New Testingstan

this is all pretty hilarious

"Please try to understand this."

thx simon_idiot

Well according to him it's all the old peoples fault.

Aaron wrote:Well according to him it's all the old peoples fault.

I guess a terrible civil rights policy is always going to trump a horrible foreign policy because they don't live where we're bombing so it's no big deal fucking over foreigners as much as we can. Or something.

Foreign policy's why everyone hated Bush, right?

i like how it's impossible to vote for a third party because then teh republicanz will win!!!! even if you manage to set up a new 25% party and effectively break the two-party system and have a solid base for the next election

the rate the republicans want to destroy the world is only marginally faster than the democrats soooo creating a saner political system might just be worth four years of teh bad guyz being in charge

DEMOCRACY! in action

Zod wrote:

Aaron wrote:Well according to him it's all the old peoples fault.

I guess a terrible civil rights policy is always going to trump a horrible foreign policy because they don't live where we're bombing so it's no big deal fucking over foreigners as much as we can. Or something.

Foreign policy's why everyone hated Bush, right?

*shrug* I hated him over both.

Hi Simon_Jester, ya tool!

Yeah, he's baiting you...or maybe trying to get a discussion going on the massively flawed process and that a third party candidate might help break the deadlock?

Anyways, how much power does the POTUS actually have?

Aaron wrote:Oh and another war.

Wait, did I miss something? Or are you referring to the drone attacks thing?

Only other one I can think of is Libya, but he didn't seem too enthusiastic over it and it was mostly Europe's bag anyway.

Libya, though at least the rebels asked. But yeah, not thrilled about using drones all over the place.

Aaron wrote:Libya, though at least the rebels asked. But yeah, not thrilled about using drones all over the place.

Not to mention indefinite detention.

If other countries started doing that shit to Americans the neocons would be frothing at the mouth to bomb them.

Aye. He's pretty much a piece of crap all around.

Considering what will actually be available at the polls around here, is abstaining still a valid option?

Or does that make my opinion invalid because I "didn't vote"?

The Spartan wrote:
Or does that make my opinion invalid because I "didn't vote"?

he never did

i think he was an okay guy

'cept for that lighter joke

Aaron wrote:Anyways, how much power does the POTUS actually have?

In practice, quite a lot - his will drives things. But, constitutionally, not so much - the president basically executes the will of congress. He does have a lot of power, but can't just say "oh i want the gold standad deal with it".

For example, the president can't start a war. But, if congress declares war, the president is in charge of carrying it out.

Same with the budget: the congress decides what they want to do and what resources to offer, and then the president decides how to carry it out - though the cabinet.

So weak Pres (Obama) gets nothing done while a strong one (Bush) can herd the cats?

lol, and the dogpile! Where's those impartial mods? Paging Rittmeister Thanas!

Dooey Jo wrote:i like how it's impossible to vote for a third party because then teh republicanz will win!!!! even if you manage to set up a new 25% party and effectively break the two-party system and have a solid base for the next election

The last time this happened was 1856.

RedImperator wrote:

Dooey Jo wrote:i like how it's impossible to vote for a third party because then teh republicanz will win!!!! even if you manage to set up a new 25% party and effectively break the two-party system and have a solid base for the next election

The last time this happened was 1856.

but what should be done?

i mean, the u.s. has big structural problems at this point, but in a lot of ways it has more inertia and resistance to fundamental change than almost any other nation i could name

like, it doesn't seem vulnerable to mass impeachments or new constitutional conventions or total party collapses or any of the things that most countries have gotten used to having every couple generations or so

it feels like 'try to get a critical mass of people saying 'i'm mad as hell, and i'm voting green national socialist libertarian party now' is the only option for a populace that is politically-interested, but too lethargic and jaded to launch one of those bloodless revolutions or whatever

idk it seems like a gordian knot of legislative decay

RedImperator wrote:

Dooey Jo wrote:i like how it's impossible to vote for a third party because then teh republicanz will win!!!! even if you manage to set up a new 25% party and effectively break the two-party system and have a solid base for the next election

The last time this happened was 1856.

is that when people started saying 'don't vote for third parties'

or when they said 'can't ever fix the voting system'

look if you want to change the system you can't support it at the same time

how are you going to break the two-party system by voting for one of the two parties? they're not going to start a new big party for you. they're not going to radically alter their core principles if you're voting for them just because the republicans are slightly worse

and if you have two parties which for all intents might as well be two factions within a single conservative party, and these are the only ones you should vote for

well then that is frankly a one-party system, and i hear that apparently isn't democracy at all

or do americans believe democracy is something that is bestowed upon the people by grace of the powers that be?

lol i think they generally do actually

what with their crusader kings riding out into the wilderness to instate DEMOCRACY! in the savages

seems in most important changes in american society, like the civil rights movement, the people need to believe they have an even higher power behind them to have a right to change anything, ie. religion

Dooey Jo wrote:look if you want to change the system you can't support it at the same time

how are you going to break the two-party system by voting for one of the two parties? they're not going to start a new big party for you. they're not going to radically alter their core principles if you're voting for them just because the republicans are slightly worse

and if you have two parties which for all intents might as well be two factions within a single conservative party, and these are the only ones you should vote for

I think Lewis Black was pretty spot on when he described our two party system as a bowl of shit staring at itself in the mirror.

PAUL: Well, the whole thing is, is you have to get a better definition of sexual harassment. If it’s just because somebody told the joke and somebody was offended, they don’t have a right to go to the federal government and have a policeman to come in and put penalties on those individuals. I mean, they have to say, well, maybe this is not a very good environment, and they have the right to work there or not there.

But if sexual harassment involves violence as libertarians, we are very opposed to any violence. So, if there is any violence involved, you still don’t need a federal law against harassment. You just need to call the policeman and say there’s been an assault or there’s been attempted rape or something.

So, you have to separate those two out. But because people are insulted by, you know, rude behavior, I don’t think we should make a federal case out of it. I don’t think we need federal laws to deal with that and people should deal with that at home.

It's amazing that Ron Paul thinks anything less than physical violence is acceptable in the workplace.

It sounds to me like he's saying that it shouldn't be an issue for the federal courts and that sexual harassment needs better definitions, not that it's acceptable. But lol whatevs.

or he constructed a strawman because it's not like sexual harrassment is generally anything other than a company issue

I mean, they have to say, well, maybe this is not a very good environment, and they have the right to work there or not there.

This is the part I'm uncomfortable with. Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but it seems that he's saying that if an employer wishes to have what today would be termed as a "hostile work environment" then that's just too fucking bad for the person on the receiving the end of it since they can get another job, never mind whether or not that's actually an option for a given person.

In utopia, that should be an option at all times.... meaning I'm kinda on that side. The real world isn't quite utopia yet though.

libertarians are generally a pretty confused bunch

adr wrote:In utopia, that should be an option at all times.... meaning I'm kinda on that side. The real world isn't quite utopia yet though.

Which is why it bothers me. Since we don't live in utopia it seems to me, in this case, that erring on the side of liberty requires restricting it on the part of the employer.

Precisely how and where the line is drawn are not questions I think I can adequately answer, but there you are.