Democracy, the big lie

[Votto]

Although I've pointed out that collectivists use democracy to promote socialism, it should be noted that they are not sold on the idea of democracy in and of itself. Democracy for the collectivist is only a tool.

For example, think back to when Senator Kennedy was diagnosed with brain cancer and faced having to step aside. His vote was needed to pass Obamacare, so Kennedy and his gang tried to get the laws changed so that there would be no direct election to replace him. Instead, he tried to have someone appointed to take his spot who would vote the way he wanted.

To make a long story short, Kennedy and his Prog gang did not get the laws passed, and as was feared, Scott Brown was elected to replace him. Unfortunately for the, Scott Brown ran his campaign to stop Obamacare. This election was phenomenal because he was running in a state that was all Democrat. No Republican had won in that area of the country in decades, but he was elected because the people of MA liked their Romneycare and did not want Obamacare.

But the Progs had their agenda and decided to thwart democracy in another way. They simply used Reconciliation to bypass the vote of Senator Brown, so Obamacare passed.

So no, Progs care little about democracy other than using it as a tool to achieve their agenda. Progs as a rule have no soul, no values, no moral compass other than achieving power.

 

[BlackSand]

Although I've pointed out that collectivists use democracy to promote socialism, it should be noted that they are not sold on the idea of democracy in and of itself. Democracy for the collectivist is only a tool.

For example, think back to when Senator Kennedy was diagnosed with brain cancer and faced having to step aside. His vote was needed to pass Obamacare, so Kennedy and his gang tried to get the laws changed so that there would be no direct election to replace him. Instead, he tried to have someone appointed to take his spot who would vote the way he wanted.

To make a long story short, Kennedy and his Prog gang did not get the laws passed, and as was feared, Scott Brown was elected to replace him. Unfortunately for the, Scott Brown ran his campaign to stop Obamacare. This election was phenomenal because he was running in a state that was all Democrat. No Republican had won in that area of the country in decades, but he was elected because the people of MA liked their Romneycare and did not want Obamacare.

But the Progs had their agenda and decided to thwart democracy in another way. They simply used Reconciliation to bypass the vote of Senator Brown, so Obamacare passed.

So no, Progs care little about democracy other than using it as a tool to achieve their agenda. Progs as a rule have no soul, no values, no moral compass other than achieving power.

Collectivism is the desire to destroy freedom and individuality in order to shackle the ignorant to the selfish desires of the ruling class.

.

 

[Votto]

The US is not a democracy, it's a republic, and a republic is only as good as the voters are smart and the politicians are honest.

The US is not a democracy or a republic. It is an empire run by and for the extreme wealthy.

The United States government was created by the wealthy.

Not many people understand why the Revolution was a success. It really never should have happened at all. Here were some fledgling colonists fighting the richest and most powerful nation in the world at that time. What gave them half a chance, however, was that the movement was supported by some very wealthy and educated men. Without their intellect and direction, it would have only probably devolved into some skirmishes that would have been crushed, or it would have resulted in a blood bath like the French Revolution that resulted in a tyranny like Napoleon. Also at play was the distance across a vast ocean that provided a great challenge at the time in terms of supplying a standing army. But this was not enough for the Revolution to succeed, they also relied upon the help of the only British adversary, the French. For it was the French that made the British not sell out to an all out war for fear that the French might attack them. Additionally, the French were supplying the Americans with weapons and men, without which, the Revolution would have imploded. Even at that, the Revolution almost failed.

To sum up, the Revolution was nothing short of a perfect storm, something that never should have happened.

To think that the common man can compete and overtake those with wealth is absurd. Today it seems that most Progressives are wealthy. Just look at the political land scape. The wealthy states are the blue states and the poor states are the red states. Really Trump should have never been elected considering that the government, that seems to have the bulk of the money in the country, are all hard core Progressives with a populace that is rich that also leans Progressive. The only reason Trump is where he is, is because he was wealthy himself. Even at that, he lost the majority vote but still won because HRC was perhaps the most hated and corrupt politician in the modern era.

Having said that, there is a real difference between the wealthy Founding Fathers and the wealthy in the US today. The Founding Fathers had some moral fiber and willing to all risk hanging for fighting for freedom and rights they viewed came from God no matter how poor people may be. Today, Progressives only are after money and power and are willing to do anything to achieve that end.

 

[Tehon]

Our fathers were only acquainted with selfishness? Is this why George Washington refused to be made king? Is this why George Washington reluctantly became the first President and demanded to step down after two terms, something that all others after him followed until the blight of the power hungry FDR? Thankfully Congress limited the terms after FDR because of FDR and his abuses.

You can appreciate that de Tocqueville was born in the year 1805, right? His father was a noble peer in a monarchical, hierarchical system. Not George Washington.

Equally puzzling is the notion that we are somehow different. Do people such as yourself have selfishness? Did Karl Marx have selfishness? Of course they did and of course you do You might even say that people like yourself and Karl Marx are the most selfish of all. You are eternally fixated on how much other people have and desire it, a sin called coveting that the Bible warns us about. Yes, people like you.

I do not fixate on what other people have. I fixate on creating an egalitarian society. My understanding of Marx is that he desired much the same.

 

[Moonglow]

One of the biggest problems of a democracy is the abuse inflicted on the minority. How can a minority avoid being targeted by the majority?

The Founding Fathers came up with what is known as the Bill of Rights. They recognized us as having inalienable rights, something that a democracy cannot take from us, nor can a Republic.

We all recognize the injustice of targeting people of race who are a minority, such as FDR throwing Japanese Americans in concentration camps during WW2 simply because they had slanted eyes like those they were fighting in the Pacific, but what about those who have great wealth? What about those with property? Should they be targeted as well or be respected as a minority?

This is one of the reasons the left despises the Bill of Rights. Democracy has no right to make minorities a target. God makes right and wrong and not lawmakers who seek to exploit minorities for their own political power, whether it be to demagogue for them, or abuse them for personal gain, much like Barak Obama using the IRS to target the minority of Conservatives in the US.

and yet those Bill Of Rights were denied to certain groups in the US by US citizens and the govt' they controlled.

 

[Votto]

Our fathers were only acquainted with selfishness? Is this why George Washington refused to be made king? Is this why George Washington reluctantly became the first President and demanded to step down after two terms, something that all others after him followed until the blight of the power hungry FDR? Thankfully Congress limited the terms after FDR because of FDR and his abuses.

You can appreciate that de Tocqueville was born in the year 1805, right? His father was a noble peer in a monarchical, hierarchical system.

Equally puzzling is the notion that we are somehow different. Do people such as yourself have selfishness? Did Karl Marx have selfishness? Of course they did and of course you do You might even say that people like yourself and Karl Marx are the most selfish of all. You are eternally fixated on how much other people have and desire it, a sin called coveting that the Bible warns us about. Yes, people like you.

I do not fixate on what other people have. I fixate on creating an egalitarian society. My understanding of Marx is that he desired much the same.

How can you have an egalitarian society without fixating on what other have? The game is, you take a tally of wealth and riches and decide to divvy it up the way you see fit.

For example, those in the US who are poor are rich in comparison to those in Haiti. However, in the US egalitarians seek to give more redistribution to the poor in the US as where if the poor in the US were in Haiti, they would be seeking to take from them to give to the poor in Haiti.

So the egalitarian concept is only dependent on what other people have.

 

[Tehon]

Although I've pointed out that collectivists use democracy to promote socialism, it should be noted that they are not sold on the idea of democracy in and of itself. Democracy for the collectivist is only a tool.

For example, think back to when Senator Kennedy was diagnosed with brain cancer and faced having to step aside. His vote was needed to pass Obamacare, so Kennedy and his gang tried to get the laws changed so that there would be no direct election to replace him. Instead, he tried to have someone appointed to take his spot who would vote the way he wanted.

To make a long story short, Kennedy and his Prog gang did not get the laws passed, and as was feared, Scott Brown was elected to replace him. Unfortunately for the, Scott Brown ran his campaign to stop Obamacare. This election was phenomenal because he was running in a state that was all Democrat. No Republican had won in that area of the country in decades, but he was elected because the people of MA liked their Romneycare and did not want Obamacare.

But the Progs had their agenda and decided to thwart democracy in another way. They simply used Reconciliation to bypass the vote of Senator Brown, so Obamacare passed.

So no, Progs care little about democracy other than using it as a tool to achieve their agenda. Progs as a rule have no soul, no values, no moral compass other than achieving power.

Collectivism is the desire to destroy freedom and individuality in order to shackle the ignorant to the selfish desires of the ruling class.

.

So how do you explain that we have an individualistic society full of ignorant people who are shackled to the selfish desires of the ruling class?

 

[jon_berzerk]

democracy for the most part works real well as long is it is within the fabric of a republic

 

[Tehon]

Our fathers were only acquainted with selfishness? Is this why George Washington refused to be made king? Is this why George Washington reluctantly became the first President and demanded to step down after two terms, something that all others after him followed until the blight of the power hungry FDR? Thankfully Congress limited the terms after FDR because of FDR and his abuses.

You can appreciate that de Tocqueville was born in the year 1805, right? His father was a noble peer in a monarchical, hierarchical system.

Equally puzzling is the notion that we are somehow different. Do people such as yourself have selfishness? Did Karl Marx have selfishness? Of course they did and of course you do You might even say that people like yourself and Karl Marx are the most selfish of all. You are eternally fixated on how much other people have and desire it, a sin called coveting that the Bible warns us about. Yes, people like you.

I do not fixate on what other people have. I fixate on creating an egalitarian society. My understanding of Marx is that he desired much the same.

How can you have an egalitarian society without fixating on what other have? The game is, you take a tally of wealth and riches and decide to divvy it up the way you see fit.

For example, those in the US who are poor are rich in comparison to those in Haiti. However, in the US egalitarians seek to give more redistribution to the poor in the US as where if the poor in the US were in Haiti, they would be seeking to take from them to give to the poor in Haiti.

So the egalitarian concept is only dependent on what other people have.

I am not interested in redistributing wealth. I am interested in transforming the mode of production and developing a cooperative society.

 

[Votto]

One of the biggest problems of a democracy is the abuse inflicted on the minority. How can a minority avoid being targeted by the majority?

The Founding Fathers came up with what is known as the Bill of Rights. They recognized us as having inalienable rights, something that a democracy cannot take from us, nor can a Republic.

We all recognize the injustice of targeting people of race who are a minority, such as FDR throwing Japanese Americans in concentration camps during WW2 simply because they had slanted eyes like those they were fighting in the Pacific, but what about those who have great wealth? What about those with property? Should they be targeted as well or be respected as a minority?

This is one of the reasons the left despises the Bill of Rights. Democracy has no right to make minorities a target. God makes right and wrong and not lawmakers who seek to exploit minorities for their own political power, whether it be to demagogue for them, or abuse them for personal gain, much like Barak Obama using the IRS to target the minority of Conservatives in the US.

and yet those Bill Of Rights were denied to certain groups in the US by US citizens and the govt' they controlled.

Indeed. The Founding Fathers knew this to be a blight on their character. In fact, Jefferson wanted to include the slaves in the Declaration of Independence. However, they chose to take play the role of compromiser in order to have all the states sign on to the Constitution. This cost millions of American lives a hundred years later.

Although it is noted that they were willing to compromise their integrity, it should also be noted that there remained a great divide in the country over slavery that eventually led to a Civil War to make it right. This is in large part to the moral fiber of the society of that time that created a document that pointed to God given rights.

 

[Votto]

Our fathers were only acquainted with selfishness? Is this why George Washington refused to be made king? Is this why George Washington reluctantly became the first President and demanded to step down after two terms, something that all others after him followed until the blight of the power hungry FDR? Thankfully Congress limited the terms after FDR because of FDR and his abuses.

You can appreciate that de Tocqueville was born in the year 1805, right? His father was a noble peer in a monarchical, hierarchical system.

Equally puzzling is the notion that we are somehow different. Do people such as yourself have selfishness? Did Karl Marx have selfishness? Of course they did and of course you do You might even say that people like yourself and Karl Marx are the most selfish of all. You are eternally fixated on how much other people have and desire it, a sin called coveting that the Bible warns us about. Yes, people like you.

I do not fixate on what other people have. I fixate on creating an egalitarian society. My understanding of Marx is that he desired much the same.

How can you have an egalitarian society without fixating on what other have? The game is, you take a tally of wealth and riches and decide to divvy it up the way you see fit.

For example, those in the US who are poor are rich in comparison to those in Haiti. However, in the US egalitarians seek to give more redistribution to the poor in the US as where if the poor in the US were in Haiti, they would be seeking to take from them to give to the poor in Haiti.

So the egalitarian concept is only dependent on what other people have.

I am not interested in redistributing wealth. I am interested in transforming the mode of production and developing a cooperative society.

You are interested in power which can be equated with wealth.

Those in government are no more righteous that those in the corporate world. At least in the corporate world you are subject to the government. Conversely, once government starts to run things there is no one to turn to once they begin to abuse their power.

 

[BlackSand]

So how do you explain that we have an individualistic society full of ignorant people who are shackled to the selfish desires of the ruling class?

Easy enough ... Virtue doesn't come from government ... Nor can government provide virtue.
The ignorant will be led and shackled to the desires of whomever promises them security and protection from their individual failures.

.

 

[Tehon]

So how do you explain that we have an individualistic society full of ignorant people who are shackled to the selfish desires of the ruling class?

Easy enough ... Virtue doesn't come from government ... Nor can government provide virtue.
The ignorant will be led and shackled to the desires of whomever promises them security and protection from their individual failures.

.

That is a result of ignorance, not collectivism.

 

[Tehon]

Our fathers were only acquainted with selfishness? Is this why George Washington refused to be made king? Is this why George Washington reluctantly became the first President and demanded to step down after two terms, something that all others after him followed until the blight of the power hungry FDR? Thankfully Congress limited the terms after FDR because of FDR and his abuses.

You can appreciate that de Tocqueville was born in the year 1805, right? His father was a noble peer in a monarchical, hierarchical system.

Equally puzzling is the notion that we are somehow different. Do people such as yourself have selfishness? Did Karl Marx have selfishness? Of course they did and of course you do You might even say that people like yourself and Karl Marx are the most selfish of all. You are eternally fixated on how much other people have and desire it, a sin called coveting that the Bible warns us about. Yes, people like you.

I do not fixate on what other people have. I fixate on creating an egalitarian society. My understanding of Marx is that he desired much the same.

How can you have an egalitarian society without fixating on what other have? The game is, you take a tally of wealth and riches and decide to divvy it up the way you see fit.

For example, those in the US who are poor are rich in comparison to those in Haiti. However, in the US egalitarians seek to give more redistribution to the poor in the US as where if the poor in the US were in Haiti, they would be seeking to take from them to give to the poor in Haiti.

So the egalitarian concept is only dependent on what other people have.

I am not interested in redistributing wealth. I am interested in transforming the mode of production and developing a cooperative society.

You are interested in power which can be equated with wealth.

I am interested in no such thing.

 

[BlackSand]

That is a result of ignorance, not collectivism.

To the contrary ... It is the result of a combination of the two ...
One is the means by which the other is supported (albeit they do require a mutual existence).

.

 

[Tehon]

Our fathers were only acquainted with selfishness? Is this why George Washington refused to be made king? Is this why George Washington reluctantly became the first President and demanded to step down after two terms, something that all others after him followed until the blight of the power hungry FDR? Thankfully Congress limited the terms after FDR because of FDR and his abuses.

You can appreciate that de Tocqueville was born in the year 1805, right? His father was a noble peer in a monarchical, hierarchical system.

Equally puzzling is the notion that we are somehow different. Do people such as yourself have selfishness? Did Karl Marx have selfishness? Of course they did and of course you do You might even say that people like yourself and Karl Marx are the most selfish of all. You are eternally fixated on how much other people have and desire it, a sin called coveting that the Bible warns us about. Yes, people like you.

I do not fixate on what other people have. I fixate on creating an egalitarian society. My understanding of Marx is that he desired much the same.

How can you have an egalitarian society without fixating on what other have? The game is, you take a tally of wealth and riches and decide to divvy it up the way you see fit.

For example, those in the US who are poor are rich in comparison to those in Haiti. However, in the US egalitarians seek to give more redistribution to the poor in the US as where if the poor in the US were in Haiti, they would be seeking to take from them to give to the poor in Haiti.

So the egalitarian concept is only dependent on what other people have.

I am not interested in redistributing wealth. I am interested in transforming the mode of production and developing a cooperative society.

You are interested in power which can be equated with wealth.

I am interested in no such thing.

That would be your global elitists, the ones practicing individualism at the expense of the collective.

 

[Tehon]

That is a result of ignorance, not collectivism.

To the contrary ... It is the result of a combination of the two ...
One is the means by which the other is supported (albeit they do require a mutual existence).

.

You just admitted it happens in individualistic society. It is not exclusive to collectivist society.

 

[gipper]

The US is not a democracy, it's a republic, and a republic is only as good as the voters are smart and the politicians are honest.

The US is not a democracy or a republic. It is an empire run by and for the extreme wealthy.

It is run by individual interests.

Same thing.

 

[BlackSand]

You just admitted it happens in individualistic society. It is not exclusive to collectivist society.

I indicated it is as present in the community as it is in the individual ... Because a community is made up of individuals ...
I never suggested otherwise ... And you have failed to make any argument otherwise.

A community does not represent virtue ... And a collective society is not immune to the individual.
The individual does not require a community to be virtuous ... Nor does the community assist the individual in being virtuous.

Some people may think they are being virtuous as the result of what other individuals in the community do or provide ...
But that's just a crock of shit.

.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Our fathers were only acquainted with selfishness? Is this why George Washington refused to be made king? Is this why George Washington reluctantly became the first President and demanded to step down after two terms, something that all others after him followed until the blight of the power hungry FDR? Thankfully Congress limited the terms after FDR because of FDR and his abuses.

You can appreciate that de Tocqueville was born in the year 1805, right? His father was a noble peer in a monarchical, hierarchical system.

Equally puzzling is the notion that we are somehow different. Do people such as yourself have selfishness? Did Karl Marx have selfishness? Of course they did and of course you do You might even say that people like yourself and Karl Marx are the most selfish of all. You are eternally fixated on how much other people have and desire it, a sin called coveting that the Bible warns us about. Yes, people like you.

I do not fixate on what other people have. I fixate on creating an egalitarian society. My understanding of Marx is that he desired much the same.

How can you have an egalitarian society without fixating on what other have? The game is, you take a tally of wealth and riches and decide to divvy it up the way you see fit.

For example, those in the US who are poor are rich in comparison to those in Haiti. However, in the US egalitarians seek to give more redistribution to the poor in the US as where if the poor in the US were in Haiti, they would be seeking to take from them to give to the poor in Haiti.

So the egalitarian concept is only dependent on what other people have.

I am not interested in redistributing wealth. I am interested in transforming the mode of production and developing a cooperative society.

despite your refusal to recognize It

Capitalism Is founded on cooperation