Cancel Democracy?!

[unownmew]

No debate, just wanted to share this very scary "joke" with people, and see what they think of it.

NC Gov. Bev Perdue "Jokes" about canceling elections next year

This has the audio


Here's a Canadian news story on the same (just so you know there's no "conservative bias" or "TEA party scaremongering" there):
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/40802


I'm very scared. Are you scared?

[Princess Ana]

Originally Posted by unownmew

No debate, just wanted to share this very scary "joke" with people, and see what they think of it.

NC Gov. Bev Perdue "Jokes" about canceling elections next year

This has the audio


Here's a Canadian news story on the same (just so you know there's no "conservative bias" or "TEA party scaremongering" there):
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/40802


I'm very scared. Are you scared?

No, because that it not what she/he is saying. They don't want to cancel democracy, but postpone elections so that politicians can actually not try to focus their careers on political reelection. Then, they can actually get stuff done. Stop misconstruing articles for what they are not.

[Loki]

That Canadian Press site is totally biased.

[Princess Ana]

Originally Posted by Raptor Jesus

That Canadian Press site is totally biased.

After looking at it, I am so surprised that unownmew posted that shit. It seems that he will post anything, biased or unbiased, to make his point.

[Doppleganger]

Originally Posted by blazeVA

No, because that it not what she/he is saying. They don't want to cancel democracy, but postpone elections so that politicians can actually not try to focus their careers on political reelection. Then, they can actually get stuff done. Stop misconstruing articles for what they are not.

That's not a bad idea, but we'd have to get different politicians.

All politicians that get into office do so because they're good at campaigning and getting into office. It's just like saying the people who do well in school are good at tests - they have the right set of skills that let them get far, but might lack the skills approximated by the selection method that is really valued.

There are a lot of idiots with Ph.D's, for example. People who suck as investigators but soak up knowledge like sponges or are really good at multiple choice.

Likewise, our politicians do not necessarily have good skills, but they have the means to get elected. Taking away elections for these people doesn't do anything toward moving to greater political change.

[unownmew]

Originally Posted by blazeVA

No, because that it not what she/he is saying. They don't want to cancel democracy, but postpone elections so that politicians can actually not try to focus their careers on political reelection. Then, they can actually get stuff done. Stop misconstruing articles for what they are not.

Suspending elections is entirely illegal and completely against the Constitution, it's a direct opposition to democracy. Once they can do it once, what's to stop them from doing it again? And again? And ultimately suspend them indefinitely? Nothing! Once the people no longer control their government, that's it, Government will take everything you give it and demand more. Do you honestly think they'll only do it temporarily, if given the chance to keep it indefinitely? It would be the end of democracy, that scares me!

Suspending elections isn't going to fix the economy, it's going to remove their political conscience and accountability. Once government is no longer accountable to it's people, nothing save rebellion can stop it from taking anything and everything it wants. I don't want that! I want to keep government accountable so we have a chance to reduce it's control over us the citizens without rebelling against the law.

You may say I'm scaremongering, well, maybe I am, it's a scary thought to be living in a Dictatorship, but am I wrong? It makes complete logical sense.
Government is a necessary evil. History has proven, time and time again, to the point where it should not ever be ignored, when government gets too much power, it exerts that power on it's citizens, and rules it in Tyranny. It's not hyperbole, citizens must constantly keep their government in check, or they will lose all liberties they possess. Rhetoric like that (suspend elections), must always be interpreted in the most dangerous way possible, and she was entirely serious... What would you think if George Bush had said that during his elections? What would the media have said of it? Do you think they'd have given him a pass?


Have you ever watched Star Wars (I - III)? It's the same thing. Create a giant crisis that can "only be solved" by giving the government more control, more power, and less accountability to it's citizens. Then you keep the crisis going and declare, you NEED to keep your powers beyond the time you said you'd lay them down, otherwise all the effort you've spent will be wasted. So you keep your powers, and keep the crisis up until the "crisis" is finally contained. But by that time, the government has so much power, there's virtually no way to stop it from doing anything and everything it likes, and then it's time to declare it's Supreme Reign, and the evil beast of Tyranny is finally unleashed.

Conspiracy or not, that's how government will always end up.



Well, I said no debate, so, this is just my opinion, and if you think differently, that's your choice. But, it's people like you, people who don't care and excuse away the warning signs, that scare the living Hell out of me. Because complacence begets Tyranny, and I don't want to live under that.

[unownmew]

Originally Posted by blazeVA

After looking at it, I am so surprised that unownmew posted that shit. It seems that he will post anything, biased or unbiased, to make his point.

And what point would that be? I posted it to educate, what you do with the information is your choice. But then, it seems you're not interested in changing your opinion, so that's your choice.
But that scares the hell out of me.

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

That's not a bad idea, but we'd have to get different politicians.

Terrible Idea, IMO. Elections are the only thing that keep politicians accountable to their campaign promises, without those, they're free to say and do whatever the hell they want, and we're screwed either way. We'd need to have completely self-less and 100% honest politicians if we were going to have unaccountable representatives making laws over us, but that's an impossibility.

All politicians that get into office do so because they're good at campaigning and getting into office. It's just like saying the people who do well in school are good at tests - they have the right set of skills that let them get far, but might lack the skills approximated by the selection method that is really valued.

There are a lot of idiots with Ph.D's, for example. People who suck as investigators but soak up knowledge like sponges or are really good at multiple choice.

Likewise, our politicians do not necessarily have good skills, but they have the means to get elected. Taking away elections for these people doesn't do anything toward moving to greater political change.

Not all politicians are like that, but for sure, there are only a fair few who actually stand by their promises and values, when push comes to shove, even fewer who are not susceptible to bribes and media attention by the more power-hungry elites.

Though, the TEA party candidates that got elected this year certainly didn't have the money backing the democrat ones did. They got elected by their message, not their finances. And if elections are not suspended next year, the democrats are certain to lose many more seats in the senate, slating Conservatives the majority of the legislature.

(That's why canceling elections was suggested so seriously, not because it would let legislators to agree on things, but so the Democrats can keep their majority in the legislature)


Anyway, I'd better stop now, or this will turn into a debate.. I've said my peace.

[Talon87]

Blah blah blah, I don't want a debate POLITICAL STORY A GO GO!

Just saying.

[Princess Ana]

Originally Posted by Talon87

Blah blah blah, I don't want a debate POLITICAL STORY A GO GO!

Just saying.

Should we just plan for the inevitable and push this to the debate thread?

But really, unownmew, you treat government as the bubonic plague. You act like it is evil incarnate. There have been times where dictatorships have BENEFITED the people, and kept them happy. Look at the Inca fool.

[unownmew]

I didn't intend it to be debated, I simply wanted to share something that I felt was significant to the population, so that they could be informed, instead of making ignorant decisions.

I've shared my views regarding the piece, you've shared yours, I'd like to see others' before the thread gets turned into a vicious debate. Besides the fact, I don't have the time ATM to get into a serious committed debate, which is why I've not replied to Talon's Global Warming debate post completely yet,

But if people are going to directly address me, instead of the articles, then it will end up a debate, so I will stop my responses for the time being.

[Princess Ana]

Originally Posted by unownmew

I didn't intend it to be debated, I simply wanted to share something that I felt was significant to the population, so that they could be informed, instead of making ignorant decisions.

I've shared my views regarding the piece, you've shared yours, I'd like to see others' before the thread gets relegated to another section

But if people are going to directly address me, instead of the articles, then it will end up a debate, so I will stop my responses for the time being.

We have addressed the articles. One is completely full of bias, not to mention that it is not even in our country.

The other is fine, as it tries to put it forth in a BALANCED view. I see no problem with letting elections come a bit farther between, it might make politicians think a little more on what they need to do.

[Talon87]

Originally Posted by unownmew

I'm very scared. Are you scared?

No.

First of all, they won't cancel the 2012 elections. They probably won't even cancel the 2014 or 2016 elections. If they do decide to pass a law which changes how frequently we elect our representatives, they will probably not have it go into effect any time too soon to when the law passes. So say it passed tomorrow (Oct 2011). I would think 2016 maybe, but certainly neither 2012 nor 2014, would be the first we'd see affected by this.

Second of all, not everyone is elected every four years in this country. Some are elected every six, others every two. Most of the offices which hold elections every two years are small positions at the local level, but notably the House of Representatives is largely a once-every-two years deal. When you consider the ugly reality that most politicans spend roughly two years on the campaign trail per every election they enter into, what this means for the House is that it's a virtually worthless body. It's bad enough that the average US presidential term is 2½ years office politics 1½ years campaign trail bullshit, but that the House is basically always in campaign mode is pretty messed up. This was not an issue in the period just after colonial times because back then you didn't have campaigning quite like you have today. Today's political campaign machine is a beast compared with what embryo they might have had back in 1792. Which means you can't keep using 200-year old solutions to address 21st century problems. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," the saying says -- but if it's broke, then fix it!

That's why she's saying what she's saying -- not because she's all "Mwahahahaha , I want me and my buddies to stay in office FOREVER! " but because she's all "Look -- we need these motherfuckers to quit dicking around with their re-election bids and to buckle down and actually do what we voted them into office for in the first place: GET THE RESULTS AND GET THEM NOW." You can put whatever spin on it you like, but it's pretty clear that even were she saying these things for immoral purposes, she still wouldn't get what she wants. There's no way the 2012 election is going to be postponed or cancelled.

So no: not afraid, and I don't think you should be either.

[Loki]

I agree, the first link isn't biased at all.

The Canadian one is completely biased. I don't know where Obama came into the story or how the legitimacy of his birth in the United States had anything to do with anything they were talking about. And just because someone is in Canada, doesn't mean they aren't biased, regardless of how boring Canadians are.

[Trepie]

Originally Posted by Raptor Jesus

And just because someone is in Canada, doesn't mean they aren't biased, regardless of how boring Canadians are.

.........................

;-;

[Doppleganger]

Originally Posted by unownmew

Elections are the only thing that keep politicians accountable to their campaign promises, without those, they're free to say and do whatever the hell they want, and we're screwed either way.

Many politicians don't adhere to their promises anyway.

[unownmew]

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

Many politicians don't adhere to their promises anyway.

That's why elections are needed, to kick those politicians that don't adhere to their promises out. The ones that do stay in despite noncompliance to their promises, stay in because of gerrymandering, scaremongering, and huge political machines donating to keep them in office.

Originally Posted by blazeVA

But really, unownmew, you treat government as the bubonic plague. You act like it is evil incarnate. There have been times where dictatorships have BENEFITED the people, and kept them happy. Look at the Inca fool.

You're absolutely right, there can be occasions where a dictator, king, ect, can be good for a country. The problem is, those occasions are only when said dictator is relatively benign, humble, and loves the country over their power.

One example, out of, how many numerous past civilizations? Overall, it's much more likely for a dictator to be tyrannical, then benign, and that's proven by history. And any Dictator that aspires to take over an already free governance, is anything but. I can assure you, the last thing he has in his mind, is benefiting the citizenry through his rule.

I value freedom, liberty, capitalism, self-reliance, and the Constitution, which is why I am at odds with giving the government more power.

Originally Posted by Talon87

No.

First of all, they won't cancel the 2012 elections. They probably won't even cancel the 2014 or 2016 elections. If they do decide to pass a law which changes how frequently we elect our representatives, they will probably not have it go into effect any time too soon to when the law passes. So say it passed tomorrow (Oct 2011). I would think 2016 maybe, but certainly neither 2012 nor 2014, would be the first we'd see affected by this.

Second of all, not everyone is elected every four years in this country. Some are elected every six, others every two. Most of the offices which hold elections every two years are small positions at the local level, but notably the House of Representatives is largely a once-every-two years deal. When you consider the ugly reality that most politicans spend roughly two years on the campaign trail per every election they enter into, what this means for the House is that it's a virtually worthless body. It's bad enough that the average US presidential term is 2½ years office politics 1½ years campaign trail bullshit, but that the House is basically always in campaign mode is pretty messed up. This was not an issue in the period just after colonial times because back then you didn't have campaigning quite like you have today. Today's political campaign machine is a beast compared with what embryo they might have had back in 1792. Which means you can't keep using 200-year old solutions to address 21st century problems. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," the saying says -- but if it's broke, then fix it!

That's why she's saying what she's saying -- not because she's all "Mwahahahaha , I want me and my buddies to stay in office FOREVER! " but because she's all "Look -- we need these motherfuckers to quit dicking around with their re-election bids and to buckle down and actually do what we voted them into office for in the first place: GET THE RESULTS AND GET THEM NOW." You can put whatever spin on it you like, but it's pretty clear that even were she saying these things for immoral purposes, she still wouldn't get what she wants. There's no way the 2012 election is going to be postponed or cancelled.

So no: not afraid, and I don't think you should be either.

I agree with you, in that, if the senate went through the actual legislative process, to enact an amendment to the constitution to alter the length of time legislators held in office, it would be perfectly acceptable, even though it would never pass.

The problem is, if there are people who secretly aspire to take over our government or expand their own power, THEY WOULD NOT FOLLOW THE RULES!!

And democrats already snub the Constitution as anything but a hindrance, work backroom deals to get the things they want, and disregard all laws but the ones that benefit themselves, and pass legislation hundreds of pages long full of legalese with fancy titles to hide their true functions and intentions. And I can give proof of that if you want.

That's why I'm scared. There's nothing they won't do given the chance to do it. And their backs are against the wall now that it's been proven that people dislike their policies (as evidenced by Obama's poor approval numbers, and the Congressional elections putting so many conservatives into office rejecting the Democrat policies). A cornered animal is even more dangerous then normal, and litmus test for Tyranny would certainly give them an assessment of their prospects.

Originally Posted by Raptor Jesus

The Canadian one is completely biased. I don't know where Obama came into the story or how the legitimacy of his birth in the United States had anything to do with anything they were talking about. And just because someone is in Canada, doesn't mean they aren't biased, regardless of how boring Canadians are.

Of course it's biased, just like everything in media. I said it's not biased on the side of the TEA party or republicans, the author does not benefit one way or another by their assessment, that was the key here, that it's not Just TEA partiers that question the democrats, and an unaffiliated individual comes to our same conclusions

The legitimacy issue deals with, how Obama was able to be elected without showing ANY proof whatsoever of his citizenship, contrary to the law of the Constitution. The issue isn't whether he is or not, but that he was able to completely Avoid being legitimately vetted for compliance with the law before being considered for the presidency. And says, if he can accomplish that, what else can he accomplish contrary to our laws if he so wished to?

[Talon87]

Originally Posted by unownmew

how Obama was able to be elected without showing ANY proof whatsoever of his citizenship

Not this bullshit again. Seriously? Do you honestly believe Obama is a secret spy from Nairobi? FFS, crazy people who collect newspapers, not to mention libraries in the state of Hawaii, have the newspaper that was printed the day he was born and it carries his name in there. What's more likely:

a) that he was in fact, then, born in Hawaii?
b) that it's all a lib'ral conspiracy to get a foreigner into office? and that all of the newspapers are doctored?

Seriously, you guys go from pitiful to intolerable in very little time. Knock it off.

[Doppleganger]

"Birther" is the most hilarious demonym for libertarian conspiracy theorists I'd ever heard, even touching on the subject is enough for me to burst into uproarious laughter.

I'd feel bad for BBB, though. The Japanese pronunciation of his name would be politically loaded!

[Loki]

Mentioning that Obama wasn't born in the United States is completely off-topic for what the actual article is about. It really puts a level of discredit to the source as they can't even keep on topic, instead trying to just outright bash random things on their political side.

If the topic of the article was about Obama not being a born American, talk about it all you want. If the topic is about not running elections for House of Representatives members because they waste all their time campaigning, then why are you talking about Obama? How was he even linked to the NC governor in any way? He didn't mention it. He never said he supported the idea. It's a completely random conspiracy connection to link this governor's words to the president in any way.

It's like if I were talking about how the Moon Landing was faked by NASA and then instead of talking about how the flag moved like there was wind and the footprint staying in shape despite the lack of water on the moon, I mention how crayons taste like purple. They're not associated with one another.

How are the two linked besides the political bias of the reporter?

And the Obama birther theory is lead by Tea Party members (not Tea Party leaders leading the birther theory), so there is a link to so-called "Tea Party Scaremongering." I would have had considered your overall message more credible without that link at all.

[deoxys]

I HEARD GEORGE BUSH WAS BORN IN EQUESTRIA GUYS SO WHY WON'T HE SHOW US HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE TO PROVE HE'S ACTUALLY WHITE AND AMERICAN

[Princess Ana]

Seeing as the latest history textbooks don't even talk about the birther thing, then one thing must be said.

OBAMA WAS BORN IN AMERICA!!!

But really, do you think our government is that stupid? That they would not know whether or not he was born here. You are crazy.

[Tyranidos]

His birth certificate.

Carry on.

[Doppleganger]

Originally Posted by Tyranidos

His birth certificate.

Carry on.

It says April 25 2011 on the bottom. (not kidding)

Clearly a forgery. (kidding...? YOU DECIDE)

Also, I did not know Barack's dad liked underage girls.

[Talon87]

That is the full birth certificate which the White House released, and had no legal obligation to release, in order to shut the doubters up once and for all. Ordinarily a short-form birth certificate would suffice -- when was the last time you heard people questioning Clinton's or Bush's authenticity as an American-born citizen? -- and Obama provided this during the campaign when the first "proto-Tea Partiers" showed up and began to question his ability to run for office. But the KKK a subset of Tea Partiers who didn't want a black man in office questioned the credentials of Barack Obama demanded to see the long-form birth certificate. So the White House released that, under no obligation to do so, to shut them up.

Of course they didn't shut up, saying the same things they said about the short-form certificate -- "IT'S A FAKE!" -- and so the whole exercise was pointless.

You can read more about it here. It's written in very accessible English and links to the available evidence at every opportunity. A good read for Tea Party and non-Tea Party people alike. Pretty much covers all the bases.

[Roglef]

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

It says April 25 2011 on the bottom. (not kidding)

Clearly a forgery. (kidding...? YOU DECIDE)

Also, I did not know Barack's dad liked underage girls.

April 25 is just when the doctor released the copy to the White House. Quit making things what they aren't. And who cares about his father. Its him that we're talking about. . .