|
|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Samadhi
+1
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 12:31 am Post subject: 41 |
 |
|
Police drones can see into homes.
I for one welcome our new Cyberdyne overlords.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The Ragin' South Asian
Head Poncho
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 12:49 am Post subject: 42 |
|
|
| Jack_Ian wrote: |
| MacDonalds and Walt Disney corrupting the youth are equally as destructive to some counties as a bomb or a bullet, and if you can be sure that such westernisation is supported by government. |
This is a ridiculous equivalence. Even if I accepted that the long term effects were equally negative (I don't), people usually have a choice about visiting Mickey D's or Mickey Mouse and people are rarely offered a choice about being shot or bombed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dread Pirate Westley
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 4:02 am Post subject: 43 |
|
|
| Zag wrote: |
As a die-hard Boston sports fan, I know your pain.
Well, I used to.
|
My pain also involves putting up with Boston sports fans who were either whiny, angsty devils or cocky SOBs, as well as suffering with a certain dignity (and enjoying last season's Stanley Cup winning team).
Anyway, on topic, the Wisconsin Republic party senators (see what I did there?) managed to find some procedural means to pass their union-busting legislation. "The Senate Democrats have had three weeks to debate this bill..." said the governor in a statement. I wonder if he's even slightly aware of the irony in that statement...probably not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:32 pm Post subject: 44 |
|
|
| The Ragin' South Asian wrote: |
| This is a ridiculous equivalence. Even if I accepted that the long term effects were equally negative (I don't), people usually have a choice about visiting Mickey D's or Mickey Mouse and people are rarely offered a choice about being shot or bombed. |
Not everybody believes choice is good.
Are you saying that a regime that chooses happiness for its people instead of giving them choice is wrong?
I'm glad I have choice, but I also know that more choice generally means more angst. I understand that restricting citizens is a valid response and would actually endorse it if it was enacted by a benevolent regime. The trouble is that such power and benevolence are mutually exclusive.
I'm not saying McDonald's is a valid military target, but I understand the mindset that would think it was. They are not mistaken. They are just making decisions based on a different set of parameters than you or I. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Tired of his old title
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 3:09 pm Post subject: 45 |
|
|
| Of course, far more important than short term happiness is the long-term protection of your everlasting soul. So it only makes sense that the government dictate that you do those things that will guarantee you get into heaven. (If your sarcasm meter wasn't red-lining there, it's broken.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 4:00 pm Post subject: 46 |
|
|
| Jack_Ian wrote: |
Not everybody believes choice is good.
Are you saying that a regime that chooses happiness for its people instead of giving them choice is wrong? |
I believe choice is good and I would say....absolutely....that a regime that offers its people choice (aka liberty) is vastly superior to one that offers its people "happiness". A regime that chooses happiness for its people over choice is not only wrong, but most likely evil.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Tired of his old title
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 4:11 pm Post subject: 47 |
|
|
In the article, it includes freedom as one of the requirements for happiness, and freedom implies that they have choices. I would argue that any society in which people have no choices is not going to be happy, either.
However, there has to be a certain limit of choices. For instance, I shouldn't be allowed to choose to blow up your house. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 5:10 pm Post subject: 48 |
|
|
| Quote: |
| For instance, I shouldn't be allowed to choose to blow up your house. |
I'm pretty sure you *are* allowed to choose.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 6:12 pm Post subject: 49 |
|
|
Some choice is definitely good (absolutely) and better than none (certainly), but I do not believe that more choice is always better then some choice.
If you want to really free people and give them true liberty, then you must unburden them so that they are free to choose the important stuff. A manager is not free unless they can delegate. If they insist on making all choices for themselves then they become stressed, inefficient and confined. Not my definition of freedom.
Choice can be a burden. Too much choice will not result in true freedom.
The paradox of choice |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 6:49 pm Post subject: 50 |
|
|
| Jack_Ian wrote: |
If you want to really free people and give them true liberty, then you must unburden them so that they are free to choose the important stuff. |
Huh? You don't "give them true liberty". They are born with it. All we humans can really do is take liberty away. So, you are suggesting that to make people more free, we need to take some of their choices away?
OK........um.......Holy shit. I don't know what else to say.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 7:03 pm Post subject: 51 |
|
|
WI GOP Senate Majority leader Scott Fitzgerald receives a letter of new civility.
Clearly this is the fault of Sarah Palin and the Tea Party.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Ragin' South Asian
Head Poncho
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 7:07 pm Post subject: 52 |
|
|
| Jack_Ian wrote: |
| Are you saying that a regime that chooses happiness for its people instead of giving them choice is wrong? |
I wasn't saying that, but I wish I had. Pablo's post 46 has responded more articulately to this than I could. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 8:03 pm Post subject: 53 |
|
|
| Pablo wrote: |
| You don't "give them true liberty". They are born with it. All we humans can really do is take liberty away. |
A child is not born free of constraint and there is no society that provides all children with equal opportunity.
The liberty you speak of does not exist.
All society can do is provide the environment to GIVE its citizens the optimum liberty. However, the nature of that liberty is always a decision made by others. The most you can hope for is the freedom to inflict your form of liberty upon the next generation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 8:40 pm Post subject: 54 |
|
|
| Jack_Ian wrote: |
| Pablo wrote: |
| You don't "give them true liberty". They are born with it. All we humans can really do is take liberty away. |
there is no society that provides all children with equal opportunity.
The liberty you speak of does not exist.
|
I didn't say that there was a society that provided all children with equal opportunity...or anything close. There's a big difference between opportunity and liberty, and the liberty I speak of absolutely does exist. It is the liberty that an infant has at birth. By the way, I said nothing about constraint either.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 9:38 pm Post subject: 55 |
|
|
Do you mean actual liberty or the right to liberty?
They're not the same thing.
What liberty does a newborn baby have? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 12:11 am Post subject: 56 |
|
|
More than a fetus apparently.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 9:04 pm Post subject: 57 |
|
|
Some "civilian targets" Death Mage alluded to. Friday night a 12 yr old girl came home to find her mother, father, sister (3 month), and two brothers (4 and 11) brutally killed.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/03/028585.php
Back in Gaza, the citizenry celebrated the news by cheering and passing out sweets.
Edit: It turns out the 3 month old was in fact decapitated. This writer sums it quite well.
| Quote: |
| Anyone who in any way tries to rationalize or minimize this or to suggest that this is a fitting punishment for anything needs to go out and look at a three-month-old baby and ask himself what it would take to climb over a fence, climb in a window, and cut off that child’s head. |
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Death Mage
Raving Lunatic
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 10:19 pm Post subject: 58 |
|
|
It's cute how you try to link me with that incident in an attempt to discredit my previous statement.
Anyway, what angered me today? Anyone who honestly is saying that the recent earthquake and subsequent tsunami in Japan was in any way, shape, or form, "payback for Pearl Harbor". There aren't enough Moron of the Moment awards in the world to hand out to these IDIOTS.
Japan paid for Pearl Harbor. Twice. And then some, really. It's over, we've made peace, they're our allies, we corrupted their country with ideas for technology when they made smaller, and cheaper, then sold it back to us destroying our youth with video games. Seriously though, it's a bad scene in Japan right now. All the preparedness in the world still can't protect from that kind of devastation. My heart goes out to everyone effected.
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Tired of his old title
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 11:07 pm Post subject: 59 |
|
|
While it freaks me out a bit, let me speak in defense of Death Mage.
Samadhi, he never said that attacking civilian targets was correct or justified. He just said that it was a grim reality of war. There are plenty of American veterans of the war in Viet Nam who will attest to the fact that we (the U.S.) are not innocent of the activity.
DM's point was only to say that one side is treating the conflict as a war, and the other is treating it as a criminal action. An approach for treating a criminal action is never going to win a war, and continuing in the current vein will prolong the conflict indefinitely.
Is that about right, DM?
By the way, I've given the matter some thought, and I'm not sure that I agree. I think that the approach of treating it as criminal activity, in conjunction with eliminating the environment that sponsors nothing but criminal activity, could be successful. Unfortunately, neither Israel nor U.S. is taking this approach, and I agree that no real progress is possible with the current approach. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Death Mage
Raving Lunatic
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 11:31 pm Post subject: 60 |
|
|
I feel no need to defend my position in response to Samadhi's statement, because responding to it only gives his pathetic attempt at a link credibility. The only way it should be responded to is with dismissal.
However, I will respond to you, Zag. I do believe that it is possible for an attack against civilian targets to be as valid, proper, and justified in a war as any other type of attack. I do NOT believe that all attacks on civilian targets are justified, or even truly military attacks.
But yes, you have the gist of my argument correct. As for your idea, I think it might have merit, except for one point. Where, exactly, are you trying to "eliminate the environment"? Within your own country? Sure, that you can do. But if the problem is external, how do you propose to interfere with others' society? I suppose you could claim the same "self-defense" that you could use to justify a war, but how, exactly do you change their environment WITHOUT a military victory, and without simply giving them more excuses to use against you? Remember, if they're at the point where they are killing themselves to get to you, they are well past the point of telling lies to justify their cause and recruit others.
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 11:36 pm Post subject: 61 |
|
|
| Quote: |
| It's cute how you try to link me with that incident in an attempt to discredit my previous statement. |
I made no attempt to do that. I was reading through blogs and came across a post by Mark Steyn. He mentioned this incident (and also how there has been virtually zero mainstream press about it) and I thought I would post it in this thread as it is disgusting. As I was posting I remembered that someone mentioned "civilian targets" being military targets. Scrolling back I saw it was you so I referenced you. I was providing context, not a critique.
Regardless, here is what you said:
| Quote: |
| In a war, civilians are military targets. There is no nice way to say this, but your goal in a war is to make the other side stop fighting, either by eliminating their ability to fight, or by breaking their will to fight. Attacking primarily civilian targets can further both goals. It can also backfire and strengthen resolve (as happened on 9/11). But to say it's not a valid tactic is just fantasy. |
I am not following why my linking this incident, which the Palestinians clearly see as a legitimate act of war, as somehow not an obvious connection.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 2:14 pm Post subject: 62 |
|
|
Teachers' Unions......
Their real priorities.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Tired of his old title
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 3:32 pm Post subject: 63 |
|
|
| Death Mage wrote: |
| As for your idea, I think it might have merit, except for one point. Where, exactly, are you trying to "eliminate the environment [that fosters criminality]"? Within your own country? Sure, that you can do. But if the problem is external, how do you propose to interfere with others' society? I suppose you could claim the same "self-defense" that you could use to justify a war, but how, exactly do you change their environment WITHOUT a military victory, and without simply giving them more excuses to use against you? Remember, if they're at the point where they are killing themselves to get to you, they are well past the point of telling lies to justify their cause and recruit others. |
I'm talking about what happened in Ireland. The centuries-long war is pretty much over, and it happened mostly by improving the economy in the areas that had been so hot. If people have something to live for, then they are less likely to want to kill themselves.
On the other hand, the situation in Gaza might be too far gone. As you say, there are so many lies being told and people are so ready to believe them, that it might be impossible. In which case we should just nuke the entire area and be done with it. It's about time we broke our oil addiction, anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Death Mage
Raving Lunatic
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 4:09 pm Post subject: 64 |
|
|
| Zag wrote: |
| I'm talking about what happened in Ireland. The centuries-long war is pretty much over, and it happened mostly by improving the economy in the areas that had been so hot. If people have something to live for, then they are less likely to want to kill themselves. |
True, there is precedent. I never really followed the situation in Ireland. Which side really helped the prosperity there?
I sincerely hope the situation in the middle east isn't that far gone. The recent riots to change the power structure there may be a step in the right direction.
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Tired of his old title
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 4:54 pm Post subject: 65 |
|
|
I'm not completely sure what, exactly did it, though I think it was a combination of things. First, I believe the governments changed their policies to encourage foreign investment, and second, the violence died down enough that a few companies were willing to do so. (I know that one of the early investors was Lotus, where I was working at the time, they opened a fairly large office to specialize in I18N (software lingo for internationalization), and all their products were translated there.) The investment created a positive feedback loop, and there was an economic boom there through the 90's.
I don't know, however, whether such a thing is conceivable in Palestinian lands. I think the median education level is a lot lower than in Ireland, and I think the laws still discourage outside investment. The latter could be fixed if Israel were more interested in ending the conflict than in punishing the Palestinians. I'm not sure, however, that the investment would happen.
(I left Lotus in 1992, and it was bought by IBM in, I think, 1994. I moved to a couple of different companies, but in 2005 the company where I was working was also bought by IBM, and I found myself once again in the Lotus division, where I still am. And we still do a lot of the translation in Ireland). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tooscaredtomakeanaccount*
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 1:06 am Post subject: 66 |
|
|
If "their real priorities" refers to the TITLE of the video, then that does seem disappointing, even if it is petty to have posted it in a thread which has otherwise been discussing brutal murders and horrible violations of people's civil liberties.
But the CONTENT of the video is just saying "we need money to continue to provide our services" and "we want to continue to provide our services, but not at the expense of people's workplace rights"; the former being common sense and the latter only being annoying to those who believe unionization of workers should actually be stopped altogether.
Is this really the kind of thing that "revolts, dismays, and angers" the rich in this country, while they're fine with a concerted attack by politicians in power against the constituents of their opponents? Is that somehow okay because it's targeted against a part of the market that conservatives don't care for? It seems like such a regressive and authoritarian mindset to actually hold; I don't understand how a site for generally very enlightened intelligent people can not be more outraged by the fact that politicians are abusing their power so flagrantly, against the will of those they are supposed to represent. This isn't the libertarian thread though, so at least you're being honest. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 4:59 am Post subject: 67 |
|
|
I'm pretty much anti-union, but what he says here is being distorted. He's not talking about priorities. He's not saying they care more about money and power than education. He's saying that money and power account for why they are effective as advocates. Caring about education is wonderful, but it doesn't translate to effectiveness. He says it so clearly, and I keep seeing it distorted into something completely different. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 2:26 pm Post subject: 68 |
|
|
| extro...* wrote: |
| He's not talking about priorities. He's not saying they care more about money and power than education. |
It's not their "care" that concerns me. This whole matter is about money, power, and influence. The teachers' unions have the money and power to influence elections and put their "friends" in office. The subsequent contract negotiations are merely an exercise in a couple of friends dividing up taxpayer money, and the outcome is pensions and policies that the taxpayers can't afford.
There are too many such situations, e.g. defense contractors influencing elections to gain favorable war policy. The teachers' unions have become just another "special interest" and whether they care about one thing or another, their actions are purely motivated by what's best for the teachers, without regard for the students OR the taxpayers.
And I disagree.....his words are clear to me...he IS talking about priorities. "Education is important but it must not be done at the expense of employee rights. That's too high a price to pay." Agree or not...that's prioritizing, no?
And it revolted, angered, AND dismayed me. 
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Tired of his old title
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 2:41 pm Post subject: 69 |
|
|
So what is your opinion on Campaign Finance Reform, Pablo? It was one issue on which I used to agree strongly with John McCain, until he lost to George W. in 2000 and he gave up on the idea.
I wasn't able to find (in 2 minutes of looking) an official position on the issue on the Tea Party web site, but certainly other sites are claiming that the Tea Party tries to block any Campaign Finance Reform. It seems self-evident that you aren't going to block the flow of taxpayer money out the door until you stop the recipients from being able to buy elections. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Death Mage
Raving Lunatic
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 4:16 pm Post subject: 70 |
|
|
| Some unimportant people wrote: |
| Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. |
I don't see "unless it's political" in there.
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 4:33 pm Post subject: 71 |
|
|
| Zag wrote: |
| So what is your opinion on Campaign Finance Reform, Pablo? |
Good question....this issue puts me in a box. Campaign reform is likely to conflict with my beliefs about liberty and government control, while the current system leads to all kinds of corruption, as I indicate. The only real answer is a more astute electorate whose vote would not be influenced by a media blitz. Of course, that's not likely to happen. It's like the only real answer to abortion is to eliminate unwanted pregnancy.....nice in theory.
So, I don't have a good answer for you.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Tired of his old title
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 6:13 pm Post subject: 72 |
|
|
| Death Mage wrote: |
| Some unimportant people wrote: |
| Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. |
I don't see "unless it's political" in there. |
I agree that the Bill of Rights should be strongly respected, and any laws that infringe on it should be extra carefully considered. On the other hand, the country's founders, whom you sarcastically refer to as "unimportant people" were not omniscient, perfect beings. They were humans like the rest of us who had their own biases and who couldn't possibly foresee all circumstances. That's why we have a process for making amendments to the Constitution.
My point is to accept reality for what it is, rather than what you'd like it to be. If you are not happy with government of the wealthy, by the wealthy, and for the wealthy, then you have to find some way to make sure that the wealthy do not have MORE freedom of speech rights than the rest of us, which is the state we are in today.
As Pablo correctly pointed out, your only other option is "a more astute electorate whose vote would not be influenced by a media blitz." Good luck with that.
If you're not willing to do either, then don't complain about the government taxing us and giving the money away stupidly. That's what those wealthy people with extra access to freedom of speech want, so that's what we'll get if you don't do something to stop them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Death Mage
Raving Lunatic
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 6:28 pm Post subject: 73 |
|
|
Actually, Zag, they DID foresee this circumstance, and many, many others. That's why they allowed the Constitution to be changed, amended, as necessary. Anything short of that for campaign finance reform, however, is simply illegal, as the Supreme Court already ruled.
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 7:33 pm Post subject: 74 |
|
|
| Zag wrote: |
If you're not willing to do either, then don't complain about the government taxing us and giving the money away stupidly. That's what those wealthy people with extra access to freedom of speech want, so that's what we'll get if you don't do something to stop them. |
And....good luck with that.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JF*
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2011 11:24 pm Post subject: 75 |
|
|
| Pablo wrote: |
| Zag wrote: |
| So what is your opinion on Campaign Finance Reform, Pablo? |
Good question....this issue puts me in a box. Campaign reform is likely to conflict with my beliefs about liberty and government control, while the current system leads to all kinds of corruption, as I indicate. The only real answer is a more astute electorate whose vote would not be influenced by a media blitz. Of course, that's not likely to happen. It's like the only real answer to abortion is to eliminate unwanted pregnancy.....nice in theory.
So, I don't have a good answer for you. |
Have you considered that the need for Campaign Finance Reform would not be necessary under a more ideal government?
Unfortunately, we have a government that has seemingly unlimited access to tax us and spend at their discretion, or legislate into the economy rules that deform capitalism (health insurance monopolies for example).
We can keep trying to instill the perfect government, and forget about campaign finance reform....or use it as a stopgap until things improve. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Tired of his old title
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 12:01 am Post subject: 76 |
|
|
| JF* wrote: |
Have you considered that the need for Campaign Finance Reform would not be necessary under a more ideal government?
Unfortunately, we have a government that has seemingly unlimited access to tax us and spend at their discretion, or legislate into the economy rules that deform capitalism (health insurance monopolies for example).
We can keep trying to instill the perfect government, and forget about campaign finance reform....or use it as a stopgap until things improve. |
You seem to have missed my point. I'll try to make it more clearly.
You get the government (i.e. the politicians) that gets elected.
The politicians get elected, for the most part, by out-spending their opponents. This is because most voters are swayed by the media blitz that Pablo referred to.
The only politicians who can outspend their opponents are the ones who are getting lots of money from somewhere. (Ross Perot excluded, obviously, but he is rare.)
Where do they get their money? Well, many people give a little to politicians they agree with, but mostly they get their money from lobbyists.
Why do lobbyists give the politicians the money? So that they will vote the way they are told to.
How are these politicians, the only ones with a chance at winning, told to vote? They are told to vote to give a whole lot of taxpayer money to the organizations that those lobbyists represent.
Conclusion: You can't fix government until you fix this cycle. People are basically paying the politicians to give them taxpayers money. What are they paying with? I'll give you three guesses. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 1:05 am Post subject: 77 |
|
|
| JF* wrote: |
Have you considered that the need for Campaign Finance Reform would not be necessary under a more ideal government?
|
No, because I have no idea how we're going to get a more ideal government. We have the government we deserve.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JF*
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 11:54 am Post subject: 78 |
|
|
Ouch Pablo! The truth hurts.
Zag,
I get our point. I was stating that if the politicians did not have the ability (constitutionally, perhaps) to tax us relentlessly to spend our money on a over-inflated defense budget, then the defense lobby would have little to lobby for. I have probably over-simplified things to an unrealistic stance.
I am for campaign finance reform. I like the English system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 4:06 pm Post subject: 79 |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The teachers' unions have the money and power to influence elections and put their "friends" in office. The subsequent contract negotiations are merely an exercise in a couple of friends dividing up taxpayer money, and the outcome is pensions and policies that the taxpayers can't afford. |
Don't forget that their "friends" will also vote against any voucher system. Despite promising results they will vote against it because they're protecting the teachers' monopoly.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 4:12 pm Post subject: 80 |
|
|
| Quote: |
| then you have to find some way to make sure that the wealthy do not have MORE freedom of speech rights than the rest of us, which is the state we are in today. |
Which was actually one of the central issues in Citizens United. How do you and I make our voice heard against fat cats like Pablo? We form a corporation to pool our money and get our voice heard. That's one of the reasons the ACLU filed and amicus brief in the Court.
We do NOT say "You can talk, but you can't because arbitrary condition X makes it "unfair" (qq)" or set up funds or whatever that pick winners and losers. That's not government's job.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
