User Tag List

First 1252606162636472 Last

Results 611 to 620 of 798

  1. #611
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,813

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    I don't care about states rights very much either, so you don't want me to answer that.

    The Voting laws in debate now piss me off. I'd like to take a giant dump on Mississippi. In the name of America, the beautiful.
    Your ignoring my point. You have the concept of authoritarianism wrong. It's not social liberals and conservatives v. Libertarians, but rather people who want power to be held by the few or the many. There are authoritarian libertarians who want to force their libertarianism on everyone.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  2. #612
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    Your ignoring my point. You have the concept of authoritarianism wrong. It's not social liberals and conservatives v. Libertarians, but rather people who want power to be held by the few or the many. There are authoritarian libertarians who want to force their libertarianism on everyone.
    The US Government is a not an outside entity that entails just the "few", while state governments are where the "many, the people" are at. Congress is set up to represent the "many" in Washington. It's not supposed to be a privileged/exclusive club. They're our representatives. And one of the easier places for even you and I to get elected ourselves.

    Where I see the problem here is that Congressional representatives aren't representing the "many" as they should, because of special interests and money. They end up becoming representatives of the "few" this way. This is a problem for both parties atm. Our representative democracy is a representative oligarchy.

  3. #613
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,813

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    The US Government is a not an outside entity that entails just the "few", while state governments are where are the "many, the people" are at. Congress is set up to represent the "many" in Washington. It's not supposed to be a privileged/exclusive club. They're our representatives.

    Where I see the problem here is that Congressional representatives aren't representing the "many" as they should, because of special interests and money. They end up becoming representatives of the "few" this way. This is a problem for both parties atm. Our representative democracy is a representative oligarchy.
    This is, I suppose, our difference. I think a large democracy will never really represent the many. I don't think our government was set up to represent the many anyway, but to split power between the many by empowering representatives who didn't represent the whole, but rather a smaller constituency of around 40,000. They even specifically created the senate to protect the rights of the states as a whole. All that's changed now as the senate is elected by the people and not the state government and representatives now represent on average over 600,000 people.

    I don't want a few leaders who represent the many. Rather, I want many leaders who represent a few each. To me that is the only way to limit power and thereby limit corruption or at least limit the scale of damage done by corruption.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  4. #614
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    This is, I suppose, our difference.
    True enough. To me, it's an administrative difference (I'm sure you'd disagree, and it's deeper than that). I can however agree with many particular stances, so whatever.

    I never took authoritarian as a matter of "centralization". To me, that's totalitarianism specifically. Wikipedia says I'm wrong (and uses the centralization definition), so I guess I'm wrong.

    I fully admit though that I'm not interested in protecting many people's "liberties". This is why I'm against even liberal groups like the ACLU. I don't buy into the rhetoric that "protecting a skinhead's free speech is protecting everyone's speech". Screw that. I'd rather resurrect the corpse of General Sherman on their asses.

  5. #615
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,813

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    True enough. To me, it's an administrative difference (I'm sure you'd disagree, and it's deeper than that). I can however agree with many particular stances, so whatever.

    I never took authoritarian as a matter of "centralization". To me, that's totalitarianism specifically. Wikipedia says I'm wrong (and uses the centralization definition), so I guess I'm wrong.

    I fully admit though that I'm not interested in protecting many people's "liberties". This is why I'm against even liberal groups like the ACLU. I don't buy into the rhetoric that "protecting a skinhead's free speech is protecting everyone's speech". Screw that. I'd rather resurrect the corpse of General Sherman on their asses.
    I just think people should live, work, and be governed on a human scale.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  6. #616
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    The Voting laws in debate now piss me off.
    Which voting laws are those? The ones which would require a free, easily obtained ID in order to vote, or the ones which discriminate against certain states and districts on the basis of criteria that's 45 years old?

  7. #617
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    Which voting laws are those? The ones which would require a free, easily obtained ID in order to vote, or the ones which discriminate against certain states and districts on the basis of criteria that's 45 years old?
    The latter.

    Fuck the south*. They are inferior and irresponsible to have those laws changed, just yet.

    *I live in the South btw.

    If you ask me, the entire reconstruction and period of "reconciliation" was a bad idea. It just left a whole mess of unfinished business.

  8. #618
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,685

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    Which voting laws are those? The ones which would require a free, easily obtained ID in order to vote, or the ones which discriminate against certain states and districts on the basis of criteria that's 45 years old?
    I think we can be required to have ID in order to vote and it makes sense, did you see the bit in gangs of new york when they rounded up voters to get the result they wanted and had all the ones which had beards shaved in order to vote a second time? It just makes sense.

    There's jokes about people voting from beyond the grave here and I'm sure it happens, I even heard about some parties visiting demented elderly people in retirement homes or their relatives to secure those living there's postal ballots.

    I've no clue about what this is specifically in question BTW I just came in to say it was interesting that there's no one debating the future of the demcratic party.

  9. #619
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    Where I see the problem here is that Congressional representatives aren't representing the "many" as they should, because of special interests and money.
    Congressional representatives are supposed to represent their constituents, who generally have a positive opinion of their own representative, even as they have negative opinions of congress as a whole (precisely because congress represents the polarized national 'many').

  10. #620
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    *I live in the South btw.
    That doesn't excuse forming political positions on the basis of crass anti-Southern bigotry rather than analysis of the modern situation.

Similar Threads

  1. Former Republican staffer's extremely scathing critique of the Republican party.
    By Magic Poriferan in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-23-2011, 07:29 PM
  2. The Future of Microprocessors
    By ygolo in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-15-2011, 04:23 AM
  3. Unity within the upper echelons of the Republican Party begins to crack.
    By DiscoBiscuit in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 10-26-2009, 12:18 PM
  4. The Death of the Republican Party, Stardate Unknown
    By Wind Up Rex in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 08-08-2009, 01:58 PM
  5. Your Predictions About the Future of Psychotherapy
    By ThatsWhatHeSaid in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 08-06-2008, 07:58 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