digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

How To Ruin a Perfectly Good Country

smirkingchimp.com — First step: To get started, enshrine ignorance and elevate folly. Elect people to high office who don't know much about history, for instance, and then let them have pretty much unfettered powers free from the checks and balances that were originally concocted in order to keep things from getting ruined.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • iraq, on 01/27/2008, -6/+36Elect a neo-con.
  • willscottsi, on 01/27/2008, -4/+14Engage in neo-protectionism
  • steppen79, on 01/27/2008, -1/+27That pretty much lumps everything that is ruining our country into one article, nicely done
  • msaleem, on 01/27/2008, -5/+25By George W. Bush.
    • flavioribeiro, on 01/28/2008, -1/+14GWB is a crook, but the majority in Congress that supports him is just as bad.
    • smackhero, on 01/28/2008, -0/+3it just goes to show that america has basically turned into a corporate plutocracy run by a permanent ruling class. sure, there are still some dissenting opinions within the ruling elite, but this illusion of choice is largely for show. public policy has long been decided by corporate interests rather than the best interest of the public.

      in addition to having representatives from different geographic areas, we need politicians representing different socioeconomic strata. the median household income in the U.S. is $48,000, so the median household income of our public servants should also be $48,000 a year. how can politicians represent the electorate when they live in completely different socioeconomic realities with conflicting interests from the general public?
  • Spiro2131, on 01/27/2008, -13/+3Don't wait for Super Tuesday... vote now and let your voice be counted at http://www.AmericanPrimary.com America's real-time 24-hour Online Presidential Primary
  • ErosAmadeus, on 01/28/2008, -0/+18The best way to ruin a perfectly good country is to vote based on your emotions and along strict party lines. It also helps to not thoroughly vet either your candidate or any other candidate. You should ignore their voting record if their rhetoric makes you feel good inside. You should try to downplay every aspect in which they've failed their promises, cause character is not important.

    Forget all about voting for someone because of their policies too, what's important is that you vote for the winner. Voting is a contest after all. And by all means, don't ever look at the bigger picture. Focus instead on trivial wedge issues that have nothing to do with anything.

    Follow those steps and I guarantee you a solidly ***** up country. You'll be on your way.
    • mooseontheloose, on 01/28/2008, -2/+1No, ***** you. There's no way I'm voting for a RepubliKKKan like Paul. He's pro-life and has no chance. Get over it Paulite. I'm voting for Obama because he's so dreamy and inspirational
  • busch30pack, on 01/28/2008, -10/+12I'm going to go ahead and say Ron Paul to see if I can't get the record for the most dugg down comment ever.
    • phenry50BMG, on 01/28/2008, -3/+9Rather than digg you down, I'll just tell you that a comment such as that shows your lack of intellect and your need to find alternative sources to look for a virtual beating.
    • ElAssoWipo, on 01/28/2008, -3/+9This is hillarious, you just read an article telling you how to ruin a country and then you get bashed for pointing out that the only guy who wants the constitution to mean something again is Ron Paul.

      That's how you ***** up a country. Americans don't want the intended purpose of America, they don't want the constitution, they just say they do. Because when they are faced with the actual intent, they call it unreasonable and ludicrous.

      I keep hearing people say they want America to go back to its true self but they are not ready, willing or prepared to make the sacrifices required to achieve this. They want their huge government to tell them what is safe to eat, what should they buy, where they can work, et cetera. It's a huge contradiction.

      And that's why they love Obama so much, he's got the same answer. Talks about change, but doesn't tell you what he'll change. He's the most inoffensive candidate out there. Obama would change absolutely nothing about US policy or government. Maybe lower taxes a little here and there and raise them somewhere else. That's about it. And he'd make great speeches, because if something is important in politics, it's great speeches.

      This is pretty simple, if you want the constitution to mean something again and you want your civil rights back, the only choice is Ron Paul.

      If you want more of the same, you vote for everybody else. The only real difference between any of them is how long it will take to pull out of Iraq. Presidents are not kings, the rest of their views serve no purpose. Makes me think of those high-school class presidents who promised everyone fewer homework and easier tests. They don't have that kind of power, or at least, they aren't supposed to.
  • THEROC, on 01/28/2008, -15/+5First step: Reject Capitalism & Embrace Socialism.
    • Bhima, on 01/28/2008, -6/+12I live in a country governed by Social Democrats. We have a lot of policies & programs that you’d probably call socialist.
      We have lower crime, better schools, lower poverty, better health care, and a more stable economy than what is going on in the US.

      So, I think I'll call ***** on your comment.
      • ErosAmadeus, on 01/28/2008, -10/+4What country is it? How old is the government. How old is the currency? Is your military being subsidized by the U.S. military?
        • ErosAmadeus, on 01/28/2008, -2/+3What's the threshold being used to bury questions? I think my questions are reasonable.
        • rlh1, on 01/28/2008, -2/+1It's the US Military question ---- pisses them off every time.
        • ElAssoWipo, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1He's Austrian.
        • xTRUMANx, on 01/28/2008, -1/+1Threshold?!?! Did you think any logic is used in Digg concerning buries/diggs?
    • COlson87, on 01/28/2008, -5/+5I live in a country governed by Social Democrats. We have a lot of policies & programs that you’d probably call socialist.
      We have lower crime, better schools, lower poverty, better health care, and a more stable economy than what is going on in the EU.

      Please read the Communist Manifesto and especially note the Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto.

      The US, like the EU, is a socialist/communist nation. It would be pretty ignorant to blame high crime, poor schools, extreme poverty, and poor health care on capitalism when the US is clearly more socialist than anything else. In fact, most of our economic problems are caused by socialist legislature and policy, e.g., The Federal Reserve System (central credit), Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, progressive taxes, centrally planned schools, inheritance taxes, wasted money in bureaucracy.)

      Not to mention the other problems with socialism, like you not being an individual and so easily manipulated by the will of The State.
      • DrDragun, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1Given that most people pay 15-30% taxes and get to do whatever you want with the rest, I would say we are max 30% socialist / 70% capitalist mix.

        Social security, medicaid/medicare, and welfare are problematic yes, but allowing someone to die from strep throat or starvation would just be an embarassment to modern society. And there are far fewer food stamp squatters than most people think. You look at that Federal Withholding 20% on your paystub and shake your fist at the imaginary food stamp squatters, but in reality if they didn't exist it would not make 1% difference on your federal tax.

        The biggest problem with our 30% of socialism is medicare imo. But America is a country that likes to eat comfort food, and yes it is going to require complicated and expensive medical procedures to keep fat ass Americans alive when we are old. There should be a medicare tax break for those who stay healthy and fit.
        • ElAssoWipo, on 01/28/2008, -0/+3Lol. A socialist state always has a mixed economy. Capitalism is a very simple concept: every man for himself. Any kind of social expenditure to help individuals added and you have socialism. The government controls your currency, issues permits based on the country's business needs and even controls pricing of certain products. That's socialism.

          Socialism is anything in between Capitalism (every man for himself) and Communism (every man for the community). There is no actual socialist doctrine, only many attempts at defining it.

          To remain capitalist with social services, these social services would have to be offered by private, non profit or even for profit organizations instead of the government. For instance, a company that offers insurance only to poor people at a lesser cost. Or the Church who offers food, clothing and shelter to the homeless.

          If the government participates in the economy as en entity, which it most definately does in America's case, the economy is socialist.

          Capitalism proved to be a failure on numerous occasions all through the world. Communism proved to be a failure on numerous occasions all through the world. As usual, the correct answer is the middle ground: socialism.

          And since it's an in between, there are many degrees of socialism. America would be one of the least socialist states of the developped world, but still socialist. The most socialist, IMO, would be Norway.
  • dildoolielly, on 01/28/2008, -1/+11APPROVAL RATINGS IN THE TOILET, QUICK..
    "Gay Marriage", "Shark Attack", "Redneck Skank still missing in Aruba", Baby Pandas, "Britney's sister is knocked up AGAIN!" OMG! Hulk's wife filed for divorce!

    Quick, someone bring up Bird Flu! Red Alert, Orange alert, hell, ANY ALERT BESIDES THIS ALERT!!
    • DarkSamus, on 01/28/2008, -1/+1wait a minute, what's going on with hulk??
  • Dernit, on 01/28/2008, -3/+8This article makes it all the more apparent that if education is not available in our school systems, we have to take it upon ourselves to provide it in the home.
  • ojno1rules, on 01/28/2008, -4/+4Step One: Elect a president with last name Bush
    Step Two: ???
    Step Three: Oil = Profit!!!
  • hugemuscles, on 01/28/2008, -1/+2I don't disagree with this article at all, but ***** is it depressing. isn't there anything good to be said about the US? Maybe this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1G_7HxuW03Q
    • juk3box, on 01/29/2008, -0/+2Cool video. Rollins makes a good point.
  • darienphoenix, on 01/28/2008, -0/+6“Propaganda is to a democracy what violence is to a dictatorship.” - William Blum

    First you ensure your population has a majority of ignorant and stupid people, then you can do whatever the hell you like.
    • lucutus, on 01/29/2008, -0/+1Would wouldn't be eluding to the good ole' US of A now would you?
  • RuffRidr, on 01/28/2008, -0/+10Make sure your Senators have no term limits. That way the corruption can simmer for decades!
    • lucutus, on 01/29/2008, -0/+1Why does it seem that so many empires that historically failed started with corruption of a senate body?
  • synthaxx, on 01/28/2008, -0/+4234 diggs and still not on the frontpage?
  • bigjoeportagee, on 01/28/2008, -1/+3Allow home-schooled religious fanatics to choose for the rest of america (30%) and then be too apathetic to do anything about it. Keep tuition fees high keeping the middle to lower classes ignorant while increasing the gap between rich and poor. Disallow abortions and teach abstinence to increase the numbers of pregnant teenagers. Fight legacy wars for ego while gas prices skyrocket. Use china as a no limit credit card and then scramble at the last minute to futilely stimulate the economy. And finally after 8 years you have teenage single mother families, a less educated society and wounded homeless war veterans all competing for jobs in a recession.
  • jlhoben, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1GATT, WTO, the Federal Reserve. An ignorant and self centered public. And then you're off to the races.
  • gregdogum, on 01/28/2008, -0/+2Why would anyone want to ruin a perfectly good country?
    • juk3box, on 01/29/2008, -0/+1You have to understand some people's reasoning. Just remember the saying by a U.S. major in the vietnam war (an undeclared war, btw) when asked about the destruction being done to a city by the U.S. military: "it bacame necessary to destroy the town in order to save it". See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Tre
  • juk3box, on 01/29/2008, -0/+1This article is a pretty good description of the United States right now.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.