|
Bush's 2nd veto.
|
|
Topic Started: May 1 2007, 07:56:01 PM (551 Views)
|
|
F3nr1L
|
May 2 2007, 07:22:28 PM
Post #16
|
|
Unregistered
|
- Jeff
- May 2 2007, 17:11:22
- F3nr1L
- May 2 2007, 19:00:38
- bdizz
- May 2 2007, 16:57:19
- Abyssal_Shrimp
- May 2 2007, 19:56:30
- F3nr1L
- May 1 2007, 23:31:58
>.>;;
A technocracy is similar to a true democracy, but virtually without people who know nothing about something getting to decide the rules about it. Basically, it is rule by the highly skilled. The best of the best in each field form boards for that field, who have representatives for the main democracy, consisting of the representatives of all possible fields.
So basically, those who know and are most talented in building and repairing cars, will set the policy via democratic vote on repairing and building cars. The same thing will then apply to every other field. The top doctors in say, pediatrics, will be in charge of handling all things relating directly to pediatrics, etc.
I absolutely LOVE the idea of a technocracy.
That sounds like a bad idea to me. >_>
^^^
I don't understand why. The best of the best deciding about what they are best in?
"We, the most skilled of the Food sellers, hereby ban all unlicensed food sales. Also, only we have licenses. Also, a loaf of bread is now $50." Nope, no problems there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_%28bureaucratic%29
I can't describe it accurately, cause I suck too much. But it isn't like that.
|
|
|
| |
|
Stone Kirby
|
May 2 2007, 07:29:53 PM
Post #17
|
¢¾¢Ü!?
- Posts:
- 23,772
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #3
- Joined:
- September 4, 2006
- Identity
- Sugam
|
- F3nr1L
- May 2 2007, 19:22:28
- Jeff
- May 2 2007, 17:11:22
- F3nr1L
- May 2 2007, 19:00:38
- bdizz
- May 2 2007, 16:57:19
- Abyssal_Shrimp
- May 2 2007, 19:56:30
- F3nr1L
- May 1 2007, 23:31:58
>.>;;
A technocracy is similar to a true democracy, but virtually without people who know nothing about something getting to decide the rules about it. Basically, it is rule by the highly skilled. The best of the best in each field form boards for that field, who have representatives for the main democracy, consisting of the representatives of all possible fields.
So basically, those who know and are most talented in building and repairing cars, will set the policy via democratic vote on repairing and building cars. The same thing will then apply to every other field. The top doctors in say, pediatrics, will be in charge of handling all things relating directly to pediatrics, etc.
I absolutely LOVE the idea of a technocracy.
That sounds like a bad idea to me. >_>
^^^
I don't understand why. The best of the best deciding about what they are best in?
"We, the most skilled of the Food sellers, hereby ban all unlicensed food sales. Also, only we have licenses. Also, a loaf of bread is now $50." Nope, no problems there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_%28bureaucratic%29I can't describe it accurately, cause I suck too much. But it isn't like that.
It kind of is.
On the Bush veto: Keep in mind that the bill contained a ton of pork, contained many loopholes that could keep probably most of the troops there, and was not what Congress should have done, which is de-fund the war.
|
|
|
| |
|
DoomPanda
|
May 2 2007, 11:43:07 PM
Post #18
|
- Posts:
- 620
- Group:
- Member
- Member
- #102
- Joined:
- October 1, 2006
|
The bill gave the president the funding he wanted, with recommended footnotes on when soldiers should be withdrawn.
The president wants money with no strings attached.
But regardless, I'm still more pissed off about his first veto. This current one is basically an argument of semantics. Congress won't and likely can't stop funding the war, because public opinion of them would drop faster than the school slut's dress on prom night.
|
|
yar!
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|