Idiocracy is the future of America

[lsbskins1]

Yes, I read it (and I saw the movie). What I said in my earlier post still stands: no one said anything about Michael Vick or Stephen Hawking.."

You seem to have trouble with conceptual thinking. If Harrison Bergeron is a scenario we had to worry about, then Vick and Hawking would need to be SERIOUSLY worried. Get it? I never said or implied you mentioned them. I did.

Keep in mind that it was Democrats that opposed civil rights in the 1960s and the Republicans in Congress who passed the 1964 civil rights act.."

And they traded places in that great demographic shift of the late 60's. Your point is irrelavent.

I don't imply - ever. I mean exactly and only what I post.."

Then you do not post in a clear and concise manner. Do better.

I said what I said. Try taking it in context.."

See above.

[QUOTE=Chancellor;423265]I don't put much stock in The Bell Curve and if you had stuck to the context of the post you'd know exactly what I meant by what I said (I meant exactly and only what I said). You need to stop trying to read things into what people post, stop looking for things to be implied or inferred, and stop reading between the lines!/[QUOTE] Don't put much stock in something that can be mathmatically proven, hey. Sorry to hear logic is not your friend. I said "Do you think people are that stupid? You said "Very". What lines am I reading between?

If you want such a socialist system then go move to a socialist country!."

I never said I would impose it, only that I would vote for it. Why do I need to leave?

Why is it the government's responsibility to ensure that education (something with which the federal government has no constitutional authority) is equal everywhere? Why can't one community decide it wants better schools than its neighbor? Why can't for example, the third safest city in America (Amherst, NY) decide to have better schools than the city of which Amherst is a suburb (Buffalo, NY)? Who the hell are you to dictate to local communities what they can or cannot do with their local schools? Take your socialist crap and move to some other socialist country in Europe.."

Again, if the majority of the American community votes for what I vote for that is democracy. It is American democracy. It is representative democracy. If they don't, it is still all of those things. I can vote however I want. So can all of your fellow citizens. If you don't like what we choose, you leave.

Such a federal system is unconstitutional and just because you give each school district the same amount of money and there still wouldn't be equal opportunity because, as you said, "And rich people could still hire all the extra tutors they want, pay for any course they want, so having the extra money would still reward hard work."."

But, I never said we could ever have perfection, even in equal opportunity. Who is reading between lines now?

You don't believe in the profit motive: if you did, you wouldn't be proposing federal control of the education system. In fact, you'd be proposing that the education system be turned over to the private sector. As for "the right to screw someone else," if that makes them happy, then they're pursuing their right to happiness. :) Seriously, though, since schools (at least here in New York State) are paid for, in large part, by property taxes then communities with higher property taxes are going to have more money to spend. Your communist/socialist notion of wealth redistribution is unamerican - feel free to take such notions and go live in a communist/socialist country!."

That would be your version of truth. Profit motive means just what it says. The individual is encouraged to work because he will gain a profit. It does not mean education MUST be a private function. What if it is factually more profitable for everyone to run it my way?

So, why does your side continually insist on doing just that with tax increases, trying to punish certain groups of people through targeted taxes, etc.?."

Reading between lines, generalizing and assuming. All the things you accuse me of. I believe you like to project.

Show me where the Constitution says individual citizens don't have that right. Of course, the purpose of the Constitution was to limit the powers given to the federal government.."

It does not and I never said it did. I said it does not grant that right.

Oh, and the connection to government regulation is in the movie version of Harrison Bergeron where a new Constitution states "All men are not created equal. It is the purpose of the Government to make them so."

And no law or legislation proposed by any rational and functional individual says anything like that. What would be your point?

[Chancellor]

You seem to have trouble with conceptual thinking. If Harrison Bergeron is a scenario we had to worry about, then Vick and Hawking would need to be SERIOUSLY worried. Get it? I never said or implied you mentioned them. I did.

Your mentioning them was irrelevant to the discussion.

And they traded places in that great demographic shift of the late 60's. Your point is irrelavent.

Did they actually trade places?

Don't put much stock in something that can be mathmatically proven, hey. Sorry to hear logic is not your friend.

No, I don't put much stock in The Bell Curve.

I said "Do you think people are that stupid? You said "Very". What lines am I reading between?

No, you asked "How stupid do you think people actually are?" to which I replied "very."

I never said I would impose it, only that I would vote for it. Why do I need to leave?

Because you're supporting something that is utterly contrary to the form of government the founding fathers gave us. You're supporting something that is unamerican.

Again, if the majority of the American community votes for what I vote for that is democracy. It is American democracy.

The United States of America is not, and has never been, a democracy. It doesn't matter what the majority votes for: if it's contrary to what the founding fathers established in the Constitution, it's treason! Now, if the American sheeple want to amend the Constitution or scrap it for a new one, that's up to them.

It is representative democracy. If they don't, it is still all of those things. I can vote however I want. So can all of your fellow citizens. If you don't like what we choose, you leave.

If what you want to choose were constitutional, I would accept it as such no matter how much I might not like it. However, what you're proposing amounts to treason against the Constitution because you want to give the federal government more power.

But, I never said we could ever have perfection, even in equal opportunity. Who is reading between lines now?

I never said you said we could ever have perfection either - talk about reading between the lines!

That would be your version of truth. Profit motive means just what it says. The individual is encouraged to work because he will gain a profit. It does not mean education MUST be a private function. What if it is factually more profitable for everyone to run it my way?

Government and profit are two words that do not go together.

Reading between lines, generalizing and assuming. All the things you accuse me of. I believe you like to project.

Not at all. In response to what you said, I asked the question: "So, why does your side continually insist on doing just that with tax increases, trying to punish certain groups of people through targeted taxes, etc.?."

It does not and I never said it did. I said it does not grant that right.

There you go, reading between the lines again. Here's what you said, "So, until you can show me where any founding document says that anyone who can make it happen has the "right" to as much as they can lay their greedy little hands on, that phrase supports my case just as much (if not more) as it supports yours." To this statement I replied, "Show me where the Constitution says individual citizens don't have that right. Of course, the purpose of the Constitution was to limit the powers given to the federal government." There is nothing in your statement or in my reply that says you're saying there is a right granted in any founding document to as much as people can lay their greedy hands on. Since the only founding document that really matters is the Constitution, let's stick to that one. The Constitution does not grant rights to the citizens, it limits the power of the federal government.

And no law or legislation proposed by any rational and functional individual says anything like that. What would be your point?

It was in response to your earlier query "I am greatly amused that some people equate government regulation with Michael Vick having to wear cement shoes and Stephen Hawking having to have his thoughts interupted with loud noises. Can someone please explain how you make that leap?"

[lsbskins1]

Your mentioning them was irrelevant to the discussion.

Did they actually trade places?

No, I don't put much stock in The Bell Curve.

No, you asked "How stupid do you think people actually are?" to which I replied "very."

Because you're supporting something that is utterly contrary to the form of government the founding fathers gave us. You're supporting something that is unamerican.

The United States of America is not, and has never been, a democracy. It doesn't matter what the majority votes for: if it's contrary to what the founding fathers established in the Constitution, it's treason! Now, if the American sheeple want to amend the Constitution or scrap it for a new one, that's up to them.

If what you want to choose were constitutional, I would accept it as such no matter how much I might not like it. However, what you're proposing amounts to treason against the Constitution because you want to give the federal government more power.



I never said you said we could ever have perfection either - talk about reading between the lines!



Government and profit are two words that do not go together.

Not at all. In response to what you said, I asked the question: "So, why does your side continually insist on doing just that with tax increases, trying to punish certain groups of people through targeted taxes, etc.?."

There you go, reading between the lines again. Here's what you said, "So, until you can show me where any founding document says that anyone who can make it happen has the "right" to as much as they can lay their greedy little hands on, that phrase supports my case just as much (if not more) as it supports yours." To this statement I replied, "Show me where the Constitution says individual citizens don't have that right. Of course, the purpose of the Constitution was to limit the powers given to the federal government." There is nothing in your statement or in my reply that says you're saying there is a right granted in any founding document to as much as people can lay their greedy hands on. Since the only founding document that really matters is the Constitution, let's stick to that one. The Constitution does not grant rights to the citizens, it limits the power of the federal government.

It was in response to your earlier query "I am greatly amused that some people equate government regulation with Michael Vick having to wear cement shoes and Stephen Hawking having to have his thoughts interupted with loud noises. Can someone please explain how you make that leap?"

This is why I hate cut and paste in this forum....

You do not get to define "Constitutional. There are 9 duly appointed justices who have that Constitutional responsibility. If the majority of the people begin to believe their rights are being usurped, they will act. Until that day, the 9 get to make the call, not you.

Strom Thurmond was a Democrat, became a Republican. They changed places. The "populist" wing of the party was overpowered by the progressive wing. The populists switched sides. The racists alligned themselves with the money grubbers and that was the beginning of the Republican resurgence. Historical fact, don't cha know. Of course, the racist and money grubber aspect is my characterization.

The US is a democracy. I have posted the definition that proves my point in previous threads. I will do it again:

de·moc·ra·cy /Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-mok-ruh-see] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -cies. 1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.
3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
4. political or social equality; democratic spirit.
5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.

You do not get to define unamerican either. You can define it for your own belief system, but not in any legal sense.

The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution and grants specific rights. And if you take issue with "grants", substitute "attempts to insure". The point is, nowhere is it deemed a constituionally granted right to have as much profit as you can weezle. The Constitution does not protect your right to earn as much as you can.

There is no law, codified or natural that says government and profit are mutually exclusive. That is your belief, not fact. Please do not present it as such.

It is your assumption that the point is to punish with taxes. It's not the point from my perspective. The point of taxes, targeted or otherwise, is to equitibly share the finacial burden of providing the services the people have demanded through their representatives. You know, those freely and democratically elected ones you do not believe we have.

Oh, and you almost have a point with your last statement, but only because you did not get MY point. My question was really rhetorical, and meant to point out the fact that comparing the issues involved in stories like Harrison Bergeron and EPA regulations is assinine. Now, I am not saying you speifically cite the EPA or any other agency. But correct me if I'm wrong, you don't like the EPA because you believe it is a slippery slope towards a Harrison Bergeron type existence, right?

[Chancellor]

This is why I hate cut and paste in this forum....

You do not get to define "Constitutional. There are 9 duly appointed justices who have that Constitutional responsibility. If the majority of the people begin to believe their rights are being usurped, they will act. Until that day, the 9 get to make the call, not you.

Actually, there is nothing in Article III that gives the Supreme Court the authority to define "Constitutional" or to otherwise interpret the Constitution. Since I am an American and any rights/powers not specifically given to the federal government or the states belong to the people, I have the power to say whether or not something is constitutional.

Strom Thurmond was a Democrat, became a Republican. They changed places. The "populist" wing of the party was overpowered by the progressive wing. The populists switched sides. The racists alligned themselves with the money grubbers and that was the beginning of the Republican resurgence. Historical fact, don't cha know. Of course, the racist and money grubber aspect is my characterization.

Actually, it was the paternalistic leftists that took over the Democrat Party in the 1960s.

The US is a democracy. I have posted the definition that proves my point in previous threads. I will do it again:

de·moc·ra·cy /Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-mok-ruh-see] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -cies. 1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.
3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
4. political or social equality; democratic spirit.
5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.

Your source is wrong: the United States is not a democracy and neither, for that matter, is Canada. The only kind of government that is actually a democracy is one where the people have direct rule (such as ancient Athens had for a time). Further, the United States of America does not have a free electoral system because it is set up in such a way as to make it extremely difficult for anyone who is not a Democrat or a Republican to run for office. Why do you have such a problem with the United States of America being a constitutional republic?

You do not get to define unamerican either. You can define it for your own belief system, but not in any legal sense.

Well, actually, I do get to define it.

The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution and grants specific rights. And if you take issue with "grants", substitute "attempts to insure". The point is, nowhere is it deemed a constituionally granted right to have as much profit as you can weezle. The Constitution does not protect your right to earn as much as you can.

Again, the Constitution does not grant rights, it limits governmental powers.

There is no law, codified or natural that says government and profit are mutually exclusive. That is your belief, not fact. Please do not present it as such.

Well, they are mutually exclusive and history itself bears that out.

It is your assumption that the point is to punish with taxes. It's not the point from my perspective. The point of taxes, targeted or otherwise, is to equitibly share the finacial burden of providing the services the people have demanded through their representatives. You know, those freely and democratically elected ones you do not believe we have.

Nonsense! Targeted taxes do not result in people equitably sharing the financial burden. It is not equitable, for example, to force single people to pay more in taxes than married people. It is not equitable, for example, to try to coerce behavior by giving tax breaks for engaging in that behavior.

Oh, and you almost have a point with your last statement, but only because you did not get MY point. My question was really rhetorical, and meant to point out the fact that comparing the issues involved in stories like Harrison Bergeron and EPA regulations is assinine. Now, I am not saying you speifically cite the EPA or any other agency. But correct me if I'm wrong, you don't like the EPA because you believe it is a slippery slope towards a Harrison Bergeron type existence, right?

I don't know how the EPA got brought into this but my objection to that agency is that it is unconstitutional. Amend the Constitution to give the federal government authority over managing the environment and I will no longer have an objection to the EPA.

[Athena]

Anyone seen the movie Idiocracy? I think it hit the social problems of mainstream culture and society in America right on the head and managed to be the funniest movie I've ever seen, ever.

Anyway, I do think it's kind of sad that it seems our country is heading towards this.


Idiocracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



If you havent watched it, you should

A person's inherited IQ means little. What is important is the person's education, and even then, we should keep in mind, a very high IQ does not make a person wise. Technology without wisdom is not a good thing.

[lsbskins1]

Actually, there is nothing in Article III that gives the Supreme Court the authority to define "Constitutional" or to otherwise interpret the Constitution. Since I am an American and any rights/powers not specifically given to the federal government or the states belong to the people, I have the power to say whether or not something is constitutional.

Actually, it was the paternalistic leftists that took over the Democrat Party in the 1960s.

Your source is wrong: the United States is not a democracy and neither, for that matter, is Canada. The only kind of government that is actually a democracy is one where the people have direct rule (such as ancient Athens had for a time). Further, the United States of America does not have a free electoral system because it is set up in such a way as to make it extremely difficult for anyone who is not a Democrat or a Republican to run for office. Why do you have such a problem with the United States of America being a constitutional republic?

Well, actually, I do get to define it.

Again, the Constitution does not grant rights, it limits governmental powers.

Well, they are mutually exclusive and history itself bears that out.

Nonsense! Targeted taxes do not result in people equitably sharing the financial burden. It is not equitable, for example, to force single people to pay more in taxes than married people. It is not equitable, for example, to try to coerce behavior by giving tax breaks for engaging in that behavior.

I don't know how the EPA got brought into this but my objection to that agency is that it is unconstitutional. Amend the Constitution to give the federal government authority over managing the environment and I will no longer have an objection to the EPA.

1) From the Constitution:


The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.


The Judicial Power (the power to decide the case) shall extend to all cases, in law (what the law actually says) and in equity (what the law should do to be fair) arising under this Constitution (what relates to the powers, issues and intentions in the document)... How much plainer does it need to be for you. The SCOTUS is granted the power, in the doccument, to judge what is or is not Constitutional, not you as an individual citizen. It does not matter if you want or believe it to be so, it simply is not yours to decide.

2) Paternalistic leftists, progressives...call them what you will. The members of the Democratic party who voted against civil rights legislation were different people than those who now vote for progressive platforms. You were attempting to confuse the issue. And those people did join the ranks of the Republicans. So, the Republican Party of Lincoln is not the same party that Bush and Cheney belong to, anymore than the Democratic party of the late 50's and early 60's is the same party Ted Kennedy belongs to today.

3) So, you are in charge of what is or is not a proper definition. Funny, I didn't get that memo. I thought language meaning was determined by common, universal acceptance. What does "yummy" mean? How do any of us understand anything anyone says if there is no universal or accepted meaning of words? If you wanna speak a common language, you don't get to pick and choose what you accept. The definition is what it is, not what you say it is. Find the sources that disagree with mine, if they predominate, I would have to conceed. They do not, so I will not.

4) From the Constitution:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

By granting the right of the people to be secure in their persons, etc, the Constitution both limits the power of government AND legally grants a right. You are playing a semantic game. If the Constitution has the power to limit any action by government, it is by virtue of the legal recognition of a right. So, by definition, it grants something.

5) We have pretty big government right now by your definition of big and still profits are being made all over the place. How is that possible if they are exclusive?

6) All of those things can be deemed equitable. You pay targeted taxes on cigarettes because using tabacco brings health costs to the government. Why shouldn't smokers bear a greater tax burden when they cause a higher burden? And I say that as a smoker. Married people are sharing resources, they pay lower taxes because instead of needing to plow in front of two seperate houses, the government snow plows one and serves two people. That is an equitable sharing. Together, the two pay more than the one and cause the same outlay.And I say that as a single person. Need I really go on?

7) From the Constitution:

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States;


And there is your Constitutional Authority for the EPA. You may own your yard, but it and your neighborhood are the soverign territory of the US. They have the right to protect that territory from your or anyone else's pollution. Sorry.

[Chancellor]

Getting back to the DVD that is the subject of this thread, it was fairly entertaining but we all know that what often makes comedy funny is that there is an element of truth woven within it.

[Milton Bradley]

Getting back to the DVD that is the subject of this thread, it was fairly entertaining but we all know that what often makes comedy funny is that there is an element of truth woven within it.

Idiocracy is not Americas future, it is Americas present.

[Osborn F Enready]

MB said:
Idiocracy is not Americas future, it is Americas present.

One could certainly see the similarities. Maybe the census will count sheeple, so we could get a number on this?

[Technosoul]

One could certainly see the similarities. Maybe the census will count sheeple, so we could get a number on this?

That might be the point of the new census, to make sure the sheeple people are still conforming to the program?

[Yarn]

Idiocracy is implausible, because people that stupid would not be able to maintain modern technology.

Awesome movie though. Too bad fox decided to kill it.