PDA

View Full Version : The truth about democarcy



ras314
03-21-2004, 07:35 PM
The TRUTH about Democracy...............


At about the time our original 13 states adopted their new
constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at
the University of Edinborough, had this to say about the fall of the
Athenian republic some 2,000 years prior: "A democracy is always
temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of
government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that
voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the
public treasury.

"From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who
promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that
every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which
is) always followed by a dictatorship.

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the
beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years,
these nations always progressed through the following sequence:



From bondage to spiritual faith;
From faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage."

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul,
Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the most recent
Presidential election:

Population of counties won:
by Gore, 127 million;
by Bush, 143 million;
Square miles of land won:
by Gore, 580,000;
by Bush, 2,427,000;
States won:
by Gore, 19;
by Bush, 29;
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won:
by Gore, 13.2;
by Bush, 2.1.

Professor Olson adds, "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won
was (mostly) the land owned by the tax-paying citizens of this great
country. Gore's territory encompassed those citizens living in
government-owned tenements and living off government welfare." Olson
believes the U.S. is now somewhere between the "apathy" and the
"complacency" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with
some 40 percent of the nation's population already having reached the
"governmental dependency" phase.

Now, vote with your thinking cap on.

Wally_in_Cincy
03-22-2004, 07:46 AM
I've read this before but thanks for the reminder.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote ras314:</font><hr>

....A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury....

<font color="blue">sad but true </font color>

...Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won:
by Gore, 13.2;
by Bush, 2.1.

<font color="blue"> /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif this does not surprise me /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif </font color>

<hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">I'm a bit more optimistic than the writer. As long as the Constitution is intact we have a fighting chance of survival.

Oh wait I forgot about about McCain-Feingold "campaign finance reform" which pre-empted the 1st Amendment. Never mind that part about the Constitution being intact /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif </font color>

moblsv
03-22-2004, 08:16 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr>

...Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won:
by Gore, 13.2;
by Bush, 2.1.

<font color="blue"> /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif this does not surprise me /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif </font color>

<hr /></blockquote>

This DOES surprise me. I would be very surprised if this number is more than a 3:2 ratio. Does this article have any references? Don't believe everything your read. In fact I believe the states won was 30-21 (inc, wash. D.C.). Last I heard we had 50 states in the U.S.

Could somebody also explain the logical link between this article and why I should vote for Bush? I fail to see it. Aren't big businesses basically running this country and getting the generous gifts from the public treasury? Isn't that more of a Bush thing? Didn't bush 'buy' votes with a promise of a tax return? again, gifts from the treasury.

Wally_in_Cincy
03-22-2004, 08:29 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote moblsv:</font><hr>
...Didn't bush 'buy' votes with a promise of a tax return? again, gifts from the treasury. <hr /></blockquote>

Yeah I love it when the gov't "gives" me some of my own money. Think about it.

eg8r
03-22-2004, 09:25 AM
[ QUOTE ]
This DOES surprise me. I would be very surprised if this number is more than a 3:2 ratio. Does this article have any references? Don't believe everything your read. In fact I believe the states won was 30-21 (inc, wash. D.C.). Last I heard we had 50 states in the U.S.
<hr /></blockquote> I am going to guess that you are not fully aware of all the information provided. Only a very quick search would show you where all this data comes from, and it is quite clear that the numbers were from the Tuesday vote. Not all the results were in from all states on Tuesday, rather it took about a week for one state to make their final numbers known, not counting FLORID(uh)A. As you have done your math, 29-19, only represents 48 states. On that day, Florida surely was not included (in the 29-19), and I cannot remember which state was the other one, but for sure it was out west. Your last sentence is quite comical is proves you had something sarcastic to say even though you were not even sure of the facts. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Could somebody also explain the logical link between this article and why I should vote for Bush? I fail to see it. Aren't big businesses basically running this country and getting the generous gifts from the public treasury? Isn't that more of a Bush thing? Didn't bush 'buy' votes with a promise of a tax return? again, gifts from the treasury. <hr /></blockquote> I am not sure there is any logical link, rather at the end of his post you were instructed to vote with your thinking cap on.

As far as business getting gifts from the treasury, and tax cuts being gifts from the treasury, it is quite obvious you don't know what it yours. The government "fills" its treasury through taxation, taking money that is yours. If the government decides it will not take your money at the same rate it was doing before, you did NOT receive a gift, rather you just kept more money that you earned. This is a concept that completely blinds people who do not want to think with the own minds but rather look to the government to think for them.

It is kind of similar to people's reply when you ask them how much money they make, and their response is (my guess 9 times out of 10) a net value. It is funny to see people get so excited about receiving refunds every year, yet none of them expressed disappointment that they overpaid in taxes all year and did not even receive the slightest bit of compensation from the government for screwing up. The government makes tons of money every year on interest earned for over taxation. The crazy thing is that they give back the extra they stole, and sit and wait for the consumer to go spend it on frivolous stuff and they earn even more money on that through sales tax. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Sure there are things that have to be bought with that money, since you were deprived of it all year, but some of the crazy whimsical buys crack me up. I have a family member who went and had her breasts enlarged last year with her tax refund. Not only did she go all year without that money, which the government held onto interest free, but when she did get it, she went and spent 3k on boobs and paid a crapload of taxes, she turned around and gave the government another 7% of the money.

eg8r

Qtec
03-22-2004, 10:35 AM
You are such a hypocrite.

[ QUOTE ]
The crazy thing is that they give back the extra they stole, and sit and wait for the consumer to go spend it on frivolous stuff and they earn even more money on that through sales tax. Sure there are things that have to be bought with that money, since you were deprived of it all year, but some of the crazy whimsical buys crack me up. I have a family member who went and had her breasts enlarged last year with her tax refund. Not only did she go all year without that money, which the government held onto interest free, but when she did get it, she went and spent 3k on boobs and paid a crapload of taxes, she turned around and gave the government another 7% of the money <hr /></blockquote>

First you equate taxation as stealing. Then you criticize somebody for spending THEIR OWN MONEY how they want to?????


Isnt this directly against the SELF RESPONSIBILITY mantra that you so often like to preach/RANT about?????


Tut, tut.

Q

eg8r
03-22-2004, 11:43 AM
Which part was hypocritical in the paragraph you quoted?

[ QUOTE ]
First you equate taxation as stealing. Then you criticize somebody for spending THEIR OWN MONEY how they want to????? <hr /></blockquote> If this is what you are referring to as hypocritical, you might want to revisit the definition. There is nothing hypocritical about taxation and private spending. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Do you think before you type?

[ QUOTE ]
Isnt this directly against the SELF RESPONSIBILITY mantra that you so often like to preach/RANT about????? <hr /></blockquote> It could be, if that was the subject matter. To help you out, if I was talking about people spending stupidly and then complaining about taxation, then you might have a point, however you boat once again is sinking since no one was complaining about the taxation.

My point (since you fail to ever comprehend it) is that most people do not even comprehend what the refund is. It is money that the government took in error and it is being returned. If we were to pay in taxes in error, as a citizen we would face penalty in the form of owed interest and penalty fees. If the government screws up, it just says sorry and gives it back. Instead of people being upset with this situation, they have the mentality of mobslv and think they just received a "gift" for being good workers.

Such an easy concept and once again you miss by a mile.

eg8r

Qtec
03-22-2004, 11:52 AM
Where is the error???

Isnt that just YOUR opinion?

Sounds like you take that to be a fact instead of your own warped slant on life.

Q

eg8r
03-22-2004, 02:27 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Where is the error???

Isnt that just YOUR opinion?

Sounds like you take that to be a fact instead of your own warped slant on life.
<hr /></blockquote> Alright, here is the only part of my post in which I used the word error, [ QUOTE ]
My point (since you fail to ever comprehend it) is that most people do not even comprehend what the refund is. It is money that the government took in <font color="blue"> error </font color> and it is being returned. If we were to pay in taxes in <font color="blue">error </font color>, as a citizen we would face penalty in the form of owed interest and penalty fees. <hr /></blockquote> So, which one are you talking about?

As far as the government's error, what would you call it when you are taxed, and then given some back because too much was paid in? Give me a one word answer. I think error fits. The government sets the amount to tax you (this is all stated with the given premise that you are not taxing yourself higher on purpose in an effort to get a refund at the end. Ex. family of 4 and the only income earner claims 0 on purpose) and then when you do your taxes you see you were taxed too much and they have to give you money to compensate for your overpayment.

Q, I also noticed you completely ignored the real reason for my reply to you. Where was the hypocrisy? Are you going to answer these questions, or will you continue to post crap that makes no sense, and then move on when confronted?

You read through my entire response to your post and all you have to say is, you don't like the use of the word error. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif You make it to easy.

eg8r