NationStates Jolt Archive

From another thread:

If they argue about science without knowing the scientific method, they're out. If they argue about religion without having studied religious texts/philosophy, they're out. If they do something harmful because a videogame/movie/song told them to do it, they're out. If they feed their children fast food more than twice a week on average, they're out. If they live in animal feces, they are so gone. If they have ever found themselves enjoying a Jessica Simpson song, they are booted right out. If they make a practice of saying "liberals all..." or "conservatives all..." or even "left-handed Mormon tattoo artists of Aboriginal descent all..." they are encouraged to leave the building by the nearest window.

Also note that the goal of the Anti-Idiot Party is for there no longer to be a need for the Anti-Idiot Party.

I'm afraid that your party is doomed to failure.


Afterall, you'll never be the majority :)

If they argue about science without knowing the scientific method, they're out. If they argue about religion without having studied religious texts/philosophy, they're out. If they do something harmful because a videogame/movie/song told them to do it, they're out. If they feed their children fast food more than twice a week on average, they're out. If they live in animal feces, they are so gone. If they have ever found themselves enjoying a Jessica Simpson song, they are booted right out. If they make a practice of saying "liberals all..." or "conservatives all..." or even "left-handed Mormon tattoo artists of Aboriginal descent all..." they are encouraged to leave the building by the nearest window.

What if you feed yourself fast food more than twice a week?

What if you feed yourself fast food more than twice a week?

As an adult, you have the freedom to do silly things with your own body. I do not count that as an end-all be-all qualification for idiocy. Realize though, that cooking for one's self can save money and is supremely more healthy...but fast food is sometimes soooooo good.

Anyway, this is the Anti-Idiot party, not the anti-enjoying yourself party.

I'm afraid that your party is doomed to failure.


Afterall, you'll never be the majority :)

Being in the majority is not necessary as long as the majority follows our lead. After all, no recent President's party has ever been comprised of the majority of Americans. If I am wrong, please correct me.

Being in the majority is not necessary as long as the majority follows our lead. After all, no recent President's party has ever been comprised of the majority of Americans. If I am wrong, please correct me.

You're right, but most of the time it is composed of the majority of voters.

I am sooooooo in!

First rule of the anti idiot party...

NO CONSERVATIVES!!!

You're right, but most of the time it is composed of the majority of voters.

Not true. You forget the indepenants make up almost a 3rd of voters (or perhaps that's just registered voters?)

First rule of the anti idiot party...

NO CONSERVATIVES!!!

You're out. Good bye. Likewise would be someone who said "no liberals!"

Geez, I even said it in the opening post!

A primary concept to the Anti-Idiot party is that good ideas can come from anywhere on the "visible political spectrum*"

*meaning anything that isn't too irrationally radical/reactionary. Heh, I just made that up myself.

Not true. You forget the indepenants make up almost a 3rd of voters (or perhaps that's just registered voters?)

Heh, normally independant parties don't get a third of the votes, and most independants aren't really independants, they just say they are because they think it makes them sound open-minded and intelligent.

Long Live the Anti-Idiot Party!

Heh, normally independant parties don't get a third of the votes, and most independants aren't really independants, they just say they are because they think it makes them sound open-minded and intelligent.

Exactly. Voting for someone in a particular party does not make you a member of that party though. Likewise, the Anti-Idiot party should attract non-party voters for the exact reason you just expressed. We welcome their vote, they just can't join.

Exactly. Voting for someone in a particular party does not make you a member of that party though. Likewise, the Anti-Idiot party should attract non-party voters for the exact reason you just expressed. We welcome their vote, they just can't join.

Meh, whatever. Cool idea, I suppose, but I'm not enough of an idiot to proclaim my undying love of this party until I see some sort of platform start getting drafted. I assume that will be happening soon.

Meh, whatever. Cool idea, I suppose, but I'm not enough of an idiot to proclaim my undying love of this party until I see some sort of platform start getting drafted. I assume that will be happening soon.

I hope so. It saddens me that there have been so few suggestions. Also, the party bylaws strictly forbid the undying love of the party.

I hope so. It saddens me that there have been so few suggestions.

How's this for a start: everybody argue a stance on capital punishment, abortion, affirmative action, international politics, trade restrictions, military strategy, criminal treatment, gun control, healthcare, and drug use, we'll all vote (don't use a poll, we'll get less outsiders that way), and that can become party policy. Then go from there.

I am:

*For capital punishment for first degree murder, violent rape and child molestation.
*Pro choice up until the late second/early third trimester.
*Anti affirmative action, period.
*For proactive international politics in most situations.
*Protectionist, to an extent.
*Supportive of fairly aggressive military strategy, in that I support the most effective way of handling a military situation that results in the lowest loss of life within our ranks.
*Anti criminal rights activism, and find it very annoying. Ex-felons really don't get a lot of pity from me, either.
*Pro gun registration, but that's about it.
*Pro private drug use, but only with massive repercussions attached to public use or being in public while highly effected, pun intended.
*Anti national healthcare, pro free healthcare for the needy and employed or the needy and unemployed for disability reasons.

How's this for a start: everybody argue a stance on capital punishment, abortion, affirmative action, international politics, trade restrictions, military strategy, criminal treatment, gun control, healthcare, and drug use, we'll all vote (don't use a poll, we'll get less outsiders that way), and that can become party policy. Then go from there.

I am:

*For capital punishment for first degree murder, violent rape and child molestation.
*Pro choice up until the late second/early third trimester.
*Anti affirmative action, period.
*For proactive international politics in most situations.
*Protectionist, to an extent.
*Supportive of fairly aggressive military strategy, in that I support the most effective way of handling a military situation that results in the lowest loss of life within our ranks.
*Anti criminal rights activism, and find it very annoying. Ex-felons really don't get a lot of pity from me, either.
*Pro gun registration, but that's about it.
*Pro private drug use, but only with massive repercussions attached to public use or being in public while highly effected, pun intended.
*Anti national healthcare, pro free healthcare for the needy and employed or the needy and unemployed for disability reasons.

1. I agree, with some possible further cases as well, though I also believe in a higher burden of proof in capital cases, since it's incorrectible.
2. I'm pro-choice, but it wouldn't be part of my platform. Leave it to partisans to argue that one.
3. Affirmativ action is in need of an overhaul, and basing it on race is unnecessarily imflammatory. A better solution would be to make sure all public schools are funded equally, and encouraging/giving incentives to people who voluntarily de-segregate themselves residentially. Stirring the melting pot, as it were.
4. I agree, as long as proactive does not equal bullying.
5. Protectionist to the extent that we make deals that are good for the people of our country without cheating others.
6. Agreed. Overwhelming force is best. On the other hand, tossing more money into the military budget (which is greater than the rest of the world's combined,) is not the answer. The military contains some of the most egregious cases of government pork in existance. It needs to learn to be sleeker and more responsible with it's funding. I firmly believe we could do more with less.
7. I think criminals, especially violent and white collar, are coddled too much and rehabilitated too little.
8. I believe in waiting periods. What's the hurry? If you procrastinate in getting a gun, too bad. I'm also of the opinion that greater training/licensing is required. A gun is an incredible responsibility, and it should be treated as such. Everyone should have the ability to have one though.
9. Hard drugs that have a profound effect on health and behavior I think should still be outlawed. Other than those, I think they should be treated like alcohol...not for kids, and if you commit a crime while on them, the book should be thrown at you.
10. Sounds like national healthcare to me :D
--------

11. I'm for greater environmental protection. Even on a purely $ sense, prevention costs less than long-term cleanup and health problems.

12. I'm for taking the savings from eliminating as much government pork as possible and putting them into education. The long term military/economic/social benefits more than pay for themselves.

Anti-idiot party eh? Can I join and be one of those annoying people who are so pro a certain party that no matter what they do I think they're better then the other guys? http://www.xboxworld.com.au/forum/images/smilies/beer.gif

Anti-idiot party eh? Can I join and be one of those annoying people who are so pro a certain party that no matter what they do I think they're better then the other guys? http://www.xboxworld.com.au/forum/images/smilies/beer.gif

I'm afraid not. You can't join the party if you can't even bother to read a thread that's only 2 pages long (hint, the last post on page 1 strictly prohibits the kind of behavior you're asking about.)

I'm afraid not. You can't join the party if you can't even bother to read a thread that's only 2 pages long (hint, the last post on page 1 strictly prohibits the kind of behavior you're asking about.)
But : http://www.xboxworld.com.au/forum/images/smilies/beer.gif

Whoop! For intelligence! :fluffle:

But : http://www.xboxworld.com.au/forum/images/smilies/beer.gif

No, that merely qualifies you for the Good Guy to Hang Out With Party.

No, that merely qualifies you for the Good Guy to Hang Out With Party.
Wait so this is a political party!? goes away with the beer and party stuff. :D
http://www.xboxworld.com.au/forum/images/smilies/muffin.gif

Wait so this is a political party!? goes away with the beer and party stuff. :D
http://www.xboxworld.com.au/forum/images/smilies/muffin.gif
Bring that back! You clearly don't remember the Clinton Administration...

1. I agree, with some possible further cases as well, though I also believe in a higher burden of proof in capital cases, since it's incorrectible.
2. I'm pro-choice, but it wouldn't be part of my platform. Leave it to partisans to argue that one.
3. Affirmativ action is in need of an overhaul, and basing it on race is unnecessarily imflammatory. A better solution would be to make sure all public schools are funded equally, and encouraging/giving incentives to people who voluntarily de-segregate themselves residentially. Stirring the melting pot, as it were.
4. I agree, as long as proactive does not equal bullying.
5. Protectionist to the extent that we make deals that are good for the people of our country without cheating others.
6. Agreed. Overwhelming force is best. On the other hand, tossing more money into the military budget (which is greater than the rest of the world's combined,) is not the answer. The military contains some of the most egregious cases of government pork in existance. It needs to learn to be sleeker and more responsible with it's funding. I firmly believe we could do more with less.
7. I think criminals, especially violent and white collar, are coddled too much and rehabilitated too little.
8. I believe in waiting periods. What's the hurry? If you procrastinate in getting a gun, too bad. I'm also of the opinion that greater training/licensing is required. A gun is an incredible responsibility, and it should be treated as such. Everyone should have the ability to have one though.
9. Hard drugs that have a profound effect on health and behavior I think should still be outlawed. Other than those, I think they should be treated like alcohol...not for kids, and if you commit a crime while on them, the book should be thrown at you.
10. Sounds like national healthcare to me :D
--------

11. I'm for greater environmental protection. Even on a purely $ sense, prevention costs less than long-term cleanup and health problems.

12. I'm for taking the savings from eliminating as much government pork as possible and putting them into education. The long term military/economic/social benefits more than pay for themselves.

I'm totally joining this party.

That being said, I don't happen to agree with #1 (but I know I'm likely to be in the minority there, and I'm used to that). Other than that, these platforms sound pretty good - not all exactly my views, but all close enough that I wouldn't have any problems voting for candidates who supported them. :)

I'd also like to add:

13. Consenting adults can marry whomever they please.
14. ID will never be taught in public school science classes.
15. Penguins are cute.

(I figured I ought to put one item in there that everyone can agree on.) ;)

As I suspected, NS is a wasteland barren of non-idiotic ideas. :p

That being said, I would like some serious posts. The non-serious ones are just as welcome though.

I'm totally joining this party.

That being said, I don't happen to agree with #1 (but I know I'm likely to be in the minority there, and I'm used to that). Other than that, these platforms sound pretty good - not all exactly my views, but all close enough that I wouldn't have any problems voting for candidates who supported them. :)

I'd also like to add:

13. Consenting adults can marry whomever they please.
14. ID will never be taught in public school science classes.
15. Penguins are cute.

(I figured I ought to put one item in there that everyone can agree on.) ;)

Heh, well done!

While I agree with #13, I don't think it can be acted on without jeopardizing the rest of the platform. We have to get the country on a firmly Non-Idiotic footing before we can tackle that one. In the meantime, we work gently on increasing the rights of same-sex partners.

A thought has often occured to me. It seems to be the name that many people stumble on. Perhaps if we introduced same sex marriage as an institution with it's own name and unique traditions, that might help to not only un-ruffle some feathers but also reinforce the sense of community among those who participate in it. On the other hand, this might also summon up the specter of "seperate but equal." Still, something to consider.

Not to be overly critical or anything, but this is beginning to look more like a Moderate Party than an Anti-Idiot Party. Most (but not all) of the ideas that have been put out there so far are pretty mainstream, and a good number of them have already been implemented in at least some parts of the world. What's the point of starting another middle of the road party? Doesn't America have two of them already?

Same-sex marriage? Just call them 'Civil Unions'. Honestly I think a lot of the non-activist gay community would prefer it that way, because most of them just want to live their lives with minimum controversary.

How about balanced budget?

Not to be overly critical or anything, but this is beginning to look more like a Moderate Party than an Anti-Idiot Party. Most (but not all) of the ideas that have been put out there so far are pretty mainstream, and a good number of them have already been implemented in at least some parts of the world. What's the point of starting another middle of the road party? Doesn't America have two of them already?

I suspect many of the conservatives on these forums would take issue with some of the platforms proposed so far being called moderate.

Besides, whatever the U.S. has, it definitely does not have any idiot-free parties yet. But what a lovely, lovely (utterly unrealistic) dream it is to think that it might someday! :p

Same-sex marriage? Just call them 'Civil Unions'. Honestly I think a lot of the non-activist gay community would prefer it that way, because most of them just want to live their lives with minimum controversary.

How about balanced budget?

Nah, civil unions sounds too clinical. Can you actually picture someone saying, "That Civil Union ceremony was so beautiful!"

A balanced budget is of course an Anti-Idiot idea.

Heh, well done!

While I agree with #13, I don't think it can be acted on without jeopardizing the rest of the platform. We have to get the country on a firmly Non-Idiotic footing before we can tackle that one. In the meantime, we work gently on increasing the rights of same-sex partners.

A thought has often occured to me. It seems to be the name that many people stumble on. Perhaps if we introduced same sex marriage as an institution with it's own name and unique traditions, that might help to not only un-ruffle some feathers but also reinforce the sense of community among those who participate in it. On the other hand, this might also summon up the specter of "seperate but equal." Still, something to consider.

How about this?

13 (take two): The government will grant any consenting adults a civil union, which includes all the priveleges and responsibilities currently included in legal marriage. Churches and other organizations can marry whomever they individually choose to. The government will have no say in who can and cannot be married, as that will be entirely the provenance of the churches/organizations.

Not to be overly critical or anything, but this is beginning to look more like a Moderate Party than an Anti-Idiot Party. Most (but not all) of the ideas that have been put out there so far are pretty mainstream, and a good number of them have already been implemented in at least some parts of the world. What's the point of starting another middle of the road party? Doesn't America have two of them already?

No, Moderate politicians in America mainly seem to be, "Idiots who follow the status-quo and don't make waves."

Also, you didn't seem to bother reading the entire thread. No membership for you.

What I'm suggesting is innovation without slavish dedication to any particular spot in the political spectrum. I want good ideas from the left and right and whichever other directions might pop up.

10. Sounds like national healthcare to me :D

Well, national healthcare is something everyone pays equally for and everyone benefits equally from. I think it's stupid for better service not to be available to people who have worked hard to earn (or inherit) enough money.

11. I'm for greater environmental protection. Even on a purely $ sense, prevention costs less than long-term cleanup and health problems.

Fair enough. My only question is where do you stop?

12. I'm for taking the savings from eliminating as much government pork as possible and putting them into education. The long term military/economic/social benefits more than pay for themselves.

Fair enough. However would the education received be better spent improving the quality of the currently terrible public school system, or endorsing private schools and requiring them to freely admit those that cannot afford the education that they can provide?

13. Consenting adults can marry whomever they please.
14. ID will never be taught in public school science classes.
15. Penguins are cute.

(I figured I ought to put one item in there that everyone can agree on.) ;)

13. I'm kind of the same as Gymoor here. I think something in the spirit of (while not necessarily named) civil unions would be better, more moderate, and receive wider support - not to mention make more sense. If gay marriage were legalized, however, I wouldn't care. I just think it would be better for the party to be less uppity on the subject and settle.

14. Fair enough.

15. I disagree entirely. Fuck penguins. They're ugly, fat creatures with stupid little beaks, and they're designed like someone started to make them black, ran out of paint and just left it, instead of getting off his or her lazy ass to go buy some more with which to finish the job.

--snip--
Fair enough. However would the education received be better spent improving the quality of the currently terrible public school system, or endorsing private schools and requiring them to freely admit those that cannot afford the education that they can provide?

Well, if private schools freely admit those that cannot afford them, then how do they differ from public schools, other than the fact that the wealthy would pay? That doesn't seem particularly fair to me, even though I think a disproportionate amount of wealth is concentrated in the few and wealthy.

No, we need more teachers who themselves are better trained, paid and equipped. We need children to receive a classical education as well as incorporating innovative teaching techniques, whereas there seems to be much too much emphasis on a one-or-the-other approach. We need stronger remedial and advanced courses, and knock off with the PC bullshit of treating all children alike, therefore rendering them all mediocre. We need more foreign language being taught at an early age, where everyone acknowledges it is more easily picked up. We need more critical thinking rather than rote. We need more arts taught, since studies show that art improves cognitive abilities (for example, music is pretty conclusively proven to give children greater insight into mathematics.)

This is just my opinion though.

As far as how far environmental policy goes, I am neither an environmental scientist nor am I a CEO. We do need a balance, but I think that balance lies more in the direction of the environment. Heavy metals and carcinogens definitely need to be reduced, as do chemical fertilizers. Corporate farms and livestock factories are horrible for the environment and produce an inferior product...nutrition and flavor are lost, and cleanup is beyond belief. Both those factors also lead to greater healthcare costs. We are a society that is living longer, but less healthily.

bump

From another thread:



Also note that the goal of the Anti-Idiot Party is for there no longer to be a need for the Anti-Idiot Party.

Was wondering when this was coming Party chairman! :)

Nah, civil unions sounds too clinical. Can you actually picture someone saying, "That Civil Union ceremony was so beautiful!"

A balanced budget is of course an Anti-Idiot idea.

Seconded! A balance budget is a definite must!

I shall join with the intentions that I can head a science board of some sort, to keep these children from spreading High Schoolish science ideas. I shall recruit scientist of all fields and place one in the head of each branch of science and they can build their own departments to determine the idiocy of many poster's cheap science talk.

May I join the Anti-Idiot Party?

I dunno if I'm in, but at least I'm not out! :D

Nah, civil unions sounds too clinical. Can you actually picture someone saying, "That Civil Union ceremony was so beautiful!"

*Goes down on one knee*
Will you Civil Union me?

Bring that back! You clearly don't remember the Clinton Administration... lol
http://www.xboxworld.com.au/forum/images/smilies/banana.gif http://www.xboxworld.com.au/forum/images/smilies/banana.gif

From another thread:



Also note that the goal of the Anti-Idiot Party is for there no longer to be a need for the Anti-Idiot Party.


I gasp gasp can't join :( a few years ago a song came on the radio and I thought the words of the song were lovely but it was (takes big gulp) sung by....jessica simpson :eek: I'm so ashamed. Fooled I was by the radio :headbang:

*Goes down on one knee*
Will you Civil Union me?

lol
:fluffle: :fluffle: sounds a bit kinky!! But go on yes I will...you are a guy right??

:fluffle: :fluffle: sounds a bit kinky!! But go on yes I will...you are a guy right??
yeah I'm a guy. :fluffle:


(lol, I think I've accidently become E-engaged ) :fluffle:

I shall join with the intentions that I can head a science board of some sort, to keep these children from spreading High Schoolish science ideas. I shall recruit scientist of all fields and place one in the head of each branch of science and they can build their own departments to determine the idiocy of many poster's cheap science talk.

May I join the Anti-Idiot Party?

See, hiring advisors who are extremely knowledgable in a subject is definitely an Anti-Idiot idea. Welcome.

See, hiring advisors who are extremely knowledgable in a subject is definitely an Anti-Idiot idea. Welcome.

I second Gymoor's welcome :)

I gasp gasp can't join :( a few years ago a song came on the radio and I thought the words of the song were lovely but it was (takes big gulp) sung by....jessica simpson :eek: I'm so ashamed. Fooled I was by the radio :headbang:

Well....are you suitably contrite? We all make mistakes.

Well, if private schools freely admit those that cannot afford them, then how do they differ from public schools, other than the fact that the wealthy would pay? That doesn't seem particularly fair to me, even though I think a disproportionate amount of wealth is concentrated in the few and wealthy.

Well, generally I would agree, but in this case I would have to say that it is no less fair than sticking poor kids in public schools for a lesser education. If, however, it was not a requirement, private schools could at least be given tax breaks and endorsements in exchange for the admission of children who are below the poverty line. Or perhaps the tax collected by the state to fund public schools (where the poor kids go for free to begin with) could instead be used to send poor kids to private schools, thus giving everyone a better education.

No, we need more teachers who themselves are better trained, paid and equipped. We need children to receive a classical education as well as incorporating innovative teaching techniques, whereas there seems to be much too much emphasis on a one-or-the-other approach.

Ever heard the phrase, "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach?" Well, I don't know about you, but I've found that to be true with almost every teacher that I've had at a public school. I knew two genuinely knowledgeable teachers, both of which worked elsewhere before teaching. The point is that most people who are truly qualified in a subject don't teach at public schools, but get "real" (for lack of a better word) jobs or teach at private schools and colleges. I do agree that we need more teachers who are better trained, paid, and equipped, but I think that is an easier goal to achieve with private schools.

We need stronger remedial and advanced courses, and knock off with the PC bullshit of treating all children alike, therefore rendering them all mediocre. We need more foreign language being taught at an early age, where everyone acknowledges it is more easily picked up. We need more critical thinking rather than rote. We need more arts taught, since studies show that art improves cognitive abilities (for example, music is pretty conclusively proven to give children greater insight into mathematics.)

Agreed. I think we just don't see eye to eye on the best way to get there.

Ever heard the phrase, "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach?" Well, I don't know about you, but I've found that to be true with almost every teacher that I've had at a public school. I knew two genuinely knowledgeable teachers, both of which worked elsewhere before teaching. The point is that most people who are truly qualified in a subject don't teach at public schools, but get "real" (for lack of a better word) jobs or teach at private schools and colleges. I do agree that we need more teachers who are better trained, paid, and equipped, but I think that is an easier goal to achieve with private schools.

This phenomenon is self-fulfilling. You get lousy teachers and the urge to become one simply isn't there. We imitate those we admire.

Take the ancient Greeks. Teachers were loved and revered there, and they became the center of the civilized world. Now there's too much of an environment where a child is castigated if they enjoy school too much, and they are called a "nerd," or worse. I don't think this is a flaw in the human condition, I think this is a flaw in American society. A flaw that can't be fixed overnight, but one that needs to be addressed.

It doesn't help when the party currently in power constantly makes snarky remarks about people being over-educated, especially when many are Ivy leaguers themselves. It hurts America when they make appeals to ignorance.

There simply isn't a healthy environment for learning in this country. Most of our "role models" are idiots or portray idiots.

This phenomenon is self-fulfilling. You get lousy teachers and the urge to become one simply isn't there. We imitate those we admire.

Take the ancient Greeks. Teachers were loved and revered there, and they became the center of the civilized world.

Good point.

Now there's too much of an environment where a child is castigated if they enjoy school too much, and they are called a "nerd," or worse. I don't think this is a flaw in the human condition, I think this is a flaw in American society. A flaw that can't be fixed overnight, but one that needs to be addressed.

Well, only if you are a nerd. Doing well and caring don't necessarily make a nerd of a person; it's doing well, caring, and making sure people are aware of these traits on a daily basis. Maybe it's just my school, but the only people who get labeled as nerds are people that openly care too much, ask too many questions, kiss the teachers' asses, etc.

Good point.



Well, only if you are a nerd. Doing well and caring don't necessarily make a nerd of a person; it's doing well, caring, and making sure people are aware of these traits on a daily basis. Maybe it's just my school, but the only people who get labeled as nerds are people that openly care too much, ask too many questions, kiss the teachers' asses, etc.

Wait did you actually say "ask too many questions,"and "care too much?"

Wait did you actually say "ask too many questions,"and "care too much?"

Yes, but I think you're taking it the wrong way.

When you ask so many questions that you hold up twenty other people who understand the subject and are trying to learn, you are asking too many questions. You should come in on your own time.

When you ask questions that you already know the answer to just because you want to show off, or because you consider your classmates to be stupider than you and in need of the answers to said questions, you are asking too many questions. You should shut-up.

When you care so much that you work incessantly until you burn yourself out, you care too much. You need to relax and save your heart from some stress.

Fair enough. Anything can be taken to extremes. I just think that funneling kids into the correct advanced classes should take care of most of those problems though.

Fair enough. Anything can be taken to extremes. I just think that funneling kids into the correct advanced classes should take care of most of those problems though.

Definitely. There also need to be more inbetween classes. When I was in high school, I remember some relatively smart kids that butchered regular classes but barely maintained low C's in honors classes, so they were forced to waste their ability and sit through regular courses, which I'm sure must have made them terribly bored. It would have been nice to have a course that had been harder that a regular course but easier than an honors or AP course. Then there were people that did absolutely no homework and still got straight-A's in honors and AP courses, and there was nothing offered that was hard enough to really challenge them.

I'll sign on.
One question: Would one get shown the exit for saying "left-handed Mormon tattoo artists of Aboriginal descent are all left-handed Mormon tattoo artists of Aboriginal descent all"? ;)

I'll sign on.
One question: Would one get shown the exit for saying "left-handed Mormon tattoo artists of Aboriginal descent are all left-handed Mormon tattoo artists of Aboriginal descent all"? ;)

Why would someone get kicked out for saying something that is self-evident?

Why would someone get kicked out for saying something that is self-evident?

It was (an attempt at) humor, thus the ;).

It was (an attempt at) humor, thus the ;).

My bad, I should have included a ;) too.

Teachers were loved and revered there, and they became the center of the civilized world.

Hahahaha.

Acutally they tended to love their students.

But carry on. And don't be a trembler.

Hahahaha.

Acutally they tended to love their students.

But carry on. And don't be a trembler.

Hmmm, funny enough. I give it about a 5.5. Carry on as well.

Hmmm, funny enough. I give it about a 5.5. Carry on as well.

Hey, I didn't invent the pedagogue. The ancient greeks did.

So I demand a 6.5, at least.

Hey, I didn't invent the pedagogue. The ancient greeks did.

So I demand a 6.5, at least.

So it's minus one for unorginality :D

So it's minus one for unorginality :D

Well think about what the pedagogue was.

Perhaps some people have ideas about better ways to elect officials?

Perhaps some people have ideas about better ways to elect officials?

Write ins. You can't screw that up :D

Write ins. You can't screw that up :D

Unless, of course, Mickey Mouse gets elected.

Perhaps some people have ideas about better ways to elect officials?

I'm assuming you mean in the US?

I'd like to see the electoral rules for the House of Representatives changed to allow for both single seat and proportional representation (mixed member proportional voting, as explained here (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/BeginnningReading/howprwor.htm)).

It gives the advantage of having a directly elected geographical representative, but allows smaller partiesw to have a voice. (And as a small party, we'll want a voice.)

In Japan (where I live), as I understand it, all ballots are write ins, and it can cause problems - for example name recognition becomes way more important than platform.

It's a sign of politics in general that the Anti-Idiot party is not catching on...

bump

Are we sending anyone to the parliment?

Nah, civil unions sounds too clinical. Can you actually picture someone saying, "That Civil Union ceremony was so beautiful!"

A balanced budget is of course an Anti-Idiot idea.

What if we called it "garriage"?

I notice that when you ask people to contribute ideas, what they most like doing is poking holes in yours.*

* No, I did not mean it that way. That's sick. Shame on you.

Sigh. My party isn't even a 3rd party. It almost makes me weep.

Sigh. My party isn't even a 3rd party. It almost makes me weep.

I know :(

You still have my fullest support though Gymoor II :)

I know :(

You still have my fullest support though Gymoor II :)

The problem is that I was too lazy to write a manifesto. Then again, I was asking for ideas/contributions and I got very very few. That's what I get for trying to lead by consensus instead of saying, "All right, this is how it's gonna be." Followed by a steely glare and a jutting of my chiseled jaw.

The problem is that I was too lazy to write a manifesto. Then again, I was asking for ideas/contributions and I got very very few. That's what I get for trying to lead by consensus instead of saying, "All right, this is how it's gonna be." Followed by a steely glare and a jutting of my chiseled jaw.

Well....

let us write a manefesto together and then we can show the parliment what idiots they are :D