[BenignDesign]

frotteur is gibberish?!?! And I've spent so many nights dreaming of sloth rubbing his junk on my unsuspecting person.... all for naught.

[DarenR]

Awe and I even sold tickets and had the web cams ready --- thanks alot benign and sloth

[h4nnib4l]

Hey assholes, you weren't supposed to tell her!!

[Celerian]

I'm indifferent. Probably more liberal leanings, whatever the fuck that means. But really, I don't care. Both of the major parties are willing to drive our country into a hole, and both parties practically refuse to work together in order to make the other look like the bad guy. For example, take a look at Obama's first term. The Republicans have done everything they possibly can to stop Obama's administration from doing anything, and then they're standing on the position that he has done nothing for the country. So to the ignorant masses, hey yeah, that black feller there didn't do anything for the country! I'm voting Republican!

Democrats really aren't much better, except their usually a little more open to trying to work with the Republicans. Though it seems that when a Republican is in office the Democrats go, "Ok, let's work together. Wait, you want to start a war against an intangible danger? I'm not so sure about this. I'll go along for the ride, but I'll probably fuss the entire time." Instead of trying to stop the dumb shit the Republicans like to pull, the Democrats just let them do it.

And the minor parties aren't much better. Not only do they not get the funding and the exposure they need to even out the playing field, but when they DO, they end up being batshit insane like the Tea Party. Once I had thought that Republicans were crazy enough, and then some little fringe group gets started and they just happen to bring an extra bag of crazy to the proverbial table.

So, I am decidedly independent and indifferent. I don't really care who gets picked. I don't vote because I don't care.

[Craig328]

I'm a student of history and it's my personal opinion that we are watching the start of the end stage of the American republic. Much the same thing happened to Rome back in the day: once the people realized they code vote themselves entitlements it was all downhill from there and Rome collapsed due to apathy, financial infirmity in the face of internal schisms and external challenges.

That said, I'm an American first and not really pleased to be affiliated with any political party. For instance, in the upcoming election, I'm again rather disappointed that in a nation of 330+ million people the two best we can come up with to choose from is Obama and Romney? Really? That's the best we can do? If it is, it's just another example of how fucked we are as a nation.

However, I do and will vote this November but I'll do so not really expecting any serious change in our fortunes going forward. There is so much wrong with this country now that I believe it cannot be undone via the system we have in place now. So many changes need to be made to even create the foundation for the bigger changes that need to be implemented and the idiots we elect couldn't collectively pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were printed on the heel.

One thing I'd like to see: term limits. When we have members of Congress who have been in Washington for generations...that's nothing but a breeding ground for graft, corruption and abuse. We drained swamps to rid ourselves of disease, we likewise need to drain Congress of the environment that breeds intransigence and self-interest at the expense of the good of the country.

Oh, and LOD, it's "commie".

[jon.kiparsky]

Craig328, on 27 June 2012 - 08:40 AM, said:

One thing I'd like to see: term limits. When we have members of Congress who have been in Washington for generations...that's nothing but a breeding ground for graft, corruption and abuse. We drained swamps to rid ourselves of disease, we likewise need to drain Congress of the environment that breeds intransigence and self-interest at the expense of the good of the country.

This seems in direct contradiction to the often-heard claim that we should "run the government like a business". I don't subscribe to that as a rule, but it seems to me that inexperience is not usually considered a virtue in most fields of human activity. Or, putting it another way, if we have term limits for politicians, why shouldn't we have them for executives in business, for artists, teachers, and so forth?

[DarenR]

jon.kiparsky, on 27 June 2012 - 10:16 AM, said:

Craig328, on 27 June 2012 - 08:40 AM, said:

One thing I'd like to see: term limits. When we have members of Congress who have been in Washington for generations...that's nothing but a breeding ground for graft, corruption and abuse. We drained swamps to rid ourselves of disease, we likewise need to drain Congress of the environment that breeds intransigence and self-interest at the expense of the good of the country.

This seems in direct contradiction to the often-heard claim that we should "run the government like a business". I don't subscribe to that as a rule, but it seems to me that inexperience is not usually considered a virtue in most fields of human activity. Or, putting it another way, if we have term limits for politicians, why shouldn't we have them for executives in business, for artists, teachers, and so forth?

Well for one -- congress has a direct effect on millions while executives, artists, teachers, etc do not. You can choose to buy a product or not-- have a specific teacher or not, buy art or not--- but you dont have that choice when a congress person is making the laws that directly effect you.

[h4nnib4l]

I think that in many cases, the things considered advantages of the tenure and experience of a corporate executive are some of the biggest problems for government officials. Government doesn't seem to attract the best and the brightest, and there isn't some unified corporate vision that our government follows: to follow the corporate analogy, it is like a massive company in a permanent hostile takeover/transition phase. America doesn't have a 10 year plan, much less a 100 year plan. We already have a pseudo-appointment system for our CEO: corporate backing and campaigning gain party nomination, and corporate/party backing and campaigning (and whatever nefarious shit the opposing party has done with their tenure in power) gain the White House. Anyone who thinks we have a wide variety to choose from in elections isn't paying attention. The corporate analogy is dangerous because the government has all of the worst characteristics (and none of the best) of a massive company. What happens when a company becomes insolvent and all of their debt is purchased? The purchaser owns the company, even if it continues to run under its own brand name. Following the corporate analogy, that would mean that China owns us. I don't believe that is the case (didn't we have the same conversations about Japan once upon a time?), so IMHO that is further proof that the corporate analogy can't hold in fundamental ways.

[jon.kiparsky]

DarenR, on 27 June 2012 - 09:28 AM, said:

Well for one -- congress has a direct effect on millions while executives, artists, teachers, etc do not. You can choose to buy a product or not-- have a specific teacher or not, buy art or not--- but you dont have that choice when a congress person is making the laws that directly effect you.

I'm sorry, is that supposed to be an argument for maximizing inexperience in government? If so, could you please develop it a little?

[h4nnib4l]

DarenR, on 27 June 2012 - 09:28 AM, said:

Well for one -- congress has a direct effect on millions while executives, artists, teachers, etc do not. You can choose to buy a product or not-- have a specific teacher or not, buy art or not--- but you dont have that choice when a congress person is making the laws that directly effect you.

Teachers most definitely have an effect on millions. The failures of our educational system are having a direct affect on our nation of well over 300 million people every day, in obvious ways. You think the CEO of Proctor and Gamble doesn't make decisions that affect millions. Shit, when you include subsidiaries, contract-work firms, dedicated manufacturing facilities, etc, P&G employs millions of people. You might also be surprised to find out that the competing product you bought to avoid a P&G product is also, far up the ladder, owned by P&G. These companies cross-subsidize entire markets: make no mistake, even without the corporate money/political connection, executives of the big boys affect millions. I also feel like art, throughout our history, has affected its fair share of people...

[DarenR]

No not an argument -- just a fact. So then by your inexperience remark I would say that you would want someone experienced in governement? Well how do you get experience? You just dont magically acquire it. And if you go by straight up experience let me remind you of how nice and experienced government officals allowed Enron, Bank failures, etc to occur. No my friend, politicians are in there for one thing and one thing only-- money and greed. Look at jesse ventura(sp) he tried to change hsi state and got accosted for it. So lets go back to this experience we arte talking about?!

[Craig328]

I personally don't subscribe to the notion that we should run government like a business in it's entirety. Government by virtue of the fact that they can make the rules for everyone else and then, should they decide the rules are onerous for themselves, decide to say the rules don't apply to them means, to me, that they are not at all like a business. Now, in terms of being fiscally responsible, yes, government should adhere a lot more to a business model than they do (as is witnessed by our current $15T debt, for example). And typically that's the context in which you hear most claims that government should be run like a business: when it comes to taxation and spending.

Most American's don't know much about the early history of our government and the desires of the founding fathers for what the relationship of our government should have with the people. For instance, during the Revolutionary War, the "capitol" or where the analog to the federal government met was in New York and later in Philadelphia. Two well established cities with facilities to host the gatherings of the Continental Congresses. Why then once the country gained its independence did we shift the seat of government from Philadelphia? The District of Columbia was carved from Virginia and Maryland and was designated as the future location of our federal government. Neither state protested at the loss of lands along the Potomac River at a time when states held far more power over affairs than the federal government did. Do you know what the primary quality of the District of Columbia was and why neither Virginia or Maryland uttered so much as a mild protest when it was chosen as the site of the federal government?

It's because it was a hot, fetid, disease harboring swamp.

Washington D.C. was, when it was established, a swamp that was most notable as the home of malaria and yellow fever...and it was specifically chosen because the founding fathers regarded the federal government as a necessary evil and didn't want anyone getting too comfortable with being a congressman or president. They wanted the environment to be one that people would naturally wish to avoid so that when they gathered to do the business of government they didn't tarry at it and would clear town as soon as possible. The notion was that they wanted people to regard service at the federal level to be noble but not all that fun or fulfilling...and certainly not something people aspired to spend decades doing.

The environment has been mastered these days and so that's not functioning as a lever to make people want to retire from government life for the easier and more personally rewarding endeavors they could do at home. The constitution wasn't written with term limits in mind because they thought people hanging around to do federal work wouldn't be a problem. It's why the 22nd Amendment was passed (limiting a president to two terms) and it's why we should have something similar for Congress.

[jon.kiparsky]

Let me be a little more explicit about my position. I think that people in groups need government, and that government is a necessary function in society which should be performed as well as possible. If the current arrangement of our government is not satisfactory - and I think it is not - it is necessary to improve it. Simply saying "it isn't working, therefore we should get rid of it" is, I think, idiotic. Unfortunately, it is a popular position with a number of people - these people do not generally agree on their political positions as a whole, so I am not singling out any particular political wing here. The idiocy is evenly distributed.

Now, if you agree that government is needed and that it should be improved and you also believe that we should have term limits, then I think you must be arguing that term limits would improve government. I can imagine plausible arguments for this position, but I think they're not convincing. I'd like you to try to convince me of this proposition - worst case, we can have fun arguing the point, best case one of us will learn something.

[Robin19]

Craig328, on 27 June 2012 - 08:40 AM, said:

For instance, in the upcoming election, I'm again rather disappointed that in a nation of 330+ million people the two best we can come up with to choose from is Obama and Romney? Really? That's the best we can do? If it is, it's just another example of how fucked we are as a nation.

That's because politics is no longer about having good ideas. Romney made fun of a gay person 40 years ago?!? He doesn't deserve to be president. I'm not 40 yet and I did things in my younger years I'm not proud of. I'm sure doing something stupid while younger would eliminate most of the 330+ million. You also have to be able to deliver a speech in front of a camera. Have an accent? You're stupid. Stumble over words during a live interview? You're stupid. Use a lot of big words? You're boring.

None of that has to do with how the candidate will solve the unsolvable problems a country faces.

[jon.kiparsky]

Quote

Washington D.C. was, when it was established, a swamp that was most notable as the home of malaria and yellow fever...and it was specifically chosen because the founding fathers regarded the federal government as a necessary evil and didn't want anyone getting too comfortable with being a congressman or president.

Do you have any citations for this? It seems quite dubious to me, and it's not something that I've ever heard proposed except as a joke.
The more usual story that I've come across is simple economics: states weren't going to give up valuable land, but a fetid, festering swamp was more of a liability than an asset, so this was land that could be had relatively easily. In addition, it was unused land, which would be both important (since there was a lot of building to be done) and rare (since good places to put cities tend to have cities on them) and it was more centrally located than Philadelphia or New York, which would be critically important considering the difficulties involved in overland travel in that period.

The idea that the "founding fathers" (such an awful term) had an objection to extended commitment to public life seems to be contradicted by their actions. Washington as Cincinnatus is a lovely story, but Adams was in public office from 1774 to 1801, and Jefferson from 1775 to 1809, to take two obvious examples. Nobody seems to question either their status as founders or their commitment to the founding virtues of the US - how do we reconcile this with the "amateur politician" ideal that's recently become so popular?

Edit: inserted an omitted "was"

This post has been edited by jon.kiparsky: 27 June 2012 - 09:09 AM