Discussion:
Democracy, what's that?
Add Reply
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2017-10-31 01:56:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Maybe is a good idea to dismiss the word "democracy" because it sounds like hypocrisy.

https://imgflip.com/i/1yj1o9

I know the elderly and the gays are sheltered by it. Good, it works for them.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

HEY, WE R HAVING FUN!
facebook.com/liboriojolgorio

THE JUNGLE
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nffbCR_uCZ6znjf3gLiFRXSAoLzhWtoZ6U4S7Y37aKc/edit?usp=sharing
Let Cosby Go-Justice Must Not Enable Sluts
2017-11-01 19:06:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Maybe is a good idea to dismiss the word "democracy" because it sounds like hypocrisy.
https://imgflip.com/i/1yj1o9
I know the elderly and the gays are sheltered by it. Good, it works for them.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
HEY, WE R HAVING FUN!
facebook.com/liboriojolgorio
THE JUNGLE
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nffbCR_uCZ6znjf3gLiFRXSAoLzhWtoZ6U4S7Y37aKc/edit?usp=sharing
One man rule is the opposite of democracy.....
TheRealMccoy
2017-11-01 19:08:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Let Cosby Go-Justice Must Not Enable Sluts
One man rule is the opposite of democracy.....
This place could sue someone in charge.
A King.

A good King.

See, sometimes the problem with kings is when you have a bad one, if you had a good one, who didn't die, that would be good and better.

Jesus will be King.
Smiler
2017-11-03 02:32:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, November 1, 2017 at 2:06:30 PM UTC-5, Let Cosby Go-Justice
Post by Let Cosby Go-Justice Must Not Enable Sluts
One man rule is the opposite of democracy.....
This place could sue someone in charge.
A King.
A good King.
See, sometimes the problem with kings is when you have a bad one, if you
had a good one, who didn't die, that would be good and better.
Jesus will be King.
I hear that Jesus is very pale, so he'll be a wan king.
Watch out for the second coming.
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Don Martin
2017-11-03 21:46:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Smiler
On Wednesday, November 1, 2017 at 2:06:30 PM UTC-5, Let Cosby Go-Justice
Post by Let Cosby Go-Justice Must Not Enable Sluts
One man rule is the opposite of democracy.....
This place could sue someone in charge.
A King.
A good King.
See, sometimes the problem with kings is when you have a bad one, if you
had a good one, who didn't die, that would be good and better.
Jesus will be King.
I hear that Jesus is very pale, so he'll be a wan king.
Watch out for the second coming.
"Don't stand underneath when he flies by!"
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2017-11-03 22:01:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Martin
Post by Smiler
On Wednesday, November 1, 2017 at 2:06:30 PM UTC-5, Let Cosby Go-Justice
Post by Let Cosby Go-Justice Must Not Enable Sluts
One man rule is the opposite of democracy.....
This place could sue someone in charge.
A King.
A good King.
See, sometimes the problem with kings is when you have a bad one, if you
had a good one, who didn't die, that would be good and better.
Jesus will be King.
I hear that Jesus is very pale, so he'll be a wan king.
Watch out for the second coming.
"Don't stand underneath when he flies by!"
A man only needs to come once. I don't know why Jesus is unsatisfied.

The first coming must have been terrible.
Smiler
2017-11-05 02:11:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Martin
Post by Smiler
On Wednesday, November 1, 2017 at 2:06:30 PM UTC-5, Let Cosby
Post by Let Cosby Go-Justice Must Not Enable Sluts
One man rule is the opposite of democracy.....
This place could sue someone in charge.
A King.
A good King.
See, sometimes the problem with kings is when you have a bad one, if
you had a good one, who didn't die, that would be good and better.
Jesus will be King.
I hear that Jesus is very pale, so he'll be a wan king.
Watch out for the second coming.
"Don't stand underneath when he flies by!"
You forget that we Brits always carry an umbrella for such emergencies.
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Don Martin
2017-11-05 12:15:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Smiler
Post by Don Martin
Post by Smiler
On Wednesday, November 1, 2017 at 2:06:30 PM UTC-5, Let Cosby
Post by Let Cosby Go-Justice Must Not Enable Sluts
One man rule is the opposite of democracy.....
This place could sue someone in charge.
A King.
A good King.
See, sometimes the problem with kings is when you have a bad one, if
you had a good one, who didn't die, that would be good and better.
Jesus will be King.
I hear that Jesus is very pale, so he'll be a wan king.
Watch out for the second coming.
"Don't stand underneath when he flies by!"
You forget that we Brits always carry an umbrella for such emergencies.
I once read that 1750 is the generally accepted date for when the
umbrella replaced the sword as the must-have accoutrements in London.
This forward thinking led to the Seven Years War and, eventually, to
Empire. How can the noble umbrella lead you now to Brexit? Did it
fall into the wrong hands?

(This week's _The Economist_ has a briefing on social media as
destructive of politics by sowing disinformation. The run up to the
Brexit referendum is mentioned among the examples.)
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
Smiler
2017-11-06 00:52:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Martin
Post by Smiler
Post by Don Martin
Post by Smiler
On Wednesday, November 1, 2017 at 2:06:30 PM UTC-5, Let Cosby
Post by Let Cosby Go-Justice Must Not Enable Sluts
One man rule is the opposite of democracy.....
This place could sue someone in charge.
A King.
A good King.
See, sometimes the problem with kings is when you have a bad one, if
you had a good one, who didn't die, that would be good and better.
Jesus will be King.
I hear that Jesus is very pale, so he'll be a wan king.
Watch out for the second coming.
"Don't stand underneath when he flies by!"
You forget that we Brits always carry an umbrella for such emergencies.
I once read that 1750 is the generally accepted date for when the
umbrella replaced the sword as the must-have accoutrements in London.
This forward thinking led to the Seven Years War and, eventually, to
Empire. How can the noble umbrella lead you now to Brexit? Did it fall
into the wrong hands?
The pinheads didn't need umbrellas.
Post by Don Martin
(This week's _The Economist_ has a briefing on social media as
destructive of politics by sowing disinformation. The run up to the
Brexit referendum is mentioned among the examples.)
Yes, that's quite true. The supposed and heavily touted £360 million/week
savings (to go to the NHS) have suddenly disappeared. Quelle surprise. Now
inflation, the fall in the value of the pound and interest rate rises will
wipe out any of that that is left.
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Alex W.
2017-11-06 01:09:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Smiler
Post by Don Martin
Post by Smiler
Post by Don Martin
Post by Smiler
On Wednesday, November 1, 2017 at 2:06:30 PM UTC-5, Let Cosby
Post by Let Cosby Go-Justice Must Not Enable Sluts
One man rule is the opposite of democracy.....
This place could sue someone in charge.
A King.
A good King.
See, sometimes the problem with kings is when you have a bad one, if
you had a good one, who didn't die, that would be good and better.
Jesus will be King.
I hear that Jesus is very pale, so he'll be a wan king.
Watch out for the second coming.
"Don't stand underneath when he flies by!"
You forget that we Brits always carry an umbrella for such emergencies.
I once read that 1750 is the generally accepted date for when the
umbrella replaced the sword as the must-have accoutrements in London.
This forward thinking led to the Seven Years War and, eventually, to
Empire. How can the noble umbrella lead you now to Brexit? Did it fall
into the wrong hands?
The pinheads didn't need umbrellas.
Post by Don Martin
(This week's _The Economist_ has a briefing on social media as
destructive of politics by sowing disinformation. The run up to the
Brexit referendum is mentioned among the examples.)
Yes, that's quite true. The supposed and heavily touted £360 million/week
savings (to go to the NHS) have suddenly disappeared. Quelle surprise. Now
inflation, the fall in the value of the pound and interest rate rises will
wipe out any of that that is left.
Not to forget the huge bill we need to settle on Brexit, to cover all
our EU obligations already incurred. It hasn't been finalised yet, but
it is sure to run into the tens of billions....
Don Martin
2017-11-06 03:11:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Smiler
Post by Don Martin
Post by Smiler
Post by Don Martin
Post by Smiler
On Wednesday, November 1, 2017 at 2:06:30 PM UTC-5, Let Cosby
Post by Let Cosby Go-Justice Must Not Enable Sluts
One man rule is the opposite of democracy.....
This place could sue someone in charge.
A King.
A good King.
See, sometimes the problem with kings is when you have a bad one, if
you had a good one, who didn't die, that would be good and better.
Jesus will be King.
I hear that Jesus is very pale, so he'll be a wan king.
Watch out for the second coming.
"Don't stand underneath when he flies by!"
You forget that we Brits always carry an umbrella for such emergencies.
I once read that 1750 is the generally accepted date for when the
umbrella replaced the sword as the must-have accoutrements in London.
This forward thinking led to the Seven Years War and, eventually, to
Empire. How can the noble umbrella lead you now to Brexit? Did it fall
into the wrong hands?
The pinheads didn't need umbrellas.
Post by Don Martin
(This week's _The Economist_ has a briefing on social media as
destructive of politics by sowing disinformation. The run up to the
Brexit referendum is mentioned among the examples.)
Yes, that's quite true. The supposed and heavily touted £360 million/week
savings (to go to the NHS) have suddenly disappeared. Quelle surprise. Now
inflation, the fall in the value of the pound and interest rate rises will
wipe out any of that that is left.
Any hope of another referendum to reverse the damage?
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
Smiler
2017-11-07 04:11:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Martin
Post by Smiler
Post by Don Martin
Post by Smiler
Post by Don Martin
Post by Smiler
On Wednesday, November 1, 2017 at 2:06:30 PM UTC-5, Let Cosby
Post by Let Cosby Go-Justice Must Not Enable Sluts
One man rule is the opposite of democracy.....
This place could sue someone in charge.
A King.
A good King.
See, sometimes the problem with kings is when you have a bad one,
if you had a good one, who didn't die, that would be good and
better.
Jesus will be King.
I hear that Jesus is very pale, so he'll be a wan king.
Watch out for the second coming.
"Don't stand underneath when he flies by!"
You forget that we Brits always carry an umbrella for such
emergencies.
I once read that 1750 is the generally accepted date for when the
umbrella replaced the sword as the must-have accoutrements in London.
This forward thinking led to the Seven Years War and, eventually, to
Empire. How can the noble umbrella lead you now to Brexit? Did it
fall into the wrong hands?
The pinheads didn't need umbrellas.
Post by Don Martin
(This week's _The Economist_ has a briefing on social media as
destructive of politics by sowing disinformation. The run up to the
Brexit referendum is mentioned among the examples.)
Yes, that's quite true. The supposed and heavily touted £360
million/week savings (to go to the NHS) have suddenly disappeared.
Quelle surprise. Now inflation, the fall in the value of the pound and
interest rate rises will wipe out any of that that is left.
Any hope of another referendum to reverse the damage?
Not yet, but when the people see the mess of the exit agreement (or not),
they'll be clamouring for another one, on the basis of "This isn't what we
wanted."
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Deng Qi Feng
2017-11-07 04:26:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Each vote counts but your vote doesn’t count

Each voice is loud but your voice isn’t heard

Representative government simply does not work

Time to reinstall the village communal life
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2017-11-07 04:40:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Deng Qi Feng
Each vote counts but your vote doesn’t count
Each voice is loud but your voice isn’t heard
Representative government simply does not work
Time to reinstall the village communal life
U talking about Mao?

I'd say use lottery to select candidates at random.
Alex W.
2017-11-07 06:09:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Smiler
Post by Don Martin
Post by Smiler
Post by Don Martin
Post by Smiler
Post by Don Martin
Post by Smiler
On Wednesday, November 1, 2017 at 2:06:30 PM UTC-5, Let Cosby
Post by Let Cosby Go-Justice Must Not Enable Sluts
One man rule is the opposite of democracy.....
This place could sue someone in charge.
A King.
A good King.
See, sometimes the problem with kings is when you have a bad one,
if you had a good one, who didn't die, that would be good and
better.
Jesus will be King.
I hear that Jesus is very pale, so he'll be a wan king.
Watch out for the second coming.
"Don't stand underneath when he flies by!"
You forget that we Brits always carry an umbrella for such
emergencies.
I once read that 1750 is the generally accepted date for when the
umbrella replaced the sword as the must-have accoutrements in London.
This forward thinking led to the Seven Years War and, eventually, to
Empire. How can the noble umbrella lead you now to Brexit? Did it
fall into the wrong hands?
The pinheads didn't need umbrellas.
Post by Don Martin
(This week's _The Economist_ has a briefing on social media as
destructive of politics by sowing disinformation. The run up to the
Brexit referendum is mentioned among the examples.)
Yes, that's quite true. The supposed and heavily touted £360
million/week savings (to go to the NHS) have suddenly disappeared.
Quelle surprise. Now inflation, the fall in the value of the pound and
interest rate rises will wipe out any of that that is left.
Any hope of another referendum to reverse the damage?
Not yet, but when the people see the mess of the exit agreement (or not),
they'll be clamouring for another one, on the basis of "This isn't what we
wanted."
They are already clamouring.

Problem is, the first referendum did not happen because it was a burning
desire of the British public -- it was a party-political decision by
Cameron. And to date, there has been no change in the sentiments of the
political establishment: both the Tories and Corbyn's lot are split down
the middle on the issue. To revisit the issue and hold another
referendum would, I fear, require far more consensus than we can
reasonably expect. Barring an act of divine intervention, we are stuck
with Brexit and have to try and make the best of it.
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2017-11-07 06:36:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex W.
Post by Smiler
Not yet, but when the people see the mess of the exit agreement (or not),
they'll be clamouring for another one, on the basis of "This isn't what we
wanted."
They are already clamouring.
Problem is, the first referendum did not happen because it was a burning
desire of the British public -- it was a party-political decision by
Cameron. And to date, there has been no change in the sentiments of the
political establishment: both the Tories and Corbyn's lot are split down
the middle on the issue. To revisit the issue and hold another
referendum would, I fear, require far more consensus than we can
reasonably expect. Barring an act of divine intervention, we are stuck
with Brexit and have to try and make the best of it.
The UK has always been a reluctant partner in the EU and the fear of immigration was overblown to create a backlash. It worked.
Alex W.
2017-11-07 22:44:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by Alex W.
Post by Smiler
Not yet, but when the people see the mess of the exit agreement
(or not), they'll be clamouring for another one, on the basis of
"This isn't what we wanted."
They are already clamouring.
Problem is, the first referendum did not happen because it was a
burning desire of the British public -- it was a party-political
decision by Cameron. And to date, there has been no change in the
sentiments of the political establishment: both the Tories and
Corbyn's lot are split down the middle on the issue. To revisit
the issue and hold another referendum would, I fear, require far
more consensus than we can reasonably expect. Barring an act of
divine intervention, we are stuck with Brexit and have to try and
make the best of it.
The UK has always been a reluctant partner in the EU and the fear of
immigration was overblown to create a backlash. It worked.
Alas, it did work.

And the EU did nothing to address the issues other than to endlessly
repeat the mantra of free movement. They refuse to acknowledge let
alone understand that freedom of movement throughout the EU creates its
own set of problems, that there are imbalances in the population and
their movements which need to be looked at. Imagine if NAFTA had
included a provision for the absolute and unrestricted movement of
people across North America. How many Americans would have moved to
Mexico, as opposed to the other way round?

Nor has it helped one bit that our political classes were quite deaf to
the fears and worries of their electorate. The moment someone spoke up
to voice a concern or dared to mention that they did not like all the
changes in their neighbourhood, they were derided and decried as
xenophobic ... and then dismissed.
Don Martin
2017-11-07 23:29:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex W.
Post by Smiler
Post by Don Martin
Post by Smiler
Post by Don Martin
Post by Smiler
Post by Don Martin
Post by Smiler
On Wednesday, November 1, 2017 at 2:06:30 PM UTC-5, Let Cosby
Post by Let Cosby Go-Justice Must Not Enable Sluts
One man rule is the opposite of democracy.....
This place could sue someone in charge.
A King.
A good King.
See, sometimes the problem with kings is when you have a bad one,
if you had a good one, who didn't die, that would be good and
better.
Jesus will be King.
I hear that Jesus is very pale, so he'll be a wan king.
Watch out for the second coming.
"Don't stand underneath when he flies by!"
You forget that we Brits always carry an umbrella for such emergencies.
I once read that 1750 is the generally accepted date for when the
umbrella replaced the sword as the must-have accoutrements in London.
This forward thinking led to the Seven Years War and, eventually, to
Empire. How can the noble umbrella lead you now to Brexit? Did it
fall into the wrong hands?
The pinheads didn't need umbrellas.
Post by Don Martin
(This week's _The Economist_ has a briefing on social media as
destructive of politics by sowing disinformation. The run up to the
Brexit referendum is mentioned among the examples.)
Yes, that's quite true. The supposed and heavily touted £360
million/week savings (to go to the NHS) have suddenly disappeared.
Quelle surprise. Now inflation, the fall in the value of the pound and
interest rate rises will wipe out any of that that is left.
Any hope of another referendum to reverse the damage?
Not yet, but when the people see the mess of the exit agreement (or not),
they'll be clamouring for another one, on the basis of "This isn't what we
wanted."
They are already clamouring.
Problem is, the first referendum did not happen because it was a burning
desire of the British public -- it was a party-political decision by
Cameron. And to date, there has been no change in the sentiments of the
political establishment: both the Tories and Corbyn's lot are split down
the middle on the issue. To revisit the issue and hold another
referendum would, I fear, require far more consensus than we can
reasonably expect. Barring an act of divine intervention, we are stuck
with Brexit and have to try and make the best of it.
Another opportunity for "Stay calm and carry on!"
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
Don Martin
2017-11-07 23:29:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Smiler
Post by Don Martin
Post by Smiler
Post by Don Martin
Post by Smiler
Post by Don Martin
Post by Smiler
On Wednesday, November 1, 2017 at 2:06:30 PM UTC-5, Let Cosby
Post by Let Cosby Go-Justice Must Not Enable Sluts
One man rule is the opposite of democracy.....
This place could sue someone in charge.
A King.
A good King.
See, sometimes the problem with kings is when you have a bad one,
if you had a good one, who didn't die, that would be good and
better.
Jesus will be King.
I hear that Jesus is very pale, so he'll be a wan king.
Watch out for the second coming.
"Don't stand underneath when he flies by!"
You forget that we Brits always carry an umbrella for such
emergencies.
I once read that 1750 is the generally accepted date for when the
umbrella replaced the sword as the must-have accoutrements in London.
This forward thinking led to the Seven Years War and, eventually, to
Empire. How can the noble umbrella lead you now to Brexit? Did it
fall into the wrong hands?
The pinheads didn't need umbrellas.
Post by Don Martin
(This week's _The Economist_ has a briefing on social media as
destructive of politics by sowing disinformation. The run up to the
Brexit referendum is mentioned among the examples.)
Yes, that's quite true. The supposed and heavily touted £360
million/week savings (to go to the NHS) have suddenly disappeared.
Quelle surprise. Now inflation, the fall in the value of the pound and
interest rate rises will wipe out any of that that is left.
Any hope of another referendum to reverse the damage?
Not yet, but when the people see the mess of the exit agreement (or not),
they'll be clamouring for another one, on the basis of "This isn't what we
wanted."
Or better still, "this isn't what we were told we would get!"
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
Smiler
2017-11-09 04:47:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Martin
Post by Smiler
Post by Don Martin
Post by Smiler
Post by Don Martin
Post by Smiler
Post by Don Martin
Post by Smiler
On Wednesday, November 1, 2017 at 2:06:30 PM UTC-5, Let Cosby
Post by Let Cosby Go-Justice Must Not Enable Sluts
One man rule is the opposite of democracy.....
This place could sue someone in charge.
A King.
A good King.
See, sometimes the problem with kings is when you have a bad one,
if you had a good one, who didn't die, that would be good and
better.
Jesus will be King.
I hear that Jesus is very pale, so he'll be a wan king.
Watch out for the second coming.
"Don't stand underneath when he flies by!"
You forget that we Brits always carry an umbrella for such
emergencies.
I once read that 1750 is the generally accepted date for when the
umbrella replaced the sword as the must-have accoutrements in London.
This forward thinking led to the Seven Years War and, eventually, to
Empire. How can the noble umbrella lead you now to Brexit? Did it
fall into the wrong hands?
The pinheads didn't need umbrellas.
Post by Don Martin
(This week's _The Economist_ has a briefing on social media as
destructive of politics by sowing disinformation. The run up to the
Brexit referendum is mentioned among the examples.)
Yes, that's quite true. The supposed and heavily touted £360
million/week savings (to go to the NHS) have suddenly disappeared.
Quelle surprise. Now inflation, the fall in the value of the pound and
interest rate rises will wipe out any of that that is left.
Any hope of another referendum to reverse the damage?
Not yet, but when the people see the mess of the exit agreement (or
not), they'll be clamouring for another one, on the basis of "This isn't
what we wanted."
Or better still, "this isn't what we were told we would get!"
Yep.
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Alex W.
2017-11-06 00:57:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Martin
Post by Smiler
Post by Don Martin
Post by Smiler
On Wednesday, November 1, 2017 at 2:06:30 PM UTC-5, Let Cosby
Post by Let Cosby Go-Justice Must Not Enable Sluts
One man rule is the opposite of democracy.....
This place could sue someone in charge.
A King.
A good King.
See, sometimes the problem with kings is when you have a bad one, if
you had a good one, who didn't die, that would be good and better.
Jesus will be King.
I hear that Jesus is very pale, so he'll be a wan king.
Watch out for the second coming.
"Don't stand underneath when he flies by!"
You forget that we Brits always carry an umbrella for such emergencies.
I once read that 1750 is the generally accepted date for when the
umbrella replaced the sword as the must-have accoutrements in London.
This forward thinking led to the Seven Years War and, eventually, to
Empire. How can the noble umbrella lead you now to Brexit? Did it
fall into the wrong hands?
Note that one can combine the two: a most practical umbrella with a
sword hidden inside the shaft of the brolly. Very much illegal in the
UK nowadays, but I know a couple of people who still carry such....
Post by Don Martin
(This week's _The Economist_ has a briefing on social media as
destructive of politics by sowing disinformation. The run up to the
Brexit referendum is mentioned among the examples.)
Maybe not destructive, but certainly *disruptive* -- and not just of
politics, but public discourse in general. When information and opinion
are not only uncensored but unfiltered, all debate becomes problematic.
Kevrob
2017-11-07 04:29:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex W.
Post by Don Martin
Post by Smiler
Post by Don Martin
Post by Smiler
On Wednesday, November 1, 2017 at 2:06:30 PM UTC-5, Let Cosby
Post by Let Cosby Go-Justice Must Not Enable Sluts
One man rule is the opposite of democracy.....
This place could sue someone in charge.
A King.
A good King.
See, sometimes the problem with kings is when you have a bad one, if
you had a good one, who didn't die, that would be good and better.
Jesus will be King.
I hear that Jesus is very pale, so he'll be a wan king.
Watch out for the second coming.
"Don't stand underneath when he flies by!"
You forget that we Brits always carry an umbrella for such emergencies.
I once read that 1750 is the generally accepted date for when the
umbrella replaced the sword as the must-have accoutrements in London.
This forward thinking led to the Seven Years War and, eventually, to
Empire. How can the noble umbrella lead you now to Brexit? Did it
fall into the wrong hands?
Note that one can combine the two: a most practical umbrella with a
sword hidden inside the shaft of the brolly. Very much illegal in the
UK nowadays, but I know a couple of people who still carry such....
Post by Don Martin
(This week's _The Economist_ has a briefing on social media as
destructive of politics by sowing disinformation. The run up to the
Brexit referendum is mentioned among the examples.)
Maybe not destructive, but certainly *disruptive* -- and not just of
politics, but public discourse in general. When information and opinion
are not only uncensored but unfiltered, all debate becomes problematic.
A John Steed brolly?

Kevin R
Alex W.
2017-11-07 06:32:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by Alex W.
Post by Don Martin
Post by Smiler
Post by Don Martin
Post by Smiler
On Wednesday, November 1, 2017 at 2:06:30 PM UTC-5, Let Cosby
Post by Let Cosby Go-Justice Must Not Enable Sluts
One man rule is the opposite of democracy.....
This place could sue someone in charge.
A King.
A good King.
See, sometimes the problem with kings is when you have a bad one, if
you had a good one, who didn't die, that would be good and better.
Jesus will be King.
I hear that Jesus is very pale, so he'll be a wan king.
Watch out for the second coming.
"Don't stand underneath when he flies by!"
You forget that we Brits always carry an umbrella for such emergencies.
I once read that 1750 is the generally accepted date for when the
umbrella replaced the sword as the must-have accoutrements in London.
This forward thinking led to the Seven Years War and, eventually, to
Empire. How can the noble umbrella lead you now to Brexit? Did it
fall into the wrong hands?
Note that one can combine the two: a most practical umbrella with a
sword hidden inside the shaft of the brolly. Very much illegal in the
UK nowadays, but I know a couple of people who still carry such....
Post by Don Martin
(This week's _The Economist_ has a briefing on social media as
destructive of politics by sowing disinformation. The run up to the
Brexit referendum is mentioned among the examples.)
Maybe not destructive, but certainly *disruptive* -- and not just of
politics, but public discourse in general. When information and opinion
are not only uncensored but unfiltered, all debate becomes problematic.
A John Steed brolly?
Yup.

Although I do not know him personally....

More legally uncomplicated, one can also get umbrellas with cigar tubes
or little round hip flasks built into the shaft, should the gentleman be
overtaken by an urgent need for a smoke or a dram of something Scottish
during his constitutional...
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2017-11-01 23:17:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Let Cosby Go-Justice Must Not Enable Sluts
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Maybe is a good idea to dismiss the word "democracy" because it sounds like hypocrisy.
https://imgflip.com/i/1yj1o9
I know the elderly and the gays are sheltered by it. Good, it works for them.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
HEY, WE R HAVING FUN!
facebook.com/liboriojolgorio
THE JUNGLE
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nffbCR_uCZ6znjf3gLiFRXSAoLzhWtoZ6U4S7Y37aKc/edit?usp=sharing
One man rule is the opposite of democracy.....
When the elites rule, the concept hardly applies.

Democracy would make pedestrians and cyclists the vehicle of choice, not SUVs.
hypatiab7
2017-11-08 05:13:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Let Cosby Go-Justice Must Not Enable Sluts
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Maybe is a good idea to dismiss the word "democracy" because it sounds like hypocrisy.
https://imgflip.com/i/1yj1o9
I know the elderly and the gays are sheltered by it. Good, it works for them.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
HEY, WE R HAVING FUN!
facebook.com/liboriojolgorio
THE JUNGLE
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nffbCR_uCZ6znjf3gLiFRXSAoLzhWtoZ6U4S7Y37aKc/edit?usp=sharing
One man rule is the opposite of democracy.....
The United States is a Republic, not a Democracy. We don't have one man rule
(much to Trumpidiot's surprise). The House of Representatives, Senate, Supreme Court, FBI and CIA kind of got in the way of his becoming the dictator he
wanted to be.
Olrik
2017-11-08 05:37:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Let Cosby Go-Justice Must Not Enable Sluts
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Maybe is a good idea to dismiss the word "democracy" because it sounds like hypocrisy.
https://imgflip.com/i/1yj1o9
I know the elderly and the gays are sheltered by it. Good, it works for them.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
HEY, WE R HAVING FUN!
facebook.com/liboriojolgorio
THE JUNGLE
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nffbCR_uCZ6znjf3gLiFRXSAoLzhWtoZ6U4S7Y37aKc/edit?usp=sharing
One man rule is the opposite of democracy.....
The United States is a Republic, not a Democracy.
"Democracy" is being able to elect representatives. What's a "republic",
then?
Post by hypatiab7
We don't have one man rule
Very few countries have a "one man rule". You're not special regarding that.
Post by hypatiab7
(much to Trumpidiot's surprise). The House of Representatives, Senate, Supreme Court, FBI and CIA kind of got in the way of his becoming the dictator he
wanted to be
--
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
hypatiab7
2017-11-09 06:51:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Olrik
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Let Cosby Go-Justice Must Not Enable Sluts
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Maybe is a good idea to dismiss the word "democracy" because it sounds like hypocrisy.
https://imgflip.com/i/1yj1o9
I know the elderly and the gays are sheltered by it. Good, it works for them.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
HEY, WE R HAVING FUN!
facebook.com/liboriojolgorio
THE JUNGLE
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nffbCR_uCZ6znjf3gLiFRXSAoLzhWtoZ6U4S7Y37aKc/edit?usp=sharing
One man rule is the opposite of democracy.....
The United States is a Republic, not a Democracy.
"Democracy" is being able to elect representatives. What's a "republic",
then?
republic definition


A form of government in which power is explicitly vested in the people, who in turn exercise their power through elected representatives. Today, the terms republic and democracyare virtually interchangeable, but historically the two differed. Democracy implied direct rule by the people, all of whom were equal, whereas republic implied a system of government in which the will of the people was mediated by representatives, who might be wiser and better educated than the average person. In the early American republic, for example, the requirement that voters own property and the establishment of institutions such as the Electoral College were intended to cushion the government from the direct expression of the popular will.

Democracy and Republic via Wikipedia. Better than most, since it gives all definitions past and present. Both are similar these days, but there are differences.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic
Post by Olrik
Post by hypatiab7
We don't have one man rule
Very few countries have a "one man rule". You're not special regarding that.
I didn't say we were. Cody thinks we do. I was responding to him.
Post by Olrik
Post by hypatiab7
(much to Trumpidiot's surprise). The House of Representatives, Senate, Supreme Court, FBI and CIA kind of got in the way of his becoming the dictator he wanted to be
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2017-11-09 13:46:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Olrik
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Let Cosby Go-Justice Must Not Enable Sluts
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Maybe is a good idea to dismiss the word "democracy" because it sounds like hypocrisy.
https://imgflip.com/i/1yj1o9
I know the elderly and the gays are sheltered by it. Good, it works for them.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
HEY, WE R HAVING FUN!
facebook.com/liboriojolgorio
THE JUNGLE
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nffbCR_uCZ6znjf3gLiFRXSAoLzhWtoZ6U4S7Y37aKc/edit?usp=sharing
One man rule is the opposite of democracy.....
The United States is a Republic, not a Democracy.
"Democracy" is being able to elect representatives. What's a "republic",
then?
republic definition
A form of government in which power is explicitly vested in the people, who in turn exercise their power through elected representatives. Today, the terms republic and democracyare virtually interchangeable, but historically the two differed. Democracy implied direct rule by the people, all of whom were equal, whereas republic implied a system of government in which the will of the people was mediated by representatives, who might be wiser and better educated than the average person. In the early American republic, for example, the requirement that voters own property and the establishment of institutions such as the Electoral College were intended to cushion the government from the direct expression of the popular will.
Democracy and Republic via Wikipedia. Better than most, since it gives all definitions past and present. Both are similar these days, but there are differences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic
Post by Olrik
Post by hypatiab7
We don't have one man rule
Very few countries have a "one man rule". You're not special regarding that.
I didn't say we were. Cody thinks we do. I was responding to him.
I love this quote: "Free speech is when they let U talk. Democracy is when they listen."

We absolutely have no democracy.
Malcolm McMahon
2017-11-09 14:46:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Olrik
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Let Cosby Go-Justice Must Not Enable Sluts
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Maybe is a good idea to dismiss the word "democracy" because it sounds like hypocrisy.
https://imgflip.com/i/1yj1o9
I know the elderly and the gays are sheltered by it. Good, it works for them.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
HEY, WE R HAVING FUN!
facebook.com/liboriojolgorio
THE JUNGLE
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nffbCR_uCZ6znjf3gLiFRXSAoLzhWtoZ6U4S7Y37aKc/edit?usp=sharing
One man rule is the opposite of democracy.....
The United States is a Republic, not a Democracy.
"Democracy" is being able to elect representatives. What's a "republic",
then?
republic definition
A form of government in which power is explicitly vested in the people, who in turn exercise their power through elected representatives. Today, the terms republic and democracyare virtually interchangeable, but historically the two differed. Democracy implied direct rule by the people, all of whom were equal, whereas republic implied a system of government in which the will of the people was mediated by representatives, who might be wiser and better educated than the average person. In the early American republic, for example, the requirement that voters own property and the establishment of institutions such as the Electoral College were intended to cushion the government from the direct expression of the popular will.
Democracy and Republic via Wikipedia. Better than most, since it gives all definitions past and present. Both are similar these days, but there are differences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic
Post by Olrik
Post by hypatiab7
We don't have one man rule
Very few countries have a "one man rule". You're not special regarding that.
I didn't say we were. Cody thinks we do. I was responding to him.
I love this quote: "Free speech is when they let U talk. Democracy is when they listen."
We absolutely have no democracy.
We do: We're just not very good at using it.
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2017-11-09 14:56:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
We absolutely have no democracy.
We do: We're just not very good at using it.
Sure, democracy is safe in Christian hands.

Gays are enjoying it too but cyclists and pedestrians are not.
Kevrob
2017-11-09 17:52:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hypatiab7
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic
Post by Olrik
Very few countries have a "one man rule". You're not special regarding that.
I didn't say we were. Cody thinks we do. I was responding to him.
Post by Olrik
Post by hypatiab7
(much to Trumpidiot's surprise). The House of Representatives, Senate, Supreme Court, FBI and CIA kind of got in the way of his becoming the dictator he wanted to be
The USA is a republic with democratic, aristocratic, and monarchical
elements, to put it in the form of an Aristotelean analysis: a "mixed"
republic. The UK, by contrast, is a monarchy with democratic and
aristocratic elements: "a crowned republic," as it has been called.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowned_republic

Very few political structures are purely democratic: a traditional
New England town meeting may come close, but the meeting's grant
of power is limited by the state constitution, so even then it is
only purely democratic in certain areas of local government. Any
such institution in the US will be subject to review by state and
federal courts, for adherence to the Federal Bill of Rights or state
equivalents. (Which is as it should be, IMNSHO.)

Kevin R
Olrik
2017-11-10 05:04:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Olrik
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Let Cosby Go-Justice Must Not Enable Sluts
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Maybe is a good idea to dismiss the word "democracy" because it sounds like hypocrisy.
https://imgflip.com/i/1yj1o9
I know the elderly and the gays are sheltered by it. Good, it works for them.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
HEY, WE R HAVING FUN!
facebook.com/liboriojolgorio
THE JUNGLE
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nffbCR_uCZ6znjf3gLiFRXSAoLzhWtoZ6U4S7Y37aKc/edit?usp=sharing
One man rule is the opposite of democracy.....
The United States is a Republic, not a Democracy.
"Democracy" is being able to elect representatives. What's a "republic",
then?
republic definition
A form of government in which power is explicitly vested in the people, who in turn exercise their power through elected representatives. Today, the terms republic and democracyare virtually interchangeable, but historically the two differed. Democracy implied direct rule by the people, all of whom were equal, whereas republic implied a system of government in which the will of the people was mediated by representatives, who might be wiser and better educated than the average person. In the early American republic, for example, the requirement that voters own property and the establishment of institutions such as the Electoral College were intended to cushion the government from the direct expression of the popular will.
Democracy and Republic via Wikipedia. Better than most, since it gives all definitions past and present. Both are similar these days, but there are differences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic
Thanks.
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Olrik
Post by hypatiab7
We don't have one man rule
Very few countries have a "one man rule". You're not special regarding that.
I didn't say we were. Cody thinks we do. I was responding to him.
Post by Olrik
Post by hypatiab7
(much to Trumpidiot's surprise). The House of Representatives, Senate, Supreme Court, FBI and CIA kind of got in the way of his becoming the dictator he wanted to be
--
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2017-11-10 14:27:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Olrik
Post by hypatiab7
Democracy and Republic via Wikipedia. Better than most, since it gives all definitions past and present. Both are similar these days, but there are differences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic
Thanks.
The elites love democracy for a reason. It gives them carte blanche to do as they please and get away with it. They blame the electorate who's ignorant or corrupt as well. For example, in America the elderly live in perfect socialism (medicare) while the rest of the population struggles with Obamacare or worse. Healthcare is the biggest industry in this country and they don't want U fit.

If a king (hypothetically) were to deliver healthcare and quality of life for all, I would gladly say "Long live the King."
Rick Johnson
2017-11-12 00:46:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, November 10, 2017 at 8:28:03 AM UTC-6, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher wrote:
[...]
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
If a king (hypothetically) were to deliver healthcare and
quality of life for all, I would gladly say "Long live the
King."
And do you think such gifts can be "bestowed" without you
(and the wider community) paying a price?
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2017-11-08 14:26:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Let Cosby Go-Justice Must Not Enable Sluts
One man rule is the opposite of democracy.....
The United States is a Republic, not a Democracy. We don't have one man rule
(much to Trumpidiot's surprise). The House of Representatives, Senate, Supreme Court, FBI and CIA kind of got in the way of his becoming the dictator he
wanted to be.
America is a Banana Republic where SUVs are unregulated and European cars can not be imported freely.

Sometimes U go bananas with the regulations:

BANANAS

“It is absurd that we are told you cannot sell bananas in bunches of more than two or three bananas. You cannot sell bananas with abnormal curvature of the fingers,” Boris Johnson declared during the campaign. He was plain wrong about bunches of bananas, but in 1993, the Commission did genuinely draw up Regulation 404/93 setting out “a new EC-wide banana import regime” which set out what, under EU rules, constituted a standard quality banana. It did not ban misshapen bananas, but it did categorise them as sub-standard. There is a 56 page EU document explaining the regulation, and setting the history of its introduction. This is a trifle absurd, but even outside the EU, British shoppers may resist having to pay the full price for bananas whose shape is not aesthetically pleasing.
Malcolm McMahon
2017-11-02 15:15:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Maybe is a good idea to dismiss the word "democracy" because it sounds like hypocrisy.
https://imgflip.com/i/1yj1o9
I know the elderly and the gays are sheltered by it. Good, it works for them.
https://soupdragonsite.wordpress.com/2016/05/08/how-democracy-actually-works
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2017-11-02 22:43:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Maybe is a good idea to dismiss the word "democracy" because it sounds like hypocrisy.
https://imgflip.com/i/1yj1o9
I know the elderly and the gays are sheltered by it. Good, it works for them.
https://soupdragonsite.wordpress.com/2016/05/08/how-democracy-actually-works
Let's say now that they have the choice to sell one SUV for $50K or 10 mini cars for $10K a piece or 250 bikes for $200 a piece, which amounts to $50K. Let's assume the bikes are the smart choice.

Guess who gets advertised on TV?
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2017-11-03 01:29:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Maybe is a good idea to dismiss the word "democracy" because it sounds like hypocrisy.
https://imgflip.com/i/1yj1o9
I know the elderly and the gays are sheltered by it. Good, it works for them.
https://soupdragonsite.wordpress.com/2016/05/08/how-democracy-actually-works
Let's say now that they have the choice to sell one SUV for $50K or 5 mini cars for $10K a piece or 250 bikes for $200 a piece, which amounts to $50K. Let's assume the bikes are the smart choice.

Guess who gets advertised on TV?
A***@yahoo.com
2017-11-03 05:02:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Maybe is a good idea to dismiss the word "democracy" because it sounds like hypocrisy.
https://imgflip.com/i/1yj1o9
I know the elderly and the gays are sheltered by it. Good, it works for them.
https://soupdragonsite.wordpress.com/2016/05/08/how-democracy-actually-works
Let's say now that they have the choice to sell one SUV for $50K or 5 mini cars for $10K a piece or 250 bikes for $200 a piece, which amounts to $50K. Let's assume the bikes are the smart choice.
Guess who gets advertised on TV?
What about a unicycle?
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2017-11-03 06:56:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A***@yahoo.com
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Maybe is a good idea to dismiss the word "democracy" because it sounds like hypocrisy.
https://imgflip.com/i/1yj1o9
I know the elderly and the gays are sheltered by it. Good, it works for them.
https://soupdragonsite.wordpress.com/2016/05/08/how-democracy-actually-works
Let's say now that they have the choice to sell one SUV for $50K or 5 mini cars for $10K a piece or 250 bikes for $200 a piece, which amounts to $50K. Let's assume the bikes are the smart choice.
Guess who gets advertised on TV?
What about a unicycle?
That's something Jesus would do

Loading Image...
Oleg Smirnov
2017-11-12 00:24:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher,
Well, the elites give us this concept of democracy which
is equally misleading. They give us an opportunity to
vote here and there but not change our quality of life
where it matters.
----snip----
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
The elites love democracy for a reason.
They don't love it, they hate it, Which is why we don't have it.
People are led to believe we have it but we don't. Questioning "democracy"
can be healthful. Sure, we don't have it.
Democracy works purely if number of voters is small enough, and they
are all competent on the issues they vote. It the number is large
enough, it becomes dependent more on how well certain party or person
can promote their narratives, proposals and promises. With increase
of the voters number, the chances of winning depend more on access to
the mass media resources. Thus the owners of the MSM are those who
can manipulate well over the public opinion, so they can significantly
influence result of popular vote. It's not only about the news media,
but also about education and entertainment and everything that can
shape/affect public attitudes.

I call it mediacracy, - and it's not unique to the US only.

In such a situation, the media owners are advantageous to maintain the
myth of free and independent press, but the latter is actually not the
case <http://bit.ly/2ySzuDf>. Recent internet development to some
extent democratized public discussions, made the competition of ideas
and judgments more open and available to the regular people. The big
media and governments are concerned about this, that's why they
exaggerate the topics of fake news, troll factories, extremism etc, and
demand more surveillance and regulation of the communications and
social networks.

The big media nowadays, in fact, implement the role of modern church,
they teach the flocks what is good / bad, right / wrong, in similar way
the clergy did in the past, and they are jealous of competitors.

Trump wouldn't be elected if the mass media simply ignored him. But
they made a fatal mistake of trying to ridicule him and make fun of him.
The result shows two things to me: 1. the omnipotence of the MSM is
still limited; 2. the media owners and pundits, in fact, broke away
from the regular people, they represent interests of the media owners
that are different from the public / national interest. The election of
Trump still has not become their defeat. He was significantly reshaped,
reformatted and tamed during inaugural period (they made him offers he
couldn't refuse, and, besides that, from the beginning, he did not have
a consistent strategic vision of what to do, focusing on separate
'sensitive' / populist issues only). So the US establishment hasn't lost
anything, in fact, but the very case still clearly indicates that the
social situation in the US is unhealthy.
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
It gives them carte blanche to do as they please and get away with it.
Bullshit, If it existed, it would restrain them; we'd have a chance to
build some sane, humane societies to live in.
True. I would start with clean, green communities where we can walk and ride
bike. Safe parks where the kids can have fun, and not be a shelter for the
homeless.
What you're talkking about is what we have: elective oligatcjy
*masquerading* as democtacy.
True. Democracy becomes hypocrisy.
Intelli2
2017-11-12 00:43:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Oleg Smirnov
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher,
Well, the elites give us this concept of democracy which
is equally misleading. They give us an opportunity to
vote here and there but not change our quality of life
where it matters.
----snip----
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
The elites love democracy for a reason.
They don't love it, they hate it, Which is why we don't have it.
People are led to believe we have it but we don't. Questioning "democracy"
can be healthful. Sure, we don't have it.
Democracy works purely if number of voters is small enough, and they
are all competent on the issues they vote. It the number is large
enough, it becomes dependent more on how well certain party or person
can promote their narratives, proposals and promises. With increase
of the voters number, the chances of winning depend more on access to
the mass media resources. Thus the owners of the MSM are those who
can manipulate well over the public opinion, so they can significantly
influence result of popular vote. It's not only about the news media,
but also about education and entertainment and everything that can
shape/affect public attitudes.
I call it mediacracy, - and it's not unique to the US only.
In such a situation, the media owners are advantageous to maintain the
myth of free and independent press, but the latter is actually not the
case <http://bit.ly/2ySzuDf>. Recent internet development to some
extent democratized public discussions, made the competition of ideas
and judgments more open and available to the regular people. The big
media and governments are concerned about this, that's why they
exaggerate the topics of fake news, troll factories, extremism etc, and
demand more surveillance and regulation of the communications and
social networks.
The big media nowadays, in fact, implement the role of modern church,
they teach the flocks what is good / bad, right / wrong, in similar way
the clergy did in the past, and they are jealous of competitors.
Trump wouldn't be elected if the mass media simply ignored him. But
they made a fatal mistake of trying to ridicule him and make fun of him.
The result shows two things to me: 1. the omnipotence of the MSM is
still limited; 2. the media owners and pundits, in fact, broke away
from the regular people, they represent interests of the media owners
that are different from the public / national interest. The election of
Trump still has not become their defeat. He was significantly reshaped,
reformatted and tamed during inaugural period (they made him offers he
couldn't refuse, and, besides that, from the beginning, he did not have
a consistent strategic vision of what to do, focusing on separate
'sensitive' / populist issues only). So the US establishment hasn't lost
anything, in fact, but the very case still clearly indicates that the
social situation in the US is unhealthy.
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
It gives them carte blanche to do as they please and get away with it.
Bullshit, If it existed, it would restrain them; we'd have a chance to
build some sane, humane societies to live in.
True. I would start with clean, green communities where we can walk and ride
bike. Safe parks where the kids can have fun, and not be a shelter for the
homeless.
What you're talkking about is what we have: elective oligatcjy
*masquerading* as democtacy.
True. Democracy becomes hypocrisy.
the media owners and pundits, in fact, broke away
from the regular people, they represent interests of the media owners
that are different from the public / national interest.
You have to understand for example the medias, there is some medias that
fears nationalism, because nationalism has caused lots of problem in the
past, and they fear that nationalism is not well tuned to be capable
of governing the world, so the question now is how to make nationalism
compatible with the right requirements that it needs to govern the
world, and frankly, my opinion is that nationalism is still not
well capable of governing the world, so this is why i can not
give my confidence to Donald Trump, and this is why we need more
than nationalism that is capable of governing the world, you have
to be capable of needing more than nationalism that is more capable
than nationalism , and this is why you have to converge more towards the
political center, and be like a political centrist.



Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Oleg Smirnov
2017-11-13 00:36:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Intelli2
Post by Oleg Smirnov
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher,
True. Democracy becomes hypocrisy.
the media owners and pundits, in fact, broke away from the regular
people, they represent interests of the media owners that are different
from the public / national interest.
You have to understand for example the medias, there is some medias that
fears nationalism, because nationalism has caused lots of problem in the
past, and they fear that nationalism is not well tuned to be capable of
governing the world, so the question now is how to make nationalism
compatible with the right requirements that it needs to govern the world,
and frankly, my opinion is that nationalism is still not well capable of
governing the world, so this is why i can not give my confidence to
Donald Trump, and this is why we need more than nationalism that is
capable of governing the world, you have to be capable of needing more
than nationalism that is more capable than nationalism , and this is why
you have to converge more towards the political center, and be like a
political centrist.
To be realistic, regardless of whether one likes it or not, nationalism
is an integral attribute of democracy. Because the very basic implication
behind the democratic vote is that the people, despite various possible
disagreements and disputes among them, still form some unity that's above
the particular disagreements. If there is no such a unity, then there's no
need for democracy, - everyone just will deal with their separate affairs
independently.

Such a sense of unity is what nationalism is. Fighting it means fighting
democracy, because democracy cannot work properly if there's no national
unity. It still does not imply a [forcible] unification, moreover the
idea of unity implies a due respect for legitimate needs and preferences
of all kinds of people that constitute the nation. If a part of it tries
to usurp the right to speak and act on behalf of the whole nation and
forcibly impose something on some other part, then it naturally leads to a
fascism and / or division and separation (like, for example, in the recent
Ukraine case).

But there may be also some problem minorities who tend to oppose themselves
to all the rest, consider themselves an exceptional or superior group,
demand some too much special things, manifest disrespect to others or do
something to harass / annoy others etc. Indulge and encourage them would
be a wrong policy. In practice, such issues may be subtle, may be linked to
certain cultural features and historical grievances. It might require a
special solution in each particular case. Sense of proportion is required.
Rick Johnson
2017-11-13 04:04:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Oleg Smirnov wrote:
[...]
Post by Oleg Smirnov
To be realistic, regardless of whether one likes it or not,
nationalism is an integral attribute of democracy. Because
the very basic implication behind the democratic vote is
that the people, despite various possible disagreements and
disputes among them, still form some unity that's above the
particular disagreements. If there is no such a unity, then
there's no need for democracy, - everyone just will deal
with their separate affairs independently.
A lucid observation. One which can be studied in detail if
we juxtapose the Past 240 years of the "American experiment"
with the paltry 60+ years of the "European Union
experiment". In particular, we must ask ourselves: "What
force has held the American Union together for so long?" Or
more specifically: "Why is the EU falling apart after only a
few decades whilst the USA has managed to endure for
hundreds of years?" And the answer to that question is
suprisingly simple.

(1) A universal love and respect for democracy and
individual liberty (at least historically)
(2) A common language (at least historically)
(3) A common monetary system

Throughout the history of the USA, people from various
ethnic backgrounds have sailed across entire oceans, leaving
all their worldly possessions behind, and arriving with
literally nothing but the clothes on their back, just for a
chance to partake in the shared ideals of freedom and democracy
(however valid they may or may not be). And it is this
universal sentiment (at least historically), that has binded
americans together in common cause. And the universal
language and monetary system are just icing on that cake.

Contrast that reality with the age old Balkanization of the
European continent, and it's absolutely amazing the EU has
managed to remain cohesive for even a few decades. But
unfortunately for europe, the writing is on the wall, and i
believe the union will soon tear itself apart.

But America in not safe from her own self destruction
either. And it could be that the fall of the EU *OR* the
fall of US brings the whole house of western cards tumbling
down much to the delight of Vlad, Xi, and the little rocket
man from NK.
Post by Oleg Smirnov
Such a sense of unity is what nationalism is. Fighting it
means fighting democracy, because democracy cannot work
properly if there's no national unity. It still does not
imply a [forcible] unification, moreover the idea of unity
implies a due respect for legitimate needs and preferences
of all kinds of people that constitute the nation.
Indeed. Nationalism is vital component for survival in our
violent universe, and it only becomes dangerous when it is
transformed into a state religion. For instance, singing a
national anthem at special events or showing respect for
your nation's flag and military is a healthy form of
nationalism, OTOH, goose stepping around in jack boots,
parading tanks and thermonuclear weapons in the public
square, participating in state sponsored terrorism, and
generally scaring little old ladies and minorites, is not.
Post by Oleg Smirnov
If a part of it tries to usurp the right to speak and act
on behalf of the whole nation and forcibly impose something
on some other part, then it naturally leads to a fascism
and / or division and separation (like, for example, in the
recent Ukraine case).
But there may be also some problem minorities who tend to
oppose themselves to all the rest, consider themselves an
exceptional or superior group, demand some too much special
things, manifest disrespect to others or do something to
harass / annoy others etc. Indulge and encourage them would
be a wrong policy. In practice, such issues may be subtle,
may be linked to certain cultural features and historical
grievances. It might require a special solution in each
particular case. Sense of proportion is required.
For a citizen to reject participation in patriotic spectacle
is harmless, OTOH, for a citizen to purposfully undermine
the cohesive component of democracy (namely: nationalism) is
quite another. Such acts are, in fact, a subversion of
democracy itself.

Not of a _sovereign_.

Nor of a _state_.

But of _democracy_ itself.
!! Atheist ------------------------------
2017-11-13 04:47:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rick Johnson
For a citizen to reject participation in patriotic spectacle
is harmless, OTOH, for a citizen to purposfully undermine
the cohesive component of democracy (namely: nationalism) is
quite another. Such acts are, in fact, a subversion of
democracy itself.
Make up your mind, dickhead, harmless or death-penalty treason?

and please keep your mindless political bullshit out of alt.atheism. Idiot.
--
There is no verifiable evidence of any god(s). None whatsoever.
Extortion (Believe or Burn) is *THE* foundation of Christianity.
Sycophant: a compulsive ass-kisser of un-evidenced dictator god.
Rick Johnson
2017-11-13 06:30:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Rick Johnson
For a citizen to reject participation in patriotic
spectacle is harmless, OTOH, for a citizen to purposefully
nationalism) is quite [destructive]. Such acts are, in
fact, a subversion of democracy itself.
Make up your mind, dickhead, harmless or death-penalty
treason? and please keep your mindless political bullshit
out of alt.atheism. Idiot.
Hmm...

i've always wondered why a person would pick "Atheist" as a
nym[1]. And now i have a sneaking suspicion that not _only_
are you a raving mad, wing nutted, lunatic fringe ideologue
who's chronic case of Trump Derangement Syndrome would make
a pandemic of thrombosed hemorrhoids seem like a walk in the
park with a therapeutic ice-cream-cone shoved dairy-side-
first up your well-laid ass -- your nym just absolutely
_reeks_ of pathological insecurities concerning your own
"supposed atheism".

How sad.

And now, tell me, "fellow hethen": when has political
bullshit _ever_ been off limits in this fine group? Huh?
Heck, there's so much political bullshit pilling up daily in
this group that we all need wings just to stay above it.
Come to think of it, about the only thing 'round here that
can out-reek the political bullshit is the religious
bullshit. So, like it or not, bullshit seems to be an
integral part of this group.

[1] Nevermind all the logical "!" business and the faux
horizontal rule. @_@ I mean, really... is this some sort of
crude attempt at pseudo intellectual symbology, adolescent
accessorizing, or just a pathetic cry for attention?
!! Atheist ------------------------------
2017-11-13 15:34:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rick Johnson
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Rick Johnson
For a citizen to reject participation in patriotic
spectacle is harmless, OTOH, for a citizen to purposefully
nationalism) is quite [destructive]. Such acts are, in
fact, a subversion of democracy itself.
Make up your mind, dickhead, harmless or death-penalty
treason? and please keep your mindless political bullshit
out of alt.atheism. Idiot.
Hmm...
i've always wondered why a person would pick "Atheist" as a
nym[1].
Is that your best, to attack my nym? Trolling idiot. Go away.
--
There is no verifiable evidence of any god(s). None whatsoever.
Extortion (Believe or Burn) is *THE* foundation of Christianity.
Sycophant: a compulsive ass-kisser of un-evidenced dictator god.
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2017-11-13 15:35:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Oleg Smirnov
The social fabric of the US is tearing itself apart at the seams due to a
constant pressure applied by the media. And it won't take much to send this
nut-house into full-tilt anarchy mode. Which would be fine by me. As these
highly structured enviroments are my kryptonite.
Your remarks fit well to what I think myself. I also think that it's
not an exclusively American issue, although in the present day America it
manifests itself more pronouncedly than in other countries. Consolidation
of media seems to be a global trend <http://bit.ly/1TC1ZTm>, and it poses
a real prospect of development towards a cultist-like ideocracy.
Having an enemy sells the media and feeds the industrial-military industry. We can't live without an enemy.
I don't know how well "democracy" works in Russia, but I'll tell U a trick they use in America. They treat the corrupt elderly to "socialism," where they are spared from the harshness of the capitalist system, and they vote en masse. It's called GERONTOCRACY. It's not fair for the younger generations who struggle with Obamacare or worse. No politician ever dares cut their benefits as they would be punished. Having dementia is no obstacle to vote.

Younger generations face an uncertain future, where climate change and wars are a reality, and not even social security payments are certain. Thus democracy is fake and flawed. We must empower younger generations and treat them to some socialism as well.
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2017-11-13 15:58:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
We must empower younger generations and treat them to some socialism as well. #democracy #hypocrisy #bananapower https://t.co/oiyEgrBzzv
Deng Qi Feng
2017-11-13 16:06:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Run the 3D printers on full blast with free solar power! Flood the market with cheap goods

3D printers require little human labor
Solar power comes from the sun which is free
3D printers will eventually be so high tech they can make almost anything including human organs
Solar power is abundant

Do the math folks

Revolution!
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2017-11-13 17:07:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Deng Qi Feng
Run the 3D printers on full blast with free solar power! Flood the market with cheap goods
3D printers require little human labor
Solar power comes from the sun which is free
3D printers will eventually be so high tech they can make almost anything including human organs
Solar power is abundant
Do the math folks
Revolution!
Can we get Banana Revolution?
Kevrob
2017-11-13 18:36:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Rick Johnson
Post by !! Atheist ------------------------------
Post by Rick Johnson
For a citizen to reject participation in patriotic
spectacle is harmless, OTOH, for a citizen to purposefully
nationalism) is quite [destructive]. Such acts are, in
fact, a subversion of democracy itself.
Make up your mind, dickhead, harmless or death-penalty
treason? and please keep your mindless political bullshit
out of alt.atheism. Idiot.
Hmm...
i've always wondered why a person would pick "Atheist" as a
nym[1].
Is that your best, to attack my nym? Trolling idiot. Go away.
Ol' Not-Not may be an atheist, but that doesn't preclude him
from being a troll on other grounds. His habitual insults to
other posters, many of them perfectly cromulent atheists or
non-believing agnostics, make me wonder if the "atheist" portion
of his nym is just a troll's mask. A flipped Poe's Law poster?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

He/she/it has only participated in the group using this nym
and email address since just before the new year. He could
easily have been some other troll who plagued the group before.

Kevin R
Rick Johnson
2017-11-14 00:53:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Ol' Not-Not
Good one! ;-)
Post by Kevrob
may be an atheist, but that doesn't preclude him from being
a troll on other grounds. His habitual insults to other
posters, many of them perfectly cromulent atheists or non-
believing agnostics, make me wonder if the "atheist"
portion of his nym is just a troll's mask. A flipped Poe's
Law poster?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
He/she/it has only participated in the group using this nym
and email address since just before the new year. He could
easily have been some other troll who plagued the group
before.
Yeah, i've been highly suspicious of this character as well.

And what makes me suspicious is the constant need of this
character to define atheism. It's as though ol' not-not is
trying desperately to convince him/her self that he/she _is_
an atheist.

A sad spectacle.

Of course, as you say, it could all just be a charade. And,
there is always the possibility of a bot. But i have not
followed the posts closely enough to make an informed
decision concerning the latter.

For the time being, i will stick to my initial impression
that ol' not-not is simply a highly intolerant partisan
ideologue (which BTW, is unsurprisingly common on the
internet these days). And it's a sad thing to see really.
You see, once those political parties get their claws in
you, they suck out all your individuality and soon there's
nothing remaining but an obnoxious gas-bag leaking poisonous
talking points and highly spin-doctored narratives.

No wonder zombie flicks are all the rage these days.

They say art imitates life, but... this is ridiculous!
Alex W.
2017-11-14 10:43:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rick Johnson
[...]
Post by Oleg Smirnov
To be realistic, regardless of whether one likes it or not,
nationalism is an integral attribute of democracy. Because
the very basic implication behind the democratic vote is
that the people, despite various possible disagreements and
disputes among them, still form some unity that's above the
particular disagreements. If there is no such a unity, then
there's no need for democracy, - everyone just will deal
with their separate affairs independently.
A lucid observation. One which can be studied in detail if
we juxtapose the Past 240 years of the "American experiment"
with the paltry 60+ years of the "European Union
experiment". In particular, we must ask ourselves: "What
force has held the American Union together for so long?" Or
more specifically: "Why is the EU falling apart after only a
few decades whilst the USA has managed to endure for
hundreds of years?" And the answer to that question is
suprisingly simple.
(1) A universal love and respect for democracy and
individual liberty (at least historically)
(2) A common language (at least historically)
(3) A common monetary system
To (1):
Let's be honest here. Historically speaking, there was no such thing in
the US. Love and respect for democracy and individual liberty only
applied if you were a white Christian (preferably Protestant) male land
owner. Suffrage may have been extended to all white men quite soon
after founding, but women and anyone without skin the colour of the
Pillsbury Doughboy had to wait until well into the 20th century to enjoy
the right to vote. As for individual liberty, those of Mexican descent
in the South-Western states and black Americans as much as Native
Americans have a radically different historical experience.

Just to make sure: I do think the Constitution is a marvellous document
and there is much that is good and fine and laudable about the United
States (both current and historical), but I also firmly believe that we
should be honest with ourselves when looking at our respective
countries. A failure to acknowledge our past with all its warts as well
as triumphs does us all a grave disservice.

As far as the EU is concerned, there is a clear and recognised deficit
in the democratic legitimacy of the EU. Many people did not sign up for
what it would become, or indeed were not even asked. But on the other
hand, the very construction of the European Union which rests on the
voluntary surrender of some sovereign powers to a supranational entity
does ensure that rights are scrupulously and jealously guarded. The
European parliament, flawed as it is, does provide for another level of
supervision of individual member governments. The European Court of
Human Justice offers individuals an avenue of legal recourse above and
beyond the national courts which can be too limited and constrained to
render just verdicts.

To (2):
A common language is useful and indeed essential. That said, such a
common language need not be universal. China has been a successful
multi-cultural and multi-lingual nation for a very long time now, but
the official Mandarin is still only the native tongue of a minority.
India is a successful democracy, and what unites them is the common
administrative language of English ... but the people themselves speak
some 780 different languages. The most successful empire in human
history was Rome, but Latin was never a universal language.

When it comes to Europe, we had a common language for centuries: Latin.
Whatever rulers and their people spoke at home, matters of law,
culture, finance and diplomacy were dealt with in Latin. Later, this
was replaced by French: from Russia to the tip of Sicily, this was used
for diplomacy, learned discourse, culture. Common, but not universal.
And now, in the EU, English is fast becoming the next common language.
It is terrible to hear how it is being mangled by Germans, French or
Spaniards, but it works. Danes and Finns and Hungarians may work
together on a project in Bulgaria, and they all speak English.

To (3):
That is the kicker. Historically, there has never been a successful
monetary union without a political union. This is a widely known truth,
on all sides of the political spectrum. It is why Eurosceptics fight
the EU, and why Europhiles keep pushing for ever closer union. You
cannot have one without the other, and right now there is no way a true
political union is going to happen. National governments are not going
to legislate themselves into provincial irrelevance, even if their
electorates would allow it (which they won't). But the Euro forces them
to move closer and closer to political union through the back door,
because there simply are no procedures and pathways towards unwinding
the currency. A failure of the Euro would be a catastrophic shambles,
utterly unthinkable. It would make the Global Financial Crisis look
like a children's tea party. So all they can do is to try and paper
over the problems while delegating ever more power and inching towards
that which they do not want.... caught by their own rhetoric and
ambition.
Post by Rick Johnson
Throughout the history of the USA, people from various
ethnic backgrounds have sailed across entire oceans, leaving
all their worldly possessions behind, and arriving with
literally nothing but the clothes on their back, just for a
chance to partake in the shared ideals of freedom and democracy
(however valid they may or may not be). And it is this
universal sentiment (at least historically), that has binded
americans together in common cause. And the universal
language and monetary system are just icing on that cake.
See above. What matters is a unified monetary system. The US could
well have survived with multiple languages (Canada does so quite
handily, as does Switzerland), as long as there is only one
administrative language.

Do also note the other fundamental difference between the US and the EU:
that for the most part, immigrants were self-selecting, made a conscious
individual choice to abandon their old homes and old ways and adopt the
new world of the US. This is absolutely not the case with the EU. So
in personal outlook, in the social and cultural and political views, and
in the shared experience, the US is in fact far more homogenous than the
EU.
Post by Rick Johnson
Contrast that reality with the age old Balkanization of the
European continent, and it's absolutely amazing the EU has
managed to remain cohesive for even a few decades. But
unfortunately for europe, the writing is on the wall, and i
believe the union will soon tear itself apart.
I ma not so sure.

If and when the Euro fails, the fallout will be dramatic and massive.
But the 28 member states have too much invested, derive too much benefit
from their association to let the Union itself fail. Even now, the EU
is a functioning internal market of 510 million people using ten
different currencies. SO I could see the Euro being retrenched and
redefined as a basket of currencies, like the ECU, and used for
intergovernmental dealings and Brussels budgetary use.
Post by Rick Johnson
But America in not safe from her own self destruction
either. And it could be that the fall of the EU *OR* the
fall of US brings the whole house of western cards tumbling
down much to the delight of Vlad, Xi, and the little rocket
man from NK.
Post by Oleg Smirnov
Such a sense of unity is what nationalism is. Fighting it
means fighting democracy, because democracy cannot work
properly if there's no national unity. It still does not
imply a [forcible] unification, moreover the idea of unity
implies a due respect for legitimate needs and preferences
of all kinds of people that constitute the nation.
Indeed. Nationalism is vital component for survival in our
violent universe, and it only becomes dangerous when it is
transformed into a state religion. For instance, singing a
national anthem at special events or showing respect for
your nation's flag and military is a healthy form of
nationalism, OTOH, goose stepping around in jack boots,
parading tanks and thermonuclear weapons in the public
square, participating in state sponsored terrorism, and
generally scaring little old ladies and minorites, is not.
Hmmm ... To us rightpondians, the American habits of flying the
Stars'n'Stripes at every opportunity, of singing the national anthem
even at Little League games and of making school children swear
allegiance to the flag has always been seen with some scepticism and
amusement. It always seemed just a little over the top. But that is
really a cultural difference, and if you are happy with it, where's the
harm?

Nationalism in general, however, is a different kettle of tea. If we
had to settle on one over-riding reason for the existence and spread of
the EU, it is our experience of nationalism. We remember our young men
marching off into the meat grinder of World War One singing the national
anthem. We remember what happens when unscrupulous politicians invoke
nationalism and lead us into carnage. The very balkanisation of Europe
that you speak of above is a result of nationalism. We know that "our
country, right or wrong" is a recipe for bloody disaster. This is our
experience, and we have the history to prove it. And we are not really
keen to see it happening again ...
Post by Rick Johnson
For a citizen to reject participation in patriotic spectacle
is harmless, OTOH, for a citizen to purposfully undermine
the cohesive component of democracy (namely: nationalism) is
quite another. Such acts are, in fact, a subversion of
democracy itself.
Not of a _sovereign_.
Nor of a _state_.
But of _democracy_ itself.
Tell that to the folk who do not bother to turn up for elections, or who
make serious efforts to avoid jury duty....
Rick Johnson
2017-11-14 19:24:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rick Johnson
[...]
Post by Oleg Smirnov
To be realistic, regardless of whether one likes it or
not, nationalism is an integral attribute of democracy.
Because the very basic implication behind the democratic
vote is that the people, despite various possible
disagreements and disputes among them, still form some
unity that's above the particular disagreements. If there
is no such a unity, then there's no need for democracy, -
everyone just will deal with their separate affairs
independently.
A lucid observation. One which can be studied in detail if
we juxtapose the Past 240 years of the "American
experiment" with the paltry 60+ years of the "European
"What force has held the American Union together for so
long?" Or more specifically: "Why is the EU falling apart
after only a few decades whilst the USA has managed to
endure for hundreds of years?" And the answer to that
question is suprisingly simple.
(1) A universal love and respect for democracy and
individual liberty (at least historically)
(2) A common language (at least historically)
(3) A common monetary system
To (1): Let's be honest here. Historically speaking, there
was no such thing in the US. Love and respect for
democracy and individual liberty only applied if you were a
white Christian (preferably Protestant) male land owner.
And of course they were all white. Most of the early
settlers were western Europeans. That was the demographic.
Suffrage may have been extended to all white men quite soon
after founding, but women and anyone without skin the
colour of the Pillsbury Doughboy had to wait until well
into the 20th century to enjoy the right to vote.
You're ignoring the fact that men made all the decisions in
those days. It was the _men_ who decided to up-sticks and
move across the atlantic, not the women. So these quibbles
seem irrelevant. And regardless of _who_ was making the
decision, or _what_ demographics constituted early america,
i don't see how anyone could disagree that the blindingly
obviously motivating force for migration to america was the
shared _ideals_. Namely: Freedom and liberty. It wasn't
because of a shared language. It wasn't because of some
perceived "diversity" (because there was little of that).
No. It was shared ideals.
As for individual liberty, those of Mexican descent in the
South-Western states and black Americans as much as Native
Americans have a radically different historical experience.
Of course. I am not blind to the injustices of american
history. Whether fair, tolerant, diverse -- or not --
history is history. And although we cannot change it, we can
learn from our mistakes. Which i believe the USA is in the
process of doing, and has been for the last couple of
centuries. Sometimes quick. Sometime slow. But nevertheless,
a slow and steady march towards equality.
Just to make sure: I do think the Constitution is a
marvellous document and there is much that is good and fine
and laudable about the United States (both current and
historical), but I also firmly believe that we should be
honest with ourselves when looking at our respective
countries. A failure to acknowledge our past with all its
warts as well as triumphs does us all a grave disservice.
Agreed. :-)
As far as the EU is concerned, there is a clear and
recognised deficit in the democratic legitimacy of the EU.
Many people did not sign up for what it would become, or
indeed were not even asked. But on the other hand, the
very construction of the European Union which rests on the
voluntary surrender of some sovereign powers to a
supranational entity does ensure that rights are
scrupulously and jealously guarded. The European
parliament, flawed as it is, does provide for another level
of supervision of individual member governments. The
European Court of Human Justice offers individuals an
avenue of legal recourse above and beyond the national
courts which can be too limited and constrained to render
just verdicts.
There's a bit of apologetics going on there :-), but your
points are no less valid. Of course, there is the flip side
of coin... for starters, large administrative structures
have a unique bird's eye view perspective of the system they
oversee -- which offers the chance to streamline bottle
necks not visible to the smaller jurisdictions-- but
typically these large admins fail to seize on these
opportunities -- mostly due to bitter politics -- and their
nose-bleed perspective also leads to them being out of touch
with the various local peoples. That's why i'm a firm
believer that only local governments know what is best for
local people/systems. Of course, small admins systems have
their own inherent flaws as well, due to their narrow focus
undermining the efficiency of the greater system. One
example of this was early road signage, which would vary
from one local jurisdiction to another. The standardization
of signage was actually one of the great victories of the
federal government.
To (2): A common language is useful and indeed essential.
That said, such a common language need not be universal.
China has been a successful multi-cultural and multi-
lingual nation for a very long time now, but the official
Mandarin is still only the native tongue of a minority.
India is a successful democracy, and what unites them is
the common administrative language of English ...
And the key concept here is the establishment of an
"administrative language". Sure, let the people learn and
speak however many languages please them, but for sanities
sake man #_%, do official business in _one_ language. And
there is no reason why the official language cannot change
or evolve over time. For instance, if only a minority of the
populace are speaking the official language, then something
may be wrong. But changing official languages is not to be
taken lightly, as such action could erase history, and be
expensive. Of course, I believe as the high-tech,
instantaneous natural-language-translation-utilities evolve
in the future, the sub-optimal nature of multi-lingual
communication (epitomized in the old adage: "lost in
translation") will disappear, and we can go back to speaking
as many diverse languages and regional dialects as we
please.
To (3): That is the kicker. Historically, there has never
been a successful monetary union without a political union.
This is a widely known truth, on all sides of the political
spectrum.
I see a unified monetary system as both a pro and a con. On
one hand, a unified system is more practical and efficient,
but OTOH, it is ripe for corruption. Large concentrations of
money attract the worse kinds of people, and that's why i
fear a one-world government. Because, when all the world's
economic power flows to a single entity, such an entity will
become the most wasteful, corrupt and depraved in all of
human history.
It is why Eurosceptics fight the EU, and why Europhiles
keep pushing for ever closer union. You cannot have one
without the other, and right now there is no way a true
political union is going to happen. National governments
are not going to legislate themselves into provincial
irrelevance, even if their electorates would allow it
(which they won't).
I dunno, our leftpondian congress critters are pretty damn
irrelevant these days. Yet still, they leverage the power to
mandate their own salaries, healthcare and vacation time.
Man! Now that's the kinda irrelevantly i'd like to have!
But the Euro forces them to move closer and closer to
political union through the back door, because there simply
are no procedures and pathways towards unwinding the
currency. A failure of the Euro would be a catastrophic
shambles, utterly unthinkable. It would make the Global
Financial Crisis look like a children's tea party. So all
they can do is to try and paper over the problems while
delegating ever more power and inching towards that which
they do not want.... caught by their own rhetoric and
ambition.
"Papering over problems", "delegating ever more power", "and
inching towards that which they do not want" -- sounds like
we yanks are not the only folks in a pickle!
Post by Rick Johnson
Throughout the history of the USA, people from various
ethnic backgrounds have sailed across entire oceans,
leaving all their worldly possessions behind, and arriving
with literally nothing but the clothes on their back, just
for a chance to partake in the shared ideals of freedom
and democracy (however valid they may or may not be). And
it is this universal sentiment (at least historically),
that has binded americans together in common cause. And
the universal language and monetary system are just icing
on that cake.
See above. What matters is a unified monetary system. The
US could well have survived with multiple languages (Canada
does so quite handily, as does Switzerland), as long as
there is only one administrative language.
Agreed. I'm all for diversity of language (warning: caveat
ahead!) so long as each and every citizen can communicate
fluently in the official admin language.
Do also note the other fundamental difference between the
US and the EU: that for the most part, immigrants were
self-selecting, made a conscious individual choice to
abandon their old homes and old ways and adopt the new
world of the US. This is absolutely not the case with the
EU. So in personal outlook, in the social and cultural and
political views, and in the shared experience, the US is in
fact far more homogenous than the EU.
Agreed. And we yanks have one other historical advantage
over you Euros: a clean slate! Which unfortunately is a
result of genocide. But again, history is history, and we
cannot do anything about that now.
Post by Rick Johnson
Contrast that reality with the age old Balkanization of the
European continent, and it's absolutely amazing the EU has
managed to remain cohesive for even a few decades. But
unfortunately for europe, the writing is on the wall, and i
believe the union will soon tear itself apart.
I['m] not so sure. If and when the Euro fails, the fallout
will be dramatic and massive.
Agreed. But i cannot ignore the passionate nationalism that
is sweeping across the member states. Poland just had a
large rally; Catalonians are marching in the streets with
the intent to fracture Spain; Greece is one welfare check
away from insolvency; Estonia has strong nationalist
tendencies -- **BUT MOST WORRISOME OF ALL** -- the effects
of Brexit are yet to be seen. The EU is suffering some
major tectonic shifts. Now, whether all this social strife
is a matter of growing pangs or something more self-
destructive, is yet to be seen.
But the 28 member states have too much invested, derive too
much benefit from their association to let the Union itself
fail. Even now, the EU is a functioning internal market of
510 million people using ten different currencies. SO I
could see the Euro being retrenched and redefined as a
basket of currencies, like the ECU, and used for
intergovernmental dealings and Brussels budgetary use.
I think if the EU can survive the UK's departure, then
possibly it can survive. But there is also a danger of the
domino effect. If a smaller member state were leaving, no
big deal, however, according to Google: "The UK is the
fourth largest contributor to the EU -- 11.34 billion euros
($12.24 billion) after Germany, Fance, and Italy". So no
doubt brexit will be a devastating blow to the EU economy.

[...]
Post by Rick Johnson
Indeed. Nationalism is vital component for survival in our
violent universe, and it only becomes dangerous when it is
transformed into a state religion. For instance, singing a
national anthem at special events or showing respect for
your nation's flag and military is a healthy form of
nationalism, OTOH, goose stepping around in jack boots,
parading tanks and thermonuclear weapons in the public
square, participating in state sponsored terrorism, and
generally scaring little old ladies and minorites, is not.
Hmmm ... To us rightpondians, the American habits of flying
the Stars'n'Stripes at every opportunity, of singing the
national anthem even at Little League games and of making
school children swear allegiance to the flag has always
been seen with some scepticism and amusement. It always
seemed just a little over the top. But that is really a
cultural difference, and if you are happy with it, where's
the harm?
I agree that us yanks place far too much emphasis on
patriotism. I suppose our fear is that we won't have enough
unity to face an enemy if we don't force every small child
to perform patriotic rituals. Hmm, i could go either way on
the subject. Personally, my participation in the PoA ended
somewhere in my middle school years, and by my high school
years, i noticed only a small handful of die hards would
bother reciting the pledge. I believe nationalism can be
dangerous. But i also believe we must show a united front to
our enemies, lest they be emboldened. It's a fine line to
walk, really. And tyrants like Rocket Man must never be
under the impression that he will receive sympathy from any
american should he launch those missiles. He will receive
_something_, but it won't be sympathy.
Nationalism in general, however, is a different kettle of
tea. If we had to settle on one over-riding reason for the
existence and spread of the EU, it is our experience of
nationalism. We remember our young men marching off into
the meat grinder of World War One singing the national
anthem. We remember what happens when unscrupulous
politicians invoke nationalism and lead us into carnage.
The very balkanisation of Europe that you speak of above is
a result of nationalism. We know that "our country, right
or wrong" is a recipe for bloody disaster. This is our
experience, and we have the history to prove it. And we
are not really keen to see it happening again ...
And you are wise to feel this way. As i mentioned before,
nationalism is very, *VERY*, dangerous. And we observed just
how dangerous is can be during WW2! When not only was it
utilized to kill perceived foreign enemies, it was also
utilized as a justification for fratricide and ethnic
cleansing. That nightmare was the prime example of what
happens when nationalism is converted into a state religion.

Like any tool -- and nationalism is very much a tool, a
"social tool" to be specific -- it can be utilized to unite
a common people in a common cause against a foreign
aggressor, *OR*, it can be utilized to unite a common people
in the common cause of commiting the most egregious acts in
all of human history.

Along the same lines, we can place a gun in the possession
of a person of good moral character and we can rest assured
that the gun will only be used in justifiable self defense.
OTOH, if we give the same gun to any of: Adam Landza, Devin
Kelly, John Allen Mohammed, Lee Boyd Malvo, Shawn Lester,
Kyle Aaron Huff, Nidal Malik Hasan, Wade Page, Chris Dorner,
Glenn Miller Jr., Dylann Roof, Muhammed Youssef Abdulazeez,
Robert Dear, Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, Omar Mateen
-- or any number of loons who killed innocents for reasons
ranging from religious/political ideology, to racism, to
revenge, or due to mental derangement, etc.. -- then very
bad things are about to happen.

So, to draw a conclusion here...

It is not so much about _which_ tool is used to achieve an
end. What is more important is _how_ and by _whom_ it is
used. On the bright side, consider that the allies used
nationalism to great effect in order to achieve victory in
two world wars. So nationalism is not our enemy. Whereas,
people with ill-intent can be.
Post by Rick Johnson
For a citizen to reject participation in patriotic
spectacle is harmless, OTOH, for a citizen to purposfully
nationalism) is quite another. Such acts are, in fact, a
subversion of democracy itself.
Not of a _sovereign_.
Nor of a _state_.
But of _democracy_ itself.
Tell that to the folk who do not bother to turn up for
elections, or who make serious efforts to avoid jury
duty....
Guilty as charged! O:-)

Truth be told, i would _really_ like to participate in our
democracy. However, being that our elections are a total
*EFFING* shame and our justice system is a sick joke, i just
cannot hold my nose long enough to participate in the "big
stink". Besides, i can assure you, no judge wants me on a
jury. Heck, I'd probably be held in contempt on the first
day. And for reasons of ensuring my personal liberty, i have
committed my life to avoiding couthouses for any and all
reasons.
Don Martin
2017-11-14 23:19:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex W.
Post by Rick Johnson
[...]
Post by Oleg Smirnov
To be realistic, regardless of whether one likes it or not,
nationalism is an integral attribute of democracy. Because
the very basic implication behind the democratic vote is
that the people, despite various possible disagreements and
disputes among them, still form some unity that's above the
particular disagreements. If there is no such a unity, then
there's no need for democracy, - everyone just will deal
with their separate affairs independently.
A lucid observation. One which can be studied in detail if
we juxtapose the Past 240 years of the "American experiment"
with the paltry 60+ years of the "European Union
experiment". In particular, we must ask ourselves: "What
force has held the American Union together for so long?" Or
more specifically: "Why is the EU falling apart after only a
few decades whilst the USA has managed to endure for
hundreds of years?" And the answer to that question is
suprisingly simple.
(1) A universal love and respect for democracy and
individual liberty (at least historically)
(2) A common language (at least historically)
(3) A common monetary system
Let's be honest here. Historically speaking, there was no such thing in
the US. Love and respect for democracy and individual liberty only
applied if you were a white Christian (preferably Protestant) male land
owner. Suffrage may have been extended to all white men quite soon
after founding, but women and anyone without skin the colour of the
Pillsbury Doughboy had to wait until well into the 20th century to enjoy
the right to vote.
Correction: the 15th Amendment that extended the franchise to black
males was certified as duly ratified and part of the Constitution on
March 30, 1870. As usual in this country, this was a political
move--the Republicans suspected that they would not remain in control
of government without the black (and grateful for Lincoln) vote.
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
Ned Latham
2017-11-13 04:34:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Oleg Smirnov wrote:

----snip----
Post by Oleg Smirnov
To be realistic, regardless of whether one likes it or not, nationalism
is an integral attribute of democracy.
Rubbish. The two have no relation.
Post by Oleg Smirnov
Because the very basic implication behind the democratic vote is that
the people, despite various possible disagreements and disputes among
them, still form some unity that's above the particular disagreements.
Yair. We're all human beings.
Post by Oleg Smirnov
If there is no such a unity, then there's no need for democracy,
- everyone just will deal with their separate affairs independently.
Lebanon is fractured by the Christian/Islamic divide. bit it is a
unit.

Britain is fractured by the Celt/Saxon divide, but it is a unit.

----further babble snipped----
Rick Johnson
2017-11-12 01:23:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, November 11, 2017 at 6:26:35 PM UTC-6, Oleg Smirnov wrote:
[...]
Post by Oleg Smirnov
Democracy works purely if number of voters is small enough,
and they are all competent on the issues they vote. It the
number is large enough, it becomes dependent more on how
well certain party or person can promote their narratives,
proposals and promises.
IOW, how well they can _deceive_ and stir the emotions of
the mindless hordes.
Post by Oleg Smirnov
With increase of the voters number, the chances of winning
depend more on access to the mass media resources. Thus the
owners of the MSM are those who can manipulate well over
the public opinion, so they can significantly influence
result of popular vote. It's not only about the news media,
but also about education and entertainment and everything
that can shape/affect public attitudes.
Which is where we are today. Media of all types holds the
absolute power over the narratives, and therefore, over our
democracy. And with people's attention becoming evermore
distracted by fast-paced lifestyles and a constant deluge of
entertainment, it's no wonder the power is absolute. As any
apex predator will testify: distracted prey makes for an easy
meal...
Post by Oleg Smirnov
I call it mediacracy, - and it's not unique to the US only.
In such a situation, the media owners are advantageous to
maintain the myth of free and independent press, but the
latter is actually not the case <http://bit.ly/2ySzuDf>.
Recent internet development to some extent democratized
public discussions, made the competition of ideas and
judgments more open and available to the regular people.
The big media and governments are concerned about this,
that's why they exaggerate the topics of fake news, troll
factories, extremism etc, and demand more surveillance and
regulation of the communications and social networks.
And also consider the sheer amount of data that is
circulating these days. No human being can possibly sift
through all that noise to make any sense of it. And so, the
intelligence of the citizenry become retrograde.
Post by Oleg Smirnov
The big media nowadays, in fact, implement the role of
modern church, they teach the flocks what is good / bad,
right / wrong, in similar way the clergy did in the past,
and they are jealous of competitors.
Yes. Our modern media has accomplished what the great and
powerful Oz could not.
Post by Oleg Smirnov
Trump wouldn't be elected if the mass media simply ignored
him. But they made a fatal mistake of trying to ridicule
him and make fun of him.
For all his outward appearances of being an incompetent
boob, Trump is, in fact, a master manipulator.
Post by Oleg Smirnov
The result shows two things to me: 1. the omnipotence of
the MSM is still limited; 2. the media owners and pundits,
in fact, broke away from the regular people, they represent
interests of the media owners that are different from the
public / national interest. The election of Trump still has
not become their defeat. He was significantly reshaped,
reformatted and tamed during inaugural period
Yes, there was a galactic shift in his rhetoric the second
Mrs pants-suit conceded.
Post by Oleg Smirnov
(they made him offers he couldn't refuse,
Or threatened him into submission! Politics is a dirty game.
Post by Oleg Smirnov
and, besides that, from the beginning, he did not have a
consistent strategic vision of what to do, focusing on
separate 'sensitive' / populist issues only).
Trump has proven that although he may be a master
manipulator, he is no master strategist. He shoots from the
hip far too often. And although his cowboy style was the
perfect intoxicant for a large swath of americans who felt
betrayed by washington insiders, unless he can nail down
some decisive victories, his presidency will be nothing more
than a one hit wonder.
Post by Oleg Smirnov
So the US establishment hasn't lost anything, in fact, but
the very case still clearly indicates that the social
situation in the US is unhealthy.
The social fabric of the US is tearing itself apart at the
seams due to a constant pressure applied by the media. And
it won't take much to send this nut-house into full-tilt
anarchy mode. Which would be fine by me. As these highly
structured enviroments are my kryptonite.
Oleg Smirnov
2017-11-13 00:26:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
[...]
Democracy works purely if number of voters is small enough, and they are
all competent on the issues they vote. It the number is large enough, it
becomes dependent more on how well certain party or person can promote
their narratives, proposals and promises.
IOW, how well they can _deceive_ and stir the emotions of the mindless
hordes.
With increase of the voters number, the chances of winning depend more on
access to the mass media resources. Thus the owners of the MSM are those
who can manipulate well over the public opinion, so they can significantly
influence result of popular vote. It's not only about the news media, but
also about education and entertainment and everything that can shape/affect
public attitudes.
Which is where we are today. Media of all types holds the absolute power
over the narratives, and therefore, over our democracy. And with people's
attention becoming evermore distracted by fast-paced lifestyles and a
constant deluge of entertainment, it's no wonder the power is absolute. As
any apex predator will testify: distracted prey makes for an easy meal...
I call it mediacracy, - and it's not unique to the US only.
In such a situation, the media owners are advantageous to maintain the myth
of free and independent press, but the latter is actually not the case
<http://bit.ly/2ySzuDf>. Recent internet development to some extent
democratized public discussions, made the competition of ideas and
judgments more open and available to the regular people. The big media and
governments are concerned about this, that's why they exaggerate the topics
of fake news, troll factories, extremism etc, and demand more surveillance
and regulation of the communications and social networks.
And also consider the sheer amount of data that is circulating these days.
No human being can possibly sift through all that noise to make any sense of
it. And so, the intelligence of the citizenry become retrograde.
The big media nowadays, in fact, implement the role of modern church, they
teach the flocks what is good / bad, right / wrong, in similar way the
clergy did in the past, and they are jealous of competitors.
Yes. Our modern media has accomplished what the great and powerful Oz could
not.
Trump wouldn't be elected if the mass media simply ignored him. But they
made a fatal mistake of trying to ridicule him and make fun of him.
For all his outward appearances of being an incompetent boob, Trump is, in
fact, a master manipulator.
The result shows two things to me: 1. the omnipotence of the MSM is still
limited; 2. the media owners and pundits, in fact, broke away from the
regular people, they represent interests of the media owners that are
different from the public / national interest. The election of Trump still
has not become their defeat. He was significantly reshaped, reformatted and
tamed during inaugural period
Yes, there was a galactic shift in his rhetoric the second Mrs pants-suit
conceded.
(they made him offers he couldn't refuse,
Or threatened him into submission! Politics is a dirty game.
and, besides that, from the beginning, he did not have a consistent
strategic vision of what to do, focusing on separate 'sensitive' / populist
issues only).
Trump has proven that although he may be a master manipulator, he is no
master strategist. He shoots from the hip far too often. And although his
cowboy style was the perfect intoxicant for a large swath of americans who
felt betrayed by washington insiders, unless he can nail down some decisive
victories, his presidency will be nothing more than a one hit wonder.
So the US establishment hasn't lost anything, in fact, but the very case
still clearly indicates that the social situation in the US is unhealthy.
The social fabric of the US is tearing itself apart at the seams due to a
constant pressure applied by the media. And it won't take much to send this
nut-house into full-tilt anarchy mode. Which would be fine by me. As these
highly structured enviroments are my kryptonite.
Your remarks fit well to what I think myself. I also think that it's
not an exclusively American issue, although in the present day America it
manifests itself more pronouncedly than in other countries. Consolidation
of media seems to be a global trend <http://bit.ly/1TC1ZTm>, and it poses
a real prospect of development towards a cultist-like ideocracy.
Rick Johnson
2017-11-13 02:55:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, November 12, 2017 at 6:30:30 PM UTC-6, Oleg Smirnov wrote:
[...]
Post by Oleg Smirnov
Your remarks fit well to what I think myself. I also think
that it's not an exclusively American issue, although in
the present day America it manifests itself more
pronouncedly than in other countries. Consolidation of
media seems to be a global trend <http://bit.ly/1TC1ZTm>,
and it poses a real prospect of development towards a
cultist-like ideocracy.
Indeed. But it's not merely the dinosaur corporate media
outlets who are to blame here, as they are on the decline.
The next great assault against our freedoms (namely the
freedom of speech) is coming from the gatekeepers of the
internet, and especially, the social media platforms.
Platforms who unashamedly shut down any opinions they find
offensive. Rendering social media as nothing more than a
giant feedback loop for which legions of parroting fools
bask in the drool inducing x-rays of confirmation bias.

If you spend any time on social media you will notice that
people are becoming evermore polarized in their political
views. And this extremist polarization is most readily
apparent in American politics due to the strictly binary
nature[1] of our political system.

The most disturbing realization is:

"Where does this all lead?"

Sure, polarization and manipulation of the masses has always
been the goal of crafty, and sometimes malevolent,
politicians. Whether it be loafs of bread tossed to the
spectators at Roman games or unmaintainable pension promises
by modern politicians, appeals to the emotion have always
gathered the mobs into the bosom of a tyrannical leader.

But never in the history of democracy has there been an
atmosphere whereby absolute _world_wide_ control of the
narrative could be attained by one single party, or one
single politician. At least, not without the use of explicit
forms of coercion such as violence. But what we see today
are _implicit_ forms of coercion. And these are the most
dangerous and dastardly of all forms. Because they do not
invoke our natural "fight or flight" response. They are
innocuous to our perceptions.

Unchecked, this large scale manipulation of the mobs will
lead to all-out totalitarianism.

[1] aka: republican vs democrats. For which all other
political parties "need not apply". Indeed, European
politics may be as polarized as th the US (as was evidenced
by the tight Brexit vote), but with multiple parties
creating an atmosphere of diversity, the polarization is not
as _apparent_.
Ned Latham
2017-11-12 07:20:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Oleg Smirnov
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
The elites love democracy for a reason.
They don't love it, they hate it, Which is why we don't have it.
They not only hate it, they *fear* it.
Post by Oleg Smirnov
People are led to believe we have it but we don't. Questioning
"democracy" can be healthful. Sure, we don't have it.
Democracy works purely if number of voters is small enough, and they
are all competent on the issues they vote.
Crap. It works if the people vote.
Post by Oleg Smirnov
It the number is large
enough, it becomes dependent more on how well certain party or person
can promote their narratives, proposals and promises.
That factor is *always* in play.
Post by Oleg Smirnov
With increase of the voters number, the chances of winning depend
more on access to the mass media resources.
Crap. All it takes is a referee to put the aguments in a balanced
fashion.
Post by Oleg Smirnov
Thus the owners of the MSM are those who can manipulate well
over the public opinion, so they can significantly influence
result of popular vote.
Under the present regime. That, despite your assumption, doesn't
have to remain in place.

----further rambling on the obsolete theme snipped----
Oleg Smirnov
2017-11-13 00:29:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ned Latham
Post by Oleg Smirnov
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
The elites love democracy for a reason.
They don't love it, they hate it, Which is why we
don't have it.
They not only hate it, they *fear* it.
Post by Oleg Smirnov
People are led to believe we have it but we don't.
Questioning "democracy" can be healthful. Sure, we
don't have it.
Democracy works purely if number of voters is small
enough, and they are all competent on the issues they
vote.
Crap. It works if the people vote.
Post by Oleg Smirnov
It the number
is large enough, it becomes dependent more on how well
certain party or person can promote their narratives,
proposals and promises.
That factor is *always* in play.
Departure from / significant correction of electoral promises after
election has become business as usual, it's the rule rather than the
exception in the modern 'western' democracies.

And cynical wise men often tend to say that all the politicians are
liars and hypocrites (which implies the very system is arranged so
that it makes them liars and hypocrites).
Post by Ned Latham
Post by Oleg Smirnov
With increase of the voters number, the chances of
winning depend more on access to the mass media
resources.
Crap. All it takes is a referee to put the aguments in a
balanced fashion.
Well, you can proudly proclaim 'crap' in the Usenet, and just a few
give a crap, - the effect might be different if a mainstream outlet
invited you to proclaim it.
Post by Ned Latham
Post by Oleg Smirnov
Thus the owners of the MSM are those who can manipulate well over the
public opinion, so they can significantly influence result of popular vote.
Under the present regime. That, despite your assumption,
doesn't have to remain in place.
----further rambling on the obsolete theme snipped----
Ned Latham
2017-11-13 04:21:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Oleg Smirnov
Post by Ned Latham
Post by Oleg Smirnov
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
The elites love democracy for a reason.
They don't love it, they hate it, Which is why we
don't have it.
They not only hate it, they *fear* it.
Post by Oleg Smirnov
People are led to believe we have it but we don't.
Questioning "democracy" can be healthful. Sure, we
don't have it.
Democracy works purely if number of voters is small
enough, and they are all competent on the issues they
vote.
Crap. It works if the people vote.
Post by Oleg Smirnov
It the number
is large enough, it becomes dependent more on how well
certain party or person can promote their narratives,
proposals and promises.
That factor is *always* in play.
Departure from / significant correction of electoral promises after
election has become business as usual, it's the rule rather than the
exception in the modern 'western' democracies.
There is no such thing. The planet hasn't had a democracy since the
Renaissance.
Post by Oleg Smirnov
And cynical wise men often tend to say that all the politicians are
liars and hypocrites (which implies the very system is arranged so
that it makes them liars and hypocrites).
Crap. It is they who arrange the system. Not to *make* thenmselves
liars and hypocrites, but to make their lies and hypocrisy easier
to spin as honest, responsible, respectable or justified.
Post by Oleg Smirnov
Post by Ned Latham
Post by Oleg Smirnov
With increase of the voters number, the chances of
winning depend more on access to the mass media
resources.
Crap. All it takes is a referee to put the aguments in a
balanced fashion.
Well, you can proudly proclaim 'crap' in the Usenet, and just a few
give a crap, - the effect might be different if a mainstream outlet
invited you to proclaim it.
It's stated contemptously, not proclaimed, and not proudly.
v***@gmail.com
2017-11-13 17:25:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Maybe is a good idea to dismiss the word "democracy" because it sounds like hypocrisy.
https://imgflip.com/i/1yj1o9
I know the elderly and the gays are sheltered by it. Good, it works for them.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
HEY, WE R HAVING FUN!
facebook.com/liboriojolgorio
THE JUNGLE
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nffbCR_uCZ6znjf3gLiFRXSAoLzhWtoZ6U4S7Y37aKc/edit?usp=sharing
Winston Churchill said this about democracy:"It's the worst system of government except for all the other systems."
Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
2017-11-13 18:01:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Maybe is a good idea to dismiss the word "democracy" because it sounds like hypocrisy.
https://imgflip.com/i/1yj1o9
I know the elderly and the gays are sheltered by it. Good, it works for them.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
HEY, WE R HAVING FUN!
facebook.com/liboriojolgorio
THE JUNGLE
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nffbCR_uCZ6znjf3gLiFRXSAoLzhWtoZ6U4S7Y37aKc/edit?usp=sharing
Winston Churchill said this about democracy:"It's the worst system of government except for all the other systems."
It was probably true back then except that it's not addressing the great issues of our time, such as corruption and climate change.
Loading...