Airstrip One
Completely Effed
Oh, good, now I can finally write, I fucking hate Darla, without any worries. Sweeet!
And to think I was worried about her getting herself banned a couple of weeks ago...
The Ideal Political Party
- Thread starter Cancel 2018. 3
- Start date
Oh, good, now I can finally write, I fucking hate Darla, without any worries. Sweeet!
And to think I was worried about her getting herself banned a couple of weeks ago...
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
Sure. Go with that one. ROFLMAO
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
That means you don't practice what you preach. Hell, you could have lied. I wouldnt know the difference. Guess no social justice for your workers because you are a selfish prick. How do you sleep at night knowing your worker is nothing more than slave labor. Have you no shame?
Depending on the actual definitions, all employees are slaves to their masters. That is a fact, nofacts.
About two years ago, Grind made a poll asking if rape is funny. I voted no, but several people voted yes.
i dont remember this
but it's possible i did it. ha.
Airstrip One
Completely Effed
i dont remember this
but it's possible i did it. ha.
Turns out it was WM, but I know there was dialogue which preceeded it, and some inside joke I wasn't in on, so you likely had an invisible hand pulling the strings, as per usual...
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
He is referencing the time I posted a poll a few years back where I asked "What's funnier?", and listed several horrible things that clearly aren't funny, rape being one of the options. It was a long time ago, and I don't make such jokes anymore.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
In the UK, the parliamentary system has, ironically, lead to a situation in which the prime minister effectively controls parliament, even though theoretically the opposite should be true. The fact that the government could be dismissed at any time by disloyal members leads to parties developing a system of extremely rigid party discipline, to the point where it's rare for any party member to vote against the party leaders wishes at all.
This is in contrast to the US, where parties have traditionally been more open to running a wide variety of candidates in order to win as many seats as possible for the party, and hopefully build ad hoc legislative majorities out of that. The system in the UK has virtually turned into an elected dictatorship, especially due to their majoritarian electoral system and tradition of parliamentary supremacy (so that a majority of parliament theoretically has unlimited powers, besides 1) Having to hold elections every five years in peacetime and 2) Being unable to restrict its own powers in the future). So, the prime minister of the UK, though in theory not possessing presidential powers such as the veto, and being subject to removal by parliament at any time through a simple majority (rather than only through impeachment), has effectively turned into a position much more powerful than the US president. It also doesn't help that the system of variable election times effectively allows the government to time elections so that they're held at a time that would be most beneficial to the ruling party.
Parliamentary systems that use proportional representation are less susceptible to this, however, they often run the risk of developing the opposite problem if the system is too proportional, with a divided parliament and huge number of parties, making it virtually impossible to put together a stable governing coalition.
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
It's not that it's the constant smirking and rubbing my face in the coolness of it all. Thanks for explaining though wm.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
My ideal political party:
At the Federal level; One that believed in a small limited federal government, overseeing the doings of state governments, ensuring constitutional uniformity but restricted in the power to mandate or control the respective states. One that completely deferred on social issues to the states. One that was strong on national defense but extremely reserved in the use of the military. One that promoted free and open trade and commerce between ALL people. One that believed the lesser the tax on ANY individual OR corporation, the better.
On the State level: I would want a libertarian type government, fiscally conservative, and disengaged from social cultural debates. Allow THE PEOPLE to establish their OWN rules, boundaries and limitations, with the confines of what they are comfortable with, and not what government mandates. A pro-business government, which helped bring prosperity to the state, so the inhabitants benefit with good paying jobs and economic activity. A government that believed "opportunity" is far greater than "entitlement."
At the Federal level; One that believed in a small limited federal government, overseeing the doings of state governments, ensuring constitutional uniformity but restricted in the power to mandate or control the respective states. One that completely deferred on social issues to the states. One that was strong on national defense but extremely reserved in the use of the military. One that promoted free and open trade and commerce between ALL people. One that believed the lesser the tax on ANY individual OR corporation, the better.
On the State level: I would want a libertarian type government, fiscally conservative, and disengaged from social cultural debates. Allow THE PEOPLE to establish their OWN rules, boundaries and limitations, with the confines of what they are comfortable with, and not what government mandates. A pro-business government, which helped bring prosperity to the state, so the inhabitants benefit with good paying jobs and economic activity. A government that believed "opportunity" is far greater than "entitlement."
You have no idea the dichotomies you place yourself in with those type aspirations, don't you? Perhaps an education might help but that's a mighty big "might", dicklicker.