>> ^rougy:
>> ^NetRunner:
As for your lament about the two party system being broken, do you really think more parties would help? The likliest "new" parties would start on the extreme right (libertarian/tea party) or to the left of Democrats (green/progressive). Neither would be more likely to compromise, given that their entire existence would have come from their otherwise uncompromising ideological stances.

That's where you're dead wrong.
They would have to compromise more.
They would be forced to compromise precisely because there are more points of view being represented, not in spite of the fact.
The two-party system is the punchline of our already fucked up system of government.


Let's game this out. Say we have a horribly broken health care system. Democrats want a moderate/conservative reform that will mostly re-regulate the existing private system, with a public option. The Greens want single-payer. The Republicans and Libertarians would rather see the country burn than see government create new entitlements or regulations.

On a lark, let's say the partisan breakdown in the Senate is something like 10 Greens, 50 Democrats, 30 Republicans, and 10 Libertarians.

How would things be even the slightest bit more conducive to compromise? The Greens could join the right-wing caucus and defeat the bill, but that could happen now if people like Sanders, Feingold, or Brown jumped ship. We'd still have to find something that pleased them as well as the furthest-right person in the left-wing coalition.

Maybe if the right would only use the filibuster only in extreme cases (say, if we had 50 votes + Joe Biden for single payer), we'd be okay too.

The problem is the filibuster, and Senate rules generally. There used to be a bit of a gentleman's agreement in the Senate that filibusters were only to be used in extreme cases. That's a thing of the past now, and Republicans use it on everything.

Personally, I say we just eliminate the Senate entirely. The House seems a lot more functional (and representative) than the Senate.

Definite upvote. This is right up there with Dan Ackroyd's Ronco Bassomatic and Lark's Vomit Jam.

Heh, I know it! Right? And I only typed it in on a lark, when I was setting up a new account. Was bored and just couldn't think of anything else creative.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Hehe, you are totally stigmatized by your name.

If it's any consolation, you're alright in my book.

In reply to this comment by videosiftbannedme:
>> ^rasch187:
Choggie is a quality sifter. The fact that he self-destructed over a year ago doesn't give anyone the right to keep banning his new accounts, this whole 'banning the person, not the account' is just stupid. Why don't you just ban videosiftbannedme then?


I think I need a new name.

Because I get inexorably linked to people who cut their own throats, then want to come back and play, with nary an apology or any acknowledgment of wrongdoing for their past actions. I didn't get banned for being a douchebag and throwing a fit for being unable to set up another channel; I got banned for my inability to read guidelines on self-linking. Silly and ignorant on my part; I'll be the first to admit it. But I also played by the rules (once I learned them, that is!). Do you think Choggie can do the same? So, really, you all need to ask yourselves are you willing to put up with a tantrum again? That's what it boils down to.

Ultimately, if it comes to it, I can be a martyr for the cause. Hell, it's going to take me another 30 years to make it to 250 anyway. But if and when it's decided, can I at least get to wear a set of those shiny cufflinks to my execution? Everyone else has gotten a pair!

Didn't the late William F. Buckley dismantle Rand's Objectivism in an article which explained why charity was actually one of the cornerstones of Conservatism?

Anyway I recently worked with a guy in his early 20's who was extremely intelligent and accomplished (attending San Fran Conservatory of Music) who was a rabid Ron Paul / von Mises / Ayn Rand disciple.

He could spout volumes of theory, philosophy and history to back up his arguments, but when it came to everyday common sense stuff he was ignorant, like he didn't know if a job paying $26,000/yr was considered a lot of money or not, or that the name of the tool you use to "turn things" was called a crescent wrench.

Turns out he was the son of a self-made millionaire, he would take jobs doing manual labor for a few months as kind of a lark, believing that he was experiencing 'real life' when in fact he was insulated from working class reality by daddy's millions.

Interesting guy, fascinating discussions, but ultimately he was living in fantasy land.

In reply to this comment by E_Nygma:
i gotta say, i love the fact that you created your username on a lark due to a random comment thread a long time ago, and are still around and posting with it. awesome.

thanks budday, I do my best

In reply to this comment by E_Nygma:
i gotta say, i love the fact that you created your username on a lark due to a random comment thread a long time ago, and are still around and posting with it. awesome.

In reply to this comment by aceofkidneys:
That bear is wasting a lot of calories that it could be using for hibernation...
Tx budday. I do my best.

Fuck that for a lark.. X D

EndAll, exactly WHAT do you believe out of this? What do you understand the core point of this group to be?

I can't grasp ANYTHING that I could even remotely believe in amongst all this rubbish.

And do you realise that they think there's going to be some 'transcendence' in 2012? This sort of 'pinning a date that something 'wonderful' is going to happen' lark is PURE cultish mysticism, and is only resolved by them changing the date when nothing happens (7th day adventists) OR committing mas suicide to complete their 'transcendence'.

Perfect group to avoid at all costs.

He's still such a stud.

It's really funny how what probably seemed like a lark--a role in a sci-fi television show--turned out to be something that iconified this man's face and mannerisms in the hearts and minds of millions.

i gotta say, i love the fact that you created your username on a lark due to a random comment thread a long time ago, and are still around and posting with it. awesome.

In reply to this comment by aceofkidneys:
That bear is wasting a lot of calories that it could be using for hibernation...

He mightn't be the finest raconteur, but there isn't anything particulary wrong here. Police must see some pretty gruesome depravity in their line of work, it's not unknown for them to joke about it. The black humour is a way of dealing with the mess and making sense of it all.

It's not like he was in front of a crowd larking about either. He obviously thought he was amongst his peers... but guess he wasn't.

I don't see anything in that article I disagree with.

I might possibly take issue with the nefarious implications of "Obama used hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign funds to appeal to and manipulate this illiteracy", but only because it implies that this was unique to Obama's campaign, and not the general state of all political campaigns during my lifetime.

I wholeheartedly agree that Obama can't stop the economic crisis, only soften the blow. I also agree that this illiteracy and irrationalism will be Obama's greatest enemy in the years ahead (see QM's comment above for an illustration).

Thing is, Obama knows that.

I noticed they didn't list the last election's debate literacy level. On a lark, I looked it up. Turns out Obama was speaking at a trend-reversing 9.3 average grade level.

That poor tree.

You know, MGR, the least you could have done was say "Excuse me, Mrs. Tree. Me and my mates were just having a lark."

*discard

shite. i've really lost the hang of this sifting lark.

I look at the scale of this thing and think : what if they run the first experiments, discover something unexpected and say "We need one just a little bit bigger."?

I'm also struck by the though : What if ever 15B years or so some life form builds one of these, miscalculates the consequences, and big-bangs themselves out of existence, only to be replaced by lifeforms doing the same thing the next time the universe cools?

After wiring our planet to self destruct it would be a bit of a lark to take the whole cosmos with us while we are peacefully cooperating in the search for knowledge.