Turkey - TPTB want a mall in the park

[mashman]

I agree that in the main, only democracies allow protest of that nature, however in this case you have people demonstrating against a democratically elected govt. on some fairly nebulous issues. By definition rioting in the streets is not democratic behavour, and if this protest had been a bunch of Islamic Fundamentalists calling for Sharia Law, we would be condeming it.

Democracy, yes - at it's finest, maybe not...

So once you've voted, that's it, you shouldn't protest anything your govt does? and you shouldn't be allowed to defend yourself if the govt sends out the goon squad to underline the point? Your consistent 2 + 2 = 7 in regards to people's motives that differ from yours is highly amusing.

Now you're sure this time. You don't want to change your mind again?

[mashman]

Closer to home, there is a rumour that the new earthworks at Westgate (at the motorway interchange) are so that the existing Westgate Mall can "shift" over the road to this new area.

Not only does this seem like a complete waste of resources, but I sound like my dad when I say "what the fuck happened to NZ where shopping malls are our new past-time"

Ahhhhh progress. Upgrading because you can. NZers are good little citizens and are consistently praised for their high high quality society, well, because it's better than some other places

[Oscar]

So once you've voted, that's it, you shouldn't protest anything your govt does? and you shouldn't be allowed to defend yourself if the govt sends out the goon squad to underline the point? Your consistent 2 + 2 = 7 in regards to people's motives that differ from yours is highly amusing.

Now you're sure this time. You don't want to change your mind again?

You have a real reading comprehension problem, don't you?

My comments were to do with your stupid comment about "Democracy at its finest", based (as usual) with a limited understanding of only one side of the story. I said: "By definition rioting in the streets is not democratic behavour..", so why do you blather about the right to protest?

Are you not able to distinguish between rioting and demonstration?

Your comment about my inferring people's motives are quite funny, are there no mirrors in your house?

[Oscar]

Ahhhhh progress. Upgrading because you can. NZers are good little citizens and are consistently praised for their high high quality society, well, because it's better than some other places

You wouldn't be jumping to conclusions about the motives of those invovled in this issue, would you?
You know little or nothing about this issue, don't you?

2+2=???

[unstuck]

[Banditbandit]

It is their democratic right to protest.

Good. We agree on that ..

It is not their right to riot, and it certainly isn't clear that they represent a majority.

Only you seem to require that it is a majority .. (see point one)

As I said, I was taking issue with the assumption that the highest form of Democracy invovles a riot,

It was a peaceful protest (a democratic right as you point out) .. then the police turned up with their heavy handed tactics ... who is at fault there? (See blue rider's post - who takes chidren and tents to a riot? )

and that many here who are applauding this would be horrified if the subject was Islamic Fundamentalism.

That may weell be true .. but so what? We are applauding their democratic opposition to a park being destroyed to build a mal - we are not applauding the riot .. which may wel have been provoked by the police ..

Part of the cost of living in a democracy is that sometimes your guy doesn't win, and that you may be at odds with the majority.

And sometime s protest action, and other forms of political action, can change a Government's mind ... has happened in the past ..

BTW - Izzat where you buy your frocks...?

Amusing .. but you raised Contrarian .. I was visually making the same point to you ... that Contrarian is a woman's fashion label ... Not had enough coffee today yet to wake up ???

[Oscar]

Good. We agree on that ..



Only you seem to require that it is a majority .. (see point one)



It was a peaceful protest (a democratic right as you point out) .. then the police turned up with their heavy handed tactics ... who is at fault there? (See blue rider's post - who takes chidren and tents to a riot? )



That may weell be true .. but so what? We are applauding their democratic opposition to a park being destroyed to build a mal - we are not applauding the riot .. which may wel have been provoked by the police ..




And sometime s protest action, and other forms of political action, can change a Government's mind ... has happened in the past ..



Amusing .. but you raised Contrarian .. I was visually making the same point to you ... that Contrarian is a woman's fashion label ... Not had enough coffee today yet to wake up ???

No, I'm bored now.
I agree with everything you're saying (and have not posted anything to contradict it).

I was only making the point that hyperbole rules around here.
Mushman posted a link to a single blog and then made the rather stupid comment about "democracy at its finest".
Link to obscure story + stupid comment is pretty much his MO, and this forum is clogged with it...(although it is certainly his democratic right to talk shit if he desires).

[mashman]

You have a real reading comprehension problem, don't you?

My comments were to do with your stupid comment about "Democracy at its finest", based (as usual) with a limited understanding of only one side of the story. I said: "By definition rioting in the streets is not democratic behavour..", so why do you blather about the right to protest?

Are you not able to distinguish between rioting and demonstration?

Your comment about my inferring people's motives are quite funny, are there no mirrors in your house?

In this case no. You leaped to a conclusion without the courtesy of using any assumptions to back it up... as per usual.

[mashman]

You wouldn't be jumping to conclusions about the motives of those invovled in this issue, would you?
You know little or nothing about this issue, don't you?

2+2=???

bwaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaa, you are a dickhead.

[Oscar]

bwaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaa, you are a dickhead.

A cutting riposte.
Or is it just your way (as usual) of saying “I got nothing”.

[Oscar]

In this case no. You leaped to a conclusion without the courtesy of using any assumptions to back it up... as per usual.

This makes as much sense as most of your stuff - none at all.
I'm not sure why you expect me to make assumptions so as to make your stuff make sense...

You made a stupid comment, and I called you on it.

[Swoop]

I believe that peeps are just sick and tired of being screwed over and over again by those in power.

Turkey has had this government for the last 11 years and are quite sick of the bullshit. Within a year of office they tried to instigate a law against adultery. The law the new "leaders" were copying was the koran's "stone the woman" punishment...
It didn't happen.

The majority of the military leadership (always a force to be reconed with over there) is currently locked up in jails on quite creative charges.

A lot of "intelligensia" are in the jails as well.

The people are unhappy for a whole raft of reasons.

[mashman]

This makes as much sense as most of your stuff - none at all.
I'm not sure why you expect me to make assumptions so as to make your stuff make sense...

You made a stupid comment, and I called you on it.

I posted 9 words and you spat the dummy as per usual. You leaped to the following conclusions:

"This is nothing whatsoever to do with democracy"
"Riots by disaffected groups happen in all kinds of political models, so as usual, you're indulging in ignorant childish hyperbole."

Both of which were, and still are, completely wrong. You called me on a figment of your imagination, but then again, you always do.

Was there any reason that you chose to ignore the topic during your fail? Actually, that was rhetorical, it's because you're a dickhead.

[Oscar]

I posted 9 words and you spat the dummy as per usual. You leaped to the following conclusions:

"This is nothing whatsoever to do with democracy"
"Riots by disaffected groups happen in all kinds of political models, so as usual, you're indulging in ignorant childish hyperbole."

Both of which were, and still are, completely wrong. You called me on a figment of your imagination, but then again, you always do.

Was there any reason that you chose to ignore the topic during your fail? Actually, that was rhetorical, it's because you're a dickhead.

A figment? So you didn't post it?
I posted my opinion of your post (gasp - my democratic right), which was, as usual, very short on substance.

Why is a comment like "Riots by disaffected groups happen in all kinds of political models..." not true? Would you like examples, or will you shoot off on another tangent?

As for the topic, you are the one that related the issue to demcracy in your first post, so I'm not ignoring it.

[mashman]

A figment? So you didn't post it?
I posted my opinion of your post (gasp - my democratic right), which was, as usual, very short on substance.

Why is a comment like "Riots by disaffected groups happen in all kinds of political models..." not true? Would you like examples, or will you shoot off on another tangent?

As for the topic, you are the one that related the issue to demcracy in your first post, so I'm not ignoring it.

I didn't post what you concluded, no.
You posted a conclusion based on 9 words.

Try the bit after the bit you quoted "so as usual, you're indulging in ignorant childish hyperbole". A simple sorry would do.

True, you weren't ignoring it, but you decided that my bringing democracy into it had no substance.