Budget Player Cadet_
Smash Hero
True, true.
One term for life? Like, 4 year term, then you have to go for a different political branch?
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
The Debate Hall Social Thread
- Thread starter Crimson King
- Start date
One term for life? Like, 4 year term, then you have to go for a different political branch?
Aesir
Smash Master
From a strategic point they actually haven't been doing things to get them re-elected. Passing Health care reform does not get you re-elected. If Democrats wanted to do the political thing they would have focused on the economy and jobs, not health care. a Jobs bill polls much better than health care reform.
More a less agree. You can blame us lefties as we're never going to vote against a democrat cause we have no where left to go.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Messages
- 28,982
I don't follow. I mean Senator Green gets one or two terms then no longer allowed to run.
Budget Player Cadet_
Smash Hero
Now I'm confused.
I'm proposing a system where, if a politician is elected to office, he cannot get another job in the same branch of government once his term is over.
I'm proposing a system where, if a politician is elected to office, he cannot get another job in the same branch of government once his term is over.
KrazyGlue
Smash Champion
Funny, I just had to read that book over summer for school.
I dunno. It's more of a gray area for me. Everyone is virtually guaranteed to be happy, but they really don't have the right to liberty. Well, in some senses. For instance, they can't really choose their career. Doesn't that seem a bit unfair? This book brings up another good question as well: "Do we need to have the right to be unhappy?" It's kinda fun to think about.
On a side note, John annoyed the hell out of me. I don't know if he was intended to be one of the main protagonists or not, but that kid was my least favorite character in the entire book. He's no paragon of virtue either. In fact, he's one of the worst people in the entire book! He's insensitive of people's cultures, emotionally unstable, and borders on being a masochist! Mustapha Mond was actually one of my favorite characters. He struck me as quite interesting.
Hmmmm....
Well, that would solve the issue of people doing things just to get re-elected. But doesn't it seem a bit drastic? If someone is actually doing a really good job, I want them to stay in office. I bet there's a better way to solve this problem. I just can't think of one, unfortunately.
Aesir
Smash Master
If you wanna deprive people from unhappiness and depression then you wanna deprive the world of great ideas. Some of the greatest authors have been some of the most miserable people in the world.
KrazyGlue
Smash Champion
Authors, yeah, but especially artists. Artists are very often emotionally troubled people. The setting of the book Brave New World is essentially devoid of any valuable art and literature.
Bob Jane T-Mart
Smash Ace
Well, I wrote an essay about this actually. It's a little rough. Do you want me to post it?
The brief synopsis is that Huxley is warning us that about loosing our humanity. The people in that novel aren't humans anymore. They don't think for themselves, they don't ask questions as to why they're there or what their purpose is. The World State has become incompatible with this. The only people who can ask these questions and are capable of original thought are unhappy (the Alphas).
So, yeah, pretty dystopic if you ask me. It's basically a society of robots (that used to be people), who are semi-selfaware, but very happy.
And on the subject of election reform, I think preferential voting is possibly the best system. It's very hard to explain. It's where the losing candidates' votes are passed on to the other candidates as per the voters preferences, until there are two candidates left. Whoever has the most votes is the winner.
thegreatkazoo
Smash Master
This.
But even so, Democrats were a different breed compared to 50 years ago just for the fact that things got done. And there was a lot less waffling.
Now you're making CK's option (iirc he said "Don't vote" somewhere on this thread) more viable.
Perhaps is there was an election system that gives the party their power in terms of percentage of the vote they won...
I'd be interested in that essay, Bobby J.
Aesir
Smash Master
You can't blame the democrats for not getting anything done, when there's a minority who just wants to be obstructionist. It was easier to get things done when the New Deal coalition was still around, when people where open to the fact that government can do things well. When the Reagan Revolution happened it completely destroyed that philosophy suddenly everyone thought Government was the problem not realizing that the years of prosperity we had after wwii were because of Government.
Not voting doesn't do anything as it just keeps things where they are, nothing changes and never will change if you don't vote.
Not voting doesn't do anything as it just keeps things where they are, nothing changes and never will change if you don't vote.
Namaste
Smash Apprentice
Honestly I try to not be partisan, I'm generally liberal but I do believe that conservatives can be right in certain economic times and on other points, even if I don't generally believe in their world view. But every day I just find the republican party basing everything on straight up lies and egregious misunderstanding. I wouldn't mind the tea party being the main ones who do that, but now the republican party is straight up kicking everyone off that isn't a hardline conservative on every talking point.
Reaver197
Smash Lord
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2006
- Messages
- 1,287
By the way, I highly recommend reading Timothy Ferris's The Science of Liberty. It's a great book that takes a look into the historical interplay and mutual symbiosis of science and liberal democracy, and how the rise of science and its precepts helped form the ideals of the Enlightenment and, thus, democracy. I'm only a little over half way through it at the moment myself, but it had been a very educational read for me (especially since I have not read much in the way of history as of late).
KrazyGlue
Smash Champion
My thoughts exactly. And they really have a hive mentality. On most major issues, EVERY SINGLE republican will vote inside party lines. Not always true for democrats. For instance, take the health care bill. According to this source, all 178 republicans in the house voted against the bill. 219 democrats voted for it and 34 were against it.
Aesir
Smash Master
Those 34 were southern democrats or democrats from VERY conservative districts, which are really just republicans who vote with democrats when it's politically good for them.
KrazyGlue
Smash Champion
Well, I looked at their profiles and all of them vote with the majority of democrats most of the time.
Here's some:
"Dan Boren has voted with a majority of his Democratic colleagues 88.4% of the time during the current Congress."
"Ben Chandler has voted with a majority of his Democratic colleagues 94.4% of the time during the current Congress."
"Travis Childers has voted with a majority of his Democratic colleagues 81.4% of the time during the current Congress."
"Artur Davis has voted with a majority of his Democratic colleagues 95.4% of the time during the current Congress."
"Lincoln Davis has voted with a majority of his Democratic colleagues 94.8% of the time during the current Congress."
"Chet Edwards has voted with a majority of his Democratic colleagues 96.2% of the time during the current Congress."
"Stephanie Herseth Sandlin has voted with a majority of her Democratic colleagues 91.7% of the time during the current Congress."
"Tim Holden has voted with a majority of his Democratic colleagues 95.5% of the time during the current Congress."
"Larry Kissell has voted with a majority of his Democratic colleagues 96.4% of the time during the current Congress."
"Frank Kratovil has voted with a majority of his Democratic colleagues 84.8% of the time during the current Congress."
And so on.
One to especially consider for example is Stephen Lynch. He is a representative from Massachusetts, one of the bluest states (all 10 representatives are dems), and is in a district that has not had a republican representative since 1963. He votes with dems 97.8% of the time. But he did not vote for the final health care bill.
So, some democrats are willing to vote against party lines. But not republicans, apparently.
Here's some:
"Dan Boren has voted with a majority of his Democratic colleagues 88.4% of the time during the current Congress."
"Ben Chandler has voted with a majority of his Democratic colleagues 94.4% of the time during the current Congress."
"Travis Childers has voted with a majority of his Democratic colleagues 81.4% of the time during the current Congress."
"Artur Davis has voted with a majority of his Democratic colleagues 95.4% of the time during the current Congress."
"Lincoln Davis has voted with a majority of his Democratic colleagues 94.8% of the time during the current Congress."
"Chet Edwards has voted with a majority of his Democratic colleagues 96.2% of the time during the current Congress."
"Stephanie Herseth Sandlin has voted with a majority of her Democratic colleagues 91.7% of the time during the current Congress."
"Tim Holden has voted with a majority of his Democratic colleagues 95.5% of the time during the current Congress."
"Larry Kissell has voted with a majority of his Democratic colleagues 96.4% of the time during the current Congress."
"Frank Kratovil has voted with a majority of his Democratic colleagues 84.8% of the time during the current Congress."
And so on.
One to especially consider for example is Stephen Lynch. He is a representative from Massachusetts, one of the bluest states (all 10 representatives are dems), and is in a district that has not had a republican representative since 1963. He votes with dems 97.8% of the time. But he did not vote for the final health care bill.
So, some democrats are willing to vote against party lines. But not republicans, apparently.
Aesir
Smash Master
They're probably from conservative or swing districts, democrats took up a lot of issues this year that are pretty hard to actually be against unless you're a republican.
They're all probably gonna lose their seat anyway to some dumb *** tea party candidate anyway.
They're all probably gonna lose their seat anyway to some dumb *** tea party candidate anyway.
KrazyGlue
Smash Champion
I will be very, very sad if Christine O'Donnell wins her election. I don't know who's worse, her or Palin. Probably O'Donnell. At least Palin didn't claim to dabble in witchcraft.
Aesir
Smash Master
She won't. Most Republicans are voting for the Democrat now because of her.
#HBC | Dark Horse
Mach-Hommy x Murakami
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2010
- Messages
- 3,739
We hav debater icons.
HYEZ!
Edit: AND I have my 10th anniversary postbit.
double HYEZ!
HYEZ!Edit: AND I have my 10th anniversary postbit.
double HYEZ!
Budget Player Cadet_
Smash Hero
Yesz
10yesz
10yesz
D
Deleted member
Guest
Now I'm happy I didn't go to the anniversary board and have to be stuck with that one, haha.
Bob Jane T-Mart
Smash Ace
I'll put that in the relevant thread.
thegreatkazoo
Smash Master
My debater icon isn't showing for some reason. :S
EDIT: It just did. :$
EDIT: It just did. :$
#HBC | Dark Horse
Mach-Hommy x Murakami
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2010
- Messages
- 3,739
I agree
For BBrawl only.
D
Deleted member
Guest
Debater postbit?
KrazyGlue
Smash Champion
Hell yeah, after 14 months we finally have it!
Yeah, I'm pissed about the 10 year thing. I was on vacation so I didn't have internet access to join the group. And apparently the admins can't just add you as a member of the group.
EDIT: Holy crap, I have a pokemon postbit, too! NICE. And I see Paprika Killer has one for smash researchers. Master hand for mods. Dice for DGames. This is super-awesome!
Yeah, I'm pissed about the 10 year thing. I was on vacation so I didn't have internet access to join the group. And apparently the admins can't just add you as a member of the group.
EDIT: Holy crap, I have a pokemon postbit, too! NICE. And I see Paprika Killer has one for smash researchers. Master hand for mods. Dice for DGames. This is super-awesome!
D
Deleted member
Guest
Yeah, what Admin thought it was funny to give me that anniversary icon after all? I seriously don't like it.
Definitely pleased about the postbit thing finally coming to fruition.
You know what I don't understand..
When I argue sex should not occur outside of marriage, people disagree, but are ok with me having that opinion.
Now because I disagree with sex outside of marriage, I disagree with homosexual acts, yet people re act to that completely differently. They start calling me names, saying Im ignorant and a bad person, and that I must hate gay people, yet they never say I must hate casual sex people in the first argument.
The thing is, they're the exact same argument, yet two completely different reactions. Still puzzles me really.
When I argue sex should not occur outside of marriage, people disagree, but are ok with me having that opinion.
Now because I disagree with sex outside of marriage, I disagree with homosexual acts, yet people re act to that completely differently. They start calling me names, saying Im ignorant and a bad person, and that I must hate gay people, yet they never say I must hate casual sex people in the first argument.
The thing is, they're the exact same argument, yet two completely different reactions. Still puzzles me really.
Aesir
Smash Master
They're not the exact same thing, that's why people do that to you.
Unless you wanna say a gay married couple in my state having sex is the same as two heteros hooking up.
Unless you wanna say a gay married couple in my state having sex is the same as two heteros hooking up.
Budget Player Cadet_
Smash Hero
It's mostly because of the (perceived; true or not) underlying motive, I suppose; or maybe moreso what it means; the consequences of your argument when you argue against extramarital sex is not that extreme-they can have sex, they just have to get married. Whereas the consequences of your argument when you argue against homosexuality is that they never get to have sex.
It's fallacious, but tbh I think it's less that they validate that line of argument and more that they agree with the underlying concept.
It's fallacious, but tbh I think it's less that they validate that line of argument and more that they agree with the underlying concept.
#HBC | Dark Horse
Mach-Hommy x Murakami
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2010
- Messages
- 3,739
Dre, those things are completely different.
It's the same as two uncommitted heteros casually having sex.
The reason why I disagree with the homosexual act is the exact same reason I disagree with the contraception or casual act, yet the reaction is totally different.
It wouldn't make any sense to support uncommitted hetero sex, yet condemn committed homosexual sex.
Edit- Fixed the mistake in my last sentence.
The reason why I disagree with the homosexual act is the exact same reason I disagree with the contraception or casual act, yet the reaction is totally different.
It wouldn't make any sense to support uncommitted hetero sex, yet condemn committed homosexual sex.
Edit- Fixed the mistake in my last sentence.
#HBC | Dark Horse
Mach-Hommy x Murakami
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2010
- Messages
- 3,739
So you're saying that there both not natural?
KrazyGlue
Smash Champion
The difference is, as Aesir said, you're also against married gays having sex. And gays can get married in certain states. And if you're also against gay marriage, that makes it completely different. Because then you'd be saying "gays can't get married, and since they can't get married they can never have sex" as opposed to "heterosexuals can get married, but should wait until then to have sex".
Well yeah I don't agree with homosexual marriage.
You have to remember, what I consider the natural act isn't the natural act because they're married, it's just that you should be married to do it, that's what marriage is for in my eyes.
That's why I disagree with homosexual marriage. They can't do the NA, so marriage would be wrong.
You have to remember, what I consider the natural act isn't the natural act because they're married, it's just that you should be married to do it, that's what marriage is for in my eyes.
That's why I disagree with homosexual marriage. They can't do the NA, so marriage would be wrong.