Conquer Club

Japan’s controversial security bills have passed the Upper House of the Diet, ushering in a new era in Japanese security policy. Although there was little doubt the bills would pass, the groundswell of disapproval from the public – drawing tens of thousands of protestors – and opposition lawmakers ensures the bills will be under close scrutiny for the months to come. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe contends the security bills will help protect Japanese at home and abroad, allow Japan to play a greater role in the international community, and fulfill its commitments to the US-Japan Alliance. Abe’s reassurance that the Japan Self-Defense Forces (JSDF) would still operate under strict regulations and Japan would not be entangled in foreign wars did little to appease the skeptical public: According to a recent Asahi Shimbun poll, 54 percent of Japanese do not support the security bills.

waauw wrote:Yeah because chinese one-party oligarchy is so much better...

mrswdk wrote:

waauw wrote:Yeah because chinese one-party oligarchy is so much better...

Not being able to claim electoral process as a source of legitimacy means that a government has to more actively pursue legitimization of their power via other means (such as actually running their country well).

macbone wrote:See, the difference is, everything that gets passed in China is the will of the people. Would you rather live in a society where sometimes legislation is enacted that you don't support, or a society where you support all legislation that's passed?

macbone wrote:Waauw, I've been reprimanded in the past for being a bit too enthusiastic in my questioning of certain doctrines expressed in OT. I'm just doing my best to be a good little Hong Konger!

waauw wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

waauw wrote:Yeah because chinese one-party oligarchy is so much better...

Not being able to claim electoral process as a source of legitimacy means that a government has to more actively pursue legitimization of their power via other means (such as actually running their country well).

Sure... Because it's not like history has hundreds of examples of countries that had no electoral process, nor actually pursued any form of righteous ethical sensible legitimization of their power.

mrswdk wrote:

waauw wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

waauw wrote:Yeah because chinese one-party oligarchy is so much better...

Not being able to claim electoral process as a source of legitimacy means that a government has to more actively pursue legitimization of their power via other means (such as actually running their country well).

Sure... Because it's not like history has hundreds of examples of countries that had no electoral process, nor actually pursued any form of righteous ethical sensible legitimization of their power.

Fantastic comeback, PLAYER.

waauw wrote:

macbone wrote:See, the difference is, everything that gets passed in China is the will of the people. Would you rather live in a society where sometimes legislation is enacted that you don't support, or a society where you support all legislation that's passed?

I'm sorry, I'd rather have a country where politicians do occasionally misbehave than a country that has no freedom of information.

If you honestly think that "EVERYTHING" China passes is the will of the people then you don't seem to have a clue of the history of centralized governments. I suppose you also think the Uyghurs, the Tibetans, the Hong-Kong protestors and the renegade island of Taiwan also completely agree with every law and decree passed by the communist party.

waauw wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

waauw wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

waauw wrote:Yeah because chinese one-party oligarchy is so much better...

Not being able to claim electoral process as a source of legitimacy means that a government has to more actively pursue legitimization of their power via other means (such as actually running their country well).

Sure... Because it's not like history has hundreds of examples of countries that had no electoral process, nor actually pursued any form of righteous ethical sensible legitimization of their power.

Fantastic comeback, PLAYER.

Thanks, RICEFACE.

mrswdk wrote:I was referring to PLAYER, the woman who used to come on here and make wild, sometimes nonsensical, statements with no substance to back them up.

waauw wrote:

mrswdk wrote:I was referring to PLAYER, the woman who used to come on here and make wild, sometimes nonsensical, statements with no substance to back them up.

You had a multi?

WingCmdr Ginkapo wrote:

waauw wrote:

mrswdk wrote:I was referring to PLAYER, the woman who used to come on here and make wild, sometimes nonsensical, statements with no substance to back them up.

You had a multi?

He said the women.

waauw wrote:

WingCmdr Ginkapo wrote:

waauw wrote:

mrswdk wrote:I was referring to PLAYER, the woman who used to come on here and make wild, sometimes nonsensical, statements with no substance to back them up.

You had a multi?

He said the women.

Hasn't Mrswdk been pretending to be a woman?

subtleknifewield wrote:

waauw wrote:

WingCmdr Ginkapo wrote:

waauw wrote:

mrswdk wrote:I was referring to PLAYER, the woman who used to come on here and make wild, sometimes nonsensical, statements with no substance to back them up.

You had a multi?

He said the women.

Hasn't Mrswdk been pretending to be a woman?

Indeed, I believe that's what the Mrs part stands for

Dukasaur wrote:

subtleknifewield wrote:

waauw wrote:

WingCmdr Ginkapo wrote:

waauw wrote:

mrswdk wrote:I was referring to PLAYER, the woman who used to come on here and make wild, sometimes nonsensical, statements with no substance to back them up.

You had a multi?

He said the women.

Hasn't Mrswdk been pretending to be a woman?

Indeed, I believe that's what the Mrs part stands for

There's no punctuation, so there's no reason to assume that the break is between "mrs" and "wdk".

I assume that there are two breaks, one between "mr" and "sw", and the other between "sw" and "dk".

Mister Swick Dick is how I read it.