Oolite Bulletins

Wildeblood wrote:

Diziet Sma wrote:

Ahh.. but under the system I support, those who disagree with a decision are not obligated to obey it..

Meanwhile, back in the real world...

I never said it was workable with our present civilisation.. but it worked perfectly well for hundreds of thousands of years, before some clown dreamed up the Agricultural Revolution, and wrecked everything.. it was working quite well in parts pre-WWII Spain, too, until the parasites-that-be got worried about the example it was setting, and brought the Nazis in to smash it.

I don't think the problem is that idiots get to vote. The problem is that most political systems only offer the illusion of a choice to voters so it really doesn't matter who those idiots vote for anyway .

Alex wrote:

democracy as actual democracy has never ever actually existed

A few states in the US have an initiative system that allow any resident of the state to create a petition, which, if it gets enough signatures, goes on the ballot as an initiative to amend the constitution. Every adult resident of the state then gets to vote on this initiative.
Here is an example of why I think this form of direct democracy is better for the people.
And here is how it continues to work better for the people.
I think the whole world would benefit from this blend of direct and representative democracy. Our state legislature can create laws as it wishes but the people have the right to amend that legislation and create our own law independently of the legislature. Unfortunately we even don't have this at the federal level and I think very few other countries have such direct democracy.

Alex wrote:

Should be compulsory for all eligable citizens to vote.

I must respectfully disagree. If I am not interested in the issue being voted on I am not going to take the time to research the subject well enough to be able to make an honestly informed decision and I don't believe I have the right to force someone else to live by such a decision. As for voting for candidates, at least the ones going to Washington, that is a complete waste of time.

Diziet Sma wrote:

I have something of a problem with 51% getting to tell the other 49% how to live.

While I agree with this I still think its better than 0.1% getting to tell the other 99.9% how to live, which is the case in most of the "democracies" in the world today.
If the people can only vote for politicians, politicians (and their rich mates) always win. If the people vote for law, at least the majority of the people win.

@ Wildeblood
Sorry, lost my connection there a while back.
Awesome thread

speaking of voting.

we now have a new Prime Minister without a vote by the people!!

Abbot out Turnbul in....

apparently the last Prime Minister to complete a term was John Howard!!!

Wildeblood wrote:

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/queen/an ... edust.html

yep...lol

spud42 wrote:

speaking of voting.

we now have a new Prime Minister without a vote by the people!!

Abbot out Turnbul in....

Yep.. one nasty piece of work, swapped for another nasty piece of work..

Ah well.. one down, several hundred to go.

Diziet Sma wrote:

spud42 wrote:

speaking of voting.

we now have a new Prime Minister without a vote by the people!!

Abbot out Turnbul in....

Yep.. one nasty piece of work, swapped for another nasty piece of work..

Ah well.. one down, several hundred to go.

Can't we just bann them all by consensus and just keep the treasurer, with no powers to do anything. But tell us once a year how much we are in debt. We can all have a laugh and forget about him/her for another year.

Imagine how much we would save by not having a goverment. Who would care, Oh yes the tresurer, But then, once a year laugh only.
Oh ye that's 'Anarchy'. Can we have a civilized anarchy please?
Oh that's utopia.
Ah, the governments say it's impossible.

Alex wrote:

Oh ye that's 'Anarchy'. Can we have a civilized anarchy please?

You could always support Senator Leyonhejlm's Liberal Democrats. There's a guy who says bicycle helmets, seatbelts in cars & policies to deter smoking are violations of individual "freedom of choice". That's about as close to anarchists in parliament as I'm comfortable with. Any nuttier and we'd have to go all Guy Fawkes on them.

In the Canning by-election yesterday the Liberal Democrat candidate came in in bugger-all place, even behind the watermelons and Pirate Party.

Wildeblood wrote:

In the Canning by-election yesterday the Liberal Democrat candidate came in in bugger-all place, even behind the watermelons and Pirate Party.

There are parties called "Watermellons" and "Pirate Party"? Wow. Love it

Now there's a thought;
Create thousands of parties, Leave the gov nothing to do but gov the election process.
But they would probably just out source it to some unknown country that use tin cans and maybe 'wet' string for high end comms. Works better than dry string if remember correctly.
Ergo, business as usual

And this used to be a somewhat serious topic?

From my experience, there are four kinds of people. There are people who care about the well-being of our country and economy, there are people who care about the well-being of our country and economy, but they don't understand how those things work. Then there's people who don't care. Then there's the people who are indifferent. Unfortunately, here in the United States, there are too many people who care but don't know how anything works. We have a candidate who is racist and loves money a little too much. Then we have a candidate who is two-faced and un-honest, and then we have a candidate who is for the people, free education, gay marriage, equality for everyone, and guess what? He's behind in the polls.

Cmdr Memelord wrote:

Unfortunately, here in the United States... We have a candidate who is racist and loves money a little too much.

You mean this guy?

https://twitter.com/rorupar/status/645923680380301312

In the Road Runner Party we think he's great because of his anti-coyote policy.

It's a pun, Bob. He wants a fence to keep coyotes out, we want fences to keep coyotes out, but (spoiler alert) they're different kinds of coyotes. So it's funny.

Wildeblood wrote:

Cmdr Memelord wrote:

Unfortunately, here in the United States... We have a candidate who is racist and loves money a little too much.

You mean this guy?

https://twitter.com/rorupar/status/645923680380301312

In the Road Runner Party we think he's great because of his anti-coyote policy.

It's a pun, Bob. He wants a fence to keep coyotes out, we want fences to keep coyotes out, but (spoiler alert) they're different kinds of coyotes. So it's funny.

I'm so proud of you :')

Background for foreign devils: "GetUp!" is a social-progressivist lobby group opposed to anything they consider "conservative", especially the Liberal/National Coalition currently in government. Right, let's go...

1. Cause of the week this week is #domesticViolence.
2. Chris Brown, a minor celebrity with previous convictions for violent crimes has been booked to tour Australia soon.
3. GetUp! see an opportunity to embarrass the government and begin a social media campaign to have Brown's visa denied, assuming that won't happen.
4. Surprise! The government announce Brown will not be granted a visa.

What do GetUp! do next? Congratulate the government for seeing things their way? No. Gloat all over the interwebs that they forced the government's hand? No. Shut up and say nothing? No.

GetUp! apologize to Chris Brown for their misguided participation in a "racist" campaign against a woman-basher "of colour", sure that had he been a white woman-basher his visa application would have been successful. Seriously, you couldn't make this nonsense up.

Wildeblood wrote:

"GetUp!" is ... a front organization for the Labor/Greens Alliance

Do you have any evidence for this claim? Particularly since they gave the last Labour government just as hard a time as they do the Libs?

Diziet Sma wrote:

Wildeblood wrote:

"GetUp!" is ... a front organization for the Labor/Greens Alliance

Do you have any evidence for this claim? Particularly since they gave the last Labour government just as hard a time as they do the Libs?

Come off it! Next you'll claim the Australian Conservation Foundation isn't a front for the ALP, or Narconon isn't a front for Scientology. Anyway, if it will assist us in focusing on the stupidity, rather than the alignment, of the stupid group, I will remove the offending claim.