That's why it's called the democracy. In this system, people have a better chance of having an equal voice. This is why we have a strong (though shrinking middle class). If your fellow men are falling behind, you need to either learn to stop, make some sacrifice, and help them or suffer the consequences. Besides, just because you're smart doesn't make you the best judge of government for ALL people. People have different priorities in life, if the country is full people that believe that having prayers in schools is more important than not having the rest of the world hate us, well that's a democratic system is designed for. If your value base system is different from the mean, then the onus is on you to either conform or make the sacrifice to change (think MLK, Vietnam War protestors, Civil rights protestors, participants of the underground railroad etc).
The process is not wrong, the result is in only the second administration. There were still enough people in America that liked him to re-elect him the second time. Like all things, there are statistical variances, I like to think of the past election as an outlier. The great thing about this government is that it has an opportunity to correct itself and there are checks and balances (see democratic taking control of both houses last year). It's a democracy, not elitocracy.
I am against the war but pragmatically that we will be there for the next 100 years unless you want to watch one of their neigboring countries like Iran fill the power vacuum.
Does this also mean that those in the energy industry can't vote? Defense contractors can't vote? Auto company execs trying to keep mandatory mpg ratings low can't vote?
Wow. Hang on a second rimmy. You completely and totally mischaracterized what he said. The theory behind this sentiment, and it is not one that I advocate, is that those who rely upon government for their subsistence (those on wellfare and food stamps) rather than a job will vote for those who will increase those programs at the expense of those who have jobs and pay taxes. Further, the number of people who this applies to would grow rather than shrink as these programs are expanded. It isn't exactly anti-American. Remember, our founding fathers instituted a system under which you could not vote unless you owned land.
Yes, his reaction had a bit of bravado. But, seriously, overreact much? Come on man, you didn't actually expect to post something like that and not catch some heat from those on the other side of the issue from you, did ya?
THE smartest guys in the world are the ones that nearly sank the world's largest financial institutions in the sub-prime loan market. The proponents of eugenics brought us the holocost. Poll taxes and literacy tests brought racial discrimination in the South. In government sometimes a broad range of unfettered stupid does less harm. It's when you give people who believe they know more than anyone else the power that you get into trouble. They will rarely look at alternatives, consider that they might just be wrong or change their course of action. Power to the People! Stupid or not. (actually it's up to the very same people to see that they, and their children are not stupid and up to the Fourth estate to keep them informed. It's probably the free press that is actually the weakest element in democracy around the world...well because they are so easily killed)
And blacks were once 3/5 of a human being and women couldn't vote... how is that American? The beauty of America is that it keeps changing for the better and we continue to expand the definition of democracy... at least until Bush v. Gore. And no, I didn't mischaracterize his post... I'm sick of these guys dropping little innuendo bombs and running away from their words when someone calls them on it. If you look at his subsequent posts it is clear he was saying those losers who vote Dem shouldn't be allowed to vote while the winners who get farm subsidies and corporate benefits should be allowed to vote. That is unAmerican my man. Completely so. And the characterization you present (Yes, I saw you don't agree with it) has been disproven by huge numbers of sociological and demographic studies. I don't deny a culture of poverty exists, but most people getting subsistence assistance would rather be working, would rather have a job. Their big failure, which is really a societal one, is that they can't imagine something beyond their own personal experiences. The way to solve that does not involve taking their vote away. Regardless of how you feel about this, to say, as DM did, that they shouldn't be able to vote is abhorrent and the argument over whether their votes would lead to a perpetuation of a policy or condition one finds distasteful is besides the point. If you don't like the policy, then it is up to you to make the case for changes and get the votes to make that happen... it is not cool to try and deprive people of their vote just because of a policy or, as I'm certain DM was trying too cutely not to suggest, because they are black.
The majority of Americans would tell you that, while it can be frustrating, they much prefer the Democratic System we have in America to that of an Oligarchy, a Dictatorship wearing the mask of an Oligarchy, an out and out Dictatorship, or a system where only the elite have a voice (which can be a combination of things... look at National Socialism in Germany prior to WWII, or the Communist States, which were/are anything but truly Communistic). As others here have pointed out, our political system is self-correcting, but it can take time. We are currently in the middle of one of those corrections. Watch how it plays out, and perhaps you will learn something. Impeach Bush.
I think we are an oligarchy with the mask of a republic. Republicans who have little to do with limited government and Democrats who are hardly advocates of the working class. They are beholden only to who funds them, and the whims of short-sighted voters. This is why, even if I think Kucinich or Paul might be out of step with the good ole boy club, I have much more respect for their advocacy of their ideals, and some effort at long term thinking. We made fun of the five year plans of Maoist and Stalinist regimes of our not-so-distant past, but our long term plans as a nation don't seem to extend much beyond figuring out what toppings we want on our collective pizzas. Our leaders (especially presidents) are getting better and better at retroactive explanations for bad decisions somehow being for the common good. This is not the role of leaders of a truly free society. If we had a George McGovern or a Barry Goldwater running for election, I'd happily vote for either over any candidate polling with a chance to win today, and not whatever candidate that wants to fund the entitlements (or tax breaks or pork) that benefits me most in the next election cycle.
With all due respect, that's bull****. I don't blame people for being disillusioned by seven ****ing years of George "head up his ass" Bush, but to make that statement is simply outrageous. My father grew up in the Depression, fought in WWII, and went on to become a university professor and a department chair. He put both his kids through college and made a lot of money consulting. Before the war started, he was working as a guard for an airmail carrier, that being the best job he could get, despite graduating at the top of his class at a Houston high school. This is a hell of a great country. Don't let George W. Bush, the former GOP Congress, or poor leaders from the Democratic side blind you to that. We have our ups and downs, but we always pull ourselves through. We're doing that now. By the way, I voted for George McGovern. Impeach Bush.
I don't just blame our current president. He unfortunately represents us, and what our consumerist culture has become. I'm by no means anti-american. But it's hard to argue that our culture and our quality of life aren't diminishing. Somewhere between the Baby Boomers and my generation, we became greedy, I think. We killed country music. We stopped exploring and innovating and creating. We started buying cheap crap from China and mortgaging our dreams to work in the dot com bubble and buy our booming stocks. We couldn't stand to drive a five year old car. Not all of us, but many of, me included. I made a killing and now I'm in debt. What's sad is that the field of candidates really do represent the American people, and they'll say what they need to get elected. I don't think Hillary Clinton is going to represent some grand change from the status quo. McCain and Obama talk a good game, but their voting record is still very much in line with the dictates of their respective parties, and I don't see either having a presidency marked with great change and forward-thinking. I think real change is cultural, and only the Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul and yes, Kinky Friedman type populist candidates represent something other than the status quo. I also don't think it was always this way, and I don't think it started suddenly with Bush.
Amen. Now if only your vehmence could be carried over to Fox News. Seems like every crazy right-winger is perfectly aware of how indefensible their opinions are. ****ing irritating.
just bringing up the point that there is an inherent inefficiency of voting where some people get all of the benefits and none of the costs. of course... but sometimes you got to call a spade a spade.
