-
Anonymous
@TrueBlue: If Obama and Romney weren't the best choices, I don't think Goldman Sachs would be giving them both so much money.
53 1 1 -
Anonymous
@Anonymous: The question is, are the best choices for the average american, or the best choices for Goldman Sachs?
71 1 -
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
@Anonymous: toothpaste clearly has more impact on my life than the president. just look at vermin supreme's mandatory toothbrushing law
51 1 -
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
Capitalist democracy is a very nice definition, thank you. It meant "freedom for everybody" couple of centuries ago when poor could work his way to be middleman, middleman could become rich. Nowadays poor strife for hunger and rich can buy third world country. Not so much movement between classes.
-
Anonymous
@Anonymous: What the hell are you, a teenage girl? "Oh my God you guys, OP didn't mention our capitalist democracies, what a bitch."
-
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
@Meander_Thralls: And so democracy doesn't and couldn't exist in modern world as every law is big complex pile of economy-politics-shmoconomy that only a professional could understand. And in republic people elect representatives not because of their professionalism but because of their public speech skill. Yet wars are waged and supported by the idea of protecting the democracy.
...And you guys have something against crusades? -
Anonymous
-
@Anonymous: India + Europe = 1.5 billion people who democraticly choose their president and live in a capitalist demcoracy. So the original picture is as a fuckin' stupid statement as your post is a world stupidity.
1- Your post is stupid
2- You are stupid
3- This topic is stupid
4- I'm not trolling62 1 -
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
@Lamasutra: Now tell me how much rulers each of those countries had to chose. Mine had 10 last time and it's considered almost a dictatorship by the rest of the world.
-
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
@Anonymous: You have schools in your country ? Because I'm not sure you have learnt how to read.
-
Anonymous
@Anonymous: because "europe has a president?" is a nonsense question. Every european country has his own.
-
Anonymous
@Anonymous: >India + Europe = 1.5 billion people who democraticly choose their president and live in a capitalist demcoracy.
-
Anonymous
@Anonymous: 1,5 people who democraricly choose their president(s) (in their own country). It was clear to me.
2 -
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
Europe does has a president.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_European_Council
He gets paid more then Obama.31 -
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
@Anonymous: Thank you for that, you are the greetest. Now if you could kindly leave Earth forever, for no raisin.
1 -
Anonymous
@Anonymous: He has nothing comparable to the power of the american president. Obama is for America what Berlusconi (sigh) was for Italy, Sarkozy for France and Merkel for Germany.
-
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
@Anonymous: and this is what it's like in india: http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?280234
or if you'd like to hear her speak: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv8l9AKZanQ -
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
-
@Meander_Thralls: I thought everyone that would bother to learn anything knew that we do not live in a direct democracy. As far as I know there are no true democracies... that would be a nightmare in logistics, that's for true.
Having said, plenty of states hold open voting for various laws and statutes. I remember when I was a senior in high school the state I lived in (Tennessee) had a vote whether or not to legalize gay marriage on the ballot. It did not pass. -
-
Anonymous
@TrueBlue: in Italy we've something called "food". Never heard about it? It's kinda cool.
-
-
Anonymous
-
@urial: Referendums are up or down votes. Your body of representatives still decides on the text, and if it gets to a referendum, it means the representatives didn't want to vote on the matter directly themselves. It's a form of passing the buck, and it is a small percentage of all law that is passed. You certainly can argue it is a form of democracy, just not much of one and certainly not characteristic of the system as a whole.
-
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
@Meander_Thralls: Not every democracy has to be a direct democracy. Making that argument is a stupid game of semantics that... oh, wait, this is #politics, home of stupid games of semantics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy2 -
@Anonymous: Representative democracy is an idea James Madison dreamed up in Federalist paper No. 10, and just as it was a convenient fiction that was useful in his time for selling the Federalist concept to people that worried about the centralization of power away from state and local governments, it continues to this day serving the same function, allowing people to pretend they live in a "democracy" and have a say in government. Go back before Madison and you will find 6 forms of government, and "representative democracy" isn't one of them.
So, definitely an issue of semantics and propaganda, but hardly a stupid game - although stupid might be the appropriate adjective for the people that buy this line of reasoning. -
Anonymous
-





