that when there are different factions, groupings and shades of opinion inside a single party, and when there is some means to influence and support one grouping over another, then it is perfectly possible to change the political direction of a government through political action. I don't imagine anyone would actually disagree with that, if they thought about it. The next part of the argument is that the choices offered by multi-party systems are often illusory. With this one, I think that most people in this country who give an opinion are so conditioned by the line they will have heard a million times from their childhood on, that they think it's simply self-evident that multi-party states are more democratic, and think any other view is automatically nonsense. Looking at the US elections, with a large number of people disenfranchised and the remainder choosing between two parties who completely agree on most things, concentrating attention on a handful of issues which divide them to magnify the differences, it's hard to see that as much of a real choice. I don't know enough about China to say whether there are aspects of political life there which really do offer more political choice than aspects of our system, or whether Tianenmen Square prefectly reflects the totality of political life in that country. But I do know that it's entirely possible for the assumptions we so casually take for granted, to be misplaced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted May 24, 2008 Share Posted May 24, 2008 most peopel in this country are NOT university educated are they ? most normal people in this country went straight into work after school to have the cabinet and shadow be what nealry 100% uni educated is unrepresentative of this country got nothing to do with class at all as all class's go to uni but politics now is for the professional and thus a lot are out of touch in what the rest of the country do or think Why stop there? Every doctor and dentist I've ever seen has a degree as well, not to mention solicitors. Let's start a campaign to get uneducated people to do really important jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted May 24, 2008 Moderator Share Posted May 24, 2008 Apart from the automatic right to get in, the automatic right to be an officer, the zero chance of them getting failed on the training courses, it's a good argument for a Republic Like Prince 'failed the Commando Course and Royal Marine selection' Edward? Give over mate. But the only reason he failed the course was because he himself quit, he couldn't have failed selection because he was on the course He couldnt hack it, if it had been anyone else this would have been realised in the selection process not 4 months into the course when he decided to walk out because the mud didn't match his nail varnish The point here is that he was allowed on the course in the first place, if his name wasn't Windsor he wouldn't have got past the selection process would he Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted May 24, 2008 Share Posted May 24, 2008 ^^ That's pretty impressive for this early on a Saturday. I'd argue from my similarly limited knowledge of China specifically that the communist party is in fact as bad as it's worst excesses would indicate, but on the limited political pluralism provided by a supposed multi party state I think you have a very good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted May 24, 2008 Share Posted May 24, 2008 Apart from the automatic right to get in, the automatic right to be an officer, the zero chance of them getting failed on the training courses, it's a good argument for a Republic Like Prince 'failed the Commando Course and Royal Marine selection' Edward? Give over mate. But the only reason he failed the course was because he himself quit, he couldn't have failed selection because he was on the course He couldnt hack it, if it had been anyone else this would have been realised in the selection process not 4 months into the course when he decided to walk out because the mud didn't match his nail varnish The point here is that he was allowed on the course in the first place, if his name wasn't Windsor he wouldn't have got past the selection process would he As none of us know the guy personally I don't think it's anything we could realistically assume either way. However going by some of shite wannabe officers I've come across I find it quite plausible he got into the 'selection process' on his own merit. The fact that a Royal could still fail the selection process - and walking away is failing - is quite reassuring and shows that starting selection doesn't equal automatic success for anyone. His brother however flew a helicopter in the Falklands war with the unenviable task of acting as an exocet missle decoy. I don't think questioning their route into the Forces is correct because as Edward proved if you can't hack the training you aint getting in. Neither can you question the commitment shown on operations by those who have served/are serving. Edit: Just to clarify, with the 'Commando course' and 'RM Selection' one means the same as the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 oh well even Nepal have seen the stupidity of it, by abolishing the Monarchy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 oh well even Nepal have seen the stupidity of it, by abolishing the Monarchy Yes, they binned their Autocratic Royal Family who actually ran their country as opposed to being the constitutional Head of State, like our Royal Family. But you knew that, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 of course, bt they have seen the stupidity of it all and remember they do have the power if they wanted to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 oh well even Nepal have seen the stupidity of it, by abolishing the Monarchy Yes, they binned their Autocratic Royal Family who actually ran their country as opposed to being the constitutional Head of State, like our Royal Family. But you knew that, right? To be fair, though, Jon, he only became an autocratic monarch when he disbanded parliament in 2005. :winkold: And whilst you celebrate, Ian, watch as Nepal gradually moves away from anything resembling democracy or freedom under the Maoists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villadude Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 I quite like the Royal Family, I'm happy that we have them and that's the way I'd like it to stay thank you very much. God Save The Queen! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Zen Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 And whilst you celebrate, Ian, watch as Nepal gradually moves away from anything resembling democracy or freedom under the Maoists. They voted them in, though. But I agree in a way, rather a constitutional monarchy than a Maoist dictatorship. We'll just hav to wait and see how Maoist these Maoist really are. To be fair, their last monarch didn't turn out to be very constitutional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 And whilst you celebrate, Ian, watch as Nepal gradually moves away from anything resembling democracy or freedom under the Maoists. They voted them in, though. But I agree in a way, rather a constitutional monarchy than a Maoist dictatorship. We'll just hav to wait and see how Maoist these Maoist really are. To be fair, their last monarch didn't turn out to be very constitutional. All the best totalitarian administrations were voted in originally. It just adds to the irony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 as far as I knwo the communists were never voted in nor was hitler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Zen Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 Oh, I don't know if that's really true, Snowy. Hitler did well in a couple of elections, but he never won a majority, and that's about the closest you can come to a "democratically elected dictator" if my memory serves me right. Military coup d'etats and armed revolutions have been far more popular, I believe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 nor was chairman Mao nor the khmer rouge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts