Kalenath Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 (edited) just to add to my post before: they know they are wrong, now they want to close it down / remove' call it me troll where those aren't jokes at all. In respect to what trolling is - the thing that happened here was not. If everything that happens had to be something that you like and approve - well that would be world of heaven wouldn't it? or dictatorship? Democracy is one of the worst form of dictatorship where 51% of voting people can impose their will on everyone else. + everybody knows that there's more stupid people than smart ones so this system itself is not supporting greater good idea but will of the stupid people. (please forgive me for the stupid reference its not always the issue) If you think the US is a democracy...? Wow, do I have news for you. Democracy means government by the people, not big businesses, lobbyists, right wing fanatic groups, left wing wing fanatic groups, etc, etc, etc. The people as a whole. Which hasn't happened in the entire HISTORY of the country... It hasn't been even close to a democracy since 1865. And the really sad thing? No one noticed. Edited October 2, 2013 by Kalenath Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djentlemenBehold Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 (edited) The important thing we can learn from this is... If you can't get your way after trying 42 times (and wasting $70 million in taxpayer money in the process) through electoral and judiciary means, then holding the entire country hostage is the next best option. Edited October 2, 2013 by djentlemenBehold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaian-a-coel Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 -stupid stuff- I think this guy confused neurons with neurodes and farmed his brain to emptyness, and still didn't have enough to make a Vasto. Snarkiness asides, private contractors are actually the WORST IDEA IN THE HISTORY OF FOREVER, both from a citizen and government point of view. They have the goal to make the most money possible, whereas public services have the goal to provide the best service possible with the money available. Guess which is best for consumers? I'm french, and here we have more nationalized things than everywhere else in the world (not including dictatorships). But lately it's getting more and more privatized and delegated to companies. And guess what? Everything's going worse and worse and WORSE. Companies are the PROBLEM, not the solution. Yes, it means more power in the hands of the goverment, but I'd rather have power in the hands of someone elected by the people rather than not. But it doesn't means more taxes necessarily. Nationalizing stuff actually saves the goverment money, because the companies makes PROFIT. France sold the highways exploitation to private contractors, in an AWFUL deal requiring the government to pay the company if it makes losses, while the company makes all the benefits. The company has to keep the highways working, but they do an awful job at that (because, again, MONAY), and constantly raises the prices. Had the government NOT sold the highways, that customers would have CHEAPER, BETTER highways, and the government MORE MONEY. Meaning less debt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalenath Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 (edited) Money, money, money, money.... The big businesses don't want their profits cut. So they hired a bunch of fringe types (Tea Party) and pushed all their special friends (Republicans and Democrats alike) to keep it from happening. Are ANY of us surprised? The IDEA of national health care was a noble one. The unholy kludge that the various parties managed to get past the interference of various agencies has about as much resemblance to the initial idea as the moon does to a pile of dog manure. They CAN both be in crescent shapes. I am just waiting for the Republican party to default on all their loans. You KNOW that is what they are going to do. It's not THEIR problem that they (read George W. Bush and good old Ronald Reagan) spent more money than they HAD, Come to think of it... if the US DOES fall apart into a whole bunch of squabbling states as many people seem to want, who WILL pay those loans back? Hmmm? Who would be held accountable? Could anyone be? My PERSONAL idea? Let the guys who fund the Tea Party pay to clean up the mess they have created. Edited October 2, 2013 by Kalenath Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellsing320 Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 Quite honestly most of this has quite a bit to do with many Americans NOT VOTING. and even when voting voting for the people who say "i will fix everything in my two terms of screwing even more S#&$ up" the reason im kind of ticked is not that the govt is shut down its the thought that its not actually shut down, its just kinda put on super low budget (disregarding the fact we STILL have money to pay the politics) instead we shrug of the unusable people and have to then pay them 7 days (now 6) with unemployment payment. this indicates that the people that are holding up the govt are still being paid. also the indications of this and the thoughts that many European countries have not only a higher voter turnout and in general have a higher participation in govt. seems to indicate that most if not all European countries have a higher chance of getting things passed that would benefit the higher % of people. you guys can glean any meaning from this so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lachryphage Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 (edited) wat, why is this? Because our government is run by overgrown children and corporations. In this case it's the overgrown children's fault. They're butthurt about Obamacare. Quite honestly most of this has quite a bit to do with many Americans NOT VOTING. and even when voting voting for the people who say "i will fix everything in my two terms of screwing even more S#&$ up" the reason im kind of ticked is not that the govt is shut down its the thought that its not actually shut down, its just kinda put on super low budget (disregarding the fact we STILL have money to pay the politics) instead we shrug of the unusable people and have to then pay them 7 days (now 6) with unemployment payment. this indicates that the people that are holding up the govt are still being paid. also the indications of this and the thoughts that many European countries have not only a higher voter turnout and in general have a higher participation in govt. seems to indicate that most if not all European countries have a higher chance of getting things passed that would benefit the higher % of people. you guys can glean any meaning from this so Voting is pointless. We get to choose between two versions of the same dude. Edited October 3, 2013 by Lachryphage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AscendantWyvern Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 Voting is pointless. We get to choose between two versions of the same dude. That's why you vote third party, and encourage others to vote third party. Sure, a huge majority of the voting nation is indoctrinated to one of the "superbowl" parties, but if you get enough people to actually vote on third party candidates that ARENT incredibly stupid like the main candidates, we can show that the country isn't happy with the way things are. Which most of the vocal country are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lachryphage Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 That's why you vote third party, and encourage others to vote third party. Sure, a huge majority of the voting nation is indoctrinated to one of the "superbowl" parties, but if you get enough people to actually vote on third party candidates that ARENT incredibly stupid like the main candidates, we can show that the country isn't happy with the way things are. Which most of the vocal country are not. In that case you're just wasting your vote. The last time a third party president got elected was 1850. Still don't see the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts