Concerts for Change

[Denyer]

For instance lobby groups. How can I not say that is undemocratic.

It is neither undemocratic nor illegal to form a group to look out for your interests. Democracy is impaired only when lobby groups (such as those attached to pharmaceutical drug companies) offer cash or perks for legislative benefits.

By your definition nothing undemocratic went on the last election, because technically no laws were broken

Yes, laws were broken. To pick but two examples: people were unconstitutionally removed from the electoral register. People enrolled under the names of deceased individuals.

Ya but for what reasons are they trusting him. People "trusted" Arny does that mean it was for the right reason?

Since you're defining "right reasons" to fit your argument, in your estimation they did not.

“If you are listening to a rock star in order to get your information on who to vote for, you are a bigger moron than they are,” said rock star Alice Cooper

Somewhat ironically, Vincent is advising us not to listen to himself give political advice.

Ya right. This is the biggest load of crap I have ever heard. This is exactly what I'm talking about by circumventing laws. Why werent the pro-bush artists invited then? I suggest you read the article above too.

I'm being recommended literature by a man/woman who can't grasp simple grammatical concepts, who thinks sharing opinions is undemocratic, and who has just had hissy fit over the concept of a group of people unaffiliated with a party having a preference for some candidates over others... hmmm. An inability to parse language is rarely a sign of being able to reason.

If the goal is to vote for change, it seems unlikely that the White House incumbent is going to be endorsed. Equally, a dislike for Bush does not equal a strong preference for Kerry. Voting is not always about unreservedly supporting a candidate; often, its primary intention is to remove one who is doing harm. Choosing the lesser evil.

"seeks to defeat President Bush as a way of weakening the United States."

"this column coined the term “Viacommies” to describe its executives."

"in front of an audience some of whose members probably had been mentally impaired by illicit drug use."

"CDs with cuts by many popular artists, many of whom were doubtless approached with the intimidating question: “You want to give us one of your songs, don’t you?” "

Your columnist seems to have contracted foaming dog fever and extreme paranoia, of forms not entirely unlike those afflicting Peter Hitchens of the Daily Mail.

[Computron]

Yeah I feel you on that one. I started this damn thing and dropped out lonnngggggggg ago. One thing I will never understand is how you people bicker for days! Don't you get tired of it???

Were you not earlier commenting that the youth of the world lacks the ability to debate their positions with substantive arguments backed up with facts, logic and solid argumentation?*

So I suppose the proper response is, be careful what you wish for?


*Tho most of us aren't teens, a good chunk of us are in our early to mid 20's

[wideload]

Lobby groups are undemocratic?

Yes it possible for lobby groups to be undemocratic.

I didn't insist on anything that was irrelevant, at points of introduction into this debate. YOU introduced the talk about specific rules and ways around them. YOU introduced any red herrings that may have been unwittingly seen (on my part, not yours) as relevant. But thanks for now clarifying that it was your red herring you were talking about all along.

So it boils down on your side to "Lobbying is unethical in the US democracy." Is that the crux of your point?

Some forms of lobbying are more unethical than others. This form happens to be one of those. A celebrities power should not be used to control government.

Wha? Which quote?

"The name 'Vote for Change' might be an implicit endorsement for Kerry, but we're not explicitly endorsing him. We just want to tell people it's really important that they register to vote."

Just in case anyone has actually not noticed, proceeds from the concerts have been going to MoveOn PAC, not Kerry. They may agree with many of his policies; they may disagree with as many of Bush's—but they are not the Democrat Party. They operate in the same political territory as the NRA and Christian Coalition, except with rather less emphasis on religious fundamentalism and waving of guns. They support candidates and parties whom they feel reflect the views of their members."

You're seriously quoting FrontPageMag? That's a laughable source of opinion. Talk about hilariously far right and biased. Going by that, the answer to my first question very much seems to be 'No' - there are no level-headed people out there who share your position on all this. "Yes there are a ton of people who agree with me though." - really? Show me more links rather than just one from a known crackpot site like FrontPageMag.

I didnt know what frontpagemag was. Anyway the guy still has valid opinions even if someone else is hijacking his opinion to prove a point. Regarldless of how anyone else feels, I still believe I'm right.

It is neither undemocratic nor illegal to form a group to look out for your interests. Democracy is impaired only when lobby groups (such as those attached to pharmaceutical drug companies) offer cash or perks for legislative benefits.

THere are many ways a lobby group can be undemocratic. When they influence people for the wrong reasons, thus giving the members of said group more voting power than others. Such as this case

Yes, laws were broken. To pick but two examples: people were unconstitutionally removed from the electoral register. People enrolled under the names of deceased individuals.

ummm........dead people were allowed to vote? this seems far fetched. Although its totally off topic I might need some evidence of this to believe it (blogs dont count). As for people being taken off the registrar, I believe what your talking about is during the recount how they stoped counting votes (I might be wrong though). Since servicemen and other groups were counted first (and more likely to vote republican), it is believed that this is what may have the vote in florida. This was technically not illegal since the government condoned it. Still undemocratic in my opinion, which proves the point that things that are legal can be undemocratic.

Since you're defining "right reasons" to fit your argument, in your estimation they did not.

Right reason should include political stance based on issues that the public is well educated about. Should not include fame.

Somewhat ironically, Vincent is advising us not to listen to himself give political advice.

He is stating my point exactly. I do see your point about the irony, but that doenst make it any more or less valid.

I'm being recommended literature by a man/woman who can't grasp simple grammatical concepts, who thinks sharing opinions is undemocratic, and who has just had hissy fit over the concept of a group of people unaffiliated with a party having a preference for some candidates over others... hmmm. An inability to parse language is rarely a sign of being able to reason.

Hate to break it to you bud, but your the one having the "hissy fit". I'm just stating my opinion. You resort to name calling constantly. Why dont you try attacking my opinion instead of me. What do any of my qualities have to do with how valid my opinion is? For the record, I speak english quite well thank you very much. In fact I have a bachelors degree, that involved me writing many essays. So I dont think my "inability to parse language" is the problem here. This partisan idea that people who disagree with your political opinion are of lesser intelligence or moral fibre shouldnt have a place in political debate.

If the goal is to vote for change, it seems unlikely that the White House incumbent is going to be endorsed. Equally, a dislike for Bush does not equal a strong preference for Kerry. Voting is not always about unreservedly supporting a candidate; often, its primary intention is to remove one who is doing harm. Choosing the lesser evil.

Never said anything was wrong with somebody choosing the lesser evil (although it does reflect a political system with poor options). Regardless of whether these celbrities are supporting a candidate or suporting removing a candidate, their effect on the election will still be the same.

Your columnist seems to have contracted foaming dog fever and extreme paranoia, of forms not entirely unlike those afflicting Peter Hitchens of the Daily Mail.

Alright then give me an example from a source that is not biased towards the left that is in support of this concert (rolling stone magazine doenst count). Regarldess of the authors political slant, he still states a valid point.

[Best First]

In fact I have a bachelors degree, that involved me writing many essays.

me too...

[Denyer]

Yes it possible for lobby groups to be undemocratic.

But not that they are so by default, as you go on to note yourself.

THere are many ways a lobby group can be undemocratic. When they influence people for the wrong reasons,

You persist in using terms such as "right" and "wrong" without defining what you mean by them. Currently you're at the circular logic stage of "wrong because I think it wrong."

ummm........dead people were allowed to vote?

Jesus H. Christ...

No, dead people were not allowed to vote. People who were very much living took advantage of the fact that some names had not been removed from the electoral register.

Happens in most national elections, so it's nothing really specific to the last US one.

Right reason should include political stance based on issues that the public is well educated about.

If you hadn't noticed, the general public aren't particularly educated about politics nor motivated to become so. There's also that little problem with baseline intelligence—about half of any given population couldn't follow the language or detail of laws which affect them, get past interview rhetoric or participate in elected house debates.

He is stating my point exactly. I do see your point about the irony, but that doenst make it any more or less valid.

You're agreeing with his point and picking him out as someone assumed to be influential enough to reinforce your point—which is basically what those who voted for Arnie did in the Californian elections.

Hate to break it to you bud, but your the one having the "hissy fit". I'm just stating my opinion. You resort to name calling constantly. Why dont you try attacking my opinion instead of me.

Hmm, that's the first real jibe I recall making.

What do any of my qualities have to do with how valid my opinion is? For the record, I speak english quite well thank you very much. In fact I have a bachelors degree, that involved me writing many essays.

Then you have no excuse for the diction and accuracy of your posts here. Unless you're posting drunk, in which case please do us the favour of taking it elsewhere.

This partisan idea that people who disagree with your political opinion are of lesser intelligence or moral fibre shouldnt have a place in political debate.

There are plenty of people here and elsewhere I admire for their communication and debating skills, many of whom I've disagreed with at length.

I'm simply a little skeptical of someone who consistently makes basic grammar mistakes, linked in a neocon rant in support of his position and quoted a rock star saying we shouldn't listen to rock stars.

Alright then give me an example from a source that is not biased towards the left

Since you'd define anyone in favour of a campaign to shake up politics and remove the incumbent president as "biased towards the left" it seems a touch redundant.

[Dead Head]

Lobby groups are undemocratic?

Yes it possible for lobby groups to be undemocratic.

So this means they are not by default.

So it boils down on your side to "Lobbying is unethical in the US democracy." Is that the crux of your point?

Some forms of lobbying are more unethical than others. This form happens to be one of those. A celebrities power should not be used to control government.

"To control the government"? Expand on that. What are the details of the (lack of) ethics in question?

You're seriously quoting FrontPageMag? That's a laughable source of opinion. Talk about hilariously far right and biased. "Yes there are a ton of people who agree with me though." - really? Show me more links rather than just one from a known crackpot site like FrontPageMag.

I didnt know what frontpagemag was. Anyway the guy still has valid opinions even if someone else is hijacking his opinion to prove a point. Regarldless of how anyone else feels, I still believe I'm right.

"a ton of people who agree" with you? Show me more links rather than just one from a known crackpot site.

Also clarify: who is hijacking whose opinions?

Your self-belief in the face of regard could be seen in some quarters as admirable. But most would see it as delusional.

[wideload]

wideload wrote:
Yes it possible for lobby groups to be undemocratic.


But not that they are so by default, as you go on to note yourself.

not every man is a criminal, but some are.... deep isnt it. Just cause its possible for celebrities to be democratic doenst mean they are. Especially when they try to use fame and money to influence the vote.

You persist in using terms such as "right" and "wrong" without defining what you mean by them. Currently you're at the circular logic stage of "wrong because I think it wrong."

its wrong because it violates the tenant of democracy that everyone should have equal say in who gets to be president. I've explained that many many times.

wideload wrote:
ummm........dead people were allowed to vote?
Jesus H. Christ...

No, dead people were not allowed to vote. People who were very much living took advantage of the fact that some names had not been removed from the electoral register.

Happens in most national elections, so it's nothing really specific to the last US one.

why did you mention it then? Did it affect the electoral college. I'm not trying to belittle, just curious.

If you hadn't noticed, the general public aren't particularly educated about politics nor motivated to become so. There's also that little problem with baseline intelligence—about half of any given population couldn't follow the language or detail of laws which affect them, get past interview rhetoric or participate in elected house debates.

this only further proves my point. People with little educated on the issues are more likely to vote for whoever their favorite celebrity says to.

You're agreeing with his point and picking him out as someone assumed to be influential enough to reinforce your point—which is basically what those who voted for Arnie did in the Californian elections.

huh? how do i compare to people who vote for arnie? Because I dont think celebrities should play a part in the electoral process. Who cares how influential he is. That's exactly my point. Noone should be considered anymore influential than others when selecting a president. Especially not celebrities.

Then you have no excuse for the diction and accuracy of your posts here. Unless you're posting drunk, in which case please do us the favour of taking it elsewhere.

These are posts on a transformers discussion board. It's not a life or death situation. Its been good enough to communicate my ideas regardless of whether or not my punctuation is always 100%. A lot of my points are in point form I'll give you that much.

There are plenty of people here and elsewhere I admire for their communication and debating skills, many of whom I've disagreed with at length.

I'm simply a little skeptical of someone who consistently makes basic grammar mistakes, linked in a neocon rant in support of his position and quoted a rock star saying we shouldn't listen to rock stars.

not condscending at all. I see you given up trying to disprove my point altogether. What is wrong with a rock star saying that people shouldn't look to rock stars to make up their mind on who to vote for.

Since you'd define anyone in favour of a campaign to shake up politics and remove the incumbent president as "biased towards the left" it seems a touch redundant.
_________________
.

Exactly. Some people only care about if they win, not how they do it. Doesnt seem to matter if its done in a non-democratic way.

So it boils down on your side to "Lobbying is unethical in the US democracy." Is that the crux of your point?
Some forms of lobbying are more unethical than others. This form happens to be one of those. A celebrities power should not be used to control government.
"To control the government"? Expand on that. What are the details of the (lack of) ethics in question?

control the government would mean in this case using fame and money to decide who is the president. As for lobbying no thats not the crux of my point. That is outside the scope of my argument. I am arguing about one specific incident.

Your self-belief in the face of regard could be seen in some quarters as admirable. But most would see it as delusional.

If more people stopped carring about their image, I think the world would be a better place. Just my opinion though.

[Denyer]

its wrong because it violates the tenant of democracy that everyone should have equal say in who gets to be president. I've explained that many many times.

Failing to explain each time how this invalidates the "one person, one vote" system in place in the United States. Everyone does have an equal vote, within the context of an electoral college system. (Which I think we agree is fundamentally flawed and would be better served by proportional representation.)

Celebrities do not have greater voting power. Even assuming that voters have no rational thought processes of their own, and follow a "he says, we trail along like lobotomised sheep" mentality, as many people will be mindless in their refusal to vote for a candidate endorsed by someone whose music they dislike. Rampant, simplistic stupidity cuts in either direction—the public burning of Dixie Chicks records, for example.

why did you mention it then?

Check back up the page, and I think it was in response to a claim of no illegalities occurring during the previous US presidential election.

this only further proves my point. People with little educated on the issues are more likely to vote for whoever their favorite celebrity says to.

I'd love for you to be the sacrificial announcer who gets to tell the general population: "Arnold isn't allowed to talk to you about politics anymore because too many of you are too stupid to vote on the basis of what you think about politics, rather than because you thought he looked cool blowing things up in Terminator."

That "too many" are here to stay. Educate the population, don't gag anyone and everyone you feel may be an undue influence on it. I do agree that education is a good thing and needed by some—and not taking the form of brainwashing. Identifying bias, personal ideology and opinion presented as fact in news and media should be a core component of English language education, though I'm led to believe it receives far less emphasis in the US than in the UK.

These are posts on a transformers discussion board. It's not a life or death situation. Its been good enough to communicate my ideas regardless of whether or not my punctuation is always 100%. A lot of my points are in point form I'll give you that much.

Do you accost people having a conversation in the street and slur at them? Dyslexia/dyspraxia, fair enough. Lacking motor skills, fair enough. None of these things are uncommon. "Not being bothered" is simply disrespecting the positions you endorse and the people you communicate with.

I'm also a little curious what Transformers have to do with a General Discussions forum. This is a fairly old community with members who have little or no interest in Transformers; they're simply here to chat.

not condscending at all. I see you given up trying to disprove my point altogether.

I've yet to see any evidence in support of your point—to whit, that celebrities should be muzzled for the protection of the stupid and in aid of presidential candidates who would otherwise receive the tacit or explicit support of the stupid.

Interpolating people as weak and easily led for listening to calls for a change of president is never going to go down well.

Since you'd define anyone in favour of a campaign to shake up politics and remove the incumbent president as "biased towards the left" it seems a touch redundant.

Exactly. Some people only care about if they win, not how they do it. Doesnt seem to matter if its done in a non-democratic way.

I assume that unrelated point was just tacked on at what you deemed a suitable juncture?

Wishing to depose Bush does not make one a supporter of Kerry; they simply wish to see an evil removed. Presuming otherwise is the trite, polarised rhetoric of GW himself—the "if you're not with us, you're against us" appeal to the public gallery.

[Dead Head]

Just cause its possible for celebrities to be democratic doenst mean they are. Especially when they try to use fame and money to influence the vote.

So it's likely, according to you, that such a celeb isn't democratic.

People with little educated on the issues are more likely to vote for whoever their favorite celebrity says to.

Do you blame education programmes in american schools and universities, or do you blame the individuals for their irrational alignments, or do you blame the US democratic system?

Its good enough to communicate my ideas regardless of whether or not my punctuation is always 100%.

"good enough" by and large and certainly not bad (ur not txt-spking 2 us aftr all ), but there have been occasions where it has let you down and has added to the confusion.

my argument is about the morality and not the law

my argument has nothing to do with wether or not the law is being broken

control the government would mean in this case using fame and money to decide who is the president.

Would this also apply to political parties? Why? Why not?

Regarldless of how anyone else feels, I still believe I'm right.

Your self-belief in the face of regard could be seen in some quarters as admirable. But most would see it as delusional.

If more people stopped carring about their image, I think the world would be a better place. Just my opinion though.

By one's 'image' I guess you roughly mean 'people's general perception of one's attitude and stances', yes? So, you advocate shutting out this vast 'sounding board' off which you could have otherwise usefully employed to assess and re-examine one's own beliefs. So, you're firm on being regardless and not caring, in that respect. Hmmm.

"Just my opinion though" is a needless qualification.

I didnt know what frontpagemag was. Anyway the guy still has valid opinions even if someone else is hijacking his opinion to prove a point.

"a ton of people who agree" with you? Show me more links rather than just one from a known crackpot site.

Also clarify: who is hijacking whose opinions?

[wideload]

Failing to explain each time how this invalidates the "one person, one vote" system in place in the United States. Everyone does have an equal vote, within the context of an electoral college system. (Which I think we agree is fundamentally flawed and would be better served by proportional representation.)

Celebrities do not have greater voting power. Even assuming that voters have no rational thought processes of their own, and follow a "he says, we trail along like lobotomised sheep" mentality, as many people will be mindless in their refusal to vote for a candidate endorsed by someone whose music they dislike. Rampant, simplistic stupidity cuts in either direction—the public burning of Dixie Chicks records, for example.

how many times do I have to explain this. I dont care what right wing people are doing and it is irrelevant to the argument. Are you saying the burning of dixie chicks albums somehow justifies Kerry supporters to also act like idiots.
As for the one person one vote things, yes everyone does get one vote, but some people obviously have more oppurtunity to influence others. This is my point.

wideload wrote:
this only further proves my point. People with little educated on the issues are more likely to vote for whoever their favorite celebrity says to.


I'd love for you to be the sacrificial announcer who gets to tell the general population: "Arnold isn't allowed to talk to you about politics anymore because too many of you are too stupid to vote on the basis of what you think about politics, rather than because you thought he looked cool blowing things up in Terminator."

That "too many" are here to stay. Educate the population, don't gag anyone and everyone you feel may be an undue influence on it. I do agree that education is a good thing and needed by some—and not taking the form of brainwashing. Identifying bias, personal ideology and opinion presented as fact in news and media should be a core component of English language education, though I'm led to believe it receives far less emphasis in the US than in the UK.

I'm not gagging anyone. I think that celebrities should realize for themselves that what they are doing is wrong. In the same way lobby groups should. BTW you were the one who called the general population stupid and undecuated. Its a moot point anyway since you dont have to be stupid to be influenced by the media. Back to another one of my points, everyone is socialized regardless of intelligence. Celebrities have an incredible power to socialize.

Do you accost people having a conversation in the street and slur at them? Dyslexia/dyspraxia, fair enough. Lacking motor skills, fair enough. None of these things are uncommon. "Not being bothered" is simply disrespecting the positions you endorse and the people you communicate with.

I'm also a little curious what Transformers have to do with a General Discussions forum. This is a fairly old community with members who have little or no interest in Transformers; they're simply here to chat.

ummmm okay. Its common on the internet to communicate in an abreviated form. Its not trying to be disrespectfull. People on the street use conversation that would be technically considered bad grammar all the time. I dont think grammar should be used as a weopon to validate/disprove someones argument was my point.

I've yet to see any evidence in support of your point—to whit, that celebrities should be muzzled for the protection of the stupid and in aid of presidential candidates who would otherwise receive the tacit or explicit support of the stupid.

Interpolating people as weak and easily led for listening to calls for a change of president is never going to go down well.

Once again I never said people were weak or easily led. By your argument girls who throw up after they eat are weak and easily led, because they fall for advertisers ideal of perfect body image. Everyone is subject to social condidtioning. Media and celebrity being extremely effective tools of this. People are not stupid for falling victem to this, in fact, everyone has to some degree. I dont want celebrities telling people who to vote for anymore than I want Cosmopolitan magazine.

once you'd define anyone in favour of a campaign to shake up politics and remove the incumbent president as "biased towards the left" it seems a touch redundant.

wideload wrote:
Exactly. Some people only care about if they win, not how they do it. Doesnt seem to matter if its done in a non-democratic way.

I assume that unrelated point was just tacked on at what you deemed a suitable juncture?

Wishing to depose Bush does not make one a supporter of Kerry; they simply wish to see an evil removed. Presuming otherwise is the trite, polarised rhetoric of GW himself—the "if you're not with us, you're against us" appeal to the public gallery.

It doenst matter for what reason people are supporting Kerry, this discussion is about methods. The point about how you win was totally valid. I was talking about how people who want Bush deposed have lost sight of the methods of how they do it. Thats what this entire conversation has been about. How is that "unrelated"

wideload wrote:
Just cause its possible for celebrities to be democratic doenst mean they are. Especially when they try to use fame and money to influence the vote.
So it's likely, according to you, that such a celeb isn't democratic.

Umm no. When did I mention anything about likelyhood. I only said its possible.

wideload wrote:
People with little educated on the issues are more likely to vote for whoever their favorite celebrity says to.
Do you blame education programmes in american schools and universities, or do you blame the individuals for their irrational alignments, or do you blame the US democratic system?

Its more a question of human nature. Everyone is subject to social conditioning. If your less educated about a topic your more likely to be pursuading by a biased source. I dont blame anyone in particular although I think that all current political systems are lacking. Everyone should have more options than a handfull of rich white guys to vote for.

wideload wrote:
my argument is about the morality and not the law
wideload wrote:
my argument has nothing to do with wether or not the law is being broken
wideload wrote:
control the government would mean in this case using fame and money to decide who is the president.
Would this also apply to political parties? Why? Why not?

I personally hate partisan politics, but that just my opinion. This is a whole other argument. I do think major political parties use their image to influence people but once again thats a whole other can of worms.

Quote:
Quote:
Regarldless of how anyone else feels, I still believe I'm right.
Your self-belief in the face of regard could be seen in some quarters as admirable. But most would see it as delusional.
If more people stopped carring about their image, I think the world would be a better place. Just my opinion though.
By one's 'image' I guess you roughly mean 'people's general perception of one's attitude and stances', yes? So, you advocate shutting out this vast 'sounding board' off which you could have otherwise usefully employed to assess and re-examine one's own beliefs. So, you're firm on being regardless and not caring, in that respect. Hmmm.

ummm i don know how you got that from what I said. I never said I didnt consider others opinions or was unwilling to change my own. In this particular instance I have not been given good enough reason to change my views. The mainstream popularity of my views and peer pressure dont really seem like a good reason. By your argument anyone who has ever had an idea that differed from the mainstream was "regardless and not caring".

"Just my opinion though" is a needless qualification.

I disagree. By stating this I am stating that I dont believe its a concrete fact, and although I acknowledge the situation may be percieved in several ways, this is how I perceive it. Thats just my opinion though

Also clarify: who is hijacking whose opinions

After reading through frontpagmag, its obvious they are the kind of publication who will take articles out of context that support a specific cause and use them as evidence to support a much broader right wing agenda.

[Best First]

do you know what helps when discussing your opinions? Explaining why you have them.

[wideload]

why I have them?

Because I believe in democracy. I dont believe that celebrities and rich people should influence who people vote for. Because I believe the media should not influence politics. Do I really need to go on.

Ones beliefs on democracy should be universal and shouldnt rely on whether the person you want/dont want in office is elected. I hate to resort to cliches but....

"Do the ends justify the means?"
"How do you destroy a monster, without becomming one?"
"Do two wrongs make a right?"

Honestly I have stated why I believe the way I do many many times. Your just trying to debase my argument by saying thats I have no evidence for it and its irrational. Neither of which is remotely true. Examples of media socializing people are abundant, and you should accept that regardless of whether this time the media is supporting your views or not.

[Best First]

and here you tumble down. i believe in democracy is such a nebulous answer as to be of no use at all - why do you believe in democray? What do you percieve democracy to be? Which of those aspects do you feel are specifcially threatened? etc etc etc

[wideload]

and here you tumble down. i believe in democracy is such a nebulous answer as to be of no use at all - why do you believe in democray? What do you percieve democracy to be? Which of those aspects do you feel are specifcially threatened? etc etc etc

Why do I believe in democracy? Are you now debating whether or not democracy is a good or bad thing. Thats a whole other argument. My argument is based on he premise that democracy is a good thing. Telling you that I think I believe in democracy is not nebulous at all. How is that an unclear way of stating my beliefs. Its quite concrete. I would rather have a democratic system where everyone has an equal say than a totalitarian one.

As for what aspects of democracy are being violated, once again I've explained that many many many times. I see democracy as a situtation where everyone has equal say in who gets to be in power. When certain people have more say than others, whether they be the media, corporations, or celebrities there is a problem.

There is nothing that I have stated here, that I already hadn't stated. How have I tumbled down?

[Best First]

democracy means different things to different people - its questionable whether it really exists in a 'true' form anywhere - a point i believe Denyer has tried to make a number of times.

For example your definiton of democracy seems to be that anyone with any sphere of influcence must not make their political inclinations known as that is 'undemocratic' - that certainly doesn't jive with my perceptions of democracy.

What is the point of having a concept of democracy if it in no way relates to political and social reality?

Do you think everyone should decide who to vote for in isolation? Where would they get their information from? Wouldn't the person distributing that information be in an 'un-democratic' position? etc etc

Yet when challenged you just resort to saying - well it is wrong because i believe in democracy - hence the circular arguement you have created.

[Optimus Prime Rib]

can we please just lock this one? PLEASE? Ill give you some gummy bears..

[Denyer]

Well, I could lock it, but I always thought discussion boards involved discussion. Not sure where that idea came from. Possibly from a tower of young women with a grail-shaped beacon.

I dont care what right wing people are doing and it is irrelevant to the argument. Are you saying the burning of dixie chicks albums somehow justifies Kerry supporters to also act like idiots.

I'm saying that there are a minority of idiots out there. They need protecting no more than any of the rest of the population—if they are truly so ignorant, limited in cognitive ability and easily influenced, they should have their voting privileges revoked. Asking people to gag their opinions (where not an incitement to violence) runs counter to the notion of an open and democratic nation.

yes everyone does get one vote, but some people obviously have more oppurtunity to influence others. This is my point.

In the case of adults influencing minors, I'd concede you your point. We give adults the role of sniffing out lying politicians, unkept campaign promises, inaccurate statistics—in short, we assume that they are competent to cast that vote which is accorded them in spite of the adverts, discussions with friends, and a million other things which may influence their decision in doing so. Silencing a man who has been writing music about political topics both before and since "Born in the USA"—a song about the shoddy treatment received by returning veterans of the Vietnam conflict—is not the way to go.

BTW you were the one who called the general population stupid and undecuated.

Your entire argument insults American voters. You suggest that they're weak-minded and incapable of sensing or responding to what you see as a malign influence.

I'll even concede you the point that Springsteen's work is living proof of the stupidity and easy coercion of many Americans. The Reagan campaign team adopted an anthem without listening to it, many Republican supporters lapping it up without a second of independent thought. They were swayed into this stupidity by their politicians. How undemocratic.

Yet we trust those idiots with a vote. Either we do that, and we don't attach strings to who they can talk to and who can put on a show which they choose and pay to go and see—or we cut to the chase and address them as sheep who can't make up their own minds and debar them their input.

everyone is socialized regardless of intelligence.

Really? I haven't socialised you into accepting my perspective on things. Springsteen hasn't socialised you into accepting his critique of American politics (a critique which extends to politicians on both sides of the line, incidentally.) You're living disproof of that supposed coercion effect. I'm not swayed by your assertion that people getting up on stage to talk about their principles is undemocratic.

I dont think grammar should be used as a weopon to validate/disprove someones argument was my point.

As with any community, burden of proof rests with new blood. Vestigial diction + ability to communicate > faultless grammar + trolling, certainly. To the casual reader, there's no difference between a 17yr old script kiddy and someone with crippling dyslexia or mobility problems—until we examine what's actually been typed. At this point, not being bothered to string things together becomes just another coffin-nail.

By your argument girls who throw up after they eat are weak and easily led, because they fall for advertisers ideal of perfect body image.

See above statement concerning minors versus adults. Adults are expected to exercise common sense. Many don't, because neither of our countries actually does protect children from marketing. This does not dilute the expectation.

Everyone is subject to social condidtioning. Media and celebrity being extremely effective tools of this.

You seem not to include politicians as media agents, celebrities or influencing (or owning, or having family stakes in) news and print. I wonder why?