Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

mattyrm wrote: See, this is why an absolute monarch or a dictator is way better than the pretence of fething diplomacy we have in the US/UK. The older and wiser I get, the more and more I loathe our systems of government.

Basically all the politicians take the fething piss. I would rather just have one guy in charge at the top who decides everything, it has to be far more effective, and I'm good at following orders. If he passes a law I don't like, i think id just quietly follow it, better that than the current pretence of harmony, and we basically lie, back-stab, scheme, and argue about anything and everything and nothing ever gets done.

In the UK they have a £500,000, 6 month court case when a guy wants to get his tree chopped down. I'd rather just have some slightly crazed bloke in charge make all the decisions once a week. You know how they used to petition the king?

And I'm not just saying this because I'm a Royalist, I am deadly serious! I would much rather have The Queen have absolute aauthority and scrap all of parliament, but I think id even rather have Kim Jong in charge than continue with all these stinking fething bureaucrat's!

Caesar was ace as well.

Finally a person who has opened his eyes. Democracy has never worked, and never will work. It is a fact of life that the human race needs a strong leader. People just can't pull it off and settle their differences for one single minute.

Avatar 720 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

mattyrm wrote: See, this is why an absolute monarch or a dictator is way better than the pretence of fething diplomacy we have in the US/UK. The older and wiser I get, the more and more I loathe our systems of government.

Basically all the politicians take the fething piss. I would rather just have one guy in charge at the top who decides everything, it has to be far more effective, and I'm good at following orders. If he passes a law I don't like, i think id just quietly follow it, better that than the current pretence of harmony, and we basically lie, back-stab, scheme, and argue about anything and everything and nothing ever gets done.

In the UK they have a £500,000, 6 month court case when a guy wants to get his tree chopped down. I'd rather just have some slightly crazed bloke in charge make all the decisions once a week. You know how they used to petition the king?

And I'm not just saying this because I'm a Royalist, I am deadly serious! I would much rather have The Queen have absolute aauthority and scrap all of parliament, but I think id even rather have Kim Jong in charge than continue with all these stinking fething bureaucrat's!

Caesar was ace as well.

What if that one guy is Caligula, Stalin, Pol Pot, or even worse - Al Gore?

There's always Civil War. Give Matty something to do in his spare time

This is true. And now for no particular reason:





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Battle Brother Ambrosius wrote:

mattyrm wrote: See, this is why an absolute monarch or a dictator is way better than the pretence of fething diplomacy we have in the US/UK. The older and wiser I get, the more and more I loathe our systems of government.

Basically all the politicians take the fething piss. I would rather just have one guy in charge at the top who decides everything, it has to be far more effective, and I'm good at following orders. If he passes a law I don't like, i think id just quietly follow it, better that than the current pretence of harmony, and we basically lie, back-stab, scheme, and argue about anything and everything and nothing ever gets done.

In the UK they have a £500,000, 6 month court case when a guy wants to get his tree chopped down. I'd rather just have some slightly crazed bloke in charge make all the decisions once a week. You know how they used to petition the king?

And I'm not just saying this because I'm a Royalist, I am deadly serious! I would much rather have The Queen have absolute aauthority and scrap all of parliament, but I think id even rather have Kim Jong in charge than continue with all these stinking fething bureaucrat's!

Caesar was ace as well.

Finally a person who has opened his eyes. Democracy has never worked, and never will work. It is a fact of life that the human race needs a strong leader. People just can't pull it off and settle their differences for one single minute.

the world needs a "firm hand" eh? Careful what you wish for. The first against the wall might be you.

Battle Brother Ambrosius wrote:It is a shame the Republicans are so arrogant that they automatically disagree with anything Obama says :( They should at least co-operate and try to make decisions that benefit both sides, and not trying to hold onto their ideals so tightly.

Whereas, the meek and mild democrats line up to cooperate with a Republican president? Uh, I don't think so. It's not the responsibility of the opposition party to simply roll-over to the demands of the majority party.

The so-called Jobs bill is a load of crap. It's just another payoff to unions, who will turn around and give some of the money back to obama/the democrats. A lot of people would call that using taxpayer money to engage in money laundering.

If this bill were so sweet that obama could walk on water while declaring it's benefits to mankind, the democrats have a MAJORITY in the Senate. They don't need a single republican vote to pass it. The republicans didn't filibuster it. If it's such a good deal, why didn't enough democrats vote for it to pass?

mattyrm wrote:In the UK they have a £500,000, 6 month court case when a guy wants to get his tree chopped down. I'd rather just have some slightly crazed bloke in charge make all the decisions once a week. You know how they used to petition the king?

If I'm reading this right, you don't mind the fact that the guy needs permission to chop down a tree on his own property, your objection is that the Tree Chopping Bureaucracy is too expensive and time consuming?

How about let the guy decide for himself whether he wants to chop down his own damn tree?

biccat wrote:
How about let the guy decide for himself whether he wants to chop down his own damn tree?

What if it falls on my property?

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
How about let the guy decide for himself whether he wants to chop down his own damn tree?

What if it falls on my property?

I assume you're familiar with private torts.

I have to say it, but chocolate torts are much better.

Mmm...caaaaaake.

Phanatik wrote:
Whereas, the meek and mild democrats line up to cooperate with a Republican president?

One might think that, looking at the legislative history under GWB.

Phanatik wrote:
The republicans didn't filibuster it.

Yes, yes they did. Notice the vote was 50-49 in favor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:
I assume you're familiar with private torts.

I didn't realize that torts were not governed by law, or that the state did not promulgate law.

Frazzled wrote:They don't

You're right, they don't try to compromise.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:I assume you're familiar with private torts.

I didn't realize that torts were not governed by law, or that the state did not promulgate law.

You're smart enough to know that torts are compensatory rather than proscriptive. And that in the American system the trespass tort is not a function of statutory law.

biccat wrote:
You're smart enough to know that torts are compensatory rather than proscriptive. And that in the American system the trespass tort is not a function of statutory law.

Compensation, when administered punitively, is necessarily proscriptive.

In any case, I wasn't speaking of statute so much as precedent.

Frazzled wrote:

mattyrm wrote: See, this is why an absolute monarch or a dictator is way better than the pretence of fething diplomacy we have in the US/UK. The older and wiser I get, the more and more I loathe our systems of government.

Basically all the politicians take the fething piss. I would rather just have one guy in charge at the top who decides everything, it has to be far more effective, and I'm good at following orders. If he passes a law I don't like, i think id just quietly follow it, better that than the current pretence of harmony, and we basically lie, back-stab, scheme, and argue about anything and everything and nothing ever gets done.

In the UK they have a £500,000, 6 month court case when a guy wants to get his tree chopped down. I'd rather just have some slightly crazed bloke in charge make all the decisions once a week. You know how they used to petition the king?

And I'm not just saying this because I'm a Royalist, I am deadly serious! I would much rather have The Queen have absolute aauthority and scrap all of parliament, but I think id even rather have Kim Jong in charge than continue with all these stinking fething bureaucrat's!

Caesar was ace as well.

What if that one guy is Caligula, Stalin, Pol Pot, or even worse - Al Gore?

Yeah as I said Fraz, i'd be happy with any of the above. Id just follow orders, do as I'm told. Im just so sick of people whinging, whine whine whine, complain complain strike stike whinge whine.. God. Its enough to make a man go nuts with rage!

And no more politicians, then I think id be happier with a Pol Pot.

As long as there is less fething complaining (they would kill people that whinged) I think I would be much happier. Id make sure my family didn't do any fething complaining as well, and Matty would follow orders and go places!

dogma wrote:Compensation, when administered punitively, is necessarily proscriptive.

You're making the assumption that compensation is punitive. It's not, it's compensatory.

dogma wrote:In any case, I wasn't speaking of statute so much as precedent.

Adjudicating grievances is a function of the state, but is not a necessary function. Private law is a growing alternative.

biccat wrote:
You're making the assumption that compensation is punitive. It's not, it's compensatory.

No, I didn't assume compensation is punitive, re-read my post.

biccat wrote:
Adjudicating grievances is a function of the state, but is not a necessary function. Private law is a growing alternative.

And when private groups adjudicate grievances, they take on a function of the state.

Feudalism was a matter of privacy, but we still call it a form of government.

Your legal theory debate is getting sprayed on my poltical thread. Get your own buddy!

mattyrm wrote:. Im just so sick of people whinging, whine whine whine, complain complain strike stike whinge whine..

I like you, Matty, but this is one of those sentences that sticks in the craw. Whining about the whining whiners, as it were.

dogma wrote:

mattyrm wrote:. Im just so sick of people whinging, whine whine whine, complain complain strike stike whinge whine..

I like you, Matty, but this is one of those sentences that sticks in the craw. Whining about the whining whiners, as it were.

I suppose so...

But, you know, it wasn't just whinging for whinging's sake, it was part of my long winded explanation for possibly preferring to live in a dictatorship.

I honestly think I would prefer it, If we just werent allowed to complain or we got slotted. You know, like when your on a long military deploymeny and you just get into a routine after you have been there a while?

I like the idea of just doing what I'm told and going to work and maybe not having as much personal freedom, but I didnt have that in the military and I was happy. I think that "freedom" is definately an overrated concept, and lets be honest, we dont really have "freedom" anyways.

A loss of personal choice and freedom for a stable routine and not having to put up with politics and weirdo's and ....

.....

Protestors!

Would be alright!

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:...his only real political asset is his ability to grab an opportunity quickly and run with it.

That's pretty much the only political asset that exists.

Not always true, genuine statesmanship beyond opportunism exists. Also many many politicians dither and drop fleeting opportunities, Obama can be relied upon not to make that mistake. My comment was intended as a partial compliment.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Ask Obama that question about his bill, sending something designed to fail so he could then complain about it.

Sound strategy.

It is sound if you have the media firmly on your side. You can set yourself up to fail on the oppositions 'bloody hands'; but it can either appear as the opposition saving the nation from poor policy, or its the opposition scuppering good policy for partisan gain.

While there will be favoured elements in the press reliably crowing both sides, sometimes and on some issues the pulse tends to beat one way over time. I think that on the balance the US media is against Obama at the moment, and with the focus now on who will lead the Republicans into the election their opinion is getting the highlight.

Thus while setting yourself up to be seen to be scuppered by 'self interested' opposition politicians is potentially a good ploy, I dont think it will work well here.

Orlanth wrote:
Not always true, genuine statesmanship beyond opportunism exists.

I would argue that statesmen are nothing more than successful opportunists.

Orlanth wrote:
My comment was intended as a partial compliment.

I didn't mean to suggest that it wasn't.

Orlanth wrote:
Thus while setting yourself up to be seen to be scuppered by 'self interested' opposition politicians is potentially a good ploy, I dont think it will work well here.

Maybe, but you have to remember that elections aren't generally, in the US, decided by the supposed independents. Rather, the real issue is getting enough of the faithful to go vote, and the faithful are always willing to believe the opposition is to blame.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:
I like the idea of just doing what I'm told and going to work and maybe not having as much personal freedom, but I didnt have that in the military and I was happy. I think that "freedom" is definately an overrated concept, and lets be honest, we dont really have "freedom" anyways.

I knew there was a reason I liked you.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Not always true, genuine statesmanship beyond opportunism exists.

I would argue that statesmen are nothing more than successful opportunists.

Point understood and acknowledged. However I considered a true statesman is seperated from a politician by for want of a better term 'vision'. A statesman has an agenda beyond get elected and stay elected. However as a statesman also requires initiative to deal with changing political circumstances I can see how this skill be be consisdered the deciding factor between a competent and a non competent leader.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Thus while setting yourself up to be seen to be scuppered by 'self interested' opposition politicians is potentially a good ploy, I dont think it will work well here.

Maybe, but you have to remember that elections aren't generally, in the US, decided by the supposed independents. Rather, the real issue is getting enough of the faithful to go vote, and the faithful are always willing to believe the opposition is to blame.

Fair point, but largely academic. However in this I dont think the US and UK are much different. According to somke sources approx 80% of people never change their voting habits in terms of party support ovedr their lifetime. The floating voter, the tactical voter and the disillusioned/apathetic voter are the three keys. The US differs here in that there is a two party system so there is little tactical voting, wheras the UK elections are broadly challenged by is two and a half parties, regional differences aside.

All in all motivating the faithful and shaking up the undecided is the key, Always has been always will be. So should it not be assumed that all the poltical ploys take this into account in the first place. So therefore whatever political tactics are played its always playing to roughly the same numbers, ignoring the bulk party faithful as a given.

Orlanth wrote:While there will be favoured elements in the press reliably crowing both sides, sometimes and on some issues the pulse tends to beat one way over time. I think that on the balance the US media is against Obama at the moment, and with the focus now on who will lead the Republicans into the election their opinion is getting the highlight.

I don't think so. The media is starting to turn against Obama, the fawning support of '08-early '10 has started to fade but the media is still generally pro-Obama. At least, measuring by the standard they treated Clinton and Bush (pick one).

The focus now is on the Republican nomination because there really hasn't been a lot to capture the national attention recently.

As things refuse to get better and the main storyline is the economy and politics, the media will continue to turn more and more from Obama. They'll never run stories like in '06 ("How can Democrats Win the Senate?") or '10 ("How can Democrats Hold the House?") from a Republican angle, but their audiences will recognize the shift in coverage.

The best thing that could happen for President Obama right now is another Natalie Holloway or Elian Gonzalez human-interest story that deflects media coverage onto an unrelated issue.

biccat wrote:

Orlanth wrote:While there will be favoured elements in the press reliably crowing both sides, sometimes and on some issues the pulse tends to beat one way over time. I think that on the balance the US media is against Obama at the moment, and with the focus now on who will lead the Republicans into the election their opinion is getting the highlight.

I don't think so. The media is starting to turn against Obama, the fawning support of '08-early '10 has started to fade but the media is still generally pro-Obama. At least, measuring by the standard they treated Clinton and Bush (pick one).

The focus now is on the Republican nomination because there really hasn't been a lot to capture the national attention recently.

As things refuse to get better and the main storyline is the economy and politics, the media will continue to turn more and more from Obama. They'll never run stories like in '06 ("How can Democrats Win the Senate?") or '10 ("How can Democrats Hold the House?") from a Republican angle, but their audiences will recognize the shift in coverage.

The best thing that could happen for President Obama right now is another Natalie Holloway or Elian Gonzalez human-interest story that deflects media coverage onto an unrelated issue.

Funnily enough this was my point, though without the topical details added. Obama is not currently in favour with the pulse of the media, and thus should not try media ploys that are not secure wins, as any sway of balance is not unlikely to tip in favour of the Republicans.

Hence the sudden interest in the OccupyMybutt protests.

Orlanth wrote:
All in all motivating the faithful and shaking up the undecided is the key, Always has been always will be.

My contention is that undecided "voters" are few and far between, and generally don't vote.

For example, ANES reports that only 48% of independents voted in 2008. This is relatively high, but as with all studies of voting over-representative (the aggregate number is 78%, which we know didn't happen, people lie in voting surveys all the time). If we consider that the real turnout in 2008 was 57%, we can determine that Independents likely came out at about 66% of their reported rate so ~35% voted, much lower than the equivalent ~55% of partisans.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:
The focus now is on the Republican nomination because there really hasn't been a lot to capture the national attention recently.

And because its the Republican nomination.

National primaries tend to be things that get a lot of media attention. Go figure.

mattyrm wrote: But, you know, it wasn't just whinging for whinging's sake, it was part of my long winded explanation for possibly preferring to live in a dictatorship.

I honestly think I would prefer it, If we just werent allowed to complain or we got slotted. You know, like when your on a long military deploymeny and you just get into a routine after you have been there a while?

I like the idea of just doing what I'm told and going to work and maybe not having as much personal freedom, but I didnt have that in the military and I was happy. I think that "freedom" is definately an overrated concept, and lets be honest, we dont really have "freedom" anyways.

A loss of personal choice and freedom for a stable routine and not having to put up with politics and weirdo's and ....

First, I believe that "whinging" is a suburban residence area in the Harry Potter series; [though I see it's from the Middle English - so learn something new each day, eh?]
Second, it sounds like you might be happiest being sentenced to prison. You would have people telling you what to do all of the time, so you wouldn't have to think or be responsible for yourself, your meals would be paid for by the taxpayer, you could learn a trade, like making license plates, and the opportunities to make new friends would be boundless.

Have a nice day!

Prison would be a walk in the park. Proper beds, hot running water, and food not sealed in a MRE. Sounds easy to me. and i thought 6 months in a shellscrape was easy.

However.. there are no women, and being a legendary lover, the guilt of depriving legions of adoring women of my loins would leave me crippled with guilt! ;-)

mattyrm wrote:Prison would be a walk in the park. Proper beds, hot running water, and food not sealed in a MRE. Sounds easy to me. and i thought 6 months in a shellscrape was easy.

However.. there are no women, and being a legendary lover, the guilt of depriving legions of adoring women of my loins would leave me crippled with guilt! ;-)

That's why you drop the soap.

Phanatik wrote: You would have people telling you what to do all of the time, so you wouldn't have to think or be responsible for yourself...

Even when people tell you what to do, you have to think about doing it or not doing it, and will likely be held responsible for the choice you inevitably make.

Orlanth wrote:Obama is doing whaat Blair did and Brown tried to do.

Spend spend spend, it doesnt matter how much the nation owes, thats for you suckers to pay. I have a re-election looming.

Blair sold our gold reserves, at a buyers price simply to buy a tax cut and spending rise for the 2001 election. Effectively sold the family silver for a frolic. Brown squandered what was left of our economy in a lunatic plot to tax cut while spending and put us into monsterous debt.

The US could do well to see through Obama's mad spending plans. Short term = spend, longer term = save.

Now is the time for keen cuts not ambitious projects.

I agree that Blair's policy to maintain deficit budgets during good economic times was terrible policy. But England in 2001 is not the USA in 2011. Fiscal policy must be determined by the needs of the economy, and right now that need is to stimulate the economy through deficit expenditure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:Obama is the US's Tony Blair, he wants to follow the model and attain the same goal. Obama is was and always will be a chancer, his only real political asset is his ability to grab an opportunity quickly and run with it.

Unfortunately for Obama the global recession means the US cannot afford a 'Blair term' right now. This wont stop Obama from trying to cash in though, and that will be very costly for the American tax payer, not just for the current generation, but also for the next.

This is completely and entirely devoid of content. It means literally nothing.

Fiscal policy is not to be decided by incredibly vague personality assessments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:There's also the possibility that some of those people in the Senate might actually not think that some aspects of the spending bill are in the nation's best interest.

Crazy, I know.

Do you consider that at all likely, given the political rhetoric that's existed in Washington during Obama's presidency? I mean, just think about how much the Republicans freaked out over Obama trying to pass a healthcare reform that was previously a Republican model...

Obama knew this bill was going to fail, it's part of his re-election campaign - "look at all the jobs I was trying to create". Now he can claim the Republicans fillibustered his jobs bill.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote: See, this is why an absolute monarch or a dictator is way better than the pretence of fething diplomacy we have in the US/UK. The older and wiser I get, the more and more I loathe our systems of government.

Basically all the politicians take the fething piss. I would rather just have one guy in charge at the top who decides everything, it has to be far more effective, and I'm good at following orders. If he passes a law I don't like, i think id just quietly follow it, better that than the current pretence of harmony, and we basically lie, back-stab, scheme, and argue about anything and everything and nothing ever gets done.

It takes a very strange combination of cynicism and optimism to believe that democracy is so terrible, and dictatorship so wonderful.

I mean, go look at the dictatorships around the world. Bureacracy sucks, but the nepotism that surrounds a dictator is far, far worse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:Yes, yes they did. Notice the vote was 50-49 in favor.

The way that was written in the opening article was terrible, as it pretended the Democrats failed to get enough votes to pass the bill, when they simply failed to get enough votes to beat fillibuster.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:You're smart enough to know that torts are compensatory rather than proscriptive. And that in the American system the trespass tort is not a function of statutory law.

And you outght to be smart enough to realise a regulatory environment built entirely around punishment after the fact would be utterly disfunctional.

sebster wrote:

biccat wrote:You're smart enough to know that torts are compensatory rather than proscriptive. And that in the American system the trespass tort is not a function of statutory law.

And you outght to be smart enough to realise a regulatory environment built entirely around punishment after the fact would be utterly disfunctional.

Are you honestly defending the position that a person needs government permission to chop down a tree on their own property? Such regulations are absurd both facially and usually as applied.