h a l f b a k e r yWarm and Fussy
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
| |
What do you call 100 politicians at the bottom of the
ocean? |
|
| |
Goes along with all those other myths, politicians are warm and dry to the touch, like all the other reptiles. |
|
| |
That's not a myth, [n_m_r]. The reptilian ones are dry and warm, it's the amphibian ones (related to fish) that are cold and slimy. |
|
| |
[+] If it was good enough then, it's good enough now!
I think they should undergo the dunking chair thingy,
too! |
|
| |
If they survive and thus are determined to be full of hot air, the
hot air should be squeezed out with pressing stones. |
|
| |
Politicians should be treated like milk. If they're over
a month old, they really need to be thrown out. |
|
| |
Agreed. They also ought to be vacuum sealed in glass bottles
and left on constituents' doorsteps until their opinion is asked
for. |
|
| |
You forgot to mention that, prior to being
placed in the glass containers, they should be
Pasteurised. |
|
| |
You're overgeneralizing here. Everybody knows that the
politicians from MY party are good, honest, hardworking
people who are trying to do what's best for the country and
their constituents, despite the concerted efforts from the
politicians from YOUR party, who are subhuman lying evil
sacks of shit who would like nothing better than to destroy
the country and screw over as many people as possible so
as to benefit their cronies who keep them in power. |
|
| |
You want the terrorists to win, don't you? Go on, admit it. |
|
| |
An unworthy comment, [bigsleep]. It's all fine and
dandy to post cliche' ideas about how if only I were
in charge, I'd surely do better than this [sorry, 21] --
actually, it's not really ok, but haha, carry on.
|
|
| |
Once you leave those kind of cliches, and switch to
the types you went to here, this "idea" will quickly
lose any redeeming chuckle worthiness and probably
require drowning. |
|
| |
Actually, he's right. The Republican Party, if their current
antics continue unchecked (which they won't), could
destabilize not only the American government but
also American society to the point of overthrow, or worse,
complete breakdown. On the other hand, any outside
terrorist group with that amount of power would only unify
and strengthen the nation and be met by extreme force. |
|
| |
whereas the Democratic Party, if their current antics
continue unchecked (which they won't), will drive us
half way to the North Korean standard of living, and
certainly to the point of overthrow or complete
breakdown. Don't see the point of repeating myself.
|
|
| |
[marked-for-deletion] cruelty |
|
| |
Our current state of affairs, including the "antics"
referred herein, are all a result of how ObamaCare
was passed.
|
|
| |
But the recent unabashed embrace of progressivism
by the left is genuine cause for concern. |
|
| |
Since we're all here, would somebody explain to me
exactly what it is about Obama's proposed health
reforms that has everyone up in arms?
|
|
| |
Over here, we only get scattered reports of the
colonies. |
|
| |
It's a new transfer of wealth from the young to the
old and sick |
|
| |
Oh right. So, a social care system? No wonder you
don't want it over there. I mean, old, sick and poor?
Fuck 'em. |
|
| |
Two basic problems: nobody knows what's in it; and all of
the details we have found out have turned out to be
different than promised.
|
|
| |
Just as a personal experience: my son couldn't get
healthcare prior to the ACA. With it, he still can't; but now
he will get to pay a tax for the privilege of being denied.
They've promised there won't be criminal charges...
however, I doubt the US government will feel those
promises are binding on the IRS. |
|
| |
Ah, right. Sounds like the early years of the
National Health Service - lots of worries and
scares.
|
|
| |
Trust me - you don't want anything like the
National Health Service. Anything that gives
people the right to medical care, and which sees
it as a national responsibility to provide it, is a
bad move.
|
|
| |
The only way to keep an economy vibrant is to
ensure that the people at the bottom of the pile
do not benefit. They're at the bottom for a
reason - be it indolence, disability, age or
circumstance. As soon as you start worrying about
them, you open up a bottomless pit into which
money drains like, well, pretty much like water.
|
|
| |
What you really need is a fair system: "From each
according to his whim; to each, according to his
income." |
|
| |
As I always say: if I can take two people who are at
loggerheads, and bring them close enough together
to glass one another, I feel my time has not been
completely wasted. |
|
| |
That's a little harsh; after all, it's well known
that U.S. politicians are the best that money
can buy …
|
|
| |
// The only way to keep an economy vibrant
is to ensure that the people at the bottom of
the pile do not benefit … As soon as you start
worrying about them, you open up a
bottomless pit … //
|
|
| |
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe
free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me
…"
|
|
| |
… so they can be deported at public
expense. Unless, of course, they are healthy,
wealthy, and caucasian.
|
|
| |
There seems to be a contradiction or two
here … |
|
| |
//after all, it's well known that U.S. politicians are the
best that money can buy//
|
|
| |
That might have been true a decade or two ago, but
the dollar doesn't go as far as it used to. I certainly
wouldn't pay full price for any of the clowns we have
in office right now. |
|
| |
That's a benefit, shirley ? "The Democratic
Party: bringing political graft within the price
range of the man in the street".
|
|
| |
There's an election slogan for you …
|
|
| |
At one time, only the super-rich could afford
to suborn politicians and judges, although as
most of them were already judges and
politicians anyway it was all a trifle
incestuous and recursive. But now, thanks to
the universal franchise, that's been put right.
We forsee that before long, ordinary citizens
will be able to buy their own politician on an
instalment plan, or hire purchase.
|
|
| |
Democracy on easy terms. Wonderful. |
|
| |
// There seems to be a contradiction or two here //
|
|
| |
Just two?! That's all you can spot? The United States is one
gigantic working contradiction. The only reason it works as
well as it does is because the contradictions balance more
or less evenly and support one another, like two leaning
stacks of books that hold each other up. |
|
| |
I have to call into question tc's MFD. I realize this idea might seem cruel, but I assure you that water does not feel pain.
|
|
| |
Regarding the Statue of Liberty, it was called 'Liberty Enlightening the World'. It was not called 'Liberty Inviting the World'. It doesn't say anything about providing tax-supported government benefits to these huddled masses, either. |
|
| |
We are attempting a transition into a full blown
welfare state with open borders.
Mathematically, this is not sustainable, except for
the "Breakout" effect (see Gingrich's book) -- the
fact that
the country continues to generate spurts of
incredible wealth building, because as bad as
things are, we
continue to be the best place for John Galt, and
given the US' physical and market size and ethnic
diversity, this
is quite difficult to replicate anywhere else.
|
|
| |
Of course the irony is that these spurts continue
to increase the gap between the rich and the
poor, and thus
spur the progressive movement into more
ultimately unproductive convulsions, since it is
truly incapable of
actually achieving its goals, as demonstrated in
over a century of trying.
|
|
| |
In any case, though, the post scarcity economy is
on its way, and will stand all of this on its head. |
|
| |
We didn't have the Welfare State we now live in when the Emma Lazarus poem was written. The USA was called the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Free Lunch. |
|
| |
//We are attempting a transition into a full blown welfare state with open borders//
This is interesting, primarily because in the UK the reverse is happening, and it isn't pretty. |
|
| |
Well, sooner or later you run out of other people's
money. |
|
| |
// Canadian politicians //
|
|
| |
Don't give them paper money- they'll just try
to eat it. Coins are good, as they like shiny
things … or maybe beads, mirrors, little brass
bells, stuff like that. Think budgie-cage decor
…
|
|
| |
//Well, sooner or later you run out of other people's money//
This aphorism gets to the heart of the problem with the UK right wing's attitude to money: it assumes that the collection of wealth is an end in itself. The problem that the UK left wing has is that the only people who disagree with that assumption are people who don't have any money. |
|
| |
// people who don't have any money //
|
|
| |
Since when has their opinion mattered ? |
|
| |
Anyway, as to the idea itself... I have through no fault of my own, spent a fair old amount of social time with an MP. While his political views are, to me, uncompresensible, I have come to the realisation that this MP is, in fact, a human being who loves, is loved, who gets tired and angry and, as far as i can tell, puts his trousers on one leg at a time. In short, in spite of being (a) a professional and highly ambitious politician and (b) possessed of political ideals that make me despair, he is human. And while he himself may want to repeal the Human Rights Act, i rather approve of its aims, so we shall have to find less infringy ways to thin the pool of pols. |
|
| |
calum, I know plenty of conservatives and several
liberals. I can assure you of two things:
|
|
| |
1. Not a single one of them thinks money is an
end in of itself.
|
|
| |
2. Every single one of them likes having money.
|
|
| |
That being the way of the world, you can debate
spending it more productively -- I think many of us
wouldn't mind the high taxation levels if we saw
our money being spent wisely. But it is too easy
for governments to spend it, so long as it is other
people's money, and it is too easy for the
majority, who, for all the horrors of Romney's 47%
statement, are net takers, to keep voting
themselves more.
|
|
| |
Look at education, theoretically the key to
unlocking the future for the disadvantaged. New
York City spends more than $20,000 per pupil.
Literally, leave taxation levels exactly where they
are, and allow every parent to shop for schools
using that money. Hell, hire a governess for your
child -- and if you have 3 -- that's a $60,000
budget! And that's just a tip of the iceberg.
|
|
| |
Other people's money. Too easy to spend. |
|
| |
That's cool, I am not here to debate political philosophy with you - you have your views and I have mine, such as they are. If there is one thing that the internet as taught me, it is that I am ill-equipped to engage with Americans on American politics, which is why, of late, I have been careful to talk only of those of the fuckers who govern my country. |
|
| |
//I am ill-equipped to engage with Americans on
American politics// as are most Americans :)
|
|
| |
Don't you govern your country? Or are you in the
Brand camp? |
|
| |
//many of us wouldn't mind the high taxation levels if we saw our money being spent wisely.//
|
|
| |
Right, I think everybody in the country is in agreement on this point. The constant argument stems from all those different opinions on what is wise. The Democrats think it is wise (and morally correct) to support the impoverished and help lift them out of poverty. The Republicans seem to think it is wise (and morally correct) to let the impoverished rise or fall based entirely on their own hard work and determination and fuck the ones who struggle more than others.
|
|
| |
I could respect the Republicans' view on this (want to respect it, in fact) if it weren't for one thing: the same Republicans who want to let the poor stay poor and let the hungry starve if they can't make it on their own and vociferously defend the right to stand one's ground and use lethal force in self defense are the SAME Republicans who want to ban abortion and gay marriage because of their Christian faith. The hypocrisy, blatant and unadulterated, which runs rampant in Republican politics really alienates a lot of us.
|
|
| |
You want to defend lethal force defense laws, fine. Don't claim to be a Christian. Christ said 'turn the other cheek' not 'stand your ground'. Stand-your-ground laws are therefore as unChristian as you can get. You want to support abolishing or defunding welfare, fine. Don't claim to be a Christian. Christ said give to the needy unconditionally. Telling poor people you don't owe them anything is about as unChristian as you can get. You want to ban abortion and gay marriage, too fucking bad. The constitution clearly states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Banning abortion and gay marriage on the basis of religion is therefore as unconstitutional as you can get. |
|
| |
//Don't you govern your country?//
Nope. You are thinking of Her Majesty's Government. However, because I am a chinless, charmless arsehole of slender moral strength and weapons grade self-interest, I can understand why you might mistake me for HMG, so I am not going to take offence.
|
|
| |
//Or are you in the Brand camp?//
Nope. I can definitely understand why people, young people especially, think that politics is a game played for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many and therefore are looking for someone to lead them towards the replacement of the current system but I cannot understand why (heaven forfend this actually happen) a movement might coalesce around a man who has so far skited along on the back of the single talent of talking sufficiently rapidly that people are confused into believing him possessed of anything more than a scatterbrained intelligence and a 1/5 gill of wit. |
|
| |
A bit of an oversimplification, [21]. I would alter it
slightly, like so:
|
|
| |
The Democrats think it is wise (and morally
correct) to support the impoverished and help lift
them out of poverty. Since they define poverty
not as children with bloated bellies and flies in
their eyes, but as a portion of a statistical
distribution, they have created an indestructable
strawman that can never be defeated, and
demands more and more as top incomes rise.
|
|
| |
The Republicans seem to think it is wise (and
morally correct) to let the impoverished rise or fall
based entirely on their own hard work. The
Republicans understand the moral hazard of
rewarding behavior that leads to dependency,
while punishing success, and are terrified by the
fact that as the ratio of voters shifts towards
those that are net takers, any filter on the federal
governments coercive taxation power will
dissapear, and with it, economic growth. |
|
| |
I added to my annotation. |
|
| |
[21] rest assured I am not a Christian, and I don't
have disagreement with much of what you said
there
(defining that as I support the Second Amendment
and I do not think the government has any
business
in defining marriage. I am ambivalent morally on
abortion, but will certainly acknowledge that
wider
practice of birth control would benefit society).
Generally I agree that the party is hypocritical on
those issues (though that list is looong in my view
on the other side). You may want to check out
the linked blog -- The Republitarian -- run by a
member of my family who is also a figure in
the Libertarian Party.
|
|
| |
[calum] on Brand we agree. |
|
| |
The second amendment says nothing about using lethal force in a noncombat altercation walking down the street in a suburban neighborhood. It says you have the right to keep and bear arms and that right shall not be infringed. The right to use those arms (ie, the circumstances under which they can legally be used), however, CAN be regulated. |
|
| |