SIGH

Yeah, it's awesome. I always wonder if they get these people from the loony bin or something.

I live here and I wonder the same thing

Oh god, that last video is so bad.

I would totally vote for her, though. What better way to bring about the 2012 apocalypse?

What better way to bring about the 2010 apocalypse?

Sometimes I hate it when you have a good point

love people that just follow a cause without any idea for what they want.. :D

I tried watching the second one yesterday. I gave up after three minutes. These people are complete and utter retards.

i dont get it, why they vote if they know nothing about what their candidate does, thinks or is.... land of the free indeed. Free from logical thinking alteast :)

Our superior American advertising, of course:

Please tell me this is the absolute pinnacle of human CGI achievement and this never happened. Please?

On the plus side, you can use this as verifiable proof that god does not exist.

If you want to be prez in the states you have to pander to the wrestling and NASCAR crowd. In fact some political candidate recently bought an ad on one of the NASCAR cars. Really fucking retarded.

Wow..... that is just ...... wow... i mean.... .. why !? my brain hurts.


Never did this but now i have to.



............................................________
....................................,.-'"...................``~.,
.............................,.-"..................................."-.,
.........................,/...............................................":,
.....................,?......................................................\,
.................../...........................................................,}
................./......................................................,:`^`..}
.............../...................................................,:"........./
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
............./__.(....."~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_...."~,_........"~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......"=,_......."-,_.......,.-~-,},.~";/....}
...........((.....*~_......."=-._......";,,./`..../"............../
...,,,___.\`~,......"~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-"
............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\
.............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__
,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\
...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\
................................`:,,...........................`\..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_\..........._,-%.......`\
...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`

hahahahaha never seen that gem thanks

"McCainiacs"

so awesome!

democracy ftw

yeah, the US president just has the ability to veto laws passed by the house & senate, he can create his own laws via executive orders & signing statements, and apart from that he is supreme commander of the armed forces

how much do you have to add to arrive at "dictator"?

sorry sir but democracy has faded. if we were in a democracy not only could an elected official be removed from office by the people, but there would be referendums among the population regarding important decisions like going to war, fundamental changes to health care, bailouts, etc. this all affects the population, yet persons who are totally disconnected from the people make these choices for them

what democracy is today is chosing the lesser of a few evils and then enduring them & their more or less terrible decisions until their term is over

you make it sound as if it was ever different.

you sound like it could never be different

yes.

Just listen to the opinions some average people have about war, crimes and punishments and so on. I think that makes it pretty evident that we wo't ever have a perfect world.

nobody cares about perfect. you're right about the average people, but they have been spoiled by the system the last 20, 30 years or so

they lived a great life being ignorant and dumb - aint gonna be that way the next few decades

i think there are going to be a lot of disappointed, then angry people. something's gonna change for sure. maybe for the worse, maybe for the better.. we'll see

for this to work the population has to be educated. LOL we are apparently not to well educated and that was a goal so they could run the country without the population having a clue.




SOCIALIST?? I wonder why nobody in america complains about some other socialist type things like public libraries, education, policemen, firefighters? Those are all payed by the people huh we are all hidden socialist OH NOES.

this post was so unamerican.. what happened?

Representative democracy != direct democracy. It's still democracy though.

No, since the very antithesis of democracy is what is happening now; where a minority of people move society in a direction that the majority do not want

Representative democracy is by definition still democracy... There's nothing in the definition of democracy (let's say for example in Weber's definition of democracy, since it is widely accepted) that says it has to function through referendums. What are you referring to anyway?

Where a political party has been voted in, disregards the will of the people, then the main opposition party comes to power due to voter dissatisfaction with the previous party, and the new party continues to disregard the will of the people (and so on and so on) it takes a certain amount of blindness or delusion to go on calling it democracy (majority rule).

"Fifty-eight percent of the American public now believes the invasion of Iraq was a "mistake“ - yet they are still at war.

“Believe in public option: 59.9 percent yes, 40.1 percent no“ - The public wanted a public option in healthcare, but didn't get it.

“Fifty-nine percent of Americans want Congress and the president to reform the financial system now, said a poll released on Thursday”
- Americans want financial reform, but get a watered down token gesture of a bill that will not drastically change anything, much like the healthcare reform bill that was weakened beyond belief.

"A majority of voters strongly favor both requiring corporations to get shareholder approval for political spending (56 percent strongly favor, 80 percent total favor) and a ban on political spending by foreign corporations (51 percent strongly favor, 60 percent total favor)." - This is in reference to the Supreme Court's decision to grant first amendment rights to corporations, effectively legalising political corruption where campaign finance is concerned. The court effectively overruled 80% of the public, and sullied the whole voting process by allowing corporate shills running for office an economic advantage due to increased financing.

“Just 42 percent favor sending more troops while 56 percent oppose it“ - 56% say no to escalation, then the administration escalates the war. Military industrial complex > The people

Thought about putting down some more examples since honestly I can go on and on, but you must get the point by now. Certain undemocratic things can take place during a representative democracy, but in the biggest issues of our time the public opinion is disregarded and making the representative democracy allowances here (with the biggest issues) requires an unbelievable demonstration of mental gymnastics that nobody should be willing to make if they give a shit about the public will.

Representative democracy.

Again, just because you have a personal and particular view of how democracy should work (and I'm not making a judgment here, I'm simply saying it's your view) doesn't mean that representative democracy isn't still democracy.

edit: don't take it the wrong way, I can see where you're coming from, I just think that strictly speaking it's wrong to say these decisions or the regime as a whole are not democratic.

You didn't absorb my reply since you're still insisting that elected officials can ignore the public will on major society defining issues and it would still be "democratic". Minority rule is oligarchy and that was the point that flew over your head.

"just because you have a personal and particular view of how democracy should work"
The notion that democracy being equal to majority rule being only my "personal and particular view" must be a joke.

Second line of the link I gave you:

"The representatives form an independent ruling body (for an election period) charged with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest, but not as their proxy representatives; that is, not necessarily always according to their wishes"

You can argue all you want but the U.S. qualifies as a representative democracy, whether you like it or not.

I tackled this in comment #68!

"Certain undemocratic things can take place during a representative democracy, but in the biggest issues of our time the public opinion is disregarded and making the representative democracy allowances here (with the biggest issues) requires an unbelievable demonstration of mental gymnastics that nobody should be willing to make if they give a shit about the public will." Sorry, but it seems as though you're either skim reading or not comprehending.

Parenthesis might help u understand me better "Certain undemocratic things can take place (legitimately) during a representative democracy but.."

...and like I answered, it's your PERSONAL VIEW that the representatives should following public opinion polls on these issues. It has NOTHING TO DO with whether or not the U.S. is a reprensentative democracy, which it IS according to the DEFINITION of the term.

By the way the contradiction between YOUR definition of democracy and that of a representative democracy is very obvious in the first sentence you quoted from your previous post.

edit: even more so with your post #73 and the fact that you added "legitimately", lol.

“it's your PERSONAL VIEW that the representatives should following public opinion polls on these issues” - If they don't bow to the public on the biggest issues, then they'll either never bow or bow when it's convenient.

“It has NOTHING TO DO with whether or not the U.S. is a reprensentative democracy, which it IS according to the DEFINITION of the term.” - This is your definition since you believe (and u keep saying) that they don't have to listen on these issues, except these are the biggest issues.

“By the way the contradiction between YOUR definition of democracy and that of a representative democracy is very obvious” - Explain my “contradiction” to the point where even I could understand.

“edit: even more so with your post #73 and the fact that you added "legitimately", lol” - Public opinion being ignored on minor issues is legitimate where the politicians think they know best. Ignoring the people when they call for a public option on healthcare is legitimate? Ignoring them when they say they don't want to send their sons to die in a pointless war anymore is legitimate? I insist that it's you with a special and particular view of democracy.

"If they don't bow to the public on the biggest issues, then they'll either never bow or bow when it's convenient."

That's - again - personal opinion right there. Please stop formulating personal opinion left and right and go back to the definition of representative democracy.

"This is your definition since you believe (and u keep saying) that they don't have to listen on these issues, except these are the biggest issues."

It's not my definition, it's the definition of representative democracy. Sorry it doesn't necessarily fit your personal view of when and for what kind of issues elected officials should follow opinion polls. The rest of the sentence is, again, personal opinion/irrelevant to the definition.

"Explain my “contradiction” to the point where even I could understand."
[...]
"Public opinion being ignored on minor issues is legitimate where the politicians think they know best. Ignoring the people when they call for a public option on healthcare is legitimate? Ignoring them when they say they don't want to send their sons to die in a pointless war anymore is legitimate? I insist that it's you with a special and particular view of democracy. "

There's a contradiction because you used two conflicting definitions of democracy without acknowledging it.

First definition: your definition of a representative democracy, a concept you used to describe the setting of your scenario. In the scenario, you declared that it was legitimate to go against the will of the people for decisions on certain minor issues (as opposed to the "bigger issues" that you then referred to). Therefore, according to what you described yourself, these decisions should be said to have been taken in a democratic manner: they are made according to the principles of a representative democracy and do not violate (again, this is all according to you) what you consider to be the "legitimate boundaries" of what can be decided against the will of the people.

Second definition: your own personal definition of what a democracy is, that you apply to these decisions to STILL label them as undemocratic, even though in your own scenario they "belong" to and fit into your representative democracy model.

The two definitions are therefore contradictory. Your definition of democracy clearly excludes all other models that allow decisions to be taken even though a strict majority of the population doesn't approve. This is in direct contradicton with the definition of representative democracy that I've been referring to, and which isn't based on my personal opinion. That you're ok with the contradiction when it concerns minor issues doesn't change anything, your PERSONAL definition of democracy still isn't compatible with what is considered to be representative democracy.

The thing that you don't seem to understand is that I'm not making a judgment on whether or not these decisions are legitimate. All I'm doing is pointing out that you're using your own definition of "democracy" and "democratic".

"There's a contradiction because you used two conflicting definitions of democracy without acknowledging"

I didn't personally define anything. I acknowledged that purest democracy is majority rule. I also acknowledged that politicians could choose to ignore public majority opinion (this is intrinsically undemocratic according to the purest standard) on certain issues (where they think they know best and have good intentions) but that this scenario could still be defined as representative democracy (which is of course different from direct democracy).

On the wikipedia link that you supplied it is written "The representatives form an independent ruling body (for an election period) charged with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest" I insist that denying the public option to the people is NOT in the people's interest. I insist that denying the will of the people to withdraw from the two military occupations is NOT in the people's interest. Therefore the actions of the U.S administrations are not what could honestly be called a "representative democracy", by definition since they are not acting in the people's interest, but corporate interest. This, by definition, is an oligarchy.

Off to bed. I'll reply tomorrow when i can.

First part of your post: ...hence the contradiction. Re-read what I wrote.
Second part:

I insist that denying the public option to the people is NOT in the people's interest.

Opinion.

I insist that denying the will of the people to withdraw from the two military occupations is NOT in the people's interest.

Opinion.

they are not acting in the people's interest, but corporate interest.

Opinion.

That I agree with you on some of your claims regarding what's in the interest of the people doesn't change the fact that it's still opinion. Opponents would give you their own reasons of why they oppose these measures, also based on what they perceive as the interest of the people. What's more, the general mission of the representatives in the system remains the same anyway. Sorry but the definition of a representative democracy applies to the United States.

Another example: France abolished the death penalty in 1981 (a major issue). 63% of the population was at the time for keeping the death penalty. It doesn't change the fact that France is also a representative democracy.

"“I insist that denying the public option to the people is NOT in the people's interest”
Opinion.
“I insist that denying the will of the people to withdraw from the two military occupations is NOT in the people's interest"
Opinion."

Are you being honest? I don't believe so. It's not in the public's interest to be overcharged for healthcare. It's not in the best interest of people to be denied coverage (that they've paid for!) due to rescission and “pre-existing conditions”. Why would they want to be denied healthcare? Or how could being denied be in the public interest? You're crazy. USA spends twice as much per capita as the UK on healthcare, except the UK has 100% coverage and there are 30m Americans who aren't covered (please don't suggest that the mandate has fixed the issue, since it hasn't). These are facts, not opinions.

The wars are not about nation building (this is evident since it's been almost a decade now for both occupations) but are instead about fuelling the military industrial complex, which is in turn about emptying treasury funds into private hands. This is also a fact, and since the people have to pay for all this through taxation, it's obviously not in their best interest. How could anyone argue that making the public poorer is in their best interest?

The lack of campaign finance reform along with the supreme court decision gives an unwarranted advantage to those with the largest corporate support, and since the corporations serve themselves and not the people, it is not in best interests of the public. This is also a fact and the implicit understanding of the inordinate potential for corruption is why it had 80% disapproval. If you're ignorant of U.S politics (and this is certainly no crime so don't get the wrong idea) then stop debating it. Please

Dude. Re-read what he wrote and start thinking about it.

hold these two thoughts in your head

1: "The representatives form an independent ruling body (for an election period) charged with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest" - taken from the definition of representative democracy.

2. The ruling body/administration is not acting in the interest of the people

mash is right, you are not replying to what naghokez wrote.

Poor guy just wanted to vent his frustration over the situation in his country and got sucked in by one of esr´s semantics lovers.

gogo team semantics

Is that the vacuum cleaner I hear, or is it something else, something much more evil?

it's .. umm .... yes. ... umm ... I am cleaning my .... uh ... room.

NO!! Don't come in ... uh ... there is lots of dust .... ummm ... wouldn't want it to spread!

Ill go with the blue pill on this one...

Not true. For me to be wrong someone would have to make a convincing argument that the politicians are acting with the public's best interest in mind when they screw the public over on umpteen different issues, specifically the issues that I've raised. Naghok is being so lenient with politicians that under his definition of representative democracy the politicians are basically elected kings, since whenever they act against the people's interests and it's highlighted, well that's just opinion. It's observably true that corporate interest won on all of the issues I mentioned

no, he doesn't.

It's pretty much like this: As long as the politicians are supposed to act in the people's interest it is called called a democracy (yes, there are some other factors, but it's the main one).
It desn't matter whether they actually do it, whether they think they do it but don't (which imo mostly the case when something goes wrong) or they don't do it at all.

The name of the system is still democracy.

hehe.

"It desn't matter whether they actually do it" - The intention is important. If they intend to do what's right by the people (even if they go against opinion polls) that's representative democracy. If they act in a way that they know benefits anyone other than the public then it's no longer fitting to call it democracy since it falls outside of the definition.

no, it really doesn't! You may call it a failed democracy, a fake democracy or something else. But the system itself is still called a democracy.

Besides that, I think the intend is a very complex factor, as it is often very hard to tell if some really wanted to go against the public interest or whether he though he knew what was right. I am for example convinced that Hitler really thought he was acting in the interest of the people.

One thing is clear to me, though. When looking at complex problems the opinion of the majority is not necessarily in their own interest, as they almost never are aware of all factors. e.g.:
The financial crisis in Greece. The German public is mostly opposed to giving money. However, I am certain many do not know that Germans banks that are relevant to our system hold many billions worth of Greek bond, and therefore Germany will give money either way. I couldn't say which path is the best one to go, but going with the public vote is pretty much the same as tossing a coin. You need to be lucky.


But I'm digressing. Germany will stay a democracy with voted representatives no matter how they decide.

"very hard to tell if some really wanted to go against the public interest or whether he though he knew what was right"
It really isn't as tough as u think a lot of the time. just consider u.s healthcare. Health insurance companies gave millions of dollars to politicians through lobbyists to kill the single payer and public option proposals. the politicians can't be so stupid that they fail to see the vested interest. They don't care since they're getting paid though these corporate "political donations" which are quite frankly bribes and now the supreme court has made political bribery legal by giving companies first amendment rights. lmfao

edit* - "now the supreme court has made (corporate)* political bribery legal by giving companies first amendment rights".

well, I think it is a lot harder to tell that you make it seem.
Bribes don't say everything. Would you not do something that you think is right if you got money for it?

Also, the money usually goes to the parties, so the politician might even think that he needs this money in order to stay in power (or get it back) so he can follow his agenda later. Making accepting a "donation" a small flaw that is acceptable in the public interest. Yeah, it sounds idiotic but people who are convinced of something often behave quite strane when looing from the outside.

Likewise, I would bet that there are politicians in the US (not necessarily the higher ups) who think that getting the oil into the control of US companies makes the country so much stronger in the future that the effort really is in the interest of the people.


Anyway, this are both just our opinions about intentions, so let's leave it at that.

Obama took $1m from Goldman Sachs rofl. If the fraud allegations against Goldman get dropped, or if the penalty for fraud is diminished just for them, I won't sit here and act like it's a coincidence; and listen to some guy saying it's “only your opinion”. So long as we understand that society isn't democratic by default, just because elections are held.

He didn't take it from the company itself. It was from the employees not a PAC. There is a big difference there.

A lot of commentators are (for good reason) contemplating the ethical consequences of these donations. Politicians knowingly act against the people's needs. They are purchased like commodities. Are you telling me that $3.5 Billion spent in 2009 by lobbyists on politicians doesn't buy serious influence? A whopping $544m of that was spent purely by the healthcare industry and the result is the removal of the single payer and public option provisions in the bill. The only two provisions worth a shit. I say $544m bought them a weakened bill. Sorry, I know it's "only my opinion" and all....

Well good thing Obama doesn't control the SEC then.

He doesn't "control"? You're being slightly disingenuous, since he can greatly influence the SEC. Guess who appoints all five of the SEC commissioners. The president

It's still an independent agency that brought charges up against Goldman Sachs in a 3-2 partisan vote with the Republican objecting. So lay off the conspiracy stuff.

The same group that let it happen to begin with, though. =/

A lot of agencies went to shit under the Bush administration. That whole "government is the enemy" thingie tends not to work so well when you are the government.

This started during Clinton.

How so?

It was under his administration that the deregulation began. His campaign was on the idea that regulations which were restricting main street from getting loans/homes were much too strict. Of course, everyone jumped on the bandwagon saying that the regulations were at fault, and Glass-Steagall was repealed.

Bush merely continued what Clinton had started, and Obama is pretty much throwing money on the fire.

Yeah it didn't start under him. Maybe you have heard of President Reagan and Reaganomics? Also if you think ideologues like Phil Gramm just got the idea of deregulation from Clinton you are fucking retarded.

Reagan didn't cause the housing bubble, which was directly responsible for the current recession. That was specifically started during the Clinton administration, and on purpose.

Of course it was.

Also you might want to check out how the SEC actually operates.

Let me show you how two sentences from my previous post answer all you just typed. I wrote:

[1] Opponents would give you their own reasons of why they oppose these measures, also based on what they perceive as the interest of the people. [2] What's more, the general mission of the representatives in the system remains the same anyway.

I'm not going to develop [1] further because my position is pretty clear and it's irrelevant to our discussion anyway, like you'll see in a second. Regarding [2], however, I would like to point out that, in post #81 (your first reply to becks), you underlined three words less than in post #77. It's interesting because it shows precisely where you got the meaning of the definition wrong. In post #81 you wrote:

"The representatives form an independent ruling body (for an election period) charged with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest"

Now let me alter the underlining just a bit:

"The representatives form an independent ruling body (for an election period) charged with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest"

Look at that! It seems that, after all, the definition doesn't actually say the representatives must be acting at all times in the interest of the people. What it says, however, is that the representatives are CHARGED with the responsibility of acting that way. Nothing is said about their actual behaviour in office. See the subtle difference? Like I said, the U.S. therefore clearly qualifies. QED.

By the way, please avoid ad hominems if you still think you need to reply to this. For the record, my thesis is on American politics & American foreign policy, so kindly keep your mouth shut next time instead of implying I don't know what I'm talking about, when you're the one going completely off-topic and not even able to read a sentence properly. And FYI I've been referring to democracy as a regime type from the start, so stop bringing up the rule of the majority which is, again, off-topic and not what I was talking about. Thanks.

edit: seriously I don't mean to sound aggressive but come on... take a step back and take a minute to understand what I'm writing :/ What's more, acknowledging that the U.S. is a representative democracy doesn't prevent you in any way from criticizing the role of certains lobbies, etc.

Ad hom!?!? u must be talking about the ignorance comment. Ignorant doesn't mean stupid, and I was more or less saying that u care more about debating me than learning about the issues. If it helps u, then I'm sorry. On to the actual debate:

" "The representatives form an independent ruling body (for an election period) charged with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest"

Now let me alter the underlining just a bit:

"The representatives form an independent ruling body (for an election period) charged with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest"

Look at that!"

I think it a bit odd that u think the same exact sentence means something different by moving the underlining. It's clear that political responsibility (however u look at that sentence!) is to the people, and not the corporations. Right now politicians are the paid employees of corporations so of course they're going to screw the people on any issue that has enough lobbyist money spent on it. Again, if politicians and corporate interests collude, by definition it's an oligarchy.

I think it a bit odd that u think the same exact sentence means something different by moving the underlining. It's clear that political responsibility (however u look at that sentence!) is to the people, and not the corporations. Right now politicians are the paid employees of corporations so of course they're going to screw the people on any issue that has enough lobbyist money spent on it. Again, if politicians and corporate interests collude, by definition it's an oligarchy.

At this point I'm seriously beginning to wonder if you're actually paying attention to what I'm writing, because it's getting ridiculous. I never said moving the underlining changed the meaning of the sentence. I moved the underlining to point out which part of the sentence you should have paid more attention to in order to understand the sentence properly. I then proceeded to explain its actual meaning as opposed to how you understood it. What you just wrote shows you still don't get it.

If you're charged with looking after my kid, and u don't, then you've failed in living up to the responsibility that u were charged with. The word "charge" denotes instruction; it certainly doesn't imply that u can wander off for a couple of hours and still pretend that the responsibility is being met. If I'm a politician, and I get a nice big "political contribution" of around $200,000 to fight a specific proposal on an upcoming bill, and I recognise that by doing so I am actually hurting the public, given that my responsibility is to the public, I am in fact failing in my duty. By definition

"charge (chärj)
v. charged, charg·ing, charg·es
v.tr.
1. To impose a duty, responsibility, or obligation on"

They are not living up to their duty/responsibility/obligation if they knowingly work for corporate interests to the detriment of the public. There are well known exceptions like Alan Grayson and Al Franken who's care for the public is evident. These men are hideously outnumbered by those who see politics as an opportunity to get rich, and that's why there's a revolving door between the corporate lobbies and public office. To be "charged" with a responsibility does not imply that u can be selective about when and where u choose to uphold it. I've listed several enormous issues where corporate interest won out.

where they are fighting for the public cause, I'd rather it was on the issues that affect many, e.g. healthcare, war, but they aren't

Does the definition say they are charged with that responsibility? Yes.
Does the definition say anything about how they actually behave in reality in regards to their responsibility? No.

How do you not see the difference?...

Take your example of a babysitter charged with looking after a kid. Let's say he does a terrible job at that, watches TV all night, and when the parents come home they see their kid got electrocuted in the bathroom while he was busy watching TV. They're going to be mad at the babysitter because regardless of how he did the job, HE WAS THE BABYSITTER. A terrible, terrible babysitter, that didn't properly do the job he was charged with doing, sure. But just because he didn't do the job as he was supposed to doesn't mean he wasn't the babysitter.

If the definition had said "The representatives are the ones who act in the people's interest" you might have had a point. But that's not what it says.

The politician is a representative of the public (hence the term: representative democracy). The politician is still a politician, that was never in question but he stops being a public representative the moment he starts representing corporate interest. This is where things stray from the definition and it's time to call a spade a spade. If the majority of politicians had the public well-being in mind then it'd still be democracy, but the whole republican party and an awkward number of democrats have sided with corporate interest

Dude seriously... Do you understand the difference between the following two sentences in terms of how representatives are defined?

1) The representatives are charged with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest
2) The representatives are the ones who act in the people's interest

Yes or no? Do you see that there is a difference? Can you put in words for me what the difference is? Or do you still not see it?

1) is the definition, 2) is what you think the definition is. Why are you even using the term politician? It's not in the definition. The definition says the representative are CHARGED with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest, IT DOES NOT SAY THEY HAVE TO BE ACTING IN THE PEOPLE'S INTEREST TO BE REPRESENTATIVES.

elected kings eh? "we have signed up for this responsibility, but we don't have to honour it and some people will still call it democracy in an attempt at double think"

"IT DOES NOT SAY THEY HAVE TO BE ACTING IN THE PEOPLE'S INTEREST TO BE REPRESENTATIVES. "

REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PUBLIC. jesus. did u think the definition was formed with corporate interest implied?

http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=1872980#pid1872980

Do you see the difference or do you not?

what's the fucking point of being charged with a responsibility u don't have to honour? comment #130

Not relevant to the definition.

edit: btw becks already pointed it out to you in posts #91 in #94.

hahaha. if u say so of course

The definition says so.

the definition says that the responsibility doesn't have to be met? mental gymnastics

The definition says nothing about whether or not the responsibility is actually met in reality. It only says they are charged with that responsibility. Again, http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=1872980#pid1872980 (you don't seem to be getting it...).

you're not getting it! comment #135. around and around the mulberry bush

Since you're making the claim that the definition says something about the responsibility actually having to be met in reality, the burden of proof lies with you. I pointed out that the definition does not say anything about that.

"not necessarily always according to their wishes, but with enough authority to exercise swift and resolute initiative in the face of changing circumstances"

enough's enough x)

and god is god

I love that song :p

great, <3

must see the movie also then (inextricably linked in my brain) :D

They're charged with the responsibility in the first place. This, in and of itself indicates the responsibility be met. The responsibility isn't being charged for fun, and subsequently they're NOT elected kings with the immunity against having to work for the public interest in actuality. This is an assumption u made that isn't explicitly expressed anywhere but in your own psyche. The burden of proof thing was really cute, since I'm working with the logical extension of responsibility being charged and being met. You're the one with the great burden of having to explain an interpretation that is unique. You understand the consequences of everyone holding your interpretation? No actual democracy occurs, yet we go on calling it such, like a kind of mass demonstration of doublethink. No more from me on this

Being charged with the responsibility and the responsibility being met are two different things. They can be bad representatives, but they're still representatives. You don't seem capable of understanding the difference between the two sentences I gave earlier (or, which is more likely, you don't want to).

"They can be bad representatives, but they're still representatives"

WHO THEY REPRESENT MATTERS IF WE WANT TO CALL IT REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. IT'S NOT REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY IF THEY REPRESENT CORPORATE INTEREST U LOON

Being charged with a responsibility is not the same as actually acting according to the responsibility. Do you understand this? Yes or no?

I'll repeat my previous example. Let's say we define a babysitter as "someone charged with the responsibility of looking after one or several kids in the absence of the parents/guardians". Now imagine two parents hire a guy and charge him with the responsibility of looking after their kid for the night, while they're gone. He's a babysitter according to the definition I just gave, agreed? Now during the said night, the babysitter watches TV, DOESN'T look after the kid and the kid ends up getting electrocuted because the babysitter didn't do his job properly.
The babysitter DIDN'T do what he was charged with the responsibility of doing. But why can he be held accountable? Precisely because he's the one who was CHARGED with the responsibility of doing the job. Just because he didn't DO it doesn't mean he wasn't CHARGED with the responsibility of doing it. See the difference?

It's the same in the definition of representative I just gave you. The representatives are CHARGED with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest, but the definition doesn't say if they actually do or not.

It's crazy because you really don't seem to get that I AM NOT SAYING IT'S OK not to act in the people's interest. The debate is simply not relevant to the definition of a representative democracy that I've been referring to from the start.

If you could only stop arguing about the definition of a representative democracy and move on, we could start agreeing on what IS wrong in the system, and there I share some of your views. For example, the representatives are supposedly elected (this is one of the mechanisms supposed to insure they act in the people's interest, otherwise they're not elected again), but we can both criticize how some are more favoured than others in elections, etc.

“It's crazy because you really don't seem to get that I AM NOT SAYING IT'S OK not to act in the people's interest” - That was never my argument. My argument centres around the definition of representative democracy, where the political class must represent the public. Serious lack of public representation = undemocratic, BY DEFINITION

Reply to the first half of my post instead of dodging it, thanks.

the babysitter analogy sucks (and i regret ever making it) since the babysitter is still a babysitter no matter how much they suck, and the politician is still a politician no matter how much they suck. but for hopefully the last time, it cannot be said that the public is being represented when they observably are not.

"If you could only stop arguing about the definition of a representative democracy" - BUT YOU'RE ARGUING THAT THE USA IS A REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. What goes through your mind when u read my comment: "Serious lack of public representation = undemocratic, BY DEFINITION"? you're soo fucking obstinate

if a lawyer represents you in court and does an exceptionally bad job and gets you into jail even though you are innocent, did he not represent you?

A lawyer is what his position is, not what he does. Politician is the position, representative is the role.

does a lawyer represent a defendant or doesn't he?

is a politician supposed to represent the people or isn't he?

Yes, the function of a lawyer is to represent you. Ergo, if he isn't representing you, he is a bad lawyer. You don't refer to the function as the position, as the position is DEFINED by the function.

but even if he is a bad lawyer he still legally represents you.

Also, in German we have two terms: one for just lawyer the job and one for the function something like "defense lawyer". This is similar to the job politician and the function representative of the people.

the politicians get elected to be a representative of the people, just like a lawyer gets chosen by someone to represent him.
Im both cases, that grant to politician and the lawyer powers to act either in the name of the people or in the name of the defendant. Even if they do an extremely bad job or even sell you out, they still have those powers and do represent you.


I actually get the feeling you and reslox (him even more) misunderstand what the "representative" in representative democracy means. It's there to make the distinction to a direct democracy, where there are no representatives. It conveys that the system has such positions, it is not about evaluating how well that position is used.

"Even if they do an extremely bad job or even sell you out, they still have those powers and do represent you."
but if he sells u out, then u weren't represented. It's representation by name and name only. In fact, selling your client out would lead to a retrial and the lawyer in question being disbarred as it's a serious breach of duty. The politicians are committing a serious breach of duty when corporate interest wins out.

"It's representation by name and name only"

YES!

and that is what naghokez and I have been saying all along!

What's in a name?

did the "breach of duty" bit confuse u?

oh goddamnit, it is not an evaluation of how well they do. You really need to get that into your head.

the term is jzst there for distinguishing two concepts:

direct democracy -> no representative, direct votes etc.
representative democracy -> people vote for someone to decide for them

THAT IS IT! nothing else. Whatever else you try to interpret into that term is simply not there.

You also have:

monarchy -> someone inherits the postion to make decisions
dictatorship -> someone takes the position to make decisions
etc.

what's in a name?

an idea or concept.

But what is not in a name is the actual question here. representative has more than one meaning, even though they are related.
A technical term does not usually include all the meanings you can attribute to it.

To use vedic's weird example:
A superconductor does not mean it's a material that is really good at conducting a symphony.

Likewise, all the meaning of representative in "representative democravy" is that someone is selected to get the powers to represent. Not the meaning that he actually has to do a good job to be a represesentative.
That's where my lawyer example comes in: If you select a lawyer to represent you, he is your representative until you tell him to not do it anymore. It it inconsequential is he sell you out or represents you well. It only stops when you say "stop", not a second earlier.

Just because you don't know the legal process, and you hire a bad lawyer who doesn't actually represent your interests, it doesn't mean he represents you - it just means that he's your lawyer.

go ask a judge if a lawyer does represent you when he is sitting next to you in court and making mistakes.

I represent myself in court.

with your approach to talking to people you will do a bad job and by your understanding won't be representing yourself.

Since I've won the only court case I've ever been involved in, I'd say I do a pretty good job for myself.

If the judge comes to know that your lawyer is in reality representing anyone but you, it goes for retrial. By the same token, if a politician is known to be representing anything but the public interest they should suffer the same fate as the lawyer. Removed from duty.

yes, that is correct.

But in that timeframe they still did the representation.

the representation of who? the client? no they didn't

you really need to look at the webster link I gave you again.

but according to your own example the lawyer didn't represent the client's interests. They were only seen-to-be representing, but not actually doing so. The reality of the situation is important else they wouldn't get disbarred. The words carry real life expectation, else the words are meaningless. What's in a name? "the concept" u say. If the concept doesn't adhere to the name, then the name has no meaning. The word "represent" has no meaning when u say that real/actual representation doesn't need to take place for one to call it representation

you are looking at it the wrong way.

you made up your own idea of what representation should look like and deem anything else as wrong.

and that is exacty why it's futile to discuss this with you.

"you made up your own idea of what representation should look like"
you mean that i insist on the word "representation" carrying it's present day dictionary defined meaning? Yes of course I do. What's the point in defining words otherwise?

the point is that it does not have one single meaning.

Just to keep this straight, the argument is currently: "You need to look at the exact definition of representative democracy, but don't look at the exact definition of representative."

Bill Clinton had an equally compelling argument with "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

you are not a person this can be discussed with.

Just try to understand that there are words that have several meanings.

Which meaning of the word "meaning" do you mean?

you suck at jokes.

Should I be insulted, or did your post have a different meaning?

If he doesn't represent your interests, he doesn't represent you. In such a case, saying that he is poorly representing you is semantics. He's a poor lawyer, but he isn't representing you, he is representing himself.

Getting away from the lawyer analogy you made...

Since there is no representation of the people, this clearly invalidates any attempt to call the participation of politicians as democratically representative.

The term is represent, as in: a defendant is representet by his defense lawyer.

It really is that simple, all the "good job", "bad job" stuff you and reslox keep bringing up is completely irrelevant.

But, while it might be possible to convince reslox, that certainly isn't true for you.

You're using "represent" in the socially lazy way, which isn't it's actual definition. I'm not here to argue semantics, as I'm merely defending the definition of representation - which you happen to be misrepresenting.

The performance of a lawyer merely determines his worth as a lawyer, which can be a case of opinion or knowledge (or lack thereof) of his actions, or the legal system. This, of course, may or may not have anything to do with actual view on representation, and has nothing to do with the literal term representation.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/represent

"the" definition, eh?

Yes, the definition.

I just thought a bit about your approach to evaluate an existing system, i.e. if the politicians act in the public interest it's democracy if they don't it's not a democracy.

How exactly would that work?

Say you have a standard system where people vote for those they want to represent them (or lesser of two evils or whatever, doesn't matter).
Of course the black and white view would be:
self-interest -> not democratic
public interest -> democratic.

BUT
at what point do you judge?
What if they act in the public interest in the first year and they don't in the second year? Does the existing system switch between being a democracy and not a democracy, too?

Of course there are also always more than one politician. What if only one acts in self-interest and the others don't, is that a democracy or not? Or is it more a 50/50 deal?


So yeah, I think your approach even if I wuold agree with it, is completely pointless as "the politicians" are not nearly as uniform as you seem to imply and also becaue often enough corporate and public interests match.
Especially since almost everybody depends on corporations to live their lives and many even work for them.

“What if they act in the public interest in the first year and they don't in the second year?”
First year is a working democracy, second year isn't (by definition). Assuming the whole political class move together instantly at the end of the first year of course; a large political shift would obviously be more gradual in reality. It's your hypothetical scenario so I'll play along.

“Of course there are also always more than one politician. What if only one acts in self-interest and the others don't, is that a democracy or not?”
Yes it's a democracy in a system such as the usa's with distributed and deferred power. Even if the president works for corporate interest, if all other politicians have the public interest in mind the president alone wouldn't be able to do much for corporate interests since bills must be voted in to law and he'd obviously lose whenever it counts.

“Or is it more a 50/50 deal?”

In a 50/50 split I'd argue that the public interest can sometimes be met, but there will be far too many instances where it isn't and I'd be reluctant to call that a legitimate representative democracy. It's not purely about numbers, it depends too on the political structure and how power is deferred and to whom, and what their motivations are.

“often enough corporate and public interests match.”

Your statement is something you'd have to have faith in. Did public and corporate interest align when the car companies fought the inception of seat belt regulations? Did they align when the public called for a public option healthcare bill? Did they align when the public opposed the escalation of war? Corporations aren't cuddly entities that empathise with people. Their primary responsibility is the balance sheet. From outsourcing jobs to other countries, to allowing workers to die in a mine because proper safety precautions were more expensive than hiring new workers to replace the dead ones

why do you state single examples of corporate and public interest colliding, when my point was they always align but only "often"?

/edit

And yes I am aware the empathy is usually not the trademark of corporations, however, being evil isn't either.

Is it not in the interest of a corporation that the people are well fed and healthy?
Is it not in the interest of a corporation that kids an students get a good education?
Is it not in the interest of a corporation that the people have money so they can buy their products?
Is it not in the interest of a corporation to have renegrative enrgies so they won't depend on depletig ressources?

And yes I agree corporations could treat their employees better, but there is one problem.
If one corporation spends more on their employees they will have to make their product more expensive, and then we, the people, will punish them for that by buying the cheaper product of the competition. If that goes on the corporation might become insolvent and fail, and that doesn't serve it's employees at all.
(yes, it is a simplified example as better benefits will get you better moral and more qualified employees, which is why companies of such benefits, but there is a limit to what you can gain)
However, if the government were to impose a certain minimm wage or health care system, all the companies have to do it, and the company that would have done it anyway is not at a disadvantage.
Also all companies then profit from having healthier employees ann more customers as they have more money.

"And yes I am aware the empathy is usually not the trademark of corporations, however, being evil isn't either."
Be careful not to put words in my mouth. I never said that corporations were "evil". They are in fact amoral. Not moral, not immoral, but without morals.

“Is it not in the interest of a corporation that the people are well fed and healthy?”
Their only concern is whether or not u are able to work. Don't confuse this with empathy.
“Is it not in the interest of a corporation that kids an students get a good education?”
They're not concerned with the breadth of your educational enlightenment. If you only need six key skills to do your job, then that's all u need to know as far as the company is concerned.
“Is it not in the interest of a corporation that the people have money so they can buy their products?”
Yes, but if it means that u end up buying all your shit with interest bearing credit then so be it. Hardly altruistic.
“Is it not in the interest of a corporation to have regenerative energies so they won't depend on depleting resources?”
Yes, because it makes good business sense with all the upcoming energy price fluctuation. Not because they're tree huggers.
“If one corporation spends more on their employees they will have to make their product more expensive, and then we, the people, will punish them for that by buying the cheaper product of the competition"
There is a limit to how cheaply any commodity can be made; below this point, either the environment or the workers must suffer to make it cheaper still, and this where regulation comes in. It was understood that the free market does not solve everything the very moment the first ever piece of legislation was brought into law. Arguably the greatest president the USA ever had was Theodore Roosevelt who was known as the “Trust Buster” for the extent to which he regulated.
“If that goes on the corporation might become insolvent and fail, and that doesn't serve it's employees at all.”
I hope you're not arguing that abused workers should thank their lucky stars that they have employment!

“Is it not in the interest of a corporation that the people are well fed and healthy?”
Their only concern is whether or not u are able to work. Don't confuse this with empathy.
“Is it not in the interest of a corporation that kids an students get a good education?”
They're not concerned with the breadth of your educational enlightenment. If you only need six key skills to do your job, then that's all u need to know as far as the company is concerned.
“Is it not in the interest of a corporation that the people have money so they can buy their products?”
Yes, but if it means that u end up buying all your shit with interest bearing credit then so be it. Hardly altruistic.
“Is it not in the interest of a corporation to have regenerative energies so they won't depend on depleting resources?”
Yes, because it makes good business sense with all the upcoming energy price fluctuation. Not because they're tree huggers.

not that I agree with all your remarks (e.g. independence from natural ressources has many strategic advantages) but at this time it's irrelevant.

I never claimed coporations do things simply because of good will, (although I guess you might be surprised that managers can be human beings who treat their subordinates well and care about them ;) )

What I did claim was is that the goals of people: health, money, education, environment and corporations often match, even if it is for different reasons.

"What I did claim was is that the goals of people: health, money, education, environment and corporations often match, even if it is for different reasons."
Yes, to the extent that it's good for business, and not a single inch further. The individual often has greater aspiration than that

so?

the babysitter analogy sucks (and i regret ever making it) since the babysitter is still a babysitter no matter how much they suck, and the politician is still a politician no matter how much they suck. but for hopefully the last time, it cannot be said that the public is being represented when they observably are not.

The analogy doesn't suck, it works perfectly (with how I defined a babysitter). You're only discarding it now because it shows where you got the definition wrong.

The babysitter is charged with the responsibility of looking after the kid.
The body of representatives is charged with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest.
If the babysitter doesn't look after the kid properly, it doesn't change the fact that he was charged with the responsibility of looking after the kid.
If the body of representatives doesn't act in the people's interest, it doesn't change the fact that it was charged with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest.

Since the definition for a representative democracy only says the body of representatives is charged with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest, and does not specify how the representatives actually act in reality, the definition applies. You can disagree with the definition, say it's a bad definition, say the definition should be about defining the body of representatives according to how it actually acts while in office so that they aren't temporary "elected kings" like you said, no problem. The definition can be criticized. But it's still the definition of a representative democracy.

You still haven't answered the questions I asked you directly at the beginning of my previous post, by the way.

"If you could only stop arguing about the definition of a representative democracy" - BUT YOU'RE ARGUING THAT THE USA IS A REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY.

Yes I am, and I'm right according to the definition. What I meant by that sentence is that the system can still be criticized after you acknowledge it's a representative democracy. It doesn't take anything away from the points you're trying to make.

What goes through your mind when u read my comment: "Serious lack of public representation = undemocratic, BY DEFINITION"? you're soo fucking obstinate

The censored version of what goes through my mind when I read that is "this guy does not know how to read the definition I provided him with".

take a lesson from becks. he's reading and understanding

uhm, I've been reading and understanding and agreeing with Naghokez' posts.

Key difference is you're asking questions that are the result of actually having read and understood. Unlike Naghok.

...said the brick wall. Try addressing my points before you attempt to give lessons, since you're obviously in no position to lecture people on reading :) At least your posts are good for laughs though ^^

u have no real points so i'm going to stop banging my head against the wall. if u don't understand that no public representation = no democracy according to the definition, then i really can't help u. same goes for becks.

6 a (1) : to take the place of in some respect (2) : to act in the place of or for usually by legal right (3) : to manage the legal and business affairs of <athletes represented by top lawyers and agents> b : to serve especially in a legislative body by delegated authority usually resulting from election

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/represent

"to serve especially in a legislative body by delegated authority usually resulting from election"
Exactly, and who are the politicians charged with serving? The people. So according to the definition you pasted, if they don't serve the people then there is no public representation. No public representation = no democracy according to the definition here: The representatives form an independent ruling body (for an election period) charged with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest

Exactly, and who are the politicians charged with serving? The people

no they are not it is written there very clearly that they serve the legislative body. No mention of people. Read it again if you want.
And you yourself gave countless examples of how the legislative body sometimes works against the people.

Officials in a dictatorship also serve a legislative body.

“it is written there very clearly that they serve the legislative body”
Read it again, I'll help you. It says: “to serve especially in a legislative body”. They are in the legislative body; they are not external to it, they are it.

“Exactly, and who are the politicians charged with serving? The people”
“no they are not”
but it says so here that they are: “charged with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest“

“Officials in a dictatorship also serve a legislative body”
The wording needs work since the political officials collectively are the legislative body, but I'm glad u brought this up. Officials in a dictatorship do not serve the public interest, but they are still political officials. See why it's important that they act in the people's interest without it being some meaningless charge that u insist doesn't need to be lived up to in order to be called democracy? It's not like I haven't mentioned oligarchy before in this thread. Just combine the definitions of “represent” and “representative democracy” and it's done.

so they are charged with the responsibility. (reminds you of the babysitter example, doesn't it...)

it doesn't mean they stop serving the legislative body as soon as they don't fulfill the responsibility.
they still serve in the legislative body.

anyway, I'm running out of ideas how to make this clear to you, so I give up.

"it doesn't mean they stop serving the legislative body as soon as they don't fulfill the responsibility."
Just being in office isn't enough. As u pointed out, political officials in a dictatorship are still there acting as political officials, but it's not a democracy if they're not working in the public interest. What's the difference between a so-called "representative democracy" with officials working for corporate interest and corporatism? The name must reflect reality, for if the name doesn't fit then the name loses meaning. We cannot call it something which it is not in actuality

it not a dictatorship because the leaders are not elected and the public gets no way to influence decision.
what you are saying sould like that if officials in a dictatorship acted in the people's interest it would magically turn into a democracy. lol.

"what you are saying sould like that if officials in a dictatorship acted in the people's interest it would magically turn into a democracy."

Blows your mind doesn't it? They'd have to hold elections first in order to meet the definition requirements, but it's only a dictatorship if the dictator(s) act in their own interests. Once the dictator(s) begin acting solely in the public interest, then they are now elected public representatives and we have a new representative democracy on our hands. They are still "dictators" in the sense that they do not have to follow opinion polls, but the definition of representative democracy merely requires them to be motivated in the well-being of the public in addition to holding elections at regular intervals.

you really got one weird understanding of political systems. quite unique, too...

Just following the dictionary definitions

nope, you are following what you interpret into those definitions. there is a difference.

for example:

the definition of democracy does not say: any form of government that has the people's interest in mind.
not at all.
additionally the definition of dictatorship does not depend on who profits from the system or anything like that.

anyway, this is just tiresome and I'll quit now.

see ya.

"the definition of democracy does not say: any form of government that has the people's interest in mind"

There are many different forms of representative democracy. Each country with their particular type. The UK's head of state is a monarch and is appointed by birthright. It's still a representative democracy though. Representative democracy is one where elections are held and the representatives work in the public interest. Nothing more

For the above scenario, "The representatives form an independent ruling body (for an election period)" - check

"charged with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest, but not as their proxy representatives" - check

I have shown several times that you are the one not understanding the definition of a representative democracy :) I have provided several examples to illustrate this. Our entire exchange stems from the fact that you don't understand what "charged with" means. That's it. It's the one important part of the definition that you fail to understand properly, and it's why you're wrong.

I have addressed this in all of my posts, and each and every single time you replied you showed you still did not understand what I was pointing out to you (sometimes you conveniently went off on a tangent/dodged the matter completely). You even quoted the definition of "to charge", still failing to see why you were interpretating it wrong. It's simple English and I can't make it more obvious to you really. You fail to see the difference these two ways of defining a person X:

1) Person X is the one charged with the responsibility of doing A.
2) Person X is the one that does A.

(If you want, proposition 2) could also be "Person X is the one that is charged with the responsibility of doing A AND that does A")

This is of course not specific to our example, it can be applied in an infinite number of situations (in our case, replace "Person X" by "Body of representatives" etc). In the first case, person X is defined as the one charged with a responsibility. NOWHERE in the definition does it say that Person X has to ACT accordingly to that responsibility to be defined as Person X. It is simply not specified in the definition: being imposed/charged with a responsibility is _fundamentally different_ from acting according to that responsibility. You absolutely need to understand this if you are to understand the definition and the entire argument. Again, this fundamental difference has nothing to do with me, it's in the English language. I did not invent it.
In the second case, it does say that Person X has to do A in order to be defined as Person X. You're incorrectly taking the first definition as the second one. That's all there is to it.

Again, this is simple English. You simply need to pay attention to the words you're using. At this point I don't think you're going to ever take a step back and reflect on what I'm saying (all I'm doing is pointing out a distinction that exists in the English language), but I would be very pleasantly surprised if you did (in which case, if you read my posts again, you'll see them in a different light). I expect you to completely dodge the matter/use a straw man/go off on a tangent though.

edit 7th of May: I see you haven't logged in for a few days, so instead of bumping this when you return you can send me an iMsg if you want to keep discussing this :)

So... an object is a concept, regardless of it's actual application to the concept?... they can represent, even without representing! Like how rubber is a superconductor, even though it isn't!

God, you're dense.

what a bad example.

For an equally bad argument.

wtf I tried to pluss you with the other hand too and it doesn't let me do it, saying smth like "you have already judged this post"
it's a fucked up world we're living in

congress can overturn a presidential veto.

How can the interviewer keep such a straight and honest face when talking to these people? This gives a whole new meaning to Thompson's and Orwell's corruption of language.

the guy with the cross gave the most sane answer "I've never been here I just wanted to see the white house."

[+] cos of the neo-age hippy who's like "i just wanted to check out the capital"... "Hey you guys wanna sign the cross?" :D

i feel weird watching that.

South Park's episode was censored last night.

Yes, we're retarded, and yes, our country is fucked.

Sounds like the people from my Texas government class.
fml

first of all, the fuck is a government class and second, if you fucking immigrants come somewhere the least you can do is show some respect for the goddam country you're in.

Yeah, respect the natives!

Oh wait..

go back to india?

yeehaw send dem indians back to india. we americans know they failed when they flew from india to america to compete witih chris columbus (the first american). chris had the british and canadians help us blast those indians back to india or just out west till america and mexico teammed up to beat them onto reservations. then the mexicans were like "we helped you, we want texas" so chris said "naw naw naw" at which point the french helped us gain our independence once and for all. then george washington took over for chris and dat der is when america truely began.

ugh ok

back to the reservation, probably. If the redneck in the picture can even pronounce "reservation"

Hahahahha pwnt

i feel for you mayn. they probably all think you're a socialist.

Yeah this is the problem with the world... people with strong beliefs substantiated by nothing.

i just searched on youtube for glen beck after seeing 2 of these videos.

i honestly got sick.. is this guy for real?

why hasn't anyone punched the guy, and then punched him again and again and again and again, until he doesnt move anymore.. what a prick

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-march-1...ibertarian

Best Beck parody ever.

"Noone tells us when to masturate!!!"

USA needs another civil war to purge all the retards again.. it's a crying shame watching these videos

In a civil war, these idiots would win with numbers. =(

oh right.. it figures then

and guns.

I the end it is not a fight of intelligence, but morality. Americans have been lied to since the beginning, the biggest lie is that they are somehow superior and should feel that way. This is dangerous rethoric. Everyone is well advised to not think of himself as superior, that road will ienvitably lead to immoral behavior. But I get why they are told that lie, because populism doesn't get easier then that..

I can't imagine that it's any different in other countries, though.

True, I just perceive it as if americans are overdoing it (as with plenty of other things), which I see mostly as a result of the american media. As I think about it, I really don't know why it is like that.

it's not, just look at jamerio.

Those people are being manipulated big-time. It's not their fault they are stupid (well a little, but anyways), so we should blame the manipulators, not the manipulated.

yeah, others cant be blamed for being stupid, so let's just blame ourselves. or wait, that is too hard too, let's just forget about it and do nothing at all

If you want to put blame on anyone, how about the parents? But this is not about blame, it is about mass manipulating, and it is oh so obvious that fox news, the republicans in general and a few head people are behind it (well those clips make that painfully obvious, but I did know that before watching them so it is not a big shocker).

So to repeat myself, don't hate the manipulated, they can't help it. Hate the people who manipulate them.

i havent watched the crap as the preview images already look stupid enough not to make me click them

but apart from that, fox news is still the best channel in the US mainstream media when it comes to political debate. they often have peter schiff on, they have freedom watch with judge napolitano that covers EVERYTHING criminally the US government does, i think even the drug trade in afghanistan, and for sure that wall street bankers are running the country.. glenn beck can be an idiot too, but at least he speaks out against part of the crimes the goverment are commiting

and if you dont realize that the US (and virtually every other western states as well) is basically a 1-party system with the illusion of more than 1 choice, you have been manipulated or are stupid as well

through away your TV (i did so about 7 years ago), and start listening to the right stuff. if you're interested in the economy, i recommend kingworldnews.com

what choices are you missing in western political parties?

you should ask that question to yourself. as long as you need to come up with answers

well but I'm asking you

I really hope you aren't defending Fox, as you'd lose all credibility.

The healthcare bill is a good example of how extremely limited the "they're all the same" thesis is. Or did you not notice that the Republicans and the Democrats were not exactly in agreement on the matter?

btw, lol @ applauding Fox News and Glenn Beck.

so? lots of members of both parties also voted for ron paul's audit the fed bill. it's because people jammed the congressmen's telephone lines and told them so. and in case of obamacare it was clear the republican party would oppose it. come on, they cant play that game in broad daylight.. if most of them agreed to obamacare there would have been virtually no difference between parties and it would have been easy to figure out for anybody

point is, both parties couldnt care less, or know less about people's rights and how much they indebt the nation. there is no being conservative or even responsible

and they run the same program on war. they run the same program on basic economics (keynesianism = spend spend spend, let's give us some money and devalue yours). they run the same program on obeying wall street & the federal reserve bankers. they run the same program on not obeying constitutional restraints (patriot act, executive orders, ...). and they run the same program on being ignorant political whores who think they dont have to explain themselves to anybody and have to get approval from anybody and can basically do anything they want

how can anyone not get upset?

So, according to you, when the two parties vote somewhat together it shows they're the same, and when they do the exact opposite and bitterly oppose each other it... still shows they're the same.

Do you realise that there's no way facts can possibly disprove your little theory since you'll just twist them in order to fit it?

If the two parties are so bitterly opposed then why is it the dems make soo many concessions to the GOP? After all they don't need any GOP votes to pass any bills since they could use reconciliation to push certain bills through once they get a 51 vote majority. This, allied with executive orders from the president and they could get everything done with only 51 votes. That's how the Bush government used to roll. Just so u know, dems actually take more lobbyist cash than republicans and following the money is almost as important as following their actions.

Technically, you can't use the reconciliation process for everything, and it does not really help in regards to public opinion. See how it was used for the reconciliation bill and not for the actual heath care bill itself. Regardless, how can you argue that the two parties weren't bitterly opposed on the health care bill?... The fact that they DID use the reconcialiation process clearly shows it, which you just indirectly admitted yourself.

"how can you argue that the two parties weren't bitterly opposed on the health care bill?" - because the republicans didn't want either the single payer or public option proposals to make it on to the final bill, and the democrats accommodated them. That's a fact now. Very unfortunate, and to describe the two parties as "bitterly opposed" is overstating it when democrats concede as much as they do, and not just on healthcare. Dems are either afraid of the fight or they're not as ideologically opposed as some would assume. I don't have any firm conviction either way but the argument is worth making

The fact that they had to _concede_ some things to the Republicans is in itself proof that the two parties aren't the same otherwise they would not have needed to concede anything in the first place. This is simple logic.
I'm not saying they're worlds apart ideologically, I'm just saying it's dumb to say they're the same.

They passed the bill without a single republican vote, so why concede to republican demands to remove single payer and public option? Because there were democrats voting with republicans against the bill. Not so much bitterly opposed as both worried about political contributions (which totalled $544m in 2009 alone) from the healthcare industry drying up. No matter how much two employees might hate each other, if they have the same employer, u will catch them working together

Yes, there there were democrats voting with republicans against... OTHER DEMOCRATS. So, like I said, you can't say everyone's the same. And again, regardless of why they had to concede some stuff from the original bill, the very fact that they had to means different people wanted different things. QED.

"you can't say everyone's the same" - did u think I meant carbon copies or that they were barely opposed?

My original post from which stems this discussion:

The healthcare bill is a good example of how extremely limited the "they're all the same" thesis is.

I'm glad we agree.

They're not diametrically opposed! There would would have been unanimous opposition against the bill if it had single payer and public option. Even the pos bill that did pass barely did so: 219 votes to 212

Good thing I didn't say they were diametrically opposed then.

no, u only said "bitterly opposed".lol

Regarding the health care bill, yes. I didn't say it was every single Democrat vs every single Republican, but overall it's obvious the two parties were globally opposed on the matter. You admitted yourself the bill barelly passed since some Democrats did side with the Republicans against the bill, while the vast majority of the Democrats voted for it.
edit: in case you didn't notice, I still wrote they were bitterly opposed. I don't care what you "take".

"I didn't say it was every single Democrat vs every single Republican" - well this sounds ten times more reasonable than the "bitterly opposed" proclamation earlier. I'll take it

Crap? Maybe you should watch stuff before you make your mind about it...it is comedy, nothing more nothing less

Let's agree that TV is not the way to get impartial information, especially with american news.

Still I will keep my TV :) because I watch selectively and I can make up my own mind about most stuff, which leads back to what we were talking about, others seemingly can't. To what extend is it their fault they can't think out of the box which their environment, media, everything, has build around them? The 'beliefs' their parents told them? The 'fundamentals' of the state they live in? You have to learn to think for yourself, and this is something that's not a given. Even intelligence in itself doesn't mean people won't be ignorant, won't follow 'beliefs' religiously.

"Even intelligence in itself doesn't mean people won't be ignorant, won't follow 'beliefs' religiously."

that is so very true

Republicans are just as guilty as democrats - it's not the party, it's the people.

yeah cause they are living in ace age so there are no other sources of information excepting flintstones tv (abc news, like in kindergarden, a, b, c television for dummies)

even the name -fox news it's a tricky name (no offense to Magnus, though)

Is there anything like this looking from the other side, at the socialist scum?

pretty sad and funny.

since i don't really like either party, i get to see the rank-and-file idiots from both sides blindly follow people who are popular in their parties

kill america(ns) !

you basically are an american, with that kind of thinking.

Lots of posts in this one. Did not read.