Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Turkey has blocked online encyclopedia Wikipedia, the telecommunications watchdog said on Saturday, citing a law allowing it to ban access to websites deemed obscene or a threat to national security.
The move is likely to further worry rights groups and Turkey's Western allies, who say Ankara has sharply curtailed freedom of speech and other basic rights in the crackdown that followed last year's failed coup.
"After technical analysis and legal consideration ... an administrative measure has been taken for this website (Wikipedia.Org)," the BTK telecommunications watchdog said in a statement on its website.
It cited a law that allows it to block access to individual web pages or entire websites for the protection of public order, national security or the well-being of the public.
Turkey's communications ministry said Wikipedia was attempting to run a "smear campaign" against Turkey, saying some articles purported that Ankara was coordinating with militant groups, state-run Anadolu news agency reported.
"Instead of coordinating against terrorism, it has become part of an information source which is running a smear campaign against Turkey in the international arena," Anadolu quoted the ministry as saying in a statement.
The ban would be lifted if Wikipedia met the government's demands, Anadolu said.
Under the law, the watchdog is required to submit its ban to a court within 24 hours. The court then has two days to decide whether the ban should be upheld.
'CENSOR CONTENT'
A block on all language editions of the Wikipedia website was detected at 8:00 a.m. (1.00 a.m. ET) on Saturday, monitoring group Turkey Blocks said on its website.
"The loss of availability is consistent with internet filters used to censor content in the country," it said.
When attempting to access the webpage using Turkish internet providers, users received a notice the site could not be reached and a "connection timed out" error.
Monitoring groups have accused Turkey of blocking access to social media sites such as Twitter or Facebook, particularly in the aftermath of militant attacks.
The government has in the past denied blocking access to some sites, blaming outages on spikes in usage after major events. But technical experts at watchdog groups say the blackouts on social media are intentional, aimed in part at stopping the spread of militant images and propaganda.
Since last year's failed coup, authorities have sacked or suspended more than 120,000 people from the civil service, police and judiciary and arrested more than 40,000 on suspicion of ties to terrorist groups.
President Tayyip Erdogan says the measures are needed given the scope of the security threat Turkey faces.
Turkey last year jailed 81 journalists, making it the world's top jailor of journalists, according to the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists.
My guess is Edrogan just found out about that time someone replaced his entry with a cockroach, or maybe he's just tried of the constant edit war over Saladin's ethnicity EDIT: Or the page on the Armenian Genocide, which is even worse.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/29 19:35:52
Given his current powers voted in he can do this perfectly legitimately under his own law and more without need of a parliament.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
LordofHats wrote: My guess is Edrogan just found out about that time someone replaced his entry with a cockroach, or maybe he's just tried of the constant edit war over Saladin's ethnicity EDIT: Or the page on the Armenian Genocide, which is even worse.
LordofHats wrote: My guess is Edrogan just found out about that time someone replaced his entry with a cockroach, or maybe he's just tried of the constant edit war over Saladin's ethnicity EDIT: Or the page on the Armenian Genocide, which is even worse.
I see that /pol/ has been busy over on Wikipedia.
They will find another way. There always more websites! And too many computer skilled people.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
I'm just surprised they even blocked the Turkish Wikipedia. My understanding was that Turkish Wikipedia was one of several branches of the Wiki being accused of having been coopted, in thier case by the Turkish state. Not as bad as Croatian Wikipedia, but I was under the impression it was pretty bad >.>
Edrogan has been 'cleaning house' ever since this attempted coup. I'm not sure where the paranoia stops and the opportunism begins, but it is clear that many people in positions of authority (teaches, judges and the like) that are critical of the government but completely unaffiliated with the militarists are being targeted.
At the same time, you can't really blame Turkey for displaying some paranoia. During the height of the coup the majority of Western media was ambivalent about it, if not tentatively supportive. It appears that the democratic process is all well and good up until it looks like a more Islamist party might be gaining power. :S
Psienesis wrote: I've... seen things... you people wouldn't believe. Milk cartons on fire off the shoulder of 3rd-hour English; I watched Cheez-beams glitter in the dark near the Admin Parking Gate... All those... moments... will be lost, in time, like tears... in... rain. Time... to die.
"The Emperor points, and we obey,
Through the warp and far away."
-A Guardsman's Ballad
Humble Guardsman wrote: Edrogan has been 'cleaning house' ever since this attempted coup. I'm not sure where the paranoia stops and the opportunism begins, but it is clear that many people in positions of authority (teaches, judges and the like) that are critical of the government but completely unaffiliated with the militarists are being targeted.
At the same time, you can't really blame Turkey for displaying some paranoia. During the height of the coup the majority of Western media was ambivalent about it, if not tentatively supportive. It appears that the democratic process is all well and good up until it looks like a more Islamist party might be gaining power. :S
Similar thing happened with Egypt. The west was all gungho about them getting democracy back until the Muslim brotherhood got voted in. Then everyone looked the other way when the army took over. Turkey's military IIRC do have a history of coup's to "restore" democracy and secularism within the state so western leaders were probably hoping history was repeating.
Lone Cat wrote: That's the shame. Even a country with a very strong Lese Majeste still allow Wikipedia access.
On the other hand, there's precious little bad to say of the late King Bhumibol of Thailand, may he rest in peace. He always seemed to have the best of his citizens and country in mind. Even the Thai military coups haven't usually been violent or overly destructive as the generals too like having a prosperous and safe country drawing in tourists. And they move openly for the most part so there's no "secrets" for Wikipedia to tell the people.
I sincerely hope the King's successor will take the same approach as his father and thus have no reason to shut down a website that tells no one anything that wasn't already public knowledge.
I'm surprised how chummy they are after the downed jet incident. But screw them both. I know realpolitik is a thing but if we are the free west we shouldn't be supporting these types of places.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/30 23:48:36
At this rate, I think we should boot turkey out of Nato.
He's been acting the dictator for some time.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Humble Guardsman wrote: It appears that the democratic process is all well and good up until it looks like a more Islamist party might be gaining power. :S
Well, of course. Democratically elected bad people are still bad people.
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
At this rate, I think we should boot turkey out of Nato.
He's been acting the dictator for some time.
Dictator
*A ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained control by force.
Just because Edrogan and his Islamist party enjoys incredible popular support (not surprising given that the country is 3/4 Muslim) does not make him a dictator. Had the secular military elements been successful in their attempt to oust him THAT would have been a dictatorship.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Humble Guardsman wrote: It appears that the democratic process is all well and good up until it looks like a more Islamist party might be gaining power. :S
Well, of course. Democratically elected bad people are still bad people.
I'm sure you don't mean to say that a 'bad' democratically elected leader is better replaced with a 'good' autocratic leader. How could anyone say with a straight face "The people of a nation have the right to elect their own leaders, but only if they're the kind of leaders that we approve of."
I might not agree with Trump or his policies for a large part, but I would never argue that the results of his election should be ignored in favour of a more appealing candidate. I'm no fan of Edrogan's party, their Islamification policies such as the proposal to ban alcohol or their escalation of the violent treatment of the Kurds alone gives them a black mark. But we can't pretend his administration is illegitimate just because they have policies the West in general isn't comfortable with.
Psienesis wrote: I've... seen things... you people wouldn't believe. Milk cartons on fire off the shoulder of 3rd-hour English; I watched Cheez-beams glitter in the dark near the Admin Parking Gate... All those... moments... will be lost, in time, like tears... in... rain. Time... to die.
"The Emperor points, and we obey,
Through the warp and far away."
-A Guardsman's Ballad
At this rate, I think we should boot turkey out of Nato.
He's been acting the dictator for some time.
Dictator
*A ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained control by force.
Just because Edrogan and his Islamist party enjoys incredible popular support (not surprising given that the country is 3/4 Muslim) does not make him a dictator. Had the secular military elements been successful in their attempt to oust him THAT would have been a dictatorship.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Humble Guardsman wrote: It appears that the democratic process is all well and good up until it looks like a more Islamist party might be gaining power. :S
Well, of course. Democratically elected bad people are still bad people.
I'm sure you don't mean to say that a 'bad' democratically elected leader is better replaced with a 'good' autocratic leader. How could anyone say with a straight face "The people of a nation have the right to elect their own leaders, but only if they're the kind of leaders that we approve of."
I might not agree with Trump or his policies for a large part, but I would never argue that the results of his election should be ignored in favour of a more appealing candidate. I'm no fan of Edrogan's party, their Islamification policies such as the proposal to ban alcohol or their escalation of the violent treatment of the Kurds alone gives them a black mark. But we can't pretend his administration is illegitimate just because they have policies the West in general isn't comfortable with.
Maybe I'll sound pretty radical here, but to me the better form of goverment, just behind a Direct/Representative Democracy of a cultured and civilicied people, is a Dictatorship of the Wise Man or Group, like the Plato's Republic.
A very good example: Ataturk. A dictator that make Turkey a secular state advanced to his time. And now we have a "Elected" guy of the people tha understand his people and make the country his particular radical islamist state. Yeaaah, great advance.
But, as like only 1 in every 1000 dictatorship is a "good" dictatorship, personally I prefer to try it with a Democracy that asure the rights of their citizens. Something that you can be sure, Erdogan is not gonna do. A democratic elected president shouldn't be able to destroy the democracy that rise him to power. Erdogan just did that with the Referendum.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/05/02 03:48:48
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
At this rate, I think we should boot turkey out of Nato.
He's been acting the dictator for some time.
Dictator
*A ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained control by force.
Just because Edrogan and his Islamist party enjoys incredible popular support (not surprising given that the country is 3/4 Muslim) does not make him a dictator. Had the secular military elements been successful in their attempt to oust him THAT would have been a dictatorship.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Humble Guardsman wrote: It appears that the democratic process is all well and good up until it looks like a more Islamist party might be gaining power. :S
Well, of course. Democratically elected bad people are still bad people.
I'm sure you don't mean to say that a 'bad' democratically elected leader is better replaced with a 'good' autocratic leader. How could anyone say with a straight face "The people of a nation have the right to elect their own leaders, but only if they're the kind of leaders that we approve of."
I might not agree with Trump or his policies for a large part, but I would never argue that the results of his election should be ignored in favour of a more appealing candidate. I'm no fan of Edrogan's party, their Islamification policies such as the proposal to ban alcohol or their escalation of the violent treatment of the Kurds alone gives them a black mark. But we can't pretend his administration is illegitimate just because they have policies the West in general isn't comfortable with.
Turkey was a safe modern country on the borders with Europe, whom while unlikely was considering EU membership and a full Nato member and one of stronger ones at that in region.
Now. Least one of those is gone as EU won,t let in a dictator.
It was modern tourism that helped Turkey, it was a amazing country to visit. Start adding tons of religious laws you are going to erode that valuble income.
I'm guessing we gonna see a noticble % drop in tourists.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
At this rate, I think we should boot turkey out of Nato.
He's been acting the dictator for some time.
Dictator
*A ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained control by force.
Just because Edrogan and his Islamist party enjoys incredible popular support (not surprising given that the country is 3/4 Muslim) does not make him a dictator. Had the secular military elements been successful in their attempt to oust him THAT would have been a dictatorship.
Emphasis mine. A dictator need not come into power by force. Inheritance (North Korea), or subverting democracy also work.
And no, had the military been succesful, it would not necessarily a dictatorship if they had then returned to holding new elections.
Frankly, I think it's a good idea to have some group (not necessarily the military) who can intervene if the democratic process is being subverted. Who watches the watchmen and all that.
Maybe I'll sound pretty radical here, but to me the better form of goverment, just behind a Direct/Representative Democracy of a cultured and civilicied people, is a Dictatorship of the Wise Man or Group, like the Plato's Republic.
A very good example: Ataturk. A dictator that make Turkey a secular state advanced to his time. And now we have a "Elected" guy of the people tha understand his people and make the country his particular radical islamist state. Yeaaah, great advance.
But, as like only 1 in every 1000 dictatorship is a "good" dictatorship, personally I prefer to try it with a Democracy that asure the rights of their citizens. Something that you can be sure, Erdogan is not gonna do. A democratic elected president shouldn't be able to destroy the democracy that rise him to power. Erdogan just did that with the Referendum.
You make a good point, a competent autocrat will achieve far more than an excellent democrat. The opinion of foreign powers should hardly factor into it however, and we certainly can't expect a system of autocracy to continue to churn out competent autocrats and not paranoid/schizophrenic murderers as so often appears to be the case.
Turkey was a safe modern country on the borders with Europe, whom while unlikely was considering EU membership and a full Nato member and one of stronger ones at that in region.
Now. Least one of those is gone as EU won,t let in a dictator.
It was modern tourism that helped Turkey, it was a amazing country to visit. Start adding tons of religious laws you are going to erode that valuble income.
I'm guessing we gonna see a noticble % drop in tourists.
Turkey in the EU was always an unlikely result, despite their earnest desire to jump aboard that particular gravy train. Actually I know a guy that went over there in the immediate aftermath of the coup because he knew everything would be extremely cheap.
Tourism has no bearing on the legitimacy of a people's right to choose who their representative is though.
Bran Dawri wrote:
Emphasis mine. A dictator need not come into power by force. Inheritance (North Korea), or subverting democracy also work.
And no, had the military been succesful, it would not necessarily a dictatorship if they had then returned to holding new elections.
Elections are hardly free and fair if you ban the one party the majority of the nation wants to vote for. This is certainly not the first time the secular military has instigated a coup to oust a non-secular leader in Turkey.
Frankly, I think it's a good idea to have some group (not necessarily the military) who can intervene if the democratic process is being subverted. Who watches the watchmen and all that.
The democratic process hasn't really been subverted, at least not blatantly beyond the extent that exists in any democratic society. Edrogan's party was elected in, by a large margin. Them winning doesn't mean they cheated, just because you don't like the results.
The closest we have to this 'watcher of watchmen' is the Judiciary via the separation of powers. This is why his purge of teachers, magistrates and other members of the court is most troubling. He's beginning to accuse any of his opponents of being militarists.
Psienesis wrote: I've... seen things... you people wouldn't believe. Milk cartons on fire off the shoulder of 3rd-hour English; I watched Cheez-beams glitter in the dark near the Admin Parking Gate... All those... moments... will be lost, in time, like tears... in... rain. Time... to die.
"The Emperor points, and we obey,
Through the warp and far away."
-A Guardsman's Ballad
Considering how Erdogan has cracked down on media that doesn't agree with him I'd say there's an argument to be made that the elections weren't de facto fair at all. If only one side is able to make itself heard prior to an election there is absolutely no way to make an informed decision.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Considering how Erdogan has cracked down on media that doesn't agree with him I'd say there's an argument to be made that the elections weren't de facto fair at all. If only one side is able to make itself heard prior to an election there is absolutely no way to make an informed decision.
Also reports of opposition being harassed, and ofc the election board deciding to count 1,5 million unstamped votes (probably conveniently saying YES to Erdogan)...
Elections are hardly free and fair if you ban the one party the majority of the nation wants to vote for. This is certainly not the first time the secular military has instigated a coup to oust a non-secular leader in Turkey.
Mmmm, I'm not suggesting ban the party, just leave out the guy who tried to take over the whole shebang. In all honesty, the military intervening in the process does makes me ambivalent about the whole thing.
The democratic process hasn't really been subverted, at least not blatantly beyond the extent that exists in any democratic society. Edrogan's party was elected in, by a large margin. Them winning doesn't mean they cheated, just because you don't like the results.
The closest we have to this 'watcher of watchmen' is the Judiciary via the separation of powers. This is why his purge of teachers, magistrates and other members of the court is most troubling. He's beginning to accuse any of his opponents of being militarists.
1) How are said purges and accusations not subversion of democracy? One of the cornerstones of real democracy is the dialogue between opposing viewpoints. Kill that, and you kill the democracy.
2) It's not him and his party being elected that I object to. It's what he's done (and is doing) afterwards with the power he was given that is wrong - hence subversion. Sidenote: He has also misused his power in meddling with the free press, making it much harder for his opponents to be heard.
3) I really, really hate doing this, but the parallels are just to strong to ignore. Hitler was also democratically elected - at least initially.
At this rate, I think we should boot turkey out of Nato.
He's been acting the dictator for some time.
Dictator
*A ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained control by force.
Just because Edrogan and his Islamist party enjoys incredible popular support (not surprising given that the country is 3/4 Muslim) does not make him a dictator. Had the secular military elements been successful in their attempt to oust him THAT would have been a dictatorship.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Humble Guardsman wrote: It appears that the democratic process is all well and good up until it looks like a more Islamist party might be gaining power. :S
Well, of course. Democratically elected bad people are still bad people.
I'm sure you don't mean to say that a 'bad' democratically elected leader is better replaced with a 'good' autocratic leader. How could anyone say with a straight face "The people of a nation have the right to elect their own leaders, but only if they're the kind of leaders that we approve of."
I might not agree with Trump or his policies for a large part, but I would never argue that the results of his election should be ignored in favour of a more appealing candidate. I'm no fan of Edrogan's party, their Islamification policies such as the proposal to ban alcohol or their escalation of the violent treatment of the Kurds alone gives them a black mark. But we can't pretend his administration is illegitimate just because they have policies the West in general isn't comfortable with.
Maybe I'll sound pretty radical here, but to me the better form of goverment, just behind a Direct/Representative Democracy of a cultured and civilicied people, is a Dictatorship of the Wise Man or Group, like the Plato's Republic.
A very good example: Ataturk. A dictator that make Turkey a secular state advanced to his time. And now we have a "Elected" guy of the people tha understand his people and make the country his particular radical islamist state. Yeaaah, great advance.
But, as like only 1 in every 1000 dictatorship is a "good" dictatorship, personally I prefer to try it with a Democracy that asure the rights of their citizens. Something that you can be sure, Erdogan is not gonna do. A democratic elected president shouldn't be able to destroy the democracy that rise him to power. Erdogan just did that with the Referendum.
I consider democracy among the WORST forms of government. Representative or otherwise. As the saying goes, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner". Essential liberties are just as easily subverted by the "tyranny of the majority" as they are by a tyranny of the few or the one. Sometimes, more easily so.
I consider a Constitution Republic based on the rule of law, with a checks and balances system, division of power, and the principles of sacrosanct, inalienable rights for the people, to be the best form of government. In other words, the early American Republican period between the final ratification of the U.S. Constitution and the American Civil War. It wasn't perfect by any means and there were problems. But it was better than what we have now, a bloated national government with no real checks on it's power, and a body politic run by opinion polls and a voter base willing to vote away their freedoms for more "gibsmedats"
I don't expect us to go back to pure Federalism. The country is too screwed up for that. And the people are too spoiled/indoctrinated for that to happen.
I agree with you 100% on the issue of dictators. That's too much of a random coin toss to be relied upon. You might get a Pinochet-type that is a serious hard-ass, but with good intentions for the country. You might get somebody who starts out well-intentioned, but gets lured in by the siren song of power and turned into a first class son of a bitch like Franco or Castro. Or you might get an absolute nightmare like Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, or Stalin. You never know, with dictatorships being a fickle thing.
I consider a Constitution Republic based on the rule of law, with a checks and balances system, division of power, and the principles of sacrosanct, inalienable rights for the people, to be the best form of government. In other words, the early American Republican period between the final ratification of the U.S. Constitution and the American Civil War. It wasn't perfect by any means and there were problems. But it was better than what we have now, a bloated national government with no real checks on it's power, and a body politic run by opinion polls and a voter base willing to vote away their freedoms for more "gibsmedats"
As a White, mostly Scottish, landowning male, I endorse this statement!
AlmightyWalrus wrote:Are we really going to go with "the US isn't a democracy" again? Really?
It's a lot closer to an actual democracy today than it was prior to the early 20th Century. To the point where it might as well be a Western European-style liberal social democracy.
Spinner wrote:I mean, we've already had our 'Sweden is the rape capital of the world' conversation for the month, so I think this one's next on the agenda.
And nonsense like this is part of the reason why political threads in OT is in danger of going the way of the dodo and dinosaur. Not that it would hurt my feelings any. But in of the interests of those who do, I'm trying to play nice and not be an abrasive ass anymore. I suggest others do the same.
LordofHats wrote:
No. No we're in some kind of weird twilight zone where America should stop being a democracy and go back to being a democracy.
You claim to be a history buff. Might I suggest that you go back and brush up on early U.S. history some.
The United States wasn't founded as a democracy of any kind. Period.
But it did borrow and incorporate some democratic ideas into the final draft of the U.S. Constitution as a compromise solution, on the national level. The House of Representatives was the end result. But even then, suffrage was limited to land/property owners. The purse strings were controlled by the voters via the House, the House had investigative powers, and laws (legislative power) would originate in the House. But enough checks and balances were in place via the Executive and Senate to, in the words of Hamilton, "check the imprudence of democracy". The Hamiltonian Federalists (who had a major influence in the Convention) didn't trust the people to govern wisely, and the compromise solution was a "bone" thrown to the supporters of egalitarian democracy (of whom Franklin was a well known figure). And there were issues of time, distance, and communication to take into account as well.
However a few democratic principles and sole legislative power alone doesn't make a democracy. And It's the separation of powers/checks and balances, not popular representation, that is important to safeguarding Liberty and keeping the national government accountable to the American people.
Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
As a White, mostly Scottish, landowning male, I endorse this statement!
I LOL'd at this. But truth be told, I wouldn't mind going back to a system where property owners (i.e. stakeholders in society) would be the only ones who could vote for House Reps on the Federal level. However, any form of racial, ethnic, or sexual discrimination would have to be eliminated for said property owners. The whole "white male" only crapfest would have to go.
I also support the idea of repealing the 17th Amendment, and the Senate once again representing the interests of the "several States" as was originally outlined Article One, Section Three, Clauses One and Two of the U.S. Constitution. Mostly because that was an important part of the checks and balances system.
Of course, none of that will ever happen. So, we have to play with what we're given to play with, and make the best of it.
Of course, this is just my view and others will differ. However, I'm not here to get into a pissing match with anybody over it. Just how I see it is all.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/02 20:06:08
There is no polite way for me to explain that you don't understand what a democracy or a republic is. There is no reasoned debate to be had while you use different definitions to everyone else.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
EDIT: Or the page on the Armenian Genocide, 
-- $k 
-- 9k 
-- 6k 
-- 4k 
-- 
