It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Democracy is a stupid idea

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2006 @ 10:44 PM
link   
Democracy is a stupid idea

I apologize if someone has already posted something similar, but it needs to be posted again.

I was reading the news today about the corrupt congressman William Jefferson from La, and it dawned on me democracy is a stupid idea. Much smarter people then me had said this since ancient Greek times, but today was the first day I truly understood what they meant.

This congressman accepted a large bribe by the fbi and got caught.
Now all the congressmen are saying how horrible this all is. no... not for the reason you think.
not that they think corruption is bad... just that the fbi is trying to catch corrupt politicians.
republicans and democrats alike are now rushing to this slime balls defense, showing that they all...are...slime balls.

they don’t want ferreting out corruption in congress to become the norm because then they would almost all be kicked out. same reason they dont want lobbying reform. corrupt. corrupt. cor-rupt.

seriously these people are why true democracy will always fail. people end up voting for people who promise them the world. the only people slimy enough to promise the world to everyone are corrupt lying jerks. hence the current state of our government.

our government is a failure. People have been saying this for some time, but i say that the problem isn’t the people in office, remember we voted for them...or idiots in other part of our country voted for them. no the problem is the system of the liberal democracy. what happened to the republic that this country used to be, and who took it away?



[edit on 23-5-2006 by TheRepublic]




posted on May, 23 2006 @ 11:23 PM
link   
Yeah, okay. Move to China or some other communistic country and let me know how that works out for you.



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
Yeah, okay. Move to China or some other communistic country and let me know how that works out for you.


Coulden't have said it better, live in another non-democratic society for awhile and see how it really feels to live without your liberties.

Democracy can be "stupid" when it is run by stupid people. Thats why a true direct demoracy wouldent work because not all people are intellgent, and even more would just follow propoganda. Democracy is not a perfect system, the beauty of it is that you can change it's policies without overthrowing your goverment or violence.

Also bribery has been in EVERY goverment, nation and people. Someone does someone a favor and so on, that will never change.



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 11:49 PM
link   
Such predictable responses to such a valid complaint. Is it wrong to recognize that there are problems with a form of government and seek a better way of governing? It is pathetic that a moderator would respond by saying "If you don't like it than leave." I don't agree that democracy is a "stupid idea," but anybody who pays one iota of attention to political news will realize that our government needs to be "fixed" in some way or another. To suggest that somebody leave the country because they have a problem with how it is being ran is extremely un-American..

- Attero



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Attero Auctorita
It is pathetic that a moderator would respond by saying "If you don't like it than leave."


Crap! I forgot as a moderator I'm not allowed to have an opinion. For shame...


Yes, there is corruption in our government. Imagine that. Though to say that democracy is wrong because of it is just idiotic. Democracy has done so much for this country and the world, despite its few pitfalls. What has communism done? What has socialism done? What have monarchies done? What have other forms have government done? Are they all free of corruption? How does their level of corruption compare to what we have in America?

Nothing compated to what democracy has.



posted on May, 24 2006 @ 01:07 AM
link   
Hey, The Republic, you should provide a link with the statements by legislators you find offensive. I haven't heard the complaints you mention and would appreciate reading them prior to commenting on your statement.

I will say that corruption is rampant in Congress during the last 6 years. It's a freaking 'free for all' and the only people upset are the (too) few getting caught. My guess is they're stupid, like in your example, or they broke one of the unwritten rules of thievery in Congress. But graft is as old as politics. Not to say it isn't wrong. It is wrong and it is outrageously rampant at this point in history. There's a reason.

The neocons have advocated a reduction in government oversight of industry across the board. Basically, they don't want the government regulators calling them on their thieving of the public airways (FCC now run by corporate insiders) and soon the internet itself (no more 'net neutrality') and the public money through gas price-gouging, and even the theft of citizen civil rights/freedoms through the USA Patriot Act and other nonsense such as the ubiquitous War on Terror or the War on Drugs (predates the present administration).

So yeah, this guy was an idiot. Defending him would be like defending Hitler ... or Bush - futile. But I suppose if you're premise is founded in fact it is indicative of their fear of being caught themselves. They don't like getting caught with their hands in the cookie jar. They don't think the FBI should be doing much besides looking for those pesky terrorists.



posted on May, 24 2006 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Why do you people keep referring to Democracy.

Democracy was a loathsome term to many of the founding fathers, so they created a Constitutional Republic.

Look it up, you might just see the difference.

But yes, Democracy is a stupid idea.



posted on May, 24 2006 @ 02:52 PM
link   
If politicians could be honest, and not use double-speak to cover their lies, or they could keep their pockets empty of bribes, or promised jobs after their term of election was over.

That will never happen though, because greed is an evil thing. I am the only person I know, that would not take a bribe, no matter how big it is, no matter what it is, and I'd actually turn in the person who attempted to bribe me.

Politicians, are a lot like diapers, they need to be changed often, and for the same reason.



[edit on 24-5-2006 by SpartanKingLeonidas]



posted on May, 24 2006 @ 05:15 PM
link   
ok to clarify my position I will provide some links, but first i am shocked about the statement how i should leave this country. I agree with you KrazyJethro.
I should leave the country? I am a true American, I believe in the government created by the founders. the constitutional republic. not this liberal democracy nonsense. Not this crap that has been shoved upon us by corrupt politicians and stupid voters trying to vote themselves favors.
I am definatly not communist or socialist as those forms of government end up being even more corrupt then what we have...but not by much.

I think the original governent of weak central power was the perfect sytem allowing freedom without corruption or oppression.
we threw this away sometime over the past, probably in the late 1800's early 1900's and now we are left with this rotting corrupt hulk of what was once great.
I say bring back the constitutional republic, thats why the pledge said: The Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, with liberty and justice for all...
what i said about politicians on both sides of the spectrum coming together in defence of jefferson you can find here
www.msnbc.msn.com...

If your going to tell me to leave the country because im unamerican please do some research first.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

lastly i protest the moving of this thread to slug fest as it specifically relates to the corruption of jefferson which is current US politics.


[edit on 24-5-2006 by TheRepublic]

[edit on 24-5-2006 by TheRepublic]



posted on May, 24 2006 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRepublic
ok I am a true American, I believe in the government created by the founders. the constitutional republic. not this liberal democracy nonsense.

If your going to tell me to leave the country because im unamerican please do some research first

[edit on 24-5-2006 by TheRepublic]




If you are a "true" american, why do you have the bonnie blue flag of southern succession? if i remeber my history correctly the south succeded from the original union.

[edit on 24-5-2006 by thesnafued1]



posted on May, 24 2006 @ 09:56 PM
link   
yes,
you are right and If youll remeber your history a little more you will also rember that the southern side in the civil war thought that they were the true americans. They thought they were trying to preserve the style of government the founders intended, of weak centeral government. This is why i have this avatar. In the north big business desired a strong centeral government to help build infrastructure, the money for this came from the south in the form of taxes. this is what started the war. Ive had this avatar for a long time and the flag has a great history going back way before the civil war actully. It symbolises strong local government as opposed to highly centeralized government.
if you want to know more about it you can read this:
www.anyflag.com...

but enough on the civil war i would really like to get back to the issue of corruption in democracy and why a republic is better.

Johnson has commited a felony. They found money in his freezer from a bribe. unless he thought putting money in the freezer helped keep it safe from inflation he knew full well he was doing wrong. He is a peice of corrupt government garbage. I believe that democracys breed people like this.

like i said earlier the only people slimy enough to promise the world to everyone in order to get elected are indeed slimeballs.

and one other thing about the lobbying reform that cant seem to get passed in the senate. until lobbying reform gets passed we will continue to have slimeballs like jefferson and Rep. Drew Saunders the man who said "baby jesus accepted gifts and it didnt corrupt him".

you think that in our "democracy" that when you vote for someone they understand that you are voting for what they stand for. But these corperations are giving politicians money to tell them what to stand for. so in reality its not your voice that gets heard its the corperations. democrats and republicans alike.
that is how corrupt our government is.
it is a failure.



posted on May, 25 2006 @ 03:33 AM
link   
Southerners during the time of Secession were equally corrupt. But in a different way. In fact, you could say, they ran an underground ogliarchical society based on a "ruling class" of "Masters".

Why is their system superior? I would like to know.







[edit on 25-5-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on May, 25 2006 @ 01:31 PM
link   
TheRepublic. I think what the others were trying to tell you was this: Our form of gov't isn't perfect, there are flaws inherent in any form of gov't, but it's the best thing out there by a long road.

Any gov't. no matter how well designed, that depends upon the honesty of man, is doomed to have corruption. No two ways about it. Longtime pols no matter how honest and forthright they were in the beginning, sooner or later begin to listen to the siren song of...if you do for me, I'll do for you. Very seductive, and it'll always starts by sounding oh so reasonable...next thing you know...you are accepting bribes from whomever meets your price.

The only solution I see to this is (drumroll, please) term limits. No more than, oh say, three terms in the House, two in the Senate, and two in the White House.



posted on May, 25 2006 @ 02:57 PM
link   
ceci2006

I really like talking about the civil war but it is really a whole diffrent can of worms that i was not trying to get into. If people would like i could start a thread on that but im really talking about the corruption of this government. never the less i will answer you.
First of all the southern system was not corrupt. everything was legal. part of the war was the changing of laws rapidly (overnight) to make the souths whole economy fall apart. with the technological advances of the age in farming technology, slavery would soon have become obsolete anyways in a short period of time in the south but natrually without destroying the whole economy, putting the south in an economic funk that took it 150 years to come out of. instead 1 in 4 southern males would die trying to fend off an invasion of northern imperialists. why would 1 in 4 men give their lives if most men didnt own slaves in the south, just the plantation owning elite? because they were fighting for weak centeral government, they were fighting against industrial imperialism.
the word you used underground oligarchy is equally wrong first of all it wasnt underground it was legal at the time and in the open.
second of all an oligarchy is by defintion: government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also : a group exercising such control

well guess what...THAT IS THIS GOVERNMENT.
you think you could become president? you think any old joe could? yeah george bush is just the kid next door, same with kerry. this is an oligarchy

i am arguing that small local governments are less corrupt then a strong centeral one. and if they do become corrupt they are easier to fix then a giant oversized central government. the southern system is superior for this reason.



posted on May, 25 2006 @ 03:03 PM
link   
seagull

i completely agree about term limits, and thank you for bringing this back on topic.
i disagree however that this is the best government out there, as i think the original weak centeral government is superior. and weak centeral governments are easier to purge if corruption takes hold. that is why the first order of business for corrupt industries in the US was to get rid of this form of government so they could gain more power.

i completely agree however about the term limits. If someone has 2 terms to leave a mark on the senate they will be motivated to try something nobel and to try and achieve something and fix problems.

not travel all over for free, while getting gifts, to not fix anything...which is the current state of affairs. i agree that nothing will be fixed in this country to we crack down on these corrupt scoundrels.



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 02:13 PM
link   
I believe Winston Churchill put it best: "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." That real-world democratic governments have flaws, and are prone to corruption, is not exactly an earth-shaking revelation. That this means democracy is a "stupid idea" does not follow, however. You would need to demonstrate, not merely that democratic governments are not perfect, but that they are worse than non-democratic ones on the average.


Originally posted by TheRepublic
First of all the southern system was not corrupt. everything was legal. part of the war was the changing of laws rapidly (overnight) to make the souths whole economy fall apart. with the technological advances of the age in farming technology, slavery would soon have become obsolete anyways in a short period of time in the south but natrually without destroying the whole economy


This last is a highly questionable assertion, unless by "soon" you mean "within about 75 years." Farm machinery replacing labor was certainly not available in the 1850s. You would have to move forward into the 1920s or 1930s at least to find tractors in mass production.

This, by the way, is what really ended African-American servitude; emanciption merely transformed the slave into a kind of serf -- certainly a step up, but hardly real freedom.

Nor is it true that the south's "whole economy" was threatened by emancipation. Rather, the personal economy of a small, wealthy, highly privileged elite in the south was threatened. The great majority of southerners owned no slaves and made their living working small plots of land themselves or with hired hands.



why would 1 in 4 men give their lives if most men didnt own slaves in the south, just the plantation owning elite? because they were fighting for weak centeral government


Not only were they not fighting for that, most of the Confederate soldiers couldn't even have understood the concept. The well-educated Robert E. Lee, who could, did not in principle approve of it, nor of secession; when offered command of the Union forces, he accepted provided that Virginia (his state) remained in the Union, which of course it did not. But if he had been fighting for the principle you state, he would have rejected Lincoln's offer regardless of what Virginia did.

The Confederate soldiers fought for the same thing Lee did: patriotism, which in those days was felt primarily for one's state, not the United States as a nation.



second of all an oligarchy is by defintion: government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also : a group exercising such control

well guess what...THAT IS THIS GOVERNMENT.


Yes, but the point is, it was also THAT government. (Which, I realize, was also democratic, so that's not really on target here.)



i am arguing that small local governments are less corrupt then a strong centeral one.


Do a Google search for "Tammany Hall" before you say that, please.



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 03:06 PM
link   
William Jefferson will get away with what he did for one reason. He is a Democrat, and Democrats, with the support of the media, can get away with anything.

If he had been a Republican, he would have already been indicted.



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Carseller4
I completely agree, can you imagine what the media and liberals would have done if this guy had been a white conservative? they would be crapping themselves as we speak. since it was a liberal the media keeps talking about the breeching of constitutional powers. The truth is our government has been using the constittution as toilet paper since the reign of Lincoln.



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Two Steps Forward

first of all i disagree with Mr. Churchills statement. The original republic as constructed by the founders was indeed superior to the "Democratic" government we now have. I have said it before i will say it again the republic is the best form. If democracy was the best form to come along why did the ancient greeks despise it? why did the founding fathers of this country? because they understood that it detirorated into the tyranny of the majority. If you have a big enough number of voters you can vote away the rights of others. thats not freedom, thats tyranny in sheeps clothing. and now with the media blasting people with propaganda 24 hours a day 7 days a week guess who controls the majority? democracy is stupid.

...must...stop....talking about...civil war.....
aaah forget it
Farm machinery replacing labor was certainly not available in the 1850s
WRONG
the cotton gin invented by a northern inventor made the cotton boom possible with his cotton gin invented in 1794. cotton would not have been profitible otherwise and chattel slavery would have faded from existance much sooner without it.
but think about this:

From the book Empire of Debt
Abraham Lincoln is credited with having abolished slavery--at a cost of 618,000 American lives, 2 percent of the entire population. (An equivalent death toll today would wipe out 5 million Americans) Everywhere else in the world slavery was abolished--at about the same time--with hardly a single corpse. The great Emancipator might better be cursed than praised.


about slavery, guess i actully agree with you that it changed nothing. it was just a new name on the same old crap. they werent slaves anymore they were freemen. just like the wage slaves in the back of mcdonalds are free, just like your mexican landscapers are free. slavery still exists today it always has and always will in one form or another. Lincoln freed no one he did however get tons of young men killed to further his imperial dreams. suspending habeas corpus. shutting down newspapers of people who disagreed with him and having them thrown in jail without trial. yeah thats freedom. no wonder the south fought to be free from lincoln.

Nor is it true that the south's "whole economy" was threatened by emancipation. Rather, the personal economy of a small, wealthy, highly privileged elite in the south was threatened

your understanding of economics is flawed. all economies are intertwined. since in chatel slavery, slaves were veiwed as property (i am not condoning this, I am just saying the north was wrong to invade the south), imagine if every house in the united states was "emancipated from ownership" tommarow. all of that cash investment would vaporize instantly. yeah the economy would just keep on chuggin along right?
WRONG. also note that Lincoln did not free the slaves in the north till after the war was over, he only freed slaves in the south, which he could not control anyway. He didnt want economic chaos.

Not only were they not fighting for that, most of the Confederate soldiers couldn't even have understood the concept.
The magnatude of ignorance this statement implies is shocking. tell us wiseone, were you there? did you interview the armies of the CSA? did you conduct psychological test on each of these "dumb little bumpkins" to see if they possesed the capacity to understand why the southern nation was fighting for independance?
because thats exactly as the southerners saw the war, as a fight for independance...think about what your saying. why is the revolution of 1776 a revolution and the rebllion of the south a rebellion? rebellions are just failed revolutions.
but you support my own hypothesis.
The Confederate soldiers fought for the same thing Lee did: patriotism, which in those days was felt primarily for one's state, not the United States as a nation.

that is exactly as it should have been, and exactly as it still should be. they were fighting for Decentralization not Federalization.
i can find you tons of historical letters from southerners fighting for southern independance. find me one saying was willing to give his life for a rich mans slaves.

local government is easier to overthrow.
Tammeny hall dosn't exist anymore nor was it a legitamte government entity, it was a party organization.
The corrupt federal giant still takes his lions share from your every paycheck.




[edit on 27-5-2006 by TheRepublic]



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 06:19 PM
link   
The Republic: What? I didn't say you should leave the country. Where did you get that?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join