Abraham Lincoln got a bullet in his skull by chanting democracy as “government of the people for the people and by the people.” Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated due to demanding the rights of the people. Gandhi and Liaqat Ali Khan were murdered brutally due to their uncompromising behavior towards the hegemonic plans of the rich in the corridors of power. From assassination of Jesse James, in 1882, till assassination of Benazir Bhutto, on 27th December 2007, not a single rich has been convicted or exposed. Bit by bit the 1% kept on enslaving the 99%, which resulted into a world ruled by the rich, and rich only.
read full article:
it is also requested to you that please go to my site and write whatever you want to write so that i come to know what you think of articles written! i know it is difficult and time consuming but
Re: Modern day Definition of Democracy: ''Government of the Rich; For the Rich
With all due respect, your premise is total malarkey. Abraham Lincoln was killed by a stage actor who was sympathetic to the Confederate cause, not because he believed in democracy. His motive, as his abetters stated, was the South's condition as a vanquished antagonist. He killed Lincoln because Lincoln would not let slavery stand.
Jesse James was an ex-Confederate solider and accused of many atrocities. He was a bank robber, a murderer, and there is no real evidence that he distributed any of his loot to anyone other than his gang. He was killed by a member of his own gang. Hardly an assassination.
Gandhi was killed by a religious fanatic that believed that too much had been seceded by Hindus. Godse was put on trial and there is significant written history of his trial, along with motivation.
Martin Luther King, again, was killed by a lone assassin, acting alone. There is significant documentation and written trial evidence for this. The man that killed him was hardly rich.
Bhutto being killed by the '1%' is laughable. If anything, they were happy with her corrupt reign.
Liaqat Ali Khan....who knows..
My point being, it's easy to placate one's own responsibility and blame everything on someone else, conjuring conspiracy theories. Governments are responsive to the people, no matter how dictatorial. We're seeing it now all over the Arab world. If you want a change, what are you doing to bring it about?
Pakistan is perfect example. Musharraf lost power, because the middle class, led lawyers, no longer wanted him around.
Re: Modern day Definition of Democracy: ''Government of the Rich; For the Rich
The problem is not any form of government. It's the character of the people in charge. I personally think a benevolent dictator would be the most efficient form of government but the problem is finding such a person. Even if such a person is found, there is a problem with succession. For every Augustus, there is a Nero.
Re: Modern day Definition of Democracy: ''Government of the Rich; For the Rich
Money does not have as much power in elections as it did 100 years ago.
ANYONE who is currently following the Republican primary in the US can help attest to what I’m saying. All money can get you is the support of bigwigs and television spots. If the people still dislike you, no amount of $ will buy you good pr.
Here’s an example of money and Corporations being defeated
Re: Modern day Definition of Democracy: ''Government of the Rich; For the Rich
Yes money did defeat good financial reform post 08, and it does lead to things like a military industrial complex, but there are many other factors in play in a Democracy.
Look at minimum wage laws, industry regulations, ect.
Re: Modern day Definition of Democracy: ''Government of the Rich; For the Rich
the United States is biggest example of money buys you the presidency it shows democracy as a gimmick.
how can democracy be for the people and by the people when its the corporations that dictates what makes legislation because they donated the biggest funds during the election?
Re: Modern day Definition of Democracy: ''Government of the Rich; For the Rich
Money is not the only thing that matters in an election.
Money is not the only thing. But money is a BIG factor. No one can deny it.
No politician can continue his campaign if there is not enough money to advertise and organize.