Politics

Shoot the breeze with other Olympians.
User avatar
Kokonilly
Exalted Member
Exalted Member
Posts: 631
Joined: January 11th, 2009, 7:59 am
Division: Grad
State: CA
Location: a dumpster

Re: Politics

Postby Kokonilly » October 1st, 2011, 11:40 am

George III: Might have been an improvement. George I and George II were both Hanoverian kings, and did not have a terribly large interest in the colonies or Britain. Contrarily, George III took eager interest in his colonies, which basically led to his downfall.
And, y'know, he was insane.

User avatar
Jocool
Member
Member
Posts: 269
Joined: December 23rd, 2008, 8:17 pm
Division: C
State: NY
Contact:

Re: Politics

Postby Jocool » October 1st, 2011, 12:55 pm

I never said that freedom of religion or separation of church and state are bad. In fact, I was sort of saying that they are a little bit weak. Religion has still managed to crop up as indirectly affecting politics (politicians making laws about social life based on religious scriptures, i.e. LTGB Rights and abortions). My basic theme in my arguments has been that the laws of yore have become outdated in this country. The basic principles are failing to withstand after 230 odd years of progress, and unless we change our basis of government, we could very easily have a metaphorical George III who takes advantage of the lapses in written code and breaks precedents to take power. It has happened in Rome with Julius Caesar, Britain with George III, France with Napolean, and Germany with Hitler. All of these dictators rose from the discontent of the people with the current status quo, and the inability of the system to accommodate. I would tend to think that America will be due for our major revolutionary fatal lapse in legal code fairly soon, judging by the world environment.

On a different note, I do not know the Village People very well, aside from the fact that they are from a place call Ymca.
I believe you just refuted yourself. First you were saying that we should model ourselves after the British because they managed to keep their government stable, now you say we shouldn't be like the British looking at the ascendance of George III. I would also like to add my thoughts on the examples you gave:

Julius Caesar: This wasn't a shortfall of their republic per se, just a coup d'etat that was carried out. There wasn't exactly a plebiscite to elect him. He just was the guy with the best army. They didn't really start liking him until he instituted reform, and then the Senate killed him.

George III: Might have been an improvement. George I and George II were both Hanoverian kings, and did not have a terribly large interest in the colonies or Britain. Contrarily, George III took eager interest in his colonies, which basically led to his downfall.

Napoleon: Definitely an improvement over the reign of terror. Probably not the best person for the job, but if most of us were in that time period, we probably would have supported him over the earlier terror council.

Hitler: This could possibly have been avoided for one thing: the socialists hated the social democrats. Together, they had more votes in the reichstag, but could not reconcile their differences in the face of a determined right. This is different from today, however, because now the Right is divided, while the left is weak.

Basically, Julius Caesar and to a lesser extent George III were not really monarchs who took over through paperwork and changing legal documents, as you imply. Rather they took advantage of a weakened opposition to consolidate power. They did not change anything in their government documents to make it legal. Whether or not there was a constitution or not was a non-issue. The government just became dysfunctional, and someone took over. Changing the constitution probably would not change this situation.
First of all, I did not refute myself because I was referring to the continuity of the system in both cases, and how changes must be made to prevent tyrants like these, and though the British system survived because of its resilience, it took a major loss to close a loophole.

And yes, Julius Caesar was a failure of their Republic. How do you think he got to have power? The Republic laws failed to foresee anybody doing what he did.

The British system wasn't perfect. But it was resilient, allowing for the system to survive a major blow like losing a huge portion of its colonies. It failed to protect against a revolution. But it survived.

Napolean-But is it better than a democracy or other similar form of government? No. He took power due to a revolution because the original system didn't expect that the people, and the council of terror, could take power from an absolute monarch.

I did not necessarily say that the underlying problems were the same for us and Hitler, but the situation it puts us in is similar. And the problems are similar anyway. The left is weak because it doesn't have a leader strong enough to unite it, while the right is determined to defeat its ideals. Yes it is divided, but only about how to go about the left's destruction.
Please guys, just:

Image
I fail see how this was an at all useful post.
Politics eh? OK, 3 things needed.

1. Get Rid of The Debt
2. Get Rid of the Taxes and Tax Codes
Really? I wonder if they have tried that.
Maybe I will just tell that to Congress "Hey, how about you don't raise adebt?"
But honestly, it isn't quite that simple. Low taxes have caused just as many problems as taxes that are too high (in fact, it is the reason we are in so much debt).
Go to Jocool's Userpage for my results.

Halo Series Fan
Male.
Assassinator #22.
C.P. Weber Scioly Team Rule #42: BLAME TEAM 3

User avatar
Kokonilly
Exalted Member
Exalted Member
Posts: 631
Joined: January 11th, 2009, 7:59 am
Division: Grad
State: CA
Location: a dumpster

Re: Politics

Postby Kokonilly » October 1st, 2011, 12:59 pm

Please guys, just:

Image
I fail see how this was an at all useful post.
I believe that my fellow observers would agree with me that this thread absolutely needed it.

User avatar
paleonaps
Exalted Member
Exalted Member
Posts: 1282
Joined: March 7th, 2009, 7:14 am
Division: Grad
State: NY
Location: Turning and turning in the widening gyre

Re: Politics

Postby paleonaps » October 1st, 2011, 1:28 pm

Okay, now that some of my favorite historical figures have been brought up, I feel a need to comment again.

Julius Caesar was a bold, ambitious man who ultimately wound up ending the Republic. His personal charisma was a huge factor in his rise, and this coupled with his extraordinary military ability gave him the power and authority to do almost anything he wanted.

George III was not a ruler who emerged from the discontent of the people. Rulership was hereditary. He got the throne from George II. Also, there was no real discontent of the people at home- only the colonists were angry, and this is more because Charles Townshend took over Parliament from William Pitt because of Pitt's illness.
Ill add more later.
Brown University 2017
2009 B Division National Ecology Champion
4 time National Medalist
Farewell Science Olympiad. We will meet again.

User avatar
PacificGoldenPlover
Exalted Member
Exalted Member
Posts: 515
Joined: April 10th, 2011, 6:51 pm
Division: Grad
State: CA
Location: Somewhere where you don't normally see Pacific Golden Plovers

Re: Politics

Postby PacificGoldenPlover » October 1st, 2011, 2:45 pm

I never said that freedom of religion or separation of church and state are bad. In fact, I was sort of saying that they are a little bit weak. Religion has still managed to crop up as indirectly affecting politics (politicians making laws about social life based on religious scriptures, i.e. LTGB Rights and abortions). My basic theme in my arguments has been that the laws of yore have become outdated in this country. The basic principles are failing to withstand after 230 odd years of progress, and unless we change our basis of government, we could very easily have a metaphorical George III who takes advantage of the lapses in written code and breaks precedents to take power. It has happened in Rome with Julius Caesar, Britain with George III, France with Napolean, and Germany with Hitler. All of these dictators rose from the discontent of the people with the current status quo, and the inability of the system to accommodate. I would tend to think that America will be due for our major revolutionary fatal lapse in legal code fairly soon, judging by the world environment.

On a different note, I do not know the Village People very well, aside from the fact that they are from a place call Ymca.
I believe you just refuted yourself. First you were saying that we should model ourselves after the British because they managed to keep their government stable, now you say we shouldn't be like the British looking at the ascendance of George III. I would also like to add my thoughts on the examples you gave:

Julius Caesar: This wasn't a shortfall of their republic per se, just a coup d'etat that was carried out. There wasn't exactly a plebiscite to elect him. He just was the guy with the best army. They didn't really start liking him until he instituted reform, and then the Senate killed him.

George III: Might have been an improvement. George I and George II were both Hanoverian kings, and did not have a terribly large interest in the colonies or Britain. Contrarily, George III took eager interest in his colonies, which basically led to his downfall.

Napoleon: Definitely an improvement over the reign of terror. Probably not the best person for the job, but if most of us were in that time period, we probably would have supported him over the earlier terror council.

Hitler: This could possibly have been avoided for one thing: the socialists hated the social democrats. Together, they had more votes in the reichstag, but could not reconcile their differences in the face of a determined right. This is different from today, however, because now the Right is divided, while the left is weak.

Basically, Julius Caesar and to a lesser extent George III were not really monarchs who took over through paperwork and changing legal documents, as you imply. Rather they took advantage of a weakened opposition to consolidate power. They did not change anything in their government documents to make it legal. Whether or not there was a constitution or not was a non-issue. The government just became dysfunctional, and someone took over. Changing the constitution probably would not change this situation.
First of all, I did not refute myself because I was referring to the continuity of the system in both cases, and how changes must be made to prevent tyrants like these, and though the British system survived because of its resilience, it took a major loss to close a loophole.

And yes, Julius Caesar was a failure of their Republic. How do you think he got to have power? The Republic laws failed to foresee anybody doing what he did.

The British system wasn't perfect. But it was resilient, allowing for the system to survive a major blow like losing a huge portion of its colonies. It failed to protect against a revolution. But it survived.

Napolean-But is it better than a democracy or other similar form of government? No. He took power due to a revolution because the original system didn't expect that the people, and the council of terror, could take power from an absolute monarch.

I did not necessarily say that the underlying problems were the same for us and Hitler, but the situation it puts us in is similar. And the problems are similar anyway. The left is weak because it doesn't have a leader strong enough to unite it, while the right is determined to defeat its ideals. Yes it is divided, but only about how to go about the left's destruction.
Please guys, just:

Image
I fail see how this was an at all useful post.
Politics eh? OK, 3 things needed.

1. Get Rid of The Debt
2. Get Rid of the Taxes and Tax Codes
Really? I wonder if they have tried that.
Maybe I will just tell that to Congress "Hey, how about you don't raise adebt?"
But honestly, it isn't quite that simple. Low taxes have caused just as many problems as taxes that are too high (in fact, it is the reason we are in so much debt).
In which case, why do you say that the United States will fail just because we have a vicious style of government, but praise the British style because their ability to survive a vicious style of government proves their resiliency? How do you know that we won't come out of this just as well.

And just a little word on amending the Constitution:
It needs a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress. Yes, even with a Republican House and a Democratic Senate, you not even need a majority, but a 2/3 majority. If it takes five months just to raise a debt ceiling, do you really think this is possible?

Or, once it is scientifically proven that that can't happen, you would need 2/3 of legislatures to approve it for it to even be proposed without having to go through congress. Again, it would be nice if that could happen, but it probably won't.

In my opinion, the only way to get through some nation saving decisions is though the supreme court. Unfortunately, the characters on the Supreme Court make the guys in Congress look moderate.
Life List: n. A list of bird species definitively seen by a birdwatcher.
PacificGoldenPlover's Life List : 319
Most recent lifer: Red-throated Loon

2014 (Mira Loma/Troy/Regionals/States/Nationals)
Dynamic Planet (2/2/1/1/1)
Designer Genes (1/4/1/13 (???)/13 (figures)
Water Quality (1/1/3/1/3)

User avatar
zyzzyva980
Admin Emeritus
Admin Emeritus
Posts: 1539
Joined: November 18th, 2009, 12:59 pm
Division: Grad
State: IA
Location: Des Moines
Contact:

Re: Politics

Postby zyzzyva980 » October 1st, 2011, 4:51 pm

Politics eh? OK, 3 things needed.

1. Get Rid of The Debt
2. Get Rid of the Texas and Tax Codes
3. Get Rid of Obama, I actually liked him in '08, but not anymore
Fix'd.
Olathe North HS, 2011-2013 | National Runner-Up, Sounds of Music (2012)
Never lose the joy of competing in the pursuit of winning

Resources
Site Help: FAQ & IRC
Event Help: [wiki][/wiki] & Image Gallery
Social Networks: scioly.org on Facebook & Twitter

User avatar
tornado guy
Member
Member
Posts: 449
Joined: April 17th, 2011, 7:23 pm
Division: C
State: WA
Location: PAPERMAKERS!

Re: Politics

Postby tornado guy » October 1st, 2011, 6:21 pm

Politics eh? OK, 3 things needed.

1. Get Rid of The Debt
2. Get Rid of the Texas and Tax Codes
3. Get Rid of Obama, he's put America into so much debt and worthless spending.. I never liked him
Fix'd.
Fix'd for good
Proud ExCEL Homeschooler for five awesome years!
Nationals 2012: Meteorology 5th, R&M 19th, WQ 21st, DP 30th. Team 11th

Regionals 2013 C division: DP 3rd, WQ 5th.

JKrafsur
Member
Member
Posts: 94
Joined: March 19th, 2011, 9:45 pm
Division: C
State: CO

Re: Politics

Postby JKrafsur » October 1st, 2011, 6:29 pm

Too bad Donald Trump isnt running anymore, course then my asian friends would hate my guts from that day forth, but at least if he beat Obama he would say " Mr. Obama, You're Fired"
2012-2013 Events:

Astronomy, Write It/Do It, Rocks and Minerals, Food Science?

User avatar
fmtiger124
Member
Member
Posts: 480
Joined: March 8th, 2009, 3:59 pm
Division: Grad
State: NY

Re: Politics

Postby fmtiger124 » October 1st, 2011, 6:37 pm

Politics eh? OK, 3 things needed.

1. Get Rid of The Debt
2. Get Rid of the Texas and Tax Codes
3. Get Rid of Obama, he's put America into so much debt and worthless spending.. I never liked him
Fix'd.
Fix'd for good
I could write a long response here but I don't feel like it...so I'll go simple
#1: All I'm going to say is that people are way too fixated on this. It's not logical to attempt to fix it until you fix the jobs problem. Limited economics knowledge explanation (this may be partially wrong..I'm trying to remember a conversation I had with our econ teacher a few months ago..I haven't take then the class yet): If you look at the GDP Equation, GDP= Consumption + Investments + (Exports - Imports) + Government Spending, government is the main source of jobs, decrease spending, you not only cause job loss, but you impact our GDP.
#2: I'm cool with ditching Texas. But in all seriousness, yes the tax codes needs reform, it contains way too many loopholes for large corporations. Just tax the rich already >.> Ditching taxes completely? Not even really worth arguing...the Laffer curve has been disproven.
#3: I think this simple image shall suffice:
Image
Image

User avatar
tornado guy
Member
Member
Posts: 449
Joined: April 17th, 2011, 7:23 pm
Division: C
State: WA
Location: PAPERMAKERS!

Re: Politics

Postby tornado guy » October 1st, 2011, 6:43 pm

I could write a long response here but I don't feel like it...so I'll go simple
#1: All I'm going to say is that people are way too fixated on this. It's not logical to attempt to fix it until you fix the jobs problem. Limited economics knowledge explanation (this may be partially wrong..I'm trying to remember a conversation I had with our econ teacher a few months ago..I haven't take then the class yet): If you look at the GDP Equation, GDP= Consumption + Investments + (Exports - Imports) + Government Spending, government is the main source of jobs, decrease spending, you not only cause job loss, but you impact our GDP.
#2: I'm cool with ditching Texas. But in all seriousness, yes the tax codes needs reform, it contains way too many loopholes for large corporations. Just tax the rich already >.> Ditching taxes completely? Not even really worth arguing...the Laffer curve has been disproven.
#3: I think this simple image shall suffice:
Image
Wait..? So you're still blaming Bush for the war in Afghanistan and Iran when Obama is all for the Afghanistan war?
Proud ExCEL Homeschooler for five awesome years!
Nationals 2012: Meteorology 5th, R&M 19th, WQ 21st, DP 30th. Team 11th

Regionals 2013 C division: DP 3rd, WQ 5th.


Return to “General Chat”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest