The horror of Sept. 11th, 2001

@Ticomaya,

I see you traded in the old misogynist puke in your avatar for a new misogynist puke, Tico. The new one fits you better, a little bit of human mixed with a lot of machine.

1 Reply

Quote:

I don't know about Builder's figures, but the fact remains that the "ruling elite" would get voted out of office if 85% of their constituents do not approve of them.

The ruling elite has never been elected.

Joe(never)Nation

1 Reply

@Joe Nation,

Joe Nation wrote:

The ruling elite has never been elected.

Then how do you explain Ted Kennedy?

1 Reply

@Ticomaya,

That avatar is really creepy, Tico, but I must admit, it fits you well.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Hey Tico--I was commenting on what Builder said about more than 85% of Americans disapproving of the ruling elite. That figure is greater than the Soviet government disapproval rating used to be.

It's Builder you should be taking issue with--not me. I've no idea about such things. I judge freedom from how the cops behave, the perp walking and the level of belief in allegations before the evidence has been heard.

Are Builder's figures incorrect?

It really doesn't make much sense to draw simple conclusions from public opinion polling and so using it to determine the extent of freedom in the US is plainly ridiculous.

Here's a poll on congressional approval:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_performance

According to the pollsters these results show that only 9% give congress "positive" marks.

But 29% rated congressional performance as "fair."

I suppose if one considers "fair" to be neutral that the bit about a 9% positive rating is so, but I doubt very much we could get a large group of people to agree that "fair" commonly signifies "neutral"

Not that anyone in congress should take pride in a 38% positive rating, and certainly not where "fair" is by far the dominant rating, but I can easily make the argument that this poll is not revealing what the pollsters claim it does.

In any case, ours is a republic and individual citizens don't get to vote on each and every action taken by the government. Presumably, by way of your thinking and that of Builder's this has us starting off beind the curb when it comes to freedom.

Furthermore, an expression of disapproval is not tantamount to a complaint concerning individual freedom.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

I was being coy Finn. I hardly think you are free at all. Or us for that matter.

But, as I said, if our lot had those approval ratings there would be big changes coming soon. The concrete our feet is in hasn't been allowed to set solid yet.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Maybe your lot is simply more substantive in terms of your disapproval.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

But our lot don't ever get down to your levels of approval. 9% might well be the friends and relations of members of Congress.

The idea that you're free is ridiculous. You can't even grow dope in your attic in case the heat seeking cameras notice your roof glowing and, after checking out your ID to make sure you don't know anybody important (see Catch 22), twenty big guys, with sniffer dogs etc, bust your front door in, put you in chains and haul you down to the waiting room where the lawyers masticate on your flesh when the time is convenient for them, and their wives and dependents.

And you're charged for it too.

You should be able to grow it in your front garden if you were free. You are not entitled to own guns so you can use them for what they are designed for. It's so you can buy them.

2 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

But our lot don't ever get down to your levels of approval. 9% might well be the friends and relations of members of Congress.

I heard Arizona Senator John McCain on the radio this afternoon, quipping about the current approval rating of Congress: "At 13% we're getting down to paid staffers and blood relatives."

1 Reply

@Ticomaya,

Ticomaya wrote:

Quote:

I heard Arizona Senator John McCain on the radio this afternoon, quipping about the current approval rating of Congress: "At 13% we're getting down to paid staffers and blood relatives."

I read a couple of days ago that the percentage of "absolute approval" for Congress was 3 %, (with a margin for error of 4 %) but we do have to take into account the fact that polls of any description, despite the best efforts of the pollsters (or otherwise) have little chance or being a fair representation of the whole of America.

Even an approval rating of 30 % should be ringing alarm bells far and wide, but simply, this doesn't seem to make a scap of difference anywhere.

Why would it? Voting is not compulsory in the US of A, and polls of any kind only count at election time, which is pretty ordinary, considering the fact that the Electoral College comes into play before election time.

I'm thinking that the whole process of electing anyone in the US is so convoluted and confusing for a very good reason; to hide the corruption currently inherent in that system.

2 Replies

@Builder,

Corruption is inherent in human nature.

According to some constitutional "experts" I have read the reason for the "convulution and confusion" is to prevent the government having too much power.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Spendius wrote:

Quote:

Corruption is inherent in human nature.

I don't agree with that assumption. Carl Jung doesn't either. Not sure about Freud. He might assume that corruption is your depiction of you mother's phallus, or something.

I do agree that corruption is endemic within our current system, however there are several success stories within that system who have resisted the trend, and succeeded without succumbing to the trend.

Spendius wrote:

Quote:

According to some constitutional "experts" I have read...

I would appreciate some timely name-dropping here, however inappropriate it might seem at this point in time....

Spendius wrote:

Quote:

......the reason for the "convulution and confusion" is to prevent the government having too much power.

Very interesting. Would you, perchance, agree that this premise may have backfired on the populace?

In this instance, at least?

1 Reply

Neither one of you clowns know a goddamned thing about this subject. No surprises there.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

What's up, Set??

Feeling left out ol' mate??

0 Replies

No, and i'm certainly not your mate . . . i read along in a lot of threads, and this is one of them. I just got tired of wading through the ignorant bullshit.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

So dazzle us with your brilliance.

And just so you know, Australians call everyone mate, until circumstances prove otherwise. We're naturally friendly people. Ya know?

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

Neither one of you clowns know a goddamned thing about this subject. No surprises there.

That's an example of the most insidious form of corruption. To imagine you have said something significant, and presumably to expect listeners to be persuaded that you have, with an ignorant blurt like that, and without further justification, is corruption of the marrow in the bones.

It is THE litmus test for lightweights. Anybody can blurt that **** about anything at all. It shows an absence of a scientific sensibility akin to that of a baby bawling for its comforter to be dipped in the syrup. But it rots more than the teeth.

And it insults the intelligence of viewers here which is no surprise coming from someone who thinks we are all stupid.

1 Reply

@spendius,

It's no biggie Spendius.

Every popular forum has it's grating phobic trying omnipresent naysayers.

1 Reply

@Builder,

I don't agree with Jung's assumptions. Nor a lot of Freud's either.

I'm sticking with my position that corruption is endemic in human nature. Anybody who thinks Jesus was free of it hasn't read the Gospels carefully enough.

A quick check in my library shows 56 books about American politics.

Tweeting marital bliss blossoms fanatically trying to foist evolution theory on defenceless people on the first rungs of life's ladder with their carpet-slippered feet standing on the edifice of Western Science are so corrupt that it is impossible to explain to them why.

Whether the premise has backfired or not is an open question. We have no alternative to compare it with because none of them have happened. We are where we are. It's a necessarily unique case. Speculating where we might be with any alternative is mere weaving of the winds which only serves to divine aspects of the subconscious of the loom operator.

1 Reply

@Builder,

And every popular forum has its young impressionable viewers who will one day be required to empty our bed pans and keep the juice on. Naysaying is easy enough as it is without holding it up in the light as a shining example. Negativity never pulled anybody through.

George Robey rendered naysaying side-splitting.

Always look on the bright side like Don Quixote.

0 Replies

The horror of Sept. 11th, 2001

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know