What political party fits me?

[Vic]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Just once where did I say I meant environment by rape and pillage? Looks like we both 'read into things'.

You're right, you didn't say business...would you like to tell me who, if not government, and not another business, you meant?

WTF are you talking about searching for a thread? I have not supported outlawing religion EVER, to the best of my recollection. If you can prove otherwise, go for it.

Not at all. I see clearly that -- out of pure selfishness -- you hate paying people for the goods and services that they provide you (which is what actual business -- which you claim to be against -- is all about), and you disguise that selfishness by bringing up the relatively isolated abuses of the megacorps created by the very big government system that you 'support.

Who? Obviously government. When did I ever imply any other way? Why don't you go back to my first post in this thread? What is harm? How is harm a crime? Who enforces the law? Obviously government. The difference is in the manner of enforcement. Not this pussy regulatory crap where limited liability corporations pay a small fine that hurts only the shareholders and the customers, but holding actual individuals responsible for their actions. That's what the LP actually supports. That's what you deny. That's what you have argued against me here. That's why I said... you don't get it.

The biggest problem I have found with Libertarianism is that you have to be relatively intelligent in order to understand it.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yeah, I'm selfish all right. ROFL Ok dude, I'm done. You don't know a damn thing and you can't read people for crap.

'relatively isolated abuses'...HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, what a fvcking moron.

Wow... nice ad hominem tactic you switched to here. Obviously you were all out of valid arguments.

Um yeah... you're selfish. You are, by your own admission, anti-business. But business is the working men and women who provide you with goods and services. NOT the corporations that government creates and favors in order to control those working men and women. How hard is that to understand? You're selfish because you are yet another fantastical ideologue who would like to abuse the force of government in order to make your whacko fantasy true, despite all the objective evidence in the world that shows that that will never happen. Yay... I can see you now.... "if only government could make people do this, or if only government could make people do that, or if we could just pass a law... "

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Just once where did I say I meant environment by rape and pillage? Looks like we both 'read into things'.

You're right, you didn't say business...would you like to tell me who, if not government, and not another business, you meant?

WTF are you talking about searching for a thread? I have not supported outlawing religion EVER, to the best of my recollection. If you can prove otherwise, go for it.

Not at all. I see clearly that -- out of pure selfishness -- you hate paying people for the goods and services that they provide you (which is what actual business -- which you claim to be against -- is all about), and you disguise that selfishness by bringing up the relatively isolated abuses of the megacorps created by the very big government system that you 'support.

Who? Obviously government. When did I ever imply any other way? Why don't you go back to my first post in this thread? What is harm? How is harm a crime? Who enforces the law? Obviously government. The difference is in the manner of enforcement. Not this pussy regulatory crap where limited liability corporations pay a small fine that hurts only the shareholders and the customers, but holding actual individuals responsible for their actions. That's what the LP actually supports. That's what you deny. That's what you have argued against me here. That's why I said... you don't get it.

The biggest problem I have found with Libertarianism is that you have to be relatively intelligent in order to understand it.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yeah, I'm selfish all right. ROFL Ok dude, I'm done. You don't know a damn thing and you can't read people for crap.

'relatively isolated abuses'...HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, what a fvcking moron.

Wow... nice ad hominem tactic you switched to here. Obviously you were all out of valid arguments.

Um yeah... you're selfish. You are, by your own admission, anti-business. But business is the working men and women who provide you with goods and services. NOT the corporations that government creates and favors in order to control those working men and women. How hard is that to understand? You're selfish because you are yet another fantastical ideologue who would like to abuse the force of government in order to make your whacko fantasy true, despite all the objective evidence in the world that shows that that will never happen. Yay... I can see you now.... "if only government could make people do this, or if only government could make people do that, or if we could just pass a law... "

I wasn't making an argument, I was washing my hands of your abusiveness and attitude.

And, as I go, you do realize that this entire thread I've said how close I was to agreeing with LP ideas, except for business and tax issues? You do realize that I'm someone who has repeatedly talked about taking arms against an oppressive and intrusive government? I mean, there are a lot of people on here that you could accuse of supporting big government, but I'm not one of them. I just rate them higher than I rate businesses, which isn't saying much considering how lowly I rate businesses.

Oh, and while we're on the subject, businesses don't do crap. Individuals do something. You can do and provide all you want without ever being a business. Individuals provide goods and service, businesses make money. Big difference.

kk, I'll be staying in the thread, but I'm pretty much done with you in it. Have fun mis-reading and thread-crapping.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: daveshel

don't think those days stayed ended. The new robber barons have the full support and protection of the gonernment.

You're right, the day that the Republicans took control of the House and Senate.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Just once where did I say I meant environment by rape and pillage? Looks like we both 'read into things'.

You're right, you didn't say business...would you like to tell me who, if not government, and not another business, you meant?

WTF are you talking about searching for a thread? I have not supported outlawing religion EVER, to the best of my recollection. If you can prove otherwise, go for it.

Not at all. I see clearly that -- out of pure selfishness -- you hate paying people for the goods and services that they provide you (which is what actual business -- which you claim to be against -- is all about), and you disguise that selfishness by bringing up the relatively isolated abuses of the megacorps created by the very big government system that you 'support.

Who? Obviously government. When did I ever imply any other way? Why don't you go back to my first post in this thread? What is harm? How is harm a crime? Who enforces the law? Obviously government. The difference is in the manner of enforcement. Not this pussy regulatory crap where limited liability corporations pay a small fine that hurts only the shareholders and the customers, but holding actual individuals responsible for their actions. That's what the LP actually supports. That's what you deny. That's what you have argued against me here. That's why I said... you don't get it.

The biggest problem I have found with Libertarianism is that you have to be relatively intelligent in order to understand it.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yeah, I'm selfish all right. ROFL Ok dude, I'm done. You don't know a damn thing and you can't read people for crap.

'relatively isolated abuses'...HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, what a fvcking moron.

Wow... nice ad hominem tactic you switched to here. Obviously you were all out of valid arguments.

Um yeah... you're selfish. You are, by your own admission, anti-business. But business is the working men and women who provide you with goods and services. NOT the corporations that government creates and favors in order to control those working men and women. How hard is that to understand? You're selfish because you are yet another fantastical ideologue who would like to abuse the force of government in order to make your whacko fantasy true, despite all the objective evidence in the world that shows that that will never happen. Yay... I can see you now.... "if only government could make people do this, or if only government could make people do that, or if we could just pass a law... "

I wasn't making an argument, I was washing my hands of your abusiveness and attitude.

And, as I go, you do realize that this entire thread I've said how close I was to agreeing with LP ideas, except for business and tax issues? You do realize that I'm someone who has repeatedly talked about taking arms against an oppressive and intrusive government? I mean, there are a lot of people on here that you could accuse of supporting big government, but I'm not one of them. I just rate them higher than I rate businesses, which isn't saying much considering how lowly I rate businesses.

Oh, and while we're on the subject, businesses don't do crap. Individuals do something. You can do and provide all you want without ever being a business. Individuals provide goods and service, businesses make money. Big difference.

kk, I'll be staying in the thread, but I'm pretty much done with you in it. Have fun mis-reading and thread-crapping.

Now you're just delusional. Keep spreading lies and FUD and then backpedaling and contradicting yourself when you get called out on them.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Just once where did I say I meant environment by rape and pillage? Looks like we both 'read into things'.

You're right, you didn't say business...would you like to tell me who, if not government, and not another business, you meant?

WTF are you talking about searching for a thread? I have not supported outlawing religion EVER, to the best of my recollection. If you can prove otherwise, go for it.

Not at all. I see clearly that -- out of pure selfishness -- you hate paying people for the goods and services that they provide you (which is what actual business -- which you claim to be against -- is all about), and you disguise that selfishness by bringing up the relatively isolated abuses of the megacorps created by the very big government system that you 'support.

Who? Obviously government. When did I ever imply any other way? Why don't you go back to my first post in this thread? What is harm? How is harm a crime? Who enforces the law? Obviously government. The difference is in the manner of enforcement. Not this pussy regulatory crap where limited liability corporations pay a small fine that hurts only the shareholders and the customers, but holding actual individuals responsible for their actions. That's what the LP actually supports. That's what you deny. That's what you have argued against me here. That's why I said... you don't get it.

The biggest problem I have found with Libertarianism is that you have to be relatively intelligent in order to understand it.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yeah, I'm selfish all right. ROFL Ok dude, I'm done. You don't know a damn thing and you can't read people for crap.

'relatively isolated abuses'...HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, what a fvcking moron.

Wow... nice ad hominem tactic you switched to here. Obviously you were all out of valid arguments.

Um yeah... you're selfish. You are, by your own admission, anti-business. But business is the working men and women who provide you with goods and services. NOT the corporations that government creates and favors in order to control those working men and women. How hard is that to understand? You're selfish because you are yet another fantastical ideologue who would like to abuse the force of government in order to make your whacko fantasy true, despite all the objective evidence in the world that shows that that will never happen. Yay... I can see you now.... "if only government could make people do this, or if only government could make people do that, or if we could just pass a law... "

I wasn't making an argument, I was washing my hands of your abusiveness and attitude.

It's fun watching some of the Republican starting to break a sweat.

The Terrer Terrer Terrer tactic may not work this time come November. We'll see.

 

[Vic]

What Republicans, Dave?

 

[strummer]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674


It's fun watching some of the Republican starting to break a sweat.

The Terrer Terrer Terrer tactic may not work this time come November. We'll see.

No its not going to work this time. Iraq has nothing to do with the WoT, and that is the issue that people care about. Well that and gas prices that have gone through the roof. Its about the numbers - 2 soldiers die every day in Iraq and gas is twice what it cost when Bush came into office. These are cold hard realities that people see every single day. The terror thing will be forgot about in a week.

The GOP will contort themselves trying to tie the latest terror thing with Iraq. It will not fly (no pun intended). None of the terrorists were from Iraq, they were English with some ties to Pakistan. This is all the GOP really has though. They are sweating bullets right now and running away from Bush like he's a leper. At least 30 seats for the Dems in the House and 4 to 6 Senate seats.

Watch the polls in a couple days. Nothing has changed. People are so pissed off that they can't be scared by this kind of stuff anymore.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Just once where did I say I meant environment by rape and pillage? Looks like we both 'read into things'.

You're right, you didn't say business...would you like to tell me who, if not government, and not another business, you meant?

WTF are you talking about searching for a thread? I have not supported outlawing religion EVER, to the best of my recollection. If you can prove otherwise, go for it.

Not at all. I see clearly that -- out of pure selfishness -- you hate paying people for the goods and services that they provide you (which is what actual business -- which you claim to be against -- is all about), and you disguise that selfishness by bringing up the relatively isolated abuses of the megacorps created by the very big government system that you 'support.

Who? Obviously government. When did I ever imply any other way? Why don't you go back to my first post in this thread? What is harm? How is harm a crime? Who enforces the law? Obviously government. The difference is in the manner of enforcement. Not this pussy regulatory crap where limited liability corporations pay a small fine that hurts only the shareholders and the customers, but holding actual individuals responsible for their actions. That's what the LP actually supports. That's what you deny. That's what you have argued against me here. That's why I said... you don't get it.

The biggest problem I have found with Libertarianism is that you have to be relatively intelligent in order to understand it.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yeah, I'm selfish all right. ROFL Ok dude, I'm done. You don't know a damn thing and you can't read people for crap.

'relatively isolated abuses'...HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, what a fvcking moron.

Wow... nice ad hominem tactic you switched to here. Obviously you were all out of valid arguments.

Um yeah... you're selfish. You are, by your own admission, anti-business. But business is the working men and women who provide you with goods and services. NOT the corporations that government creates and favors in order to control those working men and women. How hard is that to understand? You're selfish because you are yet another fantastical ideologue who would like to abuse the force of government in order to make your whacko fantasy true, despite all the objective evidence in the world that shows that that will never happen. Yay... I can see you now.... "if only government could make people do this, or if only government could make people do that, or if we could just pass a law... "

I wasn't making an argument, I was washing my hands of your abusiveness and attitude.

It's fun watching some of the Republican starting to break a sweat.

The Terrer Terrer Terrer tactic may not work this time come November. We'll see.

Please, oh PLEASE tell me you didn't just accuse me of being a Republican!!!! I mean, I've alwyas more or less liked you, and I'd hate to have to kill you now.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Just once where did I say I meant environment by rape and pillage? Looks like we both 'read into things'.

You're right, you didn't say business...would you like to tell me who, if not government, and not another business, you meant?

WTF are you talking about searching for a thread? I have not supported outlawing religion EVER, to the best of my recollection. If you can prove otherwise, go for it.

Not at all. I see clearly that -- out of pure selfishness -- you hate paying people for the goods and services that they provide you (which is what actual business -- which you claim to be against -- is all about), and you disguise that selfishness by bringing up the relatively isolated abuses of the megacorps created by the very big government system that you 'support.

Who? Obviously government. When did I ever imply any other way? Why don't you go back to my first post in this thread? What is harm? How is harm a crime? Who enforces the law? Obviously government. The difference is in the manner of enforcement. Not this pussy regulatory crap where limited liability corporations pay a small fine that hurts only the shareholders and the customers, but holding actual individuals responsible for their actions. That's what the LP actually supports. That's what you deny. That's what you have argued against me here. That's why I said... you don't get it.

The biggest problem I have found with Libertarianism is that you have to be relatively intelligent in order to understand it.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yeah, I'm selfish all right. ROFL Ok dude, I'm done. You don't know a damn thing and you can't read people for crap.

'relatively isolated abuses'...HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, what a fvcking moron.

Wow... nice ad hominem tactic you switched to here. Obviously you were all out of valid arguments.

Um yeah... you're selfish. You are, by your own admission, anti-business. But business is the working men and women who provide you with goods and services. NOT the corporations that government creates and favors in order to control those working men and women. How hard is that to understand? You're selfish because you are yet another fantastical ideologue who would like to abuse the force of government in order to make your whacko fantasy true, despite all the objective evidence in the world that shows that that will never happen. Yay... I can see you now.... "if only government could make people do this, or if only government could make people do that, or if we could just pass a law... "

I wasn't making an argument, I was washing my hands of your abusiveness and attitude.

It's fun watching some of the Republican starting to break a sweat.

The Terrer Terrer Terrer tactic may not work this time come November. We'll see.

Please, oh PLEASE tell me you didn't just accuse me of being a Republican!!!! I mean, I've alwyas more or less liked you, and I'd hate to have to kill you now.

No, the other true Republican you were sparing with

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Paying down the debt? Yeah dems talk about that because republicans are in power. I dont see us paying anything down if Dems get into office. It is a nice wedge issue to bash Bush over, that is it.

You don't think he should be criticized for it?

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: jmcoreymv
Drugs: Mind your own damn business
Seatbelts: Mind your own damn business

Drugs: I always wanted to operate my own meth lab.
Seatbelts: pay for your own damn head injury.

 

[shadow9d9]

You don't NEED a political party.. just be independent like me.

 

[jmcoreymv]

I've been doing some thinking (a dangerous thing... I know), but what if we developed a secure (haha) system for Americans to cast votes on individual major issues over the internet. The tallied votes would show up to the representatives in Congress and they could use that information to see how their constituents actually feel about a certain matter. Then however the congressman/woman actually votes would be posted alongside the people's decision. I think this would make for a lot better accountability and easier for the public to see how their elected officials stand on issues.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
No, the other true Republican you were sparing with

:laugh:

I was a registered Dem when you were voting for Reagan.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Was that was sarcasm? All of that looks 100% rational, maybe not to a NRA nut, but to most people. How out of whack is the US when safety locks and background checks are considered abolishing the 2nd Amendment and irrational?

How out of whack is the US when a small wiretap and searching library records are considered abolishing the 4th Amendment and irrational?

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: jmcoreymv
I've been doing some thinking (a dangerous thing... I know), but what if we developed a secure (haha) system for Americans to cast votes on individual major issues over the internet. The tallied votes would show up to the representatives in Congress and they could use that information to see how their constituents actually feel about a certain matter. Then however the congressman/woman actually votes would be posted alongside the people's decision. I think this would make for a lot better accountability and easier for the public to see how their elected officials stand on issues.

The flaw in that system is that it encourages too much politicking based on the results of polls. In other words, tyranny of the majority over the minority will inevitably be pushed.

As contradictory as it sounds, elected representatives are there to exercise their own best judgement as to what is best for the nation as a whole, not merely reflect that of the populace that elected him. Direct democracy is as evil as a dictatorship.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha *gasp* hahahahahahahahahahahahhaahaha

Laugh all you want. No democrat has ever (or will ever) outright banned all guns. A few may have tried, but that isn't a democratic policy. Most democrats support gun rights.

Except in San Francisco.

 

[jmcoreymv]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: jmcoreymv
I've been doing some thinking (a dangerous thing... I know), but what if we developed a secure (haha) system for Americans to cast votes on individual major issues over the internet. The tallied votes would show up to the representatives in Congress and they could use that information to see how their constituents actually feel about a certain matter. Then however the congressman/woman actually votes would be posted alongside the people's decision. I think this would make for a lot better accountability and easier for the public to see how their elected officials stand on issues.

The flaw in that system is that it encourages too much politicking based on the results of polls. In other words, tyranny of the majority over the minority will inevitably be pushed.

As contradictory as it sounds, elected representatives are there to exercise their own best judgement as to what is best for the nation as a whole, not merely reflect that of the populace that elected him. Direct democracy is as evil as a dictatorship.

You bring up a good point. However, I think most people are somewhat reasonable and they know they can't get everything their way. With that said, people couldn't pressure congress to pass laws that would violate the constitution, as the courts would still have political immunity.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: zendari
Except in San Francisco.

The facts are simple. You can be a democrat and be pro-gun. Nothing will stop you. You'll find many other democrats who agree with you. This is not, and has not, been a one party vs. the other party issue. It is an issue that differs with each party.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: zendari
Except in San Francisco.

The facts are simple. You can be a democrat and be pro-gun. Nothing will stop you. You'll find many other democrats who agree with you. This is not, and has not, been a one party vs. the other party issue. It is an issue that differs with each party.

One could say the same about republicans and drugs/abortion. Not to mention the Brady Bill.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: zendari
One could say the same about republicans and drugs/abortion.

You could try to say the same thing about all issues, there are minor differences from person to person. However, I would tend to think the vast majority of Republicans are fairly similar on the issue of abortion (and possibily drugs). That is an extreme difference, where there are just a slight minority of pro-choice Republicans.

The issue with guns and Democrats is not an issue of slight minority vs large majority. No, the two parts are both fairly sizable.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: jmcoreymv

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: jmcoreymv
I've been doing some thinking (a dangerous thing... I know), but what if we developed a secure (haha) system for Americans to cast votes on individual major issues over the internet. The tallied votes would show up to the representatives in Congress and they could use that information to see how their constituents actually feel about a certain matter. Then however the congressman/woman actually votes would be posted alongside the people's decision. I think this would make for a lot better accountability and easier for the public to see how their elected officials stand on issues.

The flaw in that system is that it encourages too much politicking based on the results of polls. In other words, tyranny of the majority over the minority will inevitably be pushed.

As contradictory as it sounds, elected representatives are there to exercise their own best judgement as to what is best for the nation as a whole, not merely reflect that of the populace that elected him. Direct democracy is as evil as a dictatorship.

You bring up a good point. However, I think most people are somewhat reasonable and they know they can't get everything their way. With that said, people couldn't pressure congress to pass laws that would violate the constitution, as the courts would still have political immunity.

All objective evidence points to the contrary of people being even somewhat reasonable in such a direct democracy situation. What does happen is that, given the power but then the realization that they can't get everything their way, they become panic-stricken and irrational. They fracture into various divisive power groups seeking to force their various agendas against each other, and as tension builds, they become more vindictive against the opposing groups that they see as threats to their rights. Then they begin seeking legislation to deny the rights of others, first unpopular minorities with less overall democratic clout, then larger groups as they can be democratically isolated. Choas and panic flares as the rule of law collapses, and finally a leader from one of the groups emerges as a tyrant who promises to save all by the ruthless enforcement of law and order.

Sound familiar?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Just once where did I say I meant environment by rape and pillage? Looks like we both 'read into things'.

You're right, you didn't say business...would you like to tell me who, if not government, and not another business, you meant?

WTF are you talking about searching for a thread? I have not supported outlawing religion EVER, to the best of my recollection. If you can prove otherwise, go for it.

Not at all. I see clearly that -- out of pure selfishness -- you hate paying people for the goods and services that they provide you (which is what actual business -- which you claim to be against -- is all about), and you disguise that selfishness by bringing up the relatively isolated abuses of the megacorps created by the very big government system that you 'support.

Who? Obviously government. When did I ever imply any other way? Why don't you go back to my first post in this thread? What is harm? How is harm a crime? Who enforces the law? Obviously government. The difference is in the manner of enforcement. Not this pussy regulatory crap where limited liability corporations pay a small fine that hurts only the shareholders and the customers, but holding actual individuals responsible for their actions. That's what the LP actually supports. That's what you deny. That's what you have argued against me here. That's why I said... you don't get it.

The biggest problem I have found with Libertarianism is that you have to be relatively intelligent in order to understand it.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yeah, I'm selfish all right. ROFL Ok dude, I'm done. You don't know a damn thing and you can't read people for crap.

'relatively isolated abuses'...HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, what a fvcking moron.

Wow... nice ad hominem tactic you switched to here. Obviously you were all out of valid arguments.

Um yeah... you're selfish. You are, by your own admission, anti-business. But business is the working men and women who provide you with goods and services. NOT the corporations that government creates and favors in order to control those working men and women. How hard is that to understand? You're selfish because you are yet another fantastical ideologue who would like to abuse the force of government in order to make your whacko fantasy true, despite all the objective evidence in the world that shows that that will never happen. Yay... I can see you now.... "if only government could make people do this, or if only government could make people do that, or if we could just pass a law... "

I wasn't making an argument, I was washing my hands of your abusiveness and attitude.

It's fun watching some of the Republican starting to break a sweat.

The Terrer Terrer Terrer tactic may not work this time come November. We'll see.

You delusion is growing by leaps and bounds, Vic a republican? lmao!

 

[jmcoreymv]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: jmcoreymv

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: jmcoreymv
I've been doing some thinking (a dangerous thing... I know), but what if we developed a secure (haha) system for Americans to cast votes on individual major issues over the internet. The tallied votes would show up to the representatives in Congress and they could use that information to see how their constituents actually feel about a certain matter. Then however the congressman/woman actually votes would be posted alongside the people's decision. I think this would make for a lot better accountability and easier for the public to see how their elected officials stand on issues.

The flaw in that system is that it encourages too much politicking based on the results of polls. In other words, tyranny of the majority over the minority will inevitably be pushed.

As contradictory as it sounds, elected representatives are there to exercise their own best judgement as to what is best for the nation as a whole, not merely reflect that of the populace that elected him. Direct democracy is as evil as a dictatorship.

You bring up a good point. However, I think most people are somewhat reasonable and they know they can't get everything their way. With that said, people couldn't pressure congress to pass laws that would violate the constitution, as the courts would still have political immunity.

All objective evidence points to the contrary of people being even somewhat reasonable in such a direct democracy situation. What does happen is that, given the power but then the realization that they can't get everything their way, they become panic-stricken and irrational. They fracture into various divisive power groups seeking to force their various agendas against each other, and as tension builds, they become more vindictive against the opposing groups that they see as threats to their rights. Then they begin seeking legislation to deny the rights of others, first unpopular minorities with less overall democratic clout, then larger groups as they can be democratically isolated. Choas and panic flares as the rule of law collapses, and finally a leader from one of the groups emerges as a tyrant who promises to save all by the ruthless enforcement of law and order.

Sound familiar?

Makes sense, but at the same time I think we should be electing candidates based on the issues, not whether they put a D or R or L(?) in front of their name. I find it hard to believe that most democrats feel the same way about every issue, and republicans as well.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Genx87
Paying down the debt? Yeah dems talk about that because republicans are in power. I dont see us paying anything down if Dems get into office. It is a nice wedge issue to bash Bush over, that is it.

You don't think he should be criticized for it?

No, but the sincerity is lacking. It is like the theif criticizing the other theif for stealing.