
Mimisbrunnr wrote:HaHaHa wrote:*sighs* People and their stereotypes.
I am white and skinny but I'm also a guy that knows how to use a knife severing through skin, flesh, muscle, and bone.
I'm the type of guy I could tell you which place is the fastest through the cerebral cord to cut through in order to get instant paralysis on the thing in question being dissected.
I'm the type of guy that likes rifles and shooting from long distances where there are certain nightscopes that shoot just as good at night as they would during the day.
I'm the type of guy I like reading and studying on poisons. You want to know what an interesting subject is? Neurotoxins.
Still think the skinny white guy doesn't amount to much?
I'll get to your other points at a later time.
Qualifying you are white and skinny with "but I'm also a guy that knows how to use a knife severing through skin, flesh, muscle, and bone" and the rest in this context, in my mind serves to actually reinforce the stereotype Eric_The_Pipe was referring to. I find that usually this type of person is very easily prompted to respond with the same type of awkwardly grandiose language and incorrect nomenclature as the above quote.
Skin, flesh, muscle and bone? Why stop there, why not include tendons and ligaments? Cerebral cord? Instant paralysis? It doesn't really sound like you are a physiology buff, though I suppose you don't have to be to sever a spinal cord, though the 'best' location all depends on what you are trying to paralyze exactly. Shooting from long distances where there are certain nightscopes that shoot just as good at night as they would during the day? Wha?? I can show you my shooting medals and awards, can you show me yours? I suppose you don't have to be an avid shooter or competitive shooter, but it certainly helps.
It sounds like you want to sound like you know what you are talking about, but I'm really not seeing it in your language.
I was wondering what angle you would respond with. I do agree that my authority on anarchy is pretty limited, AS SUCH A THING HAS NEVER FUCKING OCCURRED!!HaHaHa wrote:So, according to Eric The Pipe unless you're a soldier and looking like Wesley Snipes you're not going to survive very well in anarchy. Well, with experts like these......
Eric_The_Pipe wrote:Nope, just guy. Probably horribly atheist (the kind that isn't just atheist, but needs to tell non-atheists why they are wrong...) But, it's fun and marginally informative. The one on getting paid had a great idea that needs to be put into practice...
Eric_The_Pipe wrote:gib wrote:Hmmm... so this mistaken idea is being used as a political ploy?
Jah, which is probably why it gets so much precision from me.
Eric_The_Pipe wrote:I think he believes in democracy, honestly believes, its all the rage in the school system... Actually overheard someone saying what we need is more democracy in the middle east. I just about started throwing things...
Eric_The_Pipe wrote:So, we vote in small precincts, think a 6 block radius, and we vote for a delegate to go to larger sections and vote for other delegates, who then go and vote for the final delegates... Who are actually the people that vote for president...
Eric_The_Pipe wrote:It depends. I did a report recently, did the work to figure out that the Speaker for the House, easily the second most powerful person in the country, only needs 50%+1 of the House (that of the house, not population at large) to get elected. Elected for what? To be the House Speaker? The only other requirement is that they qualify to be president, because they are third in line. That is a surprising amount of power for someone that only needs 218 people. While, so far, every single time they've been a member of the house (something that needs more votes, but a pathetically small percentage of the population to get elected), that is not required.
Eric_The_Pipe wrote:Sure. Or I can work on only correcting the statement when its relevant and you can call it whatever you want...![]()
Eric_The_Pipe wrote:That sounds just awful. Not the watching CNN on vacation, I do things like that, relying on an other country for anything.
Eric_The_Pipe wrote:If it helps, only half the country agrees with this idea, the conservative half would tell you all your effing crazy. Take care of your own shit, trade with us, but leave us alone otherwise. The heart of Conservatism is the desire to be left alone. Its just unfortunate that so many don't understand that's all we want, hell, even the stupid, racist parts of the party, ultimately come from this very place.
Yes, except we say, see at the end of each sentience. As in:gib wrote:How would such a ploy unfold? Would they say "You want democracy? We'll give you democracy. Oh, and by the way, democracy is just mob rule, so that's what you're getting."Eric_The_Pipe wrote:Jah, which is probably why it gets so much precision from me.
Except the parts that make America great are often the undemocratic parts. Protection of free speech is not democratic, neither is the judicial system. Democracy doesn't provide freedom, most places don't need democracy, they need restrictions on the government... I.E. a constitution.gib wrote:Well, for what its worth, unless a person is educated in these matter, I think that most people, when they use the word "democracy", have in mind something like your presidential electoral system--a system in which the people periodically vote for their leaders.Eric_The_Pipe wrote:I think he believes in democracy, honestly believes, its all the rage in the school system... Actually overheard someone saying what we need is more democracy in the middle east. I just about started throwing things...
If you ever want to see people that do want Mob rule, got to a college. I had a lovely incident just a couple weeks ago... Or, look up and read some of the pieces by Kat Timpf, she writes for National Review (and other things). She writes almost exclusively on shitty things going on at colleges all over the U.S. I stopped reading because I found it too depressing. To many stupid kids that want exactly that, mob rule, largely because they think they are right, mostly because they are surrounded by people that agree with them... Mob rule is depressing... Its the crowd screaming "KILL HIM" as he expresses a different point of view. (Or was the case a couple weeks ago, "Hit him!" to the driver of a truck.gib wrote:Do you think there's many people who actually want mob rule?
The problem, all to often, comes in the form of believing that because it works on the smaller scale, it'll work on the larger scale...gib wrote:Eric_The_Pipe wrote:So, we vote in small precincts, think a 6 block radius, and we vote for a delegate to go to larger sections and vote for other delegates, who then go and vote for the final delegates... Who are actually the people that vote for president...
Holy shit, that's like 3 layers of delegates!
That's what I love about you guys. The states are like a miniature of the world. It's like a laboratory in which you can experiment with different political systems. Observe what happens in Colorado with their 3 layered voting process. Observe what happens in Wyoming with their political system (Whatever the hell it is). See what works, what doesn't. And with 51 states, you get several orders of magnitude faster rate of learning experiences, as opposed to how long is needed for a single nation to go through the same trials and errors, the same mistakes and achievements, all on its own. The US system *could* be used to draw lessons about politics in general, which might be applicable globally, but I don't think anyone's doing that.
This is the first time I've really explored it. It's complicated, and, odd... Before that, I had no idea... So, I'm not sure how to answer that.gib wrote:What do you find the results are like living in a 3 layered system?
It was an example of government not needing to please the largest group of people. It is actually one of the smallest groups of people.... Though I suppose that depends on the numbers you are counting.gib wrote:Eric_The_Pipe wrote:It depends. I did a report recently, did the work to figure out that the Speaker for the House, easily the second most powerful person in the country, only needs 50%+1 of the House (that of the house, not population at large) to get elected. Elected for what? To be the House Speaker? The only other requirement is that they qualify to be president, because they are third in line. That is a surprising amount of power for someone that only needs 218 people. While, so far, every single time they've been a member of the house (something that needs more votes, but a pathetically small percentage of the population to get elected), that is not required.
Interesting, but how does that answer my question:
"Yes, but what else can a government aim for than pleasing the largest group of people?"
Huzzah!gib wrote:Well, then I think I'll stick with democracy.Eric_The_Pipe wrote:Sure. Or I can work on only correcting the statement when its relevant and you can call it whatever you want...![]()
It is very strange to hear about it that way. The U.S. just sees our declining power.gib wrote:Yeah, well, that's where the world's at right now.Eric_The_Pipe wrote:That sounds just awful. Not the watching CNN on vacation, I do things like that, relying on an other country for anything.
One of my favorite writers suggests this is why we get so many comedians from Canada, that standing outside, looking in, does wonders for perspective. Also, I've heard some of the foreign media, its not very good at reporting on the U.S... Just keep that in mind...gib wrote:I don't know if we're relying on American media for anything, just pointing out the fact that we get American media. The consequence is most people in the industrialized modern world end up knowing a hell of a lot more about what's going on in American politics than any other arbitrary country. I just think it's worth keeping in mind.
Just trying to inform.gib wrote:Don't worry, I'm not pointing fingers. I'm just trying to justify why we're focusing on American politics in this thread even though the general goal is a bit more broad than that.Eric_The_Pipe wrote:If it helps, only half the country agrees with this idea, the conservative half would tell you all your effing crazy. Take care of your own shit, trade with us, but leave us alone otherwise. The heart of Conservatism is the desire to be left alone. Its just unfortunate that so many don't understand that's all we want, hell, even the stupid, racist parts of the party, ultimately come from this very place.
It depends. If you go to the roots of the U.S. Government, it could be great spread quite far. Though, obviously, there is some silly shit 3/5ths and all that, but all "rights" being negative, limits on government, instead of on people. That's the good stuff, and why the U.N. is a Easter Bunny Rabbit. Sweet Chocolate by appearances, but ultimately hollow on the inside. The closer the "rule" is to the people it is ruling the better off everyone is, because after you vote that one man can't marry another man, you have to go outside and look him in the eye...gib wrote:To tell you the truth, there's another reason I'm focusing on America. Part way through this thread, I became convinced that the American Constitution was a good model to follow if one's goal was to contrive a kind of "improved" system compared to the ones we have today. So the model is specifically American, but the question was how generalized could we make it.
Eric_The_Pipe wrote:Yes, except we say, see at the end of each sentience. As in:
You want democracy, see? We'll give you democracy, see. Oh, and by the way, democracy is just mob rule, see, so that's what you're getting! See.
ha.
Usually its more along the lines of, well (such and such thing) is not what democracy is! We need more, not less. And (such and such) (person, thing or law) is the answer to our problems...
Then I say, "It's not a democracy..."
Eric_The_Pipe wrote:Except the parts that make America great are often the undemocratic parts. Protection of free speech is not democratic, neither is the judicial system. Democracy doesn't provide freedom, most places don't need democracy, they need restrictions on the government... I.E. a constitution.
Eric_The_Pipe wrote:If you ever want to see people that do want Mob rule, got to a college. I had a lovely incident just a couple weeks ago... Or, look up and read some of the pieces by Kat Timpf, she writes for National Review (and other things). She writes almost exclusively on shitty things going on at colleges all over the U.S. I stopped reading because I found it too depressing. To many stupid kids that want exactly that, mob rule, largely because they think they are right, mostly because they are surrounded by people that agree with them... Mob rule is depressing... Its the crowd screaming "KILL HIM" as he expresses a different point of view. (Or was the case a couple weeks ago, "Hit him!" to the driver of a truck.
Eric_The_Pipe wrote:When President Obama said, "we are the ones we have been waiting for," what exactly did you think he meant? It's the same with the line, "get on the right side of history." As if history had sides, even if far too often, historians do. The "right side" is the mob side, whatever the general public thinks at that time in history...
Eric_The_Pipe wrote:The problem, all to often, comes in the form of believing that because it works on the smaller scale, it'll work on the larger scale...
Eric_The_Pipe wrote:It was an example of government not needing to please the largest group of people. It is actually one of the smallest groups of people.... Though I suppose that depends on the numbers you are counting.
Eric_The_Pipe wrote:It is very strange to hear about it that way. The U.S. just sees our declining power.
Eric_The_Pipe wrote:One of my favorite writers suggests this is why we get so many comedians from Canada, that standing outside, looking in, does wonders for perspective.
Eric_The_Pipe wrote:Also, I've heard some of the foreign media, its not very good at reporting on the U.S... Just keep that in mind...
Eric_The_Pipe wrote:It depends. If you go to the roots of the U.S. Government, it could be great spread quite far. Though, obviously, there is some silly shit 3/5ths and all that, but all "rights" being negative, limits on government, instead of on people. That's the good stuff, and why the U.N. is a Easter Bunny Rabbit. Sweet Chocolate by appearances, but ultimately hollow on the inside. The closer the "rule" is to the people it is ruling the better off everyone is, because after you vote that one man can't marry another man, you have to go outside and look him in the eye...
If however, government is a far away entity, that rules from on high, deciding what is good and what is bad, you only get disaster.
(Today I think my responses were more dramatic, or romantic, one of those ick words anyway.)
Probably.gib wrote:God, people listen to the fine print way too much.
There is quite a bit to say about the greatness of democracy, it does a great job of increasing the amount of supporters needed in order to get and remain in office. This changes the power dynamic from pleasing a small group to pleasing the larger group... Read Dictator's Handbook for a great description on why.gib wrote:I agree with that, but insofar as we define democracy as voting for stuff (leaders, laws, etc.) I think the parts of America that are democratic are pretty good as well. For example, voting for your President (even if it's done through delegates) keeps the President on his toes. Not only is he being scrutinized by the opposing parties, but he is drawn from the people and will one day return to the people. This really dampens the tendency for power to go to the President's head, like you might see in a monarch positioned in absolute power for life. It preserves the sense of "I'd better play nice, or else," which is totally absent in totalitarian systems.Eric_The_Pipe wrote:Except the parts that make America great are often the undemocratic parts. Protection of free speech is not democratic, neither is the judicial system. Democracy doesn't provide freedom, most places don't need democracy, they need restrictions on the government... I.E. a constitution.
The female driver asked them to stop screaming it at her... Which was a nice change from the nonsence that was going on... The amusing point was when one person started screaming, "Who's college is this?!"gib wrote:Shit, what did the driver say?Eric_The_Pipe wrote:If you ever want to see people that do want Mob rule, got to a college. I had a lovely incident just a couple weeks ago... Or, look up and read some of the pieces by Kat Timpf, she writes for National Review (and other things). She writes almost exclusively on shitty things going on at colleges all over the U.S. I stopped reading because I found it too depressing. To many stupid kids that want exactly that, mob rule, largely because they think they are right, mostly because they are surrounded by people that agree with them... Mob rule is depressing... Its the crowd screaming "KILL HIM" as he expresses a different point of view. (Or was the case a couple weeks ago, "Hit him!" to the driver of a truck.
No, they call it Justice, as in social justice. The guy they had a problem with was a Christian (of some denomination) that comes to the campus pretty regularly to tell us how we are all going to hell. I got no problem with him, even as I ignore anything he says...gib wrote:Don't tell me those college students actually call that democracy?
True enough, "Make America Great Again!" is a perfect example... And it makes me shiver inside with anger.gib wrote:No kidding.Eric_The_Pipe wrote:When President Obama said, "we are the ones we have been waiting for," what exactly did you think he meant? It's the same with the line, "get on the right side of history." As if history had sides, even if far too often, historians do. The "right side" is the mob side, whatever the general public thinks at that time in history...Essentially, any President could have said what Obama said.
True.gib wrote:That's a good point, but I think eventually it would be attempted anyway--I mean, if we're assuming the lessons we learn from observing American politics at the State level will be available globally, then it's only a matter of time before other countries try it within their own political contexts (assuming they like the results they see).Eric_The_Pipe wrote:The problem, all to often, comes in the form of believing that because it works on the smaller scale, it'll work on the larger scale...
Which is largely made up of people who don't get elected, but instead sorta fail upwards. Government jobs are notorious for waste on a massive scale, we are currently having porn problems, with quite a few watching (and probably other things) on the clock...gib wrote:True, but that's a single office within government. I was referring to the government as a whole.Eric_The_Pipe wrote:It was an example of government not needing to please the largest group of people. It is actually one of the smallest groups of people.... Though I suppose that depends on the numbers you are counting.
My current prediction is that there will be another civil war within the US. With Scalia's death, the balance is off, and if the wrong person gets in, it'll intensify the problem. The people that won't feel represented or safe from the slow progression of rights reduction, are also the ones with all the guns... Almost by definition... If they do something stupid, like block people from owning guns, they'll quickly find not only a very well armed revolt, but quite a few law enforcement on the side of the gun owners.gib wrote:Oh yes, we see this too (and not just from reading Joker's threadEric_The_Pipe wrote:It is very strange to hear about it that way. The U.S. just sees our declining power.). But you're declining from a very high level of power, and you're still pretty high. This is what makes it so scary. It's like watching the collapse of a world government, and wondering what's going to happen to your children in 20 years.
There got to be more to it than that, we still have quite a bit of economic power. China practically relies on us for their economy, let alone all the trade we do everywhere else... But, ultimately power fades, particularly as fuck-tards attempt to make us more like other places in the name of social justice (see above).gib wrote:I wonder how much that power is sustained because the world is watching you?
Good places to drink and watch hockey? ;-p (according to my stereotype book, that is all Canadians do.)gib wrote:We also really like our comedy clubs.Eric_The_Pipe wrote:One of my favorite writers suggests this is why we get so many comedians from Canada, that standing outside, looking in, does wonders for perspective.
Thanks.gib wrote:Eric_The_Pipe wrote:It depends. If you go to the roots of the U.S. Government, it could be great spread quite far. Though, obviously, there is some silly shit 3/5ths and all that, but all "rights" being negative, limits on government, instead of on people. That's the good stuff, and why the U.N. is a Easter Bunny Rabbit. Sweet Chocolate by appearances, but ultimately hollow on the inside. The closer the "rule" is to the people it is ruling the better off everyone is, because after you vote that one man can't marry another man, you have to go outside and look him in the eye...
If however, government is a far away entity, that rules from on high, deciding what is good and what is bad, you only get disaster.
(Today I think my responses were more dramatic, or romantic, one of those ick words anyway.)
Sounded kind of creative and more fluid, maybe a bit poetic.
Good stuff, Erik!![]()
![]()
Eric_The_Pipe wrote:The female driver asked them to stop screaming it at her... Which was a nice change from the nonsence that was going on... The amusing point was when one person started screaming, "Who's college is this?!"
Eric_The_Pipe wrote:No, they call it Justice, as in social justice. The guy they had a problem with was a Christian (of some denomination) that comes to the campus pretty regularly to tell us how we are all going to hell. I got no problem with him, even as I ignore anything he says...
Eric_The_Pipe wrote:Which is largely made up of people who don't get elected, but instead sorta fail upwards. Government jobs are notorious for waste on a massive scale, we are currently having porn problems, with quite a few watching (and probably other things) on the clock...
Eric_The_Pipe wrote:My current prediction is that there will be another civil war within the US. With Scalia's death, the balance is off, and if the wrong person gets in, it'll intensify the problem. The people that won't feel represented or safe from the slow progression of rights reduction, are also the ones with all the guns... Almost by definition... If they do something stupid, like block people from owning guns, they'll quickly find not only a very well armed revolt, but quite a few law enforcement on the side of the gun owners.
Eric_The_Pipe wrote:Good places to drink and watch hockey? ;-p (according to my stereotype book, that is all Canadians do.)
gib wrote:This seriously limits the scope in which the democratic approach ought to be used, and when you think about how limited it is in America, you quickly realized how little ground there is to calling America a democracy.
gib wrote:I also realized that the democratic aspect of American politics is already embedded in the term "constitutional representative republic." <-- There is no need to tack on the term "democratic" to this already cumbersome phrase since the democratic aspect of American politics is determined by the constitution. Therefore, the "constitutional" part of this phrase already implies the democratic aspect (at least in America).
I don't know that there is specific detection in the White House, but, government facilities, yes.gib wrote:They're watching porn in the White House?Eric_The_Pipe wrote:Which is largely made up of people who don't get elected, but instead sorta fail upwards. Government jobs are notorious for waste on a massive scale, we are currently having porn problems, with quite a few watching (and probably other things) on the clock...
^^ How do you like them tax dollar going to good use?
Supposing they don't have all the tax money and attempt to pay the military to do it for them... Either way, yes, It'll work out bad for everyone.gib wrote:Well, if you do plunge into a civil war over gun rights, the anti-gun advocates are going to have to pick up a few guns in self-defense or lose the battle very quickly.Eric_The_Pipe wrote:My current prediction is that there will be another civil war within the US. With Scalia's death, the balance is off, and if the wrong person gets in, it'll intensify the problem. The people that won't feel represented or safe from the slow progression of rights reduction, are also the ones with all the guns... Almost by definition... If they do something stupid, like block people from owning guns, they'll quickly find not only a very well armed revolt, but quite a few law enforcement on the side of the gun owners.
Now you understand why I'm so pro-second amendment... Though I should note, this is a prediction, not something I'd put any faith in. I'm not stock-piling goods for when the revolution comes or anything. I'm not crazy pants, just a little off...gib wrote:Only difference this time would be that you guys now have machine guns, tanks, missiles, fighter jets, and atomic bombs. Not to mention threats from abroad to perpetually surveillance.
Except the ones that come to The U.S. to tell jokes about the U.S.?gib wrote:Almost all.Eric_The_Pipe wrote:Good places to drink and watch hockey? ;-p (according to my stereotype book, that is all Canadians do.)
Eric_The_Pipe wrote:I would think the Constitutional part is the opposite of democracy...
Eric_The_Pipe wrote:I don't know that there is specific detection in the White House...
Eric_The_Pipe wrote:Except the ones that come to The U.S. to tell jokes about the U.S.?
And this is why I keep saying, we are not a democracy, lol. It just gets so confusing.gib wrote:I mean that the Constitution stipulates the manner in which Presidents shall be elected, and also representatives and laws. <-- That's the part everyone's calling democratic.Eric_The_Pipe wrote:I would think the Constitutional part is the opposite of democracy...
gib wrote:Oh, they'll find it... they'll find it.Eric_The_Pipe wrote:I don't know that there is specific detection in the White House...
I heard that Monica Lewinsky was brought in because Clinton's internet was down for the day.
Eh, the one people the U.S. loves to laugh at is the U.S. Even the ones you'd think take shit to seriously will make fun of themselves (the people that laughed hardest at redneck jokes are the rednecks.) Progressives love with outsiders come in and point out how much the U.S. sucks, though that's largely because they like to pretend they are not included.gib wrote:They tell jokes about the US in the US?Eric_The_Pipe wrote:Except the ones that come to The U.S. to tell jokes about the U.S.?
Rude.
WendyDarling wrote:So Giblet,
I've read this thread somewhat and need to ask a three part question to keep this thread going. What are the three big flaws in American democracy?
My guesses:
1. Who counts the votes seems relevant
2. Corrupt politicians
3. ?
Return to Society, Government, and Economics
Users browsing this forum: No registered users