Print

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

[Sheb]

Georgia also liked Georges Bush quite a lot (The main highway from the airport to Tbilisi is Georges Bush Boulevard or something). I don't know if this is still true after he didn't do a thing during the 2008 war (not like he could nuke Russia anyway).

They also love McCain because he went to Tbilisi and did a "We're all Georgian" speech.

[Rose]

Posting to follow.

[dwarfhoplite]

"The greatest and most powerful country in the history of the human race (that's America btw) is kicking into its regular cycle to see who will be the next Leader of the Free World."

Seems very arrogant and ignorant from my point of view. Also, mentioning USA and freedom in a same sentence disgusts me (Iraq, Guantanamo, Indians etc.)

What kind of democracy is it that candidate that got most votes won't be elected?

Also, why doesn't USA have left wing parties?

[RedKing]

"The greatest and most powerful country in the history of the human race (that's America btw) is kicking into its regular cycle to see who will be the next Leader of the Free World."

Seems very arrogant from my point of view. Also, mentioning USA and freedom in a same sentence disgusts me (Iraq, Guantanamo etc.)

What kind of democracy is it that candidate that got most votes won't be elected?

Also, why doesn't USA have left wing parties?

[Aqizzar]

"The greatest and most powerful country in the history of the human race (that's America btw) is kicking into its regular cycle to see who will be the next Leader of the Free World."

Seems very arrogant and ignorant from my point of view. Also, mentioning USA and freedom in a same sentence disgusts me (Iraq, Guantanamo, Indians etc.)

Somebody needs to tune up their sarcasm detector.  Or get a helping of this site's other fine attractions.

It's sort of a half day, because as you might have guessed from Liberal Crime Squad, we feel compelled to witness certain political events in full.

I often wonder why those guys put up with so much crap on their forum, and I never remember obvious stuff like this.

Anyway, updating the OP.

[Montague]

Yeah, Ron Paul always confused me with his stance on abortion and whatnot, since it doesn't really mesh with libertarian ideology. Then I found out he used to be an obstetrician and personally delivered an absurd number of babies in his career, so I figure he is really just personally biased.

I used to like him more then I do now, libertarianism is a nice ideal, but such a system of governance would be disasterous. People would struggle, wealth would concentrate in an elite minority, and without compulsory education and a basic safety net, you'd literally have a new underclass of illiterate peasants and fuckin' brigands or whatever roaming the countryside. I think George Carlin sums up the reality, think of how stupid the average person person, and 50% of people are stupider then that. A free society would be a cut-throat society, a libertarian government would have a disasterous impact in this modern age and we have to have a system that works for everyone, or you'll have a society you won't actually want to live in.

I think the best compromise would be to lessen the power of the federal government, keep it's focus on courts and national defense and generally let the states be responsible for everything else. That way people have a greater choice in what policies they want to live under. If they don't like paying taxes to provide food stamps they can go move to Alabama or whatever. If you want to smoke pot legally, move to California. It's basically what we already have, but the trends of late have been increased federal authority stepping on state's rights. I think the federal government should lean toward a hands-off libertarian policy while the individual states should lean more progressive, or theocratic policies, whatever floats your boat, that'd be the state you move to.

[scriver]

It's sort of a half day, because as you might have guessed from Liberal Crime Squad, we feel compelled to witness certain political events in full.

I often wonder why those guys put up with so much crap on their forum, and I never remember obvious stuff like this.

I'm confused.

Also, why doesn't USA have left wing parties?

The answer is because they do, of course.

[mainiac]

I think the best compromise would be to lessen the power of the federal government, keep it's focus on courts and national defense and generally let the states be responsible for everything else.

There are two way this could take place, both of them bad:
1) Fiscal guarantee at a Federal level.  This is basically what we have now.  The states run a lot but the federal government covers a large part of their essential functions.  This means that no state can screw things up too badly because there will always be the federal government to keep people from dying in the streets in large numbers and keep the biker gangs from taking over major cities.  But if you give the badly performing states more leway to screw things up, you just make them a bigger strain on the system.  Right now backwater places like Alabama get by on federal handouts which protects them from the harsh realities of how fucked up they are.  If you give them more leway to screw things up, they will do so and drag places like California and New England down even more.
2) No Fiscal guarantee at the Federal level.  This is what Europe is currently going through.  The problem with this system is that all the states have the same currency but don't share a budget.  This means that there can't be a currency exchange rate correction for economic balances between the states.  So just like we are seeing governments like Spain and Ireland in real trouble in Europe despite them having behaved very responsibly, we would have states get into serious debt crises in the US.

[RedKing]

Yeah, Ron Paul always confused me with his stance on abortion and whatnot, since it doesn't really mesh with libertarian ideology. Then I found out he used to be an obstetrician and personally delivered an absurd number of babies in his career, so I figure he is really just personally biased.

I used to like him more then I do now, libertarianism is a nice ideal, but such a system of governance would be disasterous. People would struggle, wealth would concentrate in an elite minority, and without compulsory education and a basic safety net, you'd literally have a new underclass of illiterate peasants and fuckin' brigands or whatever roaming the countryside. I think George Carlin sums up the reality, think of how stupid the average person person, and 50% of people are stupider then that. A free society would be a cut-throat society, a libertarian government would have a disasterous impact in this modern age and we have to have a system that works for everyone, or you'll have a society you won't actually want to live in.

I think the best compromise would be to lessen the power of the federal government, keep it's focus on courts and national defense and generally let the states be responsible for everything else. That way people have a greater choice in what policies they want to live under. If they don't like paying taxes to provide food stamps they can go move to Alabama or whatever. If you want to smoke pot legally, move to California. It's basically what we already have, but the trends of late have been increased federal authority stepping on state's rights. I think the federal government should lean toward a hands-off libertarian policy while the individual states should lean more progressive, or theocratic policies, whatever floats your boat, that'd be the state you move to.

The thing is (and this really holds true for almost any "If you don't like X, then move" arguments)...it's just not that simple to pick up and move. Even if you're a single twenty-something in an apartment, it's not that easy. You need a cushion of money to make the transition possible. You need a job (or certainly the prospects of a job) in the new location. You need a place to live.

If you have a family and a house, it's a freakin' nightmare. You have to sell your existing house (meaning you have to find somebody who wants whatever it is you're trying to get away from) you have to find and purchase a new house (or at least a new apartment) which means either buying sight unseen or shuttling back and forth several times before actually moving. If you have a family, it's essential that you have a new job lined up before you move or else you have a nice fat 6-months-of-living-expenses lined up.

[Frumple]

And on top of all that, both the place you're leaving has to allow you to leave, and the place you're going to has to let you come in to begin with. There's place in the world getting out of isn't a small thing, even if you have the resources to survive once you get out, and (many more) other places that aren't very happy about letting new folks come in, regardless of what you bring to the table, especially if you're "X" (X being whatever.).

And all that, on top of everything, assumes adulthood of some degree, physical capability, so on, so forth. If you don't like X, you should move, is the way to say it. Should implies can, and the can innit always there.

[GlyphGryph]

Mind you, the US was originally based on "if you don't like where you are, you should move HERE. Let's make it easy for you!", which was pretty cool and an absolutely huge component of their present day success. That, obviously enough, did not last.

[RedKing]

And it was still a nightmare for many to get here and then to survive. My wife and I have seriously looked into the logistics of emigration before, and it's daunting. Even to relatively welcoming places like Finland, Sweden, Denmark...there's a lot of red tape to get in. You're buggered if you want to go to New Zealand (unless you work with horses, if which case the door is wide open for you).

[Gunnarr]

Yeah, Ron Paul always confused me with his stance on abortion and whatnot, since it doesn't really mesh with libertarian ideology. Then I found out he used to be an obstetrician and personally delivered an absurd number of babies in his career, so I figure he is really just personally biased.

I used to like him more then I do now, libertarianism is a nice ideal, but such a system of governance would be disasterous. People would struggle, wealth would concentrate in an elite minority, and without compulsory education and a basic safety net, you'd literally have a new underclass of illiterate peasants and fuckin' brigands or whatever roaming the countryside. I think George Carlin sums up the reality, think of how stupid the average person person, and 50% of people are stupider then that. A free society would be a cut-throat society, a libertarian government would have a disasterous impact in this modern age and we have to have a system that works for everyone, or you'll have a society you won't actually want to live in.

I think the best compromise would be to lessen the power of the federal government, keep it's focus on courts and national defense and generally let the states be responsible for everything else. That way people have a greater choice in what policies they want to live under. If they don't like paying taxes to provide food stamps they can go move to Alabama or whatever. If you want to smoke pot legally, move to California. It's basically what we already have, but the trends of late have been increased federal authority stepping on state's rights. I think the federal government should lean toward a hands-off libertarian policy while the individual states should lean more progressive, or theocratic policies, whatever floats your boat, that'd be the state you move to.

Maybe the things you are talking about would be true if we did not have a State government as well. We do though, so... yeah.

[jryan]

From the Romney speech:

"He apologizes for America; I will never apologize for the greatest nation in the history of the Earth."

And then you're wondering why the rest of the world dislikes/hates you? :p That sound like something Bush could have said.

They hate Obama too, so since all other countries think they are awesome then so do we.  You hate us saying it because it's true! 

[Heron TSG]

They hate Obama too, so since all other countries think they are awesome then so do we.  You hate us saying it because it's true! 

Err... could you clarify those pronouns? Not sure who is hating who.

From what I've heard from my various international friends, Obama is at least a bit better than Bush. People don't often start conversations with, "Do you hate [President], too?" anymore, at least.