If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MSN Autos)   America's democracy is not so great   (yellowtimes.org) divider line 240
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

94 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Nov 2002 at 4:42 PM (11 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



240 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2002-11-10 07:47:21 PM
Exactly Fruity - that is why this article was so damn good.
 
2002-11-10 07:47:55 PM
11-10-02 04:51:25 PM MadIVIan3001
there is no perfect government so stfu all of you people who think this government is wrong and other ones are wrong... how bout u make up some perfect government and tell me it then start complaining about other ones.

Damn straight.
"Anarchy now"? I wish I had your patience.--Bob Black
 
2002-11-10 07:48:14 PM
Don't forget CNN Thornhill - ha ha.
 
2002-11-10 07:52:25 PM
I'm also getting really sick and tired of people who think that they are geniuses for saying that American Democracy is flawed. Middle schoolers write essays on this topic.

ZachMorello,

How could I forget CNN? Let's also add MSNBC and FOX News to the list.
 
2002-11-10 07:54:58 PM
 
2002-11-10 07:55:39 PM
Genericdefect, someone needs to get you a thesaurus.
 
2002-11-10 07:56:02 PM
American democracy and the electoral college; a major reason to have the electoral college in 1789 was slavery. There were hundreds of thousands of slaves, who weren't voting. But they were counted as 3/5's of a person for purposes of congressional representation, and thus electoral college clout. So the whole idea of an electoral college served the interests of the more conservative Federalists like Alexander Hamilton, and also of slaveholding southerners who were in Jefferson's Democrat-Republican party. Jefferson himself was opposed to the electoral college but had to compromise so that the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution, would be approved.

By the way, I vote and I even make my wife vote against her better judgement. Like most of my ancestors I'm a Democrat, but slave ownership doesn't color my vote.

Boo Radley, Saraland, Alabama
 
2002-11-10 07:57:55 PM
11-10-02 05:00:18 PM SuburbanCowboy
Jesse Ventura was on CNN, and generally, I don't think much of him, but he was on fire, and said some great things.
He said right now, we are barely a democracy, and we are only given one more choice than they have in Iraq.
Third party candidates are excluded, even though they represent the common people more than the two parties.


Guess why third parties are excluded? Because industry hasn't bought them yet.
"Government is the entertainment branch of Business." Frank Zappa.

He also said opinion polls should be illegal. They manipulate voters, and are only there to create news stories. No one had Jesse even close to winning in any opinion polls, and he won.

The problem with opinion polls is that they ask the wrong questions. If Gallup were to ask about privatized health insurance, or whether Kenneth Lay should get the death penalty, the results would go against the current governmental (Republican/Democrat paradigm).
Jesse Ventura wasn't really on the radar until he debated the R/D candidates before the election. Suddenly voters realized there was a difference between the Coke/Pepsi that the two parties represent, and he was elected. That's the biggest reason that third parties have been slapped with such limitations here in Florida.

Third parties are excluded from debates, and that is completely undemocratic.

No shiat, Sherlock. And in the past, such as when (moderate) Socialist candidates won elections they've been refused seating in legislatures. See NY state in the early 20th century, for example.
 
2002-11-10 08:00:18 PM
Gohansomethingsomething
am I the ONLY one here who's smart enough to see the writer's point, and who realizes that it's VALID?

You're not alone, but the minority that agree with the article get lost in the crowd.

Then again, I'm only a Canadian, so my opinion doesn't count.
 
2002-11-10 08:00:52 PM
11-10-02 05:10:19 PM FotH
Can some of you asshats who were perturbed by this article (did you even read it?) explain why you think democracy works? Could you please refute the writer's arugment without resorting to calling him a "pinko commie" "liberal pansy" who "hates America"?

No, they can't. You need to read up on McCarthyism, my friend.
 
2002-11-10 08:04:09 PM
How the hell did this get an obvious tag? Should have been labeled "Asshats"

once again...Yellowtimes..blah blah..liberal diatribe blah blah donuts blah
 
2002-11-10 08:06:38 PM
Bondith:

Don't worry. Positive changes have always only been made by the minority. Those who have a hard time understanding different point of views never realize they are wrong; it takes a minority group of dedicated individuals to change things for the better.

It happened with Vietnam, with the Black movement, with the feminist movement, etc. And that's just the United States.
 
2002-11-10 08:07:55 PM
Goddamn commies, undermining my belief in only two political options. Mmm, government by proxy.
 
2002-11-10 08:08:22 PM
Right on gravity.
 
2002-11-10 08:09:19 PM
It's great how everyone refers to yellowtimes.org as commies, yet there is no proof of this. I guess, by that logic, I can call the rest of you morons.
 
2002-11-10 08:11:10 PM
If I could shove one thing into the dense brain tissues of all anti-capitalist, anti-corporate, anti-rich socialists, it would be this:
IT'S GOOD FOR EVERYONE FOR EVERYONE THAT SOME HAVE THE OPPURTUNITY TO BE EXTREMELY WEALTHY!
This oppurtunity creates millions of jobs and RAISES the STANDARD of LIVING for EVERYONE!
Get it in your heads!!!!
 
2002-11-10 08:11:18 PM
It seems like the only people able to clearly see what is going on in America are those from outside it.
 
2002-11-10 08:12:23 PM
I don't care if you disagree with this guy (I don't 100% agree either), but I'm so sick of the "love it or leave it" assholes. Yeah, because the way to address political and social issues isn't to try and affect change, it's to run away.
 
2002-11-10 08:13:45 PM
Right on DoubleGGuy! It's so sad when you have to point out the benifits of government by a wealthy elite to the discontented plebians.
 
2002-11-10 08:21:09 PM
Theculturedredneck:

There are 2 different types of people:

1. People who see others as individuals

2. Asshats who make assumptions and overgeneralizations of others
 
2002-11-10 08:22:10 PM
Tommyg, so should we bring up the whole House Of Lords issue on the "freedom of democracy" debate. Or is it only an American issue.
 
2002-11-10 08:25:50 PM
QuithEx:


There are 2 different types of people:

1. People who see others as individuals

2. People who think there are 2 types of people



I refuse to say asshats.....played out.
 
2002-11-10 08:27:03 PM
ok fellas

Give me a prominent example of someone who does not fit into those 2 categories to any degree.
 
2002-11-10 08:28:52 PM

And Newsmax is just SOOOOOOO non-partisan fair editorials.

Both extremes of this spectrum are wrong folks.

 
2002-11-10 08:30:05 PM
People have to realise that it's not just the process of voting that makes America (and the rest of the free world) great

it's freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of trade, freedom of travel

The best way I've heard America described is that it was the first country to subordinate the rights of the state to the rights of the individual, thereby allowing people to travel their own path in life

I love you America

/end glory
 
2002-11-10 08:33:05 PM
Poppen: Mmmmmmm, doughnuts....

 
2002-11-10 08:33:43 PM
The reason the electorial college exists today is the fact that if we went by the popular vote, few if any votes cast outside the major cities would even matter because they would be outnumbered. This is the United States of America not the United Cities of America. Why would anyone living in Arizona want to be ruled by New York City or Los Angeles?
 
2002-11-10 08:34:25 PM
IT'S GOOD FOR EVERYONE FOR EVERYONE THAT SOME HAVE THE OPPURTUNITY TO BE EXTREMELY WEALTHY! This opportunity creates millions of jobs and RAISES the STANDARD of LIVING for EVERYONE!


Tell that to the employees of Enron, Worldcom, ImClone, Tyco, etc..

There is nothing wrong with the American dream itself. The problems start with the methods used to accomplish it.
 
2002-11-10 08:36:02 PM
Clevershark
Only problem is, if the electoral system was broken up in percentages there would be no point in having it at all. Might as well switch to the popular vote as a means of election, since either a reworking of the electoral college or a dumping of it altogether would require the same political processes, and neither of the parties in power is willing to bite the hand that feeds it.

How so? The system Amosite said they had in Nebraska seems to have a little EC and a little popular vote. Divide the district EC votes between the candidates and then add the two EC votes left over to the winner of the state. That seems to be different without being a straight popular vote.
 
2002-11-10 08:36:59 PM
Concept:
The difference is that, over here, there has been significant talk of reform and even a little action. Still, the talk of reform has not ceased. In America, there has been all talk and no action, which seems to be good enough to appease the majority of Americans.
 
2002-11-10 08:41:55 PM
While I do see the author's point (even through his self-important writing style), I thought this was funny:

"could not discuss any topic or issue of importance beyond a 7th grade level (the result of reading Newsweek)"

Yeesss.... the writing at YellowTimes is soooo much better...
 
2002-11-10 08:43:09 PM
Tommyg:
The difference is that we DON'T want to change it. This is only an issue because their guys were not voted in, so therefore everyone is an idiot and/or the system does not work.
 
2002-11-10 08:46:48 PM
ok fellas

Give me a prominent example of someone who does not fit into those 2 categories to any degree.


Err.. Nelson Mandela? Gandhi? These two fought against the inherent elitism practiced by the British/White South Africans in their native lands. As a result of their actions, elitist systems (the British Raj/Apartheid) were replaced with systems that were a lot more democractic then what came before them.

And the two of them were certainly not sheep - in fact, the two of them were the only people I've ever seen to successfully implement change through peaceful resistance.
 
2002-11-10 08:51:08 PM
Yea, your little life of wealthy means that you had to kill 3 million Vietnamese, along with tens of thousands of Americans, you coward.
 
2002-11-10 08:51:43 PM
Ha ha! The joke is on you DBCooper! It IS better!
 
2002-11-10 09:01:17 PM
Jonc, I can't speak for the article you posted regarding Reporters Without Borders. They may be right, but your argument is a strawman. This isn't about what Reporters Without Borders may or may not think regarding the United States or so-called "democratic socialism". It's about the fact that the Yellow Times has apparently embraced the same ideology that the rule of Angka is Ideal For All, that the United States would benefit from some sort of soul-crushing antlike communism, and that they (the staff and writers) seem to hate anyone who's become successful through hard work and personal initiative. It is the dogmatic gospel of the radical left to hate you if you have done so; it never changes. Whether it is under the so-called "centrist" ideology of Clinton and his band of socialist cronies like Janet Reno the murderer (head of the Clinton Secret Police AKA the ATF) and his Minister of Propaganda, James Carville.

Whatever you do, don't pause and think about the duality of the statement "It takes a village", as spoken by We Are The President. You might just realize the money/rights/property grab the Left were attempting to build was as real and tangiable as the keyboard you're typing on.

Ultimately, the left (and YT typifies this) is comprised of self-styled "pure" intellectualism. So committed to refining human behavior and nature to a science, they have failed to build any sort of a watershed in an effort to provide for themselves. When they look at those who have done so, those who have worked hard and applied knowledge, they burn with a passionate hatred. "Why," they cry, "should those who've worked and saved and done well in a practical arena step on those of us who are obviously their intellectual betters?! Why should the rest go without? It's up to us to erase this inequality!" they shout.

The tools of this sociopolitical movement are simple ones, but very effective. By pigeonholing the entierty of society by class, race and economic status, they create walls and convenient labels that become rhetorical weapons to use against the skilled and talented who judge people as individuals instead of by "social class".

Don't want to hire someone who's black - and incidentally is unqualified for a given job? Then you're obviously a racist. Don't want to give away free aborions? It's clear you're a sexist. Gun owner? Fascist! Noncentrist right/conservative? Oh, you're at the bottom of the heap, you're on the verge of being a neo-nazi!

Once the left has race-baited you into just shouting "NO I'M NOT!" a few times, they will (figuratively) smile smugly and assume an air of pseudointellectual superiority and wait for the gu'bmint to waltz in and make everything nice and even. And fair. Above all, legislate everything until it's fair. Quoth Orwell: "Some are more equal than others."

This is, of course, the mere thin end of the wedge. We've seen the "playing field" levelled in such socialist garden spots as Cambodia, North Korea, Vietnam, China, the former Soviet Union and other places where the tyrrany of "equality" demanded that the willfull and intelligent be put to work in fields and at menial jobs lest their be any unfairness or inequality.

History has shown us the horrific results of attempting to use human beings as lab rats in such social experiments; YellowTimes and others seem hell bent on ignoring the multidinous failures of the past and insist - no, they demand that this same sickness be tried again, and again, until everyone is equal...
 
2002-11-10 09:17:29 PM
FlightDeck:

Sir, you don't know what you are talking about. How dare you assume that the publication of YellowTimes.org embraces communism?

You are a sad individual.
 
2002-11-10 09:34:02 PM
Oh boy. More comfortable folks assailing our political system. *Yawn*. I refer you you to:

"We are learning that resistance never really entailed opposition to fascism at all, much less the need for intervention to support democracy, but was simply a strange desire to vent displeasure with our own culture. That so many of these ideological teenagers mad at their opulent and indulgent parents are affluent suburbanites suggests the deleterious effects of leisure and wealth; that so many enjoy the appurtenances of nice cars, houses, and travel denotes abject hypocrisy; that so many mindlessly repeat cant and fad reflects the power of belonging to a clique that promises status by being more "sophisticated" and "subtle" than ordinary Americans; that so many demand utopian perfection reminds us that their god Reason is an unforgiving totem; that so many are shrill and angry suggests that they seek global causes to assuage personal unhappiness and anger at a system that has not met their own high demands upon it."

'Nuff said.
 
2002-11-10 09:42:23 PM
If they don't like it here, go to Russia where everyone's depressed and drunk.

Those of you who would defend this whiney-biatch article--do us all a favor and get a vascectomy so you can't reproduce.
 
2002-11-10 09:44:54 PM
Shinobi,

I would argue that Gandhi was not a liberal in the sense that we describe them today. Just because you effect change nonviolently does not make you a liberal and/or unconservative.

I'm not sure that Nelson Mandela is free from the type 1 description. Sure, breaking apartheid was a wonderful achievement, but he has a personal agenda that lumps him with many type 1's. Thanks for the thought on my post.
 
2002-11-10 09:47:38 PM
that so many mindlessly repeat cant and fad reflects the power of belonging to a clique that promises status by being more "sophisticated" and "subtle" than ordinary Americans;

I don't agree with the original source (wasn't it NewsMax or something?) but this point is valid. Yellowtimes attacks democracy because it lets people who have not displayed sufficient intellect have a say.

But the question of who has sufficient intellect is purely subjective, and generally biased in the eye of the beholder ('all republicans/democrats are idiot sheep - we on the left/right are the smart ones'). The only workable solution is to get everybody to vote. That way all viewpoints get a hearing.

And if you don't agree with me - you must be an idiot ;).
 
2002-11-10 09:47:49 PM
"Zachmorello" - another rich bastard with a computer who's goal in life is to decry others who got their share. You're the sad individual. Please, by all means, stay in the Netherlands. Netherlands - has a sort of obscene ring to it, like "nether-regions". "I kicked ZachMorello in his netherlands intellectually and all he could do is come back with ad hominem!"

Yeah, that's the ticket.
 
2002-11-10 09:49:46 PM
<b>Shinobi</b> why...why you leftist/rightist! How dare you the left/right in with the unwashed masses of democrats/republicans! You...you...<grrr!>

;-)
 
2002-11-10 09:53:11 PM
Millay:
what's wrong with striving for Utopia? What's wrong with demanding more out of a failing system? What's wrong with deciding that there is more to life than "nice cars, houses, and travel". The author of that quote may be able to see what is going on, but he does not understand it.
 
2002-11-10 09:56:52 PM
Theculturedredneck

I would argue that Gandhi was not a liberal in the sense that we describe them today. Just because you effect change nonviolently does not make you a liberal and/or unconservative.

The nonviolent part was a refutation of point 2 - that he was not a sheep. It is certainly not a common method of resistance, for either those on the left or right.

I can't see how Gandhi could be considered conservative, considering the sweeping changes he proposed and effected in his home country. And his politics showed a very strong leftist view - he espoused economic self-sufficiency over free trade.

I'm not sure that Nelson Mandela is free from the type 1 description. Sure, breaking apartheid was a wonderful achievement, but he has a personal agenda that lumps him with many type 1's. Thanks for the thought on my post.

Your point 1 is:

1. The elitists who consider themselves far superior to anyone who would challenge their right to lead mankind.

The fact he had a personal agenda would not alone group him in point 1. If Mandela considered himself superior to anyone else, he would have not been able to negotiate with the ruling establishment of South Africa the way he did. Furthermore, all personal accounts of meeting Mandela that I have heard describe him as one of the most mild, self-effacing and modest people you could ever meet.

Thanks for the discussion, but your argument appears to be turining in on itself -

"I say all liberals come in two groups. If someone presents a liberal that doesn't fit these groups, well they're not a liberal in my opinion."

This can't be argued, because it comes down to your particular definition of liberal.
 
2002-11-11 12:32:13 AM
Concept:

thanks for totally taking my post out of context!

btw, stfu!
 
2002-11-11 12:36:50 AM
Rassleholic
The reason the electorial college exists today is the fact that if we went by the popular vote, few if any votes cast outside the major cities would even matter because they would be outnumbered. This is the United States of America not the United Cities of America. Why would anyone living in Arizona want to be ruled by New York City or Los Angeles?


Exactly. The reason that our two party system has survived for so long is because of the sharp divide between rural and urban in the United States.
 
2002-11-11 01:11:45 AM
Political parties should be banned. Political TV ads should be banned. Political signs and posters should be banned.
Politicians should be banned.
 
2002-11-11 01:12:39 AM
didn't read the article...i'm just glad to be here.

-wild sunday for my family.
 
2002-11-11 01:22:04 AM
shinobi

who exactly are you quoting at the end there buddy?

You do realize that in order to put quotation marks are a string of text, it must be spoken by someone don't you?

I'm surprised my short little comment has caused even a small amount of stir with some people. lol

okay, i'll grant whoever cares this... the two types are generalizations. they have to be, you can find exceptions to every rule.

I'll hold to the fact that nearly all liberals fit the 2 categories. If anyone cares enough to respond yet again to this thread, knock yourself out.

I'm going to sleep...
 
Displayed 50 of 240 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report