leejo

Fair enough, but a good way to make people think you're crank is by running around screaming that the goverment is putting stuff in the water / hiding green men in a warehouse / planning to hide things like Mad Cow burning through the population. Furthermore, I think it's a good idea to check facts pretty carefully before trashing a person or organization's name or reputation.

leejo

jex

So where's the democracy in being forced to vote and he has every right to complain.

Tempus

I was not proposing that the government would do anything intentionally to harm the populace. I was not proposing that the goverment would let mad cow "burn through the population". But I do fear the goverment saying, "Hey, this mad cow is not a big deal, why make a big scandal out of it?" Or, "Sure, someone is trying to drive a plane into some buildings, but the chance of that happening is so small, why alarm the population?" :idea:

HSantal

No-one is being forced to vote. It is your democratic right or choice to vote. Or not.

Having said that, if you democratically choose NOT to vote then you have no right to complain later because you chose not to participate.
It just makes sense.



Then again I'm canadian.

leejo

I think implying that the government would intentionally do harm to the populace is exactly what you were doing, Tempus, intentionally or otherwise:

"we are all going to pay the price in the end"
"You better believe that ...we would not have been told about Mad Cow"
"anything that might go against the economy and/or government would get squashed as deemed necessary"

No, I think that you saw something that made you mad at "that A$$" and you posted whatever crazy thing you thought justified or supported your position. Now you're backing out of that line of argument by attempting to wrap this up in a philosophical discussion about the role of government. But it just doesn't hold water.

The issue at hand isn't about whether or not the government is the appropriate authority to release information about public safety. It already is! The question is should that authority be distributed between different agencies, where bureaucrats with no loyalty to the current administration maintain control, or should it be managed by the OMB, staffed and more closely watched by administration appointees?

As I see it, this is a discussion between some people who read conspiracy and lies into everything the current administration does and people who do not.

In general, though, hurling any old crazy accusation at someone with the hope that one, someday, will stick is not a winning or endearing strategy. It's patently irresponsible.

Getting someone else to hurl crazy accusations for you...now that's politics!

Best regards,

leejo

Wintermute

Having all press releases released by the OMB:
Ups:
co-ordination and "joined-up govt."
accountability is easily traced.
Reduces possibility of rogue civil servants.

downs:
Possible increase of suppression/ spin of releases as OMB is political whereas civil servants are theoretically not.
Increased burocracy

As far as Mad Cow goes, our govt. never had an official policy about not telling people things, but it still did it. The info about BSE in cows got out straight away both times, but the link between BSE in cows and CJD in people was suppressed then denied by the govt.

They did it for monetary reasons, but people are mistaken when they think politicians take monetary decisions out of greed. They get paid a salary just like most people in suits. It doesn't change whether or not british beef is banned across the world. They did know that many of their citizens would lose out substantially from said global ban, which is why they suppressed the info as long as they could.

Wyzcrak

Please list, as exactly and with the greatest specifity as you can manage, the exact accusation(s) you understand Tempus to have made, including a specific mention to the accusation target's name or role.

Wyzcrak

__________________
Steam Community? Add me. | Join #tacticalgamer | Search Results Legend | New Posts Forum Filter | Postbox Toggle | Live Thread Review | One Line Results | Free Remote, Encrypted Backup

Darkilla: In short, NS is pretty much really fast chess. With guns. Apophis: I haven't seen anyone say that SM's are better than non-SMs. Nordbomber: This is THE first server I've seen where either side can comeback from out of seemingly nowhere with the right teamwork. en4rcment: I have NEVER experienced the type of gameplay that I have found here. Nightly I am amazed at the personalities and gaming talent. Root: Welcome to TG. Feel free to punctuate your sentences correctly. Monkerz: Its gonna take all my skills to beat those boys off in the future.

leejo

Don't try to be cute, and butt out, non-voter. You don't vote, so only a fool cares what you think about politics.

Sorry, but that's the brutal truth. Ask any politician!

CingularDuality

I agree with everything you just said, but once again, it doesn't apply to this instance...

The Gov't already has the "power". They're the ones out gathering this information. I fail to see how you are correlating this suggested policy with the gov't "grabbing power".

__________________

Become a supporting member! -- Shop at the Tactical Market!

Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

Wyzcrak

You want the brutal truth? I asked a simple question, and I doubt your ability to answer it. This has nothing to do with voting, nothing to do with politics. It has to do with you being held accountable for what you say. And if you respect me, you'll answer my query. If you don't, you'll call me names, making an ass of yourself in the process.

If I wanted to be cute, I'd get a wig.

Wyzcrak

leejo

Aw I was just kidding. But you should vote, and I'm not going to answer your query. Read the thread. It's all there.

Best regards,

leejo

Geisha

As much as I hate sensationalism in the media, the fact that we have a vociferous free press is what keeps me from fearing The Ministry of Truth from 1984. When the government legally controls or censors the media, instead of merely attempting to spin/manipulate it, then I will start worrying. As it stands now, it is my belief (and I could be wrong) that determined dirt-diggers will win over corrupt politicians hiding things. If I've misunderstood or over-dramatized your meaning here I apologize - it is simply government control of information you are concerned about?

jex - I must agree with leejo & Hsantal. Not voting is a valid choice. But it is not really a political position. Even when all the choices are bad ones, you can at least vote against the worst case? If someone forfeits their vote, it would seem to me that they are also forfeiting griping rights as they didn't even try to prevent the worst from occurring. Of course, I suppose one could extend this theory to say that I have no right to post an opinion in this forum since I haven't been on the servers in months - but I still pay my TG taxes, so I don't feel too bad.

jex

I used to think that years ago to but not any more. Just because one chooses not to vote does not mean they have no right to complain. Judging by the farce of the last elections in the US (according to M. Moore) it would appear that voting has nothing to do with it.

So if I choose not to vote why do I not have a right to complain?

If it's my democratic choice not to vote but then I'm not allowed to complain I'm living in a facist state because your only allowing my voice if I vote and therefore forcing me to vote.

What if there are no parties that meet up to what I or you want? With no choice should you choose the 'next best option' just so you have a 'right' to complain?

I and you have every right to complain if you choose not to vote. You live on this planet - nobody asked you to join in the political machinations and you haven't signed a bit of paper saying that you agree to the terms and conditions.

Would you agree that you can't complain about the Gov't hushing up a nuclear accident in which you get cancer because you didn't vote?

Denying people a voice isn't very democratic imo but no hard feelings eh?

Thanks,

J.

Geisha

I am corrected. Everyone has the right to voice an opinion, then, in any format.

Voting is supposed to be the most effective form of voicing that opinion. Forgoing voting renders your opinion less useful to the community, because it doesn't contribute to the executive selection and the legislative process. When a person expresses an opinion without voting he is pushing other people's buttons to get them to make changes for him (I don't mean that in a derogatory manner, I'm not sure how to phrase that without colloquialisms). I'm also talking about all voting here, not just elections.

And yes, there's never hard feelings on my part.

Geisha

I think you're half-joking so I'd like to reply with "that's silly" and an LOL but if you're serious I don't mean to offend...

Voting is intended to provide majority rule, with the theory that then a majority of the people would either be happy or would learn they were wrong and not do it again. When a citizen doesn't vote, that skews the majority and then our government and legislation cannot be accurately representative even if all the politicians were perfectly true to their voters. And only a majority of the voters in states with significant electoral counts put Presidents in office. Everyone else might have tried something different and failed.

EDIT: Urg. Sorry for the double post!