Ideology???

[Spider-Bite]

That's not true at all. Most dictators in history became dictators through conquest. And in a working democracy, an elected official shouldn't be able to become a dictator.



.

I agree with everything you said, however I see the potential for a dictatorship in our own democracy. It's possible we already have one, but with the illusion of democracy. Just look at rescent history.

Bush becomes president after losing the election.
Bush engages secret wire tapping without congressional oversight or approval from Congress. His political allies start talking about prosecuting the NYT and taking away freedom of the press.
A repulbican controlled congress drew up district voting lines to make it incredibly difficult to get the people in power out of power. they are using their power to stay in power.
Secret prisons, and unfair trials or no trials for suspected terrorists


and we already don't let felons vote. we have the power here to outlaw a lifestyle and make it so the people who engage in that lifestyle can't vote to change that law which criminilized their lifestyle. So far it hasn't been much of a problem, but who knows what social dillemas we will be facing 50 years from now.

 

[Cyrusbales]

Choice is something that every person has inherent within them. To take that away makes them less than human.



Because it's just as much their country as it is yours. If they don't get a say, then it's pretty much one group of people deciding who they want to have a say. Do you really think that's a good thing?

I never said a single person dictatorship! You wouldn't let a carpenter operate? you wouldn't believe a burger king employee's phsyics theories over stephen hawkins? I WANT people to vote, but only if they are genuinely interested in what they're voting for! If they KNOW what they're voting for, how is that unreasonable?

 

[Spider-Bite]

Ok actual reasons i've heard people use for voting:

"I voted labour coz i don't want maggie back in power"-she been out of politics for years!!!

"I always vote labour"-where's the looking at the policies?

"My family always voted conservative, so i do to" - and the policies? where's the cognative thought?

"I don't like charles kennedy" - but the policies?

Fair enough, give people choice, but PLEASE, if they can't use it responsibly, then they shouldn't have it, people who BELIEVE everything the sun writes, people who watch big brother, these people are the very reasons why democracy is flawed.

Who should fly a plane? a pilot, or a plumber? If people don't understand and know what they're voting for, WHY SHOULD THEY BE ALLOWED TO VOTE???

I've heard dumb reasons for voting, but never any of those. What makes you so certain that our dicator wouldn't be just as dumb as those people? then what we would do? we'd be stuck with him forever! besides absolute power makes the dicator become evil. It makes them crazy. They ultiamtey become evil. and when nobody can counter the argument, then how do you know the argument is correct?

A dictatorship would not create a pradise as you call it. An end to corruption and the voters getting their heads out of their asses would help though. And I don't just mean republicans. Democrats need to get their heads out of their asses as well.

People would never enjoy or support a paradise unless their history was so ugly that they learned from it anyways.

 

[Spider-Bite]

alright fine. here is the nail on the head. China. when people voiced their opinion they wanted democracy 30 years ago or whenever it was, they got shot. a few years ago they got douced with powerful fire hydrant hoses. their pollution is horrible and their government is corrupt, and they violate human rights disgustingly.

 

[The Question]

I never said a single person dictatorship!

Neither did I. I said a group of people.

You wouldn't let a carpenter operate? you wouldn't believe a burger king employee's phsyics theories over stephen hawkins?

Of course not. But those are professions. Voting is a right evertyone has.

I WANT people to vote, but only if they are genuinely interested in what they're voting for! If they KNOW what they're voting for, how is that unreasonable?

It's unreasonable to decide who gets to vote and who doesn't. It's their country as much as it's yours, and they should be able to have a say, wether you agree with how or why they vote for what they do or not.

 

[Cyrusbales]

I've heard dumb reasons for voting, but never any of those. What makes you so certain that our dicator wouldn't be just as dumb as those people? then what we would do? we'd be stuck with him forever! besides absolute power makes the dicator become evil. It makes them crazy. They ultiamtey become evil. and when nobody can counter the argument, then how do you know the argument is correct?

A dictatorship would not create a pradise as you call it. An end to corruption and the voters getting their heads out of their asses would help though. And I don't just mean republicans. Democrats need to get their heads out of their asses as well.

People would never enjoy or support a paradise unless their history was so ugly that they learned from it anyways.

I never said one dictator, a party of people who are intelligent etc, the totalitarian regime and strict force is used to accelerate the education process, after people understand the system etc and what voting entails, then the 'freedom' is given back, people should earn it, and earn the vote, not just given it.

And where's the choice in america, two parties going for presidencey? Just two, either or, not much of a choice.

 

[The Question]

And where's the choice in america, two parties going for presidencey? Just two, either or, not much of a choice.

There are alot of parties. Most people simply vote Republican or Democrat.

 

[Cyrusbales]

There are alot of parties. Most people simply vote Republican or Democrat.

But they never get enough power to make any kind of difference, because.....the two major parties control the media. Media is the system of informing the public, if you give them two choices through the media, that's all they know.

 

[Spider-Bite]

I never said one dictator, a party of people who are intelligent etc, the totalitarian regime and strict force is used to accelerate the education process, after people understand the system etc and what voting entails, then the 'freedom' is given back, people should earn it, and earn the vote, not just given it.

the problem is that people often think they are right when they are wrong, and then later on through freedom of the press and freedom of speech society learns from their mistakes and becomes smarter. a dicator wont do the things you mentioned. they will simply take the money that is offered to them, and that will be all that matters to them, because they have nothing to fear. no prosecution, no voters, no media backlash. no anything. they dont' have pressure from the voters to do anything.

And where's the choice in america, two parties going for presidencey? Just two, either or, not much of a choice.

you always have the option of running for office. you could say hey this is what I support and this is what I will try to make happen. you are not obligated to take any position that either party takes. you have the option of protesting and organizing support for your ideals and trying to convince other people to agree with you on the issues or your solutions to problems.

you wouldn't have that option in a dictatorship.

 

[Spider-Bite]

But they never get enough power to make any kind of difference, because.....the two major parties control the media. Media is the system of informing the public, if you give them two choices through the media, that's all they know.

the parties do not control the media. that would be a dictatorship. that's what you have been defending here, not us. and just the other day on HardBall a very popular show on the most popular news channel MSNBC, a green party candidate was on the show being interviewed talking about what he wants to do.

and not all republicans are the same and neither are democrats. people just fall into the category based on which ideology they have more in common with, to make it easier for the voters to know what they stand for.

 

[Cyrusbales]

the parties do not control the media. that would be a dictatorship. that's what you have been defending here, not us. and just the other day on HardBall a very popular show on the most popular news channel MSNBC, a green party candidate was on the show being interviewed talking about what he wants to do.

and not all republicans are the same and neither are democrats. people just fall into the category based on which ideology they have more in common with, to make it easier for the voters to know what they stand for.

Both of the party leaders, rupert murdoch and other media tycoons are members of a 'secret society', who supposedly share ideology, and scratch each others backs constantly. Just because it's not overt media control, doesn't mean it's there.

If the media publish stuff against the gov. every now and then, then people believe the media a lot more on the whole! Ever heard of media bias? Even secondary school media students know about that!

I don't beleive a single person dictotorship should be enforced, a large jointly run party, and a standard wage/rations etc should be given to all, a totalitarian communistic state. This is how we would teach the masses, then people are allowed to vote more, although they wouldn't need to, the party would just enforce the policies that people vote for, instead of voting for people to make decisions, the people would vote on each descision, then the party would do the leg work to put it into practice, but until people are intelligent enough to do this, then we must enforce stricter guidelines for education etc.

 

[The Question]

But they never get enough power to make any kind of difference, because.....the two major parties control the media. Media is the system of informing the public, if you give them two choices through the media, that's all they know.

I don't think the two parties "control" the media. They're very very wealthy and are capable of buying top rate advertisements. They have alot of influence and most Americans belong to one or the other for several reasons. But they're not the only parties there are.

 

[Cyrusbales]

I don't think the two parties "control" the media. They're very very wealthy and are capable of buying top rate advertisements. They have alot of influence and most Americans belong to one or the other for several reasons. But they're not the only parties there are.

Do you ever see the other party's gaining any power? I can't. And america isn't the only democracy in the world...

 

[The Question]

I don't beleive a single person dictotorship should be enforced,

No one here has said that you do.

a large jointly run party, and a standard wage/rations etc should be given to all, a totalitarian communistic state.

Which sounds, to me, like a really really bad idea.

This is how we would teach the masses, then people are allowed to vote more, although they wouldn't need to, the party would just enforce the policies that people vote for, instead of voting for people to make decisions, the people would vote on each descision, then the party would do the leg work to put it into practice, but until people are intelligent enough to do this, then we must enforce stricter guidelines for education etc.

But if the party gets to decide who votes and who doesn't, then really they run everything, don't they?

Do you ever see the other party's gaining any power?

So? That's entirely the fault of a majority of Americans being apart of one of the two major parties.

 

[Spider-Bite]

Both of the party leaders, rupert murdoch and other media tycoons are members of a 'secret society', who supposedly share ideology, and scratch each others backs constantly. Just because it's not overt media control, doesn't mean it's there.

If the media publish stuff against the gov. every now and then, then people believe the media a lot more on the whole! Ever heard of media bias? Even secondary school media students know about that!

I don't beleive a single person dictotorship should be enforced, a large jointly run party, and a standard wage/rations etc should be given to all, a totalitarian communistic state. This is how we would teach the masses, then people are allowed to vote more, although they wouldn't need to, the party would just enforce the policies that people vote for, instead of voting for people to make decisions, the people would vote on each descision, then the party would do the leg work to put it into practice, but until people are intelligent enough to do this, then we must enforce stricter guidelines for education etc.

we can't learn as much if the voters don't make the mistakes to learn from, therfore we wouldn't get that smartness your talking about. not to mention, I could build a news website right now. I could use the hype to advertise it, as well as several other forums. that would eventually icnrease the number of hits my site gets, and then I could get sponsors. then I could print newspapers and sell them, and then maybe invest in my little media enterprise and get a magazine, and maybe 30 years from now my own television station.

you see you are the media. right now at this forum we are all being journalists and thousands of posters every day come here and see what other people are saying. the internet is the majorly ultimate uncontrolled media.

you could even organize a protest right now about something you feel strongly about. the media would cover it, if enough people showed up. you'd be on the news sharing your opinion. Demcoracy is not stopping you, it's allowing you.

 

[Spider-Bite]

Originally Posted by Cyrusbales
a large jointly run party, and a standard wage/rations etc should be given to all, a totalitarian communistic state.

if we did this then nobody would have any reason to go to work. people would quit their jobs, and then how are you going to get that burger when you go to burger king? how are you gonna get anything?

nobody would have any reason or motivation to invest money in financing the development of a new technology?

everything would come to a halt if they did that.

 

[Cyrusbales]

if we did this then nobody would have any reason to go to work. people would quit their jobs, and then how are you going to get that burger when you go to burger king? how are you gonna get anything?

nobody would have any reason or motivation to invest money in financing the development of a new technology?

everything would come to a halt if they did that.

If they don't work, they don't eat, different jobs of varying difficulty need less hours. Read up on marx, it'l all become somwhat clearer.

 

[Cyrusbales]

we can't learn as much if the voters don't make the mistakes to learn from,

So let's have another hollocaust? Or some more war? A little bit of genocide? Yeah, let's just make some mistakes, surely people will learn somewhere along the line...

 

[Cyrusbales]

No one here has said that you do.



Which sounds, to me, like a really really bad idea.



But if the party gets to decide who votes and who doesn't, then really they run everything, don't they?



So? That's entirely the fault of a majority of Americans being apart of one of the two major parties.

There are people who genuinely care about civilisation, and these would not do things to abuse their power, after all, money means nothing in this state. And it's not like the party would say "Ok, him, her, her and him can vote."

There are tests, simple. About what the policies are, and what they mean, then people who understand this proposition or policy are allowed to vote on it. Those who don't can't. But when the next policy comes along, they get to vote if they understand the policy.

 

[Spider-Bite]

I swear on everything this is not intended to sound patronizing or degrading.Sorry for the big huge print, but I just wanted to make that part extra clear, because I can tell from your argument that you have good intentions. I never get angry at somebody for disagreeing with me when they have good intentions.

But to the point, how old are you? and how long have you had an interest in world affairs? I ask this because you sound like a guy who has the wheels turning, who's analyzing, but is still in their infancy when trying to think of solutions.

I personally feel that most of the time the human race is too stupid to know what's best for them. I seriously do. But at the same time, we used to oppress women in America, but we don't anymore. We know now in today's world that it's wrong and ignorant. The lessons that slavery taught us help us to know how ridiculous racism and other forms of prejudice are.

If society hadn't made the mistakes we made, we wouldn't know what we know today.

I think war is awful, and I opposed the Iraq war since I started paying attention just two months after we went there. Most of America disagreed with me, but we made the mistake, and we learned from it, and now we know better. Had we not made the mistake of Iraq we would be a lot more likely to make the mistake of invading Iran, Syria, or other countries. But America severely does not want that, and we would had we not learned from Iraq.

We still might make that mistake though, because Bush has a really thick skull. If Bush announced plans that he wanted to invade those countries right now, the overwhelming majoirty of republicans and democrats would be up in arms opposing the president. But he still might make that mistake before he leaves, and it scares me to death. I think about it every day. I am very afraid of World War 3, nuclear war, and ultimately nuclear winter.

 

[Spider-Bite]

There are people who genuinely care about civilisation, and these would not do things to abuse their power, .

that's often how dictatorships start out, but it's extremely difficult to resist the temptation to play God. Saddam Hussein started out as a liberator, and then gradually but surely started running people through meat grinders. It happens almost every time. that's why even if I was offered that kind of power, I wouldn't accept it, even though there is nothing I wouldn't give to create a utopia for society. Seriously. I'd cut off all my limbs and my dick to if it would create world peace.

 

[Cyrusbales]

that's often how dictatorships start out, but it's extremely difficult to resist the temptation to play God. Saddam Hussein started out as a liberator, and then gradually but surely started running people through meat grinders. It happens almost every time. that's why even if I was offered that kind of power, I wouldn't accept it, even though there is nothing I wouldn't give to create a utopia for society. Seriously. I'd cut off all my limbs and my dick to if it would create world peace.

OUCH!!!!

There are some self sacrificing people who would be right for these roles. Martin luther king type people, willing to do whatever it takes to make it work.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

I believe a communistic totalitarian state would be the best.

Ultra Mega-Ridiculous.

 

[Cyrusbales]

Ultra Mega-Ridiculous.

warum?

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

In Deutschland: Warum Nicht?
Warum halb vier?
Warum läuft Herr R. Amok?