umm throwing a rock in water and looking in a camera gets no points with me, no matter who does it. im not very artistic i guess.
i do think the democracy we have is dumb and i would go against it. since, obviously, every person is not equally qualified to decide whats best for our country
it gets no point across? im sure it does, just open your mind a bit.
you would go against the current democracy because not everyone is equally qualified to make decicions? well, that seems to support the current democracy, where only the elite make decisions and minorities are oppressed.
I really miss Gravel, it hasn't been the same... Mike did everything he could and hes still fighting. It's all up to us now to continue the revolution against the neo cons and politics as usual! It looks like it's happening now, all 3rd parties are coming together now. Remember..."Follow the Money!''.
Dude, I was kidding! If we could just throw down en masse, scrap the whole thing and rebuild something great, than I'd support that but it's much more realistic to overthrow it from within. It's broken, and I think it'd be easier to fix it than to make a new one.
If someone drinks poison, you give them an antidote that interacts with the poison in such a way as to render it non-harmful, or flush it out of his system. You don't destroy his body! The government is poisoned, it isn't a poison in and of itself.
You have me confused now. Wouldn't a direct or participatory democracy have the exact same problem, only more so? 51% of the population could pass laws that discriminate against the rest of the population, and there would be no balance of power to cancel out potentially damaging decisions.
Consensus democracy is the application of consensus decision making to the process of legislation in a democracy. It is characterized by a decision making structure which involves and takes into account as broad a range of opinions as possible, as opposed to systems where minority opinions can potentially be ignored by vote-winning majorities.
And yes, all democracies SHOULD be participatory, but few are.
Sounds groovy! A good way to encourage participation would be to make it an official civic duty. Also, imho there should be penalties for the deliberate spread of misinformation (here I'm only referring to statements which can be objectively disproven, not controversial opinions).
I thought of the very same thing, though a system like that can definitely be abused.. I can 'prove' something completely correct wrong.
In consensus democracy, a similar thing goes on.. ALL have EQUAL say in what goes on, so ANYONE can disprove another -- it's a good way to stop misinformation without creating an abusable system.
by participatory, i think KenCat means that the system would be very decentralized, so every individual would have a say in the decision making. in a small community, its hard to ignore your neighbor if he's a buddhist and everyone else is a christian...
the only desease the government has is the fact that it does, to some extenct, protect the people. the government was created to protect the elite, and it is now diseased. but it is working its way arround this, and ridding itself of the disease.
anarchism, which is almost a synonim for society, is a disease to the govt, and the govt is a disease to society.
Yeah, I could totally tell that by reading the constitution. The governments powers were initially meant to be "few and enumerated," and it existed solely to protect people's inalienable rights. Yep, sounds elitist to me!
maybe you'll support me in twenty years, for i plan a political career in which i will shape the political establishment in a way that gravel planned, whether i succeed or burn is up to you...
I thought of doing the very same thing, but it's impossible to do so with all the biased, corporate media favoring the politicians that favor the corporations.
if a you want a revolution that would be supported by the American people and the rest of the world, you need a leader that is respected by both. a non- violent revolution is impossible, especially if senate bill 1959 is passed, but if you are to lead a military revolution or make the system crash within itself, you will need to be looked at as a hero, not a terrorist... and the best way to do that is inform people of your achievements and earn their respect and cooperation, then the revolution.
Leader? We are all leaders, we don't need someone to tell us how to act.
"Terrorist" is mainly just a word used by terrorists to call groups like Food Not Bombs and the Quaker Coalition for Peace.
I've been a pacifist for most my life, though I respect the gradual, successful revolution in Mexico. The Zapatistas are well respected amongst Mexicans and they still use physical force against the oppressive government.
although i agree entirely with you, peaceful human progression will probably not happen in my lifetime because the people in control do not play by the same rules.
It always seems that the only State Libertarians that see it this way are the ones in support of Mike Gravel. Ron Paul believes freedom will prevail in the market, when that is not the only problem.
And that is why I am no longer a pacifist.
Now, I fight back -- I defend myself from the violence put forth by the oppressive state. The people no longer have a say in what goes on in our government.
The revolution will come my friend... the majority of the people are not yet at the level of humiliation, disgust and anger. even though they should be, any spark of anger will not happen until our constitution is entirely erased and pissed on. when this happens their will be many who would risk their lives in something bigger then themselves... it's time that we wake up, and realize our power as individuals and as citizens, it's time we take away the power of the elite... and gave it to us.
My prediction is that the revolution will become prominent to those not participating in it after the republican candidate is elected in either 2012 or 2016.
I base this off of the 60's cultural revolution that came about after Kennedy was assassinated. The leaders that came about afterwards shocked the society and they wouldn't take it any longer.
I only said that because a republican will be elected after Obama (who unfortunately is the Democratic candidate). If he's reelected, 2016 will be the year.
I've noticed tolerance gradually increasing as time goes on. 200 years ago, slavery was the norm. 100 years ago, segregation was the norm. 50 years ago, homosexuality was a mental disorder that could get you thrown into an asylum. It's not recent, either: 1000 years ago, 60% of the population of the world was slaves. 2000 years ago, the figures were closer to 90%.
I got your back Mr. Gravel, NI4D is the only way!
1NCtrooper 2 years ago
Remember the moneybomb Nov 10 2009
1NCtrooper 2 years ago
The neocons and rightwing nuts and religious right do not want a united country.
They insist on being greedy and hateful as a way of life.
"Divided we fall."
We are falling.
We will ALL fall....
except for the ultra-wealthy 5%.
They will either rule us or move to another country....like Dubai. (Right, Cheney?)
t4705mb6 3 years ago
Go GRAVEL!
KamikazeKoscki 3 years ago 2
hah i bet that old bastard really thought this was a clever idea
PopeColbert 3 years ago
you could at least explain what you mean with what you are saying, PopeColbert, right?
if you just introduce random insults without any desire for an open discussion, you are really going against democracy.
god0fmusic 3 years ago
umm throwing a rock in water and looking in a camera gets no points with me, no matter who does it. im not very artistic i guess.
i do think the democracy we have is dumb and i would go against it. since, obviously, every person is not equally qualified to decide whats best for our country
PopeColbert 3 years ago
it gets no point across? im sure it does, just open your mind a bit.
you would go against the current democracy because not everyone is equally qualified to make decicions? well, that seems to support the current democracy, where only the elite make decisions and minorities are oppressed.
god0fmusic 3 years ago
I really miss Gravel, it hasn't been the same... Mike did everything he could and hes still fighting. It's all up to us now to continue the revolution against the neo cons and politics as usual! It looks like it's happening now, all 3rd parties are coming together now. Remember..."Follow the Money!''.
BlitzerSephiroth 3 years ago
Terrific video
overmind25 3 years ago
Great job!!
Keep fighting the Good fight!
Voiceman111 3 years ago 2
Nice, Evan!
Mike's still da man!
How are ya?
themorningshowlive 3 years ago
word up. MIKE GRAVEL FOREVER!
r3s3t063 3 years ago
He was one of the ONLY politicians I ever supported, and probably the only one I ever will.
KenCat1337 3 years ago 2
Yeah, why try to help someone change the system from within when you can try to destroy it from the outside?
uberjim83 3 years ago
Agreed.
One solution,
revolution.
KenCat1337 3 years ago 2
Dude, I was kidding! If we could just throw down en masse, scrap the whole thing and rebuild something great, than I'd support that but it's much more realistic to overthrow it from within. It's broken, and I think it'd be easier to fix it than to make a new one.
uberjim83 3 years ago
It's like poison.
By fixing it from within, you can make it more effective or less harmful.
By destroying it, it can't harm anyone else.
The revolution is growing, "fixing" the system has been working less and less.
KenCat1337 3 years ago 2
If someone drinks poison, you give them an antidote that interacts with the poison in such a way as to render it non-harmful, or flush it out of his system. You don't destroy his body! The government is poisoned, it isn't a poison in and of itself.
uberjim83 3 years ago
Destroying his or her body would be equivelent of destroying the people that are being effected by government, that is not my goal.
My goal is to educate society about the effects of the poison, government, and to educate them not to drink it!
KenCat1337 3 years ago
But no government would be just as bad as bad government. We need governing bodies, we just don't need them to be corrupt and controlling.
uberjim83 3 years ago
I believe in "governing"* bodies, but not a president.
I do not like to "govern", I believe that there should be a decision making process based on participatory, direct and consensus democracy.
Under our "democracy", 51% of the people get what they "want" and eventually suffer with the rest of the 49%.
KenCat1337 3 years ago
You have me confused now. Wouldn't a direct or participatory democracy have the exact same problem, only more so? 51% of the population could pass laws that discriminate against the rest of the population, and there would be no balance of power to cancel out potentially damaging decisions.
uberjim83 3 years ago
Direct = without the "representative" winner-take-all.
Participatory = everyone is involved.
You also didn't read the MOST important one, CONSENSUS.
KenCat1337 3 years ago
What is a consensus democracy? I haven't heard of it. Also, shouldn't all of these democracies be participatory?
uberjim83 3 years ago
Consensus democracy is the application of consensus decision making to the process of legislation in a democracy. It is characterized by a decision making structure which involves and takes into account as broad a range of opinions as possible, as opposed to systems where minority opinions can potentially be ignored by vote-winning majorities.
And yes, all democracies SHOULD be participatory, but few are.
KenCat1337 3 years ago
Sounds groovy! A good way to encourage participation would be to make it an official civic duty. Also, imho there should be penalties for the deliberate spread of misinformation (here I'm only referring to statements which can be objectively disproven, not controversial opinions).
uberjim83 3 years ago
Definitely groovy. ha
I thought of the very same thing, though a system like that can definitely be abused.. I can 'prove' something completely correct wrong.
In consensus democracy, a similar thing goes on.. ALL have EQUAL say in what goes on, so ANYONE can disprove another -- it's a good way to stop misinformation without creating an abusable system.
KenCat1337 3 years ago
Good idea!
uberjim83 3 years ago
Thank you, UberJim.
KenCat1337 3 years ago
by participatory, i think KenCat means that the system would be very decentralized, so every individual would have a say in the decision making. in a small community, its hard to ignore your neighbor if he's a buddhist and everyone else is a christian...
god0fmusic 3 years ago
That sounds groovy, though I still think it's very similar to direct democracy. And thanks for the example! Buddhists, represent!
uberjim83 3 years ago
That's right. And by participatory, everyone participates.
KenCat1337 3 years ago
the only desease the government has is the fact that it does, to some extenct, protect the people. the government was created to protect the elite, and it is now diseased. but it is working its way arround this, and ridding itself of the disease.
anarchism, which is almost a synonim for society, is a disease to the govt, and the govt is a disease to society.
god0fmusic 3 years ago
Yeah, I could totally tell that by reading the constitution. The governments powers were initially meant to be "few and enumerated," and it existed solely to protect people's inalienable rights. Yep, sounds elitist to me!
uberjim83 3 years ago
maybe you'll support me in twenty years, for i plan a political career in which i will shape the political establishment in a way that gravel planned, whether i succeed or burn is up to you...
dylanofwomen 3 years ago
I thought of doing the very same thing, but it's impossible to do so with all the biased, corporate media favoring the politicians that favor the corporations.
KenCat1337 3 years ago
if a you want a revolution that would be supported by the American people and the rest of the world, you need a leader that is respected by both. a non- violent revolution is impossible, especially if senate bill 1959 is passed, but if you are to lead a military revolution or make the system crash within itself, you will need to be looked at as a hero, not a terrorist... and the best way to do that is inform people of your achievements and earn their respect and cooperation, then the revolution.
dylanofwomen 3 years ago
Hero? Maybe.
Leader? We are all leaders, we don't need someone to tell us how to act.
"Terrorist" is mainly just a word used by terrorists to call groups like Food Not Bombs and the Quaker Coalition for Peace.
I've been a pacifist for most my life, though I respect the gradual, successful revolution in Mexico. The Zapatistas are well respected amongst Mexicans and they still use physical force against the oppressive government.
KenCat1337 3 years ago
although i agree entirely with you, peaceful human progression will probably not happen in my lifetime because the people in control do not play by the same rules.
dylanofwomen 3 years ago
It always seems that the only State Libertarians that see it this way are the ones in support of Mike Gravel. Ron Paul believes freedom will prevail in the market, when that is not the only problem.
And that is why I am no longer a pacifist.
Now, I fight back -- I defend myself from the violence put forth by the oppressive state. The people no longer have a say in what goes on in our government.
KenCat1337 3 years ago
The revolution will come my friend... the majority of the people are not yet at the level of humiliation, disgust and anger. even though they should be, any spark of anger will not happen until our constitution is entirely erased and pissed on. when this happens their will be many who would risk their lives in something bigger then themselves... it's time that we wake up, and realize our power as individuals and as citizens, it's time we take away the power of the elite... and gave it to us.
dylanofwomen 3 years ago
My prediction is that the revolution will become prominent to those not participating in it after the republican candidate is elected in either 2012 or 2016.
I base this off of the 60's cultural revolution that came about after Kennedy was assassinated. The leaders that came about afterwards shocked the society and they wouldn't take it any longer.
KenCat1337 3 years ago
i wouldn't say the date 2012, or else the crazy end of the world people will comment. but yes as history has shown toleration only lasts so long.
dylanofwomen 3 years ago
I only said that because a republican will be elected after Obama (who unfortunately is the Democratic candidate). If he's reelected, 2016 will be the year.
All of this approximate, of course.
KenCat1337 3 years ago
I've noticed tolerance gradually increasing as time goes on. 200 years ago, slavery was the norm. 100 years ago, segregation was the norm. 50 years ago, homosexuality was a mental disorder that could get you thrown into an asylum. It's not recent, either: 1000 years ago, 60% of the population of the world was slaves. 2000 years ago, the figures were closer to 90%.
uberjim83 3 years ago
gravel is a decent man, i miss him in the mix.
photofu 3 years ago 5
cool vid
RedStarRevolver26 3 years ago 4
Never forget!
ChannelMikeG 3 years ago 7