What I said was not supposed to contribute to the topic at all. I simply asked if people liked the CHANGE I mean they voted for it. Kinda funny how the democrats laughed at us for saying they would get bit back by him yet we got the last laugh. Too bad I won't be here to see this Nation crumble because I believe the end of time will be upon us in his election term it is OBVIOUS he is just trying to destroy us from inside and harm us in any way possible.
Oh how quiet the Right-Wingers where when Bush was in... I miss it tbh.
This is just the continuation of a trend. Every major political action by the US lately has been a band-aid. We needed something done about the economy, so they did something. Wasn't great, but it was something. Same story goes for healthcare. Now net neutrality. The politicians' goals aren't to do what's best for the people. It's to look like they're doing something and get re-elected.
For once, i agree with you. :smile.gif:
Definitely. But this is one of the possible pitfalls of democracy in any form.
Definitely. But this is one of the possible pitfalls of democracy in any form.
Not exactly. The purpose of all governments is to protect the ruling class.
Democracy is their way to protect the elite and serve their interests. When we are made to think of Democracy we are told it is the rule of the majority, it gives the elite legitimacy ("Well you voted him so you can't complain!") etc..
No.
However, that is what a democracy CAN become as it ages. Democracy is such a broad concept that what you've specifically said about a particular type of democracy can't be applied to the general concept. It is clear that the United States form of democracy (a federal republic with representative democracy) was not simply formed to protect the interests of the ruling class. It was manifestly established to attempt to protect the interests of the colonies themselves and all of their citizens. Whether it was successful or not is another question.
The cynicism in your statement almost disqualifies it from being answered, but eh, I'll bite.
In my opinion, a direct democracy is the best possible form of government.
Of course, a direct democracy is also extremely impractical for even a modestly-sized nation.
This. Democracy is absolutely terrible. But it's still the best one.
Quote from RiverC »
However, that is what a democracy CAN become as it ages. Democracy is such a broad concept that what you've specifically said about a particular type of democracy can't be applied to the general concept. It is clear that the United States form of democracy (a federal republic with representative democracy) was not simply formed to protect the interests of the ruling class. It was manifestly established to attempt to protect the interests of the colonies themselves and all of their citizens. Whether it was successful or not is another question.
The cynicism in your statement almost disqualifies it from being answered, but eh, I'll bite.
He's a just jaded Marxist.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We sang: "I don't know where we go from here"
That is the anthem, the slogan, the summary of events
PEOPLE! Groups on both sides of the aisle are for Net-Neutrality to it's fullest extent! Protest this horrible decision! Email your Reps! Spread the word! UNITE FOR THE SAKE OF GODDAMNED FREEDOM!
Most of the above only really applies to US citizens, but still! And my post will most likely be ignored because people are too caught up fighting each other when they are on the same ****ing side.
You can't assume that that's the same 50%. Judging by some of the candidates that get elected and propositions that get passed...
50% don't vote and are stupid, 50% percent do vote and are stupid... sounds about right. :/
Nope. Lots of these people still end up at the polls. (Ex: Rove putting gay marriage on the ballot in several states in 2000 and 2004 to get "certain" people out to the poles, and naturally they also vote on other issues)
Yeah, that wasn't implied at all.
Right there with ya.
Did you read this?
http://www.greatplay.net/?p=2352
Definitely. But this is one of the possible pitfalls of democracy in any form.
No.
However, that is what a democracy CAN become as it ages. Democracy is such a broad concept that what you've specifically said about a particular type of democracy can't be applied to the general concept. It is clear that the United States form of democracy (a federal republic with representative democracy) was not simply formed to protect the interests of the ruling class. It was manifestly established to attempt to protect the interests of the colonies themselves and all of their citizens. Whether it was successful or not is another question.
The cynicism in your statement almost disqualifies it from being answered, but eh, I'll bite.
Of course, a direct democracy is also extremely impractical for even a modestly-sized nation.
Because of logistics, or because of how stupid the populace is?
I'd say both. 50%+ of the USA doesn't know anything. I don't want them voting.
This. Democracy is absolutely terrible. But it's still the best one.
He's a just jaded Marxist.
That is the anthem, the slogan, the summary of events
Both.
First of all, what are you doing about it?
Most of the above only really applies to US citizens, but still! And my post will most likely be ignored because people are too caught up fighting each other when they are on the same ****ing side.
My Pathfinder Campaign for the denizens of MCF: http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/1939035-where-are-we-sandbox-pathfinder-campaign-ooc/
You can't assume that that's the same 50%. Judging by some of the candidates that get elected and propositions that get passed...
Nope. Lots of these people still end up at the polls. (Ex: Rove putting gay marriage on the ballot in several states in 2000 and 2004 to get "certain" people out to the poles, and naturally they also vote on other issues)