Jump to content

Home

If you think it matters...

machievelli

By machievelli
in Hot Topics

how did you feel about the entire process?  

33 members have voted

  1. 1. how did you feel about the entire process?

    • did you want this idiot (Who ever wins) as president?
      7
    • Did you want the other guy?
      4
    • Are you sick and tired of not having a say?
      10
    • Do you want to fix the problem?
      7
    • It doesn't matter
      5

Recommended Posts

machievelli Newbie

machievelli

Posted
Posted

I am one of the oldest of those who post on this forum, and I can tell you right now, it doesn't matter who wins the election, we as Americans lose.

 

I will explain:

 

Politics here have been canalized between Republican and Democrat since the 1930s. forty percent on one side, 40 on the others, and everyone else caught in the middle. As they announced the winner I considered exactly how much say I have had in this government since I was 18, and the answer is not one 'H' of a lot. Neither party has put anyone I wanted in office forward since the 72 election. I finally figured out the best way to explain it.

 

Picture your daughter is supposed to get married. When it comes time, you find out two groups, the idiots and the thieves have decided who would be best. The problem is, forty percent of your family are thieves, and 40 percent are idiots, and they say they have the right to decide who she will marry. When you say otherwise, they tell you it's a family decision, not something you are qualified to decide on your own, and as much as they hate each other, both groups agree on that.

 

Now comes the hard part; there are twenty people in the middle who aren't thieves or idiots. They don't agree with either of them, but now the arm twisting and convincing begins. The idiots and thieves start talking to all of those in the middle. They say, 'if you agree with them, it let's another thief into the family' or 'don't we already have enough idiots?". Or the classic 'If you don't vote for us, you're wasting your vote'.

 

Does it matter at this point who wins? No, because as that one of a hundred, you didn't have an honest say.

 

So hail to the chief, whoever he turns out to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Web Rider Newbie

Web Rider

Posted
Posted

In a nation of 300 million, no electoral process will give you a say. Communism will neither give you a say, nor would anarchy give you a say.

 

In a world with 6+ billion people, you, I, and each individual on this forum and across the globe, we amount to a bunch of petty insignificant things. You "want your voice heard"? Never join a group of people larger than your singular self. Any group larger than yourself poses an increased probability that you will not have your voice heard.

 

So if you want a political process, don't tell me your voice needs to be heard, but it won't, and thinking otherwise, is foolish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nedak Newbie

Nedak

Posted
Posted

The electoral system is stupid..Doesn't make any sense.

 

I didn't support Bush, Doc. I haven't seen a man worth voting for in the American Political systems since Roosevelt-

 

Theodore Roosevelt.

 

No on Jack Kennedy, AND FDR?

 

Obama has now won; soon America will become an authoritarian, communist state...

 

 

 

...and I've never been happier.

People who say Obama will spread communism are very foolish, and driven by propaganda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tommycat Newbie

Tommycat

Posted
Posted

Gotta say I really didn't want either of them. Admittedly though, I was starting to like Obama more than McCain towards the end there. I stopped caring about the presidential vote and wrote in Popeye... I did vote on the initiatives though. Neither of them deserved my vote, and I really didn't have a third party candidate I wanted either. I wouldn't go so far as saying Obama is an idiot. Then again by comparison to how Bush comes across(note: Bush is a pretty smart person, but comes across as an idiot)........

 

Oh well. Lets hope things go well for the next 4 years. I have a bad feeling about it because the Democratic party now controls congress and the White House. But maybe the internet forums will become a more friendly place for a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Doctor Newbie

The Doctor

Posted
Posted
I didn't support Bush, Doc. I haven't seen a man worth voting for in the American Political systems since Roosevelt-

 

Theodore Roosevelt.

 

Apologies. I was not referring to you, but the poster above me who clearly (for some reason that I will never understand) is a supporter of Bush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
machievelli Newbie

machievelli

Posted
  • Author
Posted

"In a nation of 300 million, no electoral process will give you a say. Communism will neither give you a say, nor would anarchy give you a say.

 

In a world with 6+ billion people, you, I, and each individual on this forum and across the globe, we amount to a bunch of petty insignificant things. You "want your voice heard"? Never join a group of people larger than your singular self. Any group larger than yourself poses an increased probability that you will not have your voice heard.

 

So if you want a political process, don't tell me your voice needs to be heard, but it won't, and thinking otherwise, is foolish."

 

In the 1760s the British thought they had full control, they had the army on their side, the government was all theirs, but we beat them anyway. What we need to do is convince this group of idiots that they can't control us unless we let them control us

 

 

The electoral system is stupid..Doesn't make any sense.

 

 

 

No on Jack Kennedy, AND FDR?

 

 

People who say Obama will spread communism are very foolish, and driven by propaganda.

 

FDR is the one who gave us a Federal Income Tax as an 'emergency measure' that has never been rescinded. He also got us unnecessarily into WWII. (Oh, BTW, before you challenge this, you had better have all of your historical ducks in a row, I do)

 

As for Jack Kennedy, while he backed the Russians down, his racial policies were not far from the KKK. He spent his adminstration with Bobby Kennedy and Hoover attempting time and again to prove that any of the civil rights activists, Martin Luther King or Malcolm X were communist funded.

 

Admitedly he did try to get us out of Vietnam, which led to his assassination.

 

As for Obama pushing us into Communism, the Republicans have always been known for supporting a smaller government and free enterprise, which causes problems. But the Democrats have always leaned toward big government and being 'protective' of us, whether we want to be protected or not.

 

The Civil Rights bill, pushed through by the Republican house under Kennedy was finally signed by Johnson, who took all the credit. Just as CLinton took credit for the Welfare reform bill of 1998 when it reduced the welfare recipients in the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Q Newbie

Q

Posted
Posted
FDR is the one who gave us a Federal Income Tax as an 'emergency measure' that has never been rescinded. He also got us unnecessarily into WWII. (Oh, BTW, before you challenge this, you had better have all of your historical ducks in a row, I do)

Care to expand on the latter statement, Mach? Not exactly a challenge per se, but I like to hear what you think on this particular subject. Are you referring to the Atlantic Charter, Lend-Lease or cutting off Japan's oil and freezing her assets in an effort to convince her to stop her aggression against China? Or do you think that transferring the US Pacific Fleet from the West Coast to Hawaii was a "Here, kitty kitty" move to provoke Japan into attacking us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
machievelli Newbie

machievelli

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Care to expand on the latter statement, Mach? Not exactly a challenge per se, but I like to hear what you think on this particular subject. Are you referring to the Atlantic Charter, Lend-Lease or cutting off Japan's oil and freezing her assets in an effort to convince her to stop her aggression against China? Or do you think that transferring the US Pacific Fleet from the West Coast to Hawaii was a "Here, kitty kitty" move to provoke Japan into attacking us?

 

Try all of the above. Under International law, signing an assistance pact with a belligerent in a war is defined as just under a declaration of war. You have actively sided in the war. Under the North Atlantic Treaty, the US extended their national waters first 200 miles from the coat, then to halfway across the atlantic, then to a line just east of Iceland. British ships in the 'Neutrality ZOne' were escorted by US Warships, a clear violation of International law.

 

When the USS Greer prosecuted an attack assisting a British flying boat in what was then international waters we stepped over the line because we are a neutral attacking a belligerent in what was still defined as international waters. The German U- boat commander fired one torpedo at the ship, but only close enough to warn him to back off. Roosevelt tried to skew the facts, claiming that the Germans had struck without warning, but enough men knew what had really happened to stop the propoganda from working.

 

Also, the ships chosen for lend lease were chosen with malice aforethought, because the escort vessels with American flags were of the same class, causing the sinking of the Rueben James and the attack and damaging of USS Kearny. Again, the spin doctors who worked for Roosevelt tried to make this an unprovoked attack.

 

When that did not work, the US instead turned their eyes to the Pacific. First they moved the fleet to Pearl Harbor, but at the same time, left the fleet train (The necessary supply ships the fleet needed to operate for an extended period) in San Francisco. Even if the fleet had not been shattered at Pearl, they would have been unable to follow the accepted Mahan Doctrine, which was to face the Japanese east of the Phillipines.

 

Also, while Magic (The breaking of the Japanese diplomatic codes) operated out of Washington, there was a curious vacuum. There were copies of the machines in Canada, London, Singapore, the Phillipines, and Washington, but none were sent to Pearl Harbor. The men who were part of the secret included the Chief of Staff of the Army, CNO of the Navy, and the officers in charge of war plans for the US Military, yet none of these men, all of whom were required under military law to keep field commanders informed mentioned the fact that the Japanese Legation in Pearl had gotten orders starting in June of 1941 to track all ship movement in Pearl. That order, starting at once a month (Average for a non-belligerent) went to one a week, and starting in November went to first every other, then every day.

 

Everyone points at the famous war warning, but it told the commanders at Pearl that the US expected attacks agains Singapore, the Dutch East Indies and the Phillipines, 6,000 miles away.

 

Last, after Pearl, the men in charge were relieved without allowing them a court of inquiry. Under Military law, replacement implies incompetence, yet no court martials were ever convened. FInally in 1946, the government held joint sub-committee meetings investigating the attack. At that time, Retired Admiral Stark under questioning stated that he did not inform Pearl Harbor of the attack because he had orders not to.

 

Odd. You see, the Secretary of the Navy is not in the chain of command. His job is as a supply officer, making sure they get the weapons and ships they need. Only one man had that authority.

 

Take a wild guess who that was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Web Rider Newbie

Web Rider

Posted
Posted
In the 1760s the British thought they had full control, they had the army on their side, the government was all theirs, but we beat them anyway. What we need to do is convince this group of idiots that they can't control us unless we let them control us

 

That has nothing to do with anything. The increasing probability that your voice will not be heard stems from the fact that there are a greater number of voices to be heard than ears to hear them. Even if each ear on a person could hear a seperate opinion at a time, taking our current system into account, using Congressmen/women and the President+VP, that would only allow you around a thousand voices to be heard at any one time.

 

Also, just like education, the amount they actually LISTEN to those voices dwindles after a certain amount of time. See the backward bending curve of labor for an idea how this works. Eventually, even if they COULD listen 24 hours a day for an entire week, the length of an opinion varries, if at best we assume they can hear one per ear per hour, that would only be around 336000 opinions. Which is a lot, but clearly nowhere near all of the voices in the US, and it's highly improbable that anyone could listen to 24 hours straight of opinions

 

What makes the situation worse, is that many people, most in fact, yourself included, make the determination that their voice was heard by the person they told it to acting in a positive manner for it. Because clearly, you(hypothetical you), and he and we and they, all think our voices are correct, hence why we care that they hear our voice. So, regardless of how many voices a person can hear in any given amount of time, what determines if our voice was heard is not listening, but rather if it was acted upon in a manner we could consider to be heard, ie: a manner that is pro-our opinion.

 

So, what you're saying is not "my voice, your voice, our voice" doesn't get heard, what you're saying is that my voice doesn't get acted upon in the manner I feel it should.

 

And given the number of voices, the time it would take to REALLY listen to all of them, and the probability that whoever heard it would be able to act on it in the manner you so desire, it reduces the probability that you voice will be heard to pretty near nil.

 

So, once more I refer back to my original statement:

 

 

That any group larger than yourself poses an increased probability that your voice will not be heard. So the only way for your voice to be heard and acted upon, is for you to be the only one hearing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...