Mubarak not stepping down till September

Tefal said:
and if the majority want all the Muslims hung in Trafalgar square?
Click to expand...

How predictable, come on you can try better than that.

There's still this thing called the law not to mention morality, a system of government like this would be based on higher ideals, like science, logic and reason, openness and transparency, with many checks and balances, people will get all the information, pros and cons, in both basic and detailed levels of understanding so they can make informed choices.
 
Tefal said:
when it comes down to it the average police officer doesn't want to smash a bunch of 17 year olds faces in to protect an insured building?
Click to expand...

which is a shame because some 17 year olds need a damn could smash to the face.

Also I think it was by design that the Met allowed the carnage to occur. I think the government knew they were in for a rough time and by allowing this group of student protesters to bring carnage upon London they would soon lose the public sympathy for their cause and more people would be backing the proposed government changes to fees.

Looks like it worked from where I am sat.
 
Radiation said:
I think governments and the system runs too slow, if a majority of people want something then governments should do exactly as they say, though i suspect the slow rate of change is no accident, its a way of hindering or even stopping real progress, the internet has shown how with increased communication and interconnectedness things can change quickly if people want, so its about time everyone had true democracy, people shouldn't vote for leaders they should vote on issues and really change things, everything can be improved and optimized if only people were given the chance.
Click to expand...

If you think that the long term strategies and policies of a nation can be decided with internet polls where anyone can vote regardless of their even showing the slightest proof they know what they are talking about then i suggest need to understand more about organisations are managed.
 
Stolly said:
If you think that the long term strategies and policies of a nation can be decided with internet polls where anyone can vote regardless of their even showing the slightest proof they know what they are talking about then i suggest need to understand more about organisations are managed.
Click to expand...

Im thinking of something a bit more advanced than that.
 
cheets64 said:
Rubbish, I presume you think the poll tax riots where for the lulz, never ever underestimate the people of a country, look at the student riots, how the **** did the MET let students over run them, people bang on about politics, so what, they are not the ones on the front line, it means nothing when people have had enough, read about the Peasants' Revolt.

Mubarak days are numbered
Click to expand...

I wasn't going to bother getting involved in this but oh well. I'm well aware of what happened in the Peasant's Revolt and I think it would actually be a lot more accurate to compare this situation to Le Jacquerie, where this will end up with protests being violently suppressed.

Don't presume to lecture me on the 'power of the people' when the examples you site are not only just from Western Europe but also solely from England. In case you are unaware, Egypt actually has its own history, quite different to the rest of North Africa, let alone England. Have you read anything about Gamal Abdel Nasser? Any idea of what the Muslim Brotherhood is like? What about Egypt's relations with Israel over the release of Gilad Shalit, or the Halaib Triangle border dispute with Sudan?

Until you have a clearer understanding of what this destabilisation could mean for regional politics, I would stop hopping up and down with excitement over the 'people's revolution' in Egypt.

But I digress. What sort of transition would you advocate to move forward from here? What do you think the timetable for elections should be?

Also, what type of constitutional reform would you advocate in Egypt once the dust settles? What do you think the effect of Mubarak's changes to six articles of the constitution will be - does that go too far to redress the balance or not far enough (in terms of civil liberties vs counterterror prevention)?

Oh, and as for your statement that 'people bang on about politics, so what, they are not the ones on the front line,' I've just returned from Côte d'Ivoire where I was an election observer with one of the world's largest election observation NGOs, before which I was doing the same thing in Guinea. Having spent 8 months of the last year in Africa, I'd like to know your qualifications for 'being on the front line.'
 
Radiation said:
How predictable, come on you can try better than that.

There's still this thing called the law not to mention morality, a system of government like this would be based on higher ideals, like science, logic and reason, openness and transparency, with many checks and balances, people will get all the information, pros and cons, in both basic and detailed levels of understanding so they can make informed choices.
Click to expand...

what if they vote to change the law?

So basically we've gone from "government should give the majority what it wants instantly" to "errr with in rules set by a tiny minority year that's still fine".



61% of people vote to lower tax to 1%?

Or to raise tax to 90% for anyone on over £100k so they all **** off and companies abandon the uk like the sinking experiment it would be?


Also i love how you think the average person will read and understand all the facts and viewpoints on changing some intricate facet of economic law.
 
He's stepped down:

egypt2h.jpg
 
Tefal said:
what if they vote to change the law?

So basically we've gone from "government should give the majority what it wants instantly" to "errr with in rules set by a tiny minority year that's still fine".

61% of people vote to lower tax to 1%?

Or to raise tax to 90% for anyone on over £100k so they all **** off and companies abandon the uk like the sinking experiment it would be?

Also i love how you think the average person will read and understand all the facts and viewpoints on changing some intricate facet of economic law.
Click to expand...

No if the majority genuinely want something that will negatively affect people then thats their choice and there must be a good reason, there will always be checks and balances but all the laws and stuff can be altered, if however you honestly think the majority will do something so crazy then you can believe what you like, seems like you're making a silly argument though, if anything people will feel empowered to really change things for the better, instead of leaving it all up to the already corrupt and flawed system we have.
 
Radiation said:
No if the majority genuinely want something that will negatively affect people then thats their choice and there must be a good reason, there will always be checks and balances but all the laws and stuff can be altered, if however you honestly think the majority will do something so crazy then you can believe what you like, seems like you're making a silly argument though, if anything people will feel empowered to really change things for the better, instead of leaving it all up to the already corrupt and flawed system we have.
Click to expand...

so switzerland banned mineretis?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom