Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5356|London, England
- - - -

Probably the most commonly accepted unofficial definition of democracy is 'one person, one vote.' One has to wonder where such a definition came from. In most definitions of democracy, voting is not mentioned. Where it is mentioned, like in the one I chose, it is not a requirement, only a usual occurrence. Only in the fevered imagination of statists can one find that democracy equates to voting and elections. In a truly Orwellian twist, people have confused the freedom to select tyrants and become absolute slaves to the will of the tyrants as a sign of freedom and democracy. In truth, the opposite happens with voting and elections ' the supreme power is wrested from individuals, and invested in representatives. These representatives can then ignore the will of individuals and groups, both majority and minority, and cater to the special interest groups that they really represent. Voting and elections are a sham to steal power from the individual, to cloak the results in the empty skeleton of democracy, having the outward form, but lacking the inner essence. Sadly, most fully embrace this charade and gladly accept their own slavery. It would do well for people to heed the words of one of the leading luminaries of the late 18th and early 19th Centuries, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, when he noted: 'None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.'

The founders of America held scorn for democracy, and never intended that American government be a democracy, but a constitutional republic. They seemed to share the same views that most detractors of democracy hold, that democracy is mob rule, has no respect for individual or property rights, and is a license to plunder. The way that people use the term democracy today does seem to confirm this, except in one important area. Though people often use the term mob rule, to be more exact, it is mob selection. The rulers selected by the mobs are under no compunction to follow the whims of the masses, secretly promote shadowy agendas that are against the interests of most citizens, and often openly defy the wishes of the majority, while paying lip service to being servants of the people. Democracy has been subverted by voteocracy, where the only right and freedom a citizen enjoys is the right to vote, and where the supreme power is vested in the state and exercised by the state.

Alexander Fraser Tytler made this interesting observation about democracy in 1776: 'A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. [Tytler describes the life cycle of civilization as from Bondage to Spiritual Faith to Great Courage to Liberty to Abundance to Selfishness to Complacency to Apathy to Dependency and back into Bondage.]' There are several significant points about Tytler's remark. One is that voting is the means to enslaving the populace. Another is that it happens when people lose their respect for the individual and individual property rights, and surrender their supreme power to a criminal class of parasites called politicians who promise them free wealth and benefits. For Americans, the warning about loose fiscal policy is especially poignant. With Greenspan and the Fed following a policy of printing fiat money at will, with no regard for budgets or deficits by government officials, and an inability to pay current debt obligations without borrowing more money, most Americans should realize that the US government is technically bankrupt and financially insolvent. That most Americans and their parasitic politicians are completely ignorant of this fact, and have complete faith in the fantasy of US fiscal policy, is a sad commentary on the average American, and confirms that most people are ignorant of the basic principle of TANSTAAFL.

While the preceding thoughts may be viewed as an unmitigated condemnation of democracy, it is probably fairer to characterize it as how easily democracy can be subverted when people abandon their supreme power to unscrupulous politicians. One need only look at Switzerland , and its version of direct democracy, to realize that it is not necessarily democracy, but people abdicating their responsibility, that is the real problem with most democracies. In many respects, Switzerland appears to be the federal republic with autonomous states (cantons) that the US was supposed to embody. The Swiss have a strict foreign policy of non-interventionism, the exact same foreign policy the US used to adhere to, and do not suffer from the self-inflicted sorrows of empire and terrorism that Americans do. Libertarians have long noted how Switzerland embodies the concepts of individualism, individual rights and responsibilities, and self defense that are all hallmarks of freedom loving societies. The major difference between Swiss democracy and US democracy (and all other forms of democracy) is that the Swiss have not completely abandoned their supreme power to elected representatives, but retained that power for each citizen.

- - - -
http://www.strike-the-root.com/51/weebies/weebies6.html

Last edited by Jay (2012-10-07 16:09:49)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5584

You might want to provide some commentary. No one is going to read that shit.
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6151|what

Macbeth wrote:

This sounds like a person I know. They would use government services and then complain about big government in their lives. I'll never understand people like.
Check out the southern strategy.

The GOP used to be able to say Nigger and it would be enough to get concerned southerners to vote.

Then it became states rights.

Now it's "Limited government."

The most bizarre concept is starve the beast. They don't like big government because it "doesn't work" so the solution is to cut the funding, and as it fails claim the reason it failed s because big government doesn't work so cut even more funding.

At the moment targets include the EPA, because who wants clean air and water when it means government regulations that hurt business!? Solution is therefore cut the budget of the EPA.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5356|London, England

AussieReaper wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

This sounds like a person I know. They would use government services and then complain about big government in their lives. I'll never understand people like.
Check out the southern strategy.

The GOP used to be able to say Nigger and it would be enough to get concerned southerners to vote.

Then it became states rights.

Now it's "Limited government."

The most bizarre concept is starve the beast. They don't like big government because it "doesn't work" so the solution is to cut the funding, and as it fails claim the reason it failed s because big government doesn't work so cut even more funding.

At the moment targets include the EPA, because who wants clean air and water when it means government regulations that hurt business!? Solution is therefore cut the budget of the EPA.
Lol. Back in the days of Jim Crow southern states voted Democrat you dipshit.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6151|what

Great rebuttal that one. Throw an insult and claim JimCrow.

The dems broke away from the racists, the dixiecrats no longer exist. The GOP Southern Strategy specifically targeted this racist group and it won Nixon an election

Enjoy the history lesson.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5356|London, England

AussieReaper wrote:

Great rebuttal that one. Throw an insult and claim JimCrow.

The dems broke away from the racists, the dixiecrats no longer exist. The GOP Southern Strategy specifically targeted this racist group and it won Nixon an election

Enjoy the history lesson.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6715

RAIMIUS wrote:

mkxiii wrote:

War Man wrote:


Ban someone's voting privileges just because they voted for someone you don't agree with? The intolerant should lose voting privileges with that attitude.
i promise to never again make a hyperbolic statement on this forum.

i just dont see, when looking at it all objectively how anyone can think voting for him is a good idea. from what i can tell, and i may be completely wrong, so anyone feel free to correct me, but a significant portion of his voters automatically choose him, and the party as their wanted representatives due to their religious views, which is worse than being completely irrelevant to the presidential post, but goes against the constitution and separation of religion from all political state matters. 

again, as i said, i may be wrong
Are Mormons really that big of a voting block?
nope
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
13urnzz
Banned
+5,830|6496

Cybargs wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

mkxiii wrote:


i promise to never again make a hyperbolic statement on this forum.

i just dont see, when looking at it all objectively how anyone can think voting for him is a good idea. from what i can tell, and i may be completely wrong, so anyone feel free to correct me, but a significant portion of his voters automatically choose him, and the party as their wanted representatives due to their religious views, which is worse than being completely irrelevant to the presidential post, but goes against the constitution and separation of religion from all political state matters. 

again, as i said, i may be wrong
Are Mormons really that big of a voting block?
nope
they are in this state. hell, our lone elected democrat congressman is featuring Mutt Rmoney in his latest ad . . .
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6715

13urnzz wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:


Are Mormons really that big of a voting block?
nope
they are in this state. hell, our lone elected democrat congressman is featuring Mutt Rmoney in his latest ad . . .
Mormon's aren't gonna vote democrat anyway lol.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6151|what

Jay wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Great rebuttal that one. Throw an insult and claim JimCrow.

The dems broke away from the racists, the dixiecrats no longer exist. The GOP Southern Strategy specifically targeted this racist group and it won Nixon an election

Enjoy the history lesson.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond
" Thurmond represented South Carolina in the United States Senate from 1954 until 2003, at first as a Democrat and, after 1964, as a Republican. He switched because of his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act,"


Thanks for the link proving exactly what I said.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5356|London, England

AussieReaper wrote:

Jay wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Great rebuttal that one. Throw an insult and claim JimCrow.

The dems broke away from the racists, the dixiecrats no longer exist. The GOP Southern Strategy specifically targeted this racist group and it won Nixon an election

Enjoy the history lesson.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond
" Thurmond represented South Carolina in the United States Senate from 1954 until 2003, at first as a Democrat and, after 1964, as a Republican. He switched because of his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act,"


Thanks for the link proving exactly what I said.
"The Southern Strategy" is largely a myth you fool. Most southerners switched sides because they believed the Republicans offered better economic ideas. Sure, some may have switched because of the Civil Rights Act but that's as relevant to todays politics as Jim Crow laws are to the Democrats legacy, because guess what? 4 years separate the two.

AR, like warman, you undermine every belief you express by being a retarded closed minded parrot pushing other people beliefs off as your own. Again, stick to reposting reddit pictures.

Last edited by Jay (2012-10-07 18:07:29)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6151|what

Jay wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

" Thurmond represented South Carolina in the United States Senate from 1954 until 2003, at first as a Democrat and, after 1964, as a Republican. He switched because of his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act,"


Thanks for the link proving exactly what I said.
"The Southern Strategy" is largely a myth you fool. Most southerners switched sides because they believed the Republicans offered better economic ideas. Sure, some may have switched because of the Civil Rights Act but that's as relevant to todays politics as Jim Crow laws are to the Democrats legacy, because guess what? 4 years separate the two.

AR, like warman, you undermine every belief you express by being a retarded closed minded parrot pushing other people beliefs off as your own. Again, stick to reposting reddit pictures.
The example you gave stated

"He switched because of his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act,"

At this point your argument is that it's mostly a myth, so to ignore the link you gave?

Of course it's still relevant today. You're not going to tell me that the GOP still doesn't have a large base of racist wing nuts.

If it didn't we would never have heard Obama was a Muslim who didn't have a birth certificate.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5356|London, England
Whatever AR, Republicans are all racist. You got em.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6151|what

Now use a strawman argument that I said "all Republicans" rather than "large base."

Awesome.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
Pochsy
Artifice of Eternity
+702|5541|Toronto
I want to see Jay win one of these arguments one day. Really I do. We all need to start a book list for him that starts with the basics. I propose 'Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Professional and Personal Life' by Richard Paul and Linda Elder. I haven't read it, but the title is promising.
The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5356|London, England

AussieReaper wrote:

Now use a strawman argument that I said "all Republicans" rather than "large base."

Awesome.
Oh yeah? Present some numbers to back that up.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5356|London, England

Pochsy wrote:

I want to see Jay win one of these arguments one day. Really I do. We all need to start a book list for him that starts with the basics. I propose 'Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Professional and Personal Life' by Richard Paul and Linda Elder. I haven't read it, but the title is promising.
Are you going to start following me around like a puppy dog like you did after the last time I hurt your feelings? Get a life pochsy.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Pochsy
Artifice of Eternity
+702|5541|Toronto

Jay wrote:

Most southerners switched sides because they believed the Republicans offered better economic ideas.
Oh yeah? Provide some numbers to back that up.
The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6409|'Murka

mkxiii wrote:

i dont know i guess i always think of it as assessing what party you think will best govern the nation, allocate taxes in the best way, will make the decisions you believe to be the best ones in whatever scenario may arise, or whichever party you can get which gets closer to this than the other if neither fully fit what you want. but i guess the only way you can do that is to think about which party will make the country more how you want it to be, and everyones view on that will be different, and will be shaped in certain ways by their religious views, or race, or gender and so maybe those characteristics can be a valid way of choosing a candidate as they arent as superficial as i have made them out to be and can make someone more likely to have similar views to you on unrelated issues due to a similar overall mindset.
i suppose i was wrong to suggest that these things shouldnt be taken into account in that respect, as long as people dont immediately discount the other candidate due to them not sharing the same characteristic, such as for example if someone straight away decided that they didnt want a female president, regardless of who it is and what their views are so they will vote for the male one, as that is an objectively irresponsible way of viting in my opinion
The whole religion thing must be getting more play in the UK media than I see from the US media (granted, I'm only seeing a small portion of US media here). It gets mentioned occasionally, but the things that get more air time seem to be gaffes and then any policy differences the candidates might have. I haven't seen religion get mentioned hardly at all, except people asking if a Mormon can be elected President.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Pochsy
Artifice of Eternity
+702|5541|Toronto

Jay wrote:

Pochsy wrote:

I want to see Jay win one of these arguments one day. Really I do. We all need to start a book list for him that starts with the basics. I propose 'Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Professional and Personal Life' by Richard Paul and Linda Elder. I haven't read it, but the title is promising.
Are you going to start following me around like a puppy dog like you did after the last time I hurt your feelings? Get a life pochsy.
There are 10 active threads on this whole site. I don't have to go far to run into your stupidity. But to you, that line of thought would have never come up, because you are an oaf.
The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5584

Pochsy wrote:

There are 10 active threads on this whole site. I don't have to go far to run into your stupidity.
I made half of them including this one.
13urnzz
Banned
+5,830|6496

Pochsy wrote:

I want to see Jay win one of these arguments one day. Really I do. We all need to start a book list for him that starts with the basics. I propose 'Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Professional and Personal Life' by Richard Paul and Linda Elder. I haven't read it, but the title is promising.
i have read it. i don't think jay would benefit from it, because just like warmong, he believes, no, he is convinced he is right in everything he says.

Critical Thinking advocates that you must assess yourself, and those two will never get past step 1.
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6151|what

Jay wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Now use a strawman argument that I said "all Republicans" rather than "large base."

Awesome.
Oh yeah? Present some numbers to back that up.
You did that yourself


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond

" Thurmond represented South Carolina in the United States Senate from 1954 until 2003, at first as a Democrat and, after 1964, as a Republican. He switched because of his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act,"
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5356|London, England

Pochsy wrote:

Jay wrote:

Pochsy wrote:

I want to see Jay win one of these arguments one day. Really I do. We all need to start a book list for him that starts with the basics. I propose 'Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Professional and Personal Life' by Richard Paul and Linda Elder. I haven't read it, but the title is promising.
Are you going to start following me around like a puppy dog like you did after the last time I hurt your feelings? Get a life pochsy.
There are 10 active threads on this whole site. I don't have to go far to run into your stupidity. But to you, that line of thought would have never come up, because you are an oaf.
Wow, you really are butthurt.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5356|London, England

AussieReaper wrote:

Jay wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Now use a strawman argument that I said "all Republicans" rather than "large base."

Awesome.
Oh yeah? Present some numbers to back that up.
You did that yourself


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond

" Thurmond represented South Carolina in the United States Senate from 1954 until 2003, at first as a Democrat and, after 1964, as a Republican. He switched because of his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act,"
Oh, so Strom Thurmond is your proof that republicans today draw a large portion of their base from racists?

Last edited by Jay (2012-10-07 20:08:02)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard