Diogenes wrote:No, it's debt. We've maxed out the Republic's credit card with socialist spending ponzi schemes...
>rant<
Meanwhile on Earth the deficit is down, already by 25% and projected to be 35% in 2013. It would be down even more except for the sequester. And even so it's still on its way down.
I'm not buying any numbers coming out of this Chicago Mafia's government.
The Chicago Mafia is the freshwater economists at the Chicago School of Economics, which is funded by the Koch brothers.
What are you talking about?
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.
Diogenes wrote:
I regard you as a kook, and I really don't care about your opinions of "reality."
You serve the function of a practice dummy as far as i'm concerned.
Problem is you have no links, no data.
Giving a link to you is like giving a bicycle to a fish. Possibly even less useful.
Excuse detected.
Excuses are like buttholes. Everybody has one and they all stink.
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.
Diogenes wrote:The Troll writes some funny stuff from time to time.
Here's Keynes giving you a dirty look for misrepresenting his economic theories.
Here's Keynes trashing Hayek. Hayek was a fool. So was all the rest of the freshwater school; tools of the ultra-rich.
Keynes OTOH despised the rich because they reduced the velocity of money making everyone poor. They never want to do their job: spend money. Instead they hoard it and make everyone else poor.
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.
Schneibster wrote:
The Chicago Mafia is the freshwater economists at the Chicago School of Economics, which is funded by the Koch brothers.
What are you talking about?
Don't get the wrong impression here. I'm not even attempting to have anything resembling a debate with you. I knew that would be futile from the first message you ever posted.
I simply regard you as a toy to be poked for amusement.
I shan't be surprised to discover you are a poking toy for others as well.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
Schneibster wrote:
The Chicago Mafia is the freshwater economists at the Chicago School of Economics, which is funded by the Koch brothers.
What are you talking about?
Don't get the wrong impression here. I'm not even attempting to have anything resembling a debate with you.
Yes, I could tell, if you were you'd be losing badly.
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.
Late joining this party. The way to eliminate the most extreme is to allow full option voting, a system wherein the voter can vote either for or against a candidate. If there is no one to vote FOR, there is always someone to vote AGAINST.
I know of and strongly support instant runoff voting as a way to make 3rd party candidates viable... but I had never heard of full option voting. How dow it work and what advantage does it have that instant runoff voting doesn't? After all, if there are only 2 candidates, it doesn't really matter if you are voting for candidate A or against candidate B, does it?
But how do we get any changes to the voting system with out current political environment? The existing PACs would certainly fight such a change tooth-and-nail. An anti-extremist PAC could also campaign for voting system changes such as these...
Maui wrote:I know of and strongly support instant runoff voting as a way to make 3rd party candidates viable... but I had never heard of full option voting. How dow it work and what advantage does it have that instant runoff voting doesn't? After all, if there are only 2 candidates, it doesn't really matter if you are voting for candidate A or against candidate B, does it?
Well if candidate A doesn't get enough "Yes" votes s/he doesn't win, but if candidate B gets too many "No" votes s/he's not eligible for further runoffs, whereas candidate A isn't eliminated, just has to keep running. If I've understood correctly. It lets you make a "No" vote really count.
Maui wrote:But how do we get any changes to the voting system with out current political environment? The existing PACs would certainly fight such a change tooth-and-nail. An anti-extremist PAC could also campaign for voting system changes such as these...
All of these are fantasies; the entrenched power structure will fight them tooth and nail. And they have the power now.
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.
Skipjack wrote:If you ask me the real reason for the shutdown was stupid, pointless undemocratic tradition called the Hastert rule.
No, it's because the Republicans will do anything to cheat when they lose.
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.
Well it was only a minority of the republicans in the house that wanted it anyway. I think that if they had brought the latest compromise to a vote, the law would have passed with enough votes from republicans and democrats. Thanks to the Hastert rule, now a minority is holding the rest of the house, the rest of the country really hostage until they get their way. I do not think that this is what the founding fathers had in mind.
Skipjack wrote:Well it was only a minority of the republicans in the house that wanted it anyway. I think that if they had brought the latest compromise to a vote, the law would have passed with enough votes from republicans and democrats. Thanks to the Hastert rule, now a minority is holding the rest of the house, the rest of the country really hostage until they get their way.
I won't argue it's not part of the problem; I just don't think it's the main thing.
I don't think there's any more compromises Obama will sign. I don't think he has to any more. It's not like he's gonna get elected again in 2016. I agree with his priorities; it was really important for the first black President to get re-elected. Notice how the whiners have gotten even more apoplectic since then. This is the first time he can really throw his weight around and use the bully pulpit without worrying about the electoral consequences. All he needs now is for us to toss the Republicans out and we'll get all kinds of goodies like the Public Option to Obamacare, and a real stimulus that will bring the country's economy back like a white squall, and more of that great foreign policy. I'm still impressed he got bin Laden and that they're shipping the Syrian chemical weapons to Russia to be burned. We don't even care if Russia's all that honest; they've got so much it's going to take them years yet to burn them all, but the entire Syrian arsenal wouldn't even require half a year. This guy is a foreign policy genius. We'll still be talking about what he did in a hundred years, if not a thousand. This is a truly wicked strike against chemical weapons and it didn't cost a nickel, or a bomb, or a boot on the ground, or a drop of blood. Impressive.
Skipjack wrote:I do not think that this is what the founding fathers had in mind.
I'm not sure. I sometimes see stuff that strikes me as them waffling and kicking the can down the road to us. The Second Amendment has always struck me that way.
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.
But how do we get any changes to the voting system with out current political environment? The existing PACs would certainly fight such a change tooth-and-nail. An anti-extremist PAC could also campaign for voting system changes such as these...
People talk about that all the time without understanding how the base government of the USA functions. We're not a democracy, the people do not vote for federal laws or anything federal for that matter. Each state has a certain amount of sovereignty and part of that sovereignty is to determine how it's electoral votes are counted. ~You~ do not vote for the President, your state does. Your voting to indicate to your state which option to take. This framework is part of the US Constitution, would take an amendment to change and even then it's doubtful. Essentially no state can tell another state how to vote. Citizens of California can not tell Citizens of Mississippi how to vote. The fact that the federal government has been massing far too much domestic power for the past 70 years is something that's been worrying me. Our entire government system is designed for the states to wield the majority of domestic power with the federal government overseeing power over foreign affairs.
