NationStates Jolt Archive

...the Parliament is acting like everyone is happy about it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7076076.stm
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/06/america/LA-GEN-Venezuela-Constitution.php
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/7074233.stm

Whatev.

...the Parliament is acting like everyone is happy about it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7076076.stm
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/06/america/LA-GEN-Venezuela-Constitution.php
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/7074233.stm

Whatev.
It was expected. Venezuela is going to be in a world of hurt as soon as their oil runs out.

I'm sure the usual suspects will show up to support Chavez, but I bet every single one of them slept through Macro-Economics lectures in school.

BTW, ur sig is making me angry. GO BLUE!

BTW, ur sig is making me angry. GO BLUE!

Pshah! App State? C'mon! ;)

Seriously, though, that was a nailbiter on Saturday, wasn't it?

Pshah! App State? C'mon! ;)

Seriously, though, that was a nailbiter on Saturday, wasn't it?

I'm at Purdue, but I still have to support Michigan after having lived there for some years. It must have been a nailbiter for you against Wisconsin.

Hmm. I wonder if it'll pass. :p

I'm at Purdue, but I still have to support Michigan after having lived there for some years. It must have been a nailbiter for you against Wisconsin.

In the third quarter, yeah, I was concerned, (and actually pretty damn belligerent towards the refs for some god-awful calls) but Wells hit the gas and we were sittin' fine and dandy after the end of that quarter.

Why am I not surprised. I take it the people did not vote for this?

Chavez: Love him or hate him. There is no happy medium. (Although, for the record, I detest the bastard.)

So, who really is upset about it? Rich student kids who had their education and life offered to them on a silver platter, land owners and businessmen who turn up to the rallies in their Jaguars and BMW's, or is it just common ignorant people paid off by the rich US-backed treasonous media which organizes military coups and supports right-wing dictators. Chavez has saved Venezuela from being sucked dry and left in the garbage by the wealthy 'Miami class' with US/transnationals acting as they're bankers. Venezuela is moving inevitably toward 21st century socialism, and no matter the whining from the far-right fringe, it is happening.

snip

Please do yourself a favor and enroll in this class: Introduction to Macroeconomics.

You will learn many things, primarily how naive Marx was and how his ideas only work in fantasy land.

Then as a followup, take the Intermediary Macro class. Then proceed as you wish.

If you try to enact a system (as you have expressed in the past) where doctors make as much as a bricklayer, then no man in his right mind would be motivated enough to go through 4 years of bio, 3 years of med school, and a residency. If there is no money incentive, then there isn't likely going to be much motivation.

I wouldn't be going through the crap I have to go through with engineering if it weren't for the pay. I wouldn't switched to an easier major that doesn't require fucking thermodynamics. Thermo and statics can go to hell!

Please do yourself a favor and enroll in this class: Introduction to Macroeconomics.

You will learn many things, primarily how naive Marx was and how his ideas only work in fantasy land.

Then as a followup, take the Intermediary Macro class. Then proceed as you wish.

If you try to enact a system (as you have expressed in the past) where doctors make as much as a bricklayer, then no man in his right mind would be motivated enough to go through 4 years of bio, 3 years of med school, and a residency. If there is no money incentive, then there isn't likely going to be much motivation.

I wouldn't be going through the crap I have to go through with engineering if it weren't for the pay. I wouldn't switched to an easier major that doesn't require fucking thermodynamics. Thermo and statics can go to hell!

Wow, did you pick up a macroeconomics book today or something?
You cannot judge the value of labor or try to devalue manual over intellectual work because you are using the same capitalist standard for value as you use for you're entire argument. Judging the progress of the socialization/communization of society based on capitalist constructs is bound to support you're argument, because capitalism intrinsically puts value on accumulation and maximum exploitation, socialism is measured in very different terms.

Wow, did you pick up a macroeconomics book today or something?
You cannot judge the value of labor or try to devalue manual over intellectual work because you are using the same capitalist standard for value as you use for you're entire argument. Judging the progress of the socialization/communization of society based on capitalist constructs is bound to support you're argument, because capitalism intrinsically puts value on accumulation and maximum exploitation, socialism is measured in very different terms.
Please try to answer this simple question.

Why should I or anyone else work hard for a decade to become a doctor when I end up making just as much as some bagger at a grocery store? Don't give me bullshit like "to make a difference" because that person's motivation will go by the wayside when they have to spend a week doing all nighters for a class.

Capitalism is a great system because you can get more pay if you are willing to put forth more effort and go through more school. That is why doctors and engineers are paid so well.

I highly recommend you pick up a macro book. You have likely never done so. Most people who hold the viewpoints you have hold them until they either enter the real world or take macro. Then reality hits them and they realize the flaws in Marxism.

Please try to answer this simple question.

Why should I or anyone else work hard for a decade to become a doctor when I end up making just as much as some bagger at a grocery store? Don't give me bullshit like "to make a difference" because that person's motivation will go by the wayside when they have to spend a week doing all nighters for a class.

Capitalism is a great system because you can get more pay if you are willing to put forth more effort and go through more school. That is why doctors and engineers are paid so well.

I highly recommend you pick up a macro book. You have likely never done so. Most people who hold the viewpoints you have hold them until they either enter the real world or take macro. Then reality hits them and they realize the flaws in Marxism.

There you go again... Assuming (by your own capitalist logic) that labor value is higher in higher class brackets, you're argument breaks down to 'communism sucks because capitalism says so'. Your argument is that if you go to university (class construct) and get a degree then you are better than someone who used that time to do manual labor or bricklaying as you said, who are you to say the university student and his time spent should have higher value. Unlike capitalism that imposes an artificial regimentation of society based on class constructs of value, communism is natural interdependence.

I live in Venezuela, I'm Venezuelan.

I can say you, now The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is a free nation, is not another USA garage.

The people in Venezuela is really happiness with the bolivarian socialism that comes in the near future.

Chavez: Love him or hate him. There is no happy medium. (Although, for the record, I detest the bastard.)

Your location is amazing.

Please try to answer this simple question.

Why should I or anyone else work hard for a decade to become a doctor when I end up making just as much as some bagger at a grocery store? Don't give me bullshit like "to make a difference" because that person's motivation will go by the wayside when they have to spend a week doing all nighters for a class.

Capitalism is a great system because you can get more pay if you are willing to put forth more effort and go through more school. That is why doctors and engineers are paid so well.

I highly recommend you pick up a macro book. You have likely never done so. Most people who hold the viewpoints you have hold them until they either enter the real world or take macro. Then reality hits them and they realize the flaws in Marxism.

In case you didn't know that's Adaras Prime, our resident pseudo-communist. His debate technique boils down to "lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!".

In addition to abolishing presidential term limits, President Chavez is also proposing to bypass legal controls on the executive during a state of emergency, bring in a maximum six-hour working day, cut the voting age from 18 to 16, and increase presidential control over the central bank.

Thousands of local "communal councils" are also to be given more power over what happens in their districts.

[...] If the reforms are approved in the referendum, then they will become law.

Looks good to me.

Note that Chavez has always obtained democratic legitimacy for his reforms, through being elected and re-elected, and now through referendum. How many Western countries can say the same?

I live in Venezuela, I'm Venezuelan.

That's nice.

I can say you, now The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is a free nation, is not another USA garage.

That's not what we're concerned with, though. We're concerned that Chavez is turning Venezuela into his own personal "garage".

The people in Venezuela is really happiness with the bolivarian socialism that comes in the near future.

That's nice, but what's disturbing is how Chavez is doing it.

Looks good to me.

Note that Chavez has always obtained democratic legitimacy for his reforms, through being elected and re-elected, and now through referendum. How many Western countries can say the same?

It's the short road to president for life and good old totalitarianism. The communist way!

Looks good to me.

Note that Chavez has always obtained democratic legitimacy for his reforms, through being elected and re-elected, and now through referendum. How many Western countries can say the same?

The smart way to make yourself dictator for life is to make the people think they had a say in it.

It's the short road to president for life and good old totalitarianism. The communist way!

Rubbish.

(Not to mention that communism is, by definition, democratic; a communist dictatorship would be a contradiction in terms. And Chavez is trying to build socialism, not communism. He's not trying to abolish the State.)

I've said it many times: removing term limits is not inherently dictatorial. In France, there are no term limits, but last I checked this is still a democracy. Sarkozy can stand for re-election as many times as he wants; voters will decide whether or not to actually re-elect him. Same in Venezuela.

Note that
a) the decision of abolishing term limits or not is going to be made democratically, by referendum; and
b) voters will still get to decide whether or not they want to re-elect Chavez at the end of his term.

That's all perfectly democratic. I don't see how anyone can honestly dispute that.

The smart way to make yourself dictator for life is to make the people think they had a say in it.

What if the people have got a say in it, as they have here? The people will decide, through a referendum and through elections. How is that dictatorial? How is it not democratic?

So, who really is upset about it? Rich student kids who had their education and life offered to them on a silver platter, land owners and businessmen who turn up to the rallies in their Jaguars and BMW's, or is it just common ignorant people paid off by the rich US-backed treasonous media which organizes military coups and supports right-wing dictators. Chavez has saved Venezuela from being sucked dry and left in the garbage by the wealthy 'Miami class' with US/transnationals acting as they're bankers. Venezuela is moving inevitably toward 21st century socialism, and no matter the whining from the far-right fringe, it is happening.


I do live in Venezuela, I'm a venezuelan, what I am not is a...

1) Rich student kid who had their education and life offered to him/her on a silver platter

I'm not rich. I studied in a public university. I'm working since I was 14. Not exactly a silver plate, my life.

2) Land owner and businessman who turn up to the rallies in their Jaguars and BMW's

I own an used car, which I bought by saving through years of work, I live in a rented apartment with family because I haven't been able to move to my own because of the ridiculous prices placed in new homes. So, no land, no car.

3) Common ignorant people paid off by the rich US-backed treasonous media which organizes military coups and supports right-wing dictators.

Given my universitary education, I'm hardly common or ignorant. I work in the media and I do not see any US backing around here. Before Chávez, we didn't have a military dictator for 40 years, just democratically elected presidents. I guess you didn't know that. Flawed presidents, but democratically elected nevertheless. Last military coup we had was in 1992, organized by the current president of the republic and left leaned, so go figure.

As side notes:

-Chavez has saved Venezuela from being sucked dry and left in the garbage by the wealthy 'Miami class' with US/transnationals acting as they're bankers.

While I welcome that measures are taken against transnationals abusing venezuelan soil and citizens, well, the Miami class failed in the 80 and 90, there is no such Miami class right now. However, Chávez hardly achieved the elimination of said class, they dissapeared mainly because of the fall of oil prices, all by themselves.

-Venezuela is moving inevitably toward 21st century socialism, and no matter the whining from the far-right fringe, it is happening.

What is exactly the 21st century socialism? I still expect a coherent explanation from the creator of said ideology.

Venezuela hardly has any class of far right fringe, sorry. Last venezuelan far right goverment ended in 1958. And there is no current far right movement now, opposing the current regime. Moderate right, light right, perhaps, but far right? fascism? please...


I live in Venezuela, I'm Venezuelan.

I can say you, now The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is a free nation, is not another USA garage.

The people in Venezuela is really happiness with the bolivarian socialism that comes in the near future.

¿En qué parte de Venezuela vives? Qué bueno conseguir a un compatriota en Nationstates, en realidad no importa que tengamos visiones políticas diferentes, igual es bueno conseguirte para debatir.

Éramos libres antes, no recuerdo que no fuéramos esclavos de los gringos. No me malentiendas, una de las cosas que más me gusta del gobierno actual es su posición en contra de los estadounidenses, que en general son unos abusadores. Sin embargo, no me parece que Chávez nos haya liberado, les vendemos el petróleo igual que antes, lo que hacemos es pagar un montón de impuestos que no se reflejan en las mejoras para el pueblo, y darle a los cubanos un montón de regalos que antes no nos pedían los gringos. Parece que estuviéramos pagando tributo.

No todos estamos felices, y mi principal duda es que a el gobierno de Chávez no le importa eso. Debería importarle que muchos no estamos felices con sus medidas. Una verdadera revolución necesita inclusión social total.

Why am I not surprised. I take it the people did not vote for this?
Perhaps if you had read the links, you would have realized that there will be a referendum on the proposed changes and the thread title might have also been a big hint?

I live in Venezuela, I'm Venezuelan.

I can say you, now The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is a free nation, is not another USA garage.

The people in Venezuela is really happiness with the bolivarian socialism that comes in the near future.

Now if you expect us to actually believe you....

In case you didn't know that's Adaras Prime, our resident pseudo-communist. His debate technique boils down to "lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!".

I thought it was him. Thanks Khadgar for confirmation.

Rubbish.

(Not to mention that communism is, by definition, democratic; a communist dictatorship would be a contradiction in terms. And Chavez is trying to build socialism, not communism. He's not trying to abolish the State.)

I've said it many times: removing term limits is not inherently dictatorial. In France, there are no term limits, but last I checked this is still a democracy. Sarkozy can stand for re-election as many times as he wants; voters will decide whether or not to actually re-elect him. Same in Venezuela.

Note that
a) the decision of abolishing term limits or not is going to be made democratically, by referendum; and
b) voters will still get to decide whether or not they want to re-elect Chavez at the end of his term.

That's all perfectly democratic. I don't see how anyone can honestly dispute that.



What if the people have got a say in it, as they have here? The people will decide, through a referendum and through elections. How is that dictatorial? How is it not democratic?

When Sarkozy starts denying permits to media outlets that disagree with him you'll have a valid comparison. It's easy to be a popular president when your dissenters don't have a voice. Ask Pinochet.

Looks good to me.

Note that Chavez has always obtained democratic legitimacy for his reforms, through being elected and re-elected, and now through referendum. How many Western countries can say the same?

I hate to say this but so did Adolf Hitler.

I hate to say this but so did Adolf Hitler.

Well that's a Godwin.

Now if you expect us to actually believe you....

Terepaima is not a common name. It is a Venezuelan aborigine name. It is not a common information shared through the web. Perhaps he is indeed venezuelan, I vote to consider him venezuelan until proved otherwise.

I hate to say this but so did Adolf Hitler.

Chávez is not Hitler, do not take things to the extreme.

Perhaps if you had read the links, you would have realized that there will be a referendum on the proposed changes and the thread title might have also been a big hint?

Then I hope that there are a lot of observers all throughout the country and along with the certification to make sure that Chavez and his cronies do not fudge the numbers.

When Sarkozy starts denying permits to media outlets that disagree with him you'll have a valid comparison. It's easy to be a popular president when your dissenters don't have a voice. Ask Pinochet.

Sarkozy doesn't really need to; most of the media are happy to lick his boots.

I must say, I'm not happy with Chavez having silenced that opponent media branch. Not that it was entirely unjustifiable (since they supported the overthrowing of a democratically elected government), but I'm still not happy with it. Having said that, I doubt your claim that "dissenters don't have a voice" is correct. Ask Aelosia, who's a Venezuelan journalist and mostly opposes Chavez.


I hate to say this but so did Adolf Hitler.

Puh-lease. Were you actually trying to make a point here?

Then I hope that there are a lot of observers all throughout the country and along with the certification to make sure that Chavez and his cronies do not fudge the numbers.

As I recall, the last elections in Venezuela were confirmed as having been free and fair by international observers. Even the US government eventually had to retract its claims to the contrary, mortified that Venezuelan voters hadn't done as Washington had told them.

Terepaima is not a common name. It is a Venezuelan aborigine name. It is not a common information shared through the web. Perhaps he is indeed venezuelan, I vote to consider him venezuelan until proved otherwise.
I second your proposal!!

Chávez is not Hitler, do not take things to the extreme.
If it is not Bush, it is Hitler!! :rolleyes:

When Sarkozy starts denying permits to media outlets that disagree with him you'll have a valid comparison. It's easy to be a popular president when your dissenters don't have a voice.

The sign of democracy is the power of elected parliament over president. Sure president should have some powers - assuming he or she is directly elected - but responsibility and power for the stable running of a democratic nation should lie on the hands of the parliament. Strong president is more akin to elected dictator than a true democratic leadership. I also feel that once president is elected he or she should cut formal ties with his or her previous party (here a president blindly advocating his or her previous party is considered a serious faux pas).

Of course, there's absolutely speaking nothing wrong with a well ruled, enlightened dictatorship and I'd have no qualms living under one...The opposite side of the coin is that in case I lived under a bad dictatorship I could have have no qualms living under one. :D

As I recall, the last elections in Venezuela were confirmed as having been free and fair by international observers. Even the US government eventually had to retract its claims to the contrary, mortified that Venezuelan voters hadn't done as Washington had told them.
Corny should have known this to be true. Methinks he is stuck in his own ideological backwater. :D

Good Morning Ladies and Gentlemen, did you have a nice weekend? ;)
<< What happen ?
Somebody set up us the bomb.
You have no chance to survive make your time.

What if the people have got a say in it, as they have here? The people will decide, through a referendum and through elections. How is that dictatorial? How is it not democratic?

A majority vote does not make it democratic. If the majority of people vote to remove the basic rights of an ethnic minority, that is not democracy. If the majority of people vote to legalise torture, that is not democracy.

Puh-lease. Were you actually trying to make a point here?

Fact: Hitler got into power through democratic means
Fact: He used the legislature to pass his measures

Fact: Chavez got into power through democratic means
Fact: He is using the legislature to pass his measures

Jee

I must say, I'm not happy with Chavez having silenced that opponent media branch. Not that it was entirely unjustifiable (since they supported the overthrowing of a democratically elected government), but I'm still not happy with it. Having said that, I doubt your claim that "dissenters don't have a voice" is correct. Ask Aelosia, who's a Venezuelan journalist and mostly opposes Chavez.

You are right in certain points, although I'd like to add a few of my own.

Regarding RCTV, more than the refusal to renew their concession per se, I am opposed to the way it was made, through a direct presidential order. We have administrative procedures that could be applied to said channel previously to the measure taken. A closure for 72 hours was in order, according to the same laws implemented by the Chávez's administration, and then to wait if the faults were repeated, along with a fine. That disrespect of institutions is what worries me the most of the Chávez's regime.

And about the reasons, you shouldn't forbid a channel from transmitting in open signal just because they do not like your goverment and supports people overthrowing it. Again, we have a law regulating that.


As I recall, the last elections in Venezuela were confirmed as having been free and fair by international observers. Even the US government eventually had to retract its claims to the contrary, mortified that Venezuelan voters hadn't done as Washington had told them.

True, Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías is the elected president of Venezuela, like it or not. Democratically elected.

But, please do not relate everything regarding to Venezuela with the situation in the US, it is sad and make us look like some backyard to the imperial power.

Chávez is not Hitler, do not take things to the extreme.

I did not say he was.

A majority vote does not make it democratic. If the majority of people vote to remove the basic rights of an ethnic minority, that is not democracy. If the majority of people vote to legalise torture, that is not democracy.

I completely agree with the statement posted here. This is my same posture. The tyranny of the majority isn't democracy either.

As I recall, the last elections in Venezuela were confirmed as having been free and fair by international observers. Even the US government eventually had to retract its claims to the contrary, mortified that Venezuelan voters hadn't done as Washington had told them.

Care to point where I said they weren't?

Fact: Hitler got into power through democratic means
Fact: He used the legislature to pass his measures

Fact: Chavez got into power through democratic means
Fact: He is using the legislature to pass his measures

Jee
Get real?

Fact: Bush got into power through (almost) democratic means
Fact: He is using the legislature to pass his measures

I can say the same for all nations that are democratic. :D

So, the question becomes, why did you say it at all?

Get real?

Fact: Bush got into power through (almost) democratic means
Fact: He is using the legislature to pass his measures

I can say the same for all nations that are democratic. :D

Get real?

Fact: Bush got into power through (almost) democratic means
Fact: He is using the legislature to pass his measures

OK, the fact that Bush is a piece of crap doesn't make Chávez a brilliant and open leader. I'm all open to critic the current US regime, but it doesn't legitimate any of the Bush's enemies or opposers. That argument is getting old and rusted.

Remember, two wrongs don't make a right. That is a logical truth, according to human way of thinking.

Fact: Hitler got into power through democratic means
Fact: He used the legislature to pass his measures

Fact: Chavez got into power through democratic means
Fact: He is using the legislature to pass his measures

Jee

And...? Sarkozy got into power through democratic means, and is using the legislature to pass his measures. Dubya got into power through democratic means, and is using the legislature to pass his measures. Gordon Brown got into power through democratic means, and is using the legislature to pass his measures. Helen Clark got into power through democratic means, and is using the legislature to pass her measures. Lula got into power through democratic means, and is using the legislature to pass his measures. Morales got into power through democratic means, and is using the legislature to pass his measures.

I could go on. What's your point? That democracy doesn't necessarily yield savoury results? I never disputed that. Conversely, you cannot argue "Because democracy sometimes does bad things, and Chavez was democratically elected, Chavez must be bad". That would be absurd.

You are right in certain points, although I'd like to add a few of my own.

Please do. It's good to hear from someone with first-hand experience.


Regarding RCTV, more than the refusal to renew their concession per se, I am opposed to the way it was made, through a direct presidential order. We have administrative procedures that could be applied to said channel previously to the measure taken. A closure for 72 hours was in order, according to the same laws implemented by the Chávez's administration, and then to wait if the faults were repeated, along with a fine. That disrespect of institutions is what worries me the most of the Chávez's regime.

And about the reasons, you shouldn't forbid a channel from transmitting in open signal just because they do not like your goverment and supports people overthrowing it. Again, we have a law regulating that.


*nods* Thank you for those details. And you're right, it's worrying.

(I notice you use the word "régime". I always find the use of that word amusing. It's such a subtle weasel-word.)


True, Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías is the elected president of Venezuela, like it or not. Democratically elected.

But, please do not relate everything regarding to Venezuela with the situation in the US, it is sad and make us look like some backyard to the imperial power.

Sorry. I try not to do that. I was simply making a point. The fact that the US régime -heh!- has long seen South America as its "backyard" definitely does not mean it should be viewed that way.

A majority vote does not make it democratic. If the majority of people vote to remove the basic rights of an ethnic minority, that is not democracy. If the majority of people vote to legalise torture, that is not democracy.

Indeed. But again, that's a complete non sequitur. Unless you're seriously suggesting that removing term limits, bringing in a maximum six-hour working day, reducing the voting age from 18 to 16 and empowering local councils is somehow akin to repressing an ethnic minority or legalising torture?


Care to point where I said they weren't?

I didn't imply you had. My point (if you would care to pay attention) is that, as per precedent, there's little reason to assume the referendum will not be free, fair and democratic.

OK, the fact that Bush is a piece of crap doesn't make Chávez a brilliant and open leader.
I didn't say that it did.

I'm all open to critic the current US regime, but it doesn't legitimate any of the Bush's enemies or opposers.
I didn't say that it did.

That argument is getting old and rusted.
I was just refuting Corny's failed logic.

Remember, two wrongs don't make a right. That is a logical truth, according to human way of thinking.
I agree.

A majority vote does not make it democratic.Yes it does, on the other hand,a Group of old Judges (SCrOTUS) deciding who is going to be president, FOR SURE does not make it democratic.

Yes it does, on the other hand,a Group of old Judges (SCrOTUS) deciding who is going to be president, FOR SURE does not make it democratic.

:rolleyes:

And the day we believe this tripe will be the day hell freezes over.

Indeed. But again, that's a complete non sequitur. Unless you're seriously suggesting that removing term limits, bringing in a maximum six-hour working day, reducing the voting age from 18 to 16 and empowering local councils is somehow akin to repressing an ethnic minority or legalising torture?

The degree to which they reduce democracy is very different, but is a reduction nonetheless. It goes further than just removing term limits as well - Chavez will also be able to exert direct control over any state of Venezuela by changing its status to a federal territory and also allows him to create an indefinite state of emergency. Including the working day reforms in the consititutional referendum is nothing more than a populist attempt to get it to pass - "want better working conditions? just sign this document giving me more power..."

Fact: Hitler got into power through democratic means
Fact: He used the legislature to pass his measures

Fact: Chavez got into power through democratic means
Fact: He is using the legislature to pass his measures

Jeelets try that again
Fact: Merkel/Chirac/Blair/Zapatero/Morales/Zarko/etc got into power through democratic means
Fact: they used their legislature to pass their measures

Fact: BUSH got into power through the SCrOTUS
Fact: the US congress is more than happy to bend over

Jee ;)

Yes it does, on the other hand,a Group of old Judges (SCrOTUS) deciding who is going to be president, FOR SURE does not make it democratic.

So Jim Crow laws were fine, because the majority of people in the South supported them? Just because a Group of old Judges (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education) decided who we can or can't segregate doesn't make it democratic.

Bring back segregation!

lets try that again

I see you can't read. That's ok

..make us (Venezuela) look like some backyard to the imperial power.some will say, most Latin American Countries (including the Powerful Brazil) have been "backyard to the imperial power" for most of their lives.

The tyranny of the majority isn't democracy either.what Democratic Countries.. ARE not " tyranny of the majority"?

And the day we believe this tripe will be the day hell freezes over.you speak for all NSG... since when?

what truly Democratic Countries.. ARE not " tyranny of the majority"?
I want some names.

That depends on your definition of "tyranny of the majority". A Constitution is supposed to be there to prevent the majority mob from running amok.

I see you can't read. That's okactually, Aelosia already made the same point I am trying to make.

my_Mistake© Aelosia (I did not see it) ... me bad.

So, the question becomes, why did you say it at all?

???

I can say the same for all nations that are democratic. :D

So, again, what in the nine hells is your point?

I hate to say this but so did Adolf Hitler.

Yup, Bush also chose the "democratic" way :rolleyes:

So, again, what in the nine hells is your point?

Having fun. Jeez...try to have fun and people jump on ya.

Yup, Bush also chose the "democratic" way :rolleyes:

WHat's with the quotes? He was elected democraticly.

A Constitution is supposed to be there to prevent the majority mob from running amok."supposed to" does Not cut it.
... shoulda, wouda, coulda, does Not cut it
.
That depends on your definition of "tyranny of the majority".Indeed it does.

I belong to the minority that believes Smoking Marijuana should be allowed for most suffering peoples ,including cancer victims, back pain, etc (Amsterdam Freedom)
I think the oppressing Majority is not allowing this sensible law to pass. The oppressing Majority is blocking my freedom.

A sensible Gov would do away with mandatory speed limits in the freeways (Autobahn Freedom)

I also feel I should be free to be naked.. thats how God created me. ;)
Freedom to Die (Euthanasia.)
Freedom to have multiple wifes (free them poligamists)
Freedom to move and work (why have immigration gestapos?)
Freedom to go nuts (seatbelt laws)
Freedom to fish and hunt (do away with seasonal limits)
Freedom of faith (Waco, Utah polys,Tom Cruise,etc)
Freedom to marry whatever or whoever I fucking want (GAY Marriage, Romeo&Juliet Laws, etc.)
Freedom of toys (Guns are fun.)
etc
etc
etc
...
etc X 1 billion.

WHat's with the quotes? He was elected democraticly....

...by receiving fewer votes than his opponent.

...by receiving fewer votes than his opponent.indeed -at the end of the day- the only votes that counted, were the votes of the Republican Judges.

...by receiving fewer votes than his opponent.

YOu do realize that under the Constitution it is the electoral college that decides the presidency right? In that, he won the votes needed to be president. Ergo...he was elected president.

This concludes Constitution 101

YOu do realize that under the Constitution it is the SCrOTUS that decides the presidency right? In that, he won the 5 votes needed to be president. Ergo...he was elected president.

This concludes Constitution 101bold = edited (what actually happened)

bold = edited (what actually happened)

*sighs*

No sorry OD2 but that is flat out false! You have been told this before by several people with the evidence to prove it.

I'm done with this.

No sorry OD2 but that is flat out false! You have been told this before by several people..
Maybe if you guys keep repeating -ad nauseum- "its false".. maybe I will believe it.. maybe it will become reality someday.. who knows :D
.
..to prove itYou have proven absolutely nothing. zero. nada.


I'm done with this.I know ;)
*waves Corny goodbye*

YOu do realize that under the Constitution it is the electoral college that decides the presidency right? In that, he won the votes needed to be president. Ergo...he was elected president.

This concludes Constitution 101

But he wasn't elected democraticly since he received less votes than his opponent. Your failure of a system doesn't define democracy.

But he wasn't elected democraticly since he received less votes than his opponent. Your failure of a system doesn't define democracy.

I also see you have not read what I said. According to the Constitution, he won fair and square. I also feel you have no idea that we are actually a republic.

I also see you have not read what I said. According to the Constitution, he won fair and square. I also feel you have no idea that we are actually a republic.

Maybe you should visit a doctor to check your vision and your "feelings" since there's clearly something wrong with them.

Maybe you should visit a doctor to check your vision and your "feelings" since there's clearly something wrong with them.

aww poor baby. I see education is not your strong suite.

I also see you have not read what I said. According to the Constitution, he won fair and square. I also feel you have no idea that we are actually a republic.
Well, the USA may have been created a republic, but I'd be more than willing to say that it no longer is in the sense of the 'pure' republic vs democracy debate. Constitutional, representative democracy is the term I'd use, rather than say the USA, or any other government, is a black and white republic or democracy. The Electoral College is just a hold over from the days when aristocratic republicanism were still in vogue. I'm sure that if America had had today's political culture in 1787, it wouldn't be there.

I love thread drift.

aww poor baby. I see education is not your strong suite.

Clearly, as suspected, you can't see very well. Don't worry, neither can I. That's why I wear glasses.

Clearly, as suspected, you can't see very well. Don't worry, neither can I. That's why I wear glasses.

I can see just fine thanks. Now are we done with the ad homins or are we going to continue to throw more at one another?

(I notice you use the word "régime". I always find the use of that word amusing. It's such a subtle weasel-word.)

In spanish "régimen" is just another word for "goverment", in its most common assumption.

Indeed. But again, that's a complete non sequitur. Unless you're seriously suggesting that removing term limits, bringing in a maximum six-hour working day, reducing the voting age from 18 to 16 and empowering local councils is somehow akin to repressing an ethnic minority or legalising torture?.

That is the good part. The other part is the one worrying. I'm not pro removing term limits, but that doesn't orry too much. Regarding the other measures, I approve them.

The degree to which they reduce democracy is very different, but is a reduction nonetheless. It goes further than just removing term limits as well - Chavez will also be able to exert direct control over any state of Venezuela by changing its status to a federal territory and also allows him to create an indefinite state of emergency. Including the working day reforms in the consititutional referendum is nothing more than a populist attempt to get it to pass - "want better working conditions? just sign this document giving me more power..."

...This is the part that worries me. I again agree completely with Cosmopoles here. Looks like the reduced working hours and the other positive measures are just an attempt to sell the project better as a whole.


some will say, most Latin American Countries (including the Powerful Brazil) have been "backyard to the imperial power" for most of their lives.

Some will say, specially the inhabitants of said countries, that they haven't been said backyard, and that to imply otherwise is an insult to our sovereignity.

what Democratic Countries.. ARE not " tyranny of the majority"?

Those with parliamentary regimes? Those with a fair and specific codes of law?

And sorry, this is the last time I will say this. Can you please stop directing each thread regarding the situation in Venezuela to the arguing about if Bush won fairly or not? It is insulting for me as a venezuelan. Damn self-centered united stater assholes. Then you ask why we do loathe you. Stop thinking that the world spins around your obese, empty and stinking heads. Sometimes, some things that happens in the world just are unrelated to what happens inside your so called Union, and depends on other issues.

Please try to answer this simple question.

Why should I or anyone else work hard for a decade to become a doctor when I end up making just as much as some bagger at a grocery store? Don't give me bullshit like "to make a difference" because that person's motivation will go by the wayside when they have to spend a week doing all nighters for a class.

Capitalism is a great system because you can get more pay if you are willing to put forth more effort and go through more school. That is why doctors and engineers are paid so well.

I highly recommend you pick up a macro book. You have likely never done so. Most people who hold the viewpoints you have hold them until they either enter the real world or take macro. Then reality hits them and they realize the flaws in Marxism.


Are you trying to be so stupid or it's natural talent???

If someone has to pick a class that's certainly you.You don't hace a clue about Marxism and you speak like you have passed your life studing Das Kapital,while it's obvious that you haven't seen anything in your life.I bet my ass you are just another fat stupid american who thinks that outside the US whenever there is capitalism there is paradise.Marx didn't say that the salaries should be immediately equal.He said than when reaching socialism,the wages,tends to be equal.There is 1,the salary which is the salary in money you take,and 2,the social salary,social welfare,free education,free health system and so on.As much as the productivity of a society rises,2 rises more because is larger,while 1 rises less but rises.When you reach a socialist society,and the productivity is very high the social and the regualar wages are eventually equal.Got it???

Tell me something,Mr-I-know-Macroeconomices;the average salary in greece is 1500 euros.The minimum is 600.The average salary of doctor is 1300 euros.Why do we have doctors in greece if there are not motivated???

The reason is simple;money are not the only motivation.Many people decide what to do for living according to what they like.

I can see just fine thanks. Now are we done with the ad homins or are we going to continue to throw more at one another?

We're done thanks. I think we should just keep quiet unless we have anything to say concerning the topic.

We're done thanks. I think we should just keep quiet if we don't have anything to say concerning the topic.

A sensible idea! It was a pleasure sparring with you :)

A sensible idea! It was a pleasure sparring with you :)

The pleasure was all mine :)

snip
I realize that Marx's plan was to go through stages, but it simply doesn't work as it goes against human nature.

Your argument is quite weak as you immediately resort to flaming because you can't get your point across in civil debate.

The fact remains that when someone is in college and staying up until 5 in the morning on work, they are going to need some sort of motivation to continue. No one in their right mind would go through the shit I'm going through with engineering if there wasn't some great reward at the end.

Venezuela referendum: Not everyone's happy, but the Parliament is acting like everyone is happy about it.
So let me get this straight: Some people in Venezuela don't want to have the right to decide on political issues in referendums, so the government should listen to the people's voice and deny the people the right to have their voice heard in a referendum.

Wha...? :confused:

How on Earth can anyone claim that a referendum is, of all things, undemocratic?

So let me get this straight: Some people in Venezuela don't want to have the right to decide on political issues in referendums, so the government should listen to the people's voice and deny the people the right to have their voice heard in a referendum.

Wha...? :confused:

How on Earth can anyone claim that a referendum is, of all things, undemocratic?
Go figure eh?

Why should I or anyone else work hard for a decade to become a doctor when I end up making just as much as some bagger at a grocery store? Don't give me bullshit like "to make a difference" because that person's motivation will go by the wayside when they have to spend a week doing all nighters for a class.
So you're saying that if you had a choice between going to college or being a bagger at a grocery store - all other things being equal - you'd choose to be a bagger at a grocery store?

I, for one, need no monetary motivation to go to college, because frankly, doing unskilled labour sucks.

I do however believe that in a socialist economic system, college should not only be free, but students should in fact be paid to study just like other workers are paid to work. So, whereas in capitalism you have to work hard for a decade for no pay (or hardly any pay) to study to become a doctor, after which you will start making large amounts of money, in socialism you will be paid for that decade of studying, but afterwards you won't be making as much money as a doctor does under capitalism (you will still be getting above-average pay, however; the distribution of income under socialism wouldn't be perfectly equal, and I personally believe that doctors should be the highest paid profession of all). The incentive to educate yourself comes from the fact that (1) you can earn money by educating yourself just as if you were working a regular job, and (2) educating yourself gives you access to a wider variety of jobs, most of which are far more pleasant than unskilled labor.

I agree with you that most people don't become doctors for idealistic reasons like "making a difference." But they also don't do it for the money - there are much easier ways to get the same amount of money for less work. Most people who become doctors do so because they like the job. The same motivation would exist under socialism.

Capitalism is a great system because you can get more pay if you are willing to put forth more effort and go through more school. That is why doctors and engineers are paid so well.
Except that the people who go through the most schooling - doctors and engineers - are not the richest people in capitalism. Not by a long shot. How many billionaires are doctors?

What you get for a good education in capitalism is above average pay, not the highest pay you could possibly make.

I realize that Marx's plan was to go through stages, but it simply doesn't work as it goes against human nature.


Gah! How many times am I going to have to disprove this rubbish?

How can you claim that a society based on reciprocity goes against "human nature" (that convenient yet meaningless concept), when such societies actually exist?

Tell me something,Mr-I-know-Macroeconomices;the average salary in greece is 1500 euros.The minimum is 600.The average salary of doctor is 1300 euros.Why do we have doctors in greece if there are not motivated???

Source?

I agree with you that most people don't become doctors for idealistic reasons like "making a difference." But they also don't do it for the money - there are much easier ways to get the same amount of money for less work.

Such as?

Please try to answer this simple question.

Why should I or anyone else work hard for a decade to become a doctor when I end up making just as much as some bagger at a grocery store? Don't give me bullshit like "to make a difference" because that person's motivation will go by the wayside when they have to spend a week doing all nighters for a class.

Capitalism is a great system because you can get more pay if you are willing to put forth more effort and go through more school. That is why doctors and engineers are paid so well.

I highly recommend you pick up a macro book. You have likely never done so. Most people who hold the viewpoints you have hold them until they either enter the real world or take macro. Then reality hits them and they realize the flaws in Marxism.

I highly recommend you take a look at the scandinavian model. The gap between the pay for a doctor and a bus driver is hardly vast, but education is wholly subsidised.
Last I checked, Scandinavian countries had some of the best healthcare systems in the world.

Some will say, specially the inhabitants of said countries, that they haven't been said backyard, and that to imply otherwise is an insult to our sovereignity.I am not in the bussiness of insulting any particualr country..

But I will say it the way I see it.

some NSG players will say that ##OD (me) sometimes insults their govs (US, or China, or England, or France, or Germany, or Russia, or Australia, or Iran, or Israel or -enter your favorite country-).. welcome to the club ;) , like I said I am not in the business of insulting any particular gov.. But I will tell it as I see it, and let the chips fall where they may.

I highly recommend you take a look at the scandinavian model. The gap between the pay for a doctor and a bus driver is hardly vast, but education is wholly subsidised.
Last I checked, Scandinavian countries had some of the best healthcare systems in the world.

Doctors in Sweden make at least twice as much money as a bus driver (the average salary for male doctors in 2006 was 53 700 SEK, which is three times as much as I do as a postal worker) and we still have a shortage of doctors, especially in less populated areas.

We've actually been trying to recruit foreign doctors because we don't have enough of them.

A majority vote does not make it democratic. If the majority of people vote to remove the basic rights of an ethnic minority, that is not democracy. If the majority of people vote to legalise torture, that is not democracy.

Actually, by definition, that is democracy. Most modern 'democracies' include elements to shield the people from others, but in a pure democratic system, whatever the majority says is what happens. As that old comment that makes the rounds every so often says, "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner."

We generally accept a tradeoff however. We give up some of our freedoms, in return for the guarantee of others.

As for your other recent post,

Here's a couple possible methods of making more money with less work:

Pyramid scams or con tricks (fraud, basically)
Stock market or financial corporations

Now. The idea of doing something for nothing, or just for the enjoyment of it, is in no way alien to human nature. While there are people who become doctors, teachers, or engineers for the money, there are many more who do it because they enjoy it, and would do it anyway.

Take, for instance, engineers. There are those who do it because they like the cash, and those who do it for a love of the subject and what they can do with it. I class the second group as superior (and fall into it myself, albeit with mathematics).

I agree with you that most people don't become doctors for idealistic reasons like "making a difference." But they also don't do it for the money - there are much easier ways to get the same amount of money for less work.Such as?
You could start a business, go into finance, go to law school, get into the entertainment industry, work for a major software company... need I go on? All of these careers have the potential to get you as much money as being a doctor, but for less work and less education (law school is the only one that comes close, but even that is easier than medical school).

Doctors in Sweden make at least twice as much money as a bus driver (the average salary for male doctors in 2006 was 53 700 SEK, which is three times as much as I do as a postal worker) and we still have a shortage of doctors, especially in less populated areas.

We've actually been trying to recruit foreign doctors because we don't have enough of them.

And yet the competition to study to a doctor in universities is great here in Sweden. Last time I checked one needed top grades to be accepted. Maybe we should extend the number of seats in medicine school as there clearly is a demand for it in society and it'll hardly be a problem to fill those extra seats?

And yet the competition to study to a doctor in universities is great here in Sweden. Last time I checked one needed top grades to be accepted. Maybe we should extend the number of seats in medicine school as there clearly is a demand for it in society and it'll hardly be a problem to fill those extra seats?

If we did that we would have more doctors, who had lower grades and probably are on average less capable, but what has that got to do with anything?

Would we have as many and as good doctors if they were paid the same as a bus driver? I think not, and Sweden can't be used as an example to prove this theory, as they are in fact paid much more than most other professions.

You could start a business, go into finance, go to law school, get into the entertainment industry, work for a major software company... need I go on? All of these careers have the potential to get you as much money as being a doctor, but for less work and less education (law school is the only one that comes close, but even that is easier than medical school).

In the UK, doctors are the second highest earners - the only job that earns more is business director, which isn't exactly an easy job to achieve.

Actually, by definition, that is democracy. Most modern 'democracies' include elements to shield the people from others, but in a pure democratic system, whatever the majority says is what happens. As that old comment that makes the rounds every so often says, "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner."

We generally accept a tradeoff however. We give up some of our freedoms, in return for the guarantee of others.

Majority vote is one possible definiton of democracy, and a necessary element of democracy, but is not the only definition. Many people would also include pluralism, universal suffrage, fair and open elections and equal access to media in their definition of democracy.

Would we have as many and as good doctors if they were paid the same as a bus driver? I think not, and Sweden can't be used as an example to prove this theory, as they are in fact paid much more than most other professions.

Yes, doctors are paid much more than most other professions, I never said anything about it.

Majority vote is one possible definiton of democracy, and a necessary element of democracy, but is not the only definition. Many people would also include pluralism, universal suffrage, fair and open elections and equal access to media in their definition of democracy.

No, all of these are modifications to democracy, to secure the liberty of the people. In it's purest form, democracy is quite simply what a majority of the people want. If there are two hundred million and one people in a country, and one hundred million and one of them vote to kill the other one hundred million, that's a democratic decision.

Extras such as fair and open elections, and equal access to media, are designed to ensure the liberty of the people, and come at a cost to pure democracy. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, just that true pure democracy is not what most people think it is.

By whose definition is democracy simply 'rule by majority'?

By whose definition is democracy simply 'rule by majority'?by my friends Mr Merriam and Mr Webster. ;)
1a: government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
1b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.2: a political unit that has a democratic government.3capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy— C. M. Roberts>.4: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority5: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

Are you trying to be so stupid or it's natural talent???

If someone has to pick a class that's certainly you.You don't hace a clue about Marxism and you speak like you have passed your life studing Das Kapital,while it's obvious that you haven't seen anything in your life.I bet my ass you are just another fat stupid american who thinks that outside the US whenever there is capitalism there is paradise.

<snipped for brevity>

Chill. It's a debate, not an insult contest.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia

A majority vote does not make it democratic. If the majority of people vote to remove the basic rights of an ethnic minority, that is not democracy. If the majority of people vote to legalise torture, that is not democracy.

Yes, it is.

Which is why I loathe democracy.

Yes, it is.

Which is why I loathe democracy.I dont like some minor side effects of Democracy..

but -in.my.book©- the usual side effects of Dictatorship are even more unacceptable.

Yes, it is.

Which is why I loathe democracy.

And how we see the true right-wing position, so much for democracy or popular power, what the right really want is oligarchic minority rule, they hate democracy because universal suffrage is a socialist construct. I encourage the Venezuelan majority people to continue fighting for secularization, egalitarianism, classlessness and democracy against the forces of oligarchy, capitalism and privilege.

And how we see the true right-wing position, so much for democracy or popular power, what the right really want is oligarchic minority rule, they hate democracy because universal suffrage is a socialist construct. I encourage the Venezuelan majority people to continue fighting for secularization, egalitarianism, classlessness and democracy against the forces of oligarchy, capitalism and privilege.

Nice strawman.

I have given up debating with EA. He has built a wall around himself and closes his ears to logic. Don't waste your time on him.

Good idea. Let's not feed the troll.

Nice strawman.
I have given up debating with EA. He has built a wall around himself and closes his ears to logic. Don't waste your time on him.

I have given up debating with EA. He has built a wall around himself and closes his ears to logic. Don't waste your time on him.

EA is AP!

EA is AP!

We noticed. ;)

EA is AP!

I realized that one pretty quickly.

by my friends Mr Merriam and Mr Webster. ;)

When I was taught to use a dictionary, I was told to consider all definitions rather than just the first.

When I was taught to use a dictionary, I was told to consider all definitions rather than just the first.

Makes two of us.

When I was taught to use a dictionary, I was told to consider all definitions rather than just the first.I posted the main definition + the secondary definitions, its in the part you edited out of my post: (You can see it black-and-white when you try to quote me ;) )
by my friends Mr Merriam and Mr Webster. ;)
1a: government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
1b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.2: a political unit that has a democratic government.3capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy— C. M. Roberts>.4: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority5: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privilegeshere is the link http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/democracy

Yes, I know. Only definition 1a makes mention of rule by majority, and none hold it as the exclusive definition.

Actually the classical Greek definition is best imho, it defines democracy as rule by the masses (poor) as opposed to government by the few (rich), when political power is determined by share in the means of production. Oligarchy is pretty close to the 'democracy' we have today, constitutions and civil freedoms (liberties) protect the property and rights of the rich at the expense of the many. 'Liberal Democracy' is merely a creation by the capitalist classes to ensure that only those with the most money (or are controlled by rich interests) get elected, this is achieved by the election campaign which ensure only those who can afford the massive advertising campaigns and economic connections can get political power, this is totally against any concept of egalitarian democracy (popular power).

Democracy is innately left-wing because universal suffrage is literal political equality, as akin to socialism which is economic equality and communism is life in common equality. Democracy and Liberalism will forever be hostile to each other because liberalism is about individual freedom to exploit while democracy is about common political harmony and power.

Political parties themselves are capitalist creations designed to give a false representation of plurality, when it fact the capitalist property rights are untouchable and the control of the means of production by the capitalist minority is enshrined in law. Political parties give a false impression of a left/right polemic but are in fact a disguise for the oppression of one by the other, it is merely a guise so that the capitalist dictatorship is not so open. True democracy is about harmony and civil socialism.

Yes, I know. Only definition 1a makes mention of rule by majority, and none hold it as the exclusive definition.all definitions.. 1,2,4,5 apply to Venezuela.

Venezuela is a Democracy by every single definition written in there. (except number 3 because that one is about the US democratic party)

#1 is the main definition, 2,4,5 are complemetary.. #3 is exclusive of the US.
BTW the main definition says the US is not a Democracy.

Considering yesterday we had had state and local elections OD, I call bullshit.

Considering yesterday we had had state and local elections OD, I call bullshit."having elections" = Democracy? then Iran=Democracy

"having elections" = Democracy? then Iran=Democracy

You forget that we do not have people cutting out candidates for political reasons. Iran does. Everyone knows that Iran is not a democracy. The United States is a democracy.

Anyways...we all know your opinions so it makes little difference the facts used on ya.

all definitions.. 1,2,4,5 apply to Venezuela.

Venezuela is a Democracy by every single definition written in there. (except number 3 because that one is about the US democratic party)

#1 is the main definition, 2,4,5 are complemetary.. #3 is exclusive of the US.
BTW the main definition says the US is not a Democracy.

As a rule, dictionary definitions are pretty shitty, and are useless when discussing such complex issues as "What is democracy".

The answer is not a pithy one liner, it's a whole argument.

Actually the classical Greek definition is best imho, it defines democracy as rule by the masses (poor) as opposed to government by the few (rich), when political power is determined by share in the means of production.

Wait, wait...so now we're extolling a system in which the poorest of the poor (AKA: Slaves) were entirely disenfranchised, women were entirely disenfranchised, and some of the greatest minds in western history were forced to enjoy a nice hot cup of hemlock tea for purely political reasons?

I'll take my oligarchy over that shit any day.

Wait, wait...so now we're extolling a system in which the poorest of the poor (AKA: Slaves) were entirely disenfranchised, women were entirely disenfranchised, and some of the greatest minds in western history were forced to enjoy a nice hot cup of hemlock tea for purely political reasons?

I'll take my oligarchy over that shit any day.

Makes 2 of us.

Wait, wait...so now we're extolling a system in which the poorest of the poor (AKA: Slaves) were entirely disenfranchised, women were entirely disenfranchised, and some of the greatest minds in western history were forced to enjoy a nice hot cup of hemlock tea for purely political reasons?

I'll take my oligarchy over that shit any day.

But the Athenian "democracy" was an oligarchy draped in the trappings of direct democracy. Only 10 percent of the population were citizens and could thus participate in political life. And they were all rich. Very rich. And they squabbled for power like nobody's business.

When Socrates questioned their authority as oligarches, then he was forced to drink Hemlock.

But the Athenian "democracy" was an oligarchy draped in the trappings of direct democracy. Only 10 percent of the population were citizens and could thus participate in political life. And they were all rich. Very rich. And they squabbled for power like nobody's business.

When Socrates questioned their authority as oligarches, then he was forced to drink Hemlock.

Shhhhh!!!!! You're ruining someone's delusions right now!

Don't forget how they got rich: By siphoning cash off of the treasury of the Delian League.

I couldn't agree more.

US is not a Democracy.

Correct, the U.S. is not a democracy, a point the Founding Fathers took great pains to emphasize. The U.S. is a republic.

all definitions.. 1,2,4,5 apply to Venezuela.

Venezuela is a Democracy by every single definition written in there. (except number 3 because that one is about the US democratic party)

#1 is the main definition, 2,4,5 are complementary.. #3 is exclusive of the US.
BTW the main definition says the US is not a Democracy.As a rule, dictionary definitions are useless when they contradict mebold edit by ## (me) ;)

all definitions.. 1,2,4,5 apply to Venezuela.

BTW the main definition says the US is not a Democracy.Considering yesterday we had had state and local elections OD, I call bullshit.LOL.. I was fully expecting you to hide under your usual -defensive- dodge: "but..but.. but the US is a Republic, NOT a Democracy".

LOL.. I was fully expecting you to hide under your usual -defensive- dodge: "but..but.. but the US is a Republic, NOT a Democracy".

Why state a redundency when it is taught that we are a republic in elementary school.

The United States is a democracy.

Why state a redundency when it is taught that we are a republic in elementary school.
Good question??? :p

Did they also teach spelling in your elementary school? :p

But the Athenian "democracy" was an oligarchy draped in the trappings of direct democracy. Only 10 percent of the population were citizens and could thus participate in political life. And they were all rich. Very rich. And they squabbled for power like nobody's business.

You've actually more or less described the situation in the US when the country was formed. Maybe 10% of the population (white, land-owning males) had the right to vote. The idea that everyone should get the vote is a pretty recent innovation, even in places such as the US and England, which have historically been at the forefront of what is considered a democratic country.

Granting pretty much every adult the franchise has been, IMO, a mixed blessing, at best. It has, for example, led to the rapid expansion of the welfare state and massive redistribution of wealth.