Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
devilsadvoc8

Defend your brand of Fairy Tale!

79 posts in this topic

We are not as democratic of a country as we think.

Well ya...'cause we're a Republic and all. Although we're more along the lines to a Democracy than the country used to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think title of this thread is obnoxious.

I agree with you for possibly the first time ever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are not as democratic of a country as we think. There are nine more months before any votes are cast and already we are down to three bad choices and possibly Ron Paul, and it will soon come down to two bad choices who will inevitably get almost all the votes because of overly restrictive ballot access laws and the impossibility of anyone getting to participate in a televised presidential debate unless they are a Democrat or Republican. Not to mention the fact that your vote doesn't count at all unless you vote for the person who wins your state. Then there's the fact that there are no term limits for Congressmen and many mayors combined with gerrymandering which results in many elections having only one person on the ballot. What kind of democracy gives you only one choice?

"Voting will not alter the corporate systems of power. Voting is an act of political theater. Voting in the United States is as futile and sterile as in the elections I covered as a reporter in dictatorships like Syria, Iran and Iraq. There were always opposition candidates offered up by these dictatorships. Give the people the illusion of choice. Throw up the pretense of debate. Let the power elite hold public celebrations to exalt the triumph of popular will. We can vote for Romney or Obama, but Goldman Sachs and ExxonMobil and Bank of America and the defense contractors always win. There is little difference between our electoral charade and the ones endured by the Syrians and Iranians. Do we really believe that Obama has, or ever had, any intention to change the culture in Washington?"

--Chris Hedges

First with the Chris Hedges quote, I would advise people to put a little thought into what they say, no matter how profound they think they are being. Maybe he should ponder why folks in Iran, Syria and Iraq are clamoring to get out of there if things are just as oppressive in the places they flee to. Or maybe he should ask what would happen to him if he tried to open up an office for his magazine in one of those countries. Basically, morons like Chris Hedges are either liars or cowards. He either doesn't actually believe what he's saying, or he's a giant coward in that he sits idly by in our fascist nation. He should be leading an armed rebellion like the French Resistance if this is the oppressive nation he really thinks it is.

In any event Tim Robbins states what Hedges is actually saying in a much more eloquent way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9rCc4SZNSI

Beyond Chris Hedges' ipse dixit, all of the so-called problems you talk about have nothing to do with whether we're really a democracy or not. No term limits for Congressmen or city officials. Well, shouldn't people be allowed to vote for the same person if that's what they want? There are many good reasons for term limits, but they have little to do with popular representation, i.e. what I think you're referring to when you talk about democracy. No one likes gerrymandering, but it's actually a quite natural result of democtratic rule. That is, so long as elected officials draw congressional districts, they're going to try and tilt the playing field in their favor as much as possible. Otherwise, you have to rely on unelected officials to do so. But I'm sure you'll find an all-wise sage who will be able to draw fair electoral districts who's really above politics.

The electoral college, meh. Once a century you get the anomaly where the guy who got the most popular votes (not a majority I'll note, since Gore only had a very small plurality).

And really, the only laws that perpetuate the two party system are campaign finance laws, which restrict political speech and make it very hard for newcomers to unseat incumbents. And no, I don't think that third parties should be publicly financed. I don't want my tax dollars to pay for the Lyndon LaRouche's presidential campaigns just so he can put a few ads on the air that no one is going to watch anyway. I also don't know how you intend to get third-party candidates into debates. Are you proposing a law that forces private institutions to allow people onto a debate based on the opinion of a government bureaucrat? And would it even make a difference? New York allows basically everyone to participate in the gubernatorial debate, but where are all those third party candidates that have actually been elected, or who have actually received anything significant in terms of votes?

Edited by Daniel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Obama administration's battle with the Catholic Church needs to be a part of this thread. That Obama would require Church-affiliated groups to offer abortion drugs and contraception in their health plans is monstrous. It shows how far the left is willing to go to destroy liberty and religious freedom.

Another despicable recent misdeed by leftists: Planned Parenthood's shakedown of Susan G. Komen. Ugly, ugly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Susan G Komen Foundation has the right to not support an institution that offers abortion. or any institution under investigation by the federal government.

People have the right to call them out for that. I think it's fair to say "we will not give you any more money if this is how you choose to dole it out"

And it's within Planned Parenthood's rights to say "This charity is no longer supporting us because we offer abortions"

I don't see how that's an illegal shake down. It sounds more to me like you are applying the rights to Susan G Komen only. They have a right to do what they want with their money and the right to keep it as under the table a choice as they can. Planned Parenthood is wrong to call them out though? No --- as you describe that is their RIGHT. Why do you only want to grant that right to a conservative decision? or why is only ONE action being taken there political to you? You are calling out our system working as it should be. Komen foundation does NOT have to change their decision. The people just gave them the incentive. How is that an injustice?

I dont think Komen has said they're giving money to Planned Parenthood yet.... I think they just said they will change the language of their support criteria. This might still rule out Planned Parenthood...

Edited by Pepperkorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris Hedges is an entertainer. I wish people would always keep that in mind Glen Beck Rush Limbaugh... whatsherface Coulter.... they are all entertainers -- that's it.

I think the entertainer needs to keep that in mind as well -- but I think it's titillating for any entertainer to feel like he's wielding some kind of significant power. Don Cherry doesn't make hockey rules. He just :blahblah: It's up to us to keep things in perspective as Daniel is helping in doing above.

ANd this doesn't appear to be a religiously motivated choice (topic of thread). Susan G. Komen foundation was founded by Jews who have no major public battle with Roe v Wade. In my opinion Jews have been highly successful at separating church and state. They have consistently trusted their members to follow religious law above the law of the land. The religious leaders faith gets shaky but it's their business not that of the government to get things back in order....

unless your in Israel - but that's whole other kettle of fish we don't need to deal with

Edited by Pepperkorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how that's an illegal shake down.

I don't necessarily think Planned Parenthood's actions against Komen is "illegal," but the demonization of a private charity by a government organization smacks of tyranny. Planned Parenthood SHOULD be a private organization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First with the Chris Hedges quote, I would advise people to put a little thought into what they say, no matter how profound they think they are being. Maybe he should ponder why folks in Iran, Syria and Iraq are clamoring to get out of there if things are just as oppressive in the places they flee to. Or maybe he should ask what would happen to him if he tried to open up an office for his magazine in one of those countries. Basically, morons like Chris Hedges are either liars or cowards. He either doesn't actually believe what he's saying, or he's a giant coward in that he sits idly by in our fascist nation. He should be leading an armed rebellion like the French Resistance if this is the oppressive nation he really thinks it is.

In any event Tim Robbins states what Hedges is actually saying in a much more eloquent way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9rCc4SZNSI

Beyond Chris Hedges' ipse dixit, all of the so-called problems you talk about have nothing to do with whether we're really a democracy or not. No term limits for Congressmen or city officials. Well, shouldn't people be allowed to vote for the same person if that's what they want? There are many good reasons for term limits, but they have little to do with popular representation, i.e. what I think you're referring to when you talk about democracy. No one likes gerrymandering, but it's actually a quite natural result of democtratic rule. That is, so long as elected officials draw congressional districts, they're going to try and tilt the playing field in their favor as much as possible. Otherwise, you have to rely on unelected officials to do so. But I'm sure you'll find an all-wise sage who will be able to draw fair electoral districts who's really above politics.

The electoral college, meh. Once a century you get the anomaly where the guy who got the most popular votes (not a majority I'll note, since Gore only had a very small plurality).

And really, the only laws that perpetuate the two party system are campaign finance laws, which restrict political speech and make it very hard for newcomers to unseat incumbents. And no, I don't think that third parties should be publicly financed. I don't want my tax dollars to pay for the Lyndon LaRouche's presidential campaigns just so he can put a few ads on the air that no one is going to watch anyway. I also don't know how you intend to get third-party candidates into debates. Are you proposing a law that forces private institutions to allow people onto a debate based on the opinion of a government bureaucrat? And would it even make a difference? New York allows basically everyone to participate in the gubernatorial debate, but where are all those third party candidates that have actually been elected, or who have actually received anything significant in terms of votes?

Hedges isn't saying our government is as oppressive as theirs, he's talking about the futility of voting. In theory no term limits sounds good, let people keep voting for the person they like the most, but what it comes down to is people end up winning elections by being the only choice on the ballot. As for gerrymandering, of course they're going to tilt the playing field. They would probably also decide major court decisions on their own if that was allowed, but it isn't.

I'm not talking about the possibility of someone getting the most popular votes and losing because of the electoral college, my point is that it is completely illogical that your vote doesn't count at all unless you voted for the person that got the most votes in your state. You are completely okay with the fact that unless you voted for Obama in 2008, your vote was just completely disregarded?

It is incredibly naive to think that campaign finance laws are the only things that keep Democrats and Republicans in power. Do you have any idea how restrictive ballot access laws are? While Democrats and Republicans are automatically on the ballot every single time, third parties and independents have to struggle to just get their names on the ballot while the two major parties are out there campaigning. As for public financing, I don't want my tax dollars to fund the campaigns of Democrats or Republicans, but I have to deal with it anyway. The debates are run jointly by Democrats and Republicans, which is why there is never anybody else in them. It should be a nonpartisan group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Voting becomes futile when people are manipulated into thinking it is.

If you see a problem with the process, work to change it beyond merely bitching that it's broken.

I think the American people feel that we do not have viable choices and are working to change that. If you truly felt your vote didn't count you wouldn't even discuss this.

Edited by Pepperkorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Voting becomes futile when people are manipulated into thinking it is.

If you see a problem with the process, work to change it beyond merely bitching that it's broken.

I think the American people feel that we do not have viable choices and are working to change that. If you truly felt your vote didn't count you wouldn't even discuss this.

I haven't been just bitching about it. Almost every year I volunteer for a candidate who supports those kinds of reforms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lazer, are you in the wrong thread? You are not making any sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another Jews control the world claim?

jews do not allow palestinians to vote, yet US taxes go to israel.

i didnt say jews control the world, you just did

3 pages of religion and no mention of judaism

it is a religion a race and a nationality

Edited by lazer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lazer, are you in the wrong thread? You are not making any sense.

i think this is what you are looking for: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheism

The Oxford English Dictionary (2007) does not have an entry for "nontheism" or "non-theism", but it does have an entry for "non-theist", defined as "A person who is not a theist", and an entry for the adjectival "non-theistic".

Edited by lazer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jews do not allow palestinians to vote, yet US taxes go to israel.

i didnt say jews control the world, you just did

3 pages of religion and no mention of judaism

it is a religion a race and a political philosophy

As devilsadvoc8 says, you're in the wrong thread.

The discussion here, is the merits of atheism over religion and vice-versa, and not the merits of a particular religion.

Despite your attempt to be coy, you're clearly throwing in a superfluous attack on Judaism/Jews (i.e. "Jews don't allow palestinians to vote", which actually isn't true, but that's a discussion for another thread).

And in any event, since anyone can convert to Judaism regardless of their genetics, it isn't a "race," in the same way Christianity, Islam or Hinduism aren't races.

Edited by Daniel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As devilsadvoc8 says, you're in the wrong thread.

please, dont patronize me you might learn something

The discussion here, is the merits of atheism over religion and vice-versa, and not the merits of a particular religion.

you just made that up just now

Despite your attempt to be coy, you're clearly throwing in a superfluous attack on Judaism/Jews (i.e. "Jews don't allow palestinians to vote", which actually isn't true, but that's a discussion for another thread).

again, Im not attacking jews, more or less US foriegn policy that is religiously based

And in any event, since anyone can convert to Judaism regardless of their genetics, it isn't a "race," in the same way Christianity, Islam or Hinduism aren't races.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6axdZAxyt2g&feature=related

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As devilsadvoc8 says, you're in the wrong thread.

please, dont patronize me you might learn something

The discussion here, is the merits of atheism over religion and vice-versa, and not the merits of a particular religion.

you just made that up just now

Despite your attempt to be coy, you're clearly throwing in a superfluous attack on Judaism/Jews (i.e. "Jews don't allow palestinians to vote", which actually isn't true, but that's a discussion for another thread).

again, Im not attacking jews, more or less US foriegn policy that is religiously based

And in any event, since anyone can convert to Judaism regardless of their genetics, it isn't a "race," in the same way Christianity, Islam or Hinduism aren't races.

Let's go one by one.

How is pointing out that you're going off topic patronizing. If anything, telling another person "you might learn something" is patronizing. And I actually didn't make that up. Find me the part where someone wrote Christianity is better than Islam or Judaism is better than Hinduism, and maybe you'd have a point.

And puh-leese, you're doing a lot more than pointing out that foreign policy is religiously based (a nice post hoc explanation if I ever saw one). In response to my comment asking what someone meant about people in the US "tak[ing] control" and having "a god-like role", you, without any qualification or elaboration wrote "Jews."

You're like one of those Klansmen that claim they're not against blacks, but are only pro-White.

Hey, I'm not offended and I'm not notifying the local office of the Anti-Defamation League or whatever. But excuse me if I'm pointing out what you're really getting at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's go one by one.

How is pointing out that you're going off topic patronizing. If anything, telling another person "you might learn something" is patronizing. And I actually didn't make that up. Find me the part where someone wrote Christianity is better than Islam or Judaism is better than Hinduism, and maybe you'd have a point.

And puh-leese, you're doing a lot more than pointing out that foreign policy is religiously based (a nice post hoc explanation if I ever saw one). In response to my comment asking what someone meant about people in the US "tak[ing] control" and having "a god-like role", you, without any qualification or elaboration wrote "Jews."

You're like one of those Klansmen that claim they're not against blacks, but are only pro-White.

Hey, I'm not offended and I'm not notifying the local office of the Anti-Defamation League or whatever. But excuse me if I'm pointing out what you're really getting at.

Don't waste your time with logic on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lazer, if you want to talk about the fallicies of one religion in particular, I'd suggest another thread. I can't stop you from posting here but I'll personally choose to ignore any attempts to make this about any one religion in particular. In my eyes they all suck but I am making that characterization based on the premise of religion and its requirement for a the existence of a supernatural power not for any other reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0