ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 4:03 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 64 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2002 1:22 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1558
Location: Santa Cruz
Quote:
On 2002-10-20 23:32, tychoseven wrote:

I am not complaining about Bush being in charge of the country. I was refering to the fact that our country is a democracy in name only, and it is hypocritical to go about proclaiming the superiority of democracy when we don't have one. If it's so great, why aren't <b>we</b> a democracy?


The United States is a democracy. Democracy isn't always what it's cracked up to be, however. Athens had a slave economy, for example.

Quote:
The justices can shove it. It isn't surprising that they voted the way they did. They're only human, and can't be above bias, no matter how much they claim otherwise.


No, it's not surprising. However, they could at least attempt to be above bias, as people in positions of power are supposed to; if they were doing so, I would expect at least one of the nine justices to vote against their party. That didn't happen, as we all know.

Quote:
(stuff I don't care about snipped)

I refer to the US as a democracy because that is how it is popularly known. I understand that this country was a republic at one point in time. However that republic has ceased to exist. We live in an <b>oligarchy</b> now.

The ruling elite doesn't answer to us. They control the money. They infuence the government. They own the mainstream media. All they require of us is our consent, and that can be manufactured though manipulation of these resources.


Uh-uh. An oligarchy would be, basically, an aristocratic system, where only those with money, property, or political clout (take your pick) had any say in government. You could make a case for Athens being an oligarchy, or even the United States at the beginning of its existence, but modern-day America just doesn't fit the definition. It's a democracy. It's a broken democracy, mostly because of massive popular ignorance, but the system still works correctly in form, if not in function. Special interests do have more say than I'd like, but that doesn't change the fact that (say) Ralph Nader, or any other political figure hostile to said special interests, could theoretically be voted into office.

Quote:
Yes, it is one of the most representative. But not of us. Not of me. Not of you. Not of anyone on this board. Not of 99% of the population. It represents money, and those who have it. They are at the top. They control the methods and the means of production. And they will stay there, as long as we continue to support them through our habit of conspicuous consumption.

The system isn't broken. It works perfectly, and it works for those who control it. Shouldn't the fact that he was elected tell you something about the way our country functions?


I'm not sure I know what you mean by "the system". The United States' government <i>does</i> respond to popular opinion; if it didn't, its politics wouldn't be nearly so poll-driven. Nor does it exclusively pander to businesses; look at Standard Oil and Microsoft.

Business interests do tend to have a disproportionate say in government, but I really don't see what's wrong with that. Businesses are made out of individuals. Granted, there do need to be some checks on them, in order to keep them from fucking up privacy rights or the environment in pursuit of profit, but there are federal laws about that, and most states have a referendum system in place to allow direct popular influence. The problems you mention <i>do</i> exist, but you've got the solution all wrong; instead of redistributing the wealth or something, we need to get individual voters less apathetic and more informed. It's not exactly rocket science. It's not even complicated social science.

Quote:
Dismiss this as "hippie bullshit." Dismiss it as "uninformed conspiracy speculation from some fucking loser who thinks he's living in some orwellian nether realm." Dismiss it. Because that's what you were conditioned to do.
I can't make you believe it. I don't want to make you believe it. It's up to you to decide what you want to believe. But it's all there, you just have to look for it. You have to want the truth, because you're not going to get it on CNN or Fox nightly news. They aren't going to tell you what's <b>really</b> happening. Nobody can spoon-feed you reality. You have to choose to see the truth, and until you do, you are just a puppet.


I really, really hate people that try to convince me I know nothing. I am acutely aware of the problems inherent in the United States' political system. I just happen to hold a different view of the ideal solutions.

P-M

-><-

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Pyromancer on 2002-10-21 13:22 ]</font>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2002 2:03 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
Quote:
On 2002-10-21 12:19, Lifyre wrote:

You don't sound much like a Godless Commie Traitor... You're too... rational. Icy at least has the decency to spew random nonsensical filth for us to ignore.



Ow... that really hurt. Am I really like that? I mean, KC always says stuff like that to me when we argue, but then again... he's KC. If I seriously suck at debate, then you should all let me know and I'll shut up.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2002 2:33 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3236
Location: Allentown, PA
You don't suck at debate, but sometimes the facts you try to throw into the debate are so far out from left field they've flown past the Horsehead Nebula already by the time you grab them and toss them back.

You really try to articulate yourself well, but sometimes your arguments are flawed from the start, and you really shouldn't bother.

You weren't always like that, though . . .

At the very beginning of when I joined up and some of those early debates, you actually had KC conceding some points, but now . . . -_- If I weren't the lazy bastard I am, I'd quote you, but I think I'll leave that to KC. He has a knack for finding exactly what you've said that is wrong, and pointing it out in the harshest voice possible.

Of course, I'm guilty of the same thing (quoting stupid facts), which is why I try to stay out of this sort of thing.

_________________
I'm too damn pretty to die.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2002 3:35 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3142
Location: Detroit
Quote:
On 2002-10-21 14:03, IcyMonkey wrote:
Quote:
On 2002-10-21 12:19, Lifyre wrote:

You don't sound much like a Godless Commie Traitor... You're too... rational. Icy at least has the decency to spew random nonsensical filth for us to ignore.



Ow... that really hurt. Am I really like that? I mean, KC always says stuff like that to me when we argue, but then again... he's KC. If I seriously suck at debate, then you should all let me know and I'll shut up.



No you're not. Anymore than the rest of us at least. I was trying to be funny and failed...

_________________
Why are you not wearing my pants?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2002 3:43 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3142
Location: Detroit
Quote:
On 2002-10-21 13:22, Pyromancer wrote:
Quote:
On 2002-10-20 23:32, tychoseven wrote:


Quote:
The justices can shove it. It isn't surprising that they voted the way they did. They're only human, and can't be above bias, no matter how much they claim otherwise.


No, it's not surprising. However, they could at least attempt to be above bias, as people in positions of power are supposed to; if they were doing so, I would expect at least one of the nine justices to vote against their party. That didn't happen, as we all know.



This was the only part I cared to comment on for now. Several of the Justices (at least one who's wife helped run the bush campaign, not to mention the one who's daughter was helping represent bush in court) should have recused themselves due to conflicts of interest...

Other then that Pyro. Preach it Brother! Amen!

Oh and just to set a few records straight Tycho... We have never forced our version of democracy on anyone. We've helped people set up their own versions (all of Europe to some extent, South Korea, and Afganistan) Afganistan is certainly not our version of democracy. Or set up friendly dictators, a policy we have sinced abandoned.

And Icy, you really aren't that bad. You have your off days like the rest of us. You have radical views in many respects and that tends to get you branded. Those of us who are likewise branded (however differently) like to pick on the branding. Kinda like the Revolutionary Army taking Yankee Doodle from the Red Coats and singing it back in their faces...

This has been your hourly bitch session and thats all I have to say about that.

-Lifyre

_________________
Why are you not wearing my pants?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2002 3:53 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
Lifyre: Don't worry, it's my fault for being overly sensitive.

Quote:
On 2002-10-21 13:22, Pyromancer wrote:

Uh-uh. An oligarchy would be, basically, an aristocratic system, where only those with money, property, or political clout (take your pick) had any say in government. You could make a case for Athens being an oligarchy, or even the United States at the beginning of its existence, but modern-day America just doesn't fit the definition. It's a democracy. It's a broken democracy, mostly because of massive popular ignorance, but the system still works correctly in form, if not in function. Special interests do have more say than I'd like, but that doesn't change the fact that (say) Ralph Nader, or any other political figure hostile to said special interests, could theoretically be voted into office.


Not to nitpick, but if we're going by strict definitions, the U.S. is, and always has been, a representative republic. I.e., the people elect their rulers for set terms, who then ake care of governing the country. Democracy means that the people directly control the government. Athens was the closest we've ever gotten to democracy, and even then it was only male citizens, less than a third of the population. This is purely an issue of semantics, but I don't like it when someone calls one political system by another's name.

_________________
Proud to be un American,
IcyMonkey

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: IcyMonkey on 2002-10-21 16:49 ]</font>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:09 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3142
Location: Detroit
Quote:
On 2002-10-21 15:53, IcyMonkey wrote:
Lifefyre:



You know you're the only person who has gotten the meaning of my name? Life Fyre(fire for those english types) = Lifyre (lie - fire): being filled with the passions and fire of life.

Quote:

Not to nitpick, but if we're going by strict definitions, the U.S. is, and always has been, a representative republic. I.e., the people elect their rulers for set terms, who then ake care of governing the country. Democracy means that the people directly control the government. Athens was the closest we've ever gotten to democracy, and even then it was only male citizens, less than a third of the population. This is purely an issue of semantics, but I don't like it when someone calls one political system by another's name.

_________________
Proud to be un American,
IcyMonkey

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: IcyMonkey on 2002-10-21 15:58 ]</font>


Actually thats only partly true...

Originally the Senate and President were appointed with zero input from the common man. Who in turn appointed the Supreme Court. It was supposed to be a government for the people but not by or of the people. But we kinda said "Fuck you" to the federalists and turned it into a representative republic.

-Lifyre

_________________
Why are you not wearing my pants?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:17 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
Quote:
On 2002-10-21 16:09, Lifyre wrote:

Actually thats only partly true...

Originally the Senate and President were appointed with zero input from the common man. Who in turn appointed the Supreme Court. It was supposed to be a government for the people but not by or of the people. But we kinda said "Fuck you" to the federalists and turned it into a representative republic.

-Lifyre



One thing you have to keep in mind is that "the founding fathers" is not one cohesive unit. They disagreed with each other, far more than the Republicans and Democrats do today. You had people like Alexander Hamilton who pretty much overtly advocated rule by, for, and of the elite. Then you have people like Thomas Jefferson who would be considered radical in some respects even by today's standards. The Constitution was a product of the former group, and thus is designed with the express intent of protecting the elite from the masses. The Bill of Rights was added to that since the antifederalists refused to accept the Constitution without it. Thus, the actual structure of our government, as created by the Constitution, was originally designed to create an aristocracy.

_________________
Proud to be un American,
IcyMonkey

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: IcyMonkey on 2002-10-21 16:18 ]</font>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:19 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3142
Location: Detroit
Blessed Be the educated

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Lifyre on 2002-10-21 16:19 ]</font>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:49 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1558
Location: Santa Cruz
Quote:
On 2002-10-21 15:53, IcyMonkey wrote:

Not to nitpick, but if we're going by strict definitions, the U.S. is, and always has been, a representative republic. I.e., the people elect their rulers for set terms, who then ake care of governing the country. Democracy means that the people directly control the government. Athens was the closest we've ever gotten to democracy, and even then it was only male citizens, less than a third of the population. This is purely an issue of semantics, but I don't like it when someone calls one political system by another's name.



A representative republic is a form of indirect democracy, going by the definitions given in most major dictionaries. I used the simpler term to be concise, and to avoid annoying semantic arguments like this one.

P-M

-><-


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:52 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
I find it funny that icy didn't bother to respond to Ollie's complaints (which are oh-so-true, they made me laugh) about Chomsky (his hero, no less!)

Just my little input for now...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:53 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
KC - First of all, Chomsky's not my hero. I just happen to like a lot, but not all, of the things he believes. Secondly, Ollie didn't actually criticize Chomsky - he just basically said he didn't like him. If Ollie had written a post detailing the reasons why he thinks Chomsky is innacurate/wrong, I would respond to that. Not that Ollie was wrong in simply stating "I don't like Chomsky, he seems like such a conspiracy nut." That's his opinion and he's allowed to express it on the EN boards without giving reasons, if it's simply for the sake of stating his opinion. Hell, I do that all the time, and so do you KC. He has a right to his opinion and I'm not going to attack it unless he were stating the opinion as an argument.


Quote:
Pyromancer wrote:

A representative republic is a form of indirect democracy, going by the definitions given in most major dictionaries. I used the simpler term to be concise, and to avoid annoying semantic arguments like this one.



A representative republic and a democracy are far from the same thing. In a representative republic, the people don't control politics - politicians do. The people simply elect politicians to be their rulers. Democracy is the participation of everyone in the political process.

_________________
Proud to be un American,
IcyMonkey

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: IcyMonkey on 2002-10-21 17:00 ]</font>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:56 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
And is also mob rule.

I dun like that. Go 'way.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:59 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1558
Location: Santa Cruz
I've heard that argument before, and it's still wrong. For the record, I hate arguing semantics (everyone on this board knows what I mean), but here's what dictionary.com has to say on the topic (Webster 1913, my usual source, was silent):

Quote:
de·moc·ra·cy Pronunciation Key (d-mkr-s)
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly <b>or through elected representatives</b>. (bolding is mine. ed.)
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.


Quote:
re·pub·lic Pronunciation Key (r-pblk)
n.

1.
1. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
2. A nation that has such a political order.
2.
1. A political order <b>in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.</b> (Bolding mine again. ed.)
2. A nation that has such a political order.
3. often Republic A specific republican government of a nation: the Fourth Republic of France.
4. An autonomous or partially autonomous political and territorial unit belonging to a sovereign federation.
5. A group of people working as equals in the same sphere or field: the republic of letters.


QED. Can we stop talking about this now?

P-M

-><-

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Pyromancer on 2002-10-22 12:52 ]</font>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2002 6:42 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
sorry to quote myself, but here goes - "the reason i don't like Chomsky is.."
Quote:
On 2002-10-21 10:50, ollie wrote:
mostly the conspiracy element i don't like, people who look for conspiricies tieing everything together are classic insecure paranoid idealists, i mean, if there isn't a big evil company running the world, who is? what if it was actually just a bunch of people muddling along on a day to day basis, that whpuld be terrible, best that there's someone at the controls, evil or not

simple sub/dom behavure etc, he can claim to hate being controlled, but is actually in love with conspiricies and oppressive government, if it wern't for them, he'd have nothing

he only uses world events and political/social movements to display his own ideas and conspiracy theories anyway, Kosovo could be exchanged for Cuba, or Vietnam, in the end the (his) story is just the same, kind of opposes his humanatarian approach, if he ends up dealing in universials when claiming to attack specifics

but hey, it's all nice and sensationalist so that people can easily read it without having to get too involved or indepth accounts eh?


there are a few reasons in there aren't there? things up for dispute etc, this is the debate board, go for it.

_________________
ollie.
http://www.drownedinsound.com

"Kill 'em all, let God sort them out. And by the way, God is dead, I killed him first"

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ollie on 2002-10-21 18:45 ]</font>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2002 11:48 am 
Offline
Local

Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 210
Quote:
On 2002-10-21 15:43, Lifyre wrote:

Oh and just to set a few records straight Tycho... We have never forced our version of democracy on anyone. We've helped people set up their own versions (all of Europe to some extent, South Korea, and Afganistan) Afganistan is certainly not our version of democracy. Or set up friendly dictators, a policy we have sinced abandoned.


It isn't the re-organizing of governments to make them democratic that I don't like. Perhaps I'm hung up on the word 'install.' To me, installing a government is a manipulative and self-serving practice. If we wanted to help the Iraqis (for example)revolt and help them iron out the kinks in their new government, that's fine as long as all the actual decision making is left to them.

*topic change*

I think we can all agree that the system is not perfect. And we all disagree on the best way to improve it. But that's the way it has always been. So, don't get all worked up about it like I did. I think I'm sometimes too cynical for my own good, and it impairs my ability to debate effectively.
I didn't mean to insult anybody by implying that they were ignorant of the way that society functions. Poor assumpion on my part. No hard feelings?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2002 12:01 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3236
Location: Allentown, PA
Quote:
On 2002-10-22 11:48, tychoseven wrote:
It isn't the re-organizing of governments to make them democratic that I don't like. Perhaps I'm hung up on the word 'install.' To me, installing a government is a manipulative and self-serving practice. If we wanted to help the Iraqis (for example)revolt and help them iron out the kinks in their new government, that's fine as long as all the actual decision making is left to them.


Last time we tried that was the Bay of Pigs.

Remember that? Remember what happened when we let the actual revolutionaries try to take over, instead of actually using our military force?

_________________
I'm too damn pretty to die.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2002 1:34 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
Welcome to the real world, Tycho. We install a friendly government- thems the rules. No use to start off with just whoever is the biggest guy take over from the last one, right? So we 'install' a democratic govt with someone friendly twords us. Guess what? PEOPLE CAN VOTE HIM OUT OF OFFICE.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2002 2:22 pm 
Offline
Local

Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 210
Quote:
On 2002-10-22 12:01, Kitsune1527 wrote:
Last time we tried that was the Bay of Pigs.

Remember that? Remember what happened when we let the actual revolutionaries try to take over, instead of actually using our military force?


Yeah, it failed. But that's because we didn't help them. We just dropped them off and said "Go ahead, you've got air support. Just call for it." Well, when the revolutionaries called for US air support, it never came.
Perhaps I haven't made my position clear. I don't care if we use military force to remove an unjust government. I don't support that kind of policy, but in theory I'm ok with it. What I don't like is when we set up a government for the country we just "liberated." I think we should take a less active, more advisor-based role, guiding them through the structure of a democracy. If they don't want to be US friendly, fine. They can be democratic and not like us. Obviosly this approach doesn't work if you actually care about ensuring that the country stays US friendly, but I couldn't care less.

Quote:
On 2002-10-22 13:34, Kills Commies wrote:
Welcome to the real world, Tycho. We install a friendly government- thems the rules. No use to start off with just whoever is the biggest guy take over from the last one, right? So we 'install' a democratic govt with someone friendly twords us. Guess what? PEOPLE CAN VOTE HIM OUT OF OFFICE.


This is true. However, a lot of damage can be done during that first term of office, and that can create more problems later on when the people have to un-do what the first president/prime minister did.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: In an attempt to regain my Necro-fu crown
PostPosted: Sun Feb 15, 2004 9:16 pm 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 4:12 pm
Posts: 3394
Location: Royal Court of Unfounded Speculation
Been two years and the political situation hasn't chenged to much, has it> Only the US did invade Iraq. No glass paving however.

_________________
A man said to the Universe, "Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the Universe, "the fact has not created in me a sense of obligation."


- Stephen Crane


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 64 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group