BS: Democracy.... fact or fiction?

Subject: BS: Democracy.... fact or fiction?
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 27 Jul 12 - 07:14 PM

In the UK we appoint a government by voting for them en masse, supposedly for a government of the people, by the people for the people... but once that government is in power it can do exactly as it pleases in spite of the wishes of the masses..... Is that considered true democracy? I believe we appoint a regime in which the Prime Minister can make whatever decisions he likes and becomes a dictator!... we appoint a dictatorship..... is it about time we changed this?    Comments welcome from all.... Brits/Aussis/Americans/ anyone who will take the time to reply!

Subject: RE: BS: Democracy.... fact or fiction?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 27 Jul 12 - 07:36 PM

The only attempt at a direct democracy in recent times was the Libyan Jamarahiriya. And look what happened to them.

If you manage to start a democracy somewhere, keep your trap shut about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Democracy.... fact or fiction?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 28 Jul 12 - 04:51 AM

First, I'm not convinced that a government in power can do "exactly as it pleases" (discuss!).

But I do believe that democracy is weakened when:

1. A large percentage of voters can't be bothered to vote (and don't give me any of that crap about 'it never does any good' - it's largely because the non-voters are lazy, selfish and stupid and incapable of thinking things through).

2. People who do vote tend to vote out of habit and 'party loyalty' rather than commonsense. For example: "I've always voted Labour because my great grandad mined coal with his teeth" or I've always voted Tory because my great grandad owned the mine." I note with amazement that hard-core Labour voters failed to change their allegiance when their party followed Tory policies for 17 years!

3. Neo-liberal free market economics has been the greatest threat to democracy over the last 30 years or so - and ALL of the major parties have fervently embraced it. Strictly speaking, we no longer live in a democracy - but an oligarchy - or should that be a kleptocracy?

Subject: RE: BS: Democracy.... fact or fiction?
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 28 Jul 12 - 05:08 AM

Would referenda on important issues help do you think?

Subject: RE: BS: Democracy.... fact or fiction?
From: DMcG
Date: 28 Jul 12 - 05:08 AM

It is is mistake to think of democracy as something you have or don't have. The American, UK, British, Australian, French ... models are all different, so when someone talks about 'bringing democracy to xxx' the only sensible response is 'what do you mean?' As Shimrod suggested, even within any one there are substantial difference induced based on whether a minority or a majority are voting, on where the boundaries are, how many 'safe seats' there are, and so forth. Then there is the question as whether the prime responsibility of an elected person is to their constituents, their party, or their own view.   For example, I suspect it was pretty incomprehensible to the average UKer in the last US election when Hilary dropped out to hear people say in effect that since they couldn't have the Democrat they wanted they would vote Republican instead of the alternative Democrat. And it is worth noting that I heard a lecture by Edwina Currie of the ten things that were needed to be a successful politician. In the hour-long talk, she did not once mention constituents.

Subject: RE: BS: Democracy.... fact or fiction?
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 28 Jul 12 - 07:58 AM

Shimrod, Labour voters failed to change their allegiance because there was no better alternative, who did you vote for the Tory Bankers or the Fuckwits, I'll bet it was the Tory's

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: Democracy.... fact or fiction?
From: gnu
Date: 28 Jul 12 - 08:19 AM

Referenda. Apathy + low voter count + uninformed voters = mob rule in a BAD way. And, sometimes (we hope MOST times) the elected do the right thing in spite of the mob... the vote for women, slavery and civil rights, abortion, gay rights, medical marijuana, health care reform...

Subject: RE: BS: Democracy.... fact or fiction?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Jul 12 - 12:46 PM

I note with amazement that hard-core Labour voters failed to change their allegiance when their party followed Tory policies for 17 years!


Quite a lot of them switched to vote for the Lib Dems. But that didn't really work out too well... (As is sometimes pointed out, you won't find the word "gullible" in the dictionary.)

Subject: RE: BS: Democracy.... fact or fiction?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 28 Jul 12 - 04:18 PM

"Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people." - Oscar Wilde

Subject: RE: BS: Democracy.... fact or fiction?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Jul 12 - 04:33 PM

True democreacy, like true communism, does not and at the moment cannot exist.

If the two did exist, you would be hard pushed to tell them apart.

The only possible way to establish government by the people...etc., is for every citizen to have a voting pad wired into a government computer and vote en masse on every question or debate.

It takes long enough now to reach important decisions. Imagine what that would do to the process of government.

Mind you, it would put paid to party politics.

And I'd call that a real good bargain, government trumps politics at long last.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Democracy.... fact or fiction?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 28 Jul 12 - 04:39 PM

We get what the barons pay for.

Subject: RE: BS: Democracy.... fact or fiction?
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 28 Jul 12 - 04:56 PM

What you basically got is the remainin' constitutional skeleton or the hollow shell of a democratic system left, but no meat left on its bones. In other words, you still got the parties, you got the elections, you got representatives after the election, but they ain't actually servin' you. They're servin' the big oligarchy of the most wealthy interests that fund their campaigns, own the mass media...the business and banking community. They go through the motions of havin' elections, but the result is basically fixed, regardless which party wins. If Blair took the UK into the Iraq War, well, so would the Tories have done if they'd been in office at the time....despite massive public opposition. So, either way yer public would get a party in office whose real purpose was to pursue a policy NOT in the interests of most of the public, and there wasn't a damned thing the public could do about it, was there?

To have a true democracy, the seated representatives must be truly responsive to the public that elected them....and they are not as things stand now. They're puppets in service of the Oligarchy that runs the finances. The very few who are exceptions to that and have the courage to break ranks and talk about what's happening are either ignored or made fun of by the mass media, because they are dangerous to oligarchic interests, so the media make sure that the public either don't hear about them...or hear about them in a way that trivializes them and makes them appear "wacky" (therefore not to be taken seriously).

Our traditional constitutions and enshrined civil rights from the last few hundred years of social tradition in the West cannot protect us from modern seated representatives who simply don't have the guts or the will or the idealism to stand up for the original purposes of those constitutions.

If all they're really in it for is to win their seat, then nothing is going to change. They're playing the political game and that's all....they're caught up in the game for its own superficial purposes, but not for a higher purpose. To win the game merely means to win at the polls. That does not create or maintain a democracry. It sets up an empty procedural shell that still sort of looks like a democracy, still goes through the outward motions...but that does not embody the ideals or higher motivations or altruistic sense of conscience out of which a true democracy arises.

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: Democracy.... fact or fiction?
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Jul 12 - 05:20 PM

This is from something I posted seven years ago and it's obviously still relevant today. And may very well continue to be so for quite a while yet.

I am currently reading First Democracy : The Challenge of an Ancient Idea, by Paul Woodruff, Professor of Ethics and American Society at the University of Texas in Austin.

This is a fascinating study of the history of democracy, with an incisive analysis of how democracy was conceive in ancient Greece, how it was put into practice in Athens, how it worked, and how it didn't work—warts and all. Woodruff doesn't make the mistake of positing a "golden age" of democracy in Athens; he points out that the Athenians kept slaves and that women were not allowed to participate in government (there were many men at the time who maintained that this was not right, that Athens was wasting half of its intellectual power by excluding women). When the democratic principles the Athenians attempted to live by didn't work, the reasons were pretty clear. But for the most part, many of the ideas they put into practice worked very well indeed, and we could learn much by examining the way they did things. The concept that not only should all citizens be allowed to participate, but that they should be required to participate was something they took very seriously.

For example, there were political factions, of course, but there were no political parties, certainly not in the way we have them now. And not just certain people selected by the wealthy elite were presented as candidates for public office. All citizens of Athens were potential candidates. In fact, all citizens were candidates. Education was a primary concern in Athens, so the literacy rate was high. It was expected of the citizens of Athens that they keep themselves fully aware of current events. To be well-informed. Because they might very well be called upon to be involved in making the necessary decisions. You see, public officials were not voted into office; they were chosen from the citizenry at large by lottery. Like juries are selected today in the United States. Any registered voter can be called to jury duty at any time (and has to have a pretty darned good reason if they want to get out of it). And in ancient Athens, any citizen could suddenly find himself in public office. And it was his obligation as a citizen of Athens to serve if called upon. [Incidentally, public official's were paid reasonably well (not the $5.00 a day or whatever token stipend modern jurors get), so they didn't lose by it, although they certainly didn't get rich.]

I might add here that after a public official's term was over, he had to face a jury of some 501 citizens--also chosen by lottery, and large enough to be unbribable and an odd number to assure against hung juries. Depending on his service, he could receive all kinds of honors--or he could be banished, which was considered second only to capital punishment at the time. (Sounds like a damned good idea to me!)

I could go on and on, but I would strongly recommend that anyone who assumes that he or she knows how democracy works and what it is really all about—and how and why it sometimes doesn't work—should hie themselves to their local library and check this out. Or better still, buy a copy, read it carefully, and keep it handy for reference.

Among other things, Woodruff details and explains the seven requirements of democracy. And he ends the book with a chapter entitled, "Are Americans Ready for Democracy?"

Get it. Read it. Learn.

You might be surprised. You'll certainly look at the way this country operates in a new way—as if you've just wiped the fog off your glasses.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Democracy.... fact or fiction?
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Jul 12 - 05:33 PM

And then there is representative government, within a party system, to add to the complexity of a democracy.

You elect a person under a party banner to represent you. But, to retain any status within that party, this person most often is required to "toe the party line", wherether or not his actions represent what he knows to be those who elected him. Often, lobby interests are more important to the party, for financial reasons, than the folks who voted them in to represent their interests.

Subject: RE: BS: Democracy.... fact or fiction?
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Jul 12 - 05:37 PM

The greater the finances incurred to elect a government (requiring huge finances from vested interests, the more democracy slips toward the "fiction" side of the scale, IMO?

Subject: RE: BS: Democracy.... fact or fiction?
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 28 Jul 12 - 05:54 PM

The Athenians had some real good ideas there, Don.

The Dutch also had a parliamentary democracy with party politics and elected representatives way back in the 1600s (1581 - 1795 to be exact) following their winning of independence from Spain. It was a long time after the formation of the Dutch Republic that such a republican representative system was set up in the fledling USA. The Dutch nation was called "the United Provinces", a federation of 7 provinces. (note the similarity of name: United Provinces...United States) Oddly enough, young Americans are not taught about that early Dutch Republic in school, but are given the impression that such a form of republican government didn't even happen until the much later formation of the United States out of the Thirteen Colonies.

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: Democracy.... fact or fiction?
From: GUEST,Beachcomber
Date: 28 Jul 12 - 06:03 PM

All great truths and don't forget the role played by the Burocrats, in helping to maintain the Plutocracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Democracy.... fact or fiction?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Jul 12 - 06:18 PM

Or the Burrocrats, who govern the donkeys.

Subject: RE: BS: Democracy.... fact or fiction?
From: gnu
Date: 28 Jul 12 - 08:44 PM

The general public is mostly a bunch of asses?

Subject: RE: BS: Democracy.... fact or fiction?
From: Elmore
Date: 28 Jul 12 - 08:51 PM

Fiction.

Subject: RE: BS: Democracy.... fact or fiction?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Jul 12 - 11:26 PM

The paradox, it always seems to me, is that the last person who should ever be let loose to govern others is someone who wants to make a living out of governing others. But to have a system that will work in any post-primitive system, you have to have politicians who are professionals; which inevitably introduces all sorts of incompatible variables to the equation: in terms of their needs v the public needs, their principles v their own benefit...

Who was it who said it was the worst possible system - except for all others that had ever been tried? Churchill according to a ref I googled; but I suspect it probably goes back to Socrates - & they couldn't find a counter-argument so they killed him: your much-vaunted Athenian democracy in action!...

Still, the odd thing is, we muddle thru more or less, eh?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Democracy.... fact or fiction?
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Jul 12 - 12:09 AM

In Paul Woodruff's book, he didn't say that Athenian democracy was "perfect," M, in fact he said it was quite IMperfect. But a comparison between Athenian democracy and the various versions of democracy that are extant today is very revealing and instructive.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Democracy.... fact or fiction?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Jul 12 - 12:22 AM

Oh, yes, I got that, Don; was just providing another BTW example.

Subject: RE: BS: Democracy.... fact or fiction?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 29 Jul 12 - 06:25 AM

""Often, lobby interests are more important to the party, for financial reasons, than the folks who voted them in to represent their interests.""

I would only disagree with one word of that Ed T.

Unfortunately, I think I would substitute "Almost always" for "Often.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Democracy.... fact or fiction?
From: GUEST,Beachcomber
Date: 29 Jul 12 - 06:55 AM

Hey, why don't we have a vote on whether Democracy works or not ? and come to a democratic decision :)

Subject: RE: BS: Democracy.... fact or fiction?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 29 Jul 12 - 07:32 AM

In that, Beachcomber, you are talking about genuine democracy.

It only starts to fall apart when you do it at one remove by electing somebody else to represent your point of view.

You have to be sure you can trust him to do that, or to put it another way, don't ever elect a politician.

DIY is the only way!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Democracy.... fact or fiction?
From: GUEST,Beachcomber
Date: 29 Jul 12 - 08:11 AM

Right Don, I've lived through many, many elections in my 70 years plus and I have seen the way politicians (some) come to the table full of youthful promise and promises to represent us.
It does make one rather cynical when one watches and listens to how they are gradually subsumed into the rotten and corrupt systems that both our islands have for governance.

Subject: RE: BS: Democracy.... fact or fiction?
From: Naemanson
Date: 29 Jul 12 - 08:25 AM

Maybe somewhere else but not in the United States.

Subject: RE: BS: Democracy.... fact or fiction?
From: GUEST,Anne Onymouse
Date: 29 Jul 12 - 11:47 AM

Yes, Democracy is such a good idea on paper.

The trouble with it is if, like me, you think you are more intelligent than everybody else, and everyone else is forever getting it wrong, then Democracy is a just system that always allows the wrong people to be in charge. Always.

Subject: RE: BS: Democracy.... fact or fiction?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 29 Jul 12 - 11:53 AM

'If voting could actually change anything, it would have been declared illegal.'

Graffiti on a Montreal wall.

Subject: RE: BS: Democracy.... fact or fiction?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 29 Jul 12 - 12:56 PM

"who did you vote for the Tory Bankers or the Fuckwits, I'll bet it was the Tory's ..."

Typical Labour supporter, DH! If you don't vote Labour you must be a Tory!! Another item to add to the long list of Labour sins - gross lack of imagination!

Subject: RE: BS: Democracy.... fact or fiction?
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jul 12 - 01:23 PM

The financial oligarchy allied to the mass media control everything, democracy does not exist and can never exist in the modern world.
We are of course all conspiritors in the scam, so we choose to remain divided on almost every peripheral issue.
Division makes us slaves. Spoiled, lasy, entitled, whining slaves, with our minds bound fast on the quest for money! Why do we do it?.....because we have the "right"
We have the democracy we deserve.

Just don't let anybody tell you that your sons have to die for it, they are too precious for that.

"The people" is a beast of muddy brain.....etc etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Democracy.... fact or fiction?
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jul 12 - 01:28 PM

Guess who?....Ake.

Subject: RE: BS: Democracy.... fact or fiction?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 29 Jul 12 - 07:50 PM

Ah yes!!

The one man who can convince me that of all the alternatives, what we have now is the least worst.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Democracy.... fact or fiction?
From: Janie
Date: 29 Jul 12 - 08:15 PM

Life and the universe is elegant and also imperfect.

Live with it, and do the best you can.

Subject: RE: BS: Democracy.... fact or fiction?
From: Janie
Date: 29 Jul 12 - 09:54 PM

Make that "are elegant...."

So far, it seems to me, variations on democracy, as flawed as all our human attempts have been thus far, and will continue to be, are more elegant systems of sociopolitical organization than non-democratic systems in that democratic social political structures acknowledge and and allow for some conscious and positively sanctioned attempts to locate the shifting fulcrum of the dialectic between the individual and the social.

.

Subject: RE: BS: Democracy.... fact or fiction?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Jul 12 - 02:13 AM

The question isn't whether democracy is better than various forms of authoritarianism one can propose as the supposed "alternatives". We know it's better than those, so to advance them at all, as if we had to choose either "democracy" or one of those authoritarian systems, is to erect a straw man to support your argument. This is why I don't think Churchill's famous remark about it being "better than all the alternatives" was very perceptive. It was a clever bit of rhetoric. But it wasn't perceptive.

The question is whether our present democracies are functioning well or poorly in the light of the expectations we were brought up with when we were born into this society. Are people being treated on a fair and equal basis? Is social justice being served? Is the government genuinely serving the people? Or is it serving a small and privileged elite?

So...whaddya think? Should we just comfort ourselves by saying, "Oh, it's better than all the alternatives (and what ARE all the alternatives? No one really has an answer for that).....or should we inquire as to whether this present democracy has some really serious flaws and problems that need addressing?

Churchill was delivering a clever little sound bite and taking a swipe at fascism. Let's face it...fascism is a pretty extreme alternative. You don't have to want to turn to
fascism to think there is something seriously wrong with "democracy" in the modern world....and what's mainly wrong with it is that it's being run on the basis of money, not on the basis of any consistent form of moral principle. Decisions are being made to secure huge profits....for a few....at great cost to the many.

Society now is run as if money itself was God, and those people who have the most money get to live rather like little gods. That's not a very healthy democracy, in my opinion. In fact, I think it's moving steadily in the direction of one of the more unpleasant alternatives that Churchill was alluding to in his remarks. It's moving in the direction of fascism. Or you could call it corporatism. Or even feudalism (complete with lords and serfs). It's an alliance between extremely aggressive militarism, a greedy and ammoral big business community, and bankers who enrich themselves by what amounts to a pyramid scheme, one that has by now basically bankrupted the entire world in yet another "boom and bust" scenario.

We've seen that before. It's not new. It has happened repeatedly when governments failed to strictly regulate the activities of the largest banks.

You see its direct result in the fact that an American dollar is now worth a tiny fraction of what it was 100 years ago....and is minted in almost worthless metals now...while real stuff (like bread or a chicken) is worth exactly what it ever was, in real terms...but not in our inflated and devalued currency.

As long as the society that we live in serves money rather than serving its founding principles of establishing equality, freedom, and justice, then we are not, in my opinion, living in a real democracy. We're living in the charade of a rapidly vanishing democracy. Is it better than it would be living under Stalin or Hitler or Mao? Yeah, sure it's better than that. But why should I take comfort in a deteriorating situation and dishonestly endorse it by quoting as the supposed alternative another situation that's even worse?

It's like there's this boy whose father beats him frequently, lies to him, and humiliates him. The boy complains about it. And you say to him, "Hey, it's better than living with Harry the Ax Murderer, isn't it? See? Why are you complaining? It's better than the 'alternative', isn't it?"

Well, yeah! But so what? Harry the Ax Murderer is not that boy's problem and is NOT the only alternative! His father's present abuse of him is his problem. That's what needs to change.

Our democracies need to change considerably, because they have become abusive to the general public. This does not mean we have to replace them with one of the scary authoritarian "alternatives" people trot out to show you how lucky you are to be living in the Corporatocracy. It means we need to improve what we've got and return to the original moral principles on which it was founded.

You have to ask yourself, did the Founding Fathers intend to build a nation which worshipped money and militarism above all else? I don't think so. If they did, then I wouldn't wish to be a part of it. If a society like that exists, I'm sorry to say that it is the natural enemy of humanity and of the world...until it changes its mind about what its real purposes and ideals are.

Subject: RE: BS: Democracy.... fact or fiction?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 30 Jul 12 - 04:29 AM

You never said a truer word, LH!

Subject: RE: BS: Democracy.... fact or fiction?
From: Penny S.
Date: 30 Jul 12 - 05:06 AM

While watching the Olympic athletes march past, I was moved to comment that the nations with the word "Democratic" in their names were most likely not to be.

One of our rulers took exception to the choice of Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty as a bearer of the Olympic flag, reason not given, though it suggests that democracy was not his prime concern - though I took exception to her being described as its founder, which she was not.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Democracy.... fact or fiction?
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 30 Jul 12 - 06:18 AM

Fiction is fact, and fact is fiction. Democracy is a more/less-property, not a yes/no-state, to be assigned to single regulations or systems of regulations. It makes perfect sense to say "regulation A is more democratic than B", i.e. based on poll counting to a higher degree.

Democracy is not the only criterion for a morally sound community, that is why most "democracies" have constitutions or fundamental law systems that are (hoped to be) protected against majority decisions.

There is no perfect system of voting and government, "direct democracy" and responsibility being conflicting ideals. But better systems than implemented can and should be considered, particularly with electronic communication available.

Who only complains about bad polititians, does not deserve better ones.

Subject: RE: BS: Democracy.... fact or fiction?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Jul 12 - 06:25 AM

"You never said a truer word, LH!"
.,,.

On the contrary ~ he misquoted Churchill, whose litotes and paradoxically aphoristic point he quite spectacularly failed to get.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Democracy.... fact or fiction?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 30 Jul 12 - 09:32 AM

Never mind what Churchill did or didn't say (perhaps if he can be mis-interpreted - as you claim - he didn't say it clearly enough). It's the general thrust of LH's piece that I agree with: the fact that, "Society now is run as if money itself was God" and "[current society is] an alliance between extremely aggressive militarism, a greedy and ammoral big business community, and bankers who enrich themselves by what amounts to a pyramid scheme, one that has by now basically bankrupted the entire world in yet another "boom and bust" scenario."

We live in a corporate kleptocracy in which 'democratically elected' politicians slavishly support the status quo.

Subject: RE: BS: Democracy.... fact or fiction?
From: GUEST,Donuel
Date: 30 Jul 12 - 12:43 PM

Where success is measured in enormous quantities of money, the succesful governence of such a society will be owned by those who have even more money than the wealthy.

Off shore tax free haven banks have holdings of about 32 Trillion dollars. The amount held by a small number of private individuals is about 23 Trillion dollars. Ian Fleming warned us about what meglomaniacs do with such sums of money.

The uncaring willingness to do great harm to acquire vast amounts of money are usually done by "natural leaders" and non empathetic competitive single minded predators. Since only 3% of the world's population are psychopaths I would venture to guess that the trillionaires in this world may be upwards to 50% psychopathic.
Sick Corporations are run by sick individuals.

It is hard to imagine that the tillionaires of this world would acquiese to any form of democracy , with the exception of a "SHAM DEMOCRACY". (two words that sum up LH's 1000 word treatise on democracy now.)

By the way the one thing that Ian Fleming forgot is that the trillionaires would never allow any regulation against their monied interests, let alone allow a goverment agency that would be allowed to train people to hunt down or kill the trillionaire corporate kings and owners today.

Despite the citizens united ruling that allows total secrecy for corporate political donors, including foriegn nations, one of the largest contributors to the Republican who openly reveals his 100 million dollar donations is a casino owner just outside the territorail waters of China. I bet you know his name but not the State attorney geneneral who is hunting down wall street mortgage fraud criminals.


It is important to point out that very few psychopaths become mass murderers. Most of them merely excel in bullying their way through life with a smile or a fist. Just because a person is a psychopath does not mean they are a bad person. You know who they are in general and are wise not to cross them.

Observing Romney's odd behavior reveals that he is a psychopath who sees the lives around him more as objects to an end rather than precious lives. His monipulative tool of dominence is that fake permanent smile. Dispatching other people to their deaths would pose no obastacle for a psychopathic person like Romney. He is the ideal candidate for neo con wars waged for the enrichment of corporations.
Clearly much better than Bush is administrative duties.



;-)
Neo cons wish that there was some way to combine Bush who could fool the base but have the intellect of Romney to lend credibility to intellectual integrity.

Dollars to donuts I bet there is a Darpa program right now to clone little recombinate Mitt Bushs or Rubio Mc Christies. How about a Rice Huckabee or a Palin-Boehner? Perhaps these genetic recombinations come to mind because I am hungry... care for a Limbaugher Cheese Sandwhich?

Subject: RE: BS: Democracy.... fact or fiction?
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Jul 12 - 01:13 PM

The entire fake voter fraud debate is to defeat the one person one vote form of democracy.

Preserving the Republic by deleting the unwashed public in elections is a millenia old argument made by the wealthy.

If I lived in PA, I too would be purged from voting.
As it is my republican neighbor fruadulently reported to the election board that I did not live in home and was enought to force me to vote prvisionally twice.

He moved to VA but is still free to pursue his hobby out of state to purge people from having their vote counted.

Subject: RE: BS: Democracy.... fact or fiction?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Jul 12 - 07:49 PM

As you say, Donuel, it is a SHAM DEMOCRACY. It's a bit like the Land of Oz, supposedly ruled over by the all-wise wizard (the Constitutional traditions and the elected presidents), but when you look past the booming voice of media propaganda and look behind the curtain, all you find is a bunch of greedy little men in business suits.

MtheGM - I don't recall the exact phrasing of what Churchill said...but what I am ojbecting to in it is not really what he said or meant at the time, but rather how his words are so often used by people NOW to make excuses for defending a corrupt status quo and pooh-poohing suggestions about changing it. They imply that what we have now is already better than all the other possible governmental alternatives. I don't think they're right about that, because they haven't even begun to seriously consider a number of possible alternatives....alternatives that would not abolish every feature of our established form of "democracy", but that would make many reforms which would considerably improve upon it. In other words...don't destroy the good democratic traditions we've got! Live up to them and renew them in a stronger and more effective fashion. Start living by the original spirit of those traditions and instead of seeking more money for an elite few, seek more freedom, equal opportunity, and genuine representation for the many. Seek to provide new jobs and education wherever they are needed. Reform campaign financing so that the wealthiest interests cannot co-opt the political process. Provide universal and completely affordable health care to all citizens. Stop fighing these so-called pre-emptive wars (wars of aggression) on other people's land. Let 3rd World countries directly own, manage, and profit from their own resources, rather than giving control of them to western corporations like BP, Exxon, and Haliburton. Disband the present corrupt political parties altogether (in my opinion), all of them, because they are incapable of reforming themselves...and replace them with a no-party system of candidates who are ALL running as independents without any party affiliation or any party purse to fund them. Private a modest amount of public funding equally to ALL those candidates and give them all equal media coverage to present their ideas to the public. Limit the length of an electoral campaign to 6 weeks. Stop printing unbelievable amounts of fiat (worthless) money, and replace it with a currency that is fully redeemable in a permanently set amount of something real, such as gold and silver. If that alone is done, then the paper money will retain its real value into the forseeable future. Stop allowing banks to do "fractional reserve" lending....meaning they can lend out (officially) 10 times what they have in real deposits. (unofficially, they lend out a LOT more than that) That's insane. It enriches the banks, but it destroys the value of paper currency by creating unpayable levels of debt and it takes us through repeated "boom and bust" scenarios that again enrich the biggest banks and impoverish most of the public. Make it completely illegal for privately owned businesses to lobby politicians, thereby unduly influencing the legislative process.

The above are among many, many possible thngs that could be done to modify and reform our present democratic system. And there are many other things that could be done beyond that. I'm not suggesting burning the house down. I'm suggesting patching the roof, fixing the windows, painting the walls, repairing the driveway, etc....

That house I'm referring to has been very badly neglected in the past few decades, and we see the damage all around us. We are being run by a giant Tammany Hall, for heaven's sake, and we have to recognize that and then do something about it.

I know one thing. Either this badly damaged house of ours gets repaired and renovated...or someone WILL eventually burn it down (it will end in war and/or bloody revolution, just like has been happening lately in the Middle East). And I don't want to see that happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Democracy.... fact or fiction?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 30 Jul 12 - 10:44 PM

Electorates are too large and too varied to ever practice democracy (if such a thing is possible outside of abstract thought).

The best we can hope for is a benevolent form of mob rule.