Running a-puck @ 2007-02-06 08:30:16 PM

Political parties aren't some alien thing, they are what people make of them, just like representative government. That politics is divisive is because that wins. If people stopped voting for those who sling mud, the mudslinging would stop. If the American people voted out the Republican Congress after they shut down government in a big hissy fit, things would have been better now but instead the Republicans were rewarded for their misdeeds.

I feel we've done a really lousy job of making good citizens, that way too many people don't understand their necessary role in making government work, that too many people don't understand even the basics of how things work (or should work). Too many see government, both participation and the funding, as someone else's problem.

old usenet reader

This was my old usenet reader:

Befuddled:My biggest objection to permanent political parties is that I don't see how they accomplish anything good, and any party that gets into power starts to focus on remaining in power. Power attracts the corruptible and political parties are the machine that elevates them to high office.

I certainly agree with you about the fact that we, as a society, have done a piss-poor job of creating good citizens, but it seems that making good citizens would only serve to weaken the power of the parties and the politicians that are in them. I do not pretend that political parties are the root of all evil, I do contend that political parties allow evil to flourish.

Snarfangel: BTW, the previous figured for the DoD might not include Bush's latest request for a "surge" and other Iraq funds.

I'm thinking that SwingingJohnson's lament calculated such "surges."

I don't see any indication that this country is concerned about education. I do see that this country is obsessed with war and strife. Otherwise we would have a nation of scholars, and we don't.

Actually, .... it's gonads and strife.

If you've got 5 politicians running for office, and you think that one would get over 50% of the vote? With Perot, he got 19%, Bush got 37% and Clinton got 43% in 1992 & won with - LESS votes than W got in 2000.


Actually, Clinton numbers in that election were rather impressive... defeating a sitting President who recently had popularity ratings in the 80 percents and against a populist conservativ(ish)e [who took votes from both of the standing parties]. Were you to extract Perot from that and just compare the Bush/Clinton votes it's a 54/46 victory.

I never understood the "he didn't even get 50% of the vote!!" screech.

Gonads in the lightning.

It's a "self" vs. "other" false dichotomy.

Same problem can be applied to literally any situation. From rape to tax laws to handicap parking.

Next?

stebain: This was my old usenet reader:

What a pile of crap that program turned into. :(

stebain: I never understood the "he didn't even get 50% of the vote!!" screech.

cause he didn't get 50% of the vote. He got 43%.

Perot served one purpose, to defeat Poppy Bush. And it worked.

Jon SnowIt's a "self" vs. "other" false dichotomy.

Same problem can be applied to literally any situation

And if any evidence is needed of that, I can't tell what specifically you were responding to because it fits with almost every topic of conversation that has come up in this thread.

WTF is this about?

I want to argue about it, but what is the topic?

the_gospel_of_thomas: Perot served one purpose, to defeat Poppy Bush. And it worked.

I dunno. Both my brothers voted for him in lieu of Clinton.

Twice.

Actually, .... it's gonads and strife.

It's still death-thinking instead of life-thinking. That's my issue with it.

make up a topic, consdubya. That's the beauty part of it. Think of this place as a saloon of political talk. Just ... no spitting on the floor here. The bartender, mike doesn't appreciate it.

the_gospel_of_thomas: make up a topic, consdubya.

Gotcha....

Cheers for that.

"Can I get a hell yeah?"

No. Not yours.

My Topic:

Why do I find myself agreeing with Osama Bin Laden sometimes?
When he criticises the way the west operates, I tend to agree with him. We are two-faced liars who exploit weaker people for the benefit of our greed. Then pretend like we are angels.

Osama does have some valid points, should we ignore them (or even disagree with them) just because Osama made them?

consdubya: When [Bin Laden] criticises the way the west operates, I tend to agree with him. We are two-faced liars who exploit weaker people for the benefit of our greed. Then pretend like we are angels

So killing 3000 people as a "wake-up call" is OK with you?

I would think such an act would rob someone of all their credibility...ALL of it.

consdubya: We are two-faced liars who exploit weaker people for the benefit of our greed.

Solution.

Don't contribute to the exploitative nature of the evil USA. Move to another country where you can do the most good. And ease your guilty conscious. Then attempt to persuade most of the world who are willing to emigrate to the US, legally or otherwise to move to countries that Osama recommends. Such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran. (Just leave out the part where they are oppressive governments who don't allow their people to worship freely and frequently murder homosexuals when they are caught. that might being down the number of people willing to move to said utopias ... )

whidbey: So killing 3000 people as a "wake-up call" is OK with you?

No.

I would think such an act would rob someone of all their credibility...ALL of it.

Nope. Osama could say that 2 + 2 = 4.

Would that not be credible?

the_gospel_of_thomas: Such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

If anything, the right in the US share some of those values with them (hatred of homosexuals, other religions/cultures/races, higher education, womens rights). Perhaps they can move there?

the_gospel_of_thomas: Don't contribute to the exploitative nature of the evil USA. Move to another country where you can do the most good. And ease your guilty conscious. Then attempt to persuade most of the world who are willing to emigrate to the US, legally or otherwise to move to countries that Osama recommends. Such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Well, first of all I did not single out the US here. Also, I did say I didn't agree with the Islam or Sharia law parts of his philosophy.

But when I see soft porn music videos on TV at 8 in the morning, targeted at young children, I ask myself where we went wrong.

clifton: If anything, the right in the US share some of those values with them (hatred of homosexuals, other religions/cultures/races, higher education, womens rights). Perhaps they can move there?

Actually, that has always cracked me up. The fundie Christians who scream the loudest about the "Muslim threat", would actually be quite impressed by Osama. They would have a lot in common......

clifton: hatred of homosexuals

We don't put homosexuals to death for being homosexuals as the Iranians do, not matter what Rozie O'DOnnel or cameron Dias says.

the_gospel_of_thomas: Move to another country where you can do the most good

Your sarcasm aside, the most good can be done here. In THIS country.

consdubya: Nope. Osama could say that 2 + 2 = 4. Would that not be credible?

I'm not doubting that the information he's using against us doesn't contain accurate truths.

I'm just pointing out that Bin Laden has nothing to say about what is right or wrong. He funded an act of outright murder, and has forfeited his right as a statesman. He advocates violence, and is an enemy of humanity. Not really that much different from Bush in that regard.

consdubya: But when I see soft porn music videos on TV at 8 in the morning, targeted at young children, I ask myself where we went wrong.

OhhhhhKay.

You lost me with that one.

whidbey
I don't see any indication that this country is concerned about education. I do see that this country is obsessed with war and strife. Otherwise we would have a nation of scholars, and we don't.

Looking up the latest figures I could find on Google, we spend the second highest amount per student in the world (an average of $11,152 per student at all grade levels vs. $11,334 per student for Switzerland, which had the highest). It would appear that perhaps the money is there, but isn't being spent as wisely as it should.

This page (.PDF format) gives an interesting set of tables and graphs showing expenditures. It's odd that it was easier to find the numbers on a Swiss site than on a U.S. one.

I_C_Weener: I am pretty sure you are wrong, and its going to ruin this country.

Do you still disagree with me the most?? :D

Snarfangel:

we spend the second highest amount per student in the world (an average of $11,152 per student at all grade levels vs. $11,334 per student for Switzerland, which had the highest).

I still maintain that if there is failure in our education system, it's because we're not really about learning, we're about instilling money-making techniques.

It would appear that perhaps the money is there, but isn't being spent as wisely as it should.

And for that matter, maybe education spending should surpass Defense if that's what it takes. Still, I can't help but agree that a lot of the so-called educational dollars go into administration, and the high salaries they command.

hockeyfarker: First of all, I'm pretty sure I'm not a two faced liar taking advantage of the weak. In the future I'd appreciate it if you'd make your criticisms a little more specific.

What I am talking about is our western mindset, where money is everything. This results in our governments acting that way. Which in turn results in terror attacks on us.

The thing about music videos is that you can turn the TV off. Some people want to watch them, doesn't mean children are forced to watch them.

No, not forced to watch them, but we are talking about people marketing an image to children that is not acceptable. The only reason they do it is for money. They do it very well. Sure, the parents are to blame as well, but its a societal problem. We as a society dont see a problem with marketing adult themes to children for the purpose of profit.

On the morning of September 11th, i had a view of logan airport, thanks for asking

whidbey: I'm just pointing out that Bin Laden has nothing to say about what is right or wrong. He funded an act of outright murder, and has forfeited his right as a statesman. He advocates violence, and is an enemy of humanity. Not really that much different from Bush in that regard.

Fair enough, its not only Osama who says this, many other people do as well. My point was that I also thought that there would be nothing I could agree with Osama over, but thats not the case.

I_C_Weener:



/Happy now? ;)

Personally can't wait for the supercomputer to run the world.

Somehow I think reason and logic would be opposed by some.

Wow, it was shaping up to be an interesting thread about how to get to a multi-party system (instant runoff FTW!) then got threadjacked by 9/11.

/it changed everything!

SideshowBob, if I may, I've had a system of my own I've fine-tuned:

HOUSE:

1. In-state districts are abolished and replaced with one huge district consisting of the entire state.
2. Each party submits a list of all the candidates it wishes to run.
3. On primary day, you select a party. Any party. You're then given one point for each candidate, up to a maximum of 20 (anything past 20 and you start having to bring calculators into the booth). You may distribute those points among the candidates any way you wish.
4. The point totals given here determine priority on the general election. (Anyone who in their primary places lower than the number of seats available is eliminated here. If there are 10 seats, and you come in 11th, you're done. No Lieberman moment for you. Go home.)
5. In the general, you are given the parties' seating priorities as decided in the primary, a straight 10 points, and asked to distribute the points among the parties.
6. Seating is done by proportional representation. In a 10-seat state where the Dems get 50%, the GOP gets 40% and the Greens 10%, the five highest-priority Democrats are seated, the four highest-priority Republicans, and the Green winner.

SENATE (I know, 'every state is equal'. Bite me.):
1. Each state is given one Senator. Decide which one that will be however you want. I don't care.
2. The other 50 seats are "wild cards", and thus eligible to be won by any candidate from any state. (Look at Massachusetts. Kerry and Kennedy are lifers. What if there's a good Massachusetts candidate who can't run because these two have things locked down? When's his shot? This is it.)
3. In each of the three classes, half the seats up for grabs will be the state seats; the other half will be wild cards.
4. Primary and general-election procedure for the wild cards works the same as in the House.

The idea is, if you make policy that is good for the country but bad for your state, you can still be in Congress through the wild-card seats. (Of course, in order to do so, you have to stage a national election against dozens of adversaries. The upshot is, you have 16, 17 seats that you're running for at the same time, so there's some leeway if you can get yourself a following.)

Why am I so in love with the big-list system? Cuts down on incumbency. The top of the seating priority lists is still going to be the incumbents, but towards the cutoff point you're going to see plenty of challengers headed to Washington.

I once invented a drink and my friends called it a Bloody Uterus.


I'll now share with you all the most delicious and disgusting drink known to man.


1 Bloody Uterus:
Into a Champagne flute, pour
1 half shot good, dry gin
1 pre-made cherry jello shot (vodak), mashed
1 teaspoon grenadine
1 tablespoon lemon juice
fill the rest with ginger ale


Lovely visual: the bits of red jello will perpetually sink to the bottom, gather carbon dioxide bubbles, and float to the top, only to sink again when the bubbles burst

The texture is truly horrifying.
The taste is something beautiful.

Interesting ideas, Gosling.

Would never happen though. The Senate part at least. I'd be for it, since my state would suddenly gain 5 senators(getting half the California vote would get you a seat in each election). But the little states wouldn't go for it. Currently in the Senate, Senators representing less that a third of the country's population can overturn a veto.

(Me): In 2004 (the latest year I could find figures for), the U.S. spent $475.5 billion on public schools (K-12) and another $200.1 billion on public colleges and universities. Private schools spent $35.7 billion (K-12) and $115.3 billion (college and university) respectively.

ekdikeo4: Strange, all the public schools here are financed by the State, not the Federal government.

I would have been really embarrassed if I had said "Federal government" anywhere.

/"The U.S. spent five billion dollars on bananas last year" does not mean the federal government is hording them somewhere.

unexplained bacon: the dems that voted to give the president the authority to invade iraq are just as responsible as the republicans for the mess in iraq.

I totally agree!

ekdikeo4
True, but the Federal government does finance military spending.

They would probably be happy to take over education as well, if property taxes went with it. I'm not sure that would be a good thing, though, and they wouldn't be able to afford it otherwise without unbelievable cuts in spending or unbearable increases in taxes.

On the other hand, it would help equalize the balance of power between the government and teacher's unions, so it wouldn't be all bad.

immrlizard


unexplained bacon: the dems that voted to give the president the authority to invade iraq are just as responsible as the republicans for the mess in iraq.

I totally agree!

huh, I figured I'd get flamed by all the dems who think that bush's bunk-ass intel he passed out pre-invasion was a ready made excuse for the failure to consider the occupation/rebuilding phase.

I do think bush intentionally pushed questionable (at least) intel making saddam appear to be a greater threat than he actually was, but that doesn't give the dems that voted to give bush the power to invade iraq a pass for giving no thought to what post-saddam iraq's political and sectarian landscape would look like.

whether saddam had wmd or not this phase we are now in was waiting for us, and very few people in power realistically considered it.