Originally posted by mbTDI:
Originally posted by caltour:

1) Our little experiment in democracy will fail if we no longer make our representatives tell us the truth. If we just "get over" their lies, as you suggest, then we cannot know what our government is doing, or why. Our government will become dominated by those who are most willing to lie and cheat.



The difference is to know the difference between a "lie" and a "creative statement of the facts." Lying is certainly unacceptable. However, spinning of facts has been going on for years in all realms of public life, not just politics.


Take a moment, and look at mbTDI's response. This is great example of what happens when you have the short end of the moral stick in a discussion, and refuse to admit it. You try to make inscrutable technical distinctions, or you say it "depends on what the definition of 'is' is." You reply to straight, sensible talk with convoluted nonsense. When you get to the point where you are making unexplained (and inexplicable) distinctions between "lies" and "creative statement of the facts," you know you have reached the abyss.

Originally posted by mbTDI:
There are inherently "two sides to every story" as they say, so what's the point of jumping down the throat of someone who sees the other side?


Are you serious? You really don't see the "point" of challenging someone on a political issue?

Democracy 101: I have the right (and the civic duty) to contradict you when we disagree on a political issue. That is fundamental to democracy. It is how we educate each other and develop a shared civic life and work out our differences. Hearing the other side's point of view makes democracy work because otherwise we all just vote selfishly, and we get a tyranny of the majority.

Yet you say you fail to see the "point" of it. This says everything we need to know about your mindset. It is the classic right-wing mindset. It is a mindset that rejects fundamental democratic principles. Sigh.

Originally posted by mbTDI:
Originally posted by caltour:

3) There are no historical examples (that I know of) in which regular working folks have been able to democratically vote themselves back into power, after power has predominantly been usurped by the wealthy and powerful. The founding fathers created a government "of the people, by the people, for the people." A government headed by us, not headed by a king or despot. But they warned us to be eternally vigilant. They thought that democracy could easily be undermined and highjacked by the wealthy and powerful classes that throughout history have grabbed authority from us ordinary folks. As you casually allow your political influence to slip away, think about whether it is even possible to ever get it back again.



"Hello... Delta? Yes... I'd like a one-way ticket to Caltour's Utopia. What do you mean it doesn't exist?"

NEWSFLASH... modern governments are run by the wealthy and powerful. African dictatorships are run by the wealthy and powerful. Ancient tribes were run by the wealthy and powerful. Even pure socialist governments are run by the wealthy and powerful.


I made the point that a permanent "coup" by the rich and powerful is not in the best interest of people like us. Do you even address this point? Do you admit that maybe your interests will be harmed if government primarily serves the kind of people who bankrolled the Bushmen to power? No. You go off on how governments in other countries are dominated by the rich and powerful. Thanks for the irrelevant diversion. Now can we get back to my point #3, which you quoted as if you were going to address it.

Originally posted by mbTDI:
Oh yeah... those founding fathers? Guess what they were... wealthy and powerful! Was Thomas Jefferson a mill-worker? Blacksmith? Better yet...
Quote:

This powerful advocate of liberty was born in 1743 in Albermarle County, Virginia, inheriting from his father, a planter and surveyor, some 5,000 acres of land, and from his mother, a Randolph, high social standing. He studied at the College of William and Mary, then read law.

W&M has tuition over $30k a year, making it out of reach for most people EVEN TODAY... how rare was it in the 17-f**king-hundreds?!


You imply that because the founding fathers were wealthy and powerful, the political system they designed necessarily ensured that the wealthy and powerful would dominate our political policymaking apparatus. Poor logic, mbTDI. First of all, it is illogical to just assume that wealthy and powerful men cannot design a system that empowers the common man and limits the power of the rich. Secondly, the facts prove you wrong: historians generally consider the U.S. constitution a model for empowering the masses, and limiting the influence of the rich. Your point about the founding fathers being wealthy and powerful can only support your argument if you IGNORE the actual characteristics of the government they created, and engage in fantasy and conjecture about their motives.

Originally posted by mbTDI:
FACT: It takes money to get elected to political office.
FACT: It takes power to gain sufficient support to mount a successful campaign.
FACT: Those with the most money and the most support win the race.Perhaps you can explain how your statement is relevant to this discussion?


We all recognize these facts (for the most part). I notice, though, that you fail to state whether you think there might be anything WRONG with those facts. You seem pretty comfy with this state of affairs. Are you sure you wouldn't be happier in some banana republic, with a miltary dictator or something? I'm asking because you are describing the very perversion of democracy, yet you aren't expressing any concern about it.

Originally posted by mbTDI:
FACT: I'd much rather have a successful, well-educated, and well-connected man running my country than the guy that was expelled from my high-school for throwing a chair off a balcony at our principal.


OK, thanks for clearing that up.

Originally posted by mbTDI:
Perhaps we should try a return to true democracy, since this whole "experiment in representative democracy" has obviously failed the common man.


If you are alleging that our democracy has not "failed the common man," you might want to say why you think so. As I am sure you know, there are a great number of people out there who find such as assertion laughable. What do you say to them?