Walter Cronkite Says US too ignorant to Vote

Given the other options, I'd go with the democracy (however limited and manipulated) one, in which as many people as possible do have at least the option to vote - regardless of how well educated or ignorant they are.

Let's pray and work to improve the system and the honesty and integretary of what we have, wether in the US or Australia.

Regards
Bob

 

Bob,

I don't know much about politics in Australia, but in the United States we are not a pure democracy. We are a republican-democracy. The masses vote on representatives to represent the republic.

History says the system was chosen because in a pure democracy the majority is often cruel to the minority. A republic protects the minority from extinction.

Its worked for us for about 229 years.

 

Mr. megalomaniac, used to say at the end of his broadcast, "And that's the way it is." To which one might respond, " No, that's the way you say it is."

 

The real "Ignorance" in this country is people who believe that voting for a "Republican/Democrat" will make a difference in their life.

Both parties are controlled by the "same financial power", and neither party will post candidates for election which this financial power can't control for their benefit more so than the "public".

People have gotten so "STUPID", they're more afraid of "losing their vote", than "losing their freedom".

Pr 29:18 Where there is no vision, the people perish:

 

TS,

Would you name for me one historical example of this?

Joseph Botwinick

 

Part of what ensures our freedom is the vote. It is part of how we hold our elected officials accountable for how they govern. Just ask Jimmy Carter.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Diebold...gaining power through the backdoor.

 

This thread is on page four and will be closed no earlier than 2330 EDT.

 

Freedom is an internal mental state. No one can take it from you as long as you can think, "screw you."

 

So true.

I am surprised at those who always call for Bush's impeachment, thinking that impeachment means "get rid of him." When I point out how the impeachment process actually works and then mention that Clinton was impeached but not removed by the Senate (same with Andrew Johnson in 1867), they will immediately start arguing with me that Clinton was NOT impeached! They have no idea what they are talking about.

And then when I point out that impeaching and removing Bush will lead to Dick Cheney becoming president, they get really flustered and say, "Well, impeach him too!"

Sigh. It is painful, isn't it?

 

Closed at 0100 EDT