Is Democracy on the Decline?

[Lisnpuppy]

@Lisnpuppy: I did not report it, and therefore probably should have left the "moderator-tolerated" bit out, but I mentioned that it was tolerated to illustrate the point that attacks on those who express ideas considered outside of the mainstream of political or social thought are generally tolerated, which ties in to my premise about what has caused our democracy to decline. I surely could have worded it better. No offense was given by you, and none was taken by me.

Thank you.

Suke I apologize for the off-topic. Please continue. I can hide the off-topic (but not delete of course) at the request of the posters.~Lisnpuppy

[colourwheel]

@colourwheel: Have you read the complete text of the ACA?

 

Does anyone really care if I have or not besides you? I would think not...

 

 

One of the premises expressed in this thread by colourwheel and yourself is that democracy is plagued by the "ignorant" and "uninformed" electorate. Colourwheel pointed to those who oppose the ACA but have not read the text of the law as an example of this ignorant, uninformed electorate.

 

As I stated earlier, if you truly believe that the electorate is ignorant and uninformed then there are only two possibilities when it comes to how you perceive yourself as a member of that electorate: You are either more intelligent and informed than the ignorant uninformed masses, or you are just as ignorant and uninformed as the rest. I am attempting to illustrate that if anything it is the later is most likely true. If this is the case then it seems a bit counter-productive to condemn the opposition as ignorant and uninformed.

 

I can condemn the opposition as ignorant and uninformed if I want especially if through my experience I find it to be true. Note people who claim to be "strongly" against something (note I say "strongly") then finding after a questionnaire they endup knowing really nothing at all about their protest for it. How could you not claim these people to be ignorant, uninformed?

 

I was never originally condemning the "opposition" as ignorant and uninformed "alone". I was talking about everyone I polled from conservatives to liberals. If anything you seem to be on some propaganda to make the readers of this thread seem like I am only condemning those who disagree with "my" personal views... The original example was never meant to be some political partisan statement. It was only an example which you chose to try to dissect for seemingly the only sole purpose to debate about something that has absolutely nothing specific to do with the threads topic. Your argument with my example is "totally" counter-productive and not just a "bit" counter-productive.

 

If you don't agree with my views on how education is important to have a health democracy, then just disagree with me. It won't hurt my feelings, I promise.

Edited September 24, 2013 by colourwheel

[spz2]

I decided i should ignore TRoaches as you should all , he is just making this conversation about democracy to stall if anything . My suspicion of him/her is that he is a religious zealot (though he denies it) , i,ve dealt with many , enough to recognise them when i see them , the thing is he is a closeted one and he's afraid to come out , pls ignore him in order to keep this important topic interesting , otherwise u'll keep responding to him , feed him , and soon u'll get bored and u'll all quit discussing about what's really important .

Edited September 24, 2013 by spz2

[HeyYou]

 

@colourwheel: Have you read the complete text of the ACA?

 

Does anyone really care if I have or not besides you? I would think not...

 

 

One of the premises expressed in this thread by colourwheel and yourself is that democracy is plagued by the "ignorant" and "uninformed" electorate. Colourwheel pointed to those who oppose the ACA but have not read the text of the law as an example of this ignorant, uninformed electorate.

 

As I stated earlier, if you truly believe that the electorate is ignorant and uninformed then there are only two possibilities when it comes to how you perceive yourself as a member of that electorate: You are either more intelligent and informed than the ignorant uninformed masses, or you are just as ignorant and uninformed as the rest. I am attempting to illustrate that if anything it is the later is most likely true. If this is the case then it seems a bit counter-productive to condemn the opposition as ignorant and uninformed.

 

I can condemn the opposition as ignorant and uninformed if I want especially if through my experience I find it to be true. Note people who claim to be "strongly" against something (note I say "strongly") then finding after a questionnaire they endup knowing really nothing at all about their protest for it. How could you not claim these people to be ignorant, uninformed?

 

I was never originally condemning the "opposition" as ignorant and uninformed "alone". I was talking about everyone I polled from conservatives to liberals. If anything you seem to be on some propaganda to make the readers of this thread seem like I am only condemning those who disagree with "my" personal views... The original example was never meant to be some political partisan statement. It was only an example which you chose to try to dissect for seemingly the only sole purpose to debate about something that has absolutely nothing specific to do with the threads topic. Your argument with my example is "totally" counter-productive and not just a "bit" counter-productive.

 

If you don't agree with my views on how education is important to have a health democracy, then just disagree with me. It won't hurt my feelings, I promise.

 

Well, it seems one of your cheif arguments against folks that don't like the ACA, is "have they actually read it." So, in this case, turnabout is indeed 'fair play'. How can you possibly be 'for' something you haven't read? This falls into the same category of "how can you be against something you haven't read."

 

I don't need to read the whole thing to understand that certain aspects of it CONDEMN the WHOLE thing. Giving our government the power to legislate how we spend our money opens the door to a HOST of other possible abuses here. Their 'reasoning' for this is "Its for the good of the country, and economy." So, are we next going to be forced to buy a car? A house? Because its' "good for the economy"? Or what about oranges? Apples? Fruit is good for your health, so, lets have the government tell us to go buy some...... Nope, this is simply the 'foot in the door' to have even MORE government nanny-state interfernce in our daily lives.

 

Instead of spending all that time, effort, money, etc, on passing a bill that doesn't address the root of the problem, how about doing something about the ACTUAL problem? But then, that isn't in our government purvue. They aren't in the business of solving problems. They treat symptoms, that create more problems, so they have job security.

[spz2]

Does one think that the fundamentalist Christians would throw in behind said despot? We can not agree on what to do about global warming or even if it exists...how old the universe is....evolution....if man and dinosaur walked the earth together or ALIENS!!

 

Do not compare the US with any other country because the rules of the US do not apply to any other i would say . The US cannot become a dictatorship unless it loses a war by total capitulation , which i do not think will be possible , in the near future or the distant future . And yes christians would banish their robes and crosses if dictated , yes global warming is real , the universe is about 12 billion years old , evolution is well understood since 200 years ago with "the origin of species" and accepted as fact since almost from the same time ... man and dinosaur did not walk together LOL , aliens do exist , there is an equation that reasons about the possibility of alien existence within our galaxy and more, it's called the Drake Equation if you want to find out more about it .

 

 

All this without using google , these should be no brainers for average people from an EDUCATED society , sigh , yes ....

 

 

Edited September 24, 2013 by spz2

[colourwheel]

 

Giving our government the power to legislate how we spend our money opens the door to a HOST of other possible abuses here. Their 'reasoning' for this is "Its for the good of the country, and economy." So, are we next going to be forced to buy a car? A house? Because its' "good for the economy"? Or what about oranges? Apples? Fruit is good for your health, so, lets have the government tell us to go buy some...... Nope, this is simply the 'foot in the door' to have even MORE government nanny-state interfernce in our daily lives.

 

Instead of spending all that time, effort, money, etc, on passing a bill that doesn't address the root of the problem, how about doing something about the ACTUAL problem? But then, that isn't in our government purvue. They aren't in the business of solving problems. They treat symptoms, that create more problems, so they have job security.

 

I was under the impression the purpose of our democratic nation is to elect people into office giving them legislative power to do what is good for the country. If the people of a nation have elected officials that legislate them to buy oranges then the only ones to really blame for this are the people who elected them into office. Anyone having legislative power holds the door and the key to a host "possible" abuses but I am not that paranoid to worry about "what ifs".

 

Again I have always agreed with your view on the root of the problem being jobs in our nation. but until we can elect people into office that will actually do something about it we still need "medication" to treat the "symptoms" of the "bigger problem". Getting rid of healthcare for millions of Americans won't solve the "bigger problem" either.

Edited September 24, 2013 by colourwheel

[TRoaches]

Does anyone really care if I have or not besides you? I would think not...

This is no different from saying "Does anyone care if the 15 people who colourwheel polled about the law have read it or not?". Your argument is that we should care. If you think we should care if they read the law then it makes sense for us to care if you read the law as well. Why are you different than the 15 negative respondents, in that we should take note of their ignorance of the law but ignore your own ignorance of the same law?

 

 

I can condemn the opposition as ignorant and uninformed if I want especially if through my experience I find it to be true.

 

You can condemn anyone you want for any reason, but condemnation based on subjective observation is not necessarily a convincing method of debate and your experience does not equate to universal truth. If I had walked into a local bar this past Sunday and conducted a poll of 30 people asking "Who is the best NFL team?" the results would have been 30 answers in favor of the Pittsburgh Steelers, who are currently 0-3. The bar patrons are thinking about the question from a viewpoint of emotional subjectiveness. A more objective analysis would yield a much different results than a poll of 30 people. We are at a point in our political history where most people are loyal to either the right side or the left side and make their decisions about what to support or oppose based on what they are told by the leadership of their favorite "team". They are not thinking about the merits of the platforms and choosing which side to support based on that assessment. Instead, they processing the information in reverse by choosing which side they identify with socially and then supporting that side's platform based on the information they are fed from that side's propaganda machine.

 

 

I was never originally condemning the "opposition" as ignorant and uninformed "alone". I was talking about everyone I polled from conservatives to liberals. If anything you seem to be on some propaganda to make the readers of this thread seem like I am only condemning those who disagree with "my" personal views... The original example was never meant to be some political partisan statement.

 

The readers of this thread may remember you saying that the opposition's ignorance of the details of the law was more relevant than the supporter's ignorance of the same law. I am pointing out that, under your premise that members of the electorate who are not reading the laws when forming their opinions of them are ignorant and uninformed and, therefore, responsible for a decline in our democracy, the responsibility for this decline should be shared in a non-partisan way between the ignorant supporters and ignorant opposition of any given legislation and that, according to your premise, you are also a contributor to that ignorance. This is based on your premise, not mine. I am only applying it to you, and to others who you did not intend to apply it to but to whom it must be applied if the application is fair.

 

 

I decided i should ignore TRoaches as you should all , he is just making this conversation about democracy to stall if anything . My suspicion of him/her is that he is a religious zealot (though he denies it) , i,ve dealt with many , enough to recognise them when i see them , the thing is he is a closeted one and he's afraid to come out ,

 

The conversation IS about democracy, but you keep bringing it back to religion. I made a passing reference to religious thought and you have been hammering away at it with insults ever since. Again, you are demonstrating all of the signature traits of a religious zealot in your post: You statements that you have "dealt with many, enough to recognise them when I see them" sounds like something an inquisitor or witch hunter would say, and your description of me as "closeted", taken in conjunction with your strange use of an offensive anti-gay slur followed by a reassurance that you are "not gay" echoes the type of thing that an anti-homosexual religious crusader would come up with. You inherited your zealot mother's methods of discourse, which is to point your finger and scream "NOOOO" at anyone who disagrees with you. As I said earlier, you are making her proud!

 

The problem with your position and your attitude as it relates to the topic is that condemning something as "wrong" or "false" because it is OBVIOUSLY wrong or false is that there is nothing democratic (or scientific) about such thinking. Democracy should be about the exchange and logical debate of ideas, and through that exchange and debate the achievement of majority consensus. Simply screaming NOOOO HERETIC!!! at the opposition is a method of governance associated with fascism and theocracy, not democracy.

 

 

Do not compare the US with any other country because the rules of the US do not apply to any other i would say

 

The Romans said similar things, as did the Nazis.

 

 

The US cannot become a dictatorship unless it loses a war by total capitulation , which i do not think will be possible , in the near future or the distant future

 

If that capitulation had already occurred would you recognize it? Given that you, and many others, insist that it is impossible I doubt you would be looking for it and would be unlikely to believe it even if it happened right in front of you to observe.

[colourwheel]

 

We are at a point in our political history where most people are loyal to either the right side or the left side and make their decisions about what to support or oppose based on what they are told by the leadership of their favorite "team". They are not thinking about the merits of the platforms and choosing which side to support based on that assessment. Instead, they processing the information in reverse by choosing which side they identify with socially and then supporting that side's platform based on the information they are fed from that side's propaganda machine.

 

I would say you are more than living proof of your statement...

[TRoaches]

Replying with "NO U" is perhaps the lowest possible form of discourse. Nicely done!

[Marxist ßastard]

FYI just a few hours ago you were involved in a multi-page "no u" slapfight with spz2 re: mutual accusations of religious zealotry.