I wish some of you would get your terms right

[Plane]

Botha was Democraticly elected by the South Africans who were enfranchised .


A few years later Enfranchisement was extended .


Untill the early twentyeth century the USA never enfranchised a majority of its citizens and untill the late 1960s it had not enfranchised important numbers of minoritys.

But the USA was Democratic from the first , it is just getting moreso as time progresses.


Shall we enfranchise citizens of Mexico to vote in US elections?  One in seven Mexicans is here rather than there , why don't we just erase the border and make our flag six stars richer?

[Plane]

"A religious test for office is forbidden in our Constitution , both for elected and appointed office."

Show me an atheist that is supported by the GOP or the DNC. Actions are louder than words. Passing the religious test is vital to every candidate. This is the problem, the U.S. constitution is being ignored by both parties.

Show me mention of the DNC or GOP in the constitution of the US?

Political parties are extra-constitional, only one of our Presidents was ever elected without first joining a party , but this is not mandated by the constitution , it is just a measure of the effectiveness of the tecnique .

Athiests are not forbidden to form a party , and when they do they are not forbidden to run canadates for office.

Go on and do so , but try to appeal to Christians, few Christians want to vote anti-cristian and eighty percent of us are some sort of Christian.

[_JS]

Botha was Democraticly elected by the South Africans who were enfranchised .

True. Is it just about elections though? Does it also have to do with who may own property? Who may start a business of their own and where? What schools and what hopsitals are available to whom? Whether or not a policeman of one group can legally arrest a member of another group? Who has to carry a pass to legally walk in areas of the country and who does not?

Is that not also a part of a democratic society, or is it merely a matter of a right to vote?

[Plane]

It is just about Elections.

You may choose leaders who do all sorts of foolish or unfair things or wise unfair things , I would not think that this was uncommon in democracy at all.

Adolf Hitler won an election , on a platform of abolishing democracy , I would have voted against that.



Egalitarianism could be enforced by an enlightened Dictator, but it would hardly be democratic.

[_JS]

Adolf Hitler won an election , on a platform of abolishing democracy , I would have voted against that.

No he most certainly did not. Hitler lost the only fair election he ran in. He won an election after he had consolidated power and used his forces to ensure a victory by intimidating voters at the end of the barrel of a rifle. Or by simply murdering the competition. Let's keep our facts straight please.

So for you, a society is democratic no matter if a group of people is explicitly removed from the democratic process, forbidden to own land, forbidden to start a business, or forbidden to be in certain areas without a proper pass.

Do you agree Sirs?

[sirs]

Do you agree Sirs?

Agree to what specifically?  To Plane's deductions?  Yours?   Again, my time for any detailed responses is limited, until this evening

[_JS]

So for you [Plane], a society is democratic no matter if a group of people is explicitly removed from the democratic process, forbidden to own land, forbidden to start a business, or forbidden to be in certain areas without a proper pass.

Do you agree Sirs?

That would indicate that the question is asking if you agree with Plane's view of a democratic society.

[sirs]

That would indicate that the question is asking if you agree with Plane's view of a democratic society.

I'll have to get back to you on that, since I'm more in agreement with my view of a "Democratic Society", and will need more time, to read in more detail, his view

[_JS]

Interesting.

Perhaps you can tell us if you think that South Africa of the 1980's was a democratic society by your criteria.

[Plane]

Interesting.

Perhaps you can tell us if you think that South Africa of the 1980's was a democratic society by your criteria.

yes it was
again without qualification


What would your criteria be that would invalidate this?

In Anchient Greece where the word and the form were used in Athens there was not 100% enfranchisement , but isn't it contrary to claim that the origionators of Democracy were not democratic?

The progress of democracy in the last two centurys has been to enfranchise more and make the earning of enfranchisement a smaller investment ,  well that is progress but it is not all good , the vote is like a penny on the ground ,once worth a loaf , no longer worth the stoop.

[_JS]

I'd like to read Sir's answer before I continue, but I'd be happy to answer your questions afterwards.

[_JS]

I didn't realize it was such a difficult question.

[sirs]

Difficult, not.  Time requiring, yes.  But if your patience is wearing then, I'll give you a quick snipet of "my" concept of a Democratic society.  Then you may apply it either erroneously or accurately.  It's one that's simply not mob majoity rule, it's more than just "elections".  It's how the minority is allowed to voice their concerns, how they're treated, and how they're allowed work towards being part of the majority.   So, a country is a "democratic society" if they happen to fit the above critieria. 

Which Israel is

Now, that minority would largely part of that particular country, not of another completely foreign culture, and simply absorbed.  Giving the ability for the Palestinians to become part of the Israeli governning process would undeniably wipe out the State of israel from within, as they would immediately become the majority.  And as I said earlier, Israel can be argued to be even more Democratic than us, give the amount of parties that do work & make decisions for its people within the Governing process.

[_JS]

Which Israel is

Now, that minority would largely part of that particular country, not of another completely foreign culture, and simply absorbed.  Giving the ability for the Palestinians to become part of the Israeli governning process would undeniably wipe out the State of israel from within, as they would immediately become the majority.  And as I said earlier, Israel can be argued to be even more Democratic than us, give the amount of parties that do work & make decisions for its people within the Governing process.

Thank you.

No let's take this a little further.

For the sake of argument let's say that you Sirs were born in Southern California and lived in the same home of your birth for your entire life. In fact, you live right next to San Diego and consider yourself a part of San Diego's culture. You work there. Your family all lives there or nearby. You speak the local dialect. You've never even been to Mexico and you've got no desire to go there and live at all.

Yet, the United States has made an arrangement to where you are no longer a citizen of the United States. The house you were born in and lived your entire life in will remain a part of the United States, but you are now officially a resident of a new independent homeland called The United States Territorial Possession of Mexico (USTPM). It is shown to you on a map and you've never even been there.

Because you are no longer a United States citizen, you must pay a substantially increased amount of property taxes for your home. Residents of USTPM are required to pay more for their property, but you are not allowed to live there. Absolutely not. Every once in a while you are arrested for taking up residence illegally outside of the USTPM designated areas.

Your children once went to very good schools in San Diego, but they were immediately expelled. They are no longer citizens of the United States and must attend USTPM deisgnated schools which are generally run-down dives with decades old textbooks. Tough break for them.

The United States then sends you papers telling you that your house and land are essentially not yours. Yes, you grew up there and still live there, but by law you are absentee landholders. You are also illegal immigrants. If the United States deems the land necessary for a US citizen to develop or live there, then it will be removed from you.

Now having read this scenario, would you consider the United States in this scenario a democratic government? Would you like to live in such a state?



This very thing happens in Israel. Why is it right for them to have such discriminatory policies?

[sirs]

For the sake of argument let's say that you Sirs were born in Southern California and lived in the same home of your birth for your entire life

Am I American or am I Mexican?

the United States has made an arrangement to where you are no longer a citizen of the United States

So, I must be either Mexican or an illegal alien, correct?

The house you were born in and lived your entire life in will remain a part of the United States, but you are now officially a resident of a new independent homeland called The United States Territorial Possession of Mexico (USTPM). It is shown to you on a map and you've never even been there.  Because you are no longer a United States citizen, you must pay a substantially increased amount of property taxes for your home

If I'm not an American or a legal resident, I can see why

Now having read this scenario, would you consider the United States in this scenario a democratic government? Would you like to live in such a state?

Yes, for those who are American.  And living there would be dependent on if I could become a legal resident, or more so, if I wanted to

This very thing happens in Israel. Why is it right for them to have such discriminatory policies?

Simple, their existance depends on such.  If these palestinian/mexicans were simply absorbed, their allegience and devotion would not be towards Israel or America.  At the point where there's a majority of such folks, the literal foundation of that country would irreparably be changed, as they would make the decisions for what the country is to become.  Now, you could argue, "if that's the will of the people....?".  I would argue that I'm referencing the culture of the country, the founding documents, what it means to be American/Israeli, not some mish mash of every culture, with no sense of country, outside the one you came from.  That's not what America is, now for that matter, Israel either. 

And FYI, you do realize that most of the surrounding Arab countries won't allow Palestinians to become citizens of their country either, right?