Study Shows USA is an Oligarchy, not Democratic

[Asclepias]

Ummmmm Iceland is a democratic Socialist County

Top Economists: Iceland Did It Right ? And Everyone Else Is Doing It Wrong | Zero Hedge

Iceland; Socialism works! | ACA The Underground

Iceland's socialist economy grows 4.7 percent after the 99% takes on the 1%

Iceland is doing all the things the right wing capitalist disapprove of.

They nationalized their banks, repudiated the banksters debt, allowed their currency to massively devalue and increased welfare programs to help the average Icelander.

If they continue to prosper it will be a huge bitch slap to all those who want to wipe out government in hopes of instituting some kind of "free market" nirvana.

Instead of allowing the criminals responsible for bank fraud to run free as the years passed by, Iceland thought it might be wise to actually indict bankers who committed serious financial crimes that contributed to the collapse. By paying off loans for consumers, forgiving homeowner debt (up to 110% of the property value), and throwing the offenders in prison, Iceland was able to bounce back. Now, its economy is “recovered” and is growing faster than both the US and European economies.


When Iceland’s President Olafur Ragnar Grimmson was asked whether or not other countries – Europe in particular – would succeed with Iceland’s “let the banks fail” policy, he stated the following:

“Why are the banks considered to be the holy churches of the modern economy? Why are private banks not like airlines and telecommunication companies and allowed to go bankrupt if they have been run in an irresponsible way? The theory that you have to bail out banks is a theory that you allow bankers enjoy for their own profit, their success, and then let ordinary people bear their failure through taxes and austerity. 
People in enlightened democracies are not going to accept that in the long run.”

Grimmson’s “famous” reply to the controversial question, “What is the reason for Iceland’s recovery?” is most remarkable.

“We were wise enough not to follow the traditional prevailing orthodoxies of the Western financial world in the last 30 years. We introduced currency controls, we let the banks fail, we provided support for the poor, and we didn’t introduce austerity measures like you’re seeing in Europe.”
Iceland's Stabilized Economy Is A Surprising Success Story - Forbes

This should be an eye opener for everyone in the US. Taken separately both of these actions would probably have caused a civil war. Combined it worked out. "This and that thinking" instead of "this or that thinking".

 

[guno]

Ummmmm Iceland is a democratic Socialist County

Top Economists: Iceland Did It Right ? And Everyone Else Is Doing It Wrong | Zero Hedge

Iceland; Socialism works! | ACA The Underground

Iceland's socialist economy grows 4.7 percent after the 99% takes on the 1%

Iceland is doing all the things the right wing capitalist disapprove of.

They nationalized their banks, repudiated the banksters debt, allowed their currency to massively devalue and increased welfare programs to help the average Icelander.

If they continue to prosper it will be a huge bitch slap to all those who want to wipe out government in hopes of instituting some kind of "free market" nirvana.

Instead of allowing the criminals responsible for bank fraud to run free as the years passed by, Iceland thought it might be wise to actually indict bankers who committed serious financial crimes that contributed to the collapse. By paying off loans for consumers, forgiving homeowner debt (up to 110% of the property value), and throwing the offenders in prison, Iceland was able to bounce back. Now, its economy is “recovered” and is growing faster than both the US and European economies.


When Iceland’s President Olafur Ragnar Grimmson was asked whether or not other countries – Europe in particular – would succeed with Iceland’s “let the banks fail” policy, he stated the following:

“Why are the banks considered to be the holy churches of the modern economy? Why are private banks not like airlines and telecommunication companies and allowed to go bankrupt if they have been run in an irresponsible way? The theory that you have to bail out banks is a theory that you allow bankers enjoy for their own profit, their success, and then let ordinary people bear their failure through taxes and austerity. 
People in enlightened democracies are not going to accept that in the long run.”

Grimmson’s “famous” reply to the controversial question, “What is the reason for Iceland’s recovery?” is most remarkable.

“We were wise enough not to follow the traditional prevailing orthodoxies of the Western financial world in the last 30 years. We introduced currency controls, we let the banks fail, we provided support for the poor, and we didn’t introduce austerity measures like you’re seeing in Europe.”
Iceland's Stabilized Economy Is A Surprising Success Story - Forbes

Iceland Socialized medical care

Healthcare in Iceland is universal. The healthcare system is largely paid for by taxes (85%) and to some extent by service fees (15%) and is administrated by the Ministry of Welfare. A considerable portion of government spending is assigned to healthcare. There is almost no private health insurance in Iceland and no private hospitals

Healthcare in Iceland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sounds like a rightwingers nightmare!!

 

[Sallow]

The corporations have divided the working class against itself using neomarxist fascism on the left and social issues to the right to wedge the working class apart and distract us from the looting we are subjected to such as 'Quantitative Easing' and the steady shift of taxation from three individual dollars to every two corporate tax dollars, to it now being 6 to 1 heavy individual taxes paying almost all the governments costs instead of corporations. The law says that corporations are people so why don't they pay taxes at rates like the real people?

We have been hoodwinked and robbed and we keep on letting trolls and liars mislead us and bamboozle us to get robbed even more.

The study pointed that out where, exactly?

And what we have now? Is what you folks wanted.

Corporations are people.

Money is speech.

Enjoy.

https://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/...ens and Page 2014-Testing Theories 3-7-14.pdf

Biased Pluralism. Olson’s argument points toward an important variant line of thinking within the pluralist tradition: theories of “biased” pluralism, which posit struggles among an unrepresentative universe of interest groups – characterized by E.E. Schattschneider as a heavenly chorus with an “upper-class accent,” and more recently dubbed by Kay Lehman Schlozman, Sidney Verba, and Henry Brady an “unheavenly chorus.” Theories of biased pluralism generally argue that both the thrust of interest group conflict and the public policies that result tend to tilt toward the wishes of corporations and business and professional associations.17
Schattschneider suggested that policy outcomes vary with the “scope of conflict”: for
example, that business-oriented interest groups tend to prevail over ordinary citizens when the scope is narrow and visibility is low. Grant McConnell added the idea that the actual “constituencies” of policy implementers can consist of powerful groups. George Stigler (articulating what some economists have scorned as “Chicago Marxism”) analyzed the politics of regulation in terms of biased pluralism: the capture of regulators by the regulated. Charles Lindblom outlined a number of ways – including the “privileged position” of business – in which business firms and their associations influence public policy. Thomas Ferguson has posited an “investment theory” of politics in which “major investors” – especially representatives of particular industrial sectors – fund political parties in order to get policies that suit their economic interests. Fred Block’s “neo-Polanyian” analysis emphasizes groups. Jacob Hacker’s and Paul Pierson’s analysis of “winner-take-all-politics,” which emphasizes the power of the finance industry, can be seen as a recent contribution to the literature of biased pluralism.18
Marxist and neo-Marxist theories of the capitalist state hold that economic classes – and
particularly the bourgeoisie, the owners of the means of production -- dominate policy making and cause the state to serve their material interests. As the Communist Manifesto put it, “The bourgeoisie has...conquered for itself, in the modern representative State, exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern State is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.”19 We cannot precisely test the predictions of such theories, because we lack good measures of policy preferences by economic class. (In Marxist theory, neither income nor wealth accurately signals class position.) We can note, however, that certain “instrumentalist” Marxist theories, including the important version put forth by Ralph Miliband, make predictions resembling those of theories of Biased Pluralism: that interest groups and corporations representing “large scale business” tend to prevail.20

And you can shove the 'you folks' up your stinking nasty ass, bitch.

You do know that doesn't at all support what you posted.

What it does find is one guy, that's probably like you, that describes "Biased Pluralism" as "Chicago Marxism".

Using the term "Marxism" in this manner is a misnomer by the way..

 

[Sallow]

Bullshit.

Iceland is one example of a country where the people control the political system, and they thrive as a result.

Wish I could talk my wife into moving there with me and I'd go.

Ummmmm Iceland is a democratic Socialist County

Top Economists: Iceland Did It Right ? And Everyone Else Is Doing It Wrong | Zero Hedge

Iceland; Socialism works! | ACA The Underground

Iceland's socialist economy grows 4.7 percent after the 99% takes on the 1%

Iceland is doing all the things the right wing capitalist disapprove of.

They nationalized their banks, repudiated the banksters debt, allowed their currency to massively devalue and increased welfare programs to help the average Icelander.

If they continue to prosper it will be a huge bitch slap to all those who want to wipe out government in hopes of instituting some kind of "free market" nirvana.

Just puts on display, Jimbo don't know what the fuck he's talking about.

He's in way over his head.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

 

[guno]

The study pointed that out where, exactly?

And what we have now? Is what you folks wanted.

Corporations are people.

Money is speech.

Enjoy.

https://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/...ens and Page 2014-Testing Theories 3-7-14.pdf

Biased Pluralism. Olson’s argument points toward an important variant line of thinking within the pluralist tradition: theories of “biased” pluralism, which posit struggles among an unrepresentative universe of interest groups – characterized by E.E. Schattschneider as a heavenly chorus with an “upper-class accent,” and more recently dubbed by Kay Lehman Schlozman, Sidney Verba, and Henry Brady an “unheavenly chorus.” Theories of biased pluralism generally argue that both the thrust of interest group conflict and the public policies that result tend to tilt toward the wishes of corporations and business and professional associations.17
Schattschneider suggested that policy outcomes vary with the “scope of conflict”: for
example, that business-oriented interest groups tend to prevail over ordinary citizens when the scope is narrow and visibility is low. Grant McConnell added the idea that the actual “constituencies” of policy implementers can consist of powerful groups. George Stigler (articulating what some economists have scorned as “Chicago Marxism”) analyzed the politics of regulation in terms of biased pluralism: the capture of regulators by the regulated. Charles Lindblom outlined a number of ways – including the “privileged position” of business – in which business firms and their associations influence public policy. Thomas Ferguson has posited an “investment theory” of politics in which “major investors” – especially representatives of particular industrial sectors – fund political parties in order to get policies that suit their economic interests. Fred Block’s “neo-Polanyian” analysis emphasizes groups. Jacob Hacker’s and Paul Pierson’s analysis of “winner-take-all-politics,” which emphasizes the power of the finance industry, can be seen as a recent contribution to the literature of biased pluralism.18
Marxist and neo-Marxist theories of the capitalist state hold that economic classes – and
particularly the bourgeoisie, the owners of the means of production -- dominate policy making and cause the state to serve their material interests. As the Communist Manifesto put it, “The bourgeoisie has...conquered for itself, in the modern representative State, exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern State is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.”19 We cannot precisely test the predictions of such theories, because we lack good measures of policy preferences by economic class. (In Marxist theory, neither income nor wealth accurately signals class position.) We can note, however, that certain “instrumentalist” Marxist theories, including the important version put forth by Ralph Miliband, make predictions resembling those of theories of Biased Pluralism: that interest groups and corporations representing “large scale business” tend to prevail.20

And you can shove the 'you folks' up your stinking nasty ass, bitch.

You do know that doesn't at all support what you posted.

What it does find is one guy, that's probably like you, that describes "Biased Pluralism" as "Chicago Marxism".

Using the term "Marxism" in this manner is a misnomer by the way..

They just spew words not knowing the meaning of them

 

[peach174]

Key words

No limits on how much an individual may contribute in one election cycle.

That means each and every one of us can now give to as many candidates as we want to and not just to a few.

Aw - Freedom from progressive ideology over the last 40 years.

It is still illegal to donate over $5,200 to a single politician’s campaign, potential donors can now give money to unlimited numbers of campaigns across the country.

 

[JimBowie1958]

We were never Democratic.
We were a Republic, with 3 separate branches of powers and had States rights. Our Constitution limits the powers of our Federal government.
It's Progressives who have messed up our political ideology and has turned it into a huge mess.
Progressives has turned our form of government into the exact opposite of what the founders wanted.

Didn't say we were a democracy, just said that we are no longer democratic, which is another thing entirely.

We are no longer a democratic republic but we are an oligarchic republic.

We were a Republic no Democratic republic.

The Founding Fathers universally rejected democracy and hoped that posterity would never turn the United States into one. The word they used was Republic, which is not synonymous with Democracy. The word Democracy is not in the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights. Even the Pledge of Allegiance says the Republic for which it stands.

Benjamin Franklin defined democracy as a two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

So why did they reject Democracy? Because it is inherently flawed with the share of the wealth philosophy, which only works as long as there is someone else's money to share. Those receiving are quite pleased with getting something for nothing. But those forced to give are denied the right to spend the benefits of their own labor in their own self-interest, which creates jobs no matter how the money is spent. They also lose a portion of their incentive to produce.

We were a Republic that had individualism first and society 2nd.
Progressives has turned it into Society first and individualism 2nd.
The Progressives has turned us into a Social Democracy.

Democracies always end up as Oligarchies.

We were long described as a 'democratic republic' as the majority of our top officials were elected through a mostly democratic process and they supposedly represented the will of the people.

They do not any more. They represent the money that gets donated to them.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Ummmmm Iceland is a democratic Socialist County

Top Economists: Iceland Did It Right ? And Everyone Else Is Doing It Wrong | Zero Hedge

Iceland; Socialism works! | ACA The Underground

Iceland's socialist economy grows 4.7 percent after the 99% takes on the 1%

Iceland is doing all the things the right wing capitalist disapprove of.

They nationalized their banks, repudiated the banksters debt, allowed their currency to massively devalue and increased welfare programs to help the average Icelander.

If they continue to prosper it will be a huge bitch slap to all those who want to wipe out government in hopes of instituting some kind of "free market" nirvana.

Instead of allowing the criminals responsible for bank fraud to run free as the years passed by, Iceland thought it might be wise to actually indict bankers who committed serious financial crimes that contributed to the collapse. By paying off loans for consumers, forgiving homeowner debt (up to 110% of the property value), and throwing the offenders in prison, Iceland was able to bounce back. Now, its economy is “recovered” and is growing faster than both the US and European economies.


When Iceland’s President Olafur Ragnar Grimmson was asked whether or not other countries – Europe in particular – would succeed with Iceland’s “let the banks fail” policy, he stated the following:

“Why are the banks considered to be the holy churches of the modern economy? Why are private banks not like airlines and telecommunication companies and allowed to go bankrupt if they have been run in an irresponsible way? The theory that you have to bail out banks is a theory that you allow bankers enjoy for their own profit, their success, and then let ordinary people bear their failure through taxes and austerity. 
People in enlightened democracies are not going to accept that in the long run.”

Grimmson’s “famous” reply to the controversial question, “What is the reason for Iceland’s recovery?” is most remarkable.

“We were wise enough not to follow the traditional prevailing orthodoxies of the Western financial world in the last 30 years. We introduced currency controls, we let the banks fail, we provided support for the poor, and we didn’t introduce austerity measures like you’re seeing in Europe.”
Iceland's Stabilized Economy Is A Surprising Success Story - Forbes

Yes, and that is called free market capitalism, as opposed to crony capitalism which is practiced by the unholy coalition of Wall Street banks, corporations and DC insiders.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Ummmmm Iceland is a democratic Socialist County

Top Economists: Iceland Did It Right ? And Everyone Else Is Doing It Wrong | Zero Hedge

Iceland; Socialism works! | ACA The Underground

Iceland's socialist economy grows 4.7 percent after the 99% takes on the 1%

Iceland is doing all the things the right wing capitalist disapprove of.

They nationalized their banks, repudiated the banksters debt, allowed their currency to massively devalue and increased welfare programs to help the average Icelander.

If they continue to prosper it will be a huge bitch slap to all those who want to wipe out government in hopes of instituting some kind of "free market" nirvana.

Just puts on display, Jimbo don't know what the fuck he's talking about.

He's in way over his head.

Iceland is not a socialist country, you fucking retard.

Economy of Iceland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Iceland has a mixed economy with high levels of free trade and government intervention. However, government consumption is less than in other Nordic countries. Geothermal power in Iceland is the primary source of home and industrial energy in Iceland.[12]

In the 1990s Iceland undertook extensive free market reforms, which initially produced strong economic growth. As a result, Iceland was rated as having one of the world's highest levels of economic freedom[13] as well as civil freedoms. In 2007, Iceland topped the list of nations ranked by Human Development Index[14] and was one of the most egalitarian, according to the calculation provided by the Gini coefficient.[15]

I know enough to know that having universal health care does not make an economy socialist in and of itself, dumbass.

Go back to your twink farm, bitch.

 

[JimBowie1958]

https://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/...ens and Page 2014-Testing Theories 3-7-14.pdf



And you can shove the 'you folks' up your stinking nasty ass, bitch.

You do know that doesn't at all support what you posted.

What it does find is one guy, that's probably like you, that describes "Biased Pluralism" as "Chicago Marxism".

Using the term "Marxism" in this manner is a misnomer by the way..

They just spew words not knowing the meaning of them

Lol, and you think Iceland has a socialist government when it plainly does not.

You don't understand your own words, much less anyone elses, you retarded fuckstain.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The study pointed that out where, exactly?

And what we have now? Is what you folks wanted.

Corporations are people.

Money is speech.

Enjoy.

https://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/...ens and Page 2014-Testing Theories 3-7-14.pdf

Biased Pluralism. Olson’s argument points toward an important variant line of thinking within the pluralist tradition: theories of “biased” pluralism, which posit struggles among an unrepresentative universe of interest groups – characterized by E.E. Schattschneider as a heavenly chorus with an “upper-class accent,” and more recently dubbed by Kay Lehman Schlozman, Sidney Verba, and Henry Brady an “unheavenly chorus.” Theories of biased pluralism generally argue that both the thrust of interest group conflict and the public policies that result tend to tilt toward the wishes of corporations and business and professional associations.17
Schattschneider suggested that policy outcomes vary with the “scope of conflict”: for
example, that business-oriented interest groups tend to prevail over ordinary citizens when the scope is narrow and visibility is low. Grant McConnell added the idea that the actual “constituencies” of policy implementers can consist of powerful groups. George Stigler (articulating what some economists have scorned as “Chicago Marxism”) analyzed the politics of regulation in terms of biased pluralism: the capture of regulators by the regulated. Charles Lindblom outlined a number of ways – including the “privileged position” of business – in which business firms and their associations influence public policy. Thomas Ferguson has posited an “investment theory” of politics in which “major investors” – especially representatives of particular industrial sectors – fund political parties in order to get policies that suit their economic interests. Fred Block’s “neo-Polanyian” analysis emphasizes groups. Jacob Hacker’s and Paul Pierson’s analysis of “winner-take-all-politics,” which emphasizes the power of the finance industry, can be seen as a recent contribution to the literature of biased pluralism.18
Marxist and neo-Marxist theories of the capitalist state hold that economic classes – and
particularly the bourgeoisie, the owners of the means of production -- dominate policy making and cause the state to serve their material interests. As the Communist Manifesto put it, “The bourgeoisie has...conquered for itself, in the modern representative State, exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern State is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.”19 We cannot precisely test the predictions of such theories, because we lack good measures of policy preferences by economic class. (In Marxist theory, neither income nor wealth accurately signals class position.) We can note, however, that certain “instrumentalist” Marxist theories, including the important version put forth by Ralph Miliband, make predictions resembling those of theories of Biased Pluralism: that interest groups and corporations representing “large scale business” tend to prevail.20

And you can shove the 'you folks' up your stinking nasty ass, bitch.

You do know that doesn't at all support what you posted.

What it does find is one guy, that's probably like you, that describes "Biased Pluralism" as "Chicago Marxism".

Using the term "Marxism" in this manner is a misnomer by the way..

It exactly supports it, you lying fraud.

Good Lord, you act like no one can read and dispel you bullshit lies.

You stupid ass.

 

[guno]

You do know that doesn't at all support what you posted.

What it does find is one guy, that's probably like you, that describes "Biased Pluralism" as "Chicago Marxism".

Using the term "Marxism" in this manner is a misnomer by the way..

They just spew words not knowing the meaning of them

Lol, and you think Iceland has a socialist government when it plainly does not.

You don't understand your own words, much less anyone elses, you retarded fuckstain.

Sorry your IQ is very Low Crackerstanie, read the articles

 

[peach174]

Didn't say we were a democracy, just said that we are no longer democratic, which is another thing entirely.

We are no longer a democratic republic but we are an oligarchic republic.

We were a Republic no Democratic republic.

The Founding Fathers universally rejected democracy and hoped that posterity would never turn the United States into one. The word they used was Republic, which is not synonymous with Democracy. The word Democracy is not in the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights. Even the Pledge of Allegiance says the Republic for which it stands.

Benjamin Franklin defined democracy as a two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

So why did they reject Democracy? Because it is inherently flawed with the share of the wealth philosophy, which only works as long as there is someone else's money to share. Those receiving are quite pleased with getting something for nothing. But those forced to give are denied the right to spend the benefits of their own labor in their own self-interest, which creates jobs no matter how the money is spent. They also lose a portion of their incentive to produce.

We were a Republic that had individualism first and society 2nd.
Progressives has turned it into Society first and individualism 2nd.
The Progressives has turned us into a Social Democracy.

Democracies always end up as Oligarchies.

We were long described as a 'democratic republic' as the majority of our top officials were elected through a mostly democratic process and they supposedly represented the will of the people.

They do not any more. They represent the money that gets donated to them.

No - we were never a Democratic Republic until the Progressives took over at around 1913under Wilson.
Theodore Roosevelt started the movement but it really took hold under President Wilson.
For the last 100 years Progressives have called us a Democracy while Conservatives have called us a Republic.

If we change our Tax system the money would no longer have the lobbying influence that it has now.

 

[Sallow]

https://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/...ens and Page 2014-Testing Theories 3-7-14.pdf



And you can shove the 'you folks' up your stinking nasty ass, bitch.

You do know that doesn't at all support what you posted.

What it does find is one guy, that's probably like you, that describes "Biased Pluralism" as "Chicago Marxism".

Using the term "Marxism" in this manner is a misnomer by the way..

It exactly supports it, you lying fraud.

Good Lord, you act like no one can read and dispel you bullshit lies.

You stupid ass.

Well no it doesn't.

You think because it has the word "Marxism" in the section or "Chicago Marxism" that it supports the view that what "some economists describe" is indeed that.

"Marxism" and "Fascism" have no real meaning in the Lexicon of you folks, save to describe people you don't like. You may as well substitute the words "Black" or "Mexican", because they have the same sort of connotation when coming from the usual suspects.

It's not a criticism, however, that can be taken seriously from anyone out of your right wing sowing circle.

 

[JimBowie1958]

They just spew words not knowing the meaning of them

Lol, and you think Iceland has a socialist government when it plainly does not.

You don't understand your own words, much less anyone elses, you retarded fuckstain.

Sorry your IQ is very Low Crackerstanie, read the articles

I even gave a link to help your stupid ass to understand my point but all you can do is pat yourself for crative name calling, lol.

Your like this goalie:

https://mtc.cdn.vine.co/r/videos/45...p4?versionId=NhWD5eshbrx6OXosU1n2a41i_rEvkVvf

 

[JimBowie1958]

You do know that doesn't at all support what you posted.

What it does find is one guy, that's probably like you, that describes "Biased Pluralism" as "Chicago Marxism".

Using the term "Marxism" in this manner is a misnomer by the way..

It exactly supports it, you lying fraud.

Good Lord, you act like no one can read and dispel you bullshit lies.

You stupid ass.

Well no it doesn't.

You think because it has the word "Marxism" in the section or "Chicago Marxism" that it supports the view that what "some economists describe" is indeed that.

I didn't say it did, you lying sack of shyte.

Lol, talk about a straw man argument, you just make shit up and then do a victory lap that no one is watching.

 

[JimBowie1958]

We were a Republic no Democratic republic.

The Founding Fathers universally rejected democracy and hoped that posterity would never turn the United States into one. The word they used was Republic, which is not synonymous with Democracy. The word Democracy is not in the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights. Even the Pledge of Allegiance says the Republic for which it stands.

Benjamin Franklin defined democracy as a two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

So why did they reject Democracy? Because it is inherently flawed with the share of the wealth philosophy, which only works as long as there is someone else's money to share. Those receiving are quite pleased with getting something for nothing. But those forced to give are denied the right to spend the benefits of their own labor in their own self-interest, which creates jobs no matter how the money is spent. They also lose a portion of their incentive to produce.

We were a Republic that had individualism first and society 2nd.
Progressives has turned it into Society first and individualism 2nd.
The Progressives has turned us into a Social Democracy.

Democracies always end up as Oligarchies.

We were long described as a 'democratic republic' as the majority of our top officials were elected through a mostly democratic process and they supposedly represented the will of the people.

They do not any more. They represent the money that gets donated to them.

No - we were never a Democratic Republic until the Progressives took over at around 1913under Wilson.
Theodore Roosevelt started the movement but it really took hold under President Wilson.
For the last 100 years Progressives have called us a Democracy while Conservatives have called us a Republic.

If we change our Tax system the money would no longer have the lobbying influence that it has now.

United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The United States is the world's oldest surviving federation. It is a constitutional republic and representative democracy, "in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law".[214] The government is regulated by a system of checks and balances defined by the U.S. Constitution, which serves as the country's supreme legal document.[215] For 2012, the U.S. ranked 21st on the Democracy Index[216] and 19th on the Corruption Perceptions Index.[217]

You have ever right to your opinion, but I think you are factually incorrect.

But I don't see any point to continue ping ponging this topic.

 

[Sallow]

It exactly supports it, you lying fraud.

Good Lord, you act like no one can read and dispel you bullshit lies.

You stupid ass.

Well no it doesn't.

You think because it has the word "Marxism" in the section or "Chicago Marxism" that it supports the view that what "some economists describe" is indeed that.

I didn't say it did, you lying sack of shyte.

Lol, talk about a straw man argument, you just make shit up and then do a victory lap that no one is watching.

In this very thread you demonstrated you do not understand the study or much else.

Basically? You heard some buzzwords that sounded good and posted this thread.

Then, almost without my thought behind it..you say you would rather live in Iceland.

Iceland?

It really does have a lot of socialism in the mix of it's government. No one there would get away with making more than 20 times what the lowest paid guy in the company makes. And it's economy is heavily regulated.

It also has no real military.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Well no it doesn't.

You think because it has the word "Marxism" in the section or "Chicago Marxism" that it supports the view that what "some economists describe" is indeed that.

I didn't say it did, you lying sack of shyte.

Lol, talk about a straw man argument, you just make shit up and then do a victory lap that no one is watching.

In this very thread you demonstrated you do not understand the study or much else.

Basically? You heard some buzzwords that sounded good and posted this thread.

Then, almost without my thought behind it..you say you would rather live in Iceland.

Iceland?

It really does have a lot of socialism in the mix of it's government. No one there would get away with making more than 20 times what the lowest paid guy in the company makes. And it's economy is heavily regulated.

It also has no real military.

There is nothing that excuses the incompetence of the Obama regime, and the fact that Iceland handled its situation far better says a lot for it, but it isn't a socialist nation.

That you and you butt buddies thought it was says who the real ignoramus is here, Swallow, and it is, once again, you.