US Elections 2010

[synaesthetic]

@Nosauz: Our public education system is pretty bad compared to that of other countries. It's frustrating and annoying. I didn't say anything about private school or eliminating public school. Don't put words in my mouth.

I've drifted further to the left over the last year as a result of my experiences, which puts me a lot more centrist and a lot less right-wing than I was.

I don't think I was necessarily wrong before, but I think that libertarianism is one of those things like socialism--works great on paper, not so great in the real world. At this point in my life, I don't think there's any single "cure-all" system of government or economy that will work perfectly and fix everything.

We just need to look at the problems individually and find the best way to fix them.

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

@Nosauz: Our public education system is pretty bad compared to that of other countries. It's frustrating and annoying. I didn't say anything about private school or eliminating public school. Don't put words in my mouth.

I've drifted further to the left over the last year as a result of my experiences, which puts me a lot more centrist and a lot less right-wing than I was.

I don't think I was necessarily wrong before, but I think that libertarianism is one of those things like socialism--works great on paper, not so great in the real world. At this point in my life, I don't think there's any single "cure-all" system of government or economy that will work perfectly and fix everything.

We just need to look at the problems individually and find the best way to fix them.

Let's look Chinese, Europeans, Japanese, Indians are all on public schools. Meritocracy isn't without it's flaws such as nepotism and corruption, the fact is that public schools for the most part do try to prepare for students to go to college, except not all students should go to college, they should have the opportunity but if they don't want to why waste their time, when you could be offering them technical training. In my public school, you HAVE to be on the university/college track 4year or 2year, there was never talk of technical schools. The thing is that not everybody is suited for college, not everybody wants to go, and these things do cause delinquency but still our school offered a whopping 23+ AP courses, by the end of my four years I had taken all of the AP math and science courses, and many of my classmates had to go to the local university (one of the best in the nation, also a public institution) to take math classes. I just find it offensive that you blame the "my child can do anything, be anything sentiment, on liberals when a lot of times it isn't just liberals who tell this to their children, conservative do too, as part of our patriotism. We should value excellency but we don't, instead we just measure how many kids take APs not the scores on the APs. If Newsweek would have done by percentage of 5s my school would probably be a prenial top 5% on the list but then again volume trumps quality. But hopefully with the super saturation of data will finally show the importance of quality than just quantity. This currently happening in statistics and I hope the trend is highlighted for the public, that we should strive to do the best to our abilities not just what we are required to do. The status quo just isn't enough, because there is always someone out there working harder than you, and although your friends might be working the minumum doing the maximum should be the standard. I mean i've had some teachers not be willing to dig out their teacher manual to give us homework answers for the even problems. I'm not saying public schools are on some pedastal that needs to be study but they are still doing some things right.

[synaesthetic]

Why do you always assume that when I bitch about lefty stupidity I'm praising righty stupidity?

I think both parties are fucking retarded.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

I know, and it really makes me sad.

Sometimes I feel angry and upset that here I am, busting my ass and going into debt for a degree in electrical engineering, with lots of hard science and math--to get a career in which I'm actually going to try and do something, create something that advances the human race as a whole...

... yet I'll make far less money than people who argue with other people for a living. I tell my friend Becky (who is in law school) this all the time, and she just laughs at me.

Try getting a plane ticket to Singapore....we'd pay you a four figure sum. We have way too many students taking certification in business and management that nobody is interested in engineering anymore.

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Why do you always assume that when I bitch about lefty stupidity I'm praising righty stupidity?

I think both parties are fucking retarded.

Not mentioning it is a disingenuous sentiment meant to mislead. I mean still even when you think that both parties are either both incompetent or just plain stupid it's better than anarchy. I have to say, one step at a time, and the one thing that I can agree with Glenn Beck is that indeed one person can make a difference. Even though the bureaucracy seems like to be a monolith of ineptness and corruption it doesn't mean there is noway to change it.

Also this is the internet, many viewpoints exist and you can't assume for me to know that you consider who is wrong or what's messed up, I'm not a psychic, and there are people who believe in what you say in the most literal sense so I just take everything at face value on the internet. I mean there are people who believe Obama is a secret Muslim hellbent on bringing Sharia to the shores of America.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

Meritocracy has been dead for years, even more so now when personal worth is measured as a direct proportion to the amount of Ben Franklins in your wallet, regardless of whether they were used to sniff cocaine or whatever.

... When was "meritocracy" ever alive?

[synaesthetic]

All right, I suppose I should have been more specific, since it's impossible to rely on tonal cues when reading text.

"Anarchy" is a false state of existence; anarchy is so contrary to human nature it can't possibly exist. Anarchy is the temporary state between the point where a power vacuum is created and in which the vacuum is filled, which is why I think anarchists are loony.

The system itself isn't fundamentally flawed; it can and actually did work for a long while, but recently it's become broken because the two dominant parties are too similar. The system only works if they're constantly trying to murder each other--it's an adversarial system of checks and balances.

I groan whenever I hear the word "bipartisanship" come out of a politician's mouth. It always makes me think of this old joke:

“IN AMERICA, WE have a two-party system," a Republican congressional staffer is supposed to have told a visiting group of Russian legislators some years ago.

"There is the stupid party. And there is the evil party. I am proud to be a member of the stupid party."

He added: "Periodically, the two parties get together and do something that is both stupid and evil. This is called—bipartisanship."

The political parties are supposed to hate each other. They're supposed to fight, to stab each other in the back, to make attack ads and spend an inordinate amount of time, money and effort trying to make each other look bad.

As long as they're kept busy doing all that, they have almost no time to fuck the citizenry in the ass.

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by james0246

Someone’s been watching a little too much Logan's Run and Wild in the Streets ; (I think Vexx and Seiji might have a few choice words for you about age and technology...).

Realistically, age is not that important to technology. Specifically it is attitude that matters more. Even if a 70 year old Senator has no idea how the internet works, as so long as they are willing to accept that technology is constantly changing, and are willing to hire the proper people to dumb down the issues for them (no one expects any elected official to know everything, but we do expect them to hire those that do), then age is not a factor. What blocks technological progress in Congress is more arrogance and the simple desire to not change with the times ('if it ain't broke, don't fix it'), both qualities of which can be found in the younger generations as well as the older (though, I'll admit the later quality would probably more likely develop with age).

In theory, you would be correct.

In practice, it doesn't work that way. The younger a crowd is, the more in touch they are with how the newest technologies work, and how they should continue to work. Thus, because an older person doesn't get the the younger generation and their newfangled doodads, the companies behind those technologies find it easier to sway them.

The very fact that Net Neutrality still hasn't been dealt with is proof enough. Sure, they could hire someone to explain it to them... but will they? Or will the person they hire be a lobbyist from a content-providing ISP who educates the 80 year old senator that they need to be able to charge different rates for content because it'll stimulate job growth?

Sure, older people *can* get the new new technology; but it doesn't happen often. And it's not just the technology, but the cultural wisdom to use it well. Have you watched some of those youtube clips people in congress put up? How often have you heard some old congress guy say that he finally got on Twitter?

It's not just technology, though. With age, the mind starts to deteriorate, so this is a method to curtail alzheimer incumbent people from remaining in office. Hell, we have minimum age requirements, so why not maximum age requirements? If you're gonna say that some 100 year old guy can continue to serve, then why not allow some 16 year old to serve?

There are always exceptions, but you shouldn't design the rule around them.

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

The political parties are supposed to hate each other. They're supposed to fight, to stab each other in the back, to make attack ads and spend an inordinate amount of time, money and effort trying to make each other look bad.

As long as they're kept busy doing all that, they have almost no time to fuck the citizenry in the ass.

Heh, it's all a dog-and-pony show. Trust me, if the parties aren't that different, and only put up the illusion of fighting in order to divide the American people (divided people are easier to distract and control). Witness how Bush extended the power of the executive branch, and the democrats cried foul.... and now that the Dems and Obama are in power, they are quite happy to keep using that. Wiretaps? Gitmo? Habeus Corpus? Renditions? Keeping things secret that shouldn't?

Watch more Daily Show:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tu...-my-authoritah

Obama is better than Bush, but not by much. Republicans and Democrats are the same, and any differences are just used to distract you. Heh, a lot of Obama's speeches come straight from Bush's speeches, too.

Edit: Another hint the parties are the same: Arlen Specter changes parties based on the "I want to remain a Senator" principle. As you watch, note that he is 80 years old. See my age points above.

[synaesthetic]

They aren't that different now, which is why we have the dog-and-pony show.

Go back a ways (the 50s and earlier) and the political parties are not only very different from each other, but both parties are radically different than their present-day selves.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

It's not just technology, though. With age, the mind starts to deteriorate, so this is a method to curtail alzheimer incumbent people from remaining in office. Hell, we have minimum age requirements, so why not maximum age requirements? If you're gonna say that some 100 year old guy can continue to serve, then why not allow some 16 year old to serve?

Don't get me wrong, I stringently support term limits. It literally sickened me to see Robert Byrd's 93-year old dying butt being dragged before the Senate earlier this year to vote for something he clearly had no idea about and probably couldn't care less about. I think it only makes sense that Congressmen, and even the President and the Supreme Court, should have a "retirement age" like everyone else (say, around 70 or 3-4 terms in Congress (depending on whether you become a Senator or a Representative) whichever comes first).

In regards to the topic though, our elected representatives not hiring the correct people (for various reasons) is, in my opinion, the real problem here. Yes, as you get older it is less likely for a person to be able to keep up with the newest technologies/innovations, but that doesn’t automatically make you a curmudgeon, or anti-technology. Age, at least for Congressmen (since they can easily hire those to help), does not automatically equal ignorance (in regards to technology)

As for Net Neutrality, Congress wishes to find a way to tax the internet, but they don’t want to appear to be taxing the internet, so that is why Net Neutrality hasn’t passed in the past decade or so.

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by james0246

As for Net Neutrality, Congress wishes to find a way to tax the internet, but they don’t want to appear to be taxing the internet, so that is why Net Neutrality hasn’t passed in the past decade or so.

I really wish they'd stop trying to tax everything.

I think they forgot that a long time ago we decided to shoot British folks for trying to tax everything.

Taxes are like death; inevitable, but at least they should be given the same humane treatment that the death penalty is given--make them as painless as possible. Just establish an across-the-board tax rate and be done with it.

It's fucking ludicrous that in order to understand the tax code you have to go to school for four years.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

I really wish they'd stop trying to tax everything.

I think they forgot that a long time ago we decided to shoot British folks for trying to tax everything.

Not everything, just tea. It was apparently the first tax from Great Britain on its colonies.

[synaesthetic]

Tea was serious business back then!

[Nosauz]

Wow you people need a history lesson, this wasn't about taxation, it was about UNFAIR taxation, we have taxation with representation. Sigh.

I guess Glenn Beck University has quite a few bright young scholars already graduated from it's top notch American history department.

@Ahn Minh

Stamp Act mebbe? I'm also pretty sure sugar was also taxed, and lets not forget the Townshend Act. Tea was what broke the camel's back. It was never about taxes, it was about control, and who truly held power.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Nosauz

Wow you people need a history lesson, this wasn't about taxation, it was about UNFAIR taxation, we have taxation with representation. Sigh.

Eh. Not my country's history. (Not that I'm all that good at that either. Definitely not my favorite subject.)

I guess Glenn Beck University has quite a few bright young scholars already graduated from it's top notch American history department.

@Ahn Minh

Stamp Act mebbe? I'm also pretty sure sugar was also taxed, and lets not forget the Townshend Act. Tea was what broke the camel's back. It was never about taxes, it was about control, and who truly held power.

I stand corrected. I read Wikipedia a bit fast. Though apparently, all taxes except for tea were repealed.

And, well, I'm too lazy to actually fact check this...

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by james0246

As for Net Neutrality, Congress wishes to find a way to tax the internet, but they don’t want to appear to be taxing the internet, so that is why Net Neutrality hasn’t passed in the past decade or so.

Considering the amount of money the American tax payer has invested in the broadband network through subsidies to broadband companies who have cried poor due to installation and a high barrier to entry, I would like them to preserve the current model of internet service. It's critical to commerce especially small businesses who traditionally would not have access to such an awesome and powerful marketing tool. In the end the internet is the wild wild west, we payed for it, so it shouldn't be solely up to the broadband companies to dictate policy dealing with traffic especially when most of the fiber that is laid is predominantly done by public universities. Let's not even start to mention the injustice in the broadband market when instead of upgrading to meet consumer demand, the broadband providers continue to oversell lines with antiquated terminology to confuse and abuse their customers.

@Ahn Minh

It's alright, I just hate the misconception that America started a war over tea, it was about power, economic and political power, and for the most part it was a just war, because Americans at the time did not have representation, they had no say in the way they taxed and even at first Ben Franklin went to England to negotiate with parliament to give the colonies the ability to represent their interests in parliament but King George denied them of that "right" and thus is history.

[synaesthetic]

Second time in history I'm going to agree with you outright. The big telcos in America took tons of government subsidies, ostensibly to upgrade our broadband infrastructure... and didn't do anything much with the money.

In my opinion, that makes the Internet public property. You take that much in government funding and then misuse it, obfuscate what you actually did with it, be intentionally dishonest and oversell bandwidth that you don't have... you really can't be trusted to be the people who control which packets have priority over others.

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Second time in history I'm going to agree with you outright. The big telcos in America took tons of government subsidies, ostensibly to upgrade our broadband infrastructure... and didn't do anything much with the money.

In my opinion, that makes the Internet public property. You take that much in government funding and then misuse it, obfuscate what you actually did with it, be intentionally dishonest and oversell bandwidth that you don't have... you really can't be trusted to be the people who control which packets have priority over others.

Careful; that would be a socialist agenda, instead of leaving such a resource in the capable hands of the capitalistic companies who can offer the consumers a better product via competition. ;p

/sarcasm

[bayoab]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

The lefty "everyone's a winner" and "self-esteem" attitudes are a big part of the problem. They've got it backwards! Confidence and self-esteem are results of being successful and competent, not causes of success and competence.

This isn't a left thing. This was a general attitude shift in the mid 90s. Suddenly everyone became "my precious little snowflake" and being precise (something that america was failing at teaching anyway) stopped mattering. This has more to do with what generation the parents of these kids came from than anything.

Originally Posted by Mentar

How can any human being, endowed with reason, honestly believe that "the tax cuts pay for themselves", aka "due to the (alleged) stimulation of the tax cuts, the generated extra revenue is as high as the tax revenues lost or even more".

Naturally, this is obviously bullshit. But somehow people are successfully being convinced that this is the case. Can you explain to me how you do it?

Trickle down economics, which is really a lot of fake math, fake statistics and even faker sociology, works in theory but not in reality. Thus, you just ignore that last part and parrot the theory in a simplistic, populist form which just happens to agree with your party's platform (lower taxes, etc).

[Reckoner]

I feel like I'm drowning in a pool of cynicism in this thread. It's okay to be cynical, hell I am, but some of you are so cynical you make it seem like there isn't a solution to anything and that nothing works, and that absolutely everybody are idiots, and that absolutely everybody is incompetent.

This sort of cynicism does no one any good. We can talk on and on about how congress on the left and right are bought off by corporations and such, but many such comments are not exactly grounded in reality. Yes, we know that lobbyists play a very strong role in our government (Perhaps much too strong), but it is a little bit silly to think that absolutely every decision each member of congress makes is guided by the desires of these mega corporations.

The only thing being thrown around in this thread so much that I like is a maximum term limit for members of congress.