Anaxagoras
Posts: 3086
Joined: 5/9/2009
From: Eire
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: thompsonx
quote:
Are you not familiar with the common democratic process?
We are not discussing democratic processes we are discussing how hitler came to power. Please try to maintain focus.
I think it is hard to discribe this exchange of posts as a "discussing" anything due to the imbecilic contributions you have made thus far.
I'm afraid the issue of democracy arises because another person said he was "elected", which you took issue with - do try and keep up.
quote:
quote:
Many countries like South Africa require a 2/3 majority in a given parliament to change their respective constitutions. That was the case in Germany too.
Which is what I pointed out to you
You are lying to backtrack. You stated that he needed 2/3 to get elected by referencing my cite after I stated he needed 50% http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4132172
quote:
quote:
He needed 50% to take power.
Please cite the part of the german constitution that would make hitler chancelor with a 50% simple majority in the reichstag.
No the onus here is on you to provide a source supporting the claim 2/3 of the vote is required to take power because I have already provided a source which states he needed a majority to gain power. A majority is a majority is a majority. If you are unfamiliar with the word please see this source http://www.thefreedictionary.com/majority "1. The greater number or part; a number more than half of the total. 2. The amount by which the greater number of votes cast, as in an election, exceeds the total number of remaining votes."
quote:
quote:
No country requires more than that to go into government AFAIK but 2/3 is oft needed to change constitutions.
He appointment to chancellor was due to one thing alone, he lead the party that almost got into power on votes. All the other parties were far far far behind.
Perhaps if you had troubled youself to have read anything of substance on this subject you would not post such foolish tripe.
Under the weimar republic the president appoints the chancelor,before that it was the emperor who appointed the chancelor.
Your contention that if his party had won a simpe majority he would have been automatically chancelor is nothing but ignorance on your part.
Total rubbish on your part. It is merely part of a democratic process as in other nations like the UK, where the Crown invites political leaders to form governments.
Are you saying the President could pick any man in the street and select as his Chancelor? 
quote:
ORIGINAL: thompsonx
quote:
I stated "new and sustainable". From that statement it could not be inferred that I thought the leaders before him were better, simply that he was lacking in certain respects.
Would you care to share what you feel "he was lacking in certain respects"?
Once again, I said what I said. It was not in any way ambiguous. Please see the original statement as it will provide the clarification you require.
If it doesn't then I cannot be held accountable for any deficiencies in your reading ability or congitive process.
< Message edited by Anaxagoras -- 6/8/2012 10:11:32 AM >
_____________________________
"That woman, as nature has created her, and man at present is educating her, is man's enemy. She can only be his slave or his despot, but never his companion." (Venus in Furs)
|
RE: Hugo Chavez not long for this world. - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread