Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
I thought today's Cracked article was pretty funny. The only problem is that it seems to focus on America, which last time I checked wasn't the only Democratic country.
Oh well, the part about the news actually making you less informed was funny, but not surprising.
Mike Noble wrote:The only problem is that it seems to focus on America, which last time I checked wasn't the only Democratic country.
Lies, slander, and libel all at once!* How dare you disrespect Our Lady Liberty, Sworn Protector of Freedom, Defender of Democracy, Mother to All Americans!
The proud United States of America invented democracy in 1492, when Columbus became the first to step foot on our God-given land. We've been the only country to adopt it so far. Others have tried, but they haven't managed to get real democracy yet.
I mean, look at England, they still have a Queen! And, France, with their Prime Minister. We're on to you sneaky Europeans. You may say you're a democracy, but we know better! Your deception fools noone!
*I assume he read his post out loud. Don't you read all your posts aloud, so co-workers can hear how witty you are? No? Just me?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/03/24 21:32:44
samusaran253 wrote:Our democracy is still better than Australia, England, Italy, etc. though.
What?
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Mike Noble wrote:The only problem is that it seems to focus on America, which last time I checked wasn't the only Democratic country.
Lies, slander, and libel all at once!* How dare you disrespect Our Lady Liberty, Sworn Protector of Freedom, Defender of Democracy, Mother to All Americans!
The proud United States of America invented democracy in 1492, when Columbus became the first to step foot on our God-given land. We've been the only country to adopt it so far. Others have tried, but they haven't managed to get real democracy yet.
I mean, look at England, they still have a Queen! And, France, with their Prime Minister. We're on to you sneaky Europeans. You may say you're a democracy, but we know better! Your deception fools noone!
*I assume he read his post out loud. Don't you read all your posts aloud, so co-workers can hear how witty you are? No? Just me?
samusaran253 wrote:Our democracy is still better than Australia, England, Italy, etc. though.
In 2010 the EIU ranked the United States 17th in the world in terms of democracy with a score of 8.18 out of 10. Ahead of the UK (19th, 8.16), and Italy (28th, 7.83), but behind Australia (6th 9.22), and most other European countries. The highest score was Norway, with 9.80.
As a matter of context, the cut-off point between full democracy and flawed democracy is 8; meaning that the United States on the verge of being in the same category as Italy, Mexico, Colombia, and Indonesia.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
I liked the #2 point with the dishonest and ignorant part. I find it hilarious that the liberals and conservatives that I hear talking (and often typing) are yelling the same exact crap in reverse and neither seem to realize it.
Point number 4 can be explained by the argument that the most highly educated voters don't actually get their political information from television, but instead use it as a source of entertainment.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
samusaran253 wrote:Our democracy is still better than Australia, England, Italy, etc. though.
Are you joking
At the point its time to point a few things.
***Australia has drop bears, sheilas with awesome accents, and shrimp on the barbie. I hate shrimp but that sounds good even to me.
***England has right good ales, soccer hooligans (keep them over there), Churchill and Elizabeth Hurley.
***USA has USA yea!!! queso, Chicago style pizza, and Texas cheerleaders.
***Italy. Oh the motherland! Great Food, Ducati, and Italian girlfriends.
And now lets have a moment of silence in prayer of thanks for sheilas with awesome accents, Italian girlfriends, Texas Cheerleaders, and Elizabeth hurley.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
We are are suppose to be a Republic, which means we practice democracy to the point of voting for representatives. Pure Democratic rule is limited by the Bill of Rights, where the minority individual rights are supposed to be protected from a biased Majority.
More importantly, the concept of inalienable rights, outlined in our Constitution, is all but unknown in other governments, who by default treat their people as subjects instead of citizens.
Big difference between the two. What's the difference? Subjects rights are granted to them by their government/King. Anything granted can be revoked or modified. Citizens rights are inalienable--they are born with them. The US government is suppose to be bound by the Constitution to uphold them--not the other way around! That was the idea anyway. Jefferson and Hamilton represented two ideas of government. Jefferson was that government should be weak, and allow people more freedom to run their lives. Hamilton thought most citizens were ignorant and fools, and needed the guiding hand of their betters to take care of them, and was for big nanny government. Our country is now pursuing the latter philosophy, to much sorrow and loss of our personal liberties, as well to the pain and suffering we are afflicting other countries in protecting our "National Interests" abroad.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2011/03/25 12:01:07
"All right, sweethearts, what are you waiting for? Breakfast in bed? Another glorious day in the Corps! A day in the Marine Corps is like a day on the farm. Every meal's a banquet! Every paycheck a fortune! Every formation a parade! I LOVE the Corps!" ---Sgt. Apone
"I say we take off, and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."-----Ripley
@ Mr. Frazzled : ..you know Liz Hurley is playing the main villainess in the forthcoming Wonder Woman tv show BTW.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/03/25 12:03:43
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
reds8n wrote: @ Mr. Frazzled : ..you know Liz Hurley is playing the main villainess in the forthcoming Wonder Woman tv show BTW.
interestinggggg....
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
dogma wrote:Point number 4 can be explained by the argument that the most highly educated voters don't actually get their political information from television, but instead use it as a source of entertainment.
Are you talking about voters who are otherwise highly educated, or voters who are highly educated about the political issues they're voting on?
Mike Noble wrote:What about Democratic Socialism? To my knowledge that hasn't been tried much.
Western Europe since after WWII? Japan in some respects?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Brushfire wrote:We are are suppose to be a Republic, which means we practice democracy to the point of voting for representatives. Pure Democratic rule is limited by the Bill of Rights, where the minority individual rights are supposed to be protected from a biased Majority.
More importantly, the concept of inalienable rights, outlined in our Constitution, is all but unknown in other governments, who by default treat their people as subjects instead of citizens.
Big difference between the two. What's the difference? Subjects rights are granted to them by their government/King. Anything granted can be revoked or modified. Citizens rights are inalienable--they are born with them. The US government is suppose to be bound by the Constitution to uphold them--not the other way around! That was the idea anyway. Jefferson and Hamilton represented two ideas of government. Jefferson was that government should be weak, and allow people more freedom to run their lives. Hamilton thought most citizens were ignorant and fools, and needed the guiding hand of their betters to take care of them, and was for big nanny government. Our country is now pursuing the latter philosophy, to much sorrow and loss of our personal liberties, as well to the pain and suffering we are afflicting other countries in protecting our "National Interests" abroad.
What's sad is that even Hamilton would be appalled at what our country has morphed into. He wanted a strong government, but not like the one we have now.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/03/25 17:58:49
Catachan LIX "Lords Of Destruction" - Put Away
1943-1944 Era 1250 point Großdeutchland Force - Bolt Action
"The best medicine for Wraithlords? Multilasers. The best way to kill an Avatar? Lasguns."
"Time to pour out some liquor for the pinkmisted Harlequins"
dogma wrote:Point number 4 can be explained by the argument that the most highly educated voters don't actually get their political information from television, but instead use it as a source of entertainment.
Are you talking about voters who are otherwise highly educated, or voters who are highly educated about the political issues they're voting on?
The latter. Being highly educated regarding chemistry, philosophy, etc. is no guarantee that one is also highly educated politically; really its debatable as to whether or not there is even a correlation between the two.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Brushfire wrote:We are are suppose to be a Republic, which means we practice democracy to the point of voting for representatives. Pure Democratic rule is limited by the Bill of Rights, where the minority individual rights are supposed to be protected from a biased Majority.
More importantly, the concept of inalienable rights, outlined in our Constitution, is all but unknown in other governments, who by default treat their people as subjects instead of citizens.
Big difference between the two. What's the difference? Subjects rights are granted to them by their government/King. Anything granted can be revoked or modified. Citizens rights are inalienable--they are born with them. The US government is suppose to be bound by the Constitution to uphold them--not the other way around! That was the idea anyway. Jefferson and Hamilton represented two ideas of government. Jefferson was that government should be weak, and allow people more freedom to run their lives. Hamilton thought most citizens were ignorant and fools, and needed the guiding hand of their betters to take care of them, and was for big nanny government. Our country is now pursuing the latter philosophy, to much sorrow and loss of our personal liberties, as well to the pain and suffering we are afflicting other countries in protecting our "National Interests" abroad.
What's sad is that even Hamilton would be appalled at what our country has morphed into. He wanted a strong government, but not like the one we have now.
What has it morphed into? Obama hasn't even served a full term yet, and US law-making is notoriously ponderous - he doesn't really appear to have done a whole hell of a lot, considering he's supposedly turned the USA into a 'nanny state'. The guy is severely lacking in political courage, he's indecisive, and NOW his party doesn't even hold both houses. He's hardly a despot by any stretch of the imagination.
dogma wrote:Point number 4 can be explained by the argument that the most highly educated voters don't actually get their political information from television, but instead use it as a source of entertainment.
Are you talking about voters who are otherwise highly educated, or voters who are highly educated about the political issues they're voting on?
The latter. Being highly educated regarding chemistry, philosophy, etc. is no guarantee that one is also highly educated politically; really its debatable as to whether or not there is even a correlation between the two.
Seemed unclear.
Anyway, there's a lot of interesting articles on the idea of "rational ignorance" in voters that's worth a read.
Here's a good place to start (just because it's interesting, not being confrontational, yes I realize it's a libertarian based group).
Brushfire wrote:We are are suppose to be a Republic, which means we practice democracy to the point of voting for representatives. Pure Democratic rule is limited by the Bill of Rights, where the minority individual rights are supposed to be protected from a biased Majority.
More importantly, the concept of inalienable rights, outlined in our Constitution, is all but unknown in other governments, who by default treat their people as subjects instead of citizens.
Big difference between the two. What's the difference? Subjects rights are granted to them by their government/King. Anything granted can be revoked or modified. Citizens rights are inalienable--they are born with them. The US government is suppose to be bound by the Constitution to uphold them--not the other way around! That was the idea anyway. Jefferson and Hamilton represented two ideas of government. Jefferson was that government should be weak, and allow people more freedom to run their lives. Hamilton thought most citizens were ignorant and fools, and needed the guiding hand of their betters to take care of them, and was for big nanny government. Our country is now pursuing the latter philosophy, to much sorrow and loss of our personal liberties, as well to the pain and suffering we are afflicting other countries in protecting our "National Interests" abroad.
What's sad is that even Hamilton would be appalled at what our country has morphed into. He wanted a strong government, but not like the one we have now.
What has it morphed into? Obama hasn't even served a full term yet, and US law-making is notoriously ponderous - he doesn't really appear to have done a whole hell of a lot, considering he's supposedly turned the USA into a 'nanny state'. The guy is severely lacking in political courage, he's indecisive, and NOW his party doesn't even hold both houses. He's hardly a despot by any stretch of the imagination.
Obama hasn't started it--The decline began a long time ago, some believe during the Civil war under Lincoln. But Obama is continuing the policy of waging undeclared war, interning suspects without Habeas corpus, keeping Iraq occupied, extending wiretapping, and permitting the CIA to continue to use predator drones to strike suspected terrorists in Pakistan. He's a warmonger as much as his predecessor Bush was. Add the fact that he is pushing the national debt to 13 trillion plus, and you have the makings of a perfect storm.
I must add, when I say Obama, I also include those of his staff, as well as Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate who support these polices, or fail to find the moral courage to challenge them--Ron Paul and Paul Kucinich the rare exceptions.
Hillary Clinton is a war siren, determine to push her will as being the US will on other countries. I find her hypocritical self-righteous rebukes to other countries, even our allies, to be bitterly ironic.
For all of Obama campaign promises not to drag the US into more war, he has done the opposite. Which is par for the course of 99% of politicians. If you are looking at nanny state initiatives under his watch, look no further than his wife getting all concerned over child obesity and eating healthy.
Whether the US slides into a fascist or socialistic tyranny, it matters little, as the end result is the same as choosing between the gas chamber or the electric chair.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2011/03/26 17:08:14
"All right, sweethearts, what are you waiting for? Breakfast in bed? Another glorious day in the Corps! A day in the Marine Corps is like a day on the farm. Every meal's a banquet! Every paycheck a fortune! Every formation a parade! I LOVE the Corps!" ---Sgt. Apone
"I say we take off, and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."-----Ripley
Ribon Fox wrote:Democracy, it may be broken but it's better than the other options of goverment...
British style of government works and has done for longer that the USA has officaly existed
+1
Longer means better? I don't think so. Besides, the British government is steadying morphing into a European political system, where all things British, as well as French, German, and everyone else, will be trimmed to fit a common mold. You can forget about the average British person concerns or consent being considered at all in such a collectivist New World Order.
And just so you know I'm not just picking on the UK, there are those in the US working just as hard to shed our national identity (which includes our constitutional liberties) to become part of the the big Kum By Ya party, where everyone becomes part of the Greater Good at the expense of personal freedom.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2011/03/26 17:21:05
"All right, sweethearts, what are you waiting for? Breakfast in bed? Another glorious day in the Corps! A day in the Marine Corps is like a day on the farm. Every meal's a banquet! Every paycheck a fortune! Every formation a parade! I LOVE the Corps!" ---Sgt. Apone
"I say we take off, and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."-----Ripley
Ribon Fox wrote:Democracy, it may be broken but it's better than the other options of goverment...
British style of government works and has done for longer that the USA has officaly existed
+1
Longer means better? I don't think so. Besides, the British government is steadying morphing into a European political system, where all things British, as well as French, German, and everyone else, will be trimmed to fit a common mold. You can forget about the average British person concerns or consent being considered at all in such a collectivist New World Order.
Less government means better? I don't think so. I don't mean to be rude, but your post screams tin foil hat.
Oh, also, Columbus can sod off, Leif Ericson is where it's at.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
Ribon Fox wrote:Democracy, it may be broken but it's better than the other options of goverment...
British style of government works and has done for longer that the USA has officaly existed
+1
Longer means better? I don't think so. Besides, the British government is steadying morphing into a European political system, where all things British, as well as French, German, and everyone else, will be trimmed to fit a common mold. You can forget about the average British person concerns or consent being considered at all in such a collectivist New World Order.
Less government means better? I don't think so. I don't mean to be rude, but your post screams tin foil hat.
Oh, also, Columbus can sod off, Leif Ericson is where it's at.
It's funny when someone labels another as tin foil hat for advocating less government, when there has yet to be a successful "More government" that doesn't run bankrupt spending other peoples money, oppresses it's people with excessive nanny laws and regulations, and has no accountability for it's leaders for engaging in unnecessary wars. Oh, an eventually segues into a police state with Orwellian cameras, militarized police, and proposals for regulating communication systems of the general public, just to name a few.
Seriously, do you think your government (and that includes mine and everyone's elses' as well) has your best interests in mind, and really knows best how to run your life?
That your leaders are more than flesh and blood, who don't make mistakes, much less not corrupted with a heady sense of power and privilege while in office?
There's a world of difference between them and us. The Copenhagen conference where all the heads of state traveled first class,chauffeured in gas guzzling limos, and were wined and dined with fancy meals, to discuss global warming and propose carbon taxes tell me, (and it should reveal to you) what that difference is.
I'm not proposing revolution or anarchy, all that would do is replace one boss with a new boss. I just want government to cut itself down to size, and stop becoming a privileged social class that is above the rest of us, who ironically pay it's bills via taxes and fight its wars with our children for its sake, and not ours. GE over here in the US just got off scott free from paying a single penny on income taxes. BP has 900 billion in assets in Libya that is being protected by the UN right now. France, embarrassed by its previous cozy relationship the Gaddaffi, is now bombing him. Now there's one example of too much government.
This message was edited 10 times. Last update was at 2011/03/26 22:33:24
"All right, sweethearts, what are you waiting for? Breakfast in bed? Another glorious day in the Corps! A day in the Marine Corps is like a day on the farm. Every meal's a banquet! Every paycheck a fortune! Every formation a parade! I LOVE the Corps!" ---Sgt. Apone
"I say we take off, and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."-----Ripley
Brushfire wrote:
It's funny when someone labels another as tin foil hat for advocating less government, when there has yet to be a successful "More government" that doesn't run bankrupt spending other peoples money, oppresses it's people with excessive nanny laws and regulations, and has no accountability for it's leaders for engaging in unnecessary wars. Oh, an eventually segues into a police state with Orwellian cameras, militarized police, and proposals for regulating communication systems of the general public, just to name a few.
Subjective much? You could just as easilly say that a smaller government leads to anarchy and chaos. Advocating government reduction based on what MIGHT happen, disregarding all the persons who will suffer without government support, is just, IMO, not cool. Besides, we've had the non-intervention, laissez faire government type during imperialism, and we still don't know how many died.
Regarding the tin foil part, it wasn't about you advocating less government, it was the whole "new world order" thing.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
samusaran253 wrote:Our democracy is still better than Australia, England, Italy, etc. though.
Australia is ranked 8th best place to live. America is 12th... What the hell are you smoking? Please share it...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Yak9UT wrote:
samusaran253 wrote:Our democracy is still better than Australia, England, Italy, etc. though.
Are you joking
At the point its time to point a few things.
***Australia has drop bears, sheilas with awesome accents, and shrimp on the barbie. I hate shrimp but that sounds good even to me.
***England has right good ales, soccer hooligans (keep them over there), Churchill and Elizabeth Hurley.
***USA has USA yea!!! queso, Chicago style pizza, and Texas cheerleaders.
***Italy. Oh the motherland! Great Food, Ducati, and Italian girlfriends.
And now lets have a moment of silence in prayer of thanks for sheilas with awesome accents, Italian girlfriends, Texas Cheerleaders, and Elizabeth hurley.
agreed
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/03/26 23:19:20
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
Anyway, there's a lot of interesting articles on the idea of "rational ignorance" in voters that's worth a read.
Here's a good place to start (just because it's interesting, not being confrontational, yes I realize it's a libertarian based group).
Oh yeah, definitely. As with anything, you'll never be able to claim expertise in a field as broad as American Politics, so the trick is determining what you need to know in order to form a coherent opinion. Notably, a lot of people will tell you that the average American doesn't need to have an understanding of foreign policy; leaving it for politicians to sway the electorate by other means.
The problem, of course, is that knowing what you need to know is pretty difficult when you don't have much information to begin with.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
samusaran253 wrote:Our democracy is still better than Australia, England, Italy, etc. though.
Australia is ranked 8th best place to live. America is 12th... What the hell are you smoking? Please share it...
I was wondering the same...
MikZor wrote:
We can't help that american D&D is pretty much daily life for us (Aussies)
Walking to shops, "i'll take a short cut through this bush", random encounter! Lizard with no legs.....
I kid Since i avoid bushlands that is But we're not that bad... are we?
Elysian Drop Troops 1500pts
Renegades & Heretics 2056pts
1,000 pts 27-8-10
15 pts 0-0-0
1,000 pts 3-1-0
yea!!! queso, Chicago style pizza, and Texas cheerleaders.
Catachan LIX "Lords Of Destruction" 
