Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dutchling]

That guy is either insane or a Republican candidate for presidency.

[RedKing]

Wait, wait, wait....so they went from decrying how Obama was trampling the Constitution and defying the Supreme Court (when pressed on particulars, all we got was "healthcare...mumble mumble...death camps...mumble mumble....SOCIALISM!) to openly advocating trampling the Constitution and defying the Supreme Court?

Irony is not only dead, its corpse has been exhumed, defiled, and baked into a cake, which Newt Gingrich promptly consumed and shat out. On the Constitution.

[Sheb]

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-gingrich-judges-20111217,0,1295899.story

Newt Gingrich says he'd defy Supreme Court rulings he opposed.... And the supreme court would kick him square in the nuts for it....

I love how he's saying that Obama shouldn't overrule the court if they declare Obamacare is illegal because the judiciary should only be overruled in critical situation, like terrorrism or gay wedding.

So basically, he wants the court to only rules what the G.O.P. want?

Well, my house is kinda big, I guess I can host up to 5 refugees.

[Gatleos]

People with the mental stability of Newt Gingrich used to be homeless people on the street corner screaming at traffic. Now they're all rich and running for president.

What happened?

[Dutchling]

People with the mental stability of Newt Gingrich used to be homeless people on the street corner screaming at traffic. Now they're all rich and running for president.

What happened?

The American Dream baby.

[Truean]

People with the mental stability of Newt Gingrich used to be homeless people on the street corner screaming at traffic. Now they're all rich and running for president.

What happened?

The American Dream baby.

Watchmen (paraphrased):
Nightowl: "Look at this, what the hell happened to us?"
The Comedian: "The American Dream, it came true...."

[RedKing]

Glenn Beck blasted by other conservatives for saying Tea Party only supports Gingrich because he's white.

This is just too delicious.

"It's very wrong to pull the race card on this side of the aisle," said Gina Loudon, an Alabama-based Tea Party activist and radio host who also helped found the St. Louis Tea Party.

Yes, it's only appropriate to pull the race card when it's a Democrat involved.

[Dutchling]

The former Fox News host

:P

[palsch]

If you want conservatives blasting someone just look at their descriptions of Newt.

Bonus bonus phrases (all from the last month): “disastrous nominee”; “lack of discipline”; “raging ego”; “over-the-top style”; “exaggerated regard for his own intellect”; “tone deafness”; “penchant for self-delusion”; “irresponsible” “crazed”; “deep in denial”; “reconstructing his past to make himself out to be the martyr”; “a charlatan”; “a skilled self-promoter”; “his ability to dissemble is unparalleled”; “history of milking the Washington lobbyist-legislator connection for great personal wealth”; “made a mint shaking down Washington”; “reckless character”; “self-indulgent, obtuse, dishonest”; “megalomania, recklessness, disorganization”; “disorganized egomaniac”; “antithesis of what the party needs”; “propensity to bend the facts to avoid responsibility for his actions”; “ability to deceive, to twist and to rearrange facts to fit his own grandiose vision of himself”; “scary”; “liberal.”

NB: That was just one of the ten commentators featured in the article (Jennifer Rubin).

[shadenight123]

you know what? there should actually be no need for people having to vote other people onto a chair so those people get to decide.
We are currently in the 21st century.
i am pretty sure there are big enough servers to handle the stress of milions of people at the same time doing something as simple as ticking a yes or no to a post.
for reference, think of 9gag.com.
you post a picture, you get a like or dislike, you then go with a "fix it" or "mark as repost".
there is no moderation done by the authors, it's all done by those who go there.
to think how powerful this tool actually is, go and search for the nescafè thing which is currently ravaging.
i mean, it's a tool.
it costs money to mantain the servers, but pubblicity quite frankly covers it with a large amount view (as people actually voting for their countries would).
you just make a requirement that for a law to pass, it needs more than 75% approval from the people.
you open up specific internet cafè only for voting. which are free, but only go on the voting pages.
you give a single user account based on a series of alphanumerical unique characters, and a password specifically done for that.
you use a "relee" kind of server, so votes while being kept on a public one, are counted only in a different time hour a day, and moved to the "official internet-less server except for transfer data" only at that time.
So hacking attempts are nullified. (unplug it from the internet, i dare see an hacker manage it through psychic waves.)
now you may happily remove the entirety of the government system, getting back all the expenses that you can get.
the future is in this. the sooner we start realizing this, the sooner we can aim for something else...
 

[Nadaka]

Sorry but direct democracy is still not technically feasible. The technology for instantaneous digital only elections IS NOT SECURE and will be gamed.

[Willfor]

Technical reasons it can't work aside, I also see a massive problem with "majority rules" scenarios.

[Truean]

Technical reasons it can't work aside, I also see a massive problem with "majority rules" scenarios.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding who what to have for dinner.

[shadenight123]

Sorry but direct democracy is still not technically feasible. The technology for instantaneous digital only elections IS NOT SECURE and will be gamed.

but isn't there already the face recognition and fingerprint recognition technology?
you could add those to specific voting stations.
and, after all, you could hire those of the anonymous to defend the servers.

Technical reasons it can't work aside, I also see a massive problem with "majority rules" scenarios.

isn't democracy all about majority rule though?
you see, i too understand the problem lying in giving direct vote to a population of whom a lot are composed of complete and utter morons (they exist, i know a few, so they exist).
Point is, however, that having the possibility to do so, and not doing it, is hypocrit. (i know it's wrong how it's written, but i can't remember how it's correctly written)
Sure, we could, instead of giving vote to people who are of 21/18 years old, give vote only to people who actually have a degree in something useful.
Like mathematics, or engineering, or people who are of atheist thought, because, unless otherwise noted exceptions, every single constitution has written on "the government follows no specific religion". So you cut down the mass and keep the ones who actually know why they are voting, or who, at the very, very least can be argued with in normal tones which differ from "god said so; you are lying" "but he's giving me shiny things!" and so on.
i am overly extremizing the situation, and it should be something to be thought of calmly and with another group of people.
Point is, the possibility will exist, certainly, but when it will become a concrete possibility, will we be able to trust in democracy?
or at heart, we all know that life is better under a single ruler government? like monarchy or dictatorship?

[Gatleos]

Say what you want about politicians, but direct democracy is a far worse idea. They may all have agendas, but at least they're informed ones. I shudder to think what would happen if the American public at large were given that much control, regardless of how "secure" the system supposedly was.