Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Drew on January 22, 2005, 11:19:37 pm
-
saturday 8:00 am
for some stupid reason i go to one of their monthly breakfasts. im vice chairman of the young republicans in my area so breakfast was $3 for the ****tiest crap iv ever eaten. there was a sonic drive in across the street i coulda gotten a half decent breakfast sandwich. anyway im sitting with the two biggest dumbasses ever and at 8 am dumbasses are just what you need to turn boring **** into less boring ****. so the old people are all talking about how its awesome that Republicans hold Atlanta and how much awesome stuff is gonna happen.
With my tax dollars. the new Republican slogan should be, smaller government through better programs. There trying to convince me im happy because the state is funding another gawd awfull tech school that churns out plumbers and electricians.
So the Department of Transportation chairman speaks. Hes all like " Georgia needs 56 billion dollars for the road work that it wants, but we only make about 5 billion a year, and one more cent would give us an extra 70 million a year." given the Rebublicans track record, they will have no problems raising taxes. But they dont call it a tax, they call it a user fee or a toll road. Im not stupid and when "georgia needs money" + "we dont have enough" are mentioned, it can only mean higher taxes.
So i stick it to em. I ask the dude in front of about a hundred Republicans, "would you raise taxes to get that extra one cent" and the dudes like "No, that would be political suicide, but you might see some toll roads and user fees" Another person asks, " Whats the difference bettween a user fee and a tax?" and a person in the back shouts "Nothing"
Department of transportation chairman studders. So im like your gonna say you wont raise taxes, but only raise them under a different name.
Dirty, lying, bastards.
-
Politics is a beautiful art.
Hahahaha.
Sorry I can't even type that without including virtual laughter.
-
Yep. That's politics for ya.
-
Wo, you must have been naive beforehand...........
-
So, you're the vice chairman of the young republicans in your area and you hate them. Interesting.
-
shhh, keep it down!
You'll blow his cover.
-
Surely you're not lumping in all republicans with these sleazy spin-merchants. The majority of true conservatives stand for lower taxes and greater freedoms.
-
Yeah, all those who don't start a politic career.
-
I am anxiously awaiting the internal breakdown of current US Republican party into at least
1) Fiscally conservative, socially more liberal state-rights driven republicans
2) Christian neocons
3) dunno
Same with the Democrats:
1) More leftist federalist liberal wing
2) Centrists (mix between R1 and D1)
Seriously, I find it repulsive that US is stuck with inane two-party system, where one party either has all power or none (save those situations where they can just stall the government/senate/congress with stupid filibustery^2). Also, even as I hate the current administration, the Democrats seem to be pretty worthless and unable to do anything at all.
-
. . . they dont call it a tax, they call it a user fee or a toll road . . .
Unless I've gone completely doolally over here, a tax is different to a user fee. A tax will hit everyone (even if they don't use the toll road) where as a user fee will only hit those who do.
Besides, isn't it better to pay higher taxes and get better a service? Would you make a chair out of rotten wood because that was the cheapest material?
-
"I hate republicans"
Hmm, well, I could say I told you so. But that would just be a horrible cliche.
-
This is precisely why, after my bloodless (relatively speaking) coup, all politicians will be butchered horribly.
-
Bloodless meaning there's only you who don't bleed, i guess...
-
No. Bloodless as in 'I'll poison everyone'.
-
What if they cough up blood?
-
That's why it's not totally bloodless.
Plus, I'm only half-counting the blood of their first-born, who would - of course - be butchered horribly when anyone stood against me.
-
Originally posted by SadisticSid
Surely you're not lumping in all republicans with these sleazy spin-merchants. The majority of true conservatives stand for lower taxes and greater freedoms.
Unfortunately the words "conservative" and "Republican" no longer seem to be synonymous nowadays. :sigh:
@an0n: Seems to me that butchering all the politicians afterward would negate the bloodlessness anyway. ;)
-
Yeah, but it's all about campaign promises.
"I promise not to butcher anyone to secure my powerbase"
*kills everyone butcherlessly*
"See?"
*kills everyone butcherously to secure national security*
-
what Janos said. The ideal would be D2.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
what Janos said. The ideal would be D2.
I'm a social democrat, but that form of government policy would propably have quite a few problems in country like USA.
Scandinavian model for me all the way.
-
A question : why a two-party system ? Why not a three-party one ?
-
Because it's harder to choose the lesser of three evils.
-
Originally posted by Skippy
A question : why a two-party system ? Why not a three-party one ?
It's just kinda how it happened... two parties emerged back when the Constitution was being ratified - those who wanted the Constitution and strong federal government (Federalists) and those who didn't (Democratic-Republicans). The Federalists fell apart but were replaced by the Whigs. The D-Rs fell apart and were replaced by the Democrats. The Whigs fell apart and were replaced by the Republicans.
Basically, there are two parties because there have always been two parties. Any third party that tries to gain power isn't able to because people don't want to leave one of the two major parties, fearing that a mass exodus will weaken their side and leave the political situation to be entirely controlled by the opposition.
-
You forgot about the Antifederalists, and the fact that the Democrats are the Democratic-Republicans.
-
Oh, so that's the same thing as the Force, but both are Dark sides, no ? :p
-
Originally posted by Moiraine Sedai
Unless I've gone completely doolally over here, a tax is different to a user fee. A tax will hit everyone (even if they don't use the toll road) where as a user fee will only hit those who do.
Besides, isn't it better to pay higher taxes and get better a service? Would you make a chair out of rotten wood because that was the cheapest material?
its still the state taking my money. some people use the same logic to justify a sales tax. "you dont have to buy stuff, so you dont have to pay the sales tax" which is basically saying "you dont have to live a decent life if you dont want to pay the tax".
how bout a zero party system
-
Originally posted by an0n
Because it's harder to choose the lesser of three evils.
:lol:
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
You forgot about the Antifederalists, and the fact that the Democrats are the Democratic-Republicans.
That and that the (Radical) Republicans used to be the **** until McKinley.
-
I think most people still don't realize or are too ignorant to see that there are also other parties. Personally I'm normally Libertarian.(sp?)
-
They hate you back. Probably.
-
Originally posted by Thrilla
I think most people still don't realize or are too ignorant to see that there are also other parties. Personally I'm normally Libertarian.(sp?)
No. We all see them, we just know that they don't really mean anything. I can throw my vote to the party that fits my views perfectly like democracy should be, but if it's Independent or Green or Prohibition or whatever, I might as well not vote at all.
-
And you call that democracy.
-
Originally posted by Thrilla
I think most people still don't realize or are too ignorant to see that there are also other parties. Personally I'm normally Libertarian.(sp?)
lolbertarian.
Why?
-
Originally posted by Janos
lolbertarian.
Why?
It's just my views on most things.
-
Originally posted by Janos
I am anxiously awaiting the internal breakdown of current US Republican party into at least
1) Fiscally conservative, socially more liberal state-rights driven republicans
2) Christian neocons
3) dunno
Same with the Democrats:
1) More leftist federalist liberal wing
2) Centrists (mix between R1 and D1)
Seriously, I find it repulsive that US is stuck with inane two-party system, where one party either has all power or none (save those situations where they can just stall the government/senate/congress with stupid filibustery^2). Also, even as I hate the current administration, the Democrats seem to be pretty worthless and unable to do anything at all.
The thing is that most centrists are conservative. Don't any European-types go crazy now because USA conservatism is different than what is seen in other countries (definitely different than what is percieved). Regardless, as someone said, conservative isn't synonymous with Republican (but more often than not it is). Which is why Democrats get elected regardless of the fact that most Americans are conservative (from time to time, and they are usually very conservative Democrats: Clinton, not Kerry). If Kerry had the brains to be at least slightly economically conservative, or decide to agree with the President on a few issues, and got a plan, he would have won easy. But he's a looney at heart :) .
While it's true that we don't have a two-party system explicitly, the rules lend to that. Because our election is first past the post, one group will always gather enough issues and support to have a majority. It's common sense, it's how you get your issues heard and dealt with, it's how our republican system is democratic. If a party get's large or threatening (like the Green party), then its issues are absorbed by another party. The problem right now is that the Democrats don't seem to have a unifying issue (except to try to get Bush or beat republicans, which are both purely reactionary and weak, and bad politics because they don't know what they'd do if they won). The Republican Party now stands for change, they have become the progessives while the progressives have become reactionary. It's sad, I hope some great leader can get into the Democratic party and trim some of the fat that's holding them down.
The only way for multipe parties to arise in America would be for the election system to change, so that on a national level, each party that gets a certain % of the votes gets a certain % of the seats in congress. This is the primary mechanism that allows form multiple party systems in Europe. (there are other contributing factors as well)
-
Personally, my views lend to a more libertarian philosophy. I would vote for third parties, specifically the Libertarian party, in smaller, local elections where there'd be an off-chance of winning, assuming the candidate is palatable. In larger elections, I'd probably go the lesser of two evils route. For example, voting against Hillary in a little over a year....
-
Originally posted by vyper
And you call that democracy.
Ain't it great though?
-
Originally posted by Vaelinx
If Kerry had the brains to be at least slightly economically conservative,
And Bush is? He turned a 5 trillion projected surplus into a 5 trillion projected deficit.
-
And before anyone starts mentioning the words "Clinton Recession" or "9/11", I must point out that to get rid of a deficit, you must either:
A. Raise taxes or
B. Decrease expenditures
Bush's entire strategy of raising discretionary spending (which has increased even not counting military costs) while cutting taxes is flawed in a very basic manner.
-
Originally posted by Gank
And Bush is? He turned a 5 trillion projected surplus into a 5 trillion projected deficit.
I'm not defending Bush. But Kerry was pretty much running for Isolationism... Bush has been "spending like a Democrat". Which ruffles the feathers of a large portion of the conservative base (the middle/majority/swing voters). If Kerry or his campaign had played it right, then they could have taken advantage of that... Instead of repeating that he was going to take from the rich to give to the poor... (the good old Democrat Robin Hood Tax message that they run on 9/10 times)
Partisanism is a necessary evil. But things will change, there are times in America's history where 3rd partys arise, and sometimes dominate, but then another dies and it goes back to a balanced two party system. Everyone keeps talking about how "polarized" we are now. I wish that were true, because then the parties would make sense. But that's simply not true. The Democrats have an excellent chance to retake DC, if only they would agree with the Republicans some of the time. But right now they are reactionary, and acting desperate. Intellegent moderates capable of compromise need to gain control of the DNC. Otherwise the tempering liberal voice will be lost from Capitol Hill until they can rearrange themselves.
-
Comprimising would mean ****ing up your country. They'll get back in again when the conservative base realises just how badly things are going, unfortunatly it took 12 years last time it happened, 12 years of Bush and his cronies is going to leave your country in the gutter.