ITT, post three or four fundamental revisions of federal policy you would like to see happen.
for example:
- for washington to recognize the importance of the international community
- open and transparent elections certified by the UN
- absolute limits on presidential authority
there are already absolute limits.... the problem is that they are being ignored.
Dissolution of political parties.
Or, the addition of 12 more parties.
Companies do not have equivalent rights of citizens (free speech, et al).
also: legalize WEED!
\
:hippie:
Make lobbying a capital offense.
Any conviction of illegal activityto result in the immediate removal from any government office! Which of course leads to political officials must be subject to the same laws and such the general public is.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on September 24, 2008, 05:35:31 PM
Make lobbying a capital offense.
You mean, Capitol offense?
Also, my recommendations for change:
Election Day is a Federal Holiday
Develop some sort of automated, online system, that taxpayers can log into to see where their money is actually going. This way they can either STOP bitching about programs they think they are supporting, but really aren't. OR, they can START bitching about programs they aren't supporting but think they should.
The President follows up his Sunday Radio address with an hour-long call-in program.
Quote from: LMNO on September 24, 2008, 05:23:10 PM
Companies do not have equivalent rights of citizens (free speech, et al).
But the individuals who make up the company do. What's the difference?
Many of the arguments for lobbying are backed up by saying that a massive corporation has the rights of a citizen.
Essentially, that means that the company can take a billion dollars from it's profits and flood the market with propoganda, political or otherwise, by claiming free speech rights. The individual employee in that company can't.
So, Big Industry has a lock on Big Media, and independent opposition can't get a foot in the door.
Rejoin the British Empire.
Compulsory combined Geography and History lessons for every official elected. There will be a test afterward. An "F" equals expulsion, an "A" equals further testing.
Ban coffee and import Scottish Blend.
Oh, this is something I've given thought.
Dissolve the Military Industrial Complex.
Institute an Approval vote.
Close up corporate tax loopholes.
Increase Jury duty pay.
Enforce separation of church and state.
Dissolve political parties.
Politicians to be fed, clothed, boarded, and provided for to a high quality of life, but not allowed personal possessions or money.
Politicians required to pass certain psychological screening and educational requirements.
Fully socialized health care, including homeopathic, holistic, elective surgery, dental, massage therapy, cosmetics, dietician consultation, free gym access for all.
Reverse most of what Reagan, Bush jr. & sr. and Nixon have done.
Free broadband wi-fi in every major city, and wherever else possible.
De-privatize the Federal Reserve, begin use of Digital gold currency.
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_gold_currency ]
The military spending budget redistributed over ten years into schools and students, research grants, urban development, health care, nonprofit environmental agencies, and low-income aid.
I'm a lobbyist. I'd prefer to NOT be offed for it, kthxbye.
I'm assuming when the word "lobbyist" is bandied about in such a manner, folks are meaning those who get paid and pay out $$$ through big corporations like oil and high finance.
Grassroots people such as myself who lobby for education, health care and civil rights are doing the general tax payer the luxury of fighting for their causes.
Also, dissolution of political parties would not be the catchall solution a lot of people seem to hope it would be. Who is going to listen to you and back your platform if you don't have another force backing you to vouch for who you are? Proving who you are and what you do and how much integrity you possess becomes increasingly difficult if you don't have organizational clout.
Social networking technology makes it possible for a dedicated social organizer to get the word out about themself if they're worth the effort. And that way you wouldn't get contrived, color-coded groups that try to uphold a vague set of ideals and usually fail.
not dissolution of political parties so much as dissolution of the two party system. give people an actual choice of who they want to be president.
The people do have a choice. For whatever reason they only choose to see two of them.
The curse of Aristotle.
Quote from: Felix on September 24, 2008, 07:01:25 PM
Social networking technology makes it possible for a dedicated social organizer to get the word out about themself if they're worth the effort. And that way you wouldn't get contrived, color-coded groups that try to uphold a vague set of ideals and usually fail.
You keep telling yourself that, Felix. Doesn't mean others are going to listen to you, esp those with the "almighty pen" in their hands that signs those laws.
Ideas:
1) Bills should be read out loud before congresscritters are allowed to vote on them.
2) Term limits, specifically, no consecutive terms. You can hold the office as many times as you like, but not twice in a row. I'm sick of seeing shit politicians stay in office simply because of encoumbant advantage or being the right color for the state/disctrict, but I see no reason they shouldn't get extra runs if they do a good job.
3) Actually enforce Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242, Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law. Increase to felony status if the crime is large in scale (say, over 1000 victims).
Oh, man.
I totally forgot.
Either line item veto, or no omnibus bills.
Quote from: Requiem on September 24, 2008, 08:44:05 PM
Ideas:
1) Bills should be read out loud before congresscritters are allowed to vote on them.
2) Term limits, specifically, no consecutive terms. You can hold the office as many times as you like, but not twice in a row. I'm sick of seeing shit politicians stay in office simply because of encoumbant advantage or being the right color for the state/disctrict, but I see no reason they shouldn't get extra runs if they do a good job.
3) Actually enforce Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242, Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law. Increase to felony status if the crime is large in scale (say, over 1000 victims).
Number one, for sure.
And line-item vetoes seem like a bad idea - it essentially destroys compromise bills. So Bush could veto the line on executive compensation and keep the rest of the bailout, etc. But I agree that bills should only do one thing apiece.
And Jenne - do you think allowing lobbyists, but prohibiting the paying of them for lobbying is a workable idea?
Quote from: Jenne on September 24, 2008, 06:57:45 PM
I'm a lobbyist. I'd prefer to NOT be offed for it, kthxbye.
I'm assuming when the word "lobbyist" is bandied about in such a manner, folks are meaning those who get paid and pay out $$$ through big corporations like oil and high finance.
Grassroots people such as myself who lobby for education, health care and civil rights are doing the general tax payer the luxury of fighting for their causes.
Also, dissolution of political parties would not be the catchall solution a lot of people seem to hope it would be. Who is going to listen to you and back your platform if you don't have another force backing you to vouch for who you are? Proving who you are and what you do and how much integrity you possess becomes increasingly difficult if you don't have organizational clout.
I do some lobbying work as well. Advocating for programs and initiatives to help keep kids off drugs, etc. When people are passionate about a cause they will volunteer their time to do so. they do not need to be paid big bucks. In fact, I daresay, and I think Jenne will back me up on this, they are probably more effective, because they aren't speaking out because they will be getting a fat check afterwards. It's more from the heart and more rooted, I believe, in some core beliefs and convictions.
So the big ones so far seem to be...
Either dissolve or severely cripple political parties. Jenne has a point about needing a Party in order to organize voters and motivate officials. I think a sensible compromise might be to allow parties to exist for the purpose of organizing voters, but prohibit them from running, endorsing, or contributing money to candidates for elected office.
and
Corporate policy reform. Repeal all laws and regulations that bestow the status of Individual on an incorporated business. This would also kill off the evil lobbyists (as opposed to good lobbyists like Jenne) by removing the right of a corporation to spend huge sums of money trying to get their way with new laws.
I also like the idea of Election Day being a national holiday, except that I would submit that further election reforms are necessary. First, state and local governments should stop passing laws designed to discourage voter participation. Second, it should be required that any worker is allowed to take the day off from their job on election day with full pay. Further, election "day" should be expanded -- polls should be open for a few days, and always a full weekend, to allow for the maximum opportunity to cast a vote. Also, elections should be fully certified by an outside election certification body such as the UN has for many developing nations.
'Dissolution of political parties.Or, the addition of 12 more parties.'
i like how Parliament is setup vs congress. the percent of the vote you get is how many seats you have, maybe we have more then one fake independent
Law Reform
id like to see if we cant steal Mozes's idea and narrow down all laws to just 10 things
Force paper ballets? after all in theory postal workers might be less politically biased then your average campaign volunteer
I had an idea for election scrutiny, although it would take years and a lot of dedication to put together. There could be a website that tracks every election in the country from President to School Board; then, agents on the ground at every polling place hand out flyers advertising this website, each of which has a unique code printed inside. Voters could then log on to the website using the code in their flyer, and log exactly how they voted. The resulting data could be compared with official election results, and if a large discrepancy is found, might be used as probably cause to investigate the election.
Anybody have about $300 million to put this in place?
Quote from: vexati0n on September 24, 2008, 09:18:20 PM
Further, election "day" should be expanded -- polls should be open for a few days, and always a full weekend, to allow for the maximum opportunity to cast a vote. Also, elections should be fully certified by an outside election certification body such as the UN has for many developing nations.
The polls require a lot of manpower to open, and keeping them open longer will be costly.
If we can invest $10 billion every month in a useless war in Iraq, but can't be arsed to ensure the integrity of the most fundamental aspect of our self-government, then we deserve to lose the Republic.
Quote from: VERB` on September 24, 2008, 09:27:54 PM
Quote from: vexati0n on September 24, 2008, 09:18:20 PM
Further, election "day" should be expanded -- polls should be open for a few days, and always a full weekend, to allow for the maximum opportunity to cast a vote. Also, elections should be fully certified by an outside election certification body such as the UN has for many developing nations.
The polls require a lot of manpower to open, and keeping them open longer will be costly.
Not really. Many public schools and colleges require or have some program for students to perform community or public service. That resource could be tapped and cover quite a few polling places in urban areas. yeah, you might have to pay the little old ladies in the rural towns a little more, but I don't think it would really be that big of a deal.
If you want to scatter the parties, you could forbid them from cooperating across state lines. Though you'd have to redo the electoral system before undoing the two party system, that only works the way it does because the parties control the electorate, and forbid them from voting for anyone but the party candidate.
for party reform i'd propose ---
- parties are not allowed to run, endorse, or contribute to specific candidates
- no rule requiring party registration of any kind for any public event or election
- no rule limiting the number of parties a person can belong to
that effectively lets parties exist, but keeps them from doing anything except as a more limited form of Political Action Committee. then we'd have to come up with new ways to narrow the field for elections, like only allowing candidates on a national ballot after being cleared for it in a certain percentage of state primary elections first. but i'm sure castrating the political parties would allow lots of other problems to be solved indirectly.
Maybe just have primaries run by the state, instead of by the parties, top candidates (2, 3 or 4?) from all parties get the spots on the ballot.
Won't work as well for presidential primaries though at least not withotu *heavily* favoring high money high status candidates (the primaries soften this blow a bit since some states run early, and campaigning can focus on just one state at a time, which means they need less money, Jimmy Carter could never have gotten elected otherwise)
Quote from: Felix on September 24, 2008, 06:45:36 PM
Oh, this is something I've given thought.
Dissolve the Military Industrial Complex.
Politicians to be fed, clothed, boarded, and provided for to a high quality of life, but not allowed personal possessions or money.
Reverse most of what Reagan, Bush jr. & sr. and Nixon have done.
The military spending budget redistributed over ten years into schools and students, research grants, urban development, health care, nonprofit environmental agencies, and low-income aid.
I hope you're trolling.
If not, I want no part of your country.
1) umm...and how would you propose to both defend the country from external threats and project hard powerto back up our soft power? Or do you think we're the lone true global superpower because we're so
nice?
2) not allowed personal posessions or money? WTF are you even thinking? this is AMERICA, son.
3) Name me one specific thing that Nixon passed into law that you would refute, without looking it up. Otherwise, I call knee-jerk inclusion.
4) see #1.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 24, 2008, 09:02:59 PM
Quote from: Jenne on September 24, 2008, 06:57:45 PM
I'm a lobbyist. I'd prefer to NOT be offed for it, kthxbye.
I'm assuming when the word "lobbyist" is bandied about in such a manner, folks are meaning those who get paid and pay out $$$ through big corporations like oil and high finance.
Grassroots people such as myself who lobby for education, health care and civil rights are doing the general tax payer the luxury of fighting for their causes.
Also, dissolution of political parties would not be the catchall solution a lot of people seem to hope it would be. Who is going to listen to you and back your platform if you don't have another force backing you to vouch for who you are? Proving who you are and what you do and how much integrity you possess becomes increasingly difficult if you don't have organizational clout.
I do some lobbying work as well. Advocating for programs and initiatives to help keep kids off drugs, etc. When people are passionate about a cause they will volunteer their time to do so. they do not need to be paid big bucks. In fact, I daresay, and I think Jenne will back me up on this, they are probably more effective, because they aren't speaking out because they will be getting a fat check afterwards. It's more from the heart and more rooted, I believe, in some core beliefs and convictions.
Yeah, I see a trend where folks want to use "advocate" for the non-paid, volunteer flat-footer, as opposed to the "paid" lobbyist. But truly, they are one and the same.
I don't know if the paid lobbyists shouldn't be, well,
paid any longer, as I've seen the CTA and PTA lobbyists do far faster and better work than us volunteers ever have. But maybe if they weren't paid, they wouldn't exist, and the volunteers would have to organize elsewhere. I do know that the PTA and CTA (Calif. Teacher's Assoc--Teacher's union, i.e.) lobbyists (paid) are far more effective than Joe or Jill Blow from X County, non-paid parent volunteer.
Why? It's a whole subculture. They know who to call, they eat at the same restaurants and visit each others' offices/schmooze a helluvalot. Shit I can't do. I write, call, email and visit Sacramento with my fellow parents, paid for BY my fellow parents (about once a year), attend press conferences (and get put on TeeVee for it sometimes)...and that's about it. Oh, I spread the word via email, phone and face-to-face meetings (oh and fliers) as well.
But the social networking, at this stage of the game, still needs the paid lobbyists for our grassroots efforts because they have access and knowledge we don't...because they get PAID to do it. Could we do it, if they weren't around? Yes, but it would take more volunteer $ and time to do so...both commodities that are scarce...
I also cringe at saying X should be a non-paid job when it already is. Who am I to say that the person doing that job didn't earn that money? Bullshit proposition. But I do agree the system is set up to only be greased by the money in its wheels...but not paying lobbyists is not the only answer to that one, most likely.
Quote from: vexati0n on September 24, 2008, 09:29:26 PM
If we can invest $10 billion every month in a useless war in Iraq, but can't be arsed to ensure the integrity of the most fundamental aspect of our self-government, then we deserve to lose the Republic.
I think that ship sailed some time ago.
I dunno, Folks. Maybe it's from studying political history of the state of the state in the 90's, but I get an itchy feeling when we speak of arbitrarily dissolving parties because they've become so powerful and power-hungry.
The split in ideologies (which to outsiders seems so very narrow a split, really) happened over the course of 200 years. It took many wars, many economic upheavals, a whole lot of land, and quite a few administrations for it to get to where it is now.
The corporate takeover of our country's most powerful political seat was an inevitability, to my mind. When the fulcrum to the balance of government was deemed to be market shares and the economy rather than religion or social hegemony...I think the handwriting was on the wall.
Each party has taken its turn as the group that represents the have's and the have-not's. The lip service paid to their respective constituencies doesn't mean that there isn't the force of a "real" agenda there. Nor does it mean it's always gone the way of "big money."
But those who run the government are usually the ones who have paid their way there. There are many ways to do that--education and birth (like the Bushes), or happenstance and hard work (Clinton the Male and Obama).
So if you take the power of the party system away--I'm not sure that will still remove the evils it now perpetuates. I think it'll breed something else, and the sheep will just stay out to pasture...until a dictator, or another hegemonic rise comes along. Maybe I'm just kvetching at the wrong thing, I don't know. But cutting off the balls of the party system so they can no longer organize gets me in my gut, and my gut tells me that's not the answer.
Corporate reform of the "big" companies would be awesome...but what is going to trickle down out of that. And who makes up those big companies anymore? They're all world conglommerates now--no longer localized. The power behind those market shares goes through every major economy in the world now. Harder and harder to harness, and so their power becomes harder and harder to limit.
Argh. I'm going to stop now. Have to get dinner going anyway.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 25, 2008, 12:55:21 AM
Quote from: vexati0n on September 24, 2008, 09:29:26 PM
If we can invest $10 billion every month in a useless war in Iraq, but can't be arsed to ensure the integrity of the most fundamental aspect of our self-government, then we deserve to lose the Republic.
I think that ship sailed some time ago.
Well yeah, hence the brainstorming for
changes to the system.
What really irks me more than the terrible job the government (any government) does, is the way things have changed in people's minds. So often now, it's like we all see the world as it is and assume that's
just the way it is. Like the thought of rewriting the script on a large scale never even enters our minds.
I'm a hopeless romantic when it comes to most things, though. So when I say I admire what they accomplished in 1776, I'm probably just running low on cynicism and "realism" as most people these days think of it. But fuck, man, what happened to the will to perfect society? Why is it that when we are handed a pile of shit, we forget about the shovel and assume we're supposed to be bathing in it?
The TV and the "stupid masses" and the Con sound more and more to me every day like cheap excuses to do nothing.
The CTA and PTA lobbyists are better than Oil and Logging lobbyists because?
I don't think that making a division based on money will help though, the people who don't represent massive orginizations still won't be allowed to talk to the elected officials.
voting reform.
I'd rather see people take an entire day or week to vote.
They would be voting for each issue rather then the black cock, white vagina, or old vietnam vet tortured POW.
Send everysingle mother fucking cock sucking eat shitting human a list of issues, each with multiple options and have those motherfucking cock sucking eat shitting humans choose what they want.
Then we put any slob who has the capacity to learn in charge to make sure the shit gets done, and if they fuck around, or get caught taking advantage of their privledged position of authority, WE KILL THOSE MOTEHR FUCKERS ANCIENT ROMAN STYLE.
Quote from: Requiem on September 25, 2008, 01:13:53 AM
The CTA and PTA lobbyists are better than Oil and Logging lobbyists because?
I don't think that making a division based on money will help though, the people who don't represent massive orginizations still won't be allowed to talk to the elected officials.
Oh you can TALK...but can you 1) get through the door and 2) be listened to?
But you can always TALK.
Thing is, you have to have the SWAY of some significant majority behind you. That's not contingent on $$, sometimes...as long as officials are ELECTED, they need votes, and votes that can be SWAYED...well, those are still valuable.
But in order to SWAY, you need organization. Otherwise you are the lonely voice in the wilderness...till some asshat puts your head on a silver platter, that is.
Quote from: vexati0n on September 25, 2008, 01:13:42 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 25, 2008, 12:55:21 AM
Quote from: vexati0n on September 24, 2008, 09:29:26 PM
If we can invest $10 billion every month in a useless war in Iraq, but can't be arsed to ensure the integrity of the most fundamental aspect of our self-government, then we deserve to lose the Republic.
I think that ship sailed some time ago.
Well yeah, hence the brainstorming for changes to the system.
What really irks me more than the terrible job the government (any government) does, is the way things have changed in people's minds. So often now, it's like we all see the world as it is and assume that's just the way it is. Like the thought of rewriting the script on a large scale never even enters our minds.
I'm a hopeless romantic when it comes to most things, though. So when I say I admire what they accomplished in 1776, I'm probably just running low on cynicism and "realism" as most people these days think of it. But fuck, man, what happened to the will to perfect society? Why is it that when we are handed a pile of shit, we forget about the shovel and assume we're supposed to be bathing in it?
The TV and the "stupid masses" and the Con sound more and more to me every day like cheap excuses to do nothing.
I agree--which is why I volunteer my life away.
There it goes now--
Quote from: wgeorgew on September 25, 2008, 01:31:17 AM
voting reform.
I'd rather see people take an entire day or week to vote.
They would be voting for each issue rather then the black cock, white vagina, or old vietnam vet tortured POW.
Send everysingle mother fucking cock sucking eat shitting human a list of issues, each with multiple options and have those motherfucking cock sucking eat shitting humans choose what they want.
Then we put any slob who has the capacity to learn in charge to make sure the shit gets done, and if they fuck around, or get caught taking advantage of their privledged position of authority, WE KILL THOSE MOTEHR FUCKERS ANCIENT ROMAN STYLE.
I like the idea of educating people on what they should know before they vote. It's why I chair legislation for my little PTA unit--I put out articles and flyers constantly.
Thing is--this is what I learned:
PEOPLE DON'T READ.
You can tell them over and over, but unless Survivor or American Idol proclaims it, it's a dead issue.
Quote from: LMNO on September 24, 2008, 08:44:44 PM
Oh, man.
I totally forgot.
Either line item veto, or no omnibus bills.
This.
And as for the replies to my post, it's more the nation I'd like to live in than a place America could ever be.
Edited to add: But my stance on approval voting stands as a change America needs.
ECH: Imperial Presidency, for starters.
Quote from: Felix on September 25, 2008, 04:17:51 AM
Quote from: LMNO on September 24, 2008, 08:44:44 PM
Oh, man.
I totally forgot.
Either line item veto, or no omnibus bills.
This.
And as for the replies to my post, it's more the nation I'd like to live in than a place America could ever be.
Edited to add: But my stance on approval voting stands as a change America needs.
PROTIP: with the notable exception of Costa Rica, nations without a military tend not to exist for very long.
especially if they have nice things.
Okayokay SOME military, but a reasonable amount. None of this 600 Billion dollar a year multinational invasion force like we have now.
Quote from: Jenne on September 25, 2008, 01:36:24 AM
Quote from: wgeorgew on September 25, 2008, 01:31:17 AM
voting reform.
I'd rather see people take an entire day or week to vote.
They would be voting for each issue rather then the black cock, white vagina, or old vietnam vet tortured POW.
Send everysingle mother fucking cock sucking eat shitting human a list of issues, each with multiple options and have those motherfucking cock sucking eat shitting humans choose what they want.
Then we put any slob who has the capacity to learn in charge to make sure the shit gets done, and if they fuck around, or get caught taking advantage of their privledged position of authority, WE KILL THOSE MOTEHR FUCKERS ANCIENT ROMAN STYLE.
I like the idea of educating people on what they should know before they vote. It's why I chair legislation for my little PTA unit--I put out articles and flyers constantly.
Thing is--this is what I learned:
PEOPLE DON'T READ.
You can tell them over and over, but unless Survivor or American Idol proclaims it, it's a dead issue.
If it were up to me...
every citizen of 18.6 years and older would be required to take a quarterly exam, to prove they are civically aware/involved and if they fail, they lose their right to vote and their freedom of speach...
but
preferrably their right to eat....
I'd even have those people marked with STARS SO WE KNOW WHO THEY ARE. or something more technologically advanced.......
:evilmad:
But referring back to my first post in this thread, I'd like to think if that were the case, journalism and news TV in paticular would be a whole lot more interesting and valuable... No more info on britney spears or the like...
Quote from: wgeorgew on September 25, 2008, 05:16:00 AM
If it were up to me...
every citizen of 18.6 years and older would be required to take a quarterly exam, to prove they are civically aware/involved and if they fail, they lose their right to vote and their freedom of speach...
but
preferrably their right to eat....
I'd even have those people marked with STARS SO WE KNOW WHO THEY ARE. or something more technologically advanced.......
:evilmad:
Aren't you a patriot. That's a bold and new approach that's never been tried.
Oh, except... Sheesh, it's on the tip of my tongue.
Quote from: Felix on September 25, 2008, 05:19:25 AM
Quote from: wgeorgew on September 25, 2008, 05:16:00 AM
If it were up to me...
every citizen of 18.6 years and older would be required to take a quarterly exam, to prove they are civically aware/involved and if they fail, they lose their right to vote and their freedom of speach...
but
preferrably their right to eat....
I'd even have those people marked with STARS SO WE KNOW WHO THEY ARE. or something more technologically advanced.......
:evilmad:
Aren't you a patriot. That's a bold and new approach that's never been tried.
Oh, except... Sheesh, it's on the tip of my tongue.
instead of beating around the bush, why don't you skip around placing daisies in the barrells of automatic rifles? :P
Quote from: wgeorgew on September 25, 2008, 05:31:09 AM
Quote from: Felix on September 25, 2008, 05:19:25 AM
Quote from: wgeorgew on September 25, 2008, 05:16:00 AM
If it were up to me...
every citizen of 18.6 years and older would be required to take a quarterly exam, to prove they are civically aware/involved and if they fail, they lose their right to vote and their freedom of speach...
but
preferrably their right to eat....
I'd even have those people marked with STARS SO WE KNOW WHO THEY ARE. or something more technologically advanced.......
:evilmad:
Aren't you a patriot. That's a bold and new approach that's never been tried.
Oh, except... Sheesh, it's on the tip of my tongue.
instead of beating around the bush, why don't you skip around placing daisies in the barrells of automatic rifles? :P
Because-
Bec-
Rrrr... Aaaaage....
:mad:
Quote from: wgeorgew on September 25, 2008, 05:16:00 AM
If it were up to me...
every citizen of 18.6 years and older would be required to take a quarterly exam, to prove they are civically aware/involved and if they fail, they lose their right to vote and their freedom of speach...
but
preferrably their right to eat....
I'd even have those people marked with STARS SO WE KNOW WHO THEY ARE. or something more technologically advanced.......
:evilmad:
Why would you do that to yourself, wade?
Quote from: Felix on September 25, 2008, 05:11:41 AM
Okayokay SOME military, but a reasonable amount. None of this 600 Billion dollar a year multinational invasion force like we have now.
you understand, of course, that a reasonably-sized military for America would involve resuming the draft, given that we currently have about half as many people under arms as we actually need to insure our varied strategic interests.
I mean, you could always go live in a third-world hellhole or some european nanny-state, but assuming that you have grown accustomed to the lifestyle that you enjoy as a direct result of American global primacy (and I think alot of people have never really thought about what their life would be like if American global primacy ceased to be), you should probably find a different way to cut government spending. There are alot of ways that money could be recouped without throwing open the gates and allowing the barbarians free reign.
Quote from: wgeorgew on September 25, 2008, 05:16:00 AMIf it were up to me...
every citizen of 18.6 years and older would be required to take a quarterly exam, to prove they are civically aware/involved and if they fail, they lose their right to vote and their freedom of speach...
but
preferrably their right to eat....
I'd even have those people marked with STARS SO WE KNOW WHO THEY ARE. or something more technologically advanced.......
:evilmad:
But referring back to my first post in this thread, I'd like to think if that were the case, journalism and news TV in paticular would be a whole lot more interesting and valuable... No more info on britney spears or the like...
Play in traffic. Please, do the rest of the world a favor and play in traffic. Or just blow yourself up with a grenade, I don't care how you do it.
American global supremacy and our standard of living are both unsustainable anyway. Either they will crash violently when reality catches up with us, or we will have the foresight to reorganize the way we do business and stave off a complete collapse. There is no eternal American supremacy, military or not.
Quote from: Felix on September 25, 2008, 05:36:43 AM
Quote from: wgeorgew on September 25, 2008, 05:31:09 AM
Quote from: Felix on September 25, 2008, 05:19:25 AM
Quote from: wgeorgew on September 25, 2008, 05:16:00 AM
If it were up to me...
every citizen of 18.6 years and older would be required to take a quarterly exam, to prove they are civically aware/involved and if they fail, they lose their right to vote and their freedom of speach...
but
preferrably their right to eat....
I'd even have those people marked with STARS SO WE KNOW WHO THEY ARE. or something more technologically advanced.......
:evilmad:
Aren't you a patriot. That's a bold and new approach that's never been tried.
Oh, except... Sheesh, it's on the tip of my tongue.
instead of beating around the bush, why don't you skip around placing daisies in the barrells of automatic rifles? :P
Because-
Bec-
Rrrr... Aaaaage....
:mad:
:lulz:
Vene...
Maybe my idea was fucked, but my intention was to reduce the effectiveness of the "evil fucks" from taking advantage of the "stupid fucks" why should shit eating motehr fucker know nothings be allowed to have a say?
That's like putting religous asshats in charge of all the scientists. At least that's the way I see it. Me so sorry if taking freedoms away from people who don't deserve it offends you.
Make like a monk and flame.
(http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/worst-way-to-die-1.jpg)
Quote from: wgeorgew on September 25, 2008, 03:18:26 PM
Quote from: Felix on September 25, 2008, 05:36:43 AM
Quote from: wgeorgew on September 25, 2008, 05:31:09 AM
Quote from: Felix on September 25, 2008, 05:19:25 AM
Quote from: wgeorgew on September 25, 2008, 05:16:00 AM
If it were up to me...
every citizen of 18.6 years and older would be required to take a quarterly exam, to prove they are civically aware/involved and if they fail, they lose their right to vote and their freedom of speach...
but
preferrably their right to eat....
I'd even have those people marked with STARS SO WE KNOW WHO THEY ARE. or something more technologically advanced.......
:evilmad:
Aren't you a patriot. That's a bold and new approach that's never been tried.
Oh, except... Sheesh, it's on the tip of my tongue.
instead of beating around the bush, why don't you skip around placing daisies in the barrells of automatic rifles? :P
Because-
Bec-
Rrrr... Aaaaage....
:mad:
:lulz:
Vene...
Maybe my idea was fucked, but my intention was to reduce the effectiveness of the "evil fucks" from taking advantage of the "stupid fucks" why should shit eating motehr fucker know nothings be allowed to have a say?
That's like putting religous asshats in charge of all the scientists. At least that's the way I see it. Me so sorry if taking freedoms away from people who don't deserve it offends you.
But that's just it, wade. You take freedoms away from someone else, and you become the very person you are eschewing...or fucking killing them/shooting/murderdeathkill whatever's on your soldier's mind atm.
Preservation of freedom is to be sought--not its further raping of the populace.
Quote from: vexati0n on September 25, 2008, 02:29:12 PM
American global supremacy and our standard of living are both unsustainable anyway. Either they will crash violently when reality catches up with us, or we will have the foresight to reorganize the way we do business and stave off a complete collapse. There is no eternal American supremacy, military or not.
I believe this too, I just have a hard time believing we are on a crash-course at the moment. Yes, things look bad, yes, things have been getting progressively worse since the turn of the millenium...
But I still don't see us tanking completely and going underground. Especially factoring in how many places we take WITH us should we do so.
I think there's going to be some sort of monumental growing up that has to be done, and soon...it's just a question of how we are going to do it and in which particular direction. The particular pendulum swing this presidential election will probably give a clue.
If the US crashes tomorrow, it will bring down most of the global economic system. If the US crashes 5 or 10 years from now, that might not be the case, even if we are as militarily powerful as we are today. Foreign powers continue to consolidate wealth and power that isn't dependent upon American primacy. Eventually, American power and influence will either stand on the merits of our society and the solidity of our own economy, or it will falter and collapse.
The rest of the world is going to survive no matter what happens here. In fact, for fifty years, financial and political circles have been hard at work to ensure just that outcome. The American Dollar has fallen from a sound investment, to the de-facto world currency, to one option among many, and now to a liability. With the upcoming "Bailout" of Wall St., the trend will only accelerate. Because there are more intelligent and direct ways to address the problems the Bailout is supposed to fix, I am convinced that this scheme has been cooked up with the intention of affording the financial sector enough time to slip away from our doomed economy and set up roots somewhere else while the American economy continues to deflate at the expense of taxpayers.
America does have some growing up to do, but it is something that I question whether we are capable of doing anymore. The years since WW2 have seen America progress socially, but in terms of maturity and responsibility we have never been less developed than we are at this moment. We are a nation of coddled, insulated children, ignorant of global events and apathetic toward the ideals under which this nation was founded except as cheap, commercialized slogans that hold no intellectual power. It is this attitude out of which we must grow, and at the same time it is this attitude which demands we never outgrow it. So I think it would take a pretty big 'black swan' for America to change course before disaster strikes.
In some ways, I wonder if the Neocons aren't the true patriots after all. Maybe their plan is to drive our government into such corruption and our nation into such abysmal ruin that there will be no option for survival except a revival of the revolutionary spirit in the American People.
</rant>
I disagree fundamentally--I think, vex, you discount how truly tied economically we are to the rest of the world. Our gas prices go up, so does the rest of the gas in the places where it's not subsidized; same with our stocks, they fall, so do the rest of them, same with credit crunches, housing bubbles--you name it, we actually set the temperature and everyone else somehow feels the heat.
I'm not saying no one will survive an American economic meltdown--but to make it seem like 5 to 10 years will be different wholesale from NOW, no, that's laughable to me. You can't disentangle this world economy (that's essentially what it's begining to be, really, in so many many ways) so quickly or easily, let alone clinically.
I think for the most part if you give a person a house or a car for free, they are going to treat it like shit, no respect or care will be given to it. If they however bought it, they will treat it with care, and respect. Same goes with "freedom"...
I am convinced that most people in the "freeworld" do not deserve the "freedom" they have. mainly because they are good for nothing shitheads.
am I so wrong to beleive that?
Quote from: wgeorgew on September 25, 2008, 04:50:55 PM
I think for the most part if you give a person a house or a car for free, they are going to treat it like shit, no respect or care will be given to it. If they however bought it, they will treat it with care, and respect. Same goes with "freedom"...
I am convinced that most people in the "freeworld" do not deserve the "freedom" they have. mainly because they are good for nothing shitheads.
am I so wrong to beleive that?
Yes. You have no right to take away someone else's FUNDAMENTAL BORN-WITH-IT right.
Quote from: Jenne on September 25, 2008, 04:52:29 PM
Quote from: wgeorgew on September 25, 2008, 04:50:55 PM
I think for the most part if you give a person a house or a car for free, they are going to treat it like shit, no respect or care will be given to it. If they however bought it, they will treat it with care, and respect. Same goes with "freedom"...
I am convinced that most people in the "freeworld" do not deserve the "freedom" they have. mainly because they are good for nothing shitheads.
am I so wrong to beleive that?
Yes. You have no right to take away someone else's FUNDAMENTAL BORN-WITH-IT right.
SAYS WHO? the lard gawd?
people aren't born with FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.
Freedom is something the meanest asshole mother fuck in town allows you to have.
it's a privledge, not a right.
[jesus christ i'm too verbose today]
It is a gobal economy. It's moving to a new model -- more like a network than the traditional house of cards. America is still by far the biggest and most influential node in that network, but precisely because of the interconnectedness of the global economy, everyone else is more likely to survive an American economic meltdown.
Gas prices are tied to oil, which is a global commodity. The global oil market is a single market that everyone shares. The price of gas in the US is just as dependent on OPEC politics as the cost of heating oil in the UK is dependent upon the price of gas in the US. The US does not set these trends in oil prices, we react to them like everyone else does. Even if we did set them, the absence of the US would only mean one less variable in the market as far as everyone else is concerned. OPEC could just as easily stop shipping oil to America at all, and everyone's prices would go down.
Quote from: wgeorgew on September 25, 2008, 04:58:09 PM
Quote from: Jenne on September 25, 2008, 04:52:29 PM
Quote from: wgeorgew on September 25, 2008, 04:50:55 PM
I think for the most part if you give a person a house or a car for free, they are going to treat it like shit, no respect or care will be given to it. If they however bought it, they will treat it with care, and respect. Same goes with "freedom"...
I am convinced that most people in the "freeworld" do not deserve the "freedom" they have. mainly because they are good for nothing shitheads.
am I so wrong to beleive that?
Yes. You have no right to take away someone else's FUNDAMENTAL BORN-WITH-IT right.
SAYS WHO? the lard gawd?
people aren't born with FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.
Freedom is something the meanest asshole mother fuck in town allows you to have.
it's a privledge, not a right.
No, and so now you show the true measure of your ignorance. You need to read up on freedom, the right to live, to choose, etc.
Don't go and fight for something you know nothing about, wade. That's stupid. Freedom is not a privilege, and when you start down that road, you might as well expect a dictatorship for your government.
History, read it. It's your friend.
As for "Freedom," I actually tend to side with Wade here, in principle. You are not really free until you've asserted your freedom. A lack of tyranny guarantees nothing except a false sense that tyranny is either defeated or fictional.
Oh shit, serious argument underway. I will keep my silly joke posts to myself until this is over. You may continue.
Quote from: vexati0n on September 25, 2008, 04:59:57 PM
[jesus christ i'm too verbose today]
It is a gobal economy. It's moving to a new model -- more like a network than the traditional house of cards. America is still by far the biggest and most influential node in that network, but precisely because of the interconnectedness of the global economy, everyone else is more likely to survive an American economic meltdown.
Gas prices are tied to oil, which is a global commodity. The global oil market is a single market that everyone shares. The price of gas in the US is just as dependent on OPEC politics as the cost of heating oil in the UK is dependent upon the price of gas in the US. The US does not set these trends in oil prices, we react to them like everyone else does. Even if we did set them, the absence of the US would only mean one less variable in the market as far as everyone else is concerned. OPEC could just as easily stop shipping oil to America at all, and everyone's prices would go down.
No. No and no. You're discounting what WE do for the global monies circulating around. And the influence we have on where those monies go. We salt the coffers of the "right" people, and all hell could either disappear or break loose.
Not to mention our military actions worldwide, and what they mean for where they land and how they operate.
vex, come on, do you really think America has that little influence on what happens globally? Because that's where you see why people truly hate/love/give a flying fuck about us.
Quote from: vexati0n on September 25, 2008, 05:02:15 PM
As for "Freedom," I actually tend to side with Wade here, in principle. You are not really free until you've asserted your freedom. A lack of tyranny guarantees nothing except a false sense that tyranny is either defeated or fictional.
That's very Starship Troopers. You can't be a citizen with rights until you've done your time serving for freedom.
Speaking as former military, they drill in your head that if it wasn't for us, there would be no freedom, and that freedom isn't free, which is why we exist, to preserve it. I support the troops, but I always hated that idea.
Quote from: vexati0n on September 25, 2008, 05:02:15 PM
As for "Freedom," I actually tend to side with Wade here, in principle. You are not really free until you've asserted your freedom. A lack of tyranny guarantees nothing except a false sense that tyranny is either defeated or fictional.
That's not the same thing. You are born into this world with certain fundamental things--life, liberty...yadda yadda.
Now, what you do with that, it's up to you. You can sheep your way through life, or you can embrace that freedom and do more with it. That choice, whether you're born in Afghanistan, Mogadishu, or Bumfuckville, USA, is always there.
Quote from: Malachite on September 25, 2008, 05:03:08 PM
Oh shit, serious argument underway. I will keep my silly joke posts to myself until this is over. You may continue.
I don't mind jokes. I'm just running off at the typing fingers today anyway.
Quote from: wgeorgew on September 25, 2008, 04:58:09 PM
Quote from: Jenne on September 25, 2008, 04:52:29 PM
Quote from: wgeorgew on September 25, 2008, 04:50:55 PM
I think for the most part if you give a person a house or a car for free, they are going to treat it like shit, no respect or care will be given to it. If they however bought it, they will treat it with care, and respect. Same goes with "freedom"...
I am convinced that most people in the "freeworld" do not deserve the "freedom" they have. mainly because they are good for nothing shitheads.
am I so wrong to beleive that?
Yes. You have no right to take away someone else's FUNDAMENTAL BORN-WITH-IT right.
SAYS WHO? the lard gawd?
people aren't born with FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.
Freedom is something the meanest asshole mother fuck in town allows you to have.
it's a privledge, not a right.
I
really want TGRR to address this.
Quote from: Suu on September 25, 2008, 05:04:53 PM
Quote from: vexati0n on September 25, 2008, 05:02:15 PM
As for "Freedom," I actually tend to side with Wade here, in principle. You are not really free until you've asserted your freedom. A lack of tyranny guarantees nothing except a false sense that tyranny is either defeated or fictional.
That's very Starship Troopers. You can't be a citizen with rights until you've done your time serving for freedom.
Speaking as former military, they drill in your head that if it wasn't for us, there would be no freedom, and that freedom isn't free, which is why we exist, to preserve it. I support the troops, but I always hated that idea.
Exactly. The notion that you have to pay a price to GET freedom is just an excuse for the mighty to prevail over the weak.
"Well, he didn't DESERVE his freedom because he never arm-wrestled 20 alligators to get it/preserve it/ etc."
In a democratic society, it's deemed born-into (you know, "God-given")...there's not initial fight--just the fight to be born. We essentially have no choice in that matter. One of the few things we actually DON'T have a choice in: whether or not to be born.
I agree with the idea that people are born with inalienable rights, but that's still just one belief among many. It holds no inherent truth or even inherent value. It only becomes true when you act to defend that belief, and even then it is only true for you. There are no guarantees. The belief that rights are assumed and guaranteed is half of what is wrong with this country.
Just like I told my right wing nutshell friend:
"I intend to use my "god-given" freedom of speech and opinion to bitch and moan about this country as much as I want until they pry it from my cold dead hands."
He didn't like that...Fascist fucktard.
Quote from: vexati0n on September 25, 2008, 05:11:59 PM
I agree with the idea that people are born with inalienable rights, but that's still just one belief among many. It holds no inherent truth or even inherent value. It only becomes true when you act to defend that belief, and even then it is only true for you. There are no guarantees. The belief that rights are assumed and guaranteed is half of what is wrong with this country.
If you have an apple in your pocket, it stays there. Eating the apple doesn't make it more a part of you--it's still in your pocket. The apple doesn't disapper because you didn't eat it.
Same with freedom--it's there--you can use it or leave it, but you shouldn't be subjected to having it taken from you because you aren't actively working against those who would take it from you.
I'm not suggesting anyone's freedom be taken away, I'm just saying that the de-facto status of an uninhibited human is not necessarily "freedom." People are creatures of habit, we thrive on routine, and we will generally fight much harder to preserve convenience than to preserve our intellectual, religious, or social liberties. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's who we are. The only time freedom is really called into question is when you don't have it, and most people these days don't know what freedom is, much less how to secure it.
sure anyone is free to do whatever the fuck they want where ever the fuck they are. It's called being mobile, acting on thoughts desires wants... SURE.
However in reality you are limited to usually a small number of choices depending on where you are and if you want to live for any period of time. And as far as I am aware, it is the biggest baddest meanest mother fuck who limits a lot of those choices before you..
one example.. "To talk or not to talk, if I say what I think, this meathead will probably hurt me...*JFK's head blows off*" etc... everyone is theoretically free, but in reality, HA. HAHA. I just don't get it.
I honestly do not think some adults should be allowed to vote. they live their entire life not knowing or giving a shit about anything involving "freedom" then go ahead and vote for some dickwad because, "he's a christian" or any otehr dumbass reason...
I may be wrong, but I honestly do not see why uninvolved people should be allowed to elect asshats they really do not know, into positions of authority. it makes no sense to me at all. sure it is free adn democratic and all that JAZZ BUT IT IS ALSO STUIPD AS ALL FUCKING HELL.
If you want power all you need to do is manipulate those fucks and they'll vote for you. Maybe all the major media outlets are owned by a small number of people for that exact reason. ?? I say fuck that shit, stop letting dimwits vote. they have no right to vote. just because their lard ass was motivated enough to move that day doesn't mean they have a right to vote in my opinion. A person should be a little more involved intellectually before they are allowed to vote.
Quote from: vexati0n on September 25, 2008, 05:35:13 PM
I'm not suggesting anyone's freedom be taken away, I'm just saying that the de-facto status of an uninhibited human is not necessarily "freedom." People are creatures of habit, we thrive on routine, and we will generally fight much harder to preserve convenience than to preserve our intellectual, religious, or social liberties. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's who we are. The only time freedom is really called into question is when you don't have it, and most people these days don't know what freedom is, much less how to secure it.
Then what IS "freedom"?
Running around naked and uninvited at a luncheon at a country club.
People know freedom as soon as it's taken away, in a post-post modern democratic society. And you can be routinized in a military dictatorship, nepotistic parochial oligarchy, or any feudalistic society as well.
The trick is to KNOW which system you are living under, and to know where your freedoms actually begin and end. When you have that knowledge, then you can seek to change things for the better, should you perceive that need.
That knowledge, aka education, is what keeps a democracy alive. Without it, those other systems, which humans are VERY capable of living under, will succeed instead.
Quote from: wgeorgew on September 25, 2008, 05:36:12 PM
sure anyone is free to do whatever the fuck they want where ever the fuck they are. It's called being mobile, acting on thoughts desires wants... SURE.
However in reality you are limited to usually a small number of choices depending on where you are and if you want to live for any period of time. And as far as I am aware, it is the biggest baddest meanest mother fuck who limits a lot of those choices before you..
one example.. "To talk or not to talk, if I say what I think, this meathead will probably hurt me...*JFK's head blows off*" etc... everyone is theoretically free, but in reality, HA. HAHA. I just don't get it.
I honestly do not think some adults should be allowed to vote. they live their entire life not knowing or giving a shit about anything involving "freedom" then go ahead and vote for some dickwad because, "he's a christian" or any otehr dumbass reason...
I may be wrong, but I honestly do not see why uninvolved people should be allowed to elect asshats they really do not know, into positions of authority. it makes no sense to me at all. sure it is free adn democratic and all that JAZZ BUT IT IS ALSO STUIPD AS ALL FUCKING HELL.
If you want power all you need to do is manipulate those fucks and they'll vote for you. Maybe all the major media outlets are owned by a small number of people for that exact reason. ?? I say fuck that shit, stop letting dimwits vote. they have no right to vote. just because their lard ass was motivated enough to move that day doesn't mean they have a right to vote in my opinion. A person should be a little more involved intellectually before they are allowed to vote.
wade, you are so not alone in what you are thinking--but you see, the people who think that are always under the ASSumption that this will never happen to them.
That they will always be the ones taking from others or bestowing upon them.
Never the ones that this happens to. Never the victim, always the perp.
So go ahead and keep your noggin in the sand, or up your ass, but realize too that in expressing the above you have outted yourself and someone who is not a true believe in democracy.
I thought he outted himself quite a while ago...
good point.
I am really interested in knowing how one would determine whether or not they are allowed to vote or not...
On a side note, I'd really prefer it if we voted for the issues and not the people....
Quote from: wgeorgew on September 25, 2008, 04:58:09 PM
Quote from: Jenne on September 25, 2008, 04:52:29 PM
Quote from: wgeorgew on September 25, 2008, 04:50:55 PM
I think for the most part if you give a person a house or a car for free, they are going to treat it like shit, no respect or care will be given to it. If they however bought it, they will treat it with care, and respect. Same goes with "freedom"...
I am convinced that most people in the "freeworld" do not deserve the "freedom" they have. mainly because they are good for nothing shitheads.
am I so wrong to beleive that?
Yes. You have no right to take away someone else's FUNDAMENTAL BORN-WITH-IT right.
SAYS WHO? the lard gawd?
people aren't born with FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.
Freedom is something the meanest asshole mother fuck in town allows you to have.
it's a privledge, not a right.
You have just forfeited you
rightprivilege to life. Kill yourself at the next available opportunity.
somebody needs to threadjack this thing already :|
Quote from: wgeorgew on September 25, 2008, 05:36:12 PM
one example.. "To talk or not to talk, if I say what I think, this meathead will probably hurt me...*JFK's head blows off*" etc... everyone is theoretically free, but in reality, HA. HAHA. I just don't get it.
Freedom "to" does not imply freedom "from". You can't have both. In any free choice there are consequences, and by making a choice we accept the consequences.
QuoteI honestly do not think some adults should be allowed to vote. they live their entire life not knowing or giving a shit about anything involving "freedom" then go ahead and vote for some dickwad because, "he's a christian" or any otehr dumbass reason...
You seem not to understand that democracy is a tyrranny of swine. It is fair, in theory, but fairness is imperfect too.
QuoteI may be wrong, but I honestly do not see why uninvolved people should be allowed to elect asshats they really do not know, into positions of authority. it makes no sense to me at all. sure it is free adn democratic and all that JAZZ BUT IT IS ALSO STUIPD AS ALL FUCKING HELL.
We agree. It's not perfect, but there you go. You got a better idea?
QuoteIf you want power all you need to do is manipulate those fucks and they'll vote for you. Maybe all the major media outlets are owned by a small number of people for that exact reason. ?? I say fuck that shit, stop letting dimwits vote. they have no right to vote. just because their lard ass was motivated enough to move that day doesn't mean they have a right to vote in my opinion. A person should be a little more involved intellectually before they are allowed to vote.
That's not very productive. Why not educate people and solve the core of the problem?
Those of us fortunate enough to be citizens in a country with a constitution that says, "You are free, you can have your own views, and you have rights." have a responsibility to those rights. Our vitality as citizens is based on our freedoms, and freedom is a matter of responsibility.
He does have a better idea, Felix--Feudalism.
Vex, why so glum? It's a good discourse... ?
Quote from: vexati0n on September 25, 2008, 06:51:35 PM
somebody needs to threadjack this thing already :|
I can, if you want.
I can too. Punner, activate.
j/k
Quote from: Jenne on September 25, 2008, 06:55:03 PM
He does have a better idea, Felix--Feudalism.
HOT DAMN, WHERE DO I SIGN UP?!
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 25, 2008, 02:16:15 PM
Quote from: Felix on September 25, 2008, 05:11:41 AM
Okayokay SOME military, but a reasonable amount. None of this 600 Billion dollar a year multinational invasion force like we have now.
you understand, of course, that a reasonably-sized military for America would involve resuming the draft, given that we currently have about half as many people under arms as we actually need to insure our varied strategic interests.
I disagree.
American military needs could be met by expanding the Navy and elements of the army (Special forces, training, flexible infantry) and shitcanning a ton of crap that is never gonna be used (heavy amour, various fixed defence systems etc) simply because Canada and Mexico are never gonna invade, and no-one else can get close enough without nukes or terrorism, which are two entirely different ballparks.
QuoteI mean, you could always go live in a third-world hellhole or some european nanny-state, but assuming that you have grown accustomed to the lifestyle that you enjoy as a direct result of American global primacy (and I think alot of people have never really thought about what their life would be like if American global primacy ceased to be), you should probably find a different way to cut government spending. There are alot of ways that money could be recouped without throwing open the gates and allowing the barbarians free reign.
Uh-huh.
Any evidence for this? I mean, aside from a tiresome slam on Europe (par for the course in these discussions) or are you just blowing assertions out of your arse here?
I was waiting for you to get in here Cain...not that I felt you had to, just wanted your take is all.
Threadjack deactivated, due to Cain making some very interesting points on national security.
Quote from: Felix on September 25, 2008, 06:57:59 PM
Quote from: Jenne on September 25, 2008, 06:55:03 PM
He does have a better idea, Felix--Feudalism.
HOT DAMN, WHERE DO I SIGN UP?!
wade, show the gentlemen to his cell, please. Follow the Canuckistani, Felix. He'll show you "the way."
Quote from: LMNO on September 25, 2008, 07:05:22 PM
Threadjack deactivated, due to Cain making some very interesting points on national security.
:( I don't see what was so wrong with the thread.
Quote from: LMNO on September 25, 2008, 06:55:55 PM
Quote from: vexati0n on September 25, 2008, 06:51:35 PM
somebody needs to threadjack this thing already :|
I can, if you want.
actually let's give it another couple pages or so.
True democracy is a shitty system. Representative Republicanism is better, at least in theory it prevents the retarded masses from voting themselves into a bad position. Of course, the people who do get elected end up being bad anyway, since power corrupts. So the question should not be how to restrict the rights of people to determine the direction of the country, but how to force the people who are elected into power from wielding that power irresponsibly -- which can't actually be meaningfully accomplished, but what we have can and should be improved.
Honestly, I think it's amazing that our present Constitution, which was written and enacted
before the Industrial Revolution has weathered as much as it has. But I also think that, realistically, if we are to maintain the same spirit of liberty that was at hinted at by that document, we need to rewrite it completely. It has been around too long, and the nature of Western civilization has changed too much, for it to last much longer. If it is allowed to simply continue on its path to obsolescence without a deliberate attempt to supplant it with something that has teeth, it will be replaced by an ever more encroaching government.
Quote from: Jenne on September 25, 2008, 07:06:06 PM
Quote from: LMNO on September 25, 2008, 07:05:22 PM
Threadjack deactivated, due to Cain making some very interesting points on national security.
:( I don't see what was so wrong with the thread.
Nothing. A threadjack request was made, but is now recinded.
Anyway, I wonder what an intelligent, pragmatic, budget-minded pentagon would focus their efforts on. Counter insurgency? Bigger bombs? Infantry, or airpower?
This nannying European socialist wasn't going to get involved, since it is US politics. But since cheap slams are apparently in, that means I'm here as well.
Quote from: LMNO on September 25, 2008, 07:08:18 PM
Anyway, I wonder what an intelligent, pragmatic, budget-minded pentagon would focus their efforts on. Counter insurgency? Bigger bombs? Infantry, or airpower?
I'd suggest they focus on special forces and propaganda above all else. Except they do need bigger bombs, because there's no such thing as a bomb that's too big.
Quote from: CainThis nannying European socialist wasn't going to get involved, since it is US politics. But since cheap slams are apparently in, that means I'm here as well.
:sadbanana:
Quote from: Cain on September 25, 2008, 07:08:54 PM
This nannying European socialist wasn't going to get involved, since it is US politics. But since cheap slams are apparently in, that means I'm here as well.
But I like reading your political insights. I just don't have the background for too much of it. For example, I have no idea how the proposed AIG bailout will effect the US economy.
Quote from: LMNO on September 25, 2008, 07:08:18 PM
Quote from: Jenne on September 25, 2008, 07:06:06 PM
Quote from: LMNO on September 25, 2008, 07:05:22 PM
Threadjack deactivated, due to Cain making some very interesting points on national security.
:( I don't see what was so wrong with the thread.
Nothing. A threadjack request was made, but is now recinded.
Anyway, I wonder what an intelligent, pragmatic, budget-minded pentagon would focus their efforts on. Counter insurgency? Bigger bombs? Infantry, or airpower?
Counter-insurgency.
Better protected, more prevalent naval forces.
Special forces.
Air force bombers
Nukes.
Intelligence.
That would reaffirm US power as an offshore balancer, working in concert with friendly local forces to remove peer competitors, while reducing overheads, military presence (which can have negative political connotations in some locations) and the temptations of unilateral adventurism.
Of course, not every situation would have a position where the USA would have friendly local allies, but that is why I said the focus is on the above, not that the entire military should be gutted. The offshore balancer role will put both China and Russia on the defensive when dealing with local US allies, while freeing forces to react to current events, instead of currently being held hostage to them by other commitments (such as with the events in Georgia, where US troops were in Iraq and thus could pose no potential threat).
Can you imagine a world where the US military actually helped keep powermongering at bay and forged peaceful alliances?
Wow. What a dream...
Twould be nice--realizing that attribute that we are all taught we as a country HAVE in those god-awful lying history and civics classes...
Quote from: Jenne on September 25, 2008, 07:18:00 PM
Can you imagine a world where the US military actually helped keep powermongering at bay and forged peaceful alliances?
Wow. What a dream...
Twould be nice--realizing that attribute that we are all taught we as a country HAVE in those god-awful lying history and civics classes...
I never understood how "embrace freedom or we'll kill you" was supposed to work.
Actually, their role would be to keep US predominance in the world. They would only be keeping other powerhungry countries at bay.
Quote from: Jenne on September 25, 2008, 07:11:38 PM
Quote from: CainThis nannying European socialist wasn't going to get involved, since it is US politics. But since cheap slams are apparently in, that means I'm here as well.
:sadbanana:
I didn't start it.
I just get bored when intelligent people can't come up with a more subtansiable reason for expanded US military forces than "otherwise you'll be just like those weak pansy European socialist faggots lololololol", which is essentially what that was. Even Charles Krauthammer, who is neither intelligent nor insightful can do better than that.
Apparently its badwrong to slam upon the USA (or even comment on its politics if you are outside the country, I am reliably informed), yet slamming other countries with wingnut talking points, and inaccurate ones at that, is perfectly alright. :roll:
Quote from: Vene on September 25, 2008, 07:15:11 PM
Quote from: Cain on September 25, 2008, 07:08:54 PM
This nannying European socialist wasn't going to get involved, since it is US politics. But since cheap slams are apparently in, that means I'm here as well.
But I like reading your political insights. I just don't have the background for too much of it. For example, I have no idea how the proposed AIG bailout will effect the US economy.
Well you can thank GA for my disinclination to comment on US politics. Apparently, spending 4 years studying the politics of foreign countries and what could loosely be termed as the international system gives one no insight, ability or reason to comment on such events, and if you do so, then you should be slammed for it.
Quote from: Rev. Voodoo on September 25, 2008, 07:25:24 PM
Quote from: Jenne on September 25, 2008, 07:18:00 PM
Can you imagine a world where the US military actually helped keep powermongering at bay and forged peaceful alliances?
Wow. What a dream...
Twould be nice--realizing that attribute that we are all taught we as a country HAVE in those god-awful lying history and civics classes...
I never understood how "embrace freedom or we'll kill you" was supposed to work.
Yeah, some people mistakenly see that as "carrot-stick," and of course they'd be talking through their assholes...
Quote from: Cain on September 25, 2008, 07:26:26 PM
Actually, their role would be to keep US predominance in the world. They would only be keeping other powerhungry countries at bay.
Tr00f. But hey, killl 2 birds with one stone?
I'm being facetious, I know, but I know there are so many more better things we can be doing with our military, and there's rarely a voice that nudges in that direction--they all either seem to say "kill the military!" or "kill the other bastids WIFF the military!"--hardly ever in the middle.
Quote from: Cain on September 25, 2008, 07:33:08 PM
Quote from: Vene on September 25, 2008, 07:15:11 PM
Quote from: Cain on September 25, 2008, 07:08:54 PM
This nannying European socialist wasn't going to get involved, since it is US politics. But since cheap slams are apparently in, that means I'm here as well.
But I like reading your political insights. I just don't have the background for too much of it. For example, I have no idea how the proposed AIG bailout will effect the US economy.
Well you can thank GA for my disinclination to comment on US politics. Apparently, spending 4 years studying the politics of foreign countries and what could loosely be termed as the international system gives one no insight, ability or reason to comment on such events, and if you do so, then you should be slammed for it.
And yet, somebody like you is exactly who I want to hear from. Somebody who is educated about how governments work and has the perspective of an outsider.
Quote from: Cain on September 25, 2008, 07:31:23 PM
Quote from: Jenne on September 25, 2008, 07:11:38 PM
Quote from: CainThis nannying European socialist wasn't going to get involved, since it is US politics. But since cheap slams are apparently in, that means I'm here as well.
:sadbanana:
I didn't start it.
I just get bored when intelligent people can't come up with a more subtansiable reason for expanded US military forces than "otherwise you'll be just like those weak pansy European socialist faggots lololololol", which is essentially what that was. Even Charles Krauthammer, who is neither intelligent nor insightful can do better than that.
Apparently its badwrong to slam upon the USA (or even comment on its politics if you are outside the country, I am reliably informed), yet slamming other countries with wingnut talking points, and inaccurate ones at that, is perfectly alright. :roll:
Well, it's shitty that you get shit on for being the foremost authority on this stuff. Someone--was it Payne?--said recently that "Cain forgets more than you'll ever KNOW about US politics/history, etc." Bad paraphrase--but it's true. And it's a great asset on your boards, even if people take advantage or fuck you over for it.
Anyway, ...fuck those who can't get it. Or won't.
Quote from: Vene on September 25, 2008, 07:40:48 PM
Quote from: Cain on September 25, 2008, 07:33:08 PM
Quote from: Vene on September 25, 2008, 07:15:11 PM
Quote from: Cain on September 25, 2008, 07:08:54 PM
This nannying European socialist wasn't going to get involved, since it is US politics. But since cheap slams are apparently in, that means I'm here as well.
But I like reading your political insights. I just don't have the background for too much of it. For example, I have no idea how the proposed AIG bailout will effect the US economy.
Well you can thank GA for my disinclination to comment on US politics. Apparently, spending 4 years studying the politics of foreign countries and what could loosely be termed as the international system gives one no insight, ability or reason to comment on such events, and if you do so, then you should be slammed for it.
And yet, somebody like you is exactly who I want to hear from. Somebody who is educated about how governments work and has the perspective of an outsider.
Then I suggest you take up the matter with GA. My interest in US politics is apparently suspect (because, presumably, the political direction of a hegemon is of no consequence for any allied nation and its citizens) and therefore should be discouraged. And since I'm in no position to engage in long and tedious flame wars, and indeed have little interest in doing so, I have mostly ceded to these demands.
Quote from: Cain on September 25, 2008, 07:43:40 PM
Quote from: Vene on September 25, 2008, 07:40:48 PM
Quote from: Cain on September 25, 2008, 07:33:08 PM
Quote from: Vene on September 25, 2008, 07:15:11 PM
Quote from: Cain on September 25, 2008, 07:08:54 PM
This nannying European socialist wasn't going to get involved, since it is US politics. But since cheap slams are apparently in, that means I'm here as well.
But I like reading your political insights. I just don't have the background for too much of it. For example, I have no idea how the proposed AIG bailout will effect the US economy.
Well you can thank GA for my disinclination to comment on US politics. Apparently, spending 4 years studying the politics of foreign countries and what could loosely be termed as the international system gives one no insight, ability or reason to comment on such events, and if you do so, then you should be slammed for it.
And yet, somebody like you is exactly who I want to hear from. Somebody who is educated about how governments work and has the perspective of an outsider.
Then I suggest you take up the matter with GA. My interest in US politics is apparently suspect (because, presumably, the political direction of a hegemon is of no consequence for any allied nation and its citizens) and therefore should be discouraged. And since I'm in no position to engage in long and tedious flame wars, and indeed have little interest in doing so, I have mostly ceded to these demands.
I'll miss the incisive insight, myself (and I think many others too), but you don't need to put up with the bullshit you got from GA for it.
ATTN Everyone else: we need to fuck with GA until she apologises and retracts her misguided comments and clarifies her position.
Cool, can we throw nB and Agrippa in for good measure?
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 25, 2008, 07:50:03 PM
Cool, can we throw nB and Agrippa in for good measure?
*gots NO problem with that*
Sure.
We can create an omnibus bill and include everyone we can get the hivemind to agree on included.
I certainly would include nB and Agrippa on the list.
There's a buzzing in my head, just below my left ear....
HEY, GA! FUCK OFF AND DIE YOU XENOPHOBIC SACK OF SHIT! JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE ANSWERS DOESN'T MEAN YOU GET TO SHUT OFF THE INFORMATION FLOW!
FUCKER!
Vote them off the island? :lulz:
I like where this is going. Hey, maybe they can be Daruko's minions.
*cleans Cains cum off of my face.
Who the fuck is GA?
WADE HAS AN OVER-SIMPLISTIC WORLDVIEW
HIS HEAD IS TOO SMALL
Quote from: Cain on September 25, 2008, 07:01:40 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 25, 2008, 02:16:15 PM
Quote from: Felix on September 25, 2008, 05:11:41 AM
Okayokay SOME military, but a reasonable amount. None of this 600 Billion dollar a year multinational invasion force like we have now.
you understand, of course, that a reasonably-sized military for America would involve resuming the draft, given that we currently have about half as many people under arms as we actually need to insure our varied strategic interests.
I disagree.
American military needs could be met by expanding the Navy and elements of the army (Special forces, training, flexible infantry) and shitcanning a ton of crap that is never gonna be used (heavy amour, various fixed defence systems etc) simply because Canada and Mexico are never gonna invade, and no-one else can get close enough without nukes or terrorism, which are two entirely different ballparks.
QuoteI mean, you could always go live in a third-world hellhole or some european nanny-state, but assuming that you have grown accustomed to the lifestyle that you enjoy as a direct result of American global primacy (and I think alot of people have never really thought about what their life would be like if American global primacy ceased to be), you should probably find a different way to cut government spending. There are alot of ways that money could be recouped without throwing open the gates and allowing the barbarians free reign.
Uh-huh.
Any evidence for this? I mean, aside from a tiresome slam on Europe (par for the course in these discussions) or are you just blowing assertions out of your arse here?
first off, I've never given two shits if someone from another country slams america or chimes in on its internal politics.
secondly, had western european nations been forced to foot the entire bill to defend themselves from the USSR for 50 years, I'm guessing they'd have had alot fewer social welfare programs. I don't have any hard evidence to back that up, but it seems like a reasonable educated guess, and it makes my cheap slam on europe relevant in the context of what I was commenting on in Felix's post.
third, aren't you Aussie? why take offense at a cheap-shot at european socialism even if you're inclined to take offense at such things in the first place?
Quote from: Captain Obvious on September 26, 2008, 02:11:20 AM
WADE HAS AN OVER-SIMPLISTIC WORLDVIEW
So?
Ever hear of a block diagram before? I think like that, big deal.
I am admittedly dumb as shit when it come to anything political -- so i love reading these threads. You folk are way smarter than you give yourself credit for.
And I probably am one of the "dirty hippie" socialists everyone despises -- but I still think we should let the fucking stock market fail and let those corporate fuckers starve in the streets. Ok, maybe I'm not really a hippie, but I do want pot legalized.
Nah, you're a hippy. Wear it like a paisley badge of pride.
i guess I should stop bathing and get a siberian husky
I totally read that as "get a lesbian husky"
'Politicians to be fed, clothed, boarded, and provided for to a high quality of life, but not allowed personal possessions or money.'
didn't Athens choose random citizens almost like a jury for its senate? if lawmakers are isolated and given shorter terms this could actually be very useful. Lobbyists can still write the bills as they do now, just they have to have a random set of people to argue over its details instead of their good buddy.
maybe even hook up close circurt television, :lulz: BIG BROTHER. After all most people think Cspan is boring, after all whens the last time you see em go jerry springer like they do in japan. Maybe even allow america to vote on which senator needs to be taser at the end of the show.
Quote from: YattoDobbs on September 26, 2008, 05:23:00 AM
'Politicians to be fed, clothed, boarded, and provided for to a high quality of life, but not allowed personal possessions or money.'
didn't Athens choose random citizens almost like a jury for its senate? if lawmakers are isolated and given shorter terms this could actually be very useful. plus if they are forbidden to say have TV, they wont have an excuse for not reading the bills before they are passed. Lobbyists can still write the bills as they do now, just they have to have a random set of people to argue over its details instead of their good buddy.
Read Plato.
He has a few good ideas, but he tries to stretch his good ideas out to fit everything, and it all ends up sucking.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 26, 2008, 02:47:11 AM
Quote from: Cain on September 25, 2008, 07:01:40 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on September 25, 2008, 02:16:15 PM
Quote from: Felix on September 25, 2008, 05:11:41 AM
Okayokay SOME military, but a reasonable amount. None of this 600 Billion dollar a year multinational invasion force like we have now.
you understand, of course, that a reasonably-sized military for America would involve resuming the draft, given that we currently have about half as many people under arms as we actually need to insure our varied strategic interests.
I disagree.
American military needs could be met by expanding the Navy and elements of the army (Special forces, training, flexible infantry) and shitcanning a ton of crap that is never gonna be used (heavy amour, various fixed defence systems etc) simply because Canada and Mexico are never gonna invade, and no-one else can get close enough without nukes or terrorism, which are two entirely different ballparks.
QuoteI mean, you could always go live in a third-world hellhole or some european nanny-state, but assuming that you have grown accustomed to the lifestyle that you enjoy as a direct result of American global primacy (and I think alot of people have never really thought about what their life would be like if American global primacy ceased to be), you should probably find a different way to cut government spending. There are alot of ways that money could be recouped without throwing open the gates and allowing the barbarians free reign.
Uh-huh.
Any evidence for this? I mean, aside from a tiresome slam on Europe (par for the course in these discussions) or are you just blowing assertions out of your arse here?
first off, I've never given two shits if someone from another country slams america or chimes in on its internal politics.
secondly, had western european nations been forced to foot the entire bill to defend themselves from the USSR for 50 years, I'm guessing they'd have had alot fewer social welfare programs. I don't have any hard evidence to back that up, but it seems like a reasonable educated guess, and it makes my cheap slam on europe relevant in the context of what I was commenting on in Felix's post.
third, aren't you Aussie? why take offense at a cheap-shot at european socialism even if you're inclined to take offense at such things in the first place?
Actually, the USA didn't want them to foot the bill, because it was afraid that Europe may act as an independent international actor and not in the US's best interests if it ran its own military on its own dime. Even now, this logic is applied to European defence issues. Its not like the EU is unable to pay, its just that the USA and UK apply pressure to try and make sure the EU remains nothing more than a trade bloc.
In fact, both Germany and France have been substanially building up their forces during the Cold War into the present, and the UK has always been a large military spender. Germany signs on to every international peacekeeping mission it can find, to work around its constitution, give their forces field experience and habituate the German people to having troops doing foreign missions. France has always wanted a military force aside from NATO in order to defend itself, which is why it withdrew from the NATO command structure.
As for your slam on European social systems, perhaps the fact that I'd likely be dead now without our wonderful free hospitals, or in prison because I had no money and no job for all of this summer, endear me to its benefits.
Europeans are Communists!
\
:nigel:
what an awful thing to have socialized healthcare. srsly. if america did that, next thing you know we'd be just like the euros -- always talking, never bombing. good countries bomb. pussy countries talk. that's just the way it is. if Abe Lincoln had been French, we'd all be speaking Creole now. srsly.
:lol: :mittens:
But seriously, I think military presence as Cain laid out is reasonable, just not necessarily feasible, since this nation is hell-bent on putting fire-and-brimstone assholes in office:
(http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e44/sdcafunnyguru/Fucking_Moron_1.jpg)
psycho-analyze presidential candidates (the last two at least) and release the statements to the public.
I like where that one's going. Psychoanalyze candidates and force people to read, understand, and pass a test on them, before voting for that person so you definitely know what you're buying.
Quote from: YattoDobbs on September 26, 2008, 05:23:00 AM
didn't Athens choose random citizens almost like a jury for its senate? if lawmakers are isolated and given shorter terms this could actually be very useful. Lobbyists can still write the bills as they do now, just they have to have a random set of people to argue over its details instead of their good buddy.
I was thinking something like this earlier in the thread. throw anyone in there with a proven capacity to learn, they could do the job just as well as anyone in there right now. Do this when we get to vote on issues rather then the assholes.
a new form of "jury duty"
The Athenian system had its upsides and its downsides.
The problem would be a lazy or apathetic citizenry, most likely. I suspect the mob rule aspect would be less of a problem, given the nature of your constitution, but it would still exist. Without an informed citizenry, political endeavour would tend towards knee-jerk reactions and recieved wisdom, instead of more considered responses.
Another problem may be the amount of positions and relative power of higher level institutions, such as the Senate. With so few positions and so much power, it would either require a very quick refresh rate in order to ensure more than a minority got seats (which would also make any coherent policy impossible) or some sort of devolving of power down to the state and county level, which while not sounding too bad, may face even more resistance and be harder to inititate.
Quote from: Cain on September 27, 2008, 01:24:13 PM
or some sort of devolving of power down to the state and county level
I'm not sure what this is. Is it like State vs. Federal systems in America?
My three are
- Freedom
- Liberty
- And getting your shit together to make it happen.