Lol, democracy.

Look at the people around you... do you REALLY want them to take part in important decisions?

It just doesn't work, man. America may not be really democratic, but it's the best system that there is.

| America may not be really democratic, but it's the best system that there is.

The fuck? First you say democracy doesn't work, and then you say it's the best there is? Which is it?

Unless you meant that America is the best there is, in which case "Lol, retard."

The US is not a representative democracy.

Democracy requires people that are willing to put forth an effort. Those people are part of the past. You get democrats and liberals pushing social programs on us, people become more dependent on government, and eventually, nobody is willing to make an effort anymore, they feel like it's not their responsibility...

>>3
Then what is it?

>>4 (Cont.)
Well, I take that back. It's not just liberals and democrats.
George Bush decided to pass that horrible, horrible medicare prescription drug coverage crap that's gonna end up costing the taxpayers an estimated $740 billion dollars over the next ten years... I guess that's a whole 'nother thread though.

Democracy should not be offered to stupid cus stupid people do stupid things, frequently.

I should be made despot of everything and I will be benevolent in exchange for a fresh supply of virgin hymens to break.

Should be an IQ threshold of at least 130 to vote.

VOTE IS RAPE

>>8
The reason the IQ test is so useless is because of ideas like that. Create a test that judges a man's human worth rather than his ability to exercise complex mathematical logic and you have yourself a deal.

Here's a prototype sample question: Why do you breathe?

If this idea were not so difficult to execute and if any democracy-loving moron in their right mind would be okay with it, it might work relatively well in forming a true democracy. Though some might argue that lacking the voice of nonsense is just as bad, if not worse, than lacking sense.

>>10
How would you answer that question? Would you say you breath in order to oxygenate blood so oxygen can be passed to your body's cells and thus allow respiration? Or would you come up with some lame ass philosophical outlook on the question. What if someone simply answerred "Because it feels good." or "Because it's instinct.". He answerred right, but how does that judge his worth, if someone answerred "i breath to promote equality and diversity!" and someone answerred "because it feels good" who would you judge to be more intelligent?

>>10

sir, I submit to you that ability to solve complex mathematical problems equals worth!

>>8
If you can't even name the congressmen and senators from your own state, you shouldn't be allowed to vote... Nor if you're on welfare. Oops, sorry democrats, there goes a good chunk of your voter support.

>>13
Correctamundo.

because memorizing people's names you'll never meet, deal with, or have an influence on your life is a great judge of character. people who do it are better at politics.

you guys are fucking retards.

>>13
Democrats are for the working class, unlike one President who cuts taxes for the rich and cuts programs to the poor.

>>16
Are you suggesting that the "poor" in this country today are the working class, and the rich are not?

Secondly, why do you believe people should pay a larger percentage of their earned income as taxes based on higher achievement, which is, in essence, a punishment?

Thirdly, you don't think that programs for the poor such as welfare only ENCOURAGE them to continue being lazy? I mean hell, the government is paying your way through life, why should you have to put in a single honest day's work for the rest of your existence? Barring mental or physical handicaps, of course... And most poor people I see around Atlanta aren't in wheelchairs nor drooling on themselves, for example...

>>15
You don't think that the most basic knowledge of who's running our country, then, should be required to vote?

continue being lazy?

The majority are lazy. Because I say so.

Society doesn't need a social safety net.

poor people in america are fat

>>19
Yes, and it's because healthy food is expensive compared to a box of instant Macaroni & Cheese or a Combo at McDonald's.

>>20
Mac and cheese isn't that bad for you... It's just bread with a small amount of protein.  It's your diet as a whole that matters. I don't know why supposedly smart people don't get this.

>>21
That's the point. The diet of poor people as a whole. (I happen to be a fan of Mac & Cheese also.)

>>22
Oh, then in that case I take your point.

They get welfare and what do they spend it on?  Freezer Burritos and Totinos.  I get a paycheck and what do I spend it on?  Rice, noodles, beans.

Nobody's giving me money so I can eat, so I eat such that I can spend less. And yes, healthy food is SO expensive.  48 cents a pound is a TON OF MONEY to spend on broccoli and tomatoes, but 5.00 a meal on deep fried freezer pizzas is a bargain.

>>23
You know bananas are around 15 cents a piece?

BTW, I'm that guy who works retail at wal mart... I KNOW how poor people spend their money.

BTW, I'm that guy who works retail at wal mart... I KNOW how poor people spend their money.  And It's always the rich people who look like they're wearing nice clothes and possibly have three to four well fed and educated children who make good grades at home.

God fucking damn it there's something wrong with the posting script today.  Let's try this again.

>>25,26 BTW, I'm that guy who works retail at wal mart... I KNOW how poor people spend their money.  And It's always the rich people who look like they're wearing nice clothes and possibly have three to four well fed and educated children who make good grades at home whose grocery bills are the smallest.

fixed.

Basically, the most well to do (and the skinniest!) people seem to spend the least on their grocery bill.

>>23
It's also a question of availability. Poorer neighbourhoods tend to have less healthy foods like fresh fruits and vegetables in their stores. They also have higher concentrations of fast food restaurants.

Here's a recent article about this:
http://www.modbee.com/local/story/11636178p-12366322c.html

If they were intelligent they'd spend less money on colt 45 and kfc and more on fresh fruit, vegetables and fish.

It doesn't cost much to buy enough omega oils for healthy brain development for your kids these days.

>>29
Nothing beats a colt and some KFC.

nuts have lots of omega-3 and omega-6 acids. fuck oils.

>>31
Not much. Tea spoon of oil = tin of tuna = 2 bags of nuts. You will find most children don't have the saliva or the patience.

but stuff like Mac & Cheese has more calories than a bowl of brocolli. if you are only eating one or two small meals a day, you want to get the most calories you can out of each. i'm a dirt poor college student, and when i run out of money from time to time you better bet your ass i am going to spend it on frozen burritos and shit like that, because i can eat a few of them and not be hungry for quite some time. eating a salad will make me hungry again in an hour.

>>33
get a job and give up weed, this isn't Zambia

>>34
no it's ZANZIBAR!!!!

>>35
NO ZIMBABWE

>>17
Agreed. Let's cut school lunch programs so we can cover the costs for yet another multi-million dollar Haliburton service bonus for all the great work they've done in and will continue to do in Iraq! Don't forget Lockheed Martin and their new contract for a ton of F-22A Raptor fighter planes; they're the future of America, not a bunch of poor starving kids.

>>37
starving? i hope you are being sarcastic.

>>38
O ye childe of privilege,
http://www.frac.org/html/hunger_in_the_us/hunger_index.html

>>39
Ah, but they're just niggers who gives a carp?

>>37
I assume you're talking about discount school lunch programs, because every school I've been to, you pay for the meals yourself, unless you can't afford em. Since the government requires you by law to go to school until a certain age, that would be a little cruel to just take away the only meal they may get in the day.

And WHY is that the only meal they might get in the day? Why exactly do some kids starve in this country? Is it because some parents were irresponsible by having kids that they couldn't afford? ... Or is it alllllll just either the president's fault or socieeeeetyyyy's fault?
DON'T HAVE KIDS IF YOU CAN'T AFFORD TO FEED THEM. Get a damn job, move out of the sticks if you're going to have kids and want em to be fed, unless you live on a farm. It's called being responsible.

Oh wait, maybe they had money, had kids, then went broke! Who's fault is that? Nobody's it would seem, right? Just the fault of nature or whatever, right? Don't think they could have done anything to actually prepare for a disaster, had some sort of back-up plan or funds? What a concept! It's still irresponsible to have a kid until you know without a doubt they'll be secure until they can fend for themselves. And before you all come up with some kind of irrational rhetoric in response, just ask yourself, is he right or not? I already know I'm being insensitive.

>>39
You make it sound like we're right down there with Africa...

>>41
The solution isn't to let the kid starve. Just force the parents into slave labour and send the kids into an orphanage, stupid liberal.

>>42
Your sarcasm is pathetic. It's simple, if you can't afford to feed a kid, then don't have one.

Yes, John, we know -- everything is simple in that little head of yours.

>>43
New and improved idea.
Let poor people with good, attractive genes breed as much as they want, then allow them to DONATE TO 4CHAN all the females and feminine males.
Ugly niggers are allowed two kids, who will be 'appraised' regularly. Should there arise evidence said negress is unable to provide a steady source of nutrition during any checkup, she is given $2000 and her child taken for slave labour. If we can't stop outsourcing in white collar jobs, we'll sure as fuck stop it with blue-collar.
Anyone who tries to cheat the system and goes over the limit gets a 9mm abortion.

>>44
Well, I'm sorry that the issues seem so complicated to you that you don't have any concrete convictions on them. Everything's just an uncertain maelstrom with no real ideas of right and wrong to you, isn't it?

>>43
PRO LIFE!  PRO LIFE!!11!!

p.s. I lub Jesus

>>46
Ideas aren't "real."

Life is messy and not black and white, even if your precious ideas are.

Right and wrong depend on the situation.

>>46
|real ideas of right and wrong

Moral certainty is for idiots. If you want to be an idiot, far be it for me to dissuade you. I don't care if you hold ideas that I think are "wrong." Unlike you, I don't care about ideological purity.

People like >>49 cause the decline of the west. You're a fucking pussy who doesn't take a stance on anything or fight for ideals whereas the enemy is fucking determined to kill us all. Guess who wins.

Says who, >>50?

If someone wants to kill you, I don't think there's much debate about killing them to defend youself.

Except that life is rarely that simple. It's people like you that get us into these situations where killing may be necessary. If there were fewer extremist nutcases like you, there'd be less death.

Go shove your stance up your ass, along with the rest of the self-righteous fundamentalists made of the same fabric as you.

whatevs

>>50 is trolling

>>48, >>49
... What in the hell do you people live for, anyway? You seem completely against the idea of ideas, and you decide to live in a self-negating fog of uncertainty...
What a sad view to live with...

>>53 ooh burn

>>53
You live for your ideas, or rather, Ayn Rand's ideas, which you swish around in your head and recycle over and over.

>>53
Ideas are fine, but they're just ideas; you shouldn't cling to them like they're The Truth. Life is messy and not at all black and white. Your ideologically perfect ideas won't do the job; it's like trying to use a pocket knife to mow the lawn.

>>55
So anyone that adopts any kind of philosophy is a little myrmidon, is that what you're implying in essence?
Or rather, why are you so much against Ayn Rand in particular? Her ideas make you feel like a bum, and so you resent it, is that it?

>>56
"Life is messy and not at all black and white"
Guess what, man... That's where the concrete ideas come in to fix shit up-- when life gets messy. Or to use your analogy, that's when you bring out the lawnmower.

Her ideas make you feel like a bum, and so you resent it, is that it?

I dunno about >>55, but I consider the ideals a lot of Objectivist nutballs enspouse dangerous. It's not that there's anything wrong with them per se, but they're combined and distorted into something very sickly. As mentioned earlier, the objectivist philosophy only works in an oversimplified caricature of the real world. I have yet to see any viable society remotely adhering to something similar to objectivism. It's not like the ideas are that new, but it's never happened in reality. Why?

And yes, I'm a productive member of society, thanks.

That's where the concrete ideas come in to fix shit up

Right, just like Christian and Islamic fundamentalists. You have all the answers, and they aren't amenable to a messy reality. Yep, objectivism is a nice religion.

To all those people saying the US system, democratic or not, is working blah blah

One word Reply:
Bushes

>>1
True! A leader is one who knows whats the best for the people, we need a leader because the people does not know whats best for them selves.

Just vote Bush out and America will be a better place for us all.

>>59
Because in a democratic system, only leaders you agree with will be elected to office.

>>58
wins

>>1
it doesn't work cos of people like you -
america is no where near to even call it a "good" system. it's a system, yes, but it's also full of shit.

good systems are found in scandanavian countries.