Isn't there a difference between Fascism and just not letting people too ignorant to make a decision about important, nation-spanning/globe-spanning policies, actually make a decision about them?Originally Posted by Nessus
Isn't there a difference between Fascism and just not letting people too ignorant to make a decision about important, nation-spanning/globe-spanning policies, actually make a decision about them?
. . .
Of course, you'll have to read the rest of Plato to find out the good bits.
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Well, the question then becomes: Who decides who is too ignorant and where's the cut-off line? You're proposing a meritocracy. Difficult to implement.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Spot on, and it sucks. Except, err, that it works better than anything else has. Whoops!
Really? It works for non-wealth things as well. You can do almost anything you want in this country, except something that harms somebody else. Problem is, that's what Cain wants to do, isn't it? Drive drunk, shoot whatever you want, etc. Sorry man, government ain't about indulging bored people.Only if your primary concern is material wealth. If it's not, as is the case with me, then there's plenty to complain about.
No, I'm not enchanted with the system, but I do recognize that were are at a spot in history where by far the largest number of people are having the best possible lives. That's pretty good, and I'm glad we're there.
I also recognize that there are plenty of smart folks who would have to be considered "elite" by most people's standards. Many here qualify. How is it, that with all of our eliteNess, that we can't even remotely agree on how things should be run? Unless you want to define elite as "people who agree with Cain's general world view," you can't get around this problem. People, even very smart/talented/hard-working/whatever people, don't agree on things. So the only solution is compromise. It is the key to good marriages and a civil society. Most people want both. Just because you don't doesn't make you right. Unfortunately for you, it essentially makes you wrong. Sorry, and I do mean that. No definition of society can include all people. Those who are mentally ill or have fringe/tiny minority beliefs can get left out. That's regrettable (and a decent part of why I oppose capital punishment), but it's a human construct, and therefore imperfect.
And what (utterly insane) definition of "works" are you use, pray tell?
Yes, I'm so sorry that putting coca-plants up my nose, or poppies in my arm harms every one else.
Sure, it's an awesome system for the idiots, incompetents, and otherwise unviable. Of course, I understand how that's good for you, but surely even you can see how that's not such a great deal for anyone on the right side of the bell curve.
Yes, clearly since we can't agree, the proper solution is to force everyone's conflicting views on each other, instead of respecting individual rights and allowing people to behave as they see fit, so long as they don't harm others.
Congrats, ][ear, you just made the stupidest argument ever.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
So I can summarize your rebuttal as "yer stoopid?"
Ohhhkay!
If you want to. I gotta figure that a man who can survive 21 years of Sandinista attacks can probably do anything he puts his mind to.
And, as an added bonus, it *is* a lot easier than actually addressing points... like how me using drugs hurts you, or how you just advocated forcing conflicting views on everyone as the "reasonable" solution to widespread disagreement.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
Trolled again.
There's an Amendment process. Yeah, its too cumbersome to keep up with society's rate of change. So its flawed. Like everything else. We could fix it all, but why? Activist judges just redefine or ignore terms like "well regulated" and "militia." That's faster with a lot less risk that some cherished exploitative loop hole might get closed with sensible government.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
You forgot the activist judges creating new rights for corporations.
Normally I wouldn't mention it, but watching Scalia pull of that one after decades of pieties about being true tot he constitution really made me ill.
Yep. It's one thing to hate arch conservatives because they're ideas are all fucked up - at least they had ideals they stuck to and didn't compromise. You could respect that. But now to witness them practice bald faced hypocracy.... now there really is no hope. Even the guys with giant constitutional sticks up their asses are just fakers.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
And corporations are made up of people. They aren't a form of artificial intelligence. By restricting the right of people to form an organization and pool their skills, talents and resources and have them... you know *speak* then you are restricting the rights of speech. This isn't a hard concept. If you restrict a companies right to free speech you restrict the people who work at the company.
Simply by joining a group you do not remove the right to speak. And a group (like a political party or business) has every right to use political speech in any medium they choose.
So why are you anti-union again, Lewk?
There is nothing wrong with unions in theory. The problem is that governments give special consideration to unions. In particularly government employee unions.
We agree on that. And why do you suppose unions got a foot-hold or there are government employee unions in the first place?
Gay, Jewish liberals, of course.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
1) Nobody has silenced the voices of anybody in a corporation. Every single one of them still has a vote and the right to gather and speak, don't they? You're just concerned about the rights of the CEO to use the vast resources of the corporation to influence our society.
2) Purportedly the purpose is that the corporation can pursue the interests of the corporation. The corporation ain't a person. By your logic we should grant corporations votes (which might be nice, because then they fragment to get more votes. :P)
3) So the president can speak for the entire government just because he is the head of it? He could, for example, use the federal government to ensure that McCain's democratic opponent beats him this year? He's head of the government, right? He can use that money that way? Can't shut up all of those government employees but stopping the president from using the government as a political tool.
I realize these are silly arguments. But so is the notion that keeping corporations from buying elections is disenfranchising people. How about corporate officers use their own money to buy elections?
And (like I don't already know), but which particular SCOTUS decision are you bitching about with this?
The one which upheld the right of a bunch of right-wing Michael Moore wanna-be's to get together and make a Moore-style crapumentary lampooning Hillary Clinton, and air it when they wished to (around election time)?
We went over this shit at the time too, at the other place, and you ran away like a dog with its tail between its legs then, so kindly do the same thing now, and stop trotting out blatantly disingenuous DNC-talking points, as if they have any merit whatsoever. "Citizens United" is no more of a "CEO [using] the vast resources of the corporation to influence our society" than Michael Moore is. And if I have to put up with Michael Moore having the right to spew bullshit all over the airwaves, you have to put up with "Citizens United" doing the exact same thing.
Basically, kindly stop being a disingenuous cunt, and pass that request along to the rest of the fucking hypocritical liberal-cunt world.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
I don't recall debating that decision with anybody.
Yes and they choose the medium to speak over airwaves and print you don't have the right to silence them.1) Nobody has silenced the voices of anybody in a corporation. Every single one of them still has a vote and the right to gather and speak, don't they? You're just concerned about the rights of the CEO to use the vast resources of the corporation to influence our society.
How you come to the conclusion I support giving a corporation a right to vote is beyond me.2) Purportedly the purpose is that the corporation can pursue the interests of the corporation. The corporation ain't a person. By your logic we should grant corporations votes (which might be nice, because then they fragment to get more votes. :P)
What do you think president's do when they make a speech supporting someone in a race? And simply because you are the "head" of something doesn't mean you don't have to follow the rules of the organization. CEO's can not necessarily be a tyrant as they have to report to the Board and often there are rules and limits to what a CEO can or can do. Just like there are rules and limits to what a president can or can not do.3) So the president can speak for the entire government just because he is the head of it? He could, for example, use the federal government to ensure that McCain's democratic opponent beats him this year? He's head of the government, right? He can use that money that way? Can't shut up all of those government employees but stopping the president from using the government as a political tool.
So how much money spent on advertising would it take for you to change your vote to say a Tea Party Candidate? There is no number because you wouldn't do it. Why are you such an elitist person that thinks other people don't have the same ability to withstand a... gasp... commercial.But so is the notion that keeping corporations from buying elections is disenfranchising people.
Yeah, there's that delightful selective memory of yours again.
But there you have it (again), anyway. This massive, evil "corporation" you're bitching about the SCOTUS allowing to mind-rape our children and skull-fuck society... is a less successful, conservative Michael Moore clone. Oh noes, verily, we art all dam-ned to the bowels of hell anon.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
Because the facts support me? The better funded candidate has a much better chance of winning, at pretty much every level of politics from school board to POTUS.
So you say. Given that you almost never back up your claims, we know what that's worth.
So, am I a Michael Moore fan now?But there you have it (again), anyway. This massive, evil "corporation" you're bitching about the SCOTUS allowing to mind-rape our children and skull-fuck society... is a less successful, conservative Michael Moore clone. Oh noes, verily, we art all dam-ned to the bowels of hell anon.
My bad. You must have missed it... while you were off fighting your dirty little Central American war.
No, just the same hypocritical liberal ass-hat you've always been. When Michale Moore does it, you don't complain. When a bunch of conservatives do it, it's the end of democracy as we know it, because the corporations are going use their money to destroy our form of government. Whatever.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
Failure to back things up, as usual.My bad. You must have missed it... while you were off fighting your dirty little Central American war.
FAIL. I have always criticized Moore, most often calling him a liberal Ann Coulter, but much fatter and uglier. I did so literally dozens of times in CC.No, just the same hypocritical liberal ass-hat you've always been. When Michale Moore does it, you don't complain. When a bunch of conservatives do it, it's the end of democracy as we know it, because the corporations are going use their money to destroy our form of government. Whatever.
What else were you going to pull out of your ass?
In some cases it makes a difference in others it does not. Most voters will not be swayed by commercials.Because the facts support me? The better funded candidate has a much better chance of winning, at pretty much every level of politics from school board to POTUS.
Citation neededMost voters will not be swayed by commercials.
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Indeed, everything I've heard suggests the opposite. An AWFUL lot of money goes into television campaign adds already. Why would candidates waste such money if commercials don't sway voters?????
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
All the data shows that the best way to win an election is to outspend your opponent. As you point out, in a world where Madison Avenue market tests everything, politicians know damned well that TV ads win elections on the large scale, and scads of those stupid signs win elections on the local level. Both cost money. Elections are practically an auction.
But hey, gotta make sure those CEOs have a disproportionately loud voice. It's not enough that they are wealthy, and thus have an outsize voice based on what (whom) they can buy with their personal wealth. This at least is speech. But we allow them to harness the vast wealth of a corporation to pursue ends probably not representative of the interests of all involved in the corporation. Hmm, it might even be a weird form of dictatorship.
That's not really true. A well-funded candidate has a better chance of winning than a candidate who's not well-funded. If both candidates are well-funded, the one that has more money doesn't really get much of an advantage. By far the strongest "cause" of being elected is incumbency. If you're already in power, your chances of losing are ridiculously low, regardless of the amount of money you raise.
Haven't seen any studies on the effect of commercials on a candidate's portion of the votes (I don't do American politics), but negative ads to decrease voter turnout.
Can you please cite that data? I'm sure there are dozens of studies on this issue.
Hope is the denial of reality
I'm sure studies are not up to your rigorous standards, and therefore you will have "proved" that money doesn't influence politics. Why go through the inevitable debate?
Of course other factors influence outcomes: political trends, campaign organization, etc. Incumbency is of course huge, but perhaps mainly just from name recognition? See below. Would McCain have won if he'd had as much money as Obama? Probably not. But all other things being equal, advertising tips the scale.
I've even noticed it myself: local board of aldermen, I failed to research for a certain seat (usually an oversight), but I recognize a certain name somehow. Then I'll drive home and see tons of signs with that name. I didn't even notice them, but the name crept into my brain. I've noticed this even for newcomers against the incumbent (especially for these low-profile local events): I'll recognize the name of the one with more signs, and my gut says to vote for them. It's downright creepy. Of course if I research the seat, then I decide based on my criteria and the info I had access to. But how many people vote that way? It's safe to say that a sizable chunk just going in and vote with their gut without doing prior research.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote