Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > We do not live within a Democracy

We do not live within a Democracy
Thread Tools
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2006, 07:02 PM
 
My tentative theory: we actually live within an Aristocracy.

Clearly money and power go hand and hand. Who has the money in our society? The media - controlled by great wealth, politicians - all but Ford and Clinton from great wealth, the immortal corporations who live beyond the lifetime of their original creators - more great wealth (and not necessarily the best educated or most enlightened in our society either)...

Is the lowly commoner still relevant, or are the rich and powerful calling all the shots and controlling everything?

If not, aren't we a Democracy only in technicality? In a Democracy, isn't everybody supposed to have an equal voice? That vote just as relevant as anybody else's? Those needs across the spectrum just as valid as those within the top of our food chain? Was it ever this way, or have things changed?

Do you think an Aristocracy better describes our system of politics?
     
kvm_mkdb
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Caracas, Bolivarian Republic Of Venezuela
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2006, 07:15 PM
 
Plutocracy probably describes better "the rich and powerful calling all the shots and controlling everything"
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2006, 07:26 PM
 
We are a representative democracy as much as ever. Every vote is worth just as much as any other. The problem is that the people are not holding up their end of the bargain — few Americans vote, and an even smaller portion actually have any idea what's going on.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2006, 08:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit
We are a representative democracy as much as ever. Every vote is worth just as much as any other. The problem is that the people are not holding up their end of the bargain — few Americans vote, and an even smaller portion actually have any idea what's going on.

They vote for rich dudes, and their opinion about these rich dudes is created by the media - more rich dudes.

I'm starting to think that this is nothing new, and that we have a limited democracy, but some days I think that the Aristrocracy/Plutocracy thing better describes this country.
     
k squared
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Feb 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2006, 09:57 PM
 
Huh? Chuckit just wrote it: the United States is a republic; we never were a democracy.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2006, 10:07 PM
 
k_squared, we're a "representative democracy" with representatives (supposedly) democratically elected. Democracy is a good enough label.

Young people don't vote in proportion to their share of the population. Poor people don't vote in proportion to their share of population. Poorly educated people don't vote in proportion to their share of the population. Minorities don't vote in proportion to their share of the population. See a trend?

If we're not a democracy, then we're an "Oldocracy." Older people vote more frequently. And of course the hard-core party membership votes every time they can (and in some cases, in some places even more than that!).

There is nothing keeping those who do not vote from making their voices heard except themselves. So go stir people up about an issue and remind them that they CAN make a difference. Or they can just sit on their duffs and let other people make decisions for them. But I don't want to hear them whine about the results. Even if my candidate doesn't win, at least I tried-what can they say about it?

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2006, 10:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter
k_squared, we're a "representative democracy" with representatives (supposedly) democratically elected. Democracy is a good enough label.

Young people don't vote in proportion to their share of the population. Poor people don't vote in proportion to their share of population. Poorly educated people don't vote in proportion to their share of the population. Minorities don't vote in proportion to their share of the population. See a trend?

If we're not a democracy, then we're an "Oldocracy." Older people vote more frequently. And of course the hard-core party membership votes every time they can (and in some cases, in some places even more than that!).

There is nothing keeping those who do not vote from making their voices heard except themselves. So go stir people up about an issue and remind them that they CAN make a difference. Or they can just sit on their duffs and let other people make decisions for them. But I don't want to hear them whine about the results. Even if my candidate doesn't win, at least I tried-what can they say about it?

It's not just about politics though, it's who holds power in society. It's the media, it's the corporations, it's the favored treatment money can buy, etc.

That's what I had in mind, in addition to the tendency for politicians to also have access to a lot of money. Where is the power really? Where the money is, or does our democracy level the playing field?
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2006, 10:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c
Do you think an Aristocracy better describes our system of politics?
No. Our system is democratic capitalism (or liberal democracy, which is essentially a synonym).

We have significant expressions of non-capitalism: for the rich (like appropriating the property of private owners so municipalities and developers can build baseball stadiums) and the poor (like welfare) or for everybody (like social security). But private ownership of productive property is the hallmark of capitalism.

Attempting to describe capitalism as "aristocracy" or "plutocracy" is laughable, really. Besides, the 19th century collectivists beat you to it.
     
jcadam
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Colorado Springs
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2006, 11:19 PM
 
meh, in any society there will always be 'elites'. Whether they be rich, famous, powerful, or some combination of the three.
Caffeinated Rhino Software -- Education and Training management software
     
Taliesin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2006, 04:56 AM
 
Yes, most ideally the US-system of government was planned to be an aristocracy in its original meaning:


Ancient Greece Aristotle
Plato
General Glossary Democracy
Like many terms used to describe government structures, aristocracy is impossible to define. Founded on the Greek word, aristos , which means "best," at its heart aristocracy means "rule by the best." Its theoretical foundation begins with the political works of Plato and Aristotle, the two central figures in Greek and European philosophy. Both felt that Greek democrac> had been a disaster; their fundamental problem with democracy was that it put government in the hands of people who were the least capable of making sound decisions. For Plato, the general run of humanity was driven by its selfish passions and desires; this was a poor foundation for deliberate, considered, and selfless decision-making. While Plato and Aristotle were familiar with an infinite variety of possible governments, they believed that government should be in the hands of the most capable members of society. Above all, people in government should be moral and selfless; they should be highly intelligent and educated, as well as brave and temperate. This was "rule by the best."


This is not, however, what we think of when we use the term aristocracy. In early modern Europe and modern Europe, the aristocracy consisted of the nobility or ruling classes of society. Membership in the aristocracy was not through achievement, intelligence, or moral growth, but solely hereditary (sometimes it was given out). How did the Greek idea of "rule by the best" turn into something more closely resembling a hereditary oligarchy or just simply an upper class?


The answer can be found in part in theories of the monarchy in the Middle Ages. In order to legitimate ta hereditary monarchy, the medieval Europeans theorized that the virtues which made a monarch suitable for the job were hereditary . This led to a segregation of virtues: the monarch and his noble bureaucrats were by nature and heredity more moral and civilized than the rest of the population. They were, then, the "best" morally and intellectually. In this way, the notion of "aristocracy," as "rule of the best," eventually translated into a concept of a hereditary aristocracy. So ingrained is this notion in the European world view, that we still assume a hereditary superiority in the upper classes.


The founders of American democracy turned back to the original, philosophical definition of aristocracy when they built American government. Very conscious of Plato's and Aristotle's criticisms of democracy, the founders of American government wanted to avoid putting the government into the hands of the worst members of society. They also, however, wanted to avoid the dangers of a hereditary aristocracy, for European history proven amply that the hereditary aristocracy is many things but it rarely consists of the "best" members of society either in moral or intellectual terms (look at the royal family in England, for instance). So the framers of American government created representative democracy, in which the people collectively decide who the "best" people are to run the government. In this way, a democracy (a limited democracy) is allowed to co-exist seamlessly with a government that is primarily ruled by the most qualified people morally and intellecturally (well, sometimes).
Source: http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/GLOSSARY/ARISTOC.HTM

Taliesin
     
von Wrangell
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2006, 05:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by kvm_mkdb
Plutocracy probably describes better "the rich and powerful calling all the shots and controlling everything"

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2006, 07:38 AM
 
Yes because by the time you get to that point in your life, you are probably both rich, and powerful.

They go hand in hand.

Oh and besson, Clinton may not have been BORN rich and powerful, but by the time he got into office, he sure as hell was.
     
Y3a
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Northern VA - Just outside DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2006, 08:04 AM
 
We will never be a pure democracy. That takes educated members to smartly vote on our futures. Our schools, media and politicians have been corupted by the left.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2006, 08:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by Y3a
We will never be a pure democracy. That takes educated members to smartly vote on our futures. Our schools, media and politicians have been corupted by the left.

On of the things I learned in my education is to substantiate your claims.

Make your case.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2006, 08:20 AM
 
Harry Truman, Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter were hardly from rich families were they?

V
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
Dakar
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Pretentiously Retired.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2006, 08:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit
We are a representative democracy as much as ever. Every vote is worth just as much as any other. The problem is that the people are not holding up their end of the bargain — few Americans vote, and an even smaller portion actually have any idea what's going on.
I think the problem is the politicians aren't holding up their end of the bargain -- representing the people's will, instead of the lobbyists.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2006, 09:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by voodoo
Harry Truman, Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter were hardly from rich families were they?

V
Don't forget LBJ.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Y3a
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Northern VA - Just outside DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2006, 09:36 AM
 
You mean like how well our kids stack up school wise? or the liberal media which foists opinions stated as facts on the populace(CNN), or jackasses like Pelosi, Harry Reid, kennedy et al?
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2006, 09:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by Y3a
You mean like how well our kids stack up school wise? or the liberal media which foists opinions stated as facts on the populace(CNN), or jackasses like Pelosi, Harry Reid, kennedy et al?
And yet, they aren't in power. So it would appear that, at least at the moment, more people have been "corrupted" by the Right.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2006, 09:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by Y3a
You mean like how well our kids stack up school wise? or the liberal media which foists opinions stated as facts on the populace(CNN), or jackasses like Pelosi, Harry Reid, kennedy et al?

Why is it that everytime I ask people like you or SpliffDaddy to substantiate your claims, you run away with your tail between your legs? I don't give a rat's ass about your gut feelings, JUSTIFY your statements damn it, or don't say them at all...

I guess it's easier to try to shoot holes in somebody else's argument justifications than it is to put on your thinking cap and come up with something yourself?

Throw us some red meat here Y3a....
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2006, 09:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by Y3a
Our schools, media and politicians have been corupted by the left.
Oh, I think the right participates in that corruption as well.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2006, 10:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak
Oh, I think the right participates in that corruption as well.

Of course they do. It's tiring hearing people brainlessly talk about how the Right or Left is single-handedly destroying America, as if their party of choice is exempt of any weakness.

Politicians are prone to corruption, there is no two ways about it. Don't turn a blind eye to this while being caught up in your emotional investment...
     
davesimondotcom
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Landlockinated
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2006, 10:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c
My tentative theory: we actually live within an Aristocracy.

Clearly money and power go hand and hand. Who has the money in our society? The media - controlled by great wealth, politicians - all but Ford and Clinton from great wealth, the immortal corporations who live beyond the lifetime of their original creators - more great wealth (and not necessarily the best educated or most enlightened in our society either)...

Is the lowly commoner still relevant, or are the rich and powerful calling all the shots and controlling everything?
Sorry, but you don't even have to go back very far to find out how wrong you are. You say Ford and Clinton were the only Presidents who didn't come from great wealth.

Ever hear of Ronald Wilson Reagan? How about Richard Milhous Nixon? Lyndon Baines Johnson? Harry S. Truman?

None of them came from a wealthy background. All from what we would call the middle class if not lower-middle class.

Hell, if they are all so rich, why did it take until 1976 to elect a President born in a hospital? Yeah, you read that right. Carter was the first President born in a hospital.

The Bushes and Kennedys fit your theory, but since that's only three Presidents, the argument doesn't hold water.

Just because Clinton sold himself so well as "the man from Hope" and being the ideal American success story from a poor kid to President doesn't mean nobody else worked their way up.
[ sig removed - image host changed it to a big ad picture ]
     
davesimondotcom
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Landlockinated
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2006, 10:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by voodoo
Harry Truman, Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter were hardly from rich families were they?

V
None of them were rich. Neither was Reagan's family. Or LBJ's (as SpaceMonkey pointed out), and we haven't even gone that far back. It's not like we're picking from the 1800s or anything.

Of the most recent Presidents marked "rich" or "not rich" by what their family had when they were born:

George Walker Bush - rich
William Jefferson Clinton - not rich
George Herbert Walker Bush - rich
James Earl Carter - not rich
Gerald Rudolph Ford, Jr. - not rich
Richard Milhous Nixon - not rich
Lyndon Baines Johnson - not rich
John Fitzgerald Kennedy - rich
Dwight David Eisenhower - not rich
Harry S. Truman (yeah, his middle name was really "S.") - not rich
Franklin Delano Roosevelt - rich
Herbert Clark Hoover - not rich

OK, that's clear back to before World War II. Only four "riches" amongst 12 men. Two of whom are from the same family.

This is not to say that none of these other men were rich by the time they became President or ran for President, but they weren't born rich.
[ sig removed - image host changed it to a big ad picture ]
     
Jawbone54
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Louisiana
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2006, 11:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c
Why is it that everytime I ask people like you or SpliffDaddy to substantiate your claims, you run away with your tail between your legs? I don't give a rat's ass about your gut feelings, JUSTIFY your statements damn it, or don't say them at all...

I guess it's easier to try to shoot holes in somebody else's argument justifications than it is to put on your thinking cap and come up with something yourself?

Throw us some red meat here Y3a....
You can find a web-site or news story to substantiate ANYTHING, besson. It's just forum elitism that calls for a googled link for every opinion that isn't liberal. And by the way, some things don't NEED to be sourced; they're obvious enough to anyone with eyes and/or ears. To say that the schools and media are predominantly leftist is in no way an absurd claim. Talk radio and (debateably) FOX News are the only conservative sources of information that are considered mainstream. To claim that CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, and PBS are not liberal is either an antiquated point of view steeped in denial or a knowing, desperate attempt at holding up the legitimacy of what has long been a liberal stronghold.

That being said, some claims do need to be verified before being granted legitimacy in a serious argument.

Of course they do. It's tiring hearing people brainlessly talk about how the Right or Left is single-handedly destroying America, as if their party of choice is exempt of any weakness.

Politicians are prone to corruption, there is no two ways about it. Don't turn a blind eye to this while being caught up in your emotional investment...
While no political party is exempt from corruption and manipulation by unseen benefactors, it is a perfectly acceptable opinion (Isn't any opinion acceptable according to TRUE liberalism? Or is the whole "tolerance" thing something that only exists for fellow non-conservatives?) to say that the left has been the downfall of the Judaeo-Christian philosophy that strongly influenced American culture for at least 180 years

The legalization of abortion has the potential to damn America's soul (in the eyes of fellow religious types). Affirmative action doesn't cure racism, but instead creates hostility in some worthy applicants who were rejected simply because there weren't enough minorities in a scholarship program or particular work force. A graduated income tax tampers with capitalism in a manner that is undeniably socialistic in premise, and our founding father's would have never approved of it. Stripping the Ten Commandments from public places such as a courthouse seems quite odd in a country that was founded by men who opened every session with prayer and openly spoke of religion (almost exclusively Christian) in every setting they were in.

You want sources? Read Persecution by David Limbaugh. He'll give you more than enough to substantiate any claims made by Y3a and myself.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2006, 11:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by Jawbone54
You can find a web-site or news story to substantiate ANYTHING, besson. It's just forum elitism that calls for a googled link for every opinion that isn't liberal. And by the way, some things don't NEED to be sourced; they're obvious enough to anyone with eyes and/or ears. To say that the schools and media are predominantly leftist is in no way an absurd claim. Talk radio and (debateably) FOX News are the only conservative sources of information that are considered mainstream. To claim that CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, and PBS are not liberal is either an antiquated point of view steeped in denial or a knowing, desperate attempt at holding up the legitimacy of what has long been a liberal stronghold.

In my books, that (Googling random sites) isn't substiantiation but distraction and manipulation (a tactic Abe uses quite liberally)... Do you remember your high school English classes and being taught to back up your claims? That is what I want to read here - your own justification of your statements *in your own* words, or at least presented as some sort of coherent argument to the reader. I don't want to do your work for you by reading 209348293 articles, and if you aren't willing to substiantiate your claim from the get go, I usually don't want to read it. That's how I feel.

In the case of SpliffDaddy and Y3a, they have a long history of throwing out wild claims and not backing them up. However, when I've called them on this they have refused to substianate their claims.

Even if I don't agree with your claims but you put together a compelling argument, I would respect your position and feel that you have contributed to the debate. I'm sick of extremely feeble or non-existent arguments though (coming from both sides).

While no political party is exempt from corruption and manipulation by unseen benefactors, it is a perfectly acceptable opinion (Isn't any opinion acceptable according to TRUE liberalism? Or is the whole "tolerance" thing something that only exists for fellow non-conservatives?) to say that the left has been the downfall of the Judaeo-Christian philosophy that strongly influenced American culture for at least 180 years
If this argument had a basis, I guess... I wouldn't debate it because I don't care about Judeo-Chrisitian philosophy, but I do believe it does not belong in our politics at all, as per our Constitution or Bill of Rights (I get the two confused). If the Right wants to talk about their Constitutional rights of gun ownership and the like, they should also be considering the separation of Church and State. I always get the Bill of Rights and Constitution confused, but AFAIK both are considered the foundation of our political system, right?

The legalization of abortion has the potential to damn America's soul (in the eyes of fellow religious types).
Irrelevant argument as long as we abide by the separation of Church and State.

Stripping the Ten Commandments from public places such as a courthouse seems quite odd in a country that was founded by men who opened every session with prayer and openly spoke of religion (almost exclusively Christian) in every setting they were in.
I agree with you here, because this is a historical artifact. Enforcing rules that cater towards the beliefs of a religious group is different. Re: abortion: not everybody buys into this santicity of life thing or has the same definition of when life begins. Some people feel that life is relatively cheap, and should not be salvaged at absolutely all costs. Some have scientific reasoning which leads them to have their own opinion when life begins. Some people just have gut feelings - faith is a gut feeling, gut feelings aren't always bad, but they are very individual and a lousy foundation for establishing a set of rule and order.

You want sources? Read Persecution by David Limbaugh. He'll give you more than enough to substantiate any claims made by Y3a and myself.
Great, how about some quotes from his book then? I don't want to read his entire book just so that I can follow his posts...
( Last edited by besson3c; Jun 13, 2006 at 12:03 PM. )
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2006, 01:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by Jawbone54
To say that the schools and media are predominantly leftist is in no way an absurd claim.


Originally Posted by Jawbone54
Talk radio and (debateably) FOX News are the only conservative sources of information that are considered mainstream.
Except talk radio isn't news, it's entertainment. But FOX really isn't news or entertainment.

Originally Posted by Jawbone54
While no political party is exempt from corruption and manipulation by unseen benefactors, it is a perfectly acceptable opinion (Isn't any opinion acceptable according to TRUE liberalism? Or is the whole "tolerance" thing something that only exists for fellow non-conservatives?) to say that the left has been the downfall of the Judaeo-Christian philosophy that strongly influenced American culture for at least 180 years
There is no such thing as "Judaeo-Christian philosophy." That's a cover-term that evangelicals used to pretend they are "the mainstream." They aren't and never have been.

Originally Posted by Jawbone54
A graduated income tax tampers with capitalism in a manner that is undeniably socialistic in premise, and our founding father's would have never approved of it.
Actually, the Founding Fathers wouldn't have approved of any income tax, graduated or not.

Originally Posted by Jawbone54
Stripping the Ten Commandments from public places such as a courthouse seems quite odd in a country that was founded by men who opened every session with prayer and openly spoke of religion (almost exclusively Christian) in every setting they were in.
You falsely speak of the Founding Fathers as if they were uniform in their religious views. They weren't. Many of them, including Jefferson, Franklin, and Paine were deists, not Christian.

And don't forget, what a politician does in public isn't always representative of his personal views. Many politicians feign greater religious belief than they actually have to appear acceptable to voters.

Which "Ten Commandments" are you referring to? Because the many different factions of Jews and Christians disagree on the correct translation and content. For instance, fundamentalists wrongly insist that "Thou shalt not kill" is a commandment, but that's untrue. The correct translation is "Do not murder." Given the immense disagreement over the content and nature of the Ten Commandments, they obviously shouldn't be found in government forums.

Besides, law courts are about law, not religion. Is it against the law to "covet thy neighbor's wife" or "worship false idols" or "not keep the Sabbath holy" ??? Of course not.

Originally Posted by Jawbone54
You want sources? Read Persecution by David Limbaugh. He'll give you more than enough to substantiate any claims made by Y3a and myself.
So anything you say is backed up by David Limbaugh? Does David know this?
     
cmeisenzahl
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 16, 2006, 08:26 PM
 
I don't believe we were ever intended to be living in a democracy.

"... and to the republic for which it stands ..."
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 16, 2006, 08:50 PM
 
If this were a Democracy - the atheists would be banished.

And the homosexuals.

And Mac users, for certain.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 16, 2006, 09:06 PM
 
I support that idea. Wherever we were banished to would be a much more awesome place.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
jcadam
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Colorado Springs
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 16, 2006, 11:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy
If this were a Democracy - the atheists would be banished.

And the homosexuals.

And Mac users, for certain.
the whole 'tryanny of the majority' thing. It is also one of the reasons to keep the electoral college around.

The Democrats want to turn the USA into a centeralized European-Socialist-style 'deomcracy.' I think this would be a huge mistake. But at least they are honest about it.

I used to be a Republican because I thought they believed in the concept of a decentralized representative Republic. But I now realize the goal of the 'Neo-conservatives' is to turn the USA into a centralized semi-totalitarian corporatocracy.

Argh, they both suck giant donkey schlong -- I see the Democrats as a bunch of confused semi-retarded pansies. But the 'Neo-cons' (the majority of the Republican party it seems) are, well, evil.

We really, really, need a viable third party here.
Caffeinated Rhino Software -- Education and Training management software
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 16, 2006, 11:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by jcadam
We really, really, need a viable third party here.
the fence
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 16, 2006, 11:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by jcadam
the whole 'tryanny of the majority' thing. It is also one of the reasons to keep the electoral college around.

The Democrats want to turn the USA into a centeralized European-Socialist-style 'deomcracy.' I think this would be a huge mistake. But at least they are honest about it.

I used to be a Republican because I thought they believed in the concept of a decentralized representative Republic. But I now realize the goal of the 'Neo-conservatives' is to turn the USA into a centralized semi-totalitarian corporatocracy.

Argh, they both suck giant donkey schlong -- I see the Democrats as a bunch of confused semi-retarded pansies. But the 'Neo-cons' (the majority of the Republican party it seems) are, well, evil.

We really, really, need a viable third party here.

good post!
     
jcadam
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Colorado Springs
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 17, 2006, 12:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak
the fence
but sitting on the fence hurts my testicles.
Caffeinated Rhino Software -- Education and Training management software
     
ThinkInsane
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Night's Plutonian shore...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 17, 2006, 03:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by jcadam
but sitting on the fence hurts my testicles.
One to each side son, one to each side. With all things, the truth lies somewhere in the middle, and in the middle of your bag, you will find no nut to crush.

Now, if the fence happens to be wider than your coin purse, you just need to plant your ass, throw one leg on each side and ride it like Maj. Kong on the bomb (hat waving and yee-haw's optional).

Seriously, I'm full of god damned good advice.
Nemo me impune lacesset
     
spindler
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Beverly Hills
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2006, 01:31 AM
 
Besson3c wrote:

"It's not just about politics though, it's who holds power in society. It's the media, it's the corporations, it's the favored treatment money can buy, etc."

The media is also democratically decided by the people. If 100% of people wanted serious news, they could watch PBS. But 85% of Americans need some O.J. Simpson in there to make it through the 1/2 hour.

If conservatives wanted intelligent opinions, George Will could have a three hour radio show every day. There are lots of intelligent conservatives. But the population wants simpletons like Rush Limbaugh.

It's like Steve Jobs said: "I used to think there was a conspiracy to dumb down the population. But then I realized that people actually want the stuff on TV."

No one is forcing the vapid crap that Americans consume on them. They choose it. If they are then incapable of making decisions in line with a stable democracy, you can't blame the Founding Fathers. The system is there, people are just to mediocre to use it.
     
greenamp
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Nashville
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2006, 03:41 AM
 
I'm glad everyone in this country doesn't vote. If they did our last president would have been Kelly Clarkson.
     
Obi Wan's Ghost
Baninated
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: An asteroid remanent of Tatooine.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2006, 03:47 AM
 
We do live in a democracy because consumers and business operators work hand in hand. Neither can exist without the cooperation of the other. And we vote too
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2006, 06:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost
We do live in a democracy because consumers and business operators work hand in hand. Neither can exist without the cooperation of the other. And we vote too

Does your government tax couplings for speed racers?
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2006, 06:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost
We do live in a democracy because consumers and business operators work hand in hand. Neither can exist without the cooperation of the other. And we vote too

Does your government tax couplings for speed racers?
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2006, 07:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by jcadam
but sitting on the fence hurts my testicles.
Finding the middle ground is never easy
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2006, 09:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by greenamp
I'm glad everyone in this country doesn't vote. If they did our last president would have been Kelly Clarkson.
You have to admit, she is much more adorable than our current president.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:10 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,