Author Topic: ABOLISH ALL POLITICAL PARTIES (Read 10445 times)

0.42 · « **Reply #75 on:** September 30, 2012, 04:27:48 PM »

Quote from: steve dave on September 30, 2012, 04:25:39 PM

Nobody's forcing anyone to do anything

Agree to disagree. Go cats.

HeinBallz · « **Reply #76 on:** September 30, 2012, 04:36:53 PM »

Indeed, go cats

Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.

Kat Kid · « **Reply #77 on:** September 30, 2012, 04:48:32 PM »

Quote from: HeinBallz on September 30, 2012, 03:28:02 PM

Quote from: Kat Kid on September 30, 2012, 02:12:55 PM
Quote from: HeinBallz on September 30, 2012, 01:16:46 PM
Are they afraid they wouldn't know who to vote for without an (R) or (D) next a candidates name?

Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.

I don't know. I was just responding to your ridiculous claim.

My argument implying people are lazy and guilty of party line voting seems to be exemplified when stating these same people would not want political parties broken up. Having said that, you could have taken my question of "who would not want that?" as a rhetorical question; the only logical response is - which you correctly pointed out - are the people affiliated with the party. As I am stating it, those people are part of the problem.

I'm curious though - would anyone here argue with me if you didn't already dislike me as a Paulite? Have I argued with so many of you that I will immediately be labeled (C) for "Crazy" because you're all so used to disagreeing with me? (much like a (D) next to a democrat or (R) for republican) Can anyone not see how society does this every day and every where? Even here, people take some posters thoughts and ideas as gospel - SD, Trim, Rusty, Sys, Even you KK... What if you or one of these guys goes off the deep end? Seems kind of powertardish to label someone or some organization as god like and infallible and drink the Kool-aid so to speak. Isn't independence and free thinking one of the things this board was founded on? I'm not going to go as far as calling any of you incapable of critical thinking, but damn... having thoughts shot down with nothing more than "crazy" warranted as a response really gives the impression that that's the case.

I mean, categorizing something as "crazy" "Conspiracy theorist" or "stupid" without providing any substantial, logical, and/or well thought out response may rouse high fives from buddies - but it makes people appear childish & irrational to everyone else.

People think you're stupid because you post stupid arguments. Ron Paul has nothing to do with it.

As for this post, it is stupid. You setting yourself up as some sort of martyr because you think their is a cabal of posters that are "worshipped" is an apt example of the bizarre nature of your posts and certainly is a triple threat of "crazy" "conspiracy theorist" and "stupid." I'm not sure what you were suggesting about one of our potential breaks with reality, but if we started posting the paranoid, rambling, illogical crap you just did, people would call us on it.

As steve dave has repeated thrown back, the irony of claiming that everyone else is a sheep and to remedy that the U.S. needs massive interventions in elections policy all the while espousing "liberty" and "freedom" is so obvious that I can't believe you won't deal with the critique just because he's able to do it with humor and in one to two sentences.

HeinBallz · « **Reply #78 on:** September 30, 2012, 05:41:34 PM »

Rather long winded version of "you're stupid". I don't know what to say?

Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.

_33 · « **Reply #79 on:** September 30, 2012, 08:08:14 PM »

Man, politics. Right?

john "teach me how to" dougie · « **Reply #80 on:** September 30, 2012, 08:41:31 PM »

Quote from: _33 on September 30, 2012, 08:08:14 PM

Man, politics. Right?

The worst.

seriously.

HeinBallz · « **Reply #81 on:** September 30, 2012, 08:48:15 PM »

Anyone want to talk about religion or how much money they make?

Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.

8manpick · « **Reply #82 on:** September 30, 2012, 09:17:35 PM »

Quote from: HeinBallz on September 30, 2012, 08:48:15 PM

Anyone want to talk about religion or how much money they make?

Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.

Sure.
I think religion sucks.
I am making the equivalent of about 24k a year.
What now?

Rage Against the McKee · « **Reply #83 on:** October 01, 2012, 08:46:29 AM »

Quote from: MixBerryCrunch on September 30, 2012, 01:17:50 PM

The problem isn't political parties per say, it's the American public. 75% of the public is uneducated (stupid) and uninformed and yet will still vote. These people vote in two ways: they blindly cast a vote for whichever party they have aligned themselves with, or they go with the "cool" vote. Unfortunately, the cool vote nowadays is whichever candidate gives more handouts in the name of social equity. Like it or not, Romney was right when he said we have become a society of entitlement.

Yes. Those people who get welfare handouts are so cool.

Rage Against the McKee · « **Reply #84 on:** October 01, 2012, 08:52:52 AM »

Quote from: HeinBallz on September 30, 2012, 08:48:15 PM

Anyone want to talk about religion or how much money they make?

Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.

I would love to hear how much money "religion" makes.

Panjandrum · « **Reply #85 on:** October 01, 2012, 09:30:01 AM »

I used to detest a two party system, and in some ways I still do, but someone made a point about multi-party politics once that made a lot of sense to me. What if some lunatic fringe group (i.e. Tea Party) actually drummed up 34% of the vote in an election where the Repubs. and Dems. were at 33%? Well, you'd get lunatic chaos.

I guess my main thing is that I like gridlock. I don't want one party running amok. I only want them getting together and only passing the really important stuff that means something tangible.

I realize that doesn't always happen, and this is a simplistic way of looking at things, but there's a reason that the stock market performs best when there's a Democrat in the Oval Office and Republicans owing Congress.

0.42 · « **Reply #86 on:** October 01, 2012, 10:10:56 AM »

what would happen if the republicans ran the pac 12 conference and democrats ran the big 12

Rage Against the McKee · « **Reply #87 on:** October 01, 2012, 10:14:26 AM »

Quote from: 42 on October 01, 2012, 10:10:56 AM

what would happen if the republicans ran the pac 12 conference and democrats ran the big 12

We would be the better academic conference?

steve dave · « **Reply #88 on:** October 01, 2012, 10:22:33 AM »

Quote from: Nuts Kicked on October 01, 2012, 10:14:26 AM

Quote from: 42 on October 01, 2012, 10:10:56 AM
what would happen if the republicans ran the pac 12 conference and democrats ran the big 12

We would be the better academic conference?

but get our asses beat in sports. it would basically be opposite day.

0.42 · « **Reply #89 on:** October 01, 2012, 10:26:10 AM »

HeinBallz · « **Reply #90 on:** October 01, 2012, 10:30:43 AM »

Quote from: Nuts Kicked on October 01, 2012, 08:52:52 AM

Quote from: HeinBallz on September 30, 2012, 08:48:15 PM
Anyone want to talk about religion or how much money they make?

Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.

I would love to hear how much money "religion" makes.

Yeah.... that was pretty horrible sentence structure - my bad.

0.42 · « **Reply #91 on:** October 01, 2012, 12:34:56 PM »

The Big Ten is run by the Whig party.

john "teach me how to" dougie · « **Reply #92 on:** October 01, 2012, 01:54:08 PM »

Quote from: Panjandrum on October 01, 2012, 09:30:01 AM

I used to detest a two party system, and in some ways I still do, but someone made a point about multi-party politics once that made a lot of sense to me. What if some lunatic fringe group (i.e. Tea Party) actually drummed up 34% of the vote in an election where the Repubs. and Dems. were at 33%? Well, you'd get lunatic chaos.

I guess my main thing is that I like gridlock. I don't want one party running amok. I only want them getting together and only passing the really important stuff that means something tangible.

I realize that doesn't always happen, and this is a simplistic way of looking at things, but there's a reason that the stock market performs best when there's a Democrat in the Oval Office and Republicans owing Congress.

This. Government works best when they're not working at all.

kstatefreak42 · « **Reply #93 on:** October 01, 2012, 02:40:04 PM »

Great thread! Im glad peopleare being opened minded

Institutional Control · « **Reply #94 on:** October 01, 2012, 03:54:25 PM »

Quote from: john "teach me how to" dougie on October 01, 2012, 01:54:08 PM

Quote from: Panjandrum on October 01, 2012, 09:30:01 AM
I used to detest a two party system, and in some ways I still do, but someone made a point about multi-party politics once that made a lot of sense to me. What if some lunatic fringe group (i.e. Tea Party) actually drummed up 34% of the vote in an election where the Repubs. and Dems. were at 33%? Well, you'd get lunatic chaos.

I guess my main thing is that I like gridlock. I don't want one party running amok. I only want them getting together and only passing the really important stuff that means something tangible.

I realize that doesn't always happen, and this is a simplistic way of looking at things, but there's a reason that the stock market performs best when there's a Democrat in the Oval Office and Republicans owing Congress.

This. Government works best when they're not working at all.

Exactly. Politicians make new laws just to be making new laws. Sometimes, we have enough laws.

john "teach me how to" dougie · « **Reply #95 on:** October 01, 2012, 10:24:25 PM »

Quote from: CFoD on October 01, 2012, 03:54:25 PM

Quote from: john "teach me how to" dougie on October 01, 2012, 01:54:08 PM
Quote from: Panjandrum on October 01, 2012, 09:30:01 AM
I used to detest a two party system, and in some ways I still do, but someone made a point about multi-party politics once that made a lot of sense to me. What if some lunatic fringe group (i.e. Tea Party) actually drummed up 34% of the vote in an election where the Repubs. and Dems. were at 33%? Well, you'd get lunatic chaos.

I guess my main thing is that I like gridlock. I don't want one party running amok. I only want them getting together and only passing the really important stuff that means something tangible.

I realize that doesn't always happen, and this is a simplistic way of looking at things, but there's a reason that the stock market performs best when there's a Democrat in the Oval Office and Republicans owing Congress.

This. Government works best when they're not working at all.

Exactly. Politicians make new laws just to be making new laws. Sometimes, we have enough laws.

At some point there has to be enough laws, right? At some point we reach reach the critical mass of government, and any addition could cause a failure.

HeinBallz · « **Reply #96 on:** October 02, 2012, 06:54:04 AM »

Laws are for people ignorant of reason. So, is there a point where we elevate as society enough that some or all laws are not needed? We should be needing less laws as we go forward; at least with some issues.

Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.

Mr Bread · « **Reply #97 on:** October 02, 2012, 12:32:18 PM »

Quote from: HeinBallz on October 02, 2012, 06:54:04 AM

Laws are for people ignorant of reason. So, is there a point where we elevate as society enough that some or all laws are not needed? We should be needing less laws as we go forward; at least with some issues.

Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.

Do you even interact with like normal people on a daily basis? We have most of our laws, or at least the most important ones, because many people are greedy, self-indulgent fucks who will act for their own benefit to the detriment of others without care or concern. This has been true throughout the course of human history. Base criminality for personal gain? You know theft, robbery, burglary, rape, etc.? Corporate malfeasance born of greed? You know, pollution, price-fixing, insider trading, etc.?

People still do this crap with regularity and there are laws in place prohibiting and punishing it all. What on earth do you think will happen if there aren't any? Nirvana?

OK_Cat · « **Reply #98 on:** October 02, 2012, 12:59:55 PM »

this thread is a big couch fire of wtf

crazy's gon crazy

john "teach me how to" dougie · « **Reply #99 on:** October 02, 2012, 01:01:52 PM »

Quote from: Mr Bread on October 02, 2012, 12:32:18 PM

Quote from: HeinBallz on October 02, 2012, 06:54:04 AM
Laws are for people ignorant of reason. So, is there a point where we elevate as society enough that some or all laws are not needed? We should be needing less laws as we go forward; at least with some issues.

Sent from my iPhone using DealWithItBitches.

Do you even interact with like normal people on a daily basis? We have most of our laws, or at least the most important ones, because many people are greedy, self-indulgent fucks who will act for their own benefit to the detriment of others without care or concern. This has been true throughout the course of human history. Base criminality for personal gain? You know theft, robbery, burglary, rape, etc.? Corporate malfeasance born of greed? You know, pollution, price-fixing, insider trading, etc.?

People still do this crap with regularity and there are laws in place prohibiting and punishing it all. What on earth do you think will happen if there aren't any? Nirvana?

I would go with Utopia, where we are all equal and everybody pays their fair share and the whole world loves us.