So how 'bout that U. S. of A. almost defaulting?
i'm surprised it hasn't happened already goowan
Well good thing I know how to kill babies with my bare hands.
Quote from: TheSequel on July 29, 2011, 06:16:52 PM
So how 'bout that U. S. of A. almost defaulting?
It shows how stupid a 2 party system actually is.
Quote from: Clara Listensprechen on July 29, 2011, 06:57:59 PM
It shows how stupid a 2 party system actually is.
oh my god, why don't more people like you exist AWESOME
Quote from: Tectrinket on July 29, 2011, 07:01:20 PM
oh my god, why don't more people like you exist AWESOME
I thought everyone disliked the 2 party system.............
then why is it still allowed to exist frankendood;
I think it has more to do with every single politician sucking dick than anything else.
Also fucking stupid americans and suburbs and hicks not going to school. fuck this shit.
If the government defaults does it mean everything becomes worthless and there is no more USA.
It's politics. They let it get this way so someone or one party can appear as the hero who saves the USA from economic devastation.
Quote from: Clara Listensprechen on July 29, 2011, 06:57:59 PM
It shows how stupid a 2 party system actually is.
Also this^^^
Quote from: Tectrinket on July 29, 2011, 07:03:06 PM
then why is it still allowed to exist frankendood;
do you have a better solution?
Quote from: silvertone on July 29, 2011, 07:05:03 PM
If the government defaults does it mean everything becomes worthless and there is no more USA.
Yes, and I will live on the top floor of the sears tower with my robot bride and rule over my dominion.
Quote from: applesauce on July 29, 2011, 07:06:49 PM
Yes, and I will live on the top floor of the sears tower with my robot bride and rule over my dominion.
Where the heck did you get a robot bride!!!!!!!
Quote from: silvertone on July 29, 2011, 07:07:43 PM
Where the heck did you get a robot bride!!!!!!!
I don't have one yet, but I will acquire it easily once everything becomes worthless. hocuspocus;
Quote from: Nyerp on July 29, 2011, 07:08:12 PM
why do you hate suburbs so much
Wait, do you want me to actually have a serious conversation about this?
Quote from: Tri4se on July 29, 2011, 07:06:18 PM
do you have a better solution?
I don't know, we could try voting for people based on merit rather than being lazy ignorant fuckwits and voting based on which of the equally useless and equally destructive parties a candidate supports. goowan
Quote from: Tectrinket on July 29, 2011, 07:09:45 PM
I don't know, we could try voting for people based on merit rather than being lazy ignorant fuckwits and voting based on which of the equally useless and equally destructive parties a candidate support. goowan
u r crazy
Quote from: silvertone on July 29, 2011, 07:05:03 PM
If the government defaults does it mean everything becomes worthless and there is no more USA.
Possibly. It means that the government would have to give up whatever it has to when it defaults. I'm guessing they would lose land or something.
Quote from: silvertone on July 29, 2011, 07:05:03 PM
If the government defaults does it mean everything becomes worthless and there is no more USA.
I can't wait for that day giggle;
Quote from: applesauce on July 29, 2011, 07:09:18 PM
Wait, do you want me to actually have a serious conversation about this?
I would be interested hearing your reasoning
suburbs def suck idk what kind of reasoning you're looking for (http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lnm4zvrmtB1qhvlbfo1_250.gif)
Quote from: Squid Girl on July 29, 2011, 07:16:19 PM
I can't wait for that day giggle;
As depressing a state as this country is currently in, I'd rather not have it fail. It can be fixed if people are willing to give it an opportunity to be fixed. goowan
Quote from: Squid Girl on July 29, 2011, 07:16:19 PM
I can't wait for that day giggle;
probably won't happen
Quote from: Tectrinket on July 29, 2011, 07:03:06 PM
then why is it still allowed to exist frankendood;
Because the other parties don't get enough votes akudood;
Quote from: Tectrinket on July 29, 2011, 07:03:06 PM
then why is it still allowed to exist frankendood;
Because we're goddamned lazy and/or don't think it's worth trying to support other parties
In some cases it's seen as a harmful idea, with third parties "siphoning" votes off of major ones
The democratic+ republican parties raise the amount of signatures needed for a 3rd party to get on the ballet, it is some extreme amount that it costs too much for most parties to get on the ballet. Democrats and republicans don't need to get signatures because they had enough votes from the previous election to get on for free.
Quote from: _you_ on July 29, 2011, 07:23:35 PM
Because the other parties don't get enough votes akudood;
that's not even the problem
we could have ten major parties and that still wouldn't solve anything
the problem is we like things to be easy so we vote democrat because we've always voted democrat or vote republican because we've always voted republican
Quote from: Tectrinket on July 29, 2011, 07:26:56 PM
that's not even the problem
we could have ten major parties and that still wouldn't solve anything
the problem is we like things to be easy so we vote democrat because we've always voted democrat or vote republican because we've always voted republican
It's so easy when things are black and white :(
my solution: just don't vote lol :D
Quote from: Tectrinket on July 29, 2011, 07:26:56 PM
that's not even the problem
we could have ten major parties and that still wouldn't solve anything
the problem is we like things to be easy so we vote democrat because we've always voted democrat or vote republican because we've always voted republican
Again, that's because they see voting for smaller "fringe" parties as harmful to their cause and helpful to their political opponents.
Quote from: Nyerp on July 29, 2011, 07:28:54 PM
my solution: just don't vote lol :D
my solution: ralph nader 2012
Quote from: Zidone on July 29, 2011, 07:29:06 PM
Again, that's because they see voting for smaller "fringe" parties as harmful to their cause and helpful to their political opponents.
and then there's that
which is why i think the whole party system in general should be obliterated goodjob;
Quote from: Zidone on July 29, 2011, 07:29:06 PM
Again, that's because they see voting for smaller "fringe" parties as harmful to their cause and helpful to their political opponents.
What? Who is they?
Quote from: Squid Girl on July 29, 2011, 07:16:19 PM
I would be interested hearing your reasoning
I'm too lazy to argue it out, so here's a paper I wrote in 10th grade. It's not the most well-written thing ever, but remember I was in 10th grade. It also skips over a lot of big points.
On Minneapolis, Decentralization, and My Grandfather
Growing up, cars were a significant part of my grandfather's life. His father owned an auto shop on 28th and Lyndale, fronting right up against the Greenway, then one of the most active industrial corridors in the state. The entire reason he was even here to begin with was the Ford Center; his grandfather came to Minneapolis from Germany to work there. Cars were on the rise. They had already shaped my grandpa's life, and they were beginning to shape lives around the city and across the globe. Minneapolis was different back thenâ€" my grandpa could have hopped on any one of over twenty-five streetcar lines and gone anywhere he wanted to go in the city. There were no suburbs other than Saint Paul, St. Anthony, and Richfield, and those weren't really suburbs in the modern sense of the word. Suburbs simply hadn't been invented yet, and neither had highways. Everyone lived in dense, mixed-use urban neighborhoods. Climate change wasn’t an issue. Polluted runoff wasn’t an issue. Peak oil wasn’t an issue. Cities were dense, centralized places that rapidly gave way to farmland on their outskirts.
The modern Twin Cities is a decentralized atrocity ruled by cars. Highways criss-cross our region, wrapping it like a giant, tangled ribbon. New development is dominated by parking spotsâ€" a new apartment building will have 1.2 parking spaces per unit, meaning that even for a 400 square foot studio apartment, 240 square feet of parking space is required. And that’s just at the home. Stores and workplaces require parking space as well.
As twenty-story office towers sprout like weeds along the metro's ever-widening highway systems and farm after farm becomes populated by cul-du-sac homes, citizens must ask themselves if this is where they want the Twin Cities to go. Many Minnesotans have chosen to have big homes with big yards, often making this choice without even considering the consequencesâ€" moving straight out to Maple Grove, afraid of city schools or "big city crime". It's easy to see that problems like crime and struggling schools are but tiny threats to the vitality of Minneapolis and the larger region when compared to that of suburbia, as our beautiful metro grows less and less like the Minneapolis my grandfather knew and loved.
For the last sixty years, the Twin Cities have grown outward rather than becoming more dense. Shady government subsidy and the ignorance of the populace has caroused many Minneapolitans out of the city and into suburbia, and technological advances and poor corporate leadership have begun to move commerce out of signature office towers to nameless locations. Beautiful mixed-use high density neighborhoods empty themselves or lie stagnate while rows of bland beige houses in Albertville and nondescript midrise towers along 494 grow like algae on a pond in an Eden Prairie office park.
Suburbia comes with myriad far-reaching negative effects, ranging from wetland loss to expensive and inefficient transportation networks. The main characteristic of suburbia that leads to the large majority of its problems is land use. Highly decentralized cities have layouts that do not make sense because they do not easily lend themselves to transportation systems that transport commuters to their respective destinations in an efficient, organized manner. The lack of a central business district makes creating effective and efficient transportation networks exponentially complex. The distance between destinations in a decentralized city has a similar effect, and also produces commutes of substantially further distance, and consequently, time. Destinations in a decentralized city are so far apart because of the massive lots suburbanites want for their beige or light blue boxes with out of place "architectural elements" and the low density at which suburban office, retail, and industry is built. The segregation of uses is also a significant contributor to the land use problems of modern suburbia. Some odd desire fosters within the typical Minnesotan (or perhaps just within the typical developer) to strictly segregate homes from apartments, apartments from stores, stores from offices, and to shove parks way out into the sticks beyond even most of the homes. Honestly, who really wants neighborhood coffee shops and corner stores every quarter mile when you can have massive shopping centers with acres of blacktop every four or five miles? This segregation increases the length of everyday trips which, in addition to adding to the total miles traveled per person, discourages the use of alternative transportation, which places additional stress on the automotive-based transportation system.
In the Twin Cities, the current transportation network relies almost exclusively on limited or semi-limited access highways. The system was designed and built in the 1940s-60s and, much like other cities' highway systems, was intended to provide for a city that was sprawling alarmingly fast, but still relied on its central business district. My family reminisces of the days before 35W, back when Portland and Park were virtual freewaysâ€" four lanes each of wall to wall traffic. It was in those days that my uncle got hit on Park, ironically enough, on his way to go watch the construction of the new interstate. His extreme height has always been attributed to the fact that he spent nine months of his prime growth years in a hospital bed. The system was designed as a traditional hub and spoke system to shuttle commuters in and out of the central business district, while only providing minimal capacity for travel between suburban areas. The system has since been adapted to better serve the rapidly decentralizing area, with more 'crossways' being constructed in the 1980s through to the present day. The system, however, still functions best when used to ferry commuters in and out of a central business district. The Twin Cities has outgrown its transportation system much faster than the system can be expanded, resulting in longer commutes. In the city itself, it has now reached the point where it is entirely impractical to widen the highways due to new eminent domain laws. While the optimum system for an urban area is a simple hub-and-spoke with few circulatory routes, a decentralized metropolitan area requires a much more complex system of highways, with many, many circulatory routes, up to three times that of a highly centralized area, and thus the networks are much more expensive. This is the second area is which they are inferior. The low density land use of suburban areas necessitates suburbia's dependance on the automobile, as it manages to make the unfathomably efficient urban mass transit options useless due to the immense distances between destinations. This same effect also applies to other alternative transportation options, both cycling and walking. By removing all practical benefits from these activities, suburbs not only increase their auto dependance; they also increase their obesity rate.
Large, inefficient transit networks would be all fine and dandy (or at least somewhat tolerable) if the users of said transit networks paid for the networks, however, this in not the case in modern Minnesota. Highways are paid for by county, state, and federal authorities. The money used comes from income and property tax coffers, and only a small percentage of it comes in the form of a user fee (gas tax, licensing fees, the rare toll road). This payment structure is very unfair. Case example: MN Hwy 77/Cedar Avenue (Cedar Avenue). Residents of growing suburbs south of the Minnesota River, Farmington in particular, have pushed for making the entirety of Cedar Avenue into a wide limited access highway. Currently Cedar Avenue is a semi limited access highway south of Apple Valley, and becomes limited access to the north. Cedar Avenue continues to be limited access until right after it intersects with MN Hwy 62 on the Minneapolis-Richfield border, after which it becomes a standard city street. The proposal made by south-of-the-river congressmen (and now under construction, due to open in 2010) calls for new high-occupancy vehicle and dedicated bus rapid transit (HOV/BRT) lanes on Cedar Avenue, along with HOV/BRT crossover ramps at the Hwy 62 interchange, to be paid for by the state and federal governments, together with Hennepin and Dakota counties. This project is for the benefit of south-of-the-river suburbanites; it does not benefit the residents of Hennepin County in any way! In fact, it doesn't really even benefit most residents and businesses in Dakota County eitherâ€" the last time the limited-access portion of Cedar Avenue was extended, it brought about the collapse of an Apple Valley shopping mall, and eventually entire neighborhoods. Even without a malfunctioning payment structure, suburban transportation networks are inferior to urban ones.
The massive highways required by decentralized metropolitan areas are not only expensive; they also take up a lot of space and have negative effects on the natural environment. The storm water runoff from highways has the same effect as that of suburban driveways, more water (which also happens to be more polluted) must be absorbed by less soil, causing unbalance in ecosystems. The second main environmental effect of large highways is emissions. The longer America's love affair with the car continues, the greater the negative effects on the environment.
Other aspects of decentralization have many negative effects on local ecosystems as well. To make way for new suburban homes, not only farms must go, but woodlands and wetlands are razed/filled in to make way for the blacktop and swimming pools. The increase in paved area (from this, plus the previously mentioned parking lots due to usage segregation) also results in runoff issues, similar to those of highways, except on a much larger scale. Coupled with the demolition of habitats, polluted runoff from lawn fertilizer can decimate ecosystems.
Many things contribute to cause decentralization, including technological advances and poor leadership decisions. As the internet grows in popularity, it enables business to be more easily conducted without face-to-face interaction. Because of this, it is less crippling to business for a corporation to relocate out of the central business district, which has caused the cheap land and large open spaces of suburban corporate campuses to appear more and more attractive to large corporations as of late.
Suburbia's existence is not entirely due to the stupidity and selfishness of the average Minnesotan (nor the average developer); it is, in large part, the fault of many poor decisions made by government leaders. Although one can place blame on Eisenhower and Cold War era Pentagon officials for the creation of the concept of suburbia through the Interstate Highway Act and succeeding similar legislation and mid-century urban mayors responsible for heavy-handed and widely destructive "urban renewal", it is undeniable that the continued success of suburbia is owed to anti-urban urban leaders. One major offender is Lisa Goodman, a fifth term councilwoman from Minneapolis' seventh ward. The seventh ward includes downtown, and as the council member representing the neighborhood, she holds veto power on everything downtown related. The following is but one example of Goodman's incompetence: In 1997, Target Corporation proposed a new massive expansion to their corporate headquarters in downtown Minneapolis. The new building, to stand over forty-five stories tall, was to be called Target Plaza South (TPS). The proposed site, however, was located one block outside of downtown's unlimited height "skyscraper zone", thus requiring variance approval by both the city council and the planning and zoning commission. The proposal, good for the economy as it was, was opposed by residents of Loring Park's many high-rise apartment towers as TPS would have blocked the skyline view from many of their units. Another reason that Lisa Goodman gave for her dissent to the plan is that it would have brought six thousand new workers to downtown. The council member representing the interests of downtown residents and businesses opposed a new skyscraper downtown because it would bring more jobs to the neighborhood. After much debate, Target was forced to build TPS at only thirty-two stories, not even enough room to contain all their downtown offices, much less provide room for growth. Frustrated, in 2005 Target relocated their headquarters to a new corporate campus in Brooklyn Park.
My grandfather would be deeply saddened by the city he grew up in and what has become of it. Downtown east is a vast wasteland of surface lots, the brownstones, markets, and railway depots of his childhood long gone to the wrecking ball in the city's desperate attempts to stem white flight in the 1950s. The grand gateway intersection of Hennepin and Lyndale has regressed into a series of tangled freeway ramps. Great swaths of the city, two blocks wide and stretching from one end to the other have been razed, bridged, paved, and lined, shuttling commuters in from such far off destinations as New Richmond, Minnetrista, and Lakeville. The only remaining streetcar line in the city is a pitiful two mile stretch between Lake Harriet and Lake Calhoun that only operates on weekends, a ghost of a bygone era.
I think I would have really like my grandfather, had I known him when he was sane. We probably would have had a lot in common. I've heard my family joke that if he had known that he had lived out his final years in Richfield rather than within the city limits he would have killed himself and saved them a lot of money; I lament ceaselessly over both my sisters' good fortunes in having been delivered at Abbott, while I had the misfortune of being born at Fairview Southdale, the “Edina” on my birth certificate a shame I will never escape. After the Lake Street Kmart was built in the 70s, blocking Nicollet off between 28th and Lake, he (nor anyone in his family, if he heard about it) never shopped at a Kmart again in his life, even though he passed one every single day on the way home from work. He was a soldier for our city; a real role model.
Quote from: TheSequel on July 29, 2011, 07:30:47 PM
What? Who is they?
Well, who are we?
I can't really speak for conservatives, but whenever I tell liberals to stop voting for the Centrist party I get "WELL THEN THE REPUBLICANS WIN."
Just tell them that modern day republicans are liberals who don't like abortion or free healthcare.
Quote from: Tectrinket on July 29, 2011, 07:26:56 PM
that's not even the problem
we could have ten major parties and that still wouldn't solve anything
the problem is we like things to be easy so we vote democrat because we've always voted democrat or vote republican because we've always voted republican
Yes it is, and you just explained why the other parties don't get that many votes (as well as raising an irrelevant point akudood;).
Quote from: TheSequel on July 29, 2011, 07:28:29 PM
It's so easy when things are black and white :(
and because of that we always end up voting for the lesser of two evils
brotip:
[spoiler]both parties are exactly the fucking same nyandood;[/spoiler]
This country will continue to dig its own grave until people start voting intelligently and not treating politics like a popularity contest. scarecrowdood;
[spoiler]this is also why i think political campaigns should be illegal n_n[/spoiler]
Quote from: Tectrinket on July 29, 2011, 07:35:20 PM
This country will continue to dig its own grave until people start voting intelligently and not treating politics like a popularity contest. scarecrowdood;
That's never going to happen, at least not in our lifetimes, especially with our public education system. wrench;
Quote from: _you_ on July 29, 2011, 07:35:12 PM
Yes it is, and you just explained why the other parties don't get that many votes (as well as raising an irrelevant point akudood;).
the problem is that the multi-party system in general is terribly unstable
whether there are two parties or ten, the same problem would arise: each would fight the other(s) for control and nothing would ever get done
Quote from: Zidone on July 29, 2011, 07:37:57 PM
That's never going to happen, at least not in our lifetimes, especially with our public education system. wrench;
We're doomed. goodjob;
It seems like politics devolves into a power struggle where one party just wants to have the biggest penis.
Quote from: Tectrinket on July 29, 2011, 07:40:06 PM
the problem is that the multi-party system in general is terribly unstable
whether there are two parties or ten, the same problem would arise: each would fight the other(s) for control and nothing would ever get done
Is Freedom really such a controversial idea? The whole point of our government is to protect our rights. If such fighting were to take place, it would end up restricting each party's agenda, forcing them to look to our Constitution (and whatnot) to settle arguments among the parties and adhering to our country's principles just to get work done.
Quote from: TheSequel on July 29, 2011, 07:42:56 PM
It seems like politics devolves into a power struggle where one party just wants to have the biggest penis.
that's exactly my point
that's exactly why parties need to be eradicated n_n
Quote from: _you_ on July 29, 2011, 07:43:29 PM
Is Freedom really such a controversial idea? The whole point of our government is to protect our rights. If such fighting were to take place, it would end up restricting each party's agenda, forcing them to look to our Constitution (and whatnot) to settle arguments among the parties and adhering to our country's principles just to get work done.
Too bad documents can be interpreted in different ways.
Quote from: Tectrinket on July 29, 2011, 07:44:31 PM
that's exactly my point
that's exactly why parties need to be eradicated n_n
That won't happen because of natural human behavior. People who like on candidate will tell others to vote for their candidate of choice because they believe their candidate will act in their best interests (because they have similar ideals).
Quote from: TheSequel on July 29, 2011, 07:42:56 PM
It seems like politics devolves into a power struggle where one party just wants to have the biggest penis.
(http://jonathanturley.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/boehner1.jpg)
[spoiler](http://www.westernjournalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/2009-06-08-Obama1.jpg)[/spoiler]
[spoiler](http://www.onepennysheet.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/full+text+of+manor+democratoc+donor+letter+to+nancy+pelosi.jpg)[/spoiler]
Quote from: TheSequel on July 29, 2011, 07:45:01 PM
Too bad documents can be interpreted in different ways.
Too bad no one single party could make the ultimate decision regarding a single interpretation, which, in either case, must result in the greatest amount of Freedom and protect our rights, all just to support said party's agenda.
Also, I think a large portion of the problem is that taxes are viewed as evil things. It seems like the majority of people do not realize that the whole point of taxes is to give back to the community (and to keep the government running, which should be giving back to the community).
Quote from: TheSequel on July 29, 2011, 07:54:11 PM
Also, I think a large portion of the problem is that taxes are viewed as evil things. It seems like the majority of people do not realize that the whole point of taxes is to give back to the community (and to keep the government running, which should be giving back to the community).
They're viewed as evil things because "fuck the community, stop stealing my hard-earned money."
Quote from: TheSequel on July 29, 2011, 07:54:11 PM
Also, I think a large portion of the problem is that taxes are viewed as evil things. It seems like the majority of people do not realize that the whole point of taxes is to give back to the community (and to keep the government running, which should be giving back to the community).
Are you referring to the federal government, which has no business with that kind of stuff, or the local governments, who have a much better understanding of what the community really needs?
Quote from: _you_ on July 29, 2011, 07:56:31 PM
Are you referring to the federal government, which has no business with that kind of stuff, or the local governments, who have a much better understanding of what the community really needs?
Both. The federal government provides funding for local governments anyway. What do you mean by "that kind of stuff?"
Quote from: Zidone on July 29, 2011, 07:55:50 PM
They're viewed as evil things because "fuck the community, stop stealing my hard-earned money."
Seriously. These people want the government to help them (bail outs) but don't want to help the government help them.
Quote from: Tectrinket on July 29, 2011, 07:42:39 PM
We're doomed. goodjob;
God Bless America. (http://boyah.net/forums/Smileys/default/jesus.png)
Quote from: TheSequel on July 29, 2011, 07:59:58 PM
Both. The federal government provides funding for local governments anyway.
5thgrade;
Quote from: TheSequel on July 29, 2011, 07:59:58 PM
What do you mean by "that kind of stuff?"
The stuff that the local governments have the greatest understanding of. Is it really necessary to call in the FBI when Susie's cat is stuck in a tree, when, in the worst case scenario (with regards to competence), the county sheriff is far more than capable of dealing with? Of course, in that situation, all that is needed is a response from people in the household, if not the neighborhood (or they could just leave the cat alone, as cats like to be in high places).
And if a city and/or county is already charging taxes, then who cares if the federal government is giving back to the community? I mean, if the city and/or county is charging taxes, they will give back to the community, won't they?
Quote from: _you_ on July 29, 2011, 08:10:25 PM
The stuff that the local governments have the greatest understanding of. Is it really necessary to call in the FBI when Susie's cat is stuck in a tree, when, in the worst case scenario (with regards to competence), the county sheriff is far more than capable of dealing with? Of course, in that situation, all that is needed is a response from people in the household, if not the neighborhood (or they could just leave the cat alone, as cats like to be in high places).
What are you getting at? I just said that governments should give back in general. Are you talking about governments having too much control over its residents?
QuoteAnd if a city and/or county is already charging taxes, then who cares if the federal government is giving back to the community? I mean, if the city and/or county is charging taxes, they will give back to the community, won't they?
Not all cities/communities are as wealthy as others. Federal tax can help provide funding to areas that lack it.
Quote from: TheSequel on July 29, 2011, 08:15:20 PM
What are you getting at? I just said that governments should give back in general. Are you talking about governments having too much control over its residents?
I don't know where you got that idea. The government's only responsibility is to protect our rights. Anything more stems from a possibly misguided request from a community, and certain members of the community, who happen to be in the local government, oblige their request. But then is it the government or the community that's giving back? It may be government resources, but it's the decision of its members, who also happen to be members of the community, to use said resources to give back to the community.
So then why does the federal government have to waste money solving problems that a local government, if not community can solve by itself? I mean, why take food from someone if you already have plenty of food?
Quote from: TheSequel on July 29, 2011, 08:15:20 PM
Not all cities/communities are as wealthy as others. Federal tax can help provide funding to areas that lack it.
Why not state taxes? Why can't one state give money and resources to another? 5thgrade;
Quote from: _you_ on July 29, 2011, 08:29:04 PM
I don't know where you got that idea. The government's only responsibility is to protect our rights. Anything more stems from a possibly misguided request from a community, and certain members of the community, who happen to be in the local government, oblige their request. But then is it the government or the community that's giving back? It may be government resources, but it's the decision of its members, who also happen to be members of the community, to use said resources to give back to the community.
K, community is too vague a word; I'm getting confused. Community as in the city, county, state, or country?
QuoteSo then why does the federal government have to waste money solving problems that a local government, if not community can solve by itself? I mean, why take food from someone if you already have plenty of food?
I'm not saying that the federal government should be involved in everything. For example, the federal government should provide aid during and after a natural disaster. They should not waste resources on frivolous matters (like that weird cat thing you were talking about).
You lost me at the food thing. How does that tie in to the rest of this conversation?
QuoteWhy not state taxes? Why can't one state give money and resources to another? 5thgrade;
Would you expect a person to willingly give money and resources to another person? Would someone with a car be expected to help pay for buses if there wasn't a mandatory tax.
My point is that people have to be mandated to help out. That's what the federal tax should be for, to help the country as a whole. State taxes should go to improving states, and money from city ordinances should go to improving the city.
socialism pig disgusting [glow=black,2,300]despite the fact that we already have many rather socialist programs in place and if they were to be removed the results would be disastrous[/glow]
Quote from: Tectrinket on July 29, 2011, 08:48:44 PM
socialism pig disgusting [glow=black,2,300]despite the fact that we already have many rather socialist programs in place and if they were to be removed the results would be disastrous[/glow]
Spread the wealth 5thgrade;
Quote from: TheSequel on July 29, 2011, 08:44:20 PM
K, community is too vague a word; I'm getting confused. Community as in the city, county, state, or country?
Are you on drugs? 5thgrade;
Quote from: TheSequel on July 29, 2011, 08:44:20 PM
I'm not saying that the federal government should be involved in everything. For example, the federal government should provide aid during and after a natural disaster. They should not waste resources on frivolous matters (like that weird cat thing you were talking about).
That weird cat thing is an allegory for things like you're mentioning. Why can't the states give to each other? Is that really such an evil thing? Why thrust that burden on the federal government? At least when one state collapses, you have 49 other states remaining. I mean, what happens when the federal government collapses?
Quote from: TheSequel on July 29, 2011, 08:44:20 PM
Would you expect a person to willingly give money and resources to another person
Yes, and some people seem to enjoy giving money to those in need (i.e. homeless people).
Quote from: TheSequel on July 29, 2011, 08:44:20 PM
My point is that people have to be mandated to help out.
Then why do people take the time to learn First Aid? Why do people sometimes pull over to offer assistance to a stranded motorist? At the very least, why do people panic when a person suddenly starts to suffer (i.e. from a heart attack)?
Quote from: TheSequel on July 29, 2011, 08:44:20 PM
That's what the federal tax should be for, to help the country as a whole. State taxes should go to improving states, and money from city ordinances should go to improving the city.
Federal taxes, if permissible (let me ask you: how many alternate interpretations of Article 1, Section 8 can be synthesized?), are used to maintain our military and fulfill other natural and constitutional duties, and maintain Peace among the states; state taxes, assuming they absolutely have to exist, ought to be used to maintain and support the county and local governments in need, and otherwise maintaining Peace among them (and if all states do this, and the federal government stays out of trouble, the country as a whole will be much stronger; for it would take many more resources in order for a foreign threat to seize control of all 50 states -- especially if they have to struggle against the 2000+ counties or let's say 200,000+ cities); and really, if the people insist on feeding their money through a central resource, local taxes need to be used to address local issues, maintain Peace among the people, and, if the community won't, give aid to people within its jurisdiction in need.
That is, of course, people are as selfish as you're trying to make them out to be 5thgrade;
QuoteYes, and some people seem to enjoy giving money to those in need (i.e. homeless people).
QuoteThen why do people take the time to learn First Aid? Why do people sometimes pull over to offer assistance to a stranded motorist? At the very least, why do people panic when a person suddenly starts to suffer (i.e. from a heart attack)?
Would you say that these people are the majority?
Also, I wasn't talking about any country in particular. Just what I think would be best.
Quote from: TheSequel on July 29, 2011, 09:12:05 PM
Would you say that these people are the majority?
Would you say that these people aren't in the majority?
Quote from: TheSequel on July 29, 2011, 09:12:05 PM
Also, I wasn't talking about any country in particular. Just what I think would be best.
Real freakin' neato 5thgrade;
this is why we need dictators or kings
Quote from: Darth Wawi on July 29, 2011, 09:16:27 PM
this is why we need dictators or kings
yes so instead of multiple retards running the world we have one retard
much better
Quote from: _you_ on July 29, 2011, 09:16:13 PM
Would you say that these people aren't in the majority?
Yes, I would. How 'bout you?
QuoteReal freakin' neato 5thgrade;
I thought you thought I was talking about the US since you mentioned Article 1, Section 8 of.... something you didn't mention.
Quote from: Tri4se on July 29, 2011, 09:18:00 PM
yes so instead of multiple retards running the world we have one retard
much better
um no i would be it and i know what i am doing
Quote from: Tri4se on July 29, 2011, 09:18:00 PM
yes so instead of multiple retards running the world we have one retard
much better
Actually, it is. That way, when there's a revolt, there's only one guy to take out hocuspocus;
Quote from: TheSequel on July 29, 2011, 09:19:06 PM
Yes, I would. How 'bout you?
I'd say prove it.
Quote from: TheSequel on July 29, 2011, 09:19:06 PM
I thought you thought I was talking about the US since you mentioned Article 1, Section 8 of.... something you didn't mention.
All I did was mention Article 1, Section 8. Where you got this "I thought you thought" stuff from is behind me. Why don't you just focus on the discussion at hand, ok? Or at the very least, for the sake of discussion, answer my question, regardless of what "you thought I was talking about" 5thgrade;
Quote from: _you_ on July 29, 2011, 09:30:24 PM
I'd say prove it.
Quotefor the sake of discussion, answer my question
QuoteI don't know where you got that idea. The government's only responsibility is to protect our rights. Anything more stems from a possibly misguided request from a community, and certain members of the community, who happen to be in the local government, oblige their request. But then is it the government or the community that's giving back? It may be government resources, but it's the decision of its members, who also happen to be members of the community, to use said resources to give back to the community.
Can't the government be a part of the community? I think of government as a community's way of trying to better themselves.
I can't find any numbers on the number of people that do donate money or services. :(
Quote from: TheSequel on July 29, 2011, 09:39:31 PM
Can't the government be a part of the community?
If a community can do things that the government can, but in different ways, why bother? The community is better prepared to deal with natural threats than the government, which is legal and abstract in design. Yet, once again, the main purpose of government to secure the rights of its constituents. If a small town is composed of entirely independent people (assuming they live on farms and whatnot), why would such a town need a government?
Quote from: TheSequel on July 29, 2011, 09:39:31 PM
I think of government as a community's way of trying to better themselves.
So you think that doing a bunch of paperwork just to decide how to respond to a heart attack is more affective than having an individual respond immediately?
Quote from: TheSequel on July 29, 2011, 09:55:01 PM
I can't find any numbers on the number of people that do donate money or services. :(
Do you honestly think that every single person who does something reports it to a government office? Do you honestly expect researchers to be able to track down every single instance of donation? Have you even bothered to see what numbers organizations like the Red Cross and the Salvation Army have? 5thgrade;
Quote from: _you_ on July 29, 2011, 09:56:27 PM
If a community can do things that the government can, but in different ways, why bother? The community is better prepared to deal with natural threats than the government, which is legal and abstract in design. Yet, once again, the main purpose of government to secure the rights of its constituents. If a small town is composed of entirely independent people (assuming they live on farms and whatnot), why would such a town need a government?
The community is better suited to help at lower levels, and government at a higher level. The town would not need, or want, a government because they are independent. Then again, could that even be considered a town if there is no interaction?
Do you think governments should only provide police forces so that the rights of citizens are not infringed? Do you believe anarchy is the answer? Or are you only playing the Devil's advocate?
QuoteSo you think that doing a bunch of paperwork just to decide how to respond to a heart attack is more affective than having an individual respond immediately?
No, I do not.
Quote from: _you_ on July 29, 2011, 10:00:06 PM
Do you honestly think that every single person who does something reports it to a government office? Do you honestly expect researchers to be able to track down every single instance of donation? Have you even bothered to see what numbers organizations like the Red Cross and the Salvation Army have? 5thgrade;
So you asked me to provide proof when you knew that I would not be able to? Either way, I did not expect every instance of a donation to be tracked down. Yes, I have tried checking their websites.
Do you disregard any statistic because researchers were not able to track every instance of donation?
Quote from: TheSequel on July 29, 2011, 10:06:41 PM
The community is better suited to help at lower levels, and government at a higher level. The town would not need, or want, a government because they are independent. Then again, could that even be considered a town if there is no interaction?
Are you implying that small towns with independent people have no interaction? madood;
Quote from: TheSequel on July 29, 2011, 10:06:41 PM
Do you think governments should only provide police forces so that the rights of citizens are not infringed?
It's not out of the question that a government would use its police force to infringe upon the rights of its citizens. Do you think communities can't form their own police force?
Quote from: TheSequel on July 29, 2011, 10:06:41 PM
No, I do not.
bassir;
Quote from: _you_ on July 29, 2011, 10:13:45 PM
Are you implying that small towns with independent people have no interaction? madood;
You said they were entirely independent. And since they lived on farms and what not, I assumed that they were all self-sufficient.
QuoteIt's not out of the question that a government would use its police force to infringe upon the rights of its citizens. Do you think communities can't form their own police force?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/government:
Quotethe political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc.; political administration
Isn't a government required for a police force, since control is being exercised over the community?
Quote from: TheSequel on July 29, 2011, 10:17:06 PM
You said they were entirely independent. And since they lived on farms and what not, I assumed that they were all self-sufficient.
Are you implying such people don't have free time? 5thgrade;
Quote from: TheSequel on July 29, 2011, 10:17:06 PM
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/government:
That doesn't answer my question 5thgrade;
Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milita
Quote from: TheSequel on July 29, 2011, 10:17:06 PM
Isn't a government required for a police force, since control is being exercised over the community?
What planet are you from? When you don't have "law enforcement", you have a group of people prepared to respond to disturbances in the peace (i.e. domestic violence, excessive noise, etc). Naturally, there are no requirements for such a group of people to exist 5thgrade;
The same people equipped to enforce laws (the police, formed by the government or not) are entirely capable of causing violence and grieve. When those people show up, the community, in the form of a militia, shows up to eliminate that threat.
Quote from: _you_ on July 29, 2011, 10:27:07 PM
The same people equipped to enforce laws (the police, formed by the government or not) are entirely capable of causing violence and grieve. When those people show up, the community, in the form of a militia, shows up to eliminate that threat.
Always?
I'm arguing that a government is anything that attempts to regulate/control/supervise the community.
Quote from: TheSequel on July 29, 2011, 10:36:57 PM
Always?
goonish
All I was establishing was the possibility and capability 5thgrade;
Quote from: TheSequel on July 29, 2011, 10:36:57 PM
I'm arguing that a government is anything that attempts to regulate/control/supervise the community.
Are you implying that the Neighborhood Watch is a government association? 5thgrade;
Quote from: _you_ on July 29, 2011, 10:43:30 PM
Are you implying that the Neighborhood Watch is a government association? 5thgrade;
p much
Quote from: TheSequel on July 29, 2011, 10:44:21 PM
p much
The Neighborhood Watch is just a generic name for a group of people within a neighborhood that keeps an eye out for suspicious activity 5thgrade;
Quote from: _you_ on July 29, 2011, 10:47:59 PM
The Neighborhood Watch is just a generic name for a group of people within a neighborhood that keeps an eye out for suspicious activity 5thgrade;
o rly?
How did we get so off topic?
by being retarded
P much
wrench;
Quote from: TheSequel on July 29, 2011, 11:11:17 PM
How did we get so off topic?
How is your opinion of the common view of taxes off-topic? The thought you posted, inspiring our conversation, is why the federal government spends more money than it should (and a lot of the spending might've contradicted the authority of the Constitution) 5thgrade;
The democrats may have good intentions, but they need to sort out their priorities and understand the limitations placed on the federal government.
Quote from: _you_ on July 30, 2011, 01:34:03 AM
The democrats may have good intentions
i laughed goodjob;
Quote from: Tectrinket on July 30, 2011, 08:36:09 AM
i laughed goodjob;
So you're saying that the democrats are a bunch of trolls claiming good intentions?
every1 knows celebrities r the real leadrs
No default. We're still fucked.
http://www.npr.org/2011/08/05/139038674/s-p-downgrades-u-s-credit-rating-from-aaa
We're all going to die. goodjob;
Quote from: Tectrika on August 05, 2011, 05:47:13 PM
http://www.npr.org/2011/08/05/139038674/s-p-downgrades-u-s-credit-rating-from-aaa
We're all going to die. goodjob;
awdood;