GENIUS FORUMS

Or does the big money people have more say and influence than the general public realise?

'when the dirty water in the ground will control man, that is when you know revelations becomes active.'


Love the cow, she has a soul just like you.

Democracy has no great social virture that I can discern other than making us feel like we have power - even if we don't and shouldn't.

I don't think democracy really reflects the people, but neither do I think that big money has as much influence in government than the average person believes. I think there are a few good people who really want to be heros and help people, some really corrupt, greedy, power-hungry slime-balls, and a whole bunch of people just trying to collect great benefits and a nice paycheck as invisibly as possible so they don't lose out on a good deal (just working from the animal realm).

Dan wrote:

Democracy has no great social virture that I can discern other than making us feel like we have power - even if we don't and shouldn't.

It depends on what country you refer to. The US has many more problems compared to other democratic societies because it is heavily influenced by Liberitarian political philosophy, which only functions to provide citizens with basic negative rights. This results in more of a 'dog eat dog' society where large powerful corporations rule.

The problems are not as severe in Canada because the democracy here is rooted in more of a liberalism political philosophy which provides negative and positive rights to citizens. This results in a fairer society overall because it is incredibly difficult to be filthy rich here because the taxes are so high to pay for all the social programs such as welfare, healthcare and so on.

The end result is you have a more equal and balanced society because there is less poverty and less millionaires.

Many other European countries function like this as well. So depending on the sophisication of the societies definition of human rights, Democracy can indeed be a social virtue. Of course it is never a utopia, but it can always continue to be refined.

It is ironic because the closer a country becomes to being socially just and free, the more regulations and restrictions are imposed.

Dan Rowden wrote:Democracy has no great social virture that I can discern other than making us feel like we have power - even if we don't and shouldn't.

Agreed. And succinctly put.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:I don't think democracy really reflects the people, but neither do I think that big money has as much influence in government than the average person believes.

It's worse than the average person believes. Big money and government are two fingers on the hand that moves the game pieces.

I think there are a few good people who really want to be heros and help people, some really corrupt, greedy, power-hungry slime-balls, and a whole bunch of people just trying to collect great benefits and a nice paycheck as invisibly as possible so they don't lose out on a good deal (just working from the animal realm).

Indeed. A corrupt system of mostly self-serving. Not Democracy.

Has Democracy ever been tried anywhere? Where?

Dan Rowden wrote:Democracy has no great social virture that I can discern other than making us feel like we have power - even if we don't and shouldn't.

Exactly. The public are served a lie, an illusion that their opinions, thoughts and ideals matter and they can voice their opinions through this 'fictitious' ballot.
The powerful families have been around for thousand of years and will continue to be such as their intellect, knowledge, wealth and overall power are deeply inscribed in this reality.
They create the wars that add to their wealth and power. Bombs needed for destruction, weapons in general and then they also control the construction companies that go in after the war is over.
These are psychopaths/occultists that control the events of the world for their own means.
Numerology plays a big part in the occultists magic as does the moon.
The twin towers 11, 11 being a significant nemerological number.
911, the date the towers were brought down by controlled demolitions. 911 is the emergency number in u.s.a. The most dialled of all numbers. In uk it is 999, the inverted 666.
Revelations chapter 9 verse 11, they had for their king the angel of the abyss, whose name, in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek, Apollyon, or the Destroyer.

Coincidence?

Peace

Wolfgang, you had to infect your post with a religious text?

Elizabeth wrote,

...but neither do I think that big money has as much influence in government than the average person believes.

Yes, as evidenced by the oil and pharmaceutical lobbyists scrambling to switch gears and kiss the reluctant asses of the group that trounced their patrons.

Democracy is not perfect. Some people are certainly not qualified to vote. But at he same time, even less people are qualified to render or not render that judgement about other citizens. How would that be decided? Consensus? In that sense, it is unworkable. Even an efficient vetting system would be imperfect and horror stories on both sides could be told over time.

To paraphrase a famous quote, "Democracy sucks, but it sucks less than all the others." I would add to that by saying it sucks more or less equal to the people that make it suck. Some of my neighbors are selfish idiots. Some are respectable citizens. Unfortunately, in the aggregate, that is often a wash.

Tharan,

Religion has infected the lives of millions for thousands of years. As a crutch it can be a blessing but as weapon then welcome to hell. The controlling elite , through the media they control are using the different religions, at the moment, christian and Muslim to create friction . There is literally a massive saturation occurring by the elite trying to create as much animosity between the two religions. Their end game is quite obvious to those that jump out of the box and analyse. They want to create a situation where things appear so terrible and out of control that people will readily accept the i.d. card. Then eventually on to the chipping of the population. This is not sci-fi. This is sci-fact.
Revelations states: Moreover, it caused everyone great and small, rich and poor, slave and free, to be branded with a mark on his right hand or forehead, and noone was allowed to buy or sell unless he bore the beasts mark (the microchip), either name or number.
Is the bible a book of prophecies or is it being used as an agenda?
The technology is more or less here and they want to control you through this chip.

"about the time of the end, a body of men will be raised up who will turn their attention to the prophecies, and insist upon their literal interpretation,in the midst of much clamour and opposition". Sir Isaac Newton 1643-1727.

If they want to control me, they must have something in mind. Remember, a large percentage of business transactions take place either business to business or remotely in other forms. The human interaction is not necessary as it was in the time of that writing. You might then expand your scenario by understanding that such technology has already been used for many years in the form of credit cards. Also, there are much more profitable business models than Total Human Enslavement.

But if the chip evolves into a brain implant and includes a memory upgrade as well as some percieved informational benefit to the suppliers, then these systems are historically hackable. I'll take the memory upgrade then tweak the chip so that stops sending out its signal and gives me X-ray vision to boot. That is the nature of evolution from the inside out.

Interestingly, the organic model of treachery and dependence is exponentially more complex and scary than the totalitarian archetype so often described in End Days literature.

Tharan wrote:
Elizabeth wrote,

...but neither do I think that big money has as much influence in government than the average person believes.

Yes, as evidenced by the oil and pharmaceutical lobbyists scrambling to switch gears and kiss the reluctant asses of the group that trounced their patrons.

I didn't say money didn't have a whole lot of influence. Perhaps I should have defined what I thought the average person believes rather than make a blanket statement like that. A better phrasing would have been I believe that greater than a miniscule amount of things get done without the influence of big money. It may be a small amount, but it is probably greater than negligible.

wolfgang von gothmoth wrote: The public are served a lie, an illusion that their opinions, thoughts and ideals matter and they can voice their opinions through this 'fictitious' ballot.

Well, I do have questions about the validity of the electronic voting in Florida (and anywhere else they do electronic voting). In the last Presidential election, about 99% of the people that I either knew or overheard were voting for Kerry, but Bush (brother of our Governor) won the election in Florida. Suddenly I suspected how easy it would be to rig an electronic voting booth and never get caught.

wolfgang von gothmoth wrote:
"about the time of the end, a body of men will be raised up who will turn their attention to the prophecies, and insist upon their literal interpretation,in the midst of much clamour and opposition". Sir Isaac Newton 1643-1727.

When in recorded history did people not do this?

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: Well, I do have questions about the validity of the electronic voting in Florida (and anywhere else they do electronic voting). In the last Presidential election, about 99% of the people that I either knew or overheard were voting for Kerry, but Bush (brother of our Governor) won the election in Florida. Suddenly I suspected how easy it would be to rig an electronic voting booth and never get caught.

Well, while I, along with many others have believed in this theory, this is an entirely falacious way of getting to it. "everyone I know" voted for Kerry, too. Problem with that is that I choose who to associate with, and I choose like-minded people. Since I am fairly liberal myself, most of my friends tend to be.

Another problem is that while I (used to) live in one of the largest cities in the state, and most people there voted for Kerry, the vast majority of the state is rural, and republican.

Rory wrote:this is an entirely falacious way of getting to it. "everyone I know" voted for Kerry, too. Problem with that is that I choose who to associate with, and I choose like-minded people. Since I am fairly liberal myself, most of my friends tend to be.

That's why I added people that I overheard - waiting in line at the drugstore, school, restaraunts... out in public anywhere. And actually, I'm a republican, and I voted for Kerry. It's still fallicious though, which is why it's only a suspicion.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: That's why I added people that I overheard - waiting in line at the drugstore, school, restaraunts... out in public anywhere. And actually, I'm a republican, and I voted for Kerry. It's still fallicious though, which is why it's only a suspicion.

Well, yeah but still you tend to live in certain areas... I mean, I could say the same thing - but most people I run into on a day to day basis are college students, or homeless. I go to WalMart and could potentially hear other viewpoints, but most of the people there go to my university. Plus people poor enough to be shopping at Wally World regularly aren't likely to be the republicans' strongest supporters... at any rate. Selection bias more than any form of reality.

What did the exit polls say for 2000 Florida? (I really don't remember)

-Rory

I would like some sort of system where actual parties had to be disbanded after X number of years or X number of elections won.

In Australia the only two parties who have ever won government or whom have any chance of winning government are too entrenched. As well as change preventing internal politics, these two parties have too many ties to business (Conservatives) or Unions/organised crime (Labor).

Disbanding the parties would seem the only way to cleanse this out of the system. Admittedly this is probably totally unworkable, I haven't given the solutions side of democracy much thought.

Banning professional lobbyists (and private meetings with lobbyists) and donations from ALL businesses would be a good start for the US and Aust.

My fav form of democracy would be a web based one that contained detailed For and Against arguments associated with the Web voting system. In terms of government budgeting, the +/- ratios would be scaled to determine annual increases/decreases per broad functional area (on top off historically guaranteed fund levels). Ministers would be allocated a limited budget for ad hoc stuff.

Voting would not be compulsory - but all votes would be scaled based on income levels to ensure an even spread across the population.

I don't remember either - but as far as sample diversity, I live in a rather large metropolitan area wikipedia says there are 2.7 million people in my area and the population seems quite diverse to me... but it is different from the Boca Raton & West Palm Beach area (lots of multi-millionaires over there), so it could be legit. I don't know, but neither do I know if there's a way to prove it.

Jamesh wrote:Voting would not be compulsory - but all votes would be scaled based on income levels to ensure an even spread across the population.

What? You want to scale the votes according to income? As in how much a person earns makes a difference in how much their vote counts?

What? You want to scale the votes according to income? As in how much a person earns makes a difference in how much their vote counts?

nahh. I was just rabbiting on, I'll try and flesh it out a bit more, for something to do. I'll admit it's a dumb idea :)

The idea was just to spread the vote amongst all income levels from 0 to whatever, but only because there is a need to prevent the powerful from "media-engineering" those who do vote, to vote for parties that appeal foremost to the interests of the powerful. They do easily do this by focusing people on consumption in stirring up their greed. I was indirectly suggesting that a low voter turnout for certain income groups should not mean that they automatically get a government that doesn't have to listen to them at all.

I kind of just envisaged that votes would be scaled up, per income group, to an equal number of votes. Each income group would consist of the same number of potential voters, ohh and non-income earners, retirees would also be categories.

The whole idea is loony because the mechanics of the scaling are just far too difficult. No-one would ever dare to even suggest such radical changes, let alone would the population agree with it. It is also loony because it doesn’t actually solve the "media-engineering" problem to any significant degree.

In any practical sense, the other idea I had about disbanding parties was also a dud, . Guess I'm just being idealistic, or fickle because I couldn’t be bothered thinking that much about things I can’t personally change.

Lol, and then there was the post the other day about why Ghosts might appear. As if !!

=========================================

Here is another idea.

The problem with democracy is mostly to do with how the highest judges are chosen - we should not allow members of political parties to select them.

Political appointments of judges is like a carefully hidden method for ensuring that those who already hold power and wealth, retain it and pass it on to their kids.

They have the final say over most important matters.
eg. The judges on the Florida vote recount all voted on party lines.


Perhaps the first step to a better democracy, one that will actually be pro-active in tackling problems with society, is by making the selection of judges into some form of democratic system - whereby no member of a political party has a right to vote for a judge.

Jamesh wrote: Perhaps the first step to a better democracy, one that will actually be pro-active in tackling problems with society, is by making the selection of judges into some form of democratic system - whereby no member of a political party has a right to vote for a judge.

Oh, yeah, that's just what I want. The guys who can't even pass 8th grade civics the first 3 times through picking my justices. Brilliant!

Oh, yeah, that's just what I want. The guys who can't even pass 8th grade civics the first 3 times through picking my justices. Brilliant!

IMO, democaracy does not necessary have to mean that every one has a vote on every issue. I was vague with the phrase "some form of democratic system", because I hadn't thought about how the judges would be best selected. I could make some sort of system up, if i desired, but my point was really that it should not be in the hands of a single party.

btw - most judges are cretinous. They are attached to the max to Precedents. Like Christians it means they don't have to think about what is truly just.

Jamesh wrote: btw - most judges are cretinous. They are attached to the max to Precedents. Like Christians it means they don't have to think about what is truly just.

Well that is certainly better than the alternative which is to have the justices making laws willy-nilly so we never know what is or is not against the law.