Is the GOP just a big joke?

[ex post slarto]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

should i post the futurist manifesto

somebody tell me to post the futurist manifesto and i'll do it

that would be ironic. especially because it is much less likely to crash the boards than alec and marx

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

should i post the futurist manifesto

somebody tell me to post the futurist manifesto and i'll do it

Post the fascist manifesto instead! Because that totally describes the fascist movement entirely with flawless accuracy!

[ex post slarto]

The Communist Manifesto was posted here, in its entirity, infamously. I don't remember if it actually crashed the boards or if it just ate up the thread it was in. This was long, long ago.

[VCH]

Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES

The Communist Manifesto was posted here, in its entirity, infamously. I don't remember if it actually crashed the boards or if it just ate up the thread it was in. This was long, long ago.

Shall we try it again?

[Randomizer]

You do know that crashing the boards is a bannable offense?

 

Please, please can I ban him?

[Goldengirl]

Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES

The Communist Manifesto was posted here, in its entirity, infamously. I don't remember if it actually crashed the boards or if it just ate up the thread it was in. This was long, long ago.

I remember that! Oh, good times. That was my first actual time reading any of the Manifesto, too.

[Ceiling Durkheim]

It's not that long. If you really want to mess with the servers, post all of Capital.

[VCH]

Originally Posted By: Randomizer

You do know that crashing the boards is a bannable offense?

Please, please can I ban him?

But how will you it was me? I wont use this account. I'll make one up, say, Randomiser, I think that will do.

[Randomizer]

Randomiser is already taken.

 

Besides we have ways of finding out. BWAHAHAHA

[Erebus the Black]

The only way to find out is IP and if he's smart he'll use an internet cafe.

[TheBadAgent]

With the idea about Chuck Norris and the rest, you are taking it too far. I used the norris idea because he's the closest we've got to a cowboy character. The point of this is not to form'a dictator, but to have a likeable public figure that can say what'must be said and to do things others wouldn't before in a way. The law would not be above them, as the People are supposed to make the laws technically, as they should be represented by good senators. You guys are not reading and understaning what is being said. I did not'say that chuck should be president, I used him as an example for characteristics.

 

Also, the mentality of restraint needs to be said, this isn't a dictatorship in the making, it is meant to be a true leader with non-politician characteristics in a way. The man who can rally people by showing them he is worth following. The breaking of the teleprompter screen Is necessary, because that is not the politician talking, it is his script writer.

 

Seriously, you people vote? Scary that you cannot read an intended message. Do I have to write some prose and give an assignment?

[Sarachim]

I didn't say you were literally a fascist. I said that the argument you're making was accepted once, and that fascism was the eventual result. Having one popular guy "say what must be said" presumes that everybody agrees just what needs saying. When somebody challenges him by saying something different, either you permit that and you're back to square one, or you forbid it and you get fascism.

 

Also, on a personal note, I am doing my best to disagree with you strongly but respectfully. Please extend me the same courtesy, without questioning my ability to read.

[TheBadAgent]

Well consider my apologies here, as I ranted on the other post. It just appears that you have not read them and understood them. Maybe mympoints need to be typed out more, but on this Xoom, it is tedious.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: TheBadAgent

Also, the mentality of restraint needs to be said, this isn't a dictatorship in the making, it is meant to be a true leader with non-politician characteristics in a way. The man who can rally people by showing them he is worth following.

this is pretty much why people voted for obama, and look how that worked out

it turns out platitudes are easy but policies are hard

[Soul of Wit]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

Originally Posted By: TheBadAgent

Also, the mentality of restraint needs to be said, this isn't a dictatorship in the making, it is meant to be a true leader with non-politician characteristics in a way. The man who can rally people by showing them he is worth following.

this is pretty much why people voted for obama, and look how that worked out

it turns out platitudes are easy but policies are hard

Obama showed some backbone with his recent speech on the deficit. The problem is that his word can't be trusted. He's reneged on multiple campaign promises. Mind you, I still support Obama. The alternatives are worse. Unfortunately, he and his handlers know how the progressives feel. I expect more moving to the middle (read: moving well right of center) from this administration.

Our nation is becoming an oligarchy. Corporations are people now; the SCOTUS said so. Lincoln spoke of government of, for and by the people. There was no mention of corporations in that speech.

Obama could lead, but it requires flipping the bird at corporations. Cutting the deficit, in my mind, requires several things:

• Revive the economy before you start (deficits are necessary during economic downturns)
• Cut defense spending (it's soaring upward, even when the cost of multiple wars is ignored)
• Severely limit corporate welfare (subsidies for oil companies and corn growers is waste, pure and simple)
• Restore the Clinton-era tax rates (this is not class warfare--tax breaks for the rich simply do not help the economy)

Do all of these and then we'll see if "entitlements" need to be tweaked.

[Lilith]

corporate personhood isn't exactly the problem: being a legal person just means that a corporation is an entity that can be dealt with by the law, which is important if it does something bad and you need to sue it. the actual problem is that for some reason the supreme court thinks that donating vast sums of money to a politician's campaign fund counts as "speech"

[*i]

Lilith, there is that and corporations are immune to the same psychological impacts of deterrence the rest of us as individuals are. Much of our legal system is built to deal with people, not abstract objects that cannot know emotions such as shame, fear, and guilt. You can't throw a corporation in prison to protect the rest of society; you can only assess monetary damages.

 

Sure, there are individuals behind the corporations, but they are largely shielded from all but the most severe retribution. Even if you deliver such a monetary blow to a large corporation that you effectively "kill" it, the individuals behind it will, in all likelihood, be doing just fine sans their positions. Further, as a corporation, there is little motive to "do good". In fact, they are legally obligated to make a profit even if it means messing up their community.

 

Effectively, corporations are immortal and unimprisonable sociopaths that are almost impossible to destroy. The laws that tend to deter people from doing bad things usually don't work on them.

[ex post slarto]

So basically, they're demons?

[*i]

Don't get me wrong, corporations can and often do plenty of good and they are essential for a modern economy. Unfortunately, unlike real people, they sometimes lack the motive to behave and can lead to a net negative overall while they still gain. In theory, regulation is supposed to help align their motives with that of society, but when they have the ability to influence said regulation to their liking, the system tends to become unstable in favor of corporate interests.

[Micawber]

There was some research wasn't there, likening corporations to psychopaths - they have no conscience.

 

But I think it goes wider than corporations. For whatever reason, collections of people generally do seem to behave in ways that a single person might not. Crowds/mobs, religious institutions, political groupings...

[Dikiyoba]

Originally Posted By: Micawber

There was some research wasn't there, likening corporations to psychopaths - they have no conscience.

You could be thinking of a segment from The Corporation.

Dikiyoba.

[Enraged Slith]

Is this even legal?

[*i]

Quote:

But I think it goes wider than corporations. For whatever reason, collections of people generally do seem to behave in ways that a single person might not. Crowds/mobs, religious institutions, political groupings...

Micawber, agree with you. Whenever some group gains some practical protection from the collective that shields the individuals, their behavioral dynamics tend to differ. The issue with corporations is they are legally enshrined with "free speech" protections and have the resources to have major influence over the political landscape in ways most of the others cannot.

[Randomizer]

Originally Posted By: Enraged Slith

Is this even legal?

Maybe, but there will be a court challenge over whether federal law establishing a candidate's viability supersedes state's rights to add more restrictions. Arizona politics is a bunch of Republican extremists pushing strange agendas between passing laws to benefit themselves.

Arizona presidential candidate John McCain faced a similar issue since he was born in the Panama Canal Zone.

[Student of Trinity]

I think I agree with Lilith, that there is no fundamental problem with the legal fiction that corporations are persons. But although you can fine a corporation, you can't put it in prison. (Maybe some archaic punishments would work, though? What if McDonald's could be compelled by a court to display its logo covered in tar and feathers? The PR hit might be quite the deterrent.)

 

The main problem is that the corporation has no actual mind of its own, just a board of directors and a bunch of executives. There remain basic problems in aligning their interests, the company's interests, the shareholders' interests, and the public's interests.

 

I am gradually learning that the German economy is a bit different from what I'm used to. A large and generally very healthy slab of the German economy consists of middle-sized firms, sometimes centuries old and often still privately held, that have survived all this time by finding their niche and beating the world at exploiting it. One of the advantages that has allowed them to pull this off seems to be the freedom to forego short-term gains for longer term stability.

 

It's not entirely clear that this is necessarily beneficial for the public. Maybe people would be getting their widgets cheaper now, if the widgets were being made by the fifth company in a series of aggressive price-cutters who all went bankrupt in a decade or two, instead of by the same conservative family-owned business that first set up shop in 1750.

 

But there are probably some things to be said for the German way.

[Lilith]

part of the problem is the culture of managerialism: the directors of publicly traded companies are in practice seldom held accountable even to their own shareholders, let alone to their employees, their customers or the general public. corporate board members are increasingly appointed primarily on the recommendation of other board members with the acquiesence of shareholders who aren't offered any better options, and running a company into the ground for personal gain is seldom seen as a major black mark on your career when your colleagues are all doing the same thing

 

if corporations really did act purely to maximise shareholder value on any timescale beyond the next few months, that would in many cases be an improvement over the status quo

[Dikiyoba]

Originally Posted By: Randomizer

Originally Posted By: Enraged Slith

Is this even legal?

Maybe, but there will be a court challenge over whether federal law establishing a candidate's viability supersedes state's rights to add more restrictions. Arizona politics is a bunch of Republican extremists pushing strange agendas between passing laws to benefit themselves.

In other words, legality doesn't even enter into it.

Dikiyoba.

[Soul of Wit]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

corporate personhood isn't exactly the problem: being a legal person just means that a corporation is an entity that can be dealt with by the law, which is important if it does something bad and you need to sue it. the actual problem is that for some reason the supreme court thinks that donating vast sums of money to a politician's campaign fund counts as "speech"

Recognizing corporations as a legal entity and giving corporations the rights of people are very different things. The SCOTUS was wrong and will eventually overturn itself (if people quit voting for corporatists.)

[Soul of Wit]

Originally Posted By: Enraged Slith

Is this even legal?

Almost certainly not. The US constitution requires full faith and credit to other state's laws. The Arizona law essentially says that Hawaii's way to document a live birth is not good enough for Arizona. That will only fly if the SCOTUS is even more screwed up than I think that they are.

[Randomizer]

Originally Posted By: Soul of Wit

Originally Posted By: Enraged Slith

Is this even legal?

Almost certainly not. The US constitution requires full faith and credit to other state's laws. The Arizona law essentially says that Hawaii's way to document a live birth is not good enough for Arizona. That will only fly if the SCOTUS is even more screwed up than I think that they are.

Bush v. Gore

[ex post slarto]

Bush v. Gore has a reputation that far overshoots what it deserves. If you look at the legal issues involved, the SCOTUS was very cautious. On the two main issues, one was decided 7-2 with support from two liberal justices. The other issue (the December 12 deadline) was split along party lines -- but the remedy provided by the court was to remand the issue back to Florida, which provided Gore the opportunity for further litigation. He chose not to use it.

 

The SCOTUS can be criticized for neither highlighting, nor requiring fixes to, the broken parts of the election system that led to Bush v. Gore, particularly the parts left up to the states. But both the majority and dissenting opinions, as usual, are arguable, reasonable, legal positions. Whatever criticism you want to fire at individual judges for their potential biases, this case is not a great example of the Court being "screwed up," rather it's an example of the Court being cautious.

[A less presumptuous name.]

Originally Posted By: Randomizer

Originally Posted By: Enraged Slith

Is this even legal?

Maybe, but there will be a court challenge over whether federal law establishing a candidate's viability supersedes state's rights to add more restrictions. Arizona politics is a bunch of Republican extremists pushing strange agendas between passing laws to benefit themselves.

Isn't it somewhere in the USC that states run elections? I may be wrong, but this may actually be a valid law! Off to read the Constitution (again).

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Soul of Wit

Recognizing corporations as a legal entity and giving corporations the rights of people are very different things. The SCOTUS was wrong and will eventually overturn itself (if people quit voting for corporatists.)

i know, but for the record, corporate personhood has never meant and still does not mean that a corporation has all the rights that a natural person does. people often equate the two positions but it's a misconception: even the CU decision, bad as it was, didn't go that far

[Swimmin' Salmon]

Originally Posted By: Student of Trinity

Hey, Salmon. How are things?

They are well. Busy as always. You?

[Android]

I have to confess I'm just a tiny bit excited by American politics right now.

Is there a realistic chance that Palin will win the election, or is this just hyperbole?(Or the nomination of her party for that matter.)

It would be epic, but I have much more faith in the American population than to believe she might win. But what do I know!

[Lilith]

i can't exactly see the recent public release of the contents of her email account under freedom of information laws helping her at all

[Randomizer]

The only way Palin could win is if she could keep her mouth shut with something other than her foot in it. Her only qualification is that she was the Republican's vice-presidential nominee.

[Jerakeen]

I think she's just flirting with the idea in an attempt to stay relevant and keep the bucks rolling in, but who knows? She's unpredictable enough.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Randomizer

The only way Palin could win is if she could keep her mouth shut with something other than her foot in it.

Let's not get too risqué now, especially since the whole scandal with Rep. Wiener (yes, that's his actual name. Hilarious, I know) hasn't blown over yet. One political sex scandal at a time is enough, thak you very much.

[Dintiradan]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

i can't exactly see the recent public release of the contents of her email account under freedom of information laws helping her at all

If by 'release' you mean 'boxes of print-outs in Juneau'. Trying to skirt around FOI happens everywhere, it seems. Apparently the AP will be scanning the entire works... and then only giving the information to their members and clients.

Fun fact: Last night I dreamt that Obama and Palin were getting a divorce. My subconscious doesn't have the strongest grip on politics in the States, it seems.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Dintiradan

Originally Posted By: Lilith

i can't exactly see the recent public release of the contents of her email account under freedom of information laws helping her at all

If by 'release' you mean 'boxes of print-outs in Juneau'. Trying to skirt around FOI happens everywhere, it seems. Apparently the AP will be scanning the entire works... and then only giving the information to their members and clients.

so i'm guessing you haven't seen this

[The Ratt]

I guess my most recent problem with US politics is that the populous makes fun of politicians as being unintelligent, corrupt, immoral, and unpopular. Not only is this *mostly* inaccurate, but it raises the question, "why don't you do something?" Though that question raises many more questions, and gets at the idea that it's easier to critique the actions of others than do it yourself.

 

Of course I also think my ideas for a government are better than the current government, just like everyone else.

[Dintiradan]

Oh hey. Good to see the article I was reading earlier today was wrong, then.

[Erebus the Black]

Originally Posted By: The Ratt

politicians as being unintelligent, corrupt, immoral, and unpopular. ... but it raises the question, "why don't you do something?"

That's because people who think this (such as me) find it as a general description of man kind.

[A less presumptuous name.]

We read this in our AP US History class while our teacher was away. I only skimmed it, but it may be an interesting read for those of you interested in the reasons for and against American's political involvement.

[ex post slarto]

Interesting article to look at 12 years later. Generation X now consists of thirtysomethings instead of twentysomethings, and overly philosophical newspaper articles are written about the current generation of twentysomethings instead. I don't think I've heard the suggestion remotely recently that Gen X is any more politically disengaged than anyone else.

[Dintiradan]

tl;dr version: O tempora! O mores!

[Student of Trinity]

ot;om.

[A less presumptuous name.]

Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES

Interesting article to look at 12 years later. Generation X now consists of thirtysomethings instead of twentysomethings, and overly philosophical newspaper articles are written about the current generation of twentysomethings instead. I don't think I've heard the suggestion remotely recently that Gen X is any more politically disengaged than anyone else.

Our teacher has been pulling these articles out of collections that she got a number of years ago, so nothing is all that recent. It's still interesting to look at some of the explanations for the political disengagement.

[Micawber]

Does studying political disengagement lead to student disengagement?