PDA

View Full Version : Tax Day Tea Party in Kansas City - Eyeballs on the Scene



Pages : [1] 2

Phrost
15th April 09, 10:34 PM
Got back from this not too long ago. I have some video but am not even remotely interested in compiling it right now. In the meantime, here are pics:

The Liberty Memorial, where one of the rallies was held:

http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0010.JPG

http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0021.JPG


http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0027.JPG

And here come the signs:

http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0032.JPG

http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0033.JPG

http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0035.JPG

http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0027.JPG

Phrost
15th April 09, 10:34 PM
Whoever this Ordie guy is, he has a fan
http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0036.JPG

Didn't they replace Rick Perry with some guy from the Philippines?
http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0037.JPG

In what would be a recurring theme, Pirates seemed to be on people's minds.
http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0053.JPG

http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0040.JPG

Local talk radio celebrity Chris Stigall, the next Rush Limbaugh. This is a good or a bad thing depending on your point of view.
http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0041.JPG

http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0042.JPG

http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0043.JPG

http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0044.JPG

http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0045.JPG

http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0056.JPG

Umm...
http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0057.JPG

Phrost
15th April 09, 10:35 PM
Sometimes it's nice to be operating in a journalistic capacity. It means you don't have to directly acknowledge certain things, just to capture them for the sake of other people.

http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0061.JPG

Dude...
http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0062.JPG

http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0067.JPG

Your typical right wing extremi... huh?
http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0073.JPG

And the rest of his family:
http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0074.JPG

This guy was center stage, directly across from the podium. Don't let anyone ever tell you that there's not diversity of opinions on this side of the fence. Or pot smokers.
http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0076.JPG

Don't tread on this kid's teddy snake:
http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0080.JPG

http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0087.JPG

http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0088.JPG

http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0092.JPG

Phrost
15th April 09, 10:35 PM
http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0095.JPG

http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0096.JPG

http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0097.JPG

This guy stood in the exact same spot for... well, as long as I was in the area to notice him.
http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0098.JPG

http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0099.JPG

http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0104.JPG

http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0105.JPG

http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0104.JPG

This sign didn't get allowed in.

http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0108.JPG

By this guy:

http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0110.JPG

http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0114.JPG

http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0115.JPG

http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0124.JPG

http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0125.JPG

http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0127.JPG

http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0128.JPG

Godwin. Or should I say, Godfail?
http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0131.JPG

http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0134.JPG

http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0147.JPG

Phrost
15th April 09, 10:35 PM
I then left and headed over to another rally, in the predominately white, affluent Johnson County. There was a lot more activity, energy, and honking. Of course, some of that had to do with the fact that the rally was held on the corner of a busy intersection and not a national war memorial.

I caught these guys shortly after arriving on the scene. They turned out to be the only counter-protesters I could find, despite looking pretty damn hard.

http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0164.JPG

They had a minor bit of drama apparently. Caught some of the conversation with them on video and mentioned the site. They'll probably take one look at the forums and we'll never hear from them.
http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0166.JPG

http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0169.JPG

http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0170.JPG

Did you know that, for his second attempt at a successful SciFi TV series, Gene Roddenberry originally planned on creating a demi-race of eugenically-engineered human beings named Randians? Instead, he ended up calling them Nietzchians and Hercules got to star in the lead role. Yeah.
http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0174.JPG


http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0178.JPG

Randians would have been so much cooler.
http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0179.JPG

http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0182.JPG

http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0184.JPG

http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0185.JPG

http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0186.JPG

http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0187.JPG

http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0188.JPG

I like this picture.
http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0189.JPG



http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0196.JPG

http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0197.JPG

http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0199.JPG

http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0200.JPG

http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0201.JPG

http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0202.JPG

http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0203.JPG

http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0208.JPG

http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0209.JPG

http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0210.JPG

http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0211.JPG

I dunno, when you're living shoulder-to-shoulder you don't have a choice but to be...
http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0213.JPG

http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0214.JPG

http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0215.JPG

I support the fair tax. I still took this picture.
http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0217.JPG

Lots of these guys around, only caught this one on film
http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0223.JPG

http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0226.JPG

This is a real sign, not a photoshop.
http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0228.JPG

Told you.
http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0233.JPG

http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0234.JPG

I don't even know.
http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0235.JPG

SFGOON
15th April 09, 10:39 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again; nothing says revolutionary outrage like a bunch of fat soccer dads holding signs in a public park with their fifth graders.

Maybe next time they can hold a square dance protest. Or a bake sale protest. Or a toenail-painting protest.

Sorry - it's just so god damn lame.

SFGOON
15th April 09, 10:39 PM
Oh - and GOTCHA.

bob
15th April 09, 10:42 PM
I laughed out loud at the 'Live Free or Die' sign.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
15th April 09, 10:42 PM
That lady needs to ditch her I'm a Fucking Retard sign. Socialist? I bet she also complains about not being descended from monkeys.

MrBadGuy
15th April 09, 10:49 PM
um...Rick Perry is still around. He keeps talking about Texas becoming its own republic, at least.

Phrost
15th April 09, 11:23 PM
um...Rick Perry is still around. He keeps talking about Texas becoming its own republic, at least.

That was a Journey joke.

Kid Miracleman
16th April 09, 12:00 AM
That was a Journey joke.Don't mind him, he's a young 'un.

What, with his Joanie Brothers and Zack Effroms!

GuiltySpark
16th April 09, 12:46 AM
Can someone explain to me basically what this is all about??

Ka-Bar
16th April 09, 01:01 AM
Can someone explain to me basically what this is all about??

Corporate bailouts, infrastructure spending and mortgage bailouts. Basically government spending.

It's all good when there's a Republican in the White House, but get a Democrat in there and everyone gets their nuts in a knot and starts buying Ayn Rand books and dressing up like fat Minutemen.

nihilist
16th April 09, 02:19 AM
What we got here, is FAILURE to elect a WHITEMAN who bombs the BROWNPEOPLE because really, that's what UMERIKKKA was founded on.

jubei33
16th April 09, 02:55 AM
ok, one thing that i don't get is the impeach obama stickers and such. Has he done something like get a little head in the O-office or what?

Shawarma
16th April 09, 03:17 AM
Just an expression of butthurt. Both these tiny gay protests and the stickers. Ignore.

I find the "Texas seccession" people funny, considering that Texas gets a lot more money from the federal gubarmint than it contributes in tax dollars. I believe you'd see the complete evaporation of a lot of Texan seccessionist sentiment once they'd have to pay for their own damn infrastructure.

JohnnyCache
16th April 09, 03:49 AM
At this point conservatism is in real danger of losing all relevance/connection with reality and being reduced completely to the status of a pyscho-memetic IRL glurge email.

I literally cannot believe how fucking out of touch this movement is. With reality, with history, with economics...it's literally a brain fever of some sort, or a giant fucking put on.

JohnnyCache
16th April 09, 03:52 AM
Also god bless the right wing for giving us

"the teabagging movement"

and "2M4M"

this shit is getting more priceless by the day.

nihilist
16th April 09, 04:06 AM
LOOK OUT JOHNNY! SEGWAYS ARE BEARING DOWN ON YOU AT TWO O'CLOCK!

EuropIan
16th April 09, 04:17 AM
Also god bless the right wing for giving us

"the teabagging movement"

and "2M4M"

this shit is getting more priceless by the day.
I was going to make a ctc thread about 2M4M I'm still not sure if it's for real or not.

Shawarma
16th April 09, 04:20 AM
I don't get it?

EuropIan
16th April 09, 04:27 AM
it's an anti-gay marriage movement that uses the exact same acronym gey men use to advertisein ads for a threesome hookup.

bob
16th April 09, 04:30 AM
Say what you like about left wing protests, at least you can expect a smattering of bangable females at them, give or take a bath and a decent steak. I am not seeing the equivalent here, not by any stretch.

jubei33
16th April 09, 05:30 AM
At this point conservatism is in real danger of losing all relevance/connection with reality and being reduced completely to the status of a pyscho-memetic IRL glurge email.

I literally cannot believe how fucking out of touch this movement is. With reality, with history, with economics...it's literally a brain fever of some sort, or a giant fucking put on.

nah, they'll be back. they said the same thing about liberals during bush. Some people were saying the democratic party was done in.

Shawarma
16th April 09, 06:43 AM
it's an anti-gay marriage movement that uses the exact same acronym gey men use to advertisein ads for a threesome hookup.
I bow down to your expertise in cruising for gay sex.

Or actually, I'm gonna be pretty careful about bowing down around you.

Phrost
16th April 09, 07:27 AM
Say what you like about left wing protests, at least you can expect a smattering of bangable females at them, give or take a bath and a decent steak. I am not seeing the equivalent here, not by any stretch.
Naa, I'm married so I didn't take pictures of hot chicks unless they had an interesting/relevant sign. If you're into overprivileged, well manicured, bleach-blonde white women there was no dearth of them between the ages of 18 and 45.

It was probably the most well-dressed protest I've ever seen.

Hippie chicks may be easier, but these local women wear deodorant and shave their armpit and most likely get Brazilian waxes and anal bleaching before going to Sunday School.

bob
16th April 09, 07:33 AM
Jesus does love an immaculate sphincter.

socratic
16th April 09, 08:26 AM
Jesus christ, if you're a fuckin' empty nester cruising around on a segway you can stop bitching about taxes. You have nothing economically to worry about.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
16th April 09, 08:37 AM
Hippie chicks may be easier, but these local women wear deodorant and shave their armpit and most likely get Brazilian waxes and anal bleaching before going to Sunday School.

Uggs, bug-eyed sunglasses, and little dogs that fit into bags are just as bad as hemp bracelets and patchouli.

Scrapper
16th April 09, 08:46 AM
Y'know...I had a whole rant here about that post I made 4 years ago stating to the bush-haters that at least they didn't have to actually DO anything now that Bush was in office. they could just sit back and ridicule him, stage lame protests, and sharpen their witty repartee on anti-bush jokes.

The fact that the left now has THEIR guy in puts the right in the same position. Right-wingers can now do the exact same thing. Every misstep, every perceived failed policy, every little thing can be picked apart and disassembled without the responsibilty of correcting it.

As much as I love an "I told you so" moment, it's been my experience that Obama-lovers have no sense of humor about their guy. So I'll end with this.

Is it really so hard to see why a bunch of people don't want tax dollars to be handed out to business who have failed due to their own rapacious, larcenous, and myopic business models, in exchange for a certain degree of government control of said businesses?

And why does protesting this policy make them stupid or laughable. (Which I'm not arguing...many of them are both)

( I challenge left-wingers to answer this without mentioning the iraq war, george bush, or "people in need.")

Robot Jesus
16th April 09, 09:02 AM
is anyone else curious where the name teabaggers came from?

did they claim the name not knowing what it means, or did the media saddle them with it?

Ajamil
16th April 09, 09:06 AM
That "Don't Tread On Me" reinterpretation with the tire mark is pretty damn cool.

socratic
16th April 09, 09:13 AM
Y'know...I had a whole rant here about that post I made 4 years ago stating to the bush-haters that at least they didn't have to actually DO anything now that Bush was in office. they could just sit back and ridicule him, stage lame protests, and sharpen their witty repartee on anti-bush jokes.

The fact that the left now has THEIR guy in puts the right in the same position. Right-wingers can now do the exact same thing. Every misstep, every perceived failed policy, every little thing can be picked apart and disassembled without the responsibilty of correcting it.

As much as I love an "I told you so" moment, it's been my experience that Obama-lovers have no sense of humor about their guy. So I'll end with this.

Is it really so hard to see why a bunch of people don't want tax dollars to be handed out to business who have failed due to their own rapacious, larcenous, and myopic business models, in exchange for a certain degree of government control of said businesses?

And why does protesting this policy make them stupid or laughable. (Which I'm not arguing...many of them are both)

( I challenge left-wingers to answer this without mentioning the iraq war, george bush, or "people in need.")

"Because the stimulus might actually work"?

Robot Jesus
16th April 09, 09:17 AM
( I challenge left-wingers to answer this without mentioning the iraq war, george bush, or "people in need.")


Draft Sara Palin 2012

Kiko
16th April 09, 10:20 AM
http://www.partiallyclips.com/storage/20090407_SpaceMarines_lg.png

GuiltySpark
16th April 09, 11:08 AM
Corporate bailouts, infrastructure spending and mortgage bailouts. Basically government spending.

It's all good when there's a Republican in the White House, but get a Democrat in there and everyone gets their nuts in a knot and starts buying Ayn Rand books and dressing up like fat Minutemen.

I don't really know the difference between a democrat and republican heh

So corporations need money or risk going under right? And the government is giving those corporations money?

On one hand what happens if those corporations DO go out of business, doesn't that mean lots of people loose their jobs which effect the economy in a negative way?
I'm completely out of my lanes here, I know in Canada our main airliner had bullshit management and they filed for bankruptcy and were begging the government to help them out. Having used them extensively I didn't think the government should give them a fucking dollar.








The fact that the left now has THEIR guy in puts the right in the same position. Right-wingers can now do the exact same thing. Every misstep, every perceived failed policy, every little thing can be picked apart and disassembled without the responsibility of correcting it.

It's kinda sad.
You get in office and I spend the next 4 years finding ways to make you look like a dick. Anytime someone sneezes near you without you saying bless you I run a story about it and how your insensitive bla bla bla.
Then I run for office, I make it in and you spend the next 4 years whining and bitching about any and every misstep or failed project etc..

Wonder what things would be like without all that bullshit, at least not to the degree it is at now.

nihilist
16th April 09, 11:14 AM
Divide and conquer is working just fine thank you very much.

Scrapper
16th April 09, 11:49 AM
"Because the stimulus might actually work"?


The surge worked. Didn't make anyone love it more, though.

KhorneliusPraxx
16th April 09, 12:32 PM
Can someone explain to me basically what this is all about??
the 10th amendment being IGNORED and our checks not balancing

KhorneliusPraxx
16th April 09, 12:41 PM
Jesus christ, if you're a fuckin' empty nester cruising around on a segway you can stop bitching about taxes. You have nothing economically to worry about.
believe it or not, there are people that try to do what they think is right, even if they don't directly benefit from it.

JohnnyCache
16th April 09, 02:55 PM
Y'know...I had a whole rant here about that post I made 4 years ago stating to the bush-haters that at least they didn't have to actually DO anything now that Bush was in office. they could just sit back and ridicule him, stage lame protests, and sharpen their witty repartee on anti-bush jokes.

The fact that the left now has THEIR guy in puts the right in the same position. Right-wingers can now do the exact same thing. Every misstep, every perceived failed policy, every little thing can be picked apart and disassembled without the responsibilty of correcting it.

As much as I love an "I told you so" moment, it's been my experience that Obama-lovers have no sense of humor about their guy. So I'll end with this.

Is it really so hard to see why a bunch of people don't want tax dollars to be handed out to business who have failed due to their own rapacious, larcenous, and myopic business models, in exchange for a certain degree of government control of said businesses?

And why does protesting this policy make them stupid or laughable. (Which I'm not arguing...many of them are both)

( I challenge left-wingers to answer this without mentioning the iraq war, george bush, or "people in need.")

Well, those "rapacious business models" were a product of a drive to compete with competition who were willing to use regulatory loopholes. In effect, once one entity made use of the regulatory climate, the industry as a whole was almost doomed to do so thanks to ... well...capitalism. That's why you can't make a regulatory climate with the potential to be abused and then put big business on the honor system.

And if you have to bail them out, of course you do it with strings attached. Blank checking them would be ludicrous.

I do think not enough emphasis was put on structured business bankruptcies - but then what are they but guided bailouts by a different name?

cyrijl
16th April 09, 03:05 PM
While I think some of these protestors (perhaps most) are fucking retarded. It is better than here in Massachusetts where the overwhelming majority of people believe the same thing. I was suprised to see so many people turnout for these things. Here you might a hundred or 3 but that's about it.

Scrapper
16th April 09, 03:59 PM
Well, those "rapacious business models" were a product of a drive to compete with competition who were willing to use regulatory loopholes. In effect, once one entity made use of the regulatory climate, the industry as a whole was almost doomed to do so thanks to ... well...capitalism. That's why you can't make a regulatory climate with the potential to be abused and then put big business on the honor system.

And if you have to bail them out, of course you do it with strings attached. Blank checking them would be ludicrous.

I do think not enough emphasis was put on structured business bankruptcies - but then what are they but guided bailouts by a different name?


Ahhh, you misunderstand me! I do not assign value judgments to those policies. I agree 100% that banks used the system and preyed upon the ignorance of the American dilettante invester and home buyer, but I view that as a self-correcting behavior.

The banks got greedy because the American public got greedy. Now we have a crash because none of the money was real. THAT's capitalism. I laugh a hearty machiavellian chuckle because unmolested capitalism is inherently balanced that way. It sucks, but it's fair! (not in an "everbody is happy" way, but in an "organically balanced supersystem that corrects itself without bias or predjudice" kind of way).

My point is not about capitalism, it's about how each side perceives the other.

boondock lee
16th April 09, 04:12 PM
The surge kinda worked. Didn't make anyone love it more, though.

FTFY.

JohnnyCache
16th April 09, 04:15 PM
No, seriously, no offense, but this whole "the money wasn't real" and "americans got greedy" thing is a really toned down/spun version of what happened. This IS a legislatively created crisis.

This is really an issue with how much and how deeply you should be allowed to interlink and counter-insure banks and their funds.

The american consumers who were told "you can own a home" were not truly being bilked, nor were they crazed with greed - it's age-old financial wisdom that you should buy if you can, that you literally owe it to yourself to not pay rent if it's at all within your means.

The lenders weren't being terribly disingenuous, either - this financial activity was DEEPLY secured. Multiple tiers of surety across many, many highly rated funds and companies is as secure as a guarantee gets.

What fucked us up was legal loopholes that allowed all of these companies and funds to excessively interlever their intra-industry functions and their various sureties, bonds, and underwritings - basically, their insolvency insurance - in such a way that rather then securing portions of each other as collateral, they became lashed together like burning ships, to the benefit and at the behest of parties at the highest levels.

It was deeply internal and truly not a visible iceburg for consumer-level home buyers or realtors.

Scrapper
16th April 09, 04:52 PM
I was offered a no-down-payment adjustable rate mortgage once a month in 2003. I never took any of them because I read the fine print. I knew what a balloon payment was because I looked it up, and it took me about 60 seconds to reject any rate that was "adjustable."

I am not financially savvy, nor do have a deep understanding of markets or values. But I can read at or above the eighth grade level and that was all I needed.

But even if it was nobody's, or the government's fault, or the Randian's fault, the system is still attempting to self-correct.



Finally, none of that makes any less smug about how the left is now being scutinized with Obama in office. All the things they did to Bush were funny and witty then. Now that it's their turn in the barrel, criticism isn't funny or witty any more. I love it. I'm a cynic, though, and I hate everyone.

Scrapper
16th April 09, 04:54 PM
FTFY.


Whole other discussion there.

JohnnyCache
16th April 09, 04:55 PM
Jumping off a building and touching a stove are self-correcting tendencies as well, scrapper. Why do we value "self correction" in structures but not children?

Also, adjustable rate loans aren't instant poison and neither are balloon payments. Evaluating your ability to pay is important, but neither of those factors instantly disqualify lending.

Phrost
16th April 09, 04:58 PM
Because children are developing creatures and structures are things run by supposedly mature, developed creatures?

Are you really arguing for "Government Knows Best"?

Scrapper
16th April 09, 04:59 PM
AHA!

False dichotomy notwithstanding, I do value self-correcting behaviors in children. Possibly to the extent that would shock many of you.

What's your point here (not snarky...confused)

JohnnyCache
16th April 09, 05:20 PM
We stop short of raising our children entirely by self correction because it's slow and painful.

There are reasons not to let everything self-correct. Things might tend to work themselves out, but it's not always - in fact, seldom - the best solution to allow them to do so. Particularly in systems of real energy - they aren't abstracts and do ebb and flow and require correction. The tightest handling we can produce doesn't involve going with the flow - it involves constantly correcting, thus handling greater energy and inertia. There's no intrinsic ethical value in self correction - particularly not in non-living, non-cognitive, non-learning systems.

It's not a morally or functionally superior method, in and of itself. There's no reason to hold self correction as a foundation value of economic policy. Love of self correction itself is no reason to advocate government not regulate.

Phrost: I'm no more arguing that "government knows best" than you are arguing that people drawn from the population at large are somehow lobotomized when they take a government paycheck. Government knowing best has NOTHING to do with the need to regulate markets - Government is simply the de facto entity for doing so, as the only body with the ostensible power and neutrality to ever do so.

Cullion
16th April 09, 05:30 PM
Well, those "rapacious business models" were a product of a drive to compete with competition who were willing to use regulatory loopholes.

It's nothing to do with 'loopholes'. It's to do with another failure of centrally planned price controls (in this case the cost of borrowing money) and a long-standing licence to counterfeit money that the state has granted the banking system.

I don't even understand why the people who voted Republican and the people who voted Democrat are arguing about this. Both of the final candidates supported exactly the same thing, but one has a mule on his rosette, the other an elephant.

Are you people really that easily fooled ?

HappyOldGuy
16th April 09, 06:19 PM
Are you people really that easily fooled ?

Not so easily fooled that I am going to accept a theoretical construct that has never actually managed an economy. You're a developer Cullion. You should know instinctively down to the core of your being that simple solutions are only simple until you actually try to solve a real problem with them.

Hello World always works.

Cullion
16th April 09, 06:32 PM
It worked for 800 years in the Byzantine Empire.

Wounded Ronin
16th April 09, 06:59 PM
I am fucking tired of people throwing around the term "socialism". They don't even know what it is besides for a zero IQ political buzzword.

By the way, I want to pay some more taxes right now. To, y'know, help my fellow Americans out during these tough times. Fuck all these people sobbing about having to pay taxes, or equating that with "socialism".

This is the supreme failure of the public education system here in the US. Political ideology and buzzwords is the only thing in these peoples' heads.

Wounded Ronin
16th April 09, 07:06 PM
Is it really so hard to see why a bunch of people don't want tax dollars to be handed out to business who have failed due to their own rapacious, larcenous, and myopic business models, in exchange for a certain degree of government control of said businesses?

To be perfectly honest I was just fantasizing all this time about CEOs being waterboarded at Gitmo. Which is why I want the government to own their companies.

Cullion
16th April 09, 07:10 PM
I am fucking tired of people throwing around the term "socialism". They don't even know what it is besides for a zero IQ political buzzword.

By the way, I want to pay some more taxes right now.

You can always pay more tax than the law requires you to. You simply send a check to the US treasury. They will cash it.



To, y'know, help my fellow Americans out during these tough times.

Why do you think you have to give your money to the government, under compulsion, to do that ? If you want to help people, then.. just help them.

Volunteer in a soup kitchen etc..

Phrost
16th April 09, 07:54 PM
That's the thing. People who feel that we don't pay enough in taxes never send in extra money every April.

That's because it's not about them contributing more, it's about forcing other people to do so.

Wounded Ronin
16th April 09, 10:17 PM
1.) Cullion: Surely doing things to help others all by your lonesome isn't mutually exclusive to contributing to the government stash in a systematic way such that the government can do something on a larger scale?

2.) Phrost: Very funny. But are you 100% sure that nobody sends extra money in?

JohnnyCache
16th April 09, 10:33 PM
That's the thing. People who feel that we don't pay enough in taxes never send in extra money every April.

That's because it's not about them contributing more, it's about forcing other people to do so.

There are factors that mandate taxation be mandatory - diffusion of responsibility and anonymity being two of them.

People that go on about being "forced" to pay taxes are usually big users of the services taxes provide as well.

What system do you espouse, everyone just paying what they feel is fair?

Robot Jesus
16th April 09, 10:50 PM
pay streetlights

Spade: The Real Snake
17th April 09, 08:32 AM
By the way, I want to pay some more taxes right now. To, y'know, help my fellow Americans out during these tough times. Fuck all these people sobbing about having to pay taxes, or equating that with "socialism".

Do you add an extra $50 to each of your water, gas, electric and telephone bills under the "Good Neighbor Sharing Program"?

Scrapper
17th April 09, 08:58 AM
We stop short of raising our children entirely by self correction because it's slow and painful.

There are reasons not to let everything self-correct. Things might tend to work themselves out, but it's not always - in fact, seldom - the best solution to allow them to do so. Particularly in systems of real energy - they aren't abstracts and do ebb and flow and require correction. The tightest handling we can produce doesn't involve going with the flow - it involves constantly correcting, thus handling greater energy and inertia. There's no intrinsic ethical value in self correction - particularly not in non-living, non-cognitive, non-learning systems.

It's not a morally or functionally superior method, in and of itself. There's no reason to hold self correction as a foundation value of economic policy. Love of self correction itself is no reason to advocate government not regulate.



Ah ah! naughty Johnny!

You are telling me what I believe again. That's a trap. You think I believe self-correction is inherently better in all applications...I don't. I simply said that in this case the economy (as modeled by an organic system) is attempting to self-correct. If you want to know what I BELIEVE, you should have asked me.


In this case I BELIEVE that self-correction is appropriate. The problems were behavior based, and the best way to correct a maladaptive behavior is to allow the natural consequences to harm or redirect the individual(s) involved.

Bailing failing businesses out is only REINFORCING maladaptive behaviors. CEO's no longer have to fear untenable business models because they now know the government won't LET them fail. They will play nice for a while, and then go back to the same thing. But this is what I BELIEVE and you have little or no hope of changing that...which is why I stayed away from it.

EuropIan
17th April 09, 09:55 AM
"The irony of these protests is that federal revenues as a share of the gross domestic product will be lower this year than any year since 1950. ... The truth is that the U.S. is a relatively low-tax country no matter how you slice the data." - Bruce Bartlett

http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/09/tea-party-taxes-opinions-columnists-bartlett.html

KhorneliusPraxx
17th April 09, 10:14 AM
You can always pay more tax than the law requires you to. You simply send a check to the US treasury. They will cash it.




Why do you think you have to give your money to the government, under compulsion, to do that ? If you want to help people, then.. just help them.

Volunteer in a soup kitchen etc..
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Cullion again.

KhorneliusPraxx
17th April 09, 10:17 AM
...are you 100% sure that nobody sends extra money in?
I guess there might be some misguided mentally retarded soul out there...but I bet they're one in a million, if that.

KhorneliusPraxx
17th April 09, 10:23 AM
There are factors that mandate taxation be mandatory - diffusion of responsibility and anonymity being two of them.

People that go on about being "forced" to pay taxes are usually big users of the services taxes provide as well.

What system do you espouse, everyone just paying what they feel is fair?
www.fairtax.org


The biggest problem isn't the fact that we have to pay taxes to the Federal Gubment but "HOW WE HAVE TO PAY" and "WHAT THEY DO WITH THE MONEY".

Zendetta
17th April 09, 10:36 AM
The biggest problem isn't the fact that we have to pay taxes to the Federal Gubment but "HOW WE HAVE TO PAY" and "WHAT THEY DO WITH THE MONEY".

That's for damn sure. You 'bout ready to back off the military adventurism yet?

'Cuz that shit gets pricey.

KhorneliusPraxx
17th April 09, 10:55 AM
Am I about ready? What did I do?

Phrost
17th April 09, 11:06 AM
"The irony of these protests is that federal revenues as a share of the gross domestic product will be lower this year than any year since 1950. ... The truth is that the U.S. is a relatively low-tax country no matter how you slice the data." - Bruce Bartlett

http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/09/tea-party-taxes-opinions-columnists-bartlett.html

Well then, let's get right to fixing that little problem, eh?

How is it wrong for people to make it clear they don't want a good thing to get worse?

"The irony of these prosecutions is that allegations of child rape will be lower this year than any year since 1950. The truth is that the U.S. is a relatively low-child rape country, no matter how you slice the data." Dumbass WhoseOpinionIdontGiveAfuckingShitabout

EuropIan
17th April 09, 11:32 AM
You make it sound as if a high tax is always a bad thing.

I'd be pissed too if my government sucked at spending taxdollars.
/smug

Sun Wukong
17th April 09, 01:10 PM
these little "tea parties" are a clusterfuck of stupid. the majority being dumb mother fuckers turning out to protest the lower taxes of their tax bracket and higher taxes of someone elses tax bracket.

You might try to counter saying some bullshit about higher spending in the Obama administration, but where the fuck were these assholes while reagan and bush jr spent us 10 TRILLION dollars in debt? They were voting for those very same mother fuckers that screwed everyone with nearly 30 years of shit economic advice. fuck you, you stupid fucking fucks.

Sun Wukong
17th April 09, 01:11 PM
obama spends 1 trillion dollars and suddenly the fucking sky is falling.

The republican party is the party of fail.

KhorneliusPraxx
17th April 09, 01:27 PM
ALL OF WASHINGTON IS A PARTY OF FAIL!

JohnnyCache
17th April 09, 02:15 PM
Ah ah! naughty Johnny!

You are telling me what I believe again. That's a trap. You think I believe self-correction is inherently better in all applications...I don't. I simply said that in this case the economy (as modeled by an organic system) is attempting to self-correct. If you want to know what I BELIEVE, you should have asked me.


In this case I BELIEVE that self-correction is appropriate. The problems were behavior based, and the best way to correct a maladaptive behavior is to allow the natural consequences to harm or redirect the individual(s) involved.

Bailing failing businesses out is only REINFORCING maladaptive behaviors. CEO's no longer have to fear untenable business models because they now know the government won't LET them fail. They will play nice for a while, and then go back to the same thing. But this is what I BELIEVE and you have little or no hope of changing that...which is why I stayed away from it.

You just took a paragraph to tell me I was wrong for "telling you what you believe" (which I didn't do, btw, you failed to draw any line between a specific and a generality, affording me the chance to address the generality, which I took, due to a borderline erotic fixation with the expression of my own opinons), then you spent the next paragraph telling me you do, in fact, in this case, hold the belief I was supposedly putting in your mouth.

CEOs don't fear failure anyway - they're a fraternity of securely wealthy people who make money from the system, not from the rise and fall of its cogs. Being bailed out by the government, however, is neither pleasant, nor a good resume bullet.

What you're saying is, effectively, you want to teach through pain, but the pain won't fall on the CEOs - most of them could comfortably maintain your or my standard of living using the interest from their savings accounts. The pain will fall on workers and stockholders who don't need to be taught.

Also, many of these companies are failing because of the economic fallout of the core crisis - punishing someone for not predicting a 300% drop in sales due to the actions of someone in an entirely different market sector probably isn't a great lesson.

Scrapper
17th April 09, 03:13 PM
You just took a paragraph to tell me I was wrong for "telling you what you believe" (which I didn't do, btw, you failed to draw any line between a specific and a generality, affording me the chance to address the generality, which I took, due to a borderline erotic fixation with the expression of my own opinons), then you spent the next paragraph telling me you do, in fact, in this case, hold the belief I was supposedly putting in your mouth.

I didn't say it was wrong...i said it was a trap. If I misunderstood you, I apologize, but in the future let's assume that I am always being a cynical pedantic bastard, and that I do not always feel it is necessary to differentiate between a specific and a generality explicitly if I think that it's obvious. I only brought up the issue of self-correction in the context of the current economic model, and I never took it anywhere else. You did, and I rightly pointed out the false dichotomy you presented by treating the specific as the general. I would not condescend to assume that you take the one for the other unless you specifically said so; but the only one who crossed that line was you, so I did not feel it necessary to wax pedantic on it. I assumed your analogy was silly for effect and treated it as such. If you +believe that the current US economy is sufficiently analogous to child-rearing to make that leap, than this thread is going to hell in a handbasket faster than even I thought it would.



CEOs don't fear failure anyway - they're a fraternity of securely wealthy people who make money from the system, not from the rise and fall of its cogs. Being bailed out by the government, however, is neither pleasant, nor a good resume bullet.

It's not about fear, or the individual justice, it's about a large (enormous) system adjusting. You keep applying human values to a system that is so much larger than any individual. Are the CEO's mostly assholes? Sure, but acknowledging that has no bearing on general market collapse as a result of myopic business models. They were assholes before, they will remain assholes afterward.


What you're saying is, effectively, you want to teach through pain, but the pain won't fall on the CEOs - most of them could comfortably maintain your or my standard of living using the interest from their savings accounts. The pain will fall on workers and stockholders who don't need to be taught.

There you go! Now you are telling me what I'm saying! People feel pain, not economies. The individuals that comprise this economy feel the pain, but that is irrelevant. What is relevant is that business models that are not prudent or at least far-sighted will fail. From a huge insurance company to a person who did not understand their own paperwork, bad decisions produce failure. When they do fail, the market adjusts. In this case, abruptly and drastically. You cannot throw enough money at a bad business model fast enough to make it a good one.


Also, many of these companies are failing because of the economic fallout of the core crisis - punishing someone for not predicting a 300% drop in sales due to the actions of someone in an entirely different market sector probably isn't a great lesson.

It's not about punishment. I'm not sure how to present my position so you will understand, probably because I am not much of an economist. I assign no human values to a system. This system is comprised of individuals, who we may or may not apply value judgments to as is our wont, but the system itself has no will but to perpetuate itself. Certain parts of the system attempted to grow by engaging in high risk behavior, and the entire system suffered for it. The result should be to collapse into a simpler system, and start growing again without the same high-risk behaviors.

My concern (let it be known that the right to disregard my concern or substitute your own is absolutely yours. Just don't get mad if I disregard yours) is that without the collapse, there will be either less impetus, or none at all, to modify the behaviors sufficiently to prevent a similar problem.

Cullion
17th April 09, 04:52 PM
Johnny's trying to say that it's not possible for CEO's to feel the 'moral hazard'.

I ain't so sure about that.

EuropIan
17th April 09, 04:57 PM
they have a bonus on their saving throw, no doubt about that.

Wounded Ronin
17th April 09, 09:08 PM
Do you add an extra $50 to each of your water, gas, electric and telephone bills under the "Good Neighbor Sharing Program"?

Are you making some kind of socialism joke?

JohnnyCache
19th April 09, 12:33 PM
I didn't say it was wrong...i said it was a trap. If I misunderstood you, I apologize, but in the future let's assume that I am always being a cynical pedantic bastard, and that I do not always feel it is necessary to differentiate between a specific and a generality explicitly if I think that it's obvious. I only brought up the issue of self-correction in the context of the current economic model, and I never took it anywhere else. You did, and I rightly pointed out the false dichotomy you presented by treating the specific as the general. I would not condescend to assume that you take the one for the other unless you specifically said so; but the only one who crossed that line was you, so I did not feel it necessary to wax pedantic on it. I assumed your analogy was silly for effect and treated it as such. If you +believe that the current US economy is sufficiently analogous to child-rearing to make that leap, than this thread is going to hell in a handbasket faster than even I thought it would.




It's not about fear, or the individual justice, it's about a large (enormous) system adjusting. You keep applying human values to a system that is so much larger than any individual. Are the CEO's mostly assholes? Sure, but acknowledging that has no bearing on general market collapse as a result of myopic business models. They were assholes before, they will remain assholes afterward.



There you go! Now you are telling me what I'm saying! People feel pain, not economies. The individuals that comprise this economy feel the pain, but that is irrelevant. What is relevant is that business models that are not prudent or at least far-sighted will fail. From a huge insurance company to a person who did not understand their own paperwork, bad decisions produce failure. When they do fail, the market adjusts. In this case, abruptly and drastically. You cannot throw enough money at a bad business model fast enough to make it a good one.



It's not about punishment. I'm not sure how to present my position so you will understand, probably because I am not much of an economist. I assign no human values to a system. This system is comprised of individuals, who we may or may not apply value judgments to as is our wont, but the system itself has no will but to perpetuate itself. Certain parts of the system attempted to grow by engaging in high risk behavior, and the entire system suffered for it. The result should be to collapse into a simpler system, and start growing again without the same high-risk behaviors.

My concern (let it be known that the right to disregard my concern or substitute your own is absolutely yours. Just don't get mad if I disregard yours) is that without the collapse, there will be either less impetus, or none at all, to modify the behaviors sufficiently to prevent a similar problem.
Well, as far as externalizing something, you have to understand, you said yourself you aren't an economist- the point of an analogy is to draw a paralel.

The point I was making is not that the CEO is literally incapable of feeling or learning from the buyout, my point is that the consequences FOR HIM are a few million less dollars - CEOs aren't going to literally become homeless or displaced over this. The people being helped with their mortgages are.

To draw another crude analogy, if you are a construction foreman, and one of your guys has spent all day hoisting a pallet of bricks off the ground, and now he's holding a ton of bricks off the ground with a rope and pully and they aren't supposed to be in the air, do you have him drop them and smash them to teach him a lesson that will just cost YOU money? Or do you have him lower them to the ground and then take whatever action you were going to take as an employer, anyway? If you were letting a child learn through pain, would you let a housefire he started with matches burn down the house, displacing the rest of your family, so that he would learn a lesson?

The economy that will be ruined if our actions toward these people aren't meticulously calculated isn't "their" economy. Punishing them somehow feels right but can hurt us in disproportion to the value of punishing them.

Also, as far as "business models" having "money thrown" at them, that's an AM radio version of what's going on.

Businesses who were caught in a regulatory situation that linked them together as dominos, who have thousands of employees and hold billions of dollars worth of solvent american mortgages, can be redeemed. The point that PEOPLE feel pain and BUSINES MODELS don't is exactly my point - you can't teach a business model through pain, but you can save THE BUSINESS so it can change its model.

Being bailed out is not some prize. It doesn't feel good. Being restructured by the government is not pleasant. These companies are not just getting a big shot of money with no strings attached, like a literal bonus for failing. Again, that's AM propaganda.

Cullion
19th April 09, 01:15 PM
I think your description of what's happening is closer to what's happening to companies like General Motors than the Banking sector.

As far as punishing C-level executives goes, well I don't know US business law as well as most Americans here I'm sure, but don't you have existing laws that could be used to target them whilst still affording bankruptcy protections to the companies they ran so that they could be restructured?

A lot of these people have basically been trading whilst insolvent.

Members of the board of directors who do this, in the UK at least, can not only be barred from acting as company directors, but in law void the limited liability protection of the company they ran. In other words, they can become personally liable for their company's debts if they knowingly continued trading whilst it was insolvent. Now of course our current govt. has been turning a blind eye to this law left, right and centre for politically connected bankers, but it's still on our books.

Do federal or state commercial laws in the US not have simillar provisions to prevent executives or owners from abusing limited liability? Couldn't these be used to make a proper example of malfeasant executives to demonstrate 'moral hazard' to their peers whilst continuing to restructure the company's they ran, where possible ?

I mean, that's the whole reason we punish burglars and muggers, isn't it?

JohnnyCache
19th April 09, 01:34 PM
Yeah, there are laws they may be charged under - likely will be charged under - but that's not happening fast enough for the american political consumer.

Also, most of the "predatory lending" people are angry about wasn't illegal.

Also, the companies tried to retire or quietly discharge many of the parties in question, and any time one of them is let go without cause - and his employer attempts to fulfill the terms of his contract re discharging him without cause, which are usually pretty generous at that level - the public hears about and roars.

Cullion
19th April 09, 02:57 PM
I don't understand why the company firing or retiring them discharges them from facing prosecutions for violating company law if they were at 'board' level. Is that actually the case? or does it vary by state ?

mrm1775
19th April 09, 08:55 PM
And to demonstrate once again how irrational, hateful, and petty both sides can be, I present Olberman and Garofalo:

jAAHMDpk7Ik&feature=channel_page

Yep, gotta love that race card.

EuropIan
20th April 09, 03:26 AM
And to demonstrate once again how irrational, hateful, and petty both sides can be, I present Olberman and Garofalo:



Yep, gotta love that race card.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3310/3444736449_a55b5c6067.jpg

http://ibored.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/teaparty91.jpg


MSNBC are still heavily biased though.

mrm1775
20th April 09, 04:04 AM
I didn't say there couldn't be any racists in the crowd, but to write off the whole thing as a big white-powergasm ignores the real issues and just demonstrates that she's either too high and mighty or too fucking stupid to make a rational argument of her own. Its bad enough that she thinks her meager and dwindling celebrity automatically makes her opinion more valid than anyone else's.

Par for the course for Olbermann's show, though. He's like a Bizarro Rush Limbaugh.

EuropIan
20th April 09, 04:11 AM
Man I want to punch garafalo in the face for abusing the term 'limbic system'.

As an aside I really liked Affleck's snl portrayal of Olberman (I would like to link it but nbc hates my nationality).

HappyOldGuy
20th April 09, 10:33 AM
Garafalo used to be hot in a "shut your mouth and get busy down there bitch" kinda way. But she hasn't aged well.

The fact that MSNBC and Fox both beat CNN by pandering to morons on both sides of the divide is why I'm eventually going to have to kill all of my fellow americans.

Ajamil
20th April 09, 11:08 AM
Sorry. I used to be all for hearing both sides of a debate before making a decision, and then it got all caught up in the "extreeeeme" fad of the 90s and now, well, we've got Fox and MSNBC....and ESPN3.

Phrost
20th April 09, 01:24 PM
Fuck this fucking false dichotomy of a political system.

Cullion
20th April 09, 05:47 PM
Sounds like somebody is starting to get the 'sports team' paradigm...

Kiko
20th April 09, 05:48 PM
Wait... so if we had a real dichotomy...?

Someone come up with two entirely new parties!

Ajamil
20th April 09, 06:02 PM
au8FFHPzRKs

I just like the joke, trying to tie it to some other person's campaign, not so much.

EuropIan
20th April 09, 08:24 PM
Garafalo used to be hot in a "shut your mouth and get busy down there bitch" kinda way. But she hasn't aged well.

The fact that MSNBC and Fox both beat CNN by pandering to morons on both sides of the divide is why I'm eventually going to have to kill all of my fellow americans.
This is as excellent a time as ever to bring up Charlie Broker's Newswipe.
*click*

UnbsvUpUsdw

DvN5IPLGs9c

hU4AZdxwzrM


Edit: cleaned up for browsing ease.

socratic
21st April 09, 09:42 AM
believe it or not, there are people that try to do what they think is right, even if they don't directly benefit from it.

Because rich people are always inherently good people, right? Damn you Puritans...

The problem here isn't just that they're opposing something that may in fact work (like the assholes they are). It's that they're opposing something that might not work just to oppose it. They don't have alternatives. Their alternative is "Don't raise taxes", not "Don't raise taxes, restructure this, generate money here, fix economy there". These people don't want to help, they want to fuck everyone because they're worried they might only be able to make 20 trips to fuck kids in the Phillippines this year rather than 25 like last year.


It worked for 800 years in the Byzantine Empire.

The one that ran on Christian theocracy and was eventually crushed by Muslim theocracy? That one? The one in which everyone died? Because they couldn't protect themselves from the Islamic invaders? It worked for them? Really? Before or after their city became the center and crown jewel of their enemy's empire?


That's the thing. People who feel that we don't pay enough in taxes never send in extra money every April.

That's because it's not about them contributing more, it's about forcing other people to do so.

And people who want to pay less taxes have no problems with making everyone else pick up the bill. You know, that whole TAX EVASION thing? Plus that whole 'war' thing going on... Shit, who picks up the bill for all this? That's right, the world.


And to demonstrate once again how irrational, hateful, and petty both sides can be, I present Olberman and Garofalo:

Yep, gotta love that race card.

Dude, it was pretty obvious there was some KKK-wannabes in that movement. It's not that far fetched to suggest rascists in that crowd, as you yourself admit. How deeply tied rascism is to the Teaparty thing is anyone's guess, though. I'm more than happy to admit it's pretty asinine to brush aside the 'teabag' movement as an expression of racism. They sure do hate Obama though, for whatever perceived reason.

Also, it's pretty hilarious how they got reamed by an unemployed blogger at their own party. "Yeah! Yay! Whoo- WAIT ONE COTTON PICKIN' MINUTE!"

Fearless Ukemi
21st April 09, 12:16 PM
Dude, this isn't about rich people. I'm paying almost a quarter of what I earn in taxes. When you don't make much, thats's a fucking lot.


Edited - Just did the math again and I'm actually paying slightly more than a quarter of what I earn. But hey, under the new Obama plan, I'll be paying 440 dollars less this year.






The one that ran on Christian theocracy and was eventually crushed by Muslim theocracy? That one? The one in which everyone died? Because they couldn't protect themselves from the Islamic invaders? It worked for them? Really? Before or after their city became the center and crown jewel of their enemy's empire?




We're well on our way to the same fate.

HappyOldGuy
21st April 09, 12:39 PM
We're well on our way to the same fate.

So you think we will eventually be worn down by waves of displaced nomadic tribes from the caucasus?

Fearless Ukemi
21st April 09, 01:16 PM
No we will be worn down internally since half of this country already hates the other half and vice versa. Other than politics, this country is being divided in other ways by using discrimination to "remedy" discrimination which could actually be a whole new thread.

The banks are on their way to being nationalized by an equally incompetent government and I figure the media will be next, starting with the newspapers.

We won't be on the top much longer.

HappyOldGuy
21st April 09, 01:23 PM
Dude, you need to read up on the Blues versus the Greens in Byzantine history. They were killing eachother in the streets almost a thousand years before the empire finally fell.

Over sports.

As far as the US goes. Economically we have more topshelf rivals now, and new ones, but that's not new. When I was in high school and college the Japanese were going to take over the world. Didn't quite happen that way.
Militarily, we are getting further out in front of the rest of the world every year. Which is part of why we are weakening economically.

Fearless Ukemi
21st April 09, 01:28 PM
Well, it hasn't gotten nearly that bad yet but as peoples' financial situations suffer who knows how bad or how fast things can escalate. This is something I don't expect to see in my lifetime, but this is certainly the road we are going down.

Artful Dentures
21st April 09, 02:25 PM
Wow looking at Phrosts pictures I was frankly shocked.

I expected the Tea Parties to be a non partisan affair where people let the government on all sides know they expect accountability and results

This looks just like a but hurt republican circle jerk of fat people angry over the lost election.

EuropIan
21st April 09, 02:35 PM
That's because it wasn't a demostration per se.

It was a fox news network sponsored happening.

socratic
21st April 09, 06:39 PM
Dude, this isn't about rich people. I'm paying almost a quarter of what I earn in taxes. When you don't make much, thats's a fucking lot.


Edited - Just did the math again and I'm actually paying slightly more than a quarter of what I earn. But hey, under the new Obama plan, I'll be paying 440 dollars less this year.

That sucks, dude. I make so little money that I don't pay much in taxes, but I'd much rather make a 6 figure salary and pay taxes out the nose than make 20-25 grand a year.


We're well on our way to the same fate.

I don't think that's particularly likely since a) there's no unified Muslim military force trying to land-invade you and b) America has one of the most kickass militaries in the world, even if they aren't doing so well lately.

mrm1775
21st April 09, 10:31 PM
America has one of the most kickass militaries in the world, even if they aren't doing so well lately.
For the sake of accuracy, the military has performed extremely well the past few years (believe it or not, counter-insurgencies are usually uglier than this), the administration has been responsible for most of the major fuck-ups.

Stick
22nd April 09, 12:04 AM
[Conservative circa 2003]Fuck'n protestors! You're all traitors! America, love er or leave 'er![/conservative circa 2003]

[Conservative circa 2009]Protest the illegal actions of this illegitimate government! REVOLUTION I SAY![/conservative circa 2009]

The biggest difference between this and the protests following the 2000 election and the Iraq invasion is that there are less people involved now, and that those people that are involved are very proudly armed.

I find my stance on the second ammendment somewhat, well, ammended- I'll be needing the finest military hard ware my money can buy to defend my liberal home and way of life from red-state fuckwits with the equivalent education of a 12th century English peasant.

Power flows from the barrel of a gun, and I have every intention of pouring it on those who threaten revolution.*


Because children are developing creatures and structures are things run by supposedly mature, developed creatures?

Are you really arguing for "Government Knows Best"?

Are you really arguing for "I know best"?


ALL OF WASHINGTON IS A PARTY OF FAIL!

You are never good at this.




*Just kidding... mostly.

Also, these people are so easily confused.

AkOwsIIIe5I

They were all for him when he asked who made less than $250K, confused when he told them their taxes would be cut and furious when he assigned blame where it belongs.

I have no sympathy for these idiots.

mrm1775
22nd April 09, 01:23 AM
I find my stance on the second ammendment somewhat, well, ammended- I'll be needing the finest military hard ware my money can buy to defend my liberal home and way of life from red-state fuckwits with the equivalent education of a 12th century English peasant.

Power flows from the barrel of a gun, and I have every intention of pouring it on those who threaten revolution.
The 2nd Amendment is for freedom lovers of all stripes.

socratic
22nd April 09, 01:57 AM
For the sake of accuracy, the military has performed extremely well the past few years (believe it or not, counter-insurgencies are usually uglier than this), the administration has been responsible for most of the major fuck-ups.

Shit, Saddam was deposed in like a week. The military steamrolled those dudes. The problem is this whole 'guerrilla warfare' and 'limitless numbers' thing.

And I agree with Stick and reiterate: lol at teabaggers getting trolled with the truth

KhorneliusPraxx
22nd April 09, 07:52 AM
Because rich people are always inherently good people, right? Damn you Puritans...

The problem here isn't just that they're opposing something that may in fact work (like the assholes they are). It's that they're opposing something that might not work just to oppose it. They don't have alternatives. Their alternative is "Don't raise taxes", not "Don't raise taxes, restructure this, generate money here, fix economy there". These people don't want to help, they want to fuck everyone because they're worried they might only be able to make 20 trips to fuck kids in the Phillippines this year rather than 25 like last year.

1. What the hell...it is called the 10th ammendment. The Federal Government has been overstepping it's boundries for a fucking century now and it is just getting worse and worse. I don't give a fuck about what MIGHT WORK and what MIGHT NOT WORK. If something is UN-FUCKING-CONSTITUTIONAL the fucking checks and balances are supposed to fucking CHECK IT and fucking BALANCE IT. I don't think we even have three branches of government. We have a corrupt Legislation, that can be sold to the highest bidder. A fucked up Executive branch that picks and chooses which laws to enforce and supports the Legislation on it's quest to restrict the freedom of the citizenry and control our State and Local Gubments. And last but not least, our fabulous Supreme Court, that can do what ever they fuck they want, with their life time appointments, including rewriting the Constitution.

2. As for you obvious hatred toward anyone that has more than you, money is not evil, what people do with it is. Check the statistics compairing the charitable giving of RICH conservatives vs. RICH liberals.

3. Pu·ri·tan (pyr-tn) n. 1. A member of a group of English Protestants who in the 16th and 17th centuries advocated strict religious discipline along with simplification of the ceremonies and creeds of the Church of England. 2. One who lives in accordance with Protestant precepts, especially one who regards pleasure or luxury as sinful.
You don't know me very well.

Stick
22nd April 09, 10:43 AM
So, is Bill Gates conservative or liberal?

HappyOldGuy
22nd April 09, 10:46 AM
Check the statistics compairing the charitable giving of RICH conservatives vs. RICH liberals.
Leaving aside gifts to churches, liberals give more.

Artful Dentures
22nd April 09, 11:53 AM
What bothers me about the conservative movement in America is it has been totally hijacked by nut cases.

Those Photo's that Phrost took show it and he's a conservative (libertarian)

Bot trying to sound smug here but US conservatives shoudl take a look at the Canadian conservative movement

(Agin not that Harper is the best)

But the idea of progressive conservatism

Phrost
22nd April 09, 01:11 PM
I'm only a "conservative" if "conservative" means "conserving government right the fuck out of my private business" and "conserving personal freedom, yes, even at the expense of your comfy little illusion of safety".

"Conservative" and "Liberal" mean absolutely fucking nothing these days. Were this 1801, I'd be a Liberal. 2009's Liberal believes in a massively overpowered Federal government that reaches into every aspect of your life (except your bedroom, for the most part) in order to make sure your tushy is properly powdered, as long as doing so is good for the collective.

Cullion
22nd April 09, 01:47 PM
What's the Canadian conservative movement like GJ?

mrm1775
22nd April 09, 04:11 PM
1. What the hell...it is called the 10th ammendment. The Federal Government has been overstepping it's boundries for a fucking century now and it is just getting worse and worse. I don't give a fuck about what MIGHT WORK and what MIGHT NOT WORK. If something is UN-FUCKING-CONSTITUTIONAL the fucking checks and balances are supposed to fucking CHECK IT and fucking BALANCE IT. I don't think we even have three branches of government. We have a corrupt Legislation, that can be sold to the highest bidder. A fucked up Executive branch that picks and chooses which laws to enforce and supports the Legislation on it's quest to restrict the freedom of the citizenry and control our State and Local Gubments. And last but not least, our fabulous Supreme Court, that can do what ever they fuck they want, with their life time appointments, including rewriting the Constitution.

2. As for you obvious hatred toward anyone that has more than you, money is not evil, what people do with it is. Check the statistics compairing the charitable giving of RICH conservatives vs. RICH liberals.

3. Pu·ri·tan (pyr-tn) n. 1. A member of a group of English Protestants who in the 16th and 17th centuries advocated strict religious discipline along with simplification of the ceremonies and creeds of the Church of England. 2. One who lives in accordance with Protestant precepts, especially one who regards pleasure or luxury as sinful.
You don't know me very well.On a related note, I really think its time that we drastically reduce the size of the House. Really. Unlike the number of senators, the number of representatives is determined by population. As the population has grown, so too has the house, and it has become gradually more inefficient as a result. Their staffs have become progressively more bloated in the past few decades as well, and they all earn government salaries. In effect, we have been paying these people to make our government less efficient. I really think the law should be rewritten to make the districts larger and reduce the number of seats. Term limits for both the House and Senate would be a step in the right direction as well. Get rid of the seniority system and put them all on an even playing field so that districts are not encouraged to keep electing the same asshole for decades (see Strom Thurmond (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_thurmond)).

Just try to get them to vote themselves out of a job, though...

HappyOldGuy
22nd April 09, 04:17 PM
On a related note, I really think its time that we drastically reduce the size of the House. Really. Unlike the number of senators, the number of representatives is determined by population. As the population has grown, so too has the house, and it has become gradually more inefficient as a result. Their staffs have become progressively more bloated in the past few decades as well, and they all earn government salaries. In effect, we have been paying these people to make our government less efficient. I really think the law should be rewritten to make the districts larger and reduce the number of seats. Term limits would be a step in the right direction as well. Get rid of the seniority system and put them all on an even playing field so that districts are not encouraged to keep electing the same asshole for decades (see Strom Thurmond (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_thurmond)).

Just try to get them to vote themselves out of a job, though...

The number in the house hasn't been increased since 1911.

mrm1775
22nd April 09, 04:22 PM
The number in the house hasn't been increased since 1911.You're right, my mistake (didn't double check my figures). I stand by the remainder of my rant.

Phrost
22nd April 09, 06:42 PM
On a related note, I really think its time that we drastically reduce the size of the House. Really. Unlike the number of senators, the number of representatives is determined by population. As the population has grown, so too has the house, and it has become gradually more inefficient as a result. Their staffs have become progressively more bloated in the past few decades as well, and they all earn government salaries. In effect, we have been paying these people to make our government less efficient. I really think the law should be rewritten to make the districts larger and reduce the number of seats. Term limits for both the House and Senate would be a step in the right direction as well. Get rid of the seniority system and put them all on an even playing field so that districts are not encouraged to keep electing the same asshole for decades (see Strom Thurmond (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_thurmond)).

Just try to get them to vote themselves out of a job, though...

One of the speakers at the Liberty Memorial wing of the tea party mentioned that congressional districts were supposed to be composed of no more than 50,000 citizens, I believe the figure was. Now they're what, 750k?

The idea was that each represntative would actually... you know, REPRESENT people, having spoken with them regularly.

Darkenedaqua
22nd April 09, 06:46 PM
Janeane Garofalo thinks its just racism.

Phrost
22nd April 09, 07:15 PM
Fortunately she's about as relevant these days as she is fuckable.

Robot Jesus
22nd April 09, 07:23 PM
Fortunately she's about as relevant these days as she is fuckable.


so what your saying is shes a female comedian?

Ka-Bar
22nd April 09, 08:00 PM
Fortunately she's about as relevant these days as she is fuckable.

You mean she's relevant after I down 6 Jager Bombs?

Phrost
22nd April 09, 08:24 PM
And as coherent.

socratic
22nd April 09, 08:48 PM
1. What the hell...it is called the 10th ammendment. The Federal Government has been overstepping it's boundries for a fucking century now and it is just getting worse and worse. I don't give a fuck about what MIGHT WORK and what MIGHT NOT WORK. If something is UN-FUCKING-CONSTITUTIONAL the fucking checks and balances are supposed to fucking CHECK IT and fucking BALANCE IT. I don't think we even have three branches of government. We have a corrupt Legislation, that can be sold to the highest bidder. A fucked up Executive branch that picks and chooses which laws to enforce and supports the Legislation on it's quest to restrict the freedom of the citizenry and control our State and Local Gubments. And last but not least, our fabulous Supreme Court, that can do what ever they fuck they want, with their life time appointments, including rewriting the Constitution.

Wasn't that the fault of the Republicans, who tended to overrepresented [especially Bush's regime] business interests? I think being able to seperate business and politics is one of the reason why Australian democracy has corruption, yeah, but we don't have that many business-owning or business-influenced politicians. Most of our politicians have law degrees and that's pretty much it. Do you guys pay your politicians?

Besides, don't you think you should have taken up the point that 'tax = unconstitutional' way before Obama proposed cutting taxes for people making under 250 000 dollars a year [and I'm assuming you're probably one of those people, because if you make more than that yourself what the fuck are you doing on this website? Go hang out at a banker's club or something.]? How about, when the previous regimes raised taxes?


2. As for you obvious hatred toward anyone that has more than you, money is not evil, what people do with it is. Check the statistics comparing the charitable giving of RICH conservatives vs. RICH liberals.

That's not entirely true. I didn't say having money was bad, I was trying to infer that the Teabaggers were hypocrites and weren't worth listening to because they're only interested in sandbagging and stalling, and preserving their own petty selfish interests despite the whole 'economic crisis' thing. They've got a few points I'll admit, but they don't have alternatives, and that makes them as useful as a guy who goes with you and your friends to the movies and spends the whole time bitching about the movie you've all chosen, because he didn't want to see this one but he didn't want to see any others either.


3. Pu·ri·tan (pyr-tn) n. 1. A member of a group of English Protestants who in the 16th and 17th centuries advocated strict religious discipline along with simplification of the ceremonies and creeds of the Church of England. 2. One who lives in accordance with Protestant precepts, especially one who regards pleasure or luxury as sinful.
You don't know me very well.

That was actually kinda a joke. The more I think about the more I'm realising I mistakened Calvanist logic for Puritan logic. My bad. Calvanists thought predestination meant that one who lived a rich, successful, happy life was an indication of being amongst God's chosen few and a morally good person.

Darkenedaqua
22nd April 09, 09:56 PM
You know, this tea party tax protest seems similar to the 100 V's tax protest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KL38VZfw7xg&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1k95If_lGkM


They were also protesting against something about taxes. Old news though since it was in 07.

KhorneliusPraxx
24th April 09, 08:22 AM
Sure there were some ignorant tools at these but you notice how peaceful they were. Most of these places were cleaner after the gathering.

Normally, when there are gatherings like this somebody throws a trash can through a store window, a group of idiots yell "hate crime" while the police try to remove them from whatever they chained themselves to, or morons purposely disrupt traffic by clogging up the streets.

To be honest, the only reason I didn't go to my local TEA party was because I just did my taxes the night before and I was highly irritated. They stressed that it was supposed to be a clean peaceful gathering and I couldn't promise that I wouldn't attack the first heckler I saw.

I feel much calmer today. :-)

DerAuslander108
24th April 09, 02:58 PM
Liberal snobbery.

Fixed.

Artful Dentures
24th April 09, 04:21 PM
Sure there were some ignorant tools at these but you notice how peaceful they were. Most of these places were cleaner after the gathering.

Normally, when there are gatherings like this somebody throws a trash can through a store window, a group of idiots yell "hate crime" while the police try to remove them from whatever they chained themselves to, or morons purposely disrupt traffic by clogging up the streets.

To be honest, the only reason I didn't go to my local TEA party was because I just did my taxes the night before and I was highly irritated. They stressed that it was supposed to be a clean peaceful gathering and I couldn't promise that I wouldn't attack the first heckler I saw.

I feel much calmer today. :-)


A lot of those people in Phorsts picture looked like they would have a coronary if they tried to throw a garbage can through a Starbucks.

But Yes liberal douchebags protesters are just as bad, in fact in some ways worse as they are more hypocritical in their intolerance

Its a shame there couldn't be a non-partisan gathering of concerned citizens

Tom Kagan
24th April 09, 04:32 PM
The reason why it's "stupid and laughable" is because there's probably not a single person there who has a fucking clue what a 'tax cut' really is. I got the 'tax cut' (you people would shit your pants if I told you how much was put back in my pocket in the last ten years, and I'm just "well off"). These people got a handjob under the table from their bubble headed bleach blonde date at Applebee's for the money they got back.

Tom Kagan
24th April 09, 04:48 PM
And who the fuck is stupid enough to think that 'tax cuts, tax cuts, and more tax cuts' is the solution to every problem? Economy? Tax cut. Poverty? Tax cut. Crime? Tax cut. Afghanistan? Tax cut? Health care? Tax cut. It's so stupid and laughable you can't even imagine. These people have beed duped into thinking a tax cut on something like the estate tax - which affects like about 400 people total - is in their best interest. Rich self-centered people are all laughing at you... all the way to the bank. (They took your illusion of wealth you had in there, too.)

Artful Dentures
24th April 09, 10:31 PM
It's easier for a government to promise a tax cut than to do a competent job

EuropIan
25th April 09, 04:04 AM
It's easier for a government to promise a tax cut than to do a competent job
What if they can't do a competent job at tax cutting?

socratic
25th April 09, 05:06 AM
What if they can't do a competent job at tax cutting?

Then they raise taxes. They're all very good at that.

Tom Kagan
25th April 09, 08:59 AM
Also, anyone who thinks the government can't do a competent job isn't fucking paying attention. Do you think convincing young adults into giving their lives for their country for a near poverty wage is incopetence? Public housing costs a pittance compared to the private sector. The only places where there are major structural problems is where the public itself doesn't give a shit. Are people gullible enough to think the problems with public schools is government involvement? No. It's because the people as a whole don't fucking care that their kids are being prepped for a career with a paper hat or dancing on a pole while the techie from india answering their inane question has a doctorate in particle physics.

Wounded Ronin
25th April 09, 09:13 AM
And who the fuck is stupid enough to think that 'tax cuts, tax cuts, and more tax cuts' is the solution to every problem? Economy? Tax cut. Poverty? Tax cut. Crime? Tax cut. Afghanistan? Tax cut? Health care? Tax cut. It's so stupid and laughable you can't even imagine. These people have beed duped into thinking a tax cut on something like the estate tax - which affects like about 400 people total - is in their best interest. Rich self-centered people are all laughing at you... all the way to the bank. (They took your illusion of wealth you had in there, too.)

Exactly. I wonder if these people can't hear themselves speak when they go on like that.

Cullion
25th April 09, 06:56 PM
The only places where there are major structural problems is where the public itself doesn't give a shit. Are people gullible enough to think the problems with public schools is government involvement? No. It's because the people as a whole don't fucking care that their kids are being prepped for a career with a paper hat or dancing on a pole while the techie from india answering their inane question has a doctorate in particle physics.

People protested against the imposition of the state schooling methods now the norm in the US and your level of complex literacy has markedly declined. Yes, it absolutely was governmental interference under persuasion of think tanks and 'educational foundations' funded by 19th and early 20th century industrialists.

The people you see before you now are the product of several generations of this.

Wounded Ronin
25th April 09, 07:14 PM
People protested against the imposition of the state schooling methods now the norm in the US and your level of complex literacy has markedly declined. Yes, it absolutely was governmental interference under persuasion of think tanks and 'educational foundations' funded by 19th and early 20th century industrialists.

The people you see before you now are the product of several generations of this.

The public schools would be fine if they could expel all the kids who weren't there to learn. That's the one big thing that would fix a lot of the problems IMO.

HappyOldGuy
25th April 09, 07:23 PM
If you want to solve the real problems that have led to the decline in the quality of US education, you need to cut down on the divorce rate and keep one parent home instead of having both work outside the house.

Tom Kagan
26th April 09, 10:12 AM
People protested against the imposition of the state schooling methods now the norm in the US and your level of complex literacy has markedly declined. Yes, it absolutely was governmental interference under persuasion of think tanks and 'educational foundations' funded by 19th and early 20th century industrialists.

The people you see before you now are the product of several generations of this.

Since you like simplifying problems into absurdity, I'm sure a tax cut will fix it.



The public schools would be fine if they could expel all the kids who weren't there to learn. That's the one big thing that would fix a lot of the problems IMO.

Fixing the problems would require giving the students a tax cut.


If you want to solve the real problems that have led to the decline in the quality of US education, you need to cut down on the divorce rate and keep one parent home instead of having both work outside the house.

Don't be silly. Can't you see the real problems with schools are that taxes are too high? Cut them.

Artful Dentures
26th April 09, 12:24 PM
My point about tax cuts vs competency wasn't intended to discuss areas where the government works

More to the point that tax cuts are often used as a red herring to distract people from the real problems in governance

Tom Kagan
26th April 09, 12:33 PM
More to the point that tax cuts are often used as a red herring to distract people from the real problems in governance

The real problem is taxes are too high.

Cullion
26th April 09, 12:48 PM
Since you like simplifying problems into absurdity, I'm sure a tax cut will fix it.

How about you suck my fucking cock?

This isn't anything to do with taxation, it's to do with appropriate expenditure of taxation and the structure of government used to administer it.

nihilist
26th April 09, 01:56 PM
Taxes aren't levied based on a citizen's ability to pay.

Artful Dentures
26th April 09, 03:19 PM
The real problem is taxes are too high.


taxes are too high in relation to what you get out of them

Which goes back to accountability and why every politician wants to avoid that by lowering taxes

And I live in Canada land of the stupidly high tax

EuropIan
26th April 09, 03:22 PM
taxes are too high in relation to what you get out of them

Which goes back to accountability and why every politician wants to avoid that by lowering taxes

And I live in Canada land of the stupidly high tax
We can compare taxation e-peens if you like?

Cullion
26th April 09, 05:00 PM
The problem with trying to extract better value for money out of publicly-owned services is that the incentive structure is often not up to the task of making that happen.

Artful Dentures
26th April 09, 07:02 PM
The problem with trying to extract better value for money out of publicly-owned services is that the incentive structure is often not up to the task of making that happen.


Yes 100% true and that the bureaucratic structure of government attracts a lot of incompetent boobs doing the least job possible.

Another reason politicoans use tax cuts and deficet reduction is that it gives them quntatative numbers to pitch.

As if success can be measured by such meaningless numbers as national deficit.

The only yard stick of success for government is quality of living, which is hard to quantify

So they use deficits to make it look like they're doing their job.

This has happened in Canada for years.

I would rather live in a country with a high deficit but working infrastructure

For years the Liberals here would tout their yearly surpluss and how it was recusing the national deficit, while ignoring key infrastructure needs.

Because "Hey we have an 8 billion surplus" gets more votes than the toilets in Windsor work better.

Blahhh!!

KhorneliusPraxx
27th April 09, 10:00 AM
Its a shame there couldn't be a non-partisan gathering of concerned citizens
They were supposed to be...there is just a lower percentage of liberals that are upset about a BIG federal gubment and excessive spending.

KhorneliusPraxx
27th April 09, 10:08 AM
Stupid peaceful protesters... apparently you aren't doing your job right if they don't have to break out the pepper spray.

SrEIxVorUtQ

HappyOldGuy
27th April 09, 10:37 AM
They were supposed to be...there is just a lower percentage of liberals that are upset about a BIG federal gubment and excessive spending.

And who watch the FOX shows that organized the whole thing.

DerAuslander108
28th April 09, 03:34 PM
Tea parties happened long before this and weren't organized by FOX.

Phrost
28th April 09, 03:36 PM
Yes 100% true and that the bureaucratic structure of government attracts a lot of incompetent boobs doing the least job possible.

Yet another argument in favor of my (Heinlein's) "Service = Citizenship" system.

DerAuslander108
28th April 09, 04:05 PM
Mandatory service = tyranny.

HappyOldGuy
28th April 09, 04:06 PM
Tea parties happened long before this and weren't organized by FOX.

Has what to do with what?

This particular set were a media stunt played on dupes.

deal.

Phrost
28th April 09, 04:32 PM
Mandatory service = tyranny.

It's not mandatory at all. You either chose to earn your right to vote, or you chose to live in the country as a "resident", no different than anyone with a green card or visa.

DerAuslander108
28th April 09, 04:34 PM
Which is completely Unconstitutional & de facto fascism.

Artful Dentures
28th April 09, 04:57 PM
Which is completely Unconstitutional & de facto fascism.


Democracy sucks, everything else just happens to suck more

Wounded Ronin
28th April 09, 07:59 PM
I wish that the government jobs would always attract the best and the brightest. We'd all be better off.

DerAuslander108
28th April 09, 08:36 PM
I wish it attracted people with reading comprehension.

Like, reading the Constitution, for starters.

Then reading the journals, diaries, & surrounding literature written by the Constitution's drafters.

So I wouldn't ever have to hear a Europe-humping leftist ever again say, "We don't know what the Founding Fathers' meant".

HappyOldGuy
28th April 09, 08:50 PM
I wish it attracted people with reading comprehension.

Like, reading the Constitution, for starters.

Then reading the journals, diaries, & surrounding literature written by the Constitution's drafters.

So I wouldn't ever have to hear a Europe-humping leftist ever again say, "We don't know what the Founding Fathers' meant".
I like the way France wiggles when I stick it in.

And we can't ever know what the founding fathers "meant" since they didn't fucking agree on anything. Every single syllable in our constitution was the compromise result of a bitter pigfight.

Deal.

DerAuslander108
28th April 09, 10:15 PM
Ninja plz, we have literature supporting the final positions, which tells us exactly what they entailed. Don't give me that bullshit.

HappyOldGuy
28th April 09, 10:20 PM
This isn't really an appropriate venue for a Koan.

Phrost
28th April 09, 10:48 PM
Which is completely Unconstitutional & de facto fascism.

I've never argued for this fitting in with America's version of democracy, much less the Constitution.

The only way something like this would come about would be in the aftermath of a monumental societal collapse.

Such as the one that will undoubtedly happen as a result of the Law of Bread and Circuses. Franchised Democracy, in which one has to earn the right to vote by demonstrating superior commitment to the security and welfare of the nation, is the only practical check against the inevitable slide towards abusing the powers of taxation to "buy" votes (otherwise known as the Modus Operandi of the Democratic Party for at least the last 30 years).

This has nothing to do with the Constitution, nor am I proposing we try to impose this system onto the USA. It's an exercise in outing those who feel entitled to a say in how something is run despite not being willing to put any significant amount of effort into actually making it work. The geographic location of where you fell out of your mother's vagina is a ridiculous means of determining whether or not you get to influence the lives of others by casting a vote.

Hell, what percentage of people in this country vote anyway; 25%? 4 years in the peace corps/merchant marine/research lab/social work/military/etc is more than fair to demonstrate you take personal responsibility for the value of your vote and the effect it has on your nation.

Phrost
28th April 09, 10:56 PM
By the way, funny footnote.

I just met the guy who's holding the upside down US flag in this picture:

http://www.sociocide.com/images/09-tax-day-tea-party/PICT0042.JPG

...in a business capacity completely unrelated to this event.

DerAuslander108
28th April 09, 11:10 PM
This isn't really an appropriate venue for a Koan.

Awww....look at who's pissy about being wrong...:eatbabies:

DerAuslander108
28th April 09, 11:10 PM
...in a business capacity completely unrelated to this event.

My mind is going to devious places guessing what that may be...

nihilist
28th April 09, 11:10 PM
Why do you people hate America?

HappyOldGuy
28th April 09, 11:15 PM
Awww....look at who's pissy about being wrong...:eatbabies:

Translate your absurdity into words with actual meanings that represent actual physical documents on which you base an argument, and then let me know how much lube you want with it when I put it where it belongs.

The writings of the founders can be useful to help interpret the texts, but pretending that there is a single unified intent behind any law is fundamentally retarded.

Artful Dentures
29th April 09, 05:05 AM
The founding fathers intentions are largely irrelevant.

We don't live in 1776

Nor did they free the slaves.

So there is a big disconnect there.

It always drives me nuts when people fall back to the original intention of the Constitution.

Times change.

Never have we had so much access to information.

People should have to pass a written test to be allowed to vote.

You can't drive with out a license, all high school students should have to right an exam in their final year that allows them to vote.

Yes I know this is somewhat elitist. But to fing bad.

bob
29th April 09, 05:15 AM
People should have to pass a written test to be allowed to vote.

...
But to fing bad.

I'm sorry Mr Goju, you will be eligible to sit our voter registration test again in four years.

Artful Dentures
29th April 09, 06:21 AM
I'm sorry Mr Goju, you will be eligible to sit our voter registration test again in four years.


Spelling is only worth 20%

bob
29th April 09, 06:29 AM
Let me be briefly serious and ask this question of the room:

To proponents of the 'test for voter eligibility', whether those tests be basic intelligence, service, education etc. Why do you always assume that the cut-off will be just below you. Is there any logical reason why the cut-off should not be just above you, or in fact way above you?

Artful Dentures
29th April 09, 06:55 AM
We make immigrants take a test for citizenship.

It should be something similar for voting privilege.

It doesn't have to be a super hard test just basics like naming the three branches of government.

it could be purely multiple choice.

as for the standards, people should have to meet a minimum. If I don't meet it then I don't get a vote.

Also it's not like it's a once in a life time test, you could take it whenever.

But if someone is so apathetic that they don't bother then they don't deserve it.

Having a test might actually make people take more interested in voting.

EuropIan
29th April 09, 07:05 AM
Let me be briefly serious and ask this question of the room:

To proponents of the 'test for voter eligibility', whether those tests be basic intelligence, service, education etc. Why do you always assume that the cut-off will be just below you. Is there any logical reason why the cut-off should not be just above you, or in fact way above you?
It's pussyfooting around the real issue in the US, which is poor voter turnout.

HappyOldGuy
29th April 09, 10:18 AM
Let me be briefly serious and ask this question of the room:

To proponents of the 'test for voter eligibility', whether those tests be basic intelligence, service, education etc. Why do you always assume that the cut-off will be just below you. Is there any logical reason why the cut-off should not be just above you, or in fact way above you?

Well, in my case they will run out of voters pretty fast. :biggrin:

The whole point of a democracy is NOT to get the smartest folks in office. If that was the case we would just use IQ tests. It's to give representation the broadest section of the population. You may not like idiots, but they outnumber you. And the number of people that actually vote but couldn't pass something at the level of a drivers test to qualify is pretty much nil.

However, even if you are in favor, voting tests have been forever polluted in this country by racist fucknuts.

Phrost
29th April 09, 10:57 AM
My mind is going to devious places guessing what that may be...

Naa, it was a completely mundane insurance thing.

Phrost
29th April 09, 11:07 AM
Let me be briefly serious and ask this question of the room:

To proponents of the 'test for voter eligibility', whether those tests be basic intelligence, service, education etc. Why do you always assume that the cut-off will be just below you. Is there any logical reason why the cut-off should not be just above you, or in fact way above you?

Because the qualifier should be something everyone is capable of doing, but difficult enough that only those who truly care about voting would be willing to do it.

Sacrificing 4 years of your life (generally your post-high school youth) to do selfless service in some capacity that benefits society is a very fair indicator.

The argument that it's tyranny just doesn't apply. In certain countries a citizen is required to serve in the military by default. In this situation, you get a choice whether or not to serve.

In Heinlein's system, you served in a capacity based on analysis of your abilities and weren't given a choice as to where you could serve. I'm not even going so far as proposing that, but as a practical matter there should be slots and skill placement. A Scientist, for example, would not be sent off to build houses in the Peace Corps unless he or she specified a preference and there was no demand for their skills.

What's funny is that it looks like Obama is pushing for something vaguely similar.

nihilist
29th April 09, 11:24 AM
Never have we had so much access to information.


... all high school students should have to right an exam in their final year that allows them to vote.



Will someone purposely knock the exam over and see if the student notices?

Artful Dentures
29th April 09, 01:00 PM
Will someone purposely knock the exam over and see if the student notices?


I want to point out that for business purposes I got up at 4:00 AM to call the UK and was killing time online posting.

So me spealllingg sux

nihilist
29th April 09, 04:12 PM
The irony was just too enticing.

bob
29th April 09, 04:31 PM
Because the qualifier should be something everyone is capable of doing, but difficult enough that only those who truly care about voting would be willing to do it.

Sacrificing 4 years of your life (generally your post-high school youth) to do selfless service in some capacity that benefits society is a very fair indicator.

The argument that it's tyranny just doesn't apply. In certain countries a citizen is required to serve in the military by default. In this situation, you get a choice whether or not to serve.

In Heinlein's system, you served in a capacity based on analysis of your abilities and weren't given a choice as to where you could serve. I'm not even going so far as proposing that, but as a practical matter there should be slots and skill placement. A Scientist, for example, would not be sent off to build houses in the Peace Corps unless he or she specified a preference and there was no demand for their skills.

What's funny is that it looks like Obama is pushing for something vaguely similar.

You're going to need to be a lot more specific about how you define selfless, particularly as you don't believe the concept truly exists.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
29th April 09, 04:47 PM
I've never argued for this fitting in with America's version of democracy, much less the Constitution.

The only way something like this would come about would be in the aftermath of a monumental societal collapse.

Such as the one that will undoubtedly happen as a result of the Law of Bread and Circuses. Franchised Democracy, in which one has to earn the right to vote by demonstrating superior commitment to the security and welfare of the nation, is the only practical check against the inevitable slide towards abusing the powers of taxation to "buy" votes (otherwise known as the Modus Operandi of the Democratic Party for at least the last 30 years).

This has nothing to do with the Constitution, nor am I proposing we try to impose this system onto the USA. It's an exercise in outing those who feel entitled to a say in how something is run despite not being willing to put any significant amount of effort into actually making it work. The geographic location of where you fell out of your mother's vagina is a ridiculous means of determining whether or not you get to influence the lives of others by casting a vote.

Hell, what percentage of people in this country vote anyway; 25%? 4 years in the peace corps/merchant marine/research lab/social work/military/etc is more than fair to demonstrate you take personal responsibility for the value of your vote and the effect it has on your nation.

Yeah, let's just divide our entire population into classes of "wasted four years of their lives" and "had better shit to do". Are you really so stupid that you think it's a good idea to take the vote away from people who may not be able to sacrifice a huge chunk of their youth or who would be better served by opening a business or starting school four years earlier instead of pissing it away in the military?


is the only practical check against the inevitable slide towards abusing the powers of taxation to "buy" votes (otherwise known as the Modus Operandi of the Democratic Party for at least the last 30 years).

Oh, it looks like you might be.

Do you want to know why your system blows? Because if someone would rather want to start a trade or go to school or just waste the rest of their life it's none of your business and is not reasonable grounds to expel them from having a say in decision that will directly affect them. And do you seriously think society would be more equitable if you seperate it into have-votes and have-not-votes? Hey, as long as those lazy assholes don't want to serve their country let's just pass double taxes on their asses. If they don't like it then they can join the army for four years and vote against it.

Did you put any thought at all into this or did some very loud libertarian shit this idea onto a plate for you to consume? My favorite part is how you're always espousing self-determination and small government yet you want to take political self-determination away from people who just want to do their own thing.

Dagon Akujin
29th April 09, 07:26 PM
w_urWSSZgwU

Robot Jesus
30th April 09, 03:55 AM
I don't see why a term of service would lead to better government. If anything I can see it leading to more bread and circuses

some dumb grunt: "I put in my four years now i deserve not to pay taxes, oh and the government should reward me for my sacrifice by buying me a car."


KIsv1YOFNys

DerAuslander108
30th April 09, 05:55 PM
For the first time in eternity,

I'm with MJS.

Phrost
1st May 09, 02:40 PM
Yeah, let's just divide our entire population into classes of "wasted four years of their lives" and "had better shit to do". Are you really so stupid that you think it's a good idea to take the vote away from people who may not be able to sacrifice a huge chunk of their youth or who would be better served by opening a business or starting school four years earlier instead of pissing it away in the military?

It's better than the alternative, which isn't really working very well right now.





Do you want to know why your system blows? Because if someone would rather want to start a trade or go to school or just waste the rest of their life it's none of your business and is not reasonable grounds to expel them from having a say in decision that will directly affect them. And do you seriously think society would be more equitable if you seperate it into have-votes and have-not-votes? Hey, as long as those lazy assholes don't want to serve their country let's just pass double taxes on their asses. If they don't like it then they can join the army for four years and vote against it.

Did you put any thought at all into this or did some very loud libertarian shit this idea onto a plate for you to consume? My favorite part is how you're always espousing self-determination and small government yet you want to take political self-determination away from people who just want to do their own thing.

This isn't a libertarian idea by any means.

Why do you deserve a say in government? You, in particular. Aside from getting shat out of a vagina onto US soil (I'm assuming), what have you done that should qualify you to handle the responsibility?

This is a simple system to ensure that only people who actually give a shit about society to an essential extent, are allowed to determine its course. You could go the other route and require a term of government service for everyone instead, but that'd be much more intrusive than this system.

If you don't want to participate, fine, you're a Resident, not a Citizen.

Being born within certain grid coordinates is a fucking stupid means of qualifying someone to exert political power over the lives of others.

FickleFingerOfFate
1st May 09, 02:52 PM
Phrost,

are you actually espousing a system which gives the vote soley to a small minority, who in the past was comprised, in part, by people that society couldn't figure out what to do with, so they were sent to the military to "straighten out".

Are the most educated, most talented, or brightest really going to pick the military as their first choice on the vocational ladder?

I have nothing against most military personnell, and respect them and the service that they give to our country, but I don't see how this can possibly be consideredas a suitable filter to remove people from the political process.

Phrost
1st May 09, 03:02 PM
Phrost,

are you actually espousing a system which gives the vote soley to a small minority, who in the past was comprised, in part, by people that society couldn't figure out what to do with, so they were sent to the military to "straighten out".

No.

Strawman.



Are the most educated, most talented, or brightest really going to pick the military as their first choice on the vocational ladder?


No.

Reading comprehension.




I have nothing against most military personnell, and respect them and the service that they give to our country, but I don't see how this can possibly be consideredas a suitable filter to remove people from the political process.

No.

Spelling.

D-

Quikfeet509
1st May 09, 03:03 PM
And that's about all folks!



Why would anyone in their right mind with the aptitude and ability to succeed in any field pick the military, especially after seeing how they have been used for the past 18 years [since I've been paying attention]?


Look at military medicine. There is basically no allure to it in terms of opportunity, autonomy, and financial outcome. "Serving your country" ring hollow if you can easily make 2X the amount of money, have a better chance at getting the residency you want, and have a greater degree of professional autonomy being a physician in the civilian sector.

Scrapper
1st May 09, 03:05 PM
Doesn't have to be military. Just civil service. You can be whatever you want, but give something to the society while you do it. Do your internship at a free clinic, be an engineer for a municipal project, manage a government department after business school all work. Not everybody has to carry a gun, it's just the most accessible way to get there.

Phrost
1st May 09, 03:08 PM
Some of you are looking at the current line of discussion, an apple, and bitching about it because its peel is orange and knobby.

None of this is intended to fit within the current governmental framework of the United States or any other western nation. Nor is it even relevant to discuss the military as it is now, as opposed to how government service would be run in this system given how you do not get college benefits or even a paycheck during your voluntary term.

Quikfeet509
1st May 09, 03:08 PM
Doesn't have to be military. Just civil service. You can be whatever you want, but give something to the society while you do it. Do your internship at a free clinic, be an engineer for a municipal project, manage a government department after business school all work. Not everybody has to carry a gun, it's just the most accessible way to get there.


Now that's a concept that makes a bit more sense.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
1st May 09, 03:12 PM
Why do you deserve a say in government? You, in particular. Aside from getting shat out of a vagina onto US soil (I'm assuming), what have you done that should qualify you to handle the responsibility?

You're missing the point. Under your system I don't get to decide who gets to be my congressman or who gets to send my ass to war because I haven't had the time yet to devote to civil service or because I had better things to do. I ultimately want to be self-employed; why should I waste four years of valuable experience and contact building in civil service that won't really do me any good just to have a say in something that I should be involved with anyway. What if a small business tax comes up to vote? Looks like I'm shit out of luck because I chose to focus on my business instead.

Phrost
1st May 09, 03:13 PM
Now that's a concept that makes a bit more sense.

Which is what I've been posting about all along.

If you're a biologist, you go into the Science Corps and work on engineering a new biofuel. If you're a teacher, you teach government-sponsored classes on personal finance or life skills, to those receiving welfare. If you're a hippie from Berkeley, you join the Peace Corps. If you're a bad dude, you protect the President from ninjas.

Phrost
1st May 09, 03:18 PM
You're missing the point. Under your system I don't get to decide who gets to be my congressman or who gets to send my ass to war because I haven't had the time yet to devote to civil service or because I had better things to do. I ultimately want to be self-employed; why should I waste four years of valuable experience and contact building in civil service that won't really do me any good just to have a say in something that I should be involved with anyway. What if a small business tax comes up to vote? Looks like I'm shit out of luck because I chose to focus on my business instead.

You wouldn't go to war, because you're a non-Citizen and it's a Citizen-only military.

Taxes? I dunno. I haven't thought that far into this hypothetical system. Most likely, there would be a single flat income tax rate that applies to any entity, be it individual or corporation.

But just drawing breath does not entitle you to exert political force over others. Sorry. I know you feel entitled, but I don't care.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
1st May 09, 03:25 PM
I'm going to ignore your sort of Socialist "in theory..." argument and focus on,


But just drawing breath does not entitle you to exert political force over others. Sorry. I know you feel entitled, but I don't care.

Why are you using this sort of language? I don't feel entitled to the political process because I can breath, rather I'm not going to let some faggot with no hair and a stupid beard tell me that I, an adult, have to sit at the kid's table because I thought your civil service was a waste of time. What if I want to be a cobbler? Do I spend four years making free shoes? Do recording technicians spend half a decade working pro bono?

Phrost
1st May 09, 03:34 PM
Why are you using this sort of language? I don't feel entitled to the political process because I can breath, rather I'm not going to let some faggot with no hair and a stupid beard tell me that I, an adult, have to sit at the kid's table because I thought your civil service was a waste of time. What if I want to be a cobbler? Do I spend four years making free shoes? Do recording technicians spend half a decade working pro bono?

Yes, if there's a societal need for it. Otherwise, you go soak up bullets.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
1st May 09, 03:36 PM
Exactly. If I want to be x but your civil service has no related fields then it's just a waste of my time. I'd rather start my business earlier so I could save up and move to a country that would let me vote.

Cullion
1st May 09, 04:27 PM
Phrost, are you serious and ready to pick this up off where we left it?

Why do you keep identifying 'serving your community' with 'being a government employee' ?

It's a fundamentally un-Libertarian premise. Heinlein was a fascist.

It's also economically illiterate.

socratic
2nd May 09, 09:35 AM
So let me get this straight. Phrost wants a small government, yet he advocates the government have the facility and capacity to monitor and supervise two distinct castes, as well as the standard things a society's government manages for its day-to-day running.

Then, he proposes that people give to the government 4 years of their life. Okay, but how do they live if they aren't getting an income? I bet the military/government pays for it, doesn't it? So now you need a bigger tax departnment, a department to allot money, food, housing and any consumer good or material need the person would normally be entitled to spend their money on but can't have because they're giving away their work.

So that sounds like a big government.

Of course the obvious answer is "They don't get any of that shit, they just get the bare minimum/starve". To which I say, well, your system is fucked anyway because freedom doesn't exist in it and it encourages rampant fascism and exploitation. Your system would run for a maximum of 5 years before it is subverted into an autocratic fascist state and completely remodelled.

I mean, shit, Phrost, you love the shit out of the constitution and the founding fathers, and here you're telling them they're all wrong about people being born equal and free 'n' shit.

socratic
2nd May 09, 09:36 AM
PS: Only the democrats pork-barrel with taxes? Holy hypocrisy, batman!

"Read my lips! No new taxes." Huh sounds like a democrat to me.

DerAuslander108
5th May 09, 05:07 PM
But just drawing breath does not entitle you to exert political force over others. Sorry. I know you feel entitled, but I don't care.

Drawing breath does not entitle you to exert political force over me, whether you served in the military or not.

HappyOldGuy
5th May 09, 05:13 PM
I'm pretty sure it comes down to who's breath is fogging up the heavier firepower.

/mao

Robot Jesus
5th May 09, 05:18 PM
phrost, you still haven't demonstrated why these people would not be self serving with there political power. just because you work at a shit job for 5 years does not make you a model citizen. If anything it would breed a sense of entitlement over those who weren't strong enough to sacrifice for the right to bread and circuses.

Artful Dentures
5th May 09, 05:32 PM
Drawing breath does not entitle you to exert political force over me, whether you served in the military or not.


Lots of people exert their political force over you and me

Ajamil
6th May 09, 02:00 PM
Let me be briefly serious and ask this question of the room:

To proponents of the 'test for voter eligibility', whether those tests be basic intelligence, service, education etc. Why do you always assume that the cut-off will be just below you. Is there any logical reason why the cut-off should not be just above you, or in fact way above you?
They used to have a test for voter eligibility, let's see if we can find sample questions:

If a person charged w/treason denies his guilt, how many people must testify against him before he can be convicted?

If a bill is passed by Congress and the President doesn't sign it and doesn't send it back to Congress in session within the specified period of time, is the bill defeated or does it become law?

Name one area of authority over state militia reserved exclusively to the states.

What year did the Congress gain the right to prohibit the migration of persons to the states?


So...who here is eligible to vote?

Edit: This is taken btw, from the test for Alabama. Think on that a while.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
6th May 09, 03:27 PM
Questions 2 and 3 at least make some sense on a voter eligibility test but the first one doesn't really seem important to the political process and number four is just pointless historical trivia.

HappyOldGuy
6th May 09, 03:32 PM
I don't think you really understand the purpose behind voter qualification tests MJS.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
6th May 09, 03:32 PM
To keep the darkies out. Whitey don't take no test. They pulled that "who wants to be an Alabama voter" on us in high school, with different questions.

Robot Jesus
6th May 09, 03:36 PM
I think a test written on political philosophy would be more useful.

don't make it too difficult, base it off a text book that just gives the cliffnotes of what some predominate philosophers thought. something about the length of (I don't know) a clockwork orange seems small enough that the average person could be expected to read and understand it, but long enough to have some brief discussion on political thought.

two essay questions and then you get to vote.

or maybe not even tie it to the vote but highschool graduation.

Shawarma
6th May 09, 03:44 PM
Making reading Clockwork Orange, a book that's about 50% Slavic-inspired slang, be a requirement for voting would be hilarious. Although I'm not sure how much of its philosophy is relevant on a political level.

I love that book, not so much the movie.

Robot Jesus
6th May 09, 05:11 PM
I meant like a clockwork orange in length for the textbook.

socratic
6th May 09, 11:06 PM
It's funny how the Amerikans are saying "Our problem is that our voters are shit, we should thin the heard" when really the problem is "Not enough people vote for the democratic process to operate effectively. We should try to recruit as many people into the electoral roll as possible".

Seriously, if you guys really wanted a proper democracy, you should have just penalised not voting like Aus. That way everyone gets to have their say. They can't not be represented.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
7th May 09, 12:49 AM
Why should I have to vote? I can abstain. It's my business.

Harpy
7th May 09, 12:53 AM
It's not mandatory at all. You either chose to earn your right to vote, or you chose to live in the country as a "resident", no different than anyone with a green card or visa.

Even though this is one of the lesser holes in your argument, how do you propose the system deals with females if there aren't any suitable 'service' jobs in their industry? Deploy them on military service?

Must service be undertaken as soon as one becomes 18 years old or can you defer it, if so do you still not gain your right to vote until you have completed your 4 years?

What about those who are medically unfit or disabled? Mothers with young children? Are you currently posting this from your super secret bunker?

socratic
7th May 09, 01:09 AM
Why should I have to vote? I can abstain. It's my business. You can abstain if you really want to be a political non-entity. That means your rights or interests won't be fully considered when any decisions are made though. And you forfeit your right to complain about the government or its interactions with you. Or politics in general.

But since you do do these things, then you might as well vote. If you like avoiding hypocrisy, that is.

Besides, by having everyone vote mandatorily all the appropriate demographics and their interests will be represented, and you won't get incredibly skewed patterns of voting where only one demographic makes up a huge proportion of the voting populace. Let me put it this way: Would Bush have been voted in twice if all the people who were waking up to his shit actually voted?

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
7th May 09, 01:18 AM
You can abstain if you really want to be a political non-entity. That means your rights or interests won't be fully considered when any decisions are made though. And you forfeit your right to complain about the government or its interactions with you. Or politics in general.

You don't have to vote to take part in the political process. You could write to your congressmen or draft a new law. I'd even say that those are far more productive than voting.


But since you do do these things, then you might as well vote. If you like avoiding hypocrisy, that is.

Why? What if I didn't want to vote for anyone? What about non-partisan positions in local government? If I don't vote for the water district manager I don't get to bitch about rate hikes?


Besides, by having everyone vote mandatorily all the appropriate demographics and their interests will be represented, and you won't get incredibly skewed patterns of voting where only one demographic makes up a huge proportion of the voting populace. Let me put it this way: Would Bush have been voted in twice if all the people who were waking up to his shit actually voted?

None of that is anywhere near as bad as forcing people to vote. Am I choosing the president or registering my car?

Harpy
7th May 09, 01:27 AM
Actually MJS, compulsory voting seems to be a good thing to me. It engages one in the political process, makes you at least think a little harder before casting your vote and also gives you a sense of ownership of the government.

I have to say people who moan about their government when they don't even choose to exercise their right to vote are dumbasses.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
7th May 09, 01:34 AM
Actually MJS, compulsory voting seems to be a good thing to me. It engages one in the political process, makes you at least think a little harder before casting your vote and also gives you a sense of ownership of the government.

Do you really think that mandatory voters will put any more thought into their ballot than voluntary voters? That sounds counterintuitive to me.


I have to say people who moan about their government when they don't even choose to exercise their right to vote are dumbasses.

What if I don't want to vote? What if I don't want to vote for any of the available candidates? What about foreign governments? I sure as hell didn't vote for Tony Blair, so I don't get to criticize him, right? Is Henry David Thoreau a hypocrite because he criticized the government while also not paying taxes? Not giving the government your dues for living all over its country and using all their water and firefighters seems a lot more serious than just not voting. And what was the deal with that beard?

Phrost
7th May 09, 12:16 PM
So let me get this straight. Phrost wants a small government, yet he advocates the government have the facility and capacity to monitor and supervise two distinct castes, as well as the standard things a society's government manages for its day-to-day running.

Then, he proposes that people give to the government 4 years of their life. Okay, but how do they live if they aren't getting an income? I bet the military/government pays for it, doesn't it? So now you need a bigger tax departnment, a department to allot money, food, housing and any consumer good or material need the person would normally be entitled to spend their money on but can't have because they're giving away their work.

So that sounds like a big government.

Of course the obvious answer is "They don't get any of that shit, they just get the bare minimum/starve". To which I say, well, your system is fucked anyway because freedom doesn't exist in it and it encourages rampant fascism and exploitation. Your system would run for a maximum of 5 years before it is subverted into an autocratic fascist state and completely remodelled.

I mean, shit, Phrost, you love the shit out of the constitution and the founding fathers, and here you're telling them they're all wrong about people being born equal and free 'n' shit.

To me, this idea is an exercise in plugging the holes in Federalist Democracy. The main hole being a lack of qualifications, other than where you fell out of a vagina, determining your right to exert political force on others.

Phrost
7th May 09, 12:23 PM
Even though this is one of the lesser holes in your argument, how do you propose the system deals with females if there aren't any suitable 'service' jobs in their industry? Deploy them on military service?

Must service be undertaken as soon as one becomes 18 years old or can you defer it, if so do you still not gain your right to vote until you have completed your 4 years?

What about those who are medically unfit or disabled? Mothers with young children? Are you currently posting this from your super secret bunker?

1. Women can catch bullets just as well as men; they are equal opportunity devices.

2. No, you could sign up at 65 if you wanted to. Until your term of service is complete, you do not get to vote.

3(a). Work could be found for just about everyone with a useful aptitude. (b)Wait until you're in a position where you can join, or don't spread your legs in the first place. (c) I'm sitting on my couch with a crappy Netflix running in the background.

Phrost
7th May 09, 12:26 PM
Drawing breath does not entitle you to exert political force over me, whether you served in the military or not.

Every time I vote against your beliefs that's exactly what I do. I don't think you're understanding the concept of force here.

If I get enough people who agree with me, even if they're just the local bums that I had ACORN round up, I can exert all kinds of nasty force against you within the scope of the Constitution, even to the point where you build yourself a concrete bulldozer tank and snap, taking out city hall.

Phrost
7th May 09, 12:29 PM
phrost, you still haven't demonstrated why these people would not be self serving with there political power. just because you work at a shit job for 5 years does not make you a model citizen. If anything it would breed a sense of entitlement over those who weren't strong enough to sacrifice for the right to bread and circuses.

Because the service is designed specifically to be unpleasant enough to require a good deal of willingness to self-sacrifice. I imagine that it would be boot camp style militaristic, even in the non-military functions.

Artful Dentures
7th May 09, 03:31 PM
Service doesn't have to be Military, it could be anything civil that basically puts the community at large at first.

My kids need to acquire community service hours to graduate there should be something similar to be allowed to vote.

Robot Jesus
7th May 09, 03:59 PM
Because the service is designed specifically to be unpleasant enough to require a good deal of willingness to self-sacrifice. I imagine that it would be boot camp style militaristic, even in the non-military functions.

any that have the will to self sacrifice then prove that they are better than those who don't and thus are deserving of the fruits of their labours, namely screwing over those who weren't "strong and just" enough to sacrifice.

give someone a reason to feel superior to others and they will take advantage of it.

HappyOldGuy
7th May 09, 04:09 PM
Phrost, I'm trying to figure out how a guy who doesn't believe there is such a thing as altruism is so behind a system designed to only allow people with a strong sense of altruism to vote.

Seems to me that if you really believe that altrusim is a lie, then you have to expect your system would serve to weed out the less ambitious.

Phrost
7th May 09, 06:45 PM
I'm okay with that. Everyone has ambition; this system just exploits the ambition of those who want to exert political power for the benefit of society while devaluing the input of those who don't feel voting is worth the sacrifice.

socratic
7th May 09, 06:52 PM
You don't have to vote to take part in the political process. You could write to your congressmen or draft a new law. I'd even say that those are far more productive than voting.

New Orleans had a lot of non-voters. Then a lot of them drowned while the Fed government sat around with their thumbs up their asses.


Why? What if I didn't want to vote for anyone? What about non-partisan positions in local government? If I don't vote for the water district manager I don't get to bitch about rate hikes?
A: Donkey vote B: Yes, you can't bitch because you made no effort to fix that situation. If you're trying to say "I didn't GET to vote" then yes, you would be able to bitch.


None of that is anywhere near as bad as forcing people to vote. Am I choosing the president or registering my car?
The point is your system doesn't work properly at all and needs fixing. Actually having a serious number of people participating might actually help. Shit, if it's really so hard for you to conceptualise the point of making abstaining illegal (unless you have religious reasons or are a felon maybe or something) then just give out a reward to every voter or something. Use the carrot rather than the stick.


To me, this idea is an exercise in plugging the holes in Federalist Democracy. The main hole being a lack of qualifications, other than where you fell out of a vagina, determining your right to exert political force on others.

You aren't fixing shit, you're just not being democratic. It turns out the fairest way to determine whether or not you can vote is indeed if you fell out of a vagina because that's... drumroll please.... non-exclusive. It's not so much the right to exert your political force as it is the right to defend yourself from the political force of others, by utilising your own political force as you see fit. Equality, bitches.

Pee ess Fuk yu faschyst

socratic
7th May 09, 06:55 PM
I'm okay with that. Everyone has ambition; this system just exploits the ambition of those who want to exert political power for the benefit of society while devaluing the input of those who don't feel voting is worth the sacrifice.

Let me give you an example of a society where the political system more or less was run by ambition. I'd like to introduce you to the Cursus Honorum: the only people who get to vote are people who've served in the military or the law courts, it's vaguelly democratic with a view to meritocracy, and it's also ludicruously corrupt and full of self-serving assholes. Any system that depends on ambition is going to result in dictators and self-servers because the number of people in it to help everyone else tends to be a lot lower than originally estimated.

Phrost
7th May 09, 06:56 PM
You aren't fixing shit, you're just not being democratic. It turns out the fairest way to determine whether or not you can vote is indeed if you fell out of a vagina because that's... drumroll please.... non-exclusive. It's not so much the right to exert your political force as it is the right to defend yourself from the political force of others, by utilising your own political force as you see fit. Equality, bitches.

Pee ess Fuk yu faschyst
So everyone has the right to vote. How about people born 1' on the south side of a river... let's say the Rio Grande? Why don't they get to vote?

The Constitution is the mechanism to defend yourself from the unjust exercise of political force by others. Outside of that, you're pretty fucked if you're on the wrong side of an issue.

Shawarma
7th May 09, 06:57 PM
Have to draw the line somewhere.

Phrost
7th May 09, 07:10 PM
I'd prefer it to be one that creates a productive distinction as opposed to an arbitrary one.

Harpy
7th May 09, 07:11 PM
The Constitution is the mechanism to defend yourself from the unjust exercise of political force by others. Outside of that, you're pretty fucked if you're on the wrong side of an issue.

Like being gay and wanting to get married? Sorry to say but your Constitution sucks ass.

HappyOldGuy
7th May 09, 07:38 PM
I'm okay with that. Everyone has ambition; this system just exploits the ambition of those who want to exert political power for the benefit of society while devaluing the input of those who don't feel voting is worth the sacrifice.
Which part of altruism is that not?

Phrost
7th May 09, 11:40 PM
Who's being altruistic in this case? It's a straight trade.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
8th May 09, 12:33 AM
New Orleans had a lot of non-voters. Then a lot of them drowned while the Fed government sat around with their thumbs up their asses.

Are you suggesting that the federal government would have responded in a more timely manner if more people in NO voted? That's retarded.


B: Yes, you can't bitch because you made no effort to fix that situation.

But what if I didn't vote because I didn't want to support any of the candidates, or for some other ideological purpose? You're assuming that people are non-voters exclusively on account of laziness.


The point is your system doesn't work properly at all and needs fixing.

What is broken in our system? Anyone who wants to can vote and anyone who doesn't want to doesn't have to. I don't see the conflict.


Actually having a serious number of people participating might actually help. Shit, if it's really so hard for you to conceptualise the point of making abstaining illegal (unless you have religious reasons or are a felon maybe or something) then just give out a reward to every voter or something. Use the carrot rather than the stick.

That's an even worse idea! I don't want people voting just because they get something.


So everyone has the right to vote. How about people born 1' on the south side of a river... let's say the Rio Grande? Why don't they get to vote?

Are you fucking joking? Why would someone born in Mexico without American citizenship vote in an American election? Why would they even care about an American election?

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
8th May 09, 12:34 AM
Like being gay and wanting to get married? Sorry to say but your Constitution sucks ass.

Are you seriously faulting the framers of the Constitution for not having gay marriage on the radar?

mrm1775
8th May 09, 10:00 PM
Like being gay and wanting to get married? Sorry to say but your Constitution sucks ass.The Tenth Amendment gives the states any powers not already reserved to the federal government. The Constitution never mentions gay marriage, which is why we now see individual states voting on the issue.

And now you know.

nihilist
9th May 09, 02:17 AM
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are supposed to be inalienable rights.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
9th May 09, 02:40 AM
Married couples have certain exclusive privileges that obviously any couple who cannot get married cannot take advantage of. We're reducing our fags to second class citizens. Don't try and reconcile this bullshit with the Constitution.

socratic
9th May 09, 03:10 AM
So everyone has the right to vote. How about people born 1' on the south side of a river... let's say the Rio Grande? Why don't they get to vote?

Because YOUR country arbitrarily decided to define it's political border as xyz part of that river and everyone outside of it is not a citizen. This has nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with territorialism.

To be honest, if you were on or really really near the border I think you should have the ability to choose which country you belong to.


The Constitution is the mechanism to defend yourself from the unjust exercise of political force by others. Outside of that, you're pretty fucked if you're on the wrong side of an issue.

That's the unfortunate draw-back of majoritarian democracy where unanimous decision is not necessary. Your solution to the problem is a problem in itself, however, not a solution. It's like Winston said, and I paraphrase: Democracy is the worst system except for all the others. And your system is no exception to this rule, man.


Are you suggesting that the federal government would have responded in a more timely manner if more people in NO voted? That's retarded.

Wasn't that one of the theories being passed around was that no one really gave that much of a shit up top about the effects of a disaster on a poor, black, non-voting region?


But what if I didn't vote because I didn't want to support any of the candidates, or for some other ideological purpose? You're assuming that people are non-voters exclusively on account of laziness.

I already answered that. Donkey vote/abstain for religious reasons, but accept that since you took no part in the process you don't really get to bitch.


What is broken in our system? Anyone who wants to can vote and anyone who doesn't want to doesn't have to. I don't see the conflict.

Your country has a ludicruously bad voter turn out, and I don't see how any democracy can function properly for everyone if only a portion of the country is represented.


That's an even worse idea! I don't want people voting just because they get something. Okay, but you're gonna have to get voting numbers up somehow, right? That is, unless you really like the way things have worked up until now.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
9th May 09, 03:24 AM
Wasn't that one of the theories being passed around was that no one really gave that much of a shit up top about the effects of a disaster on a poor, black, non-voting region?

There's also a theory that 9/11 was an inside job.


I already answered that. Donkey vote/abstain for religious reasons, but accept that since you took no part in the process you don't really get to bitch.

Have you even been reading my posts? Voting is not the only way to participate. But aside from that you're still just being stupid. Whether or not I voted has nothing to do with whether or not I can bitch about the result, or fire bomb the White House, or amend the Constitution. You're just parroting something a comedian said.


Your country has a ludicruously bad voter turn out, and I don't see how any democracy can function properly for everyone if only a portion of the country is represented.

Why not? They chose that. If that's what they want, okay.


Okay, but you're gonna have to get voting numbers up somehow, right? That is, unless you really like the way things have worked up until now.

Whether or not I like the way things are working out here is completely unrelated to how stupid it is to force people to vote.

Robot Jesus
9th May 09, 04:20 AM
butsecks is not happiness


the 98th secret amendment.

socratic
9th May 09, 07:37 AM
butsecks is not happiness


the 98th secret amendment.

The 69th Amendment lololololol

Phrost
9th May 09, 01:11 PM
I still haven't seen a valid explanation as to why being born within certain grid coordinates entitles you to exert power over others.

Zendetta
9th May 09, 01:21 PM
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are supposed to be inalienable rights.

That would seem to be an argument against marriage, Gay or otherwise.

Fearless Ukemi
9th May 09, 02:37 PM
Like being gay and wanting to get married? Sorry to say but your Constitution sucks ass.

Don't be an asshole. Are gays allowed to marry in your country and is there a direct clause stating so in your constitution?

Spade: The Real Snake
9th May 09, 02:46 PM
Don't be an asshole. Are gays allowed to marry in your country and is there a direct clause stating so in your constitution?

Well, Australia is far more progressive, they have had a Bill recognizing same-sex unions since November. They can take an 8-month superiority stance right now.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
9th May 09, 06:36 PM
I still haven't seen a valid explanation as to why being born within certain grid coordinates entitles you to exert power over others.

No, Phrost. That's not how this works. You don't get to ignore all the previous posts and try to start the discussion over by re-asking your stupid ass question.

Robot Jesus
9th May 09, 11:50 PM
I still haven't seen a valid explanation as to why being born within certain grid coordinates entitles you to exert power over others.
because if you don't enfranchise everyone within the system those with the franchise in the system will abuse those without the franchise.


"but, RJ. what if we make it so anyone could theoretically get the vote but you need to go though the suck to get it"

then those who went through the suck would abuse those who did not.


there the end, Heinlein was wrong, drop it already.