Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You must have been referring to the Racist Book of Marc (for Dummies)
You wrote the book on dhummitude.
You must have been referring to the Racist Book of Marc (for Dummies)
You wrote the book on dhummitude.
Analysis of debate with Marc:
Sources: zero
Facts: zero
Presentation: poor
Linguistic abilities: zero
Powers of persuasion: humerous
Creativity and analytical skills: marginal
Over-reliance on unsupported concepts (dummy, peabrain etc): high
Conclusion:
[/IMG]
Originally posted by Coyote
How can a country be a democracy when it has de facto control over territories that have say in that control.
How can a country be a democracy when different ethnic groups have different sets of rights in terms of citizenship, land ownership, schooling, building permits and the ability to expand their villages, etc etc.
The answer is - it CAN be a democracy, and is - it's just not what we think of and what we (the west) strive for - a society that is free, open, with equal rights for all groups.
José;1934983 said:Originally posted by Coyote
How can a country be a democracy when it has de facto control over territories that have say in that control.
How can a country be a democracy when different ethnic groups have different sets of rights in terms of citizenship, land ownership, schooling, building permits and the ability to expand their villages, etc etc.
The answer is - it CAN be a democracy, and is - it's just not what we think of and what we (the west) strive for - a society that is free, open, with equal rights for all groups.
Nope. The right answer is:
The ancient city-state of Athens, the United States pre-1960's, Nazi Germany, South Africa under Apartheid and the state of Israel did/does not meet the definition of the democratic state formulated by political science which includes all the points you cited among others.
Contrary to popular belief, all those states cited above were/is ethnocratic states based on the AUTHORITARIAN, DICTATORIAL political supression of the undesired ethnicity.
Pay attention to this definition of dictatorship:
Dictatorship is a form of government that has the power to govern without consent of those being governed.
Notice that the definition does not apply ONLY to those states that exclude the totality of its population from the electoral process.
The jewish racial dictatorship governs and controls Western and Eastern Palestine respectively against the wishes of virtually all Palestinians both Israeli citizens (who repeatedly ask for the creation of a unitary democratic state comprising the entire region of Palestine) and those living in the territories and around the world.
So Israel fits the definition above to a tee.
Originally posted by RetiredGySgt
Ohh Look another post by one of the board anti-semites.
José;1935015 said:Originally posted by RetiredGySgt
Ohh Look another post by one of the board anti-semites.
RetiredGySgt's musings on Israel:
"If I was an Israeli Jew I would have to travel abroad to marry my Filipina wife because my country would consider the woman I love a dirty goyim.
But since I am a brainless bot who would passionately support Nazi Germany in a heartbeat if it happened to be a US ally in WWII I will look the other way and willfully ignore the israeli intitutionalized racism against the native people of Palestine."
José;1934983 said:Originally posted by Coyote
How can a country be a democracy when it has de facto control over territories that have say in that control.
How can a country be a democracy when different ethnic groups have different sets of rights in terms of citizenship, land ownership, schooling, building permits and the ability to expand their villages, etc etc.
The answer is - it CAN be a democracy, and is - it's just not what we think of and what we (the west) strive for - a society that is free, open, with equal rights for all groups.
Nope. The right answer is:
The ancient city-state of Athens, the United States pre-1960's, Nazi Germany, South Africa under Apartheid and the state of Israel did/does not meet the definition of the democratic state formulated by political science which includes all the points you cited among others.
Contrary to popular belief, all those states cited above were/is ethnocratic states based on the AUTHORITARIAN, DICTATORIAL political supression of the undesired ethnicity.
Pay attention to this definition of dictatorship:
Dictatorship is a form of government that has the power to govern without consent of those being governed.
Notice that the definition does not apply ONLY to those states that exclude the totality of its population from the electoral process.
Whether the whole population or just a specific ethnic group is subjected to political disenfranchisement is IRRELEVANT to the authoritarian, dictatorial nature of the state.
The jewish racial dictatorship governs and controls Western and Eastern Palestine respectively against the wishes of virtually all Palestinians both Israeli citizens (who repeatedly call for the creation of a unitary democratic state comprising the entire region of Palestine) and those living in the territories and around the world.
So Israel fits the definition above to a tee.
José;1934983 said:Originally posted by Coyote
How can a country be a democracy when it has de facto control over territories that have say in that control.
How can a country be a democracy when different ethnic groups have different sets of rights in terms of citizenship, land ownership, schooling, building permits and the ability to expand their villages, etc etc.
The answer is - it CAN be a democracy, and is - it's just not what we think of and what we (the west) strive for - a society that is free, open, with equal rights for all groups.
Nope. The right answer is:
The ancient city-state of Athens, the United States pre-1960's, Nazi Germany, South Africa under Apartheid and the state of Israel did/does not meet the definition of the democratic state formulated by political science which includes all the points you cited among others.
Contrary to popular belief, all those states cited above were/is ethnocratic states based on the AUTHORITARIAN, DICTATORIAL political supression of the undesired ethnicity.
Pay attention to this definition of dictatorship:
Dictatorship is a form of government that has the power to govern without consent of those being governed.
Notice that the definition does not apply ONLY to those states that exclude the totality of its population from the electoral process.
Whether the whole population or just a specific ethnic group is subjected to political disenfranchisement is IRRELEVANT to the authoritarian, dictatorial nature of the state.
The jewish racial dictatorship governs and controls Western and Eastern Palestine respectively against the wishes of virtually all Palestinians both Israeli citizens (who repeatedly call for the creation of a unitary democratic state comprising the entire region of Palestine) and those living in the territories and around the world.
So Israel fits the definition above to a tee.
Sometimes what may look like a democracy is a dictatorship. If we look at Haiti, for example, we will see a country whose president was taken out of his country on a US plane at the point of a gun. Then they had an "election" for the people to vote in a new leader.
OK, so they are going to democratically elect a new leader. The problem is that the president's party, Lavalas, that would win hands down was banned from running by our interim government. Could you call that a democracy?
José;1934983 said:Nope. The right answer is:
The ancient city-state of Athens, the United States pre-1960's, Nazi Germany, South Africa under Apartheid and the state of Israel did/does not meet the definition of the democratic state formulated by political science which includes all the points you cited among others.
Contrary to popular belief, all those states cited above were/is ethnocratic states based on the AUTHORITARIAN, DICTATORIAL political supression of the undesired ethnicity.
Pay attention to this definition of dictatorship:
Dictatorship is a form of government that has the power to govern without consent of those being governed.
Notice that the definition does not apply ONLY to those states that exclude the totality of its population from the electoral process.
Whether the whole population or just a specific ethnic group is subjected to political disenfranchisement is IRRELEVANT to the authoritarian, dictatorial nature of the state.
The jewish racial dictatorship governs and controls Western and Eastern Palestine respectively against the wishes of virtually all Palestinians both Israeli citizens (who repeatedly call for the creation of a unitary democratic state comprising the entire region of Palestine) and those living in the territories and around the world.
So Israel fits the definition above to a tee.
Sometimes what may look like a democracy is a dictatorship. If we look at Haiti, for example, we will see a country whose president was taken out of his country on a US plane at the point of a gun. Then they had an "election" for the people to vote in a new leader.
OK, so they are going to democratically elect a new leader. The problem is that the president's party, Lavalas, that would win hands down was banned from running by our interim government. Could you call that a democracy?
Moron, the Haiti situation was made by a despot with an armed mob to support him. Of course his party would win because his party had the ability to terrorize most everyone to elect him.
Sometimes what may look like a democracy is a dictatorship. If we look at Haiti, for example, we will see a country whose president was taken out of his country on a US plane at the point of a gun. Then they had an "election" for the people to vote in a new leader.
OK, so they are going to democratically elect a new leader. The problem is that the president's party, Lavalas, that would win hands down was banned from running by our interim government. Could you call that a democracy?
Moron, the Haiti situation was made by a despot with an armed mob to support him. Of course his party would win because his party had the ability to terrorize most everyone to elect him.
Gee, that is not what I heard. What is your source?
Moron, the Haiti situation was made by a despot with an armed mob to support him. Of course his party would win because his party had the ability to terrorize most everyone to elect him.
Gee, that is not what I heard. What is your source?
Ohh so we did not need to send in peacekeeping forces did we? All those troops went to Haiti for a vacation? We tried an Army Lt for deserting his post cause he went to a police Station to save a kid cause he was a despot himself? We kicked the Marines out of Peacekeeping cause they got into to many fights with peace loving armed police?
Originally Posted by RetiredGySgt
That is a no no dumb ass, no bringing family into discussions.
Originally Posted by P F Tinmore
Sometimes what may look like a democracy is a dictatorship. If we look at Haiti, for example, we will see a country whose president was taken out of his country on a US plane at the point of a gun. Then they had an "election" for the people to vote in a new leader.
OK, so they are going to democratically elect a new leader. The problem is that the president's party, Lavalas, that would win hands down was banned from running by our interim government. Could you call that a democracy?
José;1935129 said:The situation you described in Haiti reminded me of the banning of two israeli arab political parties on the grounds they "questioned the jewish character of the state of Israel".
The decision was later overturned by Israel's Supreme Court but only because palestinian political parties do not represent any serious threat to the "jewish character" of Israel.
José;1935129 said:The situation you described in Haiti reminded me of the banning of two israeli arab political parties on the grounds they "questioned the jewish character of the state of Israel".
The decision was later overturned by Israel's Supreme Court but only because palestinian political parties do not represent any serious threat to the "jewish character" of Israel.
How many Arab and Muslim countries have Jewish political parties or even have Jews in their governments? Where can we find you protesting that situation, dummy?
José;1935129 said:The situation you described in Haiti reminded me of the banning of two israeli arab political parties on the grounds they "questioned the jewish character of the state of Israel".
The decision was later overturned by Israel's Supreme Court but only because palestinian political parties do not represent any serious threat to the "jewish character" of Israel.
How many Arab and Muslim countries have Jewish political parties or even have Jews in their governments? Where can we find you protesting that situation, dummy?
Palestine has one appointed and Iran has one (maybe two) elected. There is one Jewish town in Palestine and their local officials are probably Jews.
Palestine has one appointed and Iran has one (maybe two) elected. There is one Jewish town in Palestine and their local officials are probably Jews.
Um, there is one Jewish state in Palestine, retard. Palestine is not a country, moron.
