Print Page | Close Window

Democracy,compatible with huge population

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Scholarly Pursuits
Forum Name: Social Sciences
Forum Discription: Discuss Sociology, Law, Economics, Psychology and other soft sciences.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=15476
Printed Date: 08-Dec-2022 at 03:54
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Democracy,compatible with huge population
Posted By: Spartakus
Subject: Democracy,compatible with huge population
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2006 at 14:20
Some times i wonder whether democracy is actually compatible in States with huge populations,like China or India( those examples are strictly used for their populations numbers ,and not for their current political system).Can it actually be succesfull in countries with really big populations?

-------------
"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. "
--- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996)



Replies:
Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2006 at 15:51
No, it becomes an oligarchal dictatorship because those who have established themselves in power can play different elements of the population against each other for their (the ones in power) benefit.

-------------
Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.

Unless otherwise noted source is wiki.


Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 07-Apr-2007 at 07:50
As long as it is not direct democracy which was applied in Athens, and which we can see examples in today's Switzerland, like Janus said, it totally becomes an oligarchy. Because after the representatives are elected, they have no responsibility towards the people and they don't have to give an account...

-------------
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;

A Strange Orhan Veli


Posted By: New User
Date Posted: 08-Apr-2007 at 10:40
Depends on the type of democracy I would say...


Posted By: Jagiello
Date Posted: 08-Apr-2007 at 13:05

I allso think it's not compatible with huge amounts of people simply because most of them don't even have primary education and vote emotionaly for parties that they connect with personal ideas or experiances.Such voting leeds to the electing of communist and nationalist parties.The best form of democracy for me is when only people that graduated College or University or atleast High school can vote.It's simply not fare for me that the vote of an educated Doctor of science or even a Proffesor is equal to the vote of an idiot that can't even read for example but votes because he was prommised good future from a party.This might sound like oligarchy but that kind of "citizenship" in Rome for example worked perffectly,although it wasn't democracy.Just imagine if we put this way of giving "citizenship" only to people that graduated and are considered educated and only they can vote.It would not be somekind of aristocrathic title and would not be recieved as a heritage.If you remember because of the "stupid" crowds did communism prosper in many countries and the intelectual groups were destroyed. 



Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 08-Apr-2007 at 13:25
Democracy seems to fail as soon as the numbers rise to 2 people, unless one is considerably stronger than the other.

-------------
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk


Posted By: Roberts
Date Posted: 08-Apr-2007 at 13:55
Imo the "democracy" is compatible with huge populations, if country has only two political parties.

-------------


Posted By: Ponce de Leon
Date Posted: 08-Apr-2007 at 22:15
Originally posted by Jagiello

IThis might sound like oligarchy but that kind of "citizenship" in Rome for example worked perffectly,although it wasn't democracy.Just imagine if we put this way of giving "citizenship" only to people that graduated and are considered educated and only they can vote.



Sounds very interesting. But it still would not be fair for the lare majority of people who are unable to recieve an education. Their voice should be heard as well.


Posted By: Northman
Date Posted: 09-Apr-2007 at 04:39
Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
  -- Winston Churchill
 
Democracy is also the most difficult form of government of all - but who promised it would be easy? It's the only choice if you value the rights of the individual.
 
"At least high school education to vote?" - that would exclude most people from voting, specially poor people.
But who cares about poor people? - they have nothing for anyone to rob - only poverty, and who wants that?
Of course anyone should be able to vote, regardless of education, wealth, faith and so on.
If there should be regulations for voting, it should be this:
If your income is in the top 30% bracket, you cant vote. That would level things out and could provide more equality for everyone.
 
The ideal society is where only few has too much, and even fewer too little. You need democracy for that.
 
~ Northman


-------------


Posted By: Adalwolf
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2007 at 17:39
Originally posted by Northman

 

If there should be regulations for voting, it should be this:
If your income is in the top 30% bracket, you cant vote. That would level things out and could provide more equality for everyone.



What?! That is crazy! Just because people have high paying jobs they can't vote?! That is just as bad as saying poor people can't vote because they are poor and uneducated!


-------------
Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail.
     Edward Abbey


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2007 at 21:17
I think that was the point Adalwolf.

most of them don't even have primary education and vote emotionaly for parties that they connect with personal ideas or experiances.Such voting leeds to the electing of communist and nationalist parties.

Shocked The communist government in Kerala state India is doing very well thank you. But then again - Kerala does have one of the highest education levels in India. Damn communists, they even educate people!
It's the only choice if you value the rights of the individual.

Democracy doesn't protect the rights of the individual at all. It values the rights of the biggest mob. I much prefer military dictatorship (with a good dictator) for rights.


-------------


Posted By: Jagiello
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2007 at 07:39
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

I think that was the point Adalwolf.

most of them don't even have primary education and vote emotionaly for parties that they connect with personal ideas or experiances.Such voting leeds to the electing of communist and nationalist parties.

Shocked The communist government in Kerala state India is doing very well thank you. But then again - Kerala does have one of the highest education levels in India. Damn communists, they even educate people!
It's the only choice if you value the rights of the individual.

Democracy doesn't protect the rights of the individual at all. It values the rights of the biggest mob. I much prefer military dictatorship (with a good dictator) for rights.
 
Well,i don't know about Kerala but i know of atleast 20 states where all educated and wealthy people were massacred by the poor and stupid when communists came.It was the idea that everybody should be equal-equally stupid and poor.And a "communist" government is something that doesn't exist in ant country in the world.There are socialist governments like those in China and Cuba but none of them is communist.Communism is the highest form of socialism and it isn't compatable neither with education nor with wealth.


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 22-Apr-2007 at 22:01
Communism isn't compatable with wealth (its the whole point isn't it), but education on the other hand has done very well in Communist countries. Communist countries have excellent records in literacy, numeracy, and Russia was at the forefront of scientific discovery in its communist days.

-------------


Posted By: Jagiello
Date Posted: 23-Apr-2007 at 07:42
Things like maths,psysics,chemistry were learnt on a big scale in communist countries because they don't have anythong to do with ideology-the "tabu" topic in communist countries.Subjects like phylosophy,ethics,law(roman and international),politics and especially history were almost forgoten.History for example was being written by special members of the communist party so that people learn how great Russia and how bad the west was.So,as a whole,education wasn't as good for the whole population-good for scientists that won't revolt.Intelectuls like phylosophers and good historians however were a rare site and weren't treated very well.


Posted By: sreenivasarao s
Date Posted: 06-May-2007 at 09:15
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim



Democracy doesn't protect the rights of the individual at all. It values the rights of the biggest mob.

When it comes to the question of individual rights and freedom, nothing compares with Anarchy. Look at this:

No political philosophy I ever heard of loves the human race as much as Anarchism. Every other way of looking at the world says that people have to be controlled and ordered around and governed. Only Anarchism trusts the human being enough to let him work it out for himself.

Didier in Shantaram - G D Roberts

 




Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 06-May-2007 at 09:29
Originally posted by Jagiello

I allso think it's not compatible with huge amounts of people simply because most of them don't even have primary education and vote emotionaly for parties that they connect with personal ideas or experiances.Such voting leeds to the electing of communist and nationalist parties.The best form of democracy for me is when only people that graduated College or University or atleast High school can vote.It's simply not fare for me that the vote of an educated Doctor of science or even a Proffesor is equal to the vote of an idiot that can't even read for example but votes because he was prommised good future from a party.This might sound like oligarchy but that kind of "citizenship" in Rome for example worked perffectly,although it wasn't democracy.Just imagine if we put this way of giving "citizenship" only to people that graduated and are considered educated and only they can vote.It would not be somekind of aristocrathic title and would not be recieved as a heritage.If you remember because of the "stupid" crowds did communism prosper in many countries and the intelectual groups were destroyed. 

Sounds very like Aristotle's argument justifying slavery. The 'idiots who can't even read' have to be looked after and guided by those who can.
 
 


-------------


Posted By: Jagiello
Date Posted: 06-May-2007 at 12:31
Originally posted by gcle2003

Originally posted by Jagiello


I allso think it's not compatible with huge amounts of people simply because most of them don't even have primary education and vote emotionaly for parties that they connect with personal ideas or experiances.Such voting leeds to the electing of communist and nationalist parties.The best form of democracy for me is when only people that graduated College or University or atleast High school can vote.It's simply not fare for me that the vote of an educated Doctor of science or even a Proffesor is equal to the vote of an idiot that can't even read for example but votes because he was prommised good future from a party.This might sound like oligarchy but that kind of "citizenship" in Rome for example worked perffectly,although it wasn't democracy.Just imagine if we put this way of giving "citizenship" only to people that graduated and are considered educated and only they can vote.It would not be somekind of aristocrathic title and would not be recieved as a heritage.If you remember because of the "stupid" crowds did communism prosper in many countries and the intelectual groupswere destroyed.


Sounds very like Aristotle's argument justifying slavery. The 'idiots who can't even read' have to be looked after and guided by those who can.




Well,my opinion is the idiots that can't even read shouldn't be allowed to rule and determine the faith of all others.They shouldn't be slaves and have no rights but also shouldn't be masters and their votes to be with same value as those of the educated people.And after all,slaves don't choose to be slaves.They are either born or made slaves.Most of the uneducated people have chosen to leave school or just didn't want to learn.I'm talking about the wealthy countryes where even the poor can become educated.


Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 06-May-2007 at 22:02

Access to information and abilitiy to understand it is more important to a democracy than population size. Which is why there's censorship in China and why there's so much manipualtion of the media in the west.

 


-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06-May-2007 at 23:47
Originally posted by Jagiello

...Well,my opinion is the idiots that can't even read shouldn't be allowed to rule and determine the faith of all others.They shouldn't be slaves and have no rights but also shouldn't be masters and their votes to be with same value as those of the educated people.And after all,slaves don't choose to be slaves.They are either born or made slaves.Most of the uneducated people have chosen to leave school or just didn't want to learn.I'm talking about the wealthy countryes where even the poor can become educated.
 
The idea of democracy is that idiots cancel it out LOL.
 
If you make a election system where only the smart and educated can vote, it won't be a democracy anymore, but a meritocracy. Something like the bureocrats of ancient China.
 
Democracy is the believe ALL MAN ARE equal, regardless of education, social possition and even intelligence.
 
That's what most people in the West believe in. Even the underdeveloped Latin America have very clear that democracy is the voice of the masses, particularly the ones that lack education.
 
Pinguin
 


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06-May-2007 at 23:49
Originally posted by DukeC

Access to information and abilitiy to understand it is more important to a democracy than population size. Which is why there's censorship in China and why there's so much manipualtion of the media in the west.

 
 
Dictatorship is incompatible with a free market economy. If China continues to be sucessful economically it will have to turn to democracy. Otherwise things will explode in social revolts. They will start at the first economical downturn.
 
It has happened many times before. There is nothing to stop it to happens in China.
 
Pinguin
 


Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 07-May-2007 at 12:54
Originally posted by pinguin

Originally posted by DukeC

Access to information and abilitiy to understand it is more important to a democracy than population size. Which is why there's censorship in China and why there's so much manipualtion of the media in the west.

 
 
Dictatorship is incompatible with a free market economy. If China continues to be sucessful economically it will have to turn to democracy. Otherwise things will explode in social revolts. They will start at the first economical downturn.
 
It has happened many times before. There is nothing to stop it to happens in China.
 
Pinguin
 
 
I agree.


-------------


Posted By: LuckyNomad
Date Posted: 13-May-2007 at 22:35
Why can't Democracy work in a country with over 1 billion people? It certainly works in a country with over 300 million. I'm sure that people in Belgium wonder how Democracy works in a country as big as Germany and the Germans wonder how it can work in a country as big as the US. It's merely a matter of breaking it down, just like with any other government. You have mayors in charge of towns and cities, and governors in charge of provinces/states and 1 person on top. It's like the difference between an infantry squad and an Army Group. It's basically run the same way, just on a larger scale.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-May-2007 at 06:17

What does it mean if a democracy truly "works" in the first place?  Is it one in which there is a hundred per-cent, direct representation?  Benjamin Franklin said that the Constitution would end up being nothing more than a band-aid, and that some kind of totalitarianism would rear its head again.  Maybe the notion of a democracy that starts to not work is one in which the spectrum of debate ends up narrowing itself.  If a population gets big enough, certain voices and segments necessarily become marginalized.  When necessity binds people together, you see democracy in its most unadulterated form.  The colonists of the 18th century railed against something in a time of urgency.  The Constitution reflects what their (ostensibly, the entire population's) contemporary fears were about evil governments.  So many factors have entered into the equation over the last couple of hundred years, that our collective sense of need has completely changed.  This tiny segment cares about the loss of the second amendment, this sizeable chunk cares about whether Paris Hilton goes to the slammer, this group cares about global warming.  I do not think it is possible for the United States to function democractically at this point--at least not the way the Founding Fathers might have intended.  At this point, its just a vehicle that gets driven by the guy with the best PR.  Whatever the case, I'll take American democracy on its worst day over North Korean totalitarianism on its best.



-------------


Posted By: Jagiello
Date Posted: 14-May-2007 at 07:05
I think Sun Tzu said "to rule many is the same as ruling few-it's a matter of organisation".


Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 30-May-2007 at 00:02
Here's my two cents: democracy, like any other political system, is designed to keep the population under control and in good order. In any human society there will be an elite of some sort, who are always in control over society via economic or political or religious/ideological means) or a combination thereof. So far, it is the best such system designed, because middle class and poor people either have the feeling in control (whereas the elite is always in that position), or simply tune out politics because they start seeing the current state of events as natural and unchangeable. Other systems are more heavy-handed, and they result in the population being discontent, leading to political subversion and general loss of productivity.
 
So, in answer to the original question, it doesn't really matter how big the population is, democracy performs this function at the individual level or middle and lower class people.


-------------
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi



Posted By: Praetor
Date Posted: 30-May-2007 at 04:27
What matters just as much as the population size is Geographical size and wealth per person (ever wonder why the first democracies were relatively wealthy city-states). large democracies often must become representative democracy's which often become mere Aristocracy's so my preference is for direct democracies if possible (there usually not).

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim


Democracy doesn't protect the rights of the individual at all. It values the rights of the biggest mob.


I Completely agreeClap

Regards, Praetor.


-------------


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 30-May-2007 at 06:16
Originally posted by DukeC

Access to information and abilitiy to understand it is more important to a democracy than population size.

To a large extent educated populations demand a say in how they are ruled, which often leads to democracy or at least a democratisation.
Originally posted by Jagiello

I think Sun Tzu said "to rule many is the same as ruling few-it's a matter of organisation".

Well Quoted!Thumbs%20Up

-------------


Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 30-May-2007 at 07:07
Originally posted by LuckyNomad

You have mayors in charge of towns and cities, and governors in charge of provinces/states and 1 person on top. It's like the difference between an infantry squad and an Army Group. It's basically run the same way, just on a larger scale.
 
I do not think a country with 1 person on top is very democratical at all.


-------------

Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.


Posted By: LuckyNomad
Date Posted: 30-May-2007 at 07:52
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

It's the only choice if you value the rights of the individual.

Democracy doesn't protect the rights of the individual at all. It values the rights of the biggest mob.
 
I think that's the reason that most "democracies," aren't really true democracies. They're Democratic Republics, which channel all the fickle opinions and desires of the people into a really slow and rarely changing system or representation. But man, I can't wait until US politics starts getting EXTREME. Like in Taiwan, where the representatives kick the crap out of each other in congress.


Posted By: LuckyNomad
Date Posted: 30-May-2007 at 07:58
Originally posted by Aelfgifu

Originally posted by LuckyNomad

You have mayors in charge of towns and cities, and governors in charge of provinces/states and 1 person on top. It's like the difference between an infantry squad and an Army Group. It's basically run the same way, just on a larger scale.
 
I do not think a country with 1 person on top is very democratical at all.
 
Which Countries, or Corporations, or organization, doesn't have a Chief Executive on top? Sure there's usually a legislature or board of directors, but there always has to be 1 person who is clearly THE Executive, whether it's Vladamir Putin in 2007 or Drogg the Destroyer in 10,000BC.
 


Posted By: LuckyNomad
Date Posted: 30-May-2007 at 07:59
Oddly, Singapore seems to stand alone in the field of having a large educated population, yet no democracy.


Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 30-May-2007 at 08:32
Originally posted by LuckyNomad

Which Countries, or Corporations, or organization, doesn't have a Chief Executive on top? Sure there's usually a legislature or board of directors, but there always has to be 1 person who is clearly THE Executive, whether it's Vladamir Putin in 2007 or Drogg the Destroyer in 10,000BC.
 
 
A corporation is not a democracy so comparing them is irrelevant.
 
In countries there are examples. In Germany, England and the Netherlands for example, the queen/president is largely a figurehead with very little to no actual power. The one in effect leading the country is the Prime Minister, but he/she is very heavily tied to the will of the parliament. Acting against the parliament is likely to result in a withdrawal of the support of parliament, making it impossible for the Prime Ministers and his government to reign with any effect.
 
In a democracy, the power should be in the hands of the peoples representation. They should have the power to act or stop acts. The government is only the tool they use to do so. That is the basis of the Trias Politica.


-------------

Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.


Posted By: LuckyNomad
Date Posted: 30-May-2007 at 09:29

Nevertheless, the Prime Minister is still the 1 person who is on top.

Though I would argue that the concept of a parlimentary system is somewhat less democratic than the US system because all the power is concentrated into one body, whereas in the US, it is seperated into 3 independent powers that fight one another. Yes, over the last 107 years, the Executive Branch has been gaining a lot of ground for various reasons. Another difference is that Tony Blair is elected into the Parliment by his home district and then becomes Prime Minister. The President of the US is the only person in the US who is elected nationwide.

I'd say that both systems have their good points and bad points. I admit that it is quite entertaining to watch, "Prime Minister's Questions," on C-Span. Much more so, than watching the US congress.


Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 30-May-2007 at 09:39

Actually the US system is not very democratical at all. Large amounts of people are not able to vote because of active opposition against them doing so, there are only two parties that are virtually the same, congress is made up from 1 person per state, which makes is totally impossible to have a proper representation of a state, and the president can be elected with an absolute minority of votes, and the juridical powers, which should be neutal, are clearly and outspokenly politically aligned. That is why you are lower on the Democracy list than the abovementioned countries:

http://www.worldaudit.org/democracy.htm - http://www.worldaudit.org/democracy.htm


-------------

Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 30-May-2007 at 09:46
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

Communism isn't compatable with wealth (its the whole point isn't it), but education on the other hand has done very well in Communist countries. Communist countries have excellent records in literacy, numeracy, and Russia was at the forefront of scientific discovery in its communist days.
 
That is true Communist countries, and governments have had a high emphasis on education, many Communist countries had world class schools. Jagiello I do not remember any anti-intellectual uprisings, however, anti-aristocrical ones are common procedure, hence the name "Communism" it is supposed to be a society of equals not of castes, or economic classes.


-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 30-May-2007 at 09:59
Originally posted by Aelfgifu

Actually the US system is not very democratical at all. Large amounts of people are not able to vote because of active opposition against them doing so, there are only two parties that are virtually the same, congress is made up from 1 person per state, which makes is totally impossible to have a proper representation of a state, and the president can be elected with an absolute minority of votes, and the juridical powers, which should be neutal, are clearly and outspokenly politically aligned. That is why you are lower on the Democracy list than the abovementioned countries:

http://www.worldaudit.org/democracy.htm - http://www.worldaudit.org/democracy.htm
 
2 Senators per state in the Senate, and a varied number of representatives per population size of each state in the house of representatives.


-------------


Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 30-May-2007 at 11:29
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

It values the rights of the biggest mob. I much prefer military dictatorship (with a good dictator) for rights.


I will respectfully disagree. Dictators tend to trample rights because a lot of their energy does into making sure that they stay in power either because they enjoy it or because they are afraid of being held responsible for their actions.

-------------


Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 30-May-2007 at 11:32
Originally posted by pinguin

[QUOTE=DukeC]
Dictatorship is incompatible with a free market economy. If China continues to be sucessful economically it will have to turn to democracy. Otherwise things will explode in social revolts. They will start at the first economical downturn.



I wouldn't be so sure about that. Yes, a free-market does well in politically free countries, but it has also thrived under dictatorships.

-------------


Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 30-May-2007 at 11:35
Originally posted by es_bih

Originally posted by Aelfgifu

Actually the US system is not very democratical at all. Large amounts of people are not able to vote because of active opposition against them doing so, there are only two parties that are virtually the same, congress is made up from 1 person per state, which makes is totally impossible to have a proper representation of a state, and the president can be elected with an absolute minority of votes, and the juridical powers, which should be neutal, are clearly and outspokenly politically aligned. That is why you are lower on the Democracy list than the abovementioned countries:

http://www.worldaudit.org/democracy.htm - http://www.worldaudit.org/democracy.htm
 
2 Senators per state in the Senate, and a varied number of representatives per population size of each state in the house of representatives.
Oh, sorry, 2. Smile But how can two states of vastly different size, population and industry ever be equally represented like that? 'Cause it seems to me the senate is a lot more powerful than the house of representatives.


-------------

Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.


Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 30-May-2007 at 12:29
Originally posted by hugoestr



I wouldn't be so sure about that. Yes, a free-market does well in politically free countries, but it has also thrived under dictatorships.



Examples?

Most of dictatorships even the most succesful ones are based on a controled economy (Meiji Japan, 1960s Korea, even China to a large extend). I can't think of one successful econonomy based on freedom of trade and no political freedom.

South American dictatorship were not very successful and did not have a free market (the presence of important multinationals does not mean freedom of trade).

In my opinion it is for one simple reason: a market to function properly needs a referee, which in the modern world is in a huge majority of case the state or any form of public administration. By definition a dictator as very limited and very biased check and control, hence he (never she) has enormous incentive to direct the economy. He can be very sucessful at it (see Deng or Korea).

Democracy allows a limited yet efficient (most of the time) control of the market. An economy can thrive under a dictator but cannot be qualified as free.

Nowadays the BRICK (Brazil, Russia, India, China, Kazakhstan) have very imperfectly free economies. Even Brazil has little control over many haciendas while the state controles some 50% of the GDP

PS: I don't know about Iran, but I guess the state controls the oil exploitation.


-------------
I am a free donkey!


Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 30-May-2007 at 12:48

Are all dictatorships wrong? its the "benevolent dictator" argument again Tongue

The best example of a sucessfull democracy today is obviously the U.S as its a super-power, economically the wealthies nation and the most advanced.
 
However, in my opinion, its a "benevolent dicatorship" of the more intellectually advanced kind.
 
Only those who have the right contacts, education and belong to the right societies will be considered for election. Two guys meet the requirements, it doesn't really matter who gets chosen, they're a figurehead for the benevolent dictatorship mechanism working behind the scenes ensuring America's interests.
 
What's smart about the system is that citizens feel they have a choice, as there are two candidates, they get caught up in the media hype and there are all these rallies and so on but at the end of the day the results will be known before-hand. The media will determine who will and won't get chosen, they can make and ruin people.
 
The benevolent dictatorship mechanism delegates some decision making further down the chain which keeps people happy.
 
A real democracy is similar to anarchism, it gives power and trusts the people with not having to be ordered around, instead being able to work together as an equal society.
 
Do we need to be ruled? do we really have a choice in electing rulers?
 
 


-------------
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine



Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 30-May-2007 at 13:13
Maharbbal,

I believe that we are tripping over the term "free-market," which I have used as a substitute for "capitalism." This is how it is used in the U.S.; look at how American economic journalists talk about China, and they keep talking about how China is participating more and more in the "free-market".

Are markets under dictatorships "free"? Of course not, by definition. But they are "free" enough, or more properly said, capitalistic enough to attract foreign investors and multinationals.

War-centric dictatorships tend to have a centralized economy because it is very efficient for war production. But more peacefully oriented dictatorships can have a good amount of economic freedom that doesn't translate into a political one. My big example is Mexico, whose one-party system survived for 70 year. That one is followed by Chile, which lasted about 17 years.
Franco in Spain was another dictator that had a moderately free economy, in the later years, without political freedom.


-------------


Posted By: Jagiello
Date Posted: 30-May-2007 at 13:36
Originally posted by es_bih

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

Communism isn't compatable with wealth (its the whole point isn't it), but education on the other hand has done very well in Communist countries. Communist countries have excellent records in literacy, numeracy, and Russia was at the forefront of scientific discovery in its communist days.
 
That is true Communist countries, and governments have had a high emphasis on education, many Communist countries had world class schools. Jagiello I do not remember any anti-intellectual uprisings, however, anti-aristocrical ones are common procedure, hence the name "Communism" it is supposed to be a society of equals not of castes, or economic classes.
 
When communists take power they usually murder the whealthiest people,who are usually the most educated-doctors,teachers,scientists,politics....(remember i'm talking about 40-50 years ago).At the end only the dummest class remains.In China for example students murder their own teachers.In Cambodia,one of the worst cases,there were no doctors,teachers or any kind of educated men remaining after the communist revolution.And about the education during the communism-physics,maths and all kind of stuff that doesn't have anything to do with politics is truelly on a high level.When it comes to other subjects the situations becomes horrible.The USSR for example was making the history of the world like a hollywood movie-an unstoppable battle between good and evil(ofcourse Russia is the good guy and the imperialsts are the bad).There have been no law,phylosophy,religion or ethics classes in school.So,as a whole communism is bad for education in the begginig and after that deosn't become relly better exept in mathematical subjects.


Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 30-May-2007 at 16:31
@ Bulldog

You're right well partly. Indeed it seems that the US political system is monopolized by two groups who skillfully manage to give the idea to anybody else that they have the choice.

It is the case with any form of representative democracy, your piking the dictator you like. Kind of.

The succession of Bush I and Bush II and maybe latter of Cliton I and Clinton II is here to reenforce the feeling that democracy exists but that some are more demo than others.

Yet two fact are to be taken into consideration:

1) Anybody using the cursus honorum imposed by these parties or its own witt can pretend to become the new dictator. See R. Regan, he wasn't born a rich man in a politically influencial familly.

2) The powers of the dictator in the US more than anywhere else are hugely limited by federal and local institutions. (and by the fact that there are 200 million guns in the country :p)

I believe that we are tripping over the term "free-market,"
I don't know what you smoke but I want some, if it makes you trip about free-market it ought to be a biiiip good sh*t

which I have used as a substitute for "capitalism." This is how it is used in the U.S.; look at how American economic journalists talk about China, and they keep talking about how China is participating more and more in the "free-market".
I'm afraid you (or some US medias) are mistaking integration  in a relatively free and open world market (the case of China kind of) and a domestically free and open economy (not quite the case of China, see the recent example of mobile phones companies)

Are markets under dictatorships "free"? Of course not, by definition.
No by definition what isn't free is the political life, hypothetically economy coud be free, see 15th century England, very much free economy very much unfree political life (unless you get yourself a good hax)

But they are "free" enough, or more properly said, capitalistic enough to attract foreign investors and multinationals.
What is it you mean by capitalistic? Saudi Arabia is unfree and capitalistic as far as I know. Hey even better Dubai is a benevolent dictatorship and very very capitalistic.

War-centric dictatorships tend to have a centralized economy because it is very efficient for war production.
Or ideologist like Stalin and Mao.

But more peacefully oriented dictatorships can have a good amount of economic freedom that doesn't translate into a political one. My big example is Mexico, whose one-party system survived for 70 year. That one is followed by Chile, which lasted about 17 years.
Franco in Spain was another dictator that had a moderately free economy, in the later years, without political freedom.
Hummmm, I'm not quite sure that the economy in these country was not elitist and nepotistic more than free. Remember as a good Marxist you ought to know that the state is nothing but the expression of the domination of a class so direct or indirect (via state control) ownership over the means of production does not really matter.


-------------
I am a free donkey!


Posted By: LuckyNomad
Date Posted: 30-May-2007 at 20:00
Originally posted by Aelfgifu

Originally posted by es_bih

Originally posted by Aelfgifu

Actually the US system is not very democratical at all. Large amounts of people are not able to vote because of active opposition against them doing so, there are only two parties that are virtually the same, congress is made up from 1 person per state, which makes is totally impossible to have a proper representation of a state, and the president can be elected with an absolute minority of votes, and the juridical powers, which should be neutal, are clearly and outspokenly politically aligned. That is why you are lower on the Democracy list than the abovementioned countries:

http://www.worldaudit.org/democracy.htm - http://www.worldaudit.org/democracy.htm
 
2 Senators per state in the Senate, and a varied number of representatives per population size of each state in the house of representatives.
Oh, sorry, 2. Smile But how can two states of vastly different size, population and industry ever be equally represented like that? 'Cause it seems to me the senate is a lot more powerful than the house of representatives.
 
They are represented equally, and yet they aren't. The Writers of the Constitution compromised by having every state equally represented in the Senate but having them proportionately represented in the House of Representatives. Alaska has 1 represenative and 2 senators while California has about 60 representatives and 2 senators. 
The US Senate is not more powerful than the House of Representatives, they simply have different authority. The House can impeach the President and has a lot of the say when it comes to money. The Senate has more authority in the way of Foreign policy. The system is actually quite brilliant in my opinion because Represenatives serve a 2 year term while Senators serve a 6 year term. Thus the Representatives have a bigger incentive to try and get things done while Senators have the ability to sit back and relax with barely any time constraints. This helps to make the Congress unable to do much. I consider this a good thing.
You're right about the  parties being quite similar. I also consider this to be a good thing, because its like having two people in the same boat, rowing in opposite directions. It ensure that things don't change much, and if they do, it's often really slowly. The best government is one that does very little.


Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 30-May-2007 at 20:10
Marhabbal,

It seems that we agree in most of the substantive points that you made.

Interestingly, you gave an example of a politically repressive state with a free economy, which means that you support the main point that I made to begin with: a free economy doesn't necessarily mean free political life.

You provide two more countries to my examples on how capitalism and dictatorship can live together by mentioning Saudi Arabia and Dubai, which add to the other examples that I gave you.

Finally, I am not a Marxist, since I disagree with major parts of the doctrine, e.g. I don't believe that revolution brings a better life to the people. :)

-------------


Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 31-May-2007 at 05:07
Originally posted by LuckyNomad

They are represented equally, and yet they aren't. The Writers of the Constitution compromised by having every state equally represented in the Senate but having them proportionately represented in the House of Representatives. Alaska has 1 represenative and 2 senators while California has about 60 representatives and 2 senators. 
That is weird. How can you give a state with 10 time more people, and a better economy the same number of senators and still think your government is working for the people?
 
The US Senate is not more powerful than the House of Representatives, they simply have different authority. The House can impeach the President and has a lot of the say when it comes to money. The Senate has more authority in the way of Foreign policy.
That would explain why we hear so much about the Senate and so little about the representatives over here.
 
 The system is actually quite brilliant in my opinion because Represenatives serve a 2 year term while Senators serve a 6 year term. Thus the Representatives have a bigger incentive to try and get things done while Senators have the ability to sit back and relax with barely any time constraints. This helps to make the Congress unable to do much. I consider this a good thing.
How can you consider a lame and useless politcal body a good thing? Might as well get rid of them, saves you the money.
 
You're right about the  parties being quite similar. I also consider this to be a good thing, because its like having two people in the same boat, rowing in opposite directions. It ensure that things don't change much, and if they do, it's often really slowly. The best government is one that does very little.
I rather have a government that works personally. Why you would one that does not is beyond me. And why you consider having two almost the same parties a good thing in a democracy is puzzling too. What is the use of having the freedom to vote if there is nothing particular to vote for? Makes the whole process a bit obsolete.
 
So how exactly do you consider a government that is useless, slow and chosen because there were no other oprions to choose to be a highlight of democracy?


-------------

Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 31-May-2007 at 09:06
 
Originally posted by Jagiello

 
When communists take power they usually murder the whealthiest people,who are usually the most educated-doctors,teachers,scientists,politics....(remember i'm talking about 40-50 years ago).
That doesn't square with my experience of what happened in Eastern Europe when the Soviets took over. The ruling elite in the sixties (i.e. the bureaucracy), certainly the ones I met, were mostly sons and daughters (mostly sons - I don't know why I added 'daughters') of the pre-Communist elites.
 
In 1956 I was in Austria covering the revolution in Hungary, most particularly the incoming stream of refugees, and the impression certainly was that the old middle-class was still the new middle-class. A doctoral student from Bulgaria in the late 'sixties (influential enough to be allowed to study abroad) was the son of a banker in the pre-Communist regime, and confirmed to me there hadn't been much change in who was actually running the country.
 
Of course, the chief political figures liked to boast of their working-class backgrounds - and you may figure that the Soviet takeover in eastern Europe was not an example of Communists coming to power.
 


-------------


Posted By: DukeC
Date Posted: 31-May-2007 at 17:51
Originally posted by gcle2003

 
In 1956 I was in Austria covering the revolution in Hungary, most particularly the incoming stream of refugees, and the impression certainly was that the old middle-class was still the new middle-class.
 
Did you happen to meet the leader of the Sopron student brigade?
 
He and many other forestry students came here to B.C. where they were able to complete their degrees at U.B.C., I even think some of their profs came over too. He worked with my dad for years in the forest industry here.


-------------


Posted By: LuckyNomad
Date Posted: 31-May-2007 at 20:22
It works because the US is not a pure democracy, which would basically mean, "the majority gets its way and the minority gets nothing." It's a compromise that works. It gives smaller states a say, while giving bigger states the power they ought to have, without the ability to completely blot out the voice of the smaller states. 
But if you think that this system is wrong, then I ask you this, if the UN ever became a world government with sovereignty over every country, should China have 1/5 of the voting power in the UN General Assembly, and India have another 1/5? Those two countries would control everything. How would you, as a citizen of the Netherlands, feel about this arrangement? I think that the vast majority of the countries would not be happy with such a system.
 But if China and India could have their proportional represenation in one part of the UN Assembly, while the Netherlands could have equal power and an equal voice in the other part, I think perhaps that this arrangement would be acceptable for your country. Correct?
 
I consider the slowness of the US Congress to be a good thing because it means that the government can't mass produce laws every day. I prefer small governments that don't get too involved in people's lives. The Federal Government should protect the country, provide police and public works, and do a few other things. The government shouldn't be taxing people's income, or subsidizing farms, or appropriating money for ridiculous projects.
 
The parties are similar because the majority of Americans are middle of the road in political ideology. Thus, it makes sure that the country stays relatively in the middle and only slowly moves leftward or rightward. Kind of like, two steps forward, one step back. I see this as good because if I am a Democrat and a Republican President gets elected, I know that my life isn't going to suddenly implode. If I'm a Republican and a Democrat becomes President, I might be angry, but my life isn't going to be radically altered overnight.
 
I like this sort of government because Democracy isn't a good governing system. There is no such thing as a good governing system. Democracy just happens to be the best worst option.
 


Posted By: Jagiello
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2007 at 10:29
Originally posted by gcle2003

 
Originally posted by Jagiello

 
When communists take power they usually murder the whealthiest people,who are usually the most educated-doctors,teachers,scientists,politics....(remember i'm talking about 40-50 years ago).
That doesn't square with my experience of what happened in Eastern Europe when the Soviets took over. The ruling elite in the sixties (i.e. the bureaucracy), certainly the ones I met, were mostly sons and daughters (mostly sons - I don't know why I added 'daughters') of the pre-Communist elites.
 
In 1956 I was in Austria covering the revolution in Hungary, most particularly the incoming stream of refugees, and the impression certainly was that the old middle-class was still the new middle-class. A doctoral student from Bulgaria in the late 'sixties (influential enough to be allowed to study abroad) was the son of a banker in the pre-Communist regime, and confirmed to me there hadn't been much change in who was actually running the country.
 
Of course, the chief political figures liked to boast of their working-class backgrounds - and you may figure that the Soviet takeover in eastern Europe was not an example of Communists coming to power.
 
 
It's true some of the "elite" in pre-communist countries became the new ruling class during communists but it is because they co-operated with the communist and in fact became such.Those that tried to became an opposition,to criticize the regime or were related to the old one were quicly send to camps or just killed.Fortunately most of them realised what was going to happen and fled west.The intelectuals in Cambodia and Vietnam didn't have that luck and we can see one of the best examples of communist genocide against the upper classes in those countries.The result was as i said the lack of any educated class,which led to millions of dead.


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2007 at 12:21
 
Originally posted by DukeC

Originally posted by gcle2003

 
In 1956 I was in Austria covering the revolution in Hungary, most particularly the incoming stream of refugees, and the impression certainly was that the old middle-class was still the new middle-class.
 
Did you happen to meet the leader of the Sopron student brigade?
No. Most of the people were fairly apolitical middle class. There was certainly also a sprinkling of criminals.
 
Back in 1980 I interviewed a 26-year-old woman for a job as a programmer: it turned out she was Hungarian, and I did some fast arithmetic, and yes it turned out her family had escaped over the refugee route I was covering, including ending up at the Donington Park refugee camp, where it's very probable I would have seen her. Made me realise how fast time was going by....
 
He and many other forestry students came here to B.C. where they were able to complete their degrees at U.B.C., I even think some of their profs came over too. He worked with my dad for years in the forest industry here.


-------------


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2007 at 12:26
 
Originally posted by Jagiello

Originally posted by gcle2003

 
Originally posted by Jagiello

 
When communists take power they usually murder the whealthiest people,who are usually the most educated-doctors,teachers,scientists,politics....(remember i'm talking about 40-50 years ago).
That doesn't square with my experience of what happened in Eastern Europe when the Soviets took over. The ruling elite in the sixties (i.e. the bureaucracy), certainly the ones I met, were mostly sons and daughters (mostly sons - I don't know why I added 'daughters') of the pre-Communist elites.
 
In 1956 I was in Austria covering the revolution in Hungary, most particularly the incoming stream of refugees, and the impression certainly was that the old middle-class was still the new middle-class. A doctoral student from Bulgaria in the late 'sixties (influential enough to be allowed to study abroad) was the son of a banker in the pre-Communist regime, and confirmed to me there hadn't been much change in who was actually running the country.
 
Of course, the chief political figures liked to boast of their working-class backgrounds - and you may figure that the Soviet takeover in eastern Europe was not an example of Communists coming to power.
 
 
It's true some of the "elite" in pre-communist countries became the new ruling class during communists but it is because they co-operated with the communist and in fact became such.Those that tried to became an opposition,to criticize the regime or were related to the old one were quicly send to camps or just killed.Fortunately most of them realised what was going to happen and fled west.
I agree about the three groupings. The largest though appeared to be the first.
The intelectuals in Cambodia and Vietnam didn't have that luck and we can see one of the best examples of communist genocide against the upper classes in those countries.The result was as i said the lack of any educated class,which led to millions of dead.
I agree that things were totally different there, and indeed were also very different again in China.
 
But there was no cultural revolution or genocide in eastern Europe - probably because the Soviets were only concerned with maintaining their dominance, and having things run smoothly, rather than with ideology. Bit like the way the British generally left native rulers in place in India, Malaya and Africa.


-------------


Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 05-Jun-2007 at 10:09
Originally posted by Northman

But who cares about poor people? - they have nothingfor anyone torob - only poverty, and who wants that?


Hey, don't kid yourself - robbing the poor has always been the quick way to the top. They don't have much, but there are alot of them.

Plus they have things other than money in spades. Labour, lives (which can be sacrificed in war), they once had land in some countries, and so on.


Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 05-Jun-2007 at 10:17
Originally posted by gcle2003

[Of course, the chief political figures liked to boast of their working-class backgrounds - and you may figure that the Soviet takeover in eastern Europe was not an example of Communists coming to power.


I believe in the case of the Russian revolution, there is some evidence that it was a case of a dwindling aristocracy seizing power back from an emerging merchant class, a process that began in St. Petersburg and began spreading into the heart of Russia in the early 20th century.

Whatever the case - the 20th century was one in which bureaucrats seized power and formed the elites, and the 21st appears to be the age of the managers who are now seizing power. Political systems seem to be quite a secondary consideration in terms of the nature of power.


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 06-Jun-2007 at 10:03
 
Originally posted by edgewaters

Originally posted by gcle2003

[Of course, the chief political figures liked to boast of their working-class backgrounds - and you may figure that the Soviet takeover in eastern Europe was not an example of Communists coming to power.


I believe in the case of the Russian revolution, there is some evidence that it was a case of a dwindling aristocracy seizing power back from an emerging merchant class, a process that began in St. Petersburg and began spreading into the heart of Russia in the early 20th century.

Whatever the case - the 20th century was one in which bureaucrats seized power and formed the elites, and the 21st appears to be the age of the managers who are now seizing power. Political systems seem to be quite a secondary consideration in terms of the nature of power.
 
I wouldn't disagree. But I'd also point to the emergence of the secular intelligentsia as a power group in most Communist countries - even Mao being an example.
 
I write 'secular' because to some extent this parallels the role of the Church in the middle ages providing a route to power for the intelligent and politically astute.
 


-------------


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 25-May-2010 at 15:25
I certainly wish that "LuckyNomad" was still apparent on this later version of this site!

Dear,"LuckyNomad!" come back!

gcle2003, please come back!

Edgewaters, maybe? Laugh!

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2010 at 14:30
Why does our president speak with crazy dictators, but not with the "white" chief of BP OIL! Is it because he is a "White executive living out in the surburbs who does not care about minority children living in the inner city?" Note, the previous words are mostly those of President Obama!

Is he really a racist like his preacher of twenty years?

Please do not tell me that African Americans cannot be called "racist?"

After all, President Obama is only one half "African!", therefore he is also one half "White!", or Swedish, etc.!

Just why is he referred to as "BLACK?" Mullatto, might be more correct? Or, as it used to be called "half breed?", but just why is he called "Black" or "African American" rather than "Swedish American?"

Come on, "splain somethin to me Lucy?"



-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2010 at 21:37
Been watching Glenn Beck again huh?

ok, well, I fact checked this and here is the reality:

The clip Beck used was an edited version of an interview Obama had 15 years ago (in 1995). You can hear the full interview http://www.eyeonbooks.com/ibp_obama.php - HERE.

This is the portion Glenn Beck used:

“And I really want to emphasize the word responsibility. I think that whether you are a white executive living out in the suburbs who doesn’t want to pay taxes to inner-city children to — for them to go to school.”


Now here is the what Obama had said, and keep in mind this was 15 years ago, in full:

What Obama said was in response to this question which the interviewer had asked. Obama was asked whether the next generation will also have to deal with the same racial issues

“Right. And I think that is going to be happening, and we can’t ignore it. I think whether or not my children or your children will have to struggle with these same issues depends on what we do and whether we take some mutual responsibility for bridging the divisions that exist right now. And I really want to emphasize the word “responsibility.” I think that whether you are a white executive living out in the suburbs who doesn’t want to pay taxes to inner-city children to — for them to go to school or you are a inner-city child who doesn’t want to take responsibility for keeping your street safe and clean, both of those groups have to take some responsibility if we’re going to get beyond the kinds of divisions that we face right now.”


Obama said that for racial issues to be resolved, both Whites and Blacks need to take responsibility. Glenn Beck conveniently left this part out, and made some bizarre connection to BP.

For further information, and video of Glenn Beck's show regarding this issue and a transcript of the Obama interview, see http://mediamatters.org/research/201006140061?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+mediamatters%2Flatest+%28Media+Matters+-+Latest+Items%29 - HERE

---------------------------

Opuslola, I am no longer going to argue with you, there is no point in that. As a matter of fact, I would like to apologize to you right now for ever arguing with you in the first place.

What I am going to do is to fact check everything for you because arguing will not resolve anything, but allowing you to express your frustration and concerns in a positive factual way rather than through lying or spreading hate is the most beneficial thing for everyone.

There are ways to express your grievances. Using legitimate information is a more powerful tool than deceit.

Democracy is not about lying or spreading hate. This is how dictators come to power, they come to power by playing on peoples emotions and ignorance. They take advantage of their freedom of speech to spread lies and hate for their own purposes.

I am here, and I believe that you do indeed want to know the truth, no one likes being taken for a fool. I am sincerely putting this offer on the table, if ever you have any questions regarding anything you hear or anything you were told, I will be here for you, not to argue, but to simply help.

I hope that by simply informing you of the truth you will then pass on that information to others.


-------------
I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time.


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2010 at 17:03
Well, TGS, here is another one for you to debunk!


This is chilling ...
   
In
1952
President Truman
established one day a year as a
"National Day of Prayer."


In
1988
resident Reagan
designated the
First Thursday in May of each year as
the National Day of Prayer.


In June
2007
(then)
Presidential
Candidate Barack Obama
declared that the USA Was no longer a
Christian nation.


LAST year in 2009
President Obama,
canceled the
21st annual National Day
of Prayer ceremony
at the White
House under the rouse
Of "not wanting to offend anyone"


On September 25, 2009
from 4 am until 7 pm,
a National Day of Prayer
for the Muslim religion was Held on Capitol Hill,
Beside the White House.
There were over 50,000 Muslims that
Day in DC.


I guess it Doesn't matter
if "Christians"
Are offended by this event -
We obviously
Don't count as
"anyone" Anymore.

The direction
This country is headed
Should strike fear in the heart of every Christian.
Especially knowing that the
Muslim religion believes that if Christians cannot be
Converted they should be Annihilated

This is not a Rumor -
Go to the website
To confirm this info:
( http://www.islamoncapitolhill.com/ )



Pay particular attention to the very bottom of the page:
"OUR TIME HAS COME"
I hope that this Information will stir your spirit.


The words of 2 Chronicles 7:14   
"If my people, Who are called by my Name,
Will humble themselves And pray,
And seek my face, and Turn from their Wicked ways,
Then will I hear from Heaven
And will forgive their Sin and will heal Their land."

We must pray for Our nation, our communities,
Our families, and especially our children.
They are the ones that are going to suffer the most

If we don't PRAY!
May God have Mercy...
IN GOD WE TRUST.


-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2010 at 18:44
Sure thing. I'll go through each part one by one.

Originally posted by opuslola




This is chilling ...
   
In
1952
President Truman
established one day a year as a
"National Day of Prayer."


In

1988
resident Reagan
designated the
First Thursday in May of each year as
the National Day of Prayer.


Yes, its historical fact that these presidents did so.


Originally posted by opuslola


In June
2007
(then)
Presidential
Candidate Barack Obama
declared that the USA Was no longer a
Christian nation.


Obama didnt "declare" anything. This is what Obama said: “Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation — at least, not just.  We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.”

He was attesting to the religious diversity of the United States, which includes tens of millions of people who practice other faiths or no faith at all.

Originally posted by opuslola


LAST year in 2009
President Obama,
canceled the
21st annual National Day
of Prayer ceremony
at the White
House under the rouse
Of "not wanting to offend anyone"


Obama simply chose not to celebrate the day publicly, however, he did issue a Presidential Proclamation that day entitled "The National Day of Prayer" and he praised the day and encouraged Americans to pray. The PDF of his proclamation can be found by clicking http://www.cbn.com/images5/cbnnews/PDF/2009prayerPrcRel.pdf - HERE .

Bill Clinton also never held a single "National Day of Prayer" throughout his term in office.

Originally posted by opuslola


On September 25, 2009
from 4 am until 7 pm,
a National Day of Prayer
for the Muslim religion was Held on Capitol Hill,
Beside the White House.
There were over 50,000 Muslims that
Day in DC.


The United States government had nothing to do with this event, neither did Obama.

The event was set up by regular people and non-governmental organizations, and as a democracy where freedom of religion is guaranteed, it was their right to practice their religion where ever they felt like as a non-government organized event.

The organizers went through the proper legal channels in order to obtain a permit, which they received on July 28
by the Capitol Hill Police. The purpose of their prayer ceremony was to pray for America and show solidarity with American values.

Read more about this at FactCheck.org by clicking http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/muslim-prayer-day-sept-25/ - HERE

Originally posted by opuslola


I guess it Doesn't matter
if "Christians"
Are offended by this event -
We obviously
Don't count as
"anyone" Anymore.
]

Why should Christians be offended? The freedom to practice ones religion is guaranteed in the constitutions, and Christians are free to worship and set up gatherings, just as any religious group is.

Originally posted by opuslola


The direction
This country is headed
Should strike fear in the heart of every Christian.
Especially knowing that the
Muslim religion believes that if Christians cannot be
Converted they should be Annihilated


The Bible says the same thing about infidels:

Deuteronomy 17
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.


But what you probably do not know is that the "People of the Book" are protected in Islam:


People of the Book (Arabic: أهل الكتاب‎ ′Ahl al-Kitāb) is a term used to designate non-Muslim adherents to faiths which have a book of prayer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_the_Book#cite_note-0 - [1] The two faiths that are mentioned in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran - Qur'an as people of the book are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism - Judaism and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity - Christianity . However, many Muslim rulers and scholars have included other religions such as Zoroastrianism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_the_Book#cite_note-FOOTNOTEClark199889-1 - [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_the_Book#cite_note-FOOTNOTEGarthwaite2005120-2 - [3] and Hinduism in this list as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_the_Book#cite_note-religionfacts-3 - [4]

Because the People of the Book recognize the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God - God of Abraham as the one and only god, as do Muslims, and they practice revealed faiths based on divine ordinances, tolerance and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomy - autonomy is accorded to them in societies governed by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia - sharia (Islamic divine law).


Once again, the Constitution guarantees the freedom of religion.

---------------------


More information:

Issues of government involvement with religion are often disputed because of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_clause - Establishment clause in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution - First Amendment . While the free-exercise clause allows for this type of event to be organized by non-governmental bodies, the U.S. Congress may not pass any laws enforcing religious observances. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Day_of_Prayer#cite_note-10 - [11]

The contention was brought to attention by one of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers - Founding Fathers , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson - Thomas Jefferson . On January 23, 1808 he wrote on the topic:

"Fasting and prayer are religious exercises; the enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the time for these exercises, and the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and right can never be safer than in their hands, where the Constitution has deposited it. ...civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Day_of_Prayer#cite_note-11 - [12]

In 1822, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Madison - James Madison wrote:

"There has been another deviation from the strict principle in the Executive Proclamations of fasts & festivals, so far, at least, as they have spoken the language of injunction, or have lost sight of the equality of all religious sects in the eye of the Constitution. Whilst I was honored with the Executive Trust I found it necessary on more than one occasion to follow the example of predecessors. But I was always careful to make the Proclamations absolutely indiscriminate, and merely recommendatory; or rather mere designations of a day, on which all who thought proper might unite in consecrating it to religious purposes, according to their own faith & forms. In this sense, I presume you reserve to the Govt. a right to appoint particular days for religious worship throughout the State, without any penal sanction enforcing the worship." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Day_of_Prayer#cite_note-12 - [13]


Furthermore, there is currently a lawsuit against the "National Day of Prayer". The Obama administration is against the lawsuit and asked the court to throw the case out:

The Obama administration asked U.S. District Judge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Crabb - Barbara Crabb to dismiss the case in March 2009. The administration argued the group has no legal standing to sue and that the tradition of the National Day of Prayer dated back to 1775. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Day_of_Prayer#cite_note-15 - [16]



So not only are the assertions in this email about Obama not true, there is a strict separation of Church and State in this country, meaning that the government cannot participate in, conduct, or pass anything regarding religion.

With that said, the freedom to practice religion guaranteed in the constitution means that any one or any non-governmental group can worship anywhere and anyway they want, whether they be Muslim, Christian, Jewish, or whatever.

PLEASE SPREAD THE TRUTH.


-------------
I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time.


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 06-Jul-2010 at 15:02
PLEASE SPREAD THE TRUTH.

A really good idea! Just don't let the Constitution and not the "Constitutions", in the plural form confuse anyone!

Since even Orthodox Judism, and most all so called Christian faiths, given up on the forceable conversion of people to one faith or another, there seems to exist only one faith that still follows that remainder, and that seems to be Islam, and especially those Moslems who believe and follow "Sharia Law!"

If Islam is so tolerant towards other religions, then why are no Christians allowed to start a church in Saudi Arabia? In any country ever conquered by Islam (and still ruled by it!), are other religions allowed the protection by law, to do so?

Please leave Egypt out of your response!
And, of course, you must understand that any nation founded and protected by the Vatican for centuries, also tried their very best to eradicate any religions other than the Roman Catholic one!"

It seems that in most of the world, only the USA, and some European states, that have progressively over the years become less religious and more secular, have actually allowed such things to happen!

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 06-Jul-2010 at 15:36
Originally posted by opuslola



Since even Orthodox Judism,


Judaism was never about converting non-believers.

Originally posted by opuslola


 and most all so called Christian faiths, given up on the forceable conversion of people to one faith or another, there seems to exist only one faith that still follows that remainder, and that seems to be Islam, and especially those Moslems who believe and follow "Sharia Law!"


Christians are still very active in converting non-believers, here in the US and abroad and their methods in the developing world are very brutal and manipulative.

Originally posted by opuslola


If Islam is so tolerant towards other religions, then why are no Christians allowed to start a church in Saudi Arabia? In any country ever conquered by Islam (and still ruled by it!), are other religions allowed the protection by law, to do so?


Because the governments in those countries are intolerant. Islam clearly protects Christianity and Judaism, and even Zoroastrians.

Originally posted by opuslola


It seems that in most of the world, only the USA, and some European states, that have progressively over the years become less religious and more secular, have actually allowed such things to happen!


Korea, Japan, South Africa, South America, etc... I could go on and on...

Religion is stupid, I agree with you Opuslola. The quicker we get rid of it the better.


-------------
I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time.


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2010 at 05:45
Actually there exists evidence that Judiaism did proselytize! See;

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2002/07/The-More-Jews-The-Better.aspx

Regards,

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: Night Crawler
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2010 at 03:36
Democracy is wasted on the idiots-For a democratic society to work laziness must be purged from the system--Otherwise the lazy will band together to rape the ones who toil.
 
It reminds me of something I saw the other day on the net. A little Girl looks at her Mum and says "Mommy why do I have to good in school? The Mum replies so you can grow up and be a tax slave for the kids who do crappy in school."


Posted By: azmo
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2010 at 05:34
In my country some dumbasses don't even try to study in school, because they get money anyway being unemployed.

Crawler, if you meant this, I totally support.


Posted By: Night Crawler
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2010 at 08:20
Good, because that is exactly what I meant!!!!


Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2010 at 09:57
Originally posted by Night Crawler

Democracy is wasted on the idiots-For a democratic society to work laziness must be purged from the system--Otherwise the lazy will band together to rape the ones who toil.
 
It reminds me of something I saw the other day on the net. A little Girl looks at her Mum and says "Mommy why do I have to good in school? The Mum replies so you can grow up and be a tax slave for the kids who do crappy in school."


holy crap, you'd make a great fascist dictatorLOL


-------------
I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time.


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 10-Jul-2010 at 15:08
TGS wrote;

"holy crap, you'd make a great fascist dictator"

I thought that Obama was already on his way to be a "Great facist dictator?" He seems not really to give a crap about it (democracy)?

Nor does it seem he even condider his re-election? It seems?

Therefore, I can only conclude that he and his Marxist cronies, intend to take over the USA, via and internal revolution?

Perhaps some great social meltdown or dire emergency will prove to provoke him to the point of assuming the powers already in place to make him a supreme war-time, bad-time dictator, much like Rooseveldt tried to obtain!

Let's just wait and see?

Actually, what Night Crawler posted is the "progressive" receipe!

Get rid of those who do not produce!

George Bernard Shaw, one of the most noted "progressives" promoted social elimination of those who's life did not produce anything of value! He suggested they be "removed?"

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: Night Crawler
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2010 at 01:25

I think it is progressive that my kids don't grow up to be "tax slaves of the lazy" (that is really a novel idea in the west right now, with our massive welfare states)I am not saying get rid of the lazy; but if you are not a productive member of society then you shouldn't be allowed to vote (of course I am not talking about the disabled or people who can't produce, I am not talking about the pensioners who have already produces and contributed, the veterans who have sacrificed they deserve the full support of society) I am talking about the ones that won't produce, who haven't and who simply never will. Further the indulgence of our society is producing more and more leeches

 

Once a majority of a country becomes leeches they can simply vote to leech off the workers. Then what happens you destroy the income base-the country falls.

 

I say no votes for leeches!!!!!!!!!!! You have to have a stake in society in order to really give a fig about it-America isn't heading that they got the Obamanator I am surprised the LIB DEMs didn't win in the UK - Maybe the UK is getting some common sense.

 

We will see--All the austerity schemes in Europe right now are designed to save the Euro zones economies-I think they are a good start- However you will see a mass leech rebellion and they will sweep in left wing governments with promises to end the austerity and bring back the free ride. Then Europe will crumble-Why because the  Idiot leeches will vote to get something for nothing.

 

No Votes for Leeches !!!!!!!!

 

If that is Fascism then shine up my jack boots.



Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2010 at 12:08
I find it funny how you two claim your defenders of the constitution or democracy yet all your positions are contradictory to those claims.LOL

As for politics in Europe, they are much more liberal than here in the US. Their conservative parties are actually just as liberal and in some cases more liberal than the Democratic Party here in the US.

The Democratic Party is actually very conservative by European standards, and the Republican Party is, well, borderline fascist.

So when you see conservatives winning in Europe, they're not the same as American conservatives or as we use the term conservative here, they are actually quite liberal.




-------------
I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time.


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2010 at 16:20
By the way, other than your above post being pure bunkum, it is not the Democratic Party, the correct name, I believe, is the Democrat Party! Please do not try to take away from good Americans a good word E.g. "democratic?"

To accuse the Republican Party (correctly written!) of being "boderline fascist" is unworthy, and unfair even from you!

I have never indicated that the Democrats are any thing in the mass, but of the Liberal/Progressive bent! But, I have accused some of its membership, including the current powers in the WH, Senate, and HoR, as being more closely aligned with the Marxists/Fascist, than any other political group! But, just like a great advisor to our President has said, "Never let a good..... go to waste!"

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2010 at 17:54
Originally posted by opuslola



To accuse the Republican Party (correctly written!) of being "boderline fascist" is unworthy, and unfair even from you!


Actually, its a quite fair analysis. The Republican Party been radically right wing for two decades and with this new Tea Party movement its even more radical and further to the right. Older Republicans (i.e veteran Republicans who are now losing favor amongst Tea Partiers) are worried about this trend in the Republican Party.




-------------
I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time.


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2010 at 18:05
TGS wrote, almost as a utility;

"Older Republicans (i.e veteran Republicans who are now losing favor amongst Tea Partiers) are worried about this trend in the Republican Party."

You betcha! These are the old "liberal" Republicans in name only, members, which most of us wish to either loose, or fade away! They have via their fake leanings on some issues, have led the way to the currently facist takeover of the USA!

Another word for them might well be "traitors" to their own party?

But, have they also "BETRAYED" their own country?

Perhaps, but what do I know?


-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2010 at 18:11
Originally posted by opuslola

TGS wrote, almost as a utility;

"Older Republicans (i.e veteran Republicans who are now losing favor amongst Tea Partiers) are worried about this trend in the Republican Party."

You betcha! These are the old "liberal" Republicans in name only, members, which most of us wish to either loose, or fade away! They have via their fake leanings on some issues, have led the way to the currently facist takeover of the USA!

Another word for them might well be "traitors" to their own party?

But, have they also "BETRAYED" their own country?

Perhaps, but what do I know?


Were you this angry when Bush was president? What has Obama done to make this country "fascist"?

And veteran Republicans are saying the same thing, that the Party is being taken over by racists, fear mongers, and manipulators.


-------------
I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time.


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2010 at 18:54
Let's see? Takeover of Auto Co.'s, Banks, health care? Did I leave any fascist idea out?

Yes, I had a great deal of problems with both of the Bush's! Do you want me to pick "dumn ass no. 1, or no. 2?"

You also made the following statement;

"And veteran Republicans are saying the same thing, that the Party is being taken over by racists, fear mongers, and manipulators."

Well, whether or not those are their words or yours, I will be glad when they all bolt from the Republican party! But, bolt or not, most of them have already "seen the light"! That is, they know they will not be re-elected!

Just as old timey telephone operators used to say when your pay phone call minutes had run out, "Your time is up!"

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2010 at 21:24
Originally posted by opuslola

Let's see? Takeover of Auto Co.'s, Banks, health care? Did I leave any fascist idea out?


Do you really think thats what happened? He gave the Auto Co's, and banks money to keep them from going bankrupt, and thats it, nothing more. Thats a very capitalist thing to do, giving corporations money without any consequences...and then letting them go back to business as usual.

Originally posted by opuslola


Yes, I had a great deal of problems with both of the Bush's! Do you want me to pick "dumn ass no. 1, or no. 2?"

You also made the following statement;


You say that now, but we both know the reality of things. Back in 2003, when people like me were anti-war and saying that Bush was lying simply to start a war for oil and corporate America, it was people like you drowned out reason and rational thought, and you are attempting to do it again.

Originally posted by opuslola


"And veteran Republicans are saying the same thing, that the Party is being taken over by racists, fear mongers, and manipulators."

Well, whether or not those are their words or yours, I will be glad when they all bolt from the Republican party! But, bolt or not, most of them have already "seen the light"! That is, they know they will not be re-elected!

Just as old timey telephone operators used to say when your pay phone call minutes had run out, "Your time is up!"


Unfortunately this will be the death of the Republican Party. As the "sane" ones are being pushed out, even crazier people are taking their place. The Republican Party has no mass support anymore, and as the demographics continue to change, they will realize that they can no longer compete.


-------------
I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time.


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 12-Jul-2010 at 14:53
I would have rather let "capitalist" things go the way they should go! In other words, let them go "under!" The Federal Gov. has no place in saving a business or instution! Find the part of our Constitution that gives the Feds. a legal method to interfere?

Note, your source, must be "clear" and "consise" and not taken as shades of grey?

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 12-Jul-2010 at 15:01
I completely agree with you, the banks should have gone bankrupt, as well as the car companies. They should have been taught a lesson. The bankers who were involved in the scams they were running should have been tried and sent to prison. Our money should not have been used to shore up these corrupt, greedy, selfish, evil disgrace for human beings.

Of course, this probably would have led to an even worse recession, a weakening of Americans industrial and financial capacity, and millions of Americans more would have been out of work, but the lesson would have been worth it. The lesson would have been that we need more regulation and that things cannot be business as usual.

Obama made the right decision given the circumstances, but as he is trying to punish Wall Street and make sure things do not go back to business as usual, guess who is hampering his efforts, the Republican Party (the Republican Party is preventing the passage of legislation which would hold Wall Street accountable).

After the Great Depression, American thrived on "New Deal Economics" (more regulation). After Reagan, who repealed many of the regulations, we started having more and more economic problems.

There was a stock market crash in 1929, and not another one until 1987, and another one in 2008...guess who was in power in 1987 and in 2008? Republicans, and by 1987 and 2008, they had been in power for years and the crashes all came towards the end of their terms, coincidence?

Clear and concise enough for you?

Opuslola, what you have to understand is that the real enemy of the United States and the American people is out-dated ideology. If history has taught us anything, its that you need to adapt and change to survive.


-------------
I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time.


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 12-Jul-2010 at 15:37
My dear advisary TGS, perhaps you have never seen the results of of other depressions other than the ones you "Progressives" tend to promote!

Maybe, and I am mostly sure, you have never even heard of this one?

http://seekingalpha.com/article/105927-bypass-the-depression-and-head-straight-for-1907

It was soon followed by a period that has since been called "the Roaring Twenties!"

All of the above can be found on "Glenn Beck!"

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 12-Jul-2010 at 15:47
The late 19th and early 20th centuries were full of economic crashes. This system did not work, this is why after 1929 regulations were put in place to prevent such economic crashes and America thrived for decades until Reagan undid everything, and guess what? We've gone back to those horrific days of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Let me ask you this, would you rather live in the United States between 1945 and 1980 (our economy thrived) or in the United States between 1890-1929 (uncertain, ever changing, high unemployment, economic vulnerability)?

Prior to regulations, there were many economic crashes and depressions:

1873-1879
1893
1896
1901
1907-1908
1920-1921
1929-1938/41 (the worst one, known as the Great Depression)

You really want to go back to those days?

Now, since regulations were put in place, there have been far fewer economic crashes, however, after the Republicans once again repealed much of the regulations, we had the following crashes:

1987
1989
2007-2009



-------------
I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time.


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 12-Jul-2010 at 16:38
TGS wrote above;
Do "You really want to go back to those days?"

Yes, sir! It makes everyone more honest!
And these events created great wealth, that spread to everyone!"

It can even happen again? If the Government gets its foot off of our necks?

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 12-Jul-2010 at 17:50
Originally posted by opuslola


Do "You really want to go back to those days?"

Yes, sir! It makes everyone more honest!
And these events created great wealth, that spread to everyone!"


Now you're just being ridiculous. It did not make everyone wealthy, quite the opposite, it made a few rich and it put everyones lives in the hands of those few wealthy people.

Originally posted by opuslola


It can even happen again? If the Government gets its foot off of our necks?


You need to learn your American history, a little bit about economics, and a lot about politics. Nothing you are saying is based in any facts whatsoever, its information you conjured up in your head and now you actually believe it.




-------------
I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time.


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2010 at 13:20
YES, your last cartoon face is actually a very good rendition of ME!

Although, I just wish that the artist had placed a large weapon within my hands!

Just which character above is YOU?

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2010 at 14:44
Well then, start rallying your fellow Tea Partiers and tell them to withdraw every sent of aid that Mississippi gets from the government.

Congratulations, I hope you can survive without electricity, paved roads, running water, education, law enforcement, fire fighters, or jobs (to name a few things you wouldnt have anymore).

Seriously, if you claim you're a patriot and you love this country, start by first understanding its history. Honestly, I dont think you care about this country or other Americans, you simply care about yourself, and this is something all Tea Partiers have in common.


-------------
I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time.


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2010 at 15:11
TGS, already, after the great pains caused by Hurricane Katrina, we now live upon and depend upon dirt roads, that look very similar to what we now see in Iraq, etc.!

By the way, if your candidate is doing so well, then why this?

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/07/13/nearly-6-in-10-lack-confidence-in-obama-to-make-right-decisions/?icid=main|hp-desktop|dl1|link4|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politicsdaily.com%2F2010%2F07%2F13%2Fnearly-6-in-10-lack-confidence-in-obama-to-make-right-decisions%2F

You always just fail to have enough information to make a real examanination of the real facts!

Typical of "progressives!"

Hey, come on down, and grab a "pooper scooper!", and help us remove the "tar babies" that have finally made their way to our shores!

You only have to work about ten to twenty minutes per hour! Then you are given your "break!"

We supposedly have about 3,500 of these workers here, making the minimum of $12.50 per hour, plus free meals, etc.!

I really wonder just how many we would have if they had to pass a "piss test?"

Would you?

Pardon me while I take a good drink from my glass of Iced Tea?

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2010 at 15:46
Originally posted by opuslola

TGS, already, after the great pains caused by Hurricane Katrina, we now live upon and depend upon dirt roads, that look very similar to what we now see in Iraq, etc.!


Well go out there and fix them, what are you waiting for? Looks like you got your dream come true, the government isnt involved!LOL

Originally posted by opuslola


By the way, if your candidate is doing so well, then why this?

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/07/13/nearly-6-in-10-lack-confidence-in-obama-to-make-right-decisions/?icid=main|hp-desktop|dl1|link4|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politicsdaily.com%2F2010%2F07%2F13%2Fnearly-6-in-10-lack-confidence-in-obama-to-make-right-decisions%2F

You always just fail to have enough information to make a real examanination of the real facts!


I do know about that. As I've mentioned many times before, I dont get my information from just one source, I'm actually aware of things coming from both sides of the spectrum.

As for that, I dont doubt it, Fox News has been very good and spreading propaganda and the Republican Party has been very good at preventing anything from getting done.

Whats important is what happens in November, and from the looks of it, the Republican party will pick up a couple seats but Dems will still have majority.

Recent polls such as the one you posted  (did you even read that article?), have also shown that people trust the Republican Party even less than the Democratic Party. Within the same article you posted, 73 percent of Americans do not trust the Republican Party.

Please, learn from the past, I dont talk out of my ass, and, out of fear of looking stupid, I make sure that I am as informed as I possibly can be. You should try the same, and dont accuse me of "not knowing".

Originally posted by opuslola


Typical of "progressives!"


Every time you say the pledge of allegiance, remember that it was written by a progressive socialist.Wink Then, when you put your right hand over your heart and look at the flag, remember that it was progressives who brought about the changes which turned this nation into the richest, democratic, and powerful society on earth.


Originally posted by opuslola


Hey, come on down, and grab a "pooper scooper!", and help us remove the "tar babies" that have finally made their way to our shores!


Nope, thats you're problem, why should I help you?

Originally posted by opuslola


You only have to work about ten to twenty minutes per hour! Then you are given your "break!"


Hey, maybe you can be around toxic waste for longer and not be affected, you should get out there and help clean up the beach behind your house.

Originally posted by opuslola


We supposedly have about 3,500 of these workers here, making the minimum of $12.50 per hour, plus free meals, etc.!


Well, I'm glad BP is paying for something.

Originally posted by opuslola


I really wonder just how many we would have if they had to pass a "piss test?"

Would you?


Probably none, most Americans do smoke or have smoked marijuana. Maybe its time we legalized it?

Originally posted by opuslola


Pardon me while I take a good drink from my glass of Iced Tea?


Becareful, it turns out there is so much toxic waste down in the south that in some parts the drinking water contains natural gas...I hope thats not home made ice tea.


-------------
I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time.


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2010 at 17:57
Have you ever looked up the word "natural?"

Pardon me I have to F-rt!" A natural gas!

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 13-Jul-2010 at 18:32
Really, no comment on how the same article/poll which says that 57% of Americans some what trust or not at all trust Obama, also says that 73% of Americans somewhat/not at all trust the Republicans?

Really? Funny how when you post something without reading it, it can come back to bite you in the ass huh?


-------------
I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 18-Jul-2010 at 07:56
ClapOh my goodness, someone who said Reagan made a mess of things.Clap  That man lied to us when he said we did not need to conserve.  I don't know if he intended to lie, or if he was just being an honest actor, who really didn't know enough to lead our nation.  

Our airline industry is a mess, thanks to his deregulations.  The whole point of government is to regulate things, so they continue to function smoothly, and the people are protected.   The history of laisez-faire economics in England is a horror story of child abuse.  Human beings must be educated and must be regulated, because they do very bad things if they are not.  

Most important, I want to say democracy is away of life.  I have heard China is doing everything with group decisions, far more so than US.  The USSR was democratic, and our media made a mess of things by making us believe communism is not democracy.  While the US used England's autocratic model for industry, and is very autocratic.  

Democracy is a culture, and our schools stopped transmitting that culture in 1958.  I am very concern about the future of the US, because it is no longer known that, democracy is away of life, and government is just one part of that way of live.    When everyone argues property rights, and none defend democratic principles, how long can there be a functioning democracy?  






Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2010 at 16:06
I would suggest that all of you read Glenn Beck!

Carol, you have disappointed me!

I shall now consider you as a male and call you Karol!

http://mail.aol.com/32319-111/aol-1/en-us/Suite.aspx

Just touch all of the highlited places!

This is "truth!"

Take is as a method of cleansing your bowels!

The minor Simba seems to need this cleansing more than most?

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 27-Jul-2010 at 12:23

The following quotes really seemed to fit with the title of this thread, but not with the question of regulation as it was presented.  As stated, I am in favor of  regulations.  I believe this is what government is all about.  The universe exist because of controlling forces makes this possible, and a huge progressive economy is possible only with regulating forces.  We just witnessed what happens when there is not adequate regulations.  However,  I love this Smile,  God, the controlling force of the universe, left a lot room for things to go their own way.   Like the universe, we must have fundamental regulations, but we must not over control.  

The size of the population can increase our liberty as long as differences can be maintained.  However, as Tocqueville points out,  our democracy can turn into the most powerful tyranny the world has ever known, when centeralized government becomes  centralized administration.   I so much like this quote from Aldous Huxley,  

In the past, personal and political liberty depended to a considerable extent upon governmental inefficiency.  The spirit of tyranny was always more than willing; but its organization and material equipment were generally weak.  Progressive science and technology have changed all this completely.  

Our Homeland Security should scare the shit out of us, because of its powers of central administration reaching too far into our individual lives.  I think we take our democracy with liberty for granted.  When my grandchildren were made wards of state, I learned more about tyranny than I knew there was learn, and this is the main reason I write, and I write, and I write.  It is why I researched education, and why I might seem preachy.   I take Tocqueville's warning very seriously.  The following from his 1835 book "Democracy in America".  

  http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/1_ch16.htm - http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/1_ch16.htm

ABSENCE OF CENTRALIZED ADMINISTRATION. The national majority does not pretend to do everything--Is obliged to employ the town and county magistrates to execute its sovereign will.

I HAVE already pointed out the distinction between a centralized government and a centralized administration. The former exists in America, but the latter is nearly unknown there. If the directing power of the American communities had both these instruments of government at is disposal and united the habit of executing its commands to the right of commanding; if, after having established the general principles of government, it descended to the details of their application; and if, having regulated the great interests of the country, it could descend to the circle of individual interests, freedom would soon be banished from the New World.

But in the United States the majority, which so frequently displays the tastes and the propensities of a despot, is still destitute of the most perfect instruments of tyranny.

In the American republics the central government has never as yet busied itself except with a small number of objects, sufficiently prominent to attract its attention. The secondary affairs of society have never been regulated by its authority; and nothing has hitherto betrayed its desire of even interfering in them. The majority has become more and more absolute, but has not increased the prerogatives of the central government; those great prerogatives have been confined to a certain sphere; and although the despotism of the majority may be galling upon one point, it cannot be said to extend to all. However the predominant party in the nation may be carried away by its passions, however ardent it may be in the pursuit of its projects, it cannot oblige all the citizens to comply with its desires in the same manner and at the same time throughout the country. When the central government which represents that majority has issued a decree, it must entrust the execution of its will to agents over whom it frequently has no control and whom it cannot perpetually direct. The townships, municipal bodies, and counties form so many concealed breakwaters, which check or part the tide of popular determination. If an oppressive law were passed, liberty would still be protected by the mode of executing that law; the majority cannot descend to the details and what may be called the puerilities of administrative tyranny. It does not even imagine that it can do so, for it has not a full consciousness of its authority. It knows only the extent of its natural powers, but is unacquainted with the art of increasing them.

This point deserves attention; for if a democratic republic, similar to that of the United States, were ever founded in a country where the power of one man had previously established a centralized administration and had sunk it deep into the habits and the laws of the people, I do not hesitate to assert that in such a republic a more insufferable despotism would prevail than in any of the absolute monarchies of Europe; or, indeed, than any that could be found on this side of Asia.

If we want liberty we have to pay more attention to the importance of education.  




Posted By: Van_Möck
Date Posted: 27-Jul-2010 at 15:56
Originally posted by Carol

ClapOh my goodness, someone who said Reagan made a mess of things.Clap  That man lied to us when he said we did not need to conserve.  I don't know if he intended to lie, or if he was just being an honest actor, who really didn't know enough to lead our nation.  

Our airline industry is a mess, thanks to his deregulations.  The whole point of government is to regulate things, so they continue to function smoothly, and the people are protected.   The history of laisez-faire economics in England is a horror story of child abuse.  Human beings must be educated and must be regulated, because they do very bad things if they are not.  

Most important, I want to say democracy is away of life.  I have heard China is doing everything with group decisions, far more so than US.  The USSR was democratic, and our media made a mess of things by making us believe communism is not democracy.  While the US used England's autocratic model for industry, and is very autocratic.  

Democracy is a culture, and our schools stopped transmitting that culture in 1958.  I am very concern about the future of the US, because it is no longer known that, democracy is away of life, and government is just one part of that way of live.    When everyone argues property rights, and none defend democratic principles, how long can there be a functioning democracy?  






Im actually really tired at the moment, but I just can't understand how anyone could honestly support this claim. Do you actually mean the United States of America are more autocratic than the Soviet Union has been? Or were you just carried away by your enthusiasm for critisizing the USA?

To me it seems very difficult to prove your claim..

Maybe you simply have more information than me, but from what I know praising the Soviet Union for its approach to democracy is not even a way of rethoric provocation, it only discredits yourself.


The growing frustration for the status quo seems to support some romantic imaginations and illusions of communism. I see this in germany, where even in school the scale of the atrocities and inner contradictions of communism are only taught superficially ( of course in great contrast to the teaching of the situation of national socialist germany). And I can imagine that it is appealing to Americans of today to provocate the "conservative" side with supposed fancy for the communist ideals.

For anyone who really thinks he would enjoy living with dear misunderstood uncle Stalin:
Better have a look at some "capitalist racist reactionary western propaganda"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#Soviet_Union - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#Soviet_Union

Hey! Maybe it was just a misunderstanding and Stalin didn't mean killing all these people after all? Yes, yes, its only the evil capitalists who want to make us believe he did!


(However Im sorry if I misread your post)


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 27-Jul-2010 at 17:26
Originally posted by Van_Möck


Originally posted by Carol

ClapOh my goodness, someone who said Reagan made a mess of things.Clap  That man lied to us when he said we did not need to conserve.  I don't know if he intended to lie, or if he was just being an honest actor, who really didn't know enough to lead our nation.  
Our airline industry is a mess, thanks to his deregulations.  The whole point of government is to regulate things, so they continue to function smoothly, and the people are protected.   The history of laisez-faire economics in England is a horror story of child abuse.  Human beings must be educated and must be regulated, because they do very bad things if they are not.  
Most important, I want to say democracy is away of life.  I have heard China is doing everything with group decisions, far more so than US.  The USSR was democratic, and our media made a mess of things by making us believe communism is not democracy.  While the US used England's autocratic model for industry, and is very autocratic.  
Democracy is a culture, and our schools stopped transmitting that culture in 1958.  I am very concern about the future of the US, because it is no longer known that, democracy is away of life, and government is just one part of that way of live.    When everyone argues property rights, and none defend democratic principles, how long can there be a functioning democracy?  
Im actually really tired at the moment, but I just can't understand how anyone could honestly support this claim. Do you actually mean the United States of America are more autocratic than the Soviet Union has been? Or were you just carried away by your enthusiasm for critisizing the USA?To me it seems very difficult to prove your claim..Maybe you simply have more information than me, but from what I know praising the Soviet Union for its approach to democracy is not even a way of rethoric provocation, it only discredits yourself.The growing frustration for the status quo seems to support some romantic imaginations and illusions of communism. I see this in germany, where even in school the scale of the atrocities and inner contradictions of communism are only taught superficially ( of course in great contrast to the teaching of the situation of national socialist germany). And I can imagine that it is appealing to Americans of today to provocate the "conservative" side with supposed fancy for the communist ideals.For anyone who really thinks he would enjoy living with dear misunderstood uncle Stalin:Better have a look at some "capitalist racist reactionary western propaganda" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#Soviet_Union - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#Soviet_Union Hey! Maybe it was just a misunderstanding and Stalin didn't mean killing all these people after all? Yes, yes, its only the evil capitalists who want to make us believe he did!(However Im sorry if I misread your post)


Van, I am with you on this! Does not Carol not know that the USA is not a Democracy? Democracy was something to be avoided centuries in the past! Do you, Carol, not know that the USA is a Representative Democracy? Pure democracy is irresponsible, and stupid!
Come on! IN the USSR, China, etc., lets just get the people together and we will vote on the number of hours we will work in a day, week, month, etc.?

Then we will vote on how much we will be paid, and then we will vote on how much vacation we will need, and then we will vote on the price of homes or rent, and then the price of automobiles, or bus tickets, or bicyles, etc.?

Oh! Did I mention Medical care costs, or child care costs, or food costs, etc.?

Get real Carol or move!

Most Americans, and a lot of Europeans and Asians have moved with their feet to places more agreeble than the "fantasy society" you conceive!

If you find it, go, and don't tell us where!

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 27-Jul-2010 at 20:46
Originally posted by Van_Möck

Originally posted by Carol

ClapOh my goodness, someone who said Reagan made a mess of things.Clap  That man lied to us when he said we did not need to conserve.  I don't know if he intended to lie, or if he was just being an honest actor, who really didn't know enough to lead our nation.  

Our airline industry is a mess, thanks to his deregulations.  The whole point of government is to regulate things, so they continue to function smoothly, and the people are protected.   The history of laisez-faire economics in England is a horror story of child abuse.  Human beings must be educated and must be regulated, because they do very bad things if they are not.  

Most important, I want to say democracy is away of life.  I have heard China is doing everything with group decisions, far more so than US.  The USSR was democratic, and our media made a mess of things by making us believe communism is not democracy.  While the US used England's autocratic model for industry, and is very autocratic.  

Democracy is a culture, and our schools stopped transmitting that culture in 1958.  I am very concern about the future of the US, because it is no longer known that, democracy is away of life, and government is just one part of that way of live.    When everyone argues property rights, and none defend democratic principles, how long can there be a functioning democracy?  






Im actually really tired at the moment, but I just can't understand how anyone could honestly support this claim. Do you actually mean the United States of America are more autocratic than the Soviet Union has been? Or were you just carried away by your enthusiasm for critisizing the USA?

To me it seems very difficult to prove your claim..

Maybe you simply have more information than me, but from what I know praising the Soviet Union for its approach to democracy is not even a way of rethoric provocation, it only discredits yourself.


The growing frustration for the status quo seems to support some romantic imaginations and illusions of communism. I see this in germany, where even in school the scale of the atrocities and inner contradictions of communism are only taught superficially ( of course in great contrast to the teaching of the situation of national socialist germany). And I can imagine that it is appealing to Americans of today to provocate the "conservative" side with supposed fancy for the communist ideals.

For anyone who really thinks he would enjoy living with dear misunderstood uncle Stalin:
Better have a look at some "capitalist racist reactionary western propaganda"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#Soviet_Union - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#Soviet_Union

Hey! Maybe it was just a misunderstanding and Stalin didn't mean killing all these people after all? Yes, yes, its only the evil capitalists who want to make us believe he did!


(However Im sorry if I misread your post)

It is my understanding socialism, fascism and communism are all democracies.   The opposite of democracy is autocracy, not communism.   All the governments are a mix of autocratic and democratic control.  What separates them is different economic ideology.  The different government forms are varying degrees of government control of industry.   

Only two things are required for fascism, experience with democracy and experience with industry.  Fascism began in Italy as a labor movement, right?  This made industry very active in government and the result of industry getting very active government, was laws favoring industry, not the laborers.   When Bismark took control of Germany, its political unit was the social democrats, right?
Hitler picked up Fascism from Italy, right?  He was so successful at turning the German economic around, everyone thought fascism was the cure to economic collapse and poverty.  

At the time of the Great Depression, Deming attempt to get industry in the US to switch from the autocratic model to the democratic model, right?  As we know our industry remained autocratic, so when the US was Americanizing Japan, Deming took the democratic model to Japan, and they accepted it and produced to kick our asses in competition for world markets.  In the US we love to believe our great life is the result of democracy, but we deny Japan's great success was the result of democracy.  

Rather than becoming more democratic, we became more autocratic.  That is believing Fascism is the answer to economic problems, the federal government increased its control of industry.  We have private property controlled by the federal government.  That is autocracy controlled by a bigger autocratic.  That is fascism.   It doesn't go as far as communism, but neither is it democracy where the power rest in the hands in the hands of the people.  It is democracy where powers have shifted from the people to the government.  This is government with very strong industrial participation.   I question how well the average citizen is benefiting from this.  Seems to me, too many of laws benefit industry at the expense of the people.  



Posted By: Van_Möck
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2010 at 07:22
Originally posted by Carol


It is my understanding socialism, fascism and communism are all democracies.   The opposite of democracy is autocracy, not communism.   All the governments are a mix of autocratic and democratic control.  What separates them is different economic ideology.  The different government forms are varying degrees of government control of industry.   

Only two things are required for fascism, experience with democracy and experience with industry.  Fascism began in Italy as a labor movement, right?  This made industry very active in government and the result of industry getting very active government, was laws favoring industry, not the laborers.   When Bismark took control of Germany, its political unit was the social democrats, right?
Hitler picked up Fascism from Italy, right?  He was so successful at turning the German economic around, everyone thought fascism was the cure to economic collapse and poverty.  

At the time of the Great Depression, Deming attempt to get industry in the US to switch from the autocratic model to the democratic model, right?  As we know our industry remained autocratic, so when the US was Americanizing Japan, Deming took the democratic model to Japan, and they accepted it and produced to kick our asses in competition for world markets.  In the US we love to believe our great life is the result of democracy, but we deny Japan's great success was the result of democracy.  

Rather than becoming more democratic, we became more autocratic.  That is believing Fascism is the answer to economic problems, the federal government increased its control of industry.  We have private property controlled by the federal government.  That is autocracy controlled by a bigger autocratic.  That is fascism.   It doesn't go as far as communism, but neither is it democracy where the power rest in the hands in the hands of the people.  It is democracy where powers have shifted from the people to the government.  This is government with very strong industrial participation.   I question how well the average citizen is benefiting from this.  Seems to me, too many of laws benefit industry at the expense of the people.  



Its difficult to follow your logic..
So you define the regulation of the economy by an elected government as autocracy?

And where is the connection to Bismarck?

And do you see "economic" socialism, fascism or communism as an alternative to the current system, or are you just using them as examples?

Maybe you also think of socialism as in the scandinavian welfare states, whereas I think of
the German Democratic Republic (DDR).

And last, how do "japanese economic democracy" and "american economic supposed democracy" differ? Is there simply less government control in Japan?


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2010 at 11:15
I was hoping to find a link that would simplify things and that does not seem possible.  Everyone who writes of this stuff seems to use different terms, and use terms differently.  

Once upon a time we defined the divisions of economics as capitalism, socialism, fascism, or communism.  All the countries with these different economic systems had democracy.   

Nothing is going to make sense without understanding the difference between autocracy and democracy, and then the various blends.   An autocracy is authority over the people.  Democracy gives power to the people.   All nations are a combination of both.  Even dictatorships today, have allowed citizens to have a degree of democracy.   

US industry was modeled after England's autocracy.  That means a hierarchy of authority, over the people, and this is opposed to democracy.  One of the big motivations for revolution, was fear the king would impose the church of England on everyone.  The colonist in the north, originally outside the king's domain, and were opposed to the church's hierarchy of authority.   The US entered WWI crying, "Democracy and autocracy can not co exist", in denial that it's industry is autocrat.  Of course things are going to be confusing, because all of this is nuts!  Citizens of the US have not dealt well with their reality, but operate in a state of denial.     Personally, I think this  makes the US schizoid.  But there are some citizens who do understand US industry is autocratic and  I hope one of them helps explain the confusion.   

Deming took the democratic model to Japan, and Japan rebuilt its industry using the democratic model.   I question if the US might not be much better than it is if its industry also used the democratic model.   

For sure autocratic industry lead to autocratic families and we now call these dysfunctional families.  Democratic industry would lead to democratic families and this for sure would be a huge improvement, in human relationships.   We can observe this difference in the class differences.  The upper class encourages children to participate in family discussions, and to offer new ideas, and to be self directed.  They are preparing their children to be leaders.  This is why many people being business owners, as opposed to the masses working for a huge industry is, so important.   The difference is not so much income, but "who is boss".   When you own your own business, you are the boss and enjoy all the freedom and responsibility of a democratic citizen.  Smile   However- Cry ...

If you are an employee in autocratic industry, yours is not to question why, but to do or die.  That is, as an employee you are a subordinate.  For survival reasons you will teach your children to follow orders without question, and to keep their mouths shut, because these children are being prepared to be subordinates.   (may be not you personally, but you get the survival training for leaders and subordinates is different, right?)  Subordinates do not enjoy the experience of democracy on the job.  They do not have personal power and freedom, but must obey, and they live in fear of displeasing those above them.  To bring this home, that is to explain things so we can relate to them in a shared experience,  forums such as this one, are privately owned.  Everyone agrees the right of this ownership is to be autocratic, with complete power to say what will happen and what will not happen.  There are no protections for posters, who can be banned whenever an owner decides to do so.  This is how autocratic industry functions.   So in the US our life experience is far more autocratic than democratic.   Even if you own the business or the forum, you are more apt to do things autocratically than democratically.   This reality really makes defending democracy around world a bit schizoid or at least hypocritical.   


Posted By: Van_Möck
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2010 at 13:50
Originally posted by Carol

I was hoping to find a link that would simplify things and that does not seem possible.  Everyone who writes of this stuff seems to use different terms, and use terms differently.  

Once upon a time we defined the divisions of economics as capitalism, socialism, fascism, or communism.  All the countries with these different economic systems had democracy.   

Nothing is going to make sense without understanding the difference between autocracy and democracy, and then the various blends.   An autocracy is authority over the people.  Democracy gives power to the people.   All nations are a combination of both.  Even dictatorships today, have allowed citizens to have a degree of democracy.   

US industry was modeled after England's autocracy.  That means a hierarchy of authority, over the people, and this is opposed to democracy.  One of the big motivations for revolution, was fear the king would impose the church of England on everyone.  The colonist in the north, originally outside the king's domain, and were opposed to the church's hierarchy of authority.   The US entered WWI crying, "Democracy and autocracy can not co exist", in denial that it's industry is autocrat.  Of course things are going to be confusing, because all of this is nuts!  Citizens of the US have not dealt well with their reality, but operate in a state of denial.     Personally, I think this  makes the US schizoid.  But there are some citizens who do understand US industry is autocratic and  I hope one of them helps explain the confusion.   

Deming took the democratic model to Japan, and Japan rebuilt its industry using the democratic model.   I question if the US might not be much better than it is if its industry also used the democratic model.   

For sure autocratic industry lead to autocratic families and we now call these dysfunctional families.  Democratic industry would lead to democratic families and this for sure would be a huge improvement, in human relationships.   We can observe this difference in the class differences.  The upper class encourages children to participate in family discussions, and to offer new ideas, and to be self directed.  They are preparing their children to be leaders.  This is why many people being business owners, as opposed to the masses working for a huge industry is, so important.   The difference is not so much income, but "who is boss".   When you own your own business, you are the boss and enjoy all the freedom and responsibility of a democratic citizen.  Smile   However- Cry ...

If you are an employee in autocratic industry, yours is not to question why, but to do or die.  That is, as an employee you are a subordinate.  For survival reasons you will teach your children to follow orders without question, and to keep their mouths shut, because these children are being prepared to be subordinates.   (may be not you personally, but you get the survival training for leaders and subordinates is different, right?)  Subordinates do not enjoy the experience of democracy on the job.  They do not have personal power and freedom, but must obey, and they live in fear of displeasing those above them.  To bring this home, that is to explain things so we can relate to them in a shared experience,  forums such as this one, are privately owned.  Everyone agrees the right of this ownership is to be autocratic, with complete power to say what will happen and what will not happen.  There are no protections for posters, who can be banned whenever an owner decides to do so.  This is how autocratic industry functions.   So in the US our life experience is far more autocratic than democratic.   Even if you own the business or the forum, you are more apt to do things autocratically than democratically.   This reality really makes defending democracy around world a bit schizoid or at least hypocritical.   


If we did things the soviet way on this forum I would probably be appointed a moderator by, for example, opuslola for disagreeing with your opinion. Then I would ban you and a few random people because I felt it was necessary and had a bad day. After that I would transfer some people who complained about this to other forums, and force The Great Simba to agree with me on this topic by threatning to ban him.
Then I and opuslola could rule over this thread until he decided it was time to get rid of me, and he would ban me. A cover story and some propaganda would be made up, and he would manipulate his posting statistics to appear more successful.

So I dont think the USSR was more democratic than the USA, even if you use the terms for economy. Statistics were manipulated, people were deported, and those who complained were jailed and sometimes tortured, even in those states under heavy soviet influence as the DDR in eastern Germany, which is seen as socialist as far as I know.

If you use facism as a term for a system of economic democracy, then how does forced labour fit in, which was used by National Socialist Germany? You might say the facist leadership has more than the authority, but not the responsibility of a democratic citizen...

If we ignore that you mentioned the USSR and overlook the shortcomings of all historic forms of facism, communism and socialism and treat the actual ideals behind them, we find similar problems.

How would an ideal facist economy treat its citizens? Maybe you have a different idea of facism than me, but if the term of facism can be used on economy at all, the economy would only work to satisfy the needs of the leader of the state and its single political party. The citizens rights would always be treated as a lower priority than the states power. The mentality of an employee you criticize in americans in terms of obediance would be even more extreme in a facist system, where the individuals wishes and needs are to be supressed.

Now you still didnt define your idea of socialism. If you call the nordic wellfare system of scandinavia socialist, then this might actually be more democratic than the american system. If you however see former seperated eastern Germany, the DDR, as socialist, then we encounter the same problems we have with communism. The problem is, that both never worked as they were planned, because cunning individuals turned them over and used them to satisfy their own needs. The economic "efficiency" can be seen in communist chinas "great leap forward", which left farmers enthusastically melting their metal farming tools for (mostly useless and brittle) cast iron, leading to a famine which killed houndreds of thousands of people.

I dont know much about the japanese economy, but maybe I will finally understand your reasoning if you set it into contrast with the american system as you described it already.


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2010 at 15:13
First of all, I am getting tired of Carol spouting out the word "democracy" in connection with Facism and Communism!

Here happpens to be a good article about "DEMOCRACY!"

Please explain how the above, fits aywhere within the sphere of Facism or Communism (Which according to the "Socialist experts", has yet to be achieved anywhere at any time!)

I mean, just what majority of Russians "voted" for Uncle Joe? Or, Hitler?, or Bennito?, that is after they had already taken power via other not very "democratic" means?

And, again, I would not want to ever live in a real democracy! I happen to love our "Representative" government!

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2010 at 15:30
Actually, the Bolsheviks had the support of the majority of the Russian people when they took power. Hitler also came to power democratically and had the support of the majority of the Germany people.

-------------
I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time.



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com