In america only 1% of rich people own nations 50-80% of total wealth and considering this BBC revealing, I'd say there is very sophisticated form of fascism evolving and developing strongly there.

In last 50 years alone american army killed 6 million vietnamese plus in last 10 years they killed 500 000 - 1000 000 afganies and iraqies.

With any common sense consideration it is really a fascism plus abusing and degrading its own people (40-50 millions of them) in tens of millions with such fashion.

Because worlds most powerful brain washing machines media groups flourish there so the fascism really paint itself into blinding shiness using some capitalism colors.

Whatever argument arises if 1% owns 50-80% of total social wealth is very very sick form society bottom line. In this case "democracy" and "freedom" are keywords to brainwash anyone.

---

Mandtugai!

Whatever argument arises if 1% owns 50-80% of total social wealth is very very sick form society bottom line.

Ah, sorry.

Can you name a system of government in history that has been different under?

Didn't think so...

I'll stick with the republic myself.

At least i have freedom and liberty to pursue the happiness i desire.

---

Whatever argument arises if 1% owns 50-80% of total social wealth is very very sick form society bottom line.

..
Didn't think so...

I'll stick with the republic myself.

At least i have freedom and liberty to pursue the happiness i desire.

And you forgot 2nd sentence because those 2 keywords so powerful that reboots your mind every morning you will be happy whatever thing happens. Keep going on.

...

Whatever argument arises if 1% owns 50-80% of total social wealth is very very sick form society bottom line. In this case "democracy" and "freedom" are keywords to brainwash anyone.

---

Mandtugai!

Whatever argument arises if 1% owns 50-80% of total social wealth is very very sick form society bottom line. In this case "democracy" and "freedom" are keywords to brainwash anyone.

It all depends. If the 99% have a reasonable life and a free society decides how to define "poor" and how to treat them, then who is being brainwashed?

America is not poor, it is pretty damn well rich. Just drive through America and see how well off people are; own houses, cars, eat out a lot. They work hard for what they have and sometimes some of them sometimes fall on hard times. So?

---

flaming balloons

[quote]Whatever argument arises if 1% owns 50-80% of total social

[b]Whatever argument arises if 1% owns 50-80% of total social wealth is very very sick form society bottom line. In this case "democracy" and "freedom" are keywords to brainwash anyone.

Too bad we don't have a democracy in the USA.

Although, i'm sure you would like one...

Republics have stood the test of time, Democracies inevitably fall into dictatorship or anarchy within a couple of hundred years...

---

[quote]Whatever argument arises if 1% owns 50-80% of total social

[b]Whatever argument arises if 1% owns 50-80% of total social wealth is very very sick form society bottom line. In this case "democracy" and "freedom" are keywords to brainwash anyone.

Too bad we don't have a democracy in the USA.

Although, i'm sure you would like one..

I guess that depends on how one defines democracy.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

[quote]Whatever argument arises if 1% owns 50-80% of total social

[b]Whatever argument arises if 1% owns 50-80% of total social wealth is very very sick form society bottom line. In this case "democracy" and "freedom" are keywords to brainwash anyone.

Too bad we don't have a democracy in the USA.

Although, i'm sure you would like one..

I guess that depends on how one defines democracy.

I define it as something other than a constitutional republic, which is what we are.

---

[quote]Whatever argument arises if 1% owns 50-80% of total social

[b]Whatever argument arises if 1% owns 50-80% of total social wealth is very very sick form society bottom line. In this case "democracy" and "freedom" are keywords to brainwash anyone.

Too bad we don't have a democracy in the USA.

Although, i'm sure you would like one..

I guess that depends on how one defines democracy.

I define it as something other than a constitutional republic, which is what we are.

Good for you. Define the US as A, define democracy as B and assert A != B. You've said nothing of how you define either, not the strongest of arguments. The UK defines itself as a constitutional monarchy, I guess you would argue that on that basis it is likewise not a democracy.

Why can't a constitutional republic also be a democracy?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

I define it as something other than a constitutional republic, which is what we are.

The USA is a democratic republic, the last time it was a constitutional republic the Warren court was in session.

---

"That might be the issue ... he needs some. Of course Mr. Blinders can only think of the recreational kind."

Mr. blinders doesn't believe there are anything but the recreational kind, when it comes to the human mind...

I can accept that some people are and will think differently from myself, but maybe that's too 'blind' for you.

I can accept people for what / who they are.

Every try that?

Didn't read your poetry

i only like Japanese Haiku.

Man's poetry.

Wielding his blood sword,
A hero who fights with pride,
And slays with honor.

Are you suggesting there is no such thing as mental illness? Your post isn't clear.

If that is what you are saying that's a very dangerous assumption that someone I knew once made. She ended up being brutally murdered by the schizophrenic she convinced to come of his meds.

Lots of homeless people are the mentally ill who have been let down by the system.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Mr. blinders doesn't believe there are anything but the recreational kind, when it comes to the human mind...

Are you suggesting there is no such thing as mental illness? Your post isn't clear.

Not sure arch was saying that, though it seems pretty clear he believes any and all kinds of treatment involve recreational drugs (be they prescribed by a MD or purchased from a dealer). Not exactly a mainstream view of the science of psychopharmacology ...

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Why can't a constitutional republic also be a democracy?

No, in a pure democracy, everyone votes for everything, no matter how minor.

Regardless of how far you wish to push your juvenile tit for tat, the fact remains that we are a constitutional republic.

Bandying empty words back and forth over the meanings of 'is' will not be something i am doing today, Mr. Clinton...

The USA is a democratic republic, the last time it was a constitutional republic the Warren court was in session.

Then someone better update the CIA factbook page quickly!

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

Are you suggesting there is no such thing as mental illness? Your post isn't clear.

I'm suggesting that I accept the disabled, (or specially enabled, if you prefer), as they are, and do not see a need to burn their brains into line with my own thinking with chemicals, as is the practice of most mental care 'practitioners' these days.

Forced medication to bring someone in line with another's expectations for their behavior is not the best practice, in my opinion.

If they are functional, non-violent and happy in their current state, i say offer them whatever help they will accept and leave them be.

I don't see strapping them to a bed and chemically reverting them into someone or something they are not naturally, as necessarily being an improvement.

Medications can help certain mildly disabled people, but socially dysfunctional people who are more common among the homeless we are discussing, are much more often reduced to prisoners of mental institutions, and burned into drooling vegetables; rather than actually 'helped', in any way.

If they are doing well on their own, help as can, but leave them be. No need to imprison them to force your help upon them.

---

Republics have stood the test of time, Democracies inevitably fall into dictatorship or anarchy within a couple of hundred years...

Please tell us more, it's not hard to come up with a list of republics that didn't last 100 years, and I'm struggling to think of one in existence today that has a history of much more than a couple of hundred years. As you've not defined what you mean by democracy, it's hard to figure out what you are referencing with the "inevitably fall" comment.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

No, but you will only find 1 that lasted for over 500 years, and it collapsed into dictatorship in much the same way ours is collapsing now.

You will not find any pure democracies which lasted over 500 years.

The Greek democracy lasted the longest, and it collapsed after 400, though truth be told, it collapsed into factional city-states long before that.

Which is why democracies don't work, for anything over a city or two.. local identity usurps any overall regional identity.

People will refuse to vote for any process which betters others for the good of the region, and does nothing for them, thus the collapse into localized city states.

Edit > to question below> see here.

---

Why can't a constitutional republic also be a democracy?

No, in a pure democracy, everyone votes for everything, no matter how minor.

Regardless of how far you wish to push your juvenile tit for tat, the fact remains that we are a constitutional republic.

Ahh, a "pure democracy", "everyone votes for everything" when and where has that ever existed? The electoral system in the US can be characterized as a form common to all "liberal, representative democracies", and in regular english usage this is abbreviated to "democracy". Using a fictional "pure democracy" as the basis for comparison is a pointless diversion.

There seem to be plenty of Americans that have been taught that the US is a republic and not a democracy, and have no clue what either term means outside the context of Madison's use of them in the Federalist Papers.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

No, but you will only find 1 that lasted for over 500 years, and it collapsed into dictatorship in much the same way ours is collapsing now.

You will not find any pure democracies which lasted over 500 years.

The Greek democracy lasted the longest, and it collapsed after 400, though truth be told, it collapsed into factional city-states long before that.

The Venetian Republic lasted over 1,000 years. The Athenian democracy was not "pure" given your previous definition (not everybody voted).

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

The Venetian Republic lasted over 1,000 years. The Athenian democracy was not "pure" given your previous definition (not everybody voted).

That is true, but the Venetian Republic was not a true republic, either, it was a plutocracy for a large portion of that 1000 years, and an aristocracy for another large portion, quite frankly, it was a republic in name only.

The Roman Republic was the same way, it was still referred to as the Republic of Rome, and had a senate, but for all intents and purposed, it was an imperial dictatorship, which is why i only count it's first 500 years to the fall of the Republic.

As for not everyone voting in Greece... If you are going to base that argument on slaves and women not having the right to vote, we will have to limit this discussion to the 20th century onward, pretty much negating the point.

---

The Venetian Republic lasted over 1,000 years. The Athenian democracy was not "pure" given your previous definition (not everybody voted).

That is true, but the Venetian Republic was not a true republic, either, it was a plutocracy for a large portion of that 1000 years, and an aristocracy for another large portion, quite frankly, it was a republic in name only.

The Roman Republic was the same way, it was still referred to as the Republic of Rome, and had a senate, but for all intents and purposed, it was an imperial dictatorship, which is why i only count it's first 500 years to the fall of the Republic.

As for not everyone voting in Greece... If you are going to base that argument on slaves and women not having the right to vote, we will have to limit this discussion to the 20th century onward, pretty much negating the point.

I subscribe to Machiavelli's definition of republic ("no monarch"). Not having a monarch does not rule out the possibility of a republic being a democracy. You said in a "pure democracy" "everyone votes for everything", to the best of my knowledge, such a system has never existed.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

That 'everyone' is naturally limited to those with a right to vote.

You are peddling in semantics. Obviously women, slaves, visitors traveling through the land would have been excluded in that time period.

Though, i think you know quite well what you are doing and why you do it...

---

Though, i think you know quite well what you are doing and why you do it...

TAG your're it!

---