# People can be so scary



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

I often find myself reading things and thinking about how irrational and scary human beings can be. I'm sure others have these moments and we can share them in here.

Here is mine for today (A lot of comments from this article actually, but this one in particular)

A comment to this article: http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarne...ing-speaker-curses-mocks-christian-teens.html

Americans have to realize who we're dealing with in (f)maggots like this and all the other cockroaches, Commies, and America haters that helped put an illegal Kenyan Muslim Marxist racist Chicago street monkey in OUR White House.

Communists HATE Christianity because it represents everything that is a threat to them and their decadent beliefs and lifestyle. It's absolutely UN believable that Americans could be so stupid to actually believe that someone with a name like BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA could be a CHRISTIAN.

HELLO, AMERICANS!!!??? Do you know ANYONE on the face of the earth who is a CHRISTIAN with a completely M U S L I M name??? THINK ABOUT IT!!!

AND NOT ONE LIBERAL/LEFTIST/COMMIE/DEMOCRAT CAN PROVE THAT OBAMA IS A US CITIZEN, they can only demonize, trash, and seek to destroy/discredit those producing FACTS, DOCUMENTS, and HARD EVIDENCE to the contrary. AND THAT IS A FACT!!!

Thanks to a REAL American hero, we now know that we have a usurper in OUR White House. AZ Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Cold Case Posse's MONTHS LONG investigation by EXPERTS IN THEIR PROFESSIONS has proven that BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA is GUILTY OF HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. The ONLY reason he hasn't been taken away in chains is the fact that he has his COMMUNIST comrades (Soros, etc.) completely controlling the US media.

Another little tidbit produced from the investigation is the FACT that ALL of the international flight records for the time period surrounding Obama's birth date of August 4, 1961 could be found EXCEPT for the one week leading up to his birth. THOSE FLIGHT RECORDS are M I S S I N G...and that is the ONLY WEEK THAT NO RECORDS COULD BE FOUND!

Just imagine the outrage by the Communist media if a REPUBLICAN tried to pull the greatest hoax in the history of the country?

View the full analysis of the FORGED/FRAUDULENT/FAKE BIRTH CERTIFICATE that Obama release in April of 2011:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/83609197/...-to-AZ-Sheriff-Joe-Arpaio-and-Cold-Case-Posse

View Sheriff Joe Arpaio's complete March 1st press conference at www.wnd.com

www.zazzle.com/mrunpc*
ANTI-Obama/Democrat/Commie/Union stickers, etc.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

It is scary to me because around where I live this actually seems to be a common sentiment.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant (Mar 11, 2010)

It is a widely held belief amongst the English that Americans have no sense of irony.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

A country's people are as good as its education, and the West has either cleverly or ironically allowed a certain kind of subtle indoctrination to flourish where critical thought is spurned in preference for intuition, evidence is sullied in preference for wish-fulfilling faith, and we are given the illusion of choice in a fraudulent democratic system where genuine reform is impossible, and public unrest is ignored because we must conform.

The most disappointing part of all this is that it's not a conspiracy - I don't think there are any evil superpowers lurking behind curtains pulling strings (and therefore no one we can easily depose to instigate revolution). I think we just live in a world of supreme political incompetence where the vast majority of politicians and leaders have good intentions, but are utterly incapable of doing the job satisfactorily. The system is broken, and it only continues to churn out more well-meaning idiots to make it worse. And it's not just incompetent politicians, it's incompetent and uninformed voters. Conformity is so high, that we are willing to accept that politics is a two-party (or de facto one party) game where everyone loses out, but we just have a good old moan. And faulty education is the most poisonous part of all this _not_ because rationality and political engagement are openly denigrated, but because they are simply ignored in preference for putting millions of young citizens through a homogenising system which aims to produce capitalist drones who are placated by entertainment.

I do my best to ignore my fellow humans, except in the case where art and science are pursued and shared (affected though they are by the politics we have little power to influence), because it just depresses me. I shall make do with my lot in life while I still have it, incredibly thankful that I am at least in a nation that is neither starving nor barbaric, all the while quietly without hope that the world can be improved, as its citizens have already accepted its demise.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Polednice said:


> A country's people are as good as its education, and the West has either cleverly or ironically allowed a certain kind of subtle indoctrination to flourish where critical thought is spurned in preference for intuition, evidence is sullied in preference for wish-fulfilling faith, and we are given the illusion of choice in a fraudulent democratic system where genuine reform is impossible, and public unrest is ignored because we must conform.
> 
> The most disappointing part of all this is that it's not a conspiracy - I don't think there are any evil superpowers lurking behind curtains pulling strings (and therefore no one we can easily depose to instigate revolution). I think we just live in a world of supreme political incompetence where the vast majority of politicians and leaders have good intentions, but are utterly incapable of doing the job satisfactorily. The system is broken, and it only continues to churn out more well-meaning idiots to make it worse. And it's not just incompetent politicians, it's incompetent and uninformed voters. Conformity is so high, that we are willing to accept that politics is a two-party (or de facto one party) game where everyone loses out, but we just have a good old moan. And faulty education is the most poisonous part of all this _not_ because rationality and political engagement are openly denigrated, but because they are simply ignored in preference for putting millions of young citizens through a homogenising system which aims to produce capitalist drones who are placated by entertainment.
> 
> I do my best to ignore my fellow humans, except in the case where art and science are pursued and shared (affected though they are by the politics we have little power to influence), because it just depresses me. I shall make do with my lot in life while I still have it, incredibly thankful that I am at least in a nation that is neither starving nor barbaric, all the while quietly without hope that the world can be improved, as its citizens have already accepted its demise.


yes, I agree, the worst part is that people seems to want to be ignorant, and they are happy!!! (of course they are happy, their ignorance blind them )


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

I'm actually not sure if they are happy for it. Their own ignorant puts them in a state of constant turmoil, personal or otherwise.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Cnote11 said:


> I'm actually not sure if they are happy for it. Their own ignorant puts them in a state of constant turmoil, personal or otherwise.


yes, with happy I mean that they don't seem to have any questioning to the system, they think it's ok. Of course, their life has some miserable aspects, but they don't seem to realize that the misery they have is because of the corrupted system, system that they have helped to construct. Not only the political one, but also the cultural system.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

That guy isn't scary. He's an obvious slavering, snot dribbling nutcase. It's the 'tuned and targeted' stuff the pro 'fact'-spinners put out that ought to concern you.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

They do concern me, but this is the audience they target for a reason.


----------



## Badinerie (May 3, 2008)

I realise that in a democracy that its every citizens duty to criticise its government but "an illegal Kenyan Muslim Marxist racist Chicago street monkey"? gee whizz!


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

Cnote11 said:


> I often find myself reading things and thinking about how irrational and scary human beings can be. I'm sure others have these moments and we can share them in here.
> 
> Here is mine for today (A lot of comments from this article actually, but this one in particular)
> 
> ...


If you encounter something like this in the comments following an article on a newspaper website, tell the poster that you'll assume everything they've put in "all caps" is the exact opposite of the truth.

I think you'll find that they don't like this tactic.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I think President Obama will naturally get some flack from those who fear _the other_. By _the other _I mean minority groups, like Afro-Americans.

Same would go for a President who is Hispanic or Asian, or maybe not even based on ethnicity. We've got a female Prime Minister here, Julia Gillard, and from certain people she will get flack for what she wears (Germaine Greer recently in an interview criticised Ms. Gillard's dress sense, even though she praised her work for the country, so Greer killed her good message with a message many found offensive to women and superficial). Anyway, for some people it's better not to comment on politics as they're obviously very bitter and biased. They are reflecting their own insecurities.

But it's okay to criticise any leader, Mr. Obama or Ms. GIllard included, but better to stay on the topic of what they're actually doing in Parliament, not other unrelated things.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

"illegal Kenyan Muslim Marxist racist Chicago street monkey"

GREAT title for a Country and Western Ballad, Rap number, or a phased speech piece... hoping that phrase is not under copyright!


----------



## Stargazer (Nov 9, 2011)

Cnote11 said:


> It is scary to me because around where I live this actually seems to be a common sentiment.


Lol same here. It's even worse when some of your family members/friends/coworkers buy into similar sentiments . I remember at lunch a while back one of my coworkers went on an hour-long lecture about Obama's hidden socialist agenda, and how the liberal elitists are trying to take his guns away and prevent him from attending church...I kept my mouth shut so I wouldn't be shot lol.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

It is a widely held belief amongst the English that Americans have no sense of irony.

You mean that we fail to see the irony of Christian religious fanatics who are doing all they can to impose their views upon the country as a whole while ranting about Muslim religious fanatics?

Or perhaps we fail to see the irony of the sons or grandsons of immigrants railing against all these immigrants in America.

Or perhaps we fail to see the irony of Republican leaders calling for building a wall along our southern border in light of the words of that "great" Republican president: "Mr. Gorbachev, Tear down this wall!"?

Americans have no need for public displays of irony... we live it everyday.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Mind you, *Stargazer*, it goes both ways. Not only extreme right wingers but also extreme leftists can be intolerant of other people's opinions (people like me, in the middle of political spectrum, going for common sense over ideology). As I gave in my example above, Germaine Greer is undoubtedly on the left, but whenever she talks about Australia it's negative (even now with a Labor female Prime Minister in power). Before, Greer made a few tasteless remarks about Steve Irwin a day or so after he died.

We all know the leftist taboos, eg. you can't criticise things like multiculturalism or the negative effects of secularism gone mad (eg. stopping singing of Christmas carols in state-run schools, or even mentioning Christmas or Easter). In other words, political correctness taken too far.

So I equally don't like these two extremes. Yes, when one is with these people, better to avoid topic of politics all together, and talk about mundane or benign stuff like the weather or what's on sale in the shops. You can choose your friends, but not your family and fellow students and coworkers, etc. We got to live with diversity, even at extremes.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I've come to suspect G.B. Shaw was right:

_Democracy is a device that insures we shall be governed no better than we deserve.

Democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few.

We are the only real aristocracy in the world: the aristocracy of money.
_
C.K. Chesterton seems to have been in agreement:

_Democracy means government by the uneducated, while aristocracy means government by the badly educated.
_


----------



## Stargazer (Nov 9, 2011)

Sid James said:


> Mind you, *Stargazer*, it goes both ways. Not only extreme right wingers but also extreme leftists can be intolerant of other people's opinions (people like me, in the middle of political spectrum, going for common sense over ideology). As I gave in my example above, Germaine Greer is undoubtedly on the left, but whenever she talks about Australia it's negative (even now with a Labor female Prime Minister in power). Before, Greer made a few tasteless remarks about Steve Irwin a day or so after he died.


Trust me, I know that better than I'd like to lol. I've known more than a few people at both extreme ends of the spectrum, but currently I live in one of the most (actually I think it was ranked as THE most) conservative areas in the country so those are the people I deal with most frequently. I personally don't like to get involved in politics much at all, but I'm pretty middle-of-the-road in most of my beliefs.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Stargazer said:


> ...I personally don't like to get involved in politics much at all, but I'm pretty middle-of-the-road in most of my beliefs.


Similar here. I'm very wary of any ideology, esp. if it becomes extreme. So we can double balk - balk at the hard right and balk at the hard left.

But I think USA has more divisive politics than other countries, incl. Australia. Here, both our major parties are in the centre politically. But unfortunately, some of our politicians are becoming fans of the USA's system, which I don't think is a good model. It's based on various agendas rather than common sense.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Sid James, I hope you realise both Democrats and Republicans are basically on the right of the spectrum. I think the image of a lot of democrats being liberals is completely incorrect. They are, majority wise, far from the definition of liberal.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Badinerie said:


> I realise that in a democracy that its every citizens duty to criticise its government but "an illegal Kenyan Muslim Marxist racist Chicago street monkey"? gee whizz!


Fox News attracts only the best and the brightest minds!


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Cnote11 said:


> Sid James, I hope you realise both Democrats and Republicans are basically on the right of the spectrum...


I know it, basically. But I think neither would endorse the quotes you gave in your OP. Those are very extreme opinions. Both major parties of yours - as ours here - are right, but they are right of centre, not far right.

It is true that it seems that extremists in USA will attack anything they don't like as a Communist or Marxist threat, etc. But truth is, the Communist Party of USA is very small, tiny, if it even exists now. The far left, or Communist parties of places like Italy and France are far bigger, they are still a big influence in reality in those countries. But in USA and other Anglo countries, they are of zero significance. In UK, they were bigger for a while, but once Khrushchev spilled the beans in his leaked _secret speech _about the bad things Stalin did, those in the UK Communist Party tore up their membership cards and desterted the movement en masse.

But in USA, presidents who did some social change were often branded as Commies by the far right. F.D. Roosevelt was said to be one when bringing in the_ New Deal _during the Great Depression. Lyndon B. Johnson was also taking a risk when signing the civil rights bill, ending segregation in the 1960's (I bet many of his fellow Southerners called him everything under the sun for doing that). Same with Obama now, but I don't know why they're calling him Communist. But I don't know what's happening in USA politics apart from the odd soundbyte I get here. I'm not in tune with that at all. But I doubt Obama is a Communist, if that's the case, _pigs might fly_.

Another anecdote is that Charlie Chaplin made _The Great Dictator_, a film lampooning Hitler, a while before American entered the war. Initially, Chaplin was branded a Communist by Americans, as a good deal of them thought Hitler was not too bad, or at least better than Stalin. Anyway, once America entered the war after the attack on Pearl Harbour, Chaplin became like a hero in America for opposing Hitler in that film. He was on the _wrong side _before, but with the tide turning, he was on the _correct side _by default. Shows how silly this whole thing of branding people is. People are people, not cattle.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

The interesting thing about centrism is that it does not produce change. Indeed nothing is less important to history than centrism. There are no centrist activists. It's the art of having neither passion nor balls.


----------



## Chrythes (Oct 13, 2011)

Couchie said:


> The interesting thing about centrism is that it does not produce change. Indeed nothing is less important to history than centrism. There are no centrist activists. It's the art of having neither passion nor balls.


I think it's the point of not having to choose between two ideologies when you know that each side has its own positive and negative aspects. But then again - when your ideology doesn't involve some kind of extremes it suddenly isn't perceived as powerful enough by the masses. 
But centrists should be more active. Just look at what Erasmus could have done if he had the courage to come and talk to both leaders of the Protestants and Catholics instead of hiding behind the curtain and writing letters.


----------



## Praeludium (Oct 9, 2011)

I kind of agree. Being a centrist could seem to be the best compromise but I think it quite often sounds like just being consensual and not having a word about big problems.

Also, Cnote11, I agree about the two major parties being mainly right-winded. At least it's the case in France and seems to be the case anywhere else nowadays. In France at least I'm under the impression everything moved to the right. 
The major right winded party, the UMP, is closer to the far right (the FN, which has a famous member who have been seen in neo-nazis manifestation in Russia, etc.) than to the centrists ! This is frightening.

In a interview a saw a few days ago, François Hollande, the candidate of the Socialists for the presidential elections in France, said about the immigration that "the immigrants with papers will stay here, the illegal immigrants will be re conducted to the border". No consideration at all for the problems of the illegal immigration, for those who, for instance, live and work in France since many years and have nothing elsewhere, and, amongst other things, could be kicked out anytime. He's supposed to be a left-winded politician !

I agree about the people being scary.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Sid James said:


> We all know the leftist taboos, eg. you can't criticise things like multiculturalism or the negative effects of secularism gone mad (eg. stopping singing of Christmas carols in state-run schools, or even mentioning Christmas or Easter). In other words, political correctness taken too far.


Now, now, let's not equate insane political correctness with secularism of all things. Secularism is about religious _freedom_, not suppression, and what you describe is the misinformed incompetence of politicians, not a fault with the idea of secularism. Also, while moderation in political outlook prevents much of the insanity we see in government, relying on common sense like it's an antidote to bad ideas is dangerous, and is actually prone to being just as uninformed and unhelpful as being ideologically hard-line. Common sense, after all, tends to be the slowly garnered dregs of the ideologies we are exposed to, as our common sense is cultivated by our environment. It's really just a collection of the least offensive snippets of multiple ideologies, and thus is prone to inconsistency despite the sincerity of the person. It also tends to implicitly promote instinct and intuition, which are always unreliable tools in important things like politics, so I'd urge you to question what _seems_ like common sense to you, and actually value reason and evidence.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Polednice said:


> Now, now, let's not equate insane political correctness with secularism of all things. Secularism is about religious _freedom_, not suppression, and what you describe is the misinformed incompetence of politicians, not a fault with the idea of secularism. Also, while moderation in political outlook prevents much of the insanity we see in government, relying on common sense like it's an antidote to bad ideas is dangerous, and is actually prone to being just as uninformed and unhelpful as being ideologically hard-line...


Well what I was reflecting on is my own experience. Some politicians, but also just some people I come across. There are taboos with them, and these are clearly people who are more left wing. There are taboos, but often they are not based on what's true. Moves here to do things like deny the existence of Christmas and Easter, and also not sing the anthem as the flag is raised in schools, this is what I'm saying. It's like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. But it hasn't happened in reality, we don't have _1984_ yet. What I'm saying is political correctness can go to extremes, just as these right wing conspiracy theories. So I stick firmly in the middle of the spectrum, based on practicality more than anything else.



> ...Common sense, after all, tends to be the slowly garnered dregs of the ideologies we are exposed to, as our common sense is cultivated by our environment. It's really just a collection of the least offensive snippets of multiple ideologies, and thus is prone to inconsistency despite the sincerity of the person. It also tends to implicitly promote instinct and intuition, which are always unreliable tools in important things like politics, so I'd urge you to question what _seems_ like common sense to you, and actually value reason and evidence.


Well I see it as your judgement. I'd rather be inconsistent and contradictory than dogmatic. Maybe they're two extremes, but I err on side of more common sense, not ideology which can harden into dogma.

In any case, I would not pull down a politician like our PM Julia Gillard based on say her dress or hairstyle. I would not pull down Obama for his dad being Kenyan or whatever. I just try to stick to facts. That's what I'm saying by common sense, it aims at less bias, even if ultimately you cannot be fully unbiased.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I know what you mean Sid, and not all of my comments regarding common sense were necessarily directed at you. I imagine that your common sense is really just a kind of easy-going, non-dogmatic, pragmatism that wants the best for everyone. My objection was against more mainstream notions of common sense, as _my_ "common" sense isn't the same as yours, and yours isn't the same as the next person's - really, what we deem common sense is just what seems obvious to us and what we _wish_ was common! So it's a bit of a misnomer to apply it to political leanings, and gives a certain credence to more uninformed positions than yours.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

After all, looking back at the OP, is it not simple common sense that a man called BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA cannot be Christian?!


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Polednice said:


> I know what you mean Sid, and not all of my comments regarding common sense were necessarily directed at you. I imagine that your common sense is really just a kind of easy-going, non-dogmatic, pragmatism that wants the best for everyone. My objection was against more mainstream notions of common sense, as _my_ "common" sense isn't the same as yours, and yours isn't the same as the next person's - really, what we deem common sense is just what seems obvious to us and what we _wish_ was common! So it's a bit of a misnomer to apply it to political leanings, and gives a certain credence to more uninformed positions than yours.


Yeah well I can see what you're saying. I agree that there is diversity in everything, incl. common sense. I mean eg. I am supportive of things like anti-discrimination laws, I see them as common sense. More importantly, as just and fair, not as like some Communist conspiracy. That is silly. But I would not take these laws as far as say silencing debate on issues like multiculturalism or immigration, as long as those debates are done with respect. Name-calling and abuse is a no-no, but a more positive kind of plurality can be good.

With what people above said of democracy, it ain't perfect, but (as Churchill apparently said), it's the best thing we've got. Alternatives like authoritarianism or dictatorship don't work. So called benevolent dictatorship inevitably can be corrupted. I suppose one flaw of democracy as it can allow extreme opinions through the back door, as with election in recent decades of far right governments in Europe (eg. Jorg Haider of Austria). Puts a bit of a questionmark on superiority of Europe if they come up with leaders like that.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Democracy is the best of a bad bunch, yes, but our problem is that we don't actually live in true democracies!


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

I don't think we'd be better off if we lived in a true democracy... scary thought.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Cnote11 said:


> I don't think we'd be better off if we lived in a true democracy... scary thought.


Why's that?


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

What is "true" democracy... Athenian sortition?


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I think there are probably various kinds of "true" democracies - I don't know a great deal about detailed political theory, I just used the word "true" as an intensifier to highlight the fact that an individual's votes today are disproportionately under-valued, either such that they're less valuable than those in other constituencies, or generally not valuable at all because current "democratic" systems only offer an illusion of choice.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

We live in a Republic, which is a representational democracy, such as Rome was prior to being in the empire. A "pure" democracy (direct democracy) is one where each person's vote is equal and each citizen gets to vote directly on issues. I think I'd rather have the semi-corrupt, yet semi-educated and semi-balanced/checked, system we are currently in then allow for the average person in America to have a vote... you do realise what that would do right? For instance, in many southern states it is still extremely popular to oppose interracial marriages. I believe the latest statistics on it had it nearing 50 percent in certain states. I doubt you'd see a move by the current government to ban interracial marriage, but if you put the votes in the hands of citizens you'd see a motion for that in many states, guaranteed. You'd also see large motions to move from secular to religious, with evolution being thrown out in many states in favor of Creationism, etc.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Cnote11 said:


> We live in a Republic, which is a representational democracy, such as Rome was prior to being in the empire. A "pure" democracy (direct democracy) is one where each person's vote is equal and each citizen gets to vote directly on issues. I think I'd rather have the semi-corrupt, yet semi-educated and semi-balanced/checked, system we are currently in then allow for the average person in America to have a vote... you do realise what that would do right? For instance, in many southern states it is still extremely popular to oppose interracial marriages. I believe the latest statistics on it had it nearing 50 percent in certain states. I doubt you'd see a move by the current government to ban interracial marriage, but if you put the votes in the hands of citizens you'd see a motion for that in many states, guaranteed. You'd also see large motions to move from secular to religious, with evolution being thrown out in many states in favor of Creationism, etc.


Ah, well, in line with what I said in response to Couchie, my use of "true" was largely rhetorical - that's certainly not a brand of democracy I'd advocate.


----------



## Igneous01 (Jan 27, 2011)

Cnote11 said:


> We live in a Republic, which is a representational democracy, such as Rome was prior to being in the empire. A "pure" democracy (direct democracy) is one where each person's vote is equal and each citizen gets to vote directly on issues. I think I'd rather have the semi-corrupt, yet semi-educated and semi-balanced/checked, system we are currently in then allow for the average person in America to have a vote... you do realise what that would do right? For instance, in many southern states it is still extremely popular to oppose interracial marriages. I believe the latest statistics on it had it nearing 50 percent in certain states. I doubt you'd see a move by the current government to ban interracial marriage, but if you put the votes in the hands of citizens you'd see a motion for that in many states, guaranteed. You'd also see large motions to move from secular to religious, with evolution being thrown out in many states in favor of Creationism, etc.


well thats an easy solution:
create a secret organization that kidnaps individuals and families at night, tortures them, and asks them to reconcile their views about interracial marriage. Only by forcing viewpoints can you get any stability across in a true democracy.

or the really hard way:
rehaul the education system.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Is rehaul the education system code for "indoctrinate our children in socialist communist leftist propaganda"?


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Also, I don't think education will stop people from being racist... it is a much greater problem than "people are ignorant". There are many very well educated people who hold those views.


----------



## Igneous01 (Jan 27, 2011)

Cnote11 said:


> Is rehaul the education system code for "indoctrinate our children in socialist communist leftist propaganda"?


I leave that to you to interpret 

I hope you can sense the satire in my statement


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

I'll leave it up to GOD to interpret on judgement day.


----------



## Mesa (Mar 2, 2012)

Has anyone mentioned what an utter imbecile sheriff arpaio is yet?

This is the dude that wanted to give Texan cops the authority to pull over any car for any reason, and random checks 'just to make sure people don't have any drugs'.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Pills filled with powdered human baby flesh found by customs officials.


----------



## cwarchc (Apr 28, 2012)

One of the major problems with attempting a democracy is:
The people who cast the votes don't decide an election, the people who count the votes do.


----------

