Does anyone ever think that the voters should be the government?

Hands up all those who think 30,000 military drones will soon be flying over their heads, ready to kill Joe Shmo from Idaho at a moments notice?

 

Raises hand in spite.

 

Conservatism is right wing, but right wing is not always Conservative. The political right is bigger than just Conservatism, just as the political left is bigger than Socialism or Communism.

I am not saying that, I am simply saying their own bias may be clouding their interpretation of that evidence. I mean, take a look at many of their affiliations; Stanford, Berkeley, NYU. These institutions are known to have institutional bias. Not saying these people are biased, but instead one must take that tradition of bias into account when reading their findings.

Coincidentally, I found it interesting that their conclusions don't necessarily indicate that Conservatives are fearful but, instead, that those who are fearful tend to be conservative. That is a pretty big difference.


Full disclosure: I am not a conservative

 

There are protests about lots of things, doesn't mean that they should become law. What happens with issues where there are lots of protests on both sides of the issue?

 

Sig my old friend

But basically you reply is that you are telling us they are wrong because you think they are wrong.

Of course some people are not going to admit they are fearful but if they refuse to look at their thinking they maybe acting out of fear that they can’t even admit to themselves.

As I’ve always maintained peoples attitudes and mentality can have an effect on how they see a range of things. I’ve tried to explain this to you before.

But from what I can tell you seem to lean to the right wing - maybe if you were willing to actually debate your views we could make a better assessment, we could start with the questions left hanging elsewhere.

How would you arrange healthcare cover in your country?

How do you know (as you have indicated) that people on assistance are their out of their own making?

Why do you think most people in hardship are there because they are lazy scroungers?

 

Roo

Interesting studies.

I think attitudes and mentality can dictate how people think, and to me most of these views are environmental - they are learnt.

Here are a few musings (I’ve posted before on the subject)

While often the American’s have been the aggressor they have often portrayed themselves as the victim.

The wagon trains of the goodly homesteaders in a circle under attack. Heroic Custer fighting to the last man. The good kindly cowboys against the cowardly Indian savage. The sinking of the USS Maine, the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the Iraq’s link to 9/11.

(and think of all of the popular entertainment involving the invasion of America, from The Stricken Nation by Hugh Grattan Donnely in 1890 through to Orson Wells War of the world that was taken literally in 1938 up to the Reagan cold war classic Red Dawn [edit: that has been remade] and all the way up to the just released Battle: Los Angeles)

Then there is the enemy within, the yellow peril, predatory blacks, papist Irish, Italian mobsters, the communists, the drug lords, the terrorists and of course the vicious and merciless criminals.

All talked up by the media and the political establishment for their own agendas.

There is an old saying about divide and rule – and another about a good scapegoat being as good, if not better, than an actual solution to a problem, since they cost less.

If you live in a society where history, the media, your entertainment and your politicians are telling you to be afraid and under threat, maybe you end up being scared and feeling threatened?

 

Repeal the 16th and 17th amendments and put the 10th amendment back in use. That would be a start.

 

I wonder what happened to the Ninth Amendment;

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Well what about the Right to ingest/consume whatever god given plant one so chooses. There are plants that are actually deadly poisons, yet completely legal (and kids take them to get high!)

It's called "Bella Donna," yet, the actually "Beautiful Women," Mary Jane, is still being fought by the Federal Government, even in states where it is legal!

Btw I don't think anything "protested enough," should impose on our Constitution; Nor, do I think any/every body's sheer will , should impose on our Constitution. I only want so badly for our government to advance in the way of Civil Liberties, however, we are at a point in time in which one could argue that Civil Liberties are on a drastic decline and, already in a dire state!
(And I say that with regards to Drone strikes on American citizens without trial, the Patriot Act, detaining citizens forever without trial and, the general prosecution of Bradly Manning.

Idc what you all think, I know if the President stood up for Bradly Manning, they would release him! He's got the damn power appearently to Drone strike 16 year olds due to "Bad Parenting.." but you expect me to believe he can't do anything about a 19 year old soldier being torchered for allegedly "aiding the enemy!?" This is insanity, that man is a Patriot! (Unlike our President.)

Another Act that was passed during WWII, and not so commonly known is the espionage act; this is what they're using to attack Bradly Manning as a "terrorist." The first person ever tried under the espionage act, was a man who printed out flyers telling people in WWII, not to join the Army, and the war was Unconstitutional, and they gave him life for "aiding the enemy," for what was no more than a man expressing his freedom of speech!!

This is the reason this law should be wiped off the record too, in several cases, including Manning's, it is a total violation of Constitutional Rights, and even basic Human Rights!

 

Playing the devil's advocate there, but could you point out where the Constitution says you have a "right" to that?

You won't find much support for your ideas if you harp on about Manning like that. The man is a coward and dishonorable little shit. He deserves whatever additional hell is coming his way.

Also, you may want to go back and do your history homework. The Espionage Act was put into effect in 1917, not WW2. The first man tried under it was during WW1. If you're going to hate, at least know what you're hating.

 

I disagree that it's "dishonorable," to tell the American people what really going on in Iraq, when a majority (80%) already opposed the war. I actually don't know of much good our government has done except writing the Constitution. Damn near every bill they pass is taking more freedom or money of the individual.

 

He betrayed the oath he took, as well as his fellow soldiers. It doesn't matter if "80%" of the country was against it. Wouldn't matter if "80%" were for it either. At the end of the day the American public doesn't have the need, let along the right, to know everything. The little fuck deserves to be put against a wall.

 

It doesn't say you have a "right " to ingest what you please; but even the FDA defines drugs as 1 something that can cause physical addiction and 2 something that could kill you. Marijuana doesn't fit the criteria for either of these. Alcohol and cigarettes do, but of course we know what happened when we had alcohol prohibition.

This type of Prohibition is the same thing. Many people still use Marijuana, regardless of the Law. However, when something is as safe as weed, it's sort of absurd we've not changed these laws already. It's much safer, and less impairing than alcohol!

 

I don't think that's always the best option. Things like civil rights often need to be protected, the minority being protected from tyranny of the majority. I don't think any civil rights law, including the abolition of slavery would have passed a simple yes/no vote.

Though I think a lot of things would run better, and I think more people would probably vote on direct issues.

 

I see rhetoric like this often during each President's administration. But remember that if the people of any country were to oust the current governing body, they rarely ask "who's best suited that wouldn't become a new face of the same corrupt, maleficial regime?". To quote George Carlin "...our elected officials don't just drop outta the sky, they're voted in!!" If the Obama administration was impeached and removed from government, the probability of another duplicitous or simply impotent leader being elected is very likely.
Historically it's not about simply revolting to dethrone the current leaders, it's about the population deciding (as a whole) to want BETTER even if it requires the bulk of society to become more politically active themselves. The single most potent corrosive to true democracy and freedom is NOT corruption nor totalitarianism/ despotism; it's APATHY! Yes, I'm always stupefied to see that when, for example Michael Moore confronts corporate or politically reprehensible behaviors or social irresponsibility; so many cheer him on. But would they do the same thing? NO!
Though the "Occupy" movement is highly criticized by the media, at least they're doing something about insisting on the socially elite becoming truly accountable!
The real problems I've seen evolve during the past 2 decades are:
1) Apathy: "we know our politicians and corp execs are corrupt, but what can WE do??"
2) Self importance/ absorption: "I'll help/ become involved...but what's in it for me?"
3) Myopia: "who cares about the the implications/ consequences; just deal with the problem now!"
4) Dis-integrity: "so what if that new "policy" sounds like we're signing away our constitutional rights; I just worry about buying that new smart phone or goin on vacation!"
5) I.Q. (Idiot Quotient or Cognitive decay) : when movies like "Jackass" and shows like "Big Brother" are social Icons and anyone famous who's known for exceeding their own stupidity EVERY time they step in front of a camera and are actually admired for it???...We've dug a basement just to drop the "bar"....
So in closing, yeah, we need a change, but if we stop at simply ridding our society of one incompetent or deleterious electoral body; we're "doomed to repeat it".

 

"It is ascertained by history, that there never was a Government, over a very extensive country, without destroying the liberties of the people: History also, supported by the opinions of the best writers, shew us, that monarchy may suit a large territory, and despotic Governments ever so extensive a country; but that popular Governments can only exist in small territories —Is there a single example, on the face of the earth, to support a contrary opinion? Where is there one exception to this general rule? Was there ever an instance of a general National Government extending over so extensive a country, abounding in such a variety of climates, where the people retained their liberty?" - George Mason 1788

 

Although I have often agreed with George Carlin, and seldom if ever agreed with Michael Moore, I can somewhat agree with your post, but your closing would have been much more meaningful had you used the word 'societies' in place of 'society'. We have never been, and never will be a single society, which is not a bad thing, but something that makes us different from many, if not most other nations who are much more homogenous than the U.S.A. which is made up of immigrants from every country in the world.

Well working societies are created by the people, each one an individual, and not by government mandate or regulations. Government does however have a function, but the U.S. form of government was meant to be based on self governance, with limited intervention by a central government, hence the Constitution lists the powers of the federal government, the powers which may not be held by individual states, with all other powers given to the individual states, or to the people, who at the lowest level of government are much more capable of asserting their wishes in ways affordable to them.

Someone, Iode?, mentioned that slavery would not have been abolished by a simple yes/no vote, and that is probably true aorund the time of the Civil War, but what about today? Is there a single State which could muster even a simple majority in support of reinstating slavery? Civil rights, along with each and every right, need to be protected from not only from tyranny of a majority, but ALSO from tyranny of a minority, which is why it is important that those who are elected to public office are held accountable to the people who elect them to directly represent them rather than their parties agenda or their largest campaign contributors.