Is she really crazy? I have heard twice now jokes about giving her nuclear launch codes is a recipe for disaster. Is this just non conservatives not liking conservatives or is really a bad politician. Is it being outspokenly religious that bugs people? Or is it just not being in the party they are part of that is the source of her dislike?
Yes, some people don't like her because she's a Republican, some people don't like her because she's an outspoken evangelical, and a few even don't like her because she's a conservative woman and therefore a category traitor. But she also really does say and do objectively stupid, uninformed things. And her career track far more strongly indicates an interest in self-aggrandizement than a genuine commitment to public service. She's not "crazy" in any medical sense - in fact, she's actually shown herself to be quite self-aware and adaptable - but she's sure as hell not leadership material.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Yeah, she's not medically crazy.
I don't like her because she comes of as just dumb and not self-aware. As BS said, she says and does things that are objectively stupid and uninformed.
Yeah, she's not medically crazy.
I don't like her because she comes of as just dumb and not self-aware. As BS said, she says and does things that are objectively stupid and uninformed.
She's an attack dog with a limited focus, more effective on the local level as a mayor than a governor from what I've read of her. She's an op-ed sort of personality, not a leader and I agree with everyone here. I was interested in her from the start, but the more I learned the less I liked about her. She has a fan following, which is fine and she's in a good niche. Other than that beyond that I have zero want to see her or consume her opinions.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
I think Palin represents a particular political tactic:
Pretend to be crazy.
When people call you crazy, say how you're being persecuted, thus tapping in to the American Right's delusions of persecution.
?
PROFIT!
It's a well-known fact of political psychology that people, proven wrong, will more likely dig their heels in farther rather than admit to being wrong.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
She's in it for the money. Being Sarah Palin is her job.
Her carreer is a win-win between herself, party establishment and the media. The simple fact that we are discussing her adds to it...:rolleyes:
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
These are the decks that I have constructed, and are ready to play:
01. Ankh Sligh to be exact.
And people still thinks democracy is a remotely efficient system
At this point I would rather have monkeys throwing dices.
Who says it's efficient? America has a republic explicitly because democracy is inefficient.
And our constitution is written with intentional inefficiency.
But seriously, who is saying otherwise?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What's the big deal? You could have played multiple Righteous Avengers for years now.
And people still thinks democracy is a remotely efficient system
At this point I would rather have monkeys throwing dices.
It's not meant to be efficient.
Something is efficient as long as it reach it's goal, no matter what's the goal is. A knife is efficient if it cuts food, a mtg card is efficient if it helps it's user win, etc...
How can democracy not meant to reach it's goal, which is, being a political system were people are represented even if indirectly ?
I said our democracy is not efficient because right now people are not being represented, not even indirectly.
You wrote - "I said our democracy is not efficient because right now people are not being represented, not even indirectly."
And my question essentially meant- if a democracy cannot represent all 100% of its people, then is it inefficient? In other words, is it either efficient or inefficient? No middle ground?
And a democracy is not meant to be able to represent everyone. That is absolutely impossible.
And people still thinks democracy is a remotely efficient system
At this point I would rather have monkeys throwing dices.
It's not meant to be efficient.
Something is efficient as long as it reach it's goal, no matter what's the goal is. A knife is efficient if it cuts food, a mtg card is efficient if it helps it's user win, etc...
How can democracy not meant to reach it's goal, which is, being a political system were people are represented even if indirectly ?
I said our democracy is not efficient because right now people are not being represented, not even indirectly.
That is not the meaning of the word "efficient".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What's the big deal? You could have played multiple Righteous Avengers for years now.
You wrote - "I said our democracy is not efficient because right now people are not being represented, not even indirectly."
And my question essentially meant- if a democracy cannot represent all 100% of its people, then is it inefficient? In other words, is it either efficient or inefficient? No middle ground?
And a democracy is not meant to be able to represent everyone. That is absolutely impossible.
Something that is not efficient is much obviously inefficient.
It doesn't mean I'm throwing everything inefficient in the same bag. Surely there could be second best solutions among the inefficient solutions.
I guess you need to check some game theory through to understand the solution of the system you're defending. To advocate a representative collectivist system (a system were people pool resources and the player who represents the public divides the resources) is to defend a system of exploitation were people are robbed and those resources landed to the people who can influence politics.
The only way our kind of democracy work if if the state loose it's power over the redistribution of resources or have that power minimized.
If the state loses its power over the redistribution of resources, then that would mean it cannot tax people.
I get that you're an economist, or at least trained in economics, but not everything needs to be looked at through an economic viewpoint.
You're defending a democratic collectivist economic system a system that is surely better then collectivist without democracy but still pretty bad.
About taxes, it's a necessary evil (or not, in the far future). But the big issue is NOT the fact that the state have to tax. See if the state had fixed functions (the rulers can't choose how the money will be spend) then government spending wouldn't be a tool for people to reach total dominance in a society.
Let me highlight what's the issue here. Taxation have it's own problems in terms of dead weight loss but that's not my argument. My argument is one of political economy, not purely economic. I'm arguing that government decision makers being able to spend money the way they want and influence rules in our society means they have the power to favor certain agents over others - which creates a incentive for then to support the agents that can help to keep him in power in exchange for then to rule in their behalf.
This is not the outcome of a single institution - democracy, the markets, corporations, governments. But the outcome of the arrangement as a whole. Our institutions, the way they are, promotes a flawed result and a result that tends to gets worse with time. As time goes by, people see the democratic government as a opportunity to expand their welfare - meaning people will actually support governments taxing and providing goods they want to consume. Anyone who can produce those goods will support this cause, influence politics and profit in the end of the day. The resources will not be redistributed in behalf of the population, it will be distributed in behalf of those who can play the political game, which now have interest in expanding the size of the political game itself.
This is where we are heading if we don't find a way to change that arrangement. My opinion is that the most applicable solution is to tie up legally how the government can spend money. Is to take away government capacity to influence anything economical - so no one can profit from supporting the government.
In more speculative and personal opinion note, this dynamic will bring the ruin of western societies or at least the ruin of societies were the feeling of self-entitlement is strong. Using the government to promote welfare is a trap, a door that shouldn't be open. Only the nations who will have the culture, enlightenment and force of will to close that door will keep on this boon of development the nations of the world have since the post-war.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Standard - Serious BGU Control R Aggro
Standard - For Fun BG Auras
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I don't like her because she comes of as just dumb and not self-aware. As BS said, she says and does things that are objectively stupid and uninformed.
I mean, this is a clip from one of her first interviews after being tapped for VP:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRkWebP2Q0Y
Agreed
Warning for spam. - Blinking Spirit
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
It's a well-known fact of political psychology that people, proven wrong, will more likely dig their heels in farther rather than admit to being wrong.
On phasing:
Her carreer is a win-win between herself, party establishment and the media. The simple fact that we are discussing her adds to it...:rolleyes:
These are the decks that I have constructed, and are ready to play:
01. Ankh Sligh to be exact.
At this point I would rather have monkeys throwing dices.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
Who says it's efficient? America has a republic explicitly because democracy is inefficient.
And our constitution is written with intentional inefficiency.
But seriously, who is saying otherwise?
It's not meant to be efficient.
Something is efficient as long as it reach it's goal, no matter what's the goal is. A knife is efficient if it cuts food, a mtg card is efficient if it helps it's user win, etc...
How can democracy not meant to reach it's goal, which is, being a political system were people are represented even if indirectly ?
I said our democracy is not efficient because right now people are not being represented, not even indirectly.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
Were did I said that ? Note the world "remotely efficient" in the post you quoted.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
You wrote - "I said our democracy is not efficient because right now people are not being represented, not even indirectly."
And my question essentially meant- if a democracy cannot represent all 100% of its people, then is it inefficient? In other words, is it either efficient or inefficient? No middle ground?
And a democracy is not meant to be able to represent everyone. That is absolutely impossible.
BUWGRChilds PlayGRWUB
BUWGR Highlander GRWUB
UBSquee's Shapeshifting PetBU
BW Multiplayer Control WB
RG Changeling GR
UR Mana FlareRU
UMerfolkU
B MBMC B
That is not the meaning of the word "efficient".
Something that is not efficient is much obviously inefficient.
It doesn't mean I'm throwing everything inefficient in the same bag. Surely there could be second best solutions among the inefficient solutions.
I guess you need to check some game theory through to understand the solution of the system you're defending. To advocate a representative collectivist system (a system were people pool resources and the player who represents the public divides the resources) is to defend a system of exploitation were people are robbed and those resources landed to the people who can influence politics.
The only way our kind of democracy work if if the state loose it's power over the redistribution of resources or have that power minimized.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
If the state loses its power over the redistribution of resources, then that would mean it cannot tax people.
I get that you're an economist, or at least trained in economics, but not everything needs to be looked at through an economic viewpoint.
You're defending a democratic collectivist economic system a system that is surely better then collectivist without democracy but still pretty bad.
About taxes, it's a necessary evil (or not, in the far future). But the big issue is NOT the fact that the state have to tax. See if the state had fixed functions (the rulers can't choose how the money will be spend) then government spending wouldn't be a tool for people to reach total dominance in a society.
Let me highlight what's the issue here. Taxation have it's own problems in terms of dead weight loss but that's not my argument. My argument is one of political economy, not purely economic. I'm arguing that government decision makers being able to spend money the way they want and influence rules in our society means they have the power to favor certain agents over others - which creates a incentive for then to support the agents that can help to keep him in power in exchange for then to rule in their behalf.
This is not the outcome of a single institution - democracy, the markets, corporations, governments. But the outcome of the arrangement as a whole. Our institutions, the way they are, promotes a flawed result and a result that tends to gets worse with time. As time goes by, people see the democratic government as a opportunity to expand their welfare - meaning people will actually support governments taxing and providing goods they want to consume. Anyone who can produce those goods will support this cause, influence politics and profit in the end of the day. The resources will not be redistributed in behalf of the population, it will be distributed in behalf of those who can play the political game, which now have interest in expanding the size of the political game itself.
This is where we are heading if we don't find a way to change that arrangement. My opinion is that the most applicable solution is to tie up legally how the government can spend money. Is to take away government capacity to influence anything economical - so no one can profit from supporting the government.
In more speculative and personal opinion note, this dynamic will bring the ruin of western societies or at least the ruin of societies were the feeling of self-entitlement is strong. Using the government to promote welfare is a trap, a door that shouldn't be open. Only the nations who will have the culture, enlightenment and force of will to close that door will keep on this boon of development the nations of the world have since the post-war.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras