2012 Elections results finally in US officially applies 4 Banana Republic status @ UN

[BGChuckLee]

So if I give you a pizza, that you may or may not of wanted, without ordering or asking for it- and then demand you pay. That would be considered 'civilisation'? I mean, what you have just said, is literally crazy.

No, reducing DeistPaladin's point from the view that wealth generated requires a support network to appear in the first place to pizza delivery fraud and your apparent stated desire to not contribute to social programs (despite having benefited from them and other services) is "literally crazy".

Minimalist is right -- some "Christian" you are.

Basically, you are trying to sound smart, which could probably be condensed to "No u". Wtf is wrong with you, get a job sir.

Btw, I haven't benefited from social programs, I hate everyone and everything involved with socialism, they are all evil. The only thing I did have was public schooling for a bit, which I hated.

---

Social programmes business and conservatives don't benefit from (these are all socialist ideas):
Public Roads
Public Schools
Military
Police
Fire Departments
Public Roads
Emergency Rescue Squads
Food Inspection
Exploration Leases on Public Land (oil, gas, &c)
Corporate Welfare (oil companies, NASCAR, &c)
Food Stamps (that programme is to support farm and agribusiness prices, not the poor)
Veterans' Administration
Free Speech and Press
Gun Ownership Rights
Addressing Grievances to Government (petitions, lobbying, lawsuits)
&c.
--- ---
The concept of things for all, regardless of whether you use them or not (such as college or a printing press in my case) are all socialist ideas.

In a purely capitalistic society, you would pay for those things. In a dictatorship or feudal state you would not have most of them.

All of these jobs are carried out by private businesses contracted by the state. The roads thing is bullshit. And the 'rights' thing is bullshit, since you have the right to do w/e you want in the first place, what the government calls 'rights' is simply grants.

I don't want violence in any form, be it socialism or feudalism - I'm not advocating one over the other, they are both evil.

The world would be better without corporate welfare or general welfare. Since when money is simply given out to people, it reduces competition in the market- people keep their jobs which they should lose naturally, welfare fucks up economic integrity completely.

[Autumnlicious]

Basically, you are trying to sound smart, which could probably be condensed to "No u".

Let me wager that the actual content of your post is a "No U" and we're really seeing you indulge in some Projection.

Wtf is wrong with you, get a job sir.

Btw, I haven't benefited from social programs, I hate everyone and everything involved with socialism, they are all evil. The only thing I did have was public schooling for a bit, which I hated.

Clearly you had no benefit from learning how to communicate and write. I see that logical thinking wasn't a priority though.

[BGChuckLee]

Basically, you are trying to sound smart, which could probably be condensed to "No u".

Let me wager that the actual content of your post is a "No U" and we're really seeing you indulge in some Projection.

Wtf is wrong with you, get a job sir.

Btw, I haven't benefited from social programs, I hate everyone and everything involved with socialism, they are all evil. The only thing I did have was public schooling for a bit, which I hated.

Clearly you had no benefit from learning how to communicate and write. I see that logical thinking wasn't a priority though.

Now that I pointed out your wannabe smartness, you flipped the switch and you are now equivalent to a poster on 4chan.

Teaching a child language skills is the role of a parent, not some stranger who's salary is paid by violence in a room full of 30 other strangers.

[Something completely different]

However, rather than discounting 10% of the electorate's votes, as happens in the French system, the second preference votes (i.e. those marked with a '2') of those 10% are now counted and distributed amongst the remaining candidates. For the sake of simplicity, let's say that all 10% of D's supporters preferred the moderate policies of C over the political extremes of A and B. So, after this redistribution, the votes now look like this:

A: 35%
B: 30%
C: 35%

Again, nobody won an overall majority, but the moderate actually overtook the liberal candidate through the extra votes from D's supporters. The candidate with the least amount of votes (B) now gets eliminated, and the second preference votes of those that voted for B get distributed amongst the remaining candidates. Note that if any of B's votes are already second preference (as some of C's are), the third preference votes of those ballots would be counted instead. For simplicities sake again, let's say that all 30% of B's voters also preferred the moderate candidate (likely since he supports some left wing policies, whilst the conservative does not). After this redistribution, the votes now look like this:

A: 35%
C: 65%

We are left with two candidates, and candidate C has the most votes, winning him the election.

The benefits of AV are numerous, but the more obvious and important are the fact that nobody has a wasted vote, since each voter can participate in each round (by ranking all candidates), or choose simply to vote for one candidate only, as they had done before. It also effectively nulls tactical voting, where a voter votes for a candidate who doesn't really represent their views, because they want to keep out another candidate who represents their views even less. It also makes so-called "safe seats" less safe, which means the politicians who fill those seats have to actually work for the vote of the people they represent.

All in all, I have no problem with your proposal. But the "redistribution" of the votes is the only thing on which I have doughts.
If this process is not done by the electorate by giving those who voted D the chance to vote again for any candidate except D.

But in short, I have to say that this process you propose has the potential to make a election a very long and tiersome process, whilest elections should be short.

Which is why I prefer the French and Polish system.

[Tiberius]

All in all, I have no problem with your proposal. But the "redistribution" of the votes is the only thing on which I have doughts.
If this process is not done by the electorate by giving those who voted D the chance to vote again for any candidate except D.

That is how it works though. By ranking the candidates, you are effectively saying "I'm voting for D, but if D doesn't get through, I want to vote for A, and if A doesn't get through, I want to vote for...etc."

Ranking has the advantage of allowing only one election, rather than having multiple elections as France does (which costs far more money). If you think about it, since no candidates can join the election between rounds, each subsequent round will have the same candidates as the last, minus one.

Indeed, if we were to separate voting out so that each round had a new vote, then it would re-introduce the problem of tactical voting, with people able to know the percentage distributions from the last rounds, and altering their vote accordingly.

But in short, I have to say that this process you propose has the potential to make a election a very long and tiersome process, whilest elections should be short.

How? There is one election, rather than two (or more). If votes are computerized, the result can be generated in a very short amount of time. It's actually a very very short election process when done properly.

[YahwehIsTheWay]

Just want to announce that in addition to being a Bible-believing True Christian ™, I'm also a Atlas-Shrugged-believing True Randian ™.

Praise the Sweet Name of Jesus and the All Powerful Invisible Hand of the Free Market!

I don't want to support social programs.

Miserable little fucking prick, aren't you Chuckie?

Well, you have to understand, Min, that the people we're talking about are all just a bunch of lazy moochers who just want government handouts and think they're entitled to everything. They just won't take responsibility for their lives or try to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. No, it's easier to complain and have the government rob good, hard-working, tax-paying (*cough* white *cough*) citizens like Chuckie on their behalf.

Your alleged jesus was not so hard on the poor. Apparently, you are a piss-poor xtian, too.

We True Christians ™ pay no attention to anything Jesus said. Most of us haven't even read the Bible.

---

The world would be better without corporate welfare or general welfare. Since when money is simply given out to people, it reduces competition in the market- people keep their jobs which they should lose naturally, welfare fucks up economic integrity completely.

Testify my Randian brother!

These welfare queens and their young bucks with their t-bone steaks (praise be upon Reagan) are just a bunch of lazy moochers who could take responsibility for their lives but think its easier to suck off the government teet. They could pull themselves up by their bootstraps but it's much easier to complain, isn't it? And here they go stealing through the government from good white folks like you to... oh, sorry, did I say "white folks"? I meant good real Americans who work hard and produce their own wealth. We should all just go Galt and stop producing wealth and let the whole system dry up. That'll teach em.

All praises to the Invisible Hand!

[DeistPaladin]

I mean, what you have just said, is literally crazy.

No, it's not crazy, it's the way civilization works. And it's the way civilization HAS worked since we climbed out of the trees.

We are community animals that build things by our combined effort and mutual support. That's how we've survived as a species. No civilization that I'm aware of has ever been constructed around the "everyone for themselves" mentality that Ayn Rand values so much.

Civilization is not pay-as-you-please. I don't like paying for the Iraq War but that's how civilization works.

If you don't like it, move to Somalia where they have the perfect radical libertarian paradise. Good luck.

EDIT TO ADD:
By the way, your pizza argument is not valid as it is a classic fallacious application of Reducto Ad Absurdum. Try again.

[BGChuckLee]

I mean, what you have just said, is literally crazy.

No, it's not crazy, it's the way civilization works. And it's the way civilization HAS worked since we climbed out of the trees.

We are community animals that build things by our combined effort and mutual support. That's how we've survived as a species. No civilization that I'm aware of has ever been constructed around the "everyone for themselves" mentality that Ayn Rand values so much.

Civilization is not pay-as-you-please. I don't like paying for the Iraq War but that's how civilization works.

If you don't like it, move to Somalia where they have the perfect radical libertarian paradise. Good luck.

EDIT TO ADD:
By the way, your pizza argument is not valid as it is a classic fallacious application of Reducto Ad Absurdum. Try again.

"mutual support" implies voluntarily interacting- which taxation is not. The wealth of nations depends upon the genius and iron will of business owners that bring value to everyone's life.

I said, I am against violence of all sorts- I am not against the government for the sake of it being government- The gov, just happens to have a monopoly on violence, wheras gangs are small frys. Somalia has that inversed- that's not my paradise. If I wanted to live in Somalia, I would of moved by now.

---

Just want to announce that in addition to being a Bible-believing True Christian ™, I'm also a Atlas-Shrugged-believing True Randian ™.

Praise the Sweet Name of Jesus and the All Powerful Invisible Hand of the Free Market!

Miserable little fucking prick, aren't you Chuckie?

Well, you have to understand, Min, that the people we're talking about are all just a bunch of lazy moochers who just want government handouts and think they're entitled to everything. They just won't take responsibility for their lives or try to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. No, it's easier to complain and have the government rob good, hard-working, tax-paying (*cough* white *cough*) citizens like Chuckie on their behalf.

Your alleged jesus was not so hard on the poor. Apparently, you are a piss-poor xtian, too.

We True Christians ™ pay no attention to anything Jesus said. Most of us haven't even read the Bible.

---

The world would be better without corporate welfare or general welfare. Since when money is simply given out to people, it reduces competition in the market- people keep their jobs which they should lose naturally, welfare fucks up economic integrity completely.

Testify my Randian brother!

These welfare queens and their young bucks with their t-bone steaks (praise be upon Reagan) are just a bunch of lazy moochers who could take responsibility for their lives but think its easier to suck off the government teet. They could pull themselves up by their bootstraps but it's much easier to complain, isn't it? And here they go stealing through the government from good white folks like you to... oh, sorry, did I say "white folks"? I meant good real Americans who work hard and produce their own wealth. We should all just go Galt and stop producing wealth and let the whole system dry up. That'll teach em.

All praises to the Invisible Hand!

What? you don't understand what I am saying. Poor would be better off without welfare and handouts. If I was poor, I would want job opportunities not hand me downs. I came from wealth, but I am not against poor people- it's just an economic class, and a vital part of the economy.

The Bible speaks of different levels of charity, how teaching a man to be self sustainable is the most charitable thing you can do, rather than just giving him stuff. I want poor people in the west to be more productive, for my sake, and their sake, everyone's sake.

[DeistPaladin]

"mutual support" implies voluntarily interacting- which taxation is not.

Taxation is levied by the consent of the governed through our representative process. Sometimes this means a tax is passed by the majority that you are against or a spending priority is passed that you don't support but welcome to civilization.

The wealth of nations depends upon the genius and iron will of business owners that bring value to everyone's life.

As a businessman myself, I'm modest enough to realize that I don't produce wealth in a vacuum. I depend on civilization to accomplish what I do.

The Bible speaks of different levels of charity, how teaching a man to be self sustainable is the most charitable thing you can do, rather than just giving him stuff. I want poor people in the west to be more productive, for my sake, and their sake, everyone's sake.

You clearly haven't read Acts chapter 4 then.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/acts_of...34-35.html

[BGChuckLee]

"mutual support" implies voluntarily interacting- which taxation is not.

Taxation is levied by the consent of the governed through our representative process. Sometimes this means a tax is passed by the majority that you are against or a spending priority is passed that you don't support but welcome to civilization.

The wealth of nations depends upon the genius and iron will of business owners that bring value to everyone's life.

As a businessman myself, I'm modest enough to realize that I don't produce wealth in a vacuum. I depend on civilization to accomplish what I do.

The Bible speaks of different levels of charity, how teaching a man to be self sustainable is the most charitable thing you can do, rather than just giving him stuff. I want poor people in the west to be more productive, for my sake, and their sake, everyone's sake.

You clearly haven't read Acts chapter 4 then.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/acts_of...34-35.html

Never gave my consent to be 'governed' so that's bs. It's not 'consent' when the other option is to be thrown in a cage. I think comply is a better word; Which I don't. So you are wrong.