Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 38 of 38

Thread: A test for your political stance

  1. #31
    Senior Member Rollyn01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    258
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rainmaker View Post
    And this is exactly the reason why you're in charge of the preps at the bunker. You always want an autocrat in charge during times of martial law.
    I rather be considered a technocrat as I believe that only those with the actual and proper knowledge of the sciences should be in charge. However, as I don't see anything like that happening in the near future due to the many imbecilic leaders that keep get elected, I see that the only way forward is to put an autocrat in charge who's main goal will be to completely remove all federal-level politicians from power and regulate the reelection of their replacement.

    Primarily anyone who receive any political funding greater then $500.00 from any entity, regardless of the reason or intended use, would be ban from holding any public office. Each and everyone that passes after that would be screened to the same extend of someone trying to obtaining a top-secret clearance. Once cleared for that, their finances would be monitored for at least a year. If any infraction occurs, they would be charged through the use of the RICO Act. Then, and only then, will they be allowed to be elected for public office.

    But that's just me.
    Efficiency through redundancy is a contradiction in terms.

    Attrition is not an effective means of combat.

    “The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don’t just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and riffle their pockets for new vocabulary.” – James Nicoll

  2. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Columbus, ohio
    Posts
    3,329
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rollyn01 View Post
    I rather be considered a technocrat as I believe that only those with the actual and proper knowledge of the sciences should be in charge. However, as I don't see anything like that happening in the near future due to the many imbecilic leaders that keep get elected,
    And who's fault is it, that those imbecils keep getting re-ellected. US the voters.

  3. #33
    Senior Member Rollyn01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    258
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by garhkal View Post
    And who's fault is it, that those imbeciles keep getting re-elected. US the voters.
    Yes, most of the voting public are very ignorant of what needs to be done due mainly to a lack of an education in civics. Most of them only think of themselves. This isn't that bad until they start making decisions that serves them only. This is the fundamental problem with politics: how can the public be served in a way that allows an individual live a comfortable life without unduly causing harm to another individual trying to do the same? Our definition of harm changes like the wind and our ability to justify any action, good or bad and with disregard of the harm it causes, is a deep-seated problem that needs to be addressed before we could even begin to move on. This is why I would rather have a technocratic system of governance as it would require a well supported education system in order to work.

    Imagination, intelligence, integrity are what I believe to be the three main factors of a person's ability to reason. Being limited in any one of those greatly reduces a person's ability to make any reasonable decision. If we don't help people learn to increase these factors, we will continue to have a society that is run by imbeciles.
    Efficiency through redundancy is a contradiction in terms.

    Attrition is not an effective means of combat.

    “The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don’t just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and riffle their pockets for new vocabulary.” – James Nicoll

  4. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    965
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by garhkal View Post
    And who's fault is it, that those imbecils keep getting re-ellected. US the voters.
    One party is dedicated to anti-science, the Republicans, the Democrats tend to be fairly ignorant of science but not particularly hostile. Stop electing republicans and much of the problem is solved.

  5. #35
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeKerriii View Post
    One party is dedicated to anti-science, the Republicans, the Democrats tend to be fairly ignorant of science but not particularly hostile. Stop electing republicans and much of the problem is solved.
    There ya go. That's a sound plan right there. Cuz' aint none of dem der 'Publicans b'leeves in that voodoo science stuff.

  6. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    965
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sandsjames View Post
    There ya go. That's a sound plan right there. Cuz' aint none of dem der 'Publicans b'leeves in that voodoo science stuff.
    In 2008 all the Republican candidates indicated they were new-earth creationists and that is about as ignorantly anti-science as you can get. The Current crop is no better.

    They put an openly ignorant Luddite, Gohmert, in charge of the Science committee.

    All Republicans might not be anti-science but the party itself is anti-science and the clowns running the party are also.

  7. #37
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MikeKerriii View Post
    In 2008 all the Republican candidates indicated they were new-earth creationists and that is about as ignorantly anti-science as you can get. The Current crop is no better.

    They put an openly ignorant Luddite, Gohmert, in charge of the Science committee.

    All Republicans might not be anti-science but the party itself is anti-science and the clowns running the party are also.
    Especially Ben Carson, the doctor, who probably doesn't believe anything scientific.

  8. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    965
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sandsjames View Post
    Especially Ben Carson, the doctor, who probably doesn't believe anything scientific.
    The Good doctor believe that most of biology and all of physics since the start of the 20th Century is a scam. Others wish he could not hold his position on the age of the Universe. He called the big bang theory a fairy tale , and stated that Evolution is the work of Satan Besides being a nutbag, (pyramids are grain storage) he is apparently completely ignorant about science and history outside of his specialty.

    Either that or the snake-oil he hypes to suckers has rotted his brain

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •