Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

USA the #1 democracy? What a joke.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 09:15 AM
link   
Today I saw am American ATSer say

"we have the #1 democracy the world has ever seen"

Just a few questions here.
Are you aware of the companies that "donate" money to presidential candidates to sponsor them?
Are you aware of the fact that companies do not pay millions because they are so sweet, but because they want the president to make decisions in their favor?

They will want something back for their money, and just like Bush ditches Kyoto to please the companies sponsoring him back then in 2000, there will be numerous "unexplainable" decisions this time as well.

Your democracy is shallow and superfacial, if I understand this correctly.




posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 09:16 AM
link   
USA ALL THE WAY GO BUSH FINISH THE JOB!



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 09:28 AM
link   

as mentioned by Jakko
...if I understand this correctly.


Key word there Jakko.....IF, and its pretty clear to me that just maybe, you have no real understanding? I mean, this is if I understand you correctly?


Response to your questions:

Are you aware of the companies that "donate" money to presidential candidates to sponsor them?

So? They have been such since before you and I and most others here were born.


Are you aware of the fact that companies do not pay millions because they are so sweet, but because they want the president to make decisions in their favor?

Duh! Lobbyist are utilized for what purposes as well? Have you ventured into those people who are also contributors to such presidential candidates? George Soros ring a bell? Any complaints about him though? Thought not.

Then you jump to Kyoto and more of those asserted "unexplainable" decisions? Spare me. Question for you o'Jakko: Would you be making this post if Mr. Kerry would have won instead of Bush? Thought not...




seekerof

[edit on 4-11-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 09:34 AM
link   
Kyoto was very unexpected yes, at least for Europeans it was.
And taxcuts for the richest was also a little strange.

But if you realize how the richest bought Bush into the office back in 2000 it starts to make sense.

Honestly seeker, I am sure you guys are used to this system, but what exactly is democracy about this?
That people can choose either rich guy 1 or rich guy 2, sponsored by multinational companies?

It's not like this in the rest of the world, so what exactly is good about how democracy is in the USA?



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Kyoto was unexpected for europeans because europeans don't understand americans.
As for tax cuts, everybody got a tax cut. The rich got more of a benefit because ................ they make more money. The rich still pay a larger share of taxes than the poor and middle class combined.
Jakko you don't understand Americans and you never will.
We aren't like you and we don't want to be.
We don't want to be like canadians.
We don't want to be ike europeans.
We don't think socialsm is a good thing we never will.
We don't have a problem with those who succeed enjoying thier success.
You do.
You don't get us jakko and you never will.

[edit on 4-11-2004 by mwm1331]



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
Jakko you don't understand Americans and you never will.
You don't get us jakko and you never will.

[edit on 4-11-2004 by mwm1331]


Aren't you just underestimating your capability of explaining things to Europeans now?

Seriously, I am sure you can do a better job at explaining why I am wrong, and why the USA is a very healthy and great democracy.
Right?



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 09:44 AM
link   
i would expect the guys in charge to work out a program that benefits the people, not just the corporations. but hey, how naive am i?



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Jakko

We live in a Republic not a Democracy get your facts straight.



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Machine
We live in a Republic not a Democracy get your facts straight.


You might want to explain that to your president.
Maybe then he'll stop rambling about sharing his great democracy with the rest of the world, wether they like it or not.



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tomashi
i would expect the guys in charge to work out a program that benefits the people, not just the corporations. but hey, how naive am i?

Well, the "benefits the people" that Bush has done includes:

Putting religious people (not scientists) in charge of science funding programs. If we could explain how it furthers something Biblical, we could get a grant easily. But heaven forbid you do research that shows some faith-based initiatives are not working on some sectors of the population.

The environment is in poor shape and it's getting worse. Scientists here in the US have been screaming about this for 4 years. Bush won't sign Kyoto. And... by the way... when he was governor of Texas, our air quality took a step backwards.

You have to sign a loyalty oath to go hear him speak. How Orwellian is that?

(I have all sorts of rants about this.)

Union of Concerned Scientists has some issues that many of you might find interesting: www.ucsusa.org...



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Machine
Jakko

We live in a Republic not a Democracy get your facts straight.


Absolutely Machine...most people have allowed the word "democracy" to brainwashed them into believe it is great!

Our founders often cringed at the mere thought of democracy over Constitutional Republic.

It was not until during the great depression that anyone referred to the United States as a democracy and only because certain villains with power brainwashed it into our psych. Say the "Pledge of Allegiance" to yourself and see which word is spoken. A Republic makes every citizen a "king", a king without subjects. A Democracy disolves us all into the body politic and destroys freedom.

To parapharse Franklin--Democracy is when two wolves and a sheep vote on what they will have for lunch.

Democary:

1. A government of masses.
2. Authority derived though mass meeting or any form of dirrect expression.
3. Results in mobocary.
4. Attiude toward property is communistic-negating property rights.
5. Attiude toward law is that the will of majority shall regulate, whether it be based upond deliberation or government by passion, prejudice, and impules, with out restraint or regard to consequences.
6. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

Republic:

1. Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officals best fitted to represent them.
2. Attitude toward propery is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure.
3. Attitude toward law is administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequencces.
4. A greater number of Citizens and extent of territory may be brought by its compass.
5. Avoids the dangerous extreme of tyranny or mobocracy.
6. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.

This is not what is taught in public school Civics 101.


[edit on 4-11-2004 by Anti_Federalist]



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anti_Federalist
To parapharse Franklin--Democracy is when two wolves and a sheep vote on what they will have for lunch.


The answer would be 2/3 of the sheep right?


Anyways, I think your post is very subjective. Democracy does not lead to the disaster you describe, neither does a republic lead to the hysterically described utopia in your post.



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Jakko,

I agree with you, by the way "corporations" do not stand on the side lines any more they are "part" of the government and they are the Republican party, example, Bush family business, and Cheney Haliburton.

So as you can see they are the government now.

And as for the religious taking over the science community yes what can I say, lets keep US dumb while the rest of the world moves forward in research.

Now if you have money and you belong to the wealthy American elite. Then you don't have to pray for a cure you can spend your money and get treatment in Europe.

The rest of us have to pray and take the bs that the government and the big pharmaceuticals are giving us because the also are part of the government.

Yeah this democracy American suck it up style.



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 10:17 AM
link   
B t w, there are several posts in this thread that I can not see.
I see them when I click "reply" but as the thread gets bigger this won't be available anymore soon.
I can not see marg6043's last post, and neither can I see HAL2003's first post.

Conspiracy?



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Do any of you Bush haters know Kerry's family background? He is a Forbe's married to the Hienz billionaire-es. Talk about rich and out of touch. Corporations run the world and always have. All I read today is spoiled little people that want to dictate to the world how they sould live.



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 10:25 AM
link   
"American Elite?

Do any of you Bush haters know Kerry's family background? He is a Forbe's married to the Hienz billionaire-es. Talk about rich and out of touch. Corporations run the world and always have. All I read today is spoiled little people that want to dictate to the world how they sould live. "

Corporations have always run the world? Are you sure about that, ever heard of a King, Queen, and other royals who have ruled the earth since time began and still do. Did you tell the Happsburg family this? About Prince Charles?



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Do any of you Bush haters know Kerry's family background? He is a Forbe's married to the Hienz billionaire-es. Talk about rich and out of touch. Corporations run the world and always have. All I read today is spoiled little people that want to dictate to the world how they sould live.


Hey the truth about our political systems suck right? Now you get it. Whoa people will start waking up perhaps america have a future, or may be not.



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakko

Originally posted by Anti_Federalist
To parapharse Franklin--Democracy is when two wolves and a sheep vote on what they will have for lunch.


The answer would be 2/3 of the sheep right?


Anyways, I think your post is very subjective. Democracy does not lead to the disaster you describe, neither does a republic lead to the hysterically described utopia in your post.


2/3 of the sheep have certainly been tenderize.


Democracy

Democracy is a political system through which the majority of the population rules. It differs from other forms of dictatorship by the size of the ruling class. It is believed that democracy leads to freedom, peace, and prosperity. This is not the case. Democracy is potentially the most dangerous of the political systems.

Democracy is rule by the majority. There are no limits to what the majority is allowed to decide. It can decide laws based on whim, with no respect for rights It can pass laws against painting your house white as easy as it can pass laws against murder. There is no guarantee of a just democracy.

There is one distinction between a democracy and many other forms of dictatorship. A minority dictatorship must fear the majority. If they oppress the people too much, the people will rebel. No dictatorship can stand against the full will of the people.

Those that are ruled think in terms of justice. Those that rule think in terms of power. When the majority rules, they stop thinking in terms of right and wrong. They're claim to power is "the will of the people". Wherever that power leads, they follow obediently. If slavery is the price of power, they take it willingly.

Those that suffer the most under a democracy are the minorities. The smaller the group, the less say they have in policy. But majority and minority change with each issue or policy. Everyone finds themselves as part of the minority at some point. But since the majority rule, the government has no fear of rebellion to circumscribe their actions.

That being said, voting is a very useful tool in constructing a proper government. Unlimited democracy is a bad thing in itself, but a constitutional representative republic in which the people elect representatives to govern according to a rights-respecting constitution is the best form of government so far discovered.

There is a disturbing tendency for people to equate a democratic government with a just or proper government. They will say that one government is bad because it's not democratic and another is good because it is, and we must bring democracy to the world! What constitutes a proper government is the preservation of rights, not the method by which that preservation is brought about.

www.importanceofphilosophy.com...://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Bloody_Democracy.html



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anti_Federalist

Democracy is a political system through which the majority of the population rules. It differs from other forms of dictatorship by the size of the ruling class. It is believed that democracy leads to freedom, peace, and prosperity. This is not the case. Democracy is potentially the most dangerous of the political systems.
Democracy is rule by the majority. There are no limits to what the majority is allowed to decide. It can decide laws based on whim, with no respect for rights It can pass laws against painting your house white as easy as it can pass laws against murder. There is no guarantee of a just democracy.



Wrong.
Democracy as we know it, is always limited by the constitution. A basic law containing human rights that can not be overriden by whatever law is created in the democratic proces.


There is one distinction between a democracy and many other forms of dictatorship. A minority dictatorship must fear the majority. If they oppress the people too much, the people will rebel. No dictatorship can stand against the full will of the people.


Wrong as well, look at any dictatorship where people are being killed and tortured for their opinion. The majority fears the minoraty that leads the country in a dictatorship.


Those that are ruled think in terms of justice. Those that rule think in terms of power. When the majority rules, they stop thinking in terms of right and wrong. They're claim to power is "the will of the people". Wherever that power leads, they follow obediently. If slavery is the price of power, they take it willingly.


Also wrong, the majority is noone. Everyone has an equal say in everything so the majority may change depending on what subject you are talking about. The statement that any majority would stop thinking in terms of right and wrong is just absurd.


Those that suffer the most under a democracy are the minorities. The smaller the group, the less say they have in policy. But majority and minority change with each issue or policy. Everyone finds themselves as part of the minority at some point. But since the majority rule, the government has no fear of rebellion to circumscribe their actions.


Of course minorities suffer when the majority has a different opinion, but this is why every law has its exceptions. The job in a democracy is to make sure a land is a good place to live in for everyone, minority and majority, and if something is bothering the minority, the majority should be able to listen and care about it.


That being said, voting is a very useful tool in constructing a proper government. Unlimited democracy is a bad thing in itself, but a constitutional representative republic in which the people elect representatives to govern according to a rights-respecting constitution is the best form of government so far discovered.


Unlimited democracy is crazy. There will always have be a democracy in a way as seen in most european countries for it to work right. That does not change the fact that it is a democracy and that the people in a country do decide what happens.



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 11:37 AM
link   
I grow tired of this inane banter. The bottom line is this: Had kerry won you would be prancing about talking about your great victory. Not bemoaning the loss of "Democracy" But you know what? Americans went to vote and a MAJORITY of them did not agree with you or YOUR vision of who should have won.

Be honest, would this have been posted had Kerry won? Not likely. and do remeber with all you ranting about corporations, Kerry raised more money that Bush.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join