quote:

---

Originally posted by AlmasterGM:
Sure - I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, just offering two possible scenarios. With the 3/5 option, I think you are grossly overestimating the political intelligence of the average citizen and that a LOT of bad policies will be passed. There is a very high chance that, especially given you do this ever year, you will eventually end up with a sample where 3/5 of the people believe in one of the wacky ideas I stated earlier. That, or a charismatic one is able to persuade them.

---

If a truly terrible group ends up in power, they'll only last a year anyway. I'll still take random selection every year over systematic selection of power-hungry nepotists every 4.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlmasterGM:
Also, if everyone is selfish and these people are never going to be re-elected, what is to stop them from agreeing to pass lots of selfish policies... like liquidating Microsoft and giving themselves all the money (or something along those lines). Rationally, that seems like the best choice. Just because these individuals didn't SEEK power doesn't mean they won't ABUSE it.

---

Your argument here is a good one. Of course they will need to be regulated as well. Their rule need not be absolute: the public will need to be able to veto their decisions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlmasterGM:
And yes, I know I am nitpicking and that "every system will have problems." I'm not asking you to create utopia. However, your arguments against that status quo are nitpicks as well. America has existed for 200 years and, save for a couple of relatively harmless scandals, things are running fairly smoothly. This discussion is about small issues, not systems as a whole.

---

You consider our current state "running pretty smoothly?" What about the fact that the government is broke? How about the rampant Clinton-Bush nepotism/borderline ruling families? How are we going to pay for Social Security? It's all about the budget, and we're not able to pay our current debts, let alone the ridiculously large numbers that we're going to owe within a generation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlmasterGM:
Why wouldn't they be motivated? If people are motivated to exert their will over others right now, who is to say they would lose this desire if placed among a group of other randomly selected people? My argument isn't that random people will do the convincing - it's that your samples are random, so it is concievable that someone with high political persuasion skills ends up in the group and is able to sway them under his command.

---

If everyone in the group is being selfish, they'll be busy fighting each other and not passing policy. Which is a good thing. And of course there will be some type of organization, but again, that's why there's a short term lenghth. By the time a group can organize to consistently vote as a bloc, the term is close to over.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlmasterGM:
I never said that selfishness is bad - I'm contending that people don't HATE selfless actions. People want what is best for themselves, but society has advanced to the point where we don't mind seeing other people live well too. There's no reason why this principle does not apply to governance. If a politician can make a decision that benefits his constituency at no real expense to himself, there's no reason why he wouldn't do it.

---

I don't think selfishness is always bad. Economics demands it. Perfect selfishness is the same as perfect altruism, in much the same way that perfect capitalism is the same as perfect socialism. Sadly, nothing is perfect. Oh and as for your point about people being able to be selfish and yet benefit society: check out this article. We are not rational, that's for sure. We are not capable of not minding seeing others live well.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlmasterGM:
You've answered your own argument. "The majority of Americans oppose gay rights." Yes, he is being selfish because he wants to be elected, but he's also pleasing the majority of the voters in America, which is the JOB of an elected official. Yes, we both know that gays deserve rights, but the point of a democracy is that there is a right to be wrong, so to speak. Tyranny by the socially liberal majority is still tyranny from a democratic standpoint. This is precisely what I mean with regards to harmless selfishness - it is possible to do ones job and be selfish at the same time.

---

Remember how Obama vowed to end "Don't ask, don't tell?" Remember how many gay activists cheered his defense of gay rights? I don't know the numbers, but I'm willing to bet that a fair number of the voters who voted for him support gay rights.

Tyranny by the majority is, by definition, a feature of democracy. Sadly, American Democracy is not just tyranny by the majority, but worse, it's tyranny by the elected few. All of which is eliminated in pure anarchy.

__________________
This message brought to you by MOTL's very own fancy biologist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by garry anderson:
This is were I pointed out that you miss-read my point, read it one more time and see if you can put the thought together. I'll give you a hint. "objective IN helping" not objective IS helping. Completely different meanings and since you shot off on an irrelevant tangent, I didn't address it.

---

I'm going to try and say this as gently as I can. WTF are you talking about? What is the difference? You claim "the Democrat's main objective in helping create better government is to help it's peeople become more equally 'intelligent, well-informed, and rational.'" I claim the opposite. The Democrat's main objective is not to create better government, and certainly not trying to help its people be "more equally intelligent, well-informed, and rational." Rather, the Democrat's goal, as I've claimed multiple times, is to consolidate power in the hands of the few, namely themselves.

quote:

---

Originally posted by garry anderson:
am a Liberal person, meaning I am centrist, open to both conservative and socialist views and picking the best of each to live by. The US only has a right wing and center party, there is no left wing party. The right wing destroyed it some 55-60 years ago with the same methods Hitler used barely a decade earlier. Fear Mongering & propoganda.

---

Ah yes, Godwin's law. /facepalm

Oh, and by the way, forgive me if I'm skeptical of your claiming to be liberal in the strict sense of the word. You're a liberal in the American sense, that is to say, just as bad as a conservative in the American sense.

quote:

---

Originally posted by garry anderson:
There's some traces of left wing efforts remaining, unions, social security, etc. but the party has been destroyed.

I'm not pro democrat or partisan so much as I am truly just anti-having people use force, violence, fear, money, security or fallacy to empose their will on me. In my experience, these are the tools of the Republican Party.

---

Also, the Democratic Party. You think they don't use fear-mongering, violence, fallacy, and money? You'll want to open your eyes a bit there.

quote:

---

Originally posted by garry anderson:
[B]For Example, abortion. If it's my child, I have a right to give input but it's not my body, and not my decision. I can't make the decision so I should respect the other persons decison, even though I don't like it. If it's not my child, it's none of my business and I should stay they hell out of it. Why can't pro-lifers be prolifers with their own bodies and leave everyone else the hell alone. Why do they feel the need to impose their will on everyone.

---

The Devil's Advocate would demand that in order for your argument to be self-consistent, you must not put your opinion on others, including the pro-lifer's right to abhor abortion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by garry anderson:
[B]Same thing with Gay marriage, what difference does it make to us straight people? It doesn't affect us at all, It's none of our business. Allowing them to have the same legal rights as every other committed couple is wrong? I don't see how or even how it's any of my business, of course they should be equal. It's in the constitution, isn't it?

---

First of all, I'm not straight, in case you didn't know that. So yeah, it's kind of important to me.

Also, it's not in the Constitution. The Constitution does not demand equal rights for all sexual orientations. It took the 14th Amendment to push through explicit rights for women. Where's the Amendment regarding sexual orientation? In fact, the Constitution's 10th amendment explicitly says that any rights not demanded by the Constitution are to be reserved to the states, which means states may well be within their rights to deny gay rights.

quote:

---

Originally posted by garry anderson:
I really hate generalizing but a lot, not all, of conservatives just can't stay the hell out of anyone else's business and they use despicable methods to force their oppinions on anyone who's different than them.

---

/facepalm

__________________
This message brought to you by MOTL's very own fancy biologist.

3 Major flaws with american Government that Iprobably will never see a change to in my life...but need to change.

1. Gay Marriage. Every man sadly is not equal in the US. If your gay you are for sure not treated the same as a straight person...mainly for one simple rule....you can't get married. What happened to separation of church and state? Did that get chucked out the window? If a justice of the peace can wed a man and woman then they should be able to wed a same sex marriage as well.

2.Affirmative Action. The worst idea EVER. Yes I know it's suppose to promote the idea of hiring within the realms of race...but it's literally the worst idea ever, based on the fact that it's only used as a quota when used in general and really to be fair when hiring a person you should be hired based on qualifications of the job.....race/creed/religion or lack there of/sexual orientation should have no business to do with getting hired. Last time I checked it wasn't on the job application either. For now I guess it can stay, because there are way to many idiots out there who hire based on quota and their beliefs...which is bull****. If I'm running a company I want the best person for the job, period. I don't care if you rape sea creatures in your free time...as long as you get the job done, what you do in your free time is not my business.

quote:

---

Originally posted by daner:

3.The US adopts a "national" language. Every country in the world has a language in which the majority of its people speak....the US should make it mandatory that everyone be able to speak English. It might sound racist, it might sound cruel....but think about it for one second, if you cant communicate as a whole how the **** can you resolve conflict within? It would make a WORLD of difference if everyone who was a US citizen was able to speak fluent cohernet english.

---

Gosh, I wonder how we ever managed to communicate as a nation these last 200-odd years without a national language.

No, sorry. Try again.

quote:

---

Originally posted by garry anderson:

I am a Liberal person, meaning I am centrist, open to both conservative and socialist views and picking the best of each to live by. The US only has a right wing and center party, there is no left wing party. The right wing destroyed it some 55-60 years ago with the same methods Hitler used barely a decade earlier. Fear Mongering & propoganda.

There's some traces of left wing efforts remaining, unions, social security, etc. but the party has been destroyed.

---

Yes, which explains a Democratic president, Senate, and Congress.

quote:

---

I'm not pro democrat or partisan so much as I am truly just anti-having people use force, violence, fear, money, security or fallacy to empose their will on me. In my experience, these are the tools of the Republican Party.]

---

quote:

---

I really hate generalizing but a lot, not all, of conservatives just can't stay the hell out of anyone else's business and they use despicable methods to force their oppinions on anyone who's different than them.

---

There's your contradiction for you, AGM.

That's horrifying--all the more so because I'll be moving to Edmonton for a year or so in the fall.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pyr0ma5ta:
Very astute. Indeed, my proposal is based upon the Athenian system. You earn 2 effort points for recognizing the similarities.

---

!
Two points! Can I trade them in for cents?

If I missed the part where you mentioned that, my apologies. From the rest of your post, I clearly didn't catch all that you had to say, although I'm still quite skeptical about its feasibility. Thanks for clarifying, though.

quote:

---

I agree with every statement in this paragraph. However, you know full well that given the American socialism-phobia, even mentioning any one of these policies is political suicide. None of these will happen in America while people still remember the Cold War and McCarthy.

---

Yeah. It probably wouldn't fly in Canada either. The major obstacle, even if it was instituted briefly, would be making it stick. At the slightest hint of trouble, we'd all cry and demand a return to the old system, despite the fact that we've been willing to see the current economic model through some truly horrendous times. And, of course, a number of people just aren't down with giving up their four-car garages.

Still, I'm sure we can work towards that incrementally. As far as I'm concerned, the more services that the government provides, the better--so long as they truly are services, and free us up to actually enjoy our lives.

quote:

---

I presume that you've taken some form of Economics class, since you're well educated. After getting through the traditional introductions and paperwork, what's the first thing out of the professor's mouth?

"Economics is based on the assumption that greed is good."

How then do you propose to take greed out of economics, if it's the very keystone? We are taught from day one to envy the very rich. Everyone is taught that "he who dies with the most toys wins." How do you propose we teach people that we should value time rather than material objects? Seems to me that greed for "stuff" is ingrained into our very human nature.

---

In the interest of full disclosure: I have never taken an economics course. I've recently taken an interest in the discipline, which means that I've read a fair bit on the subject and talked to friends who are in the discipline, but I've never taken a formal course. So much is based on flimsy assumptions that pretend to be scientific, however, that I'm not sure that I could stand to take economics courses as such. If I end up having to stay in Alberta for much more than a year, I might just shell out a couple of thousand dollars and acquire an MBA for my own personal edification, but I'm not too thrilled with the prospect of living in Neo-Texas. Anyway...

The way to take greed out of economics is, to my mind, not that difficult: it requires that we be willing to admit some, but infinitely less. Show our citizens that higher taxes don't just take away their money when these taxes go to establish efficient government-run services: it's money that they would be spending on that anyway. Expand the scope of services to cover food, shelter, water, electricity, healthcare, education, and maybe also phone/internet communication, and tell our citizens that from now on, they work solely to provide for their own disposable income, which can be used for just about whatever else they want. If they want four-car garages, they can buy them; if they want more food, they can buy that. If they want cosmetic surgery, they can buy that too. Yes, their income is lower overall, but it's still proportionally the same, since they don't need to worry about providing for themselves.

In short, redirect their greed to luxury goods, and don't allow it to overtake basic services.

That system too would have a number of problems, and there's no way of pushing it through immediately. But if we keep it as a goal, and successive governments manage to raise taxes while also drastically increasing their services (and stripping the private sector back), it could work. Our Liberal party proposed a significant change to our economic system last year: it was called the "green shift". Although it was rejected by one of the smallest voter turnouts in our history, that's the way to do it, and it's far from a dead idea: look for it to resurface once our tyrannical government is overthrown. Small changes that accrue a critical mass over time.

On the issue of referendums: they don't necessarily make things more democratic. California, for example, has been screwed for years by a referendum that decided not to increase taxes beyond a certain threshold; in order to raise more state revenue, they then have to hold all sorts of referendums on other, parallel measures that are essentially just a tax, but can't be called that. I don't quite remember the specifics of what I'm talking about (I think it was the 1978 property tax; yes, it was out of control at the time, but today the state feels the repercussions of its actions), but that's not entirely relevant. The point that I want to make is that referendums can be used to overrule/turn other democratic processes, and so to provide for a majority's vision at the expense of an otherwise protected minority. The recent vote on Proposition 8 (that's the one, right? For "gay marriage"?) is a good example of this. It seems to me that the minority just loses out when it comes to referendums, and so I'm quite skeptical about their use and "democratic" power.

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each.
I do not think they will sing to me."
-T.S. Eliot

The only path to victory in the “war on terror” is the moral high ground. Sadly, it's buried beneath the rubble of your nation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
Rejoice, ye Americans! The Texas school board has moved to Alberta. Crap.

That's horrifying--all the more so because I'll be moving to Edmonton for a year or so in the fall.

---

Good riddance! You can keep it!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
!
Two points! Can I trade them in for cents?

If I missed the part where you mentioned that, my apologies. From the rest of your post, I clearly didn't catch all that you had to say, although I'm still quite skeptical about its feasibility. Thanks for clarifying, though.

---

Not at all, I didn't mention it, and was actually surprised that anyone picked it up. I did make a mention of Athens in the politics thread, long ago, but I didn't expect anyone to actually take me seriously.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
In the interest of full disclosure: I have never taken an economics course. I've recently taken an interest in the discipline, which means that I've read a fair bit on the subject and talked to friends who are in the discipline, but I've never taken a formal course. So much is based on flimsy assumptions that pretend to be scientific, however, that I'm not sure that I could stand to take economics courses as such. If I end up having to stay in Alberta for much more than a year, I might just shell out a couple of thousand dollars and acquire an MBA for my own personal edification, but I'm not too thrilled with the prospect of living in Neo-Texas. Anyway...

---

Fair enough. I was highly disillusioned with the field of economics when I took a class in it. It's such an important field grounded on such poor basic assumptions. The whole idea of trying to quantify things like utility just made no sense to me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
The way to take greed out of economics is, to my mind, not that difficult: it requires that we be willing to admit some, but infinitely less. Show our citizens that higher taxes don't just take away their money when these taxes go to establish efficient government-run services: it's money that they would be spending on that anyway. Expand the scope of services to cover food, shelter, water, electricity, healthcare, education, and maybe also phone/internet communication, and tell our citizens that from now on, they work solely to provide for their own disposable income, which can be used for just about whatever else they want. If they want four-car garages, they can buy them; if they want more food, they can buy that. If they want cosmetic surgery, they can buy that too. Yes, their income is lower overall, but it's still proportionally the same, since they don't need to worry about providing for themselves.

---

Yes, but you're raising taxes. KILL IT WITH FIRE. You've seen how Obama's "let the tax on the rich return to where it was 8 years ago" plan nearly destroyed him and earned him all manner of unsavory nicknames. If raising it 3% got him branded as a socialist by the rich and the ignorant poor alike, I don't see how moving toward a welfare state can possibly ever happen. It is probably far more viable in Canada, as you guys are leaps and bounds ahead of us in that regard, but even still, I imagine that raising taxes is popular exactly nowhere, EVEN if it's clear that it's for the public good. Because nobody recognizes public good, even when it stares them in the face. When people think about what the government has done for them recently, nobody thinks about the new road or the new school. They think about how much they're NOT getting, namely, how much they're missing out of their paycheck. This is basic shortsighted greed at work. Unable to see past the "today" marker, we are unable to effect real social change, so here we stand.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
In short, redirect their greed to luxury goods, and don't allow it to overtake basic services.

That system too would have a number of problems, and there's no way of pushing it through immediately. But if we keep it as a goal, and successive governments manage to raise taxes while also drastically increasing their services (and stripping the private sector back), it could work. Our Liberal party proposed a significant change to our economic system last year: it was called the "green shift". Although it was rejected by one of the smallest voter turnouts in our history, that's the way to do it, and it's far from a dead idea: look for it to resurface once our tyrannical government is overthrown. Small changes that accrue a critical mass over time.

---

Time is the one thing I don't have. I don't plan to live forever, you know.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
On the issue of referendums: they don't necessarily make things more democratic. California, for example, has been screwed for years by a referendum that decided not to increase taxes beyond a certain threshold; in order to raise more state revenue, they then have to hold all sorts of referendums on other, parallel measures that are essentially just a tax, but can't be called that. I don't quite remember the specifics of what I'm talking about (I think it was the 1978 property tax; yes, it was out of control at the time, but today the state feels the repercussions of its actions), but that's not entirely relevant. The point that I want to make is that referendums can be used to overrule/turn other democratic processes, and so to provide for a majority's vision at the expense of an otherwise protected minority. The recent vote on Proposition 8 (that's the one, right? For "gay marriage"?) is a good example of this. It seems to me that the minority just loses out when it comes to referendums, and so I'm quite skeptical about their use and "democratic" power.

---

You're correct on both counts in California politics. The referendum you speak of hobbled state spending and is largely to blame for the mess that Ahnohd finds himself in today (though, I must admit he's doing a semi-decent job given the hand he's been dealt). There just isn't money to pay for basic things like schools, roads, and utilities like power plants. And yes, Prop 8 is indeed the rule of the majority.

HOWEVER. I am going to disagree with you on this point: this is exactly democracy in action. Democracy is by definition tyranny of the majority. So the majority, in both cases, is allowed free reign to make policy, no matter how stupidly short-sighted or unfair.

__________________
This message brought to you by MOTL's very own fancy biologist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bugger:
Gosh, I wonder how we ever managed to communicate as a nation these last 200-odd years without a national language.

No, sorry. Try again.

---

You know there are many places in the US where English really isn't the #1 language spoken. How would you like to be a nurse or doctor, and you get patient who needs medical attention, and they can't speak english? Believe me it happens more than you would think and not just in places like Florida/California/Texas where there have always been a higher amount of Spanish/Mexican American immigrants. When your job is on the line possibly if you screw up by giving them the wrong medication, or just not being able to ask them whats wrong and diagnose the situation you'll wish everyone was able to speak one Universal Language.

quote:

---

Originally posted by daner:
Case and point...ask Nderdog...err Nderwife. The growing need for health care of people in America and the growing rate of immigrants who cannot speak English make it very difficult for those who work in health care.

---

Neither of us is in the health care field, actually. I used to work for the County Health Department as their Information Services guy, but that's as close as we get. I do know that the clinic has at least 2 interpreters in the building at all times, as well as access by phone to language lines that can do interpretation as well. Most spanish speakers are covered by live bodies, but I'm aware of at least one mandarin speaker as well as a couple others who speak various languages that I don't recall offhand.

__________________
There's no need to fear, UNDERDOG is here!

All your Gruul Nodorogs are belong to me. Trade them to me, please!

Report rules violations.

Just wanted to be clear.

__________________
"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each.
I do not think they will sing to me."
-T.S. Eliot

The only path to victory in the “war on terror” is the moral high ground. Sadly, it's buried beneath the rubble of your nation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pyr0ma5ta:
What is the difference? You claim "the Democrat's main objective in helping create better government is to help it's people become more equally 'intelligent, well-informed, and rational.'"

I claim the opposite.

---

The opposite would be "the Democrat's main objective in helping create better government is to help it's people become more equally UN'intelligent, UN-informed, and IRrational.'"

I never mentioned anything about the democrats #1 objective overall, just the main objective IN creating a better government. Only as it applies and relates to creating a better goverment, nothing more. So the following, however relevant to some other point wasn't relevant to the one I was making.

quote:

---

The Democrat's main objective is not to create better government, and certainly not trying to help its people be "more equally intelligent, well-informed, and rational." Rather, the Democrat's goal, as I've claimed multiple times, is to consolidate power in the hands of the few, namely themselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Goaswerfraiejen:
That's horrifying--all the more so because I'll be moving to Edmonton for a year or so in the fall.

---

I hear it's not so bad, chilly, but not so bad. Better than Calgary. chin up. : ) Maybe you can teach them something.

quote:

---

The way to take greed out of economics is, to my mind, not that difficult: it requires that we be willing to admit some, but infinitely less. Show our citizens that higher taxes don't just take away their money when these taxes go to establish efficient government-run services: it's money that they would be spending on that anyway. Expand the scope of services to cover food, shelter, water, electricity, healthcare, education, and maybe also phone/internet communication, and tell our citizens that from now on, they work solely to provide for their own disposable income, which can be used for just about whatever else they want. If they want four-car garages, they can buy them; if they want more food, they can buy that. If they want cosmetic surgery, they can buy that too. Yes, their income is lower overall, but it's still proportionally the same, since they don't need to worry about providing for themselves.

---

A service based, non-governing entity that provides for people on Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs, say up to security. Then educate people on how to to fullfill the top portions. This would eliminate competition for resources (most wars). Good start anyhow.

quote:

---

On the issue of referendums: they don't necessarily make things more democratic. California, for example, has been screwed for years by a referendum that decided not to increase taxes beyond a certain threshold; in order to raise more state revenue, they then have to hold all sorts of referendums on other, parallel measures that are essentially just a tax, but can't be called that. I don't quite remember the specifics of what I'm talking about (I think it was the 1978 property tax; yes, it was out of control at the time, but today the state feels the repercussions of its actions), but that's not entirely relevant. The point that I want to make is that referendums can be used to overrule/turn other democratic processes, and so to provide for a majority's vision at the expense of an otherwise protected minority. The recent vote on Proposition 8 (that's the one, right? For "gay marriage"?) is a good example of this. It seems to me that the minority just loses out when it comes to referendums, and so I'm quite skeptical about their use and "democratic" power.

---

While continuing to operate within our current system, set up the groundwork for the non-governing Public Services. Set a Date for Implementation, say 2020. Plenty of time to set everything up.

Call the electoral process "a Mandate Vote" for the Public Service. Have people apply for the top jobs, select the top people applying from every specialty by electronic voting. Have voting for an hour a day, to fine tune issues. We spend more than that now, keeping abreat of the issues when we can do little about them. I think I would do my duty and vote for an hour a day, if given the power to contribute to all the major issues influencing my life. Talk about liberating & empowering.

The technology to do it is the easy part as everyone is already wired-in in one fashion or another.

quote:

---

Originally posted by garry anderson:
The opposite would be "the Democrat's main objective in helping create better government is to help it's people become more equally UN'intelligent, UN-informed, and IRrational.'"

I never mentioned anything about the democrats #1 objective overall, just the main objective IN creating a better government. Only as it applies and relates to creating a better goverment, nothing more. So the following, however relevant to some other point wasn't relevant to the one I was making.

---

facepalm.

How many times must I repeat myself? I claim that the Democrat's goal is indeed to make citizens unintelligent, uninformed, and irrational. Their goal is NOT to make better government. Their goal is to put power in their pocket, then glue it shut so it can never be taken back out of that pocket. This is true of all politicians. Democrats, like the conservative Republicans you so despise, are exactly the same. They just say some different words, wear different colored ties, but at the end of the day are exactly the same.

__________________
This message brought to you by MOTL's very own fancy biologist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by garry anderson:
The opposite would be "the Democrat's main objective in helping create better government is to help it's people become more equally UN'intelligent, UN-informed, and IRrational.'"

---

You cannot be serious. You're joking, right? Right? Or are you really that thick?

quote:

---

I never mentioned anything about the democrats #1 objective overall, just the main objective IN creating a better government. Only as it applies and relates to creating a better goverment, nothing more. So the following, however relevant to some other point wasn't relevant to the one I was making.

---

Boy, those are some mighty fine hairs you're splitting.

Will you just drop it already and admit that you're the one who read things wrong?

__________________
This message brought to you by MOTL's very own fancy biologist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bugger:
Yes, which explains a Democratic president, Senate, and Congress.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pyr0ma5ta:
At this point, it's fair to lump garry with skizzik and checkmate as the "don't even bother reading this unless you want your eyes to bleed" team.

---

Stop, take a deep breath. Clearly

I don't agree that gaining power and holding it is the number one priority of everyone. I have no desire to have power over anyone else but I do have a desire to make my own decisions.

I have 2 rules that I use to govern my own actions.

1. Don't knowingly hurt people.
2. Make this my Eutopia on Earth.

I live my life to make my world as close to my idea of eutopia as I can without oppressing or subjecting those around me in ways that will hurt them. If I do, I appoligize and make ammends. I haven't attacked anyone personally on here and if I slipped I noted it and appoligized.

If there's people who try to oppress me, I don't allow them into my life. I'm not greedy and don't need a lot. I love helping people and give of myself often. However, I am personally being attacked on here. In so much as those people feel so high and righteous, their actions show everyone how small they truely are.

quote:

---

Originally posted by garry anderson:
Just when I thought you were returning to being civilized and converse productively . . . Why do you feel you need to attack me relentlessly when I'm simply explaining something to you?

---

You may have noticed that I have little to no patience for willful ignorance. If I wanted that, I'd talk to a young earth creationist. Oh, and I'm not attacking you relentlessly. When I start doing that, you'll know.

quote:

---

Originally posted by garry anderson:
Stop, take a deep breath. Clearly

I don't agree that gaining power and holding it is the number one priority of everyone. I have no desire to have power over anyone else but I do have a desire to make my own decisions.

---

Then you are willfully being ignorant of my argument. Have I not said that "Anyone who willingly seeks power [in the form of public office] must not be allowed to receive it?" How does your sentence have anything to do with mine?

quote:

---

Originally posted by garry anderson:
I have 2 rules that I use to govern my own actions.

1. Don't knowingly hurt people.
2. Make this my Eutopia on Earth.

I live my life to make my world as close to my idea of eutopia as I can without oppressing or subjecting those around me in ways that will hurt them. If I do, I appoligize and make ammends. I haven't attacked anyone personally on here and if I slipped I noted it and appoligized.

---

No, you viciously attacked the conservative American, who despite not having posted on this thread, exists on this forum. You've already apologized for assuming that I belonged to that group, and I will not pursue that point, but you at least owe skizzikmonger/checkmate an apology for that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by garry anderson:
If there's people who try to oppress me, I don't allow them into my life. I'm not greedy and don't need a lot. I love helping people and give of myself often. However, I am personally being attacked on here. In so much as those people feel so high and righteous, their actions show everyone how small they truely are.

---

I am attacking your ideas intellectually. I did not attack you personally until you had proven beyond reasonable doubt that you were incapable of having a proper debate. When I state the same argument 10 times in a row and you've yet to come up with anything better than "I don't think so, because I'm not," you've failed at debate on a monumental level. So my grouping you with skizzik/checkmate was not unfair. You're free to challenge my conclusion though, by properly addressing my argument. I'm trying to have an honest debate here. Almaster and I have already had a bit of worthwhile intellectual and theoretical debate. I have no problem with having holes picked in my arguments. That's what a scientist does. Oh, and I'm not high and righteous. I'm a terrible person, guilty of everything that I abhor in human nature. I'm not a saint. So where does that leave you standing? That moral high ground you're standing on, smells pretty bad right about now, no?

quote:

---

Originally posted by garry anderson:
may want my perspective, attitude and understanding for others but I'm not going to get upset if you don't choose it. I recommend you stop getting so upset when I don't choose yours.

---

The only one I see getting upset is you because I don't consider reading your posts a productive use of time.

__________________
This message brought to you by MOTL's very own fancy biologist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by STAT1C_X:
[B]Are "our values" held only by the "extreme right-wing" fringe? Does the "liberal left" not possess "our values"?

---

In the grand scheme of there is no liberal left, in the global sense, in the US. The green party is the best you get to the liberal left. In Europe or pretty much any other part of the industrialized world Obama would be considered center right.

quote:

---

The CIA is ran by a presidential appointee. As much as you would like to pretend they are a bunch of renegade crazies, this is the real world, and the President and his advisors and policymakers are calling the shots. Calling it in an extreme right-wing organization would be like calling the State Department an extreme left-wing organization.

---

Do you doubt that there are some things that the CIA does that the president doesn't know about? The president may set a general outline but it is the CIA that does the details. The United States foreign policy is the real crime of the last 50 years.

quote:

---

Yes it has a history of knocking off leftist governments, but welcome to the Cold War. If you are going to call the CIA an extreme right-wing organization for this, you may as well label the entire United States government, including Presidents like JFK who attempted the Bay of Pigs, the same.

---

Does that make it right? Knocking of legitimate governments just because we don't like them? We knock off the leftist government the install our right wing fascists who are most of the time worse. All in the name of Freedom and Democracy, for people with United States citizenship of course and even that can be debatable.

quote:

---

But to just single out the Agency and act as if it is a bunch of radical extremists is ridiculous. They have a mission with guidance from much higher and are doing what they are told by the people you elect or the people they appoint.

---

Are government was or could still be radical extremists with if not imperialistic at least the desire to control through dictators much of our strategic interest. If we need something and the country of our choosing doesn't give it to us at our price and that country is weak, we'll just take it over de facto and place our strongman in charge. And the CIA makes it all possible. We are the new Rome, and I fear we will burn like it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by garry anderson:
Just when I thought you were returning to being civilized and converse productively . . . Why do you feel you need to attack me relentlessly when I'm simply explaining something to you?

---

No, pyr0's right. You're just as bad as Ch3ckm4t3, Skizzikmonger, Venser77 and zeramous (for those who forget zeramous, he was the paranoid one who though his freedom of speech was being infringed upon by people telling him to shut up). As of yet I haven't seen much in the way of a contribution to the thread on your part aside from an unwarranted and vicious and (in my opinion) WAY over the line personal attack on our former president and conservatives in general (oh, but wait- you don't generalize ). You're an arrogant hypocrite- if the two of you weren't of opposite ideologies, I think you and ch3ckm4t3 would probably get along quite well.
All you've done on this thread so far is attack conservatives- even when other people aren't talking about that, you wrench the conversation back to that central theme. And frankly? It's annoying as hell. It puts me in mind of those goddamn pro-life extremists (as in, pro-lifers who are extreme, not saying all pro-lifers are extremists) who take every topic as a jumping-off point to bitch about the sanctity of life. Obama's inauguration? SAVE DEM BABIES!!
Pyr0 pointing out all politicians the same? KILL DE CONSERVATIVES WITH FIIIIRE!!

quote:

---

I don't agree that gaining power and holding it is the number one priority of everyone. I have no desire to have power over anyone else but I do have a desire to make my own decisions.

I have 2 rules that I use to govern my own actions.

1. Don't knowingly hurt people.
2. Make this my Eutopia on Earth.

---

And conservatives don't do any of this either? Do you honestly think skizzikmonger sits around, thinking "hmmm, how can I deprive the unfortunate of their few posessions today?" I swear to god I can't stand people like you whether you're liberal OR conservative. Each side just sits there on their imagined thrones, sanctifying about the evils of the other side. "baby-killing liberals", "conservatives hate everyone not rich". Ann Coulter, Michael Moore. ENOUGH.

quote:

---

I live my life to make my world as close to my idea of eutopia as I can without oppressing or subjecting those around me in ways that will hurt them. If I do, I appoligize and make ammends. I haven't attacked anyone personally on here and if I slipped I noted it and appoligized.

---

Then you have to understand that (initially) you were not attacked personally either.

quote:

---

If there's people who try to oppress me, I don't allow them into my life. I'm not greedy and don't need a lot. I love helping people and give of myself often. However, I am personally being attacked on here. In so much as those people feel so high and righteous, their actions show everyone how small they truely are.

---

You and zeramous could get along well also, I think- you both are rather paranoid. And, of course, your bloody pretentiousness. God how I hate that pretensiousness.

quote:

---

I may want my perspective, attitude and understanding for others but I'm not going to get upset if you don't choose it. I recommend you stop getting so upset when I don't choose yours.

---

LOL. I call BS. You respect other people holding different opinions? No you don't. You've spent every post here attacking american conservatives in sweeping generalizations. You've already demonstrated you can't stand people who disagree with you. I suggest you pull your head out of wherever it is buried and take a closer look at what you type from now on, because god knows I'm not going to bother reading it anymore myself.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nderdog:
Neither of us is in the health care field, actually. I used to work for the County Health Department as their Information Services guy, but that's as close as we get. I do know that the clinic has at least 2 interpreters in the building at all times, as well as access by phone to language lines that can do interpretation as well. Most spanish speakers are covered by live bodies, but I'm aware of at least one mandarin speaker as well as a couple others who speak various languages that I don't recall offhand.

---

AH...that's it! But still, wouldn't it just be a hell of a lot easier if everyone was able to speak one universal language? Every other country in the world has a National Language, why don't we? It's so simple and makes almost too much sense.

quote:

---

Originally posted by daner:
AH...that's it! But still, wouldn't it just be a hell of a lot easier if everyone was able to speak one universal language? Every other country in the world has a National Language, why don't we? It's so simple and makes almost too much sense.

---

Amerikkka: **** YEAH! Why bother with tolerance or acceptance? I mean, seriously, who do you think we are, Sweden?

__________________
This message brought to you by MOTL's very own fancy biologist.

This isn't a debate board it's a discussion board.

I was poking holes in generally accepted republican positions, stating my general distrust and dislike for certain methods and beliefs I've seen them use/have. I never directly attacked any one republican, excluding George W.

It's kind of too bad, I was enjoying the turn this thread was taking toward a real discussion, before the personal attacks started.

bugger, you're worse than skizzik & checkmate, you haven't made a single intelligent point, you only attack people, not just me.

pyrO, this isn't a debate forum, it's a discussion forum, not everything needs to be confronted just for the sake of arguing. You wouldn't happen to be a lawyer would you? You'ld probably make a good one.

bugger, pyrO - When you make lists and lists of people and all the mistakes, character flaws, errors or whatever - that you think they have or have made just because they don't agree with you, and your list of "whith it's" is just you, then maybe you're the problem, not everyone else.

AlmasterMD, sorry I'm not going to hear any more of your ideas.

Cheers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by daner:
AH...that's it! But still, wouldn't it just be a hell of a lot easier if everyone was able to speak one universal language? Every other country in the world has a National Language, why don't we? It's so simple and makes almost too much sense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daner:
AH...that's it! But still, wouldn't it just be a hell of a lot easier if everyone was able to speak one universal language? Every other country in the world has a National Language, why don't we? It's so simple and makes almost too much sense.

---

Well, that's true- but it's clear that it's a mere matter of inconveince. I don't know. We claim to be a melting pot of cultures- would instituting a national language innately stifle that? I know some older immigrants retain useage of their native language as a term of respect, and teach it to their children as well. I don't know, it seems that the balance has to be struck somewhere between mixting culture and homogenization. Would the efficiency of a national language make us too uniform? Or is the flexibility of a de facto language too inconvenient?

Personally I see no issues with the current situation. It's kind of an unwritten rule that english is what Americans speak- and it's clear we have no real difficulties as of now. In fact, the market for interpreters it creates is kind of nice.
In short, I agree there is some efficiency to be gained by nationalizing english, but frankly I don't see it as being worth the effort.