when do you people get it?

[gsupstate]

Originally Posted by sean98125

He wrote the speech on race he gave in March on his own, at least.

I can't even begin to imagine Bush or McCain writing something of that caliber and that insightful.

That would be the racist speech he gave? The one where he refered to "typical white person"? The one where refused to disown his racist mentor Jeremiah Wright?

I'm glad to know Obama wrote it, because it shows his ignorance. The speech was a pathetic political ploy. Nothing more.

[Muhnay]

Don't be a sheep.. VOTE BOB BARR!

[LauraC]

Originally Posted by roberta

Don't you know that you are puppets in this farce of presidential election, ect? When will you wake up and realize that the "so called government" that we have is a "clicque", with their own interests at heart. They don't care about you, or me--but their own selfish interests. We are slaves to their whims. You can call me any names you wish, but I refuse to be one of their "lackeys"--with their rebukes to me of "bad citizen, ect, if I don't fall into line, and vote for one of the 2 parties that can afford to be on the ballots. My Ancestors came to America for "Freedom"--not only of speech, but also of taxes, religion, and of the burden of government. that complicates life. We seem to be on the road to losing these basic "rights"--if we haven't already. We can recover these "rights", if we wake up, and refuse to be sheep. If not--it is a sad day for America. Come on, people--let's be a credit to our ancestors, and control our own government.

What do you expect when American students aren't being taught how to think but what to think?

[delusianne]

Originally Posted by roberta

Don't you know that you are puppets in this farce of presidential election, ect? When will you wake up and realize that the "so called government" that we have is a "clicque", with their own interests at heart. They don't care about you, or me--but their own selfish interests. We are slaves to their whims. You can call me any names you wish, but I refuse to be one of their "lackeys"--with their rebukes to me of "bad citizen, ect, if I don't fall into line, and vote for one of the 2 parties that can afford to be on the ballots. My Ancestors came to America for "Freedom"--not only of speech, but also of taxes, religion, and of the burden of government. that complicates life. We seem to be on the road to losing these basic "rights"--if we haven't already. We can recover these "rights", if we wake up, and refuse to be sheep. If not--it is a sad day for America. Come on, people--let's be a credit to our ancestors, and control our own government.

I think the only way to manage this is to get involved in local government ourselves. We've been isolated from each other by all the divisiveness fostered over the last - how long? Since the Nixon days, when so many theretofore unheard of groups appeared and started demanding attention - women, gays, basically anyone who wasn't white and male. That's been exploited and widened by the right and the right-wing noise-machine, IMO, since Clinton. The left is always on the defense, never a real winning side to be on.

I read man on the street interviews with people who say things like "I'll vote for anyone who brings the price of gas down." "Obama wants to take away my SUV." People in my town think this way. IOW most people dont pay attention and dont want to have to, they just want peace of mind and food on the table. They just want the trains to run on time. Well, Hitler and Mussolini got the trains running on time.

Im just saying, I agree with you, OP, it's disturbing, but what can we do? Besides reading, the only thing is to get involved on a local or state or national campaign.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by Widowmaker2k

What then, is the answer? Where do we find our philosopher kings?

Everywhere.

They're here, they've always been here, but people would rather vote for someone who tells them what they want to hear, instead of telling them the reality.

Originally Posted by Widowmaker2k

Better yet, how do we pick them? Marx was a philosopher, but I wouldn't want him as my king.

It requires a degree of implicit trust. I would suggest civilization hasn't reached that point yet. Perhaps in a few centuries.

Originally Posted by Widowmaker2k

Democracy has many criticisms levied against it, not the least of which is the fact that is inherently bureaucratic and thus slow to act, which explains why it is not very common in developing nations.

Democracy appears to be bureaucratic because it has been designed and structured that way. Developing nations have dictatorships because they're largely supported by the US, and always have been. It's easier for the US to extract resources from a dictatorship than a democracy.

Originally Posted by Widowmaker2k

If I as a democrat say to you, a starving peasant, "I can give you 10 crates of food...next month," it won't do you much good if you starve to death in two weeks. Now, if along comes Mr. Dictator and he promises you 10 crates of food tomorrow, which do you pick? A benevolent despot might seem the best form of government, but is it realistic? And even if the despot is benevolent, he's almost certainly not all-knowing.

That only proves people vote in their own selfish interests.

Originally Posted by Widowmaker2k

I think the problem with Plato's line of thinking is that a philosopher king is only effective if he is right all of the time. Since many philosophies are mutually exclusive, not all philosophers can be right. A king can make changes very quickly, since there is no remiss or debate in the decision making process, but because of this, he's far more vulnerable to simply being incorrect and making the wrong changes.

Plato's philosopher king was part of a republic. The king was chosen by the aristocrats and the polity. The king's power was checked by the aristocrats and the polity in a form of checks and balances identical to that in the US Constitution, so decision-making by the king was not unilateral.

In fact, the US government was originally a carbon-copy of Plato's republic. US senators, equivalent to the aristocrats in Plato's republic were originally appointed by governors or the state legislatures, not elected by the American people. It wasn't until 1913 that Americans got to vote for senators.

The polity in Plato's republic consisted solely of landowners. In the US the right to vote for members of the House of Representatives was restricted to only those who own land or operated a business. Over the next century and a half it was expanded to include all Americans (except certain convicted felons), and Plato would say that's where the US went wrong. If Plato were alive today, he would restrict voting eligibility to only those who have PhDs or who own a certain amount of land, or have incomes above a certain level or some other criteria that would exclude about 80% of the population.

[Fishy]

thats why people say "pick the lesser of the 2 evils"

[DC at the Ridge]

Originally Posted by Mircea

In fact, the US government was originally a carbon-copy of Plato's republic. US senators, equivalent to the aristocrats in Plato's republic were originally appointed by governors or the state legislatures, not elected by the American people. It wasn't until 1913 that Americans got to vote for senators.

The polity in Plato's republic consisted solely of landowners. In the US the right to vote for members of the House of Representatives was restricted to only those who own land or operated a business. Over the next century and a half it was expanded to include all Americans (except certain convicted felons), and Plato would say that's where the US went wrong. If Plato were alive today, he would restrict voting eligibility to only those who have PhDs or who own a certain amount of land, or have incomes above a certain level or some other criteria that would exclude about 80% of the population.

And it should be noted that the federal government was originally envisioned as a weak entity, with the states having considerably more control over what happened within its borders. The states would have been much more reflective of the social mores and standards of their particular citizens, and eventually the states would have become much more individualized, so that identities would have been bound to the states rather than regions. Up to the Civil War the states and the federal government were engaged in a struggle to find an equitable balance of power that would allow the states to run themselves, while the federal government enforced standards that allowed the states to work together. The Civil War tilted that balance, and that is why Senators became increasingly important to states, their longevity in the federal government providing a consistent voice for the state through different administrations.