Bwild:

Bernice:

> if that is the case then, why vote?

It stops the masses from going into revolution. If people realized that they have no political power, then they would question why the elite is ruling them, and social discontent would set in. From its early beginnings in the 19th century modern democracy was conceived as a cure against revolution.

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) was an English philosopher who formulated some of the early theories of modern government. He said that "the French Revolution was necessary for Europeans so that they would know that they should never have another one again". In England the common people (wealthy men, but not women or the poor) were given the vote in response to the ever increasing threat of a revolution like the one France had. Later on that same idea, together with Thomas Jeffersons views on government, influenced the new United States of America to give the franchise (power of vote) to "elegible" men. Initially only wealthy landowners could vote, but as the populace grew more and more discontent, it became necessary to give them the ability to vote.

Of course, voting gives an individual a very tiny amount of political power. The theory is that collectively the masses can change the political system by casting their individual votes. If somehow the way people vote can be manipulated, then the elite secures itself in power. That is why elections come with massive spending on propaganda, character assassination, mud slinging, etc. Wealthy individuals will sway elections in their favor with the power of their money.

In real life once a government is elected, accountability evaporates and those elected do whatever they want. Modern democracy is a system in which individuals vote to chose their dictators. The political parties will fight and pretend to represent the interests of voters, but in reality they are representing the interests of the wealthy elite. As long as the populace believes that they are free and they have control over their government, then they will never go into revolution and the status quo will remain.

Übergeek 바둑이: thanks for that :)

did you know that the aboriginal people of australia weren't given the vote until 1975 or there abouts...

but I do believe that they only vote because the law says they have to....

GTCharlie: Hopefully. We know politicians like their 'gizmo's' and toys.. But enough already!! How much money is going to wasted on stuff that'll never be used

Übergeek 바둑이: .... I think it's time America had another revolution. Imperial bosses to corporate bosses.... ALL HAIL THE BOSSES!!!

Bernice:

> did you know that the aboriginal people of australia weren't given the vote until 1975

I knew this. In the two Congos the pigmy people are kept as slaves in the homes of wealthier landowners and they are not allowed to vote.

Democracy is a work in progress. In ancient Greece only the wealthy male aristocracy was allowed to vote. They excluded 90% of the population from voting. Then England created parliament and allowed MPs to be elected. Again, 90% of the population was excluded from voting until the French revolution forced the aristocracy to give up some of its power. In the Americas the United States and other independent countries gave people the right to vote and slowly over the next 200 years there a process of evolution. First, working men were allowed to vote, then men over 18. Then women and people of races other than Caucasian. 100 years ago most countries did not allow women to vote, thus excluding 50% of the population. It is a work in progress for sure.

Perhaps my view of democracy is rather dark, but the alternative is worse. Absolutist governments and dictatorships are definitely not the way to go.

I think the next step for democracies is participatory democracy where people can participate in everyday decisions. Technology should make this easier some day. The technology is already there, but it is still too expensive. Fingerprint and iris scanners are still too expensive. However, if fingerprint scanners become cheap, say $20-50 each, then every home could have one and a registered voter could vote from home. That could open the door to a new form of democracy where people can vote every day through their computers. A fingerprint scanner could make it impossible for somebody to vote twice.

Well, I doubt governments would like that. The ruling elite having to consult with the populace every day would make it very difficult for them to shove unpopular policies down everybody's throat. Imagine the budget being voted upon by the public. I doubt the wealthy contractors that make billions in the current system would like that.

Übergeek 바둑이: dude...your a wealth of knowledge! just curious though...whats your take on Ralph Nader?

Bwild:

For those who don't know much about him, here is a couple of links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader
http://www.nader.org/

Reading a little about him, I found out that he is a lawyer. Since the late 1950s he has been involved in issues such as public safety, environmental protection, government corruption and legislation to support those and other issues.

He has aligned himself with the Green Party. This party stands somewhere between the "liberal" parties (like the Democrats) and the European social democratic movement.

I will not say that he is a socialist. That would be inaccurate. He is a populist reformer. He believes that legislation and good government can get rid of many of the problems people face today. Of course. all politicians will say the same thing.

Considering the candidates he has run against from 2000 until now, I would say that for my liking he was probably the best one out there. Well, he comes closer to my left-leaning politics. He is certainly a very intelligent, very experienced politician. I would say his only weakness is his lack of experience in foreign policy. Other than that he seems to be one of the most capable politicians the US has had in the last 20 years.

Most Republicans in the US dislike him, and Democrats blame him for tilting the balance in favor of George W. Bush in 2000. He attracted much of the left-leaning vote, and the Democrats think they lost because of him. Of course, the same can be said of the Reform Party, which attracts the right-leaning vote.

I think that he is at least an alternative to two political parties that have become entrenched in their ideologies. I have seen no change coming from conservatives (Republicans) or liberals (Democrats) for the last 40 years.

Übergeek 바둑이: No, just 'naked'.. Like the fact that until gone past the first K' AD.. Women didn't have souls.. The church ruled it so!!

History is full of those who try and hold unto power and 'tradition'.. Thankfully such times are growing hard. Freedom of information acts and the like make it much harder for hiding the dust under the carpet.

Being Gay was illegal here until about the 50's, sexual discrimination was rampant, etc, etc... The last 100 years have seen much central power diluted, and the power of voice gain more.

... Just wish the baby kissing politician would die off.. don't they think that line has been used up!!

Übergeek 바둑이: Nader refused lobbyist campaign money. in fact was strongly against lobbyist, and vowed to abolish the practise.

Soros invested heavily in Brazilian oil....then guess our man yomama..decides to do the same, diverting U.S. funds from U.S. soil...funds our country could surely put to better use.
Soros was a large campaign contributer for the yomama team.

Bwild: ROFL @ yomama

Übergeek 바둑이: ?? Are coalitions not legal in the USA? I would have thought (as has happened in the UK) that those who are roughly on the same side would club together and form a government.

Interesting politics when that happens.

(V):

I think the Us has not needed coalition governments since the mid 19th century. The Republicans were founded in 1854. The Democrats trace their roots back to 1792. Both parties have dominated American politics since the mid 19th century and for this reason the US did not need coalitions or had any other two political parties in power since then

Übergeek 바둑이: I wondered why I found it as being a 'rare' occurrence. Yet the make up now seems to be a 3 way split regarding votes and political allegiances.

It's gonna be interesting next general election here, many independents will be running against the established two parties. And thanks to the expenses scandal, alot will get in. The papers made a field day of how MP's reacted to the news of the public's distaste at the way they'd been creaming it. And that some tried to bring criminal prosecution against the details been paraded.. they had no chance.

They live by the press, they die by the press.

(V):

It is interesting with the UK because the dirty laundry is now being washed in public. I think at this point the UK finds itself in politically interesting times. On the one hand a lot of people have a bitter aftertaste of the many years of the Conservatives. There are bitter memories of the Thatcher years. Many people also have a bad impression of the Labour politicians and their handling of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is also all this mess with MP expenses.

I think smaller parties have better chances this time around. I don't know if any of the Liberal Democrats have been dragged into the recent scandals but if the local elections of 2008 are a sign, they could unseat a lot of Labour and Tory MPs. Over the last 10 years the Liberal Democrats have made steady gains in vote percentages and I think the next time around they will win big if they can convince the public that a change is needed in the House of Commons.

Here in Canada we have a some dirty politics going on now. The Liberals (similar to Labour in the UK) are trying to unseat the Tories and the National Democratic Party (more or less similar to the Liberal Democrats of the UK) are promising to hold off a no-confidence vote against the Prime Minister if the ruling Conservatives agree to some concessions in Parliament. People here are really fed up with the mess and I think that if the Liberals insist in forcing an election then the public will react by voting for the Green Party instead of them. We could see the Green Party rise from a small party to one of the big contenders.

Übergeek 바둑이: People in the UK have been getting pretty much tired of the major parties for a number of years. Technically, no government has had a majority for years, seeing as the voting level has dropped to 50% or there about's of the adult population.

Before, it was how MP's always agreed on good pay rises for themselves despite Joe Public having to settle for half or less of the %.

As for the Liberal Democrats.. not clean, but not as dirty as the main two. Labour came of the worst, yet the whole system has taken a bash and the necessary show of humility that needed to settle us voters fell far short of being acceptable.

The Conservatives will not commit in essential areas (troop safety) which does not lie well with me, and Labour are not listening to the Army chiefs.

I think the Liberal Democrats, minor parties and Independents will do very well. Especially in seats where current MP's have shown little or no remorse.

"It was within the rules" is a line that does not stand well here at all.

Obama's health care plan is now at it's lowest level of approval.  His little bump didn't last.  And finally he spoke up regarding Acorn.  I'll bet some of the Dems try to save that corrupt organization.  I hope it goes the way of the dinosaur.  

it sounds like it is about time the UK made voting compulsory as it is in australia....that would definately change the outlook on your "parties" and give a truer indication of what the people want, surely.

Artful Dodger: Yes, it's lower.. Politics can be a dirty game. But not as low as Bush's lowest.

And it seems six in ten still think Obama is working with the Republicans on Healthcare.

That both elected parties are working together, speaks loads.

Bernice: No way... Registration is compulsory, but to force people to vote. Horrible idea.. That's more then people here will take, to make a choice to vote or not is still a vote. The politicians know what it means.

(V):  lol, they clearly aren't working together.   But I do like what Jay Leno suggested.   After hearing that a Republican yelled out "You lie!" during an Obama speech, Leno said, "Well, at least the two sides are talking to each other." 


Who cares about Bush?  Obama is the Prez. 

Artful Dodger: Bush.. I thought comparison was part of metaphoric language!!

As to Wilson... he apologised. Manners, it appears at least are still respected in your houses. But as to talking... they always do. This image of being bitter enemies that is portrayed by the press of hate is just a farce.

It's as fake as wrestling!!

(V):

> It's as fake as wrestling!!

At least politicians in the US are not quite like those in Taiwan. Talk about fighting for the issues!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY68au9Rztk

I could see the Democrats going at it with the Republicans, like they do in Bolivia.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjMeQoIq36c

Mexicans are just as good. There is something very entertaining about some guy who looks like Pancho Villa throwing punches to another politician.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUZsVLoA_kQ

More nice examples.

Japan, that was a nice Judo throw!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Djdy_fhvZuM

South Korea, I figured they might use Tae Kwon Do, but I was rather disappointed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4wn70xPxzc

I think India has them all beaten. These guys actually drew blood!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DF8xYDzLk8

This woman in Nigeria used $5 million in government funds to renovate her home and buy 12 cars. No wonder their parliament broke into a fight. I think it would have been nice to see London politicans throw a few real punches over the spending scandal!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcroSnd8XW8

Compared to all these the fight in the Alabama Senate was so mild. I think American politicians are too civilized. Either that, or they are too afraid of public opinion. Well, more brawls would make politics more entertaining.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlXKBribICs

I think I could go on all night. There are a lot of these videos. My favorite is the Japanese one. That guy would get my vote, just because of the awesome Judo throw!

Mike Tyson would make a great politician, not only because he can box, but because he can bite and fight dirty too!

Übergeek 바둑이: Hey... Don't forget the detail in the construction of Parliament...

Benches were placed so no sword from either side could reach.. and the politicians had to stand behind the line to avoid sword crossing.

Übergeek 바둑이: lol
all government leaders should lead the charge into battle.

Bwild: It would be nice if they did.. But I imagine there would be a lot less wars. It's easy to send to war someone else.

(V):

I think boxing gloves would be an expense that politicians could justify in the budget. Gloves, a spit bucket and a jockstrap with a cup, just in case of low blows.

Übergeek 바둑이: .. don't forget the sumo suits and mud wrestling .. much more entertaining then watching the Parliament channel as it is!!

"Some of the UK's leading building companies have been handed big fines by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) for rigging bids for contracts.

The OFT has fined a total of 103 firms £129.5m for colluding with competitors on building contracts. It said the firms colluded among themselves during the bidding process, leading to customers, such as local authorities, having to pay too much.

The ruling comes at the end of a five-year investigation by the OFT.

.... Adam Aldred, competition partner at law firm Addleshaw Goddard, which represents five of the firms investigated, said the OFT was the first competition authority in Europe to rule against building firms for the practice of cover pricing.

'Price distortions'
In 11 instances investigated by the OFT, the body found that the lowest bidder faced no competition because all other bids were cover bids. It also found six instances where successful bidders had paid an agreed sum of money to the unsuccessful bidder. These payments were between £2,500 and £60,000 and were made using false invoices. "

The best bit..................

"....The UK Construction Group, which represents 29 contractors, called the decision to penalise the firms "unfair".
Deborah Jones, OFT: "It's a breach of competition law"

"Everybody knows - including the OFT - that cover pricing was widespread in the industry in the past," said the body's director Stephen Ratcliffe. "

its one law for the already haves and another law for the have nots
and this woman created the law she broke

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8268101.stm

Snoopy: It's not that she broke the law that gets me.. but that no-one working for her spotted the error.

That I find implausible.

About time to clean up with the Friedman/neocon/pseudofreemarket/repub BS idioty. Criminal energie, that describes the Bush tendencies and all this crap. I need to start the thing again. The American republicans are low life and nothing else. The american democrats are no better. The US is a ridiculous country owned by criminals. Lets go on with this, reason proves my point of view. Switzerland is no better. Even worse.

gogul: Everybody who's able to develop reason knows that Glenn Beck is an idiot. Even he knows it himself. Somebody who acts like an idiot is an idiot and deserves to be titled as idiot. Who thrown the first stone, Otterngezüchte!? What's worse? To act like an idiot like Glenn Beck or to call Glenn Beck an idiot. Now figure, we read you.

Are you serious? I love him!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA7-BvVDV10

***Modified again to fix the last expletive. LOL

Pedro Martínez:  Glen Beck is my hero. 

What happened to Gogul's two posts? Did they vanish into thin air!

Übergeek 바둑이: over moderating by someone who thinks they know better ROFLMBO

Bernice: lol..kinda like the Democrats gag order against Humana!! lol

For those who don't know, Gogul posted this word: "Otterngezüchte", which in English translates as "Brood of vipers". It is a biblical reference to Luke 3.7.

In English:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=lucas%203&version=NIV

and in German:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lukas+3.1-9&version=LUTH1545;

I imagine it was not the German word that got him banned, but the expletives he used to describe Mr. Beck. Well, censorship in BK was argued about a long time ago.

For those who don't know who Glenn Beck is, Wikipedia has some more information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Beck

Having seen videos of the man in YouTube I think Gogul's comments were warranted. I see no reason why Gogul was banned, other than calling the man a donkey orifice.

Übergeek 바둑이: Vikings modified my post in which I quoted gogul and replaced the word that had caused the removal of gogul's original post with “idiot”. But Vikings missed the last occurrence of that word, so go back to my post and I'm sure you can find it. Then you can also post a reference link to Wikipedia for those who don't know what it is.

Übergeek 바둑이: He sounds ... opinionated from youtube. Basically paid to be 'better than life'..

Media

(V):  We're all opinionated. 

Pedro Martínez: I would have to say that Fox news is carrying on the English tradition of having a 'village idiot'. Fox nEwS being a 'village' of sorts of the Murdoch empire..

I guess O'Reilly was losing his .... attention grabbing potential.

Artful Dodger: Aye.... but media likes over the top guys. helps advertising revenue.

(V):   Yeah, that must explain why Fox is number one in every time slot and burries the other new outlets.  Oh, and it must also take an idiot to uncover corruption and bring it to the attention of the American public.  Because that's what Beck has done.  And what about the other networks?  Silence.  Even cover-ups. 

(V):   People like theatrics.  It would be boring to watch Beck if he didn't get a bit theatrical at times.  But there's a message in his madness.  He is brilliant.  Calling him names reflects on you, not him.

Artful Dodger: As you say people like theatrics, and Fox's editorials are good at that. And btw... he like all 'faces' has researchers.

And saying someone is an idiot is not an insult, it's using metaphorical description. I heard worse being said of a 'nazi-elitist' by his defence lawyer in crown court.

As you said.. "It would be boring to watch Beck if he didn't get a bit theatrical at times."

I mean Art.. you've used the word "idiot" quite a few times to describe various people.. especially your own government.

(V):  Nonsense.  It's name calling.  People who have a problem with Beck always resort to name calling.  They rarely offer rational reasons as to why they disagree with his positions.  Name calling, sarcasm, mocking, those are the trademark responses of Beck's opponents when they can offer no real counter argument. 

Artful Dodger:

I can see some signs of intelligence in Glenn Beck's comments. However, when he becomes stubborn about something it seems that he has no control over what he says. The time in which he called Obama a "racist" seems to me a veiled way to put forth his own racism and dislike of an African American president. It seems to me that Glenn Beck dislikes Obama, not for well thought-out political reasons, but because Obama is a black Democrat.

Beck sunk too low when he carried a smear campaign against Van Jones, the former White House Council for Environmental Quality. Glenn Beck accused Jones of being a communist. However, I find it interesting that Beck carried a vendetta against an African American who had called on advertisers to remove ads from Beck's show after he called Obama a racist.

I am trying to find some examples of his uncovering corruption. I found references to ACORN corruption. I am not that familiar with all the issues surrounding ACORN but it seems to me that Fox news published a doctored video made in Baltimore. There is a pending defamation lawsuit against Fox and the "conservative activists" who made the video. I am just curious: Was Glenn Beck this enthusiastic during the Bush administration or are his efforts entirely partisan? I imagine that he understands that the press is supposed to be impartial.