"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
et...

"Harry" wrote in message
...
On 3/1/10 7:59 PM, Bruce wrote:
On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 15:13:37 -0500,
wrote:

On 3/1/10 1:47 PM, Capt. JG wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 18:20:42 -0800, Stephen Trapani
wrote:

Larry wrote:
"Capt. wrote in
easolutions:

Well, if that were all it was, I wouldn't have an argument, but
the
context of his comment (all his previous and continuing diatribes
about Zionism, etc.) makes that a weak argument. The words
themselves
mean little, but the context of them (especially of the particular
speaker - any speaker) are highly important to that understanding.



Without Zionism, America wouldn't be in the ****ty position it is
in
today, fighting Israel's wars for them.

Sure they would. America is in the position of having to defend
numerous
democracies against numerous different tyrannies. Israel is only one
of
many. One of the best, but one of many.

Iraqis and Afghans aren't near the threat to America that the now-
nuclear-weapon-carrying-submarined Zionist state is. Every one of
you
Americans are now in range of Israeli nuclear weapons, thanks to
the
Germans who sold them 5 submarines for their delivery, any place on
the
planet.

Woops. Slipping into kook mode again. Real democracies have never
fought
significant wars against each other and probably never will.

Stephen

Weren't both the United States (USA) and the Confederated States of
America (CSA) democracies? and didn't they fight a war? Wasn't it
significant?

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Do you really consider the CSA a legitimate democracy in the sense
that
_all_ it's people were represented? Certainly, the blacks weren't.

I don't think Lincoln did.



The confederacy was an abomination, not a country.

Certainly the CSA was a legitimate in 1861 as the Continental Congress
was in 1775.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Nope.

Women weren't granted the right to vote until 1920. Does this then mean
that
the United States was not a legitimate democracy until that date? Or were
women "represented" by the vote of some man who was appointed their
"guardian"? And if the latter, would not the same apply to those bound by
slavery also?

Excellent point! For it's time, it would have been considered legitimate. At
least around the turn of the century. The Greeks started the silly business,
there were some in the Middle East and elsewhere in the Middle Ages, and it
went on from there.

Throughout history, "Democracy" has rarely meant that ALL the people had a
vote. This is not intended as an indictment of democracy, nor to support
the
idea that some people should be disenfranchised, but simply to point out a
very basic fact.

Very true.

Based upon the very principles stated in the Declaration of Independence,
the Confederate States of America was a separate and sovereign nation (or
Confederation of Sovereign States) immediately upon declaring their status
as a separate nation. Whether or not one approves of their form of
government is irrelevent to the discussion. It is instructive to note,
however, that states left the Union and joined the Confederacy by VOTING
to
do so. Pretty democratic if you ask me.

Well, that's a tricky point... does voting in and of itself define a
democracy? Take a limiting case... How about three people getting together
and voting on murdering someone? Does that make their group a democracy?

The first sentence here is a working definition I suppose, but it also seems
limited somehow... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

And no, I am NOT defending slavery, segregation, racism, separatism or
anything of the kind.

KLC Lewis

I don't know anyone in Wisconson who defends slavery, segregation (perhaps
related to cheese), racism, separatism (see cheese reference)....

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com