5,794 Forum Posts by "IllustriousPotentate"
At 3/31/04 12:18 PM, southernrockblows wrote:At 3/31/04 12:07 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:no its a mob, you dont have a voting system in a mob do you? can they make laws, it may follow a democratic system but its not a democracy. Democracy implies its a govenment. If i was a paranoid skitzophrenic would i be a democracy?
Just a little tidbit--a lynch mob is also a democracy.
It's a democracy in the sense that it's majority rule. And though it's not a government in its own right--it's almost sort of a temporary microgovernment.
The people in a village vote to decide to John Doe.
The people in a village approved a referendum to tax 50% on the 2% of people with a net worth over $900,000K.
In both cases, popular, majority passion, resulted in a new policy.
John Doe doesn't want to be lynched.
Those with income >900K don't want to be taxed.
In both cases, what the majority wanted infringed on the rights of John and the incomes over $900K, who are both in the minority.
In both cases, the will and passions of the majority were able to override the opposition of the minority and eliminate a portion of the minorities' rights. And though the lynch mob's decision was not an official legislative act, it had the same effect as if the village had made a law requiring that John Doe be lynched.
Yes, blacks would probably have no or fewer rights, especially in the south if we were under majority rule. And honestly, if you asked people on 9/12 what we should do to the terrrorists that struck the WTC and Pentagon on 9/11, many Americans would still be angry and enraged. Military action in the middle east now would look like a picnic on the riverbank compared to what would have occurred if the majority on 9/12 got to determine the course of the country. This is why representative government is needed; it protects the country's policy from being influenced by day to day passions.
Just a little tidbit--a lynch mob is also a democracy.
Bullshit. You put that quote there just for the sole purpose of trying to get into an argument. Others might fall for your trying to squirm out of it, but not me.
First, you try to discredit me by twisting my words around, take them out of context, and make me look like I'm saying the exact opposite of my point, then you discredit that illusion as if it was my point. "You're telling me what my beliefs are?" No, but you sure don't have a problem taking views, discrediting them, and passing them off as mine.
I called you out on that. Now you're trying to get out of it by saying you were concerned about consumerism. If that's the case, why didn't you explain that when I first questioned you on it instead of turning my words around? Also, even if this is your explanation, what does this have to do with FCC censorship? You have the gall to criticize me for making you go off topic when I question the meaning of your statistic, even though by your explanation it was the statistic that was off topic?
Then what was the TV quote about? If you don't want the FCC censoring the media, why are you so concerned about how many children have TV's?
Maybe I am wrong about a lot of things, or have some strange beliefs, but this is one argument you can't win.
At 3/30/04 07:43 PM, DasRoteStinktier wrote:At 3/30/04 07:34 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: It's the government's job to make sure that children aren't exposed to vulgar speech?Of course not. Why would you have that hairbrained idea?
It's not my idea. It's yours apparently, because otherwise it wouldn't matter how many children have TV's in their bedrooms.
Stop being such a sore loser by taking stuff out of context and admit that you're wrong about this.
At 3/30/04 07:00 PM, ineffable_fetus wrote: Whats the point of having the FCC if you don't want them to censor?
Oh, there are certain things the FCC should be able to censor--
inciting crimes, etc.
And the FCC also has the responsibilty to make sure that one individual or company doesn't take over the airwaves or interfere with other stations' free speech.
But as to that stupid remark about TV's in the bedrooms of children, so what? It's the government's job to make sure that children aren't exposed to vulgar speech? The last time I checked, NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox, ABC, Clear Channel, Cox, etc, did not put that TV in that child's room, nor did the federal government. Why should a Constitutional right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press be superceded by a non-existent right not to be offended??
What's to stop the federal government from placing the limitations that it places on the media from placing it on private individuals? What is to stop them from censoring me from saying a vulgar word around a child or a person that might be offended by it???
At 3/30/04 06:44 PM, DasRoteStinktier wrote:
That's the justification for inequality in a class society. Whether you buy in to it or not, is up to you. But if you refuse to acknowledge the amount of 'lazy' rich, and 'hardworking' poor, then you're simply blind.
People do not get rich by waving a magic wand. Whether they themselves accumulate the wealth through entrepreneurial ability or it is inherited from that of their ancestors. But I am using "lazy" in the sense that they rely on someone else, in this case the government, to provide an aspect of life for them. The rich did not get wealthy from dependence on government.
The system does not reward laziness, and that is why the group of poor and lower-middle class wage slaves is growing larger--Americans are getting lazier. You see it in the campaign promises of Bush and Kerry:
Strange. I thought that America were more productive than ever. I thought they worked more days, longer hours, and for less pay, than many other post-industrial nations. Yet you still label them 'lazy'? Strange. Strange.
Strange? Can you point to any time within the past 70 years that domestic programs have decreased? And the system does not reward laziness--unless cheating is involved, no one gets rich off of welfare.
Bush doesn't advocate a significant increase in medicare spending, and neither does Kerry. What are you talking about?
Yeah. Those stupid, dirt-poot retired people don't want to pay several hundred dollars a month on a single prescription. What is wrong with them? They must be lazy.
Yes, in the context I have been using and I defined clearly in my post, they are. Plus, citing an atypical example is not good strategy. Senior citizens are the wealthiest age group in America.
Because I know mine are bitching and moaning about the price of their medication. They're voting Kerry, after voting Republican in every single election since they arrived here.
Who was it that was against emperical evidence again??
You must be living in a different America than the rest of us. Corporate welfare went over $150 billion (yearly) in '95. It went to companies like Walt Disney, whose profits exceeded $1 billion that year.
That's not reliance on government--that's theft. Obviously, CEO's that are part of a corporation with $1 billion profits are not reliant on the government for basic needs. <sarcasm> But of course, the people that get promoted and advanced over those that don't are not advancing because of work, but because of corporate welfare. </sarcasm.> The CEO's earned the wages they receive from the company, but they are not reliant on those government subsidies as those in the socialist circle are.
Next time, if you could take the time to comprehend what I say rather than going into auto-refute mode...
At 3/30/04 05:42 AM, Slizor wrote:
If Capitalism did reward hard work, then what is a salary? If you get paid a certain amount irregardless of how hard you work, then how are you being rewarded for hard work? It seems that there is an obvious answer......you're not being paid for how hard you work. Still I think we're lacking a bit, let's look at how your salary is determined.
It is thus fair to conclude that in Capitalism people do not get paid for hard work, but for their market value.:
You fail to consider advancement, however. Generally, those with ambition that work harder than the rest rise to the top to a more powerful, more rewarding position, while those that spend all day surfing the net while their boss isn't looking stay the same or fall out.
The system does not reward laziness, and that is why the group of poor and lower-middle class wage slaves is growing larger--Americans are getting lazier. You see it in the campaign promises of Bush and Kerry:
increased Medicare spending
prescription drug benefit
government guaranteed jobs
etc., etc. More and more people are letting the government run their lives. I've seen it here on the BBS, government run healthcare. People want to be taken care of by society, not be part of it, and these people are a growing populace; the government dependent are no longer limited to crack ho's and slobs.
In a sense, we have a dual economic system here in America! The poor are trapped in a socialist circle--reliance on government becomes even more reliance on government--with only a select few being able to "defect" to the capitalist circle--the one that rewards hard work. The only reason we're not a completely socialist state now is that those in the capitalist circle are wealthy enough to maintain both circles (providing entrepreneurability and capital to the capitalist, and subsidies in the form of high taxes to the government to fund the socialist). And the more and more that the wealthy are tapped of money from taxes, the larger the socialist circle grows--the money that maintains the capitalist circle has been diverted.
Someone should go steal that lamb, and die it black, with the exception of the inscription "Allah is teh r0x0rz!!!!!1111"
At 3/30/04 04:05 PM, Jlop985 wrote: The FCC should cease the pointless censorship of the media. Of course, concerned but lazy parents should have their concerns addressed, and that's why the TV rating system is a good idea.
I agree, this whole aspect of a government agency being able to censor language in the media is rediculous, on two premises.
First, capitalist competition helps to censor the media, eliminating the need for the FCC to do so. It's simple--if people are disgusted by what they see, they won't watch. Watching TV, listening to radio, whatever, all are optional. No one's forcing anybody to watch or listen. Parents that are too lazy to monitor children's usage of the media can sue or complain to that broadcaster. The government, though, has no reason being in the censorship business. First, it's gonna be this censoring of language in the media, then the censoring of individuals like you and me.
But I am not arguing about the definitition of representative democracy. What I am arguing against is this notion that we are a true democracy.
And you're right, we have only been a democratic country for 40 years or so. But we were founded as a republic.
"A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them. "
We have been a republic since 1787. Since then, the aforesaid body of citizens has expanded from white landowners over 21 to anyone over the age of 18. So, we are one of the longest lasting democratic republics in history. So I'm right.
You're also right when you say America has only been a democracy for a short while. The two are not necessarily exclusive. Picture one of those charts with the two circles that overlap in the center (the name escapes me right now). Democracy in one circle, Republic in the other, we would be in the overlap.
However, what I am trying to allude to is, that as we grow increasingly democratic and less republican, not in the context of political parties, but as in the systems of government, we are becoming more vulnerable to the things that the Founding Fathers feared when they created the republic--the tyranny of the majority and legislation by popular whim, both of which are a step backward in the growth of this nation.
At 3/29/04 03:12 AM, llIl wrote:At 3/29/04 02:53 AM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: Definition of republic.Definition of democracy
Read number two.
Read number one.
"Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives." (emphasis mine)
"A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president. " And
"A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them. "
Mine is a much closer definition.
1. We are a democracy.
The founding fathers recognized the dangers of building a government based solely on democracy. The concept of majority rule allows the majority to be tyrannical over the minority. It also allowed law to be influenced by popular passion. If we were a true democracy, blacks would still have no rights, the Middle East would be a nuclear wasteland, abortion would be banned, and prayer would be taught in schools.
Instead, we are a democratic republic. The people do not make the laws; representatives do. This way, public law is protected from the whimsical emotions of the people and protected from the tyranny of the majority that comes from pure democracy.
The only connection we have to democracy is that these representatives are elected. That's it.
2. I have a Constitutional right to vote for President.
No, you don't. Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States are you granted the right to vote for President or even for the electors in the electoral college, nor is there any federal law guaranteeing that right. The method of choosing the electors is left up to the legislature of each state. It just so happens that all 50 states choose to allow the voters to choose the electors. If they do allow voters to choose the electors, they must allow all voters to do so. But the legislatures are under no constitutional obligation to allow anyone to vote for electors. At any time, the legislature in say, Alabama, could choose the electors themselves, without any input from the people. The electors could be chosen by a random drawing.
3. President {name} hasn't passed a bill to do anything about {issue.}
Of course not. Presidents do not author legislation! They can merely sign or veto legislation already passed by Congress. Unless legislation concerning {issue} is presented to him for signing, he can't really do squat except make a bunch of speeches about what he wants to get done.
Actually, the most recent UN Human Conditions ranking
(Source DK Reference Atlas 2003) has the US tied for number 1 along with Japan and Denmark.
And for the last time, we are not a freakin' democracy!!!
We are a democratic republic! This nation's laws are not made by society as a whole! Officials collectively vote to create laws. It just so happens that those individuals are elected to office, regardless of what portion of the demographic elects them.
And by your logic, we'll never be a true democratic republic, we would have to let everyone from newborns to the comatose vote!
Enough already....
At 3/29/04 01:39 AM, llIl wrote: Which is why I'm really disenfranchised with American politics, and want to move somewhere else... It's strange how America is so conservative / pro-business compared to all the other post-industrial nations out there.
It's also strange that the United States of America, is the longest surviving democratic republic in the history of mankind. It's also strange that were the only superpower left in the world. How dare us get there with out resorting to socialism!
It's also strange that a even confederation of these states with socialized medicine and other socialized aspects of the economy(namely, the EU) lack the economic clout of the U.S!
At 3/29/04 01:10 AM, llIl wrote:
So did the US - don't pull the dumb 'outside motive' thing. And those are only the four most powerful countries to speak out in opposition. There are what, ~150 independent nation-states in the world? And ~30 supported the war?:
Comprehensive list
There were 37 confirmed states in support.
There were 56 confirmed states against, not counting Iraq for obvious reasons. Of these, 9 are currently assisting in the war in Iraq.
93 were neutral. While 37-57 is minority support, is a far cry from the alleged "unilateralism" and "overwhelming opposition" to the war.
And what do you mean, don't use the "outside motive"? If you're saying that the U.S. went into Iraq for oil, I fail to see that oil coming to the pumps here in the U.S. In fact, we are currently importing oil into Iraq. If you're saying that the U.S. had ties with Saddam, you're correct. But that was back in the 80's, and the war was in 2003. France, Germany, Russia were owed several billion dollars during the same time period they opposed the war. This is not discredited by any former U.S. ties to the Iraqi regime.
They weren't nuclear. They were simply encased in uranium, like all of our shells.
One of those detonating in a US city would be, firstly, unlikely, since most of the missiles were air-to-air that they found. But even the several other air-to-ground, (even though neither Iraq nor any terrorist organization has any way to shoot them at a US city). But even if they did, it wouldn't make any more of an impact than a regular missile. Cancer rate increases would be nominal, similar to what is experienced when one of NASA's nuclear-power satelites blows up before reaching outer space.:
The uranium could have been extracted very easily and made into a dirty bomb, or could have been detonated on the ground. It didn't have to be fired in the air. Moreover, the cancer rate increases would be much more significant than a NASA accident because the radiation would be more concentrated. Obviously, fallout from a dirty explosion at 100,000 feet is dispersed and diluted by high altitude winds. At ground level, radiation would be confined and concentrated in a smaller area.
That's bullshit to cover up the military's continued use of depleted uranium in both shielding and shell casings. Would you expect them to say, "Yes, this caused it, and it will continue to cause it, because we will continue to use it."? Unlikely.:
It's still more substantial than the backing to your claim, which is pure conjecture. And yes, it is unlikely, especially when nukes aren't the cause. :)
At 3/26/04 10:45 PM, llIl wrote:
No. Society at large would pay less for the administrative costs. The citizens themselves wouldn't pay a dime. And they would all be insured. And prescription drugs, dental care, mental healthcare, and more, would all be included.
Sounds like the Dave Barry in '04 tax campaign promise:
"Everybody would pay less [taxes]. You, personally, would pay nothing. "
And this notion that the government would pay for it is bogus. The government can only spend what it gets from taxes. So instead of being stuck in a crappy HMO with no options and long waits, you're stuck in a government HMO with no options and long waits. If government can complicate such an easy issue like taxes, imagine what it could do with healthcare.
"OK, Mr. Johnson, you wish to schedule a check up? First, you'll need to fill out Form 2850EZ, unless you're getting a check up jointly with a head of household, in which case you'll need to fill out part (a) of form 4543Q unless you are blind, which you can enter 0 for part (d), and would you like to contribute $3 to the Presidential Election Fund?"
Oh, and if you think fighting insurance compainies over claims is bad, wait till you try fighting the federal government.
At 3/29/04 12:40 AM, Red_Skwwwwwwwwwwwwnk wrote:
Pre-emptive strikes are illegal according to UN law also. So... Two wrongs make a right?
Which law, specifically? Cite it, please.
No. There's... 20 other countries? 30? But seriously - no one can name more than half a dozen off the top of their head - because the only reason most countries went along was to curry favor with the US.
That may be so, but considering how only 4 were in opposition (Russia, Germany, France, China, the first three of which had economic ties to the Hussein regime).
Please. Those had uranium. You know how much uranium we've left where ever we go militarily in the last decade? Tons. "Gulf War Syndrome"? It's a daily fact of life for people in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and most notably - Afghanistan.
You know how much damage and casualties that would cause if one of these was detonated in one of the U.S.'s larger cities? And just because we were wrong for using uranium doesn't make the presence of these missles OK. Are you advocating that we should have been struck with one of these to retaliate for our use of tactical nukes?
Besides, in a report to Senator Donald W. Riegle, Jr., Gulf War Syndrome was studied and was found to have been caused by a cocktail of vapors from the destruction of biological and chemical weapons factories that Iraq was in the possession of in 1991, not of tactical nukes.
Terrorism is almost becoming the new "treason". Instead of lopping off heads of protesters in the name of treason, we can lock them up.
I'm all for fighting terrorism. But if capture or detain them, they should be given due process for those in the U.S. and at least Geneva convention standards outside.
In addition to suspending the 4th Amendment, closer to home, local governments are abusing imminent domain--rather than using it for legitimate public good, people's homes and buisnesses are being grabbed and given to big developers so that tax revenues are higher. It's a travesty.
Granted, some of the evidence was shaky on the Iraq-Al-Qaida link and the Uranium from Nigeria thing. However, there was plenty of evidence to support the claim that Iraq had in its possession WMD's. Even the UN supported this claim. Resolution 1441 states:
"Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,"
We weren't the only ones that felt Iraq was a threat, nor was the military action against Iraq unilateral.
And even though no WMD's have been found, we have discovered some weapons that terrorist groups would have love to have gotten their hands on.
Y'know, it's only a lie if you know the truth. If Bush said Iraq has WMD's, he is only lying if he knew for sure and certain that Iraq did not have any. And you can't say he knew just because he was given intelligence saying there was no WMD's. He also received evidence that there were WMD's. In other words, we didn't, don't and might not know if there were or are WMD's in Iraq.
We haven't found any yet. Of course, there may not be any to be found. Or they might have been moved to another country, or possibly hidden (after all, surprisingly large amounts of toxins like anthrax and ricin can be hid relatively easy in a country the size of California). However, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Maybe Bush was wrong. But it is incorrect to label his statements lies.
Communism is just against human nature. The problem with communism is that you have to have everyone, every single person, be satisfied with the same thing as others. But in some people there's ambition, and in some there's laziness. Communism discourages ambition, as working harder grants no rewards, and encourages lazyness, as one will reap the same benefits as someone who works hard. That causes others, who think, "Jones only produces 10 scherples a day, against my 14, so why don't I just slack off a bit and produce 10?"
And as too those who say capitalism and democratic republics leads to poor, I'd like to point out that, here, in the US, the poverty rate is roughly middle, or even upper, class in some countries.
Of course, the right to vote is in The Constitution. I know what is in the Constitution. But the terms "Bill of Rights" and "Constitution" are not the same term. The Bill of Rights is a subset of the Constitution. The right to vote is in the subset of the Constitution that is not the Bill of Rights, there for your statement is incorrect. While your misstatement does not make your whole argument invalid, it does lessen your credibility, a somewhat useful tactic in a debate. However, your attempt at lessening my credibility is not as effective, because you cannot point to an inaccurate statement on my part.
And my theory may be radical, it might even be absurd, but many people thought Galileo and the Wright Bros. absurd.
And where did you get that I was a Republican? You don't have to be a Republican to be against Kerry. I'm Libertarian.
While it is true that the voter rolls would be shortened significantly by my suggestion, it would nowhere be the significant majority.
And I realize the implications. However, its a small price to pay to live in a free country rather than a socialist one.
Amendment XXVI is not in the Bill of Rights, dumbass.
You are referring to the Constitution. The Bill of Rights is a subsection of the Constitution, namely Amendments 1 thru 10.
Yes, the Constitution protects the right to vote. However, you did not state that the right to vote is protected in the Constitution. You said, and I quote:
At 3/22/04 01:57 PM, Allison80 wrote:
Its in the silly document that we call a Bill of Rights.:
If you had said the right to vote was in the Constitution, you would be right. If you had said the right to vote was in an amendment, you would be right. But you said it was in the Bill of Rights. However, nowhere in Amendments 1 through 10 of the Constitution, otherwise known as the Bill of Rights, is the right to vote even mentioned. Such ignorance of the basics of American civics does not give you a good impression in this debate.
Oh, one more thing. Making up parodial, sarcastic scenarios and criticizing them is not criticizing my position. Criticize my opinion, not a sarcastic hyperbole you come up with.
At 3/22/04 01:56 PM, kada wrote: It's not that he hasn't, its that congress also has to PASS the legislation.
It doesn't matter if Congress passed the legislation. If he had authored a bill, it would show that he cares about the job cuts. But he has not authored a bill to be passed or to show that he cares about jobs.
There were 2 bills for iraq funding. He voted for one that actually was purely funding, not one with all kinds of shit attatched to it.
Wrong. There was only 1 funding bill, the $87 billion dollar bill. He voted against it. He even says so himself! He only voted for authorization !
These tax cuts seem to be that top 1% mugging the bottom 99%
How?!? How are the rich stealing from the poor when it is the poor already stealing from the rich? How can you feasibly possibly believe that someone retaining more of the money they earned is stealing from somebody that didn't earn a dime! At most, the top 1% are merely guitly of stealing back what was already theirs!
Personally, I feel that only those who actually pay taxes should be allowed to vote. Persons who contribute no funds to the system should have no say over how the system funds are used. Letting people that pay no taxes vote is like giving a three year old, who contributes no money to the household, a credit card.Still, they cintribute no money due to the taxes on thier paychecks that they never see.
I was referring to those wage-earning individuals that think they pay taxes because on their paycheck stub it lists "federal income tax withheld: $XXX.XX", but do not actually pay tax because they recieve the whole of it back in a tax refund through credits and exemptions.
A vot for kerry is a vote for laziness makes no sense. And the tax hikes may suck, but i would rather pay an extra $500 so that kids can go to school and get fed.:
It makes plenty of sense. If he is too lazy to author legislation about jobs and the economy in Congress, how the hell is he gonna do it as President, which position doesn't even have the ability to author legislation?!?
Fine, if you wish to pay higher taxes to feed poor people, fine. You should have every right to do so. But people who do not pay taxes should not be able to. Given the ability, those who pay no taxes would funnel all of the tax money towards them. It's a vicious cycle when any group has the ability to vote money out of others' pockets and into their own!
Sure, it's morally right to support and help the downtrodden. But since when do we legislate and mandate morality??
Government is necessary to some extent. Taxes are necessary to some extent. But any government that steals what has been rightfully earned by some and give it to those that do not earn it is tyrannical.
Oh, and nowhere in the Bill of Rights is anyone guaranteed the right to vote.
And I have yet to hear a good reason why I should be forced to invest in social security and medicare when I could invest that money so much better in the private sector.
Oh, and lunchbxpat, where have I advocated doing away with public education? And yes, retirement plans and medical insurance and plans are affordable, especially if one does not have to pay into Social Security and Medicare. And I'm not against anyone earning a salary from the government. If you work for the government, you are entitled to a salary. A postman delivers letters for the government; he earns the money the government pays him. A welfare recepient does nothing for the government; he doesn't earn the money he receives, it is a handout. I am not against goverment paying wages. I am against government handing out money .
No, everybody can't because everybody doesn't make the right decisions. People paid for their health care and retirement before Medicaid and Social Security, they can do it now. Yes, you might have to work hard to do so. You may have to even work two jobs.
But it is your responibility to do so. Not the government, not society. If you decide that you want to be sedentary and not work, not get an education, what have you, it's your own damn fault if you die from lack of health care.
Our country did not get to be the wealthiest in the world by being a welfare state. You can not be a free individual and rely on the government or society to provide your basic needs. Doing so is socialism; communism.
So you need to pull your head out of your ass and realize that as long as you live in a free, capitalistic society, there are going to be poor people and rich people, and any use of the government as a crutch for those who make bad decisions merely cures the symptom, not the disease and makes all of our liberties vulnerable.
And yes, I do realize that a lot of people don't pay taxes because of exemptions and tax credits. They, like the crack ho on welfare, pay no taxes, and should have no say over how tax income is used. But they can make a choice, take the tax credit or vote, it's up to them. People think that money that is listed under federal income tax on their paycheck stub is what they contribute. However, many get that money back in the spring of each year.
