THE US GOVERNMENT HAS SHUT DOWN

Dr. Javelin said:
but Republicans have a lot to gain.

personally, i'm hoping they gain a lot of people pointing out how hard the "pro business" party is working to tank the economy
 
Shoutmon said:
Dr. Javelin said:
but Republicans have a lot to gain.

personally, i'm hoping they gain a lot of people pointing out how hard the "pro business" party is working to tank the economy

The Republicans did well in the previous government shut-down, did they? Y'know, getting the blame and all does help their cause.
 
British singer Jamelia described the situation perfectly on 8 out of 10 Cats. Turns out the Republicans just want people to die.
 
we do have a habit of explaining things perfectly

just sit back and watch a bit of mock the week once in a while
 
i thought ian hislop summed it up well on have i got news for you, but i've forgotten what he said
 
wB9fWqL.png

both times i opened up this stream this guy was talking is he my spirit animal
 
I'd rather have my Government shut down than have Tony Abbott as my Prime Minister.

So I can't be bothered reading through the whole thread so can someone please summarise the whole situation and where it is at for me?
 
I could have sworn you guys passed universal healthcare like 3 years ago, what happened? Or was there just a lot of talking and no doing?
 
Shoutmon said:
800 000 government workers are out of a job or being forced to work for no pay
from what i understand there's also 1.3 million "essential workers" who aren't getting payed but will eventually (if the government actually restarts)
 
Something like this actually happened in Australia once before. It was in the 1970's or so, where a few members of the Labor party which was in power at the time quit and were replaced by members of the opposing party a while before the election. The Liberal party then ended up getting a majority in the Senate, and used that to block the budget from being passed (I don't exactly know why. It was something about the government passing a law to borrow a lot of money from some shady guy or something, and wasn't exactly that safe). So the government couldn't pass the budget, which meant they had no money.

Luckily for us, being part of the British Commonwealth, the Governor-General has the power to sack the government if they ever do something incredibly stupid or are in danger. So the government was sacked and I don't exactly know what happened after that.

You guys really need a Govenor-General. Someone who can have a higher power than the President in emergencies like these.
 
Purple Yoshi said:
You guys really need a Govenor-General. Someone who can have a higher power than the President in emergencies like these.

IDK about you, but to me that sounds like power just begging to be abused.
 
キノピオ八十五 said:
Purple Yoshi said:
You guys really need a Govenor-General. Someone who can have a higher power than the President in emergencies like these.

IDK about you, but to me that sounds like power just begging to be abused.

Well, the Queen is higher than the Governor-General. In fact, they're appointed by the Queen.

And considering the current Governor-General is also an old lady, I don't think it's going to be abused any time soon. The only way there'll be corruption with no one to stop it is if the monarch becomes corrupt. Which isn't likely.

I'm not saying being in a commonwealth is better than a republic or anything. I'm just saying it's useful in times like this.
 
since i think both sides (repubs and dems) are at fault, 95% of my friends are probably pissed at me since 80% of my friends are on dem side and 15% of my friends are on the repub side

i think it's horrible of the repubs to refuse to pass the budget and let the government become shutdown just because they don't agree with one little part of the budget (obamacare)

but i also don't agree with a lot of the things the dems are doing (such as allegedly spending more money hiring armed goons to keep people out of national parks than it would've cost to keep the parks open in the first place)

as far as i'm concerned, my opinions on this matter wouldn't change whether obamacare is the best law in the world or the worst law in the world.

TLDR i hate all politicians and i don't like blindly picking sides. i think it's very immature for republican-supporters to say to say democrats are socialists and the government shouldn't be involved in healthcare, and i think it's very immature for democrat-supporters to say republicans are against the bill because they want poor people to die.
 
Purple Yoshi said:
Well, the Queen is higher than the Governor-General. In fact, they're appointed by the Queen.

That just makes it worse.

Purple Yoshi said:
And considering the current Governor-General is also an old lady, I don't think it's going to be abused any time soon. The only way there'll be corruption with no one to stop it is if the monarch becomes corrupt. Which isn't likely.

What does her age have anything to do with it? If someone's corrupt, they will be corrupt regardless of their physical attributes. Look at Bernie Madoff, he was caught when he was 71.

Shoutmon said:
キノピオ八十五 said:
Purple Yoshi said:
You guys really need a Govenor-General. Someone who can have a higher power than the President in emergencies like these.

IDK about you, but to me that sounds like power just begging to be abused.

i like the idea of congress losing their jobs when they reach a certain critical mass of stupidity. this, though

Who decides when the critical mass is, though?

My problem is that if you have a sufficiently partisan Governor-General, then they could dismiss an opposition-run congress at the drop of a hat and appoint people of their own ideology. Or alternatively, they turn a blind eye when their own party fucks something up.
 
Purple Yoshi said:
Well, the Queen is higher than the Governor-General. In fact, they're appointed by the Queen.
are you seriously suggesting that monarchy is anything other than a bad system
 
"I pray that the United States does not suffer unduly from its want of a monarchy."
 
That's "want" as in "lack of." Georgie said something like that to Parliament around 1782, I believe.
 
Back