Only 4 minutes late! 

> You_Fool wrote:

> I am still waiting for the arguments against the people having a say in who leads their country, well from someone that is not IA, I know his position on it all...

How about this: Just because people vote against a policy, it doesn't mean their choice is good.  Take the example of Greece: if the government which the people elected is thus unable to form a coherent economic policy to satisfy Eurozone fiscal requirements, they'll have some serious economic issues.

It's one thing to have representation in one's own state affairs.  However, when a nation has international commitments, especially when those requirements require some domestic strain to satisfy, "what is best for the nation" and "what the people want" can be two very divergent things.

For the record, the attempt to associate either party with pacifism in this particular thread is probably a strawman argument.

1: Whether it was Republicans or Democrats that were the instigators of pacifism during that period, it doesn't change the question of whether pacifism was a good or bad idea.
2: Even if it somehow matters for the merits of pacifism, you're both talking about the parties as they were literally 90 years ago.  Considering that about 99.99% of the people who had any sort of influence, including voting, in the 1920s elections are probably long gone, there's not really a common link between their policies then and their policies now.

Now, I understand the period as an empirical example of pacifism in action, don't get me wrong there.  But this whole debate of which party was the pacifist party is pretty much useless.

Ocelot!

Garry Kasparov

It's a double decker bus!  A red one!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hHDxlm66dE

(Not that I'm actually taking a stand... I just like reducing arguments to youtube sound bytes)

by Salvador Deli, by the way. 

Magyar Dogs

It's a dog!

*shrugs* Mike Bibby?  I dunno, I'm stretching it here..

Patrick Ewing