Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Csonicgo

Happy Birther Day!

Recommended Posts

Danarchy said:
Wouldn't that fall more under the title of an oligarchy though?

If you mean what happened in my country, it was a military dictatorship, still using the republican system. An oligarchy would be organized by wealth merits. Even while it's true the rich backed the dictatorship, the military had the government in their hands. One of the paleoconservative arguments is something like "oh well, in the end power is oligarchic, so why not be frank and just make an oligarchy by following the market and eliminating any trace of socialism?"

An oligarchy would be explicitly wealth-oriented. Most systems have oligarchic elements, like modern democracies are affected by how much money can be put into political campaigns and elections, and rich people have a good advantage there, but they're still put off against other elements. If you had an oligarchy, wealth merits would be essential to determining governance. You've got money, you've got rights. If you don't, you're nobody. That's a relative factor in a modern democracy while in an oligarchy it's the rule, supported and encouraged by the authorities. Not that I can recall of governments being explicitly "oligarchies." It's mostly a term used for critiques where the rich are getting too much sway. A problem in democratic countries, certainly, but the institutions are still offering a series of means (human rights, voting, some legal aspects that bind representatives to their task, unions, rallies, more or less independent media, and so on) by which those who aren't rich push the other way.

Share this post


Link to post

An oligarchy is rule by a favored elite, with no real requirement as to what constitutes the elite. A system where the power rests specifically in the hands of the wealthy is a plutocracy. The Soviet Union was an oligarchy after de-Stalinization, where the favored elite were the upper echelons of the Communist Party. There's an "Iron Law of Oligarchy" espoused by some political theorists that claims that all governments become more and more oligarchic over time, irrespective of their original nature, due to the stratification of society and the highest levels of society gradually accumulating more and more power until they are the de facto controllers of the nation. The elite could be the ultra-rich, they could be supporters of a specific ideology, they could be an organization, even a religious group, as long as they hold the cards and the people at large do not.

Share this post


Link to post

Well said; I should know better word usage. I'm guessing I got carried away due to the market or resource-management oriented aspect of power. It means "the rule of few," after all.

Share this post


Link to post

Hey! Who sent these men in this van after me?! Took me half the day to lose 'em!...oh no here comes another van...

EDIT- oh! the topic! Well...I think EVERYONE can agree that it must really SUCK to get off a plane...as a military member...knowing this time it's real! Can you imagine the 'air'?

2nd EDIT- waitwaitwait...HAPPY BIRTHDAY OBAMA!

Share this post


Link to post

No. The person in the picture is wearing a blue earring. I only wear a gold ball. Therefore I have deduced (after looking in the mirror)...that it is not me. Mark it solved. ;p

Share this post


Link to post
Csonicgo said:

Only that he's said time and time again that middle class people are not going to see an increase in taxes


So did Clinton, and guess what?
Needless to say, Obama is planning to raise the taxes on the middle-class. Typical Demorcat.

We need a good 3'rd party canidate in 2012, as neither party gets it.

Share this post


Link to post
Georgef551 said:

We need a good 3'rd party canidate in 2012, as neither party gets it.


I for one plan on voting Libertarian, unless the elephants or the donkeys throw someone worthy at me ... which they utterly failed to do this past year.

Share this post


Link to post

I'd vote for the Green Party if they gave us a god damn good candidate. They follow my ideals exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
deldelda said:

I for one plan on voting Libertarian


What the fuck is this shit? Why not vote for a party that has a chance of winning? Or maybe your plan includes convincing millions of other people to vote Libertarian as well.

Share this post


Link to post

DuckReconMajor said:
Yes, we should vote for the party we think is going to win the election, regardless of our ideals.

Visplane Overflow was going to vote for McCain, but then checked the final pre-election poll and decided maybe Obama wasn't so bad after all...

Share this post


Link to post

I think you're taking what I said, and blowing it out of proportion - I said 'vote for a party that has a chance of winning'. The Libertarian party hasn't got a snowball's chance in Hell of ever winning any election, ever, unless a shitload of people just decide to randomly choose that backwards group. I mean, it's a well known opinion that most Libertarians are either addicts, child-molestors or animal abusers.

Share this post


Link to post

Visplane Overflow said:
The Libertarian party hasn't got a snowball's chance in Hell of ever winning any election, ever

Except for the 207 party members currently holding elected positions. (Sure they're all local positions, but you did say "any election".)

Share this post


Link to post

207 local positions....holy shit =O That's like 4.14 a state!!

Well I take back everything I said, then. Obviously a great many people take Libertarianism seriously, I mean, otherwise how would they get just soooo many people in there? Unreal.

Andre Marrou once said : "Liberals want the government to be your mommy, Conservatives want the government to be your daddy, Libertarians want it to treat you like an adult." to which an equally wise man responded : "Libertarians want to kill mommy and daddy so that they can stay up later and eat more ice cream than they can now."

Anyway on topic; nobody needs a youtube embed to see that Alex Jones is completely insane.

Share this post


Link to post

That's actually a lot of positions there. If you think it has no kind of impact, you should think again. Every little bit helps. A two-party system is just about as bad as a one-party system, especially when they have nearly identical ideologies. Most other industrial nations have 3-5 major parties who have strong chances of winning presidential/prime minister elections, and usually at least a couple of them have unique platforms. We just have the "red or blue" choice. It's pretty sad.

Also, if you're voting to win, you're doing it wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
POTGIESSER said:

ZOMGZ OBAMA JOKER ANALOGY COMPLETE WITH FACE PAINT!

{Insert YouTube Videos Here}


I've seen some of this guy's other work. What a whack-job this guy is!

This guy and a looney lib have one thing in common: they make dirt look like a genius!

Too far right, WAAAAY too far. Makes Rush Limburger look Democrat. :)

Share this post


Link to post

Danarchy said:
Most other industrial nations have 3-5 major parties who have strong chances of winning presidential/prime minister elections, and usually at least a couple of them have unique platforms.

While I think it's probably preferable, there's room for more fickleness in parliamentary systems where more parties have leading roles, though, while the presidential or republican method tends to be a bit more on the authoritarian side. The presidential system tends to have less parties at the top (eligible for the executive branch) but it can be relatively representative if there's a good deal of plurality on the local and parliamentary level.

Share this post


Link to post
Danarchy said:

I'd vote for the Green Party if they gave us a god damn good candidate. They follow my ideals exactly.


It sucks that everyone is either too lazy or has no knowledge or intent on getting knowledge about other candidates. It's always Republican or Democratic.

Share this post


Link to post

Instead of saying that the Libertarian party has no hope of winning an election, I could have explained why Libertarian goals are worthy of ridicule (or otherwise unattainable). It's only a hop, skip and a jump from the Anarchy that 13 year olds and poor people like to preach, which is really all one needs to say. In the end I was able to determine that this was not the place for rational or intelligent debate on such a subject and so opted to post something inflammatory and insulting to the point of absurdity to concisely communicate my thoughts about Libertarianism.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, libertarianism is just a euphemism for anarchism. Everyone who pays any kind of attention to politics knows this. But what the Hell is wrong with what us poor people think?

Share this post


Link to post

I remember being with my sister when she was surfing one of her usual forums, and then we came across a thread that tried to pass off this very same certificate as the real deal. I laughed when we looked into the whole "Republic of Kenya" thing.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×