- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 3902 Hour
- Reading permission
here is what I suspect
Originally posted by emucentral at 2010-6-17 18:53
I was reading, in the paper today, about the "quarantining" of welfare payments which applies, presently, to some indigenous communities and is going to be expanded to all welfare recipients.
According to the article, it costs $4400 to manage each person put on the scheme.
The public servants need a good hard reaming!.
In a democracy, people take sides
In our version, this means two major parties
A real democracy would be quite different, but we have two sides
This promotes polarity of opinion, either for or against
Well, doesn' t this just suit the Nanny State to a tee?
50% sit on their backsides and do nothing, yet have equal voting power to those that work 60+ hours per week
It is wrong
It is even more obvious why this bicameral system is wrong, when we look at British "divide and rule" strategy, dividing people not along ethnicity, but along an artifice, an imaginary border
Then, those people naturally fight against each other for the "real border", weakening themselves as a collective populace whilst the "greater power" feeds BOTH sides with weapons/money/industry to fight each other, such that the only winner is the "greater power"
In this way, we can better understand democracy, as it is currently practiced in Australia.
Both sides are similar. Both sides are ruled by a third party, which is politically "silent". If any side gets out of line, the "third party" fuels the opposition and order is restored, in favour of the "third party". No matter who exerts an effort, all efforts require sponsorship. Guess where that comes from.
[ Last edited by lebeast at 2010-6-19 09:48 AM ]