Sanding our assholes with 150 grit.

the strength of the United Stated Of America

http://rawstory.com/news/afp/US_judge_refuses_to_stop_states_fro_07252007.html

if bush wins total control of the federal government, he is suddenly going to find that that the states themselves become less and less cooperative.

in my moments of optimism I do think that maybe the US is a hell of a lot more flexible than people give it credit for.
Permalink worldsSmallestViolin 
July 26th, 2007 7:31pm
United States

duh.
Permalink worldsSmallestViolin 
July 26th, 2007 7:31pm
gotta love states rights, and a limited role of the federal government... which is what the conservative republican party is supposed to stand for...
Permalink Send private email arg! 
July 26th, 2007 7:44pm
the states rights are also a hell of a lot harder to take away without people noticing.

at the moment (and up until now) they mostly bend over to the federal government because of a feeling that they are a part of a greater whole and working toward something that they all believe in.

if the greater whole suddenly became the opportunity to be bushs personal bitch, I think there are a number of states that would balk.

prediction:  if bush gets control of the federal government in the way he clearly wants, he will suddenly find out exactly what it means for something to be an independent sovereign entity.
Permalink worldsSmallestViolin 
July 26th, 2007 7:48pm
"which is what the conservative republican party is supposed to stand for..."

Supposed to, but doesn't. I got burned once.
Permalink Send private email Philo 
July 26th, 2007 7:52pm
twice.  remember?  you voted for bush _twice_
Permalink worldsSmallestViolin 
July 26th, 2007 7:54pm
Huh?

I don't easily forget voting for an idiot like Kerry.
Permalink Send private email Philo 
July 26th, 2007 7:56pm
states have been fighting back over the environment the past few years... actually initiating judicial action against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) because shit under Bush administration is seriously that messed up that they began getting called the Environmental Pollution Agency
Permalink Send private email arg! 
July 26th, 2007 7:58pm
you voted for _kerry_?  WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU?  why do you hate america?

seriously, didn't voting for bush teach you _anything_?  dont vote for incompetent assholes. 

doesn't matter how much worse the other guy is, dont vote for someone you actually wouldn't want as president.


for fucks sake.  it was bad enough when I thought you voted for bush.  but to know you voted for kerry is..well..ok, not _worse_ as such, but certainly just as bad.

gah.  I hate internet forums.  I never realised how many of people were idiots until I actually started talking to them.
Permalink worldsSmallestViolin 
July 26th, 2007 7:59pm
in reality based arguements on US politics, the lesser of two evils is teh best you can have
Permalink Send private email arg! 
July 26th, 2007 8:04pm
defeatist crap.  in reality based arguments on US politics the biggest danger to our nation is the idea that we must vote for either a democrat or a republican.
Permalink worldsSmallestViolin 
July 26th, 2007 8:05pm
the 3rd party only serves as a tool to drain votes from one or the other
Permalink Send private email arg! 
July 26th, 2007 8:10pm
the other parties only have any incentive to follow our wishes so long as we punish them by not voting for them when they dont.
Permalink worldsSmallestViolin 
July 26th, 2007 8:11pm
Funny, it was people thinking like that who voted for Nader that let Bush win in the first place.

Way to go, wSV.  You've learned nothing in 7 years.  Just think what you won't learn in the next two.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 26th, 2007 8:17pm
"Funny, it was people thinking like that who voted for Nader that let Bush win in the first place. "

no, it was the idiots voting for bush because the democrat options looked pretty bad who let bush win in the first place.

if the people who didn't like nader, bush or whoever the other guy was was had voted for a third party..._someone_ would still have gotten in, sure, but at least the vote would have come a hell of a lot closer to ACTUALLY REFLECTING THE DESIRES OF THE VOTERS.



"Way to go, wSV.  You've learned nothing in 7 years.  Just think what you won't learn in the next two."

way to go STH.  you just provided an argument in favour of voting for someone you dont actually want in power.

any other gems you want to share?  maybe how to get to yes by pushing for a no?

your stupidity offends me.
Permalink worldsSmallestViolin 
July 26th, 2007 8:23pm
Russia has ballots that include "none of the above" as a valid vote.

Till then, yeah... life ain't no fairy tale, wSV
Permalink Send private email arg! 
July 26th, 2007 8:34pm
Why yes, wSV.  If you're such a perfectionist that you won't vote for a consensus candidate who at least WON'T INVADE another country, then yes, I think you're part of the problem.

Oh, wait, I forgot.  You're in New Zealand!  You don't get to vote in America at all.  Never mind, YOU can be as perfectionistic as you want to be.  It's your advice to Americans that sucks.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 26th, 2007 8:36pm
which is why the idea of voting for someone you dont want is so sublimely stupid.

hey, if we had all done that last elections, the republicans would still be in charge of the house.


split the vote.  halve it.  quarter it.  once 40% of the vote is actually going to third parties, people are going to start seriously noticing third parties.

once people start pushing for third party candidates to be included in debates, third party candidates will begin to be included in debates.
Permalink worldsSmallestViolin 
July 26th, 2007 8:38pm
"Why yes, wSV.  If you're such a perfectionist that you won't vote for a consensus candidate who at least WON'T INVADE another country, then yes, I think you're part of the problem. "

yes, I am.  because there is _always_ some issue that people use to justify voting like idiots.
if it wasn't invading Iraq, it would be saving the children or freeing the internets.

the two main parties are past masters at creating issues that cleanly divide the populace and make it seem urgent that the other party not get in.  its what they _do_.

by buying into that crap, you are essentially just bending over and begging them to give it to you again, only harder.

give up.  say 'fuck them'.  let them be responsible for their own actions and make sure that you take responsibility for yours.  use your vote to vote for the people you _want_ to be in power.

if the wrong people get in and start doing the wrong stuff, protest it.

"Oh, wait, I forgot.  You're in New Zealand!  You don't get to vote in America at all."

Im american.


Sorry I called you stupid STH, clearly you have moved beyond stupid.  you have entered the deeply hidden fantasy realm of the truly retarded.
Permalink worldsSmallestViolin 
July 26th, 2007 8:43pm
Wait, what?  Well who's in New Zealand then?
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 26th, 2007 8:48pm
I am currently living in new zealand.


astonishing I know, but it is actually possible to live in one country, but have citizenship in another.

Ive taken the liberty of drawing up a quick diagram:


Live in      | Have Citizenship for
-------------------------------
New Zealand  | America


take your time.
Permalink worldsSmallestViolin 
July 26th, 2007 8:51pm
say all you want, if people voted for the least of all evils rather than their ideological perfect match, we would not be in Iraq right now.

Mexico has a total of 8 nationally recognized political parties, with 3 major dominate parties. Do you think the will of the electoriate is any better expressed there?
Permalink Send private email arg! 
July 26th, 2007 8:53pm
"Do you think the will of the electoriate is any better expressed there?"

uhh...yes?


certainly I bet the olitical discussions are more wide ranging in scope, have greater depth and tend to be about things like the domestic economy.

here in new zealant they have a proportional representation system.  each party gets seats in the house based upon their % of votes.  minimum of 5% of the votes to be given the seats.

a government is formed by the first group of parties who manage to swing together enough of the others to form a majority bloc in parliament.

final result:  surprisingly stable, very representative and nobody likes or trusts the government.

ok, so its no more perfect than any other system, but it _is_ representative.
Permalink worldsSmallestViolin 
July 26th, 2007 8:57pm
well you'd be wrong :)

The elections held in 2000 marked the first time since the 1910 Mexican Revolution that an opposition candidate - Vicente Fox of the National Action Party (PAN) - defeated the party in government, the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI).
Permalink Send private email arg! 
July 26th, 2007 9:02pm
...and that defeat represents a failure to express the will of the people...how?  exactly?
Permalink worldsSmallestViolin 
July 26th, 2007 9:04pm
i.e. more choices don't mean better choices, more informed choices, etc.
Permalink Send private email arg! 
July 26th, 2007 9:04pm
well no, and white doesn't mean black either.  but more choices _does_ mean more choices, right?

so unless your argument is that greater choice is a bad thing, might I respectfully suggest that perhaps the US political system might benefit from more choice?
Permalink worldsSmallestViolin 
July 26th, 2007 9:09pm
sure. write in convicted felon LaRouche. He actually has a HUGE cult following in DC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche

Ross Perot would have been an absolute disaster for the united states as well.

No... more choices for choices sake is not the answer.
Permalink Send private email arg! 
July 26th, 2007 9:16pm
nope.  but its a _part_ of the answer.

hey, this is fun, can you sound this stupid about just _any_ topic?  or do you just have a real lack of olitical comprehension?
Permalink worldsSmallestViolin 
July 26th, 2007 9:18pm
I possibly meant 'political' comprehension.

rereading though, its hard to be sure.
Permalink worldsSmallestViolin 
July 26th, 2007 9:18pm
"which is what the conservative republican party is supposed to stand for"

My understanding is the modern Republican party was founded by Lincoln, and its main intent there was as an anti-states rights party.
Permalink Practical Economist 
July 26th, 2007 9:28pm
In Lincoln's case, "states rights" was a euphemism for pro-slavery.
Permalink AMerrickanGirl 
July 26th, 2007 9:29pm
"blah blah third party blah blah nader blah blah throwing your vote away"

I supported Nader. Couldn't vote for Kerry. I might have voted for Dean, but he pulled out before I had a chance to get enthusiastic about it. I liked the fact that his wife was some kind of psychotherapist who was real blase about him running.
Permalink Practical Economist 
July 26th, 2007 9:31pm
"states rights" was a euphemism for pro-slavery

Sure that's what the federalists want you to think.

Look at the other thread here about making the internet safe for children. So everyone who opposes that is against the little children. In reality, the government doesn't give a fuck about the little children - do they have health care? Fuck no! Government is using this to push through ways to require internet surveillance and tracking, to squelch free speech and track down dissidents.
Permalink Practical Economist 
July 26th, 2007 9:33pm
"In Lincoln's case, "states rights" was a euphemism for pro-slavery."

<shrug> I would argue that technically individual states _do_ have the 'right' to practice slavery.  certainly throughout history they have done so.

it is worth reminding you what a state is: it is a separate sovereign entity. 

that is something I think bush is forgetting as well.  its easy to forget, over time we have started to think of US states as being merely equivalent to a named bit of earth...like regions or suburbs or whatever.

but they are not.  they are sovereign entities in their own right. 

and, ultimately, they are where the line is drawn....in the event that agreement cannot be found within the federal system, this federal republic will revert to its component parts...
Permalink worldsSmallestViolin 
July 26th, 2007 9:40pm
"it is a separate sovereign entity."

But "Americans" don't see it that way.  I'm not even sure this idea of sovereign entities within larger entity is sustainable.  I guess we'll see how it works out for the EU.
Permalink Send private email Wayne 
July 26th, 2007 9:43pm
unfortunately the EU has screwed the pooch.  they forgot the whole checks and balances thing.

still what can you expect from a bunch of incompetent frenchies?
Permalink worldsSmallestViolin 
July 26th, 2007 9:45pm
The EU has sovereign nations checking and balancing each other. It saves the EU from committing very much that is evil, but it also stops anything much at all from getting done at all.
Permalink Send private email Colm 
July 26th, 2007 10:52pm

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: July, 2007 Other topics: July, 2007 Recent topics Recent topics