Jump to content
LOTROCommunity
Doro

The Rage Corner

Recommended Posts

​If we're talking about a T Shirt or bumber sticker or something like that sure.  But on state house grounds that represents government speech not free speech, and should be representative of all not some.

​I doubt there's anything governmental that really represents all (the world would be an easier and more boring place if that were so). Only the majority. But, as I said, if the majority don't want it, then that's good enough to me. A government should really be the voice of the people, not a separate entity from them, so if the people want it up or want it down, it should happen. Unfortunately, that hasn't been the case in the western world for... well, I don't think it ever has been the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​I doubt there's anything governmental that really represents all (the world would be an easier and more boring place if that were so). Only the majority. But, as I said, if the majority don't want it, then that's good enough to me. A government should really be the voice of the people, not a separate entity from them, so if the people want it up or want it down, it should happen. Unfortunately, that hasn't been the case in the western world for... well, I don't think it ever has been the case.

​Speaking as someone who once wore a uniform there IS a difference between govt and free speech.  In an official capacity your speaking for all not just the ones you happen to like.  Out of uniform I can say most anything I like, in uninform I represented a more constrained verbosity.  My personal views are just that however, once in uniform your speaking for more than just yourself.  Anything said in uniform represents an official platform/position(or creative punishment details if your an idiot with a big mouth)  What is and is not displayed on governmental property falls in much the same category, any thing there reflects official speech and thought good bad ugly.

 

It's unfortunate that the symbolism of the flag was allowed to be corrupted.  However since it was allowed to represent something else, it needs to be re-evaluated by the governed weather or not it's current symbolism reflects what they want to say.

Edited by Bendin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​Speaking as someone who once wore a uniform there IS a difference between govt and free speech.  In an official capacity your speaking for all not just the ones you happen to like.  Out of uniform I can say most anything I like, in uninform I represented a more constrained verbosity.  My personal views are just that however, once in uniform your speaking for more than just yourself.  Anything said in uniform represents an official platform/position(or creative punishment details if your an idiot with a big mouth)  What is and is not displayed on governmental property falls in much the same category, any thing there reflects official speech and thought good bad ugly.

​I'm not saying there isn't a difference (in fact, I said the exact opposite). What I'm saying is there shouldn't be a difference. I'm opposed to a 'clinical' government. One that's concerned about how it looks in case it offends people. One that has people step out of office because they were caught swearing at someone. It results in a government that's less about representing the people and more about representing an ideal of the populace they've imagined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​I'm not saying there isn't a difference (in fact, I said the exact opposite). What I'm saying is there shouldn't be a difference. I'm opposed to a 'clinical' government. One that's concerned about how it looks in case it offends people. One that has people step out of office because they were caught swearing at someone. It results in a government that's less about representing the people and more about representing an ideal of the populace they've imagined.

 

It's unfortunate that the symbolism of the flag was allowed to be corrupted.  However since it was allowed to represent something else, it is being re-evaluated by the governed weather or not it's current symbolism reflects what they want to say.   That's not clinical govt.  That's one that actually is trying to represent the governed.

Edited by Bendin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​It's unfortunate that the symbolism of the flag was allowed to be corrupted.  However since it was allowed to represent something else, it is being re-evaluated by the governed weather or not it's current symbolism reflects what they want to say.   That's not clinical govt.  That's one that actually is trying to represent the governed.

​It will be a clinical government if they remove it without actually polling the populace. Otherwise, they're trying to represent their own ideals, by judging themselves if it says what they want to say, not what the people want to decide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​It will be a clinical government if they remove it without actually polling the populace. Otherwise, they're trying to represent their own ideals, by judging themselves if it says what they want to say, not what the people want to decide.

uhm such things aren't determined by polls.  believe me nothing so tame.  What will happen is members of the state house & senate will now go back to their  contingencies and get talked to or get yelled at depending for a few weeks, answer phones, email, and office visitors along with all their aids.  Then come back and vote on it.  Believe me on something like this they are most definitely going to look for, and listen to the largest sample size they can find. Elections coming up and all that.  This is one of those issues that can sink you if you guess wrong about your constituency, they will want to know within a very small margin of error before they vote.

 

EDIT keep in mind this has been building for some time, there have been multiple votes due to public pressure already, with  various legislative compromises. Particularly in the last two decades.  As it became more divisive, pressure increased in step.  The last one moved it from the dome of the capital to where it now.  This isn't a fly by night issue, nor arbitrary.  As the publics viewpoints changed so did it's placement.  Assuming the trend holds true it's only a matter of time.

Edited by Bendin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO the retailers not keeping the Confederate flag in stock (especially in the South) seems a bit of an overstretch.

While I do find flying the flag outside of the South as being rather... odd... (like seeing it flown in Colorado of all places), I don't see the harm of letting it be bought.

The other thing here, how many of the posters here have actually been in the US South for an extended period of time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO the retailers not keeping the Confederate flag in stock (especially in the South) seems a bit of an overstretch.

While I do find flying the flag outside of the South as being rather... odd... (like seeing it flown in Colorado of all places), I don't see the harm of letting it be bought.

The other thing here, how many of the posters here have actually been in the US South for an extended period of time?

​Yea that one should be determined by market forces.  If there is enough demand or if there isn't will ultimately be the determining factor.

 

For me all my life cept 20 in the AF, 2 GGreats that fought on each side and survived and 1 that didn't whom I never met(obviously).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

uhm such things aren't determined by polls.  believe me nothing so tame.  What will happen is members of the state house & senate will now go back to their  contingencies and get talked to or get yelled at depending for a few weeks, answer phones, email, and office visitors along with all their aids.  Then come back and vote on it.  Believe me on something like this they are most definitely going to look for, and listen to the largest sample size they can find. Elections coming up and all that.  This is one of those issues that can sink you if you guess wrong about your constituency, they will want to know within a very small margin of error before they vote.

EDIT keep in mind this has been building for some time, there have been multiple votes due to public pressure already, with  various legislative compromises. Particularly in the last two decades.  As it became more divisive, pressure increased in step.  The last one moved it from the dome of the capital to where it now.  This isn't a fly by night issue, nor arbitrary.  As the publics viewpoints changed so did it's placement.  Assuming the trend holds true it's only a matter of time.

I know they aren't, which is why I'm saying that if they don't poll the populace, then it will be a clinical government (which is what it is). Going by constituencies has the problem of taking the opinion of only the loudest voices. Much like how UKIP in my country got 3rd place in the elections just through sheer number of votes, but only got 1 seat out of something like 200 seats because their supporters were more spread-out than other parties. If they do the same and just go by what pressures certain politicians are under by vocal minorities, then they're not representing the people, they're representing themselves. Which brings me right back to the idea that governments behave as separate entities with no real ties to the actual population. They're divorced from each other, which I am opposed to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know they aren't, which is why I'm saying that if they don't poll the populace, then it will be a clinical government (which is what it is). Going by constituencies has the problem of taking the opinion of only the loudest voices. Much like how UKIP in my country got 3rd place in the elections just through sheer number of votes, but only got 1 seat out of something like 200 seats because their supporters were more spread-out than other parties. If they do the same and just go by what pressures certain politicians are under by vocal minorities, then they're not representing the people, they're representing themselves. Which brings me right back to the idea that governments behave as separate entities with no real ties to the actual population. They're divorced from each other, which I am opposed to.

​Wait, so are you actually expecting the US Government to do what the populace actually wants?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know they aren't, which is why I'm saying that if they don't poll the populace, then it will be a clinical government (which is what it is). Going by constituencies has the problem of taking the opinion of only the loudest voices. Much like how UKIP in my country got 3rd place in the elections just through sheer number of votes, but only got 1 seat out of something like 200 seats because their supporters were more spread-out than other parties. If they do the same and just go by what pressures certain politicians are under by vocal minorities, then they're not representing the people, they're representing themselves. Which brings me right back to the idea that governments behave as separate entities with no real ties to the actual population. They're divorced from each other, which I am opposed to.

That's why I added the EDIT.  This hasn't been a one shot issue, it's been one of the more central ones down here for a long time up to and including the governorship.  As public opinion and pressure has shifted so has the flag. And we're talking about districts in a STATE not a country, much of it rural, not as many people nor as hard to find and talk to as you think.  I think NY city has a higher pop than the whole state of SC.

th?&id=JN.reaG0EcD8XQrcFnrf4zZEA&w=300&hth?id=JN.Le1%2fPf23CtGkc85bAVjF9A&w=266&

 

If it was being decided on pure volume it would have been gone years ago

Edited by Bendin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's one of the weird things about the US population though, if you look at the counties, and how the counties vote, most of the rural counties are actually Republican (or lean towards the Republican party), yet the cities are largely Democtratic Party leaning.  This is especially pronounced in a blue state like Washington, as basically the eastern half of the state is red, yet the vote generally follows what King County (aka Seattle city center) votes because it has something like 8 million people living in the county, which is a majority of the state's population.

Yeah, the US has some really screwed up politics with geography, but it's got nothing on....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9rGX91rq5I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always wondered why the voting systems are so different around the world. I understand it's extremly difficult to find a system that really represents the opinion of the people, because each system has it's advantages and disadvantages, but a district system feels really weird to me, because I live in a country that doesn't use districts for determining seat distribution. And probably that's mainly because I'm used to that system.

 

I think we have a lot of people from different countries here, so I'm curious what are the best voting systems according to you guys, and especially why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we have a lot of people from different countries here, so I'm curious what are the best voting systems according to you guys, and especially why.

There is no best voting system because democracy is inherently flawed. It's based on the premise that the majority are smart enough to know what's best for them as a whole. But, as we all know, the majority are fucking retarded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No system is best, there are many factors that can change how good a system is.  For example first past the post works well in a 2 party system, but not so well in a multi party system

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to see governance via referenda personally, In this electronic age it could be accomplished relatively cheaply, easily and effectively. Of the more mainstream electoral systems I prefer the comparative anarchy of a proportional representation system.

In Canada's Parliamentary system the elected representatives do not reflect the local constituent population but the party to which they belong. Hate that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Electronic voting is not a good idea.  There is no way that it would be safe from hackers.  You also have to consider that there are many people that dont have access to the internet or have even used the internet, especially in the older generation who are the most likely to vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There would be obstacles cossieuk but it could be done. Biometrics are used more and more frequently as a identification tool and ,mass use should serve to refine the technology and make it cheaper. You are correct in saying that security from hacking would also have to be addressed but is certainly in the realm of possibility. As for people who aren't technology adept these same people (all of us) currently have to physically travel to a polling station in order to participate so electronic availability should make that process easier as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There would be obstacles cossieuk but it could be done. Biometrics are used more and more frequently as a identification tool and ,mass use should serve to refine the technology and make it cheaper. You are correct in saying that security from hacking would also have to be addressed but is certainly in the realm of possibility. As for people who aren't technology adept these same people (all of us) currently have to physically travel to a polling station in order to participate so electronic availability should make that process easier as well.

​You dont have to go to the polling station, you an get a postal vote.

I would be more interested in ways to encourage more people to actually vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Voting is compulsory in Australia and seems to work OK. Perhaps their system could be adapted for other regions.

Absentee ballots are indeed available and there are other methods that are used to help people access the voting process. Electronic voting systems should serve to further streamline those accommodations, I believe, particularly in the identity confirmation area.

Edited by fittybolger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't trust Electronic Voting systems.  Imho voting should be on paper only, filled manually by pen and counted manually by actual person and not machine.  It should stay as pure analog only system.

Edited by drul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is inevitable.

Same as cash transactions have decreased over the last 40 years to the point we are today and will, eventually, be phased out completely.

One issue that hasn't been raised in opposition yet is the sanctity of the anonymous vote. With an electronic system there would have to be means to verify the voting transaction and this would necessitate the entire voting record to be accessible. Some means would also need to be developed to ensure that aspect of security is also protected. There are obstacles but, hey, we went to the moon! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally time to get around to a rage on immigration!

There's been trouble for a little while with transport through the Channel Tunnel (connects England to Francis under the Channel). Lots of lorries and tourist vehicles use it to get to and from Britain by train. But there's a massive problem with illegal immigrants stowing themselves away in vehicles caught in the traffic on the way to the tunnel. They swarm the roads and bang on doors and windows trying to get in. Calais in France has an enormous problem, with immigrants setting up huge camps and makeshift shelters while they wait for months to get lucky and smuggle themselves unnoticed into Britain. Ridiculous that they can be left to try so many times.

But when an immigrant makes it into Britain without being detected until it's too late, do you know who gets the fine? The lorry driver. Up to £2,000 per immigrant found to have entered illegally through their vehicle. They then just deport the immigrant back to Calais (because they never have any proof of where they're actually from) or, if the immigrant just says the word 'asylum', they're put into temporary accommodation while they await the verdict... where they never get found again because they've go on the run.

What makes this worse is just how weak our immigration policy really is. There was the case of one guy from Nigeria, who arrived by plane to the UK with forged documents, claimed he was 15 (he was clearly late 20s - early 30s), had an entire booklet of answers to questions he would likely be asked, lied multiple times to the immigration officers and then, when they laid out the option for asylum to him, he was handed over to social services, put in a house in London and then disappeared before they could make a decision about him. What sort of nonsense is that?! The guy was clearly entering illegally and they gave him a house!

And they know we're useless with immigration. That's why they all flock here. They know if they beg and cry and lie, they'll get let in freely but told to go to an immigration centre in a couple of weeks, which they never do.

Now I'm not a fan of strict immigration myself. It's normally the reason that people enter illegally in the first place, with forms or requirements being so complicated that the easier option is to just break the law. I'm of the opinion that if you want to live somewhere, you should be able to. Providing, of course, that you can speak the language and can fund yourself while you're there (and you're not an ex-con for a serious crime). But when you have a system that's so open to abuse as the UK has, open immigration policies don't work. They need to reform how our country works, including benefits, health care, labour, and housing, or start fixing our border problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Until France is willing to do something at their end the problems in Calais and the Channel Tunnel will only get worse.  The French dont want to do anything as they can just let them into the UK and it is not their problem.

Another problem is what is happening in the Med.  Many people are fleeing countries like Lybia where there are massive problem, many cause by us bombing the place and then walking away creating power vacuums, and they are also looking over their shoulders at ISIS.  They are getting into Italy but the Italians are not doing anything to keep them there till it is established that they are allowed to be there. They left them go and thanks to the Schengen Convention, they can move freely throughout the EU as there are no boarder controls till they try to get into the UK.

This is a problem of our own making and one that will take all of the EU working together to fix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×