- Joined
- Jan 31, 2010
- Messages
- 31,645
- Reaction score
- 7,598
- Location
- Canada, Costa Rica
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
:roll:
He's from Barcelona.
:roll:
It's nice how every once in a while, you demonstrate that when you comment on the United States, you have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about
So you deny that the religious right and the GOP are not against homosexuals and their rights, against abortion and for limiting womens rights? You deny that the religious right (read evangelicals) have called other Christian sects as "not Christian" and have talked hatefully against other religions? You deny that the GOP has a history of targeting minorities? Do you deny that the GOP has a history of massive nepotism despite claiming to fight it?
All these are what Morsi believes and has done.
Do you deny that the religious Right do not like Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood allies?
Look, Pete, let's be honest. Your statement was way off, and completely forgot that year when the American Right was not pleased with Arab Spring, because of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Now, if you merely wanted to look like a hack, but have a very ever so slight grain of truth, you could have said that Morsi perhaps ought to be considered a hero for establishing a more theocratic state in a previously secular one. You could have even suggested that their Islamophobic viewpoints prohibit them from seeing how much they have in common (although, this too would be an exaggeration). But you didn't.
Again, you are wrong. Legitimacy is not a temporal term in office; it can be lost after an election due to a breakage of the social contract, as is the case in this situation. As I said earlier, when Morsi granted himself unlimited power to “protect” the nation and decreed that his actions were above judicial review, he usurped more power than was granted to him, thereby violating his legitimacy by breaking his social contract with the people.You don't get to toss out elections just because you don't like the results and still claim to be supporting legitimate representative government. In representative governments, "legitimacy" is conferred by elections, not by mobs and not by the military.
John Locke, Second Treatise, §§ 227In both the forementioned Cases, when either the Legislative is changed, or the Legislators act contrary to the end for which they were constituted; those who are guilty are guilty of Rebellion. For if any one by force takes away the establish'd Legislative of any Society, and the Laws by them made pursuant to their trust, he thereby takes away the Umpirage, which every one had consented to, for a peaceable decision of all their Controversies, and a bar to the state of War amongst them. They, who remove, or change the Legislative, take away this decisive power, which no Body can have, but by the appointment and consent of the People; and so destroying the Authority, which the People did, and no Body else can set up, and introducing a Power, which the People hath not authoriz'd, they actually introduce a state of War, which is that of Force without Authority: And thus by removing the Legislative establish'd by the Society (in whose decisions the People acquiesced and united, as to that of their own will) they unty the Knot, and expose the People a new to the state of War. And if those, who by force take away the Legislative, are Rebels, the Legislators themselves, as has been shewn, can be no less esteemed so; when they, who were set up for the protection, and preservation of the People, their Liberties and Properties, shall by force invade, and indeavour to take them away; and so they putting themselves into a state of War with those, who made them the Protectors and Guardians of their Peace, are properly, and with the greatest aggravation, Rebellantes Rebels.
First, I have not said Obama is an authoritarian. I believe he, as have most presidents, asserts powers not constitutionally granted to him. There's a big difference.You have said that Obama is authoritarian. I tend to agree - that is his tendency. That fact plus the Tea Party protests would not have legitimized the Marine Corps launching a coup and declaring themselves the selector of American political leadership.
I choose "A: The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces."But here's a fun couple of questions for you to ponder:
1. Who is really in charge of Egypt right now?
A: The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces.
B: El Baradi, who apparently is the spokesman of the Tamarod movement, but who appears to be exercising zero power.
C: The pupped that the SCAF just finished installing as interem president, and whom it can remove at will.
I choose "A: Authoritarian."If, however, you chose (A)...
2. Which do Military's tend to be?
A: Authoritarian.
B: Freedom loving hippies who wouldn't want to impose on anyone.
This is where we greatly differ, the rule of law is the people, as it is the people that make the laws and it's those same people that can change the laws.
And to think the people of Egypt are to surrender to a dictator because he was elected in good faith, yet the people find the person they elected was a sham. They have every right to oust his ass.
First you say "they are unlikely to be able to wrest control of the economy from a now-empowered military, clue, under Morsi they didn't have an economy. So it sure as hell can't get any worse.
Another item you are missing, under Morsi there would be no more elections. Yeah, Morsi makes his own laws and so now you expect the people to bow to his new laws.
And maybe post up all those buildings burning and people killed
Remember we had our own civil war and how many people died in that war.
Through the legal process, yes. That actually requires either the consent of the people or of their legitimately selected representatives. Through mob action, no. You don't get to overturn the actual legally expressed will of the people, which is an election by burning down some buildings and killing some of the Presidents' political supporters.
They certainly do. That process is called "an election", and the next one was already scheduled.
if Mursi had actually attempted to do away with follow-on elections, then he would have been revolting against the Constitution and representative government, and a forceful replacement of him would have been justified.
Since he didn't, your case has no legs.
Pardon me but this sounds rather naïve considering Morsi focused on the consolidation of his, and the Muslim Brotherhood’s, power rather than the more pressing issues he claimed he would deal with. If he hadn’t been working so hard to consolidate his permanent and uncontestable authoritarian rule, I’d probably agree with you but you continue to deny the facts.
Let me see if I understand your position on this. It sounds to me like you are saying that elections are all that matter when it comes to legitimacy or illegitimacy. Would this be a correct interpretation of your views? North Korea holds elections every five years so according to your standard, if I understand it correctly, North Korea is a democracy?
I think you have been avoiding my posts because you have no answers.
But the US has had 240 years od Democracy with many bumps along the way, including a Civil War, and now it appears that the DOJ may have been working with the IRS and FBI. Democracy is a messy business, for sure, and it seems to me that the people were right to fight the problems they face against the Muslim Brotherhood before they became entrenched as precedence. They are, as Barney Fife might say, nipping it in the bud.
Nope, Not too smart are you? For future reference, you might want to think twice about challenging me because you don't get to call me out and then pretend you forgot you called me out. Do your homework lazy ass. I just schooled you on political science and you ran away like a scared little girl.:lol: I'm guessing this is the one you got all butt-hurt and messaged me about? Okay, flex, just for you :
I agree with your hypothetical as written but if we were to modify your hypothetical to make it better represent the events that have actually transpired in Egypt, I would remain consistent in my views. If, theoretically, Obama were to push through amendments to the constitution without following the proper ratification process, followed by granting himself unlimited powers to protect the nation and rebuffed the Supreme Court of the United States when it ruled that his action were unconstitutional, issuing a decree that his power was beyond review by the courts, then yes, I would consider action by the military to remove him from office as legitimate. The fact that he was elected wouldn’t matter at this point because his legitimacy would be invalidated, having broken the social contract with the people.
cpwill said:1. Who is really in charge of Egypt right now?
A: The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces.
B: El Baradi, who apparently is the spokesman of the Tamarod movement, but who appears to be exercising zero power.
C: The pupped that the SCAF just finished installing as interem president, and whom it can remove at will.
I choose "A: The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces."
cpwill said:Which do Military's tend to be?
A: Authoritarian.
B: Freedom loving hippies who wouldn't want to impose on anyone.
I choose "A: Authoritarian."
While this was indeed a fun game, it’s irrelevance in this case is rather glaring due to the omission of the following relevant facts:
Egypt’s military removed Mubarak from power and facilitated the transition to a new and democratically elected government. In Egypt’s case, the military has, and is, acting as a branch of government to assure there are checks and balances that can’t be waived/rebuffed by an executive like Morsi. The military had never completely let go of its ability to check the executive branch but it was trying to allow the people to choose their own way. When Morsi began to establish himself as an authoritarian that couldn’t be removed in the future, and the people finally said they’d had enough with 2-3 million taking to the streets (that's not a mob), the military decided to step in to preserve the country and prevent a civil war. It is preparing to facilitate the transition to a newly elected government. Honestly, I’m very impressed with how Egypt’s military has conducted itself.
You forget that the difference between the US right and Morsi are very small. Both believe in many of the same things and act in the same way. Hence Morsi was a hero to the radical religious right in the US, because he did what they have not (as of yet) been able to do.. push a religious based government through favoring themselves and putting other religions and sects within their own at a massive disadvantage.
:lol: I'm guessing this is the one you got all butt-hurt and messaged me about? Okay, flex, just for you :
I don't deny Morsi was authoritarian nor do I deny that he was abusive of his power. Pointing out that mobs and junta's do not confer representative legitimacy is hardly a defense of every idiot politician who manages to win more votes than the other guys. Mind you, if you want Egypt to be able to move forward at this point, you are almost going to need a politician willing and able to do so, as only a powerful presidency would be able to stand up to the military. That doesn't excuse Morsi's actions, but it does place them in the proper, tragic, light. There isn't really a James Madison / George Washington / John Marshall option in Egypt. Your options are: A) a democratically elected MB or B) non-democratically elected power bases from the Mubarak era. C) Liberal Democracy isn't really on the menu at this point. Those who would support it are too few and too fractured to form a base for political power.
No and that is an excellent qualifier - the elections must be free and fair, which, again, Egypts' were. Had the MB abused the next set of elections to make them not free and fair - or had they gone the route of Hamas in Palestine and simply neglected to have any, then your argument here would have more merit. However, they did not do that.
I think you are being entertainingly narcissistic You may find this hard to believe, but approximately zero percent of my self image revolves around you.
Not necessarily so CPW.....when groups of the MB looked to go with someone who was in the MB that wasn't Rank. Who do you think they were told to vote for? Much of this is due to the people knowing that the last election wasn't fair. Was taken off course by the MB.
The MB in Egypt has proven exactly what they are.....once they decided to go after Christians and Non Identifying Arabs. This isn't about them standing for Democracy.
Moreover to let them continue on with whatever version of Democracy is within their own minds.....isn't the way to go either. As they will seek to usurp all meaning of Democracy from the Western Civilized World. To mock, breakdown, and use its own set of tools to break down itself.
The MB has stated there will be No negotiations. That they will not accept nor tolerate. Such words from those not strong enuff to back the play. Do you think the MB should be making threats and committing purposeful attacks upon those that are Innocent? Their fight is with the Egyptian Military. Whom they think they can take on. Not unarmed people who can't fight back.
So again.....Democracy and or any rule of Law. Would be at threat....from the MB. Do you think that the MB should be allowed to come out of its death-throes?
Is it possible for us to support Egypt and help it succeed but not support the MB?
Nope, Not too smart are you? For future reference, you might want to think twice about challenging me because you don't get to call me out and then pretend you forgot you called me out. Do your homework lazy ass. I just schooled you on political science and you ran away like a scared little girl.
Review my responses and answer in kind or check out as a coward who has no game!
You called me out and then ran away. I'm calling you out because you called me out and then decided it was easier to post BS to another thread rather than deal with the reality my question and answer forced you into. I call you a coward if you call me out on an issue and choose to ignore my response.
Not so much in EgyptI was of the understanding Obama was supposed to have the world love us again.
Doug Ross @ Journal: 15 Photos From the Tahrir Square Protests You'll Never See In Legacy Media. #Egypt #Morsi #Obama
If everybody loves you, you're not doing something right.
Well.....looks like some of the crisis is being solved.
Muslim Brotherhood supporters face murder, terrorism probe: state media.....
Egyptian prosecutors have placed 250 Muslim Brotherhood supporters under investigation for murder, attempted murder and terrorism, the state MENA news agency said on Saturday.
Police arrested more than 1,000 Brotherhood sympathizers in the wake of clashes on Friday that pitted followers of deposed Islamist President Mohamed Mursi against the security forces.....snip~
Muslim Brotherhood supporters face murder, terrorism probe: state media
The sympathizers.....wonder how many of them are AQ or AQ likes, huh? :doh Egypt needs to impose the ban on them again. But this time rather than let them stick around and continue to grow. They need to shut them down completely. Including all those sympathizers that needs some tissues for those issues.
None should have any sympathy for these guys.