I hate government! I want Anarchy. Sadly, that will never happen It would be fun for a while, don't you think?
This is a discussion on I've had it within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; I hate government! I want Anarchy. Sadly, that will never happen It would be fun for a while, don't you ...
I hate government! I want Anarchy. Sadly, that will never happen It would be fun for a while, don't you think?
A site dedicated to keeping videogame memories alive!
Share your experiences with us now!
"We will game forever!"
In the case of heterosexuals, there are many reasons. In many cases, taxes are higher for married people than if they are single and file separately. In others, they don't feel the need for a formal social rite proclaiming their decision. In the end, what business is it of yours, mine, or the state's why they don't?Why would a couple, whose intentions are to live their lives together, not marry?
In the case of homosexuals, because they're not allowed to. Why shouldn't they be allowed to suffer like the rest of us?
What Mario says about the power of economics is an excellent and interesting point, but economics are at least influenced by the populace, whereas the church was more authoritative. If you're conscious of where you spend your money, you can (very slightly) influence the economic landscape.
As far as being good for the Democrats or Republicans, I think it's safe to say that neither wants a third party. Part of the problem with both parties is that they're too concerned with gaining and keeping power. That's important when you want to accomplish things, as it's hard to push your agenda when you're in the minority in a two-party system. However, a third, centrist party can bridge the gap. Even without a majority, a party that bridges the gap between the other two becomes powerful in it's ability to swing votes one way or another.
Take today's Congress for example. The Republicans control Congress with a healthy majority. A conservative agenda has been pushed in Congress ever since they held both the White House and Congress. Much ado was made over Bush finally using his first veto in 6 years, and that's a testament to the fact that the Democrats were in such a minority as to be unable to pass most (all?) legislation adherent to their platform! With a centrist party also in the mix, some votes may have been changed, and both parties would have to come to the middle more often with their bills. Instead of waiting for a stranglehold on power in order to advance their agenda, both parties could continually accomplish some goals by cooperating with the third party.
The fact that both the Republican and Democratic parties would oppose a third party so vehemently is just more reason we need it. Both parties, IMO, would rather go through this power cycle, wasting time and money, than work with an outside group and have to make a few concessions. They both want absolute control over the government, and we all know how that saying goes.
No.Anarchy...would be fun for a while, don't you think?
There is a difference between tedious and difficult.
Ha, my posts of late seem to be rather patriotic:
In Ireland it's a multi party system, but one could, to a good engineering approximation , class them as a two party system because of the ways in which they handle power. There is one large party who if they get a large enough ratio of votes could 'lead' the nation alone, and there are another group (group of political parties, no other party really comes near their numbers), who if they get enough seats could share power between them. I think it's been like that for pretty much all of Irish political history, but I wouldn't trust my history knowledge much. Also, the big party sometimes share power with a very small party to get the majority when the runnings are close. I wouldn't be surprised if this kinda thing happened all over the world to be honest ... not sure how great a system it is, but ... I guess it works ... sometimes.
What a surprise. You know, I think the "right direction," in a historical context, for any government has been to ensure that religion does not make its way into public legislature.and yes, I, being from the south, have deep religious roots.
What if they are of the same sex? What if you want to marry more than one person? Who is to say what is "right" and "wrong" with respect to these questions? Not everybody takes the christian bible seriously or accepts jesus as their savior into their hearts.Why would a couple, whose intentions are to live their lives together, not marry?
So basically what you have been saying is that the "right" direction we need to be moved in, as a nation, is the same right-wing ultra conservative agenda that we've already got in congress right now?I'd really love to find out what your political standings are on things such as abortion
You are so caught up with thinking that your own personal views are 'correct' that you are an unobjective righteous silly person. In My Humble Opinion.
My only defense of the two party system is that, well, it makes it easier to get things done. When you start splitting up a congress or parliament into many parties/factions it makes it that much harder to capture a majority. The largest party isn't necessarily the majority of the vote! The cost is that it is less representative (less democratic).
This is actually kind of what I was talking about in favor of the two party system: it becomes a controlled dictatorship for a while. One party gets to pass what it wants, the country tries it out, then the country can choose to keep it or toss it. Throwing more parties into the mix, while technically being more 'fair,' also hinders actually getting stuff done.Instead of waiting for a stranglehold on power in order to advance their agenda, both parties could continually accomplish some goals by cooperating with the third party.
Last edited by BobMcGee123; 11-07-2006 at 04:34 PM.
I'm not immature, I'm refined in the opposite direction.
> Why would a couple, whose intentions are to live their lives together, not marry?
No one seems to be asking the more obvious question here, which is "Why the hell is it any of your business?" (edit: Except that Decrypt did - sorry about that)
edit: You think the only reason someone wouldn't get married is because of fear of divorce? You're delusional.
Last edited by Govtcheez; 11-07-2006 at 05:51 PM.
>> No one seems to be asking the more obvious question here, which is "Why the hell is it any of your business?"
>> In the end, what business is it of yours, mine, or the state's why they don't [Get married]?
You're dead right, Gov.
I think marriage is a public statement of someone's commitment (and all that jazz), to somebody else ... Tax reasons may not make it ... profitable, but fear of disappointment or separation I think is the greater reason why many couples don't venture. And of course that whole commitment thing can be scary I'm no where near consideration of the 'm' word (it's scary to put yourself and that word in the same sentence), so this is just speculation. I guess some older more experienced member would have a more insightful interpolation.
Last edited by twomers; 11-07-2006 at 05:50 PM.
For me at least, living together all your lives and not marrying is rather...anticlimactic.
Silence is better than unmeaning words.
Oh, well in THAT case
The best way to solve the marriage dilemma is to let them do it. 80% of the hetero's want nothing to do with marriage and 60% of the homo's (sorry but that's the correct scientific term) want it.
Give it to them and then you will solve the problem.
I think the real reason behind it has nothing to do with morals and more to do with the fact that our current court system is already flooded with family law cases and allowing this would just bring in thousands and thousands more.
But I'm in favor of a thirdy party. The Republicans have nothing to do with the common average everyday U.S. citizen. The Democrats equally have nothing in common with us. Both parties are sorely out of touch.
One party wants to favor big biz and give them a helluva lot of tax breaks as 'incentives' while the other one wants to protect the trees in Alaska.
Let's get a party that cares about what most of America is. Workers trying to make ends meet so that their families or for those who are not attached - so that they can live a decent happy life.
Let's talk about real issues. Why are so many good paying jobs in factories, offices, and other businesses just being handed out overseas? (no offense to countries intended, but it's a problem here) It's not just blue collar being affected anymore - it's everyone who works for a living. Why do we see places like Kelley Services, Volt, and other places literally taking over the computer programming, engineering, manufacturing, techinical, and trade jobs? Why is it that you can no longer expect to join a company and stay with them for life? Why is it that our companies on one hand are saying they are barely making it and yet the next quarter saying they broke some ancient profit record and sales are better than ever. Something there just doesn't make sense. Companies are making more than ever before and yet are paying less than ever before.
We have moved from a country where you could find a job and stick with it and reap the benefits to a place where you gather a set of skills and then use them at companies at various times in your life - none of which will ever take care of you in retirement.
We've moved from a place where 401K once used to be for 'savings' but now has been replaced with 'retirement' because companies don't want to foot the bill anymore.
We've got the best healthcare in the world and the best medical technology yet no one here can afford it. Therefore it's useless in most instances.
We've got colleges charging a ........load of money just to attend their school and yet they teach you next to nothing practical about your career path and insist on teaching you some abstract principles in the hope you will somehow filter through it all and be able to apply it to life.
That's some of the problems I see in America and yet none of our current parties seem to give a crap about any of them.
I say it's way past time for a party that represents the common citizen regardless of their color, race, creed, income, religion, etc, etc. Our current two are so out of touch they don't deserve to be in office.....none of em.
Last edited by VirtualAce; 11-08-2006 at 12:08 AM.
Well I'm not an American but I think politicians are basically the same all over the world. They think only about their party and themself. There's only a few nationalist that have a good intention to make the world a better place to live. And that few people also usually didn't last long.
Last edited by g4j31a5; 11-08-2006 at 05:11 AM.
They care more about getting elected so they can do these things. The tax increase stuff is probably because they want to "do more" and throw our tax money away to rebuild things and preserve other thing. I'm not a political person.
So true. That's why I bring my lucky coin to the election booth and tossed it to see who gets selected by "The God of Lucky Coins". Didn't matter who gets selected cause I just thought that he / she will be the same with the rest of 'em anyway.Originally Posted by taelmx