Oh crap I didn't see the "direct" part. I focused in on the "democracy".
Where the fuck did I mention anything about direct democracy?!
Where the fuck did I mention anything about direct democracy?!
People are smart enough to live their lives without someone wiping their ass for them. They're certainly smart enough to vote.rdx-fx wrote:
direct democracy → voting by every idiot with a malformed half-assed opinion spoonfed to them by mass media → Idiocracy → worse thingsMacbeth wrote:
Disenfranchisement -> loss of political legitimacy -> ??? -> bad things
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Where does he talk about paying to vote? All I see is the suggestion of a written test ( which would probably weed out 80% or more potential voters) and the mention of reviving the old land owners system, which is kinda stupid in this day and age.Shahter wrote:
but... but but but FASCISM!!11one1111!1!rdx-fx wrote:
Only if you let everyone vote.Shahter wrote:
Democracy is impossiblepractical.
Need to weed out the uninformed, intellectually challenged, psychotically unempathetic, emotionally imbalanced, and mentally immature.
Y'know, the core constituency of the modern US Democratic and Republican parties...so, basically, you suggest a "pay-to-vote" system, huh? you know, you already have one of those right there - your elections are outright bought. what's the point?I'd (half-jokingly) suggest a written test requirement to become a licensed voter.
Multiple choice test on government structure, current events, candidate positions, and such.
Oh, and proof of citizenship, proof of residency.
Or.. just go back to a modified version of "only property owners can vote", removing the race and sex restrictions.
Make X-meds a full member, for the sake of 15 year old anal gangbang porn watchers everywhere!
Everyone pays property taxes except the homeless
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Yay for leasing the property you "own" from the government!Jay wrote:
Everyone pays property taxes except the homeless
Make X-meds a full member, for the sake of 15 year old anal gangbang porn watchers everywhere!
Well yeah, but I meant that renters pay property taxes too, just indirectly through their rent.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
People are often too busy making a living, to be bothered with informing themselves on political issues.Jay wrote:
People are smart enough to live their lives without someone wiping their ass for them. They're certainly smart enough to vote.
Hence my (admittedly impractical) suggestion of a voter qualification test.
There are tests to drive, tests to be a professional engineer, tests to be a medical doctor, tests to certify you know how to open a computer case (CompTia A+), and everything else in between.
Not completely unreasonable to require a basic written test to qualify to vote.
No need to forcibly disenfranchise people (i.e "must be a property owner").
Just, if you want to vote, spend a few hours of study to prove your knowledge of the issues at hand and political system.
People have revolutions, bleed and die for the opportunity to vote.
Is it unreasonable to ask a citizen to spend (for example) 4 hours studying before being qualified to vote?
Same amount of time a high school student would need to study for their U.S Government class final exam.
Give them a 50-100 page booklet to study, then a multiple-choice exam.
Like the DMV test to get a driver's license.
If you can't be bothered to put the smallest effort into making an informed & educated vote, why should your vote have any influence on how your government is run?
Last edited by rdx-fx (2012-04-03 12:11:28)
How do you plan on making such a test unbiased? Isn't the whole point of having everyone take US government to create informed voters? If you feel that doesn't work, why would this? All you would do is create a system where even fewer people vote, and the ones that do, do so because they have a vested interest in the outcome i.e. special interest groups. You don't think unions or environmentalists or other lobby groups won't ensure their members pass? Great give them even more power over the apathetic.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Have fun in Russia where 104% of the population votes incumbent.Shahter wrote:
but... but but but FASCISM!!11one1111!1!rdx-fx wrote:
Only if you let everyone vote.Shahter wrote:
Democracy is impossiblepractical.
Need to weed out the uninformed, intellectually challenged, psychotically unempathetic, emotionally imbalanced, and mentally immature.
Y'know, the core constituency of the modern US Democratic and Republican parties...so, basically, you suggest a "pay-to-vote" system, huh? you know, you already have one of those right there - your elections are outright bought. what's the point?I'd (half-jokingly) suggest a written test requirement to become a licensed voter.
Multiple choice test on government structure, current events, candidate positions, and such.
Oh, and proof of citizenship, proof of residency.
Or.. just go back to a modified version of "only property owners can vote", removing the race and sex restrictions.
Well know, letting everyone vote doesn't always work. If you have a three party system, 2 from the libertarian cause and one for the authoritarian, if you split the votes % into 33% each, the winning party could be the authoritarian party that 66% are opposed to.rdx-fx wrote:
Only if you let everyone vote.Shahter wrote:
Democracy is impossiblepractical.
Need to weed out the uninformed, intellectually challenged, psychotically unempathetic, emotionally imbalanced, and mentally immature.
Y'know, the core constituency of the modern US Democratic and Republican parties...
I'd (half-jokingly) suggest a written test requirement to become a licensed voter.
Multiple choice test on government structure, current events, candidate positions, and such.
Oh, and proof of citizenship, proof of residency.
Or.. just go back to a modified version of "only property owners can vote", removing the race and sex restrictions.
So next voting cycle the parties must split. They will either move more towards authoritarian to win more votes and may do so, but the other party isn't going to win more libertarian. So the shift of 66% is now towards 33% of voters.
Democracy doesn't always give you what the majority of voters want or need. Preferential voting helps, but that can often weaken a party which can become a "me too" party and hardly acts as an opposition on matters it should.
Last edited by AussieReaper (2012-04-03 14:06:50)
Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky, Naomi Wolf et al are suing the Obama administration regarding the indefinite detention of American citizens that the NDAA authorized. Good on 'em.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
lawlz
CIA under bush tortures people: YOU FUCKING DEVIL
NDAA under Obama: You still cool homie.
tis good being black.
CIA under bush tortures people: YOU FUCKING DEVIL
NDAA under Obama: You still cool homie.
tis good being black.
Not every mass shooting is thread worthy.
you mean this one: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/ap … california
Yeah someone thought I should have made a thread about it
oh, i do.Doctor Strangelove wrote:
Have fun in Russia where 104% of the population votes incumbent.Shahter wrote:
but... but but but FASCISM!!11one1111!1!rdx-fx wrote:
Only if you let everyone vote.
Need to weed out the uninformed, intellectually challenged, psychotically unempathetic, emotionally imbalanced, and mentally immature.
Y'know, the core constituency of the modern US Democratic and Republican parties...so, basically, you suggest a "pay-to-vote" system, huh? you know, you already have one of those right there - your elections are outright bought. what's the point?I'd (half-jokingly) suggest a written test requirement to become a licensed voter.
Multiple choice test on government structure, current events, candidate positions, and such.
Oh, and proof of citizenship, proof of residency.
Or.. just go back to a modified version of "only property owners can vote", removing the race and sex restrictions.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
shitrdx-fx wrote:
, psychotically unempathetic,
inane little opines
Russia working on electromagnetic radiation guns
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/technology/ … 6317396841
bad to the bone
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/technology/ … 6317396841
bad to the bone
"Mr Putin has described the guns, which use electromagnetic radiation like that found in microwave ovens, as entirely new instruments for achieving political and strategic goals."
If it comes from Russian, its for the furthering of political and strategic goals. If its from 'Murica, its for our own protection and anti-terrorism efforts
If it comes from Russian, its for the furthering of political and strategic goals. If its from 'Murica, its for our own protection and anti-terrorism efforts
Make X-meds a full member, for the sake of 15 year old anal gangbang porn watchers everywhere!
romney says obama spent too much time at harvard. obama attended harvard for three years. romney attended for four years
Tu Stultus Es
http://qkme.me/3ondob
Last edited by ROGUEDD (2012-04-05 10:10:48)
Make X-meds a full member, for the sake of 15 year old anal gangbang porn watchers everywhere!
ARLINGTON, VA—Reportedly fed up with complicated and protracted operations overseas, top Pentagon officials acknowledged this week they were desperate to be given just one straightforward, no-nonsense military engagement they could really knock out of the park.
"Given all these messy, ambiguous conflicts we've been fighting against enemies you can't even put your finger on, what we could really use right now is a plain old war against a clear-cut bad guy employing conventional tactics and weaponry," said Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "No roadside bombs or plainclothes militants hiding out among innocent civilians—just a fair fight where two sides shoot at each other and someone wins. That's it."
"If Congress or our commander in chief could pull a few strings to make that happen, I swear we could totally nail a war like that, no question," Dempsey added. "The sort of thing where you go in, blow up a number of actual tanks and jets, declare victory, plant a flag, and then exit—that's all we're asking for."
Citing the country's long history of winning wars against sovereign nations with actual standing armies, the Pentagon's top brass repeatedly assured reporters they would "completely wipe the floor" with such an opponent if given the chance, and promised they would make America "very, very proud."
Additionally, military leaders said that engaging in such a conflict "would be a huge confidence boost for [them] right now."
"We'd be really grateful if the United States became embroiled in a war requiring us to bomb munitions factories, engage in aerial dogfights, or torpedo battleships," said Marine Corps commandant Gen. James Amos, noting that when it comes to facing actual armies with actual naval and air weaponry, the U.S. is "great at that stuff." "I guarantee it would be an absolute slam dunk for us."
"Come on," the four-star general added, "we really, really need this."
Admitting they "can't even look at a map of the Middle East anymore," members of the Joint Chiefs also said they were still skittish about Southeast Asia and would prefer to "stay as far away as possible" from any situation in which the term "insurgency" might apply.
Additionally, the nation's top generals stressed it was vitally important that any new conflict have a clear standard by which to measure victory, front lines "that are actually lines," and conditions under which dropping bombs actually weakens the enemy instead of rallying more people to its cause and making it stronger.
"While we'd gladly take almost any conventional military confrontation, we'd really prefer to liberate an oppressed citizenry that would be unconditionally happy when we arrived," said Gen. James Mattis, head of U.S. Central Command. "Ideally, we'd like to avoid that whole mixture of violent loathing toward us as occupiers and utter dependence on us as peacekeepers. That's not really our strong suit."
"I should also point out that it's been a while since we last had a good old-fashioned European war," Mattis continued. "Because that sort of thing might just do the trick for us. We know the area, the culture, and all the languages real well. Give us a war with a nice, dependable Western front, and we could bang that sucker out in our sleep, no problem. Just something to think about."
Pentagon leaders also said they were open to the option of a sovereign nation attacking the United States directly, stating that nothing mobilizes a country or boosts troop morale faster than the defense of one's home soil. In addition, they noted that a war in which America is not seen as the aggressor is "exactly the type of thing we're talking about here."
"Ultimately, we just want a chance to unleash our full land, air, and sea power on actual uniformed soldiers for a change," Army chief of staff Gen. Ray Odierno said. "Believe me, if America let us do that, I've no doubt we could totally lay waste and come home victorious."
As of press time, the Navy had positioned its entire Atlantic fleet along the coast of Portugal and informed the president and Congress it was "ready to go" if given the word.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
i read that already
Tu Stultus Es
shifty is gonna cream his pants
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat