Go back to previous topic
Forum nameOkay Activist Archives
Topic subjectRE: you're not reading
Topic URLhttp://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=22&topic_id=22571&mesg_id=22612
22612, RE: you're not reading
Posted by Expertise, Thu Aug-10-00 01:29 PM
>Your replies are not a reaction
>to what I posted (the
>10 things), most of it
>are just generalisations/slogans.

You wanted answers, and that's what I gave you. If these "slogans" are incorrect all you have to do is counter. Simple.

>Then what do you suggest ?
> Only power to 'enlightened'
>people (such as yourself ?),
>who know what's best for
>the ignorant masses ?

How about making a document of laws, have the people agree to those laws and ideals, and then make sure that every law and act is in strict accordance to those laws. That way, the law is actually the power of the land, and not the people who make them. Oh yeah, we already have done that. It's called the Constitution.

>There are many different ways in
>which 'power to the people'
>can be translated to reality.
> But you're not even
>considering the possibility of that.
> You're not even willing
>to consider searching for those
>various ways.

Because you cannot trust every individual mind to do the right thing. This is Earth, not Candy Land. Not everyone is nice, and sweet, and going to do everything for everyone else's interests. Therefore to put full trust in people is being naive. That's why this is a nation of laws, not men.

>Yes, but at the same time
>people have things in common
>too. Democracy doesn't mean
>that everything should be catered
>to every single wish of
>every single person. Of
>course that's impossible ... suppose
>I want a green road
>and you want a yellow
>road ... chances are nothing
>happens that way.

Of course not. There are things that can be done democratically, such as the electing of representatives, whether from the Senate or from the House. However, you cannot expect full democracy without eventually either oppressing the minority or retaliation from the minority. It simply does not work.

>>Democracies only protect the majority.
>>But what about the
>>minority? What about the

>Democracies don't only protect the majority.
> Maybe they do in
>your definition, but then you
>need to re-evaluate things.
>And how about the 'minorities'
>today ? How about
>individuals today ?

Well if this country was a democracy, I'd agree with you, but this country is a constitutional republic, and certain individual interests are protected by the Constitution, regardless of popular opinion.

>Today things are like this :
>a MINORITY of a few
>rich countries exploits a MAJORITY
>of poor workers in plenty
>of countries. Sounds much
>better than actual democracy, right

See this is going into another topic. If we are talking about exploitation of international businesses, that's one thing, but if we are talking about ideals and issues pertaining to this country, then that's another.

As far as international exploitation of corporations, you need to actually refer to the country in which the exploiting is done. There is no doubt that sweatshops are wrong, and companies that engage in this practice is wrong. However, that's an issue you need to consult the host country's government about, not the federal government. That is not in their jurisdiction.

Another point: if you think that foreign businesses are acting in this matter, what makes you think the domestic businesses in that country aren't either? Once again, that government must be held accountable.

>>Substitute public for GOVERNMENT. The
>>GOVERNMENT should have control over
>>the GOVERNMENT lands, media airwaves
>>controlled by GOVERNMENT, pension funs,
>>and other societal assets that
>>the GOVERNMENT legally owns.

>What's the problem if this 'government'
>(your choice of words) thruthfully
>and accurately represents the public

But once again, who are the ones to judge if they represent the public accurately? Are we to have referendums in order to decide what is on the air and what isn't? Isn't that the same as the censorship you complained about you fussed about music? Government lands? How much of the land is owned by them? Is there to be a such thing as private property? Should government just take the lands away from the people that actually paid money for it or had it in their families for generations? What other societal assets does government own?

>Meaning : a situation completely opposite
>to the one we know
>today, where the government represents
>private/corporate interest and uses the
>public to finance it.

Please elaborate on this, because I don't understand what you mean.

>No wonder people are sick of
>'politics' (calling what exists today
>'politics' is an insult to
>the actual meaning and origin
>of 'politea' anyway).

I can get sick of breathing, but if I don't, I'll die.
It doesn't matter if they are sick of it or not, the point is that if they are not willing to stay active and keep up with politics then they have no right complaining to the rest of the world. There are newspapers, magazines, television, radio, internet, and other forms of information just waiting for them to open up and access. If they can't take the time to open up a book and read, then it is noone's fault but their own.

>In your view : yes.
>Why should it be like
>that ? You only
>seem to consider one possibility,
>accidently (?) your view always
>seems the worst.

Well then what other possibility is there? If there is another way to effectively represent the people through democratic means, then please inform me.

>I'm not a fan of what
>you are suggesting, but at
>least it would include more
>democratic control than having companies
>with no elected managers whatsoever
>deciding what's happening with my

What companies are deciding how much you pay in taxes? Not one. The government is the one that decides how much is taken out of your paycheck for taxes, not the company. Nor are the companies deciding how those taxes are used. That's your democratically elected representatives that are doing that.

>Funny, you don't seem to mind
>Big Business at all.
>You don't need to either,
>since Big Business = Big
>Government in reality. So
>I agree with you in
>a certain way : we
>definitely need to reduce the
>government's (in it's actual definition)
>power, which also means reducing
>that of Big Business.

I do mind big business, but to think this is the 1890's all over again is unrealistic. Sure there are lobbying interests done by corporations but they have every right to do so, just as representatives have a right not to accept the lobbying interests.

>>Easier voter registration? How?
>>You're going to make it
>>easier for criminals and illegal
>>immigrants to vote?
>Where does it say what you
>mention ? Maybe Nader
>means that people won't be
>discouraged to register, cos they
>no longer have the impression
>that it doesn't matter anyway.

He said one measure is easier voter registration. Does he mean that the voting requirements should be laxed or does he mean the registration process should be easier? If people are discouraged to take part in one the most important parts of their lives, the decision to elect the country's leaders, then that's their fault, not anyone else's,

>>Public financing campaigns limit freedom of
>>speech. If you want to support a campaign by
>>giving something out of your wallet, why
>>shouldn't you be able to? Why should
>>government be in control of
>>how much support a candidate
>>should have?
>My guess is that Nader means
>that rich and powerfull candidates
>(or those with a programme
>that supports the values and
>privileges of the people in
>power, both political and economical)
>will always win when there's
>no limit to the money
>you spend : the richest
>candidate will not necessarily win
>everytime, but it won't really
>hurt him either.

The Republicans spend more money than any other political party, and they've been on a losing streak since winning Congress in 94. This year the elections are in a dead heat. If a difference is to made, the people will decide and will support that difference. Money might give an advantage, but it doesn't mean victory. The Democrats have proved that in 96 and 98.

Suppose Michael Johnson has to run
>barefooted on a glass track,
>while the other runners have
>the best sneakers on a
>hardcourt track ? Very
>fair indeed.

I suggest Michael Johnson ask someone to support his race by giving him some shoes in order to run in. If noone does, obviously they have no faith in his speed.

>Presidential campaigns should be about the
>content of your programme, not
>how good you can criticize/marginalize/ridiculise
>other candidates or how much
>access to the media you

The content of the program is true, but it's also important to go pro and con on why your idea will work and your opponent's wont. That's a very important step in decision making. There is nothing wrong with negative campaigning, as long as it is not libelous.

>Seeing how much people a) are
>illiterate (or were denied access
>to a proper education) in
>your beatiful United States,

No citizen is denied access to learn how to read, therefore that is a lie. Anyone that wants to learn can learn. It's noone's fault but their own if they don't.

>b) how juridic jargon can
>be so complicated that even
>lawyers need to read things
>at least three times, I
>think something like this makes

Not every lawyer is competant either. If you don't know, then ask. That's what legal advice is for.
And also, let's be realistic......an overwhelming majority of people that break the law, KNOW that it was illegal in the first place. Even if they didn't, ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

>It doesn't say people are stupid
>: it says 'a large
>number of people end up
>in jail cos they don't
>understand what is being said
>to them, and therefor can't
>defend themselves properly.' It's
>constructive self-criticism, and it offers
>an alternative.

That's stupid. Like I said, if they don't know the laws of the land and how it applies to them, it's their fault. They should ask before they do something questionable. When you try to make things even more simpler, all that is going to do is make more questions.

>Sounds much better to me than
>your 'it won't work, it's
>stupid, it's ignorant ...'

The answer to enlightening people is not to lower everything down to their level, but to have them raise themselves to the appropriate level. Sure it might make them feel good, but that isn't helping them.

>>There is a reason why citizens
>>are not allowed full government
>>access; it's called National Security.

>Another name could be 'totalitarism', or
>'misleading the public'.

That is nothing near totalitarism. It's understanding that not everyone is a nice, flower loving, sweet human being. There are people that actually want to get rid of this country. Giving them full access to government goings is not only unrealistic, but down right dangerous.

>If that same public finances things,
>why shouldn't it have access
>to what is being done
>with that money ?

The public might finance things, and are entitled to know a certain portion behind the scenes of government, but when you talk about public, you don't mean only this nation's public, but the WROLD's public. That's a whole new ballgame.

>Well, at least it would be
>their individual choice to turn
>against one another. Not
>a choice made by government
>(in your definition) to set
>up people/communities against one another.

They would be tempted by government to turn against each other.

>If you think every person is
>an egoistic and materialistic pig,
>then it will probably lead
>to corruption. You talk
>about 'THEY', which suggests you
>don't consider the possibility that
>you may one day be
>confronted with abuse, fraud, corruption
>and want to report it.

If you think there ISN'T people that are materalistic and be tempted with dirty money then you are seriously naive. Why even put someone in that situation to be corrupted?
As far as they goes, I mean that in a "what if" sense.

>If people report an illegal activity,
>that shouldn't backfire on them,
>agree ? If they're
>blackmailing someone with the information
>they have, they are doing
>something illegal themselves, which means
>they'd of course no longer
>have immunity.

*LOL* You think they are going to rat on someone so they can get punished themselves? Yeah right. They'll plead the 5th in a heartbeat. That is, unless you want to get rid of that too.

Also you forgot another scenario: Relaxing the report in order to get them off in exchange for dirty money. It's called bribery.

>Next time, think before you type

I'll ignore that remark....

>>who is going to set
>>these standards? The government?
>The public. Parties/candidates could include
>this in their programme, and
>have voters decide whether or
>not they agree.

Lordy lordy lordy.....You guys complain about politicians not keeping their promises now, what makes you think they will even with an advanced agenda? And what makes you think that agenda will go through flawless through the legislative body? Remember, you can indeed be the minority. Therefore, if the Christian majority decides they want to implement prayers before and after work, and you don't like it, tough luck, because you'll be one praying soul that day and every day on. The beauty of democracy indeed.

>>>Working people need a reasonable measure
>>>of control over how their
>>>pension monies are invested, rather
>>>than it being controlled by
>>>banks and insurance companies.

>I thought I was naive.
>I hope your bank and
>insurance company has a lot
>of customers like you, in
>that case they don't need
>to worry for the next
>150 years.

If you choose the right bank and company to invest in, you won't have to worry because you will get the provisions you want. If you can't get them there, go on to the next company.

>When shareholders jump off that 'sinking'
>ship in time (as you
>suggest), it leaves the workers
>with no money & no
>Some of these people may have
>worked for that company for
>30 years, given the best
>they got, and are suddenly
>confronted with no money, no
>job and no perspective (cos
>they're too old for today's
>companies) while at the same
>time they may have a
>daughter going to college (so
>that she wouldn't have to
>struggle like her parents did).

Such is life. It's not supposed to be easy, man. Some win, some lose. You gotta roll with the punches.
After 30 years, if you haven't saved enough money to retire with, then tell me, who's fault is that? It's called personal responsibility, something alot of people have forgotten about. Yeah it's a sad thing to see people with no money, but it's also not something someone else should be punished for by giving up a part of their life and luxury by force. Sometimes it's not what you want to do, it's what you HAVE to do. There are too many people expecting government to solve all your problems. Grow up and solve your own.

>Oh, they should probably have left
>the sinking ship in time
>too ?

That's right. Sure should have.

>Uhm ... you actually descibed today's
>educational process, but you're probably
>not aware of it.
>So you think we're all educated
>freely in schools today, not
>directed to one or another
>way ?

Of course, but we are also given the opportunity to have individual minds and ideas. The very fact that we have opposing opinions shows that.

>There's plenty of studies that show
>schools cater to and focus
>on middle class values, a
>specific work ethic and so
>on. That means that
>people who don't have these
>assets either adapt, or drop

I agree. You're probably right, and these I'm sure are referring to public schools. However, there are always plenty of private schools in order to choose from also if you don't want your child in that atmosphere.

>Funny coincidence (?) is that what
>we learn in school happens
>to be very handy in
>today's capitalist system too.
>So kids in school today
>(and the past) are NOT
>educated, they are being prepared
>to keep the system running
>and to conform.

Well duh, the things taught in school are designed to reflect the society we are in. It's a school, not a brain washing scheme.

>That's why an education/a degree/a diploma
>is a status symbol, it's
>a reward for conforming.
>It means you've been a
>good boy/girl, and the rewards
>will get bigger the more
>you conform.

It's an award for Achieving. Your rant would be on the money if it wasn't for private schools that indoctrinate their students according to their own agenda.

>Ready to work 70 hours a
>week in a bank that
>invests its money in nuclear
>weapons or for Shell in
>Nigeria ? You'll get
>paid, don't worry, but I
>get the impression that that's
>the real bribery : you
>get so much money to
>make you swallow any possible

That is their choice to take the money just as it yours not to take it. Whether you believe in it or not, you don't have a right to tell them what and what not to invest/work in.

>You've said some very arrogant and
>ignorant things, and I'd suggest
>you never leave the US,
>cos you might be too
>shocked. As mke already
>put it, you've confirmed every
>stereotype known about fascist Americans.

I have and will continue to leave the US....as a tourist. Nothing surprises me, especially the thought of people putting security over freedom. It's almost laughable.

As for you and Mke, I could care less. The real fascists are the ones that try to front and pretend that government can and will take care of all your hopes and dreams. Meanwhile, when the going gets rough, and for some unlikely reason government turns it's ugly head against you, who's going to protect you then? Nothing. And once again, you and other African Americans that support these measures will be victims of government oppression, the same things that you tried to get away from.

>Since you're unable to debate things
>in a polite and respectful
>way, I'm no longer replying
>to you.
>Just like I don't debate with
>racists over here.

Awwww poor thing....did I offend you? That's a shame. If you think I'm offensive, wait until reality hits you. You'll think I was Barney.

Hence, you can take your toys and go home. Just remember that the truth is still out there...and whether it's offensive or not, that's something that you'll never be able to change. Bottom line.

You have had the pleasure of reading
Expertise's posts.

Okayplayer forum, Boondocks forum,
Blackplanet member (but I don't do
anything there now but email because
it's lame), member of Go Network's
African-American Chatroom
(AmericasRealExpert, YoungIntellect),
and a member of Yahoo.com (real_expert,

And a PROUD black conservative.

"Darkness comes so others may see the

Expertise@rocketmail.com or

Some of you still think America's a
democracy. Lemme break it down for

* Democracy:  Three wolves and a sheep
vote on the dinner menu.
* Democratically Elected Republic: Three
wolves and 2 sheep vote on which sheep's
for dinner. 
* Constitutional Republic: The eating of
mutton is forbidden by law, and the
sheep are armed.

The United States is a CONSTITUTIONAL
REPUBLIC. Not a democracy.