Archive: 53 posts

---

So I've only just heard about this and don't really know a lot about it yet but thought I'd start a thread now. I'm probably going to butcher this (so take it wih a grain of salt and read your own info) but, Basically the US Gov has reached the debt limit of ~16 trillion dollars, the American dollar has dropped value overnight and they are planning to raise the debt limit. ~800,000 Gov employees who are considered non-essential are on leave without pay and given IOUs instead. And more that I'm not clear on yet so no comment for now. Just read the following posts. So anyone have any good information on this, Opinions, thoughts, etc.

2013-10-02 04:27:00 Author: SR20DETDOG Posts: 2431

---

For the typical citizen, this will mean very little. It means national parks will be closing along with similar establishments and that up to 800,000 nonessential government employees will essentially be layed off until some compromise is reached. This seems like a considerable number but it is paltry compared to the 300 million citizens in the country, half of which are part of the workforce. So about half a percent increase in unemployment. Substantial, but not that substantial. Keep in mind this is the federal government. The state governments operate independently of this. They will lose some funding but they will continue to function as usual and likely pick up the slack the federal government cannot. The reason this is going on is because America is at the start of the new fiscal year and Congress couldn't agree on a spending plan. This is because the House of representatives, where constitutionally all monetary bills must start, is Republican controlled while the Senate is Democratically controlled. The Republican controlled house will only submit spending plans that defund obamacare. These bills go to the Senate, get voted down by the Democrats and then the Republicans start over. Because no bill to fund the government can pass, the government has to run off limited funds. As Joe Biden would say, it's all a bunch of malarkey.

2013-10-02 04:54:00 Author: Tynz21 Posts: 544

---

You're right. You don't exactly know what's going on. This has absolutely nothing to do with the debt limit. This DOES however have to do with a spending plan which the House of Representatives and the Senate had to agree on. They didn't agree on a spending plan for this fiscal year (Oct. 1 - Sep. 30), so the government partially shutdown. In the shutdown only government programs deemed 'essential' continue to operate, like the mail system as one example. This has happened before with the last time being towards the end of 1995. Now, about the debt limit. That's what they will have to sort out after they get through the current problem. I tried to explain it the best I could to my knowledge. You can read up on it in a little more detail here: http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/30/politics/government-shutdown-up-to-speed/

2013-10-02 05:04:00 Author: ConverseFox Posts: 2333

---

You're right. You don't exactly know what's going on. Knew it! That link to CNN was really helpful. Most of what I've read so far only covered a couple of points each all in their own way, makes it's kind of hard to put it all together.

2013-10-02 05:28:00 Author: SR20DETDOG Posts: 2431

---

http://i.imgur.com/LO4yypb.png

2013-10-02 19:24:00 Author: Rabid-Coot Posts: 6728

---

http://i.imgur.com/LO4yypb.png You brits are just happy you finally have the opportunity to t4ry and take back the colonies.

2013-10-02 19:44:00 Author: RockSauron Posts: 10882

---

You brits are just happy you finally have the opportunity to t4ry and take back the colonies. Guys, I think they've figured out the plan.

2013-10-02 21:19:00 Author: Shooter0898 Posts: 996

---

Honestly, I don't think it should be called a government shutdown. The government isn't just turning off. They're just sort of in standby mode.

2013-10-02 22:44:00 Author: ConverseFox Posts: 2333

---

Honestly, I don't think it should be called a government shutdown. The government isn't just turning off. They're just sort of in standby mode. So the US government is like a smartphone. It costs money per month to do it's function, it has a standby mode incase it runs out of battery (money), and it's airplane mode is utter crap.

2013-10-03 02:56:00 Author: TheUltraDeino Posts: 1274

---

So the US government is like a smartphone. It costs money per month to do it's function, it has a standby mode incase it runs out of battery (money), and it's airplane mode is utter crap. Haha, yeah. It's like a smartphone with too much bloatware. I don't want some of these apps (policies and such), but I can't delete them.

2013-10-03 03:29:00 Author: ConverseFox Posts: 2333

---

My friends go to college in Washington D.C and they witnessed a lot from the result. My friend even witnessed a great speech regarding the issue. Its sad to see all these museums and parks in a deep situation since most were ran by the government. The health care thing is having some trouble too since people are calling and the lines are backed up. This is not a time for us americans, boo! -hyper

2013-10-03 13:43:00 Author: hyperdude95 Posts: 1793

---

Superiority once again shown http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4622695950779925&pid=1.7

2013-10-03 17:48:00 Author: flamingemu Posts: 1872

---

Superiority once again shown http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4622695950779925&pid=1.7 American citizens secretly hate the government. Well.. at least I don't care about it since the way I see it the citizens don't have any control over what happens.

2013-10-03 20:17:00 Author: ConverseFox Posts: 2333

---

American citizens secretly hate the government. Well.. at least I don't care about it since the way I see it the citizens don't have any control over what happens. You are the fifth estate

2013-10-03 20:37:00 Author: flamingemu Posts: 1872

---

They way I see it, the people that are paid to do nothing... aren't doing anything. ...Except now it's costing us more than it usually does.

2013-10-03 22:10:00 Author: Frinklebumper Posts: 941

---

American citizens secretly hate the government. Well.. at least I don't care about it since the way I see it the citizens don't have any control over what happens. This philosophy is exactly why our government is terrible. Everyone has that philosophy and so they don't bother to vote. The typical election turnout is abysmal. And the few people that actually do vote (something like 25% of eligible voters I believe) the majority vote ignorantly based upon partisan opinions instead of their own analysis. So, you have done this to yourselves, citizens of America.

2013-10-03 23:01:00 Author: Tynz21 Posts: 544

---

I'm honestly not scared about this at all. It doesn't look like anyone else is either, since every person I talked to at my school doesn't care either. They'll probably get out of stand-by at some point.

2013-10-03 23:19:00 Author: amoney1999 Posts: 1202

---

I'm honestly not scared about this at all. It doesn't look like anyone else is either, since every person I talked to at my school doesn't care either. They'll probably get out of stand-by at some point. And then suddenly, Mexico, Canada, the UK, Spain, Russia, Arabia, and the Byzantine all rush over to take over America

2013-10-04 00:10:00 Author: TheUltraDeino Posts: 1274

---

This philosophy is exactly why our government is terrible. Everyone has that philosophy and so they don't bother to vote. The typical election turnout is abysmal. And the few people that actually do vote (something like 25% of eligible voters I believe) the majority vote ignorantly based upon partisan opinions instead of their own analysis. So, you have done this to yourselves, citizens of America. Even if they did turn up to vote it won't change peoples' habitual ignorance. In Australia you can expect a fine will be coming in the mail if you don't vote, yet still people are frighteningly uninformed when it comes to anything political, but sure enough they'll rock up on election day to give their uninformed & misinformed opinion or better still throw a donkey vote in the ballot. As a student at the barbers so elegantly put it, "****ing election day, wasting my time avoiding a fine." It's easy to blame the people, like you said, it's their partisan opinions guiding their votes. I can't speak for America but here in Australia the ONLY education I had about how our political system works was in primary school at age 11. What 11yr old would care two hoots about how the government works?, it doesn't concern them, and won't concern them for another 7 years. So it's promptly forgotten about. Voting adulthood comes around and nothing is known about how, when, why, who, or what to vote for. They do have to vote though, so they do have to learn something from somewhere; Parents/family?, the media?, maybe by talking to other people but those people have just gathered their information from their own family and the media too. Neither of these sources are unbiased or even correct at all, hardly an ideal method of making informed rational decisions! Being a recent school leaver and first-time federal election voter myself I've seen this happening in my own generation before my eyes. There are those few out there that really strive for neutral information, personal rational opinions, a better understanding of how the government works and how to make the government work for them. This group seemed to grow, albeit slowly, in numbers this year. I'm hoping the trend continues. /rant

2013-10-04 01:04:00 Author: SR20DETDOG Posts: 2431

---

The government picks and chooses what gets closed during the shutdown. This particular government believes closing parks and memorials is a great way to upset people - especially WWII veterans who are flown to DC to see the WWII Memorial before their time runs out. Some broke down the barriers so they could get in. Oh, and the government also blocked access to Mt. Vernon, George Washington's plantation, even though the government doesn't run or own Mt. Vernon. A simple misunderstanding that was rectified a few hours later. But gosh, isn't it great that the press and the president get to name the bad guys all the time?

2013-10-04 02:06:00 Author: TheCountessZ Posts: 537

---

I don't know who to vote for because I honestly don't care about most of the topics people fight over. I'm too open-minded to pick one side.

2013-10-04 02:20:00 Author: ConverseFox Posts: 2333

---

Honestly, I'm not sure how people are so ignorant of government. Especially adults who deal with it on a daily basis. Medicare? Medicaid? Social security? These things affect people's lives. I can't speak for every state because education is primarily regulated at a state level but here in Ohio it's required that every high school student pass a government class in order to graduate, and I would bet that something similar is in place in many other states. Back in the early days of America, with the dawn of the Federalist party and the writing of the constitution, there was a lot of fear of people having influence in government and controlling things they weren't educated enough to understand. It was even suggested (I believe by Alexander Hamilton ) that people be required to pass a test in order to vote. Doesn't sound all that Democratic, I know, but I don't think this is such a bad idea. If people needed some kind of actual knowledge to vote, perhaps despite the low turnout the choices made would be more effective. Then maybe we wouldn't have people in the federal government who think it's OK to just keep spending when we are actually required to have a balanced budget...

2013-10-04 03:58:00 Author: Tynz21 Posts: 544

---

A thread that was made to inform people about the government shutdown eventually became a thread used to vent about the government.

2013-10-04 04:00:00 Author: TheUltraDeino Posts: 1274

---

Honestly, I'm not sure how people are so ignorant of government. Especially adults who deal with it on a daily basis. Medicare? Medicaid? Social security? These things affect people's lives. I can't speak for every state because education is primarily regulated at a state level but here in Ohio it's required that every high school student pass a government class in order to graduate, and I would bet that something similar is in place in many other states. Back in the early days of America, with the dawn of the Federalist party and the writing of the constitution, there was a lot of fear of people having influence in government and controlling things they weren't educated enough to understand. It was even suggested (I believe by Alexander Hamilton ) that people be required to pass a test in order to vote. Doesn't sound all that Democratic, I know, but I don't think this is such a bad idea. If people needed some kind of actual knowledge to vote, perhaps despite the low turnout the choices made would be more effective. Then maybe we wouldn't have people in the federal government who think it's OK to just keep spending when we are actually required to have a balanced budget... That's another reason I don't want to vote. I don't have the in-depth knowledge about a lot of that stuff, so I leave the voting to the professionals.

2013-10-04 04:21:00 Author: ConverseFox Posts: 2333

---

A thread that was made to inform people about the government shutdown eventually became a thread used to vent about the government. I thought of it more as a starting point for general discussion of government operation. This is 'General Chat' after all

2013-10-04 04:48:00 Author: SR20DETDOG Posts: 2431

---

Interesting thread here. This philosophy is exactly why our government is terrible. Everyone has that philosophy and so they don't bother to vote. The typical election turnout is abysmal. And the few people that actually do vote (something like 25% of eligible voters I believe) the majority vote ignorantly based upon partisan opinions instead of their own analysis. So, you have done this to yourselves, citizens of America. Yeah, it'd be better if we voted, but the effects wouldn't be as large as they should be due to gerrymandering and the inherent flaws in the American voting system. Here are some videos to explain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mky11UJb9AY These combined result in a rather undemocratic two-party system, which, I believe, is the main cause of the shutdown. The primary focus of either party, Democrats or Republicans, is to gain enough votes to control both the House and Senate, then shove through everything they can. This discourages compromise, makes getting votes better than doing the right thing, and results in some less than honorable tactics like starve the beast. You can see these effects of this in the shutdown. Now, a multiple party system would make it very hard or impossible to control both, and parties would be more encouraged to compromise and do the right thing. I don't know how it is in the European countries, but I think it'll work in the American system of government. I think gerrymandering also contributes to the two party system. Legislators could gerrymander away third party votes as they gerrymander them selves more seats. If you watch some other videos by the guy who made the two I linked here, he actually explains some other voting systems that would work much better at encouraging multiple parties while discouraging gerrymandering. It's rather interesting. Honestly, I'm not sure how people are so ignorant of government. Especially adults who deal with it on a daily basis. Medicare? Medicaid? Social security? These things affect people's lives. I can't speak for every state because education is primarily regulated at a state level but here in Ohio it's required that every high school student pass a government class in order to graduate, and I would bet that something similar is in place in many other states. Back in the early days of America, with the dawn of the Federalist party and the writing of the constitution, there was a lot of fear of people having influence in government and controlling things they weren't educated enough to understand. It was even suggested (I believe by Alexander Hamilton ) that people be required to pass a test in order to vote. Doesn't sound all that Democratic, I know, but I don't think this is such a bad idea. If people needed some kind of actual knowledge to vote, perhaps despite the low turnout the choices made would be more effective. Then maybe we wouldn't have people in the federal government who think it's OK to just keep spending when we are actually required to have a balanced budget... Tyranny of the majority was the name of the fear. An example would be 1950's America, where the minority blacks were oppressed by the majority whites. Some effects of the founders' fear of this, and how it subsided over the years, can be seen in the electoral college and senate. The electors of the electoral college back then were meant to vote using their best judgement, whereas now they just vote the same as the people who voted them in. The senate members were also meant to be elected by members of the state legislatures, but now they're elected by popular vote. Better or worse I don't know. Even if they did turn up to vote it won't change peoples' habitual ignorance. In Australia you can expect a fine will be coming in the mail if you don't vote, yet still people are frighteningly uninformed when it comes to anything political, but sure enough they'll rock up on election day to give their uninformed & misinformed opinion or better still throw a donkey vote in the ballot. As a student at the barbers so elegantly put it, "****ing election day, wasting my time avoiding a fine." It's easy to blame the people, like you said, it's their partisan opinions guiding their votes. I can't speak for America but here in Australia the ONLY education I had about how our political system works was in primary school at age 11. What 11yr old would care two hoots about how the government works?, it doesn't concern them, and won't concern them for another 7 years. So it's promptly forgotten about. Voting adulthood comes around and nothing is known about how, when, why, who, or what to vote for. They do have to vote though, so they do have to learn something from somewhere; Parents/family?, the media?, maybe by talking to other people but those people have just gathered their information from their own family and the media too. Neither of these sources are unbiased or even correct at all, hardly an ideal method of making informed rational decisions! Being a recent school leaver and first-time federal election voter myself I've seen this happening in my own generation before my eyes. There are those few out there that really strive for neutral information, personal rational opinions, a better understanding of how the government works and how to make the government work for them. This group seemed to grow, albeit slowly, in numbers this year. I'm hoping the trend continues. /rant Honestly, I'm not sure how people are so ignorant of government. Especially adults who deal with it on a daily basis. Medicare? Medicaid? Social security? These things affect people's lives. I can't speak for every state because education is primarily regulated at a state level but here in Ohio it's required that every high school student pass a government class in order to graduate, and I would bet that something similar is in place in many other states. Back in the early days of America, with the dawn of the Federalist party and the writing of the constitution, there was a lot of fear of people having influence in government and controlling things they weren't educated enough to understand. It was even suggested (I believe by Alexander Hamilton ) that people be required to pass a test in order to vote. Doesn't sound all that Democratic, I know, but I don't think this is such a bad idea. If people needed some kind of actual knowledge to vote, perhaps despite the low turnout the choices made would be more effective. Then maybe we wouldn't have people in the federal government who think it's OK to just keep spending when we are actually required to have a balanced budget... Ignorant people voting is a problem. In fact, I think that the best course of action to solve this would be a poll tax. It's unconstitutional and doesn't sound democratic, but hear me out. Voter tests are too easily manipulated. Many southern states had voter "literacy" tests-tests that happened to be writing your own name for white people and interpreting Shakespeare for black. It was discontinue because I think it was ruled unconstitutional or a law banned it or something. Poll taxes needn't be high. They could be something like 10-20 dollars, so even poor people could vote if they saved up a bit. It'll prevent people from voting flippantly and make their opinion have more weight than the opinion of people who just votes for the person who appears on the top (no, this actually happens). It'll also put more money into the government, so good, and strangely relevant talking about a shutdown. But we'd have to repeal an amendment and it sounds really undemocratic, so I don't think it'll happen.

2013-10-04 13:02:00 Author: Kalawishis Posts: 928

---

Interesting thread here. Yeah, it'd be better if we voted, but the effects wouldn't be as large as they should be due to gerrymandering and the inherent flaws in the American voting system. Here are some videos to explain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mky11UJb9AY These combined result in a rather undemocratic two-party system, which, I believe, is the main cause of the shutdown. The primary focus of either party, Democrats or Republicans, is to gain enough votes to control both the House and Senate, then shove through everything they can. This discourages compromise, makes getting votes better than doing the right thing, and results in some less than honorable tactics like starve the beast. You can see these effects of this in the shutdown. Now, a multiple party system would make it very hard or impossible to control both, and parties would be more encouraged to compromise and do the right thing. I don't know how it is in the European countries, but I think it'll work in the American system of government. I think gerrymandering also contributes to the two party system. Legislators could gerrymander away third party votes as they gerrymander them selves more seats. If you watch some other videos by the guy who made the two I linked here, he actually explains some other voting systems that would work much better at encouraging multiple parties while discouraging gerrymandering. It's rather interesting. Tyranny of the majority was the name of the fear. An example would be 1950's America, where the minority blacks were oppressed by the majority whites. Some effects of the founders' fear of this, and how it subsided over the years, can be seen in the electoral college and senate. The electors of the electoral college back then were meant to vote using their best judgement, whereas now they just vote the same as the people who voted them in. The senate members were also meant to be elected by members of the state legislatures, but now they're elected by popular vote. Better or worse I don't know. Ignorant people voting is a problem. In fact, I think that the best course of action to solve this would be a poll tax. It's unconstitutional and doesn't sound democratic, but hear me out. Voter tests are too easily manipulated. Many southern states had voter "literacy" tests-tests that happened to be writing your own name for white people and interpreting Shakespeare for black. It was discontinue because I think it was ruled unconstitutional or a law banned it or something. Poll taxes needn't be high. They could be something like 10-20 dollars, so even poor people could vote if they saved up a bit. It'll prevent people from voting flippantly and make their opinion have more weight than the opinion of people who just votes for the person who appears on the top (no, this actually happens). It'll also put more money into the government, so good, and strangely relevant talking about a shutdown. But we'd have to repeal an amendment and it sounds really undemocratic, so I don't think it'll happen. The electoral system in America is actually one of the things it has going for it. Right now, the government can'y decide over the budget, and because they can't reach a decision the shutdown has occurred until an agreement is reached. First Past The Post is a system much more likely to provide a majority in government, rather than than a coalition government. With a majority government decisions can be made easier as there is a more overwhelming number of supporters for the party with a majority. That being said, it is much less democratic than other PR systems. The problem with a PR system would be that because it is more democratic, there would be more chance of a coalition government, so things like this would happen more often, even although it's more democratic. If you were to change the FPTP system to be more in favour of majority governments, it would detract too much from the idea of being democratic.

2013-10-04 15:52:00 Author: craigmond Posts: 2426

---

Interesting thread here. Yeah, it'd be better if we voted, but the effects wouldn't be as large as they should be due to gerrymandering and the inherent flaws in the American voting system. Here are some videos to explain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mky11UJb9AY These combined result in a rather undemocratic two-party system, which, I believe, is the main cause of the shutdown. The primary focus of either party, Democrats or Republicans, is to gain enough votes to control both the House and Senate, then shove through everything they can. This discourages compromise, makes getting votes better than doing the right thing, and results in some less than honorable tactics like starve the beast. You can see these effects of this in the shutdown. Now, a multiple party system would make it very hard or impossible to control both, and parties would be more encouraged to compromise and do the right thing. I don't know how it is in the European countries, but I think it'll work in the American system of government. I think gerrymandering also contributes to the two party system. Legislators could gerrymander away third party votes as they gerrymander them selves more seats. If you watch some other videos by the guy who made the two I linked here, he actually explains some other voting systems that would work much better at encouraging multiple parties while discouraging gerrymandering. It's rather interesting. Tyranny of the majority was the name of the fear. An example would be 1950's America, where the minority blacks were oppressed by the majority whites. Some effects of the founders' fear of this, and how it subsided over the years, can be seen in the electoral college and senate. The electors of the electoral college back then were meant to vote using their best judgement, whereas now they just vote the same as the people who voted them in. The senate members were also meant to be elected by members of the state legislatures, but now they're elected by popular vote. Better or worse I don't know. Ignorant people voting is a problem. In fact, I think that the best course of action to solve this would be a poll tax. It's unconstitutional and doesn't sound democratic, but hear me out. Voter tests are too easily manipulated. Many southern states had voter "literacy" tests-tests that happened to be writing your own name for white people and interpreting Shakespeare for black. It was discontinue because I think it was ruled unconstitutional or a law banned it or something. Poll taxes needn't be high. They could be something like 10-20 dollars, so even poor people could vote if they saved up a bit. It'll prevent people from voting flippantly and make their opinion have more weight than the opinion of people who just votes for the person who appears on the top (no, this actually happens). It'll also put more money into the government, so good, and strangely relevant talking about a shutdown. But we'd have to repeal an amendment and it sounds really undemocratic, so I don't think it'll happen. A poll tax isn't the worst idea I've ever heard, but the problem is it's hard to say if the tax would benefit more that harm because though it may cut down "flippant voters" (good term by the way) it may just as well discourage people who know what they're voting for, overall slicing the already thin pool of voters further. Bad thing? Depends on your perspective I suppose. On one hand, a less Democratic government could have more control, pass legislation more efficiently, get more done etc. This type of thing was seen during Roosevelt's presidency during the depression. No one knew what to do so they just voted him in and let him work. He pushed the boundaries of his office drastically, but at least something was getting done. But at the same time, many people feared the government going tyrannical... On the other hand, more voters means more democracy which should theoretically mean that government more reflects the will of the people. But the apathy of the American people has rendered this fairly useless. We've grown to take our right to vote for granted. So many people see it as a trivial thing not worth their time, but then complain about the government... And anyway, like you said there's virtually no chance of a poll tax ever happening... there have only been 27 amendments in the past 200 years since the constitutions ratification, 17 really because the Bill of rights was essentially just tacked on after the initial ratification... one of those amendments was just to repeal another, and 3 more came in a group with the outlaw of slavery... so really there may as Well have been about 14 amendments... Yeah odds are low. Ah well. America's government will get better when people decide to do something...

2013-10-04 21:15:00 Author: Tynz21 Posts: 544

---

My problem with the government is this: It relies on the general public, and the general public doesn't give a flying ****. People aren't informed, and they don't want to be. For the most part, the average American citizen gets their political news from biased news networks and unknowledgable friends, rather than research and dedication. It's the same reason people love to blame **** on Obama when Obama isn't even affiliated with said ****: the news said it, or a friend said it, or some guy on Fox or something said it, so it must be true. Oh, and it certainly doesn't help that the government is in tons of debt, decided that it's best to shut everything down because a bunch of old dudes in suits couldn't make an agreement, and has an ego the size of the Sun. That's it, I've decided. When I grow up, I'm moving to Canada.

2013-10-06 15:17:00 Author: Ryan86me Posts: 1909

---

My problem with the government is this: It relies on the general public, and the general public doesn't give a flying ****. People aren't informed, and they don't want to be. For the most part, the average American citizen gets their political news from biased news networks and unknowledgable friends, rather than research and dedication. It's the same reason people love to blame **** on Obama when Obama isn't even affiliated with said ****: the news said it, or a friend said it, or some guy on Fox or something said it, so it must be true. Oh, and it certainly doesn't help that the government is in tons of debt, decided that it's best to shut everything down because a bunch of old dudes in suits couldn't make an agreement, and has an ego the size of the Sun. That's it, I've decided. When I grow up, I'm moving to Canada. Or you can come over to the UK. I'll buy you a drink and we can watch the government be some sort of success.

2013-10-06 15:38:00 Author: butter-kicker Posts: 1061

---

Or you can come over to the UK. I'll buy you a drink and we can watch the government be some sort of success. http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Global/content/icons/2012/2/3/1328301754416/unemployment-us_uk_460.jpg "success"

2013-10-06 15:49:00 Author: flamingemu Posts: 1872

---

Or you can come over to the UK. I'll buy you a drink and we can watch the government be some sort of success. Sweet, guess my life is all planned out . I can watch America crash and burn. ​FOR AMERICA.

2013-10-06 15:52:00 Author: Ryan86me Posts: 1909

---

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Global/content/icons/2012/2/3/1328301754416/unemployment-us_uk_460.jpg "success" Yes... http://violentdeathproject.com/charts/UK%20compared%20to%20US%2020th%20century%20homicid e%20rates-large.jpg http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/516dd26c6bb3f7c165000006-590/in-contrast-the-us-has-a-gun-homicide-rate-of-3-per-100000--six-times-as-large-as-canada-23-times-as-large-as-australia-43-times-as-large-as-the-uk-and-more-than-300-times-as-large-as-japan.jpg I'd rather live in a country unemployed then a country trying to kill me.

2013-10-06 16:23:00 Author: butter-kicker Posts: 1061

---

Ummm.... What does homicide with guns have to do with the US Government shutdown?

2013-10-06 16:28:00 Author: jwwphotos Posts: 11383

---

My problem with the government is this: It relies on the general public, and the general public doesn't give a flying ****. People aren't informed, and they don't want to be. For the most part, the average American citizen gets their political news from biased news networks and unknowledgable friends, rather than research and dedication. It's the same reason people love to blame **** on Obama when Obama isn't even affiliated with said ****: the news said it, or a friend said it, or some guy on Fox or something said it, so it must be true. Oh, and it certainly doesn't help that the government is in tons of debt, decided that it's best to shut everything down because a bunch of old dudes in suits couldn't make an agreement, and has an ego the size of the Sun. That's it, I've decided. When I grow up, I'm moving to Canada. It's also the reason why so many people blame the shutdown on the GOP exclusively. Uneducation goes both to the left and the right. Have you watched MSNBC? But if anything, this is all the more reason for a poll tax. Contrary to what tynz21 said, I don't think it would discourage serious voters from voting. If they care about the issues, they'd vote anyway.

2013-10-06 16:37:00 Author: Kalawishis Posts: 928

---

It's also the reason why so many people blame the shutdown on the GOP exclusively. Uneducation goes both to the left and the right. Have you watched MSNBC? But if anything, this is all the more reason for a poll tax. Contrary to what tynz21 said, I don't think it would discourage serious voters from voting. If they care about the issues, they'd vote anyway. Well.. about a poll tax, the justice dept is already are after states that passed voter ID saying it was illegal as it was a poll tax. Not sure how an actual tax would fly. However it would be nice to check to see how informed folks are before giving them the power to vote. Not sure a tax would do that... and doubt my idea would fly either. lol

2013-10-06 17:47:00 Author: jwwphotos Posts: 11383

---

However it would be nice to check to see how informed folks are before giving them the power to vote. Not sure a tax would do that... and doubt my idea would fly either. lol Oh, do tell.

2013-10-07 02:34:00 Author: Kalawishis Posts: 928

---

Make it so that people have to take a test in order to obtain the right to vote, perhaps - just a test on some basic US History, so that the people who pass can be confirmed as "not uninformed *******es"

2013-10-07 03:18:00 Author: Ryan86me Posts: 1909

---

Make it so that people have to take a test in order to obtain the right to vote, perhaps - just a test on some basic US History, so that the people who pass can be confirmed as "not uninformed *******es" I think some type of test would be a fair enough idea, but a test of history doesn't really hit the mark. Sure, history goes hand in hand with government, but knowing when Washington crossed the Delaware has precious little to do with current politics. In my opinion it would have to be some sort of politically based test, like a quiz on basic government terms or something. Like, if you don't know what a filibuster is, you ought not be voting.

2013-10-07 04:07:00 Author: Tynz21 Posts: 544

---

I think some type of test would be a fair enough idea, but a test of history doesn't really hit the mark. Sure, history goes hand in hand with government, but knowing when Washington crossed the Delaware has precious little to do with current politics. In my opinion it would have to be some sort of politically based test, like a quiz on basic government terms or something. Like, if you don't know what a filibuster is, you ought not be voting. Holy crap, you came out of nowhere and made one of the most genious points/ideas on the thread. Seriously, props to you - I agree with you completely.

2013-10-07 04:46:00 Author: Ryan86me Posts: 1909

---

I think some type of test would be a fair enough idea, but a test of history doesn't really hit the mark. Sure, history goes hand in hand with government, but knowing when Washington crossed the Delaware has precious little to do with current politics. In my opinion it would have to be some sort of politically based test, like a quiz on basic government terms or something. Like, if you don't know what a filibuster is, you ought not be voting. I agree. ..and everyone knows that a Filibuster is a yummy gooey chocolate bar with a toffee crunch. (fyi.. that last part was a joke, for those that didn't get it. lol)

2013-10-07 11:06:00 Author: jwwphotos Posts: 11383

---

I'm glad nobody is posting suicide rates here. That would cause some... troubles for me.

2013-10-07 14:02:00 Author: FreeAim Posts: 2462

---

Make it so that people have to take a test in order to obtain the right to vote, perhaps - just a test on some basic US History, so that the people who pass can be confirmed as "not uninformed *******es" I think some type of test would be a fair enough idea, but a test of history doesn't really hit the mark. Sure, history goes hand in hand with government, but knowing when Washington crossed the Delaware has precious little to do with current politics. In my opinion it would have to be some sort of politically based test, like a quiz on basic government terms or something. Like, if you don't know what a filibuster is, you ought not be voting. Problem is, the thing could go wrong so easily it's not funny. For starters, it could start a snowball effect. Say the test is put into place. Now, people have to have a decent knowledge of civics and how the Amercan government works. But what about, say, economics? That's arguably even more important than civics, and people know even less about it. Ask an American if they lean more towards Chicago school or Keynesian economics, and they probably won't know what either are. They can barely understand what capital is, and have no real opinions or understanding of even the basic reasons behind growth and downturn. Surely we should require people to have at least a basic knowledge to be able to vote. Oh, and science! Environmental problems are, and will be, some of the biggest problems humanity will face. Not only that, advances in technology like cloning and AI with pose some very pressing ethical issues in the future. Voters today have nearly no scientific literacy. They can barely explain what global warming is, let alone how it affects the earth! If we don't want uneducated masses being misled by politicians, we need voters that know science. Oh, and history! There's a saying, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Surely we wouldn't want to be trapped in a regressive feedback loop of us repeating the same atrocities over and over... and so on and so forth. Secondly, it's so easily manipulated. I've already told about pre-civil rights movement "literacy tests" which were writing your own name for white people and interpreting Shakespeare for black. Who says that a cunning Democratic county clerk might jack up the difficulty for his republican district? Who says the sexist test-giver might add in a few essay questions about the influence of French thinkers on American government for all the women who step in the room? And maybe you could say that the test should be federally controlled and unalterable by anyone except congress? How do you know that the controlling party, figuring out that they are more popular among the rich (who are generally more educated), might add a few college level questions in there? It's too easy to be manipulated.

2013-10-08 02:57:00 Author: Kalawishis Posts: 928

---

Problem is, the thing could go wrong so easily it's not funny. For starters, it could start a snowball effect. Say the test is put into place. Now, people have to have a decent knowledge of civics and how the Amercan government works. But what about, say, economics? That's arguably even more important than civics, and people know even less about it. Ask an American if they lean more towards Chicago school or Keynesian economics, and they probably won't know what either are. They can barely understand what capital is, and have no real opinions or understanding of even the basic reasons behind growth and downturn. Surely we should require people to have at least a basic knowledge to be able to vote. Oh, and science! Environmental problems are, and will be, some of the biggest problems humanity will face. Not only that, advances in technology like cloning and AI with pose some very pressing ethical issues in the future. Voters today have nearly no scientific literacy. They can barely explain what global warming is, let alone how it affects the earth! If we don't want uneducated masses being misled by politicians, we need voters that know science. Oh, and history! There's a saying, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Surely we wouldn't want to be trapped in a regressive feedback loop of us repeating the same atrocities over and over... and so on and so forth. Secondly, it's so easily manipulated. I've already told about pre-civil rights movement "literacy tests" which were writing your own name for white people and interpreting Shakespeare for black. Who says that a cunning Democratic county clerk might jack up the difficulty for his republican district? Who says the sexist test-giver might add in a few essay questions about the influence of French thinkers on American government for all the women who step in the room? And maybe you could say that the test should be federally controlled and unalterable by anyone except congress? How do you know that the controlling party, figuring out that they are more popular among the rich (who are generally more educated), might add a few college level questions in there? It's too easy to be manipulated. Oh sure... no much different than the SAT testing issues, challenges and changes throughout the years. Hard to make it fair for everyone, so probably not a really good idea at all. However, it would be nice to instill a bit of pride and honor back into the process of voting. So that the ones that do vote, actually have kept up on current events and aren't just pulling levers or pushing buttons so to speak.

2013-10-08 11:18:00 Author: jwwphotos Posts: 11383

---

Problem is, the thing could go wrong so easily it's not funny. For starters, it could start a snowball effect. Say the test is put into place. Now, people have to have a decent knowledge of civics and how the Amercan government works. But what about, say, economics? That's arguably even more important than civics, and people know even less about it. Ask an American if they lean more towards Chicago school or Keynesian economics, and they probably won't know what either are. They can barely understand what capital is, and have no real opinions or understanding of even the basic reasons behind growth and downturn. Surely we should require people to have at least a basic knowledge to be able to vote. Oh, and science! Environmental problems are, and will be, some of the biggest problems humanity will face. Not only that, advances in technology like cloning and AI with pose some very pressing ethical issues in the future. Voters today have nearly no scientific literacy. They can barely explain what global warming is, let alone how it affects the earth! If we don't want uneducated masses being misled by politicians, we need voters that know science. Oh, and history! There's a saying, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Surely we wouldn't want to be trapped in a regressive feedback loop of us repeating the same atrocities over and over... and so on and so forth. Secondly, it's so easily manipulated. I've already told about pre-civil rights movement "literacy tests" which were writing your own name for white people and interpreting Shakespeare for black. Who says that a cunning Democratic county clerk might jack up the difficulty for his republican district? Who says the sexist test-giver might add in a few essay questions about the influence of French thinkers on American government for all the women who step in the room? And maybe you could say that the test should be federally controlled and unalterable by anyone except congress? How do you know that the controlling party, figuring out that they are more popular among the rich (who are generally more educated), might add a few college level questions in there? It's too easy to be manipulated. honestly, I wish it was more like that. People knowing science and economics and before they vote on issues of economics and science... doesn't sound like an issue to me. Although the biased test part definitely would have to be dealt with.

2013-10-08 12:01:00 Author: Tynz21 Posts: 544

---

Sorta beating a dead horse here, but it's about time those brats had a time out. The American government is supposed to stand as the ideal of democracy and freedom, a government where politicians of any political patronage can congregate and peacefully resolve issues. Now it's just... people being stubborn and refusing to even listen to what the other side has to say. Dems want to raise the debt ceiling, Reps want debt cuts. Neither side is willing to budge and the only people who are losing are the employees who work for them. Now Capitol Hill is down, all because of a pointless, unceasing, never-ending game of... http://www.indianapolislitigationblog.com/finger%20pointing.jpg ... finger pointing. The sooner these spoiled brats can get their act together and actually cooperate to come up with a solution, the sooner their employees can return to work and the sooner we can refocus on getting out of this stupid hole they dug out in the first place.

2013-10-12 01:43:00 Author: Outlaw-Jack Posts: 5757

---

The American government is supposed to stand as the ideal of democracy and freedom, a government where politicians of any political patronage can congregate and peacefully resolve issues. Now it's just... people being stubborn and refusing to even listen to what the other side has to say. Dems want to raise the debt ceiling, Reps want debt cuts. Neither side is willing to budge and the only people who are losing are the employees who work for them. Now Capitol Hill is down, all because of a pointless, unceasing, never-ending game of... I think you've got your stuff mixed up. The American government is not meant to be an ideal, it's meant to be a representation of what the people want. It's meant to be treated with suspicion and skepticism, to be a being that we only have because we need, a powerful being we must keep in check, not look up to. We're the ideal, and we're doomed if we think that the government is meant to solve issues for us. And yes, there are a lot of hardliners who refuse to compromise, but who do we blame? Them, or us? These hardliners were elected on the campaign that they would never "submit to pressure or change their principles", and to do just that would alienate a lot of their voters. I've noticed that a lot of people who want compromise merely want the party they don't support to give in to the party they do. "Compromise" to them would be the Democrats letting Obamacare be gutted or changed, or the Republicans letting it off the hook entirely. They don't realize that with a compromise they are giving away a sizable part of what they believe in. In fact, to blame the government for this entirely would be immature. It's a problem with society in general. You can read some of my posts earlier in this thread about first past the post and gerrymandering to see how I elaborate on it, but they really only address the flaws in American government. The thing is, people believe strongly in these things, so strongly, in fact, that they're willing to go to amazing lengths to protect them.

2013-10-12 02:13:00 Author: Kalawishis Posts: 928

---

I think you've got your stuff mixed up. The American government is not meant to be an ideal, it's meant to be a representation of what the people want. It's meant to be treated with suspicion and skepticism, to be a being that we only have because we need, a powerful being we must keep in check, not look up to. We're the ideal, and we're doomed if we think that the government is meant to solve issues for us. And yes, there are a lot of hardliners who refuse to compromise, but who do we blame? Them, or us? These hardliners were elected on the campaign that they would never "submit to pressure or change their principles", and to do just that would alienate a lot of their voters. I've noticed that a lot of people who want compromise merely want the party they don't support to give in to the party they do. "Compromise" to them would be the Democrats letting Obamacare be gutted or changed, or the Republicans letting it off the hook entirely. They don't realize that with a compromise they are giving away a sizable part of what they believe in. In fact, to blame the government for this entirely would be immature. It's a problem with society in general. You can read some of my posts earlier in this thread about first past the post and gerrymandering to see how I elaborate on it, but they really only address the flaws in American government. The thing is, people believe strongly in these things, so strongly, in fact, that they're willing to go to amazing lengths to protect them. But to the point that the ideals of a group of individuals endangers the integrity of an entire nation? Now don't get me wrong, I understand that the two parties are very compassionate about their beliefs, but coming to a stalemate and jeopardizing the stability of a world superpower are two different things entirely. You can prolong stalemates, but in the grand scheme of the world scene, putting the government on pause has some serious consequences if it's prolonged. The worst part about it is that it not only puts the United States in a crisis, but the rest of the world as well (provided that the world isn't in some sort of crisis already, which seems to be a very popular favorite topic as of late). Prolonging a decision in order to refine or change some implications about the agreements that will take place is logical; prolonging a decision because you don't wanna consider compromise or "giving in" to that other party is childish. Yes, Democrats and Republicans of all kinds did pledge statements of uncompromising attitudes and are unwilling to bend over for the other side in order to get votes, but how many people actually have an idea on who they're actually voting for? Politics is a way of saying popularity; the class president and other candidates in your school tend to be the popular people. The same can be said for the politicians in Washington, D.C. So yeah, the majority can be blamed for electing these officials in the first place, and, to a point, I'm impressed with the ways these politicians can convince countless masses to vote for them because of the words they say. And yes, in a way, the sole reason for this split can be traced all the way back to the voters themselves, since their decisions on candidates and the surprising lack of actual education on the candidates combined with a sluggish economy, a rise in international debt, a drop in moral decency and education in general has led to this moment in time. But opinions and attitude can only do so much before prolonging the problem at hand, and these people in power were elected to represent the populations that voted for them and to voice their peoples' problems and concerns, to make the lives of their supporters better. A government shutdown isn't helping anyone.

2013-10-12 02:39:00 Author: Outlaw-Jack Posts: 5757

---

Now don't get me wrong, I understand that the two parties are very compassionate about their beliefs, but coming to a stalemate and jeopardizing the stability of a world superpower are two different things entirely. You can prolong stalemates, but in the grand scheme of the world scene, putting the government on pause has some serious consequences if it's prolonged. The worst part about it is that it not only puts the United States in a crisis, but the rest of the world as well (provided that the world isn't in some sort of crisis already, which seems to be a very popular favorite topic as of late). Prolonging a decision in order to refine or change some implications about the agreements that will take place is logical; prolonging a decision because you don't wanna consider compromise or "giving in" to that other party is childish. Yes, Democrats and Republicans of all kinds did pledge statements of uncompromising attitudes and are unwilling to bend over for the other side in order to get votes, but how many people actually have an idea on who they're actually voting for? Politics is a way of saying popularity; the class president and other candidates in your school tend to be the popular people. The same can be said for the politicians in Washington, D.C. So yeah, the majority can be blamed for electing these officials in the first place, and, to a point, I'm impressed with the ways these politicians can convince countless masses to vote for them because of the words they say. And yes, in a way, the sole reason for this split can be traced all the way back to the voters themselves, since their decisions on candidates and the surprising lack of actual education on the candidates combined with a sluggish economy, a rise in international debt, a drop in moral decency and education in general has led to this moment in time. But opinions and attitude can only do so much before prolonging the problem at hand, and these people in power were elected to represent the populations that voted for them and to voice their peoples' problems and concerns, to make the lives of their supporters better. A government shutdown isn't helping anyone. I didn't like your quote: " Yes, Democrats and Republicans of all kinds did pledge statements of uncompromising attitudes and are unwilling to bend over for the other side in order to get votes, but how many people actually have an idea on who they're actually voting for?" That implies that it's okay for politicians to break promises because people don't know what they're doing. I think what you don't realize is that America is divided deeply, very deeply, about this law, and for every person who doesn't care, there is one who cares a great deal.

2013-10-12 04:38:00 Author: Kalawishis Posts: 928

---

http://gawker.com/tea-party-republican-defends-being-on-medicaid-while-op-1446552792 ... I've got nothing.

2013-10-17 00:15:00 Author: RockSauron Posts: 10882

---

http://gawker.com/tea-party-republican-defends-being-on-medicaid-while-op-1446552792 ... I've got nothing. Is it wrong that I'm at the point where I actually derive some sort of twisted pleasure out of people being caught in the midst of such bald-faced hypocrisy? It's as delicious as a pro-lifer found getting an abortion (more common than you think)... Edit: Sorry.. but article you included contains language inappropriate for the rules of this site. If you can find the content elsewhere, feel free to add that back in.

2013-10-17 04:22:00 Author: Dapiek Absaroka Posts: 512

---

The government shutdown is finally over, but this one is not as good as the last one. Throughout the whole time, the government hasn't done anything but argue, argue, and argue. This is what I don't like about the government. They pass one thing that is bad for the country, and they don't do anything about it after, even if we have people voting on it. Both parties are more stubborn than ever when it comes to doing anything (passing new laws, repealing failed acts like Obamacare, defunding unnecessary programs). I agree we should have a two-party system, but polarization is very bad for the country. If we had one polarized side dominating everything, the extreme laws will stay and make living in the country worse. If we had both polarized sides, nothing will pass.

2013-10-17 16:13:00 Author: Apple2012 Posts: 1408

---

I think this quote from reddit sums up the matter well: I want to give a half crazy answer here. I have been browsing Reddit for a while and I don't mind the pretty left leaning stuff in this sub, but recently it has taken on a more vicious tone. The president's remarks have also become very derogatory. I will submit that the republicans have been just as accusatory, but I feel like they just haven't been attacking as hard (on a whole, so please don't inundate me with examples of nasty republican remarks; there's examples on both sides). Even some of the less liberal news outlets have alienated the republicans (WSJ, Washington Post). Hell even Fox seemed to be hedging it's bets. I will be a doctor soon and I think the ACA is bad for our country. I can foresee the ways it will be abused and will hurt the frontline medical workers. I think the government will have their hands full trying to plug holes. Also, I think it represents an enormous shift in income from the middle class. These are all my opinions meant for debate. Just because it's law doesn't mean it's set in stone. A person should never allow a law they disagree with to go on without a fight. I will follow it as much as I legally have to and work to circumvent and subvert it legally because I truly disagree with it. I voted for a support those crazy republicans. I'm a libertarian but I think the current debate is on economics, not social issues, so today I'm a republican. The law was voted in under a different makeup of leadership. The new leadership, with republicans controlling much more than they did, took the only option they had to hit the ACA. They wanted in my opinion some reasonable delays, after the negations. I still support their efforts. I also commend the democrats for holding their ground. They had the law, the ruling, the senate, and the presidency. The nation is more democrat and they won. The standoff represents entrenched disagreements. It was a display of federalism I am proud of. In the end they came to an uneasy agreement when the risk became too high. To those whose entitlements were at risk, I apologize. It's unfortunate that you are in a position where you rely on government and are unable to support yourself. I hope that comes across sincere because I know many people that have fallen into bad times and are truly in need. I think the services the government provides help, but they are at the mercy of representatives that fight for bigger things. The world should see this as the shining example of public discourse. It wasn't a hostage negotiation. It wasn't evil manipulators. It wasn't childish. It wasn't petty. It was honorable. It was tense and scary and frustrating, but it made me love that we have a system that either negotiates to an agreement or halts until consequences change the circumstances and a new agreement is met. This is all done civilly with no bloodshed and no dictatorship. I hope that both sides can see the awesomeness of this event. The Dems won and history will probably reflect that attitude, but who knows, decades from now when they write the history books on this topic, someone will read this post and say "someone saw some good in that ****storm" and that'll be their dissertation. Tl;dr The shutdown represented America's greatness.

2013-10-18 23:45:00 Author: Kalawishis Posts: 928

Posts: 1077139    Threads: 69970    Members: 9661    Archive-Date: 2019-01-19

Aus dem Archiv wurden alle persönlichen Daten wie Name, Anschrift, Email etc. - aber auch sämtliche Inhalte wie z.B. persönliche Nachrichten - entfernt.
Die Nutzung dieser Webseite erfolgt ohne Speicherung personenbezogener Daten. Es werden keinerlei Cookies, Logs, 3rd-Party-Plugins etc. verwendet.