Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Znet)   Our only political party has two right wings, one called Republican, the other Democrat   ( divider line
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

16149 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Jan 2004 at 6:23 AM (13 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

608 Comments     (+0 »)

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Newest | Show all

2004-01-26 07:03:34 AM  
Right is not something granted or taken away by the goverment. You have the right to break laws, and the right to break any law that states you have to vote. You will face the consequences as a result, which usually amount to a modest fine. Reductio ad infinitum convicted criminals have reduced choices, but that is not a bad thing.
2004-01-26 07:05:18 AM  
Choice is one of the greatest boons of freedom.

Should you have the choice to work or not work?
Isn't working your responsibility as a citizen?
So why then do you feel it is not okay to avoid work, but okay to avoid participating in your democracy?

We don't have responsiblity to the government. The government should work for us, not us work for the government.

But you do have responsibility to the government! You work for the government, ultimately.

What are the benefits of being able to not vote, besides allowing people to be lazy asses on voting day?
Plus, even if they don't want to vote for anyone, they can cast a blank ballot.

What are the benefits of not voting?
2004-01-26 07:05:27 AM  
Is anyone else even just a little bit troubled by the fact that like Bush, the current frontrunner on the other side, John Kerry, is a member of Yale's Skull & Bones society?

This ain't conspiracy theory bullshiat folks, go look it up for yourselves beofre you ask me about my tinfoil hat.
2004-01-26 07:05:56 AM  
And sometimes it is not a matter of whether or not someone CARES enough to vote. If the government makes a law that you have to vote it HAS to give you the means to vote, which means that a LOT of US citizens who speak poor english and live in places where voting would be almost impossible to them given their means would be given the opportunity to vote.
2004-01-26 07:06:34 AM  
I've just realized what we really need.


Somebody call Ahhhnold.
2004-01-26 07:08:12 AM  
Isn't working your responsibility as a citizen?
Actually, no, it isn't. You must have us confused with Soviet Russia. You have a responsibility to YOURSELF and your FAMILY to work, but not the government.
2004-01-26 07:08:27 AM  
Whats really needed is a way to increase human lifespans by 3-400 years so that people actually live to see the consequences of their decisions.
2004-01-26 07:08:47 AM  
2004-01-26 12:24:01 AM Auckum

I don't understand the appeal of Kucinich. Could someone explain it to me?

Granted, I've only watched the most recent Democratic debate, but Kucinich was the only candidate who would talk about exporting American jobs overseas. Not just manufacturing jobs, but high tech jobs. I wonder why nobody else is discussing this... my take is that the Democrats are allowing the Republicans to frame political discourse... and if they allow the Republicans to do this throughout the campaign season, the Democrats will surely lose.

He also appeals to the die-hard anti-war lefties (of which I am not one).
2004-01-26 07:08:58 AM  
Voting could be made more accessible. It is people's responsibility to vote, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't be easier for people to get to a polling booth and cast a vote. Keeping the polling booths open for 24 hours would be an idea, people have kids they do not want to leave alone at home. Only one member of the family may have the time to go and vote.

With everything else that is being done, a little bit more could be done on the polling side of things to make sure that people have enough time to go and vote.
2004-01-26 07:09:31 AM  

If you agree that casting a blank ballot is the same as not voting, then why would you have them cast blank ballots? Hey, maybe they oppose the system of voting. Maybe they want an American monarchy. People can be nuts. ;) But I'm against forcing people to do anything that they don't want to do, even if it's a good idea that they do it. (So long as it doesn't hurt others.)

Why should government force people to do things like that? It'd be like forcing people to donate their bodies after death. A good idea, but it shouldn't be done.
2004-01-26 07:09:46 AM  
If our political party has two right wings, does that mean it flies in circles?

/Just asking about the headline.
2004-01-26 07:11:20 AM  
I'm all for making voting more accessible. I support more flexible polling booth hours, and increasing the number of voting stations. E-Voting would be a great idea if it wasn't being incredibly perverted by pork-barrel politics and corruption. (Diebold, anyone?)

I'm for everything short of making it compulsory.
2004-01-26 07:11:21 AM  
Anatole: Exactly right. Whoever said we have a responsibility to the government? We're expected to pay taxes, and that's it. The only responsibility. The government, being formed by the people, has exclusive responsibility to we, the people of the United States.

At least someone here sees things the way they're supposed to be.
2004-01-26 07:11:22 AM  
If our political party has two right wings, does that mean it flies in circles?

Actually, yes. Good metaphor there.
2004-01-26 07:12:01 AM  
004-01-26 07:08:12 AM Anatole

Isn't working your responsibility as a citizen?
Actually, no, it isn't. You must have us confused with Soviet Russia. You have a responsibility to YOURSELF and your FAMILY to work, but not the government.

However, you do have a responsibility to get the hell off the dole.
2004-01-26 07:13:11 AM  

Should you have the choice to work or not work?
Isn't working your responsibility as a citizen?

[Now if you look here you see where I didn't answer, but one was assumed for me]
So why then do you feel it is not okay to avoid work, but okay to avoid participating in your democracy?

It is your right to avoid work. And as with all rights there can be consequences to that. I would never say that it is someones respensibility as a citizen. You can't make arguments by havintg ficticious conversations with people in which you answer for them until they give you something to work with. That is what schizophrenics do.
2004-01-26 07:13:24 AM  
I want a political party with a very simple program. It would only have to do two things.

1. Leave me the fark alone. If I want to smoke a joint, own a handgun, sleep with whoever I want, preach on the street, whatever, it's all good, as long as no one is defrauded or physically harmed.

2. Don't waste my tax dollars. This means don't prop up third world dictators, end corporate welfare, as a matter of fact, smash the pork barrel.

It should be obvious that the Democrats and Republicans fail both of these tests (and I'm not concerned with their "self-esteem" so I give them both failing "F" grades).
2004-01-26 07:13:28 AM  
jay_vee If I had my druthers, there wouldn't be a dole in the first place. Nevertheless, you do not have a "duty" to anyone but yourself and your family to be employed.
2004-01-26 07:13:43 AM  
>>If our political party has two right wings, does that mean it flies in circles?

Every election season.

2004-01-26 07:13:57 AM  
Our responsbilities as citizens are negative-- that is, they constitute what we should avoid doing to each other. We should avoid trying to silence each other. We should avoid trying to prevent each other from practicing religion. We should avoid inflicting our religion on others if they don't want us to. We should avoid harming each other's person or property. We should avoid interfering when consenting adults have sex. Etc., etc.

In short, that's what respecting each other's rights is all about. And respecting the rights of others is the sum total of our responsbility as citizens.
2004-01-26 07:14:11 AM  
Anatole: You aren't free and ideals bring down humanity. Like it or not the moment a community abandons ideals and starts doing whats good for itself is the moment that community really flourishes.
2004-01-26 07:14:32 AM  

If someone hasn't screamed LIBERTARIAN at you yet, allow me.

2004-01-26 07:15:23 AM  
zymurgist, you're essentially describing libertarianism.
2004-01-26 07:15:38 AM  
Rillion: You can turn that around the other way. "Express freedom of... etc." In all things, that phrase works the same as "Avoid infringing upon someone's... etc." Sounds a lot better, too.
2004-01-26 07:15:49 AM  
Another reform I would like to see concerns sealed records.

If you want to run for President you should not have any information withheld from the citizens. From Bush to Dean, most people seal sensitive records from earlier in their lives.

No one is perfect, everyone has warts, A presidential candidate that hasn't farked up makes me a lot more suspicious than one who did smoke some weed or snort some blow in college.

I guess that falls under transparency in government. But then again, most of what the current administration is doing seems to be a matter of national security. 'National Security', the catch all term for STFU and let us run the country the way we want.
2004-01-26 07:16:24 AM  

Right, of course. How could I have forgotten that people being "not free" and "abandoning ideals" and "doing what's good for the community" are what makes things succesful. Just like it did for Russia! Right?

2004-01-26 07:16:41 AM  
Oh, and zymurgist: LIBERTARIAN!

Thank you. That feels better. :)
2004-01-26 07:17:19 AM  
Abdul-- Not quite. If you switch it to "expressing freedom," that allows people to claim that you should "express their freedom" to have a cushy job, a new car, your lawnmower, etc. at your expense.
2004-01-26 07:17:35 AM  
Thats not at all what happened in russia. It is what happens in ant colonies. Can you argue that ant colonies aren't successful.
2004-01-26 07:18:04 AM  
2. Don't waste my tax dollars.

I might be alone here (probably not), but I'd like to see citizens be able to vote where a large part of their taxes went. Of course some will have to be taken for roads, city buildings, etc. But at least half of someone's taxes should go where they want them to.
2004-01-26 07:18:07 AM  
Anatole:- Working as a community is one of the primary things that has made our species so successful. There's always a line to be drawn and few believe it's at total isolationist anarchy.
2004-01-26 07:18:55 AM  
Oh, so what works for insects will work for rational human beings? Pardon me while I dig a hole in the ground and get my buddies to help drag some moths into it. WE'RE ON OUR WAY, BABY.
2004-01-26 07:18:56 AM  
Thats not at all what happened in russia. It is what happens in ant colonies. Can you argue that ant colonies aren't successful.

No, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in one. Would you?
2004-01-26 07:19:14 AM  
Zymurgist-- You may be a closet libertarian if:

You want to smoke weed and pay less taxes.


You want to have a gun and a gay lover.

/Praying for the day that the dems and repubs wither away, and leave the field clear for the libertarians and greens.
2004-01-26 07:19:48 AM  
Ant colonies aren't successful. They just do more of the same. That is what "Doing what is best for the community" will get you. At best you'll hold the status quo, although most likely not. If you want real advancement you need freedom in all forms.
2004-01-26 07:20:17 AM  
Working as a community is one of the primary things that has made our species so successful.

There's a world of difference between working for the community through free choice and cooperation and working for the community at the point of a gun.
2004-01-26 07:20:25 AM  
Would I want to live in an ant colony? No. Ants are bitey and I would scarcely fit. In a self serving community? Yes.
2004-01-26 07:20:32 AM  
You're assuming only extremists from one side are voting. If opinion is split down the middle, then it won't matter.

That's where you're wrong. What if you have two sides voting on a couple of key issues - say the majority of voters on one side vote for the pro-life candidate, and the other side for the pro-choice candidate. Should we decide the future of the country based on the opinions of a small number of people on an (ultimately unimportant, and VERY emotive) single issue?

Do you see what I mean by "diluting the extremists"? Wouldn't you rather have lots more people voting?

If voting were compulsory the Demoblicans and Republicrats would have a deadlock on the political landscape. Not to mention that 'freedom' is not only the right to vote, but the right to not vote.

But they already have a deadlock on the political landscape!
Does "freedom" also entail the right to not pay taxes? Isn't that a responsibility? Should you have the freedom to not pay taxes?
Plus, if you don't want to vote, you can cast a blank ballot.

You have a responsibility to YOURSELF and your FAMILY to work, but not the government.

But the taxes you pay are your responsibility to your democracy.
2004-01-26 07:21:00 AM  
Rillion: No, we pay for those freedoms ourselves. Either through efficient capitalism (Bill Gates has those things), or through taxes (obvious, if occasionally misappropriated). It's not a freedom in and of itself. Certainly you couldn't be suggesting we should be infringing upon their rights to climb the ladder and enjoy the benefits from their work.
2004-01-26 07:21:07 AM  
In a self serving community?

I'd prefer to live without a gun held to my head.
2004-01-26 07:21:44 AM  
spamdog You don't pay taxes if you don't have any income. Try another analogy please.
2004-01-26 07:22:29 AM  
I like the libertarian platform, but we still need basic infrastructure. As far as defining 'basic infrastructure', that's where the debate seems to be.
2004-01-26 07:22:39 AM  
Advancement is also an ideal. Russia had ideals about total equality, and worked to prop up a government to support it. Flawed. The perfect human goverment would do what it had to to survive until it could no longer survive and then die.
2004-01-26 07:22:59 AM  
The taxes I pay are taken from me under threat of force. They aren't a responsibility, they are armed robbery. I'm trying to stop that as a responsibility to myself. I never have any responsibility to my government.
2004-01-26 07:24:08 AM  
Clinton couldn't have signed GATT, as it had been in effect since the years after WW2. He could, however, sign the WTO charter which was developed through GATT.

This really makes me think the author knows what he is talking about, rather than being someone who is trying to use shock value and emotion to convince the reader.
2004-01-26 07:24:11 AM  
The problem, I think, is people's inclination to believe that a government should-- hell, can-- create a utopia. It would be really cool if people were nice to each other, so let's pass laws to force them to be nice to each other. Let's pretend that our government is our Dad, who can take toys away from one person and give them to another in order to "play fair."

Problem is, people don't work that way. We don't all want the same thing-- our visions of utopia will never match, so the government just gets bigger and bigger tryig to cover all possible areas. The degree of control that it has over us increases as does the amount of our money it spends. The government is not our Daddy. It is more like a guard dog-- it is there to prevent us from stepping on each other, and prevent outside forces from stepping on us as a country. That's about it...and the sooner we recognize that, the better. Hopefully before it takes over every aspect of our lives.
2004-01-26 07:24:37 AM  

I like the "designate a portion of my taxes to..." idea. It might skew to what rich people want, but that's what we already have. That at least would give regular folks some say about it.
2004-01-26 07:24:44 AM  
I don't know what tinfoil manifesto world you're living in, EvilScientist, but governments don't "do what they have to do and then die." Governments only die through outside invasion or armed revolution. They don't yield power peacefully; it's not in their nature.
2004-01-26 07:24:57 AM  
Wow, maybe the most biased semi-coherent loony rant I've ever heard... Nice.

Here's a personal favorite:
"Bush may talk the talk on national security while Ted Kennedy regurgitates his pro-social services spiel but neither really gives a shiat about the soldiers dying Iraq or a disabled (dis-labeled?) child in an inner city school."

I'm sure glad we have this impotent dweeb around to really care about disabled kids and dying soldiers; God knows where we'd be without the author... (coo-coo)
2004-01-26 07:24:59 AM  
Good way of putting it rillion.
Displayed 50 of 608 comments

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Newest | Show all

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.