'We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases."
Remember the western movies where the rich and powerful rancher (or railroad magnate, or whatever) would bring in a bunch of hired guns to take care of anyone with the audacity to say no to him? Looks like Stossel figured out the old time scenario is still getting played out. Only this time the hired guns wear lawyer suits. Bush and Kerry take bigtime welfare queen money according to the records. You all can argue all you want about religious right Bush and pandering Kerry. I realize all these issues drive you nuts and you want to fix the unjustices and the unfairness as you see them. But while you guys are taking the high ground with your lofty discussions of morals and such, the big boys and girls are sucking the money and the life out of all of us that aren't as big as them. All your favorite heroes that you voted for because they said the things you wanted to hear, all these glory hounds are making deal after deal using your money.
Oh, hell with it. What are we going to do about it, anyway? It's the way the world works. Always and forever. Now I am sorry for bringing it up. Okay. Go back to the bickering, and have a good tussle with that guy who begs to differ with you.
Oh, wait, one more thing...some people keep calling this country a democracy. It's a republic. Representatives and senators, judges and bureaucrats. Semantics perhaps, but face it, if the majority people can have their vote negated, overruled, and ignored legally, this is not a democracy. If it was a democracy, Stossel wouldn't have had a welfare queen story in the first place.
And thanks for putting the article link on your site. I really like how your interests are all over the map. Keeps me coming back from time to time to see what's on the menu.
allan evans
at March 12, 2004 7:41 PM
It's a representative democracy, sir Allan Evans. And frankly, if it were a true democracy, with people voting directly on bills and such, we'd probably have just as few people actually making the decisions because most wouldn't be bothered to get off their asses and learn about what measures are currently on the ballot to see whether they're affected or not, never mind actual policy-steering. ;)
Lea
at March 12, 2004 10:29 PM
Oh! And who says the majority's so bright, anyway? As opposed to, say, composed of a bunch of gentlefolk who will, with the best of intentions, calmly sell their cousins to the Martians because someone told them that it was the best thing they could possibly do? ;)
(Not that I have anything against the Martians.. wonderful, wonderful people, especially the bouncy fuzzy spheres..)
Not that I'm proposing a Hamiltonian argument--truly. His writings make me shiver. But I don't trust the majority, on the whole. The majority can go for some pretty scary things when blood's in the water.
Lea
at March 12, 2004 10:37 PM
Sounds like being ruled by the benevolent, righteously just, and all knowing elite is what you are wishing for. Name one elite individual such as this (should they even exist) who would survive the DNC or the RNC. So the majority is not going to give everyone what they want. Big deal. It's just boils down to controlling the most people over the widest range of time, money, and sense of what's expected. Keeps us little people going to work and playing on the weekend. Nobody has ever got it right for everyone. Representative democracy? If you say so. Looks good on paper.
allan evans
at March 13, 2004 2:12 PM
You misread me. Once again, I'm not making a Hamiltonian argument. The man was messed. What I'm saying in that second post is that mass democracy (which seems to be what you equate the word "democracy" to--am I mistaken?) isn't the shining beacon.
Now, if I /was/ making a Hamiltonian argument, I'd say that the DNC and RNC shouldn't even exist. Factionalization? What is /that/ going to solve? --Right. As it is.. we appear to be saying much the same thing. You've got your money, and you've got your cruft, and no matter /what/ your system is, you've got your corruption and your people who just don't give a damn. That's people for you. It's great that people get so upset about this.. keeps 'em on their toes. ;)
Remember the western movies where the rich and powerful rancher (or railroad magnate, or whatever) would bring in a bunch of hired guns to take care of anyone with the audacity to say no to him? Looks like Stossel figured out the old time scenario is still getting played out. Only this time the hired guns wear lawyer suits. Bush and Kerry take bigtime welfare queen money according to the records. You all can argue all you want about religious right Bush and pandering Kerry. I realize all these issues drive you nuts and you want to fix the unjustices and the unfairness as you see them. But while you guys are taking the high ground with your lofty discussions of morals and such, the big boys and girls are sucking the money and the life out of all of us that aren't as big as them. All your favorite heroes that you voted for because they said the things you wanted to hear, all these glory hounds are making deal after deal using your money.
Oh, hell with it. What are we going to do about it, anyway? It's the way the world works. Always and forever. Now I am sorry for bringing it up. Okay. Go back to the bickering, and have a good tussle with that guy who begs to differ with you.
Oh, wait, one more thing...some people keep calling this country a democracy. It's a republic. Representatives and senators, judges and bureaucrats. Semantics perhaps, but face it, if the majority people can have their vote negated, overruled, and ignored legally, this is not a democracy. If it was a democracy, Stossel wouldn't have had a welfare queen story in the first place.
And thanks for putting the article link on your site. I really like how your interests are all over the map. Keeps me coming back from time to time to see what's on the menu.
allan evans at March 12, 2004 7:41 PM
It's a representative democracy, sir Allan Evans. And frankly, if it were a true democracy, with people voting directly on bills and such, we'd probably have just as few people actually making the decisions because most wouldn't be bothered to get off their asses and learn about what measures are currently on the ballot to see whether they're affected or not, never mind actual policy-steering. ;)
Lea at March 12, 2004 10:29 PM
Oh! And who says the majority's so bright, anyway? As opposed to, say, composed of a bunch of gentlefolk who will, with the best of intentions, calmly sell their cousins to the Martians because someone told them that it was the best thing they could possibly do? ;)
(Not that I have anything against the Martians.. wonderful, wonderful people, especially the bouncy fuzzy spheres..)
Not that I'm proposing a Hamiltonian argument--truly. His writings make me shiver. But I don't trust the majority, on the whole. The majority can go for some pretty scary things when blood's in the water.
Lea at March 12, 2004 10:37 PM
Sounds like being ruled by the benevolent, righteously just, and all knowing elite is what you are wishing for. Name one elite individual such as this (should they even exist) who would survive the DNC or the RNC. So the majority is not going to give everyone what they want. Big deal. It's just boils down to controlling the most people over the widest range of time, money, and sense of what's expected. Keeps us little people going to work and playing on the weekend. Nobody has ever got it right for everyone. Representative democracy? If you say so. Looks good on paper.
allan evans at March 13, 2004 2:12 PM
You misread me. Once again, I'm not making a Hamiltonian argument. The man was messed. What I'm saying in that second post is that mass democracy (which seems to be what you equate the word "democracy" to--am I mistaken?) isn't the shining beacon.
Now, if I /was/ making a Hamiltonian argument, I'd say that the DNC and RNC shouldn't even exist. Factionalization? What is /that/ going to solve? --Right. As it is.. we appear to be saying much the same thing. You've got your money, and you've got your cruft, and no matter /what/ your system is, you've got your corruption and your people who just don't give a damn. That's people for you. It's great that people get so upset about this.. keeps 'em on their toes. ;)
Lea at March 13, 2004 4:23 PM