The two party system is one more than a totalitarian regime

[mrplunkey]

Yes, but should it just be accepted as standard practice or should we try and correct this system. It is easy to give up, people in other countries would assassinate people over things like this. By stealing money that could better help our country, it is directly hurting it's citizens.

I realize that it seems like giving up, but the problem is structural -- not in the implementation. When a system relies on hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people acting altruistically, it just can't happen.

 

[Mr. dB]

I realize that it seems like giving up, but the problem is structural -- not in the implementation. When a system relies on hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people acting altruistically, it just can't happen.

You mean like "Faith Based Initiative"?

 

[Mr. dB]

You genuinely don't understand the use of "so let's ban that while we're at it" as an escalation of the original concept of taxing something?

Ok Redsam, I'll explain this to you one time. After that you're on your own. I listed a few things that were arguably bad for you and one thing I personally didn't like, but lumped them all together for taxation. Then I explained that my tax on licorice originated from a personal dislike, but that we should simply ban it "while we're at it". It was commentary on the fact that once you start picking winners and losers, it's very difficult to differentiate legitimate targets from personal opinion.

Now back to the expression "while we're at it". Let's try a few more examples.

Example 1: We should imprison white collar criminals (let's just give them life without parole while we're at it).

Example 2: We need tax reform in this country (and eliminate inheritance tax all together while we're at it).

Example 3: I really want to nail Sally (and bang her sister too, while I'm at it).

It's not fun having to explain stuff to you.

Now carry on.

Except that none of your examples contain contradictory opposites. The licorice example is more like "We should give white collar criminals life without parole (and execute them while we're at it)."

You seem to be humor-impaired, you can't just acknowledge a funny little "gotcha" without defending yourself, Palin-style, against any perceived attack.

 

[miplank]

I'm with Db's on this one...

your shit didn't make any sense and your justification of it was a bigger fail.

 

[mrplunkey]

I'm with Db's on this one...

your shit didn't make any sense and your justification of it was a bigger fail.

I'll draw cartoons for you both next time.

 

[mrplunkey]

You mean like "Faith Based Initiative"?

Outstanding example!

In the case of government, a few bad actors can corrupt the entire system.

In the case of charitable giving, a few good actors can make great things happen.

I'll take my chances on finding a few charitable people before betting the farm on a 100% altruistic government.

 

[Mr. dB]

I'll draw cartoons for you both next time.

That would probably be more cogent than your usual commentary.

 

[mrplunkey]

That would probably be more cogent than your usual commentary.

I like to match my audience.

 

[Lennon]

I often look at the authoritarian measures the single-party government in China must take to maintain its grip on power, and I think, sadly, they have a thing or two to learn from Western autocrats. In the US entrenched interests determine the content of the nightly news and the costs of running a national campaign are so prohibitive, only those who have first been approved and funded by corporate interests, can ever achieve a national voice. In China, force is needed to repress the democratic yearnings of the population, here, more elegantly, money is used.

 

[Mr. dB]