|
computer parts posted:That's the point, they let the agency determine what's reasonable. Which agency? Two different organizations may have a completely different idea what is the proper level of X, or even what exactly X is. Not to mention that all of them will try to report their findings and proposed solutions in a way that makes them appear useful.
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 19:17 |
|
|
My issue with the "poor people are stupid" and "politicans are well educated" idea is that the Vietnam War was overwhelmingly opposed by uneducated people, yet twice as many college graduates supported the war. You find the same results with the Iraq War, the John Birch Society, supporters of Reagan, etc. Success in a society seems to have a built-in dumbing-down effect.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Yeah, and sometimes that works well and sometimes it doesn't. It completely depends on context. I think the key take away here is that until you investigate the specific context of each situation there is no basis for claiming that there's some kind of universal rule say elite or technocratic decision makers will know better than the man on the street. There are many examples where elites made terrible blunders.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted:It's one of the things that baffles me most when it comes to criticism of democracy - the assumption that the average decision maker is more informed and enlightened than the members of the public. Like they were a different species, more capable of logical reasoning than the average voter. This relies on assumption that having a successful society is the matter of letting the most virtuous and reasonable people lead. This comes straight from the era of Enlightenment - that you can just deduce your way to the Plato's Republic and the public is only there to ensure they are not screwed. I am better than you at doing my job simply by virtue of the fact that it's my job, not yours. No more, no less. Politics are the job / career of the politician and... etc, you got my point. You don't need "virtuous" politicians any more than you need "virtuous" plumbers, or firemen. You just need a control mechanism that will allow you to fire politicians that don't do their job correctly - democracy. quote:Also, an average politician is not better informed than the rest of society - there are plenty of examples of politicians who made stupid decisions because they were completely out of touch with reality. Consider, for example, Greek ubermenschen accidentally banning video games. Generally, the members of the elite have the means to avoid the consequences of their decisions. They also tend not to mingle with hoi polloi, so they are rarely aware of the problems that concern the commons. Helsing posted:It's absolutely not the case that professional politicians are always "capable of quickly getting the necessary information about any subject". This is true for some types of information but it certainly isn't true for all or even most types of information. As to the forest making example - I hope that's just a pet issue of yours, because I'm not sure how it was relevant to anything. Helsing posted:Fetishizing elite decision making as some kind of universally superior system is just intellectual laziness. Without specifying what domain of policy we're talking about its meaningless to claim that elites are better or worse at making decisions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted:Which agency? Two different organizations may have a completely different idea what is the proper level of X, or even what exactly X is. Not to mention that all of them will try to report their findings and proposed solutions in a way that makes them appear useful. Yeah, it's not as though government defined organizations don't have clear niches where things can apply.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Yeah, it's not as though government defined organizations don't have clear niches where things can apply. Yeah, have you ever heard about two government organizations with overlapping competences? Of course not, it's a crazy idea! quote:I am better than you at doing my job simply by virtue of the fact that it's my job, not yours. No more, no less. Politics are the job / career of the politician and... etc, you got my point. There are plenty of people that just bullshit their way through they work Xander77 posted:No. You misunderstood the quote entirely. No, I don't. The fact that someone did employ you doesn't mean you're actually good enough to do your job. quote:You don't need "virtuous" politicians any more than you need "virtuous" plumbers, or firemen. You just need a control mechanism that will allow you to fire politicians that don't do their job correctly - democracy. You don't even have a mechanism to "fire" a politician. His mandate just expires and this is when you can vote for someone else. If plumbers were like politicians, if one of them showed up in your house completely drunk, messed up your pipes and accidentally smashed your sink, you would have no right to throw him out. You would have to wait until he finishes, pay him and then call another plumber. Your analogy doesn't even work. quote:So. For one thing, the notion that politicians won't be making mistakes is obviously a strawman claim. That these mistakes may be paid for in a democratic institution that holds them accountable is a touch more relevant. If you read any of the Holy Writs founding fathers, you'll note that their notions about democracy have far less to do with making sure that the elected representatives pursue the best possible course, and much more to do with stemming the possibilities of abuse of power. Which is exactly what the voting process does when certain elements of the ruling class grow too corrupt - throw them out, not to be replaced with shining examples of genius, but rather with people less blatantly incompetent and greedy. Or maybe they hide their corruption well enough to never be discovered. Or they just use their grasp on the state institutions to be elected anyway despite their corruption. Or the entire pool of possible candidates is corrupt because the consequences (eventually not getting elected again) are nothing compared to the benefits (wealth, power and possibility to get themselves elected again).
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:No. You misunderstood the quote entirely. That is an absurd argument. You are better at your job if you're actually better at your job. Simply holding a position in no way makes you automatically more qualified. quote:No more, no less. Politics are the job / career of the politician and... etc, you got my point. Yeah, and a really important control mechanism is recognizing that often times the government doesn't have sufficient information to make decisions unless it rigorously consults the people who will be effected by the decision. Xander77 posted:
I never said "politicians make mistakes, ergo they are useless". I honestly don't know where you got the impression I was making an argument like that. Everybody makes mistakes. The point is that in some cases a career politician or bureaucrat will make more mistakes than they otherwise would if they ignore the input of regular people. quote:That these mistakes may be paid for in a democratic institution that holds them accountable is a touch more relevant. If you read any of the Yes, I think we're all aware of the basic theory behind checks and balances and representative democracy. That has no bearing on our disagreemnt. Our disagreement is about whether rich and well educated politicians always make better policy, an argument that you've offered no supporting evidence for. quote:As to the forest making example - I hope that's just a pet issue of yours, because I'm not sure how it was relevant to anything. Because its an example of how top down decision making that ignores local input can easily lead to perverse results. The example of scientific forestry is also an example of how politicians and other officials of the state must necessarily make information bureaucratically "legible" before they can make use of such information. Since the process of making something legible to a modern state will often end up excluding information that is actually quite important, this should cast doubt on your ridiculous claim that politicians are universally better equipped to make decisions about any and all policy. quote:Ah. So, just rubbish understanding of how thing work. Fair enough. This coming from the guy who just made a universal claim about how rich people who go to university will always make better decisions "by definition", which is a literal misunderstanding of what it means to say something is true "by definition". Go look up the word politician in any dictionary and show me where it says that the word necessarily means the person will be better at decision making. If you're going to lob around insults then maybe you should scrutinize your own very sloppy arguments before hitting the post button. Helsing fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Jul 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
For me, it's an issue of conflation: people conflate governing with the technical details of governing. The truth is that politicians aren't informed decision makers, but that's not what their power is. Their power was in setting objectives and goals, for the bureaucracy blew them to fulfill. That's not as dependent upon expertise as actually solving the problem, moving the people, etc. When you conflate the two, you would of course end up at this kind of system where experts rule everything or whatever: but it's not actually possible to be an expert in the 'right thing to do': ethics is not and has never been a techne. That is the fundamental delusion of elitism, it's unproven assumption. Every single anti-democratic idea has this at its core, yet it is completely irrational. If you were to create a state and a people from nothing (with magic), is that the ideal to you? How naive would you have to be to think that that wouldn't be a terrible idea? Of course the subset identity with more power is going to use it to advance its own interests, at the expense of everyone else! Are you insane? Yet people seem to keep ignoring that lesson, keep trying to convince themselves that 'this time will be different'. Now obviously, not everyone can be an expert in climate science. But 'what should we do about global warming' is a political question. You cannot 'solve' that kind of question, the answer is going to depend upon in-built assumptions about what you, the person in power, wants. You have to create another question, with those assumptions, for society as a whole to find the answer to. The people who are deciding what those built-in assumptions are are those 'experts', and the people they rely on for their power. It is they, and only they, who are deciding what the future should be. It is in this domain, the domain of the ideal, of the utopia, where rule-by-experts inflicts its terrible cost. Possible futures are denied based on the self-interest of the ruling class, or their prejudices. The desire to change our society to be perfectly suited to cars has already been mentioned, and its important to note that that was not a natural process. It's actually an incredibly expensive kind of society, and it occurred because it fit the self-interest of the rulers. So society devoted itself to the answering the question "how best should we design cities for cars", and not "should we design cities for cars". When you confuse the kind of system where experts answer questions, to the one where 'experts' create the questions to be answered, you end up in a broken and fundamentally undemocratic society. This is society today, and I maintain that we will never have 'too much democracy', until it is the public in general, which creates the future that society aspires to. rudatron fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Jul 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
rudatron posted:For me, it's an issue of conflation: people conflate governing with the technical details of governing. The truth is that politicians aren't informed decision makers, but that's not what their power is. Their power was in setting objectives and goals, for the bureaucracy blew them to fulfill. That's not as dependent upon expertise as actually solving the problem, moving the people, etc. When you conflate the two, you would of course end up at this kind of system where experts rule everything or whatever: but it's not actually possible to be an expert in the 'right thing to do': ethics is not and has never been a techne. I'm not clear on functionally what you actually want. Direct voting on every issue? I doubt it. So before considering a much longer response I'd like to be clear. Obviously a representative system with reasonably short term limits (most in the U.S. are 2-6 years) offers a combination where leaders get some time to become familiar with leadership in general as well as specific issues while holding them accountable to the voters who need to re-elect them. These term limits can (and are) varried to provide differing levels of responsiveness to public sentiment. I'd also be careful throwing examples around. For every example of leaders doing something unpopular and destructive there is a popular policy that was equally bad. The war in iraq was the "right decision" 72 to 22 when it started. And the car example is bad because that's a trend that was generally supported by the people (The U.S. averaged 1 car per household on average in 1950 - building out highways etc made plenty of sense).
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted:Which agency? Two different organizations may have a completely different idea what is the proper level of X, or even what exactly X is. Not to mention that all of them will try to report their findings and proposed solutions in a way that makes them appear useful. What agencies do you think have frequently overlapping roles in the US government?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:What agencies do you think have frequently overlapping roles in the US government? The intelligence apparatuses (FBI, NSA etc) are a pretty good example of this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
Typo posted:The intelligence apparatuses (FBI, NSA etc) are a pretty good example of this. Not really, no.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Not really, no. Why not?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
Typo posted:Why not? The FBI is a counterintelligence agency operating within the US and the police department for the federal government, and the CIA is a foreign intelligence agency spying on other countries. Their goals don't overlap at all
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
Typo posted:The intelligence apparatuses (FBI, NSA etc) are a pretty good example of this. While it is true that the FBI and NSA often share common goals relating to national security, the legal jurisdiction and methods of executing those goals are quite different. The NSA is international in jurisdiction and primarily focuses on SIGINT, while the FBI is largely domestic in jurisdiction and mixes SIGINT and HUMINT.Most of the people the FBI pursue end up in a courtroom and not the wrong end of a missile. America Inc. fucked around with this message at 01:58 on Aug 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
Typo posted:Why not? Working together on cases that cross their jurisdictional boundaries does not constitute having overlapping roles.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
Direct voting on every issue would be terrific, if implemented correctly. Every voter would get a little electronic device, and every time an issue came up for a vote, the device would beep, and for the next 24 hours people could use their device to vote yes or no. The people would, however, elect people to set the voting agenda, but these lawmakers would not vote on any of the laws they create. In order to ensure this system works, the government would provide far stronger civics education than it is currently doing, though. Seriously, every kid ought to have a Civ/American Government class starting from middle school every other year, maybe even every year.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
Spatula City posted:Direct voting on every issue would be terrific, if implemented correctly. Every voter would get a little electronic device, and every time an issue came up for a vote, the device would beep, and for the next 24 hours people could use their device to vote yes or no. The people would, however, elect people to set the voting agenda, but these lawmakers would not vote on any of the laws they create. In order to ensure this system works, the government would provide far stronger civics education than it is currently doing, though. Seriously, every kid ought to have a Civ/American Government class starting from middle school every other year, maybe even every year. I hope you like media blitzes and/or scheduling the "Give Corporations Welfare Act" for popular holiday weekends.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
Spatula City posted:Direct voting on every issue would be terrific, if implemented correctly. Every voter would get a little electronic device, and every time an issue came up for a vote, the device would beep, and for the next 24 hours people could use their device to vote yes or no. The people would, however, elect people to set the voting agenda, but these lawmakers would not vote on any of the laws they create. In order to ensure this system works, the government would provide far stronger civics education than it is currently doing, though. Seriously, every kid ought to have a Civ/American Government class starting from middle school every other year, maybe even every year. ^^ A perfect example of too much democracy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 02:22
|
|
|
Spatula City posted:Direct voting on every issue would be terrific, if implemented correctly. Every voter would get a little electronic device, and every time an issue came up for a vote, the device would beep, and for the next 24 hours people could use their device to vote yes or no. The people would, however, elect people to set the voting agenda, but these lawmakers would not vote on any of the laws they create. In order to ensure this system works, the government would provide far stronger civics education than it is currently doing, though. Seriously, every kid ought to have a Civ/American Government class starting from middle school every other year, maybe even every year. In this situation, it would be impossible to have an American Government class, because the structure of the government would be changing constantly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Working together on cases that cross their jurisdictional boundaries does not constitute having overlapping roles. But I get the impression that, for instance, who gets to be in charge of investigating terrorists is pretty contentious topic between FBI, NSA and Dept.Homeland security. Theere's enough infighting between them I seriously doubt that none of those roles overlap.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I hope you like media blitzes and/or scheduling the "Give Corporations Welfare Act" for popular holiday weekends. As opposed to media blitzes and/or scheduling a vote on the Give Corporations Welfare Act for thirty seconds before congressional recess?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
Typo posted:But I get the impression that, for instance, who gets to be in charge of investigating terrorists is pretty contentious topic between FBI, NSA and Dept.Homeland security. Theere's enough infighting between them I seriously doubt that none of those roles overlap. They want to grab roles that other agencies have, but their actual legislated roles are very clear. Although it's weird you think the NSA and FBI have overlapping roles, when the NSA is supposed to be int he business of providing signals intelligence to all other agencies. It's like complaining the GSA overlaps with every department because they provide services to them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 03:27
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:As opposed to media blitzes and/or scheduling a vote on the Give Corporations Welfare Act for thirty seconds before congressional recess? So the system is literally the same but also is much more cumbersome?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 04:58
|
|
|
Spatula City posted:Direct voting on every issue would be terrific, if implemented correctly. Every voter would get a little electronic device, and every time an issue came up for a vote, the device would beep, and for the next 24 hours people could use their device to vote yes or no. The people would, however, elect people to set the voting agenda, but these lawmakers would not vote on any of the laws they create. In order to ensure this system works, the government would provide far stronger civics education than it is currently doing, though. Seriously, every kid ought to have a Civ/American Government class starting from middle school every other year, maybe even every year. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPE-vddZ-aA
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 05:18
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:I'm not clear on functionally what you actually want. Direct voting on every issue? I doubt it. So before considering a much longer response I'd like to be clear. Representative democracy as we know it is an improvement, but incomplete. The people making decisions in a representative democracy are not the same kind of people as the public in general, they have different goals. The system remains undemocratic until those goals align with those of the public. In most countries today, it is the rich whose interests are over-represented, simply by the expense of running an election campaign. Direct democracy involving everyone, on every issue, undermines the point of having a government that takes care of its issues for the people. Only a very small number of people want to be politically motivated all the time, most (rightly) see politics as something that gets in the way of them living their lives. So that's not feasible, people aren't going to get on board with that. You have select a subset, and we know from statistics that a simple, random sample is likely to be representative of a population. This, I claim, is the more democratic system, the one were representatives are chosen by lottery. If your immediate reaction to that is 'they're too stupid', then you reveal your elitism. Political representatives today are morons, they rely on a bureaucracy below them to actually do work, they themselves aren't that clever. The average person is more than capable of fulfilling that role. rudatron fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Aug 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 07:23
|
|
|
Demarchy would be an improvement. At least that way there's very little chance of all serving members of the government having gone to the same school and being part of the same clubs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 09:31
|
|
|
Spatula City posted:Direct voting on every issue would be terrific, if implemented correctly. Every voter would get a little electronic device, and every time an issue came up for a vote, the device would beep, and for the next 24 hours people could use their device to vote yes or no. The people would, however, elect people to set the voting agenda, but these lawmakers would not vote on any of the laws they create. In order to ensure this system works, the government would provide far stronger civics education than it is currently doing, though. Seriously, every kid ought to have a Civ/American Government class starting from middle school every other year, maybe even every year. Terrific, coming from latin terrere or 'frightening' is a pretty apt word to use for this scenario. And I think germany once tried that 'government class every year thing' forgot how it worked out for them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 10:12
|
|
|
Oh well if Germany did it once it's forever tarnished. Sorry, can't bother teaching citizens basic governmental procedure, better to have a ruling elite doing all the important stuff. I'm sure Germany tried that once, too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 10:26
|
|
|
No seriously people voting on every.single.thing is kind of terrifying. I mean you're talking about the same people who many of whom think NASA, welfare and foreign aid make up 80% of the budget probably. Also every day would be a vote for more tax cuts followed by a vote for something that costs money(that isn't welfare of course) followed by a vote to ensure taxes are never raised again, followed by a vote in favor of a balanced budget amendment followed by a vote that simultaneously gives amnesty while demanding a 60ft electrified wall be built.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 14:47
|
|
|
If you've ever worked with the public, you should know better then to think the average person is capable of making informed decisions on government. For themselves, and especially for others. Experts on subjects should be the ones to make decisions regarding them, and have various checks and balances (including Democratic voting for representitives) to ensure the system doesn't get as corrupt as ours currently is. For example, desegregation and forced integration are good things that would never have been passed by a majority of the people being governed, and they absolutely should have been (and were to an extent) forced to endure it for their own good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:If you've ever worked with the public, you should know better then to think the average person is capable of making informed decisions on government. For themselves, and especially for others. Experts on subjects should be the ones to make decisions regarding them, and have various checks and balances (including Democratic voting for representitives) to ensure the system doesn't get as corrupt as ours currently is. Did desegregation and forced integration get passed against the will of the public by enlightened beings in government that sprang from the ether? The history shows that all progressive changes required the public to act first. Monarchies in Europe transformed into democracies after numerous riots and popular uprisings, workers rights got better only because of striking actions and the looming threat of a communist revolution. Even getting rid of the slavery in the US was preceded by a large abolitionist movement. No angelic beings came and dragged the public kicking and screaming into the modern world, the common people actually wanted those changes to be implemented. The problem with letting experts rule is that they are not walking libraries that are guaranteed to give you the optimal answer whenever you ask. Their opinions on various topic frequently differ, so a politician can get his desired outcome just by choosing the right expert. As the most extreme example, consider Trofim Lysenko or Hans F. K. Günther. Even organizations independent from the state try to raise their own experts and get them into a position where they could influence politics. The Catholic Church, for example, draws a lot of nutcase medicine practitioners or scientists trying to discourage people from using contraception or exaggerate the risks of abortion. Tobacco companies funded their own research trying to present smoking as a low risk activity and tried to suppress unfavorable results. Rule by experts seems like a nice idea on paper - but how would you prevent them from getting corrupted by the establishment? How would you prevent the politicians from just choosing the experts with the ideas that appeal to them? How would you even make sure they are asking the right questions (as in rudatron's example with cities and cars)? As for the elected representatives - again, this doesn't work because you have no recourse after being screwed by a politician. Imagine that you order a tablet on Amazon and they send you a piece of a plank. They have your money now and you can't do poo poo about them, because courts don't exist and there is no one to enforce your contract. You go to the press and they chide you for spending your money irresponsibly. After all, a real iPad should have cost a lot more than the price given on the website. Maybe you should compromise, pay $200 more and hope they'll send you something - maybe an early model of Acer? So several months later you choose a shop that doesn't make unrealistic promises and send them money. They never respond. This is pretty much how representative democracy looks like. Gantolandon fucked around with this message at 17:53 on Aug 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
computer parts posted:So the system is literally the same but also is much more cumbersome? I was thinking more that we're damned either way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
I have zero urge to vote on every tiny thing that comes up in government, sorry. That's why there's elections. I can't imagine having a personal device and having to voice my opinion on everything that passes through all the governments that my jurisdiction is in. I'd probably break the device in a week.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
rudatron posted:This, I claim, is the more democratic system, the one were representatives are chosen by lottery. I don't have to think that I'm stupid to believe that if I were chosen by lot as Surgeon General or whatever that I'd gently caress it up horribly because of my total lack of medical knowledge.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I don't have to think that I'm stupid to believe that if I were chosen by lot as Surgeon General or whatever that I'd gently caress it up horribly because of my total lack of medical knowledge. This is a terrible analogy, because surgery is a specific skillset, which can be applied in a specific situation - either at the request of the patient (i. e. plastic surgery) or because of serious danger to someone's life and health. You don't elect a surgeon who promptly gets to operate on you whenever they want. "What do you mean, you don't want a frontal lobotomy? I am the doctor here and I say this is necessary! If you don't like it, you can replace me later with someone else!".
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted:This is a terrible analogy, because surgery is a specific skillset, which can be applied in a specific situation - either at the request of the patient (i. e. plastic surgery) or because of serious danger to someone's life and health. You don't elect a surgeon who promptly gets to operate on you whenever they want. "What do you mean, you don't want a frontal lobotomy? I am the doctor here and I say this is necessary! If you don't like it, you can replace me later with someone else!". The fact that you apparently don't know what the surgeon general is is a great example of people not being informed enough to make good decisions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:The fact that you apparently don't know what the surgeon general is is a great example of people not being informed enough to make good decisions. It's easy to forget that not all of people writing on somethingawful.com come from the US or even speak English as their first language. Edit: And no one in the thread actually advised randomly choosing the experts leading government agencies, just career politicians. Gantolandon fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Aug 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted:It's easy to forget that not all of people writing on somethingawful.com come from the US or even speak English as their first language. Those people should probably refrain from making snide remarks in regard to those words and topics which they don't understand then. Of course in no sane universe would I expect people to refrain from voting on words and topics they don't understand, so I think it still holds up as an example.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 19:17 |
|
|
Jarmak posted:Those people should probably refrain from making snide remarks in regard to those words and topics which they don't understand then. I'm not sure how not knowing what exactly is a Surgeon General (a US-specific office) disqualifies me from voicing my opinion in the thread about democracy. Can you also tell me how do you ensure that only the senators who understand the topic get to vote on related laws?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 20:22
|
|