User Tag List

First 123 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 25

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8 sp/sx
    Posts
    1,636

    Default

    I've recently taken to calling Obama and the Democrats, Bush II.

  2. #12
    Senior Member Ethereal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    104

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sLiPpY View Post
    I've recently taken to calling Obama and the Democrats, Bush II.
    Certainly the word FAIL can be ascribed to these people as well...

  3. #13
    Nips away your dignity Fluffywolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sLiPpY View Post
    I've recently taken to calling Obama and the Democrats, Bush II.
    If you're looking for a president that can magically wave a wand around to make everything better. I suggest migrating to Disney's Fantasyland.
    ~Self-depricating Megalomaniacal Superwolf

  4. #14
    Senior Member Ethereal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    104

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fluffywolf View Post
    If you're looking for a president that can magically wave a wand around to make everything better. I suggest migrating to Disney's Fantasyland.
    Personally, I'm looking for a president who will actually change things, and not simply amp up the status-quo in every respect.

  5. #15
    Per Ardua Metamorphosis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    3,466

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    The two party system is very deeply entrenched, and insidiously dominating. It is in the best interest of the two parties to stay in control, and they find many ways to do so.
    It's hardly insidious. The fact is, the two party system is unavoidable when you have an electoral system that contains single member districts instead of proportional representation. While it's nearly impossible for another party to gain any serious ground electorally, the two major parties are forced to adopt the platforms of smaller parties that receive popular support...so their voice is still heard...somewhat. Our system causes changes to be slow and small, but it is very stable. See: Italian government history for a lesson on why proportional representation isn't always awesome
    "You will always be fond of me. I represent to you all the sins you never had the courage to commit."

    Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office
    than to serve and obey them. - David Hume

  6. #16
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,536

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Metamorphosis View Post
    It's hardly insidious. The fact is, the two party system is unavoidable when you have an electoral system that contains single member districts instead of proportional representation. While it's nearly impossible for another party to gain any serious ground electorally, the two major parties are forced to adopt the platforms of smaller parties that receive popular support...so their voice is still heard...somewhat. Our system causes changes to be slow and small, but it is very stable. See: Italian government history for a lesson on why proportional representation isn't always awesome
    We have proportional representation in Oz mainly because it is the fairest electoral system.

    However we still end up with essentially two party chambers with a few independents and a minor party.

    This is so because our two major parties actually give us a choice. We have a choice between a party of business and a social democratic party.

    And interestingly it is our social democratic party that provides stability as it is one of the oldest political parties in the world.

    I don't think the two party system works so well if both parties are of the same political persuasion such as two parties of business.

    And when we have two business parties telling us that the business of America is business, we know there is something rotten in the State of Denmark.

    In fact the purpose of the two party system is to limit power. The very purpose of the Loyal Opposition is to limit the power of the Government. And this is best achieved with two parties of different political persuasions.

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    infj
    Enneagram
    4
    Posts
    384

    Default

    healthcare reform is a complex subject firstly. political process is also complicated and i will be the first to admit i stay out of it because like many feel its not representative of an individual's opinion and swayed by groups that give monetary support to party politics.

    the bottom line is all of us have to have the same healthcare options. taxes for healthcare should be made rationally. cig and alcohol taxes are fair imo. industry needs to be taxed if they grow, make, sell foods that are unhealthy. common sensical things like that can go a long way toward making people more responsible for their own health choices.

    also i support boycotting consumerism. most things we buy is junk and we don't need it it for aesthetic or practical purposes and makes people bloated and the rich get richer.

  8. #18
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post

    I don't think the two party system works so well if both parties are of the same political persuasion such as two parties of business.

    And when we have two business parties telling us that the business of America is business, we know there is something rotten in the State of Denmark.

    In fact the purpose of the two party system is to limit power. The very purpose of the Loyal Opposition is to limit the power of the Government. And this is best achieved with two parties of different political persuasions.
    A much better way to limit the power of government is to have two parties committed to (differing interpretations of) classical liberalism, rather than have one of those parties espouse an ideology (such as social-democracy) that is philosophically antithetical to the classical liberal framework.

    Proportional representation systems empower political elites at the expense of constituents, by making representatives dependent on the favor of party bosses rather than the people who vote for them.

    American constituents typically have positive feelings toward their own representatives combined with negative feelings toward congress in general-this is mostly because other congressman are accountable to a different set of constituents, and the aggregate interests and preferences of constituents will vary greatly from place to place, making consensus on policy matters progressively more difficult and tenuous the more congress tries to achieve beyond basic institutional infrastructure (defense, roads, laws against murder, etc.).

    This assumption of human diversity (contrary to social-democratic and other collectivist frameworks) should come as no surprise to anybody who truly believes in the concepts of individual rights and political pluralism (as either "self-evident" truths or simply important utilitarian constructs), as all these assumptions are intimately linked.

    Going back electoral systems, by making representatives more dependent on party bosses rather than local constituents, proportional representation replaces political pluralism with something resembling corporatism in all spheres of politics, where small and diverse advocacy groups can no longer participate directly in the political process through empowered and sympathetic representatives. Instead, such activists groups are forced to organize as part of much larger coalition of advocacy groups (thereby diluting the message and policy positions of smaller advocacy groups) in order to pursue alliances with national party bosses.

  9. #19
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,536

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    A much better way to limit the power of government is to have two parties committed to (differing interpretations of) classical liberalism, rather than have one of those parties espouse an ideology (such as social-democracy) that is philosophically antithetical to the classical liberal framework.

    Proportional representation systems empower political elites at the expense of constituents, by making representatives dependent on the favor of party bosses rather than the people who vote for them.

    American constituents typically have positive feelings toward their own representatives combined with negative feelings toward congress in general-this is mostly because other congressman are accountable to a different set of constituents, and the aggregate interests and preferences of constituents will vary greatly from place to place, making consensus on policy matters progressively more difficult and tenuous the more congress tries to achieve beyond basic institutional infrastructure (defense, roads, laws against murder, etc.).

    This assumption of human diversity (contrary to social-democratic and other collectivist frameworks) should come as no surprise to anybody who truly believes in the concepts of individual rights and political pluralism (as either "self-evident" truths or simply important utilitarian constructs), as all these assumptions are intimately linked.

    Going back electoral systems, by making representatives more dependent on party bosses rather than local constituents, proportional representation replaces political pluralism with something resembling corporatism in all spheres of politics, where small and diverse advocacy groups can no longer participate directly in the political process through empowered and sympathetic representatives. Instead, such activists groups are forced to organize as part of much larger coalition of advocacy groups (thereby diluting the message and policy positions of smaller advocacy groups) in order to pursue alliances with national party bosses.
    I usually find myself in agreement with you Lowtech mainly because we both espouse classical liberalism.

    However allow me to make a point of personal explanation.

    Our social democratic party, called the Australian Labor party, is not a collectivist party.In my opinion it is a classically liberal party.

    If you look at the political landscape here you would find the Liberal Party, the party of business is mildly Right; the the Labor Party, the party of the Unions, is mildly Left. And both parties are capitalist and democratic.

    But the electorate is conservative and use their vote to keep the mild Left and the mild Right in balance. So you might say the electorate plays balance of power politics with our political parties.

    And of course our classically liberal system was set up to limit power, as classical liberals know that power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    And we keep our politicians in their place. For instance, the position of Prime Minister is not even mentioned in our Constitution. And our Prime Minister can never become our Head of State. Nor can our Prime Minister become Commander-in-Chief. And of course we follow the Westminster system of the Separation of the Powers of the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary, all overseen by the Free Press.

    And we don't have to be rich to be elected here, for elections are paid for out of General Revenue.

    And all this is for one purpose - to limit power and maximise freedom within democracy.

  10. #20
    it's tea time! Walking Tourist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    esfp
    Enneagram
    7
    Posts
    1,452

    Default

    How about incompetent???


    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    Certainly the word FAIL can be ascribed to these people as well...
    I'm a little teapot, short and stout. Here is my handle and here is my spout. Every time I steam up, I give a shout. Just tip me over and pour me out.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 03-09-2011, 10:46 AM
  2. [INFP] Completing the Square: How to Spot an INFP
    By GZA in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 12-01-2008, 01:35 PM
  3. bi-polar bomb dropped
    By UnitOfPopulation in forum Health and Fitness
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 03-19-2008, 05:32 AM
  4. Completely uncalled for
    By Rajah in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-27-2007, 12:16 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO