How Lonf Do We Have?

"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury."

There must be a typo here. You must mean "a democracy will continue to exist until the time that politicians discover that they can enrich themselves by always voting in their corporate master's favor".

 

Somewhat interesting, but too general to be worth anything IMO, at least from what you have posted there.
Without seeing how he actually came up with these theories, I'd say it sounds like a "make it fit my categories and definitions" look at history. Liberty always moves to abundance? Uhmm, how was liberty involved in the great periods of imperialism...oh in that case, it's the liberty of countries to dominate other countries, I guess.
Also, it almost seems like the professor might be saying the downfall of America's democracy is a matter of destiny according to the patterns of history. "Democracy is always temporary in nature."

I'm just wondering what the agenda is for this information. I'm getting the sense from it that we ought to be worried but it doesn't suggest how to deal with it.

That 200 year average for "great civilizations" (not necessarily democracies, either just "great civilizations"?)...why an average? Why is that worth noting? Because America is in the 200 year range. (in terms of our greatness). Oh no, we're dooooommmed!
Really now, there were some Chinese dynasties that lasted for several hundreds of years...guess that's not part of the history he wants to use. I'd like to see the "civilizations" he uses to come up with that average.

 

Perhaps we are facing more transitory process of democratic principles evolving and readjusting to confront misrepresentation or mishandling of democracy by officials and those to whom the officials bow to.

Look at democratic process in terms of voting that leads to representation, participation in voting is just shockingly low. Isn't because the current system doesn't respond to grass roots but only to the big pockets?

Perhaps the democratic dialog will circumvent the official representation and peruse directly certain bodies of international organizations representing capitol or other spheres of interests, maybe even the individual multi-national corporations will be confronted with demands by socially conscious grass roots organizations. Current globalization scheme is marginalizing masses at large as the official governing bodies answer first to the big boys not to the national interests of voters.

I think we are facing reinvention of democratic principles in next few decades if not sooner.

 

This is all bogus. I found this. http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/tyler.asp

Linked to from here, the professor's website: http://www.hamline.edu/law/professors/joseph_olson.html
He says this: "There is an e-mail floating around the internet dealing with the 2000 Bush/Gore election, remarks of a Scotish philosopher named Alexander Tyler, etc. Part of it is attributed to me. It is entirely BOGUS as to my authorship. I've been trying to kill it for 3 years. For details see: http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/tyler.asp."

Gotta love snopes!

 

Snopes is the first place I go for any non-joke that I ever get in an email. For a huge, huge percentage of the time, the story/plea is an urban legend.

 

Yep. Snopes debunked the Andy Rooney and George Carlin e-mail crap.

 

I like the way people feel sooooo smug when they debunk things....

That, "I-feel-good-about-myself-because-I-know-the-truth" feeling... It's like, yeah, BFD, now you know, so what, your plastic spraypainted gold trophy is in the mail. :angry: :angry: :angry:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Apr 27 2006, 10:15 PM) [snapback]246418[/snapback]</div>

Ignorance should usually be debunked except when the truth would cause individual pain w/o any social good. (i.e., if a victim of domestic abuse comes and hides in your house, it is OK to tell the abuser you do not know where the victim is....it is OK to tell a person they look OK when you think they are BUTT ugly.)

Continuing and spreading falsehoods is deplorable. We have enough ignorance in the world without adding to or feeding it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Apr 27 2006, 11:25 PM) [snapback]246450[/snapback]</div>

Why the heck do you want a kind world where everyone is smiles and peaches? Our happiness is only defined by our misery and hate. I've absolutely no intention of making this a better world for everyone (tear in my eye), rather I prefer to dive into the pit of human misery, depravity, and angst. h34r:

 

I just received an email saying that a professor John H. Prewitt from Yale conducted a three year study which found that 100% of online chatters that exhibit irritation at the debunking of false beliefs have a lame nice person reason for it.
Make sure you pass this along to all your internet friends, MS. :lol: