Jump to content

OT - State of the Union Address


inkman

Recommended Posts

Posted

Fair enough. Are Americans willing to be represented by a quality representative without assuming that he/she is tainted by the very token of being in politics?

That wasn't neccesarily aimed at you, as that term has been mentioned several times upthread. I think it gets to the heart of your question, though. I think we are willing to be represented by quality representatives, but right now that's not what we have. Right now we have too many leaders. They think they have all the answers and aren't willing to listen or compromise.

Posted

That wasn't neccesarily aimed at you, as that term has been mentioned several times upthread. I think it gets to the heart of your question, though. I think we are willing to be represented by quality representatives, but right now that's not what we have. Right now we have too many leaders. They think they have all the answers and aren't willing to listen or compromise.

 

My biggest issue with our "leaders" is that they aren't *our* representatives. Nearly every fracking one of them is bought and paid for by interests other than the people they represent. And I feel very strongly that our executive branch leader(s) has the same fault. It isn't just the current one(s). It's been an issue for a long time. They may call it a representative democracy but I'm not buying it. It is closer to a corporate monarchy IMO.

 

Anyone ever sit in a dark closet and play with yourself while eating cheeze-its when this crap is on TV or is it just me?

 

Keep that up and the orange stain on your wiener will be permanent.

 

 

 

Not that I know about that from experience...........

Posted

My biggest issue with our "leaders" is that they aren't *our* representatives. Nearly every fracking one of them is bought and paid for by interests other than the people they represent. And I feel very strongly that our executive branch leader(s) has the same fault. It isn't just the current one(s). It's been an issue for a long time. They may call it a representative democracy but I'm not buying it. It is closer to a corporate monarchy IMO.

Last time I checked, on paper, America is a constitutional representative republic. The Founding Fathers knew from history that democracy is the worst form of government. If 51% want to get rid of the other 49%, they could. That's why a democracy, in theory, would cannibalize their own people.

 

But did you read the second half? Like most things, the ending's kind of important.

What second half are you getting at?

Posted

My biggest issue with our "leaders" is that they aren't *our* representatives. Nearly every fracking one of them is bought and paid for by interests other than the people they represent. And I feel very strongly that our executive branch leader(s) has the same fault. It isn't just the current one(s). It's been an issue for a long time. They may call it a representative democracy but I'm not buying it. It is closer to a corporate monarchy IMO.

 

 

Of course, a lot of this boils down to a populace that's far too easily swayed by advertising. The cycle really starts there, as politicians who refuse to jump in bed with corporations and Super PACs for funding don't even stand a chance.

Posted

Most people, myself included, agree that there is a profound lack of leaders currently sitting in positions of leadership.

 

But I have a question to somewhat turn that idea on its head...given America's well-earned distrust for those who seek power, are we even willing to be led?

Whatever happened to just letting us taking care of our own selves? Do we really need the State to take care of us in all things to where they become our nanny? If that's the case, history has proven that it leads to tyranny.

Posted

Whatever happened to just letting us taking care of our own selves? Do we really need the State to take care of us in all things to where they become our nanny? If that's the case, history has proven that it leads to tyranny.

 

You're exaggerating my use of "leader" to the nth degree. There hasn't been a society in the history of the world that just took care of itself without leadership - elected, appointed or seized.

Posted

You're exaggerating my use of "leader" to the nth degree. There hasn't been a society in the history of the world that just took care of itself without leadership - elected, appointed or seized.

You have a point. It wasn't my point to come off as being some sort crazy anarchist. On the same token, I don't want to be micromanaged either, and I don't think any of us who have some level of sanity want it either.

 

That book you were quoting.

The author, or the Psalms?

Posted

You have a point. It wasn't my point to come off as being some sort crazy anarchist. On the same token, I don't want to be micromanaged either, and I don't think any of us who have some level of sanity want it either.

 

 

The author, or the Psalms?

 

The Bible.

Posted

Even the small percentage of the electorate which essentially throws darts at the ballot to decide their vote don't matter, they don't influence elections because their actions are largely random and when considering the election as a whole, the randomness will go both for and against candidates equally and cancel out in the aggregate.

 

Throwing darts at the ballot? Who does this? The informed groups know who they are voting for and why. The ignorant vote on bias. Who says bias is random? Got any evidence?

Posted

Throwing darts at the ballot?

 

Isn't that how those hanging chads happened? Those old ladies in Florida just didn't have the arm strength. Cruel way to make them vote I think.

Posted

The United States has ceased being a Democracy for some time. The idea of one person/one vote, which I believe is the meaning of true Democracy, exists only in theory and in gesture. We are currently living in a modern dictatorship called Capitalism. Where one person/one vote has been replaced by a system weighted by ones wealth. Our lives are dictated on a daily basis by the smallest percentage of the population through their tools such as Wall Street, Health Care and the media. We are allowed such graces as the ideas of an elections and free speech. In the end the vast majority of the population are truly voiceless and powerless to effect any real change in their daily lives.

 

A government once promoted as "for the people, by the people" rarely has "the people's" best interest at heart.

 

Someone mentioned the "nanny state." All I can say to this is that there is a famous song which ends "and crown thy good with brotherhood. From sea to shining sea." IMO, "brotherhood" means we take of our own. It's not being a "nanny state", it's taking care of your own.

Posted

Of course I know you know that the US has always been a republic; not a democracy. That representative voice was never supposed to take over full control of the state as it has.

Posted

Of course I know you know that the US has always been a republic; not a democracy. That representative voice was never supposed to take over full control of the state as it has.

 

I would further qualify your statement by saying we have a constitutional republic. This is an important distinction.

 

GO SABRES!!!

Posted

Of course I know you know that the US has always been a republic; not a democracy. That representative voice was never supposed to take over full control of the state as it has.

Republic, yes. Not the Oligarchy that we curently have.

Posted

Republic, yes. Not the Oligarchy that we curently have.

Something to think about. One of my co-workers was originally from Romania. He left that country in 1986 to get away from the Communists. Then he said, "...and now they're here!" (with emphasis on disgust).

Posted

Something to think about. One of my co-workers was originally from Romania. He left that country in 1986 to get away from the Communists. Then he said, "...and now they're here!" (with emphasis on disgust).

...and yet he stays.

Posted

The United States has ceased being a Democracy for some time. The idea of one person/one vote, which I believe is the meaning of true Democracy, exists only in theory and in gesture. We are currently living in a modern dictatorship called Capitalism. Where one person/one vote has been replaced by a system weighted by ones wealth. Our lives are dictated on a daily basis by the smallest percentage of the population through their tools such as Wall Street, Health Care and the media. We are allowed such graces as the ideas of an elections and free speech. In the end the vast majority of the population are truly voiceless and powerless to effect any real change in their daily lives.

 

A government once promoted as "for the people, by the people" rarely has "the people's" best interest at heart.

 

Someone mentioned the "nanny state." All I can say to this is that there is a famous song which ends "and crown thy good with brotherhood. From sea to shining sea." IMO, "brotherhood" means we take of our own. It's not being a "nanny state", it's taking care of your own.

 

Actually, your correct, but your incorrect.

 

The United States of America is a Republic, which is a form of democracy, but it never was intended to be a "virtual" democracy where 1 person/1 vote was cast as a census. You have your vote by representation.

 

But, you are completely correct in that money talks, or in this case, votes. That is one of a handful of the core problems with the nation and has been known for well over 150 years now. I loved it when Bush Sr. actually advocated making the 2 party system law. It amused me to know end to realize that we weren't actually ever free.

 

At the end of the day, when all is said and done, the USA will be lowered on the ladder of power globally, primarily by our own doing.

For, as everyone who's bothered to research it knows, no empire lasts forever, and the average lifespan is actually 250 years. The British not withstanding of course.

 

The larger issues with the nation will solely be at the mercy of the monetary value held in the nations wealth, which is a combined value of it's domestic production capacities, labor market costs and import/export abilities. The R&D side of things is merely materialized out of these affects. It should be clear for all to see that the trade agreements and corporate greed which brought about those agreements are going to be the major stress creator on the countries ability to continue to function as the globe's leading power as a whole.

 

With that being the case, and the inability of the governments at all levels to take decisive actions, which in the short term would hurt many but in the long term lift us out of this and stabilize the situation, any economist with half a brain already knows what is coming, the inevitable collapse of the Dollar. The last straw won't be the crushing debt, but most likely will be the Oil Producing nations of the world making the decision to finally separate oil from the Dollar, which will come in the next 5 to 10 years as other currencies grow stronger in the Asian theater.

It's merely a matter of time now, not to be a Debbie Downer, but the reality is what it is and oil is the only thing keeping the Dollar afloat at this time.

 

In short, it's a big crap sandwich and were all going to have to take a full bite of it. The truly sad part of this unfolding tragedy is the fact that it was all avoidable, if only the American people would have smartened up and became fully engaged in what is their individual responsibility of maintaining a firm grip on their own government.

 

After all, one thing with this nation is true, "We the People" have always had the power, we are now going to reap what we have sown over these many decades. You want to point a finger, look in the mirror.

Posted

The United States has ceased being a Democracy for some time. The idea of one person/one vote, which I believe is the meaning of true Democracy, exists only in theory and in gesture. We are currently living in a modern dictatorship called Capitalism. Where one person/one vote has been replaced by a system weighted by ones wealth. Our lives are dictated on a daily basis by the smallest percentage of the population through their tools such as Wall Street, Health Care and the media. We are allowed such graces as the ideas of an elections and free speech. In the end the vast majority of the population are truly voiceless and powerless to effect any real change in their daily lives.

 

A government once promoted as "for the people, by the people" rarely has "the people's" best interest at heart.

 

Someone mentioned the "nanny state." All I can say to this is that there is a famous song which ends "and crown thy good with brotherhood. From sea to shining sea." IMO, "brotherhood" means we take of our own. It's not being a "nanny state", it's taking care of your own.

 

I can agree and disagree. I don't believe the idea of capitalism is the problem. It allows the individual the opportunity to achieve. Does money by votes? No I don't think so. Money buys politicians, and that's both corporations with money and the "common man's" unions. Capitalism is not responsible for a system which allows lobbying and superpacs. That's politcians wanting an advantage to stay in power.

 

One person/one vote replaced by one's wealth? Do rich people's votes count more? Please explain, because I missed that law.

 

Brotherhood means taking care of one’s own. If you mean not pouring money into foreign countries and neglecting ours, I can agree, but it's complicated. If you mean taking care of each other? I'm not sure. I worked my way through college, paid all my bills, and stopped having kids, who I love, when I felt I couldn't give them what they needed to have a chance in life. Do I feel I'm responsible for kids out of wedlock because copulation is pleasurable? No, I feel no responsibility. -------------------------------Having said that, I want to take care of kids, but people need to learn personal responsiblity.

Posted

I can agree and disagree. I don't believe the idea of capitalism is the problem. It allows the individual the opportunity to achieve. Does money by votes? No I don't think so. Money buys politicians, and that's both corporations with money and the "common man's" unions. Capitalism is not responsible for a system which allows lobbying and superpacs. That's politcians wanting an advantage to stay in power.

 

One person/one vote replaced by one's wealth? Do rich people's votes count more? Please explain, because I missed that law.

 

Not directly, of course, but rich people have more influence on elections than the non-rich, mostly thru the media. They can help candidates of their choice by donating money to their campaign with the unsaid promise that if they don't vote on things the right way, that money won't be there next time. Sure, I can donate to campaigns as well, but I have bills and a mortgage to think of first.

 

Money runs campaigns thru media spots, advertising, workers, promotional materials, etc. Not to mention that a candidate has to have enough money to begin with that you can spend time on your campaign rather than working 40 hours a week.

 

Capitalism is a decent system, except that once you get ahead in capitalism it's easier to stay ahead and crush upstart competitors. Capitalism works fine in the 'small village' scenario, but once you start talking about large corporations it starts to break down in some ways.

Posted

...and yet he stays.

Can you think of a better place to go? If so, please tell the rest of us so we can start making plans.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...