Who here believes that the US government is For the rich, By the Rich and ONLY for the Rich? Why? or Why not? Defend your position.

That's hard to say a lot of it rests on who is in power. With Bush in power I have no doubt that his main priorities are to the top elite of the United States. Yet i'm not to sure if you could accuse the government in general as to surving the wills of the rich in America. That's a pretty bold statement. I would like to believe that the government is out for the will of all people but I really don't know enough to make an accurate judgment on the subject.

Maybe it would be better off to say that the Government wants to be the #1 in this world.

No damnit, im # 1...

I believe the US government is for the rich, by the rich.

You can see this by the ever increasing rift between the very rich and the very poor in this country. We can see elite and very wealthy private organizations deeply rooted in our govenment. The fact that power is centralized between only two political parties... and THAT is supposed to represent almost 300 million very diverse constituents???

The ghetto ain't going nowhere...

You cannot solely blame the ghettos on the government much of the blame should go to the inhabitents of the ghettos. If they choce to make it a better place they could. if they gave up much of the drug dealing, murders, and thefts the ghetto wouldn't be as bad a place to live in. Of course the government could step in and help but what is to say that once the government has intervened that the ghettos wouldn't go back to the way they are now?

You see, the only reason we have a Democratic Party or a Republican Party is because the rich of the country allow and permit them to exist. The only reason why the rich allow the Democratic or Republican parties to exist is because both parties serve the interests of the rich. So, because the rich only allow and permit the Democratic or Republican Parties to exist, voting, for the common people is really only a cermonial duty, because a Democrat or Republican will look after only the interests of rich and not the interests of the common people who voted for them. In order to run for office a democrat or republican must gain the support of the rich in order to get the money to run for office and the rich will only give that candidate the money to be able to run, only if they agree to look after their personal and private interests. Voting helps to facilitate an illusion of freedom in the minds of the common people when in fact those people that the common people vote for, are people who will only serve the interests of the rich. Real political power goes with those people who have the gold and not the common people who have the vote. Therefore, logically and rationally speaking, to say that the US is a "free country" is a false statement, because the facts do not support such a conclusion. Who disagrees?

I completely disagree with this statement. We as Ameicans are free about as free as it can get. We have the freedom to belong to which ever religion of which we choose, we can say whatever we want, we can write what ever we want. The point is we have many freedoms and we also have the freedom to make something of ourselves. Anyone can make something of themselves if they try hard enough. It is not solely the governments job to make sure that everyone is eqaul. We are not a communistic government everyone has to make their own success. The government should be there to give you a little extra support, not make you equal to the person who worked harder to get where he is at. To say we are not free is a rather dumb statement. It is only liberals in America who would actually argue that we are not free.

Hear Hear Nebraskaboy!

Well the freedoms and liberties we have left is a different debate. I think your arguement leaned toward the absence of democracy, not freedoms. If you replaced "free country", with "democratic country", then I would agree with you. I agree with your arguement of the false democracy we have in our country. Although the American people technically 'vote', the elections are carefully controlled by a number of different factors. Its to a point where you can't expect your individual vote to actually go toward the canidate for whom you voted. Esspecially if you live in a minority-rich area or perhaps a large city.

I find it amusing when certain people are in denial of the blatent hijacking of our elections. Before it wasn't so bad; perhaps a lawsuit here and there, but there really was no bright and in-plane-view consistency of a stolen election like there has been in the last couple of elections. Many people just dismiss it as "liberal sore-losers", but once you look at the actual cases you begin to see that there's much more at work here than upset Democrats. Its not just the Democrats that are complaining of stolen elections, but also virtually every other third-party including ones that loath Democrats just as much as anyone else. The only party that happens to be in denial are the Republicans.

Living in Columbus, I was able to see the results first hand and hear eye-witness accounts of such blatent election hijacking mostly in the 2004 election when Ohio's electorial votes were imperative to the canidates' win or loss. Conveniently, the new electronic voting machines were placed in minority-rich areas and in the inner city. Many people feel safe when using the new machines because their corporations and favorite news channels say so. However, its completely rediculous to say such machines were safe. The electronic machines are able to be hacked by even novice script kiddies. My brother whom is an experienced techie, who went to DeVry University as well as works with computer and laser equipment in the Marine Corps, expressed the severe threat on our democracy by these computer-based voting databases. Anyone, not to mention the voting machine companies themselves, can install very simple programs that throw votes one way or another, without any paper trial at all.

Its not just theory. In some instances, a entire town whos polls predicted a landside toward Kerry, ended up mysteriously going 100% for bush, and even in some instances adding up to well over 100%. All of this on top of countless instances of African-American voters getting upset when they find out they've been nocked off of the voter registration list, all the while being 'escorted' out by the government "watchers" stationed at the polling stations. Its no coincidence that the man in charge of the voter registration here in Ohio during the 2004 election is now running for Governer on a Republican ticket and a policy of "compassionate conservatism", putting his "Christain religion first to help determine the true moral decisions of office."

As for the plutocracy, I think its the true problem of our government and anyone that denies its existence must have been living under a rock ever since the nation's founding. Ever since out nation's founding in 1776, our government offices have been held by the upper tier of the social classes. Significantly held by rich white men. The two parties that represent this plutocratic dogma happen to be the two mainstream parties in the United States political system; Republicans and Democrats. These two plutocratic enterprises dominate the American political system and would give almost anything to remain in power and stomp out any type of third-party or Socratic questioning that actually threatens their place in American political power.

Both Republicans and Democrats have a history as well as continue to sell us cheap American patriotism, under the flag of a narrow chauvinistic claim about the superiority of the American way. This reflects not only immaturity and insecurity, but also is an adolescent defense mechanism that reveals a fear to engage the world and learn from others. The two dominant parties feed us this cheap American patriotism that keeps the people deferential and complacent. Thus this proves to be an enterprise out of imperial rule that loaths critics and dissent. Which is why we have the mainstream corporation and rich-dominated two party system that we have today. And thus is why people as well as I say that voting for individuals like Ralph Nader, Michael Badnarik, or David Cobb isn't throwing your vote away. But rather its making good use of it by voting for the actual American people. On the contrary, however, voting for plutocratic individuals like Bush or Kerry is throwing your vote away because you're giving your vote to the very rich population that does not represent the American people and works over the years to lessen our democratic rights and personal liberties.

Thus is also why both Michael Badnarik and David Cobb, popular third-party Canidates during the 2004 election, were arrested when they tried to attend the 2004 Presidential Debates. They weren't even allowed to attend as audience.