Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

Filibustering.

Re: Filibustering.

Postby shootist » Sun Nov 08, 2015 3:50 pm

Hairyloon wrote:What they do in America is an embarrassment to the species.


I'm always interested to see posts like thin because I wonder how they would translate to other countries. Let's try:


What they do in Pakistan is an embarrassment to the species.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3468
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Filibustering.

Postby Hairyloon » Sun Nov 08, 2015 6:15 pm

shootist wrote:
Hairyloon wrote:What they do in America is an embarrassment to the species.


I'm always interested to see posts like thin because I wonder how they would translate to other countries. Let's try:


What they do in Pakistan is an embarrassment to the species.

Context is everything. Some of what they do in Pakistan is quite likely to be an embarrassment to the species, but we were talking about systems of governance and I would not pretend to know enough about how they do it in Pakistan to be able to comment.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9885
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Filibustering.

Postby Slartibartfast » Sun Nov 08, 2015 8:38 pm

Hairyloon wrote:Why should we want to involve parliament? Talking to them about democratic decisions is like talking to a fox about keeping chickens.

Parliament represents the expressed will of the people. There is no other democratic process for national decision-making, excepting when we have a referendum every decade or so.

NB - Who is the "we" in your statement above, HL?
"Judicial tergiversation is not to be encouraged"
User avatar
Slartibartfast
 
Posts: 3745
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 5:06 pm

Re: Filibustering.

Postby Hairyloon » Sun Nov 08, 2015 8:57 pm

Slartibartfast wrote:There is no other democratic process for national decision-making...

Who chooses the winners in "X-Factor"? A telephone vote is a flawed democratic process, but it is a democratic process nonetheless.

But in the context of OP, what is the decision that you think needs to be made?
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9885
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Filibustering.

Postby Slartibartfast » Mon Nov 09, 2015 7:23 am

Hairyloon wrote:Who chooses the winners in "X-Factor"? A telephone vote is a flawed democratic process, but it is a democratic process nonetheless.


Not democratic at all. Every vote costs a fee, and repeat voting is encouraged. Iagine if our government was thus elected.
"Judicial tergiversation is not to be encouraged"
User avatar
Slartibartfast
 
Posts: 3745
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 5:06 pm

Re: Filibustering.

Postby Hairyloon » Mon Nov 09, 2015 9:34 am

Slartibartfast wrote:
Hairyloon wrote:Who chooses the winners in "X-Factor"? A telephone vote is a flawed democratic process, but it is a democratic process nonetheless.


Not democratic at all. Every vote costs a fee, and repeat voting is encouraged. Iagine if our government was thus elected.

Nobody suggested that as a means of choosing the government, but one man one vote is not the only model of democracy.
If a company holds a shareholder vote, then the vote may be weighted by the number of shares held: does that make them undemocratic? If it does, then what is the word to describe that kind of decision making?

But as usual, you avoid the significant point:
Hairyloon wrote:But in the context of OP, what is the decision that you think needs to be made?
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9885
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Filibustering.

Postby atticus » Mon Nov 09, 2015 9:44 am

H L Mencken wrote:Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19434
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Filibustering.

Postby atticus » Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:12 am

Hairyloon wrote:But as usual, you avoid the significant point:
You asked a question. Mr Bartfast answered it.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19434
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Filibustering.

Postby Hairyloon » Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:33 am

atticus wrote:
Hairyloon wrote:But as usual, you avoid the significant point:
You asked a question. Mr Bartfast answered it.

No.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9885
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Filibustering.

Postby atticus » Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:42 am

Hairyloon wrote:
atticus wrote:
Hairyloon wrote:But as usual, you avoid the significant point:
You asked a question. Mr Bartfast answered it.

No.

Yes.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19434
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

PreviousNext

Return to Constitutional Law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest