Paul Ryan Requested Obamacare Funding!

[RavynousHunter]

I wonder whose idea was it to have the healthcare plan deny contraceptives but yet cover viagra.  In other words, men can have sex, yet women can't, yet men cannot have sex with each other. 

Oh, women can have sex, but only with their husbands, in their bed, missionary position, and for no reason other than procreation.  Whether or not she's allowed to orgasm is up for debate, of course.

Also, homosexuals don't exist...or some shit.

[The Right Honourable Mlle Antéchrist]

Gays exist, but dudes kissing is icky so fuck you this is America love it or leave it, you pussy-whipped liberals. God bless.

[Lt. Fred]

That's exactly what I'm saying. The Democrats do not have a working 'whip system' (in Australia we call it party loyalty). Members can happily sabotage party objectives without consequence.

Australia also has a different system of government.  Which you always fail to understand.

Scarcely different at all.

That's exactly what I'm saying. The Democrats do not have a working 'whip system' (in Australia we call it party loyalty). Members can happily sabotage party objectives without consequence.

The same thing applies to the GOP, Boehner boner was his attempt to keep the extreme tea party in line then the debt ceiling fiasco hit. Then he called them Knuckle daggers with predictable results.

I'd argue that the debt ceiling thing was actually kabuki. 'Unruly dissent' in the Republican party always takes the form of radical opposition to moderation in party policy. There's certainly never any effective liberal or moderate obstruction of any policy, no matter how irrational or unconstitutional. In fact, this 'dissent' is a carefully orchestrated game designed to better achieve long-term policy objectives. In the Democrats, the opposite is true.

If dissent immediately destroys a party then there can be no parties because dissent is predictable in the field of politics.

Obviously dissent is fine in private, or at the local level. But no dissent at the voting level. None. You always vote with the party or you're out.

[m52nickerson]

Scarcely different at all.

Really?  When was the last time you voted for a Prime Minister?

Do you need me to start listing all the differences between the two governments?  There are a lot of them.   

Obviously dissent is fine in private, or at the local level. But no dissent at the voting level. None. You always vote with the party or you're out.

That does not work here because many time people are more loyal to the person then they are to the party.  It is not like many places, including your country (for Senate elections) where you vote for a party and not a person. 

I would argue that voting for people for most positions in government is a lot more democratic than voting for a party. 

[Canadian Mojo]

Obviously dissent is fine in private, or at the local level. But no dissent at the voting level. None. You always vote with the party or you're out.

Don't you just love how it's impossible to tell the difference between an asshole on the left from an asshole on the right? In the face of opposition principles are secondary to obtaining control so you can implement your agenda on the great unwashed masses who don't know what's good for them. The only real difference is what some of those details of the agenda are.

[Lt. Fred]

Scarcely different at all.

Really?  When was the last time you voted for a Prime Minister?

Which has no substantive effect on the utility of the party behaviour we're talking about.

Obviously dissent is fine in private, or at the local level. But no dissent at the voting level. None. You always vote with the party or you're out.

That does not work here because many time people are more loyal to the person then they are to the party.

I'd like to see your evidence for this.

I would argue that voting for people for most positions in government is a lot more democratic than voting for a party.

I'd argue that can't be deemed representative democracy at all. You wouldn't be approving, even implicitly, of government action- you'd be palming off your choice to someone else. Gay marriage or no gay marriage? Joe Lieberman can decide for me, after considering the choice best for himself. That's not going to work.

[Canadian Mojo]

I'd argue that can't be deemed representative democracy at all. You wouldn't be approving, even implicitly, of government action- you'd be palming off your choice to someone else. Gay marriage or no gay marriage? Joe Lieberman can decide for me, after considering the choice best for himself. That's not going to work.

How the hell is that any different than palming off your choice to a group of people that happen to rally around a flag you happen to like the design of?

Dissent is important because of people like you on both sides of the political spectrum who insist that it has to be 'my party, right or wrong' and will follow lockstep with their party regardless of the shit they step in or the cliffs they walk off of.

[Lt. Fred]

I'd argue that can't be deemed representative democracy at all. You wouldn't be approving, even implicitly, of government action- you'd be palming off your choice to someone else. Gay marriage or no gay marriage? Joe Lieberman can decide for me, after considering the choice best for himself. That's not going to work.

How the hell is that any different than palming off your choice to a group of people that happen to rally around a flag you happen to like the design of?

I like gay marriage. The Democrats promise to bring in gay marriage. I will vote for them to allow them to do so.

I like Joe Lieberman. I will vote for Joe Lieberman. He will decide whether I like gay marriage, after consulting with his lobbyists.

Dissent is important because of people like you on both sides of the political spectrum who insist that it has to be 'my party, right or wrong' and will follow lockstep with their party regardless of the shit they step in or the cliffs they walk off of.

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying "my party should pass policy". The Democrats are often wrong, as are the Greens (far less so, actually), and I disagree with them when they're wrong. But if I were an elected Democrat (or Green), I wouldn't obstruct party policy that I disagree with*, because members of a party should never obstruct party objectives. Otherwise nothing can be done, ever.

* Unless it was a conscience vote or the policy was so wrong I felt I had to resign. Those are the options- always vote in favour, or resign.

[Canadian Mojo]

The only difference Fred is that the PM and cabinet will consult with their lobbyists and decide what the party will do and how the backbenchers will vote.

[Lt. Fred]

The only difference Fred is that the PM and cabinet will consult with their lobbyists and decide what the party will do and how the backbenchers will vote.

And then I will decide whether their chosen policy is good or bad and vote accordingly.

[Veras]

And why can't you do that with an individual rather than a party?

[Canadian Mojo]

The only difference Fred is that the PM and cabinet will consult with their lobbyists and decide what the party will do and how the backbenchers will vote.

And then I will decide whether their chosen policy is good or bad and vote accordingly.

Then how is voting for an individual any different from voting for a party? An individual can have a platform and tell you their positions on issues just as well as a group of people can. In fact, an individual is more likely to vote the way they claim they will because they are beholden to their constituents and not to a party.

Or, to come back to the original point, how is one a representative democracy and the other is not?

[Lt. Fred]

And why can't you do that with an individual rather than a party?

One vote is meaningless.

[Canadian Mojo]

And why can't you do that with an individual rather than a party?

One vote is meaningless.

If you are representative of the future of liberal thinking, we're fucked because you're every bit as authoritarian as the far right is.

[Lt. Fred]

And why can't you do that with an individual rather than a party?

One vote is meaningless.

If you are representative of the future of liberal thinking, we're fucked because you're every bit as authoritarian as the far right is.

It's not acceptable for you to describe anyone who disagrees with you as 'authoritarian'. Make an argument or shut up.