Democracy in America…

Topic: Democracy in America… (Read 71390 times)

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #150 – 2014-10-20, 16:57:02

You're not looking very hard.

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #151 – 2014-10-20, 19:38:16

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-09-10, 02:02:06

The incumbent Congress and the incumbent State legislators should decide who should be allowed to say what; when and where…

And that includes corporations which are now people.

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #152 – 2014-10-20, 20:04:21

Welcome to the frey, Jaybro! Which corporations get your goat? NYT? NEA? PBS? AFSCME? Kaiser? AARP?

—————————————————————————————
@mjm: You mean, Illinois can't help itself? If so, why not?

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #153 – 2014-10-20, 21:41:52

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-10-20, 16:40:39

The laughing fool doesn't know the majority of the justices are Republicans. Actually, he might be right. Scalia isn't really a conservative, but a rightwing nutcase

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-10-20, 13:13:29

Would you care to specify the abuses that cause you so much ire?

No. Was I supposed to have supported Solyandra or something? Specific incidents are a distraction from the problem of legislaters not representing the people, but the corporations and other special interests.

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #154 – 2014-10-20, 22:36:35

Oak, I thought you are old enough to know by now that we have the best Congress that money can buy. For sure, most if not all of the members of both houses are bought and paid for, corporate money sees to that.

Sang does have a point. If I write a letter to my senators and congressperson, it's a question if the letter will even be read by the honorable people involved. If Exxon, for example, writes/phones/emails/texts these same august individuals, the corporation will get a much more enthusiastic response. I can't buy senators and congresspersons like Exxon can-- it's that simple. I'm just a "common person", Exxon is a "Corporate Person".

OK, here's an example to make it easy. I get into the ring to fight against the Incredible Hulk. Place your money, who do you think is gonna win?

My letter is going up against Exxon's lobbyist. Who do you think is gonna win?

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #155 – 2014-10-21, 01:27:37

Quote from: Sanguinemoon on 2014-10-20, 13:41:52

the problem of legislaters not representing the people, but the corporations and other special interests

…is probably not entirely new, nor a peculiarly Republican "problem"… My preferred solution is to keep political "fingers" as much out of the economy's pies as possible. Whereas you just want to start cutting off "fingers"…
When you say "the people, but the corporations and other special interests" you mean prople with whom you disagree… (Try to define it, in any other way… I'll wait.)
This is a fundamental difference between us, Sang: Your go-to recourse is first and foremost government coercion; for me, that's the last remedy.

Quote from: Sanguinemoon on 2014-10-20, 13:41:52

Specific incidents are a distraction

That reminds me of other "Crusades"… "It's the seriousness of the charge! Not the evidence…" It's all of a piece, Sang. What you mean is, you don't know why some people disagree with you; so, they must be evil — or something! Hence, the might of the government should be brought to bear to Stop Them! (Bills of Attainder.)
(And if you need to lie, to further your cause — well, that's politics!

)

If "specific incidents" are mere distractions, what should we be paying attention to?

————————————————————————————————————

Quote from: mjmsprt40 on 2014-10-20, 14:36:35

OK, here's an example to make it easy. I get into the ring to fight against the Incredible Hulk. Place your money, who do you think is gonna win?

Thanks for making it easy!
mjm, your vote and your political will and efforts will have the effect you can manage; if you'd prefer not to do much, why would you expect much from such? (I'd agree, that most citizens shouldn't have to do much, to secure their rights, and a decent government. But look who they've voted into office and given power to…) The Democrats still receive 90+ % of the "black" vote! That's just one of the reasons that Ayn Rand's "Who is John Galt?" resonates…
Kissy-face isn't the most important part of politics, is it?

If you've decided to be stupid and call on Big Brother to save you from yourself… Well, I don't know how to continue talking to you. (I don't trust your determination of "our betters" and I'd not give my life over to the gang you'd be "comfortable with" — no matter how much better they seemed, to you.)
Live in your state, as best you can. Criticize mine, as often as you'd like. Tell me what you think. I have no problem with that.
Tell me that "you're" (in honor of your attention to Sang's arguments…) problems require a massive federal intervention -which might be coming my way- and… Yeah! I've got a problem!
It could only be cognizance… "You are" is slightly different from "your" — Sang doesn't make such distinctions; you'd like to follow his example?!

Your example is one that Sang and his ilk really like! A comic book character… Time was, such were called strawmen. But logic is neither taught nor learned, nowadays.

I don't know what to tell you — that you'd understand. (If you want to be one of the "cool kids" you'll have to accept their — peccadilloes. I won't.)

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #156 – 2014-10-21, 06:40:24

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-10-21, 01:27:37

My preferred solution is to keep political "fingers" as much out of the economy's pies as possible. Whereas you just want to start cutting off "fingers"…

I'm not cutting off fingers or any other body part. I am questioning how you propose to keep all levels of government from being able to pass legislation that happens to favor entrenched interests. What's your plan? Get the states to pass legislation against their ability to regulate in favor of the rent-seekers, etc as if that will happen?

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-10-21, 01:27:37

Your go-to recourse is first and foremost government coercion; for me, that's the last remedy.

Gibberish. I'm arguing against government coercion and regulation intended to stifle competition, not for it. That's only slightly less silly than your charge against me that I want to place an income gap on the first amendment. I have no idea what your smoked to hallucinate that up.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-10-21, 01:27:37

f you've decided to be stupid and call on Big Brother to save you from yourself… Well, I don't know how to continue talking to you.

Who is doing this? He's not. I'm not and I'm trying to keep the corporations from being able to do it.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-10-21, 01:27:37

Your example is one that Sang and his ilk really like!

You don't even know what my ilk is.

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #157 – 2014-10-21, 17:10:34

Quote from: Sanguinemoon on 2014-10-20, 22:40:24

I am questioning how you propose to keep all levels of government from being able to pass legislation that happens to favor entrenched interests.

You want a "magic" solution…
Why must all levels of government be curtailed? Shouldn't that be left up to the people involved?

But I'd ask you what benefit you think barring "corporations" from promulgating political speech yields? (Again, I'd remind you: Direct contributions to campaigns are already capped…)

Quote from: Sanguinemoon on 2014-10-20, 22:40:24

I'm arguing against government coercion and regulation intended to stifle competition, not for it.

I must have missed that… Where, exactly, did you ever argue against coercion and regulation?

Quote from: Sanguinemoon on 2014-10-20, 22:40:24

That's only slightly less silly than your charge against me that I want to place an income gap [cap?] on the first amendment.

Hm. Your animus against the Koch brothers belies your words. (And your silence about, e.g., Soros, some-what supports them — but leads to a Bills of Attainder problem.)
————————————————————————————

Quote from: Sanguinemoon on 2014-10-20, 22:40:24

You don't even know what my ilk is.

In a sense, that's true: You consistently say you haven't said what in fact you have said, that you don't believe what you've professed, that you don't mean…
Wait! That's a somewhat different ilk than what I'd referred to…

————————————————————————————
It would be great fun to read your comments on this report!

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #158 – 2014-10-21, 18:45:08

This is surely worth returning to:

Quote from: Sanguinemoon on 2014-10-19, 08:13:20

Am I wrong? Am I crazy? If I told you 20 years ago that gay marriage would be law in 31 states in 2014 and was all but inevitable in all 50, you would have thought I fell out of my tree and hit my head. A few years ago, it was a "radical liberal" notion. "Liberals" think a generation if not more in the future; conservatives think a generation or more in the past. That's why "liberals" shape the future. Have you noticed this? Beginning against slavery was "liberal" idea. Equal protection under the law for blacks, likewise. Universal suffrage.... Get it? In the end, conservatives lose every time. And none of the disasters conservatives warned of happened.

First, let me ask you: How many states have sanctioned SSM by legislation or referendum?
(We can proceed from there, if you deign to answer…)

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #159 – 2014-10-22, 03:53:53

You must be busy, Sang; I hope it's for something profitable…

But I'll ask the second question: If Liberals (or Progressives…) are so prescient, why is it that -after most of a century of power- we're in a state that even you find intolerable?

Your "generation ahead" sounds, to me, a lot like the Five Year Plans of… Oh, hell! You're not a secret ~~communist~~ Stalinist, are you?

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #160 – 2014-10-23, 06:51:41

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-10-22, 03:53:53

If Liberals (or Progressives…) are so prescient, why is it that -after most of a century of power- we're in a state that even you find intolerable?

Here's problem, but it's not yours alone. Liberals, in fact, are for smaller government and actually have a fair in common with Libertarians. Progressives are ones that demand direct government action for there agenda. Therefore the liberal and libertarian would have the law struck down as unconstitutional; the progressive have a new law made.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-10-22, 03:53:53

Your "generation ahead" sounds, to me, a lot like the Five Year Plans of… Oh, hell! You're not a secret communist Stalinist, are you?

It's just a difference in thinking. Almost by definition, the conservative looks to the past for answers. Sometimes those old answers work, but other times they're obsolete - society changed, the understanding of how economic systems changed, technology changed ( the tax cut might fail to induce hiring because the workers have been replaced by robots or computers, so there's no one to hire.) The non-conservative sees these changes coming from a mile away and starts his response on the leading edge of the evolution.

This isn't to be confused with political conservationism. Ie, a businessman might vote Republican, but his thinking might be somewhat in the future as well so he makes changes before they're needed. When reality catches up to his vision, he'll crush the competition. Witness Walmart and its distribution system crushing more conservative Kmart. On the political front, we can use gay marriage again. Some of us saw society becoming more tolerant of the LGBT community years ahead of time and made plans. Meanwhile the conservatives said "Oh, it's just a poll. Here's the errors in its methodology..." and "No one I know..." (unfortunately everyone they knew went to the same megachurch, or some other issue that sample not representative of society) and were 100% wrong. Put your fingers on society's pulse but don't just check its current heart rate but calculate what its going to be.

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #161 – 2014-10-23, 15:47:36

Quote from: Sanguinemoon on 2014-10-22, 22:51:41

It's just a difference in thinking. Almost by definition, the conservative looks to the past for answers. […] The non-conservative sees these changes coming from a mile away and starts his response on the leading edge of the evolution.

I'd recommend that you stop reading pop-psychology, Sang. Perhaps, pop-science, too: Evolution isn't synonymous with progress…

Your informed answer to my question about SSM and the number of states which allow it, by legislation or referendum, is…?

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #162 – 2014-10-27, 16:33:37

So reading the writing on the wall and knowing how to read the data on social trends is pop psychology now, as is keeping abreast of the of new and upcoming changes in your chosen field?

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #163 – 2014-10-27, 17:54:46

There's a difference between basket-weaving as therapy and basket-weaving as an occupation, surely? No doubt, you still consider The Bell Curve (which you've not read…) an atrocious scientific racism screed!

For something lighter, might I suggest a little essay by Theodore Dalrymple called The Twin Poles of Existence?

After that brief excursion, you might consider answering my simple question: How many states have sanctioned SSM by legislation or referendum?

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #164 – 2014-10-28, 01:16:50

Why are you pressing that issue? Denial that the majority of Americans support allowing equal marriage? How many states passed interracial marriage by referendum or legislation at the time?

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-10-27, 17:54:46

There's a difference between basket-weaving as therapy and basket-weaving as an occupation, surely?

WTF are you babbling about? I gave you a specific example of one retailer that was able to think ahead and introduce state of the art distribution systems and overwhelm its more conservative competition with the improved efficiencies and you want to go on about pop psychology and basket weaving. Speaking of the Bell Curve , which I read as class assignment, those with a higher IQ are more likely to spot changes in technology and society and respond accordingly. You think this is about political conservative and liberalism, but it's not. It's the obvious notion that keeping an old mindset in a changing world will doom you to failure.

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #165 – 2014-10-28, 03:35:55

As always, Sang: Unresponsive!
The questionnaire so beloved of the "social sciences" is beset with myriad quibbles. You know them well, if you've told the truth about your educational background… The justification of using common terms in un-common ways falls to those who'd do so, no?
I doubt it's paucity of imagination (lack of neologismic creativity…) that has your betters use "conservative" and "liberal" as terms of art! Nor do I believe you accept them as such, without salivating over their "so-subtly" implied and half-heartedly disclaimed connotations' put-downs.

Quote from: Sanguinemoon on 2014-10-27, 17:16:50

Why are you pressing that issue? Denial that the majority of Americans support allowing equal marriage? How many states passed interracial marriage by referendum or legislation at the time?

Because you're trying to "have your cake, and eat it too!" You claim the tide has turned, democratically, while knowing full-well that, democratically, it remains inexorable.
If you push the metaphor hard enough, you'll make your point! (But you surely know how much I despise pushing metaphors too far…)
Since most people are law-abiding, judge-made laws will be followed. But -as you know- we didn't have such "sophisticated" polling, back when miscegenation was an issue. Also -as you know- you can count the number I asked for on your thumbs. (I assume you are all thumbs, for the sake of argument — the number reasonably anticipates your mutant past…

So: Twelve or thirteen; a far cry from a majority of our 57 states, no?) I don't believe inter-racial marriage and SSM to be equivalent; and your arguments (…forthcoming?) don't convince me:
You don't have anything to say, beyond "I want what I want!" (Tantrums won't convince the likes of me.) Adding "But s/he has it!" doesn't make you seem more mature or reasonable.

(Try extricating yourself from the "transgender" and "multi-spouse" arguments! If society's interest in progeny is unseemly or irrational, you're half-way to making your point… And losing it entirely, if you're at all convincing!^*)

Which brings us back to your "campaign finance" canard: Would you exclude all non-profits, too? Or would you want to exclude only those that disagree with your policy preferences?
Inquiring minds want to know! (You dug this hole yourself…)

Shouldn't we debar all but private individuals from facilitating political speech? Hm. But the Koch brothers…!
———————————————————————————————————
* Would you prefer a tax/benefits regime where no domestic arrangements are in any way privileged?

If so, you'd remind me of Kirby J. Hensley — that renowned preacher of the Gospel of the Envy! (Yes, I knew him personally… And his family. And some of his "business" associates. But that was in a "galaxy far, far away"… Although I can still walk to his headquarters/church within half a day, even at my slowed pace.

)

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #166 – 2014-10-28, 10:35:16

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-10-28, 03:35:55

Because you're trying to "have your cake, and eat it too!" You claim the tide has turned, democratically, while knowing full-well that, democratically, it remains inexorable.

That's the old assumption the 18th century that a democracy can't have constitutional protections for the minorities. The funding fathers only had ancient Greece as an example. In the 21st century, we know better. This "The US is a republic and not a democracy" is dangerous. Some of the worst, most brutal dictatorships in modern times have been republics. What on earth makes you folks think that calling it a republic protects freedom?

The multi-spouse idiocy is a red herring. How even does that, besides some old Mormon cults (even though the mainstream LDS church polygamy back in 1890) ? A few cults already doing breaking the law is not a reason to deny equal protection under the law for nine million people is the US . That's like saying all guns should be banned because a small percentage of gun owners go on to commit crimes.

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #167 – 2014-10-28, 10:54:50

Quote from: Sanguinemoon on 2014-10-28, 10:35:16

That's the old assumption the 18th century that a democracy can't have constitutional protections for the minorities.

Eighteenth century?

New Amsterdam was open to Jews in spite of its governor being a notorious anti-Semite because the Dutch republic was a democracy* under rule of law.

Quote from: Sanguinemoon on 2014-10-28, 10:35:16

The funding fathers only had ancient Greece as an example. In the 21st century, we know better.

There were several earlier modern republics, such as Venice and the Dutch Republic. If you're right about them, they were uneducated ignoramuses. I'm more inclined to think you're wrong.

* NB Not exactly a modern democracy, mind you.

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #168 – 2014-10-28, 11:35:40

Quote from: Frenzie on 2014-10-28, 10:54:50

New Amsterdam was open to Jews in spite of its governor being a notorious anti-Semite because the Dutch republic was a democracy* under rule of law.

The founding fathers of the US said things along the lines of ""Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner..." and "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.." (Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson respectively.) They weren't ignoramuses, but I still think they were operating off old ideas of what a democracy was. If you're right, and I have no reason to doubt that, those ideas were antiquated even at the time.

Oakdale, a democracy and a republic aren't mutually exclusive regardless of right-wing gibberish going around these days. You can have representative government and a constitution maintaining rule of law and the rights for all of its citizens. It only get hard when you have interests only concerned with corporate profit, but less so in individual rights having this much sway over the government. (Oh dear, did I "demonize" somebody again :p )

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #169 – 2014-10-28, 11:52:43

Quote from: Frenzie on 2014-10-28, 10:54:50

Quote from: Sanguinemoon on 2014-10-28, 10:35:16
The funding fathers only had ancient Greece as an example. In the 21st century, we know better.

There were several earlier modern republics, such as Venice and the Dutch Republic. If you're right about them, they were uneducated ignoramuses. I'm more inclined to think you're wrong.

IIRC that (roman) republic vs. (greek) democracy thing was just an example Jefferson used to argue for minority rights anyway, probably because he assumed that his audience would be reasonably familiar with them. Of course a bunch of bible wankers took it as gospel, context be damned.

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #170 – 2014-10-28, 12:11:44

Quote from: Sanguinemoon on 2014-10-28, 11:35:40

The founding fathers of the US said things along the lines of ""Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner..." and "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.." (Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson respectively.) They weren't ignoramuses, but I still think they were operating off old ideas of what a democracy was. If you're right, and I have no reason to doubt that, those ideas were antiquated even at the time.

I don't know if it was the case at the time, but anything that might take away rights (e.g., changes to the constitution) typically has provisions so that it'd be more akin to 75% taking away the rights of the 25%. If memory doesn't betray me, as far as real-world inspiration goes the US constitution was inspired primarily by the "constitutions"* of the UK and the Dutch Republic, so it doesn't seem implausible to assume that the Dutch republic had some kind of supermajority concept.

With regard to New Amsterdam, or rather the Dutch Republic at large, you have that whole idea of separation of powers and rule of law. The governor/president/monarch may very well want something, but courts can shut it down for obvious reasons. This was in contrast to the many absolute monarchies around Europe, but it was hardly unique either. It went back to the 12th/13th century and had its counterpart in England in the Magna Carta. The reason I explicitly mention New Amsterdam is because New Netherland and its tradition of relative democracy and liberty had a much more profound and lasting influence on America than whatever happened in Europe.

Quote from: Macallan on 2014-10-28, 11:52:43

Quote from: Frenzie on 2014-10-28, 10:54:50

Quote from: Sanguinemoon on 2014-10-28, 10:35:16
The funding fathers only had ancient Greece as an example. In the 21st century, we know better.

There were several earlier modern republics, such as Venice and the Dutch Republic. If you're right about them, they were uneducated ignoramuses. I'm more inclined to think you're wrong.

IIRC that (roman) republic vs. (greek) democracy thing was just an example Jefferson used to argue for minority rights anyway, probably because he assumed that his audience would be reasonably familiar with them. Of course a bunch of bible wankers took it as gospel, context be damned.

There's also too much taking Plato at face value there.

* I believe they weren't called such a thing, at least not officially, but it came down to much the same thing in practice.

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #171 – 2014-10-28, 19:01:20

Quote from: Sanguinemoon on 2014-10-28, 03:35:40

Oakdale, a democracy and a republic are mutually exclusive […]

Did you, perhaps, leave out a word, Sang?

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #172 – 2014-10-28, 22:40:59

There's no more democracy in America, the cassete was changed.
Now they are a republic (whatever that means).
I wonder who changed the record, the "Get Smart" agent Bush or the "wow, I'm black and nobelized" Obama.

Anyway, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter at all, it never did.

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #173 – 2014-10-29, 03:47:49

Quote from: Belfrager on 2014-10-28, 22:40:59

There's no more democracy in America, the cassete was changed.
Now they are a republic (whatever that means).
I wonder who changed the record, the "Get Smart" agent Bush or the "wow, I'm black and nobelized" Obama.

Anyway, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter at all, it never did.

To you, & the other 6 billion on the planet maybe not, but to us 325 million or so, it means everything!

Re: Democracy in America…

Reply #174 – 2014-11-01, 09:41:15

Kind of arrogant and selfish attitude that last line.

And this is even more so when one considers the record of the Republic that isn't a democracy Smiley. You arrogantly stride the world and try to force everyone else into your way of doing things. If they don't they will get boycotted, undermined, threatened or invaded. Equally,your military industry is huge and the corporates are all over the same 65 billion making great profits whilst your citizens see the gap between rich and poor now greatly widened as never before. So it is okay for you lot to make your big profits and at the same time you say the same world is unimportant. And just look at the country with that326 million people. Over 40 million on food stamps hundreds of thousands losing homes, corproates get away with just about anything. Increasingly police forces loking like the army whichj says something negative about the place.

If you had kep your noses out of the business of other places and concentrated instead on internal affairs there would be less wars in the planet and more Americans would not be suffering. Trillions in debt and no sign of an end to state of the nation. Seems to me that the republican Party tradition has become a fractured, selfish, militarist regime and the Democrats? They aren't much better. Racism and greed is endemic. Yep that comment was arrogant, mawkishness passing for patriotic and claiming to be democratic. In fairness thanks for the laugh!