You are not logged in.

Gougai! Gougai!

HOLY SHIT PEOPLE, IT'S NOT BAD ENOUGH WE'RE GETTING AN UTENA EXHIBITION RIGHT NOW

THEY. ARE. MAKING. A. NEW. MUSICAL. NEXT. YEAR. START LOSING YOUR SHIT RIGHT NOW

#126 | Back to Top10-24-2009 03:57:30 PM

satyreyes
no, definitely no cons
From: New Orleans, Louisiana
Registered: 10-16-2006
Posts: 10328
Website

Re: Politics

Normally, I would say "don't feed the trolls."  If I ran NBC's Meet the Press, I wouldn't put a Holocaust denier or a young-earth Creationist leader on the show unless I was sure I had a hardball interviewer who wouldn't let them get away with bullshit.  But there's a problem in that the BBC is government-run, and democratic governments don't have the same right to exclude annoying people that private entities do.  If this guy's the leader of a party with a million voters and an MEP, the BBC should let him speak and trust that the marketplace of ideas will laugh his merchandise off the floor.

Offline

 

#127 | Back to Top10-24-2009 04:59:04 PM

DerJakob
Miki Molester
From: Eugene, OR
Registered: 10-21-2009
Posts: 31

Re: Politics

This is a really interesting topic for me because something similar has been going with German politics. First, I'll say that it makes perfect sense, what the BBC is saying, and he does have a right to have his voice heard, despite how foolish it may sound. We just have to hope against hope that other people think it's equally foolish.

That aside, I'm not sure if any of you keep up on other European politics, (I only do a little because I study German), but in Germany a similar nationalist party has been on the rise. The NPD (Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands / National Democratic Party of German) is a far-right nationalist party that actually succeeded the Deutsche Reichspartei (scary stuff srsly), and has been gaining popularity in certain parts of Germany, namely the former East. Being that the German constitution was modeled rather closely after the American in the late 1940s, freedom of speech is a general tenet. Problem is, because of Germany's tumultuous past, there are laws concerning certain types of speech (namely Nazi phrases, gestures, and Holocaust/Shoah denial) that forbid and have criminalized them.The NPD has thus come under a lot of fire for its racist and almost neo-Nazi rhetoric, and because of the laws (and their semi-vague wording) the NPD has been excluded from all sorts of public forums. I don't on any level support the NPD, although I support its legal right to exist considering freedom of speech, however this whole situation is incredibly problematic mostly because of Germany's very unique and horrible history. Thoughts? Feelings?


"The tradition of the oppressed teaches us that the 'state of emergency' in which we live is not the exception but the rule. We must attain to a conception of history that is in keeping with this insight. Then we shall clearly realize that it is our task to bring about a real state of emergency, and this will improve our position in the struggle against Fascism."
-Walter Benjamin

Offline

 

#128 | Back to Top10-24-2009 05:15:26 PM

Bluesky
Chpn Dlst
From: Your window
Registered: 10-25-2008
Posts: 1939
Website

Re: Politics

What you guys have said made sense, there was just a big uproar about it. Also, I read in one of the papers that when a guy from a similar sort of party in France made an appearance on a similar sort of show, support apparently doubled for his party. (This paper was one of the low-rent tabloids, but still).
DerJakob, I was unaware that this was going on in Germany emot-aaa That does indeed sound like an awakward situation. On the other hand, those laws exist for a reason, and on a personal level, even though this kind of contradicts the idea of free speech for everyone, I just think that if they're going to be espousing racial hatred and 'neo nazi rhetoric', it's probably better that the public don't hear from them. :/
Maybe that's imposing my moral values on someonelse, but it's just the way I feel about it.


/人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\

Offline

 

#129 | Back to Top10-24-2009 06:55:54 PM

DerJakob
Miki Molester
From: Eugene, OR
Registered: 10-21-2009
Posts: 31

Re: Politics

Oh yeah, on a personal level, I totally prefer that their brand of insanity remain censored, but on a political level, it's hard to say what's "right" or "wrong." (Side note, I just went to look up an article on a recent protest and ended up getting linked to a white supremacist forum. Absolutely terrifying.) Part of the problem that arises as well is the issue of suppression. The ethnocentric, hateful rhetoric of a far-right organization like the NPD is often rightfully suppressed, but suppression typically encourages the suppressed party to grow louder. This, of course, may just inspire more disdain in the rest of the population, but like a child told "no," parties like the NPD may just scream and throw tantrums until someone hears them out. I fear for the future more and more as it gets closer.


"The tradition of the oppressed teaches us that the 'state of emergency' in which we live is not the exception but the rule. We must attain to a conception of history that is in keeping with this insight. Then we shall clearly realize that it is our task to bring about a real state of emergency, and this will improve our position in the struggle against Fascism."
-Walter Benjamin

Offline

 

#130 | Back to Top10-24-2009 07:21:12 PM

spoon-san
Someday Shiner
Registered: 03-18-2009
Posts: 3423

Re: Politics

Don't know much about the guy but the anti-Islamic stance is hardly surprising with the way things are over there.  The thing about Germany surprises me.

In my personal but not-so-humbly held viewpoint, as much as something may bother me, I think everyone should have the same opportunities to voice their thoughts as long as they are not harassing individuals and are not doing anything to promote or engage in physical violence or intended violence against people's minds.  Of course, I realize those can be loosely interpreted. 

If someone is speaking in a way so contrary to your principles, then it is your and your politicians' responsibility to speak out what is important to them/you.  In principle, the censorship of ideas makes my skin crawl no matter who, really, is speaking.  Of course, I am one who was grouped up with 'people who shouldn't speak' in my past so I am sympathetic to even people I cannot stand to agree with.

Offline

 

#131 | Back to Top11-03-2009 03:08:11 PM

Imaginary Bad Bug
Revolutionary
From: Connecticut, USA
Registered: 10-16-2006
Posts: 2168
Website

Re: Politics

I voted today!  I hope everyone here that is registered to in the U.S. did today.

Nothing major on our ballots this year, just town council and board of education and a question on funding redevelopment of a part of town, but it's important to vote in non-Presidential years too!

Last edited by Imaginary Bad Bug (11-03-2009 03:08:52 PM)


http://lh5.ggpht.com/_HERdW38xV_c/S5xZ2QVrIwI/AAAAAAAAApg/uNpckSbLgUw/s800/utenaban.jpg

Offline

 

#132 | Back to Top11-03-2009 05:37:26 PM

allegoriest
Delicious Duellist
From: Cloudcuckooland
Registered: 10-16-2006
Posts: 2506
Website

Re: Politics

Psssh, I didn't vote today.






I totally voted a few weeks ago.


http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a94/leeness/Ruka--Juri-banner-1.png

Only a lemming must be concerned with the ends of the world.

Offline

 

#133 | Back to Top11-03-2009 05:52:06 PM

satyreyes
no, definitely no cons
From: New Orleans, Louisiana
Registered: 10-16-2006
Posts: 10328
Website

Re: Politics

I didn't vote.  This year Fort Myers is electing a mayor and some aldermen or something, but I don't know anything about any of the candidates and have no way to find out; there are no statewide races or referendums on the Florida ballot.  In off-years like this I'd rather leave the voting to whoever has done the work to find out about these obscure candidates whose jobs I don't even know.

Fingers crossed on Maine's Prop 1...

Offline

 

#134 | Back to Top11-03-2009 06:22:32 PM

Raven Nightshade
Someday Shiner
From: Louisiana
Registered: 12-17-2006
Posts: 2916

Re: Politics

I didn't vote either. There's a mayoral election(which has the demographics of a Benetton ad), a few city council spots, and another spot in the city government. There's also some state amendments, but I think 3 or 4 of them are about property taxes, and they don't really even apply to the people in my family who pay them.

So....meh.


Sometimes I wonder if I'm ever gonna make it home again.
It's so far and out of sight.
I really need someone to talk to and nobody else
Knows how to comfort me tonight.

Offline

 

#135 | Back to Top11-03-2009 09:12:07 PM

haelsyx
Caretaker
From: sunlit state
Registered: 10-09-2009
Posts: 211
Website

Re: Politics

Would have voted, we were having a mayoral election, and my registered voting place is at the library right at the end of my block. Problem? Crazy activists with their food trucks are determined to harass every car and person passing by them, and they've been doing that for the past 5 days so they've been an annoyance on end. They bought these advertising trucks that have blown up pictures of their candidates, and all they did was drive down the same block for three hours straight each day blasting some ridiculous music or speech, it was 7 am and I was hard put to tell which. school-chef


{livejournal} {youtube}
Its an odd thing, but anyone who disappears is said to be in San Francisco-Oscar Wilde.
Anyone get the feeling finding Utena is going to be a lot like where in the world is Carmen San Diego?

Offline

 

#136 | Back to Top11-04-2009 08:40:33 AM

Stormcrow
Magical Flying Moron
From: Los Angeles
Registered: 04-24-2007
Posts: 5971
Website

Re: Politics

My sympathies and sadness go out to Naji, who lives in Maine. So sorry your fellow Maine-ians aren't much more enlightened than my fellow Kansans. emot-frown


"The devil want me as is, but god he want more."
-Truck North
Honorary Hat Mafia Member

Offline

 

#137 | Back to Top11-04-2009 10:49:10 AM

Imaginary Bad Bug
Revolutionary
From: Connecticut, USA
Registered: 10-16-2006
Posts: 2168
Website

Re: Politics

I heard the news about Question 1 too... a disappointing result for sure...  The Maine governor went from being against to strongly for gay marriage, and he was encouraging people in his state to vote "no" on Q1.

(PS- I'm pretty sure that people from Maine call themselves "Mainers". school-eng101 )


http://lh5.ggpht.com/_HERdW38xV_c/S5xZ2QVrIwI/AAAAAAAAApg/uNpckSbLgUw/s800/utenaban.jpg

Offline

 

#138 | Back to Top01-21-2010 10:37:32 AM

satyreyes
no, definitely no cons
From: New Orleans, Louisiana
Registered: 10-16-2006
Posts: 10328
Website

Re: Politics

Here's one for you.  The Supreme Court (in a 5-4 decision, naturally) just made campaign finance reform illegal.  More precisely, they ruled that portions of the McCain-Feingold reform law that prohibit corporations from sponsoring electioneering in the days before an election are unconstitutional.  In English: before, corporations couldn't pay for ads that supported or opposed a particular candidate; now, they can.  The court's reasoning is that the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech (including political speech) and freedom of association (including business association), means that you can't make laws that prohibit associations (like corporations) from speaking, pretty much as loudly as they want.  The result is likely to be that presidential elections, which already cost $1.6 billion in 2008 (counting only what the candidates spent), are likely to become even more expensive as corporations fund lots of expensive ads leading up to elections, and that money is likely to become even more relevant to the viability of a political candidate.  (If your opponent has the backing of many large companies that are sponsoring his ads, and you don't have such backing, it takes a lot of private fundraising to make yourself heard.) 

Common sense suggests that the decision is also likely to influence future decisions that might overturn laws involving donation limits.  Individuals are currently not allowed to donate more than $2,400 to a political candidate per election, but if that money is used to fund a speech activity, like an advertisement or a public appearance by the candidate, this decision seems to set a precedent that political donations cannot be regulated.  This would mean that rich people can be heard much, much more clearly than relatively poor people in an election, though in the end they each still only get one vote.  It also suggests that candidates, even more than they already do, should cater to businesses and rich people when they campaign.

The four-justice minority, which is who you would expect it to be (the liberal wing of the court -- Stevens, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Breyer), said that corporate speech is not subject to the same protections as individual speech.  Details are still being released about their reasoning.

To me this is a tough decision to evaluate.  I believe in freedom of speech and in freedom of association.  I think it's a little questionable for business associations to engage in political speech, but if pressed I guess I would admit that under the First Amendment they should be able to, and I guess I don't see where the government can keep individuals from donating more than $X to a campaign, either.  Yet money talks pretty loudly in politics, and there's simply no question that a candidate who spends a lot more money (or gets a lot more money spent on his behalf) than his opponent will usually win an election, all else being equal.  This seems to me like a fair Supreme Court decision whose result will be unfair.  It seems like we have a valid interest in regulating the part money can play in politics, yet the Constitution may not allow us to carry out that regulation.  What can we do?  emot-confused

Last edited by satyreyes (01-21-2010 11:00:49 AM)

Offline

 

#139 | Back to Top01-21-2010 11:53:11 AM

Stormcrow
Magical Flying Moron
From: Los Angeles
Registered: 04-24-2007
Posts: 5971
Website

Re: Politics

You know why this makes me angry? It seems Walmart can buy senators under the aegis of "free speech", but I can't go on the air and say the word "fuck" without being fined. I can't broadcast a bare female nipple without being fined, and I can under no circumstances broadcast a human penis without being fined. And there are lots of people who think I shouldn't be able to sell a video game that features any of these things, even if it's clearly labeled for adults only. A lot of these same people think freedom of speech allows AT&T to spend millions on political advertising, heavily influencing elections.

Now, having said that, I grant that the Supreme Court can't use any of the above reasoning in its deliberations. Although, they have upheld pornography laws in the past... Anyway, I agree with all of your points satyr. While the letter of the law may require this decision (I think the minority claim that corporate speech isn't the same is valid), the consequences are horrifying. Candidates might as well start wearing Dow Corning stickers on their jackets.

It seems to me that this is one place where the vision of the Framers is probably inadequate. It's hard to imagine they could have had any concept of mass media, or how it controls the psyche of the nation. No matter how well intentioned, the fact is that if you see twelve ads showing how nice candidate A is, and only one showing how great candidate B is, that sways the vote in favor of candidate A. It's marketing, plain and simple, and it works. About the only way to salvage this would be to prevent media companies from taking money for political programming... no, that's no good too, then they have no incentive at all to put out ads for people they don't like. This is a very bad mess, no two ways about it.

And you can forget about anybody who isn't a democratic or republican. No one will ever hear from them again.

emot-frown


"The devil want me as is, but god he want more."
-Truck North
Honorary Hat Mafia Member

Offline

 

#140 | Back to Top03-22-2010 05:31:14 PM

Aine Silveria
Pumpkin Bride
From: Allegan, MI
Registered: 11-03-2006
Posts: 2098

Re: Politics

Can someone politically in the know help me, in an unbiased way, understand this health bill thing? All I have heard is trashtalking recently, and I'm kind of tired of not knowing why people are so up in arms about it. I'd go looking on my own, but I'm kind of scared of what I'd find.


http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/m526/aines_pixels/mikageirgsig02-2012.png

Offline

 

#141 | Back to Top03-22-2010 07:16:26 PM

Imaginary Bad Bug
Revolutionary
From: Connecticut, USA
Registered: 10-16-2006
Posts: 2168
Website

Re: Politics

Aine Silveria wrote:

Can someone politically in the know help me, in an unbiased way, understand this health bill thing? All I have heard is trashtalking recently, and I'm kind of tired of not knowing why people are so up in arms about it. I'd go looking on my own, but I'm kind of scared of what I'd find.

Here's a breakdown from the always delightful Rachel Maddow.

She also covered it again on the first segment of her show on MSNBC tonight, which will repeat at 11pm and 1am eastern.


http://lh5.ggpht.com/_HERdW38xV_c/S5xZ2QVrIwI/AAAAAAAAApg/uNpckSbLgUw/s800/utenaban.jpg

Offline

 

#142 | Back to Top03-22-2010 07:27:46 PM

KissFromARose
Thorn of Death
From: Austin, Tx
Registered: 09-29-2008
Posts: 506

Re: Politics

I think that the biggest problem people are having is the fact that it is forcing people to purchase insurance. You will get penalized for not having insurance. Some people believe that it isn't free choice when you force people to pay for insurance. I can understand that... being broke-as-a-joke before, i can't imagine having to pay for an extra cost when it isn't something i need immediately; granted, i am taking a risk fo getting sick and having to pay more; but the fact that i can't choose when i want to purchase insurance is going to hurt people who can't afford it.

I'm thankful enough that my company pays for my health insurance, but they don't pay for eye and dental... Prior to this job i couldn't afford insurance; Hell ic ouldn't afford putting food on my table... i worked as a self employed person last year and i have to pay crazy taxes that i can barely afford on their own. I can't imagine someone whom is self employed and forced to open an insurance policy when they aren't ready...

i dunno... just my 2 cents...

But, i don't argue in politics because i get too upset emot-frown so i just will say a piece here and there and let it go..

just a perspective for you.

Offline

 

#143 | Back to Top03-22-2010 07:53:23 PM

Aine Silveria
Pumpkin Bride
From: Allegan, MI
Registered: 11-03-2006
Posts: 2098

Re: Politics

Thanks, IBB, that did help quite a bit, but now I'm very concerned by what Kiss is saying. So, this is effectively making it so it's illegal to not have insurance? I had better have a job by then, or not be out of work again, but if those situations apply, would I be fined something crazy for not being able to afford insurance? That doesn't seem right, and if it is the case, I can start to see the problems people are having with it.


http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/m526/aines_pixels/mikageirgsig02-2012.png

Offline

 

#144 | Back to Top03-22-2010 07:53:31 PM

Imaginary Bad Bug
Revolutionary
From: Connecticut, USA
Registered: 10-16-2006
Posts: 2168
Website

Re: Politics

KissFromARose wrote:

I think that the biggest problem people are having is the fact that it is forcing people to purchase insurance. You will get penalized for not having insurance. Some people believe that it isn't free choice when you force people to pay for insurance.

But not until 2014 when the exchanges are set up, as I understand it.  So it's not like after it's signed into law tomorrow that you'll get a letter in the mail on Wednesday asking you to pay up if you don't have insurance.

On that note, I heard on Keith Olbermann's show tonight that the penalty for not having insurance has been struck from the bill... in other words there will be no penalty.  I haven't heard anything other than that on that particular subject yet, though, but I'm sure satyr will offer his insight when he sees this discussion.

At any rate, the first set of "fixes" to the initial bill (such as eliminating the deals made with certain states like Nebraska and Florida) are expected to be voted on in the Senate next weekend, as they already passed the House last night after the initial bill was passed.


http://lh5.ggpht.com/_HERdW38xV_c/S5xZ2QVrIwI/AAAAAAAAApg/uNpckSbLgUw/s800/utenaban.jpg

Offline

 

#145 | Back to Top03-22-2010 08:12:45 PM

KissFromARose
Thorn of Death
From: Austin, Tx
Registered: 09-29-2008
Posts: 506

Re: Politics

Imaginary Bad Bug wrote:

KissFromARose wrote:

I think that the biggest problem people are having is the fact that it is forcing people to purchase insurance. You will get penalized for not having insurance. Some people believe that it isn't free choice when you force people to pay for insurance.

But not until 2014 when the exchanges are set up, as I understand it.  So it's not like after it's signed into law tomorrow that you'll get a letter in the mail on Wednesday asking you to pay up if you don't have insurance.

On that note, I heard on Keith Olbermann's show tonight that the penalty for not having insurance has been struck from the bill... in other words there will be no penalty.

I hope it changes... im sure glad it isn't an over night thing either... but in 4 years? i just feel bad for the jobless or self employed. thats kind of iffy.

as far as Keith goes, i want to see it on paper first before i get my hopes up... News isn't news anymore... Fox is biased, Cnn, HLN, hell ic an't think of a news organization that doesn't have bias now a days.... but its all abotu ratings and whose watching who.

Republicans and Democrats alike are begining to piss me off... What happened to voting based on character not your words? some R's are being douches and some D's are doing it too... its like there is such a sibling rivalry going on that no one cares about the meat and the potatoes... just how much shit they can fling at eachother.

The bill is 2310 pages and can be read here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/28572002/Reco … -Full-Text

Im curious to know who has read this front to cover.

Like i said, i just hope they strike the penalties thing out; that just seems kind-of dumb... i mean owning car insurance is one thing... because you driving is a risk to other people; however, thats not exactly the case with health.

How will this effect the insurance companies themselves? wouldn't it run them out of business having to cover people? I'm confused.

Offline

 

#146 | Back to Top03-22-2010 08:18:39 PM

satyreyes
no, definitely no cons
From: New Orleans, Louisiana
Registered: 10-16-2006
Posts: 10328
Website

Re: Politics

Rachel Maddow does a good job summarizing, except for leaving out the individual mandate.

Aine Silveria wrote:

Thanks, IBB, that did help quite a bit, but now I'm very concerned by what Kiss is saying. So, this is effectively making it so it's illegal to not have insurance? I had better have a job by then, or not be out of work again, but if those situations apply, would I be fined something crazy for not being able to afford insurance? That doesn't seem right, and if it is the case, I can start to see the problems people are having with it.

It's not quite as bad as that.  The straight dope on the individual mandate:

- In general, if you live in America, you will be required to carry health insurance.  If you do not carry health insurance, you'll pay a fine that will start (in 2014) at around $90, and eventually rise to $750.
- Important exception: You do not have to carry health insurance if the cheapest policy costs more than 8% of your monthly income.  You also do not pay the fine if for any reason you cannot find health insurance at all.
- Furthermore, if you make less than about $40,000 and your insurance bill is more than a certain percentage of your monthly income (between 5% and 9%, more or less), the federal government will pay the excess.  These are the "subsidies" you may have heard about.  As a result, people who are poor, elderly, sick, or out of work -- that is, people whose bills are often higher than they can afford to pay -- will have less trouble affording insurance.  People who are even poorer can enroll in Medicaid, which is being expanded.  The "cap" on how much of your insurance bill you have to pay depends on how much you make.  You can find a calculator here!  (Quick and sort of fun.)

IBB wrote:

On that note, I heard on Keith Olbermann's show tonight that the penalty for not having insurance has been struck from the bill... in other words there will be no penalty.  I haven't heard anything other than that on that particular subject yet, though, but I'm sure satyr will offer his insight when he sees this discussion.

I haven't heard anything about that, but it could be.  Certainly Republicans plan to bring legal challenges before the Supreme Court about the constitutionality of the individual mandate, but I'm pretty sure it hasn't been removed legislatively.

Edited to fix some numbers.  Apologies to anyone confused!

Last edited by satyreyes (03-22-2010 08:32:06 PM)

Offline

 

#147 | Back to Top03-22-2010 08:28:49 PM

Imaginary Bad Bug
Revolutionary
From: Connecticut, USA
Registered: 10-16-2006
Posts: 2168
Website

Re: Politics

satyreyes wrote:

- Important exception: You do not have to carry health insurance if the cheapest policy costs more than 8.8% of your monthly income.  You also do not pay the fine if for any reason you cannot find health insurance at all.
- Furthermore, if your insurance bill is more than 8.8% of your monthly income, the federal government will pay the excess.  These are the "subsidies" you may have heard about.  As a result, people who are poor, elderly, sick, or out of work -- that is, people whose bills are often higher than they can afford to pay -- will have less trouble affording insurance.  People who are even poorer can enroll in Medicaid, which is being expanded; according to the Christian Science Monitor, they also have to pay a smaller percentage of income.

I have a feeling that this might be what Olbermann meant by what he said tonight about the penalties being lifted. It was only a passing reference though at the beginning of his commentary piece tonight at the end of his show. (Which was primarily about all the hate speech that seems to be bubbling up again because of the Tea Partiers and whatnot.)

As to Rose's concerns about bias... I know full well that Maddow and Olbermann are both dyed in the wool liberals (such as myself), but even with their own philosophies I take them both to stick to the facts and not be the types to "conveniently" leave stuff out like their counterparts on the right do...

Last edited by Imaginary Bad Bug (03-22-2010 08:31:34 PM)


http://lh5.ggpht.com/_HERdW38xV_c/S5xZ2QVrIwI/AAAAAAAAApg/uNpckSbLgUw/s800/utenaban.jpg

Offline

 

#148 | Back to Top03-22-2010 09:28:46 PM

Raven Nightshade
Someday Shiner
From: Louisiana
Registered: 12-17-2006
Posts: 2916

Re: Politics

I'm happy about the subsidy because I don't really see myself making $40,000/year in my lifetime unless it gets adjusted for inflation.

As for the Medicaid expansion, I'm hoping it'll get expanded to childless households because Texas will not let me have full benefits due to being child-free. Because clearly, single people can afford $200/month insurance. emot-rolleyes


Sometimes I wonder if I'm ever gonna make it home again.
It's so far and out of sight.
I really need someone to talk to and nobody else
Knows how to comfort me tonight.

Offline

 

#149 | Back to Top03-30-2010 04:39:37 PM

Prince_of_Stars
Someday Shiner
From: The Hellsing Organization
Registered: 06-12-2008
Posts: 4165
Website

Re: Politics

Alright, I'm not a total genius in the ways of government, but I understand the outcries of both sides. There was an article that talked about how Michael Steele and crew have been using party cash to go to clubs and all this other shit. Now, I'm not placing myself on either side, because I have a problem with both sides. I know they said that your voice can be heard when you vote, but voting still leaves the little guys out. None of us on here were born with a silver spoon in our mouths, and it's really hard to have faith in the government period, no matter who's running it. I'm tired of the mudslinging and the Obama sucks, Bush sucks crap. I don't care who's doing what anymore. I think every single one of them needs to be thrown out of office and we need to start off all over again. The government is rotting, and we need some way to take it apart from the inside so that everyone can be represented the way things were meant to be. I'm sick of watching the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. I'm tired of watching my mom go begrudgingly to work even when she's not feeling well. I'm tired of everyone I know, myself included, jumping into the military because that's the only way they can get a job. I'm tired of the bullshit wars, and I'm tired of the economy going to crap. If we could only find a way to start over...


http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c174/chani_sama/prince-sig.png

Sir Hellsing: Leader of the Feminine Failure Revolution
Faithfully failing at feminine tasks, gender roles, and the conventionality of femininity since 1990.

Offline

 

#150 | Back to Top03-30-2010 06:03:22 PM

satyreyes
no, definitely no cons
From: New Orleans, Louisiana
Registered: 10-16-2006
Posts: 10328
Website

Re: Politics

Prince, I read an interesting article the other day on FiveThirtyEight on a related subject; you can read it here.  It turns out that half of all voters feel the same way you do: if there were a proposal on the ballot to fire every member of Congress and start from scratch, they'd do it.  The article goes on to argue that this would actually be a bad idea, since new Congressmen who don't know how things work are more likely to be influenced by lobbyists from powerful groups.  Empirical evidence backs this up.  Congress was built by the Framers to move slowly; it'd take something even more drastic than kicking individual politicians to the curb en masse to effect revolutionary change!

Offline

 

Board footer

Powered by PunBB 1.2.23
© Copyright 2002–2008 PunBB
Forum styled and maintained by Giovanna and Yasha
Return to Empty Movement