Perhaps I am just a malcontent. :shrug: and it is functioning within its design limitations.
I suppose that presumes the design was adequate. Is it? It appears the system has become rather independent of the “We the people” preposition. A government that shuts itself down does not appear to be one that is “working”. A government that spins its results to obscurity isn’t actually being honest with its people.
Within its design does there remain any vestige of a capacity for change?
Not including a “revolution” what are the options available? I don’t want to ‘harm’ anyone but short of a revolt what are the options for true reform? Seems half the population thinks it’s working OK while the other half thinks its not working so well. Then the next election cycle rolls around and the players play the opposite roles.
“Obama Care” passed, its off the table. It law. There are those that would classify it as harming people, but I have not heard one person who makes that claim actually specify what that “harm” is. They don’t bring these harms to the table to debate, they simply bring their opinions as if they were fact.
Hasn’t the notion of what a “fact” is been obscured? Seems “facts” have been drained of any real meaning.
Supposedly we are the richest country in the world. How can it be our government can’t meet its obligations? No more fucking raising the debt limit. We should be taxing the revenue of the people who benefit the most financially. “We” have money… all kinds of it. What is this bull shit “the people” are broke?
Apparently the standard for being the wealthiest country in the entire world includes a government that can’t even function. Ridiculously pathetic when you think about it, - isn’t it?
It makes you wonder if humans in less developed areas of the world are even capable of wiping their own asses properly.
IT has never worked before. I don’t really see why you would expect change because it “shut down”. You didn’t really think they were actually doing anything, did you?
I don’t really think it’s actually shut down. It’s admittedly a partial dysfunction, however, this may well end up being the kind of diversion as described above, to mask far larger accounting problems. Something may be in the works behind closed doors, and the public is eating up the latest releases relating to whether the military payroll, social security and other checks are in the mail or not. It is never a case of “it is what it is.”
It may be fodder for the Chines and Japanese as a signal to take it easy on interest repayment, because the debt ceiling may be approaching unacceptable levels; meanwhile projecting domestic trasnperency.
They probably had to take a break to figure out what to do with the Obamacare situation and give it time to crystallize before the Senate tries to get rid of it.
A government that controls your media, medicine, AND military isn’t a government, but a Lord and Master.
Seems there is some perception that no government has a capacity to “work” or there is some disagreement with the notion of what works.
Could be simply a failure of consensus of what the goals of government are. “Working” might be defined by the ability to meet its goals. So what are the goals a societies people are attempting to achieve through the formation of a government? Until a common set of goals can be agreed upon any notion of “working” remains obscure. A goal that is not common to a society perhaps has no business being a goal of it’s government.
Right, but the term collective doesn’t shed light on anything. Its like saying mathematics, basketball and philosophy are a collective of subjects. Well yeah, but they all do entirely different things for the most part, - outside of shedding light on some basic universal truths in some people’s eyes.
I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “doesn’t shed light on anything”. I am also unclear from your analogy who is doing the collecting of the subjects. The members of a society do the “collecting” as result of what we think of as a social nature. If we place the subjects of mathematics basketball and philosophy in different blocks of space they will fairly stay where they were placed. People on the other hand tend to gravitate together naturally. The very thing that makes us “social” is what creates the collective of society. The subjects you mention lack the capacity to self collect. Any grouping of subjects might be more fairly termed a collection then a collective.
Right, my fault, - I thought that you were using collective as a term to describe a collection of individuals in that post.
My point was, - that outside of groups of people banding together to achieve something, - societies have no essential properties.
Therefore, trying to define a government is like trying to define what people should be doing, - you can’t because it’s constantly in flux and everyone has so many different goals at the same time (concurrently), that it renders any attempts at definition futile.
I believe my original implication was that society has goals which are "groups of people banding together to achieve something. And I think the things that we band together to achieve prior to their achievement are the societies goals.
(Is there a “nice way” (politically correct?) to thump you on your head and say DOH!)
I do agree that our individual goals are constantly in flux, but that is only half of what a government should be designed to support. (if we are talking about trying to define government) In addition to supporting individual potential a government should also support that which is common to the group as important in achieving. We swing widely too and fro betwixt the extremes rather then to intuit one would be nothing without the other all the while reality is exampling one is nothing without the other.
From a sport who’s avatar reads he is already dead, I thought as dead we’d have at least that in common. Surely with a sig that reads duality I could draw on that perspective.
Why “duality” and why are you “already dead”, cause I’m guessing that should shed some light on things if a collective of society doesn’t.
I am failing considerably in my incapacity to draw correlation. Yet the sensation is there. It looked so much like reason.
Some what besides the point. I asked some questions and haven’t gotten any direct answers. I did not consider them rhetorical. Perhaps context has rendered them as such.
I think it’s to Americans credit that a majority in one house can hold up the government. It shows that the intended system of checks and balances does work in a small way in that there is not one super-majority ruling by dictat.
Coming from a country which does not have such a vigorous politic system, it’s good to see.
Ok, so I’m thinking the representative branch of the US government is broken. And I’ve got an idea to fix it. Unfortunately it will take some time. How ever you vote, simply do not vote for anyone who has held office before. We need turnover to break the cycle, and finally answer to what the People in the phrase “We The People” want. It isn’t going to happen by putting anyone into office that has held office previously. I’m thinking if we demand the system be fixed, and they aren’t capable of accomplishing it then replace them with anyone else that has any chance at all.
I have been a fairly strong democratic voter because I Am more socialist. “We the People” (need I say more?) But if a dem held the office and didn’t get it done then I’ll vote for any other candidate that hasn’t held the office before simply out of, perhaps, spite. But I am getting pissed. :shrug:
I am done with party politics and a two party system, as it is more then a two party system. Let’s mix shit up a bit. Doesn’t matter your party politics.
You want change. Then mix it up. And maybe, just maybe we’ll find “the finest ingredients arein the mix”.
