Printable View
Eurocrats imposed on Greece and Italy: I'd rather be governed by the first 100 people in the phone book | Mail Online
This article's about how the legislatures in Italy and Greece threw out the popular elected PMs in replaced them with unelected puppets put in place specifically to overrule popular opinion.
Yep, it's extremely concerning.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=bdob6QRLRJU
The sooner the whole thing falls down, the better.
It seems like the world is begging for some kind of revolution
The new world order is starting :panic: but seriously by the looks of things it does seem that way.
Maybe the theories about 2012 ARE true. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
Seeing any democratic nation lose even a tiny percent of its democratic process really concerns me :(
No I take that back, with the industrial military complex potentially being an international force - losing democracy is scary.
What replaces regimes in a revolution? More people hungry for power. I'm all for getting rid of some of our leaders... but we have to consider the possibility that maybe, JUST MAYBE, revolution won't actually make things better?! *gasp*
(ALthough in Europe that is disgusting. They should be elected, not selected... I hope they don't expect Europeans to just accept that.)
The problem is that without a revolution, things will continue to get worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePreserver
At the very least a full scale revolt is required to shake the tumor off our legislative system.
We need to elect Ron Paul. I think he has a very good chance given current circumstances. He has been predicting everything that is happening now for over 20 years, and knows what he is doing. If he doesn't get elected as president, I think we can assume there is simply no will to ever fix anything. And then we are all doomed.
The revolution in Egypt doesn't seem to have done much good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
The revolting against the product of their revolution now lol
Still.... it is the only way.
The revolution against Mubarak was only successful because the army stood aside. Now they're revolting against the army... it's hard to be optimistic.
Because the military took advantage of the power vacuum, the Egyptians should have therefore supported their puppet dictator because at least then they had the illusion of a civil government. Is that the point you're making?
Bankers trying to get rid of democracy and replace it with kleptocracy? Shocking :roll:
The people haven't been in charge of large chunks of the western world in quiet some time. The EU and The United States are both controlled by this man:
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...B7DKZJelh8OF-L
Yep you read my text with a masterfully objective eye as always, I love all despots and forms of oppression and I think it's only right that they should stay that way forever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
The Euro is being propped up by bureaucrats due to political hubris. Most of them are want unity for idealistic reasons but are too stupid or too in denial to realise they're having the opposite effect, as always.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
Have you read or heard of The Fourth Turning? It's a book that postulates a 4-generation cycle of history in the West (and America in particular) that's been going on for at least the past several hundred years. Every 80 years or so, there's a major revolution or conflict. The last one was the Depression/WW2. Before that it was the Civil War, and before that it was the American revolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
It's been about 80 years...
It's worse. It was successful because the army actively defended the protesters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
But now the army is stepping down as well because the demonstrators wouldn't let them keep power.
Since when was the army stepping down?
You realise 'the demonstrators wouldn't let the army keep power' is like saying 'the ant wouldn't let the boot crush him'?
Egyptian Army Commits To Civilian Power Transfer, Peace With IsraelQuote:
Originally Posted by Xei
And you're wrong. The army trying to retain power from a people that will not be slaves is like a boat trying to beat the ocean.
(Strange analogy... because boats usually float on the ocean...)Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
Egypt... are they promoting peace with Israel because they are afraid the US will start another war against an "oppressive, Anti-Israeli regime" that arises? Interesting. Let's see who our foreign aid is siphoned to this time! (I'm guessing some major power player in the military who isn't willing to give up power completely.)
Interesting.
And the ocean can beat a boat. Which is what Omnis was saying. Try going over a 50m wave in a boat and staying afloat when it come crashing down.
A boat can manipulate the ocean to keep afloat but it's still kept afloat by the will of the ocean. I was going to say storm but the people don't riot every second of every day and I was going for the most truthful analogy I could, not the most appeasing to the people.
Egypt has already sacrificed more than 2000 innocents so they can have a real democracy, it's not fair to them for me to act like this revolution is an easy transition. This people has fought tooth and nail to be free. And they won't stop fighting until they see that freedom. No amount of clever power grabbing will stop them.
I only hope Greece and Italy can follow suit and kick out their tyrannical governments as well.
Since you're all on the subject of bad analogies, this one also sucks. Being stepped on rarely actually kills ants. Trust me, I've stepped on plenty of ants in my time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
(I still agree with Xei)
Ants can hide in the tread.
Of course you do. Democracy is for communists right?Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
You're such a massive pile of fail. I can't fathom how you manage to be so boundlessly biased and irrational yet think you're some kind of sage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
I've never met anyone so ignorant who thought they were so smart. You cling to assumptions as worthless as christian dogma then act like Christianity is still a theory worth debunking as if religion is what's standing in the way of progress at this moment in time. You've got the whole world figure out and yet you've forgotten the most important truth of all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I can't say I'm surprised by the way you're judging me, but I hope you'll look pass those judgments, and I'll try to look pass my judgments of you. Then again, when you automatically assume I'm excluding myself in a rant about a general human flaw, what chance do I have at relating to you?
I mean holy shit dude, how am I supposed to have hope for your intelligence when you constantly throw these personal attacks my way as a means to avoid answering my claims? First you say Egypt's military wont give up power as though that's some kind of excuse to be oppressed in the first place, then when I present evidence in the contrary you just troll. And yet you find yourself with the nerve to call me the irrational one.
The whole point is that this was just another of your delusions. You make a ridiculous claim about something I said, I ask you to show me where, you disappear. And it's going to happen again now. The only ignorance and dogma you see from me is stuff you've seemingly imagined into existence due to your extremely dogmatic tendency to form fatuous false dichotomies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
FixedQuote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Oh look, he didn't show me where I said that thing that I definitely said. Again.
Because I already did. Go read through the thread maybe.
'Where in the thread do I say that democracy is for communists or even express any negative opinion about democracy whatsoever'?
'Somewhere in the thread'.
Nice lying bro.
Oh that's what you were asking. I thought you were still on that whole "when did egypt's military say they were going to hand over control?" bullshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Your view of democracy has been negative because you implied the Egyptians should have never attempted to have their own.
Yep, still a complete fabrication. I said I wasn't optimistic about a conflict with the army. What train of thought do you have to follow to conclude that this means 'democracy is for communists'?
See what I mean?
Quote:
The only ignorance and dogma you see from me is stuff you've seemingly imagined into existence due to your extremely dogmatic tendency to form fatuous false dichotomies.
Soo... what was the whole point of the EU? Because it doesn't seem like anything has improved because of it... the countries still hate each other, the Euro is crumbling, except this time ALL of the countries have to suffer from the failures of a select few economies...
I could definitely see why some people in the UK are Eurosceptics
If you want my opinion, the point of the EU was so certain central banks could monopolize the banking system in Europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePreserver
Just trying to defend a people that I believe deserve democracy. You never did say that they'd be better off with Mubarak but it sounded like you were heading in that direction. It sounded like you were being pessimistic about the power of revolution. I am simply defending my faith in the power of a people to overcome anything with hope and knowledge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
And I 100% agree with you and have never said otherwise. Yet as per usual you lumped me with vehemence into the 'hates freedom' category, which is exactly what the kind of irrational bias I talked about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
European countries 'hate each other'..? Not sure why you think that. But otherwise as far as I can tell you are right in your analysis. It's worth also mentioning that the countries who have been hit worst of all are those who are failing. They have a large part of the culpability, but the EU has just as much.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePreserver
That's certainly one plausible explanation. Another one is that it expanded the power and size of the political class. But nevertheless, are we to understand that you think it would be better if each European country was once again independent?Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
The central banks own the political class. Even if european countries were economically independent it would only be a matter of time before they're dealt bad loans or forced into a recession with predatory lending or in some other way financially obligated to these larger interests and forced to sell off their assets.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
"hate" is probably the wrong word... but they have been warring for the past couple millennia, there has to be some tension built up since World War II, (especially since Germany and France are being relied upon to prop up the failures... but hey, Germany and France finally have something in common!) I feel bad for them; they do each have debt problems, but it's not nearly as bad as Greece or Italy, but they're all tied together for as long as they share a currency.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I would call it more like a loving partnership between the banks and the politicians to fuck over everyone stupid enough to believe in the validity of the state.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
As for your second statement, I can't make heads or tails of it. Sorry.
I don't see this partnership any more loving than the partnership between an employer and the employee. Let me show you my worldview.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/q...thepyramid.jpg
Yet the people regularly vote for the government which then decides policy on corporations and banks. How does that work?
Again, we don't have a choice. Only big corporations can afford to finance an election campaign, elections always come down to one corporate puppet vs another. Sometime's it's even more dangerous when the electee and the corporation are one in the same, such as Dick Cheney and Haloburten / Bush and his father's oil company. The USA fought a multi trillion dollar was partially to make money for Haloburten and Bush. We would vote for someone without corporate ties if we could, we only have the option of the lesser of two evils.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
You can. You're just collectively too stupid to. Nobody can force you to vote for anybody. There are two people trying to sell cyanide lollies and the population is so fundamentally thick that they keep buying them because they like the flashy ad campaigns. What can you do?Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
Spoiler for And now a message from my sponsors:
LMFAO! s
So why was he lying there?
Also, since Radiohead....
this is relevant
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Lnltl3YoqQ
^ I bet this person voted for Obama.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
We DO have a choice... at least here in the US. It doesn't SEEM like a choice, but it is. Vote third party, chances are you agree with a third party because the only thing they have going for them IS their platform. The more people that vote for the third party, the greater the display of outrage and lack of confidence we present.
Also... you can finance an election campaign considerably well without big corporations IF you have grassroots support and a passionate base (see Ron Paul's 2008 and 2012 campaigns.) One brought in 35 million dollars, and the second one (as of Q3) is already ahead of where it was 4 years ago.
If you think that your only choice IS a lesser of the two evils, then you're playing right into their hands and accomplishing absolutely nothing. Don't settle.
Our options
Obey the Plutocracy
Vote 3rd party
Revolution
Better than dick.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
I think you mean douche. And I guess Obama is the turd, seeing as though he was the brown one.Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
Why wouldn't I have? The choices were Obama, or McCain, would you rather I voted for McCain? Also the important issues at the time were the war in Iraq and Health Insurance. Obama wanted to end the war and give poor people health insurance, McCain wanted to maintain the war and further privatize health insurance. A vote for a third party is removing a vote against McCain. You can never get someone who you like on everything, Obama should be impeached for bailing out white collar criminals, but still better than what McCain would have done.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
I don't buy this whole 'the media have a stranglehold on the public' thing at all. Not for one moment. The (general election) campaign budget in the UK is capped at £20 million; compare that to Obama's which is supposed to be around $1 billion. Yet the voter turnout is almost exactly the same (around 60%).
It seems to me that anybody making these kinds of claims are basically being extremely dismissive of the entire population of the US and their ability to vote rationally, which is among other things rather arrogant.
- Complain about the media enforced dichotomyQuote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
- Vote for one of the two main candidates
Sorry ninja but this just doesn't make any coherent sense. You're claiming it's impossible to break out of the loop and vote for any decent candidates, and then you use this as a reason to not break out of the loop and vote for any decent candidates.
Isn't this exactly what everybody else you're complaining about is doing too??
"We would vote for someone without corporate ties if we could, we only have the option of the lesser of two evils."
We only have the option of two evils because we have to vote for the lesser of two evils because we only have the option of two evils. God this is so silly. It just sounds like excuses to me.
Voting has been compromised because people in the US have bought into false ideas
1. All politicians are worthless liars anyways (this means most Americans vote on candidates based on personality rather than policy)
2. THOSE GUYS are way worse than our guys (fear polarizes them to one respective side of a multifaceted debate)
3. Third Party Candidates can't win (Only americans that vote for 3rd party candidates are the ones that believe the system is broken, anyone else is too busy supporting the lesser evil)
But if people are determined to be stupid, what can you do other than educate them? They're still legitimate voters; you can't say they can't vote because you think they're wrong. What's your solution?
Having a revolution makes no sense; if the majority of the population wanted a revolution, why not skip the marches and simply vote a new party in?
Because it takes millions of dollars to run for office. The last relatively successful 3rd party candidate was ross perot and he had his own money. When was the last time you saw 3 candidates debate in the general election? They wouldn't even let Nader in.
The majority of the country is revolting but they need an ad campaign to tell them who to vote for? Again with the patronisation of the public.
I'm still waiting for your solution, of course.
Uh... no. I am complaining that the corporate giants are ALLOWED to do that. Bribing senators should be illegal. The "vote the way we want you to, or we won't fund your next campaign" control of the financial giants is the problem, not that the people support it. The people do not support this system, but the people aren't in charge. That's literally what #OWS is about :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Xei
OWS doesn't HAVE one message, it's just general discontent about the status quo. The status of our wealth, our power, our politicians, our government, etc.
It's not hard to replace candidates if you can convince a majority of people to vote for a 3rd party. The problem there is "majority" (which is the main problem with democracy in general.) Out the incumbents with a third party candidate!
Without a campaign, they're nothing more than a name on a list. People can research on who they most agree with and guess what, they do. That's why around 2% of the votes are split up among the various 3rd party candidates. But without a campaign, we can't organize behind a candidate and pull a majority vote. Without a campaign, no one will have heard of them. Even with a campaign, if they can't get into the debates they don't stand a chance. You can come up with as many excuses as you want but the plutocrats are playing the game the way it works. They know how people make decisions and they know over all people do not make very rational decisions. They also know most people would prefer to be told who to vote for rather than actually do some research.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Besides, you have no idea how pessimistic americans are about politicians. Most of them don't trust what the candidate says at all, so they go off stupid things like what kind of shoes the guy wears and other unconscious factors.
And the way the game looks to them, there are only two choices anyways. How often do primaries for the green party get on TV? The republican party has had like 10 debates already.
We can't trust politicians to do what they say, and we can't trust Americans to inform themselves. What's the solution to that?
I just read 2 days ago that the candidate with a deeper voice almost always wins.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
A virus which selectively targets and kills lying politicians and idiots.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePreserver
Well... as long as the people have their bread and circuses (and a little bit of fear) they tend to stay subdued... for the most part. There are always the rebels, and we either get ignored, downplayed, or destroyed... but occasionally we make a difference!
The solution is to elect a 3rd party candidate but you can't pretend this is an easy thing to do. It would require a grassroots effort not seen since the civil rights and conviction not seen since WW2. Besides, if it's a diebold voting machine it may change their vote anyway. I don't trust Diebold, they've had too many whistle-blowers from inside the company claim they fix the results.
Well then, what are we waiting for? I'm already campaigning for a couple candidates (while they aren't technically third-party, they use the GOP as a medium for getting elected.) but I can't do it alone! Even getting part of the vote will make a point that people are upset.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
If Ron Paul ran 3rd party sure, but he can't win a republican primary. Republicans love war too much. I'm assuming the other you're talking about is gary johnson, and they won't even acknowledge he's running. But it brings up an important point. If Gary Johnson can't even get into the primary debates, how can a third party candidate get into the general debates? They'll exclude them and minimize them like always and by the time election rolls around no one will have heard about them. That's why I thought Ron Paul had a good idea in 07 running for the GOP just to get his name out but I don't see why he doesn't go independent in the general. He'd take more votes from the dems than republicansQuote:
Originally Posted by ThePreserver
I just provided you with the statistics that showed that in a country with campaign budgets that is tiny by comparison, there is the same voter turnout. Which disproves the contention that the only way to make people vote is to throw a billion dollars at them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
I'm still waiting to here what you're going to do about it.
No you weren't, you were saying this:Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
"We would vote for someone without corporate ties if we could, we only have the option of the lesser of two evils."
The way you get rid of corporate ties from government is you vote for a candidate who promises to get rid of corporate ties. But you don't. You keep voting for your favourite guy with corporate ties and no intention to get rid of the system. And this makes no sense.
Despite the unfortunate state of politics today, I refuse to settle. There's a good chance that Ron Paul or Gary Johnson will appear on the ballot in all 50 plus DC, and that would at least make a point; we're not happy with the state of things. I'd love to see how many people would vote Paul if he were on the ballot... (plus his campaign is great at fundraising without big corporations, compared to other "grassroots" campaigns.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
But again; I refuse to settle. Liberty or bust.
Maybe if you read the entire thread you'd see my solution is a 3rd party candidate but my point is you're acting like that's somehow easy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
And by the way, compare this post of yours to the music industry debate. First turn on your cognitive dissonance. You're saying in countries where there isn't massive campaign budgets, there's just as many voters. Campaign Budgets are publicity. Publicity helps ensure the voters out there vote for you. We need bigger and bigger campaigns because our candidates get drowned out by the major parties. Just as in the music industry, it's not that you can't vote for a 3rd party candidate but you can almost be assured they have no chance at getting the majority.
how many obama voters, dont actually support him but 'just want to keep mccain out", and how many voted for mccain, 'just to keep obama out'
Likewise in the UK, people will often vote for one of the main 3, just to keep the others out, when they are carbon copies of one and other bar some minor issues. I've only ever supported a party because I support their policies, regardless of how large they are.
Ha, very good point. Tied together nicely. Well done, good sir.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei