2008 is tomorrow!

jenkins · Post by **jenkins** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:14 am

Two from Utah voting for Obama? This is going to be an interesting election indeed.

And not to deliberately attract undue flak, but can everyone stop complaining about taxes? They're really not such a burden, and they are vital for the survival of the country. Unless, of course, public water and electricity don't seem too vital to you. Heck, I'll vote for whoever boosts taxes, provided they seem to know how to spend them.

Black Rook · Post by **Black Rook** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:15 am

Listen. I make my own water and grow my own electricity. I don't need your fancy public service.

Heroic One · Post by **Heroic One** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 2:27 pm

Also known as a "true American hero".

gr4yJ4Y · Post by **gr4yJ4Y** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 2:51 pm

jenkins, I think you mean you would want to vote for someone who could maximize tax revenue, not just taxes. Deadweight loss could actually lower the overall amount of money the government recieves from raising taxes.

As for voting... It's way too early to tell. I probably wouldn't vote for Clinton just because of her view against video games (much more important than the war or taxes, you know). Currently my vote is with Obama.

Wooduck51 · Post by **Wooduck51** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:28 pm

Delphine wrote:
Wooduck51 wrote:Shall not raise my taxes.
Shall end the income tax.
Shall not try to take my guns.
Shall not try to put microchips in everything I own including
and not limited to my birds.
Shall not make life hell by signing any save the earth treaties unless
it means going entirely nuclear.
Shall end the party system.
Shall not be a prick.
Crap. I had your vote until the last one.

Well he/she could be a prick if they followed the other guidelines, just cuz' you act like an ass doesn't mean you are not smart or intelligent. It just means you are an ass.

Yami CJMErl · Post by **Yami CJMErl** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 5:23 pm

Following THOSE guidelines, Wooduck, I'd probably vote for House.

Baba O'Reily · Post by **Baba O'Reily** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:11 pm

Politics. Fwah.

Representative democracy is an inherently contradictory system. The people have the power to give other people the power to control a country.

Anarchy sucks equally hard, as do socialism, hereditary rule, and oligarchies.

Post by **Delphine** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:05 pm

I like how you include anarchy in a list of governing systems when anarchy is the <i>lack</i> of a governing system.

Light Speed · Post by **Light Speed** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:39 pm

It is still a possible option though.

jenkins · Post by **jenkins** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:19 pm

Not really. Ever wonder what happens when you take a pack of anarchists and maroon them?

Zeta · Post by **Zeta** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:54 pm

Not really. Ever wonder what happens when you take a pack of anarchists and maroon them?

Lots of kinky sex?

Baba O'Reily · Post by **Baba O'Reily** » Wed Feb 14, 2007 11:22 am

Delphine wrote:I like how you include anarchy in a list of governing systems when anarchy is the <i>lack</i> of a governing system.

I'm saying that every option is an equally shitty option, even the lack of a system. And even then, total anarchy is impossible, as there would always (at the very least) be some form of popular sovereignty among groups of people, no matter how small, unless they were living by themselves.

Rolken · Post by **Rolken** » Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:52 pm

Baba O'Reily wrote:I'm saying that every option is an equally shitty option, even the lack of a system.

I can understand saying they're all bad - but saying they're all equally bad is just ludicrous.

Democracy is built around the ability of the electorate to redress grievances. Sure, the representatives have the most immediately direct expression of power, but to pretend that that somehow trumps the power of the citizenry to remove them is absurd.

As for taxes... not all of it is 'vital to the survival of the country'. Caricaturing it as public water and electricity belittles the issue. Nobody says that sanitation systems should be abolished.

Zeta · Post by **Zeta** » Wed Feb 14, 2007 1:00 pm

Democracy is built around the ability of the electorate to redress grievances. Sure, the representatives have the most immediately direct expression of power, but to pretend that that somehow trumps the power of the citizenry to remove them is absurd.

Actually, that's a Republic Democracy. In a true Democracy, you get rid of those annoying representatives.

Rolken · Post by **Rolken** » Wed Feb 14, 2007 1:33 pm

I was referring to representative democracy, the one that is actually feasible in reality, and you are referring to direct democracy, which has been experimented with but in full form is unrealistic without some measure of representation. To call it 'true' is both incorrect and implies that it is somehow preferable to representative democracy, which is generally not the case.

Post by **Delphine** » Wed Feb 14, 2007 2:14 pm

You're talking in circles. A Democratic Republic IS a representative democracy.

Wooduck51 · Post by **Wooduck51** » Wed Feb 14, 2007 2:28 pm

And a true Democracy is mob rule, the Greeks are a great example.

jenkins · Post by **jenkins** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 7:18 am

Rolken wrote:As for taxes... not all of it is 'vital to the survival of the country'. Caricaturing it as public water and electricity belittles the issue. Nobody says that sanitation systems should be abolished.

But of course, without taxes, they would be. And yes, there are plenty of examples of tax money poured down the drain, even on projects which do have some merit to them, unlike the Gravina Bridge (Boston and its spiffy new tunnel, for instance). I suppose there's no solution to misspent taxes but to study politics until I'm 35, then run for office myself.

And just to play devil's advocate, that Bridge may have a use eventually...once the population of the county goes up to about 500,000. To build it now is ridiculous, but the idea of a bridge isn't entirely worthless. It's just 50 odd years too early.

gr4yJ4Y · Post by **gr4yJ4Y** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 3:59 pm

It might be kind of odd to read this but I think politicians mis-spend money on things just like the rest of us. A lot of what we buy is really just junk or stuff for ourselves we don't really need. The world would probably be a better place if we gave money to the poor and needy, but we continue to spend (most of) it on ourselves. I imagine that politicians are the same way - they spend it to make themselves look good, to give themselves some kind of an edge, or because they don't understand what impact they're making (though they should).

I know the big difference is that politicians are obligated to spend money wisely and we really aren't, but still.

Arcade · Post by **Arcade** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 4:35 pm

I bet my Nachos that the democrats are going to winÃ¢â‚¬Â¦

Baba O'Reily · Post by **Baba O'Reily** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 9:47 pm

That bridge is just another example of pork barrel spending.

And I doubt that the Dems will win.

Black Rook · Post by **Black Rook** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 10:04 pm

They're certainly not going to win if we can look forward to more "we stand in opposition to your plan, but aren't actually going to do anything about it" resolutions.

jenkins · Post by **jenkins** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 10:25 pm

True enough. Although a really, really powerful campaign started now, in conjunction with virually any change in Iraq, may turn the tables.