I think you're view of our voting is rather rosy, I get to "vote" for the candidates that are presented to me, I have absolutely no say in who gets on any ballot above a local level. Voting fraud due to gerrymandering, the dead voting, and intimidating certain groups at the polls are great American past-times. That doesn't even count the new tricks, such as rigged electronic voting machines and super-PACs.

There's a reason America has such a horrid turn out for voting and it's not due to the oh-so-popular myth of the fat, lazy Americans. It's because voting here is terribly alienating and it's set up that way on purpose. The only people under the illusion that voting does all that much are the people who vote whichever way the fear mongers in the media are pressuring them, because they fear death panels, the end of all jobs, or whatever.

It takes a serious stretch of the imagination to assert that the democratic process is working here. We have congressman complaining that campaigning takes away from their actual job and that now the super-PAC issue is like being beholden to the mob, "Nice campaign you have there, sure re-election bid, be a shame if someone ran 2 million dollars in attack ads in the final 3 weeks leading up until the election. Now let's talk about your position on issue X..." Yes, this is really happening. And you know it's bad if congressman are complaining about it.

I didn't compare my cause to MLK Jr.'s, simply measured him by the yardstick you used to illustrate your yardstick was flawed (essentially the caricature you presented of the complaining American that has a BMW or whatever and would prefer a Rolls, and has a daddy that can afford to give him either) . After all, most of the people fighting Jim Crow-ism weren't gunned down in the streets or under threat of many of things you described happening in Cambodia; regardless they had a legitimate problem. MLK himself spent like 11 days in jail and then another 4 later on, iirc (he was sentenced for more but the President intervened on his behalf - I'm not trying to minimize what MLK Jr. did but this isn't quite the same as having an entire, murderous system bent on killing you).

So, you may think OWS or whatever doesn't have that much of a point and I'll just keep pointing out they do, they have a real reason to gripe about it, they are actually alienated to various degrees from both our political and economic systems here in the US, and for all the bitching people do about their methods those same bitchers hold up MLK Jr. and the Boston Tea Partiers as patriots and they did the same shit (what, anyone going to dispute that the Boston Tea Party disrupted commerce and destroyed profits? Anyone going to claim no one went hungry or was hurt by it? Yeah that's what I thought).

I never said you weren't entitled to your opinion, I merely said I think your opinion is wrong (as in, doesn't reflect reality), most likely due to misinformation or misunderstanding.

All the Scandinavian countries are great. Their government really looks out for its people and the good of the country. Its not corporate profit above all else. Social cohesion, income equality and quality of life are very important to these countries. They must be doing something right because Denmark has the happiest population of the entire world.

While there is certainly a lot to be said for the manipulation campaigns used to keep it this way it's still true that if Americans banded together to vote some actual change into office they could easily do so. They just don't.

That's sort of the point, the gerrymandering and other vote manipulation strategies are designed to minimize the likelihood of this actually occurring. You're right, we can get some change for some time, even were we to get it I think you'd be surprised that the same forces that made it unlikely in the first place are also able to deconstruct any meaningful change.

Besides, I don't know what you'd vote for, claiming a write in vote is viable is technically true but has an extremely low probability of working.

LOL of course it has. Then again, what's greatest about this place is that we can go outside and tell each other that it has totally gone to shit without having our balls cut off by beret'd, sunglass-wearing enforcer squads.

Every great empire falls eventually.

We use rocket launching predator drones in America! None of that lowbrow stuff for our undesirables.

If people allow themselves to be put into that situation then do they deserve a better government? I don't really think we should see change if no one wants it enough to make it happen.

I think you might be blaming the victim a bit here. How do you disallow it from happening? Even if you've been perfectly cognizant of everything going on around you at all times since you were old enough to vote (and that just doesn't happen, nor should it realistically even be a requirement) there's still a crap-ton of shit that went on before that that makes it nigh on impossible to make any headway. Oh by the way, don't forget getting your education, launching your career, finding a spouse, and raising your kids well while you're trying to change the world. Oh yeah, go to church too and exercise.

Just because a bullied kid might have handled the bully differently and might have been able to talk himself out of his daily ass-kicking by said bully doesn't mean you blame the poor kid, he had maybe 5% of the power in the situation. The whole "you get the government you deserve" argument is largely a cop-out, giving a discreet pass to those who've been working to undermine the system (rather successfully I might add) for decades and decades.

Deserve? Everyone deserves a great government. Who deserves to be mistreated, left hungry, cold, without medical treatment? Who deserves to live in an uncaring world, where nobody cares what happens in their seemingly 'little' lives? "Allow themselves" you say, Sting, in a country of hundreds of millions it is somewhat difficult for one person who probably doesn't have the greatest education, who probably is working full time and trying to raise a family to do some great thing to change what is wrong, that it took many many people, many many years to make so wrong. I don't think people deserve bad things simply because they don't spend their life as a protestor, or as some political activist. I don't mean to offend or anything, but, the idea that if people don't participate in their government, they deserve to suffer a bad one, is wrong. This may be a great excuse for the millionares and lobbyist as to why they feel they have every right to squeeze all they can from poorer people, but, right it does not make it. Further, if people pay taxes, they are participating in government, they are contributing to trying to make it work better. People deserve to be treated justly and fairly, to have a good chance to live and to prosper. In the consitution it says a Government for the People, by the People. I sure know it ain't my fault that the "people" have become the wealthiest, or that my votes don't mean much, because all these cannidates all basically do the same thing: What the people that bribe them want them to do, and whatever it takes to stay in power. Maybe it is just your choice of words I have issue with, I don't know. Sorry if I was too harsh, I didn't want to be, just felt that needed to be said. :\

Also, I have read many post that call Americans lazy people, I'm tired of reading people saying this about us, when they don't know what it's like to work 60 hours a week, get treated like an animal by your boss, and live in a small leaking, bug infested home. I have done this myself. Lazy? Why, because the cheapest food is often the fattiest? and Fat=lazy? Bull, fat usually ='s poor. Poor is usually a birthright, not a choice of laziness. People are born into poverty, they usually do not become it. I know in most countries poor still = starving, but, we are lucky here that even poorer people can usually eat, that does not make them lazy though. I know not every American is great, but, I assure you every country has their jerks, and arrogant fools, ours are just a little more noticable because we are still #1 right now. Please, do not call us lazy any more, it is demeaning, and it is truly wrong. Sorry for the off topic.

Before anyone takes issue with this statement I'm just going to point out, given the GDP per citizen that any American has to live like this is a joke. We're not talking about a poor nation that doesn't produce much here (yes, we even still manufacture shit, more than we ever have, in fact), we're talking about a nation that produces so much that any wobbles in our economy have major implications for the rest of the world.

Thanks for that Orc, you're right, some would love to attack that statment. I was talking about laziness, not who suffers more than who (I would never think I have suffered more than many others have). I know many suffer far worse than I, and I feel lucky that I haven't missed too many meals in my life compared to what many do. In fact, I feel lucky for a lot of things, and I truly wish others had things a lot better than they do.

Well if the SOPA thing passes then yes, America has gone to shit.

;-)

It goes back to what you posted just a bit earlier:

I agree, and that's why I advocate for a huge reduction in the powers that the federal government has assumed for itself, and also for taking most legislation, spending, etc., back to the state and local levels, where we DO have much more of a say. Where the people who live in the state or municipality are the ones making the decisions that affect their actual living situation, instead of decision-making by a Senator from Delaware with no idea how the people live, day-to-day, in Idaho.

You're using the word "victim" to paint your argument and I don't agree with its usage. If a majority of Americans backed Libertarian principles they could easily get Ron Paul elected. There is no big bad boogeyman forcing them not to. Does the media kind of mock him? Sure. Is he treated as a longshot that people shouldn't risk supporting? Sure. At the end of the day though if people are sheep following those suggestions around, do I really care when they don't get the President they think they deserve? No.

If people REALLY cared about changing things, if they REALLY were interested in putting effort into changing politics, they could EASILY band together and do it. The fact they don't is something you seem to want to blame on media influence, and being a sociologist I certainly understand that. When all is said and done though, if you allow yourself to be led around by your nose then you're not standing up and saying you want change.

This idea that most Americans desperately want a third-party or socialized medicine or whatever else despite making no real effort to bring that about doesn't jive with me. It seems to assume most Americans are literally empty vessels with no power to make their own decisions or fight for their ideas while special far-left visionaries have to do it for them. That's pretty condescending and superior, to be honest. That's why far-right ideologues talk about the superiority complex of liberals, because they see these kinds of comments... everyone wants this or should want it despite them not saying so... as smug.
I'm not saying that at all. I am saying if they aren't motivated to fight for something, they probably don't really want it. Your idea of a perfect government might not be theirs, or might not be worth the hassles to them. If they REALLY wanted it, it would happen. They don't.

And Orcish's opinion is they secretly do want it but are manipulated into thinking otherwise, which I just addressed above.