Dear Fake-Patriots,

POSTED BY: STDOUBT
UPDATED: Wednesday, June 11, 2025 02:40
VIEWED: 17112
PAGE 8 of 13

I'm going to add one more thing to this discussion of democracy: Bush did not win either election. In 2000, 19,000 people were kept off the voter rolls in Florida by a sympathetic Secretary of State, Katherine Harris. In 2004, three states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania) with electronic voting had counts at severe odds with exit polls. A group of top statisticians discounted anything but fraud as the cause. http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/Exit_Polls_2004_Edison-Mitof
sky.pdf

You can't be responsible for what you didn't vote for.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Don't have so much time today (spent so much time on here this morning that I didn't actually do any work, so I need to catch up with work-related stuff a bit), so I'll just respond to a couple of things but not all of them.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
And no, revolution isn't the only way to get them out. NOT voting for them is a more widely accepted and less violent way.

---

One can only NOT vote once every four years. In the time inbetween an administration can apparently do what it wants.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

However, one can't just say that democracy doesn't work so well because of the people, because any form of government doesn't work too well because of the people.

---

This statement has no relation to what I said, I merely said people as a whole in a democracy share the responsibility of their nation’s actions, and frankly that responsibility hangs heaviest on those who directly support that government and its actions.

---

Yes you're right, maybe it doesn't have a direct relation to what you said. There was an admittedly fairly long thought-process involved in getting from your original statements to that statement of mine, but I don't have time to explain it, and let's just say I think I over-reached a bit. That statement of mine is based on my belief that ANY political system is flawed since the people it governs are flawed. I don't think it was meant as a counter-point to any of your arguments, just to raise a point of my own. I admit, on its own that statement of mine is not a very good one, I should have expanded on it when I said it.

Quote:

---

(Communism) also worked extremely well in small communities. Though Democracy and Communism are not directly comparable. One is a societal system, one is a governmental system.

---

Agreed. This was a continuation of my point from above, namely that any system is inherently flawed, no matter how much 'better' it is than all the others.

In response to...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
I didn't say anything along those lines.

---

...I was talking about...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
And who bears responsibility for the people’s apathy if not the people?

---

... and apathy is what I was referring to when I said this:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Khyron:
So while I agree with your sentiment and have expressed similar concern myself...

---

What comes next isn't what you said but what I say:

Quote:

---

...I don't think it's something that can be changed and the system has to adapt to the people and not the other way around.

---

to which I think:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Frankly I think people should meet society half-way, otherwise there's absolutly no point to society in the first place.

---

is a good response.

I don't disagree with your overall point that people should be held responsible for their actions (including who they give their votes to during elections), but there's a limit to how accountable one can hold a person for the administration s/he helped into office. Overall, my response to that post of yours wasn't really a rebuttal to your main point (which I generally agree with), but more a way for me to expand on the topic and raise new points.

---

Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

Quote:

---

Okay, there's no way I can explain why both administrations are still there, because it still doesn't make sense to me. My two best arguments are: the majority of people are stupid, and the opposition candidates were hopeless.

---

People are as ignorant of political matters and as stupid as they want to be. It's their responsibility to educate themselves, not anyone else’s.

---

You both miss the point I think. Both governments are still there because the war didn't matter enough to the people that were voting at the time they voted. This is not a world war, people are not dying on your street in bombing raids, chances are that Joe Q voter doesn't personally know anyone that has died.

Political parties tend to be big tents, they attract all kinds of people and organizations. Not all Republicans are also conservative, not all Democrats are that liberal, parties horse trade issues between their own internal factions then try to condense and polish a message for the voter. Few elections are about single issues and few voters find any party to be an exact fit for their own beliefs. They choose based on which parties are closest to them in general or on key issues. Some voters vote party line no matter what. Let's look a specifics.

At the time of the US election more people in favour of the war than against it. Now you can argue that they are not informed, ill informed or misinformed but that's the truth that the war had majority support. About 1000 US service personel had died, less than died on Sept 11th and the chance that significant numbers of voters knew a GI that was killed are slim. Bush played the national security card to a populus that is in general scared. The Dems put up a weak canidate. End of story. Bush actually did better in 2004 than in 2000.

In the UK about 100 servicemen had died, almost a quater of them in none combat related accidents. The economy was doing ok, or at least better than mainland Europe. The main opposition party not only voted for the war but would have probably done what Labour did had they been in power, they did not have a moral high ground to exploit. The UK electorate "adjusted" Labour's majority to a point where they could no longer railroad legislation but that was all. Howard Dean's political guru Joe Trippi (?) apparently worked as an analysist at the election and said the anti war movement got no traction in the UK despite the big public demonstrations. The big surprise vote catcher against the government proved to be immigration.

So there's your answer. The war is not as big a deal for voters as it is for talking heads. If the economy is good and your son isnt the one being shot at you will vote for the guy you think is most likely to keep you safe and the economy good over the peacenic whose security and economic record you dont know.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

So anyway, I intend to get back to Geezer (aka 'Slick') later on ... I've gone through about 1/3 of all archived threads to find his postings by which to hang him - metaphorically speaking. He is blatantly partisan.

But I found an interesting statistic. Bill Clinton left office with a 2/3 job approval rating - the highest of any president (even though 2/3 disliked him personally).

Who were the remaining 1/3 who rated Clinton 'poor'? I suspect they are the same 1/3 who still support Bush - partisan to the core and unable to accept reality. They couldn't admit Clinton did well back then, no matter how plain the truth. And they can't admit Bush is a failure now. Hence, they struggle to cover up, excuse away, minimize, distract from ... in other words, do anything, anything ... to erase the gap between what they want (Bush God) and what is (bushbaby).



Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
So anyway, I intend to get back to Geezer (aka 'Slick') later on ... I've gone through about 1/3 of all archived threads to find his postings by which to hang him - metaphorically speaking. He is blatantly partisan.

---

Geez, Rue. Can't we just discuss the topic at hand, without having to go back to the stone age to prove that I don't agree with you? Just take it as read. I'm really not interested in you taking fragments of statements I made and interpreting them totally out of context once again. If you want to discuss, instead of villify, try responding to this.

Quote:

---

Sure I have a point, and I'd have thought it would have been pretty clear. After reviewing Mr. Britt's 14 warning signs of fascism, the article in which they appeared, the organization which published the article, Mr. Britt's other work that I cound find, and the interiew in the Rochester City, I've come to the conclusion that Mr. Britt wrote the article as a spin, or more accurately a propaganda, piece, to support his own poor opinion of the US government. He provides a little pseudo-scientific dressing by talking about analysing fascist governments, but provides no research data or statistics. He provides no method of evaluating pass/fail levels for any of his criteria, leaving them wide open for any interpretation one might want to apply. I consider it bogus. That's BOOOOOOOOOGUS!

---

And try for a logical argument, not just the ad hominem (in its actual meaning) "Geezer's just a tool of the "whatever" and a liar" mode.

I've already posted my critique of the first criteria.

Quote:

---

Both fascist Nazi Germany and the Communist Soviet Union were big on flags, parades, monumental buildings and the other trappings of Nationalism. Various monarchies have also encouraged nationalism in this way. The US had a spate of massive building in Washington, D.C. and giant public works across the country in the FDR era. I'd say this criteria isn't a standalone marker for fascism. It seems pretty general across the political spectrum, and should probably not be weighted too high as a combined marker either.

---

Respond to that...if you possibly can, leaving out personalities and insults. I dare you.


"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fletch2:
You both miss the point I think. Both governments are still there because the war didn't matter enough to the people that were voting at the time they voted. This is not a world war, people are not dying on your street in bombing raids, chances are that Joe Q voter doesn't personally know anyone that has died.

Political parties tend to be big tents, they attract all kinds of people and organizations. Not all Republicans are also conservative, not all Democrats are that liberal, parties horse trade issues between their own internal factions then try to condense and polish a message for the voter. Few elections are about single issues and few voters find any party to be an exact fit for their own beliefs. They choose based on which parties are closest to them in general or on key issues. Some voters vote party line no matter what. Let's look a specifics.

At the time of the US election more people in favour of the war than against it. Now you can argue that they are not informed, ill informed or misinformed but that's the truth that the war had majority support. About 1000 US service personel had died, less than died on Sept 11th and the chance that significant numbers of voters knew a GI that was killed are slim. Bush played the national security card to a populus that is in general scared. The Dems put up a weak canidate. End of story. Bush actually did better in 2004 than in 2000.

In the UK about 100 servicemen had died, almost a quater of them in none combat related accidents. The economy was doing ok, or at least better than mainland Europe. The main opposition party not only voted for the war but would have probably done what Labour did had they been in power, they did not have a moral high ground to exploit. The UK electorate "adjusted" Labour's majority to a point where they could no longer railroad legislation but that was all. Howard Dean's political guru Joe Trippi (?) apparently worked as an analysist at the election and said the anti war movement got no traction in the UK despite the big public demonstrations. The big surprise vote catcher against the government proved to be immigration.

So there's your answer. The war is not as big a deal for voters as it is for talking heads. If the economy is good and your son isnt the one being shot at you will vote for the guy you think is most likely to keep you safe and the economy good over the peacenic whose security and economic record you dont know.

---

Boy, I wish I'd said that. You the man (or woman)!

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be."
—President Thomas Jefferson

"A shocking crime was committed on the unscrupulous initiative of few individuals, with the blessing of more, and amid the passive acquiescence of all. This I regard as history's highest function, to let no worthy action be uncommemorated, and to hold out the reprobation of posterity as a terror to evil words and deeds. The more corrupt the state, the more laws. Rumor is not always wrong."
-Publius Cornelius Tacitus, Histories (written during Roman Empire)

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
-George Santayana

Quote:

---

BRIEF HISTORY OF COVERT "INTELLIGENCE" OPERATIONS

by Hitler's Nazis and George Bush's CIA

Dirty tricks and lies create dictatorships, deal drugs & start wars



US Big Business sold to Nazi Germany during World War 2
US Big Business bought from Commies during Vietnam
Reagan/Bush White House & CIA convicted as Drug Warlords: Iran-Contra
Nazi worship at Secret Society Skull & Bones (CIA) at US colleges

Nazi Germany and United States of America are now United under George Bushes

edited by John Lee

Quote:

---

"It is the business of a general to be quiet and thus insure secrecy. He must be able to mystify his officers and men by false reports and appearances, and thus keep them in total ignorance."
—Sun Tzu, author of The Art of War, was hired as commanding general after chopping off the heads of the Chinese Emperor's wives for giggling in their first military parade. His book is still a standard primer for American business and war colleges, and his techniques are used against billions of people today and every day

"The people resemble a wild beast, which, naturally fierce and accustomed to live in the woods, has been brought up, as it were, in a prison and in servitude, and having by accident got its liberty, not being accustomed to search for its food, and not knowing where to conceal itself, easily becomes the prey of the first who seeks to incarcerate it again. There are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless. If sometimes you need to conceal a fact with words, do so in such a way that it does not become known. Or, if it does become know, make sure you have a ready and quick defense."
—Niccolo Machiavelli, from The Prince

"All propaganda has to be popular and has to adapt its spiritual level to the perception of the least intelligent of those towards whom it intends to direct itself. The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one."
—Adolf Hitler, President of the Reichstag and Reich Chancellor, Nazi Party

"Naturally, the common people don't want war. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism."
—Hermann Goering, President of the Reichstag, Nazi Party, and Luftwaffe Commander in Chief

"First of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—Nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror.... The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism, ownership of the government by the individual, by a group, or any controlling private power."
—President Franklin Roosevelt

"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. We must guard against the acquisition of unwarrented influence by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise o

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME