Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Democracy,compatible with huge population

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 10>
Author
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800
  Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Democracy,compatible with huge population
    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

Back to Top
hugoestr View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Suspended

Joined: 13-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3987
  Quote hugoestr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.


Edited by hugoestr - 30-May-2007 at 13:13
Back to Top
Jagiello View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 08-Feb-2007
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 316
  Quote Jagiello Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Maharbbal View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2120
  Quote Maharbbal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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!
Back to Top
LuckyNomad View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 02-May-2007
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 68
  Quote LuckyNomad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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:

 
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.
Back to Top
hugoestr View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Suspended

Joined: 13-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3987
  Quote hugoestr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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. :)
Back to Top
Aelfgifu View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 25-Jun-2006
Location: Netherlands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3387
  Quote Aelfgifu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
 
Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1564
  Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.


Edited by DukeC - 31-May-2007 at 17:52
Back to Top
LuckyNomad View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 02-May-2007
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 68
  Quote LuckyNomad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
 
Back to Top
Jagiello View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 08-Feb-2007
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 316
  Quote Jagiello Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394
  Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Snake in the Grass-Banned

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2394
  Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
 
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4621
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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/
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4621
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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?"



Edited by opuslola - 14-Jun-2010 at 14:33
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
TheGreatSimba View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 22-Nov-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1152
  Quote TheGreatSimba Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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 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 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.


Edited by TheGreatSimba - 15-Jun-2010 at 06:56
I use CAPS for emphasis, not yelling. Just don't want to have to click the bold button every time.
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4621
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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/
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 10>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.238 seconds.