Tuesday, June 26, 2012

To All of Those Who Said that the Muslim Brotherhood Would Never Come to Power in Egypt

What say you now?

25 comments:

Ema Nymton said...

.

Democracy works. The voice of the people, rules.

Do you have a problem with democracy?

Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.

Rational Nation USA said...

Yes, as we all should.

Democracy, without the protection of the rule of law, and a bill of rights such the USA has can, and usually will result in the suppression of individual rights, and lead to oppression of a significant share of the people.

Democracy without such protections is nothing more than oppression of the minority by the majority. In other words, to make a simple illustration... 501 people could determine law and the suppress the individual human rights of 499. In Islam, under Sharia Law this is a clear and present danger.

But, for the teary eyed bleeding heart liberals this is generally of little concern because they simply do not take the time, nor expend the mental energy to grasp the philosophy our founders understood so well.

Now, as to Egypt... It IS THERE BUSINESS. If they wish to live in the hell hole the country is likely to become under the Muslim Brotherhood so be it.

Rational Nation USA said...

We are indeed fortunate in the USA to have not a democracy but rather a democratic republic.

And to live by the rule of law, rather than by whim and superstition.

w-dervish said...

Ema Nymton usually gets it right... but this time I have to disagree. I heard that both candidates were not liked.

But the Muslim Brotherhood president may be president in name only. I heard the military made some changes that makes the presidency little more than a ceremonial position.

No doubt the crazies will be fearmongering heavily in light of this though. People like Glenn Beck and (possibly) Will Hart (can't quite tell from this short post).

dmarks said...

Ema: Yes, I do. When democracy votes to oppress and deny rights, I have a major problem with it. When this happens, democracy does not 'work', but has instead failed compltely.

Human rights come first, democracy second.

w-dervish said...

Sorry, dmarks, but I can't let you get away with that fib. In your world money comes first. If you have enough money you can buy enough ads to get someone elected that opposes certain human rights. You've been quite clear that spending money on ads is the most important "right" there is.

dmarks said...

You are clearly joking. There is no evidence of what you say and extrapolate out of imagination. I have never said that the right to speak out on political issues is the most important right (and it is a real right). It is just one of many important rights.

w-dervish said...

I am not "joking" at all. There is no doubt at all that this "right" is the most important "right" in your world. Because those with money can use that money to influence our political system and thus every other right we have. Only someone who is ignorant in the EXTREME would deny this fact.

dmarks said...

'Ignorant in the extreme' fits you. It is a fact that under the First Amendment, there is nothing to allow censoring someone because they are the type of rich man/woman you do not like. Absolutely nothing.

And yes there are many other rights at least as important as the one I actually defend (free speech). But it is free speech (not money) that is important.

Rational Nation USA said...

dmarks - you simply must forgive wd as he speaks from emotion rather than anything substantive on this.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

It just seems that whenever a fundamentalist regime takes over one of these predominantly Muslim countries, they brutalize their citizens and treat the women especially nasty. If wd wants to consider this opinion fear-mongering I really do not give a shit.............I think that then candidate Obama pointed it out best when he said that democracy is more than simply elections. It's also free speech, a free press, a viable criminal justice system, etc. (this, though I also agree with Les when he stated that this is essentially their, the Egyptian people's, crazy show, not ours).

w-dervish said...

dmarks: It is a fact that under the First Amendment, there is nothing to allow censoring someone because they are the type of rich man/woman you do not like. Absolutely nothing.

It isn't a "fact". If it were as clear cut as you make it out to be how do you explain the McCain-Feingold campain finance legislation? Obviously McCain and Feingold disagree with you, as did every Congressperson who voted for the bill. This legislation would still be in place if not for 5 Conservative judges who wrongly (and for partisan reasons) misinterperted the First Amendment. The First Amendment applies to individuals only. Sorry dmarks, but you really have no clue (which is usually the case).

dmarks: But it is free speech (not money) that is important.

Bullshit. You have to have the money first before you can buy the speech. Without the money your speech rights are significantly less. It's undemocratic.

"Rational" Nation: you simply must forgive wd as he speaks from emotion rather than anything substantive on this.

Bullshit again. The bipartisan McCain-Feingold legislation was passed by Congress and signed into law by president bush! This is a substantive fact.

Will: If wd wants to consider this opinion fear-mongering I really do not give a shit.

I don't disagree with your concerns Will, but the Muslim Brotherhood president's power is going to be seriously limited, as I pointed out (and you ignored). You can look at the facts, or you can jump on the Glenn Beck crazy train. Do whichever you want, because I really don't give a shit.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I doubt that the Muslim Brotherhood will take too kindly to the military trying to hang on to power and I wouldn't be one bit surprised if there isn't at some point either a civil war or a proxy war with the Iranians knee-deep in involvement in it. And, no, that isn't Mr. Glenn Beck's opinion (since when has he become relevant again?), it's mine.

dmarks said...

"Obviously McCain and Feingold disagree with you"

McCain-Feingold made it a crime to criticize those in power during certain months of the year. Eventaully, the Constitutioncaught up with it.

"Bullshit. You have to have the money first before you can buy the speech. Without the money your speech rights are significantly less. It's undemocratic."

Of course. Free speech isn't supposed to be democratic (controlled by a democratic state). It is a right of every person. Sorry, I strongly reject your assertion that free speech rights are the sole domain of the government.

Will: WD is obsessing on Beck for some reason. He's relevant to no-one. It is probably part of his one-man failed effort to make partisan hay out of this. It's not working at all.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

He does have this strange tendency to conflate people, doesn't he?

Ema Nymton said...

.

"If they wish to live in the hell hole the country is likely to become under the Muslim Brotherhood so be it."

Democracy is democracy. The voters choose to be a part of whatever they are voting on.

Egypt is a functioning Middle-East democracy no matter what _you_ say. So is Turkey. The voters decide for themselves.

You seem to be living a delusion that somehow the greed, grief, and graft of the USA corrupt political system are not a hell-hole (you know, 'people are subservient to corporations') and should be an example for others. Surprise; it ain't.

Democracy is working no matter what you wish to say about those who practice it.

Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.

dmarks said...

When democracy elects terrorists, it fails. And is not working no matter how much you focus on the mechanics of process and ignore what happens. And even here you choose to ignore the parts of the process that failed, including Muslim Brotherhood thugs assaulting and threatening female voters.

As for 'people are subservient to corporations' in the US that is a paranoid conspiracy theory.

Rational Nation USA said...

Delusional Emma? I'll say no more.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Again, Emma, democracy is more than simply elections. It also involves freedom of speech, a free press, a workable criminal justice system, a constitutional framework, etc.. The fact that the Egyptians apparently elected a regime that thinks women are chattel should be especially troubling to you.

dmarks said...

As for the Muslim Brotherhood,

"First they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the women,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a woman...."

Will, do you think that such a regime being democratically elected makes any of this better somehow?

w-dervish said...

Kinda reminds me of how the bush regime was "elected". It didn't make any of his illegal wars any more legal. Or any of them any less war criminals.

Also kinda reminds me of the war on women the Republicans are currently waging... trying to take away women's reproductive rights. I oppose treating women like chattel no matter who does it... the Muslim Brotherhood or Republicans.

Rusty Shackelford said...

Except when Ed Schultz does it.

w-dervish said...

You failed utterly to prove your allegations against Mr. Schultz.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

wd, comparing Republicans to the Muslim Brotherhood (in your case) or the Taliban (in Mr. Grayson's case) is pure hyperbole and not even remotely helpful.

w-dervish said...

Sure, it's hyperbole, but there is also truth. They all want to control women. The Taliban and Muslim Brotherhood much more so than Republicans, but still they all seek to control women to some extent. The comparrison points this out, and therefore IMO it is very helpful in opening people's eyes.