Armageddon MUD General Discussion Board

Non-Armageddon Discussion => Non-Armageddon Discussion => Topic started by: RogueGunslinger on December 11, 2011, 11:24:13 PM

Title: American Political Thread
Post by: RogueGunslinger on December 11, 2011, 11:24:13 PM
Other one got locked and I like to see people chat about... you know, one of the more important things going on right now in the USA. NO FLAMING/BAITING YOU DOUCHE-MONGERS Please keep snide comments away from this thread.

I'm still leaning towards Paul. Media is telling us Gingrich is up in polls. Hermie pretty much shot his campaign in the foot. Perry has fallen quite a bit, and Bachman been practically left out of most coverage.

The debates seem like entertainment shows lately. Very not serious feeling at all.



Someone posted this on my facebook. Ron Pauls straw poll wins. I haven't been able to check if it's valid though because I have no idea where he got the info, or where to get it from. My google fu is fail.

Quote
Ron Paul has garnered 19 GOP Presidential Straw Poll wins -- more than ANY other GOP candidate -- and ALMOST FIVE TIMES AS MANY as establishment favorite, Mitt Romney. Flavor of the Month, Newt Gingrich, has won ONE straw poll. Ron Paul’s straw poll victories constitute 48.7% of the 39 GOP Straw Polls thus far.

1st - February 12, 2011, Washington, D.C. – CPAC Straw Poll
1st - February 27, 2011 Phoenix, AZ - Tea Party Patriots Virtual Summit Straw Poll
1st - March 20, 2011, Sacramento, California – Republican Liberty Caucus of California Presidential Straw Poll
1st - June 16–18, 2011, New Orleans, Louisiana – Republican Leadership Conference Straw Poll
1st - June 19, 2011, Clay County, Iowa Republican Party Straw Poll
1st - August 20, 2011 New Hampshire Young Republicans Straw Poll
1st - September 12, 2011 Cincinnati Tea Party Straw Poll
1st - September 17, 2011 California GOP Straw Poll
1st - October 7–9, 2011, Washington, D.C. – Values Voter Straw Poll
1st - October 13, 2011, Los Angeles County, California - RPLAC Straw Poll
1st - October 18, 2011, Charleston, South Carolina - Charleston County Republican Party
1st - October 22, 2011, Columbus, Ohio - Ohio GOP Swing State Straw Poll
1st - October 29, 2011, Des Moines, Iowa - National Federation of Republican Assemblies Presidential Straw Poll Tally 1
1st - October 29, 2011, Des Moines, Iowa - National Federation of Republican Assemblies Presidential Straw Poll Tally 2
1st - November 5, 2011, Illinois - Illinois Straw Poll
1st - November 14, 2011, North Charleston, South Carolina - Charleston County Republican Party Straw Poll
1st - November 14, 2011, San Diego, California - San Diego GOP Straw poll
1st - November 15, 2011, Springfield, Missouri - Missouri Tea Party Straw poll
1st - November 19, 2011, North Carolina- NC Registered Republicans Straw Poll

Ron Paul's 2nd Place GOP Straw Poll results:

2nd - January 22, 2011, Derry, New Hampshire – New Hampshire Straw Poll
2nd - (Statistical Tie for 1st) - August 13, 2011 Iowa Straw Poll, Hilton Coliseum in Ames, Iowa.
2nd - (Statistical Tie for 1st) - August 27, 2011 Georgia State GOP Straw Poll
2nd - October 29, 2011, Tuscaloosa, Alabama; West Alabama Straw Poll
2nd - November 19, 2011, Rockford, Illinois - Memorial Hall Straw Poll

Anyways I find it interesting how much flux there is in the new "front runners" who show up for a few months. It really makes it impossible to tell who's really popular and who's just being coddled by the media.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: RogueGunslinger on December 11, 2011, 11:45:23 PM
Here we go http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_polls_for_the_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012

Also just realized I forgot the "candidates" portion of the thread title, whatevs.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Synthesis on December 11, 2011, 11:48:23 PM
Listen, I know that reason is rarely strong enough to counteract wishful thinking, but I'm going to throw this out there anyway:  straw polls are not necessarily representative samples of the electorate. 
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on December 11, 2011, 11:56:18 PM
My days of not taking Ron Paul seriously are coming to a definite middle.

I think he fails Republican primaries, even in ideology-heavy years, for two reasons:
(1) His fiscal theories are enough out of the mainstream that people fear he might trigger a new Depression.
(2) His foreign policy view are enough out of the mainstream that people fear he might queue up another world war.


Here's yesterday's debate, by the way: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaMqDJ0zZbc
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on December 11, 2011, 11:59:13 PM
The only Republican I would feel comfortable with as my president is Jon Huntsman.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: RogueGunslinger on December 12, 2011, 12:07:42 AM
Listen, I know that reason is rarely strong enough to counteract wishful thinking, but I'm going to throw this out there anyway:  straw polls are not necessarily representative samples of the electorate. 

Obviously. Doesn't make them entirely meaningless.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: adrien on December 12, 2011, 12:15:23 AM
ron paul is a good person to keep in mind, a president that wants to bring troops home wont start a world war, and a lot of the problems in the states are so extraordinary that you might need someone that thinks outside the box from time to time.


I dont keep up with the Republican stuff except what i see on the Daily show with Jon Stewert.

and il be honest I live in a Semi socialist country called Canada so Im use to a very different political show, if we dont like our leader we can kick him out anytime, or we can keep him in for 20 years if we like the guy in charge.

Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Bacon on December 12, 2011, 12:19:24 AM
I trust the republican candidates even less than I trust the current president.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Fathi on December 12, 2011, 12:26:25 AM
The only Republican I would feel comfortable with as my president is Jon Huntsman.

The last time I lived in America, he was my governor.

Not too shabby, Mr. Huntsman.

Also, whenever he gave addresses or anything, the radio station would preface it with The Huntsman Song from Freakazoid! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73Wb14NZ01E)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: adrien on December 12, 2011, 03:03:26 AM
I trust the republican candidates even less than I trust the current president.

i can honestly see Obama getting a 2nd term.

such a crappy choice this time for Republicans they make Bush look great.

btw side note, there is a small chance the next time Bush and cheany comes to canada they could get arrested for war crimes and human right violations
the Swiss already said they would arrest them lol
 
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Ktavialt on December 12, 2011, 03:17:48 AM
I trust the republican candidates even less than I trust the current president.

i can honestly see Obama getting a 2nd term.

such a crappy choice this time for Republicans they make Bush look great.

btw side note, there is a small chance the next time Bush and cheany comes to canada they could get arrested for war crimes and human right violations
the Swiss already said they would arrest them lol
 
Call me a conspiracy theorist but I think the Democrats/Republicans got a "you get prez for 2 terms, we get prez for 2 terms ok buddy?" thing going now.  There's an entire country of potential Republican candidates and these are the best they can get?  They threw in the towel last election, and will do the same this election.

Obama will win again.  We'll have a republican president win 2016/2020.  You heard it here folks.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Nao on December 12, 2011, 08:33:05 AM
Maybe they just don't care to win in the current economy.

If you look at surveys instead of straw polls, Ron Paul is scratching at 10% or less in most states. Iowa and new Hampshire seem to like him. Maybe there's more, but I got tired of scrolling.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Cutthroat on December 12, 2011, 08:47:34 AM
Onion article: a few months old, still sadly true in my opinion. (http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-gop-strategy-involves-reelecting-obama-making,21113/) I don't see any of the major candidates as "serious", excluding Huntsman, whose relative moderation leaves him low in the polls and, as a result, out of debates. I think the fact that Newt Gingrich is the front-runner in a party that claims to fight partly for social conservatism is a hypocritical disgrace. I think the whole revolving door front-runner phenomenon is an effort to get anyone but Romney into the general election, because he's seen as bland, or somehow, too liberal.

That said, OP said that these primaries are important. Well, they certainly should be, but I don't see the Republican politicians taking it that way. At least until recently, when a small shred of seriousness revealed itself when most of them bowed out of the debate Donald Trump was going to moderate. But from the endless, repetitive debates, to the utterly stupid, hypocritical, or untrue things they are caught saying, I think a lot of people here in the USA and around the world see this as some kind of circus. But for the most part it looks like the GOP is planning on throwing the general election so their party doesn't take the backlash for any failures (Republican obstruction-generated or otherwise), particularly economic ones, that Obama might suffer in his second term.

P.S. I didn't include Ron Paul in anything I said above. If he actually believes in the things he says, how he's in the Republican Party is beyond me. He should be running as a Libertarian. If he actually cared about the ideology he talks about, he wouldn't be worried about the disadvantages that come from running as a minor party candidate (which, to his credit, he has apparently wanted to fix). But his views aren't in line with today's GOP at all.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on December 12, 2011, 10:04:52 AM
Quote from: http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/12/opinion/avlon-huntsman/
RedState.org editor and CNN contributor Erik Erickson is another unexpected voice lately arguing that Huntsman might just be the real conservative in the race: "His record as a governor is more conservative than Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney combined. He is more pro-life than either of them. He is more economically wedded to the free market than either of them. He has better foreign policy experience than either of them. Huntsman should be a conservative hero in this race."

Interesting.  If Erickson is (willing to be) on his side...

Y'all promise to vote for Huntsman instead of President Obama if I get him nominated?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Marauder Moe on December 12, 2011, 10:58:20 AM
Quote from: http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/12/opinion/avlon-huntsman/
RedState.org editor and CNN contributor Erik Erickson is another unexpected voice lately arguing that Huntsman might just be the real conservative in the race: "His record as a governor is more conservative than Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney combined. He is more pro-life than either of them. He is more economically wedded to the free market than either of them. He has better foreign policy experience than either of them. Huntsman should be a conservative hero in this race."

Interesting.  If Erickson is (willing to be) on his side...

Y'all promise to vote for Huntsman instead of President Obama if I get him nominated?
No, but I'll promise not to call him a Nazi or anything (unless, of course, he invades Poland).
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on December 12, 2011, 11:01:28 AM
I feel like Ron Paul has more of a chance at getting the nod than Jon Huntsman. Hasn't Huntsman been doing appalling in just about any poll one cares to look at?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on December 12, 2011, 11:07:31 AM
I feel like Ron Paul has more of a chance at getting the nod than Jon Huntsman. Hasn't Huntsman been doing appalling in just about any poll one cares to look at?

Yeah, but he's in the volatily-fortuned list of candidates who aren't Mitt Romney. Everybody is getting a hurried second look, and I really don't see Santorum or Bachmann holding up.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Marauder Moe on December 12, 2011, 11:09:52 AM
Bachmann terrifies us liberals.  She'd drive us to the polls in record numbers.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on December 12, 2011, 11:19:38 AM
In the first ten minutes of Saturday's debate, I think I caught Santorum promising to cut to nil the corporate income tax of businesses he favors.  (To wit, domestic manufacturers.)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Nao on December 12, 2011, 11:47:27 AM
Here's the poll results I wanted to link earlier, but forgot:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_Republican_Party_%28United_States%29_presidential_primaries,_2012

I actuallz watched three of those debates this weekend while cleaning my room and doing some laundry. The Fox/google debate was worst, or maybe I got desensitized after that. But they did make me wonder how they can get away with saying so much bullshit and still get votes. Probably because at least, they're not Obama.

In the first ten minutes of Saturday's debate, I think I caught Santorum promising to cut to nil the corporate income tax of businesses he favors.  (To wit, domestic manufacturers.)
Don't remember who it was, but someone did.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: valeria on December 12, 2011, 12:51:42 PM
At least the debates have been really entertaining.  It amused me a lot when Romney pointed out (about Gingrich) that if you cheat on your wife you will probably cheat on your business partners.  There have been some low blows and some people saying really ridiculous things (Perry and Cain come to mind).

It still seems to me to be a race between Romney and not-Romney (Bachman-Perry-Cain... Gingrich, it's like they're taking turns).  Unfortunately, everyone who is not-Romney is someone that makes me grind my teeth for one reason or another.  Except for Paul and Huntsman.  Paul, I'm with the people who aren't exactly sure why he's in this race and not running as an independent.  Huntsman, I just don't know enough about him.  Maybe he'll take a turn after Gingrich and I'll learn a few things.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Marauder Moe on December 12, 2011, 01:04:38 PM
I don't think it's a "low blow" when Family Values is a prominent feature of the party platform.

Go figure that people would abandon Cain for rumors (which he always denied) of adultery, and then flock to Gingrich.  ::)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: deathnight on December 12, 2011, 01:51:57 PM
I think the person doing PR for the republicans needs to be shot, resurrected as a zombie and than shot again. Romney making a frivolous 10,000 dollar public bet with Perry, for something he knew Perry was right about in the first place, meanwhile there is OWS movement going on, made me chuckle and shake my head.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: lordcooper on December 12, 2011, 03:10:04 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/gingrich-end-fed-focus-jobs-focus-only-inflation-141508938.html

My knowledge of US politics (particularly the right wing side of it) is pitiful, but surely this is akin to shooting yourself in the foot, especially at this moment in time.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: valeria on December 12, 2011, 03:16:15 PM
Romney making a frivolous 10,000 dollar public bet with Perry, for something he knew Perry was right about in the first place...

Most people would not agree that Perry was right in the first place.   Factcheck.org says Perry's accusation was false. (http://factcheck.org/2011/12/more-baloney-at-abcyahoo-debate/)  PolitiFact includes the debate transcript, the text of both books, and also says the accusation was false. (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/dec/11/rick-perry/rick-perry-says-mitt-romneys-book-deleted-line-mas/) And the LA times says Romney would have won the bet. (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-romney-bet-fact-check-20111212,0,5814352.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fnews%2Fpolitics+%28L.A.+Times+-+Politics%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher) 
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: deathnight on December 12, 2011, 03:24:25 PM
Romney making a frivolous 10,000 dollar public bet with Perry, for something he knew Perry was right about in the first place...

Most people would not agree that Perry was right in the first place.   Factcheck.org says Perry's accusation was false. (http://factcheck.org/2011/12/more-baloney-at-abcyahoo-debate/)  PolitiFact includes the debate transcript, the text of both books, and also says the accusation was false. (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/dec/11/rick-perry/rick-perry-says-mitt-romneys-book-deleted-line-mas/) And the LA times says Romney would have won the bet. (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-romney-bet-fact-check-20111212,0,5814352.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fnews%2Fpolitics+%28L.A.+Times+-+Politics%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher) 

Still making the bet probably wasn't a good idea at any rate.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Synthesis on December 12, 2011, 07:25:20 PM
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/12/mitt-romneys-mek-slip

I don't think I could vote for a sorcerer-king who doesn't know what a mek is.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Aruven on December 12, 2011, 07:51:55 PM
I've been a ron paul fan since I read his books. I loved stewart finally pointing out the media is ignoring him. However, its really hard to imagine him winning, because he's apparently not a 'front runner'. People tend to view constitutionalists as too eccentric. That said, the man's been involved in politics for forty something years now if I'm not mistaken. That's a lot more experience than a lot of people have up there.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on December 12, 2011, 10:21:51 PM
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/12/mitt-romneys-mek-slip

I don't think I could vote for a sorcerer-king who doesn't know what a mek is.

C'mon, man, I didn't even know what that was.  (The morally dubious enemies of our enemy, not the creature that tried to bite my PC's head off while he was laid out in the salt flats tripping on venom. Yes, I did successfully run back in and rescue my mount and ride off and hide in a cave with a linkdead Red Fang whom I treated as a hallucination.)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on December 13, 2011, 11:08:03 AM
Newt. (http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html#printMode)

Peggy Noonan sometimes tries a little too desperately to be insightful, but folks seem to be liking this one.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on December 13, 2011, 05:06:41 PM
My favorite quote from brytta's article.

Quote
What they fear is that he will show just enough discipline over the next few months, just enough focus, to win the nomination. And then, in the fall of 2012, once party leaders have come around and the GOP is fully behind him, he will begin baying at the moon. He will start saying wild things and promising that he may bomb Iran but he may send a special SEAL team in at night to secretly dig Iran up, and fly it to Detroit, where we can keep it under guard, and Detroiters can all get jobs as guards, "solving two problems at once." They're afraid he'll start saying, "John Paul was great, but most of that happened after I explained the Gospels to him," and "Sure, Daniel Kahneman won the Nobel Prize, but only after I explained how people can think fast, slow and at warp speed. He owes me everything."

In reference to said article, I'm in the camp of people who could never vote for Newt because I know too much about him.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on December 13, 2011, 05:22:37 PM
In reference to said article, I'm in the camp of people who could never vote for Newt because I know too much about him.

From personal involvement in politics, or from carefully following the news?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: valeria on December 13, 2011, 05:47:50 PM
Newt Gingrich, on putting mirrors in space. (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/dec/12/david-brooks/david-brooks-says-newt-gingrich-once-proposed-putt/)  I read parts of this out loud to Zoltan and he kept trying to tell me it had to be a hoax  ::)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on December 13, 2011, 08:37:05 PM
That's the most awesome thing an American politician has proposed since Ben Franklin branched string lightning.

I think it's intended to be selective; you would turn on the light for an urban area, say, for part of the evening, and allow natural darkness during a good part of the night.  We already do this with street lights and such, but, by employing idle Michiganders to guard the uplinks, we can solve two problems at once.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on December 15, 2011, 08:42:26 PM
In reference to said article, I'm in the camp of people who could never vote for Newt because I know too much about him.

From personal involvement in politics, or from carefully following the news?

Just from perusing his political history.

... ... although a moon colony and space mirrors would be fucking awesome.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: lordcooper on December 15, 2011, 09:20:53 PM
...Gingrich ftw?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: TheBadSeed on December 15, 2011, 09:34:46 PM
I love Ron Paul, but he is completely unelectable. Candidates need to be able to play the wings and idealogues to garner base support in the primaries, then miraculously move to the center in the general election to get elected. Ron Paul will never find a way to the center.

Newt? Not a chance. Most people with memories of the 90's will never forgive him for single-handedly turning the US government into the laughing stock of the world, and creating the bitter partisan rhetoric that's been the national anthem for the past two decades. Numerous government shut-downs for political posturing, partisan impeachment of a sitting president over an affair. I'm sure there are plenty of powers in Washington that would love to see Newt come into power, just so they can torture him, but it absolutely won't happen.

No president gets elected (for the first time) in this day and age without looking like a shiny penny, and the luster left Newt decades ago.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on December 15, 2011, 10:33:14 PM
National Review has all but endorsed Romney: http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/285862

(Officially, it's "Huntsman, Romney, or Santorum.")
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on December 16, 2011, 01:52:43 AM
National Review has all but endorsed Romney: http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/285862

(Officially, it's "Huntsman, Romney, or Santorum.")

If Santorum wins the nom, I am seeking political asylum in another country. Seriously. As some lovely lady suggested, I will put that I fear that the right to be able to do with my lady parts what I wish will be at stake.

And, well. lol. President Santorum. Anal juice.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Cutthroat on December 16, 2011, 09:15:40 AM
I was hoping to see Gingrich and Santorum duke it out on The Apprentice: Presidential Edition in Donald Trump's debate, but it got canceled. Low Nielsen ratings, I guess.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on December 16, 2011, 09:36:27 AM
Hitler learns of Newt's polling lead... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laU6PfdgW44&feature=player_embedded)

(Language warning, superfluous though it seems.)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on December 17, 2011, 12:35:32 PM
I'm curious what y'all actually do think about Romney, since he's supposed to be the electable one.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: muddy on December 17, 2011, 02:13:10 PM
Living in a state so far to the left, Im free to vote third party without a second thought. If Ron Paul ran third party and some one like Kucinich ran fourth party, people could vote without having the guilt thats pushed on them making them think of their candidate as a vote stealer. Then Paul could replace the Fed with the Mises Institute.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Marauder Moe on December 17, 2011, 02:45:09 PM
I'm curious what y'all actually do think about Romney, since he's supposed to be the electable one.
I used to think he was decently decent and moderately moderate.

Then I started to pay attention to his current platform and statements and am starting to believe he cares more about power/prestige than principles.  He'll say anything to get elected, and apparently has an ego big enough that he gets really pissed when called on it.  His interview with Fox's Bret Baier was very telling of his character, IMO.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: adrien on December 18, 2011, 12:32:29 AM
at the rate that Republican screw ups come i bet people will finally look at ron paul, because he hasn't screwed up his words yet to boot he helps perry remember his lines....

Romney hasn't screwed up enough, yet.  but it would be funny if you find out he has a 2nd family
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on December 18, 2011, 01:47:44 AM
I'm curious what y'all actually do think about Romney, since he's supposed to be the electable one.

I don't think anyone in the GOP wants to vote for Romney. It looks like he stays right around 2nd place in the polls because he has so much corporate money stuffed into his campaign that the media is willing to keep him afloat.

But I have this sneaking suspicion that the wild rises and falls of the other nominees in the race is due to the GOP voting base just desperately looking for anyone other than him to vote for.

I hope it's Ron Paul ... when the musical chairs dance ends. Sure he's half crazy ... but I'll take half crazy and principled over a sane unprincipled liar.

I'm pretty pissed at Obama ... not enough to vote for Newt, Romney, or any of the other sell-outs from the right, but I am pissed at him enough to vote for Ron Paul.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: muddy on December 18, 2011, 07:10:58 PM
Seeing that Darth Bader Ginsburg is getting older by the day, Id take any of he GOP (To bad a Classical Liberal/ Libertarian wont win).
 Funny how some want a living, breathing constitution that grows in meaning, until a corporations becomes more a person than the unborn. 
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Synthesis on December 18, 2011, 07:55:39 PM
Yeah, because the people who support the Roe v. Wade decision are totally the same people who support the doctrine of corporate personhood.

Hint: if only people are people, then fetuses and corporations aren't people.  It makes sense, trust me.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Synthesis on December 18, 2011, 09:23:05 PM
(http://www.balloon-juice.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/gingrich-smartest-guy-in-the-world.gif)

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/gingrich-capitol-police-could-arrest-radical-judges.php?ref=fpa
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on December 18, 2011, 09:25:29 PM
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/gingrich-capitol-police-could-arrest-radical-judges.php?ref=fpa

I can tell from just the URL that this is going to be even more awesome than steerable space mirrors.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on December 18, 2011, 10:58:28 PM
Seeing that Darth Bader Ginsburg is getting older by the day, Id take any of he GOP (To bad a Classical Liberal/ Libertarian wont win).
 Funny how some want a living, breathing constitution that grows in meaning, until a corporations becomes more a person than the unborn. 

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say  ???
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: muddy on December 19, 2011, 12:29:12 PM
Well the problem with the Left and the Right, are those who push the "boot-heel of collectivism" type laws. Some pass laws not allowing toys in happy meals, others push for a war on drugs. Many in the G.O.P. say at least they want Judges that look to the authorial intent and don't read between the lines. Darth Bader Ginsburg is one of the classic "Its a Living document" type, making the  constitution a wax nose, for whoever has power to shape (see Roe v Wade with one type in charge and the personhood of corporations with an other) .
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Synthesis on December 19, 2011, 12:41:52 PM
This just in:  people who appoint judges appoint judges who tend to agree with them.

More with Ric Romero at 11.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on December 19, 2011, 05:09:08 PM
I always figured the entire point of the Supreme Court was to interpret the constitution as it pertains to the modern day, since the Founding Fathers probably didn't have a clue about things like global corporations, advances in prenatal studies, and genetics, just to name a few.

Seems like just having a Supreme Court to begin with means we're already admitting the constitution is a "living document" that needs to be interpreted.  :-\
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jcarter on December 19, 2011, 07:08:25 PM
It's so late in the game that Republicans have shot themselves in the foot. I don't get why they even bother considering Obama's doing their job for them, but whatever.

Seems like just having a Supreme Court to begin with means we're already admitting the constitution is a "living document" that needs to be interpreted.  :-\

That's not what 'Living Constitution' means.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: muddy on December 19, 2011, 07:47:32 PM
I always figured the entire point of the Supreme Court was to interpret the constitution as it pertains to the modern day, since the Founding Fathers probably didn't have a clue about things like global corporations, advances in prenatal studies, and genetics, just to name a few.

Seems like just having a Supreme Court to begin with means we're already admitting the constitution is a "living document" that needs to be interpreted.  :-\


No, the Constitution can be amended and legislation can be passed to deal with things that the founding fathers did not address.  Now with advancements in science and our understanding, Judges can change precedent. Say that embryology can now show the unborn to be whole and complete beings with unique DNA, distinct from the mothers and showing it to possess that which ties us all together as humans. Corporations on the other hand, do not.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Synthesis on December 19, 2011, 07:54:54 PM
Wellp, that's it.  Ethicality of abortion--problem solved.   ::)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on December 20, 2011, 05:45:38 PM
But given the power of legal precedent in our system of law, I think that in practice changing precedent and amending legislation ends up having an equivocal result; but that has to do with the system itself rather than the people wearing the black robes and pounding the gavels. And I'm not entirely sure that's a bad thing.

Seems like a good check and balance system to me. The court changes precedent on something and the country is out-raged ... so there's a push for legislative change to overturn that precedent. Or, Congress passes some unconscionable legislation, it gets challenged and the court can declare it unconstitutional. Spin, parry, dodge, and on the dance goes.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Morrolan on December 20, 2011, 06:49:29 PM
since the Founding Fathers probably didn't have a clue about things like global corporations

The advent of global corporations is the latest version of chartered companies, which existed well before the founding fathers.  The founding fathers could not help but be aware of them. The Virginia Company (chartered in 1606) was one.  Charter companies had rights, granted by heads of states.

Back then, however, states (countries) were willing and able to use their authority to disband charter corporations that acted beyond their charter.  It wasn't until 1819 (in the U.S.--decision by the Supreme Court) that companies were rendered "inviolable," meaning they could not simply be disbanded by the state.

From Wikipedia, but agreeing with my other research:

Quote from: Wikipedia
By the beginning of the 19th century, government policy on both sides of the Atlantic began to change, reflecting the growing popularity of the proposition that corporations were riding the economic wave of the future. In 1819, the U. S. Supreme Court granted corporations a plethora of rights they had not previously recognized or enjoyed. Corporate charters were deemed "inviolable", and not subject to arbitrary amendment or abolition by state governments. The Corporation as a whole was labeled an "artificial person, " possessing both individuality and immortality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation#Mercantilism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation#Mercantilism)

Any trouble we have with corporations is not because of a constitution that couldn't imagine these problems, but because we (the West in general) opened a Pandora's box and don't like what we let out.

Let's face it, corporations are legally immortal. That alone makes them super-powered. States gave up the authority to have the power of "life" and "death" over them, granting them person-hood without the one major drawback that limits all humans.

(No, not a conscience.)

Death.

Whoops.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Bacon on December 20, 2011, 07:05:33 PM
Quote
Any trouble we have with corporations is not because of a constitution that couldn't imagine these problems, but because we (the West in general) opened a Pandora's box and don't like what we let out.

Let's face it, corporations are legally immortal. That alone makes them super-powered. States gave up the authority to have the power of "life" and "death" over them, granting them person-hood without the one major drawback that limits all humans.

(No, not a conscience.)

Death.

That is an excellent point.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on December 20, 2011, 10:09:30 PM
Yes. Very good point. I stand corrected on the advent of global corporations.

My off the cuff examples were just meant to illustrate that the founding fathers did not mean for the constitution to be read like dogma. It was written with the expectation that times would change, and its interpretation would need to change in kind. At work at the moment so I don't have time to dig up quotes for you right now but more than one of the constitution's authors made that explicitly clear in their other writings.

Edit to add: Made it home. I meant explicitly clear in sentiments like this:

Quote from: Jefferson
"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Aruven on December 22, 2011, 04:04:40 AM
Does anyone else find it irritating that Ron Paul is being labeled 'Anti-Israel' in a negative light? You'd think 'blowback' was a term American citizens would understand after 9/11.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Cutthroat on December 22, 2011, 08:32:53 AM
Quote from: Jefferson
"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

(http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20090316.gif)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on December 22, 2011, 10:52:43 AM
Does anyone else find it irritating that Ron Paul is being labeled 'Anti-Israel' in a negative light? You'd think 'blowback' was a term American citizens would understand after 9/11.

The broader Middle East has no problems with Israel that couldn't be resolved by sucking it up and dealing with them like a real neighbor.  I mean, heck, we did this with Canada after our Glorious Liberation of them in 1812 failed.  Israel's existence is the favorite folk grievance of the Arab Middle East (which has plenty of internal problems to be angry about), but we could nuke Tel Aviv tomorrow and the various Islamist movements would have ginned up a new Little Satan by Candlemass (probably each other).  Best to not indulge too avidly the crazy segments of someone else's society.

Let me make a false analogy, but one that folks around here will understand:  When are progressives going to get serious and throw homosexuals under the bus?  They're a small interest group whose cause is supported out of pure sentimentality; this support engenders (hehe) tremendous reflexive opposition from conservative segments of our culture.

(Say, there's a good thought: we'd get a lot more respect from the world's Islamic cultures if we took all the female skin off our television shows.  Anyone game?)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Marauder Moe on December 22, 2011, 11:04:42 AM
Does anyone else find it irritating that Ron Paul is being labeled 'Anti-Israel' in a negative light? You'd think 'blowback' was a term American citizens would understand after 9/11.
Can you clarify this statement some?

Is he actually "anti-Israel" or is he simply an isolationist?

Should being labeled "anti-Israel" be a positive thing?

How about we assume we don't know what 'blowback' means and you explain it to us?


(Say, there's a good thought: we'd get a lot more respect from the world's Islamic cultures if we took all the female skin off our television shows.  Anyone game?)
No!  Hands off my boobies!

Wait... that came out wrong...
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Aruven on December 22, 2011, 05:10:40 PM
Does anyone else find it irritating that Ron Paul is being labeled 'Anti-Israel' in a negative light? You'd think 'blowback' was a term American citizens would understand after 9/11.
Can you clarify this statement some?

Is he actually "anti-Israel" or is he simply an isolationist?

Should being labeled "anti-Israel" be a positive thing?

How about we assume we don't know what 'blowback' means and you explain it to us?


(Say, there's a good thought: we'd get a lot more respect from the world's Islamic cultures if we took all the female skin off our television shows.  Anyone game?)
No!  Hands off my boobies!

Wait... that came out wrong...

The republican jewish coalition banned ron paul from their sponsored debate though every other candidate was invited. They also did this in 2007, saying his views on israel are 'misguided and extreme'. * Ron Paul believes that Israel encouraged and started Hamas *  <------ Open to interpretation. I can say that he certainly believes that Israel encouraged and helped support Hamas to gain an edge over the PLO seculars. Even though Paul voted agaisnt the president, supporting Israel's right to defend itself when they bombed Iran's nuclear sight.

Blowback - is the espionage term for unintended consequences of a covert operation that are suffered by the civil population of the aggressor government *as quoted by wikipedia.
*Note this does not match the definition provided by dictionary.com

It's also been defined as the result of actions regarding foreign poilcies, supporting wikipedia's use of the word.

And I think non-intervention and isolation are two different things. I am willing to debate that too.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on December 22, 2011, 08:08:26 PM
I just find it endlessly amusing how the establishment pretends Ron Paul isn't there. When he was in third they would skip him and announce the first, second, and forth place candidates from the polls. When he was in second ... they did first, third, and forth. Now that he's leading Iowa ... they're like: If Romney can come in second it'll really help him going into CT.

I disagree with a lot of his positions, but I'll still vote GOP come election season if he's running against Obama. 
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on December 22, 2011, 08:24:47 PM
Also to answer brytta's analogy: I would throw gays under the bus the moment they started "reclaiming" the real estate of anyone who was Christian across America, citing right of ownership from a book they made up a few centuries back that's already been proven to be historically baseless ... by their own gay scholars.

I'm not saying Isriel shouldn't exist, I'm just saying their government isn't exactly a blameless victim either.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on December 23, 2011, 12:20:02 AM
Also to answer brytta's analogy: I would throw gays under the bus the moment they started "reclaiming" the real estate of anyone who was Christian across America, citing right of ownership from a book they made up a few centuries back that's already been proven to be historically baseless ... by their own gay scholars.

Though the early Zionist movement doubtless found inspiration in the Hebrew scriptures, I'm not aware that Israel has generally expelled Arabs for other than security reasons.  Again, it's hard to know exactly what the situation would be if killing Jews wasn't so wildly popular amongst the Palestinian-administered population.  Ethnist guerrilla warfare--and outright, no-kidding terrorism--does indeed suck golf balls through garden hoses, especially for the innocents of both sides.

(In our bus-rolling analogy, a homosexual who tried to move into a "Christian neighborhood" would be murdered before sundown, and the killer celebrated in private schools across the fruited plain.)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on December 23, 2011, 10:05:36 AM
Though the early Zionist movement doubtless found inspiration in the Hebrew scriptures, I'm not aware that Israel has generally expelled Arabs for other than security reasons.

Settlements? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bank#Settlements_and_international_law) That's what I was talking about.

"Hey guys! We're gonna build some settlements here on this land you've been living on ... but we're worried some of you might be terrorists, so all of you have to get on the other side of this big barrier wall we've built while we move into your houses. Thanks for your cooperation!"

... C'mon ... you'd be pissed off too.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on December 23, 2011, 10:28:03 AM
Settlements? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bank#Settlements_and_international_law) That's what I was talking about.

"Hey guys! We're gonna build some settlements here on this land you've been living on ...

Let's make a distinction here: are settlements built on land seized from individuals (Palestinians' land), or on land seized from Palestinian political control (Palestinian land)?

... but we're worried some of you might be terrorists, so all of you have to get on the other side of this big barrier wall we've built while we move into your houses. Thanks for your cooperation!"

... C'mon ... you'd be pissed off too.

Totally; but you're sweeping too much under the rug with "we're worried..."  "We're worried some of you might be terrorists because our pizza parlors keep exploding and you keep claiming responsibility to much public acclaim."
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on December 23, 2011, 05:18:15 PM
Does anyone else find it irritating that Ron Paul is being labeled 'Anti-Israel' in a negative light? You'd think 'blowback' was a term American citizens would understand after 9/11.

I'd just like to say that most Americans are so pro-Israel, it's a little unnerving. It's the Christian base mostly, too -- at least from what I've seen in the south. Can you believe people wear Livestrong-like wristbands that say "Support Israel" and then, after I glance down, notice a Star of David on it, ask if they're Jewish, they say ... "No, but death to them Palestinian scum!"

Yeah. The above situation has happened quite a few times before to me. Anyway, it's just because most Christians are of the belief that that piece of land, as I'm sure you know, belongs to "God's chosen people", which ... doesn't include Palestinians.

I understand their notions and whatnot, but I also don't think God would approve of bombing and terrorizing the fuck out of one another over a piece of land. But, yeah. Anyway.

Ron Paul will probably never get the nom because of this (which is a bigger issue than most people will give credit to) and other reasons.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Aruven on December 23, 2011, 09:13:37 PM
Does anyone else find it irritating that Ron Paul is being labeled 'Anti-Israel' in a negative light? You'd think 'blowback' was a term American citizens would understand after 9/11.

I'd just like to say that most Americans are so pro-Israel, it's a little unnerving. It's the Christian base mostly, too -- at least from what I've seen in the south. Can you believe people wear Livestrong-like wristbands that say "Support Israel" and then, after I glance down, notice a Star of David on it, ask if they're Jewish, they say ... "No, but death to them Palestinian scum!"

Yeah. The above situation has happened quite a few times before to me. Anyway, it's just because most Christians are of the belief that that piece of land, as I'm sure you know, belongs to "God's chosen people", which ... doesn't include Palestinians.

I understand their notions and whatnot, but I also don't think God would approve of bombing and terrorizing the fuck out of one another over a piece of land. But, yeah. Anyway.

Ron Paul will probably never get the nom because of this (which is a bigger issue than most people will give credit to) and other reasons.

Separation of church and state anyone?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Synthesis on December 23, 2011, 09:30:14 PM
[inigo-montoya.jpg]
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on December 23, 2011, 09:44:36 PM
Let's make a distinction here: are settlements built on land seized from individuals (Palestinians' land), or on land seized from Palestinian political control (Palestinian land)?

Isn't it both? I'm not sure how that distinction would be meaningful. I mean if you're asking: Have Palestinian individuals been kicked out of their homes to make way for Israeli settlements ... that would be a big a resounding yes. Many times. Was the land their home sat on previously under Palestinian political control before it was annexed by Israel? Yes to that too. In much the same way the land your house is sitting on right now is under American political control, and my house sits on land under Japanese political control.

Or did you mean something else?

Totally; but you're sweeping too much under the rug with "we're worried..."  "We're worried some of you might be terrorists because our pizza parlors keep exploding and you keep claiming responsibility to much public acclaim."

No I mean I get it man ... it's a vicious, vicious cycle and neither side is completely blameless and the whole thing really sucks for the honest folks on both sides who just want to be left alone to raise their kids and make some money.

The only reason I brought it up was to point out how it's not reaaaally a good analogy to the civil rights issue for homosexuals ... homosexuals aren't waging war back on conservatives. The hate is only going one way in that issue. So it's a lot easier to support them without reservation  ;)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Synthesis on December 23, 2011, 10:02:28 PM
So it's a lot easier to support them without reservation  ;)

Wait a minute....

Gays...reservations...indians...

my god, we just need to declare san francisco an autonomous tribal zone
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on December 23, 2011, 10:15:52 PM
You have your moments of genius, Synth.

In other news ... man I hope Dr. Paul wins the Iowa caucus. It would be funny to see the other Republicans come out and tell the people of Iowa that their vote didn't count.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on December 23, 2011, 11:30:05 PM
my god, we just need to declare san francisco an autonomous tribal zone

I'm picturing a world full of, if you'll pardon the stereotype this once for the sake of whimsy, fabulous fireworks and casinos.

In other news ... man I hope Dr. Paul wins the Iowa caucus. It would be funny to see the other Republicans come out and tell the people of Iowa that their vote didn't count.

Quote from: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/286259/paul-fringe-frontrunner-rich-lowry
Iowa caucus-goers are protective of their preeminent place in the nominating process. If they deliver victory to a history-making Ron Paul, no one should take them as seriously again.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on December 23, 2011, 11:47:17 PM
Let's make a distinction here: are settlements built on land seized from individuals (Palestinians' land), or on land seized from Palestinian political control (Palestinian land)?

Isn't it both? I'm not sure how that distinction would be meaningful. I mean if you're asking: Have Palestinian individuals been kicked out of their homes to make way for Israeli settlements ... that would be a big a resounding yes. Many times. Was the land their home sat on previously under Palestinian political control before it was annexed by Israel? Yes to that too. In much the same way the land your house is sitting on right now is under American political control, and my house sits on land under Japanese political control.

Or did you mean something else?

No, those were exactly what I meant.  I find the latter hard to get really upset about; but, as to the settlements as being harmful to Arab residents, I found a fairly detailed summary: http://www.elca.org/Our-Faith-In-Action/Justice/Peace-Not-Walls/Major-Issues/Shelter.aspx

Yeah, that's pretty rough.

The only reason I brought it up was to point out how it's not reaaaally a good analogy to the civil rights issue for homosexuals ... homosexuals aren't waging war back on conservatives. The hate is only going one way in that issue. So it's a lot easier to support them without reservation  ;)

Ranch Personnel and First Nations, if the analogue runs so close to a hot button as to obscure the analogy.  Dude.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Synthesis on December 24, 2011, 12:05:54 AM
Wait, didn't Huckabee win the Iowa Republican caucus last time around?  I'm pretty sure we should've stopped taking them seriously at that point.  In fact, they've only been shooting 50% since Gerald Ford...and only 2 for 5 if you count Ford as an incumbent (which he basically was, having taken over after Nixon's resignation).

I mean, they didn't even pick Saint Reagan (peace be upon him).
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on December 24, 2011, 11:35:11 AM
So it's a lot easier to support them without reservation  ;)

Wait a minute....

Gays...reservations...indians...

my god, we just need to declare san francisco an autonomous tribal zone

god dammit, i was gonna bring indians up :(
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: lordcooper on December 24, 2011, 12:44:14 PM
Quite off topic, but why do European Americans (as opposed to African Americans) refer to native Americans as Indians?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Marauder Moe on December 24, 2011, 12:50:53 PM
Quite off topic, but why do European Americans (as opposed to African Americans) refer to native Americans as Indians?
Because back when Europeans first dared to sail across the Atlantic, they thought they'd made it all the way around the world to India, and it was a fairly long time before that belief was dispelled.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on December 24, 2011, 10:39:47 PM
That's also why the American continent has an island chain on the eastern seaboard called the West Indies.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on December 24, 2011, 10:56:37 PM
Quite off topic, but why do European Americans (as opposed to African Americans) refer to native Americans as Indians?

Also, a LOT of tribes prefer one term or another. Some like First Nations People, some like Native Americans, some don't mind Indians.

Generally, I use whatever term everyone else is using.

Native American Studies almost was my college major. Fortunately I had the foresight to realize I should major in something else and thus, be more than just an anthropologist to them.

(They hate anthropologists. See "Custer Died For Your Sins")

Anyway! Back to the thread at hand.

lol @ Gingrich and Perry not getting the signatures required to be on the ballot in VA! OOPS.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: SwanSwanHummingbird on December 25, 2011, 01:45:59 AM
Ron Paul 2012!!!    :D

He polls best of the Republican candidates among those under 45.
He polls best with non-whites.
He polls best among the activist Republican base (as evidenced by his numerous straw polls wins, and winning CPAC two years in a row -- something that hasn't been done in a long time).
He polls best with independents and Democrats.
Some polls have him doing best against Obama (others have him as a close second to Romney).

Talk about an interesting demographic.  The other Republicans are absolutely clueless with this up-and-coming demographic.  Say what you want about Ron Paul, but no one can call him "unelectable" any longer.  He's arguably the most electable Republican candidate, and if not the most electable, he'd be second.

I think we're witnessing something very special and historic this election.

The Republican party has to decide whether they want to change with the times, or risk becoming completely irrelevant and quite possibly disappear very soon.  These 20, 30, and 40-somethings are going to go somewhere if the Republican party treats them like crap. 

They want a balanced budget.
They don't like endless war and attacks on our civil liberties.
They don't hate gays (shocker, I know).
They don't think people who smoke weed should be in jail.
They don't want your handouts, they just want to be respected and left alone.
They think the government should follow the Constitution most of the time (another shocker).

Republican party -- this is your new base, if you want it.  If not, just keeping calling Dr. Paul "crazy" and start picking out your plot in the graveyard of political parties.  We'll do the digging.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jcarter on December 25, 2011, 02:27:19 PM
Quite off topic, but why do European Americans (as opposed to African Americans) refer to native Americans as Indians?

what do black Americans refer to Native Americans as?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on December 26, 2011, 10:12:21 AM
Ron Paul 2012!!!    :D
...
Republican party -- this is your new base, if you want it.  If not, just keeping calling Dr. Paul "crazy" and start picking out your plot in the graveyard of political parties.  We'll do the digging.

SSH, the Republican Party would profit from a little bit more libertarian bent, and even more so from plain old quality control.  Ron Paul is not the man to take it there.  To put it forcefully: if Paul is the whole future of the Republican party, I'll help dig.


Back on the reservation: Victor Hanson, on Gingrich/Romney (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/285663).  And being 65% less pretentious than usual!  (Tally one point for each foreign language ejaculation, or two points if the language is dead or Greek.)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: lordcooper on December 26, 2011, 10:15:31 AM
Ah cool, I wasn't really asking with a view to political correctness or anything alone those line.  It was just something that always puzzled me a bit.

what do black Americans refer to Native Americans as?

Dunno, I've never heard a black American referring to a Native American.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on December 26, 2011, 11:30:40 AM
SSH, the Republican Party would profit from a little bit more libertarian bent, and even more so from plain old quality control.  Ron Paul is not the man to take it there.

Why? Just curious.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: SwanSwanHummingbird on December 26, 2011, 02:08:24 PM
Ron Paul 2012!!!    :D
...
Republican party -- this is your new base, if you want it.  If not, just keeping calling Dr. Paul "crazy" and start picking out your plot in the graveyard of political parties.  We'll do the digging.

SSH, the Republican Party would profit from a little bit more libertarian bent, and even more so from plain old quality control.  Ron Paul is not the man to take it there.  To put it forcefully: if Paul is the whole future of the Republican party, I'll help dig.

[...]

You say this as he is in the process of taking it there. 

The Tea Party sprung up around Paul's campaign in '07.  Plus, Paul has changed the national conversation.  You can tell that just by listening to the language the other candidates use in the debates -- a sizable portion of their talking points, issues, and lines come directly from Paul.  Has Newt Gingrich ever said the phrase "in a free society" or talked about auditing the Federal Reserve before?  Not at all, but now he says it all the time.  There are many other examples, I'd have to go through the videos to find them, but the point is that when Paul talks, the other candidates take notes.  They want to try to sound exactly like him, except on foreign policy of course.

That's because the things Paul says are popular with the base.  And more than that... it's because Paul's philosophy is really the only game in town.  None of the other candidates have a consistent platform or philosophy.  Reagan himself said "Libertarianism is the heart and soul of Conservatism."  This philosophy of Conservatism is what the Republicans should believe.  It's the idea of small, limited government and of conserving the good things about our heritage and system, such as the Constitution.

Some people say Ron Paul isn't a Republican, which is bizarre.  Ron Paul is really the only Republican up there, because the others have sold out their principles a long time ago, if they ever had any.  They are big government "conservatives" without any coherent philosophy.

As far as him being or not being the man to take us there, why wouldn't we want:

Someone who has never voted for a tax increase.
Someone who the lobbyists don't even try to bribe, because they know it won't do any good.
Someone who votes no on all the wasteful spending.
Someone who sticks up for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights when almost no one else does.
Someone who returns a portion of his Congressional office budget every year -- talk about fiscally conservative!
Someone who knows the ins and outs of Congress as well as anyone, but has never been corrupted by its influence.
Someone who we can trust, if only because he's done and said the same thing for 30 years.

Would you really rather have someone like Romney, who flip-flops on everything, even important issues, and doesn't seem to have a real core of beliefs?  This kind of person will never make any meaningful change, they essentially have been co-opted already and isn't even waiting until they get elected!  Or someone like Gingrich who will not only listen to lobbyists, but who is actually a lobbyist themselves?  Someone who takes a million bucks from Freddie Mack and then has a gall to say that we should go after those who profited from them?  Someone who was fined $300,000 for ethics violations and forced to resign in disgrace?

These kind of corrupt sellout politicians are the ones who have been ruining the country.  We absolutely cannot afford to let another one of them into the White House.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: flurry on December 26, 2011, 02:31:41 PM
Ron Paul's done a poor job addressing the racist newsletter issue. I don't see how he wasn't aware of that at the time it was going on. No one thought to mention it to him?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on December 26, 2011, 05:09:17 PM
SSH, the Republican Party would profit from a little bit more libertarian bent, and even more so from plain old quality control.  Ron Paul is not the man to take it there.

Why? Just curious.

I'm going to pull a musashi on you this once and say that the reasons for my stance (shared by most right-thinking people, heh, get it?) are widely understood and well-documented, including within this very thread.




All right, I can't stand it: eccentric monetary policy; eccentric foreign policy; annoying fans.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on December 26, 2011, 06:36:08 PM
I'm more the type to inundate you with widely understood and well-documented source material than just allude to it.

I could do digging for "why the right wing hates Ron Paul" information but there is honestly so much batshit crazy stuff on the fringes of the conservative right that I wouldn't want to mistakingly attribute some of that to you, brytta.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: RogueGunslinger on December 26, 2011, 09:38:30 PM
Ron Paul's done a poor job addressing the racist newsletter issue. I don't see how he wasn't aware of that at the time it was going on. No one thought to mention it to him?

Your answer is out there. This racist newsletter thing came up many months ago.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on December 27, 2011, 12:50:18 AM
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/12/26/ron-paul-signs-personhood-usa-pledge-proving-once-again-that-he-is-not-a-libertarian-or-a-liberal/
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on December 27, 2011, 01:04:00 AM
Ron Paul's done a poor job addressing the racist newsletter issue. I don't see how he wasn't aware of that at the time it was going on. No one thought to mention it to him?

Your answer is out there. This racist newsletter thing came up many months ago.

Link?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: RogueGunslinger on December 27, 2011, 01:19:58 AM
Ron Paul's done a poor job addressing the racist newsletter issue. I don't see how he wasn't aware of that at the time it was going on. No one thought to mention it to him?

Your answer is out there. This racist newsletter thing came up many months ago.

Link?

Wait I thought I was pulling a musashi....

:P  Anyways his response has been something akin to "I didn't read or write those newsletters before they were sent off. There were thousands and thousands of newsletter, I'm not a racist."

This was actually something that came up during his last campaign, apparently.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKBlk1Vpeuw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKBlk1Vpeuw)


This is what ya'll are talking about, yeah?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Bacon on December 27, 2011, 01:29:57 AM
So his answer was: "I'll tell you what I can that doesn't implicate me having anything to do with it without providing any facts. Now on to other things..."
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: RogueGunslinger on December 27, 2011, 01:34:00 AM
Was it? I'm having a hard time considering what "facts" he could have possibly given.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on December 27, 2011, 01:41:24 AM
I thought that in the video RGS linked up, Ron Paul sounded just a little panicky, and rambling, but then again he kinda ... always sounds like that.  :P
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Bacon on December 27, 2011, 01:42:28 AM
I'm just saying, his word doesn't prove that he didn't know about them or didn't have anything to do with them. We just don't know one way or the other. That kind of opening makes me choose to play it safe and choose not to have anything to do with him. That's all. There's a big question there with the only factual evidence we have pointing to the possibility that he may be racist.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on December 27, 2011, 01:44:14 AM
You could look at his voting record and see what his track history has been on civil rights issues for minorities ... maybe?

I have no idea what that record looks like, mind you. I'm just saying, if one actually cares about finding out if he's being sincere or not, there are other avenues available besides waiting for a media story to break and tell you their opinion.

Shit, if we dismissed every politician right away the moment a negative story about them broke we'd have none left.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: RogueGunslinger on December 27, 2011, 01:48:53 AM
Actually I'm having a hard time deciding what the real issue is here. That Ron Paul could possibly be a racist? Or that Ron Paul is stupid enough to let semi-racists remarks go out in his newsletters twenty years ago.

Quote
Dondero recently published an account including his thoughts on Ron Paul and the racist newsletters. He wrote that while many of the Paul’s views are old-fashioned or eccentric, Paul is neither a racist nor an anti-Semite.

“I worked for the man for 12 years, pretty consistently,” Dondero writes. “I never heard a racist word expressed towards Blacks or Jews come out of his mouth. Not once. And understand, I was his close personal assistant.”

However, Dondero also says that Paul “is far from being the hippest guy around” and is “completely clueless when it comes to Hispanic and Black culture, particularly Mexican-American culture.”

Dondero, who Paul has described as “a disgruntled former employee who was fired,” also wrote that Paul is “absolutely” not an anti-Semite, but “most certainly Anti-Israel, and Anti-Israeli in general.”

“He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all,” Dondero says. “He expressed this to me numerous times in our private conversations. His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the America taxpayer. He sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs.”

At the same time, Dondero says Paul has no problem with American Jews, and even worked to befriend the very small Jewish community in his own district.



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/26/former-opponents-discuss-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters/#ixzz1hiOKlhgz


I think can probably all agree that he's not racist. However it is an incredibly stupid thing to put your name all over daily and weekly newsletters that you don't have someone with a brain checking.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Bacon on December 27, 2011, 01:52:57 AM
You could look at his voting record and see what his track history has been on civil rights issues for minorities ... maybe?

I have no idea what that record looks like, mind you. I'm just saying, if one actually cares about finding out if he's being sincere or not, there are other avenues available besides waiting for a media story to break and tell you their opinion.

Shit, if we dismissed every politician right away the moment a negative story about them broke we'd have none left.

Oh, I dismissed him for other things I disagree with before that anyway. There is noone on the conservative side running currently that I would vote for. Every one of them has different issues that I cannot agree with and that I believe would lead this country more in the wrong direction. I'm not saying I'm completely happy with our current president, but I agree with his views more than those running against him this election.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on December 27, 2011, 01:54:42 AM
I found this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIeW0DY64bE&feature=related) by clicking on some links off of your video RGS. I could never be a politician. I could not be as polite as he was during that interview.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: RogueGunslinger on December 27, 2011, 02:09:22 AM
I couldn't even listen to that radio host. Got about a minute in before rage-closing the video. I hate people who think they're the smartest little fuckers in the world.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on December 27, 2011, 02:32:19 AM
That's why I was asking brytta what his issues were specifically, rather than make assumptions based on whatever the other folks on his side of the fence blog and post about.  :-\
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on December 27, 2011, 12:34:26 PM
I could do digging for "why the right wing hates Ron Paul" information but there is honestly so much batshit crazy stuff on the fringes of the conservative right that I wouldn't want to mistakingly attribute some of that to you, brytta.

;D

Here are a couple things:
- A recent statement (http://rightwingnews.com/election-2012/statement-from-fmr-ron-paul-staffer-on-newsletters-anti-semitism/), a bit rambling, from Eric Dondero, a former aide.  (You'll facepalm, as I did, at his opinions on what is and isn't homophobia--not that there's anything wrong with that--but never mind.)  Also summarized by the Atlantic here (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/ex-aide-ron-pauls-foreign-policy-is-sheer-lunacy/250541/).
- The one I linked last Friday (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/286259/paul-fringe-frontrunner-rich-lowry) is also worthwhile (by NR's Rich Lowry):
Quote
He tends to bring any conversation back to the malignancy of U.S. foreign policy. In the final debate in Iowa, he rambled on about how worries about the Iranian nuclear program are “war propaganda,” but if the Iranians get the bomb that they’re not developing, that’s entirely understandable, since we’re “promoting their desire to have it.” Jeane Kirkpatrick famously condemned the “Blame America First” Democrats; would that she had lived long enough to condemn the “Blame America First” libertarians.

In the debate, Paul went on to warn against a push “to declare war on 1.2 billion Muslims,” as if a country that has resorted to force of arms to save Muslims from starvation (Somalia), from ethnic cleansing (Bosnia, Kosovo), and from brutal dictators (Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya) is bristling with an undifferentiated hostility toward all Muslims. This isn’t an expression of an anti-interventionism so much as a smear. It goes beyond opposition to American foreign policy to a poisonous view of America itself.

Paul never knows when to stop. He lets his suspicion of centralized power slip into paranoia worthy of a second-rate Hollywood thriller about government malevolence. In January 2010, he declared: “There’s been a coup, have you heard? It’s the CIA coup. The CIA runs everything, they run the military.” On his latest appearance on the radio show of the conspiracy-mongering host Alex Jones, he opined that the alleged Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador on U.S. soil was “another propaganda stunt.” He exclaimed that the latest defense bill authorizing the indefinite detention of enemy combatants will “literally legalize martial law” (yes, “literally”).

I'd sum up my personal beef this way:  Ron Paul wants to radically change America's fiscal and foreign policy in ways whose potential consequences range from "poorly understood" to "World War III" and "The Greater Depression."  Though many of his views on personal freedom and the scope of government are admirable, they are tainted and misdirected by his personal obsessions: a jaundiced, not neutral, view of American interventionism; and an affinity for off-beat economic theories.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on December 27, 2011, 06:20:50 PM
Thanks brytta!
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: SwanSwanHummingbird on December 28, 2011, 08:11:31 PM
I'd sum up my personal beef this way:  Ron Paul wants to radically change America's fiscal and foreign policy in ways whose potential consequences range from "poorly understood" to "World War III" and "The Greater Depression."  Though many of his views on personal freedom and the scope of government are admirable, they are tainted and misdirected by his personal obsessions: a jaundiced, not neutral, view of American interventionism; and an affinity for off-beat economic theories.

"radically change America's fiscal and foreign policy"

You mean by actually following the Constitution?

What specifically about the Constitution do you find so frightening?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Synthesis on December 28, 2011, 08:43:27 PM
I'd sum up my personal beef this way:  Ron Paul wants to radically change America's fiscal and foreign policy in ways whose potential consequences range from "poorly understood" to "World War III" and "The Greater Depression."  Though many of his views on personal freedom and the scope of government are admirable, they are tainted and misdirected by his personal obsessions: a jaundiced, not neutral, view of American interventionism; and an affinity for off-beat economic theories.

"radically change America's fiscal and foreign policy"

You mean by actually following the Constitution?

What specifically about the Constitution do you find so frightening?

I'm pretty sure the Constitution doesn't say anything about commodity monetarism or non-interventionism, but I'll admit it's been a while since I read the whole text.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jcarter on December 28, 2011, 09:37:10 PM
I'd sum up my personal beef this way:  Ron Paul wants to radically change America's fiscal and foreign policy in ways whose potential consequences range from "poorly understood" to "World War III" and "The Greater Depression."  Though many of his views on personal freedom and the scope of government are admirable, they are tainted and misdirected by his personal obsessions: a jaundiced, not neutral, view of American interventionism; and an affinity for off-beat economic theories.

"radically change America's fiscal and foreign policy"

You mean by actually following the Constitution?

What specifically about the Constitution do you find so frightening?

I'm pretty sure the Constitution doesn't say anything about commodity monetarism or non-interventionism, but I'll admit it's been a while since I read the whole text.

I'm pretty sure nobody is trying to say that the Constitution literally applies to commodity monetarism or non-interventionism, try reading the post again.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on December 28, 2011, 09:53:14 PM
Isn't that what Constitutionalism is about? Adhering strictly to the things outlined in the Constitution and the people that follow that ideology are usually those that do not want Amendments added or otherwise?

 ???
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Synthesis on December 28, 2011, 10:10:12 PM
Isn't that what Constitutionalism is about? Adhering strictly to the things outlined in the Constitution and the people that follow that ideology are usually those that do not want Amendments added or otherwise?

 ???

The Constitution says that Congress is gonna have the power to coin money and regulate its value, and that the states can't print their own money.  It doesn't say how Congress should go about doing that.

Thus, you can't just say "Durrrr, I'm a strict Constitutionalist" when it comes to monetary policy, unless you're arguing that the states can't print their own money.

The Constitution also says that the President and the Congress are gonna work together in various ways to approve treaties and wars and shit, but it doesn't say when or with who or under what circumstances it should do so.  Again, you can't argue "strict Constitutionalist!" as a foreign policy, because the Constitution has fuck-all to say about (most) specific policy matters in those areas.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on December 28, 2011, 10:16:56 PM
And they're still trying to argue that that's what they are and uh ... that the Constitution should be strictly adhered to?

Silly wabbits!
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on December 29, 2011, 12:52:28 AM
Synthesis' point is valid and you guys are just being obtuse.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jcarter on December 29, 2011, 01:08:14 AM
yeah that point towards an imaginary argument that nobody made was spot on.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on December 29, 2011, 04:48:03 AM
Maybe SSH should explain what he means by "following the Constitution" in regards to fiscal and foreign policy then so we're clear on what he was trying to say.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Nao on December 29, 2011, 09:25:51 AM
Quote
I'd sum up my personal beef this way:  Ron Paul wants to radically change America's fiscal and foreign policy in ways whose potential consequences range from "poorly understood" to "World War III" and "The Greater Depression."  Though many of his views on personal freedom and the scope of government are admirable, they are tainted and misdirected by his personal obsessions: a jaundiced, not neutral, view of American interventionism; and an affinity for off-beat economic theories.
I'm worried about everyone but Ron Paul starting WWIII. IThe economy - is seriously fucked already. I'm not sure what would be worse, the proposed solutions from the other Republican candidates (seems to be various versions of 'give a tax break or a tax cut and hope that creates jobs') or Ron Paul. Don't get me wrong, I probably wouldn't vote for Ron Paul if I lived in the US, but - I'm more worried about someone being too trigger-happy with the big red button than economic collapse.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on December 29, 2011, 10:40:24 AM
http://api.addthis.com/oexchange/0.8/wrap/opengraph?url=aHR0cDovL3d3dy51c2F0b2RheS5jb20vbmV3cy9wb2xpdGljcy9jYW5kaWRhdGUtbWF0Y2gtZ2FtZQ%3D%3D&title=Candidate+Match+Game&description=The+candidate+most+like+me+is+Barack+Obama.+Play+USA+TODAY%27s+Candidate+Match+Game+to+find+out+which+2012+presidential+hopeful+shares+your+views+on+taxes%2C+health+care+and+all+the+top+issues+of+the+day.&screenshot=aHR0cDovL2kudXNhdG9kYXkubmV0L25ld3MvX2NvbW1vbi9pbWFnZXMvZWxlY3Rpb25zXzEyL1VTQVQtcHJlc2lkZW50aWFsLXBvbGwtdHJhY2tlci5qcGc%3D

I got the Pres, then Huntsman (!!), and then Newt and Dr. Paul were tied. Oh well. Better than Anal-Juice or Bachman.

Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Bacon on December 29, 2011, 10:52:39 AM
Barack Obama 73.4%, Ron Paul 40.1%, and I'm not even going to say the third because it was a low percentage and I can't stand the person. I figured with the first two that's what it would be too. If I were to vote for anyone running on the Repub side it would be Ron Paul but we just don't agree about enough things for me to go there.

I do think some of the answers are a little biased to the conservative side. I had to choose none of the above on a few because it seemed they were all variations on the same answer which included a main premise that is unacceptable to me.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on December 29, 2011, 11:06:20 AM
I'm worried about everyone but Ron Paul starting WWIII.

I'm worried about everyone but any U.S. president starting WWIII.  The thing that Docker Paul doesn't credit is that if someone else starts a world war, the United States will be in it.  You'd better not Bring the Troops Home and Mind Our Own Business unless you're governing a nation willing to see Russian hegemony over Europe, China over Asia, and a Mideast ruled by dictators adequately pliable to those powers.  If you do this and your nation changes its mind, you're liable to be storming Normandy in a couple decades.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on December 29, 2011, 02:54:38 PM
I'm worried about everyone but any U.S. president starting WWIII.  The thing that Docker Paul doesn't credit is that if someone else starts a world war, the United States will be in it.  You'd better not Bring the Troops Home and Mind Our Own Business unless you're governing a nation willing to see Russian hegemony over Europe, China over Asia, and a Mideast ruled by dictators adequately pliable to those powers.  If you do this and your nation changes its mind, you're liable to be storming Normandy in a couple decades.

This ... kind of reminds me of a rant Ben Stein did one time (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHVW6p57dso) about how America was a vulnerable, naked super power and that's why we need to crank up the military spending even more. I think this line of thinking severely underestimates the pacifying power of global trade.

In short ... the religious worry (or perhaps fantasize) about the end of the world too much  :-*

Also I couldn't make it through that candidate match up game. I disagreed with the premise of the questions way too much to pick anything but none of the above for the first half of them before I closed the window.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on December 30, 2011, 11:25:35 AM
We spend so much on defense in fear that the parts of the world we trust won't Man Up and that the parts of the world we don't will.

<rereads sentence>
 ???
<hits post button>
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on December 30, 2011, 08:40:27 PM
Yeah but ... dude ...

(http://www.realclearworld.com/blog/military_spending_big.png)

... Is your lust not slaked?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Synthesis on December 30, 2011, 09:42:07 PM
Yeah but ... dude ...

(http://www.realclearworld.com/blog/military_spending_big.png)

... Is your lust not slaked?

That graph is useless as a comparative measure unless it's as a % of GDP.

By % GDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures#SIPRI_Military_Expenditure_Database), we're comparable to quite a few other nations.  E.g. we might spend 10x as much absolutely as Russia, but we spend 4.7% GDP compared to their 4.3%...not that much of a difference.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: lordcooper on December 30, 2011, 10:12:52 PM
That graph is useless as a comparative measure unless it's as a % of GDP.

I don't follow your logic here, could you elaborate a little please?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on December 30, 2011, 10:19:41 PM
How is comparative measuring at all useful in this situation though?

I mean, if you make 300k a year and I make 10k ... and we both spend comparatively the same on a car ... you've still got a way nicer ride than I do.

So if the US is spending 42% of all the money being spent on military build up in the entire world ... comparative spending be damned. We've still got the biggest monster of a military the world has ever known.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Delirium on December 30, 2011, 10:21:38 PM
If Joe Blow makes 72,000 a year and spends 21,600 on rent, and Jane Doe makes 45,000 a year and spends 13,500 on rent, they are spending equivalent amounts of their income on that particular budgetary expense. However... yeah, what Musashi said. Posting before I can hit submit!

Why am I even in this thread? Retreat... retreat...
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on December 30, 2011, 10:52:47 PM
Here are some table showing expenditure by GDP:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS

The truth is somewhere between those two, isn't it?  What we do spend on, well, anything is limited on the bottom end by the minimum we need to survive, and on the top end by what we can afford.  It's not surprising that a very large and very efficient economy spends a huge pile of money on....well, everything.

On the other hand, we project a heckuva lot more power than the Netherlands (1.7%) or even the United Kingdom (2.7%).  But we're talking factor-of-two crazy, not order of magnitude.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Synthesis on December 30, 2011, 11:30:40 PM
How is comparative measuring at all useful in this situation though?

I mean, if you make 300k a year and I make 10k ... and we both spend comparatively the same on a car ... you've still got a way nicer ride than I do.

So if the US is spending 42% of all the money being spent on military build up in the entire world ... comparative spending be damned. We've still got the biggest monster of a military the world has ever known.

Well, yes.  What's your point?

If there were some absolute military expenditure that would guarantee safety and success, perhaps a graph of absolute spending would be appropriate, because you could say, "Look, we all know that $500bn is plenty to spend, and we're way beyond that."  However, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there is no absolute expenditure that guarantees that the goals of having a military will be met, and that countries therefore spend whatever they can afford on it.

In this sense, we aren't too far out of line with other nations, despite the disparity in absolute expenditures.  We can afford to spend vastly more because our GDP is vastly larger.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on December 31, 2011, 02:52:45 AM
To continue with the car analogy, what you are saying is kinda like the 300k a year guy saying:

"Look if there were some absolute price that would guarantee my car is gonna be faster than the guy who only makes 10k, well then perhaps a graph of absolute spending would be appropriate, because you could say, "Look, we all know that 250k is plenty to spend, and we're way beyond that."  However, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there is no absolute expenditure that guarantees that I'm gonna have a faster car, and that therefore I should spend whatever I can afford for one."

... In some deeply theoretical way ... yeah ok ... but back here in reality ... that dude is a dumbass.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: RogueGunslinger on December 31, 2011, 02:58:59 AM
What?


Edit: Can you bring that one out fo the analogy for me? It actually makes it harder to understand.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on December 31, 2011, 03:03:48 AM
I'm pointing out how silly it is to assert that being responsible for nearly half of the entire world's military spending is somehow "not enough" to make sure you're "safe". By putting the assertion in different, more relatable terms.

Buying a car instead of buying a military.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: RogueGunslinger on December 31, 2011, 03:05:43 AM
I'm pointing out how silly it is to assert that being responsible for nearly half of the entire world's military spending is somehow "not enough" to make sure you're "safe". By putting the assertion in different, more relatable terms.

Buying a car instead of buying a military.

Edit:1 Wait. Let me think on this for a second, lol.


Edit2: Okay. So You're saying that we should limit our spending on military based on the worlds average GDP, instead of basing it on what's affordable for us to do, based on our own?



(this is me not suggesting that our military budget isn't too high. Considering we apparently double the closest people to us.) But you don't seem to be arguing that double is too much?

Fuck I'm a bit too buzzed for this thread.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: RogueGunslinger on December 31, 2011, 03:14:31 AM
Wait, let me simplify this a bit. Are you saying that the amount spent on military is equivalent for all parties, thus the person with double spent on it is obviously going to have a lot more power?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on December 31, 2011, 04:20:13 AM
No man. I'm saying it's silly to make comparative judgements at all.

If ... in terms of total dollars spent ... you are accounting for almost half of all military spending world wide ... then your military is proooobably plenty big enough no matter if poor ass countries are spending "comparatively" as much with their poor ass GDP's.

And I'm also saying that trying to justify spending more by pulling the issue into the realm of "well we can never be safe enough" is silly. You can pull any issue into the "there are no absolutes" realm. Like the price on a car, for example. When put in more relatable terms like cars instead of military spending, I would hope the silliness of the position would be become apparent.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: RogueGunslinger on December 31, 2011, 04:43:31 AM
I'll agree that comparatives are silly. But aren't you making a comparison when you say we account for half of all military spending?

To the point of "trying to justify spending more by pulling the issue into the realm of 'well we can never be safe enough' is silly" Of course. But that's not what Synth is saying at all. He's saying that we don't know how much we need to spend to be safe. It's a a constantly changing situation, so we have to constantly put money into determining what the safest options are.

Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: My 2 sids on December 31, 2011, 09:08:43 AM
I'll agree that comparatives are silly. But aren't you making a comparison when you say we account for half of all military spending?

To the point of "trying to justify spending more by pulling the issue into the realm of 'well we can never be safe enough' is silly" Of course. But that's not what Synth is saying at all. He's saying that we don't know how much we need to spend to be safe. It's a a constantly changing situation, so we have to constantly put money into determining what the safest options are.

To be[/b] safe or to feel[/b] safe?  Because there is a difference.  Saving and being prepared are good values, but saving for savings sake is the logic of horders

Obama was voted in (by a huge margin) on the promise of change.  Change so we can feel productive and have a little pride in ourselves once more.  That desire to live better, hasn't gone away.  The Republican who can talk about a better America (not this "let's all huddle under this rock and close our eyes")  THEY would win this election.

After all, you'd think all would have learned something from Kerry v. Bush election!  That unless someone can paint a brighter picture, the "Hey, look at how dark things are" just won't cut it -- folks rather live with the hardship they know than try something new just because.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on December 31, 2011, 10:02:52 AM
The United States has undertaken the defense of: all the nicest parts of North America, a huge chunk of ice near Siberia, a very pleasant island chain in the north-central Pacific, and any number of bits and pieces scattered across the globe.  And western Europe (at least until recently; and we're still the backstop). And South Korea. And the Republic of China. And the world's shipping lanes; when Iran starts blustering about closing the Strait of Hormuz, everybody does not blithely assume that the Deutsche Marine is capable of smacking them around and clearing it in a day or two.

Britain actually has a nice blue-water Navy; somebody try multiplying their defence spending by the ratios of our coastlines or something.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: lordcooper on December 31, 2011, 10:07:33 AM
RGS: Try thinking of it this way.  Pulling numbers out of my ass here.  A guy makes $300 a week and it costs him $80 a week to buy food and $40 a week to keep his car full of petrol.  If his pay gets increased to $600 a week, he doesn't automatically require $160 worth of food and $80 worth of petrol a week.  Half the food would get rotten and he'd have to find somewhere to store all the extra petrol.

And yes, Britain is guilty of this crap too.  There's no way a little island of our size needs to be spending so much on the military.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on December 31, 2011, 10:11:05 AM
And yes, Britain is guilty of this crap too.  There's no way a little island of our size needs to be spending so much on the military.

Falklands.  Aren't y'all kind of the muscle of the whole Commonwealth?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Synthesis on December 31, 2011, 10:28:29 AM
To continue with the car analogy, what you are saying is kinda like the 300k a year guy saying:

"Look if there were some absolute price that would guarantee my car is gonna be faster than the guy who only makes 10k, well then perhaps a graph of absolute spending would be appropriate, because you could say, "Look, we all know that 250k is plenty to spend, and we're way beyond that."  However, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there is no absolute expenditure that guarantees that I'm gonna have a faster car, and that therefore I should spend whatever I can afford for one."

... In some deeply theoretical way ... yeah ok ... but back here in reality ... that dude is a dumbass.

All you're doing is making the absolute sufficient expenditures argument, shrouded by a clumsy analogy.  Despite the happy euphemistic (it's not the Department of Offense) propaganda that keeps the public from having to deal with the harsh realities of geopolitics, having a fancy expensive military with all the options is terribly (in both senses of the word) useful.

Assuming we aren't pursuing mayhem for mayhem's sake, the pertinent questions are a) does defense spending eventually benefit from an economy of scale and b) is there a point of diminishing returns for defense spending?  Beyond that, there's the question of affordability (which, as discussed previously, shouldn't be putting us too far out on a limb, relative to GDP) and moral hazard (at which point we drop the assumption about mayhem).

So at the end, let's assume that there is no economy of scale, and we aren't in the area of diminishing returns--if this is the case, then using absolute expenditures as an indicator of "too much" spending by comparison to other countries is much less useful than using expenditures as a percent of GDP, because the question we're asking is "how much can we afford?" not "how much is enough?"
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: lordcooper on December 31, 2011, 10:31:57 AM
And yes, Britain is guilty of this crap too.  There's no way a little island of our size needs to be spending so much on the military.

Falklands.  Aren't y'all kind of the muscle of the whole Commonwealth?

I'm of the opinion that they pretty much should be Argentinian anyway, or possibly independent.  Being right next to Argentina and so far the Britain it would kinda make sense for them to ally themselves with a closer nation.  Besides, what does Britain really gain from a population of just over 3000 people?  I doubt it's worth 907 deaths.

E: Of course, the 'successful' war helped cement Thatcher's position as PM for another term, so at least it wasn't a total waste :-\
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on December 31, 2011, 11:12:48 AM
And yes, Britain is guilty of this crap too.  There's no way a little island of our size needs to be spending so much on the military.

Falklands.  Aren't y'all kind of the muscle of the whole Commonwealth?

I'm of the opinion that they pretty much should be Argentinian anyway, or possibly independent.  Being right next to Argentina and so far the Britain it would kinda make sense for them to ally themselves with a closer nation.  Besides, what does Britain really gain from a population of just over 3000 people?  I doubt it's worth 907 deaths.

Self-bloody-determination, tha's what it's aboot, old son. Cannae yeh just let the wogs bloody have a smack at us, innit.

...That was probably horrible.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: EldritchOrigins on December 31, 2011, 11:47:09 AM
Being policemen to the world can be expensive.  Who would you rather did the job?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: lordcooper on December 31, 2011, 12:07:28 PM
Being policemen to the world can be expensive.  Who would you rather did the job?

If somebody absolutely has to try and impose their views on the rest of the world, I'd probably vote for Canada, Japan, Switzerland or (first choice) Finland.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on December 31, 2011, 12:21:11 PM
Being policemen to the world can be expensive.  Who would you rather did the job?

If somebody absolutely has to try and impose their views on the rest of the world, I'd probably vote for Canada, Japan, Switzerland or (first choice) Finland.

"Imposing our views" usually means "stopping someone else from imposing their own peculiarly bloody views."  Popular examples: Germany, freaking Germany, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq.*  The Banana Wars and such are a leetle more ambiguous, but certainly no more so than anything those terrifying Frenchmen get up to.  Or, heaven help us, the Belgiueese.

* 1991.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: RogueGunslinger on December 31, 2011, 06:37:26 PM
RGS: Try thinking of it this way.  Pulling numbers out of my ass here.  A guy makes $300 a week and it costs him $80 a week to buy food and $40 a week to keep his car full of petrol.  If his pay gets increased to $600 a week, he doesn't automatically require $160 worth of food and $80 worth of petrol a week.  Half the food would get rotten and he'd have to find somewhere to store all the extra petrol.

And yes, Britain is guilty of this crap too.  There's no way a little island of our size needs to be spending so much on the military.

This has already be addressed. We don't know how much it costs to be safe like we know how much it costs to feed ourselves or how much it's going to cost us to move our cars around.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: lordcooper on December 31, 2011, 09:00:36 PM
Being policemen to the world can be expensive.  Who would you rather did the job?

If somebody absolutely has to try and impose their views on the rest of the world, I'd probably vote for Canada, Japan, Switzerland or (first choice) Finland.

"Imposing our views" usually means "stopping someone else from imposing their own peculiarly bloody views."  Popular examples: Germany, freaking Germany, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq.*  The Banana Wars and such are a leetle more ambiguous, but certainly no more so than anything those terrifying Frenchmen get up to.  Or, heaven help us, the Belgiueese.

* 1991.

There's a fair bit of this (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8472804/WikiLeaks-children-among-the-innocent-captured-and-sent-to-Guantanamo.html) kinda thing that goes with it though.

And to be fair, the only one of those that ended even remotely well in the long term for the US or their allies was WW2 (although I can't really comment on the Banana Wars, having never heard of them).
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Synthesis on December 31, 2011, 10:32:53 PM
I'm pretty sure South Koreans count the Korean conflict as a win.  You know, given how fabulously the North Korean experiment has gone.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 01, 2012, 12:13:29 AM
And Kuwait seems happy-ish.  And Vietnam, in fairness, we worked real hard at throwing that one.

I want to count WWI as a win for our team, but I still don't understand what it was about.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on January 01, 2012, 06:41:57 AM
This has already be addressed. We don't know how much it costs to be safe like we know how much it costs to feed ourselves or how much it's going to cost us to move our cars around.

This is where the disagreement lies. We don't know how much it's going to cost to feed ourselves or move our cars around, we just have estimations based on a variety of factors that we observe like gas and food price trends, for example. And these are not always accurate indicators, as price spikes can happen along with sudden price drops. You don't know how much these things cost. You just have good guesses that you trust when planning your budget.

Now, because most people are not personally familiar with the kind of observations one would need in order to make a good guess about how much defense spending is needed in order to ensure a reasonable amount of safety ... some people are willing to buy into this "it's never enough we need a bigger military" assertion. But I don't.

This is why the "we don't know thus spend spend spend till we have a defense force capable of world domination but trust us we won't use it for that ..." line of reasoning, isn't compelling to me.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Zoltan on January 01, 2012, 10:09:43 AM
And Kuwait seems happy-ish.  And Vietnam, in fairness, we worked real hard at throwing that one.

I want to count WWI as a win for our team, but I still don't understand what it was about.

Dick-wagging. No, seriously.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Morrolan on January 01, 2012, 01:25:25 PM
I want to count WWI as a win for our team, but I still don't understand what it was about.

Sir John Keegan, a kinda famous military historian, lays the blame for that one at a misunderstanding of Clausewitz's book On War by the political and military leadership of the day.

In some ways it was like the prototypical bar-brawl.  Some skinny guy popped another guy in the nose, and everyone chose sides (agreed to by previous treaty) and started swinging.

Basically, it was your traditional European land-war with modern transport, communication, and guns.  It was a horrible slaughter.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: RogueGunslinger on January 03, 2012, 07:15:40 PM
Who do ya'll think will win Iowa?



I wonder what the percentage is of people who become the primary canidate if they don't make top 3.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on January 03, 2012, 08:05:39 PM
I'm thinking Santorum if he can galvanize the evangelicals.

I'm rooting for Ron Paul though.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 03, 2012, 08:12:18 PM
Paul wins Iowa, Romney wins the nomination.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on January 03, 2012, 08:18:07 PM
Wanna make a 10,000 dollar bet?  :P
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Synthesis on January 03, 2012, 08:29:38 PM
Once the heavy PACs start turning out negative anti-Paul ads, his support is going to disappear like regulations in libertarian fantasyland.

Big Money isn't libertarian in reality--they only pretend to be such so as to eliminate rules that aren't in their favor.  Romney plays their kind of ball.  Paul is bringing a cricket bat to a golf tournament.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 03, 2012, 08:59:47 PM
Once the heavy PACs start turning out negative anti-Paul ads, his support is going to disappear like regulations in libertarian fantasyland.

Big Money isn't libertarian in reality--they only pretend to be such so as to eliminate rules that aren't in their favor.  Romney plays their kind of ball.  Paul is bringing a cricket bat to a golf tournament.

I'm not saying that you're all wrong, but I don't think Paul can win a two- or three-way Republican race, PACs or no.  And part of being a successful candidate is being able to stand up to negative ads.  Newt would be winning this week if there weren't so many damning and basically true things to say about him.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 03, 2012, 11:54:05 PM
Well gosh.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: RogueGunslinger on January 04, 2012, 12:30:15 AM
I know right?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: RogueGunslinger on January 04, 2012, 01:58:54 AM
I have a good feelign Romney is gonna end up getting the nom. And get this poll.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on January 04, 2012, 04:22:33 AM
Ron Paul's not a real libertarian anyway. He's just a creepy old piece of shit.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on January 04, 2012, 04:23:37 AM
Being policemen to the world can be expensive.  Who would you rather did the job?

probably either
a) the United Nations
or 2) nobody
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on January 04, 2012, 08:30:45 AM
Looks like Romney beat anal-juice by 8 votes and came in first; with Dr. Paul finishing up 3rd.

Heh ... Newt's pissed.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Cutthroat on January 04, 2012, 08:33:10 AM
I wasn't sure how someone as vile as Santorum could get second place (#2, if you will) so narrowly behind Romney; then I remembered that open bigotry doesn't actually hurt one's chances as a candidate this time around.

*facepalm*

At least Rick Perry is considering dropping out. That should raise the average cognitive ability of the candidates a bit.

:)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Nyr on January 04, 2012, 09:02:50 AM
I wasn't sure how someone as vile as Santorum could get second place (#2, if you will) so narrowly behind Romney

Republicans are going to go with Romney, but they are going to exhaust every other possible option first.  Almost every candidate has had their 15 minutes to shine before being relegated to the back of the class.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 04, 2012, 09:41:41 AM
I dunno, Nyr, I'm reading that McCain will endorse Romney. That should hurt him a bit.

I wasn't sure how someone as vile as Santorum could get second place (#2, if you will) so narrowly behind Romney; then I remembered that open bigotry doesn't actually hurt one's chances as a candidate this time around.

Yeah, I'm actually pondering whether I'm more or less of an open bigot than Santorum.  Probably about the same, but with audience-appropriate nuance.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 04, 2012, 09:44:39 AM
The Iowa results, by the way (https://www.google.com/search?aq=1&oq=iowa+&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=iowa+caucus+results) (from Google):

Mitt Romney     30,015   24.6%   
Rick Santorum   30,007   24.5%   
Ron Paul        26,219   21.4%   
Newt Gingrich   16,251   13.3%   
Rick Perry      12,604   10.3%
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on January 04, 2012, 10:35:04 AM
So now the question becomes can Obama-bot beat Romney-bot in the Corporate Robot Battle Arena Extravaganza Showdown -- 2012!?

And does it really matter wtf wins?

I mean, it'll matter to gay people. They gave Obama a lot of frickin' money to buy their civil rights. But will it matter to the rest of us?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: flurry on January 04, 2012, 01:16:38 PM
I mean, it'll matter to gay people. They gave Obama a lot of frickin' money to buy their civil rights. But will it matter to the rest of us?

You make it sound like civil rights is such a trifling issue. I'm pretty sure they matter to a lot of voters.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on January 04, 2012, 01:17:08 PM
Even Neal Boortz doesn't like Rick Santorum. Now THAT says something.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Nao on January 04, 2012, 01:36:11 PM
They gave Obama a lot of frickin' money to buy their civil rights.
Seriously?  :o
If you've got a link, I'd love to read about that. If you were just exaggerating, I'll feel stupid.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 04, 2012, 01:48:32 PM
I mean, it'll matter to gay people. They gave Obama a lot of frickin' money to buy their civil rights. But will it matter to the rest of us?

You do know that President Obama is agin gay marriage?  I'm sure that ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell made some folks happy, but there we're talking about a small percentage (of the population that is in the military) of a small percentage (guys and gals who like guys and gals, respectively).
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 04, 2012, 01:52:25 PM
Even Neal Boortz doesn't like Rick Santorum. Now THAT says something.

Nor does Glenn Beck, if we're tallying.  Nor someone named Dave Savage, apparently.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Ender on January 04, 2012, 02:14:37 PM
Even Neal Boortz doesn't like Rick Santorum. Now THAT says something.

Nor does Glenn Beck Dan Savage, if we're tallying.  Nor someone named Dave Savage Glenn Beck, apparently.

LIBERALFIED

Also, were you joking about the "as bigoted as Santorum" bit?  I hope so. :|
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 04, 2012, 04:28:13 PM
Also, were you joking about the "as bigoted as Santorum" bit?  I hope so. :|

Answer 1: Yes, in that I used the word "bigoted" rather lightheartedly, whereas our much-loved Cutthroat was probably being serious.

Answer 2: No, unless I miscomprehend which views of Mr. Santorum are being called bigoted.

Mr. Santorum has once mentioned homosexual people parallel to pedophiles.  From the comfortable vantage point of frustrated heterosexuality, I can say that that's about like mentioning fornicators (that's most of you lot, bless you) and rapists in the same breath: yes, both are, ah, freakin' wrong, but one is a terrible act of aggression and the other a misdirected expression of affection and joysome fun.

If Santorum's called a bigot for following the sexual norms of all historical Christendom, I, too, am that sort of bigot; if he's called a bigot for lumping together predatory and non-predatory sins, yeah, that was pretty horrible, though one hopes it can be blamed more on lazy cluelessness than real inability to comprehend the distinction.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Nyr on January 04, 2012, 04:47:30 PM
Mr. Santorum has once mentioned homosexual people parallel to pedophiles. 

And bestiality. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_controversy_regarding_homosexuality)

(that's the whole article over that whole controversy)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Delirium on January 04, 2012, 04:49:22 PM
Santorum just looks like a smarmy cad. It's going to be hard to take him seriously.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Nyr on January 04, 2012, 04:52:42 PM
Santorum just looks like a smarmy cad. It's going to be hard to take him seriously.

Hard or not, his supporters will certainly take him seriously in the end.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Delirium on January 04, 2012, 04:54:07 PM
He's not into that kind of thing, remember?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 04, 2012, 04:56:04 PM
Mr. Santorum has once mentioned homosexual people parallel to pedophiles. 

And bestiality. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_controversy_regarding_homosexuality)

(that's the whole article over that whole controversy)

Well, I'm placing bestiality slightly lower than pedophilia on the catalog of horribles.  Stalin killed millions of people and a number of beloved family pets.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Cutthroat on January 04, 2012, 05:08:20 PM
Quote from: brytta.leofa
if he's called a bigot for lumping together predatory and non-predatory sins, yeah, that was pretty horrible

That's what I was getting at there, yes. I couldn't really care less if someone simply doesn't approve of homosexual relationships but lets people do their own thing if they wish - but it's been pretty obvious for the last several years that the party of small government sure does care a lot about what gay people are doing in private. It is probably one of the biggest conflicts between their social views and their governmental/civic opinions, at least the ones they express publicly. Santorum just happens to be one of the most, ah, flamboyant in that pursuit.

Quote
, though one hopes it can be blamed more on lazy cluelessness than real inability to comprehend the distinction.

I attribute it to shameless pandering to those who are either lazily clueless or unable to comprehend the distinction.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 04, 2012, 05:41:44 PM
That's what I was getting at there, yes. I couldn't really care less if someone simply doesn't approve of homosexual relationships but lets people do their own thing if they wish - but it's been pretty obvious for the last several years that the party of small government sure does care a lot about what gay people are doing in private.

The recent controversies, as far as I know, have mostly been about civil recognition of those relationships: what people do in Public, capital P, not what they do in private. 

Oh, wait, there was Lawrence v. Texas.  Hard to heartily approve of either the law or the judicial spike.

There certainly is a tendency, on the personal level, for a person with Moral Principles (which is most of us, one way or another) to be fascinated with and horrified by the sins he ain't interested in.  This is rarely profitable and has led in many cases to great uncharity.

It is probably one of the biggest conflicts between their social views and their governmental/civic opinions, at least the ones they express publicly.

The big government/small government (or more freedom/less freedom) controversy cuts both ways and isn't very illuminating when one tries to wield it backwards, IMO.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Delirium on January 04, 2012, 05:45:52 PM
Edited to close a can of worms I unwisely almost-opened.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Cutthroat on January 04, 2012, 06:07:35 PM
That's what I was getting at there, yes. I couldn't really care less if someone simply doesn't approve of homosexual relationships but lets people do their own thing if they wish - but it's been pretty obvious for the last several years that the party of small government sure does care a lot about what gay people are doing in private.

The recent controversies, as far as I know, have mostly been about civil recognition of those relationships: what people do in Public, capital P, not what they do in private.  

Oh, wait, there was Lawrence v. Texas.  Hard to heartily approve of either the law or the judicial spike.

There certainly is a tendency, on the personal level, for a person with Moral Principles (which is most of us, one way or another) to be fascinated with and horrified by the sins he ain't interested in.  This is rarely profitable and has led in many cases to great uncharity.

It is probably one of the biggest conflicts between their social views and their governmental/civic opinions, at least the ones they express publicly.

The big government/small government (or more freedom/less freedom) controversy cuts both ways and isn't very illuminating when one tries to wield it backwards, IMO.

True enough, but honestly, it's not just that. It's a lot of things that have to do with sex.

- sex education
- birth control
- abortions
- homosexuality

I feel that morality shouldn't factor into the law so much as the needs of the state, and fairness for people. Santorum, for example, is against "the dangers of contraception in this country" and feels that states should have the right to outlaw birth control. Is that something he's willing to push Congress for as President? Because that seems to me like a disturbing slip into theocracy.

Alternate tongue-in-cheek reply:
The one thing all people hate most is sex. Therefore, making sex as difficult as possible should play well with the electorate.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Synthesis on January 04, 2012, 06:31:24 PM
"Iowa caucuses leave Santorum trailing behind Romney."

"Santorum shoots out of nowhere, finishing behind Romney."

"In a close three-way, Santorum ends up between Romney and Paul."
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Yam on January 04, 2012, 06:34:54 PM
"In surprise twist ending,  Santorum a faux conservative self-hating homosexuals all along"
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Synthesis on January 04, 2012, 06:36:08 PM
"Santorum right on Romney's behind in Iowa."
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on January 04, 2012, 06:51:14 PM
They gave Obama a lot of frickin' money to buy their civil rights.
Seriously?  :o
If you've got a link, I'd love to read about that. If you were just exaggerating, I'll feel stupid.


Obama has done a great deal for the gay community. Here's a quick link (http://www.campusprogress.org/articles/obamas_lgbt_support_a_stark_contrast_to_past_presidents/) to highlight some of that.

It's a nice track record, but it's got nothing to do with him being principled and wanting to protect a vulnerable segment of the population. Simply put, LGBT activists raise a lot of money (http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/10/lgbt-raising-big-for-barack-obama.html), so Obama delivers for them.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all about civil rights for homosexuals in the country, I think it's fantastic that his track record for them has been so good. I'm just also cognizant of the reality ... which is that it wouldn't have happened if they hadn't paid him. That's how our political system works. Money in ... results out.

If all you have to bring to the table is the moral high ground ... well ... thanks for playing.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on January 04, 2012, 07:46:11 PM
"Santorum right on Romney's behind in Iowa."

I giggled. At all of these.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: lordcooper on January 04, 2012, 08:44:51 PM
So...uh...I just googled Santorum :-X
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Yam on January 04, 2012, 08:50:07 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/ig9Ge.jpg)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on January 04, 2012, 08:58:45 PM
So...uh...I just googled Santorum :-X

You poor, poor child. Nobody warned you?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Ender on January 04, 2012, 09:27:59 PM
I'll just leave this here. (http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck/2011/06/19/santorums-wifes-abortion-was-different-you-see/)

(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/000/428/%E0%B2%A0_%E0%B2%A0.jpg?1246548281)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Synthesis on January 04, 2012, 10:16:39 PM
I'll just leave this here. (http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck/2011/06/19/santorums-wifes-abortion-was-different-you-see/)

That guy should learn what a "partial birth" abortion is.  The description he gives is in fact an exaggeration and a falsehood, despite his protestations to the contrary.

Dilation and suction can be done up to about 13 weeks, and regular dilation and evacuation can be performed any time during the second trimester.  The intact D&E procedure isn't necessarily indicated for anything, as far as I know...so bans on "partial birth" abortions (which specifically refer to the ID&E procedure, unless the legalese is fuzzy...at which point it's not merely a ban on partial birth abortions) seem mostly like short-term political mollification for abortion opponents.

So when he claims that since her abortion was in the 2nd trimester, it must have been a partial birth abortion, he's quite off the mark.

Even in the case of hypocrisy, he may be off the mark.  The question is whether Santorum's wife (who he claims is advocating against all abortions no matter what, now) held that position before or after her abortion non-abortion.  It's quite possible that she had a real change of heart after her abortion non-abortion, and she legitimately believes now that it is an abominable act, when she did not believe that at the time it was wasn't performed...in which case it isn't hypocrisy.

So...I don't think he really knows what he's talking about in either case (again, unless he has specific evidence in either case that he's failed to provide), so basically...his blog sucks.

And actually, reading the full account he links to, she didn't even have a damn surgical abortion at all...she went into preterm labor as a result of intrauterine infection, and they claim she asked the OB/GYN to give tocolytics to halt labor at that time, but he/she refused.  She merely said in an interview later, that after everything else had been tried, she probably would've agreed to have "an intervention."

So, yeah...this guy is just completely off the mark.  Not that I don't agree with where he's coming from, but shitty arguments are shitty arguments, whether they're coming from the left or the right.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 04, 2012, 11:37:17 PM
I feel that morality shouldn't factor into the law so much as the needs of the state, and fairness for people.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by morality here--fairness for people is certainly an end of morality--but I would put it this way: in matters where the principal victim is one's own self, the state should tread lightly.

Santorum, for example, is against "the dangers of contraception in this country" and feels that states should have the right to outlaw birth control.

I'm not about to argue for the Roman view of contraception.  I don't get it.  On the other hand, as a matter of law and constitutionality, the right to privacy stuff is real thin ice.  States have got the "right" to engage in all manner of stupidness and frivolity.

Is that something he's willing to push Congress for as President? Because that seems to me like a disturbing slip into theocracy.

Seem t' me like a disturbin' slip into ridiculousness.  The motivation for it doesn't worry or interest me excessively; secular and philosophical causes have worked up a much more impressive body count over the last century than religious ones.  Outlawing contraception would be no less unkindly if it were done as part of a grandiose and counterintuitive eugenical scheme.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on January 05, 2012, 05:52:03 AM
secular and philosophical causes have worked up a much more impressive body count over the last century than religious ones. 

Citation required? Or is this gonna go down the "Hitler was an atheist" road?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 05, 2012, 11:41:08 AM
secular and philosophical causes have worked up a much more impressive body count over the last century than religious ones.  

Citation required? Or is this gonna go down the "Hitler was an atheist" road?

I actually did think this was uncontroversially true, for the 20th century.

Hitler was, indeed, no true Scotsman; the real question there would be whether National Socialism was ever justified or understood in credibly religious terms.  (A nation of Lutherans going to war doesn't make it a religious war; ditto Muslims, etc.)  But he's small stuff compared to Stalin and Mao, who I think were pretty dogmatically nonreligious.

(I'm also not really worrying about whether th' doggone commies killed that many folks through homicidal mania or ineptitude. It matters to the perpetrators, but my whole schtick was that results are more interesting than motivations to a given policy's victims.)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 05, 2012, 11:42:16 AM
Citation required? Or is this gonna go down the "Hitler was an atheist" road?

also you said hitler first
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on January 05, 2012, 11:50:34 AM
I'll just leave this here. (http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck/2011/06/19/santorums-wifes-abortion-was-different-you-see/)

(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/000/428/%E0%B2%A0_%E0%B2%A0.jpg?1246548281)

The blog's not loading. This is about his wife's life being in danger, so he told them to abort the fetus so she would live, right? And then he brought the baby home to show his kids what a miracle of life is? Ahem.

AND about HItler, I just watched that damn Spear of Destiny documentary. Creepy shit.

Rick Santorum and Palestine (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owqWgD0M8Po)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on January 05, 2012, 12:43:39 PM
I actually did think this was uncontroversially true, for the 20th century.

Hitler was, indeed, no true Scotsman; the real question there would be whether National Socialism was ever justified or understood in credibly religious terms.  (A nation of Lutherans going to war doesn't make it a religious war; ditto Muslims, etc.)  But he's small stuff compared to Stalin and Mao, who I think were pretty dogmatically nonreligious.

(I'm also not really worrying about whether th' doggone commies killed that many folks through homicidal mania or ineptitude. It matters to the perpetrators, but my whole schtick was that results are more interesting than motivations to a given policy's victims.)

Religion was a big part of Nazi Germany; from "God with Us" on the uniforms, to the speeches, to the man's book, to tearing down free thinking secular establishments, outlawing them, and replacing them with religious centers, to the Roman Catholic Church celebrating his birthday and to this day refusing to excommunicate him ... I don't think one can make a credible case to somehow exempt religion from the whole "Let's go murder those Christ-killing Jews" thing.

But I'll try for you!  ;D

I would think that it's pretty clear that Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, ect weren't into any main stream flavor of religion because they disliked the competition, but they were all very much into their own dogma; just like North Korea today (the Dear Leader was immaculately conceived you know ... and controls the weather .. and bowls a perfect 300 every game ... and still runs the country ... from beyond the grave).

The problem isn't "religion" or "secularism" per say, the problem is "violent fucking dogma". It tends to lead towards killing people, every time. No matter what kind of robe or funny hat you make it wear.

No one has gone off and committed genocide in the "name of secularism" for the same reason that no one has done it in the name of Jainism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism). Secularism doesn't have violent core "beliefs". Stalin and Mao's flavor of Communism did. Judaic monotheism and all it's spin-offs totally do as well.

That's the thing that keeps getting folks killed, no matter what century you're looking at. Trying to pin it on anything else is probably missing the point.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 05, 2012, 01:10:48 PM
By "secular causes" I meant "causes that aren't religious," not "irreligion as a cause" (not that this didn't exist in the communist states).

That's the thing that keeps getting folks killed. Trying to pin it on anything else is probably missing the point.

That's what I'm aiming at: the justifications people give for doing stupid or horrible things (or good and noble ones) aren't very important to society.  Hence my beef with "theocracy" as a shorthand.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Bacon on January 05, 2012, 01:37:48 PM
Religion was a big part of Nazi Germany; from "God with Us" on the uniforms, to the speeches, to the man's book, to tearing down free thinking secular establishments, outlawing them, and replacing them with religious centers, to the Roman Catholic Church celebrating his birthday and to this day refusing to excommunicate him ... I don't think one can make a credible case to somehow exempt religion from the whole "Let's go murder those Christ-killing Jews" thing.

swing and a miss

Prove it. Every piece of information I find confirms what he is saying. Not otherwise.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on January 05, 2012, 01:48:04 PM
Prove it. Every piece of information I find confirms what he is saying. Not otherwise.

Just ... don't  ::)

By "secular causes" I meant "causes that aren't religious," not "irreligion as a cause" (not that this didn't exist in the communist states).

That's the thing that keeps getting folks killed. Trying to pin it on anything else is probably missing the point.

That's what I'm aiming at: the justifications people give for doing stupid or horrible things (or good and noble ones) aren't very important to society.  Hence my beef with "theocracy" as a shorthand.

Point taken.  :) We are yet again in violent agreement.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Nao on January 05, 2012, 01:49:08 PM
Religion was a big part of Nazi Germany; from "God with Us" on the uniforms, to the speeches, to the man's book, to tearing down free thinking secular establishments, outlawing them, and replacing them with religious centers, to the Roman Catholic Church celebrating his birthday and to this day refusing to excommunicate him ... I don't think one can make a credible case to somehow exempt religion from the whole "Let's go murder those Christ-killing Jews" thing.

swing and a miss

Prove it. Every piece of information I find confirms what he is saying. Not otherwise.
It's more complicated than that. I guess Hitler had his own perverted version of Christianity and persecuted the traditional churches to some degree. The Catholic church eventually decided to cooperate with Hitler. The nazis also tried to substitute Christianity with blind patriotism, ideology and some pagan leanings. Christian religion was pushed out of everyday life, not embraced. Here's a couple of wp articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler%27s_religious_views
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_Nazi_Germany

Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Bacon on January 05, 2012, 02:02:18 PM
Religion was a big part of Nazi Germany; from "God with Us" on the uniforms, to the speeches, to the man's book, to tearing down free thinking secular establishments, outlawing them, and replacing them with religious centers, to the Roman Catholic Church celebrating his birthday and to this day refusing to excommunicate him ... I don't think one can make a credible case to somehow exempt religion from the whole "Let's go murder those Christ-killing Jews" thing.

swing and a miss

Prove it. Every piece of information I find confirms what he is saying. Not otherwise.
It's more complicated than that. I guess Hitler had his own perverted version of Christianity and persecuted the traditional churches to some degree. The Catholic church eventually decided to cooperate with Hitler. The nazis also tried to substitute Christianity with blind patriotism, ideology and some pagan leanings. Christian religion was pushed out of everyday life, not embraced. Here's a couple of wp articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler%27s_religious_views
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_Nazi_Germany



It still shows that religion had a part to play in it. Whether he believed it or not. He used it.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on January 05, 2012, 02:04:45 PM
Religion was a big part of Nazi Germany; from "God with Us" on the uniforms, to the speeches, to the man's book, to tearing down free thinking secular establishments, outlawing them, and replacing them with religious centers, to the Roman Catholic Church celebrating his birthday and to this day refusing to excommunicate him ... I don't think one can make a credible case to somehow exempt religion from the whole "Let's go murder those Christ-killing Jews" thing.

swing and a miss

Prove it. Every piece of information I find confirms what he is saying. Not otherwise.
It's more complicated than that. I guess Hitler had his own perverted version of Christianity and persecuted the traditional churches to some degree. The Catholic church eventually decided to cooperate with Hitler. The nazis also tried to substitute Christianity with blind patriotism, ideology and some pagan leanings. Christian religion was pushed out of everyday life, not embraced. Here's a couple of wp articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler%27s_religious_views
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_Nazi_Germany



I'd just like to point out Nao that the article you link to on the Catholic church and Nazi Germany is listed as needing additional sources and verification. The church most assuredly had a hand to play. But yeah, it's more complicated than any blanket statement like "Hitler was an atheist" or "Hitler was a Catholic" ... is the Catholic Church 100% responsible for all the crazy shit that went down there? Nah. Are they 100% absolved from it? Nah to that too. That's what I was getting at.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Dalmeth on January 05, 2012, 02:12:14 PM
It's more complicated than that. I guess Hitler had his own perverted version of Christianity and persecuted the traditional churches to some degree. The Catholic church eventually decided to cooperate with Hitler. The nazis also tried to substitute Christianity with blind patriotism, ideology and some pagan leanings. Christian religion was pushed out of everyday life, not embraced.

Yah, Hitler most presented himself with the industrialized, largely Protestant northern Germany.  The southern Catholics did not feel too welcome under Nazi rule, and you can argue that cooperation between the National Socialists and the Catholic Church was in the form of appeasement, which was a thing back then.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Nyr on January 05, 2012, 02:22:35 PM
hai guys what's going on in here

oh.

Trolling.  That's not cool.  I'm going to clean out the trash.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Nyr on January 05, 2012, 02:25:35 PM
For the record, please do not troll people, bait them, flame them, etc.  It's not really that cool.  If you walk that line enough, you will get caught and banned.  How you phrase things matters.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on January 05, 2012, 02:43:55 PM
Yah, Hitler most presented himself with the industrialized, largely Protestant northern Germany.  The southern Catholics did not feel too welcome under Nazi rule, and you can argue that cooperation between the National Socialists and the Catholic Church was in the form of appeasement, which was a thing back then.

Link? This goes against what I've read (http://www.CatholicArrogance.Org/Catholic/Hitlersfaith-1.html), where Hitler presented himself very much as a Roman Catholic.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Dalmeth on January 05, 2012, 03:09:02 PM
Link? This goes against what I've read, where Hitler presented himself very much as a Roman Catholic.

My statement was a part of my education or some book I read many years ago.  But who cares about books when you have the internet?

Here, this wikipedia article suggests a rather vague relationship in part because churches were state-funded and because the aggression was very much personal, enacted between lower levels, and often organized in only the most meager sense :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany)

Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on January 05, 2012, 03:11:06 PM
Yeah, check out my link, it goes into way more detail (all properly sourced and not vague in the slightest) than you ever wanted to know about Hitler's Catholicism. The one you linked to is addressing religion in Nazi Germany as a whole, not which religion Hitler claimed for himself ... which was what I was asking for a link to. Something to back this claim:

Yah, Hitler most presented himself with the industrialized, largely Protestant northern Germany.

That claim goes against basically everything I've ever read, so I'm interested to know more about it.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Case on January 05, 2012, 03:27:54 PM
The majority of killing last century came from religious people committing secular violence.

We didn't just have WW2 folks.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: RogueGunslinger on January 05, 2012, 03:38:46 PM
Hey, what's this. People being hilariously off topic in the thread. Can we stop with the nazi/hitler/religous bullshit. This is about republican candidates. If THEY believe some of these things, then I suppose we can discuss it, but this is just idiotic.

People can be very rash in whatever beliefs they have, and do violent things for their beliefs.  Whether religion is the source of this can be discussed in a different topic.

Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Synthesis on January 05, 2012, 03:40:56 PM
Rather than edit, I'll double post.

Next reboot we will have a message that is given when this happens, for those of you setting up triggers at home it will read:

<attacker> seizes the opening and attacks <victim>.

The one you're gonna want to highlight is 'seizes the opening and attacks you.'

"Santorum seizes the opening and squeezes out behind Romney."
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on January 05, 2012, 03:56:03 PM
Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law) RGS. Accept it. There is no escape.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on January 05, 2012, 04:27:06 PM
Hey, what's this. People being hilariously off topic in the thread. Can we stop with the nazi/hitler/religous bullshit. This is about republican candidates. If THEY believe some of these things, then I suppose we can discuss it, but this is just idiotic.

People can be very rash in whatever beliefs they have, and do violent things for their beliefs.  Whether religion is the source of this can be discussed in a different topic.



Considering that a lot of the Republican candidates, due to their religion, believe that abortion doctors should go to jail for providing life saving and bith control services to women ... I think religion is relevant. Church and state shouldn't mix.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: RogueGunslinger on January 05, 2012, 04:31:55 PM
Boog... Are you trolling me?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on January 05, 2012, 04:41:19 PM
You two should get on TeamSpeak and bro down about it.

Anyway I think what with the Iowa Caucus over we're just killing time until the candidates do something else interesting/stupid that we can comment on, hence the odd derail/anal sex headlines reference by Synth here or there.

It'll right itself once the political machine gets going again, never you worry.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on January 05, 2012, 04:51:16 PM
Boog... Are you trolling me?

No. I was being honest. Santorum and Bachmann are both of that opinion because of their evangelical and ultra-conservative beliefs. They say no to big government when it comes to the economy and to government departments, but they are big government when it comes to imposing their moral agenda upon the populace.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Synthesis on January 05, 2012, 04:54:48 PM
It'll right itself once the political machine gets going again, never you worry.

"Santorum expected to keep political machine running smoothly in New Hampshire."
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Yam on January 05, 2012, 04:59:18 PM
With his own hair oil.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on January 05, 2012, 05:29:37 PM
By "secular causes" I meant "causes that aren't religious," not "irreligion as a cause" (not that this didn't exist in the communist states).

This is rather fatuous: your argument carried through is categorizing all non-religious deaths as 'secular deaths,' and that's not a useful or accurate categorization. You should be comparing killings in the name of religion to killings in the name of secularism. When put in those correct terms, the only real examples which crop up are communist regimes liquidating religious populations - and even then, those killings weren't so much to make the country secular but to destroy a faction that wasn't 'the State.' It's obtuse to suggest that Stalin suppressed Christians because he believed that Christianity was false; it's very clear from even a basic reading of history that Stalin suppressed Christians because they were a bloc of influence that he didn't control. Ditto Mao, Pol Pot, Coceascau, et al.

These guys weren't crusading for atheism, they were destroying groups that might oppose their power. The only way you might reasonably blame secularism here is to suggest that irreligiosity enabled totalitarianism. That's a hard sell, good luck with that one!

Quote
That's the thing that keeps getting folks killed. Trying to pin it on anything else is probably missing the point.

That's what I'm aiming at: the justifications people give for doing stupid or horrible things (or good and noble ones) aren't very important to society.  Hence my beef with "theocracy" as a shorthand.

When religions systematically create conditions which lead to violence I think it's very fair to suggest that religion is at fault. This distinction is in fact important to society. If it wasn't, why would suicide cults be suppressed?

It's rather far-fetched to suggest that Naziism was a Christian movement or that Hitler was crusading for Christianity. I don't think one can go very far with blaming Christianity for Naziism, honestly. There is an argument to be made however that the social influence of Christianity put certain important bits of the framework of Naziism in place (intolerance of Jews, intolerance of homosexuals, general concepts of 'manifest destiny'), however. Some strains of American Christianity preach intolerance, Western exceptionalism, and aggression, and those ideals are capitalized upon by fascist elements of society. This doesn't necessarily say that religion leads to evil states, but I think there's a stronger case to be made that unchecked religiosity leads to evil states than that unchecked secularism does...
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on January 05, 2012, 05:31:44 PM
Case-in-point: is it not their religions which lead asshole conservatives like Santorum and Bachmann to demonize homosexuals?

And does the constant demonization of homosexuals by political and religious figures not lead to horrific hate crimes against homosexuals in America?

Given this, how could you say it is unfair or irrelevant to claim that religion is partially responsible for the oppression and violence against homosexuals in America?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on January 05, 2012, 06:16:04 PM
What I took out of brytta's post was that he mean terms like "religion" are a bit too vague to be useful as a catch-all, and I agree with that.

Religion is a word like, sport.
Sport has within its rather broad boundaries things like thai boxing, and things like table tennis.
Religion has within its rather broad boundaries things like Jainism, and things like the Taliban.

So yeah, we can't blame "religion" for violence in the world anymore than we can blame "sports" for all the world's broken shins and busted teeth.

That's why I was saying that it's more useful to just get to the point. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, the National Socialist Party of Germany, Stalinism, ect ... all have one very precise thing in common. Dogma that carries violent and extremely intolerant overtones wherein opposition is to be shunned, crushed, and/or conquered. You can't have that as a core tenet of your whole belief structure and expect everything to be ok. Sooner or later someone is getting some genocide for Christmas.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: RogueGunslinger on January 05, 2012, 06:18:24 PM
Boog... Are you trolling me?

No. I was being honest. Santorum and Bachmann are both of that opinion because of their evangelical and ultra-conservative beliefs. They say no to big government when it comes to the economy and to government departments, but they are big government when it comes to imposing their moral agenda upon the populace.

... That means we should be talking about Hitlers motivations to kill millions of people.. why exactly?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on January 05, 2012, 06:27:59 PM
I wasn't talking about Hitler in the main meat of my post.

But yes, religion did motivate Hitler. Even if you speculate on what his religious beliefs were, he was after killing select groups of people, the main one, because of their religion.

But he WAS nutso. He had a hard-on for Christian relics. You can just google Nazism and religion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_aspects_of_Nazism

Anyway, if you start inserting religious beliefs into politics, it's a volatile conclusion most times.

I'm sure this post was scatterbrained, but the baby's fussy as fuck and I can't really expound other than saying religious nutbags in public office are/can be dangerous things.

I didn't insert Hitler first!! #blameless
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on January 05, 2012, 06:29:10 PM
I propose we stop talking about Hitler and Nazis in this thread.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on January 05, 2012, 06:42:39 PM
I'm excited to see how Huntsman does in NH. 5 dayyyys.

Ah well. I'm sure it's just going to be Romneybot vs. Obama; I don't even know why we're all speculating like it's going to be anything different.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Erythil on January 05, 2012, 06:44:12 PM
If I can divert us away from Nazis back towards the primary elections...

Watch what happens in South Carolina.  No Republican has ever won the nomination without winning South Carolina.  Ever.

Newt Gingrich still has a comfortable lead there, so anything can still happen, at this point.

In fact, what a lot of people are not pointing out is that the early primaries all award proportional representation at the party convention.  There hasn't been a delegate-brokered convention in the Republican party since the fifties, but it's by no means out of the question.

Personally I'm confident of only one thing -- the nominee will not be Romney or Paul. 

Paul had his chance to get serious consideration.  The fact that he couldn't pull this off in Iowa, where a Democrat or independent can re-register at the door of the caucuses, with much of his support being cross-party, bodes extremely poorly for his chances to win any state where only 'real' Republican voters will be voting.

Meanwhile, the dislike of Romney by the Republican party, despite the support he gets from the party leadership, is not to be underestimated.  He can't seem to crack 23-25 percent in any poll.  Moderate republicans like him -- all the others hate him, and think he's either a liberal in disguise, someone without major political accomplishment, or in the case of some evangelicals, a Mormon.

A poll back in 2008 indicated that about 95 percent of Americans would vote for a black man, 90 percent for a woman, but only about 72-75 percent (forget the exact number) for a Mormon.  I would hazard a guess that most of those folks that don't want to have anything to do with the Mormon are Evangelical/Baptist types, who are no small part of the Republican coalition.

And seeing as how nearly the entire Republican establishment, from Karl Rove to Fox News to elected representatives, are gung-ho for Romney, the Tea Party people are probably unlikely to support Romney, precisely BECAUSE he is receiving such vocal support from the leadership.  Democrats by and large love the Democratic party -- Republicans largely mistrust and dislike their party, which has chosen for them in recent memory such uninspiring candidates as Bush, Dole, Bush, and McCain.  This is why the candidates are all falling over each other to declare how conservative they are, because this is, in effect, a way of telling the Tea Party people not to worry, because they're not beholden to the perceived 'establishment.'
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on January 05, 2012, 10:57:29 PM
I was going to say ... that It is a complete mystery to me why Romney has not had a well timed "spiritual journey" leading him away from Mormanism and into the arms of a more socially palatable form of Christanity.

I was gonna say it, until I went and read up a bit about the man's ties to the church. I get it now.

In other news ... anyone think Santorum's welfare = black people slip up is gonna impact his chances?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on January 05, 2012, 11:10:49 PM
Definitely. Though, there isn't a particularly large number of African Americans in New Hampshire, and not a huge amount of black Republicans, I'm sure, in SC. (Though, I don't think there are anywhere, anyway.)

But yeah. Jabbing at a race of people specifically, if the quote was quoted right at the website I read it at, about black people and manufacturing jobs ... I don't think people are gonna like that. On top of everything else + anal juice Santorum.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Synthesis on January 05, 2012, 11:19:41 PM
I was going to say ... that It is a complete mystery to me why Romney has not had a well timed "spiritual journey" leading him away from Mormanism and into the arms of a more socially palatable form of Christanity.

I was gonna say it, until I went and read up a bit about the man's ties to the church. I get it now.

In other news ... anyone think Santorum's welfare = black people slip up is gonna impact his chances?

"Santorum slip-up makes election bid messy."
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on January 05, 2012, 11:31:14 PM
These are getting funnier, please don't stop  :D
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 05, 2012, 11:46:55 PM
It's rather far-fetched to suggest that Naziism was a Christian movement or that Hitler was crusading for Christianity. I don't think one can go very far with blaming Christianity for Naziism, honestly. There is an argument to be made however that the social influence of Christianity put certain important bits of the framework of Naziism in place (intolerance of Jews, intolerance of homosexuals, general concepts of 'manifest destiny'), however.

I totally read that as "Nilaziism" for about two seconds.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on January 05, 2012, 11:58:06 PM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/403147_10150497652490768_69662305767_8605205_782891919_n.jpg)

How Ron Paul wins South Carolina.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: RogueGunslinger on January 06, 2012, 01:40:14 AM
(http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/s320x320/402267_10150503182559337_850729336_8313070_1767600986_n.jpg)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Nao on January 06, 2012, 06:11:36 AM
Definitely. Though, there isn't a particularly large number of African Americans in New Hampshire, and not a huge amount of black Republicans, I'm sure, in SC. (Though, I don't think there are anywhere, anyway.)

But yeah. Jabbing at a race of people specifically, if the quote was quoted right at the website I read it at, about black people and manufacturing jobs ... I don't think people are gonna like that. On top of everything else + anal juice Santorum.
What about the 'bring dead fetus home to show it to the other children and cuddle with it'-story?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on January 06, 2012, 06:59:29 AM
Definitely. Though, there isn't a particularly large number of African Americans in New Hampshire, and not a huge amount of black Republicans, I'm sure, in SC. (Though, I don't think there are anywhere, anyway.)

But yeah. Jabbing at a race of people specifically, if the quote was quoted right at the website I read it at, about black people and manufacturing jobs ... I don't think people are gonna like that. On top of everything else + anal juice Santorum.
What about the 'bring dead fetus home to show it to the other children and cuddle with it'-story?

WTF link? LINK!?!
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Romy on January 06, 2012, 08:27:29 AM
I thought about it and felt it was better to take that off. I think it's better if no one sees the link.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: RogueGunslinger on January 06, 2012, 09:31:54 AM
It's just a link. Put NSFW around it or something.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Romy on January 06, 2012, 10:07:00 AM
That's what I thought, taking the link off again. Makes me feel so bad.  :-\
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: RogueGunslinger on January 06, 2012, 10:14:39 AM
 :o

Okay. I suggest people don't click the link... It looked sorta fake... but.. Trust me on this one. Don't click it.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: My 2 sids on January 06, 2012, 10:53:18 AM
:o

Okay. I suggest people don't click the link... It looked sorta fake... but.. Trust me on this one. Don't click it.

The Duggars (19 kids and counting) recently miscarried their 20th child.  As many parents who give birth to still born do, the Duggars count it as their 20th -- naming the baby girl and saying the girl died rather than "was never born"

Controversy comes from  the Mother took a few photographs holding the baby's feet and hand.   http://gawker.com/5868457/here-are-some-tender-photos-of-the-duggars-miscarried-20th-child  (http://gawker.com/5868457/here-are-some-tender-photos-of-the-duggars-miscarried-20th-child)

Duggar's website http://gawker.com/5868457/here-are-some-tender-photos-of-the-duggars-miscarried-20th-child  (http://gawker.com/5868457/here-are-some-tender-photos-of-the-duggars-miscarried-20th-child)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on January 06, 2012, 11:19:31 AM
Definitely. Though, there isn't a particularly large number of African Americans in New Hampshire, and not a huge amount of black Republicans, I'm sure, in SC. (Though, I don't think there are anywhere, anyway.)

But yeah. Jabbing at a race of people specifically, if the quote was quoted right at the website I read it at, about black people and manufacturing jobs ... I don't think people are gonna like that. On top of everything else + anal juice Santorum.
What about the 'bring dead fetus home to show it to the other children and cuddle with it'-story?

I mentioned it above.

Also, RGS, that's a photoshop. :P

No photos, but probably NSFW due to creep factor:
http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=96;t=000875;p=0
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61804-2005Apr17?language=printer

The first link shows a bunch of hyperlinks as you scroll.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Romy on January 06, 2012, 11:48:27 AM
Are you sure? The woman actually had a website I think but it doesn't work now I think. I looked on urbanlegends.com but didn't see anything about mother's with a dead fetus.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: RogueGunslinger on January 06, 2012, 11:50:22 AM
Like I said... It looked kinda fake. But.. I have no idea what... that.. would look like.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Romy on January 06, 2012, 11:54:04 AM
Like I said... It looked kinda fake. But.. I have no idea what... that.. would look like.

God...the beanie.  :'(
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: RogueGunslinger on January 06, 2012, 11:56:55 AM
Like I said... It looked kinda fake. But.. I have no idea what... that.. would look like.

God...the beanie.  :'(

That's what sorta tipped me off on it not being real.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Nyr on January 06, 2012, 12:54:42 PM
Actual screenshot from cnn's front page a few moments ago:

(http://i.imgur.com/gWYTK.png)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Delirium on January 06, 2012, 01:04:39 PM
Quote
“Well, what about three men?” Santorum responded to a female student who asked him about his position on same-sex marriage. “If reason says that if you think it’s OK for two, then you have to differentiate with me as to why it’s not OK for three.” (source (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-06/santorum-is-booed-by-college-crowd-for-opposing-gay-marriage.html))

The logic of this guy astounds me.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Marauder Moe on January 06, 2012, 01:10:11 PM
I dunno, the logic seems sound if both sides do agree with the assumption that polygamy is inherently not-OK.  Personally, I've never been entirely sure about that.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Delirium on January 06, 2012, 01:12:58 PM
.... two men having a relationship has nothing to do with three men having a relationship. There is no connection. His "logic" makes no sense.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Marauder Moe on January 06, 2012, 01:17:42 PM
They're connected in that both are atypical (by our modern Western standards) forms of marriage.

EDIT: Also, most of the arguments used to justify the legality of gay marriage also apply to polygamy (at least they do if you ignore the word "two").

EDIT 2: Which again, going back, often applied to inter-racial marriage as well.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on January 06, 2012, 01:19:58 PM
Yeah. A 20 week old fetus definitely isn't supposed to look like a full term baby.

http://www.medicinenet.com/fetal_development_pictures_slideshow/article.htm
http://pregnancymomandbaby.com/pregnancy-week-by-week/what-does-a-fetus-look-like-at-20-weeks/
http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/04/30/visualizing-the-fetus/

Those really aren't NSFW, though. I wouldn't say, anyway.

And ... I think Santorum was saying that 2 men doing it is just as bad as 3 men doing it. Which is silly, because the 2 men he discriminates against in terms of not allowing them to be married are probably more monogamous than the 50% of straight couples that get divorced in this country.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: RogueGunslinger on January 06, 2012, 01:25:35 PM
That thing didn't look like a full term baby at all.....



Edit: What the fuck is going on in this thread. Fucking damn it. This is ridiculous. I don't even realize what thread I'm posting in half the time :(
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 06, 2012, 02:37:48 PM
And ... I think Santorum was saying that 2 men doing it is just as bad as 3 men doing it. Which is silly, because the 2 men he discriminates against in terms of not allowing them to be married are probably more monogamous than the 50% of straight couples that get divorced in this country.

What's so especially great about monogamy?  As compared with other forms of marriage, such as polygamy or polyandry, not as compared with people cheating (to which boog is alluding, I think).
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on January 06, 2012, 03:50:46 PM
There are only two reasonable arguments against polygamy:

1) polygamous unions aren't good for raising children
2) polygamous unions encourage the abuse of women

#1 is all assumption, and #2 clearly does not apply in the case of three dudes. Rick's a dummy.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on January 06, 2012, 03:51:16 PM
He just wants to appeal to people's sense of 'ewwwww!', the classic Republican/conservative game.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 06, 2012, 04:39:29 PM
Not that there's anything wrong with that.

To clarify, 'storrie, would you support (if there was demand for it) legislation allowing marital contracts amongst any reasonable number of adult men and women*?  If so, yes, the Santorum Argument is kneecapped for want of squick; if not, knuckledragging minds want to know the diff.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: rishenko on January 06, 2012, 05:24:58 PM
There is nothing wrong with polygamy, nor same sex marriage, nor any combination thereof if all parties involved offer consent.

Religiously speaking, none of the apostles had anything against polygamous unions that I can recall, Peter being the only mention where he states that one of the qualifications of an elder is having one wife.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Morrolan on January 06, 2012, 06:18:37 PM
Actual screenshot from cnn's front page a few moments ago:

(http://i.imgur.com/gWYTK.png)


It has now been changed...

"Romney rips Santorum ahead of NH"
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: lordcooper on January 06, 2012, 06:41:48 PM
And ... I think Santorum was saying that 2 men doing it is just as bad as 3 men doing it. Which is silly, because the 2 men he discriminates against in terms of not allowing them to be married are probably more monogamous than the 50% of straight couples that get divorced in this country.

What's so especially great about monogamy?  As compared with other forms of marriage, such as polygamy or polyandry, not as compared with people cheating (to which boog is alluding, I think).

Brytta dude, you confuse the fuck outta me.  In a good way this time.  Well, probably.  Can never quite tell when serious.

And yeah, polygamy is cool.  No more than seven in the bed at any one time though.  It's just immoral beyond that.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on January 06, 2012, 07:35:19 PM
Not that there's anything wrong with that.

To clarify, 'storrie, would you support (if there was demand for it) legislation allowing marital contracts amongst any reasonable number of adult men and women*?  If so, yes, the Santorum Argument is kneecapped for want of squick; if not, knuckledragging minds want to know the diff.

Yes. I feel that polygamy is kind of gross, frankly, but liberty is paramount. My feelings are not.

One caveat, though. These marriages must not be considered different, even in name, from monogamous hetero marriages. Not 'civil unions' or anything of the like - they must be actual marriages. No discrimination. No special treatment for monogamous hetero couples just because they're the mainstream.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: AmandaGreathouse on January 06, 2012, 07:43:09 PM
Not that there's anything wrong with that.

To clarify, 'storrie, would you support (if there was demand for it) legislation allowing marital contracts amongst any reasonable number of adult men and women*?  If so, yes, the Santorum Argument is kneecapped for want of squick; if not, knuckledragging minds want to know the diff.

Yes. I feel that polygamy is kind of gross, frankly, but liberty is paramount. My feelings are not.

One caveat, though. These marriages must not be considered different, even in name, from monogamous hetero marriages. Not 'civil unions' or anything of the like - they must be actual marriages. No discrimination. No special treatment for monogamous hetero couples just because they're the mainstream.

Could not agree more with everything jstorrie just said about marriage but for the polygamy being gross thing. It's probably not my cup of tea for a lifelong relationship, but provided it's consensual, it's nothing anybody else should be butting into. How you sex and love shouldn't be something the government has any hand in, provided no one is being victimized by it.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on January 06, 2012, 08:48:55 PM
Yeah, it doesn't matter what anyone thinks is gross. Gross is just a feeling!
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on January 06, 2012, 09:36:48 PM
Yeah, it doesn't matter what anyone thinks is gross. Gross is just a feeling!

/insertdirtycommentaboutbeingpolygamouswithjstorriehere
/insertmomcommentandjokingfacehere

I don't care to be polygamous; men (and women, dammit, especially women) are too much fucking work to have to deal with by themselves! Anyway - it's not something that should be up to the government to decide. As Rick Santorum said, marriage is a privilege -- so the government shouldn't be regulating a 'privilege', amirite? I didn't think that's part of the 'making the government smaller' plan ... or at least, it goes against that belief.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Nao on January 07, 2012, 06:26:18 AM
What about mixed polygamous marriages? By his logic, shouldn't they follow from heterosexual marriage? It's all over the bible, as well.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on January 07, 2012, 11:02:19 PM
I'm still reeling from the fetus cuddling  :o
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 08, 2012, 10:06:54 AM
I'm still reeling from the fetus cuddling  :o

It doesn't matter what anyone thinks is gross. Gross is just a feeling!  ;)

We've apparently come a long way from families washing and dressing their deceased and laying them out at home for viewing.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: My 2 sids on January 08, 2012, 11:02:04 AM
Are we still talking about the Republican race??

I think what we'll find in New Hampshire is more of a definition of where the GOP is headed:  social vs. economic conservatism.

Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Nao on January 09, 2012, 10:56:47 AM
After watching the latest debate... why the fuck is nobody voting for that Huntsman guy?

Edit: Just saw that his poll numbers are up for New Hampshire. Did he skip campaigning in Iowa or soemthing?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Marauder Moe on January 09, 2012, 11:07:36 AM
After watching the latest debate... why the fuck is nobody voting for that Huntsman guy?
Because he's basically a Democrat, given today's political climate.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on January 09, 2012, 01:51:52 PM
After watching the latest debate... why the fuck is nobody voting for that Huntsman guy?
Because he's basically a Democrat, given today's political climate.

Yes. He's brilliant. And moderate. Which means he'll never be the GOP nominee.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Aruven on January 09, 2012, 04:47:17 PM
Certain things need to be talked about in these debates that aren't. And some of the topics coming up are so mundane that it's ridiculous. Obama authorized the National Defense Authorization Act on december 31st.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012

The above, is fucking horseshit, and it's things like that, that make me support Ron Paul. You might argue with the guy on Iran, or think he is, out of touch with American society (I think someone mentioned that), but he won't let congress rape constitutional rights. If we're going to swing by a rope and watch old men argue about our economy, I'd rather do it with someone in there who can at least keep the constitution from decaying while they do that.

I don't have any qualms with Mitt Romney, at least nothing to straight up attack him on. But the guy says... Outlandish things that just make him seem like a robot with words being put into his mouth. Santorum hasn't said anything special, and Newt is either on the attack or defending his reputation.

I admittedly know very little of Huntsman, but I like like a little bit of what I see there. Unfortunately, he's got a way worse off chance than Paul does of getting anywhere close to the nomination.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on January 09, 2012, 04:57:40 PM
Santorum has said plenty retarded things.

And, on top of everything else, doesn't Ron Paul want to not add any more amendments? If he was of this opinion  back in the day, I wouldn't be able to vote, nor would a shit ton of other people, etc, etc, etc ... I could probably go on forever.

Anyway, no one any of us likes is going to get the nom.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 09, 2012, 05:00:23 PM
And, on top of everything else, doesn't Ron Paul want to not add any more amendments?

Whoa, really?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: RogueGunslinger on January 09, 2012, 08:49:53 PM
And, on top of everything else, doesn't Ron Paul want to not add any more amendments?

Whoa, really?

Never heard this. Want to know more.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on January 09, 2012, 08:59:37 PM
That's why I put the question mark! I thought I had read it somewhere or heard it on talk radio. I'll look into it some more.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Dalmeth on January 09, 2012, 09:24:27 PM
And, on top of everything else, doesn't Ron Paul want to not add any more amendments? If he was of this opinion  back in the day, I wouldn't be able to vote, nor would a shit ton of other people, etc, etc, etc ... I could probably go on forever.

The first part can be true with the second part being entirely false.   Let's put it this way, one reason I like Ron Paul is that I like the idea of the federal government delegating authority to the states.  As it stands, the federal government is showing itself as increasingly incompetent in implementing nationwide agendas, so I'd like it back off.

That, by no means, says that the states can't amend their constitutions in whatever way they want.   In practice, the states are crippled by the load of federal requirements levied these days, but that's a separate issue for another time.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on January 09, 2012, 09:25:37 PM
And, on top of everything else, doesn't Ron Paul want to not add any more amendments? If he was of this opinion  back in the day, I wouldn't be able to vote, nor would a shit ton of other people, etc, etc, etc ... I could probably go on forever.

The first part can be true with the second part being entirely false.   Let's put it this way, one reason I like Ron Paul is that I like the idea of the federal government delegating authority to the states.  As it stands, the federal government is showing itself as increasingly incompetent in implementing nationwide agendas, so I'd like it back off.

That, by no means, says that the states can't amend their constitutions in whatever way they want.   In practice, the states are crippled by the load of federal requirements levied these days, but that's a separate issue for another time.

Yeah, I guess I could have just moved to Wyoming.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Case on January 09, 2012, 09:32:06 PM
Shouldn't come as a shock that Ron Paul says nonsensical crap or advocates distracting and downright pointless courses of action by now.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Erythil on January 09, 2012, 10:30:11 PM
I find it extremely odd that Iowa and New Hampshire are being given such importance, given that the voters in those states are terribly different from the republican mainstream.

I don't think we'll have an accurate picture of what's to come until South Carolina and Florida.

 It's funny, because if it was Romney vs. 1 other person, Romney would get crushed, but Romney's moderate supporters are simply a larger faction than the chaotic split of economic/social/tea-party/religious conservatives that can't agree on who their alternatives are, and the politicans who are too egotistical to get in a room and decide who the Romney-alternative will be, and what cabinet-position bribes all the others would get.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on January 09, 2012, 10:37:44 PM
Shouldn't come as a shock that Ron Paul says nonsensical crap or advocates distracting and downright pointless courses of action by now.

I don't want the Ron Paul-ites getting mad at me! 8)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: RogueGunslinger on January 09, 2012, 11:23:15 PM
Nobody listens to case' opinions :P
/me sticks his fingers in his ears and says :"LAlalalalalallalALalalallaLALA"
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Aruven on January 10, 2012, 01:25:41 AM
Shouldn't come as a shock that Ron Paul says nonsensical crap or advocates distracting and downright pointless courses of action by now.

I don't want the Ron Paul-ites getting mad at me! 8)

This seems to be a growing label for his supporters. Any questioning of the Ron Paul platform received with vehement backlash.  And most of America finds his topics to be nonsensical crap. Businesses and agenda want a war with Iran, and it's going to happen, no matter what the guy wants. So fighting it is moot. And liberty is not coming back to the U.S. It's pretty much becoming a V for Vendetta movie, except we don't have a blacklist yet for censored music and literature. Or a super freak in a guy fawkes mask sticking it to congress.

The last eight years of politics have really somewhat pushed me away from the American political system. And acts like the N.D.A.A and its respective revisions (mentioned earlier) are starting to make me think about not re-enlisting. I'm pretty sure I'm not going to vote if it's Mitt and Obama. They are the same people with different lobby interests.

Has anyone even come out and said they'll run as an independent yet? Not that it really matters, they'll just be sucking votes from Obama most likely.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on January 10, 2012, 08:55:37 AM
Love or hate Ron Paul ... it was ... fucking ... awesome ... when he called Newt a coward to his face at the latest debate for draft dodging.  :D
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 10, 2012, 09:34:30 AM
That's why I put the question mark! I thought I had read it somewhere or heard it on talk radio. I'll look into it some more.

I've heard that floated as a Thing Those Nasty Strict Constructionists Must Believe, but--as far as I know!--it really only has life as a strawman.  (Compare: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/house-reading-amended-slavery-free-constitution.php  There's a hint of a shadow of a point there*, but, yes, the Constitution offers a mechanism for amendment and this is a good thing.)

* I think the commentator is accusing the GOP of yielding to political correctness.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 10, 2012, 09:39:33 AM
I'm posting this semi-blind, since my work firewall now blocks pastebin (!!), but here's National Review's cover story on Ron Paul from several months back: http://pastebin.com/vPwCX42G

If you want the definitive piece on why the Right-Wing Establishment hates him.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: RogueGunslinger on January 10, 2012, 01:33:29 PM
Man... I went from really liking RP 2008. To just sorta liking him earlier this year. To really liking him, to sorta liking him. To sort of not liking him. And now I'm at a state where I honestly think he's the only GOP canidate who's worth voting for, regardless of what I think about him.  :-\
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Marauder Moe on January 10, 2012, 03:15:23 PM
Republican candidates attacking Romney because he's rich... and has a lot of PAC money poured into attack ads... oh god... you could slice the hypocrisy with a knife.

Jon Stewart said it best, of course.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 10, 2012, 03:23:42 PM
Jon Stewart said it best, of course.

Thereby earning himself a link from the National Review blog. ;)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 10, 2012, 03:41:40 PM
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/01/10/gingrich_goes_perot_on_romney
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Marauder Moe on January 10, 2012, 03:48:45 PM
Yeah.  As a liberal, this GOP primary season has been greatly entertaining.

...

Is this how you guys feel the rest of the time, watching all the DNC infighting?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on January 10, 2012, 06:14:08 PM
I'm amazed that Rush Limbaugh is still listened to. But then again I'm amazed Pat Robertson is still around too. I guess people get attached to their snake oil salesmen.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Dalmeth on January 10, 2012, 06:33:52 PM
I'm amazed that Rush Limbaugh is still listened to. But then again I'm amazed Pat Robertson is still around too. I guess people get attached to their snake oil salesmen.

Funny.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 10, 2012, 08:32:03 PM
I'm amazed that Rush Limbaugh is still listened to.

Because you don't agree with him? ;) He's kind of a big deal, in talk radio terms.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on January 10, 2012, 08:57:08 PM
He's kind of a dick.

Hell, even Alan Colmes isn't as bad as Rush is and they're both batshit crazy radio talk show hosts.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: RogueGunslinger on January 10, 2012, 09:28:01 PM
Rush ain' so bad when he isn't spouting off crazy conspiracy theories, or harping on about that "damn global warming fabrication".
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on January 11, 2012, 08:14:01 AM
I'm amazed that Rush Limbaugh is still listened to.

Because you don't agree with him? ;) He's kind of a big deal, in talk radio terms.

To be fair, conservative talk radio is a quickly shrinking (at for this year) deal in terms of ... radio (http://themoderatevoice.com/111160/new-ratings-conservative-talk-ratings-fall/) ratings (http://www.politisite.com/2011/05/23/arbitron-conservative-talk-radio-loses-a-third-of-audience/). Of course the conservative answer to that reality is about what you'd expect ... it's a liberal conspiracy to make the conservative hosts just LOOK like less and less people are listening to them! (http://spectator.org/archives/2011/05/31/radio-revolutionaries-targeted) And that's always good fun to read through too.

But no it's not because I don't agree with him. It's because he's a fucking pathological liar (http://mediamatters.org/research/201108120029). It's kind of ... a matter of record. I don't like liars.  :-\

I get the whole cognitive dissonance phenomenon ... you know where the more something is shown to be wrong, the more people who have already deeply invested into it will stubbornly cling to it, but it's still amazing to me to watch it in action when it comes to the people who constitute Limbaugh and Robertson's listener base.

... But it's not your fault I'm so especially bitchy about Limbaugh brytta ... my dad has been listening to the idiot for years, and just about every conversation that we have, I end up having to go on journalistic man-hunts to dig up source after source to show him that no ... that fat fucker was lying to him ... again ... just like last time ... and every time ... my dad eventually, begrudgingly, says something like, "Well ... yeah ... guess they all talk a lot of shit." or "Well, yeah he was exaggerating a bit there ..." ... ... ... and then we'll repeat the exact same conversation the next time we phone. That's really what makes me all cranky  :-*
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 11, 2012, 09:27:33 AM
Many of the "lies" in politics are disagreements about where to put the exaggeration.  (Dangnear half the country pays no income tax! House Republicans want to end Medicare!)  There are multiple screeds to choose from, but here's one: http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/lies-damned-lies-and-fact-checking_611854.html?page=1

(Fact checking is great and we need more and better of it.)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on January 11, 2012, 09:58:12 AM
Yes, we always need more and better fact checking ... but in the ideological arms race, that better fact checking is always going to be met with crazier and angrier op-eds that amount to: "No ... you're the liar, I mean what's more likely ... that I'm lying a lot or that there's a conspiracy/agenda to make it look like I'm lying a lot! Think about it!"

... and more conservapedia wiki entries.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on January 11, 2012, 11:02:07 AM
Sorry for the double post but, ok like ... here's what I mean brytta. Take this for example, from your article. The writer is complaining about Rand Paul getting a "false" rating from PolitiFact when he said public sector workers make $120,000 a year on average.

Quote from: your article
PolitiFact [...] muddies the waters by suggesting that the discrepancy between public and private sector averages isn’t an apples-to-apples comparison. [...] Andrew Biggs, [...] and Jason Richwine [...] writing in these pages  [...] observed that the most favorable studies of federal worker compensation “controlling for age, education, experience, race, gender, marital status, immigration status, state of residence, and so on” still find federal workers are overpaid by as much as 22 percent.

So Andrew Biggs and Jason Richwine observed that the most favorable studies of federal worker compensation, controlling for all that jazz, still found workers are overpaid by as much as 22 percent? Wow. I went and looked at that article.

Quote from: that actual article the writer was referencing
The standard approach to comparing the salaries of different groups is to employ the “human capital model,” [...] Economists using this approach find that federal workers generally earn wages 10 percent to 20 percent higher than comparable private sector workers. When we ran a similar analysis with 2009 wage data from the Current Population Survey (CPS), the result was a 12 percent premium. James Sherk of the Heritage Foundation found that the federal premium today could be as much as 22 percent, depending on the specific control variables employed. In general, the federal pay premium is very large for lower and middle-skilled employees and shrinks for the best-qualified federal workers.

Alright so actually, what Andrew and Jason said was that federal workers are generally found to earn 10 to 20 percent more than private sector workers and that their own analysis using the best data they had at the time turned up at 12 percent, but this other guy from the Heritage Foundation found that he could rub the numbers as high as 22 percent if he tried to make the numbers turn up higher by using specific control variables.

What did PolitiFact have to say about these kinds of studies?

Quote from: PolitiFact on the same issue
[...] "overall, federal workers earned an average salary of $67,691 in 2008 for occupations that exist both in government and the private sector [...] The average pay for the [...] private sector was $60,046

[...] the [...] study [also] found [...] federal pay was higher than private-sector pay in four out of every five job categories that existed in both sectors. These included accountants, nurses, chemists, surveyors, cooks, clerks and janitors.

So they ... acknowledge that. But go on ...

Quote from: PolitiFact on the same issue
This would seem to be strong evidence that the federal government pays better than the private sector. But caution is warranted here [...] This comparison involves jobs with the same title, but nothing beyond that. And there are any number of factors -- employee seniority, job duties and the number of employees in the comparison -- that could explain the pay differences in jobs with the same title. So the data is not a perfect match. [...] Despite Paul's exaggeration of the numbers, critics of federal compensation patterns do have some valid points.

For instance, [...] federal pay has risen faster than private-sector pay in recent years, despite the recession. "BEA data show that average federal salaries rose 58 percent between 2000 and 2009, which was much faster than the 30 percent increase in the private sector,"

So ... their problem with the method that was being used by the folks the writer from your article was referencing,  was that the study assumes that if the job title is the same, the job must be the same.

If one dwells for a moment on how generic and often deliberately vague job titles usually are ... that ... seems like a legit point of contention given all the things that are then not accounted for like seniority, specific job duties, ect.

That sort of thing could reasonably explain a 10-12 percent margin of error (the number the guys your article's writer was attempting to reference actually came up with in their own analysis).

But once they're done raising that complaint ... they go on to admit that the other side has some valid points, and they list them.

That's ... just a little tiny bit more transparent and fair than the piece you linked to makes it out to be, wouldn't you say?

When I look at all of that, it really seems to me like PolitiFact is making an effort to be fair and balanced ( ;)); while the guy who wrote the article you just linked seems like he's trying to be deliberately obtuse if not outright misleading.

But going through, actually checking sources, comparing things and lining it all up ... that takes a lot of time. It's easier to make up some bullshit than it is to go through and debunk it. I mean look at how spammy that one explanation got and I was just looking at a single claim of the many that article puts out there.

It's the classic shotgun debate tactic ... throw a lot of claims out in short order and hope the other side runs out of time, energy, or audience attention span, when trying to rebut them all. I hate that it's so damn effective on large groups of people.  :-\
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on January 11, 2012, 01:40:52 PM
So... what about Ron Paul's insane racist newsletters? Do you Paul fans pretend he never had these sent out, or do you genuinely agree that white girls are being infected with AIDS by roving gangs of blacks wielding infected syringes?

Or maybe you are blissfully unaware? Hey, do you know this thing Google?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Synthesis on January 11, 2012, 02:00:15 PM
"Pornography gets Santorum into a froth. (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/01/10/401517/three-leading-gop-nominees-porn/?mobile=nc)"
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Kinther on January 11, 2012, 02:12:57 PM
Ron Paul is the Republician I dislike the least.  If he ends up being the Republican frontrunner, I'll likely vote for him despite serious reservations.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on January 11, 2012, 02:18:37 PM
"Pornography gets Santorum into a froth. (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/01/10/401517/three-leading-gop-nominees-porn/?mobile=nc)"

SIGH



**at the article. Not the witty link title.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: valeria on January 11, 2012, 05:20:59 PM
It's mostly a state law issue and I think it should stay that way.  It makes perfect sense to me since the obscenity standards are based upon community standards.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on January 11, 2012, 06:49:53 PM
I wish social conservatives cared even half as much about protecting children from violent imagery that teaches them to glorify killing from the cradle as they do about making sure they aren't playing with their cock an' balls.  :-\
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: EldritchOrigins on January 11, 2012, 10:09:36 PM
I wish social conservatives cared even half as much about protecting children from violent imagery that teaches them to glorify killing from the cradle as they do about making sure they aren't playing with their cock an' balls.  :-\

How do you know that they don't?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Yam on January 11, 2012, 10:57:53 PM
Because they never really talk or legislate about that kind of thing unless giving lip service?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: EldritchOrigins on January 11, 2012, 11:55:59 PM
Because they never really talk or legislate about that kind of thing unless giving lip service?

Really?

(Lots of generalization going on in this tread.  I'll go back to lurking)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Yam on January 12, 2012, 12:03:48 AM
http://usconservatives.about.com/od/typesofconservatives/a/SocialCons.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conservatism_in_the_United_States

Aggregate links. If you look at any party platform websites they list more or less the same goals. Almost none of them list media violence and what not. It's safe to say they care more about legislating sexual health than that.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: EldritchOrigins on January 12, 2012, 12:10:46 AM
Who's trying to ban violent video games then?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/27/supreme-court-violent-video-games_n_884991.html
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Yam on January 12, 2012, 12:25:10 AM
A socially liberal Democrat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leland_Yee)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: SwanSwanHummingbird on January 12, 2012, 01:44:56 AM
So... what about Ron Paul's insane racist newsletters? Do you Paul fans pretend he never had these sent out, or do you genuinely agree that white girls are being infected with AIDS by roving gangs of blacks wielding infected syringes?

Or maybe you are blissfully unaware? Hey, do you know this thing Google?

Well, Ron Paul doesn't believe those things either.

Being completely honest, it's hard to imagine what he would have to say for him to lose my vote.  There probably isn't anything he could do or say at this point.  Of course he would never say anything racist or anything like that, but... even if he did ... it wouldn't sway my vote at all.  If you want to peer into the mind of a Ron Paul supporter, we see the country as in serious, serious danger.  And he is the only one who even would attempt to fix it.  So it's like... who cares what someone else wrote in his newsletter 20 years ago.  It just doesn't even register as an issue in any way to me.

I think the newsletters might be a problem for me, if there weren't really any pressing issues facing the country, and there were many excellent candidates lining up for our votes.  But, we've got tons of very serious problems, and every other candidate in both main parties doesn't seem to care, or even notice something is wrong.  If we continue politics as usual, we're going to continue running the country into the ground.  We need someone who is different.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Case on January 12, 2012, 02:15:57 AM
So... what about Ron Paul's insane racist newsletters? Do you Paul fans pretend he never had these sent out, or do you genuinely agree that white girls are being infected with AIDS by roving gangs of blacks wielding infected syringes?

Or maybe you are blissfully unaware? Hey, do you know this thing Google?

Well, Ron Paul doesn't believe those things either.

Being completely honest, it's hard to imagine what he would have to say for him to lose my vote.  There probably isn't anything he could do or say at this point.  Of course he would never say anything racist or anything like that, but... even if he did ... it wouldn't sway my vote at all.  If you want to peer into the mind of a Ron Paul supporter, we see the country as in serious, serious danger.  And he is the only one who even would attempt to fix it.  So it's like... who cares what someone else wrote in his newsletter 20 years ago.  It just doesn't even register as an issue in any way to me.

I think the newsletters might be a problem for me, if there weren't really any pressing issues facing the country, and there were many excellent candidates lining up for our votes.  But, we've got tons of very serious problems, and every other candidate in both main parties doesn't seem to care, or even notice something is wrong.  If we continue politics as usual, we're going to continue running the country into the ground.  We need someone who is different.
For the tl;dr crowd:
When vague threats are bearing down upon you, undefined pressing issues create blind faith in Sir Ronald of Paul, no matter how racist, no matter how out of touch he may be.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Nao on January 12, 2012, 03:58:44 AM
Who's trying to ban violent video games then?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/27/supreme-court-violent-video-games_n_884991.html
That article actually supports musashi's point.
Quote from: one of the judges
Unlike depictions of "sexual conduct," Scalia said there is no tradition in the United States of restricting children's access to depictions of violence, pointing out the violence in the original depiction of many popular children's fairy tales like Hansel and Gretel, Cinderella and Snow White.
This is the first time I've ever heard about legislation (in the US) to restrict access to video games, but there have been plenty of 'obscenity' laws.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: BleakOne on January 12, 2012, 05:59:05 AM
Honestly, I'm glad I'm not an american Republican. From what I've seen of the candidates, they're a rather poor crop.   
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on January 12, 2012, 06:26:43 AM
Who's trying to ban violent video games then?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/27/supreme-court-violent-video-games_n_884991.html
That article actually supports musashi's point.
Quote from: one of the judges
Unlike depictions of "sexual conduct," Scalia said there is no tradition in the United States of restricting children's access to depictions of violence, pointing out the violence in the original depiction of many popular children's fairy tales like Hansel and Gretel, Cinderella and Snow White.

This is the first time I've ever heard about legislation (in the US) to restrict access to video games, but there have been plenty of 'obscenity' laws.

I'm thinking he may not have read the article before posting it.  :-\

Mind you I wasn't talking about every Joe Plumber on the street who identifies themselves by the tag "social conservative" when I said that. I'm sure there are lots of good people in the general populace who blah blah blah yadda yadda yadda.

I was talking about the "social conservatives" who "actually legislate".

Oh and by the by ... the Justice who wrote the Supreme Court's majority opinion when they struck that violent video game ban down ... guess whose team he's on?

Quote from: wikipedia
Antonin Gregory Scalia (pronounced /skəˈlijə/ ( listen); born March 11, 1936) is an American jurist who serves as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. As the longest-serving justice on the Court, Scalia is the Senior Associate Justice. Appointed to the Court by President Ronald Reagan in 1986, Scalia has been described as the intellectual anchor of the Court's conservative wing.

The intellectual anchor of the Court's conservative wing ... nominated by Ronald frickin' Regean. Isn't that like getting a letter of reference from Jesus?  :o
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: My 2 sids on January 12, 2012, 07:07:43 AM
The kids-viewing-violence controversy is actually pretty large, especially between two of the largest groups of advocates.

ALA (American Library Association) has long prided itself on advocating for the rights of all patrons to have access to anything (if a five year old asks for a copy of Karma Sutra -- so be it)

At the same time Educators (including librarians) know that how children gain information can have a huge impact.  Imagery from books, cartoons, pixilated/cartoonist video games don't have the same impact as being bombarded with TV/DVDs/realistic-video games. 
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 12, 2012, 08:50:04 AM
It's kind of pointless to talk about "sex" and "violence" without context.  Unless we're (a) actually trying to keep people/minors/kids from learning that they exist or (b) believe they are of no moral consequence.

At the same time Educators (including librarians) know that how children gain information can have a huge impact.  Imagery from books, cartoons, pixilated/cartoonist video games don't have the same impact as being bombarded with TV/DVDs/realistic-video games.

Sounds plausible, but I'm skeptical that it's a terribly big deal.  I've read stuff about kids acting out violent behaviors in what seemed like highly suggestive, scripted settings...but has anyone drawn a definitive link from "watches the Matrix" to "beats up Billy on the playground?"

Oh and by the by ... the Justice who wrote the Supreme Court's majority opinion when they struck that violent video game ban down ... guess whose team he's on?

Scalia is awesome, except when he starts going on about the exclusionary rule.  D.C. v. Heller was like a fox in the henhouse.  (Well, not really; he wussed presumptively on machine guns.)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Cutthroat on January 12, 2012, 08:55:07 AM
Honestly, I'm glad I'm not an american Republican. From what I've seen of the candidates, they're a rather poor crop.

In my opinion, the smart money knows who is going to win, and the patsies in the Republican party are just going out to help make it look like a close Presidential election, or perhaps to push for more Republicans in Congress (hard to see that happening when an essentially Republican-controlled Congress has a 9% approval rating).

Mitt Romney has so much baggage generated and exposed by his campaign alone, it's hard not to see a future in which pictures like this are showing up in campaign ads:
(http://i.imgur.com/kbSpg.jpg)
"When I said 'Put your money where your mouth is', I didn't mean it like that! And I'm not going to wait for you to poop them out so we can go back to buying out businesses and firing everyone." -Mitt Romney, maybe

Not to mention all the stupid flip-flopping crap he says. The other candidates are essentially insignificant. Each candidate had their turn in the spotlight as the not-Romney candidate. Well, except for Ron Paul, who kind of hovers around due to the consistent following he has.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: My 2 sids on January 12, 2012, 09:24:12 AM
It's kind of pointless to talk about "sex" and "violence" without context.  Unless we're (a) actually trying to keep people/minors/kids from learning that they exist or (b) believe they are of no moral consequence.

At the same time Educators (including librarians) know that how children gain information can have a huge impact.  Imagery from books, cartoons, pixilated/cartoonist video games don't have the same impact as being bombarded with TV/DVDs/realistic-video games.

Sounds plausible, but I'm skeptical that it's a terribly big deal.  I've read stuff about kids acting out violent behaviors in what seemed like highly suggestive, scripted settings...but has anyone drawn a definitive link from "watches the Matrix" to "beats up Billy on the playground?"

This is sort of different.   This argument focus more on the affects of holding the child "captive" in a way other storytelling methods can't.   When listening or reading the brain is able to "filter" the information to whatever level is appropriate for the individual, often by "tuning out".  But, with TV/Movies/Video Games (today's realistic ones again)  the sensory overload between picture and sound is constantly bombarding.

Think of it this way: Armageddon it doesn't have it's own score (although many players may use music to set the mood), and the player has the ability to simply scan over especially gore-tastic room descriptions, even FTB.   It would be a very different game if it were made _extremely_ realistic, wouldn't it? 
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: My 2 sids on January 12, 2012, 09:29:32 AM
In my opinion, the smart money knows who is going to win, and the patsies in the Republican party are just going out to help make it look like a close Presidential election, or perhaps to push for more Republicans in Congress (hard to see that happening when an essentially Republican-controlled Congress has a 9% approval rating).

I don't know.  Just look at the current Congress -- the one where the current Speaker of the House has promised and not delivered because he can't get some Tea Party members to fall in line -- and one sees the GOP is really walking the line between being able to control the party and not.

I think it's a real threat that this time, whoever wins the nomination may not be able to fully count on everyone "falling in line" to support the candidate.

Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: valeria on January 12, 2012, 09:49:22 AM
I get this impression that some of them may be presently running for a 2016 nomination at this point.  Huntsman comes to mind.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Kalai on January 12, 2012, 09:56:18 AM
Violence is an ingrained part of American cultural heritage. In an individualist society with a frontier history where guns have been a part of our lives since the beginning of European settlement, it's reasonable for social conservatives to uphold our traditions in that regard.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Yam on January 12, 2012, 10:50:39 AM
I think the point was more that it's silly to condemn one part of the moral continuum and completely ignore the other but that's a bad derail anyway.


What happened to the Godfather guy I miss him and his weird smiles.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Aruven on January 12, 2012, 12:07:31 PM
So... what about Ron Paul's insane racist newsletters? Do you Paul fans pretend he never had these sent out, or do you genuinely agree that white girls are being infected with AIDS by roving gangs of blacks wielding infected syringes?

Or maybe you are blissfully unaware? Hey, do you know this thing Google?

Well, Ron Paul doesn't believe those things either.

Being completely honest, it's hard to imagine what he would have to say for him to lose my vote.  There probably isn't anything he could do or say at this point.  Of course he would never say anything racist or anything like that, but... even if he did ... it wouldn't sway my vote at all.  If you want to peer into the mind of a Ron Paul supporter, we see the country as in serious, serious danger.  And he is the only one who even would attempt to fix it.  So it's like... who cares what someone else wrote in his newsletter 20 years ago.  It just doesn't even register as an issue in any way to me.

I think the newsletters might be a problem for me, if there weren't really any pressing issues facing the country, and there were many excellent candidates lining up for our votes.  But, we've got tons of very serious problems, and every other candidate in both main parties doesn't seem to care, or even notice something is wrong.  If we continue politics as usual, we're going to continue running the country into the ground.  We need someone who is different.
For the tl;dr crowd:
When vague threats are bearing down upon you, undefined pressing issues create blind faith in Sir Ronald of Paul, no matter how racist, no matter how out of touch he may be.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 This is a ridiculous issue. Paul said, many many many times that he had nothing to do with the ghost writers that sent those out under his name, and disavowed them. If you don't believe that, look at his voting and legislation. There's nothing racist about it. That's the end of the long running story with them. Its a low-ball smear effort. Im not sure why everyone supporting paul is a misled, blind faithed ignoramus. Quite a few of the people I've been speaking to in the campaign are very informed, intelligent men and women, some younger than me.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 12, 2012, 12:46:25 PM
Wow, yeah, Newt really shot himself in the face.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on January 12, 2012, 01:40:49 PM
I think the point was more that it's silly to condemn one part of the moral continuum and completely ignore the other but that's a bad derail anyway.


What happened to the Godfather guy I miss him and his weird smiles.

too busy playing the newest Pokemon release with a girl from the national restaurant association he's not having an affair with manacled and shackled in his hotel room
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Yam on January 12, 2012, 01:48:00 PM
Would have voted for him.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Case on January 12, 2012, 02:24:32 PM
So... what about Ron Paul's insane racist newsletters? Do you Paul fans pretend he never had these sent out, or do you genuinely agree that white girls are being infected with AIDS by roving gangs of blacks wielding infected syringes?

Or maybe you are blissfully unaware? Hey, do you know this thing Google?

Well, Ron Paul doesn't believe those things either.

Being completely honest, it's hard to imagine what he would have to say for him to lose my vote.  There probably isn't anything he could do or say at this point.  Of course he would never say anything racist or anything like that, but... even if he did ... it wouldn't sway my vote at all.  If you want to peer into the mind of a Ron Paul supporter, we see the country as in serious, serious danger.  And he is the only one who even would attempt to fix it.  So it's like... who cares what someone else wrote in his newsletter 20 years ago.  It just doesn't even register as an issue in any way to me.

I think the newsletters might be a problem for me, if there weren't really any pressing issues facing the country, and there were many excellent candidates lining up for our votes.  But, we've got tons of very serious problems, and every other candidate in both main parties doesn't seem to care, or even notice something is wrong.  If we continue politics as usual, we're going to continue running the country into the ground.  We need someone who is different.
For the tl;dr crowd:
When vague threats are bearing down upon you, undefined pressing issues create blind faith in Sir Ronald of Paul, no matter how racist, no matter how out of touch he may be.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 This is a ridiculous issue. Paul said, many many many times that he had nothing to do with the ghost writers that sent those out under his name, and disavowed them. If you don't believe that, look at his voting and legislation. There's nothing racist about it. That's the end of the long running story with them. Its a low-ball smear effort. Im not sure why everyone supporting paul is a misled, blind faithed ignoramus. Quite a few of the people I've been speaking to in the campaign are very informed, intelligent men and women, some younger than me.
Yeah, great. He disavows them now but didn't do anything about what was being said in his name before it got brought up in a negative light.

Not everybody supporting Paul is a misled, blind faith ignorarmus. I don't even hate the guy, he gets treated horribly by all elements of the GOP and gets way worse than he deserves. My issues with his policies are fewer than with any of the other candidates and I think he's a smart guy. Thing is? He talks as much horseshit as the other candidates, although unlike them, he believes it and is passionate about it. That passion, to me, as a (foreign) liberal (from a liberal country), makes the thought of him implementing the bizarre things he says somewhat horrifying. His supporters also seem to be extremely vocal and irritating, like SwanSwanHummingbird who was posting as a shill on the boards for him and consistently posts things like what's quoted above, in which apparently it doesn't matter what Ron Paul says or does any more because he's the messiah.

I have a $50 bet with an Armer that you'll get Romney. Called it last year, still sticking to it.

I hate Romney.

Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on January 12, 2012, 02:46:06 PM
I don't think the President will lose to Romney.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Case on January 12, 2012, 02:49:22 PM
I don't think the President will lose to Romney.
Romney as the nominee. President? naaaaaaah
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on January 12, 2012, 02:58:50 PM
I don't think the President will lose to Romney.
Romney as the nominee. President? naaaaaaah

Holla, baybay.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 12, 2012, 03:12:22 PM
For your consideration:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

- The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 22% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Thirty-eight percent (38%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -16.
- The president currently leads former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney by three in a hypothetical 2012 match-up.

I don't think eitherbody has a slam dunk; however, Romney's numbers may improve if and when he gets the nomination.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: hyzhenhok on January 12, 2012, 03:15:41 PM
Romney has been leading Obama in most battleground state polls and even comes close in states that were untouchable to Bush. Really it depends on how the economy goes in the next 6 months.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Case on January 12, 2012, 03:23:34 PM
It's way to early to worry about that. Voters often refer to the current narrative or media mood.

The moment campaign machines kick in, things will change.

I'm just betting Obama'll campaign machine harder, faster, stronger.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 12, 2012, 03:48:47 PM
I...I accidentally...

http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Candidate_Finder.php
Paul 69%
Johnson 65%
Santorum 62%
Bachman 58%
Perry 50%
Gingrich 46%
Huntsman 42%
Romney 31%


 :'(
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Kalai on January 12, 2012, 04:13:56 PM
Hmm, take a look at what a leftist like me gets for comparison.

http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Candidate_Finder.php
Newt Gingrich / Mitt Romney / Gary Johnson 42%
Ron Paul 38%
John Huntsman 38%
Rick Perry 23%
Michelle Bachman 19%
Rick Santorum 15%
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Kalai on January 12, 2012, 04:21:11 PM
... So, that Johnson fellow, he's running as a libertarian apparently.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 12, 2012, 04:25:35 PM
...the living heck does Mitt support an "assault weapons" ban?  And waiting periods?

How very 1992.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Kalai on January 12, 2012, 04:29:01 PM
After looking up what they meant by waiting periods I decided to change that question, suddenly my candidates are entirely different. Well, actually Gingrich and Johnson are still the strongest at 46%, but Paul and Huntsman are now second at 42%.

Okay, no, aside from Romney slipping they're entirely the same.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Cutthroat on January 12, 2012, 04:30:03 PM
I got Newt and Mitt 46%.

Those questions are pretty bad, though, and with only two choices it is pretty easy to come up with several other acceptable answers to most of those questions, e.g. the choices for the third question shouldn't simply be yes or no if you're pro-choice.

Also, there is an entirely useless question. Since every candidate would answer "How do you define marriage?" with "As the union of one man and one woman", picking "As any union between two people" simply lowers your percentage match to everyone.

There's also basically nothing on economy/taxation besides a footnote on social security, nothing on voting laws, nothing on employment, and nothing on unions, which is somewhat amusing, all things considered.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Synthesis on January 12, 2012, 04:57:51 PM
I get this impression that some of them may be presently running for a 2016 nomination at this point.  Huntsman comes to mind.

I think Huntsman is probably trying to upgrade from ambassador to secretary of state at some point in the future.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Aruven on January 12, 2012, 11:07:54 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe705dz37PQ
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on January 13, 2012, 06:52:13 AM
That was hilarious  :D
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: SwanSwanHummingbird on January 15, 2012, 03:25:44 AM
Yeah, great. He disavows them now but didn't do anything about what was being said in his name before it got brought up in a negative light.

Not everybody supporting Paul is a misled, blind faith ignorarmus. I don't even hate the guy, he gets treated horribly by all elements of the GOP and gets way worse than he deserves. My issues with his policies are fewer than with any of the other candidates and I think he's a smart guy. Thing is? He talks as much horseshit as the other candidates, although unlike them, he believes it and is passionate about it. That passion, to me, as a (foreign) liberal (from a liberal country), makes the thought of him implementing the bizarre things he says somewhat horrifying. His supporters also seem to be extremely vocal and irritating, like SwanSwanHummingbird who was posting as a shill on the boards for him and consistently posts things like what's quoted above, in which apparently it doesn't matter what Ron Paul says or does any more because he's the messiah.

I have a $50 bet with an Armer that you'll get Romney. Called it last year, still sticking to it.

I hate Romney.

I absolutely agree with you, Case, that RP should have been more aware of what was going out under his name.  I don't want to completely dismiss the issue like many RP supporters would.  But you have to admit, it's not much of an actual issue in the campaign, as far as it doesn't really affect how he would lead.  If we're talking about character, I think RP comes out head and shoulders above any other candidate running, even with this bit of tarnishing.

As far as the rest of your post ... ...     :(

I'm sorry if I'm irritating to you.  I don't agree that I'm a shill, because that to me has a connotation of underhandedness to it.  I don't think there's anything underhanded about what I'm doing here or saying.  If that's what you're implying, I resent it.

As far as what I said in that last post, I felt I was being asked a direct question as one of the RP supporters here, and I gave completely honest answer as to how I feel about the newsletter issue.  I don't expect others to feel that way, I was just explaining how I feel. 

However, I don't see RP as a "messiah."  There's a huge difference between honestly wanting to confront the issues the country faces, and being a messiah.  I think you're being overly dramatic.  But it's true, that I don't think the other candidates (including Obama) really care one bit about America and about the people here.  They don't actually care about our problems from my perspective.  If I thought they did, I'd be a Democrat.  They had a chance to keep me in their party in '06.  But they failed to stand up to Bush.  They failed our country.  So that ship has long since sailed for me, I'd never call myself a Democrat any longer.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: SwanSwanHummingbird on January 15, 2012, 03:45:15 AM
Sorry for double post, I took that candidate finder thingy:

Gary Johnson 77%
Ron Paul 73%
Rick Santorum 31%
Michele Bachmann 27%
Jon Huntsman 27%
Rick Perry 19%
Newt Gingrich 15%
Mitt Romney 15%

I'm supporting the wrong guy!  lol  ...    and how am I only 4% higher for Paul than Brytta?  

I like how Mittens is my least favorite, but I don't understand this Santorum nonsense.  Apparently, I agree with him on immigration and health care.  Who knew.  Why isn't Obama on here?  I'd like to know if he's higher for me than Frothy.

Edit: I found one that I like better, or at least it gives me more accurate results based on what I already know about my opinions, heh.

   1.    Ideal Theoretical Candidate (100%)       
   2.    Ron Paul* (73%)       
   3.    Barack Obama* (68%)       
   4.    Joseph Biden (63%)       
   5.    Hillary Clinton (60%)       
   6.    Gary Johnson* (55%)             
   8.    Jon Huntsman* (46%)                         
   12.    Herman Cain (30%)       
   13.    Mitt Romney* (28%)                
   17.    Rick Perry* (26%)          
   22.    Newt Gingrich* (24%)       
   23.    Sarah Palin (21%)          
   25.    Rick Santorum* (19%)             
   28.    Michele Bachmann (13%)       

http://www.selectsmart.com/president/
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Case on January 15, 2012, 04:13:47 AM
Yeah, great. He disavows them now but didn't do anything about what was being said in his name before it got brought up in a negative light.

Not everybody supporting Paul is a misled, blind faith ignorarmus. I don't even hate the guy, he gets treated horribly by all elements of the GOP and gets way worse than he deserves. My issues with his policies are fewer than with any of the other candidates and I think he's a smart guy. Thing is? He talks as much horseshit as the other candidates, although unlike them, he believes it and is passionate about it. That passion, to me, as a (foreign) liberal (from a liberal country), makes the thought of him implementing the bizarre things he says somewhat horrifying. His supporters also seem to be extremely vocal and irritating, like SwanSwanHummingbird who was posting as a shill on the boards for him and consistently posts things like what's quoted above, in which apparently it doesn't matter what Ron Paul says or does any more because he's the messiah.

I have a $50 bet with an Armer that you'll get Romney. Called it last year, still sticking to it.

I hate Romney.

I absolutely agree with you, Case, that RP should have been more aware of what was going out under his name.  I don't want to completely dismiss the issue like many RP supporters would.  But you have to admit, it's not much of an actual issue in the campaign, as far as it doesn't really affect how he would lead.  If we're talking about character, I think RP comes out head and shoulders above any other candidate running, even with this bit of tarnishing.

As far as the rest of your post ... ...     :(

I'm sorry if I'm irritating to you.  I don't agree that I'm a shill, because that to me has a connotation of underhandedness to it.  I don't think there's anything underhanded about what I'm doing here or saying.  If that's what you're implying, I resent it.

As far as what I said in that last post, I felt I was being asked a direct question as one of the RP supporters here, and I gave completely honest answer as to how I feel about the newsletter issue.  I don't expect others to feel that way, I was just explaining how I feel. 

However, I don't see RP as a "messiah."  There's a huge difference between honestly wanting to confront the issues the country faces, and being a messiah.  I think you're being overly dramatic.  But it's true, that I don't think the other candidates (including Obama) really care one bit about America and about the people here.  They don't actually care about our problems from my perspective.  If I thought they did, I'd be a Democrat.  They had a chance to keep me in their party in '06.  But they failed to stand up to Bush.  They failed our country.  So that ship has long since sailed for me, I'd never call myself a Democrat any longer.
You were posting so hard for Ron Paul somebody asked if you work for his campaign... and you did. Yeah.
It's not necessarily underhanded, no. I apologise if I offended you.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on January 15, 2012, 04:24:31 AM
RP supporters have a habit of being a bit too overzealous to bear sometimes, like with the twitter hacking thing.  :-\
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: SwanSwanHummingbird on January 15, 2012, 04:27:01 AM
You were posting so hard for Ron Paul somebody asked if you work for his campaign... and you did. Yeah.
It's not necessarily underhanded, no. I apologise if I offended you.

Oh, np.  Yeah, I did say that, but I don't get paid or anything.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 15, 2012, 09:39:48 AM
http://www.selectsmart.com/president/

Oh, great, now I'm:
   1.     Ideal Theoretical Candidate (100%)      
   2.     Rick Santorum* (84%)      
   3.     Ron Paul* (81%)      
   4.     Mitt Romney* (78%)      
   5.     Newt Gingrich* (78%)      

...Is it because I opposed civil unions? :-\
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: lordcooper on January 15, 2012, 11:14:15 AM
I'm a little worried about Bloomberg being ranked so highly there :-\

1.     Ideal Theoretical Candidate (100%)      
2.     Barack Obama* (92%)      
3.     Joseph Biden (85%)      
4.     Hillary Clinton (76%)      
5.     Michael Bloomberg (48%)      
6.     Ron Paul* (37%)      
7.     Mike Huckabee (28%)      
8.     Gary Johnson* (26%)      
9.     Robby Wells* (24%)      
10.     Jon Huntsman* (24%)      
11.     Buddy Roemer* (21%)      
12.     Wayne Allyn Root (17%)      
13.     Bobby Jindal (17%)      
14.     Rob Portman (14%)      
15.     Jeb Bush (13%)      
16.     Mitt Romney* (12%)      
17.     Lindsey Graham (12%)      
18.     Donald Trump (11%)      
19.     Tim Pawlenty (11%)      
20.     John Boehner (10%)      
21.     Eric Cantor (9%)      
22.     Herman Cain (8%)      
23.     Newt Gingrich* (6%)      
24.     Rick Perry* (5%)      
25.     Sarah Palin (5%)      
26.     Mitch Daniels (4%)      
27.     Mike Pence (4%)      
28.     Rick Santorum* (2%)      
29.     Michele Bachmann (2%)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Bacon on January 15, 2012, 11:32:58 AM

   1.     Ideal Theoretical Candidate (100%)      

   2.     Barack Obama* (93%)      

   3.     Joseph Biden (78%)      

   4.     Hillary Clinton (72%)      

   5.     Gary Johnson* (46%)      

   6.     Buddy Roemer* (38%)      

   7.     Ron Paul* (38%)      

   8.     Jon Huntsman* (32%)      

   9.     Robby Wells* (31%)      

   10.     Michael Bloomberg (30%)      

   11.     Mike Huckabee (25%)      

   12.     Wayne Allyn Root (20%)      

   13.     Mitt Romney* (19%)      

   14.     Newt Gingrich* (18%)      

   15.     Bobby Jindal (18%)      

   16.     Rick Perry* (16%)      

   17.     Rick Santorum* (15%)      

   18.     Rob Portman (14%)      

   19.     Donald Trump (14%)      

   20.     John Boehner (10%)      

   21.     Herman Cain (9%)      

   22.     Jeb Bush (9%)      

   23.     Lindsey Graham (9%)      

   24.     Eric Cantor (8%)      

   25.     Mitch Daniels (8%)      

   26.     Tim Pawlenty (7%)      

   27.     Sarah Palin (4%)      

   28.     Mike Pence (3%)      

   29.     Michele Bachmann (2%)      
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Cind on January 15, 2012, 12:18:15 PM
I don't know jack about the thousand and one republican candidates and just because I lean right doesn't mean I'll vote right, so, let's see.

 1. Ideal Theoretical Candidate (100%)         
 2.  Joseph Biden (60%)         
 3.  Barack Obama* (52%)         
 4.  Ron Paul* (50%)         
 5.  Hillary Clinton (49%)         
 6.  Rick Perry* (46%)         
 7.  Lindsey Graham (46%)         
 8.  Wayne Allyn Root (45%)         
 9.  Mitt Romney* (45%)         
 10.  Bobby Jindal (43%)         
 11.  Gary Johnson* (41%)         
 12.  Newt Gingrich* (41%)         
 13.  Herman Cain (41%)         
 14.  Sarah Palin (41%)         
 15.  Rick Santorum* (40%)         
 16.  Eric Cantor (40%)         
 17.  John Boehner (38%)         
 18.  Jon Huntsman* (37%)         
 19.  Donald Trump (37%)         
 20.  Rob Portman (37%)         
 21.  Robby Wells* (35%)         
 22.  Mike Pence (35%)         
 23.  Tim Pawlenty (34%)         
 24.  Mike Huckabee (32%)         
 25.  Mitch Daniels (32%)         
 26.  Michael Bloomberg (29%)         
 27.  Jeb Bush (28%)         
 28.  Michele Bachmann (27%)         
 29.  Buddy Roemer* (26%)         
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Kalai on January 15, 2012, 12:25:42 PM
For some reason there's a question on there I want to answer 'both' to, not one or neither...
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Kalai on January 15, 2012, 12:33:45 PM
Well, I should apparently be quite happy with our incumbents.

   1.     Ideal Theoretical Candidate (100%)      
   2.     Barack Obama* (93%)      
   3.     Joseph Biden (87%)      
   4.     Hillary Clinton (78%)      
   5.     Michael Bloomberg (48%)      
   6.     Ron Paul* (36%)      
   7.     Mike Huckabee (28%)      
   8.     Jon Huntsman* (28%)      
   9.     Gary Johnson* (19%)      
   10.     Robby Wells* (19%)      
   11.     Wayne Allyn Root (19%)      
   12.     Rob Portman (15%)      
   13.     Bobby Jindal (14%)      
   14.     Lindsey Graham (14%)      
   15.     Jeb Bush (14%)      
   16.     Buddy Roemer* (11%)      
   17.     Tim Pawlenty (11%)      
   18.     Donald Trump (10%)      
   19.     Mitch Daniels (9%)      
   20.     Eric Cantor (9%)      
   21.     Rick Perry* (8%)      
   22.     John Boehner (7%)      
   23.     Mitt Romney* (6%)      
   24.     Newt Gingrich* (4%)      
   25.     Sarah Palin (3%)      
   26.     Herman Cain (2%)      
   27.     Mike Pence (2%)      
   28.     Rick Santorum* (1%)      
   29.     Michele Bachmann (1%)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: RogueGunslinger on January 15, 2012, 01:17:13 PM
A lot of ya'll posts in this thread make a whole lot more sense to me.  :P
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Case on January 15, 2012, 02:31:10 PM
   1.     Ideal Theoretical Candidate (100%)      
   2.     Barack Obama* (92%)      
   3.     Joseph Biden (87%)      
   4.     Hillary Clinton (77%)      
   5.     Michael Bloomberg (51%)      
   6.     Ron Paul* (28%)      
   7.     Gary Johnson* (27%)      
   8.     Wayne Allyn Root (24%)      
   9.     Jon Huntsman* (20%)      
   10.     Mike Huckabee (19%)      
   11.     Robby Wells* (18%)      
   12.     Buddy Roemer* (16%)      
   13.     Jeb Bush (11%)      
   14.     Lindsey Graham (10%)      
   15.     Rob Portman (10%)      
   16.     Mitt Romney* (9%)      
   17.     Donald Trump (8%)      
   18.     Herman Cain (8%)      
   19.     Mitch Daniels (8%)      
   20.     Tim Pawlenty (7%)      
   21.     Bobby Jindal (7%)      
   22.     Eric Cantor (5%)      
   23.     Rick Perry* (4%)      
   24.     John Boehner (4%)      
   25.     Newt Gingrich* (2%)      
   26.     Sarah Palin (1%)      
   27.     Rick Santorum* (0%)      
   28.     Michele Bachmann (0%)      
   29.     Mike Pence (0%)


Sarah Palin is scored too highly :(
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: hyzhenhok on January 15, 2012, 07:29:07 PM
Ideal Theoretical Candidate (100%)      
Ron Paul* (82%)      
Robby Wells* (64%)      
Newt Gingrich* (62%)      
Rick Santorum* (60%)      
Wayne Allyn Root (57%)      
Jon Huntsman* (57%)      
Barack Obama* (55%)      
Mitt Romney* (55%)      
Lindsey Graham (51%)      
Rick Perry* (49%)      
Eric Cantor (48%)      
Mike Pence (47%)      
John Boehner (46%)      
Mitch Daniels (44%)      
Tim Pawlenty (42%)      
Sarah Palin (42%)      
Buddy Roemer* (41%)      
Rob Portman (41%)      
Gary Johnson* (41%)      
Herman Cain (41%)      
Bobby Jindal (39%)      
Hillary Clinton (39%)      
Joseph Biden (39%)      
Jeb Bush (38%)      
Mike Huckabee (38%)      
Michele Bachmann (37%)      
Michael Bloomberg (33%)      
Donald Trump (26%)

The test is pretty flawed. My actual preferences are Huntsman > Romney > Paul > Obama.

I am pleased Trump , Bachmann and Bloomberg are at the bottom, though.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on January 15, 2012, 08:13:35 PM
   1.    Ideal Theoretical Candidate (100%)       
   2.    Joseph Biden (94%)       
   3.    Barack Obama* (93%)       
   4.    Hillary Clinton (84%)       
   5.    Michael Bloomberg (43%)       
   6.    Mike Huckabee (24%)       
   7.    Gary Johnson* (21%)       
   8.    Wayne Allyn Root (21%)       
   9.    Buddy Roemer* (18%)       
   10.    Bobby Jindal (18%)       
   11.    Jon Huntsman* (17%)       
   12.    Ron Paul* (17%)       
   13.    Donald Trump (17%)       
   14.    Mitch Daniels (16%)       
   15.    Robby Wells* (13%)       
   16.    Rob Portman (12%)       
   17.    Lindsey Graham (11%)       
   18.    Tim Pawlenty (8%)       
   19.    Herman Cain (8%)       
   20.    John Boehner (7%)       
   21.    Eric Cantor (7%)       
   22.    Jeb Bush (5%)       
   23.    Mitt Romney* (5%)       
   24.    Newt Gingrich* (2%)       
   25.    Rick Perry* (2%)       
   26.    Sarah Palin (1%)       
   27.    Rick Santorum* (0%)       
   28.    Michele Bachmann (0%)       
   29.    Mike Pence (0%)

How the fuck do I agree with Huckabee more than Huntsman? ??? -- Oh, and then I switch to weigh candidates in the race more heavily and get something completely different:

   1.    Ideal Theoretical Candidate (100%)       
   2.    Barack Obama* (94%)       
   3.    Joseph Biden (80%)       
   4.    Hillary Clinton (71%)       
   5.    Michael Bloomberg (36%)       
   6.    Gary Johnson* (33%)       
   7.    Buddy Roemer* (30%)       
   8.    Jon Huntsman* (29%)       
   9.    Ron Paul* (29%)       
   10.    Robby Wells* (26%)       
   11.    Mike Huckabee (21%)       
   12.    Mitt Romney* (19%)       
   13.    Wayne Allyn Root (18%)       
   14.    Newt Gingrich* (17%)       
   15.    Rick Perry* (16%)       
   16.    Bobby Jindal (15%)       
   17.    Rick Santorum* (14%)       
   18.    Donald Trump (14%)       
   19.    Mitch Daniels (13%)       
   20.    Rob Portman (10%)       
   21.    Lindsey Graham (9%)       
   22.    Tim Pawlenty (7%)       
   23.    Herman Cain (6%)       
   24.    John Boehner (6%)       
   25.    Eric Cantor (5%)       
   26.    Jeb Bush (5%)       
   27.    Sarah Palin (0%)    
   28.    Michele Bachmann (0%)       
   29.    Mike Pence (0%)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: hyzhenhok on January 15, 2012, 09:55:46 PM
...And Huntsman is out. Guess it's Romney.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on January 16, 2012, 04:38:23 PM
>_>

<_<

... Ron Paul!  ;D
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on January 16, 2012, 05:11:31 PM
No.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on January 16, 2012, 11:19:16 PM
 :'(
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Kalai on January 17, 2012, 09:51:10 AM
Yeah, you should make it Paul. Would be a more interesting race.  ;) I'm pretty confident in our president's ability to win no matter who you pick, to be honest, should have some fun with this.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on January 17, 2012, 07:48:57 PM
(http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lw0uotVwPV1qf5k4vo3_250.jpg)(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lw0uotVwPV1qf5k4vo2_250.jpg)
(http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lw0uotVwPV1qf5k4vo4_250.jpg)(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lw0uotVwPV1qf5k4vo1_250.jpg)
(http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lw0uotVwPV1qf5k4vo5_250.jpg)(http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lw0uotVwPV1qf5k4vo6_250.jpg)

wat

Oh crap! There's like twenty of these images. God damn you, tumblr, for making me think it was one big chart. HOLD ON KIDDOS.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 17, 2012, 10:03:03 PM
Boogster, when did you turn into a Republican? ???
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Zoltan on January 17, 2012, 10:14:12 PM
1.    Ideal Theoretical Candidate (100%)       
   
   2.    Barack Obama* (94%)       
   
   3.    Joseph Biden (93%)       
   
   4.    Hillary Clinton (84%)       
   
   5.    Michael Bloomberg (57%)       
   
   6.    Ron Paul* (36%)       
   
   7.    Jon Huntsman (35%)       
   
   8.    Gary Johnson* (31%)       
   
   9.    Mike Huckabee (31%)       
   
   10.    Wayne Allyn Root (26%)       
   
   11.    Jeb Bush (20%)       
   
   12.    Robby Wells* (18%)       
   
   13.    Rob Portman (17%)       
   
   14.    Buddy Roemer* (17%)       
   
   15.    Lindsey Graham (16%)       
   
   16.    Bobby Jindal (15%)       
   
   17.    Tim Pawlenty (15%)       
   
   18.    Mitt Romney* (14%)       
   
   19.    Mitch Daniels (13%)       
   
   20.    Donald Trump (12%)       
   
   21.    Eric Cantor (9%)       
   
   22.    John Boehner (9%)       
   
   23.    Rick Perry* (8%)       
   
   24.    Newt Gingrich* (7%)       
   
   25.    Herman Cain (4%)       
   
   26.    Mike Pence (4%)       
   
   27.    Sarah Palin (4%)       
   
   28.    Rick Santorum* (3%)       
   
   29.    Michele Bachmann (3%)

Can't say it really told me anything I didn't know. However, I'm not exactly an Obama supporter, either.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on January 17, 2012, 10:30:02 PM
Yeah, Obama was at the top of my chart too. It's because there's a whole field of Republicans to pick from, but only like... three Dems? And the three Dems are all pretty much the same in terms of policy. Give me Kucinich.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on January 17, 2012, 10:51:24 PM
Yeah, Obama was at the top of my chart too. It's because there's a whole field of Republicans to pick from, but only like... three Dems? And the three Dems are all pretty much the same in terms of policy. Give me Kucinich's wife.

ftfy

MEOW.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 17, 2012, 10:56:26 PM
Yeah, Obama was at the top of my chart too. It's because there's a whole field of Republicans to pick from, but only like... three Dems? And the three Dems are all pretty much the same in terms of policy. Give me Kucinich's wife.

ftfy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJSC2a4KjSA
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on January 17, 2012, 10:56:47 PM
You know how he got a wife like that?

BY BEING COOL
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on January 17, 2012, 11:22:45 PM
Yum.

I wanna know how I got Biden over Obama, though.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: BleakOne on January 18, 2012, 01:03:51 AM
Yum.

I wanna know how I got Biden over Obama, though.

With a forklift?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Ender on January 18, 2012, 01:39:04 AM
...Is it because I opposed civil unions? :-\

Honestly, do you really feel this way?

This is the one issue I will never understand.  How can an intelligent person who believes in the ideals of freedom and equality support something that is clearly and blatantly discriminatory?

It's a hot button issue with me.  I don't care how good your economic plan is, if a candidate supports this hogwash that gay people are second class citizens, I'll never vote for them.  This whole "on the state level" stance Obama has is pretty disheartening, and I know Ron Paul basically has the same stance.  I think passing the buck to a state legislature on something as important as human rights is pretty cowardly.

Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: lordcooper on January 18, 2012, 02:18:19 AM
Hopefully it's because he feels gay people have the right to marriage and opposes civil partnership on a religious basis.  That would be understandable at least.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on January 18, 2012, 08:03:14 AM
This is ... omfg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kao-EzPmW0k) ... this is hilarious ...
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 18, 2012, 09:59:27 AM
...Is it because I opposed civil unions? :-\

Honestly, do you really feel this way?

This is the one issue I will never understand.  How can an intelligent person who believes in the ideals of freedom and equality support something that is clearly and blatantly discriminatory?

Well, yes.  I also get where you're coming from and would feel the same way if I was coming from there.

Where we differ is exactly here: consider a bunch of potential relationships between adults:
(1) A man and a woman who want to have a lifelong sexual relationship.
(2) Two men who want to have a lifelong sexual relationship.
(3) Three men and two women who want to have a lifelong sexual relationship.
(4) A man and a woman who want to have an open-ended sexual relationship.
(5) An adult man and an adult man who want to share an apartment at college for a couple of years.

I think you would extend the option of civil union to all but #5, where the shared intrinsic quality is that they want to kank.  I would give the option (straight-up marriage) to only #1, the unique intrinsic quality being that they commit to a lifelong and actually sexual, in the biological sense, relationship.

On a practical and humane level, gay people (or college roommates) can avail theirselfs of the same generic legal options anybody can: power of attorney, living trust, will, etc.

Yeah, I also have a huge problem with no-fault divorce.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: lordcooper on January 18, 2012, 10:11:11 AM
So your issue is that they won't be pumping fresh humans into an already overpopulated world?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Delirium on January 18, 2012, 10:12:00 AM
Heh, LC, read 'The Forever War'.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 18, 2012, 10:12:47 AM
Heh, LC, read 'The Forever War'.

My sweet little latent heterosexual.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 18, 2012, 10:14:12 AM
So your issue is that they won't be pumping fresh humans into an already overpopulated world?

Nope.  But what do you think is the defining quality of marriage--wanting a lifelong relationship?  Wanting to do sexy things together?  Wanting to actually mate?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: valeria on January 18, 2012, 10:20:24 AM
On a practical and humane level, gay people (or college roommates) can avail theirselfs of the same generic legal options anybody can: power of attorney, living trust, will, etc.

This is not actually true. 

Besides the positive tax consequences of marriage that same-sex couples receive, benefits of being a married heterosexual couple can include--
1) Not having your wills, trusts, and powers of attorney subject to long dragged out legal battles on "undue influence" because most states recognize there can be no undue influence in a marriage.
2) Being able to pass your house to your spouse tax free when you die, or not being able to have the marital home seized by a single spouse's creditors.  It's called tenancy by the entireties.  It requires marriage.
3) Intestate protection.  If a married couple dies and the family challenges the will and wins on a technicality argument or whatever, or even one spouse dies before they can finish drafting the will, the surviving spouse is still entitled to a big chunk of the estate.  Not so for people who are not a 'surviving spouse.'
4) The doctrine of equitable parenthood.  If a man in a marriage is raising a child as his own, he has an acknowledged parent-child relationship with the child, he can receive custody or visitation in a divorce even if he isn't that child's biological dad.  Not available if the couple isn't married.
5) Single parent adoptions.  Many states will allow a married couple, or a single person, to adopt a child.  They will not allow two unrelated people to adopt a child together.  They will not allow a child to be adopted if both of the biological parents have not given up or had their parental rights terminated.  However, if you are married you can usually adopt your spouse's child (if the other parent is unknown, or consents).

And that's just what comes to mind off the top of my head.  The practical and human legal options between those who have a legally recognized relationship (marriage/civil unions) and those couples who are simply living together (cohabitating, whether in a heterosexual or homosexual) do not even compare.

Now, a lot of people argue 'well two heterosexual people who live together for 20 years run into the same problems.'  That's true in a lot of instances, particularly in states that don't recognize common law or equitable marriages... but it's by their own choice or negligence.  Same sex couples who would very much like to get civilly unionized don't even have the choice to avoid these problems.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 18, 2012, 10:48:11 AM
On a practical and humane level, gay people (or college roommates) can avail theirselfs of the same generic legal options anybody can: power of attorney, living trust, will, etc.

This is not actually true.

It is, as written, but maybe I implied that those provisions were "almost as good as" marriage.  They're not, but they're not really intended to be.  The several states, for instance, at least think that they have good reasons for not allowing groups of unrelated people to adopt children.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: lordcooper on January 18, 2012, 10:54:37 AM
So your issue is that they won't be pumping fresh humans into an already overpopulated world?

Nope.  But what do you think is the defining quality of marriage--wanting a lifelong relationship?  Wanting to do sexy things together?  Wanting to actually mate?

In my eyes it's a declaration of your intent to spend the rest of your days with another individual (or several individuals as the case may be).  I see no valid reason that prevents a homosexual couple, an asexual couple, or a group of people of any persuasion from making this commitment.  There's more than one way to love and nothing gives anybody the right to say their's is the best or only way.  On a personal level I've always seen weddings as little more than a ritual where one declares this intent to the world, (not that I'm unaware of the rights and legal privileges granted married couples) and view the entire thing as being a little superfluous.  Many people disagree with me and attribute a higher level of importance to marriage for a variety of reasons and that's fine.  There's little enough love on this planet without denying any method of expressing it to a significant portion of the population.

So yeah, why do you believe that a load of people should be denied both the opportunity to express their love in this way and the legal benefits and protections inherent in the system, when them being able to marry would have no adverse effects on you or your loved ones?

E @ Delirium: Sure, I'll give that book a read.  Any particular reason you recommend it?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Booya on January 18, 2012, 11:06:06 AM
Nevermind. Move along people. I don't know why i'm in this thread.
 
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: valeria on January 18, 2012, 11:24:19 AM
There are good reasons for not allowing groups of unrelated people to jointly adopt children.  However, states have other provisions in place that try and prevent wrongful adoptions, like waiting periods, background checks, a child can only have two legal parents, etc.  States used to think they had very good reasons for not allowing people of different races to adopt children together too.

I would happily use your definition to extend marriage to your #2 as well.  Two people committed to a lifelong and actually sexual in the biological sense relationship.  The only way you can get around extending it to #2 on your list is if you define "in the biological sense" as being actually capable of producing genetic offspring... in which case my grandparents shouldn't be legally married either.

I would extend marriage or civil unions (I really don't think that the state should be defining marriage, but that's a different semantics issue) as two consenting adults committed to a lifelong relationship as a legally undivided whole.  Whether that's a man and a woman, two women or two men, two people who identify as men or women regardless of their plumbing, a person who is incapable of producing children with a person who can, a seventy year old with an eighteen year old, two people who are happily committed but neither is interested in anything biological, etc.

And given the current state of Constitutional law, that is probably how it will end up turning out.  Except many states allow children as young as 14 to get married, and that I just don't agree with.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: RogueGunslinger on January 18, 2012, 01:51:12 PM
I'm against heterosexual marriage as well as gay.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Case on January 18, 2012, 02:11:27 PM
Guess I gotta be thankful I can have some generic legal options if I can't be treated as an equal citizen.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on January 18, 2012, 02:14:09 PM
Guess I gotta be thankful I can have some generic legal options if I can't be treated as an equal citizen.

Nah. I'll just move down to NZ and marry you there. ;)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Case on January 18, 2012, 02:14:43 PM
Guess I gotta be thankful I can have some generic legal options if I can't be treated as an equal citizen.

Nah. I'll just move down to NZ and marry you there. ;)
You can't, it wouldn't be legal.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on January 18, 2012, 02:18:08 PM
Guess I gotta be thankful I can have some generic legal options if I can't be treated as an equal citizen.

Nah. I'll just move down to NZ and marry you there. ;)
You can't, it wouldn't be legal.

what why

I THOUGHT NZ WAS THE MOST LIBERAL COUNTRY
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Dalmeth on January 18, 2012, 02:22:36 PM
This whole "on the state level" stance Obama has is pretty disheartening, and I know Ron Paul basically has the same stance.  I think passing the buck to a state legislature on something as important as human rights is pretty cowardly.

Look at the first example of major civil rights legislation passed at the national level, the amendments passed once the Civil War had ended.  That took about 100 years to get right.

You can say beating the states over the head until we get one gestalt society is a good thing, but history shows that states will implement such laws in accordance with their means.  Leaving it to the states isn't a matter of cowardice but efficiency.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on January 18, 2012, 03:10:10 PM
let's just eliminate states, k?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Dalmeth on January 18, 2012, 03:21:43 PM
let's just eliminate states, k?

No government exists without subdivision and delegation.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 18, 2012, 04:09:51 PM
let's just eliminate states, k?

One Alabama, under God, indivisible.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on January 18, 2012, 05:20:16 PM
I would give the option (straight-up marriage) to only #1, the unique intrinsic quality being that they commit to a lifelong and actually sexual, in the biological sense, relationship.

Silly ... you don't mean this  :-*

If you follow this explanation a little further down the rabbit hole, you're saying that a man and a woman who had ovarian cancer can't get married because she had her baby making machinery removed so there won't be any "in the biological sense" going on when they kank.

And that's dumb.

Also 2 fertile men and 3 fertile women getting married also meets the "in the biological sense" criteria so ... I don't get it.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Case on January 18, 2012, 05:27:23 PM
I would give the option (straight-up marriage) to only #1, the unique intrinsic quality being that they commit to a lifelong and actually sexual, in the biological sense, relationship.

Silly ... you don't mean this  :-*

If you follow this explanation a little further down the rabbit hole, you're saying that a man and a woman who had ovarian cancer can't get married because she had her baby making machinery removed so there won't be any "in the biological sense" going on when they kank.

And that's dumb.

Also 2 fertile men and 3 fertile women getting married also meets the "in the biological sense" criteria so ... I don't get it.
When you're dressing up limitations on legal and social freedom based on arbitrary arguments or 'tradition', you don't need to get it. You have to feel it.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: flurry on January 18, 2012, 05:31:26 PM
I would give the option (straight-up marriage) to only #1, the unique intrinsic quality being that they commit to a lifelong and actually sexual, in the biological sense, relationship.

I've never heard marriage vows that indicate any such commitment. Is that "to have and to hold"?

Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 18, 2012, 05:32:12 PM
If you follow this explanation a little further down the rabbit hole, you're saying that a man and a woman who had ovarian cancer can't get married because she had her baby making machinery removed so there won't be any "in the biological sense" going on when they kank.

Mushi, don't go all Humanae Vitae on me.  We can make some reasonable distinctions and associations between "doing anything that involves naughty bits," "mating," and "mating with realistic hope of form babby."

When you're dressing up limitations on legal and social freedom based on arbitrary arguments or 'tradition', you don't need to get it. You have to feel it.

You have your arbitrary arguments; I have my tradition.  Both are hard to argue to their opponents without getting seriously metaphysical (or renouncing all metaphysics).
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 18, 2012, 05:34:10 PM
I would give the option (straight-up marriage) to only #1, the unique intrinsic quality being that they commit to a lifelong and actually sexual, in the biological sense, relationship.

I've never heard marriage vows that indicate any such commitment. Is that "to have and to hold"?

I think it's all the cleaving.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on January 18, 2012, 05:41:12 PM
You have your arbitrary arguments; I have my tradition.  Both are hard to argue to their opponents without getting seriously metaphysical (or renouncing all metaphysics).

Your tradition is fine as far as your marriages go, but why should it apply to other peoples' marriages? Why is your tradition more valid than someone else's?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Case on January 18, 2012, 05:49:44 PM
When you're dressing up limitations on legal and social freedom based on arbitrary arguments or 'tradition', you don't need to get it. You have to feel it.

You have your arbitrary arguments; I have my tradition.  Both are hard to argue to their opponents without getting seriously metaphysical (or renouncing all metaphysics).
I'm not sure where I was supporting a lack of freedom. Don't have to get metaphysical to say that I would like the option to do something which is currently not legal because of arbitrary arguments and tradition. You haven't actually given a -good- reason for your stance, only a nod towards how you feel things should be by some dressed up words. Musashi calls you out for the ambiguity of your argument and you handwave it away. He's right. You are being cognitively dissonant to claim it's all about "commit[ment] to a lifelong and actually sexual, in the biological sense, relationship" but really actually mean it's all about a social contract for a particular form of relationship (one man, one woman) for the purposes of potential reproduction which you subscribe to for presumably Judeo-Christian ideological reasons. At least be honest that you're supporting a view to legally restrict legal contracts based on your beliefs about how people should form families.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: flurry on January 18, 2012, 05:54:31 PM
tradition = arbitrary argument + time

In all seriousness, I have a hard time seeing how denying gay couples the opportunity for civil marriage is anything but discrimination. Especially if the counter-argument is that they can find a way to get almost all the civil benefits anyway. So then why not simplify things and make the civil benefits available equally?

Earlier this week there was a news story about a man facing possible deportation because his husband could not sponsor him for a green card, though they are legally married with four children.

Link: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2012/01/17/exp-nr-1p-couple-fights-doma.cnn
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 18, 2012, 05:55:12 PM
You have your arbitrary arguments; I have my tradition.  Both are hard to argue to their opponents without getting seriously metaphysical (or renouncing all metaphysics).

Your tradition is fine as far as your marriages go, but why should it apply to other peoples' marriages? Why is your tradition more valid than someone else's?

Do you actually have a tradition here, or is this purely theoretical?

You can make a strong argument that, where there is widespread confusion or dissension on an issue, we should err on the side of liberty/unrestriction.  Yet, on this particular issue, (1) there ain't widespread disagreement, outside the bubble of our glistering media and misspent youth, and (2) we're talking about the conferral of a specific coded benefit, not telling people (for instance) that they mayn't kank.  (That issue has also come up, and been struck down by the Supreme Court: probably rightly so, though on spurious reasoning.)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 18, 2012, 05:57:52 PM
tradition = arbitrary argument + time

Say, rather, that tradition = arbitrary argument + time under the constraints of actual societal pressures.  In other arenas, we call this mechanism "evolution."

Seriously flurry what kind of Burkean are you.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Case on January 18, 2012, 06:01:39 PM
You have your arbitrary arguments; I have my tradition.  Both are hard to argue to their opponents without getting seriously metaphysical (or renouncing all metaphysics).

Your tradition is fine as far as your marriages go, but why should it apply to other peoples' marriages? Why is your tradition more valid than someone else's?

Do you actually have a tradition here, or is this purely theoretical?

You can make a strong argument that, where there is widespread confusion or dissension on an issue, we should err on the side of liberty/unrestriction.  Yet, on this particular issue, (1) there ain't widespread disagreement, outside the bubble of our glistering media and misspent youth
That is condescending. I am sorry that the desire held by LGBT people to be treated as full and valued citizens is so blase for you.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 18, 2012, 06:10:16 PM
You can make a strong argument that, where there is widespread confusion or dissension on an issue, we should err on the side of liberty/unrestriction.  Yet, on this particular issue, (1) there ain't widespread disagreement, outside the bubble of our glistering media and misspent youth
That is condescending. I am sorry that the desire held by LGBT people to be treated as full and valued citizens is so blase for you.
I'll rephrase without the loling: your views on the subject may be common in Western urban centers (which Hollywood et al tend to represent) and among people our age (20s and 30s).  They're not common in the general American public, as several voter referendums have shown.

To your finding my views offensive, I don't really have a solution.  It may be useful to try to understand their underpinnings, but don't be arsed on my account.  You can't like everybody.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: valeria on January 18, 2012, 06:30:44 PM
Voter referendums also found anti-miscegenation laws and state Constitutional amendments to be very popular in the late 1800s early 1900s.  They were upheld with a lot of the same arguments, both religiously and secular based.  There was a lot of moral outrage, think of the children, etc.  Times change.  Also, we have a much more highly developed body of Equal Protection clause law.

Meanwhile I really wish whole "social issues" thing hadn't become a driving point of the whole Republican party.  Social issues shouldn't be a Republican/Democrat divided thing.  It's pretty ridiculous how rabid some people will get if you are pro-choice or pro-marriage-equality and voting in a Republican primary.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: BleakOne on January 18, 2012, 07:17:08 PM
I don't see why so many people seem to think they can dictate such things to other consenting adults who aren't hurting anyone.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 18, 2012, 08:43:22 PM
Voter referendums also found anti-miscegenation laws and state Constitutional amendments to be very popular in the late 1800s early 1900s.  They were upheld with a lot of the same arguments, both religiously and secular based.  There was a lot of moral outrage, think of the children, etc.  Times change.  Also, we have a much more highly developed body of Equal Protection clause law.

A good way to evaluate religious specifically Christian arguments for faddishness is to examine their catholicity: has the doctrine claimed been believed always, everywhere, by all Christians?  For interracial marriage, the answer is no; America justified its shamefully late-dying slave laws with bizarre racial arguments and has had the darnedest time getting over it.  Christian belief in marriage as a lifelong heterosexual commitment (as compared to homosexual, plural, or divorce-gettin'), on the other hand, has been pretty consistent, the confusion of rich white people in the last few years notwithstanding.

The big problem with all this is that marriage is an idea tightly bound to culture, to tradition, and to religion.  If we really believe in marriage--and I think a lot of people here really don't, despite being sort of attached to the idea of it--the advantage is on the side of conservatism; or if marriage is a concept divorcible from its history, I wanna hear the new definition proved.  But if marriage is the flotsam of a well-riddanced past, we should more be arguing against the bizarre privileges afforded to married people, and, possibly, for some of those advantages to available to single persons entirely apart from gender or relation.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Is Friday on January 18, 2012, 09:12:37 PM
I'm all for gays getting married. I don't own a membership to a perfect/ideal institution. I understand that for as long as marriage has been around as an idea -- there have been:
1.) Forced/arranged marriage by families for political/monetary reasons.
2.) Marriage for political reasons by individuals.
3.) Marriage for monetary reasons by individuals.

My marriage is a private affair just like religious preference. I am a Christian and there is no one that is going to come between me and my relationship with God if they are a "bad" Christian.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: EldritchOrigins on January 18, 2012, 10:37:52 PM
Would it be better off if government were blind to marriage all together?  Eliminating marriage as a legal status would remove all kinds of advantages that married people have been enjoying for years.  Anyone could consider themselves married, or not (depending on their personal beliefs/faith).  Those that wanted legally binding commitments could create partnerships with a contract.  Wouldn't that be fair?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on January 18, 2012, 10:48:28 PM
Even if I were married, I should be able to say who gets to come see me, stay with me, be with me at the hospital and all that malarky.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: EldritchOrigins on January 18, 2012, 10:57:13 PM
For any that are interested, Nightline will be airing an interview with Newt Gingrich's second wife (Marianne Gingrich) on Thursday night (tomorrow).  It's supposedly going to be really bad for Newt.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Case on January 18, 2012, 11:23:49 PM
For any that are interested, Nightline will be airing an interview with Newt Gingrich's second wife (Marianne Gingrich) on Thursday night (tomorrow).  It's supposedly going to be really bad for Newt.
It's Newt Gingrich. If he was on Nightline and opening his mouth it'd be really bad for Newt.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: SwanSwanHummingbird on January 19, 2012, 01:05:12 AM
let's just eliminate states, k?

Ack!!  You didn't just say that..

In my opinion, one of the biggest problems the US is facing is lack of respect for State's Rights.  I personally don't think State's Rights even goes far enough, I think as much as is possible to decide locally should be decided locally.  I want to invert the current power arrangement.  Right now, most of the power is held by the feds, less by the States, and less by the cities.  I want most held by the cities (and you could subdivide that even further -- why should each neighborhood in a city be forced to do things alike?  So really neighborhood associations should be the most powerful government level, imo), less by the States, and very little by the Feds.  In such an arrangement, I would have no trouble with even a tiny fraction being held by a world government.

Although at the absolute -least-, you could have a Constitution that delineates the powers that the Federal govt should have and which the States should have, and stick to that -strictly-.  But, unfortunately, we do not even have this anymore, and our country is slipping into totalitarianism.

About marriage, I'd like to see government out of it completely.  How and why did we ever think it was a good idea to have government involved?  It should be done by churches or other community groups and have no legal status at all.  How should you decide to divy up the stuff if/when the marriage goes bad?  You figure it out, it's none of my business.  Different communities could do it in different ways.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Morrolan on January 19, 2012, 02:17:02 AM
Would it be better off if government were blind to marriage all together?  Eliminating marriage as a legal status would remove all kinds of advantages that married people have been enjoying for years.  Anyone could consider themselves married, or not (depending on their personal beliefs/faith).  Those that wanted legally binding commitments could create partnerships with a contract.  Wouldn't that be fair?

For years I have believe that separation of Church and State means that the government should not sanction any marriage. The government should give everyone civil partnerships, and churches can give out whatever marriages they like. Civil partnerships should be used in the legal formation of households with binding ties, both fiscal and social. As to who can have these domestic partnerships? Well, that would be the new question. But the use of the word "marriage" would be left out of it.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on January 19, 2012, 09:14:44 AM
Christian belief in marriage as a lifelong heterosexual commitment (as compared to homosexual, plural, or divorce-gettin'), on the other hand, has been pretty consistent, the confusion of rich white people in the last few years notwithstanding.

Um ... no (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_homosexuality#Views_favorable_to_homosexuality), it hasn't? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_Christianity#New_Testament_perspectives)?

Would it be better off if government were blind to marriage all together?  Eliminating marriage as a legal status would remove all kinds of advantages that married people have been enjoying for years.  Anyone could consider themselves married, or not (depending on their personal beliefs/faith).  Those that wanted legally binding commitments could create partnerships with a contract.  Wouldn't that be fair?

Yes. That would be fair. No one cares about christians' self-asserted "dibs" on the word "marriage". People care about civil equality. And according to the government, the legal status defined as "marriage" gets a lot more more civil privileges than the legal status defined as "civil union". Hence, homosexuals want the marriage one so they can have civil equality.

Scrap both, make a new term that has nothing to do with anyone's precious "tradition" and the LGBT community wouldn't give a damn what religious people call it.

But for the moment, it's called marriage, in the legal sense. So marriage, in the legal sense, is what they want.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 19, 2012, 09:47:05 AM
Christian belief in marriage as a lifelong heterosexual commitment (as compared to homosexual, plural, or divorce-gettin'), on the other hand, has been pretty consistent, the confusion of rich white people in the last few years notwithstanding.

Um ... no it hasn't? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_Christianity#New_Testament_perspectives)?

Eh, yeah, it has.  The dissenters, even when luminous (Luuuuther!), aren't significant: polygamy was discouraged from the beginning and has never caught on despite repeated attempts at innovation.  (A registered Democrat/Republican peddling conspiracy theories doesn't make trutherism/birtherism a Democratic/Republicans dogma.)
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_Christianity#New_Testament_perspectives
Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Tertullian all spoke against polygamy, condemning it.

People care about civil equality.

Okay, call it sad, but this is manifestly untrue about people.  People tend to care about civil equality for people like them.

Scrap both, make a new term that has nothing to do with anyone's precious "tradition" and the LGBT community wouldn't give a damn what religious people call it.

Yeah, if we must, that may be the best solution.  Things are likely to get tetchy when you try to rearchitect the standards for awarding not-marital privilege with sex taken out of the picture: we're suddenly figuring out undue influence between only contractually-related adults all over again.  (But, again, that was all pretty well busted years ago by easy divorce.  Civil marriage has meant too little, and given too much for it, for some time.)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on January 19, 2012, 10:36:01 AM
Eh, yeah, it has.  The dissenters, even when luminous (Luuuuther!), aren't significant: polygamy was discouraged from the beginning and has never caught on despite repeated attempts at innovation.

Polygamy was blatantly accepted and encouraged from the beginning of Christianity actually, but later it got outlawed by those damn pagan Romans, who were pushing their heathen monogamy on those poor Jews in that Jesus cult; you know ... if you wanna get technical. And even after that, it's never gone away completely. It gets, as you say ... repeatedly attempted, and is in fact still practiced by various sects today. Because it's ... you know ... all over the Bible.

Even homosexual marriage is totally ok with a laundry list of multi-million member strong denominations across the globe. And these observations of reality would strongly indicate that this next statement you make:

Okay, call it sad, but this is manifestly untrue about people.  People tend to care about civil equality for people like them.

Is just you being a bitter hateful old man out of touch with those 20 and 30 something youths of the future who aren't into hate for the sake of hate  :P

It's cool though, being a meanie is your God given right as an American.  ;)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on January 19, 2012, 10:59:29 AM
Okay, call it sad, but this is manifestly untrue about people.  People tend to care about civil equality for people like them.

So, I'm gay?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Ender on January 19, 2012, 11:18:49 AM
Okay, call it sad, but this is manifestly untrue about people.  People tend to care about civil equality for people like them.

So, I'm gay?

I'm not gay.  I'm Takei!

(http://roflrazzi.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/funny-celebrity-pictures-its-not-ok-to-be-takei.jpg)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: AmandaGreathouse on January 19, 2012, 11:21:26 AM
Just empathetic, boog.

Clearly it''s all godless heathens and young malcontents who are capable of sharing any kind of empathy for people who want civil equality.

I'm for equality myself, but I really like the idea of that equality being that straight people also can't get married and everything reverts to civil unions for everyone, so we all get equal rights and the government's long nose/hand isn't so directly involved with such an allegedly religious issue.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 19, 2012, 11:31:01 AM
Polygamy was blatantly accepted and encouraged from the beginning of Christianity actually, but later it got outlawed by those damn pagan Romans, who were pushing their heathen monogamy on those poor Jews in that Jesus cult; you know ... if you wanna get technical. And even after that, it's never gone away completely. It gets, as you say ... repeatedly attempted, and is in fact still practiced by various sects today. Because it's ... you know ... all over the Bible.

That just ain't true, man.  Paul of Tarsus promoted monogamy for church leaders just a few years after Jesus' death.  Justin Martyr (103-165) dissed on his Jewish contemporaries for allowing it.  Luther was "innovating" (shudder) when he decided he was smarter than everybody else about scriptural interpretation.

Even homosexual marriage is totally ok with a laundry list of multi-million member strong denominations across the globe.

Which is an innovation: being gay is nothing new; trying to consecrate homosexual marriages is.  But I'm talking normatively and you're talking descriptively.

And these observations of reality would strongly indicate that this next statement you make:
...
Is just you being a bitter hateful old man out of touch with those 20 and 30 something youths of the future who aren't into hate for the sake of hate  :P

Darn straight.     (Get it? Get it?)

But really you're arriving at the value judgement because religious people don't make sense to you, and you have no reason to value Christian orthodoxy over anything else that calls itself Christian.  By disagreeing incomprehensibly with your brave new ontology, I'm axiomatically a big meaniehead.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Morrolan on January 19, 2012, 12:40:12 PM
...being gay is nothing new; trying to consecrate homosexual marriages is.

Being "gay" as an identity actually is kinda new. Oh, people have been engaging in homosexuality for a long time (ever?) but homosexuality as a social category (specifically in Western culture--there are other cultures with different gender categories--some of them in the U.S.) is somewhat new.

Before everyone jumps on the bandwagon, most of the identities that we claim are actually pretty new. Remember that it was only in the last two centuries that the bulk of the population moved to urban and suburban areas.

What else is new? The neolocal model of marriage that we use in our culture. That is the one where, after marriage, you do not live with your mother's family (matrilocal), father's family (patrilocal), or uncle's family (avunculocal). Neolocal residence is when you move out of your parents house to set up your own. Mostly, it only happens in:

Modern marriage, whether straight or gay, does not fit Biblical models of marriage. Does that mean that churches should back homosexual marriages? Well, that is up to each church, and each religion.

The "liberal" approach is that the church is no longer the moral arbiter of Western culture. That it has in fact failed in its role, and is to be removed.
The "conservative" approach is that the church retains its authority as the moral arbiter of Western culture.

So does the church conform to the culture, or the culture to the church?

The answer is, of course, that the two are inextricably in bed together, and it is not that simple.

But, let me say this: to have a single rule in a culture about who can shtup whom, who can marry whom, and what is "right" for everyone is far more tyrannical than almost any past government. To say that people cannot make these decisions on their own, that households and families cannot make their own decisions but must fall in line for the greater good (as you see it).

Instead of worrying about who sleeps with whom, why don't we worry about things like:

Seriously, people (and I speak generally, not specifically). I know you all like to wrap you identities in sex, and I know that you have all been suckered (by advertising and movies, mostly) to equate sex and love with happiness.

But Western culture, and the US in particular, has a few things to handle. This country needs to grow up, stop being so impassioned, and take care of its people and its infrastructure.

No, I am not a Libertarian. Libertarians are a specific subset of anarchists who believe that all power should be economic power.

I am personally pro-gay-marriage, because it is coming and I want it handled so we can get on with the business of living. I am pro gay-marriage because I have gay friends who are just as normal as my straight friends.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: flurry on January 19, 2012, 12:47:55 PM
tradition = arbitrary argument + time

Say, rather, that tradition = arbitrary argument + time under the constraints of actual societal pressures.  In other arenas, we call this mechanism "evolution."

This is, by the way, precisely the mechanism that is resulting in the trend toward marriage equality.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: lordcooper on January 19, 2012, 01:03:19 PM
A Republican being Republican. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/19/newt-gingrich-ignore-supreme-court-president)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: EldritchOrigins on January 19, 2012, 01:08:57 PM
For any that are interested, Nightline will be airing an interview with Newt Gingrich's second wife (Marianne Gingrich) on Thursday night (tomorrow).  It's supposedly going to be really bad for Newt.
Spoilers (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/video/marianne-gingrich-interview-15392793)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on January 19, 2012, 04:09:11 PM
You can make a strong argument that, where there is widespread confusion or dissension on an issue, we should err on the side of liberty/unrestriction.  Yet, on this particular issue, (1) there ain't widespread disagreement, outside the bubble of our glistering media and misspent youth, and (2) we're talking about the conferral of a specific coded benefit, not telling people (for instance) that they mayn't kank.

I don't know a single person that I communicate with face-to-face who is against gay marriage. Maybe there's just no dissension inside the bubble of whatever backwards, rights-hating region you live in?

The specific coded benefit includes visiting your loved ones in the hospital. There was a major news story just last week about a lesbian couple who were vacationing in Florida - one woman had an aneurysm and was put in palliative care. She was not allowed to see her lover before she died. Hospital security would not let her enter the room. Had they been allowed to marry, that right would have been hers. In what horrible, cruel world do you live that you think this is justifiable?

Actually, that's unfair and a bit of a straw-man. You probably also disagree that that particular situation was just. In the interests of clarity, I would like to ask you - what coded benefits do heterosexual married couples have that you feel should not be granted to homosexual couples who wish to marry? This is germane to the discussion, so please tell us. Which rights should the gays be denied?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: BleakOne on January 19, 2012, 04:13:20 PM
So... is this thread about gay marriage now?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: lordcooper on January 19, 2012, 04:15:06 PM
Maybe it'd be simpler to keep marriage as a purely ceremonial/religious thing and have civil partnerships (for people of any sexual inclination) that bestow all the legal privileges.

That should keep everyone happy, right?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on January 19, 2012, 04:18:27 PM
So... is this thread about gay marriage now?

Republican primary candidates are still pushing it as a wedge issue. Seems on-topic to me.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Bacon on January 19, 2012, 04:23:03 PM
So... is this thread about gay marriage now?


It is a republican thread. Pretty much anything about forcing one's religion and moral beliefs on others through law fits under it.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: BleakOne on January 19, 2012, 04:23:59 PM
So... is this thread about gay marriage now?

Republican primary candidates are still pushing it as a wedge issue. Seems on-topic to me.

Fair 'nuff.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on January 19, 2012, 04:26:51 PM
Maybe it'd be simpler to keep marriage as a purely ceremonial/religious thing and have civil partnerships (for people of any sexual inclination) that bestow all the legal privileges.

That should keep everyone happy, right?

Yes, as long as the state does not interfere with ceremonial/religious things. This is the model I prefer, by the way.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Necro on January 19, 2012, 04:30:42 PM
"Gay marriage" seems to primarily be a distraction from real political issues. Not to say that it isn't an issue that certain genders/sexes can't marry, but the debate over "the sanctity of marriage" is a joke.

Marriage is a binding legal and financial contract between two adults, overseen by a justice of the peace. Homosexual adults are shown statistically to be more educated and more wealthy than the populace at large. There is absolutely no legitimate reason why anyone should be restricted a basic human right, which is to say, mating with another human being for life, should you choose to.

You use the word consecration... But the truth is, there is no one religion here in the United States that dictates what is okay and what isn't. I mean, yes there's a general christian / protestant / puritanical bent, but one does not have to endorse anyone else's being mated to a same sex partner to accept that it will happen, and is a factor for decision making in critical decision making (in the hospital, at the bank, or in other times of incapacitation of one partner). Religion has much less to do with this than people seem to think.

Most people who react with a knee-jerk "homosexuals shouldn't get married, think of the children/institution of marriage/society" are being wholly disingenuous about their motives.

This isn't a moral issue.. not even close. It's an issue of control wrapped in a Bible cozy.



Edited to add: Full disclosure means self identification in a sense. I do not recognize our government's right to regulate the acts of consenting adults who are not otherwise harming anyone, and the burden of proof lies fully on those who would restrict those acts or the rights to perform them.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on January 19, 2012, 04:37:44 PM
"Gay marriage" seems to primarily be a distraction from real political issues. Not to say that it isn't an issue that certain genders/sexes can't marry, but the debate over "the sanctity of marriage" is a joke.

Agreed. At least the pro-lifers believe that they're protesting murder. Two dudes or ladies getting married? What's the big problem? Whose business is that? How does it affect anyone? Do the people who say God sends 9/11s and hurricanes because of gay rights actually, like, believe that stuff?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Case on January 19, 2012, 04:39:02 PM
Homosexual adults are shown statistically to be more educated and more wealthy than the populace at large.
8)
Sucks about the higher suicide rate though
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on January 19, 2012, 04:40:28 PM
Yeah, I wonder why all those gays would be committing suicide?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Necro on January 19, 2012, 04:44:43 PM
Homosexual adults are shown statistically to be more educated and more wealthy than the populace at large.
8)
Sucks about the higher suicide rate though

I'd say a higher suicide rate is inevitable when you have a portion of the populace being treated as second class citizens, unable to adopt, marry, etc.

Seems to me like that's a symptom of how a subset of a populace is mistreated, not really indicative of anything else.

There's only so many valid outlets for life energy, and every human being wants to leave a legacy. Sadly, homosexuals are often relegated to the background in this case. Taken as a whole, the group are able to give and want to give. Whether or not they're allowed to be givers, is our problem in society as a whole.



I'd also be very curious to see how the suicide rate corresponds with higher education. It's well known that the more educated you become, the less likely you are to have children. I have a feeling that suicide rate probably goes up in correlation to education as well.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 19, 2012, 04:56:38 PM
I don't know a single person that I communicate with face-to-face who is against gay marriage.

That's not too surprising, but I hope you can at least appreciate the level of insularity.  (On par with "I only know one person who voted for Nixon," not that there's anything wrong with that.)  Remember, if you will, that President Obama opposes gay marriage.

Actually, that's unfair and a bit of a straw-man. You probably also disagree that that particular situation was just. In the interests of clarity, I would like to ask you - what coded benefits do heterosexual married couples have that you feel should not be granted to homosexual couples who wish to marry? This is germane to the discussion, so please tell us. Which rights should the gays be denied?

Your assumption, of course, is that heterosexual relationships and homosexual relationships are exactly the same thing.  I wonder how you arrive at this?

Understanding that I don't share that assumption, let's look at Valeria's list from the perspective of the rights that should be afforded to, say, two long-term roommates:
1) Not having your wills, trusts, and powers of attorney subject to long dragged out legal battles on "undue influence" ...
2) Being able to pass your house to your spouse tax free when you die, or not being able to have the marital home seized by a single spouse's creditors. ...
3) Intestate protection. ...
4) The doctrine of equitable parenthood. ...
5) Single parent adoptions. ...
Should all these rights be available to any two people who live together?  No, I really don't think so.  Should they be available in FLDS plural marriages?  Maybe yes, in the name of charity, but so far we've felt that the State's interest in discouraging those is more compelling.  Should any two (or more?) adults be able to create a contractual vehicle that sets this stuff up?  Probably yes, on the economic and mutual care issues; probably not when on the parenthood bits.

I got no problem forcing hospitals to respect patients' wishes for visitation (I know, right?!); in the case you mention, the women HAD established power of attorney and the hospital was being horrible.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Synthesis on January 19, 2012, 05:05:58 PM
I'd also be very curious to see how the suicide rate corresponds with higher education. It's well known that the more educated you become, the less likely you are to have children. I have a feeling that suicide rate probably goes up in correlation to education as well.

Higher income, higher education level, and higher occupation status all seem to be independently protective against suicide. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21211874)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Necro on January 19, 2012, 05:06:34 PM

Should all these rights be available to any two people who live together?  No, I really don't think so.  Should they be available in FLDS plural marriages?  Maybe yes, in the name of charity, but so far we've felt that the State's interest in discouraging those is more compelling.  Should any two (or more?) adults be able to create a contractual vehicle that sets this stuff up?  Probably yes, on the economic and mutual care issues; probably not when on the parenthood bits.

Should all these rights be available to any two people who live together? Yes, by default, until you've shown beyond reasonable doubt that they should not get these rights. Inalienable rights.

Plural marriage primarily is a bit of an aside, but becomes an issue when you have people fucking children, to be blunt. At what point does the state legitimately get to say who gets to reproduce, and by that same token, adopt? Take a look at some foster homes if you think we're at some high mark for taking care of kids with no place to go. The same arguments you can use for restricting who gets to be a parent apply to all kinds of things that are inherently morally questionable, like China's situation for example, and in extremis, lead to forced sterilization, eugenics and the like.

Are you going to force citizens to apply to become parents? What are you going to do with them if they refuse to apply? Think about the answers to these questions, because you're treading down a path with uncertain footing, at best.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Necro on January 19, 2012, 05:11:57 PM
I'd also be very curious to see how the suicide rate corresponds with higher education. It's well known that the more educated you become, the less likely you are to have children. I have a feeling that suicide rate probably goes up in correlation to education as well.

Higher income, higher education level, and higher occupation status all seem to be independently protective against suicide. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21211874)

Seems intuitive, and I'd trust the NIH's data as far as I can throw it. Now if we can just quantify an abstract like public opinion of homosexuality,  discrimination, and correlate it to our data.

In ten to twenty years when we have a lot more kids with a degree and no job, I'm also curious to see how those numbers change. I can see "education" being less of a reason to go on with life than "higher employment status and income" or even just having mouths to feed.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 19, 2012, 05:21:46 PM
Should all these rights be available to any two people who live together? Yes, by default, until you've shown beyond reasonable doubt that they should not get these rights. Inalienable rights.

Really?  People do not have an inalienable right to, for instance, give each other tax free gifts or to inherit each other's property by default.

Plural marriage primarily is a bit of an aside, but becomes an issue when you have people fucking children, to be blunt. At what point does the state legitimately get to say who gets to reproduce, and by that same token, adopt?

(Plural marriage: in practice, yes, and I don't mean to add that shade to the discussion, only to expand the context a bit.)  Reproduction and adoption are a little different: the one is easy, fun, and free to do at home with no special tools.  The other is a matter of the state's placing trust in you to not screw up a kid too bad.  I thiiink that adoption agencies have often placed restrictions on who can adopt; whereas, obviously, we've never put prior restraint on makin' babies.

Are you going to force citizens to apply to become parents? What are you going to do with them if they refuse to apply? Think about the answers to these questions, because you're treading down a path with uncertain footing, at best.

Indeed, but it's unavoidable when we're no longer sure what constitutes a family unit or whether it matters.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on January 19, 2012, 05:27:47 PM
Your assumption, of course, is that heterosexual relationships and homosexual relationships are exactly the same thing.  I wonder how you arrive at this?

Easily. Other peoples' relationships aren't any of my (f'ing) business. In that regard, homosexual and heterosexual relationships are indeed exactly the same thing: none of my business. So, again, why do you think they're your business? I thought you were pro-liberty.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 19, 2012, 05:32:05 PM
Easily. Other peoples' relationships aren't any of my (f'ing) business. In that regard, homosexual and heterosexual relationships are indeed exactly the same thing: none of my business. So, again, why do you think they're your business? I thought you were pro-liberty.

They're society's business when we start awarding very special privileges based on assumptions about the quality of the relationship.  If relationships aren't anybody's business, we should, what, end hospital visitation for all?  Or get rid of the notion of marriage entirely and create a new, minimalistic system?  (Maybe you're of that opinion; this thread has gotten crowded.)


In summary, since we can carry this on indefinitely without convincin' nobody:

Yes, I'm opposed to civil unions granted to people specifically because they're in a sexual relationship.  If we want to create a contractual system that any two people can enter (and exit) for their mutual care and assistance, I'm all in favor.  If our society utterly fails to agree on what the substance of marriage is, I'd be very willing to see it taken out of the legal system and given to the institutions that really want it.  (And, who knows, maybe that's the best thing that Christians could ever hope for as a means of nurturing and taking seriously their own marriages.)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Morrolan on January 19, 2012, 05:40:21 PM
Much of this discussion on gay marriage, adoption, definitions of families, etc. comes down to some major questions.


Research has been done by a noted linguist George Lakhoff (http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lakoff") in the metaphors of political debate. He shows that many of the debates come not from different logic, but different underlying assumptions about the nature of the world and the role of government within it. He shows that these assumptions are one reason that political debate has become so fractious.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: valeria on January 19, 2012, 05:42:56 PM
I would like to see those legal rights given to any two people who are going to enter into a social contract with each other for love, support, and mutual assistance for the rest of their lives.  Why two?  Because two is extremely stable and is legally a lot easier to deal with than any other multiples.  I don't care whether they're having sex with each other or can physically produce children or not.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on January 19, 2012, 07:44:27 PM
That just ain't true, man.  Paul of Tarsus promoted monogamy for church leaders just a few years after Jesus' death.  Justin Martyr (103-165) dissed on his Jewish contemporaries for allowing it.  Luther was "innovating" (shudder) when he decided he was smarter than everybody else about scriptural interpretation.

Wrong again, bob.

Quote from: the same link I gave you before
The church father Justin Martyr mentions that in his time Jewish men were permitted to have four or five wives,[12] and Babatha was a Jewish woman who was a second wife.

Jewish polygamy clashed with Roman monogamy at the time of the early church:
When the Christian Church came into being, polygamy was still practiced by the Jews. It is true that we find no references to it in the New Testament; and from this some have inferred that it must have fallen into disuse, and that at the time of our Lord the Jewish people had become monogamous. But the conclusion appears to be unwarranted. Josephus in two places speaks of polygamy as a recognized institution: and Justin Martyr makes it a matter of reproach to Trypho that the Jewish teachers permitted a man to have several wives. Indeed when in 212 A.D. the lex Antoniana de civitate gave the rights of Roman Citizenship to great numbers of Jews, it was found necessary to tolerate polygamy among them, even when though it was against Roman law for a citizen to have more than one wife. In 285 A.D. a constitution of Diocletian and Maximian interdicted polygamy to all subjects of the empire without exception. But with the Jews, at least, the enactment failed of its effect; and in 393 A.D. a special law was issued by Theodosius to compel the Jews to relinquish this national custom. Even so they were not induced to conform.[13]

Which is an innovation: being gay is nothing new; trying to consecrate homosexual marriages is.  But I'm talking normatively and you're talking descriptively.

I wasn't saying that the LGBT friendly churches weren't new. I agree that is in innovation of recent (relatively speaking) times. I was just bringing that up to poke holes in your "people have no empathy outside their tribe" assertion. Apparently, millions upon millions of deeply religious Christians disagree with you.

And that's the thing about religion. Since it's basically made up as it goes along, you just end up where you are now, saying "You just don't understand what it means to be a Christian ... and neither do any of these other Christians who disagree with my particular flavor."

By disagreeing incomprehensibly with your brave new ontology, I'm axiomatically a big meaniehead.

No no no, disagreeing with someone does not make you a meaniehead. If you just didn't generally like black people for example ... it makes you a racist, but so long as you don't go around actively trying to make black people second class citizens in our democracy by either restricting their rights, or giving white people "extra" rights (same thing, different ways of saying it, basically) then that's ok. You get to be a racist if you want to. It's why the KKK can still have their rallies.

Likewise ... if you just happen to not like gay people for whatever reason (yours being religious ones I presume) ... that's ok. It makes you a bit of a bigot, but that is again, totally fine in our democracy. The part that isn't fine, and the part that makes you a meaniehead ... is the part where you go around actively trying to make gay people second class citizens by either restricting their rights (like the legislation being pushed in the GOP at the state level to decriminalize beating up gay kids in school so long as the beating is being done for "deeply held religious beliefs") ... or by giving straight people "extra rights" (like this whole marriage thing).

That's the part where you become a cranky old man  ;D

EDIT to add: Just in case the excessive smilie faces did not make it obvious, I'm just teasing with the cranky old man bits. I troll because I care. But you get what I'm saying, I hope.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Dalmeth on January 19, 2012, 09:36:04 PM
Primary argument against gay marriage : calling it marriage nudges things toward a church of state, where the government decides what freedoms and rights are available to its citizens.  What were once laws of convenience become products necessitating a great deal of maintenance.

Truthfully, there are already churches that will marry homosexual couples.  The arguments have nothing to do with that particular right.

Why it isn't detangled on its own?  No one wants to go through the trouble of writing all those legal definitions and settling the court cases that will result with any change in current law, or, more specifically, no one wants to deal with this on the federal level.  That's why the states are currently deciding it.

So stop these silly arguments that just amount to making my US Congress a song and dance for your amusement.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 19, 2012, 09:57:57 PM
Musashi, I was DONE! ;D

Quote from: the same link I gave you before
The church father Justin Martyr mentions that in his time Jewish men were permitted to have four or five wives,[12] and Babatha was a Jewish woman who was a second wife.

Jewish polygamy clashed with Roman monogamy at the time of the early church:
When the Christian Church came into being, polygamy was still practiced by the Jews. It is true that we find no references to it in the New Testament; and from this some have inferred that it must have fallen into disuse, and that at the time of our Lord the Jewish people had become monogamous. But the conclusion appears to be unwarranted. Josephus in two places speaks of polygamy as a recognized institution: and Justin Martyr makes it a matter of reproach to Trypho that the Jewish teachers permitted a man to have several wives.

Okay, we're reading the same paragraph and somehow getting different conclusions.  Nobody here is arguing that polygamy wasn't practiced by (mostly or exclusively non-Christian) Jews during the early days of the Christian church.
- "The Jewish people" - mostly not Christian - sometimes polygamous.
- "Justin Martyr" - Christian - against polygamy.

I wasn't saying that the LGBT friendly churches weren't new. I agree that is in innovation of recent (relatively speaking) times. I was just bringing that up to poke holes in your "people have no empathy outside their tribe" assertion. Apparently, millions upon millions of deeply religious Christians disagree with you.

Ah, that's fair enough.  Though there are cultural forces at work beyond just sexuality; a liberal straight Episcopalian probably has more in common with a liberal homosexual Episcopalian than with a conservative homosexual Southern Baptist.  Er...or...right.

And that's the thing about religion. Since it's basically made up as it goes along, you just end up where you are now, saying "You just don't understand what it means to be a Christian ... and neither do any of these other Christians who disagree with my particular flavor."

Not to play broken record, but you really, really don't understand what it means to be a Christian.  Go to a doggone godless lib'ral United Methodist service, flip to the back of the hymnal, and compare the eucharistic service to the Roman missal of any date, or the Eastern Orthodox liturgies--or to the Presbyterian Book of Common Worship.  (The Presbyterians are mostly sorry about saying the Pope was the Antichrist, back when.)  Go ask a firebreathing Baptist preacher if he agrees with the points of the Apostles' and Nicene creeds, written in the first few centuries of the religion's existence.  There is a central body of Christian belief and practice whose coherence is far more striking than the differences we so dearly love to fight about.

Political ideology, something often made up as we muddle along, is certainly full of grey areas, but I think you know me well enough to say with certainty that I'm not a progressive.

No no no, disagreeing with someone does not make you a meaniehead. If you just didn't generally like black people for example ... it makes you a racist, but so long as you don't go around actively trying to make black people second class citizens in our democracy by either restricting their rights, or giving white people "extra" rights (same thing, different ways of saying it, basically) then that's ok. You get to be a racist if you want to. It's why the KKK can still have their rallies.

Likewise ... if you just happen to not like gay people for whatever reason (yours being religious ones I presume) ... that's ok. It makes you a bit of a bigot, but that is again, totally fine in our democracy. The part that isn't fine, and the part that makes you a meaniehead ... is the part where you go around actively trying to make gay people second class citizens by either restricting their rights (like the legislation being pushed in the GOP at the state level to decriminalize beating up gay kids in school so long as the beating is being done for "deeply held religious beliefs") ... or by giving straight people "extra rights" (like this whole marriage thing).

Darn it, in my day it was illegal to beat up anybody in school. (http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTkzMTY1MjEwMl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwNTk2MTk2._V1._SX485_SY318_.jpg)

You make a great, results-oriented point: it doesn't matter what your feelings are if the result is to run people over.  But we'll never be able to agree on the proper framework in which to understand my "results" or yours. :P

Though it's irrelevant to the discussion, I want to point out in my own interest (since you kind of imply otherwise) that I don't have strong feelings about gay people--approximately, I guess, the same feelings I have towards all my beloved coworkers who mostly lived with their girlfriends before succumbing to matrimony.  The couple of guys in my office who are pretty flamin' make me a mite uncomfortable, but that's an issue of conformity to norms of dress and carriage, not who they sleep with.

On a moral culpability scale, sexy stuff done by a heathen who thinks nothing of it doesn't hardly move the needle compared to whoppers like gossip, pride, wrath, or me ogling a female jogger when I darn well know better.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Case on January 19, 2012, 10:06:22 PM
Primary argument against gay marriage : calling it marriage nudges things toward a church of state, where the government decides what freedoms and rights are available to its citizens.  What were once laws of convenience become products necessitating a great deal of maintenance.

Truthfully, there are already churches that will marry homosexual couples.  The arguments have nothing to do with that particular right.

Why it isn't detangled on its own?  No one wants to go through the trouble of writing all those legal definitions and settling the court cases that will result with any change in current law, or, more specifically, no one wants to deal with this on the federal level.  That's why the states are currently deciding it.

So stop these silly arguments that just amount to making my US Congress a song and dance for your amusement.
I agree - freedom and equality are just too hard to be worth the effort. Habeus Corpus? Black civil rights? Gay civil rights? That sounds like paperwork to me! Where does the prime legislative body of my country get off deciding legislation?

Back in -my day- we had laws of convenience. You wanted to rape your wife? You could. Government didn't put its big nose in and tell me what you could or could not do with your property. You wanted to beat your kids within an inch of their lives? All the better.

If you ask me, this country has gone downhill. The Founding Fathers, peace be upon them, would have no part in any of this singing and dancing about freedom.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Dalmeth on January 19, 2012, 10:50:00 PM
Where does the prime legislative body of my country get off deciding legislation?

Here's your problem.  You think the United States has a primary legislative body.  It doesn't.  Powers are divided as proscribed by law.  State government does not derive its authority from the federal government.  While in the past 150 years, the ability of the US Congress to press mandates on the states has increased, most of the implementation of these mandates is still up to the states themselves.

To put it simply, the degree of social change called for is beyond the means of the US Congress.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 19, 2012, 11:04:18 PM
Also in this thread: REPUBLICAAAAANSSSSS (http://pjmedia.com/blog/drunkblogging-tonights-gop-debate-2/)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Case on January 20, 2012, 04:41:04 AM
Where does the prime legislative body of my country get off deciding legislation?

Here's your problem.  You think the United States has a primary legislative body.  It doesn't.  Powers are divided as proscribed by law.  State government does not derive its authority from the federal government.  While in the past 150 years, the ability of the US Congress to press mandates on the states has increased, most of the implementation of these mandates is still up to the states themselves.

To put it simply, the degree of social change called for is beyond the means of the US Congress.
The states derive law from the Legislative Branch. If it's not legislated there, they have power to legislate for themselves. I know it's kinda scary to consider this but the US is a country. If states wanna break away from that, they should do so.

Your argument against gay marriage was horrendous but it is an equal opportunity stupidity. We should remove all state law because it sounds like it requires lots of maintenance. Boom. Done.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on January 20, 2012, 07:59:20 AM
Musashi, I was DONE! ;D

NEEEEEVER!!!!!

Okay, we're reading the same paragraph and somehow getting different conclusions.  Nobody here is arguing that polygamy wasn't practiced by (mostly or exclusively non-Christian) Jews during the early days of the Christian church.
- "The Jewish people" - mostly not Christian - sometimes polygamous.
- "Justin Martyr" - Christian - against polygamy.

Ah, I see where we're talking past each other here. I'm seeing that in the times of the early church, polygamy was widely practiced ... among the Jews ... who made up the early Christian church (given that was a spin-off from the more established Jewish religion), and this was later stepped on by Roman societal pressures, but always lingered as a concept on the fringes, even into modern times (Moooooormans!).

Not to play broken record, but you really, really don't understand what it means to be a Christian.

Quit it  :P I get that there is a general body of beliefs, a minimum requirement if you will, that one has to meet in order to claim they're a Christian denomination. All I'm saying, is that obviously ... given the frequent historical and modern examples of Christian denominations who are cool with homosexual marriage and even polygamy ... this whole idea of a "traditional" marriage aint one of those minimum requirements. It is apparently quite a grey area ... unlike say ... needing to believe that Jesus died for your sins.

Darn it, in my day it was illegal to beat up anybody in school. (http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTkzMTY1MjEwMl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwNTk2MTk2._V1._SX485_SY318_.jpg)

You make a great, results-oriented point: it doesn't matter what your feelings are if the result is to run people over.  But we'll never be able to agree on the proper framework in which to understand my "results" or yours. :P

Here's the thing ... if your framework amounts to basically something like this:

"Look man, you just don't understand. These are my deeply held beliefs. I need to shit on this other group of people who aren't hurting me in the slightest, and just want to be left alone to try and get some happiness out of their lives ... because ... because I need to man. It's part of my whole identity ..."

Well ... then you're what we commonly refer to, as an asshole ... and yeah, there's pretty much not gonna be any middle ground to have on the issue.  :D

But ...

Though it's irrelevant to the discussion, I want to point out in my own interest (since you kind of imply otherwise) that I don't have strong feelings about gay people--

Don't take it personal, I mean that "you" in the sense of ... "those people who are pushing all that legislation" ... I'm pretty sure you (brytta) are not one of those people. But ... to address you (brytta) directly, for me it comes down like this:

I think your religion is stupid.  :P You know me well enough to have that one figured out by now. But dagnabit ... if anyone (atheist, muslim, NAMBLA activist, whatever) was trying to legislate your religious persuasion into second-class citizenry, I would be the first to be screaming bloody murder on your behalf. Because I totally believe in your right to have a religion that I personally feel is stupid. I don't need to agree with you, to support your rights. So long as you're not hurting anybody else I'm a terribly live and let live kinda guy. I would vote in favor of your rights, even though I don't agree with your lifestyle choices.

You know that when LGBT folks are talking about the right to marry, they aren't talking about it in the religious or even cultural sense. They're talking about it in the legal, civic sense. Come on now, don't conflate the two. If you, personally, Brytta, are not out to poop on homosexuals for your pleasure (and I really don't think that you are), then you should be in favor of allowing them the same legal privilege that all the other life partners get extended to them. Or ... you should be willing to abolish those privileges for everyone. Call it something different if it seriously bugs you to call it marriage. Call it ... smarriage ... or whatever.

But if that's just unacceptable, and you just need to have those civil rights while simultaneously needing them not to have them ... well ... see the above explanation  :-*
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: lordcooper on January 20, 2012, 08:43:08 AM
Jesus was a really nice chap who helped a lot of people out, regardless of whether they played by the current societal norms.  It would be really great if more Christians followed his example.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 20, 2012, 08:44:01 AM
You know that when LGBT folks are talking about the right to marry, they aren't talking about it in the religious or even cultural sense. They're talking about it in the legal, civic sense. Come on now, don't conflate the two. If you, personally, Brytta, are not out to poop on homosexuals for your pleasure (and I really don't think that you are), then you should be in favor of allowing them the same legal privilege that all the other life partners get extended to them. Or ... you should be willing to abolish those privileges for everyone. Call it something different if it seriously bugs you to call it marriage. Call it ... smarriage ... or whatever.

We just can't get together on what the issue is, though we're almost in violent agreement on, like, half of the solution.  You think that everyone, everyone, whether single or married or straight or not, has a right to the basic legal privileges given in marriage.  (How exactly this would work for sets of people we'd consider "single" isn't clear, but, yeah, it can be figured out.)  I have no real disagreement in principle with this.

What we can't agree on is whether there's something unique about heterosexual relationships that isn't common to homosexual or platonic relationships.  In my view, it takes a lot of willful self-indoctrination (and, funnily, a pretty high-anthropology view of humankind and its emotions) to think there ain't.

But I appreciate the earnest empathy so broadly shown here on behalf of people with different sexual desires than the norm.  That's a wonderful thing.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 20, 2012, 08:47:20 AM
Jesus was a really nice chap who helped a lot of people out, regardless of whether they played by the current societal norms.  It would be really great if more Christians followed his example.

Every Christian, whether conservative or liberal or uncategorizable, should read this (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8%3A1-11&version=NIV) about three times, slowly.  (If I mean more by this than what I said, I mean both the part you think I mean and the part you don't think I mean.)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: lordcooper on January 20, 2012, 08:56:59 AM
Jesus was a really nice chap who helped a lot of people out, regardless of whether they played by the current societal norms.  It would be really great if more Christians followed his example.

Every Christian, whether conservative or liberal or uncategorizable, should read this (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8%3A1-11&version=NIV) about three times, slowly.  (If I mean more by this than what I said, I mean both the part you think I mean and the part you don't think I mean.)

Well, there's many possible conclusions that I think you haven't drawn from that.  Care to share what it means to you?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Yam on January 20, 2012, 09:00:03 AM
So is Romney pretty much chosen?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on January 20, 2012, 09:00:08 AM
We just can't get together on what the issue is, though we're almost in violent agreement on, like, half of the solution.  You think that everyone, everyone, whether single or married or straight or not, has a right to the basic legal privileges given in marriage.  (How exactly this would work for sets of people we'd consider "single" isn't clear, but, yeah, it can be figured out.)  I have no real disagreement in principle with this.

YAY! COMMON GROUND!!!!  :D

What we can't agree on is whether there's something unique about heterosexual relationships that isn't common to homosexual or platonic relationships.  In my view, it takes a lot of willful self-indoctrination (and, funnily, a pretty high-anthropology view of humankind and its emotions) to think there ain't.

It's not that we can't agree on that ... it's that ... I just don't care about that. At all.  :D

I just want the civil equality. Whether there is or is not something unique to "man and woman" vs "woman on woman while I watch" vs "woman on power tool while man watches with another man" ... well it'd be great fun to speculate on while drinking ... but I wouldn't go dragging it into politics the way the G.O.P. establishment likes doing.

But I appreciate the earnest empathy so broadly shown here on behalf of people with different sexual desires than the norm.  That's a wonderful thing.

 :-*
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on January 20, 2012, 04:06:43 PM
Frankly, brytta, I think it shows a fairly significant lack of comprehension of biology to assert that there are huge essential differences between men and women. There's really just the obvious mechanical difference and a few subtle neurological variations - not all of which are even shared by all people of the same sex. Ergo, there oughtn't be much essential difference between a man-man relationship and a man-woman relationship.

Do you also believe that personhood begins at conception? Maybe we can just chalk this up to a lack of scientific knowledge?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Cind on January 20, 2012, 04:21:07 PM
Frankly, brytta, I think it shows a fairly significant lack of comprehension of biology to assert that there are huge essential differences between men and women. There's really just the obvious mechanical difference and a few subtle neurological variations - not all of which are even shared by all people of the same sex. Ergo, there oughtn't be much essential difference between a man-man relationship and a man-woman relationship.

Do you also believe that personhood begins at conception? Maybe we can just chalk this up to a lack of scientific knowledge?

While I'm a tremendously die-hard pro-life person I have to agree. The truth, forged by countless millions of years of universe law, just doesn't give way for what you as a single person would prefer life to be.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Yam on January 20, 2012, 04:24:35 PM
Seriously though is Romney the guy?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Ender on January 20, 2012, 04:37:53 PM
Seriously though is Romney the guy?

Yea, probably.  Got a lot of endorsements, though I'm curious how much the whole "He's a rich guy who doesn't pay taxes and keeps his money in off shore banks" smear campaign will affect him.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on January 20, 2012, 06:42:19 PM
It looks like Newt is rising in the polls again though ... and he's getting the racist crowds so riled up they're giving him standing ovations.

I'm glad. This race would have been so boring towards the end if everything had just been Romney Romney Romney. We need something a little more neck and neck to drink to.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 20, 2012, 08:06:48 PM
It looks like Newt is rising in the polls again though ... and he's getting the racist crowds so riled up they're giving him standing ovations.

All right, guyz, my days of not takin' this thread seriously are coming to a definite middle.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Case on January 20, 2012, 08:20:27 PM
It looks like Newt is rising in the polls again though ... and he's getting the racist crowds so riled up they're giving him standing ovations.

All right, guyz, my days of not takin' this thread seriously are coming to a definite middle.
It doesn't take much to link 'teaching black people the value of the paycheck' to 'getting thuggy unemployed blacks off the streets selling crack and doing real jobs' or even just 'teaching black people the value of the paycheck because white people are pretty clued up, look at me'.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: RogueGunslinger on January 20, 2012, 08:24:38 PM
So why didn't you bother then?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: valeria on January 20, 2012, 09:24:33 PM
Thinking of crowds... does anyone else wish the audiences in the auditoriums would just remain respectfully silent and just let the people debate and answer questions?  I get seriously irritated at these cheers, boos, and standing ovations.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Dalmeth on January 20, 2012, 10:13:44 PM
EVERY TIME!
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Aruven on January 20, 2012, 10:23:47 PM
Dude, there is no reason RP should bow out. The blackout coverage is irritating. They tried to cut him out of the debate, and that bitch on the post coverage cut the dude off talking about him and went to commercial! WOW
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: BleakOne on January 20, 2012, 11:27:17 PM
I'd vote for Colbert.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on January 21, 2012, 12:05:13 AM
I hope RP goes Indie. Just for shits and giggles.

He'd totally toss the vote back to the President. But then, all the other Republican candidates are pretty laughable anyhow.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Zoan on January 21, 2012, 12:22:10 AM
Ladies and gentlemen, this thread is pointless. I will be your new President.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: lordcooper on January 21, 2012, 09:22:47 AM
(http://okayface.com/okay-face.jpg)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Kismetic on January 21, 2012, 01:00:20 PM
Seriously though is Romney the guy?

In recent history, the candidate who wins South Carolina primary will run for prez.  All hail Mitt

edited for dumbness
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: EldritchOrigins on January 21, 2012, 01:15:00 PM
Seriously though is Romney the guy?

In recent history, the candidate who wins South Carolina primary will run for prez.  All hail Mitt

edited for dumbness

With all due fairness, the SC primary election is today, so technically it isn't decided yet.  But if one were to average all the primaries so far, Mitt's ahead.  It's always been Mitt.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: SwanSwanHummingbird on January 21, 2012, 01:50:03 PM
Brytta, I didn't know you had a YouTube channel..   ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CeP2SU6ah6Q
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 21, 2012, 02:29:20 PM
Brytta, I didn't know you had a YouTube channel..   ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CeP2SU6ah6Q

rooofl
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Kismetic on January 21, 2012, 02:39:00 PM
I know that dude is ranting about Fox News, but to hear a Republican supporter base his opinion off of the media is pretty funny, imo.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 21, 2012, 02:40:07 PM
I know that dude is ranting about Fox News, but to hear a Republican supporter base his opinion off of the media is pretty funny, imo.

Wait, this wasn't a parody?  It was nine minutes long and I didn't watch very much.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Kismetic on January 21, 2012, 02:48:16 PM
Ahhh ...  I had an inkling it might be.  Is it???
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: RogueGunslinger on January 21, 2012, 04:40:44 PM
ROFL... Yes. It's parody.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Delirium on January 21, 2012, 04:43:52 PM
Says something about today's politics that parody is easy to mistake for the real thing.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: RogueGunslinger on January 21, 2012, 04:49:26 PM
That's the whole point of parody/trolling. To seem as close to the real thing as possible, while having an extremely stupid voice. :P
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on January 21, 2012, 05:38:53 PM
rgs, stop sharing my secrets
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Erythil on January 21, 2012, 10:31:37 PM
I honestly feel that a Ron Paul indie run would hurt Obama more than it would hurt republicans.  The bulk of his support are young people who have registered Republican just to vote for Ron Paul.  His superior performance in New Hampshire and Iowa was because independents could easily vote for him there.


Also, this whole racism charge against Newt Gingrich is absurd.  Chris Matthews apparently believes that referring to a black man by his first name (Juan) is racism.  Further, saying you'd like to see kids get jobs instead of being on the dole is apparently racism.  Is that really where we're at right now?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: EldritchOrigins on January 21, 2012, 10:38:27 PM
Here's a chart (http://projects.wsj.com/campaign2012/delegates) for those that care enough to look but don't care enough to do the math (like myself).
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on January 21, 2012, 11:13:42 PM
I honestly feel that a Ron Paul indie run would hurt Obama more than it would hurt republicans.  The bulk of his support are young people who have registered Republican just to vote for Ron Paul.  His superior performance in New Hampshire and Iowa was because independents could easily vote for him there.


Also, this whole racism charge against Newt Gingrich is absurd.  Chris Matthews apparently believes that referring to a black man by his first name (Juan) is racism.  Further, saying you'd like to see kids get jobs instead of being on the dole is apparently racism.  Is that really where we're at right now?

That's what I tried to tell manboog, however, manboog has a point:
Most of y'all HATE Romney, right? And if Romney gets the nom and RP goes indie, then RP is gonna get the Romney votes that another candidate who wasn't a) a Mormon, or b) some super-rich megarobot would have gotten.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: RogueGunslinger on January 21, 2012, 11:36:56 PM
Your argument assumes that it will be Mitt Vs Obama. For that to be true, most people voting wont be hating Romney and jumping ship to paul, they'll just be voting romney. I think it's way too early to tell what would happen if RP if he went indie. But I'm pretty sure it doesn't matter, because he probably wont.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: EldritchOrigins on January 21, 2012, 11:39:41 PM
At this point Ron Paul isn't trying to win.  He is trying to draw as much attention to his cause and his philosophy as possible.  The more interest that he can garner, the more seriously the party will take his positions when forming it's platform at the convention later this year.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: RogueGunslinger on January 21, 2012, 11:40:36 PM
Why don't you think he's trying to win?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: EldritchOrigins on January 21, 2012, 11:53:13 PM
He's given speeches as such that start out saying "I know I'm not going to win but..."
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Case on January 21, 2012, 11:56:16 PM
He's given speeches as such that start out saying "I know I'm not going to win but..."
that's just what the mainstream media want you to think
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: EldritchOrigins on January 22, 2012, 12:01:02 AM
He's given speeches as such that start out saying "I know I'm not going to win but..."
that's just what the mainstream media want you to think
This is only more proof that their tactics are working!
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 22, 2012, 12:22:16 AM
http://www.redstate.com/dan_mclaughlin/2012/01/17/what-the-republican-establishment-really-means/
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 22, 2012, 12:24:03 AM
SC was interesting but I'm on a phone and can only muster the will to copy and paste seemingly irrelevant links.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: RogueGunslinger on January 22, 2012, 12:33:31 AM
He's given speeches as such that start out saying "I know I'm not going to win but..."

Link?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on January 22, 2012, 12:34:48 AM
Also, this whole racism charge against Newt Gingrich is absurd.  Chris Matthews apparently believes that referring to a black man by his first name (Juan) is racism.  Further, saying you'd like to see kids get jobs instead of being on the dole is apparently racism.  Is that really where we're at right now?

Saying you would like to see poor kids (mostly black given the area where the speech was made) cleaning toilets for the rich kids at school because they're poor is in fact pretty fucked up sounding to us progressive, everyone has a right to an education, types ... yes.

Yeah, that's where we're at right now. The cross roads of that liberal sense of fairness and "No you don't understand ... if you're poor you don't deserve an education unless you scrub our shit up for it. You need a work ethic anyway, everyone knows poor blacks are lazy welfare queens. What? Hang on I'm busy giving trillions of taxpayer money to incompetent bankers with a gambling addiction the rest of you have to pay for ... anyway like I was saying ... welfare queens ... those poor kids going to school."
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: EldritchOrigins on January 22, 2012, 12:37:02 AM
Are you suggesting that there is something wrong with people that clean toilets?  It's honest work after all.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on January 22, 2012, 12:41:18 AM
If you don't see the difference between a janitor who applies for the job and earns a wage, and a child who is forced to in order to get basic educational services ... then I can't help you.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: EldritchOrigins on January 22, 2012, 12:47:45 AM
Make all the kids clean the toilets then.  Give them all a work ethic.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: RogueGunslinger on January 22, 2012, 12:53:00 AM
Can't find anything where RP says he doesn't think he can win.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on January 22, 2012, 12:56:32 AM
Make all the kids clean the toilets then.  Give them all a work ethic.

And put the janitors all out of work?!?!?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Synthesis on January 22, 2012, 12:59:55 AM
They don't call it homework for nothing.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 22, 2012, 01:28:42 AM
Make all the kids clean the toilets then.  Give them all a work ethic.

And put the janitors all out of work?!?!?

Don't they do this in Japan, or is that a Yankee slander?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: EldritchOrigins on January 22, 2012, 02:04:57 AM
Can't find anything where RP says he doesn't think he can win.

I'm not sure if this is what I saw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6E5JowQtK6Y#t=03m36s).  My mistake though, it isn't a speech but an interview.  He's not dismissing the possibility, he's just saying it isn't that likely.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Kismetic on January 22, 2012, 02:43:08 AM
If Ron Paul wins the presidency, I will wear a dress

I honestly don't mind if Mitt Romney wins, he's a soulless moderate, and I think that represents America well
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Aruven on January 22, 2012, 02:44:42 AM
RP won't ever be elected, because it cannot happen in our system.

I find it amusing how back and forth people shoot, about why people are un-electable. And people consider him foremost among those candidates. He has said in an interview that people do not want him elected (By people I mean influential business and politicians) because they know he will crush down on corporations and the rich elite.

But people are still going to go out and try and find different candidates who are 'better' or more 'intelligent' than the others. Today, people are NOT ELECTED TO CHANGE THINGS, they are elected to keep things the way they are.

RP -is- simply trying to draw attention to his ideas, in hopes that the culture will change their mindset and start looking at the real sources of the problem in the future. For instance, peanut allergies have killed more people than international terrorism has since the 1960's. But we spend so much money on the wars and Anti-terrorism. People are pushing for a war with Iran now.

It's all a ridiculous cycle.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Kismetic on January 22, 2012, 02:53:26 AM
Oh yeah, while I was playing the game, I missed that Newt Gingrich won the SC primary.  Wow, sandlappers.  Really?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Erythil on January 22, 2012, 04:31:14 AM
Also, this whole racism charge against Newt Gingrich is absurd.  Chris Matthews apparently believes that referring to a black man by his first name (Juan) is racism.  Further, saying you'd like to see kids get jobs instead of being on the dole is apparently racism.  Is that really where we're at right now?

Saying you would like to see poor kids (mostly black given the area where the speech was made) cleaning toilets for the rich kids at school because they're poor is in fact pretty fucked up sounding to us progressive, everyone has a right to an education, types ... yes.

Yeah, that's where we're at right now. The cross roads of that liberal sense of fairness and "No you don't understand ... if you're poor you don't deserve an education unless you scrub our shit up for it. You need a work ethic anyway, everyone knows poor blacks are lazy welfare queens. What? Hang on I'm busy giving trillions of taxpayer money to incompetent bankers with a gambling addiction the rest of you have to pay for ... anyway like I was saying ... welfare queens ... those poor kids going to school."

I don't recall anyone saying anyone was going to force anyone to do any work.  Just that the work could be made available for the people who want it.  I've done janitorial work before, for people with a lot more money than I had, and I was in school at the time.  Did it suck?  Yes.  Was I happy to have the money?  Also yes.  In college, work-study programs are commonplace, and no one objects to them.  No one is suggesting that a similar program in high school would be compulsory.  Free tuition would remain standard.

In any event, that idea will probably never get enacted anyway, as it elicits reactions like your own, and I don't think it's worth too much intellectual energy overall.  I am 100 percent confident it will not get brought up again in the general election by Newt's campaign.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on January 22, 2012, 11:47:53 AM
I don't recall anyone saying anyone was going to force anyone to do any work.  Just that the work could be made available for the people who want it.  I've done janitorial work before, for people with a lot more money than I had, and I was in school at the time.  Did it suck?  Yes.  Was I happy to have the money?  Also yes.  In college, work-study programs are commonplace, and no one objects to them.  No one is suggesting that a similar program in high school would be compulsory.  Free tuition would remain standard.

In any event, that idea will probably never get enacted anyway, as it elicits reactions like your own, and I don't think it's worth too much intellectual energy overall.  I am 100 percent confident it will not get brought up again in the general election by Newt's campaign.

No one is talking about college work-study programs wherein the people working are already adults. No one is even talking about high school part time jobs wherein the people working are 16 and up. Newt is talking about hiring poor kids in the context of abolishing child labor laws. So we are exclusively talking about young children.

That's the reason no one cares about college work-study programs, but do care about this idea.

And whether the tuition would remains free, or if the work would be voluntary, was never specified by Newt. I suppose you're assuming the best, and I'm assuming the worst in that regard.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on January 22, 2012, 12:31:15 PM
Oh yeah, while I was playing the game, I missed that Newt Gingrich won the SC primary.  Wow, sandlappers.  Really?

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/south-carolina-home-of-hate-crimes-homophobia-racism-and-hypocrisy/politics/2010/06/07/11343
http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/174619/newt-gingrich-cheered-for-racism-at-south-carolina-debate/

NC doesn't even hold a candle to SC's ignorance and intolerance. Though, I don't need to tell you!
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Delirium on January 22, 2012, 01:49:28 PM
If Ron Paul wins the presidency, I will wear a dress

I honestly don't mind if Mitt Romney wins, he's a soulless moderate, and I think that represents America well

I've got this cute little red number, just in case.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Kismetic on January 22, 2012, 01:55:09 PM
I hate to admit it, because I have a lot of friends from SC, but it's backwards as fuck, at times.

I will wear a red dress if he wins Republican.  If he wins Indie, white
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 23, 2012, 08:28:31 AM
I hate to admit it, because I have a lot of friends from SC, but it's backwards as bilge, at times.

Very poor on civil rights; their gun laws are just about the worst in the south.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: lordcooper on January 23, 2012, 12:02:01 PM
Uncivil rights :D
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Kismetic on January 23, 2012, 12:25:19 PM
Aheh, one of my closest friends lives in SC and owns a dozen guns from various periods of war.  He's, uhh, a little crazy, with his conspiracies, but harmless (unless you break into his home)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: My 2 sids on January 23, 2012, 02:04:16 PM
Newt is going for anger.  I don't understand why.   When push comes to shove anger does not win the Presidency -- look at McCain,  look at Kerry.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 23, 2012, 03:20:08 PM
Aheh, one of my closest friends lives in SC and owns a dozen guns from various periods of war.  He's, uhh, a little crazy, with his conspiracies, but harmless (unless you break into his home)

Owning is one thing, but it's basically impossible to go armed in SC if you're not a resident of the state, and the prohibited places list is expansive.

I suppose all these reactionary enclaves will start to thaw out once the Supreme Court establishes that "keep and bear" means "bear" as well as "keep."
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Kismetic on January 23, 2012, 04:02:58 PM
I'm a little surprised to hear that South Carolina has stringent gun laws.  Didn't know that.  It never would've occurred to me, I guess, because a good portion of my friends who are citizens have loads of guns, holsters, and lots of land to shoot them off (I join in with the shooting, even though I don't own a gun, myself).  I know the guy I mentioned above has a Colt Commander in his glovebox wherever he goes.

Other than the obvious, like banks, hospitals, government buildings, and places that serve alcohol, what else does the list include?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Old Kank on January 23, 2012, 11:57:35 PM
I finally got around to watching one of the GOP debates tonight.

Jesus, man.  I knew the candidates were bad, but I had no idea.  None of these guys should be allowed anywhere near the Oval Office.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on January 24, 2012, 01:21:40 AM
I finally got around to watching one of the GOP debates tonight.

Jesus, man.  I knew the candidates were bad, but I had no idea.  None of these guys should be allowed anywhere near the Oval Office.

Holla.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on January 24, 2012, 05:58:33 PM
(http://www.tumblr.com/photo/1280/moronpaul/13670966820/3/tumblr_lvmauuKAHk1r4k3b8)(http://www.tumblr.com/photo/1280/moronpaul/13670966820/3/tumblr_lvmauuKAHk1r4k3b8)
(http://www.tumblr.com/photo/1280/moronpaul/13670966820/2/tumblr_lvmauuKAHk1r4k3b8)(http://www.tumblr.com/photo/1280/moronpaul/13670966820/4/tumblr_lvmauuKAHk1r4k3b8)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Dalmeth on January 24, 2012, 06:39:05 PM
What precisely is a Cold War veteran, and would one be able to even carry $240,000,000 of medal?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on January 24, 2012, 06:49:17 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War_Victory_Medal

I don't know about the monetary figure. I'm lookin' into it. But the medal, welp. There y'are.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Delirium on January 24, 2012, 06:51:55 PM
I think that picture accidentally a comma, after medal and before costing.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: RogueGunslinger on January 24, 2012, 07:19:34 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs-0AXWV8so (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs-0AXWV8so) -where Ron Paul was quoted from.

Can't find anything to do with the price of such a bill. But hah, immaculate voting record my ass! Finally found something he's changed his opinion on.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on January 24, 2012, 07:25:34 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs-0AXWV8so (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs-0AXWV8so) -where Ron Paul was quoted from.

Can't find anything to do with the price of such a bill. But hah, immaculate voting record my ass! Finally found something he's changed his opinion on.

 :D
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Romy on January 24, 2012, 07:27:21 PM
Well I don't know much about american politics, but it seems like this fellow was talking about how it's not okay to use the taxpayers money to pay for this medal, but using his own money to pay for it was okay?

I think? I don't know.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on January 24, 2012, 07:30:48 PM
Yeah that was basically it.

Either the picture up there is quote-mining him to smear him by making it seem like he was just trying to keep from giving Rosa Parks a medal when he was actually just trying to make congress pay for it out of pocket rather than use tax payer money ...

... ...

Or he was lying when we went on TV to explain his decision, and making up the whole bit about asking for every member of congress to chip in 100 bucks to pay for the medal that way instead.

Honestly, I'm not sure which, though I sort of imagine it's the former rather than the latter. But I'll be damned if I'm gonna put in the time to go digging and try and find out.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on January 24, 2012, 08:46:29 PM
God dammit, I just put it up here to get shit started. And then you twats have to go and join hands in Ron Paul love and mediocre reply to finding something about him you don't like.

*stabbity stab*
(with all the love in my heart)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Romy on January 24, 2012, 09:16:33 PM
You were trolling? Okay.. ???
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on January 24, 2012, 09:18:35 PM
Uh, no. I just wanted opinions and was teasing because no one seemed bugged by it. The way I read it was just another bit of information regarding his alleged racism. There's a whole tumblr dedicated to it. I would've posted it here, but I don't feel like having someone chirp up and say, "OMG, how  biased". I'd like somebody to find me a news source that ain't. :P
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on January 24, 2012, 09:36:03 PM
That's why ya gotta check the sources  :-\
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on January 24, 2012, 09:52:50 PM
That's why ya gotta check the sources  :-\

Well, the tumblr's got a shit ton of stuff written from the Doc and also news paper clippings.

It isn't false that Pauly voted against giving medals to Rosa Parks, Mother Theresa, or one of the Popes though. Which is pretty suspect in terms of his track record of (in)tolerance.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Synthesis on January 24, 2012, 10:09:17 PM
Who gives a rat's ass about how he voted on some stupid medal(s)?  If -that's- the deal-breaker for your potential Ron Paul vote, you're a petty know-nothing.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 24, 2012, 10:19:14 PM
Rough rotation?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 25, 2012, 10:46:20 AM
Heh:

Quote from: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/289209/re-newtzilla-jonah-goldberg
Newt opponents: “He’ll destroy Washington !”

Newt Supporters: “He’ll destroy Washington!”

(In reference to: http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/289129)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Taven on January 25, 2012, 10:53:47 AM
Heh:

Quote from: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/289209/re-newtzilla-jonah-goldberg
Newt opponents: “He’ll destroy Washington !”

Newt Supporters: “He’ll destroy Washington!”


Is it bad where the first thing that comes to mind when reading this is a part of Dragons of a Summer Flame (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragons_of_Summer_Flame) where Tasslehoff is talking about how proper emphasizing makes all the difference in the world? I think this is when he and Usha are guests of Dalamar the Dark and Tasslehoff steals the Kender Spoon of turning. But I could be misremembering.

I don't think that actually has anything to do with republican candidates.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 25, 2012, 10:56:33 AM
I think this is when he and Usha are guests of Dalamar the Dark and Tasslehoff steals the Kender Spoon of turning. But I could be misremembering.

I don't think that actually has anything to do with republican candidates.

I wouldn't be so sure.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Ender on January 25, 2012, 12:22:08 PM
Heh:

Quote from: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/289209/re-newtzilla-jonah-goldberg
Newt opponents: “He’ll destroy Washington !”

Newt Supporters: “He’ll destroy Washington!”

(In reference to: http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/289129)

I find both statements laughable.  I'm from ol' career politician Newty's old House district.  He wants to tow that party line and tow it hard, not shake things up.

http://www.newt.org/solutions

My favorite:

Day One Plan
Newt has pledged to issue a series of Executive Orders to create jobs and help undo the damage of the Obama administration on the first day of his administration. To harness the wisdom and knowledge of the American people, Newt is now collecting ideas for executive orders that he would sign on the first day.


He's gonna create jobs!  How?  With IDEAS!  What ideas? WE'LL GET BACK TO YOU ON THAT!
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on January 25, 2012, 02:09:20 PM
Hell yeah. You'll have the job of giving him an idea and him taking it, and you won't get paaaaid.

Does he really think with only his win in SC that he's guaranteed to be the nah-minee as he puts it? Do you guys really think it'll happen?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Marauder Moe on January 25, 2012, 02:16:14 PM
I think it could, yes.

He's the last non-Romney to be given a serious try, and if South Carolina is willing to buy into his professed "family values" and "Washington outsider" labels, so will the rest of the country's GOP primary voters.

Also, while his debate performances lately have been rife with hypocrisy and smug snarkiness, I have to give him credit for delivering his answers really well.  He is one charismatic spin master.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Gimfalisette on January 25, 2012, 02:43:19 PM
I think Newt Gingrich could get the nomination. I think that will hugely dismay the power structure of the party, which is hilarious. If he does win, oh how I'd wish to live in a battleground state, so that my support for Obama would mean something.

I can't say anything else about Republicans without becoming totally snarky, so I'll stop there.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on January 25, 2012, 03:28:46 PM
I think Newt Gingrich could get the nomination. I think that will hugely dismay the power structure of the party, which is hilarious. If he does win, oh how I'd wish to live in a battleground state, so that my support for Obama would mean something.

I can't say anything else about Republicans without becoming totally snarky, so I'll stop there.

I live in a(n unofficial) battleground state. My mom's main squeeze does a lot of boothing at fairs and door knockin' for the Pres. Last election, NC actually went for Obama. I'm wondering what'll happen this time!

It's a REALLY weird demographic, especially where I'm currently living. The 'kids', whether or not the old folk Republicans wanna acknowledge it or not, are actually a mixed bunch. I personally know a good handful of voter age kids that would never vote Democrat, and a handful that would never vote Republican. For the most part, my peers (young 20s) are really rather moderate, though there is the occasional oddball commie or hippie Libertarian thrown into the mix.

Thing is, is like ... ALL of the transplants from New York, Jersey, Penn -- they're ALL conservative. It's SO weird to me. They are ULTRA conservative, and a lot of the ones I know that are that way are from the boroughs! (So weird. SO weird to me, since I'm from the state and it was usually upstate cities that were moderate or slightly conservative!) And they, when I would yap with them at work, would always complain that it was the 'youngsters' that got 'this horrible' President elected and that we 'oughtta be ashamed' at how 'unpatriotic' and 'Muslim' he is.

Seriously. I think NC is gonna be tough for either candidate to win; I know neither will by a landslide. It's truly a mishmash down here.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 25, 2012, 03:32:45 PM
I'm not voting for Gingrich.

GoodNeutralEvil
Lawful Santorum       
Neutral    Romney Obama
Chaotic Paul Gingrich    

Tisiphone, would you kindly find the eigenvalues and interpret them to us?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Gimfalisette on January 25, 2012, 05:17:16 PM
I'm also not voting for Gingrich.

GoodNeutralEvil
Lawful Obama     Santorum
Neutral     Romney
Chaotic  Paul Gingrich 

Just pointing out this little table is all a matter of opinion ;)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on January 25, 2012, 05:42:43 PM
How the hell could Obama be categorized as evil in ANY capacity? He is at the very least outwardly eloquent and polite and his staff doesn't leave because he's a jerk, a la Newt.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on January 25, 2012, 05:46:23 PM
How about all those wiretaps and drone kills? Those are... fairly evil.

Anyway.

Obama is Lawful Tepid.

Paul is Lawful Stupid.

Gingrich is Chaotic Baby.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: valeria on January 25, 2012, 06:26:18 PM
I simply do not understand how certain members of my extended family are Newt supporters, when they vilified my father for years for converting to Catholicism and divorcing his wife (after SHE cheated on HIM... multiple times).  I don't understand how Gingrich can even say "family values" with a straight face.  He has been faithless to his wives and faithless to his religions, two things which they claim to be strictly against.  Does not compute.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Bacon on January 25, 2012, 06:31:22 PM
I simply do not understand how certain members of my extended family are Newt supporters, when they vilified my father for years for converting to Catholicism and divorcing his wife (after SHE cheated on HIM... multiple times).  I don't understand how Gingrich can even say "family values" with a straight face.  He has been faithless to his wives and faithless to his religions, two things which they claim to be strictly against.  Does not compute.

Hey, I question how -anyone- sane can support the guy period so...don't feel bad.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on January 25, 2012, 06:39:03 PM
You guys, it's okay. He found Jesus. His past, ergo, is forgiven.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Kismetic on January 25, 2012, 08:05:19 PM
You guys, it's okay. He found Jesus. His past, ergo, is forgiven.

But you are not, heathen!  Ahahahah!
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on January 25, 2012, 08:09:15 PM
I'm also not voting for Gingrich.

GoodNeutralEvil
Lawful  
Neutral     Every Politician Ever Who Doesn't Overtly Break The Law
Chaotic     All The Rest Who Do 

Because they are all, at the end of the day, lying bastards who will say anything to get the votes they need, then dismiss everything they have said if the money isn't going that way.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on January 25, 2012, 08:11:15 PM

But you are not, heathen!

Hey, I found him too!

I just put him away when I grew up.

With Santa Claus.

And unicorns.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on January 25, 2012, 08:12:42 PM
Because they are all, at the end of the day, lying bastards who will say anything to get the votes they need, then dismiss everything they have said if the money isn't going that way.

Careful - the evil politicians very much want you to believe that there aren't any good ones.

'all politishuns r crooked' is a GOP talking point.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Synthesis on January 25, 2012, 08:13:30 PM
I'm also not voting for Gingrich.

GoodNeutralEvil
Lawful    
Neutral     Every Politician Ever
Chaotic       

Because they are all, at the end of the day, lying bastards who will say anything to get the votes they need, then dismiss everything they have said if the money isn't going that way.

I'm pretty sure that's true neutral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_neutral#True_Neutral), actually.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on January 25, 2012, 08:14:36 PM
I adjusted, since political figures do fall into 2 distinct camps of those who will manipulate the law so they can claim they never broke it, and those who skip that veneer of legitimacy.

Also, I believe that power corrupts, yes. But my answer is not: So vote Republican!

My answer is: So be vigilant. Such is the cost of freedom.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 25, 2012, 09:17:41 PM
You guys, it's okay. He found Jesus. His past, ergo, is forgiven.

He can be forgave as all get out and still possess the same character weaknesses that got him into the mess.  The depth of "establishment" conservative opposition to him isn't just because he might mix things up; it's at least partly because they have worked with him and know him and think that he's an erratic egomaniac.  I'm not gonna vote for that in a primary.

(Yeah, I know you were snarkin' and I replied serious.)

(I would vote for it in a general, if the alternative is someone as cronyish, basically incompetent, and reflexively anti-industry as our incumbent; I'm not gonna throw the America back under the bus in a near-recession so that I can feel good about my vote.)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Aruven on January 25, 2012, 09:36:26 PM
Replace Obama in this video with romney.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/405274/january-05-2012/the-word---catch-2012
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Nyr on January 25, 2012, 11:42:44 PM
Replace Obama in this video with romney.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/405274/january-05-2012/the-word---catch-2012

...maybe I'm missing something.  Why?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on January 25, 2012, 11:49:43 PM
I love that large sections of this thread are brytta being snarky while I'm serious, or vice versa, hah. Are we ever on the same channel at the same time?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 26, 2012, 01:29:40 AM
I love that large sections of this thread are brytta being snarky while I'm serious, or vice versa, hah. Are we ever on the same channel at the same time?

Out of love for our fellowman, we mustn't ever be.  The GDB would divide itself by zero.

For my part, I find it totally exhausting to try to argue all the way from my principles to yours. :P :-* I think I still owe you a reply from like three years back about SEXUAL ETHICS.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Yam on January 26, 2012, 03:02:19 AM
Brytta nobody even knows what your principles are anymore. You teasingly dance around everything. I think you used to be a young social conservative but are now venturing into the no mans land of online dating, public healthcare, and heavy (liberal) petting. Like a Glee character testing the waters to come out of the political closet.

Are you just with whatever's popular in your current social group? I am. It's an all right way to be. Principles are overrated.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on January 26, 2012, 03:07:13 AM
Frankly, I thought that you were just a progressive who was fiscally conservative, brytta. It really is the sex-related stuff - abortions & gays - that I don't get about your politics.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on January 26, 2012, 08:36:44 AM
:-\
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: valeria on January 26, 2012, 08:47:05 AM
Here we go again.

Also, it's a day that ends in -y.  That means there must be another debate tonight right?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Kismetic on January 26, 2012, 01:34:43 PM
I'm fiscally conservative, but I believe in the woman's right to choose, and y'know, high-five gays for their dirty buttsex.

You should come to the darkside, brytta
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: lordcooper on January 26, 2012, 01:39:46 PM
We have nipple clamps.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on January 26, 2012, 03:05:38 PM
And drugs.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: NOFUN on January 26, 2012, 05:15:44 PM
hi

i disagree with your opinion
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: RogueGunslinger on January 26, 2012, 05:17:07 PM
This thread is so much better than that other thread.


Who do you guys think will win this one?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Erythil on January 26, 2012, 05:30:30 PM
I say Gingrich wins this one, due to momentum, then Romney maybe has a chance to pick up a few of the next primaries, as they are more northeasterly, then it gets decided on super tuesday.

Interestingly, no Republican has ever won the nomination ever, without winning South Carolina.  Perhaps superstition will be broken this year?  Time will tell.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on January 26, 2012, 06:27:45 PM
Frankly, I thought that you were just a progressive who was fiscally conservative, brytta. It really is the sex-related stuff - abortions & gays - that I don't get about your politics.

We know your sekrit, brytta ....

I'm fiscally conservative, but I believe in the woman's right to choose, and y'know, high-five gays for their dirty buttsex.

The term "fiscally conservative" seems a bit ambiguous to me. I feel like most people take it in conversation to mean something akin to: I'm basically good with my money; rather than the more economic definition.

You should come to the darkside, brytta
We have nipple clamps.
And drugs.

And sexually liberated women.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Kismetic on January 26, 2012, 06:58:54 PM
Fiscally conservative, as in, downsize government, lower spending and taxes (but not just the rich people, I didn't say I was Republican, did I!), and having a balanced budget (which also means not going ape-shit with military spending;  again, not a Republican).  I would be thrilled to pay off the national debt, too.  I think that pretty well fits the bill.

In my personal life, I am anything but fiscally conservative, unfortunately.  I am amazingly bad at money.  I'll drop half a bill on dinner out, and justify it by keeping the receipt.  C'est la vie.  I'll marry a tight-gripped wench, and call it Even Steven.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: EldritchOrigins on January 26, 2012, 07:07:47 PM
This thread is so much better than that other thread.


Who do you guys think will win this one?

This thread has been around longer and has many more pages than the other thread.  But if the other thread doesn't get locked and keeps up the drama, I think it'll win.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on January 26, 2012, 07:17:24 PM
Fiscally conservative, as in, downsize government, lower spending and taxes (but not just the rich people, I didn't say I was Republican, did I!), and having a balanced budget (which also means not going ape-shit with military spending;  again, not a Republican).  I would be thrilled to pay off the national debt, too.  I think that pretty well fits the bill.

In my personal life, I am anything but fiscally conservative, unfortunately.  I am amazingly bad at money.  I'll drop half a bill on dinner out, and justify it by keeping the receipt.  C'est la vie.  I'll marry a tight-gripped wench, and call it Even Steven.

Got cha.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Aruven on January 26, 2012, 08:56:55 PM
SPACE: The infinite frontier. Or Newt's private moon mansion.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Zoan on January 26, 2012, 09:01:12 PM
I for one welcome our new Moonmerican overlords.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Aruven on January 26, 2012, 09:17:51 PM
I for one welcome our new Moonmerican overlords.

You obviously do not support the hispanic people and their sudden ambushes about being considered for presidential administrations, good sir.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Aruven on January 26, 2012, 09:33:23 PM
Puppet chavez in venezuela.... And they had Noriega? We MADE NORIEGA! Wow. Santorum, stop talking bro. I was accused of fear mongering by another player. Dude, you take that shit to a biblical level.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Kismetic on January 26, 2012, 09:40:31 PM
In your defense, Aruven, it is historically accurate that the United States learned a lot about intelligence gathering after we defeated Nazi Germany, and it was a race with the NKVD to gobble up secrets.  We were educated on how to build dossiers by some big-wig Nazis that weren't executed at Nouremburg, and they helped to construct what would eventually become the CIA.

You'll notice, too, that the most fascist things attempted by our government are usually in terms of suppressing information, or violating privacy.

In no way, though, do we outwardly resemble Nazi Germany, imho.  You would be hard-pressed to find a real similarity.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Kismetic on January 26, 2012, 09:41:57 PM
Oh, wait, wrong thread.  Ha!
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Aruven on January 26, 2012, 09:43:39 PM
In your defense, Aruven, it is historically accurate that the United States learned a lot about intelligence gathering after we defeated Nazi Germany, and it was a race with the NKVD to gobble up secrets.  We were educated on how to build dossiers by some big-wig Nazis that weren't executed at Nouremburg, and they helped to construct what would eventually become the CIA.

You'll notice, too, that the most fascist things attempted by our government are usually in terms of suppressing information, or violating privacy.

In no way, though, do we outwardly resemble Nazi Germany, imho.  You would be hard-pressed to find a real similarity.

Its all good, this one is about patty caking fr those four old guys ;) Lobbyists are shutting my thread down anyways!
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: adrien on January 27, 2012, 09:13:21 AM
Lobbying should just be removed from politics  they legally bribe politicians
 i never would have guessed that this was how the Republican stuff was gonna go... I really feel sorry for you guys with the choices you have.

think about it  your either going to have Obama, Gingrich or Romney for the next 4 years......

mind you in canada we have a very right wing leader who was on every page with bush... and our other 3 political parties dont have a leader since they all lost there seats or passed away (rip Jack).

now that i think about it our politics is just as cluster fucked as yours down south, cause in my opinion our leader in Canada is a dictator, but thats the power we voted him to have......
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Aruven on February 02, 2012, 01:09:13 AM
I'm bringing this shit back.

Point of subject?

Why is MSNBC throwing up statistics that are WRONG about the delegate counts? Paul has more than santorum, not vice-versa.

Suck it news media.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on February 02, 2012, 06:21:21 PM
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/208309-dems-see-gop-budget-reforms-as-sneaky-way-to-cut-spending

Incomprehensible to me why folks would oppose either of these, especially the first (ending baseline budget increases).  If you accept that the Federal Government actually should be doing many or most of things it currently is, AND don't want to keep running up the debt, a small belt-tightening each year seems like the way to go.

We'd all love to cut to the bone the programs we hate; but meanwhile, back in reality...
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on February 02, 2012, 06:32:25 PM
Quote from: From that article
“This technical change, then, is actually a backdoor effort to slowly starve necessary government programs rather than be up front about which programs Republicans want to eliminate,” Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) said. “They would rather put sneaky rules into place to guarantee the outcome they want, without having to have an open debate.”

That's why. Well, and this.

Quote from: From the article
Rep. Rob Andrews (D-N.J.) charged that the second bill is meant to help Republicans argue that tax cuts would promote economic growth and lead to more federal revenue, an argument Democrats have rejected.

“If the Republican religion is that tax cuts always produce more revenue, I don’t think we should write that religion into the law of the country, because it’s not always right,” he said.

It's because the bills are both basically the G.O.P. trying to change the rules of the game such that their bankrupt economic assumptions are just considered correct by fiat ... and since their assumptions are actually completely incorrect by any historical precedent you care to measure them up to ... well ... it's a bad thing to let them change those rules.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on February 06, 2012, 04:58:43 AM
Figured I would put this here rather than in the Perceptions on America thread since it's more of a GOP thing but, for you RGS.

Case in point. (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/02/02/417488/florida-gop-alec-forget/)  ::)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on February 06, 2012, 02:16:07 PM
The Baseline Reform act appears correct, superficially - in the same sense that analogies of the government being a family that can 'tighten its belt' appears correct. But governance is not that simple and common-sense platitudes do not always apply. Here are a few reasons the Baseline Reform Act is stupid:

1. The automated cuts are applied unfairly. Programs funded by inflation-indexed appropriations don't account for the full swathe of federal entitlement spending; my napkin math says they're somewhere between a quarter and a third. A huge section of federal entitlement spending is in the form of targeted tax breaks (homeowner's subsidies, etc.) which are not getting baseline-locked. This means that people who rely on social services (ie, the working class and the poor) will see the portion of government cheese spent on them fall every year, while the portion spent on the wealthy does not. In other words, the rich guy's slice of the pie stays the same while the poor guy's gets smaller every year.

2. All the math gets fucked up. Every other aspect of the federal machine uses baseline accounting - the IRS, the CBO, and so on. Removing baseline accounting from only one part of the machine is like telling the Navy to work in imperial while the Air Force must use metric. I'm not too sure how all these systems interface together but not using a consistent accounting paradigm seems pretty stupid to me.

3. It's inherently ideological. As musashi pointed out above, it assumes that 'always cut' is the correct governing ideology. Even in America this is not a point of unanimous agreement. Some people think that social programs are useful and important, and don't think that governing policy should always be directed towards shrinking government and removing the safety net.

4. It creates an unrealistic projection of future deficits. This may be a subpoint of (2), above, but I think it deserves special mention. If baseline accounting is removed, the projected deficit at the start of each year will always appear as though it would if there were a discretionary spending freeze. This is very deceptive. There hasn't been a discretionary spending freeze or anything like it in the American federal budget since 1989 - and that was only because the USSR collapsed so a lot of defense spending was cut. Having an accurate projection of the deficit is extremely important; without it, policy-makers can't really tell where there's room or no room in the budget.

5. The baseline does not properly account for population growth. Population growth (and demographic shift, ie, people getting old) accounts for most of the change in cost in social service provision, not inflation. But I won't belabor that point because the current inflation-indexed system isn't properly population- and demographic-indexed either, haha.

Yeah, this is arcane stuff. I'll let that be my final point itself. Funding a federal government is complex and you can't do it just by applying simple aphorisms like belt-tightening and bootstrap-pull-uppening. The anti-elitist tendency in America tends to lead you guys to be anti-expert, I think, and then you start thinking that these systems are simple and should be governed by 'common sense.' No, they're not simple. Logic applies. Common sense can wait outside.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on February 06, 2012, 02:22:23 PM
Anyway, jstorrie for President. A better, trollier future.

My American birth certificate? Uh, it's on the back of Obama's.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on February 06, 2012, 03:06:19 PM
Yeah, this is arcane stuff. I'll let that be my final point itself. Funding a federal government is complex and you can't do it just by applying simple aphorisms like belt-tightening and bootstrap-pull-uppening. The anti-elitist tendency in America tends to lead you guys to be anti-expert, I think, and then you start thinking that these systems are simple and should be governed by 'common sense.' No, they're not simple. Logic applies. Common sense can wait outside.

You make some great points, 'storrie.  (The one about targeted tax breaks is actually getting some ideological traction on the right, though it would seem to alienate a core constituency--yeah, we'll see.)  But lemme ask it this way:

Is there any federal debt level at which not increasing the debt would be the very most important consideration (trumping all of your points)?  If so, what is it?  100% of GDP?  200%?

At some point, the very most important thing is finding a politically tractable way to kill the deficit and reduce the debt.  Are we near that point, or far from it?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Desertman on February 06, 2012, 03:17:10 PM
Here we go again.

Also, it's a day that ends in -y.  That means there must be another debate tonight right?

(http://gifsforum.com/images/gif/yes/grand/yes_5656.gif)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on February 06, 2012, 10:33:14 PM
Is there any federal debt level at which not increasing the debt would be the very most important consideration (trumping all of your points)?  If so, what is it?  100% of GDP?  200%?

I don't think there's any federal debt level at which I'd think that doing away with baseline accounting was correct. Baseline accounting is very useful. If you want to reduce government expenditures, do it properly.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Kismetic on February 08, 2012, 03:05:33 AM
I heard Santorum is making strides.  What in the eff, Republicans?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: LauraMars on February 08, 2012, 04:22:56 AM
WTF Minnesota I am ashamed to live in you.  :-\
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: rishenko on February 08, 2012, 08:25:43 AM
Agreed. Santorum is the scariest public figure I've seen in awhile. I could handle any of the other three. This guy? Hell no.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Cutthroat on February 08, 2012, 08:44:40 AM
Santorum will spread all over the country if we don't put a plug in him right now.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Delirium on February 08, 2012, 09:11:59 AM
I was eating breakfast when I read that...  :-\
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Wolfsong on February 08, 2012, 09:14:08 AM
Santorum will spread all over the country if we don't put a plug in him right now.

I was waiting all day for someone to say this.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on February 08, 2012, 09:36:14 AM
Agreed. Santorum is the scariest public figure I've seen in awhile. I could handle any of the other three. This guy? Hell no.

You've seen Kucinich? :o
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Timetwister on February 08, 2012, 09:53:35 AM
It's kind of obvious that we're in debt due to our massive expenditure on the military. Granted the housing market crash was also a huge factor but that's secondary in my opinion. 50% of our budget goes to the DoD. Chew on that for a while.

Also I don't think any republicans (or democrats) will downsize our military to a sustainable size.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on February 08, 2012, 10:11:18 AM
Agreed. Santorum is the scariest public figure I've seen in awhile. I could handle any of the other three. This guy? Hell no.

You've seen Kucinich? :o

How could you fear such a darling little man? :) :) :) :) :) :)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on February 08, 2012, 10:31:11 AM
It's kind of obvious that we're in debt due to our massive expenditure on the military. Granted the housing market crash was also a huge factor but that's secondary in my opinion. 50% of our budget goes to the DoD.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2b/U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2011.png/640px-U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2011.png) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: rishenko on February 08, 2012, 10:49:55 AM
I find it amusing that we are so highly focused on Discretionary spending. Only 18% of the pie.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Marauder Moe on February 08, 2012, 11:00:33 AM
That's the part with the most legal/political wiggle room.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: rishenko on February 08, 2012, 11:08:46 AM
Exactly. All of these rather important agencies are funded by said discretionary spending (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_federal_budget#Total_revenues_and_spending). Let's cut the shit out of it and only barely lower government spending.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Old Kank on February 08, 2012, 08:19:51 PM
Republicans used to understand that debt is irrelevant, and Democrats only balked about it because it helped admonish the last decade of war.

Then the Republicans decided debt was bad so they could try to hang the stimulus noose around Obama's neck.

I love politics.

This is the most interesting take I've read on why the GOP field is so bad this year. (http://www.alternet.org/election2012/154035/how_a_few_&atilde;&oelig;ber-wealthy_donors_helped_buy_republicans_a_presidential_field_they_hate?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=alternet)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Aruven on February 08, 2012, 08:28:57 PM
Agreed. Santorum is the scariest public figure I've seen in awhile. I could handle any of the other three. This guy? Hell no.

You've seen Kucinich? :o

Rick Santorum would be a religious zealot. War with Iran (If not already avoidable) would happen almost immediately. I do not like church and state being close. Santorum is a theocratic maniac.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: SwanSwanHummingbird on February 09, 2012, 01:29:34 AM
brytta, you're absolutely right that we should be focusing on how to balance the budget.  15 trillion is far too much debt, I don't think many people actually disagree that the debt is an enormous problem that needs to be dealt with as soon as possible.  I mean actual people, not politicians.  The major issue is that we can't stop going further into debt with each year that passes, it's like a force of nature at this point.

Liberals think taxing the rich is the solution, which is false, since increasing taxes on anyone would be deflationary and would destroy the economy.

Conservatives think lowering spending is the solution, which is false, since lowering spending is deflationary and would destroy the economy.

There is no solution but reform of the monetary system, meaning elimination or nationalization of the Federal Reserve.  And I really wish that more people understood this.  People think it's a simple matter of raising more revenue in taxes than government spends, but this is very misleading and isn't the right way to think of the problem.  No matter how little we spend or how much we tax, there will never be a balanced budget until the system is changed.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on February 09, 2012, 02:28:40 AM
Liberals think taxing the rich is the solution, which is false, since increasing taxes on anyone would be deflationary and would destroy the economy.

Conservatives think lowering spending is the solution, which is false, since lowering spending is deflationary and would destroy the economy.

Hahaaa, neither of these things are true, man.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on February 09, 2012, 07:02:59 AM
Liberals think taxing the rich is the solution, which is false, since increasing taxes on anyone would be deflationary and would destroy the economy.

Conservatives think lowering spending is the solution, which is false, since lowering spending is deflationary and would destroy the economy.

Hahaaa, neither of these things are true, man.

You beat me to it.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on February 09, 2012, 09:24:56 AM
Rick Santorum would be a religious zealot. War with Iran (If not already avoidable) would happen almost immediately. I do not like church and state being close. Santorum is a theocratic maniac.

That's what they said about Bush 43. ::)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on February 09, 2012, 09:29:24 AM
Which Bush is Bush 43?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Old Kank on February 09, 2012, 10:27:33 AM
15 trillion is far too much debt, I don't think many people actually disagree that the debt is an enormous problem that needs to be dealt with as soon as possible.  I mean actual people, not politicians.

Debt isn't a problem.  Ironically, it only becomes a problem when we make it a problem, as the Tea Party tried to do recently.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Yam on February 09, 2012, 10:33:40 AM
Agreed. Santorum is the scariest public figure I've seen in awhile. I could handle any of the other three. This guy? Hell no.

You've seen Kucinich? :o

Rick Santorum would be a religious zealot. War with Iran (If not already avoidable) would happen almost immediately. I do not like church and state being close. Santorum is a theocratic maniac.

I would vote for Santorum Valorum.

(http://i.imgur.com/35J49.jpg)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Marauder Moe on February 09, 2012, 10:44:17 AM
Debt is a problem, and it is a big problem, but it's not an urgent one.  There is no number at which the world says "Nope, America, you have too much debt, we're cutting you off."  The credit bureaus only downgraded the country because some congressional nitwits invented a crisis and threatened to default on monetary obligations.

The solution is to fix the economy, and when times are good again and we have a balanced/surplus budget we need to resist the urge to go tax-break happy like our last president did.  (Also, seeing as times are not good, we probably need to undo some of that tax-break happiness right now...)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Morrolan on February 09, 2012, 10:44:34 AM
That's what they said about Bush 43. ::)

Yes.  Yes "we" did.  It was fairly well documented that he used religious themes and language to a) make decisions, and/or b) justify decisions that were arrived at otherwise.  Those two options look the same from the outside.


Pardon me for not liking the man who said of Wicca:
"I don't think that witchcraft is a religion. I wish the military would rethink this decision."
-- George W. Bush to ABCNEWS, June, 1999 (http://"http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=101;t=000376;p=0")


And as for Santorum, well...if I thought he had a real shot at the presidency, I would be worried.  I will worry if and when he gets closer.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: marko on February 09, 2012, 03:23:01 PM
Hahaaa, neither of these things are true, man.

And musashi said it as well.

So, if neither is true, what is true?  And, given that, why is it thought that one or the other is true?

Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on February 09, 2012, 04:03:21 PM
Because people like to believe that things are simple, I guess?

There are some instances of increased taxation which may lead to deflation, and there are some instances of decreased government spending which would also lead to deflation. Neither of these are universal, and neither of them would necessarily 'destroy the economy.'

The generally accepted argument from both Keynesians and monetarists/Austrians is that restriction of the monetary base causes a proportional increase in monetary velocity - that is to say, roughly, that things get cheaper. In the 1930s this led to what we call a 'deflationary spiral', wherein people were making less money (due to X amount of dollars being 'worth more' than they were before deflation) and were thus unable to maintain their debts. A similar situation occurred during the subprime crisis. Deflationary spirals are positive feedback loops, which means that they spin out of control - the free market does not self-correct them. So Keynesians advocate increasing the monetary base when deflation is predicted in order to break the spiral - either through increased government spending or through (correctly-targeted) tax breaks (or both).

But there are some caveats. I guess the big one would be that for the most part, both Keynesian and Austrian economic theories are outdated. They're favored mostly by non-economists, in the same way that only people who don't study psychology still believe in Freud. If the Austrians were correct, for example, the Bush 43 tax cuts should have prevented the current deflationary cycle. The prevalent theory in modern economics is that the true cause of deflationary cycles is personal debt load, because debts incurred at the height of a credit bubble simply cannot be repaid: the repaying-power of the debtor falls faster than the debtor could possibly earn more wealth. viz. present-day-America, where the average debt load per capita is something like ~$45k (including mortgages) or ~$15k (not counting mortgages).

Most of the present-day economists I've read suggest that the correct solution is thus government spending in the form of debt relief - ie, the government takes on public debt in order to pay off your private debt, because your private debt incurred at the height of the bubble is unredeemable anyway and is thus just floating around in the markets as a toxic asset, poisoning everything it comes into contact with. But conservatives of course balk at the idea of the government helping anyone with their personal debt problems, and America is all conservatives, so that's not going to happen. Were I to suggest debt relief programs, I would probably suggest the government start with blanket redemption of student loan debt and health care debt, because these were ostensibly necessary expenditures undertaken in good faith but are excessive due to the particular cruelties of America's student loan and health care systems. But I digress.

Anyway, I am not an economist by training or trade so it would benefit you to research this issue yourself rather than take my summary word-for-word.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on February 09, 2012, 04:04:32 PM
Rick Santorum would be a religious zealot. War with Iran (If not already avoidable) would happen almost immediately. I do not like church and state being close. Santorum is a theocratic maniac.

That's what they said about Bush 43. ::)

Yeah, good point. Bush 43 only started war with Iraq so I guess it's ok rite
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on February 09, 2012, 04:07:41 PM
Rick Santorum would be a religious zealot. War with Iran (If not already avoidable) would happen almost immediately. I do not like church and state being close. Santorum is a theocratic maniac.

That's what they said about Bush 43. ::)

Yeah, good point. Bush 43 only started war with Iraq so I guess it's ok rite

We have now achieved a perfectly satisfactory equilibrium of mutual trolling. ;D
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on February 09, 2012, 04:10:15 PM
Y'all bakers toasting in a roll bread.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Aruven on February 09, 2012, 08:32:37 PM
Rick Santorum would be a religious zealot. War with Iran (If not already avoidable) would happen almost immediately. I do not like church and state being close. Santorum is a theocratic maniac.

That's what they said about Bush 43. ::)

Yeah, good point. Bush 43 only started war with Iraq so I guess it's ok rite

We have now achieved a perfectly satisfactory equilibrium of mutual trolling. ;D

Iraq and Afghanistan, actually.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: BleakOne on February 10, 2012, 08:17:45 PM
Uhm... since we're talking about Republicans, may I ask why they have an elephant as an emblem? Do they want to say 'we're the fattest land mammals around', or maybe 'we do a -lot- of crap'?

...and what about Democrats? A donkey? 'We're a bunch of asses, vote for us!'
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Synthesis on February 10, 2012, 08:26:12 PM
Uhm... since we're talking about Republicans, may I ask why they have an elephant as an emblem? Do they want to say 'we're the fattest land mammals around', or maybe 'we do a -lot- of crap'?

...and what about Democrats? A donkey? 'We're a bunch of asses, vote for us!'

Actually, that's pretty much exactly how the donkey came about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_jackson#Election_of_1828 2nd paragraph.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on February 10, 2012, 10:29:55 PM
Actually, that's pretty much exactly how the donkey came about.

Republicans get the Civil War, Democrats the Trail of Tears.  Ain't nobody batting a thousand.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on February 10, 2012, 10:31:16 PM
JEB BUSH.

(http://rlv.zcache.com/miss_me_yet_black_shirt_bush_on_front-d235629804401129560z70ez_210.jpg)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Kismetic on February 10, 2012, 10:47:14 PM
Actually, that's pretty much exactly how the donkey came about.

Republicans get the Civil War, Democrats the Trail of Tears.  Ain't nobody batting a thousand.

Native Americans with guns is scary.  Let's apologize, and call that a victory
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on February 11, 2012, 02:42:30 AM
Yeah, yeah, we've all played Shadowrun.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Synthesis on February 11, 2012, 05:34:02 PM
What the fuck (http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/paul-all-your-delegates-are-belong-to-me/6oes6dc).

Ron Paul is thrilled about pulling an anti-democratic dick move.

There goes your high horse, Paulbots.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: RogueGunslinger on February 11, 2012, 06:21:32 PM
That sounds a bit tongue-in-cheek, but I'll bite.The system is anti-democracy. He's not thrilled about pulling a dick move, he's thrilled about possibly winning within the confines of the rules.

I never did think Paul supporters deserved any sort of high horse though.

Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Yam on February 11, 2012, 06:24:40 PM
Paul Pot
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on February 11, 2012, 07:53:29 PM
That link didn't work for me, summary please?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: RogueGunslinger on February 11, 2012, 07:58:55 PM
Paul Pot

What his voter base is smoking?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: marko on February 11, 2012, 08:02:39 PM
That link didn't work for me, summary please?
He gots delegates for second comings.

Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Synthesis on February 11, 2012, 08:02:55 PM
That link didn't work for me, summary please?

Basically, Ron Paul's strategy is to gain more delegates in certain states by packing the delegate-nomination events and having his supporters vote for him in the higher-level candidate-picking rounds, regardless of how the voters they're supposed to be representing actually voted.  The horrifying/hilarious thing is that both he and his campaign advisors are gloating about it publicly.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: EldritchOrigins on February 11, 2012, 08:09:15 PM
That link didn't work for me, summary please?

Basically, Ron Paul's strategy is to gain more delegates in certain states by packing the delegate-nomination events and having his supporters vote for him in the higher-level candidate-picking rounds, regardless of how the voters they're supposed to be representing actually voted.  The horrifying/hilarious thing is that both he and his campaign advisors are gloating about it publicly.
This is bit confusing as I'm pretty sure that the delegates are legally bound to vote the way that represents the members of their caucus.
Paul Pot

What his voter base is smoking?

And Paul and his campaign manager.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Synthesis on February 11, 2012, 08:13:26 PM
That link didn't work for me, summary please?

Basically, Ron Paul's strategy is to gain more delegates in certain states by packing the delegate-nomination events and having his supporters vote for him in the higher-level candidate-picking rounds, regardless of how the voters they're supposed to be representing actually voted.  The horrifying/hilarious thing is that both he and his campaign advisors are gloating about it publicly.
This is bit confusing as I'm pretty sure that the delegates are legally bound to vote the way that represents the members of their caucus.

No, they aren't.  Not in all cases, at least.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012#Delegate_allocation_and_process
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on March 01, 2012, 08:09:39 PM
So Andrew Brietbart's dead, eh?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on March 01, 2012, 08:48:53 PM
To paraphrase Bette Davis... "You should never say bad things about the dead, only good. Andrew Breitbart is dead. GOOD."
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: RogueGunslinger on March 01, 2012, 08:57:02 PM
LOL

Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on March 01, 2012, 09:00:08 PM
Seriously, this guy did a great deal of fucking damage to his own nation. I feel sorry for his family and loved ones but I have no doubt that America is better off without him. Honestly, I suspect his family and loved ones are probably better off without him, too.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Maso on March 01, 2012, 09:00:41 PM
I hope Obama stays. *runs*
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Karieith on March 01, 2012, 09:04:36 PM
I hope Obama stays. *runs*

Why do conservatives hate women? Why is my vagina and uterus so interesting to you all? I believe you all find it more interesting than I do.
These candidates make me fear for my sex.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: RogueGunslinger on March 01, 2012, 09:13:40 PM
Are... Are you seriously going to bring this thread to that level? I thought we'd pushed past that kinda stuff.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: RogueGunslinger on March 01, 2012, 09:16:42 PM
So who's this Brietbart guy, and why's he such a bastard?

And why does "Brietbart" seem so familiar to me. I keep thinking it's some kind of code-word for the military.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on March 01, 2012, 09:49:51 PM
Breitbart was a lifelong slimeball who was heavily involved in, among other things, the destruction of ACORN by libel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy). He ran a handful of conservative mud-slinging websites.

Before you get too mad at me for speaking ill of the dead, let me point out that it was Breitbart who got on his own Twitter mere hours after the death of Ted Kennedy to call him "a prick," "a fat-assed motherfucker," and "a special pile of human excrement."

I am sure the board conservatives will jump in to defend their latest martyr once they get home from work, though, so stay tuned! Meanwhile, hell just got a little more racist.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Old Kank on March 01, 2012, 09:50:54 PM
So who's this Brietbart guy, and why's he such a bastard?

He was one of the more douche-y of the conservative... I don't know... pundits?  He was basically a guy that started a conservative blog, which went mainstream, and as a result he sort of became a heavyweight conservative journalist, but with internet-style trolling instead of ethics and integrity.

He's the guy behind the ACORN-prostitution scandal.  Remember that one?  The one that ultimately ended ACORN, even though the "scandal" was later revealed to be a hoax?

He's the guy behind the USDA scandal.  Remember Shirley Sherrod?  Breitbart published a video of her making racist remarks, resulting in Sherrod being fired, even though it was later revealed that her comments were edited out of context and weren't racist at all.

There's more, but that's the gist of it.  Imagine a guy who gives national credibility to every ultra-right-wing conspiracy email your estranged uncle sends you, and you have Andrew Breitbart.  So long, ass-hat.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Kismetic on March 02, 2012, 01:11:20 AM
I forgot Ted Kennedy died.  was it from swimming?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on March 02, 2012, 05:44:13 AM
I hope Obama stays. *runs*

Why do conservatives hate women? Why is my vagina and uterus so interesting to you all? I believe you all find it more interesting than I do.
These candidates make me fear for my sex.

Are... Are you seriously going to bring this thread to that level? I thought we'd pushed past that kinda stuff.

To be fair, GOP lawmakers and pundits are the ones who keep bringing it back up. When you draft laws mandating that a woman seeking an abortion be penetrated by her doctor without her consent for no medical reason what so ever and then defend your position by saying: "Well, she already agreed to get penetrated when she got pregnant so what's the big deal?" ... ... ... oooor when your response to a woman's complaint that not being able to procure contraception forced her to have an ovary removed because she couldn't prevent the syst on it from growing ... is to call her a slut point blank and accuse her of just wanting to get paid to have sex ... ...  you kiiiinda look like you hate women. Just a little bit.

Of course this isn't true of all conservatives ... but it certainly is true of the legislators and media personalities ... so a better phrasing would be:

"Why do conservative elected officals and spokespeople hate women? Why is my vagina and uterus so interesting to them? I believe they all find it more interesting than I do.
These candidates make me fear for my sex.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: AmandaGreathouse on March 02, 2012, 06:52:24 AM
Are... Are you seriously going to bring this thread to that level? I thought we'd pushed past that kinda stuff.

I don't think that it's 'a level'. It's about 52ish% of the population having things forced on them that will decide the course of entire lives by lawmakers with not just no business and no experience personally with it, but no respect for the women in question, clearly, given some of the illustrious commentary provided by all the delightful pundits. Case in point, the 'slut' comment that just came up as a new story. It's not a matter of this thread getting past that, it's a matter of republicans kindly pulling the fuck out of women's wombs and moving on to something that IS their business. No offense, of course.

Although... all this kind of makes me think that the best way to prove the point to people would be to knock them up against their will. Ala the mad tv sketch and what it suggests for cancer. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueu-F0uFXn8)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: RogueGunslinger on March 02, 2012, 07:12:04 AM
I meant the level in which one uses brash blanket statements in order to get(presumably) a rise out of people. Though I suppose, looking back I misinterpreted her intentions with the post. Think she was addressing the candidates. After Musashi's post I suppose the conservative candidates sort of deserve that one anyways.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: BleakOne on March 02, 2012, 07:46:43 AM
Can someone really get votes by wailing about the Satanist Terrorfying Academics Squads invading America to make people turn away from God? I mean... damn.  :-\
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Nyr on March 02, 2012, 09:49:59 AM
Can someone really get votes by wailing about the Satanist Terrorfying Academics Squads invading America to make people turn away from God? I mean... damn.  :-\

In the primary and even general election, yes.  I'll give some background based on my own experiences, anecdotal though they may be.

Keep in mind that Super Tuesday primary stuff is coming up.  Lots of states in the South, therefore lots of more traditionally Republican voters, therefore lots of states with social conservatives/evangelical Christians.  I wasn't old enough to vote when this was going on back in say 2000 or so, but I do remember attending church and getting these little brochures at the front of the foyer/lobby area that would outline each candidate's positions on things that matter to evangelical Christians.  There would be the occasional sermon not particularly endorsing a candidate, but advising the congregation to vote for what is important (ergo, by proxy, voting for the candidate that was the absolute most Christian possible, by these brochures).  Based on what they've said, I think Gingrich and Santorum are going to be high on the list, with Santorum edging out Gingrich in terms of sheer evangelical-ness (plus he hasn't been married 3 times, something that is traditionally frowned upon in the Christian community).  I don't particularly see Ron Paul as any sort of evangelical.  If he's favored at all, it will be slightly ahead of Mitt Romney, but that's because Romney is a Mormon.

If Romney becomes the Republican nominee, it will raise interesting points for the evangelical Christian community.  I don't know if they'll embrace him because of the fact that Mormonism walks hand in hand with most evangelical values.  Women under the authority of men?  Check.  No abortions?  Check.  No sex before marriage?  Check.  No drugs?  Check.  No alcohol?  Sometimes a check (depends on the church).  Perhaps they'll reject him because of the areas in which Mormonism goes off of the comfortable religious reservation into areas where there be dragons and crazy talk (the role of women in the Mormon church afterlife...you know, makin' spiritual babies for all eternity...the incredible secrecy surrounding their temple, the "get yer own planet" thing for men, the "Jesus came to America afterwards and taught whole tribes of people that have no record at all in history" thing, and maybe the fact that the leader of the church is regarded like a miniature Pope within the belief structure of the church).  While the casual non-theist/agnostic/atheist observer might see very little difference between one group's beliefs and another group's beliefs, there's a very large gulf between these two groups.  I could see evangelicals more easily accepting a Jewish candidate over a Mormon candidate, and a Mormon candidate over a Muslim candidate.

I know.  It's sad.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on March 02, 2012, 10:44:09 AM
The hilarious thing is that a mandate requiring people to buy contraceptives for their employees has been cast as a debate over contraception itself: something that is practiced by and uncontroversial to the vast majority of Christian laity.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Gimfalisette on March 02, 2012, 12:07:23 PM
Can I just say, again, that I AM A CHRISTIAN and I LOATHE ALL OF THESE GUYS TO THE DEPTHS OF MY INTERNAL ORGANS, INCLUDING THE REPRODUCTIVE BITS?

I can? OK, thanks.

Also, I hate the practice of churches shoving political agendas on their congregations. That is not what the church is about, yo. See: Bible, New Testament. I wish Jesus would find them all lukewarm and spit them out of his mouth. (Pretty sure he does, actually.) It is, in fact, the practice of politicizing our faith that is a primary reason that I do not attend church. I will not sit with those people, because they are not my people, because they are not Jesus' people. If they were Jesus' people, they would be doing His work, like taking care of widows and orphans. But they don't, so they aren't.

Christianity and "conservatism" do not necessarily have anything to do with one another; rather, my faith has been massively co-opted by a bunch of old white men who want to use it to subjugate people and enrich themselves. (I blame Constantine.)

Leftie Christians for Obama represent!
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Nyr on March 02, 2012, 12:23:19 PM
Can I just say, again, that I AM A CHRISTIAN and I LOATHE ALL OF THESE GUYS TO THE DEPTHS OF MY INTERNAL ORGANS, INCLUDING THE REPRODUCTIVE BITS?

I can? OK, thanks.

Also, I hate the practice of churches shoving political agendas on their congregations. That is not what the church is about, yo. See: Bible, New Testament. I wish Jesus would find them all lukewarm and spit them out of his mouth. (Pretty sure he does, actually.) It is, in fact, the practice of politicizing our faith that is a primary reason that I do not attend church. I will not sit with those people, because they are not my people, because they are not Jesus' people. If they were Jesus' people, they would be doing His work, like taking care of widows and orphans. But they don't, so they aren't.

Christianity and "conservatism" do not necessarily have anything to do with one another; rather, my faith has been massively co-opted by a bunch of old white men who want to use it to subjugate people and enrich themselves. (I blame Constantine.)

Leftie Christians for Obama represent!

I agree with everything you posted.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Marauder Moe on March 02, 2012, 12:42:25 PM
Yes, I've always found it exceedingly ironic when you have evangelical pundits with platforms that seem to revolve around war, hatred, and greed.  Jesus, from what I understand, was generally all about peace, love, and charity.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Maso on March 02, 2012, 12:44:25 PM
Stuff

Leftie Christians for Obama represent!

That's amazingly refreshing.

And in regards to my previous 'lowering of tone'....Having come over here from England...and just watching/reading everything that's going on...My mind is so completely and utterly blown by the absurdity of every single aspect Republican-ess...and I want to throw up every time I think about the poor, disillusioned people want to vote Republican...even though they quite clearly state that they are going to shit all over them when you remove all the bullshit from their propaganda....It turns my brains to jelly and I don't even know where to start.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Morrolan on March 02, 2012, 12:57:51 PM
(I blame Constantine.)

[derail]
Gim,

I blame Paul and Theodosius I, as well.

Morrolan
[/derail]

On Topic: Maso, this republic has turned a form of representative government into a contact sport where the best players make lots and lots of money.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on March 02, 2012, 02:09:14 PM
Christianity and "conservatism" do not necessarily have anything to do with one another; rather, my faith has been massively co-opted by a bunch of old white men who want to use it to subjugate people and enrich themselves. (I blame Constantine.)

Christianity and "progressivism" do not necessarily have anything to do with one another; rather, my faith has been massively co-opted by a bunch of old white men who want to use it to subjugate people and enrich themselves.  (Seriously, have you ever talked to a Congregationalist?)

:P :-*

I do despise hearing what is detectable as politics from the pulpit.  I don't even enjoy hearing people talk politics amongst themselves at church when they presume that all Proper Christians must agree with their pet theory of economics or governance.  It's sad that Christian leftyism is positively correlated with apostasy and much general doctrinal unseriousness, because the metacritique of how society actually turns out is an important one (that scripture is full of).
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on March 02, 2012, 02:14:11 PM
Yes, I've always found it exceedingly ironic when you have evangelical pundits with platforms that seem to revolve around war, hatred, and greed.  Jesus, from what I understand, was generally all about peace, love, and charity.

Jesus was about everything you read about God in the Old and New Testaments.  No good and whole person is about hatred and greed; no good and whole person is incapable of violence.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: lordcooper on March 02, 2012, 02:49:39 PM
Even the bits that completely contradict the other bits?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on March 02, 2012, 03:49:20 PM
The hilarious thing is that a mandate requiring people to buy contraceptives for their employees has been cast as a debate over contraception itself: something that is practiced by and uncontroversial to the vast majority of Christian laity.

Well it certainly isn't a debate over religious freedom brytta. The whole issue breaks down pretty simply.

Contraception is a health care issue. Plenty of women require it not for the sake of fucking till their crotch gives out, but for the sake of preventing cyst growth, or in the case of my mother to prevent further pregnancy because after five children the doctors have strongly advised her against having anymore since she had such a difficult time delivering the last one. They're worried she might not survive another labor process.

So, having established that contraception is not simply a recreational fuck till you drop female equivalent of viagra (which IS COVERED BY HEALTH INSURANCE BUT I DIGRESS) it becomes pretty obvious that health care plans should cover it.

"But oh no!" say the churches. "We don't want to provide contraception in our health care plans because we have moral objections!"

"Ok." says the Obama administration. "You don't have to. So long as we're talking about your actual church where presumably everyone working within it is also a member of your faith, and hence also not a fan of contraception.

"Not good enough!" say the churches. "We don't want to provide contraception in our health care plans even at the hospitals and such that we run where we employ people who don't share our faith at all!"

"Ok." says the Obama administration. "You don't have to. We'll have the insurance companies pay for the contraception for those people instead, since they insurance companies know that paying for birth control is cheaper than paying for babies, they're totally on board anyway."

"NOT GOOD ENOUGH!!!!!" say the Republicans. "Any employer anywhere needs to be able to deny any kind of health care product at all to anyone for any reason so long as they personally feel morally offended by the health care procedure!"

... ... ... >_> ...

Ok now you're just being bat shit fucking crazy.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on March 02, 2012, 04:05:13 PM
"Ok." says the Obama administration. "You don't have to. We'll have the insurance companies pay for the contraception for those people instead, since they insurance companies know that paying for birth control is cheaper than paying for babies, they're totally on board anyway."

If this were true, we wouldn't be talking about imposing a rule.  I think we've established that businesses like to make money.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Maso on March 02, 2012, 04:20:39 PM

"NOT GOOD ENOUGH!!!!!" say the Republicans. "Any employer anywhere needs to be able to deny any kind of health care product at all to anyone for any reason so long as they personally feel morally offended by the health care procedure!"


To which the Republican supporters go 'Yayyyyyyyyyy!' even though they will be the people being refused the product. Uhh...wtf.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on March 02, 2012, 04:33:34 PM
"Ok." says the Obama administration. "You don't have to. We'll have the insurance companies pay for the contraception for those people instead, since they insurance companies know that paying for birth control is cheaper than paying for babies, they're totally on board anyway."

If this were true, we wouldn't be talking about imposing a rule.  I think we've established that businesses like to make money.

I think that given how the insurance companies are not lobbying whatsoever to stop said rule from going into effect, their consent in the matter is rather clear, because as you say ... we've established that businesses like to make money. And it is a fact (http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2012/contraceptives/ib.shtml#Empirical) that the yearly cost of contraception is dwarfed by the yearly cost of pregnancy services.

But the economic reality aside ... trying to frame the issue as a religious freedoms issue is just retarded in the first place. I mean it might sound reasonable to some Americans who happen to be zealous Christians because we're talking about religious "freedoms" ... for Christians ... but what if we switch that religion up huh?

The Church of Scientology doesn't believe in any form of medication to treat any kind of mental illness ... so should all Scientologists be allowed to opt-out of paying for anti-depression medication in their health care plans? Or medication used to treat schizophrenia?

Should Christian Scientists who believe in faith healing only ... be allowed to refuse health care not based around the laying on of hands for anyone they employ? How far down this rabbit hole does the GOP intend to go?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Sardaukar on March 02, 2012, 05:49:04 PM
The hilarious thing is that a mandate requiring people to buy contraceptives for their employees has been cast as a debate over contraception itself: something that is practiced by and uncontroversial to the vast majority of Christian laity.

It is hilarious.  At least, insofar that that there is hilarity in watching the intellectual bankruptcy of the Republican Party be broadcast in simple and easy to understand terms for all to see.  They hate President Obama, everyone gets that.  They hated Bill Clinton too.  And Kennedy.  And FDR.  They're free to have their hatreds.

But to claim that the President hates religion because the Institute of Medicine recommends insurance coverage for basic preventive services (including contraception), and because the President's Affordable Care Act therefore includes a mandate for no-copay insurance coverage for basic preventive services for workers?  That's a hilarious stretch.  No one's religious liberty is being impeded.  Believe it or not, no individual will be required by the evil government to use contraception under the Affordable Care Act.  

If an individual doesn't like contraception they don't have to use it.  If they don't want their money to indirectly pay for someone else to use contraception, a basic preventive service, then they'll have to withdraw from society completely, or abolish money completely.  Because I'll bet that the check out clerk at the grocery store uses part of her wages to buy contraception, and her wages come indirectly from the money the religious person used to buy his milk.  Is that a hilarious stretch?  Sure.  Just as hilariously stretched as the argument against the Affordable Care Act.

There is no religious argument.  The only merits to be argued are whether contraception is a basic preventive service that should be covered.  I think it is.  So does the Institute of Medicine.  So does the President.  So does most of the country, in fact.  So does a significant minority of Republican voters, even (around 40% if memory serves).  The Republican Party leadership is to the right of their own electorate though, because only one Senator (1/47 = 2%) voted against the Blunt amendment that would remove the mandate (and go much, much further even).  All their presidential candidates supported the Blunt amendment.  And their unofficial spokesman, Rush Limbaugh, even went so far as to call a supporter of the mandate a "slut" and a "prostitute."

Hilarious.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on March 02, 2012, 05:59:30 PM
For the record, it was pretty funny watching the horrifying realization that they looked like morons dawn on the Republican legislators when Harry Reid turned around and said "No you know what? Let's put the Blunt Amendment to a vote." They tried to backpedal and say they wanted to withdraw the proposal to revise it a bit, but for once, the Democrats figured out that they were on the winning side of an issue so they said "No no really, you submitted it. Let's put it to a vote, right, fucking, now."

And ... the GOP was caught between it's crazy religious base, and a hard place.

Man, that's really gonna bite them in the ass come election season ... assuming Democrats are ballsy enough to mention it again while campaigning anyway.  :-\
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on March 03, 2012, 05:44:46 AM
Man ... Republicans really need to back pedal on this whole contraception thing. Now Rush is not only losing sponsors for the falling ratings, he's also losing sponsors over this.  Dude ... abandon talking points!! Abandon talking points!!
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on March 03, 2012, 09:56:55 AM
"Hey, girrrrl.
You're a slut because I'm paying for your birth control.
You ought to just post a sex video online, since I'm paying for it!"
-Jesus

Yeah, I don't think so, brytta.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on March 03, 2012, 03:16:10 PM
For the record, Rush Limbaugh may not actually be Jesus.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on March 03, 2012, 03:34:20 PM
I think that given how the insurance companies are not lobbying whatsoever to stop said rule from going into effect, their consent in the matter is rather clear, because as you say ... we've established that businesses like to make money. And it is a fact (http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2012/contraceptives/ib.shtml#Empirical) that the yearly cost of contraception is dwarfed by the yearly cost of pregnancy services.

The economic justification--lol guys it won't cost the insurance companies any more--is a complete and utter fabrication: not because pregnancy and healthcare for dependent children aren't expensive, but because pretty much everyone who wants contraception is already paying for it.  Individuals are very, very aware of the costs of pregnancy.

Insurance companies, contrariwise, have no reason to be concerned, since the individual mandate guarantees their market and any across the board costs can be passed on to their customers.

It should be so painfully obvious as to not need discussion that no one wants to go back to the bad old days when, for instance, doctors were forbidden by law from discussing contraception.  (I...have a lot of aunts and uncles.)  No one is stopping anyone from having whatever sex they want.  No one is interested in preventing the world's lovers from getting the pill/shot/IUD and/or bagging it.  This is about: we don't pay for other people to do stuff we disapprove of.

Maybe we need a national handgun mandate to prove the point.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on March 03, 2012, 03:35:22 PM
I can't believe we've lasted 28 pages.  You guys are great.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Old Kank on March 03, 2012, 03:40:30 PM
This is about: we don't pay for other people to do stuff we disapprove of.

I'd like my $800,000,000,000 from the Iraq war back.  Thanks.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Kismetic on March 03, 2012, 03:51:00 PM
This is about: we don't pay for other people to do stuff we disapprove of.

I'd like my $800,000,000,000 from the Iraq war back.  Thanks.

I think you added some extra zeros, right?

What did we even get for that?  Damaged international relations.  Gas prices have tripled.  No WMDs.  And I don't wanna hear "we got Osama."  He wasn't in Iraq, either.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: lordcooper on March 03, 2012, 03:52:26 PM
Don't be so foolish dude.  A good war is it's own reward.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Kismetic on March 03, 2012, 03:53:52 PM
Don't be so foolish dude.  A good war is it's own reward.

That gave me deja vu.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Old Kank on March 03, 2012, 03:58:12 PM
I think you added some extra zeros, right?

The conservative estimate for the cost of the war seems to be $800 billion dollars, though some people put it at least a trillion.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Kismetic on March 03, 2012, 04:05:26 PM
The conservative estimate for the cost of the war seems to be $800 billion dollars, though some people put it at least a trillion.

Ugh.  I hope the people responsible for these decisions are using contraceptives.  Or sterilized.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Old Kank on March 03, 2012, 04:13:26 PM
I think the FDA should categorize Viagra and Cialis as contraceptives, and put an end to the whole discussion.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Kismetic on March 03, 2012, 04:18:16 PM
I think the FDA should categorize Viagra and Cialis as contraceptives, and put an end to the whole discussion.

But wouldn't they be ...  umm, proceptives?  Conceptives?  Conceptuals?  Not getting any luck with spell check.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Old Kank on March 03, 2012, 04:26:53 PM
I think the FDA should categorize Viagra and Cialis as contraceptives, and put an end to the whole discussion.

But wouldn't they be ...  umm, proceptives?  Conceptives?  Conceptuals?  Not getting any luck with spell check.

Sure, but imagine how fast all of this would disappear when the erections of old men were at stake.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on March 03, 2012, 04:34:51 PM
::)

You are not serious people; and, believe me, I mean that in the most constructive sense.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Dalmeth on March 03, 2012, 04:38:01 PM
::)

You are not serious people; and, believe me, I mean that in the most constructive sense.

You really shouldn't let them beat you around like this.  It really doesn't help them as much as they think.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Kismetic on March 03, 2012, 04:44:23 PM
You are not serious people;

Heheheh, but you are.  So, tell me a few good things about America's liberation of Iraq.  I want to hear it from a Republican!
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Case on March 03, 2012, 05:00:02 PM
Viagra is part of God's plan, the pill isn't. Get with the program.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on March 03, 2012, 05:39:12 PM
This is about: we don't pay for other people to do stuff we disapprove of.

Yeah, only progressives have to pay for things we don't approve of... comparably small-fry stuff, like wars of aggression and SuperMax prisons. It's conservatives who have to put up with the truly odious shit!

Come on, brytta, you know full well that in a large democracy people are going to have to pay for things they don't like. Moreover, contraceptives are so universally beneficial to society, and so ethically unassailable, that I really don't understand anyone arguing against their ubiquity - unless they're one or more of stupid, ignorant, delusional, disingenuous, or woman-hating. But you're just playing devil's advocate, I hope.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on March 03, 2012, 07:04:05 PM
I'm struggling to believe that people are arguing this way in good faith, which is usually a sign that it's time to step away from the politics thread. ;)

I'm not going to argue for or against WWII Vietnam Korea Iraq I Iraq II, because it's totally irrelevant to the point.  A government that doesn't have a War Power and a Police Power is not a government at all.

We can have a government that stays out of our sex lives.  We can have a government that does not provide essential groceries to the middle class (halal or non?).  We can have a government that doesn't tell every employer to buy health insurance, including zero-copay contraception, for his employees.

Why might we avoid such things?  Because they're controversial amongst the populace?  Because they're not necessary?  Because it's good for right-thinking people to be in charge, but better yet if it doesn't matter who is?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on March 03, 2012, 07:49:41 PM
::)

You are not serious people; and, believe me, I mean that in the most constructive sense.

You really shouldn't let them beat you around like this.  It really doesn't help them as much as they think.

Yeah, "us people" are so unwise! Or whatever other generalized assumptions were made about .. "us".

Whoever "them" would appear to be.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: lordcooper on March 03, 2012, 07:59:00 PM
"There is no them and us and them and us at all, just other versions of ourselves."
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: BleakOne on March 03, 2012, 08:19:04 PM
I don't get why the employer providing the health care would get any say in how the health care they provide in return for the employee's work is used, within reason. Strikes me as being similar to claiming you don't have to pay an employee for this week's salary because they'll spend it on something immoral and as a Christian you don't want a part in that.

It baffles me how much people seem to think that their religious values should be imposed on others.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on March 03, 2012, 08:31:29 PM
I don't get why the employer providing the health care would get any say in how the health care they provide in return for the employee's work is used, within reason. Strikes me as being similar to claiming you don't have to pay an employee for this week's salary because they'll spend it on something immoral and as a Christian you don't want a part in that.

It baffles me how much people seem to think that their religious values should be imposed on others.


Yeah. What baffles me is like, what the right wants. Maybe brytta can enlighten me.

Aside from medical reasoning, some women go on the pill to, yes, not have children. Does the right want women to have 10 kids they can't afford, thus having them on the 'government teat' as so many of the pundits like to say? Medicaid, welfare, foodstamps? Does the right just not want women to have sex at all? What do they WANT?

As my mother put it, and mind you, she is incredibly socially conservative, "It appears the conservatives in this country are trying to subtly do away with Roe v. Wade." And then she went into the schpiel I just did above.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Kismetic on March 03, 2012, 08:38:10 PM
I think brytta is trying to say he doesn't want to pay for something he finds immoral.  Then, a few of us said, "Hey, how about that war where many people were murdered for nothing?  Didn't we have to pay for that??"

Then brytta said we're a bunch of kidders.  Oh, you guys
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: flurry on March 03, 2012, 08:46:09 PM
It seems like the policy should tend to reduce the number of abortions in this country. I wonder if that mitigates any of the concerns about indirectly paying for insufficiently holy employee behavior.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Case on March 03, 2012, 08:46:23 PM
I think churches should lose their tax exempt status because I think it's immoral to carry them when I'm a tax payer.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on March 03, 2012, 09:01:35 PM
I agree with that, Case. I don't see why churches should get a free ride.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on March 03, 2012, 09:03:35 PM
We can have a government that doesn't tell every employer to buy health insurance, including zero-copay contraception, for his employees.

You mean like mine in Canada?

Hah... of course you don't. You mean you think poor people should be up Shit Creek.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Sardaukar on March 03, 2012, 10:07:20 PM
I'm not going to argue for or against WWII Vietnam Korea Iraq I Iraq II, because it's totally irrelevant to the point.  A government that doesn't have a War Power and a Police Power is not a government at all.

Actually it is relevant, Brytta.  You say that you don't want to pay for stuff you don't like.  Then Kismetic says that everyone already pays for things they don't like, and he gives the example of the war on Iraq.  Then he asks you to justify that war.  Implicit in Kismetic's question is the acknowledgement that societies often do things that individuals may not like, but that this may be acceptable if there are outcomes that are beneficial for the society.  Thus, Kismetic is asking you to identify the net benefits to our society from the war on Iraq that we all helped to pay for.  It's very relevant.

Quote
We can have a government that stays out of our sex lives.  We can have a government that does not provide essential groceries to the middle class (halal or non?).  We can have a government that doesn't tell every employer to buy health insurance, including zero-copay contraception, for his employees.

What point are you trying to make here, Brytta?  Just because we can have certain qualities to our government doesn't mean we should.  We can have no government and total anarchy, but it doesn't mean we should.  I think it would be a bad idea.  Do you?

Quote
Why might we avoid such things?  Because they're controversial amongst the populace?  Because they're not necessary?

So your argument against a mandate for employers to pay for insurance that provides coverage without copy for contraception is that such coverage is both controversial and unnecessary?  I disagree that avoiding "controversy" should be a major consideration when it comes to public policy.  Furthermore, this provision of the Affordable Care Act isn't controversial and plenty of polling supports my assertion.

The argument that contraception coverage isn't necessary is a better one to try to make because then we're actually debating the merits of the policy.  Of course, I've already said that I'm in agreement with the Institute of Medicine on this one, so I think it is actually necessary in order to improve the health of women and our society as a whole.

Quote
Because it's good for right-thinking people to be in charge, but better yet if it doesn't matter who is?

Huh?

Lastly, I have yet to see a good answer to this question anywhere:

I don't get why the employer providing the health care would get any say in how the health care they provide in return for the employee's work is used, within reason. Strikes me as being similar to claiming you don't have to pay an employee for this week's salary because they'll spend it on something immoral and as a Christian you don't want a part in that.

Of course, I don't think there is a good answer, because this "controversy" isn't a controversy.  There is no religious argument against this mandate.  It's just the latest manufactured right-wing outrage against President Obama's health care law, which is a law that sadly had its genesis in the conservative Heritage Foundation and was based on a state law passed by the inevitable Republican presidential nominee for 2012.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on March 03, 2012, 10:18:17 PM
Hah... of course you don't. You mean you think poor people should be up Shit Creek.

I was eagerly awaiting someone's trying to equate "everyone everywhere with a job" (those affected by the mandate) with "poor people" (Medicaid and, sometimes, Medicare recipients: yes, those programs should help pay for contraception, even though "we" all pay for them; no, I don't reckon you can suss out why I think there's a difference).

I think brytta is trying to say he doesn't want to pay for something he finds immoral.

It's beside the point, but there's not a darn thing immoral about it.  The Roman Catholic church is smoking dope on this one.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: adrien on March 03, 2012, 10:54:14 PM
I have no major knowledge on American political history but wasn't it decided years ago that the separation of church and state was a necessity?  so if that is true,  Obama can just say Go !@#$  your self and end the debate saying give people the Pill.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: RogueGunslinger on March 03, 2012, 10:56:16 PM
The Roman Catholic church is smoking dope on this one.

I resent that! :P
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Kismetic on March 03, 2012, 11:27:47 PM
I'm flashing back to Monty Python's "Every Sperm Is Sacred."
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on March 04, 2012, 12:15:57 AM
I have no major knowledge on American political history but wasn't it decided years ago that the separation of church and state was a necessity?  so if that is true,  Obama can just say Go !@#$  your self and end the debate saying give people the Pill.

Separation of church and state doesn't primarily mean that the state tells the church what to do.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Kismetic on March 04, 2012, 01:10:01 AM
Separation of church and state doesn't primarily mean that the state tells the church what to do.

I hate that we're stuck on this, but isn't the opposite of this statement what is being so fervently argued against?  Does unchecked religious freedom make morality a popularity contest?  Are minority religions properly represented in congress?  Would you, for instance, support your statement above if we were talking about something that Christians hated, but Muslims were to die for?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Case on March 04, 2012, 01:59:56 AM
I hope jews aren't paying tax dollars for food stamps that buy pork products
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: adrien on March 04, 2012, 02:42:25 AM
I have no major knowledge on American political history but wasn't it decided years ago that the separation of church and state was a necessity?  so if that is true,  Obama can just say Go !@#$  your self and end the debate saying give people the Pill.

Separation of church and state doesn't primarily mean that the state tells the church what to do.

very true but the church seems to be telling the state what to do over the years. They didn't want to pay taxes so they don't pay,
they don't want to provide the Pill so they don't, even though its been proven as a good thing.
seriously a bunch of old men in fancy cloths in the Vatican city are deciding that the pill is not good for woman, heck they even stated back in the day that condoms where a sin because life begun at ejaculation? they gave up the fight on condoms finally 20+ years later.

Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on March 04, 2012, 04:40:12 AM
Quote from: brytta.leofa link=topic=42436.msg668244#msg668244
Separation of church and state doesn't primarily mean that the state tells the church what to do.

No, but it very well can mean that the state treats religious groups who employ people the same as any other employer.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: AmandaGreathouse on March 04, 2012, 04:52:27 AM
Quote from: brytta.leofa link=topic=42436.msg668244#msg668244
Separation of church and state doesn't primarily mean that the state tells the church what to do.

No, but it very well can mean that the state treats religious groups who employ people the same as any other employer.

You mean being reasonable? Pish.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Kastion on March 04, 2012, 09:58:39 AM
Its not about morality. The Catholic church is against the pill because then people have less children. That equals less Catholics which equals less church tithes. Its not a morality issue.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: LauraMars on March 04, 2012, 10:24:05 AM
I can't believe Rush Limbaugh called that girl a slut.  What a terrible, nasty thing to say.  I'm so shocked that people can't let this go.  Where are our priorities?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on March 04, 2012, 10:32:10 AM
The economic justification--lol guys it won't cost the insurance companies any more--is a complete and utter fabrication: not because pregnancy and healthcare for dependent children aren't expensive, but because pretty much everyone who wants contraception is already paying for it.  Individuals are very, very aware of the costs of pregnancy.

Insurance companies, contrariwise, have no reason to be concerned, since the individual mandate guarantees their market and any across the board costs can be passed on to their customers.

I'm sorry brytta, but you do not get to hand wave away any and all facts that contradict your political ideology and label it all as pure fabrication, just because you say so.

It is a fact, that in 1999 when Congress required Federal Health Care to cover the cost of contraceptives, there was no increase in premium levels because there was no cost increase as a result of providing coverage of contraceptive services. It's just a matter of record.

It is also a fact that when Hawaii prohibited employers from excluding contraceptive services from their health care plans, the mandate did not increase insurance costs for the companies insuring Hawaii employers.

This isn't crazy mathematical trickery cooked up as part of a grand conspiracy by the far left to fabricate an economic justification for pissing off social conservatives.

The observation that contraception is cheaper than abortions and pregnancy is historical precedent. And you have to deal with that, like it or not.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Romy on March 04, 2012, 10:45:29 AM
Nevermind.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: RogueGunslinger on March 04, 2012, 11:53:32 AM
The economic justification--lol guys it won't cost the insurance companies any more--is a complete and utter fabrication: not because pregnancy and healthcare for dependent children aren't expensive, but because pretty much everyone who wants contraception is already paying for it.  Individuals are very, very aware of the costs of pregnancy.

Insurance companies, contrariwise, have no reason to be concerned, since the individual mandate guarantees their market and any across the board costs can be passed on to their customers.

I'm sorry brytta, but you do not get to hand wave away any and all facts that contradict your political ideology and label it all as pure fabrication, just because you say so.

It is a fact, that in 1999 when Congress required Federal Health Care to cover the cost of contraceptives, there was no increase in premium levels because there was no cost increase as a result of providing coverage of contraceptive services. It's just a matter of record.

It is also a fact that when Hawaii prohibited employers from excluding contraceptive services from their health care plans, the mandate did not increase insurance costs for the companies insuring Hawaii employers.

This isn't crazy mathematical trickery cooked up as part of a grand conspiracy by the far left to fabricate an economic justification for pissing off social conservatives.

The observation that contraception is cheaper than abortions and pregnancy is historical precedent. And you have to deal with that, like it or not.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: lordcooper on March 04, 2012, 12:35:40 PM
Santorum has announced his intentions to nullify all existing same sex marriages. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/03/MN3Q1N9EV9.DTL)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Case on March 04, 2012, 01:47:23 PM
Santorum has announced his intentions to nullify all existing same sex marriages. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/03/MN3Q1N9EV9.DTL)
Eugh, that's disgusting
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Maso on March 04, 2012, 02:41:11 PM
Santorum has announced his intentions to nullify all existing same sex marriages. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/03/MN3Q1N9EV9.DTL)
Eugh, that's disgusting

That's gotta be a joke right? :/
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on March 04, 2012, 07:51:30 PM
Santorum has announced his intentions to nullify all existing same sex marriages. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/03/MN3Q1N9EV9.DTL)

BUT WE WANT A LESS CENTRALIZED GOVERNMENT.

Unless it means 'undesirables' can get married and women can get abortions!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on March 04, 2012, 08:30:12 PM
I have ALWAYS found that to be by far the most glaring hypocrisy of the right. We want small government! So small that it can comfortably reside inside the vagina of it's female citizens and regulate what goes on in there.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Yam on March 04, 2012, 08:33:11 PM
The Fallopian tubes have run free far too long.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: lordcooper on March 04, 2012, 08:50:16 PM
Fox News on women getting raped in the military: "What did they expect?" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/13/fox-news-liz-trotta-rape_n_1274018.html)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Synthesis on March 04, 2012, 09:56:59 PM
I have ALWAYS found that to be by far the most glaring hypocrisy of the right. We want small government! So small that it can comfortably reside inside the vagina of it's female citizens and regulate what goes on in there.

There are a number of internally consistent belief sets that allow for both small government and denial of marriage privileges and outlawing abortion.  But yeah, calling it hypocrisy sure does sound good before you stop and think about it.

I'm not arguing that any of these belief sets are good ones, but painting all conservative political ideology as inconsistent--based on an equivocation about small government--is fairly useless as anything but a rhetorical drumbeat.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on March 04, 2012, 10:33:04 PM
Yeah. The internally consistent belief set is "small government when it comes to economic issues" "big government when it comes to social issues". Separate boxes so it's ok.

The point is that the conservatives' cry for small government is all rhetorical drum beating in the first place. They only mean it in a very specific business interest sense.

... and you're hyperboling what I said anyway. I didn't imply that all conservative ideology was inconsistent. I said this was the biggest of the hypocrisies I've ever seen come out from the right.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: RogueGunslinger on March 04, 2012, 10:33:29 PM
I have ALWAYS found that to be by far the most glaring hypocrisy of the right. We want small government! So small that it can comfortably reside inside the vagina of it's female citizens and regulate what goes on in there.
LMAO
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: LauraMars on March 04, 2012, 10:41:59 PM
I feel like the nastiness of these rich old white people is spiraling out of control.  Every day there is some new, catastrophically offensive thing that has been said or done by one of them.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on March 04, 2012, 10:46:09 PM
I feel like the nastiness of these rich old white people is spiraling out of control.  Every day there is some new, catastrophically offensive thing that has been said or done by one of them.

Indeed. (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/04/rush-limbaugh-s-apology-liberal-men-need-to-follow-suit.html)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Yam on March 04, 2012, 11:13:54 PM
Jesus Christ I hope you're joking Brytta.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on March 04, 2012, 11:45:13 PM
wowwwwwwwwwwwww
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on March 04, 2012, 11:49:06 PM
Yeah ... that article ... heh. Jesus I don't even know where to start.
At least the woman agreed that Rush deserves all the hate he's getting before straying in quote mining lala land.

Edit to add: I'm at work so I don't have time to dig into it now so I will elaborate later when I get home. Are there guys on the left who talk shit about women when they shouldn't, yes. Of course there are some. But just off the top of my head I can tell that at least 2 of the references from that article were quote mined out of context because I've seen the clips they were referencing. I'm interested to look into the context surrounding all the article's references but that will have to wait another 6 hours or so. I'm busy talking to a Chinese contractor at the moment.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: LauraMars on March 05, 2012, 12:50:27 AM
I'd like to point out that I didn't say rich old white republican people.  But the fact still remains that a lot of the awful things being said are being said by republican presidential candidates and that's probably not going to win them any elections.  (And yes, I know Mr Limbaugh isn't a RPC)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: RogueGunslinger on March 05, 2012, 12:54:43 AM
With what we've got, he might as well be.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on March 05, 2012, 01:44:35 AM
I feel like the nastiness of these rich old white people is spiraling out of control.  Every day there is some new, catastrophically offensive thing that has been said or done by one of them.

Well, they're going to start dying soon. There is hope. (As long as the singularity doesn't hit before they're all gone, anyway.)

Indeed. (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/04/rush-limbaugh-s-apology-liberal-men-need-to-follow-suit.html)

It's true that some of the left-leaning pundits have put their foots in their mouths, and they tend to get in a ton of shit for it when they do. Chris Matthews, for example, isn't highly regarded by me or by people I know.

But to be fair, he didn't claim on his program that every woman who uses birth control is a slut and we deserve to watch them fuck on video.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: adrien on March 05, 2012, 01:59:49 AM
man USA has alot of screwed up loud mouths, they need practice at thinking before they speak. didn't they teach that in grade school?

think before speaking.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Kismetic on March 05, 2012, 02:15:01 AM
I would imagine you should do a lot more thinking than speaking if you're an inconsiderate, hateful asshole (here's looking at you, Rush).

Unfortunately, people listen to this hot air.  It does sound like a rush of hot air, doesn't it?  Politics is classic, keep up the good work
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: RogueGunslinger on March 05, 2012, 03:20:19 AM
man USA has alot of screwed up loud mouths, they need practice at thinking before they speak. didn't they teach that in grade school?

Yeah, we're totally the only ones. Obviously a product of our shitty schooling too.


think before speaking.

lol
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: My 2 sids on March 05, 2012, 07:20:17 AM
man USA has alot of screwed up loud mouths, they need practice at thinking before they speak. didn't they teach that in grade school?

think before speaking.

No, they didn't teach reasoning in school--that's how we got here. 
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: morrigan on March 05, 2012, 08:02:31 AM
I feel like the nastiness of these rich old white people is spiraling out of control.  Every day there is some new, catastrophically offensive thing that has been said or done by one of them.

Indeed. (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/04/rush-limbaugh-s-apology-liberal-men-need-to-follow-suit.html)

That's unfairly one-sided. I'm rather horrified on a daily basis about the atrocities committed by poor people of any race. It always astounds me that liberals casually ascribe the world's problems to white people, like we have some kind of monopoly on it. When was the last time you read a news story about a rich old white person selling their child as a sex slave for crack? Or a band of rich old white people killing an entire neighboring village and slaughtering every man woman and child by hacking them to pieces with machetes?

The simple truth is that the Republicans and Democrats are both doing it wrong. That's why our country is so messed up. They both support big government, just in different ways, they both increase spending while doing nothing to stimulate new income. I challenge any one of you, Republican or Democrat, to name a president that belonged to either of those parties who, by being elected, fixed everything and caused a lasting beneficial change. You obviously can't, because our economy is on the verge of collapse, things get worse every year, and neither Rep or Dem has done a thing about it. Normally, I hate conspiracy theories. I laugh them off and call the person who supports them crazy, but I'm really beginning to suspect they might be right when they say that our current political system is geared toward causing the country to collapse so that we can move to a world government. How else do explain people enacting policy that any person with a basic amount of education can see will lose money for the government and have destructive results?  We're how many trillions of dollars in debt?! Ah well, we can fix this. Let's increase military spending/dump 500 billion/year into social programs/take more money from the rich and give it to people who don't work/increase taxes on people who are already struggling/encourage companies to outsource all their jobs/hire more overpaid government employees and give them pension for life/etc.  Both parties are either fundamentally and hopelessly stupid when it comes to economics, or they are actively trying to destroy the country. Which is it? Is there a third option I've missed?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on March 05, 2012, 08:13:57 AM
Just after a little bit of digging ...

Quote from: brytta's article
During the 2008 election Ed Schultz said on his radio show that Sarah Palin set off a “bimbo alert.” He called Laura Ingraham a “right-wing slut.” (He later apologized.)

Yes, he later apologized ... on air ... and made a personal phone call to the woman to do like wise ... and voluntarily offered to be suspended without pay for however long the network felt was called for. All without having to have petitions signed by outraged women on the right, or sponsors pulling out. Because ... the left generally does a much better job of keeping its own house in order. I mean Weiner showed pictures of his underwear to women on the internet and the Democratic party ousted him. Vitter fucked prostitutes on the tax payers' dime and remained in office because the GOP rallied the wagons around him.

In that same election season when some douche threw tomatoes at Palin during a book signing, Schultz defended her, by the way ... but I digress.

Quote from: brytta's article
But the grand pooh-bah of media misogyny is without a doubt Bill Maher—who also happens to be a favorite of liberals—who has given $1 million to President Obama’s super PAC. Maher has called Palin a “dumb twat” and dropped the C-word in describing the former Alaska governor. He called Palin and Congresswoman Bachmann “boobs” and “two bimbos.” He said of the former vice-presidential candidate, “She is not a mean girl. She is a crazy girl with mean ideas.” He recently made a joke about Rick Santorum’s wife using a vibrator. Imagine now the same joke during the 2008 primary with Michelle Obama’s name in it, and tell me that he would still have a job. Maher said of a woman who was harassed while breast-feeding at an Applebee’s, “Don't show me your tits!” as though a woman feeding her child is trying to flash Maher. (Here’s a way to solve his problem: don’t stare at a strangers’ breasts). Then, his coup de grâce: “And by the way, there is a place where breasts and food do go together. It’s called Hooters!”

This is part I had a context problem with ... Bill Maher ... is a comedian ... doing a comedy show ... sure he says outrageous things at times, but that's what comedians do. They're entitled to a little more leeway because they aren't trying to be taken seriously. It's that age old adage you know? "You're allowed to say things that are semi-kinda-fucked up so long as everyone knows you're joking."

Take Bill Maher about as seriously as you take Stephen Colbert, and you'll be just fine.

Lastly ... the women writing that article is a Democratic strategist. Doesn't that in and of itself kind of prove the point that the left is generally better at keeping its own house in order?  ???
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on March 05, 2012, 08:17:23 AM
Which is it? Is there a third option I've missed?

I think you missed the third, and rather obvious option. Both parties are heavily bribed by special interest groups. So they tailor their actual policy to the desires of the people paying them, come hell or high water for the country as a whole.

I doubt there is a conspiracy to move us towards a world government, I think we're just headed for economic collapse because they're too greedy to care.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on March 05, 2012, 09:48:25 AM
I doubt there is a conspiracy to move us towards a world government, I think we're just headed for economic collapse because they're too greedy to care.

'Zounds, musashi, you've said something I agree with wholeheartedly.  Though to greed I would add some measure of stupidity, a lack of moral fiber, and some perversions baked into the system that make it hard for well-intentioned people to act rightly.

What conspiracies do exist are no secret--you could say that Kucinich's and Paul's worldviews represent radical reformations of the Republic--but they're perpetually derailed by the co-conspirators' ineptitude, cupidity, or lack of true (political) faith.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on March 05, 2012, 09:50:58 AM
'Zounds, musashi, you've said something I agree with wholeheartedly.

You know I love you brytta  :D
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: morrigan on March 05, 2012, 11:10:30 AM
Which is it? Is there a third option I've missed?

I think you missed the third, and rather obvious option. Both parties are heavily bribed by special interest groups. So they tailor their actual policy to the desires of the people paying them, come hell or high water for the country as a whole.

I doubt there is a conspiracy to move us towards a world government, I think we're just headed for economic collapse because they're too greedy to care.

That kinds falls under the stupidity part. Accepting bribes to act in a way that is obviously destructive is still stupid.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: RogueGunslinger on March 05, 2012, 11:21:05 AM
Not when it's constructive to yourself. It's selfish, sure, but not stupid.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on March 05, 2012, 11:25:12 AM
Not when it's constructive to yourself. It's selfish, sure, but not stupid.

That. Dumb isn't the same as corrupt. They know what they're doing. They just don't care.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Maso on March 05, 2012, 12:02:33 PM
There are other parties aren't there? Besides Republican and Democrat? But no one votes for them? Now who's dumb..
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: timb on March 05, 2012, 12:17:24 PM
There are other political parties but the more austrian economic believing, libertarian / classical liberals we can get to take over the Republican party, the better.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: adrien on March 05, 2012, 12:37:33 PM
man USA has alot of screwed up loud mouths, they need practice at thinking before they speak. didn't they teach that in grade school?

Yeah, we're totally the only ones. Obviously a product of our shitty schooling too.


think before speaking.

lol

we all have them but I never seen so many on one channel , FOX..... I tried watching that channel for 5 mins and nope I get to annoyed to keep watching.  they tried ambushing Ron Paul about a nuclear Iran, they would immediately throw in oh so you support terrorist groups getting nukes  if you don't care about Iran getting them....  No matter how he answered they would change it around to make him sound bad.  We are not much better in Canada, our loud mouth party (conservatives) are under investigation for bullying and misleading rival supporters to wrong voting locations across most of Canada.  Politics  is a reality TV show, so much drama.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Kismetic on March 05, 2012, 12:56:20 PM
Musashi, I have to disagree about Bill Maher.  For a guy who claims to be about freedom and tolerance (constantly a mouthpiece for legalization and gay rights), how does he go and make a hate-flick like Religulous?  That movie wasn't even remotely funny or joking, it was just him, bashing Christians about their faith.  Way to make Atheists look so classy, Bill!

I might agree if you were talking about, say, Dennis Miller (though, he wasn't funny, either).  Sadly, I still watch Bill Maher's show when there are good guests like NdGT.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: morrigan on March 05, 2012, 12:59:18 PM
Not when it's constructive to yourself. It's selfish, sure, but not stupid.

That. Dumb isn't the same as corrupt. They know what they're doing. They just don't care.

 "Both parties are either fundamentally and hopelessly stupid when it comes to economics, or they are actively trying to destroy the country. Which is it? Is there a third option I've missed?"

That's second option then...if they know what they are doing, and just don't care, they are actively trying to destroy the country.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: bcw81 on March 05, 2012, 01:06:59 PM
Musashi, I have to disagree about Bill Maher.  For a guy who claims to be about freedom and tolerance (constantly a mouthpiece for legalization and gay rights), how does he go and make a hate-flick like Religulous?  That movie wasn't even remotely funny or joking, it was just him, bashing Christians about their faith.  Way to make Atheists look so classy, Bill!

I might agree if you were talking about, say, Dennis Miller (though, he wasn't funny, either).  Sadly, I still watch Bill Maher's show when there are good guests like NdGT.
To be the Devil's advocate, so to speak, I found Religulous[/u] hilarious.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: RogueGunslinger on March 05, 2012, 01:09:15 PM
Not when it's constructive to yourself. It's selfish, sure, but not stupid.

That. Dumb isn't the same as corrupt. They know what they're doing. They just don't care.

 "Both parties are either fundamentally and hopelessly stupid when it comes to economics, or they are actively trying to destroy the country. Which is it? Is there a third option I've missed?"

That's second option then...if they know what they are doing, and just don't care, they are actively trying to destroy the country.

Not caring about if the world crumbles around you isn't the same as actively trying to destroy it.

I think this was Musashi's point.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: lordcooper on March 05, 2012, 02:12:16 PM
http://www.putlocker.com/file/1BCB9824265628D9#

20:15 onwards is relevant.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Morrolan on March 05, 2012, 03:20:44 PM
This is part I had a context problem with ... Bill Maher ... is a comedian ... doing a comedy show ... sure he says outrageous things at times, but that's what comedians do. They're entitled to a little more leeway because they aren't trying to be taken seriously. It's that age old adage you know? "You're allowed to say things that are semi-kinda-fucked up so long as everyone knows you're joking."

You are not the only one with a problem with this parallel:

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/05/opinion/frum-rush-limbaugh-fairness/index.html
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/05/conservatisms-limbaugh-problem/

Rush is simultaneously an "entertainer" and a recognized, if unofficial, mouthpiece of American conservatism.

Rush has power that Letterman, Maher, and Schultz do not.

In fact, there is no "Voice of the American Liberal." Most days, American "liberals" do not have a unified anything.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on March 05, 2012, 03:44:43 PM
Musashi, I have to disagree about Bill Maher.  For a guy who claims to be about freedom and tolerance (constantly a mouthpiece for legalization and gay rights), how does he go and make a hate-flick like Religulous?  That movie wasn't even remotely funny or joking, it was just him, bashing Christians about their faith.  Way to make Atheists look so classy, Bill!

I might agree if you were talking about, say, Dennis Miller (though, he wasn't funny, either).  Sadly, I still watch Bill Maher's show when there are good guests like NdGT.
To be the Devil's advocate, so to speak, I found Religulous hilarious.

I did, too. It wasn't ... just Christians. He was criticizing all 3 major religions. I just watched it for the second time last night and was no less astounded by the amount of bullshit you have to believe in order to be any of the 3. He makes VERY excellent points for being a mean-spirited buttface. ;)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on March 05, 2012, 04:27:57 PM
Quote from: brytta's article
But the grand pooh-bah of media misogyny is without a doubt Bill Maher—who also happens to be a favorite of liberals.

This is part I had a context problem with ... Bill Maher ... is a comedian ... doing a comedy show ... sure he says outrageous things at times, but that's what comedians do.

Bill Maher's intent is still political, however. Yes, he's a comedian on a comedy show, so we shouldn't consider him bound by, for example, the principles of journalistic ethics (as he's not a journalist); but he is still contributing to the political discourse. And to address this from the opposite direction - Rush Limbaugh is very much a comedian or entertainer too. His program is not intended to be a simple political discussion forum. Limbaugh aims to entertain his viewers and make them laugh, just like Maher does, while he delivers his political message.

Comedy, satire, and even straight-up trolling are still forms of political voice, even if they're not to be interpreted literally. I find the latter to be the least effective form of communication. Trolling, when performed artfully, is interesting to me, but it's a dead end for most conversations. I think the Limbaugh, Maher, O'Reilly, Coulter, and so on all delve into trolling because they're not adept enough at true comedy or satire but they still want to entertain their base.

Quote
Take Bill Maher about as seriously as you take Stephen Colbert, and you'll be just fine.

But that's not Maher's intention. Colbert deliberately plays a satirical character on his program. Maher may be putting on a performance, but he's still performing as Maher, not as a fictional construct (like Colbert on the Colbert Report.) I think that Maher's intentions are fairly good - certainly better than Rush's - but I agree with criticisms above which call him out for being too spiteful and not funny enough.

To get back to what brytta said earlier - Maher is obviously more popular on the left than on the right, but I think you're incorrect if you think he's regarded all that highly. Maher's just not as good at his job as some of his peers. There's a reason why Real Time With Bill Maher is regularly and constantly out-watched by Comedy Central's StewBert hour, and it's not because Stew-Beef airs after South Park.

In fact, there is no "Voice of the American Liberal."

There is, and it's Jon Stewart. Moreover, Jon Stewart holds this position of esteem not only because he's much funnier that Maher (a matter of opinion, I suppose) but because he demonstrates the dignity that Maher often lacks.

Musashi, I have to disagree about Bill Maher.  For a guy who claims to be about freedom and tolerance (constantly a mouthpiece for legalization and gay rights), how does he go and make a hate-flick like Religulous?  That movie wasn't even remotely funny or joking, it was just him, bashing Christians about their faith.

Now, this may undercut my point a bit... but I think the problem with Religulous was that it wasn't funny, not that it was too disrespectful of religious creeds. The mere idea that religious creeds deserve some sort of special respect is one of the biggest problems with modern human society. Maher argued this in his film, but poorly, and not very entertainingly, unfortunately. I will agree that he lacks class, but I think the reason he gets down in the mud so often is that he simply runs out of good jokes... because he's not a very good comedian. I don't think he's anywhere near Rush Limbaugh's level of vileness, even though he did call Sarah Palin a cunt - but using offensive shock vulgarity in place of a valid satirical line of argument or a good joke is, indeed, a very Rush Limbaugh thing to do. And that's the whole reason I don't watch Real Time With Bill Maher!
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Morrolan on March 05, 2012, 04:39:04 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/01/rush-limbaugh-sandra-fluke_n_1313891.html

Now I need an asprin...
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on March 05, 2012, 04:44:10 PM
How hilarious is it that Rush Limbaugh still thinks the amount of contraceptives one requires scales up with the amount of sex they're having?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on March 05, 2012, 05:04:57 PM
How hilarious is it that Rush Limbaugh still thinks the amount of contraceptives one requires scales up with the amount of sex they're having?

Hey, I've played Armageddon; I know this.

(Were you to listen to the offensive programme--I'm not suggesting, just saying--you'd realize that he's riffing on the number of condoms $3000 will buy on Amazon.com; these being a form of contraception that actually does scale thus.)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on March 05, 2012, 05:08:51 PM
But... but women don't... aw, forget it.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: lordcooper on March 05, 2012, 05:12:25 PM
That's crass commercialism at it's worst.  You only really need one condom, so long as you have a washing machine.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: RogueGunslinger on March 05, 2012, 05:13:55 PM
Don't wash them, that wears it thin, dude. Just flip it inside-out.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on March 05, 2012, 05:17:15 PM
But... but women don't... aw, forget it.

In the context of contraception (not the more generic "protection"), they actually do. :o
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on March 05, 2012, 05:31:45 PM
Mrm, I'm actually interested in the answers to this, not just trolling:

Could we mandate that employers provide insurance covering physician-assisted suicide?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Kismetic on March 05, 2012, 05:34:43 PM
Thanks for a script idea.  Cha-ching


Seriously, though, what are you hoping to get out of asking that question?

Also, @jstorrie, if it's funny, it is a joke.  If you're preaching, you're shaping minds to hate.  I'm not saying you can't take shots at religion, or lack thereof, and it be funny.  I'm just saying, generally, that prejudice is bad, and shouldn't be encouraged.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: BleakOne on March 05, 2012, 05:44:20 PM
I'd think that the answer would be no on paying for assisted suicide, since in general it's illegal, and it's not for the health of the employee.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: flurry on March 05, 2012, 05:51:10 PM
I'd think that the answer would be no on paying for assisted suicide, since in general it's illegal, and it's not for the health of the employee.

Agreed, and somehow I don't think reimbursement is a major concern of people at that point.

We do, however, require taxpayers to pay for capital punishment, which a lot of people (myself included) consider morally objectionable. Can I get a tax credit on grounds of freedom of conscience?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Jingo on March 05, 2012, 06:02:13 PM
I like Bill Mahr for his panels. I don''t like his rants.

I have nothing but contempt for Rush.


The real question:

Women should be prescribed treatment for ovarian cysts and other reproductive health issues. YES/NO/MAYBE


Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on March 05, 2012, 06:16:35 PM
We do, however, require taxpayers to pay for capital punishment, which a lot of people (myself included) consider morally objectionable. Can I get a tax credit on grounds of freedom of conscience?

I think you might get an exemption from paying for the execution of your employees who commit capital crimes.  Even discarding the "essential government functions" argument, there's a difference between forcing people to pay taxes and forcing them into direct positive acts.  (This is why Medicare should cover more controversial treatments than private insurance is required to cover.)

What I'm really interested in is whether there's any context in which lefty folks are susceptible to a freedom of conscience argument, rather than arguing the merits of the thing itself.  Probably there's not.

(But the interjection of government power into sex, the one area in which the recent Left has been really keen to preserve individual liberty, surely is hard to understand from a Right perspective.)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on March 05, 2012, 06:24:00 PM
I'm not a big fan of Bill Maher either, for about the same reasons jstorrie stated. My point is just that taking what Bill Maher says seriously is like taking what Howard Stern says seriously. He's a shock jockey, but for television and his gimmick topic is politics.

I don't think the same can be said of Rush Limbaugh. No one in Congress is calling Bill Maher to make sure he's ok with their legislative proposals before going through with them, but this has happened with Rush and the current Speaker of the House. Rush's show is not classified as a comedy show in any venue you care to look it up in. Real time with Bill Maher is. So on and so forth. If Rush identified himself as a comedian running a comedy show we'd be having a different conversation. But who are we kidding? He doesn't.

What I'm really interested in is whether there's any context in which lefty folks are susceptible to a freedom of conscience argument, rather than arguing the merits of the thing itself.  Probably there's not.

I believe most people on the left are just more of the mind that everyone should get the same medical coverage minimum, and those with religious beliefs should be free to choose individually what they do and don't want to partake in, within that spectrum.

Rather than the way it looks like right wingers see it ... where they want their "religious freedoms" to extend into the realm of being able to shit on other people. Ala the Sandra Fluke example of "Oh you need contraception to keep a cyst from growing on your ovaries? I don't believe you. I think you just want it to be a big old slut bag, so tough shit. Now step aside I need to go pick up my health insurance covered viagra for my very serious medical condition of erectile disfunction."
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on March 05, 2012, 06:38:03 PM
What I'm really interested in is whether there's any context in which lefty folks are susceptible to a freedom of conscience argument, rather than arguing the merits of the thing itself.  Probably there's not.

But this isn't merely a freedom of conscience argument, since hormonal contraceptives serve other necessary medical purposes (such as preventing ovarian cysts). This is being cast as a sex thing by the right, but it's not just a sex thing. Some people, such as Ms. Fluke's friend, need them for reasons not relating to the prevention of pregnancy - and are still being denied that coverage. Moreover, they're still being called sluts for it!
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: lordcooper on March 05, 2012, 06:51:29 PM
Could we mandate that employers provide insurance covering physician-assisted suicide?

I doubt you could, but I definitely wouldn't see it as a negative thing if you did.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Synthesis on March 05, 2012, 07:05:10 PM
Euthanasia would be pretty cheap, anyway.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Kismetic on March 05, 2012, 07:08:38 PM
Euthanasia would be pretty cheap, anyway.

And, in plenty of cases, humane.  It's a shame about that suicide and Hell thing.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on March 05, 2012, 07:57:41 PM
What I'm really interested in is whether there's any context in which lefty folks are susceptible to a freedom of conscience argument, rather than arguing the merits of the thing itself.  Probably there's not.

Women should be prescribed treatment for ovarian cysts and other reproductive health issues. YES/NO/MAYBE
I believe most people on the left are just more of the mind that everyone should get the same medical coverage minimum
hormonal contraceptives serve other necessary medical purposes

Okay, just checking.  You've lost the entire language of Rights (you can buy contraceptives--nowhere in dispute) in your enthusiasm for Privileges (you must give me contraceptives).
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: lordcooper on March 05, 2012, 08:06:50 PM
Because contraceptives should be treated in exactly the same manner as luxuries such as televisions, beer and cars?

Or to try a different line of thought, would you prefer to start paying for the Right of not getting your legs sawn off or keep it as a Privilege?

Also, you seem to have a pretty bizarre definition of each.  Isn't a privilege something only a few can have, while a right is something given to all?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on March 05, 2012, 08:17:36 PM
Okay, just checking.  You've lost the entire language of Rights (you can buy contraceptives--nowhere in dispute) in your enthusiasm for Privileges (you must give me contraceptives).

In a world...

Where things cost money...

One man...

doesn't understand that a right isn't very meaningful if you have a right to do something, but can't afford to do it
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Aruven on March 05, 2012, 08:27:59 PM
You would think that people would stop talking about fucking contraceptives. Ad the fear mongering is ridiculous. I'm already pissed off about the topics the GOP has made its platform about. And anytime Ron Paul mentions that we are walking into another Iraq with Iran, people like Gingrich say "He's completely irrational and outside of understanding the American people". Fuck you Newt, you want to colonize the moon right now. Lets fix our domestic issues.

I'm so sick of hearing Rick Santorum screaming about how all Muslims are a violent, ungodly people, and we must wipe out Iran. You go the fuck over there. I'm already not going to re-enlist because of idiots like him. And if religious fanatics have a president to enforce their decrees through, I'll be seeing you in Canada, Jstorrie.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on March 05, 2012, 08:30:08 PM
You can crash at our place, sure. But... you do know about our Prime Minister, right?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Maso on March 05, 2012, 09:03:39 PM
US should just relinquish their independence and submit to ruling by England.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: lordcooper on March 05, 2012, 09:17:05 PM
US should just relinquish their independence and submit to ruling by England.

Hell no.  We've got enough shit to sort out without having to deal with all their problems too.  Maybe we could give offer them to the Irish as an apology?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: morrigan on March 05, 2012, 09:35:32 PM
Okay, just checking.  You've lost the entire language of Rights (you can buy contraceptives--nowhere in dispute) in your enthusiasm for Privileges (you must give me contraceptives).

In a world...

Where things cost money...

One man...

doesn't understand that a right isn't very meaningful if you have a right to do something, but can't afford to do it

Just because you have a right to do something doesn't mean it should be handed to you for free just because you think you deserve to have it without doing anything in return for it. Also, last time I checked the Bill of Rights didn't actually contain any wording that guaranteed all citizens the right to contraceptives.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on March 05, 2012, 09:57:32 PM
US should just relinquish their independence and submit to ruling by England.

Hell no.  We've got enough shit to sort out without having to deal with all their problems too.  Maybe we could give offer them to the Irish as an apology?

Noooo.

Isn't the flat tax why Ireland's economy took so long to like, uh, stabilize?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: My 2 sids on March 05, 2012, 10:02:06 PM
I like Bill Mahr for his panels. I don''t like his rants.

I have nothing but contempt for Rush.


The real question:

Women should be prescribed treatment for ovarian cysts and other reproductive health issues. YES/NO/MAYBE




QFT
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Aruven on March 05, 2012, 10:16:12 PM
You can crash at our place, sure. But... you do know about our Prime Minister, right?

Not real updated on Canadian politics. Do I... want too?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Timetwister on March 05, 2012, 10:29:57 PM
The culture of politics is very interesting. If you've ever watched CSPAN you'll see just how degrading our politics are compared to some of the other countries.

Go check out the House of Commons which is where the british parliament does business. They have an open-mic night with the Prime Minister where he has to answer a board of questioning politicians from all over the country. Very interesting stuff.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Timetwister on March 05, 2012, 10:32:08 PM
For those too lazy to go find a good one here is a taste: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vyAiQEGQ8&feature=relmfu
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: lordcooper on March 05, 2012, 10:51:20 PM
For those too lazy to go find a good one here is a taste: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0vyAiQEGQ8&feature=relmfu

NSFW
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on March 05, 2012, 11:03:47 PM
Brytta what you are failing to grasp is that we do not see contraceptives as a luxury for ungodly whores.

We see it as basic medical care for women and there are very good reasons for that.  Hence ... we (the majority of America by any poll) think it should be covered by health insurance.

This rights vs priledges platform is just as fabricated and intelectually bankrupt as the "it's gonna cost too much money" argument was.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on March 06, 2012, 12:57:12 AM
Brytta what you are failing to grasp is that we do not see contraceptives as a luxury for ungodly whores.

We see it as basic medical care for women and there are very good reasons for that.  Hence ... we (the majority of America by any poll) think it should be covered by health insurance.

This rights vs priledges platform is just as fabricated and intelectually bankrupt as the "it's gonna cost too much money" argument was.

Is it bad when I skimmed musashi's reply at first, I thought that said lubricated??
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Kismetic on March 06, 2012, 01:02:01 AM
Not when talking about contraceptives.  "Spermicide," "intrauterine," and "ribbed for her pleasure" are also common mistakes
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on March 06, 2012, 01:06:45 AM
This rights vs priledges platform is just as fabricated and intelectually bankrupt as the "it's gonna cost too much money" argument was.

John Locke is going to rise from the grave, swim to Japan, and stab you in the face, and not just for misspelling.  I want you to know that this will make me sad.

In a world...
Where things cost money...
One man...
doesn't understand that a right isn't very meaningful if you have a right to do something, but can't afford to do it

Yes, this is a glorious argument for helping the poor, and totally irrelevant to the discussion, which relates to:
- average, responsible, productive, mostly adult citizens, and
- an expense that is modest, non-catastrophic, usually predictable, and for which many competing solutions are available.

There are many important things in life that everyone should have; would someone for Krath's sake come up with an argument that doesn't apply equally to groceries and routine auto maintenance?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on March 06, 2012, 01:07:23 AM
routine auto maintenance

Boog, that was for you.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: BleakOne on March 06, 2012, 02:40:13 AM
Aren't food stamps and public transport ways the gubment also provides food and (an alternative to) routine auto maintenance?

Edited to add a question mark instead of a full stop.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Nao on March 06, 2012, 03:11:12 AM
Should health care stop covering all regular prescription medication that you can plan for?

Something that might just come up - Jehova's witnesses refuse blood transfusions. They'd rather die than get one. Would you exempt them from covering blood transfusions? Or jewish/muslim employers from covering replacement heart valves (I think they're usually from a pig)?

I just don't buy the conscience argument. Even American Catholics are pretty split on this issue (and most of them use contraception). I'm putting this down as another case of 'Obama did it and it's health-care related, so we'll be fighting tooth to nail'. Or just undermine the new health care laws by adding as many exceptions as possible.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on March 06, 2012, 03:49:27 AM
Aren't food stamps and public transport ways the gubment also provides food and (an alternative to) routine auto maintenance.

yes
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on March 06, 2012, 07:16:46 AM
This rights vs priledges platform is just as fabricated and intelectually bankrupt as the "it's gonna cost too much money" argument was.

John Locke is going to rise from the grave, swim to Japan, and stab you in the face, and not just for misspelling.  I want you to know that this will make me sad.

You have to give me a break when I'm typing from my iPhone over a coffee break.

Yes, this is a glorious argument for helping the poor, and totally irrelevant to the discussion, which relates to:
- average, responsible, productive, mostly adult citizens, and
- an expense that is modest, non-catastrophic, usually predictable, and for which many competing solutions are available.

There are many important things in life that everyone should have; would someone for Krath's sake come up with an argument that doesn't apply equally to groceries and routine auto maintenance?

First, there are not many competing solutions available for women who need birth control to keep cysts from growing on their reproductive organs. You really need to stop with this assertion that contraception is like a recreational drug rather than basic health care for women. Being able to breed like rabbits if you want to is a fringe benefit of the medicine, just like being able to breed like rabbits is a fringe benefit of viagra, which is actually used to treat medical conditions too.

Second, contraception is not controversial medically, at all. It's not even socially controversial except among the religious fringe. 99% of women in the country who are sexually active have used it. 99% brytta. It's only politically controversial because that fringe is a very loud obnoxious minority and politics is a small bubble.

Third, we aren't talking about food and car upkeep. We're talking about health care ... that thing we already have laws and standards for. Birth control was determined by medical professionals to be a basic healthcare provision for women, so it's being incorporated into basic health care coverage. It's as simple as that.

But to the point brytta, it's a bankrupt argument because this is not a rights vs privileges, or a religious liberties issue, at all. If the Blunt Amendment had gone through it would have enabled employers to deny any particular form of medical care to anyone for any reason. -- So you get sick and your employer claims to think it was God's will so he shouldn't have to pay for it ... well ... you don't get your health care coverage. Employers would have been free to use their religion to single out ... whoever. Single people, gay people, immigrants, blacks, pick one, pick any. Got an STD? Sad day, you should have saved yourself for marriage. Got dark skin? My bible says you got that way by refusing to pick a side when Satan and Jesus fought. Got a sick child? Sorry ... I think it's the result of Kindoki witchcraft.

Your religious liberties as a employer, do not trump the religious or civil liberties of your employees. Period. You don't have the right (or the privilege) to discriminate against anyone by withholding basic medical care from them.

This is why the Church of Scientology still has to provide health insurance to its employees that covers the cost of anti-depressants in spite of their strong moral objections to it.

This is why the owner of a super market in the Bible Belt still has to provide health insurance to his employees that covers basic medical treatments in spite of his strong moral objection to anything other than faith healing at a revival.

The people working for the employer ... they have a right not to have their employer's religious values shoved onto them.

When you understand that, you will understand why the GOP is losing so horribly on this issue.

You're basically advocating that there should be no minimum standard of health care coverage for workers anywhere because religion trumps it. You get what your employer opts to give you as he deems fit when he deems fit (though you're still paying for this "coverage") and if you don't like it go somewhere else.

Well ... most Americans don't want to live in a 3rd world theocratic hell hole where workers have no protection from the abuse of their employers.  No matter what kind of funny hat & dress the employer is wearing :-\

We have freedom of religion in the US, and that entails freedom from religion as well.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on March 06, 2012, 07:32:00 AM
In other news though: I thought Limbaugh's apology on Saturday was hilarious. He like ... stopped apologizing half way through it and started talking shit again then remembered in the last sentence that he was supposed to be begging for his sponsors to stop dropping him.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: lordcooper on March 06, 2012, 08:12:32 AM
I don't know what you do for a living, but you gotta quit and get into politics dude.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: A Large Bag on March 06, 2012, 09:21:35 AM
Quote
We have freedom of religion in the US, and that entails freedom from religion as well.

If people would just remember this our country could get going in the correct direction. Many of the problems in politics and our government would be lessened too. Freedom of religion, does not, nor will it ever mean, freedom to force your religious ideals on others.  A good portion of republicans can't understand the difference. I respect other's rights to believe in their god, or not. Why can't they respect my right to believe as I do as a fellow American?

This is just another reason for my disdain of religion. Yet another problem in this world caused by something that is supposed to be a positive thing but humans insist on making it a negative.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Romy on March 06, 2012, 09:55:42 AM
Well ... most Americans don't want to live in a 3rd world theocratic hell hole where workers have no protection from the abuse of their employers.

Come live in my country for six months. We will see then if you still look at America the same way.

We have freedom of religion in the US, and that entails freedom from religion as well.

You are very lucky.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: marko on March 06, 2012, 11:28:50 AM
Come live in my country for six months. We will see then if you still look at America the same way.

What country?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Romy on March 06, 2012, 11:38:47 AM
Indonesia.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on March 06, 2012, 11:41:55 AM
Allanak.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Old Kank on March 06, 2012, 12:12:37 PM
Well ... most Americans don't want to live in a 3rd world theocratic hell hole where workers have no protection from the abuse of their employers.

Come live in my country for six months. We will see then if you still look at America the same way.

I'd love to hear you expand on that some.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Ghost on March 06, 2012, 01:05:31 PM
ILUM IS OURS TO TAKE

DEATH TO THE REPUBLICANS

LONG LIVE THE EMPEROR
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: LauraMars on March 06, 2012, 02:01:02 PM
I suffered from ovarian cysts when I was a teenager.  It was the worst abdominal pain I have ever experienced in my life.  It happened twice in two consecutive months and by the second time (vastly worse than the first) I literally thought I was going to die.  So my parents hustled me to the emergency room and the doctors put me on birth control and the problem was gone by the next month.  Apparently if it had not been treated I might have had to have surgery, perhaps losing the ability to have children.

So yeah I'm all about birth control.

And so are my parents - staunch Christians and republicans both.  They are not free sex pills - in my opinion it's stupid to have sex without a condom if you aren't in a committed relationship with someone, because it could be potentially unhealthy.  It's such a confusing thing to see being argued about.  Is this 1955 or something? 
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Maso on March 06, 2012, 02:11:01 PM
I suffered from ovarian cysts when I was a teenager.  It was the worst abdominal pain I have ever experienced in my life.  It happened twice in two consecutive months and by the second time (vastly worse than the first) I literally thought I was going to die.  So my parents hustled me to the emergency room and the doctors put me on birth control and the problem was gone by the next month.  Apparently if it had not been treated I might have had to have surgery, perhaps losing the ability to have children.

Exactly the same thing happened to me when I was 12, Omg..How frickin' painful is it!! Never felt anything like it...I actually thought I was having a heart attack (reflected pain in my arm and chest - weird).
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on March 06, 2012, 02:13:06 PM
It's such a confusing thing to see being argued about.  Is this 1955 or something? 

Yeah, I don't think anyone except the Roman Catholics is arguing against.  (Nor they, officially, when it's used for non-birth-control reasons.)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: morrigan on March 06, 2012, 03:12:26 PM
I'd like to point out that it's not only religious people arguing against this. I'm an atheist, and still don't support it. The government should have absolutely no say in how a business runs itself. The government isn't supposed to be here to micromanage the country. If I start a business and bust my ass for hundreds of hours to make it successful, I should be the first and last in determining how it is run, as long as I am not infringing on THE RIGHTS of other people. We've already established(with a quick skim through the bill of rights) that contraception or even medical care is not one of the inalienable rights of the US citizen. Sure, health insurance providers should be more than welcome to pay for birth control, if they want to. On the other side of this, I think religious institutions are pushing this whole freedom of religion thing way farther than it was ever meant to be, or ever should have been meant to go. For instance, the whole not paying taxes thing that churches have going on. Why? You're US citizens right? Yes? You operate within the borders of the US right? Yes? So pay taxes just like everyone else does. I think both sides of this argument have entitlement issues. No one should -expect- certain privileges.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Old Kank on March 06, 2012, 04:07:40 PM
No one should -expect- certain privileges.

I may be a bit naive in this, but I'd like to believe that the end-game to all this is that we are, in fact, establishing rights through our expectations.

We may not see it in our lifetime, or even the life of the U.S., but I hope that future generations have a right to and an expectation of a social floor.  If they don't, then we've done ourselves a tragic disservice.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Romy on March 06, 2012, 05:22:59 PM
I'd love to hear you expand on that some.

Ever heard of Suharto?
Gayus Tambunan?
Nazaruddin?
Malinda Dee?

These are just a few examples of career politicians who are/were corrupt. They have set my country back by years. Easily.

Beyond that, do some research on Suharto. He was absolutely the worst thing to happen to my country. Ever. Committing genocide, stealing from the Indonesian people and holding everyone accountable for what they did (except himself or his family, of course).

Look up why the rivers of Surabaya ran red with the blood of Chinese Indonesians.

Or the September Movement.

Or the countless examples showing how rampant corruption is in my country.

And of course, how the government allows their faith in Allah to dictate national policy. I am Muslim, but also believe in Pancasila. Look that up as well, if you want.

Look up how Fauzi Bowo, the governor of Jakarta, pledged to outlaw Ahmadiyya, even though our constitution guarantees freedom of religion.

Look up any of the countless laws that outlaw various things because of the government's interpretation of Quranic texts.

NU.

Muhammadiyah.

The FPI.

I could go on, and on, and on and on. I don't feel like giving you an explanation of why America is so much better than my country. Just take my word for it:

America is the greatest country on this planet. I hope to take my wife there someday, and earn citizenship. That way my children can become American, and we will not have to worry about this crap anymore.

If you want a detailed explanation of any of the names I have mentioned, use your google-fu. Or wikipedia.

Or go to www.thejakartapost.com
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: BleakOne on March 06, 2012, 05:36:58 PM
Come to Australia, dude. We have nice beaches and our conservatives are obsessed with the economy, not religion... usually.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Romy on March 06, 2012, 05:47:24 PM
Yeah a lot of my friends are there and they love it.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on March 06, 2012, 06:21:28 PM
I'd like to point out that it's not only religious people arguing against this. I'm an atheist, and still don't support it. The government should have absolutely no say in how a business runs itself. The government isn't supposed to be here to micromanage the country. If I start a business and bust my ass for hundreds of hours to make it successful, I should be the first and last in determining how it is run, as long as I am not infringing on THE RIGHTS of other people. We've already established(with a quick skim through the bill of rights) that contraception or even medical care is not one of the inalienable rights of the US citizen. Sure, health insurance providers should be more than welcome to pay for birth control, if they want to. On the other side of this, I think religious institutions are pushing this whole freedom of religion thing way farther than it was ever meant to be, or ever should have been meant to go. For instance, the whole not paying taxes thing that churches have going on. Why? You're US citizens right? Yes? You operate within the borders of the US right? Yes? So pay taxes just like everyone else does. I think both sides of this argument have entitlement issues. No one should -expect- certain privileges.

You are in essence, arguing for the return of company towns, and Industrial Revolution Era working standards. No thanks man. We tried that once already. We decided we didn't like it. We decided instead that when someone busts their ass for hundreds of hours making a company successful, that they ought to recognize the value of the people who assisted them in their endeavor. Not only the workers directly under them, but the society around them that provided the roads, power, water, waste disposal, protection from criminal elements, ect, ect.

It is, for lack of a better way to describe it, childishly selfish to assume that you did it all on your own, and are thus entitled to complete immunity from the expectations of the society around you that made it possible and continues to keep it possible in the first place.

We (read: America) have already addressed this argument back in the 1880's. That's why we have shit like a minimum wage (not in the Bill of Rights) ... overtime requirements (not in the Bill of Rights) ... workers compensation (not in the Bill of Rights) ... anti-discrimination laws (not in the Bill of Rights) ... sexual harassment laws ((not in the Bill of Rights) ... and yes ... yes ... health care coverage (also not in the Bill of Rights).

The Bill of Rights is awesome; it's also over 200 years old. Things have changed just a little bit.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on March 06, 2012, 06:24:28 PM
Indonesia.

Ouch man  :-\ Hope you get out of there.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Maso on March 06, 2012, 06:54:29 PM
Having just started a company in the US....I was completely and utterly horrified by the lack of legal requirements of employers to their employees. And I'm the one running the company. I want to be able to look after my employees. I want them to have 25 days holiday a year. I want them to have full health care, sick leave, maternity leave. The regular American (who works for someone else) is getting a seriously raw end of the deal, you have 0 holiday entitlement, if you're sick - no one looks out for you, you can literally just be fired because the boss got caught shagging his receptionist by his wife the night before and is in a shitty mood.

As an employer, it's difficult to be able to offer our employees everything we would like to (and what we are used to everyone having in England) and still compete in the same market as companies that will happily drive their employees into their death beds.

A government that has a respect for quality of life is a good thing. It's not all about money. And any employer worth their salt should recognize that the best way to have an enthusiastic and productive workforce is to treat them well and create good morale.

Including preventative medications as part of what they should provide...is just another positive. In England (and most countries) the government obviously provides it all...but at the end of the day...someone needs to provide it - because this medical shit costs a fortune when people are out to make a gigantic profit off life and death.

I don't believe in micromanagement...but I do believe that a country needs to be managed...especially a country the size of the US. And tackling this from a perspective where peoples rights, health, well-being and happiness are a priority is a great thing. We need rules, and I would rather see rules that benefit the little guy.

Don't get me wrong. I like money. I'm just not a greedy asshole who wants stamp on other people to get it.

I vote Conservative in England.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: morrigan on March 06, 2012, 07:59:41 PM
Having just started a company in the US....I was completely and utterly horrified by the lack of legal requirements of employers to their employees. And I'm the one running the company. I want to be able to look after my employees. I want them to have 25 days holiday a year. I want them to have full health care, sick leave, maternity leave. The regular American (who works for someone else) is getting a seriously raw end of the deal, you have 0 holiday entitlement, if you're sick - no one looks out for you, you can literally just be fired because the boss got caught shagging his receptionist by his wife the night before and is in a shitty mood.

As an employer, it's difficult to be able to offer our employees everything we would like to (and what we are used to everyone having in England) and still compete in the same market as companies that will happily drive their employees into their death beds.

A government that has a respect for quality of life is a good thing. It's not all about money. And any employer worth their salt should recognize that the best way to have an enthusiastic and productive workforce is to treat them well and create good morale.

Including preventative medications as part of what they should provide...is just another positive. In England (and most countries) the government obviously provides it all...but at the end of the day...someone needs to provide it - because this medical shit costs a fortune when people are out to make a gigantic profit off life and death.

I don't believe in micromanagement...but I do believe that a country needs to be managed...especially a country the size of the US. And tackling this from a perspective where peoples rights, health, well-being and happiness are a priority is a great thing. We need rules, and I would rather see rules that benefit the little guy.

Don't get me wrong. I like money. I'm just not a greedy asshole who wants stamp on other people to get it.

I vote Conservative in England.

This is also in response to Musashi. This is how it should be. An employer should treat his/her employees fairly, and if they do not, it is the employee's responsibility to not work for that employer. Rather than expecting the government to force your employer to do things for you, perhaps you should realize the power is yours. If they don't treat you well, don't work for them. See how quickly they change their tune.  This is a social and moral issue, not a government issue.

"You are in essence, arguing for the return of company towns, and Industrial Revolution Era working standards. No thanks man. We tried that once already. We decided we didn't like it. We decided instead that when someone busts their ass for hundreds of hours making a company successful, that they ought to recognize the value of the people who assisted them in their endeavor. Not only the workers directly under them, but the society around them that provided the roads, power, water, waste disposal, protection from criminal elements, ect, ect."

Absolutely. The industrial age was a complete failure. That's why we never progressed past the steam engine. When did working for a living become such a repulsive idea? Now, I agree wholeheartedly, there are some horrible companies out there that promote people based on their popularity, rather than ability. Companies who don't value their employees at all. Who's fault is that? Is it the government's fault for not imposing enough rules and sanctions? Or is it the fault of the people who continue working for these companies who couldn't operate without them?
Know what else we tried and didn't like? Being ruled over by an entity that cared only for itself. So we had a revolution and declared our independence. Every time the masses whine to the government to step in and fix their problems for them, rather than taking steps to fix them themselves, they cede a little more of their freedom.

"It is, for lack of a better way to describe it, childishly selfish to assume that you did it all on your own, and are thus entitled to complete immunity from the expectations of the society around you that made it possible and continues to keep it possible in the first place."

A business has no social obligation. They aren't in business to support the people around them. They are in business to make money. All that infrastructure you spoke of and said the companies should be grateful for and give credit to are payed for by taxes and built and provided by the government. They show their gratitude and earn the right to use them by also paying taxes.

We (read: America) have already addressed this argument back in the 1880's. That's why we have shit like a minimum wage (not in the Bill of Rights) ... overtime requirements (not in the Bill of Rights) ... workers compensation (not in the Bill of Rights) ... anti-discrimination laws (not in the Bill of Rights) ... sexual harassment laws ((not in the Bill of Rights) ... and yes ... yes ... health care coverage (also not in the Bill of Rights).

All good things that shouldn't be government mandated. We came here for freedom, not complete government control, which is where small things like this eventually lead. Like I said before, people need to stop feeling entitled and start relying more on themselves. Lok to the French Revolution for examples. Build a few guillotines. See what happens.

The Bill of Rights is awesome; it's also over 200 years old. Things have changed just a little bit.

Things have changed. Other things have not. One thing that -has- changed is people now clamor for freedom, while begging for small changes here and there that actually restrict their freedom.

So, my question to you Musashi is, what do you feel the role of the government in the US should be?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: A Large Bag on March 06, 2012, 08:03:46 PM
If they're all allowed to treat you like shit then you're just trading one shitty job with a shitty boss for another. The government should step in and enforce laws to prevent employers from abusing their employees. The thought that, they don't need to because they'll behave, is foolish. Those with the power prove time and time again that a majority will go as far as the law allows them to as long as they're making a buck.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: BleakOne on March 06, 2012, 08:08:41 PM
Such a system also encourages 'bad bosses' over good onces. Bad Bosses would make more profit since they pay people less, give no holidays, ect. Good Bosses would either have to start cutting good things for their employees, or go out of business.

You seem to be forgetting that many are not in the circumstances which allow ditching their job and searching for a new one that might be some distance away, already filled, not hiring, ect.

So yeah, in many cases total freedom leaves you only the freedom to be someone else's pawn.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: morrigan on March 06, 2012, 08:10:55 PM
This conversation diverged anyhow. It started off as someone pointing out the difference between rights and privileges and now we're debating whether there should be laws. You think that if there are no laws people will be generally shitty. I say that in the absence of laws, take matters into your own hands. You say companies will walk on people as long as they are making a buck, my point is they won't be making a buck if everyone refuses to work for them because they are walking on them. It works, it's worked before, it'll work again.  Or it would, if people hadn't lost the nerve to do anything for themselves.

Ah well, can't argue and don't really care to. Who is John Galt?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: morrigan on March 06, 2012, 08:13:16 PM
Such a system also encourages 'bad bosses' over good onces. Bad Bosses would make more profit since they pay people less, give no holidays, ect. Good Bosses would either have to start cutting good things for their employees, or go out of business.

You seem to be forgetting that many are not in the circumstances which allow ditching their job and searching for a new one that might be some distance away, already filled, not hiring, ect.

So yeah, in many cases total freedom leaves you only the freedom to be someone else's pawn.

How does that even make sense? If "good bosses" are those who provide all those benefits that have been forced on them by laws, and they would go out of business by offering them without coercion, then if they are coerced into doing so by laws then they will go out of business either way. So you're saying that those laws place strictures on companies that are bad for them and make it difficult for them to operate at a profit.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: BleakOne on March 06, 2012, 08:20:25 PM
No, but if you allow people to ignore those benefits, the bad bosses will make more money, grow larger, and crush the 'good bosses'. Manufacturing in sweat shops is far cheaper than hiring properly paid people, and so the vast majority of big businesses go with sweat shops and the like instead of the alternative.

However, if -everyone- is forced to pay fair wages and such, it doesn't allow the underhanded to outmaneuver the good bosses.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Maso on March 06, 2012, 08:21:55 PM
Quote
it is the employee's responsibility to not work for that employer.

Are you kidding? Do you seriously think the majority of people with responsibilities are in a position to sack in their jobs because their employer is awful? Most people are lucky just to have a job. And even if they did sack it in...they'd likely just end up in another one that's just as bad.

Quote
How does that even make sense? If "good bosses" are those who provide all those benefits that have been forced on them by laws, and they would go out of business by offering them without coercion, then if they are coerced into doing so by laws then they will go out of business either way. So you're saying that those laws place strictures on companies that are bad for them and make it difficult for them to operate at a profit.

The answer to this is pretty obvious...Increased cost of running a business means you need to increase your prices....if you are alone in this endeavor...trying to be the good guy in a see of horror....then you will be undercut by slave labour. If being nice to your staff is mandatory...everyone has to do it...everyones prices have to increase...you won't be undercut by someone unless they take a hit on their greed and take lower dividends (shock shock horror).
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: morrigan on March 06, 2012, 08:28:20 PM
No, but if you allow people to ignore those benefits, the bad bosses will make more money, grow larger, and crush the 'good bosses'. Manufacturing in sweat shops is far cheaper than hiring properly paid people, and so the vast majority of big businesses go with sweat shops and the like instead of the alternative.

However, if -everyone- is forced to pay fair wages and such, it doesn't allow the underhanded to outmaneuver the good bosses.

There are laws against sweatshops. They still exist. Didn't work did it? While I'm almost universally against extreme government control, one law I do think would be beneficial would be to either outlaw or impose tariffs that would make outsourcing impractical.

I really wish I knew how to do that thing where you quote multiple people in one reply...should figure that out some day. In reply to Maso, I fully understand the difficulty of taking a stand and losing a job. I work for minimum wage to support my child as a single father, I know it better than a lot of people.  However, there are acceptable levels of discomfort when fighting for something, something people in the past understood fully. I guarantee you, those people wouldn't have to go more than a few days without jobs if they united and left a company. This is why strikes were so successful before unions became so embroiled in politics. As I stated before, a businesses' sole purpose is to make a profit. If they are not making one, they will adjust. Quickly.

Bah. I've lost interest in this. You know what? I have an idea. We should give control of all the companies to the government. Let them decide who produces what, in what amount, what prices they can sell it for, who they employ, who they can fire, how much they have to pay their employees, and who gets the finished product, based on their need, rather than if they can earn it. That should fix everything. What could possibly go wrong?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: BleakOne on March 06, 2012, 08:39:14 PM
There's more than two choices. "Companies can do as they please" and "Government controls all" are both bad systems. Both put too much power into the hands of people quite willing to abuse it.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: morrigan on March 06, 2012, 08:48:30 PM
There's more than two choices. "Companies can do as they please" and "Government controls all" are both bad systems. Both put too much power into the hands of people quite willing to abuse it.

Very true. But small rules lead to larger rules, especially when the general populace doesn't care enough to pay attention to what is going on and think ahead to where it could lead.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Kismetic on March 06, 2012, 08:57:43 PM
That's why we never progressed past the steam engine.

"Houston, we've had a problem, here."
"This is Houston.  Say again, please."
"Houston, we've had a problem.  The coal dispenser is jammed."
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on March 06, 2012, 09:10:39 PM
There are laws against sweatshops. They still exist.

They generally don't exist in the countries which have the laws against them. Only in the countries which don't. I think those laws are functioning as intended!
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on March 06, 2012, 09:15:09 PM
RGS should retitle this to 'Board Republicans Get Dog-Piled By Board Progressives Thread,' because I think registered Republican voters are outnumbered like 12-1 up in here.

AND THAT'S HOW I LIKE IT.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on March 06, 2012, 09:23:22 PM
As a conservative, you totally have to settle for replying to the stuff that's fun to reply to.

Also, Hitler.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: morrigan on March 06, 2012, 09:24:12 PM
RGS should retitle this to 'Board Republicans Get Dog-Piled By Board Progressives Thread,' because I think registered Republican voters are outnumbered like 12-1 up in here.

AND THAT'S HOW I LIKE IT.

*is a libertarian*
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: BleakOne on March 06, 2012, 09:27:53 PM
One could make a comment on how we lefties must be evil since we seem to swarm around a game as dark and harsh as Armageddon.

I'd make an angry face at you if you did though.  >:(
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Maso on March 06, 2012, 10:34:16 PM
It's because 'righties' just get the same kicks...in real life. Stealing boots off the poor etc.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: lordcooper on March 06, 2012, 11:51:46 PM
So what do you guys make of this lovely piece of legislation (http://news.antiwar.com/2012/02/28/trespass-bill-would-violate-peaceful-assembly-rights/)?

E: The actual Act (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr347enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr347enr.pdf).
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: morrigan on March 06, 2012, 11:52:01 PM
That's ok though, because the lefties can just demand more because they deserve them due to their need.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: lordcooper on March 07, 2012, 12:24:20 AM
http://thedailywh.at/2012/03/06/abstinence-only-bill-of-the-day/
Quote
Abstinence-Only Bill of the Day: With the nation’s attention trained on the media’s breathless coverage of Super Tuesday, Utah’s legislature this evening quietly passed a bill requiring schools to teach abstinence-only sex education, or else skip the classes altogether.

Additionally, both teachers and students would be prohibited from discussing contraception and homosexuality in the classroom.
Quote
Senator Stuart Reid (R-Ogden) said the legislation takes sex ed out of the hands of teachers “who we have no idea what their morals are” and turns it over to parents.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: boog on March 07, 2012, 01:50:51 AM
derp derp derp derp derp

Because abstinence only works so well.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Kismetic on March 07, 2012, 01:59:24 AM
http://thedailywh.at/2012/03/06/abstinence-only-bill-of-the-day/
Quote
Abstinence-Only Bill of the Day: With the nation’s attention trained on the media’s breathless coverage of Super Tuesday, Utah’s legislature this evening quietly passed a bill requiring schools to teach abstinence-only sex education, or else skip the classes altogether.

Mm, yes, let's move them all to Utah ...   it's gorgeous, but a fair trade.  *steeple*


I guess you could call that a state's rights victory ...  but at what cost, if Timmy buys Magnums, and Sue is late?   ???
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Case on March 07, 2012, 02:12:00 AM
abstinence only has a 99.999999999% success rate so the christians would lead us to believe

doesn't seem very fail safe

what if more gods are born
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Kismetic on March 07, 2012, 02:13:56 AM
Nothing wrong with abstinence.  I can respect that sort of commitment.  You're a fucking moron, though, if you don't get that it's not for everyone.


Edit:  Man, it's hard to derail this thread.  You should just call it, American Politics.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Nao on March 07, 2012, 03:14:59 AM
Nothing wrong with abstinence.  I can respect that sort of commitment.  You're a fucking moron, though, if you don't get that it's not for everyone.


Edit:  Man, it's hard to derail this thread.  You should just call it, American Politics.
I'm convinced there's a high likelyhood you'll turn into a complete, fucked up creep eventually if you never have sex.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Synthesis on March 07, 2012, 05:38:56 AM
Libertarians are progressives who never bothered to learn history or study modern psychology, or are really bad at it.  The world you would like is not a world that capitalism will produce.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: morrigan on March 07, 2012, 06:33:35 AM
Libertarians are progressives who never bothered to learn history or study modern psychology, or are really bad at it.  The world you would like is not a world that capitalism will produce.

How so?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on March 07, 2012, 07:20:45 AM
Absolutely. The industrial age was a complete failure. That's why we never progressed past the steam engine.

The industrial age did exactly what it was supposed to do. The economy kicked ass during the Industrial Revolution, it's just that the workers got shafted in the process. The same thing is happening again, now, in China. To say it was a complete failure and didn't produce technological innovations ... is ... I'm sorry to say ... just you being ignorant of history. It produced all those things. It just also screwed over workers because they had no legal protection, in the process but that part wasn't an integral component. It was an oversight.

When did working for a living become such a repulsive idea?

This is such a silly thing to say. No one is championing for free money or handouts except the religious institutions that want grants but don't want to pay taxes and the big companies you don't seem to want regulated who bribe politicians for unneeded subsidies and tax loopholes. This entire contraception issue isn't even about entitlement because the people who work at the company and get the insurance pay into the program. If there are costs to be had (which there won't be for reasons that have already been explained, but if there are for the sake of argument) they would be shared jointly by employer and employee.

This misdirected mischaracterization is really tiring.

Know what else we tried and didn't like? Being ruled over by an entity that cared only for itself. So we had a revolution and declared our independence. Every time the masses whine to the government to step in and fix their problems for them, rather than taking steps to fix them themselves, they cede a little more of their freedom.

We um, elect our officials, albeit our election process could stand a bit of clean up to get the corruption out but still. I don't see your point here at all. You think that the government mandating healthcare coverage minimum standards for its working citizens (I say working because we aren't talking about socialized medicine like in Europe or here in Japan, in the states you gotta have a job to have coverage or pay out of pocket) ... is totally comparable ... to a self-interested Monarchy? Really?

Government wanting healthcare standards for it's citizens ... ... = ... ... government not interested in anything but itself.

I don't know how you get from one to the other. I'm just, stumped.

A business has no social obligation. They aren't in business to support the people around them. They are in business to make money. All that infrastructure you spoke of and said the companies should be grateful for and give credit to are payed for by taxes and built and provided by the government. They show their gratitude and earn the right to use them by also paying taxes.

As a small digression ... we know that big companies aren't paying their fair share in taxes. At all. So they aren't even meeting their social obligations by your definition. But to the heart of your assertion, sorry ... you're incorrect. We took a vote on this already back in the day and decided we'd rather businesses have an obligation to treat those in the society around them a bit better than dog shit.

I suppose you could campaign to change that by trying to get all employee protection and industry regulation laws stripped from the books, but until then, you're wrong. Businesses have societal obligations because we, as a society, fought to make it so.

Now I agree with you in so far as to say that a business has no reason to do anything other than make money at all costs. That's why you have to make laws to make them provide basic human dignity type stuff in the first place. They have no reason to do it unless you force them.

All good things that shouldn't be government mandated. We came here for freedom, not complete government control, which is where small things like this eventually lead. Like I said before, people need to stop feeling entitled and start relying more on themselves. Lok to the French Revolution for examples. Build a few guillotines. See what happens.

"The cost of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson. If your argument boils down to, "Eventually the slippery slope will lead to total government domination." Well, then you're just being lazy and don't deserve your freedom. It's already been said, but this is not a dichotomy between no government at all and total Orwellian Big Brother. The government needs to kept in check by educated, involved citizens who are forever on the lookout for power grabs by unscrupulous politicians and rich donors. If you're unwilling to be educated and involved, then yeah ... you're gonna get taken advantage of. The Founding Fathers knew it. I recommend taking their advise rather than just saying screw it, let's just not govern anything.

So, my question to you Musashi is, what do you feel the role of the government in the US should be?

Little question, big long essay style answer better suited to another thread. But generally jstorrie and I see about eye to eye on this, you could go back and read what he wrote about it (http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,41862.msg636402.html#msg636402).

Just one final thing ...

You say companies will walk on people as long as they are making a buck, my point is they won't be making a buck if everyone refuses to work for them because they are walking on them. It works, it's worked before, it'll work again.  Or it would, if people hadn't lost the nerve to do anything for themselves.

What historical precedent are you referencing here, exactly? Because um ... as I recall, back in that thing called history ... when people went on strike before we had legally recognized unions ... aside from getting the shit kicked out of them by the police, the companies just bused in immigrants and second class citizens like blacks and asians to work those jobs instead.

This to me ... sounds an awful lot like when Christians say that abstinence only works 100% of the time.

Yes ... if you ignore every single factor of life in the real world and only talk about the situation in a hypothetical bubble where you get to cherry pick the circumstances to make your assertions easy to defend ... then sure ... abstinence only and "the perfect free market" both work out 100% of the time in those 100% contrived situations.

Meanwhile ... back in reality ...  :-\

Yeah I have to agree with Synth, it sounds like you just don't have a solid grasp of history or human psychology man. Sorry.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on March 07, 2012, 08:04:10 AM
So what do you guys make of this lovely piece of legislation (http://news.antiwar.com/2012/02/28/trespass-bill-would-violate-peaceful-assembly-rights/)?

E: The actual Act (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr347enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr347enr.pdf).

Much like the Defense Authorization Act, I think this is another stab in the face to our civil liberties and is a far better example of morrigan's slippery slope argument than anything related to contraception or worker's rights. People should be getting outraged about this. And extra-judicial assassinations of Americans. And indefinite detention (of Americans) without trial.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on March 07, 2012, 10:33:43 AM
How so?

For the answer, please see history books.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Kismetic on March 07, 2012, 11:56:23 AM
I'm convinced there's a high likelyhood you'll turn into a complete, fucked up creep eventually if you never have sex.

Yeah ...  It was so hard those first fifteen years.  Ugh, dirty punning, again.  I can't stop.


Much like the Defense Authorization Act, I think this is another stab in the face to our civil liberties and is a far better example of morrigan's slippery slope argument than anything related to contraception or worker's rights. People should be getting outraged about this. And extra-judicial assassinations of Americans. And indefinite detention (of Americans) without trial.

There's been a mess of these attempts to violate our rights through legislation in the last decade.  I find this very, very disturbing.  Patriot Act passed with maxed sneak/hide and a military diversion.  I'm concerned something worse can slip through the cracks.   >:(
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Maso on March 07, 2012, 12:49:51 PM
Quote
Additionally, both teachers and students would be prohibited from discussing contraception and homosexuality in the classroom.

AIDS outbreak in Utah looming!
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Qzzrbl on March 07, 2012, 01:26:28 PM
Utah can burn.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on March 07, 2012, 04:47:48 PM
There's been a mess of these attempts to violate our rights through legislation in the last decade.  I find this very, very disturbing.  Patriot Act passed with maxed sneak/hide and a military diversion.  I'm concerned something worse can slip through the cracks.   >:(

Yeah, while this may just be my naivety talking since I wasn't always following politics, I feel like this crap started happening (most recently, it aint the first time) after 9-11. It just feels like a page straight out of McArthur's book, "Quick! They're scared! Offer the veneer of security in exchange for their rights!" It's just terrorist Muslims instead of Communists now.  :'(
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Kismetic on March 07, 2012, 05:03:52 PM
"Those who can give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Benjamin Franklin
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Morrolan on March 07, 2012, 05:09:21 PM
...this may just be my naivety talking since I wasn't always following politics...

When I was five years old, I could not understand the idea of counterculture, the "hippies." In a childish sort of way, I believed that the government was legitimate and well-intentioned.

When I was in my twenties and early thirties, I could not believe the ways that people would use power against each other. I could see the corruption, but saw it as separate from the "system" rather than an integral part of it. Again, naive.

Corruption is not a "bug" in the system. Corruption, when controlled, is a feature. It is what allows the system, an intellectual construct, the flexibility to be imposed over people, who are intellectual but also biological. Corruption adds "give" to the system. We should continue to fight corruption, but realize that it is a battle that can never be won.

[aside]
Lately, I have begun to understand just how brutal the world would be without "culture" (not just Western culture) holding back the tide. Stripping away the cultural propaganda and the bias of being a middle-class male of European descent, I see the recent efforts (past two centuries especially, but really post-Enlightenment in general) to give people "universal" rights, education, and some kinds of freedom as an amazing experiment. Unfortunately, we are not always as successful as we would like to be, but a lot of that comes from confusing "what we know" with "what we wish."

As always, we need to balance "people are rational" with "people are primates." This, I believe, is one of the great failings of Western philosophy. Whether it is Descartes "I think therefore I am" or economics' "rational maximizer" we seem to have lost track of our "lower nature" and, perhaps more importantly, the fact that other people have them, too.

[/aside]

Again, I am not saying that we should give up this struggle. Far from it. But there are days that I am profoundly grateful for some of the little things we take for granted: indoor plumbing, heating, food distribution systems, and basic medical care.

Edit to add:
And the Internet. And Armageddon.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: lordcooper on March 07, 2012, 05:42:18 PM
That's quite an interesting perspective, but I'll cling to my hope that we'll one day manage to kill the primate.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: morrigan on March 07, 2012, 05:51:42 PM
Deleted cause I don't give enough of a rodent's posterior.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: marko on March 07, 2012, 06:00:00 PM
All I have to say is, sarcasm is obviously lost on you,
As a lurker I have to ask for clarification:  what sarcasm?  I think I missed it as well if there was any.

Further, could you expand upon this:
You say companies will walk on people as long as they are making a buck, my point is they won't be making a buck if everyone refuses to work for them because they are walking on them. It works, it's worked before, it'll work again.  Or it would, if people hadn't lost the nerve to do anything for themselves.
When has it worked? 
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: lordcooper on March 07, 2012, 06:07:31 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_miners'_strike_(1984%E2%80%931985)

Oh wait...
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: morrigan on March 07, 2012, 06:08:30 PM
All I have to say is, sarcasm is obviously lost on you,
As a lurker I have to ask for clarification:  what sarcasm?  I think I missed it as well if there was any.

Further, could you expand upon this:
You say companies will walk on people as long as they are making a buck, my point is they won't be making a buck if everyone refuses to work for them because they are walking on them. It works, it's worked before, it'll work again.  Or it would, if people hadn't lost the nerve to do anything for themselves.
When has it worked?  


The sarcasm was when I said the industrial revolution obviously didn't work since we'd never progressed past the steam engine, and he said that thinking it was a failure was a sign of my ignorance of history.

The when it has worked really needs no answer. That statement led from me stating that such things had worked well, back before unions became so political. This is a combined statement. The first part is me saying that people refusing to work had, in the past, allowed them to leverage considerable power over undesirable employers, and the second part was me stating my opinion that unions were now more concerned with politics than the actual good of their members. A quick bit of google-fu can show you a long list of successful union strikes, such as the Uprising of the 20,000 and many others. Anyhow, perhaps I didn't convey it well in my last post, but I'm done with this conversation. I'm obviously far too ignorant to talk with the big boys and girls.

*edited because I used to instead of too in my ironic statement about being ignorant. GD I rock.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Kismetic on March 07, 2012, 06:10:15 PM
Lol, it's like Good Will Hunting.  But without the genius.  Or the apples.

*popcorn Jackson*
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: BleakOne on March 07, 2012, 06:21:00 PM
*popcorn Jackson*
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on March 07, 2012, 06:25:51 PM
I'm sorry you feel like you're being insulted morrigan, that's not my intention. I didn't say you were stupid, for example. I said you were ignorant of history and human psychology. I'm ignorant of a whole slew of things myself ... computer programming comes to mind. I am not ignorant of history (particularly US history), economics, religious studies, a laity understanding of most of the sciences, or politics.

This is why I speak up when say, brytta starts talking about politics, or sokotra starts talking about religion/history ... but don't utter a peep when brytta talks about computer code. That's not my area of expertise, it's his. I recognize that. I'm sure brytta, sokotra, you, and whoever else have other areas of expertise that I don't, but that's the only one that comes to mind via things I've read on the GDB.

As for your assertions being sarcastic and not meant to be taken seriously, sorry about that too. It's just that when someone posts a long drawn out explanation of their thoughts on something I tend to assume that they are being serious. Tongue in cheek comments just tend to be short zingers with a healthy helping of emoticons tacked on.


I'm happy to realize that you know the Industrial Era was not a technological failure. And I'm also happy to realize that you know that in order for your "the people can force companies to do stuff" assertion to have any impact ... unions need to already be formed and have legal protection.

I'm not sure how you square that last one with your apparent desire for unions to not have legal protection since that counts as regulating companies (ie ... there are laws that say you are not allowed to fire the shit out of anyone you catch trying to unionize, ect) ... but maybe you'll elaborate on that more to explain how you square that circle.

Since you shared a bit of your personal life with us here on the boards (that you work a minimum wage job at a university supporting a child if I remember correctly) I'll share a bit of mine with you so that you don't have to waste time speculating about my life.

I work in Japan as a Director of Business Development for a CRO (Clinical Research Organization) with an Undergraduate in Business Administration and Asian Studies (Chinese, Korean, Japanese in particular). I'm a bit of an information junky, reading scientific journals, news feeds, ect like an addiction, and I do think that there is merit to being informed about a subject before speaking on it ... which is slightly different from "just having read it in a book". You have to have "just read it in a book that also happens to be a trustworthy source and you have to know how to discern credible sources from crap ones" ... having a college education helps (but is not strictly required) in this regard.

... and ah, and I see you edited your post to take the aggro out of it. Well done good sir.  :)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: morrigan on March 07, 2012, 06:53:27 PM
I'm sorry you feel like you're being insulted morrigan, that's not my intention. I didn't say you were stupid, for example. I said you were ignorant of history and human psychology. I'm ignorant of a whole slew of things myself ... computer programming comes to mind. I am not ignorant of history (particularly US history), economics, religious studies, a laity understanding of most of the sciences, or politics.

This is why I speak up when say, brytta starts talking about politics, or sokotra starts talking about religion/history ... but don't utter a peep when brytta talks about computer code. That's not my area of expertise, it's his. I recognize that. I'm sure brytta, sokotra, you, and whoever else have other areas of expertise that I don't, but that's the only one that comes to mind via things I've read on the GDB.

As for your assertions being sarcastic and not meant to be taken seriously, sorry about that too. It's just that when someone posts a long drawn out explanation of their thoughts on something I tend to assume that they are being serious. Tongue in cheek comments just tend to be short zingers with a healthy helping of emoticons tacked on.


I'm happy to realize that you know the Industrial Era was not a technological failure. And I'm also happy to realize that you know that in order for your "the people can force companies to do stuff" assertion to have any impact ... unions need to already be formed and have legal protection.

I'm not sure how you square that last one with your apparent desire for unions to not have legal protection since that counts as regulating companies (ie ... there are laws that say you are not allowed to fire the shit out of anyone you catch trying to unionize, ect) ... but maybe you'll elaborate on that more to explain how you square that circle.

Since you shared a bit of your personal life with us here on the boards (that you work a minimum wage job at a university supporting a child if I remember correctly) I'll share a bit of mine with you so that you don't have to waste time speculating about my life.

I work in Japan as a Director of Business Development for a CRO (Clinical Research Organization) with an Undergraduate in Business Administration and Asian Studies (Chinese, Korean, Japanese in particular). I'm a bit of an information junky, reading scientific journals, news feeds, ect like an addiction, and I do think that there is merit to being informed about a subject before speaking on it ... which is slightly different from "just having read it in a book". You have to have "just read it in a book that also happens to be a trustworthy source and you have to know how to discern credible sources from crap ones" ... having a college education helps (but is not strictly required) in this regard.

... and ah, and I see you edited your post to take the aggro out of it. Well done good sir.  :)

Yeah, sorry. I get a bit fired up sometimes and speak(write) before thinking. Thank you for the apology and please accept mine.

Quote
I'm not sure how you square that last one with your apparent desire for unions to not have legal protection since that counts as regulating companies (ie ... there are laws that say you are not allowed to fire the shit out of anyone you catch trying to unionize, ect) ... but maybe you'll elaborate on that more to explain how you square that circle.

It's a bit of a pain really. I'm sure you understand that people can have ideals they like to speak about, but that ideals seldom work out well. People come in and crap on ideals, corrupting them and sabotaging them. For example..the ideal that the government should make sure that every citizen is well cared for, by providing health care, food, housing, retirement care, etc sounds very very nice and makes people feel very warm and fuzzy, however, if we want to be honest, we have to admit that it just doesn't work. It costs way too much. Sure, we could remove all our troops and bases from other countries, which I think we should do by the way, we could make cuts here, tax people with more money more than we tax the poor, etc, but it's still not going to add up. If we make all the cuts needed to fully support the liberal ideal, we take money away from other things that we also need/want.

My ideal, is that people should be free. All people. Poor, rich, every race, every religion. Everybody. Completely free, as long as they aren't harming anybody else. Obviously, I have to admit that there have to be some laws, because as I've said, people like to shit on ideals. Misunderstanding can very easily arise because when making a point, I like to make it directly and trust others to read between the lines, which of course is me putting too much faith in others, as well as placing the responsibility on others as well. I don't like to dilute my points with a bunch of caveats and ifs and buts and maybes. *shrug* My fault.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on March 07, 2012, 08:48:31 PM
I think you'll find we all agree that people should be free, as well.

Systemic hardships like sexism, racism, classism and generational poverty impede freedom. The safety net exists to protect freedom. If your entire life consists of punching in, being exploited, punching out, and miserably falling asleep, what freedom do you really have? If you're jobless, hungry, on the street, and have no viable options, what freedom do you really have?

Social inequality in moderation provokes people to exert themselves, sure. But social inequality in its extremes slaughters freedom, cooks its corpse, and feeds it to hope's sad little babies.

I agree that social welfare systems are sometimes inefficient, and sometimes planned and implemented by people who are inept. But I also agree that one shouldn't jump to shitting on ideals.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on March 08, 2012, 08:59:09 PM
I don't think anyone actually campaigns on "bigger government". I think that's just something of a slur the right throws at the left while they campaign on "smaller government". A false dichotomy if you will, "We're for smaller government so our opponents must be for bigger government."

But that aside, smaller government, bigger government ... those are fairly easy things to do. It wouldn't be too hard to pass some laws stripping federal power or buttressing it then rolling out the Mission Accomplished banner. But it will be one of those situations where in "fixing" one problem, you just created ten more.

The actual answer is "better government", as jstorrie has said before. But that's hard. That's the job that never ends, and that's what Jefferson was talking about.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on March 08, 2012, 09:10:20 PM
Yeah, and "it's broken, throw it out!" seems to be a much more common sentiment in America than "it's broken, fix it."
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Maso on March 09, 2012, 01:51:16 AM
"We're for smaller government so our opponents must be for bigger government."

Lucky Strike, it's toasted.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on March 09, 2012, 03:17:25 AM
By the way, here's Andrew Breitbart's posthumous death-splutter (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9NjHznpZJU).

Check out his successor's straight face when he claims that "there's a racial pattern in the way justice is enforced in this country," and that that pattern favors black people. Hahaha, holy shit.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on March 09, 2012, 06:08:00 AM
Oh totally, like that black kid in Florida who was in a gated community where his dad lived watching the Super Bowl. During half time he went to the store to get some snacks and the local (white) neighborhood watch leader thought he looked suspicious so he called 911 then proceeded to shoot the 17 year old kid in the chest, dead. The unarmed 17 year old black kid who only had skittles and Arizona Ice Tea on his person at the time.

He didn't get arrested.

Obviously, black people are getting off too easy. They didn't even drag him around by the back of their pick up truck like that other one in Alabama last year. This whole country's going soft.  ::)

Edit to add: Just had a thought, man can you imagine if journalists and news anchors did that with everyone who came onto their programs?! "Just one second, I need to stop you there. I'm gonna let you continue I just need to point out that that thing you just said was complete and utter bullshit."  :D --- Mind you I'm not giving too much credit to Soledad O'Brien, bring on a banker and she gives Fox News a run for their money.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: RogueGunslinger on March 09, 2012, 06:37:10 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pngwcQQW5bA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pngwcQQW5bA)

LOL
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: flurry on March 09, 2012, 06:39:16 AM
Obviously, black people are getting off too easy.

You can't make your point without throwing that word around the GDB?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on March 09, 2012, 06:40:11 AM
Obviously, black people are getting off too easy.

You can't make your point without throwing that word around the GDB?

Suppose I could but ... it's to illustrate the point. Black kid gets shot dead for being black. Nobody cares. Black man gets hit by a trunk then drug around for a quarter of a mile for being black. Nobody cares. Black man gets arrested while trying to cash a check at the bank because the tellers thought it was too much money for a black man to be cashing and the cops agreed without any investigation whatsoever. Nobody cares. Say certain historically derogatory words even clearly in jest or tongue in cheek ... and people are super offended.

 ??? Seems like priorities are severely misplaced. It's like America has convinced itself that so long as we all agree to get really upset and offended over a word, we can pretend like there's no racism in the country anymore. We can even start asserting the opposite! That now the real problem is that black people are getting too much.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: flurry on March 09, 2012, 07:05:31 AM
So it wasn't for shock value, but just to show that you've got your priorities in order?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on March 09, 2012, 07:09:05 AM
More to show that America doesn't, actually. The fact that that word brings people out of the woodwork in a fit of indignation more than murder irrespective of whatever context it may have been used in, pretty much speaks for itself.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: flurry on March 09, 2012, 07:14:10 AM
Anyway, can we try to make the GDB more inclusive and less like a Ron Paul newsletter?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on March 09, 2012, 07:24:15 AM
Anyway, can we try to make the GDB more inclusive and less like a Ron Paul newsletter?

Huh?  ???
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: RogueGunslinger on March 09, 2012, 07:28:53 AM
Anyway, can we try to make the GDB more inclusive and less like a Ron Paul newsletter?

No.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on March 09, 2012, 07:31:30 AM
Besides if it were a Ron Paul newsletter wouldn't we be slamming Israel and ethic minorities a whole lot more?  :P
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: RogueGunslinger on March 09, 2012, 07:45:41 AM
and ethic minorities a whole lot more?  :P

Isn't that what's been going on in this thread?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on March 09, 2012, 07:48:20 AM
Doh! You got me  :o

... damn that was well done, RGS.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Nyr on March 09, 2012, 09:07:17 AM
Break the rules of the GDB (even "clearly in jest or tongue in cheek") and you get banned.  I've edited your posts, consider this a warning.  You're not being edgy and cool by pointing out how people are too sensitive over use of certain words.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Nyr on March 09, 2012, 11:15:17 AM
Less snark and off-topic discussion, more on-topic discussion.  I won't be doing any more edits today, I'll just ban to save us all the trouble.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: timb on March 09, 2012, 12:08:41 PM
On topic, the few candidates who are left and how they  allowed the birth-control narrative to go from what it is, the collectivist boot-heel stomping on the rights of individual liberty, into moral paternalism and how conservatives just want to control your bodies.
Is the liberal media machine just that strong or did the candidates drop the ball?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on March 09, 2012, 12:23:21 PM
As has already been debated, it is not your individual liberty to discriminate against your employees based on your religious beliefs. I hope the candidates continue to bark up that tree though, because I don't want to see any of them elected.

I'm sure that whoever wins the nomination will back pedal from this issue faster than a speeding bullet so as to not alienate every single female voter in the country come general election time, but for the moment they can't ... because they need the more evangelical leaning base to get the nomination in the first place.

<Rock><Republicans><Hard Place>

If I were them I would desperately search for a distraction from this whole issue ... mmm maybe conspiracy about Obama having ties to radical black people, for example ... we'd just need a video of some kind ...
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: timb on March 09, 2012, 12:56:56 PM
It would be discrimination to say "We will give men a birth-control pill but not women"  or blacks but not whites etc. Nobody should be forced to cover anything. In the market place of ideas, people can choose to work elsewhere.
The great thing about the founding fathers is they expressed our liberties in the negative; freedom of speech, say what you want and we wont come and take you away.
The right to bear arms, you kill someone who is threatening your life and we wont come and take you away.
The great liberal lie is these positive "human rights" where if you don't have them the state is obligated to take from someone else to give it to you.
The kid who goes to work after high school should be taxed to help pay for another kid's college because this is your right?


Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on March 09, 2012, 02:03:23 PM
Why do you hate college students, timb?  Why?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on March 09, 2012, 02:09:38 PM
Is the liberal media machine just that strong or did the candidates drop the ball?

(Both.  This is where Santorum's relative inexperience in a nationwide campaign really hurts him: when you're running for President, there are things you simply shouldn't talk about, like the perilous changes contraception has wrought on society or how those bitter hillfolk are clinging to their guns.)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: timb on March 09, 2012, 03:16:18 PM
Why do you hate college students, timb?  Why?

Because they walk around with their fancy book-smarts, all high and mighty.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: BleakOne on March 09, 2012, 04:05:01 PM
This thread gets bonus points for containing the lines 'great liberal lie is these positive "human rights"' and 'bitter hillfolk are clinging to their guns.'.  ;D
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on March 09, 2012, 06:27:15 PM
Shhh. You're not supposed to admit that the real end game is to abolish workers's healthcare altogether.

It's about religious freedom! Stick to the talking points.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Case on March 09, 2012, 07:53:30 PM
It seems others are starting to show what Synthesis meant in his condemnation of libertarianism.

It is interesting to see that personal liberty to some seems to be the ability to do whatever you want in a kind of free market gangbang  where every disadvantage is a lack of bootstraps and every exploitative disadvantaging of the many for a whim of the few is revered as the mark of a constitutionally inspired ubersociety. Just as flippantly as people can choose where they work according to some in this thread - if you don't like the idea you owe society for your freedom as much as it owes it to you, how about trying out somewhere like Somalia as a country to shit up? It has small government, a hamstrung judicial branch, screw all tax, if any, and if you want to shoot people, go for it! Piracy is the free market at work after all.

Lemme know how it goes.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on March 09, 2012, 09:57:45 PM
Nobody should be forced to cover anything. In the market place of ideas, people can choose to work elsewhere.

But in the marketplace of the real world, people can't.

Quote
The kid who goes to work after high school should be taxed to help pay for another kid's college because this is your right?

The kid who goes to work after high school is a dependent who makes less than $5800 and thus does not even file a W2, let alone pay income taxes. I'm Canadian and even I know this. What else you got?

liberal media machine

(http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a355/zoc/-HA_HA_HA_OH_WOW.jpg)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: manipura on March 09, 2012, 10:47:28 PM
*sigh* I don't even want to get into this thread at all...
...but aren't W2s filed by -employers-?  For all employees who made more than like, $500 for the year?

(Why do i even know this?  This does not apply to me at all.  I think it was on Jeopardy! or something)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on March 09, 2012, 11:29:12 PM
If you're someone's dependant you don't have to do the W2 unless you make more than 5800ish, or unless you get income from investments.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: BleakOne on March 10, 2012, 12:06:28 AM
liberal media machine

(http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a355/zoc/-HA_HA_HA_OH_WOW.jpg)

That picture sums up my thoughts on that as well.  :)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Kismetic on March 10, 2012, 03:56:45 AM
Why, though?  I mean, it is true.  The media is predominantly liberal.  I work in television, albeit below the line, but I am a professional.  I see the trends.  Even in the red-state southern US.

Nothing funny about it, just a fact.  There's the media, and then, there's FOX news.  I dare you to compare.

I mean, I guess you could reference the internet.  But c'mon ...  you think people actually read the internet?  You're serious dorks if you think anybody other than dorks read the net, and give two shits.

I'm not including Facebook or Yahoo in this equation.  We're talking serious platforms, here.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: BleakOne on March 10, 2012, 04:28:26 AM
Although I don't work in television, I personally don't see a 'liberal media machine' at work on most stations. There are some (like the Australian SBS at times) that do have generally left-leaning programming, and some (like Channel 9 in the same country o' mine) that have generally right-leaning programming.

I just don't see it from my own look at various news channels (including global ones like CNN and such). There's plenty of news about people not being happy about various left-wing things, and plenty of stories about the left screwing up (sometimes quite spectacularly).

Then again, I don't live in the US. It might be an isolated problem there.

Edited to add: Oh, and I'd read the sentence 'liberal media machine' to mean more than just a trend. It sounds more like an organized, intentional effort to bend the truth with dishonest left-centric reporting. That's what I laugh at.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on March 10, 2012, 05:38:32 AM
The media is predominantly liberal.

You keep using that word... I do not think it means what you think it means.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: lordcooper on March 10, 2012, 09:37:39 AM
But I'm not a dork, I'm a real boy!
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Maso on March 10, 2012, 09:44:46 AM
Then again, I don't live in the US. It might be an isolated problem there.

It is.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: lordcooper on March 10, 2012, 09:47:14 AM
Well that's okay then.  Your politicians are mostly conservative, so I guess it all balances out in the end.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on March 10, 2012, 02:56:07 PM
I hope y'all weren't expecting to be capable of detecting liberal bias (from the American mean) without doing exhaustive studies and crunching numbers.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Kismetic on March 10, 2012, 03:40:51 PM
The media is predominantly liberal.

You keep using that word... I do not think it means what you think it means.

I think your sarcasm is liberal, jstudly.  When I say the media is liberal, you know I mean the media is left.  It is.  Defy me, I dared you!
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Kismetic on March 10, 2012, 03:42:03 PM
But I'm not a dork, I'm a real boy!

lol, I was drunk, and joking.  I, sir, am the dork.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Dalmeth on March 10, 2012, 03:47:25 PM
Well that's okay then.  Your politicians are mostly conservative, so I guess it all balances out in the end.

For this statement, I sentence you to hitting yourself in the back of the head once.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Kismetic on March 10, 2012, 04:02:12 PM
Although I don't work in television, I personally don't see a 'liberal media machine' at work on most stations.

It's not just what you see, BO, it has to do with what type of opinions are reflected, and more importantly, the decision-making process that goes into what is and is not reported.  It is infused, on a higher, production level, into all of the network.

Anyway, calling it a liberal media machine is silly, it sounds like some journalistic crusade.  Even the word agenda is inaccurate.  It is the bias of the owner and their programming directors.

I guess, since I'm sober, I can retract on my statements about internet media.  I can't claim to be an expert on journalism, I just hang out with journalists (and man, my head is aching as a result, today).
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on March 10, 2012, 04:36:23 PM
Anyway, calling it a liberal media machine is silly, it sounds like some journalistic crusade.  Even the word agenda is inaccurate.  It is the bias of the owner and their programming directors.

This.  Imagine Brytta trying to run a fair and balanced news organization.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Case on March 10, 2012, 04:44:20 PM
I guess by that standard of 'liberal bias', discourse could be used to describe its American/capitalist/christian/white/populist/sponsored/systemic biases too.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Kismetic on March 10, 2012, 04:52:07 PM
Eh, that's a longer, off-topic conversation.  This thread is about politics.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Case on March 10, 2012, 04:58:05 PM
Eh, that's a longer, off-topic conversation.  This thread is about politics.
All the things I mentioned have embodiment within the political realm, as much as 'liberalness' does.

You are right though. Can we bring the discussion back to something more interesting and relevant than the dubious excuse of liberal bias used as evidence of unbalanced speech?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: BleakOne on March 10, 2012, 05:00:04 PM
Here's a question: Who do you think has the best chance of beating Obama in the next election?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Kismetic on March 10, 2012, 05:12:19 PM
Obama's first term.  ZING!

No, really, you'd have to get Republican voters out in droves, and sadly (and scarily), that means somebody like Santorum.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on March 10, 2012, 05:15:24 PM
Romney, by far, but even he doesn't have much chance. Santorum brings one wing of the Republican Party out in droves, but in turn he drives just as many to stay home!

Now, what about Biden? Is he going to get shuffled out so the Democratic Party can start grooming someone for 2016?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on March 10, 2012, 05:21:09 PM
I'm going to lob a long bomb here and suggest Tim Kaine as a 2016 nominee.

Then again, Prez Biden would be sweet. Imagine a Biden/Emanuel run. It'd be the Sassy Ticket. All "fuck you guys," all the time.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: lordcooper on March 10, 2012, 07:03:00 PM
Biden is one crazy cat.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on March 10, 2012, 10:34:33 PM
Rasmussen is actually polling Hypothetical Romney at +5% vs. President Obama.  http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

No idea how seriously to take that.  But President Obama's negatives are very high right now; all policies aside, that shouldn't be surprising given that he took office near the start of a recession.  (It's the Economy, Stupid and all that.)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: A Large Bag on March 10, 2012, 11:25:14 PM
Rasmussen is actually polling Hypothetical Romney at +5% vs. President Obama.  http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

No idea how seriously to take that.  But President Obama's negatives are very high right now; all policies aside, that shouldn't be surprising given that he took office near the start of a recession.  (It's the Economy, Stupid and all that.)

Lol, as soon as I saw the Fox news video embedded in the page I just laughed.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Nao on March 11, 2012, 07:50:35 AM
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html#polls

They might still be right, but the rest of the polls don't agree.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: timb on March 11, 2012, 12:21:52 PM
Nobody should be forced to cover anything. In the market place of ideas, people can choose to work elsewhere.

But in the marketplace of the real world, people can't.

Quote
The kid who goes to work after high school should be taxed to help pay for another kid's college because this is your right?

The kid who goes to work after high school is a dependent who makes less than $5800 and thus does not even file a W2, let alone pay income taxes. I'm Canadian and even I know this. What else you got?

liberal media machine

(http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a355/zoc/-HA_HA_HA_OH_WOW.jpg)



I'm sorry, I should not have said kid. The high school graduate who goes straight to the job market, should not be taxed for another's college.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: timb on March 11, 2012, 12:33:37 PM
It seems others are starting to show what Synthesis meant in his condemnation of libertarianism.

It is interesting to see that personal liberty to some seems to be the ability to do whatever you want in a kind of free market gangbang  where every disadvantage is a lack of bootstraps and every exploitative disadvantaging of the many for a whim of the few is revered as the mark of a constitutionally inspired ubersociety. Just as flippantly as people can choose where they work according to some in this thread - if you don't like the idea you owe society for your freedom as much as it owes it to you, how about trying out somewhere like Somalia as a country to shit up? It has small government, a hamstrung judicial branch, screw all tax, if any, and if you want to shoot people, go for it! Piracy is the free market at work after all.

Lemme know how it goes.


No, its just not the Gov's job to try and make sure everyone gets the same amount of cookies and the same little juice cup. It is their job to protect individual liberty from those who would cause violence upon others, not some brave new world handicapping of some to make others equal.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: A Large Bag on March 11, 2012, 12:45:26 PM
No, it is the government's job to make sure that laws create a fair and equal society where everyone has the same amount of chance to succeed. Currently, it is failing miserably in this regard. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Currently the system is skewed in favor of those that already have it and against those in pursuit of it. We're Americans, we don't let our people starve if they cannot do for themselves. Our freedoms are determined by whether or not they impede someone else's. Not just in life or death situations. Our laws shouldn't allow for: It's okay to fuck over your fellow American, so long as you aren't killing them directly. If the rich, big businesses, etc. abuse the system to their benefit and at the detriment to others, then laws should be created to prevent it. If you don't care about your fellow Americans so long as you get yours, in my opinion, you are not an American and you can get out.
Our country was never based off the idea that : Lie, cheat, steal, and manipulate the system to keep yourself on top and fuck everybody else. It's their own fault if they didn't lie, cheat, and steal enough to get there.

That's not the kind of America I want and I don't believe it was ever the kind of America intended by our founders.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: timb on March 11, 2012, 12:58:34 PM
"We're Americans, we don't let our people starve if they cannot do for themselves." This is true, it's the role of the people to help others not the Gov.'s to take at the barrel of a gun, to give it to others in an ineffective way.

 
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: A Large Bag on March 11, 2012, 01:26:42 PM
"We're Americans, we don't let our people starve if they cannot do for themselves." This is true, it's the role of the people to help others not the Gov.'s to take at the barrel of a gun, to give it to others in an ineffective way.

 

If we left it up to people there wouldn't be enough to support those who don't have and people -would- starve. It's a fact. The only reason there is enough to prevent that from happening is because the government has a hand in it. It's foolish to think that there would be enough to go around if we just relied on people doing the right thing enough to take care of it. People already prove how selfish and uncaring they can be. If people weren't, the programs wouldn't have to exist in the first place. If you think the programs are flawed, then we work to fix them. Not throw them out and just let people die. Do you throw your car away because something is wrong with it? Or do you try to fix it? Do you throw your computer away because something is wrong with it? Or do you fix it?

The programs are effective in doing what their primary goal is. Take care of the people that need them.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: musashi on March 11, 2012, 01:27:18 PM
The government is by the people, for the people, at least it should be. It's the government's job to do what we the people decide it should do. We decided awhile ago that that included mandating employee health insurance. Deal with it, or campaign to strip it away. But that's the direction we as a country decided to go in.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Yam on March 11, 2012, 01:54:40 PM
Let them eat cake.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Case on March 11, 2012, 03:14:48 PM
It seems others are starting to show what Synthesis meant in his condemnation of libertarianism.

It is interesting to see that personal liberty to some seems to be the ability to do whatever you want in a kind of free market gangbang  where every disadvantage is a lack of bootstraps and every exploitative disadvantaging of the many for a whim of the few is revered as the mark of a constitutionally inspired ubersociety. Just as flippantly as people can choose where they work according to some in this thread - if you don't like the idea you owe society for your freedom as much as it owes it to you, how about trying out somewhere like Somalia as a country to shit up? It has small government, a hamstrung judicial branch, screw all tax, if any, and if you want to shoot people, go for it! Piracy is the free market at work after all.

Lemme know how it goes.
No, its just not the Gov's job to try and make sure everyone gets the same amount of cookies and the same little juice cup. It is their job to protect individual liberty from those who would cause violence upon others, not some brave new world handicapping of some to make others equal.
That's a pretty bizarre understanding of A Brave New World, which is all about limiting people to specific places in society from birth.

Liberty, freedom and law are all about 'handicapping' people to protect people. Not sure why it's ok to ban racial slavery but enforce debt slavery due to an unforgiving economic process which glorifies those who lie, cheat and exploit for personal gain. Things like that :)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on March 11, 2012, 05:07:14 PM
I'm sorry, I should not have said kid. The high school graduate who goes straight to the job market, should not be taxed for another's college.

Ah, I misread you. Okay. Well, I can really only say two things to that:

a) The federal government doesn't give very much money to college students, so the effect on an individuals tax load is negligible. I doubt a high school graduate is paying more than $5/year for this. Actually, I think if you do the math it comes out to something closer to $.50/yr. Bloo hoo hoo. A hell of a lot more of your taxes are going to drone-striking the Afghanis and building new prisons, so maybe you should get your priorities straight!

b) The federal government only provides assistance to people from low-income families, and even then, not very much. The cap for a Pell Grant is somewhere around $5k, and the cost of going to college for a year is much higher than $5k. Nobody's getting a free ride. The purpose of these meagre grants is to help people from poor families get to college and thus earn their way out of poverty. Would it be preferable that they just never have the opportunity?

People don't just get blank cheques from the gubbimint to go to school, man. That's why graduates these days typically get out with a debt load of $40k or so - and, perversely, it is illegal to default on these loans. If you think college/university students have it easy these days I'm not sure what part of America you live in.

It is their job to protect individual liberty from those who would cause violence upon others...

Not just violence, but non-violent injustices as well. The market system, which is not free of error or corruption, inflicts injustices on people all the time. Accordingly, the government should protect individual liberty from degradation due to market forces.

If the free market was completely free of corruption, and perfectly implemented, then yes, there would probably be no need for the government to muddle with anyone's wealth. But the systems of our free market, just like the systems of health care, or governance, or the United Nations, or whatever else are not perfect, and it's foolish to stake your morals on the unfounded assumption that the invisible hand of the marketplace always acts correctly. Systems require oversight.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Case on March 11, 2012, 05:11:30 PM
It is their job to protect individual liberty from those who would cause violence upon others...
Ain't me who said that!
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: morrigan on March 12, 2012, 03:37:04 PM
I'm sorry, I should not have said kid. The high school graduate who goes straight to the job market, should not be taxed for another's college.

Ah, I misread you. Okay. Well, I can really only say two things to that:

a) The federal government doesn't give very much money to college students, so the effect on an individuals tax load is negligible. I doubt a high school graduate is paying more than $5/year for this. Actually, I think if you do the math it comes out to something closer to $.50/yr. Bloo hoo hoo. A hell of a lot more of your taxes are going to drone-striking the Afghanis and building new prisons, so maybe you should get your priorities straight!

b) The federal government only provides assistance to people from low-income families, and even then, not very much. The cap for a Pell Grant is somewhere around $5k, and the cost of going to college for a year is much higher than $5k. Nobody's getting a free ride. The purpose of these meagre grants is to help people from poor families get to college and thus earn their way out of poverty. Would it be preferable that they just never have the opportunity?

People don't just get blank cheques from the gubbimint to go to school, man. That's why graduates these days typically get out with a debt load of $40k or so - and, perversely, it is illegal to default on these loans. If you think college/university students have it easy these days I'm not sure what part of America you live in.

It is their job to protect individual liberty from those who would cause violence upon others...

Not just violence, but non-violent injustices as well. The market system, which is not free of error or corruption, inflicts injustices on people all the time. Accordingly, the government should protect individual liberty from degradation due to market forces.

If the free market was completely free of corruption, and perfectly implemented, then yes, there would probably be no need for the government to muddle with anyone's wealth. But the systems of our free market, just like the systems of health care, or governance, or the United Nations, or whatever else are not perfect, and it's foolish to stake your morals on the unfounded assumption that the invisible hand of the marketplace always acts correctly. Systems require oversight.

I get 10k/year. That's more than I make. I know this makes me a hypocrite as I'm opposed to welfare and such, but while it's there, I'm gonna use it. Anyhow, just pointing out that it's not that insignificant an amount. I don't know the number of people receiving pell grants, but I'm sure it adds up to a decent amount of tax dollars.

So, I want to ask something, and I want to make it clear ahead of time that it's not an attack. I genuinely want an explanation since we have some very well-spoken people on this forum and I'm interested in the reasoning. It seems that most liberals are in favor of taxing rich people a higher rate than less-rich people. Why do you think that's fair and not just legalized theft? Isn't it enough that if you tax a flat 5% people who make more already pay more just by the benefits of math? I don't want this to turn into a big corporations and the filthy rich find loopholes conversation, so let's just go with the minimum tax brackets. Why is it ok, in a country that is supposedly striving for equality, for some people(as long as it isn't "you") to still be treated differently? There's a big difference between having to pay 10% at the lowest bracket and 35% at the highest. How would you all feel if you went to school for 8-10 years, studied your asses off, became a doctor and just because you put forth the extra effort and had the ability to gain all this specialized knowledge, the government took over a third of your income? I'm not gonna bust out my calculator for exact numbers, but just think of that. The upper tax bracket is 388k. So you make 400k/year but they take 140k of it. Sure, you still have a lot left over by most people's standards, that's not the discussion. Just because someone still has "plenty" shouldn't justify taking more of what they have. It's kind of like saying that if I'm carrying 2000 dollars in my pocket, and a homeless guy stops me and robs me, I should be fine with that, because they need it more than I do..

Also, I wanted an opinion or three about this article... http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/if-we-want-better-health-insurance-for-all-why-are-we-making-it-illegal

What's wrong with that? Aside from the last paragraph. I don't think birth control should ever be over the counter. There are too many possible side effects for it to be safe enough for self-medicating. Of course, that's only opinion I suppose..some people might not worry about that, but since birth control can have some pretty serious side effects, I'd personally feel safer having a Dr's supervision.(if I were a woman of course)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: lordcooper on March 12, 2012, 03:43:54 PM
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-things-rich-people-need-to-stop-saying/

Seriously, read that article.  Yes, it's Cracked.  But this is one of their rare not really joking articles.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on March 12, 2012, 03:47:11 PM
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-things-rich-people-need-to-stop-saying/

Content blocked by your organization
Reason:
  This Websense category is filtered: Tasteless.

Cooper, man, you just put me on the no-fly list.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Desertman on March 12, 2012, 04:02:16 PM
Actually I take it back, I'm not even getting involved.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: lordcooper on March 12, 2012, 04:06:29 PM
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-things-rich-people-need-to-stop-saying/

Content blocked by your organization
Reason:
  This Websense category is filtered: Tasteless.

Cooper, man, you just put me on the no-fly list.

Weird, Cracked is SFW as far as I'm concerned.  It does have some naughty words occasionally, if your employer scans for that kind of thing?  Otherwise they just have really bad taste.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: marko on March 12, 2012, 04:58:14 PM
It seems that most liberals are in favor of taxing rich people a higher rate than less-rich people. Why do you think that's fair and not just legalized theft? Isn't it enough that if you tax a flat 5% people who make more already pay more just by the benefits of math?
I would suggest that most capitalists as opposed to Liberals are in favor of a scaling tax system once they really examine the system and learn about it. 

The idea at its core is this:

Create a stronger economy by encouraging and expanding the middle class.

A tax system like this makes it easier to reach the middle class (lower taxes for lower incomes thereby, in theory, allowing greater purchasing power and through this purchasing power allowing people to buy their way into the middle class - I would have written greater savings but smart business people have managed to fully make use of the system to the extent that the vast majority of Americans do not save anything at all) and allows the really rich to become ever richer since there are now more people capable of buying stuff.

The majority of Americans currently live in the 'lower middle' class and they were able to get there, in large part, to the lower taxes that they pay.

A flat tax rate would mean that it is harder to get into the middle class which means the middle class would contract which then means that the extreme rich wouldn't expand as effectively either. 

There may be value to an argument that the USA has reached a point whereby it has a strong middle class and, as such, could do away with a scaled tax system but I would, personally, argue the opposite.

I am curious as to what the 'flat tax' level would be to support the current budget of the USA. 

As an aside, there are many nations that do have a flat tax rate.  Of note, to me, is that none of these nations are considered to be a G10 nation.  If you step outside of the G10 method of ranking and look at the ten largest economies of the world it is also of interest to notice that no nation with a flat tax rate is represented.  Russia is the closest flat tax economy and it is ranked as the 11th largest economy after Canada.   Canada has 34 million people and Russia has 142 million.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Old Kank on March 12, 2012, 05:15:38 PM
It seems that most liberals are in favor of taxing rich people a higher rate than less-rich people. Why do you think that's fair and not just legalized theft? Isn't it enough that if you tax a flat 5% people who make more already pay more just by the benefits of math? I don't want this to turn into a big corporations and the filthy rich find loopholes conversation, so let's just go with the minimum tax brackets. Why is it ok, in a country that is supposedly striving for equality, for some people(as long as it isn't "you") to still be treated differently? There's a big difference between having to pay 10% at the lowest bracket and 35% at the highest. How would you all feel if you went to school for 8-10 years, studied your asses off, became a doctor and just because you put forth the extra effort and had the ability to gain all this specialized knowledge, the government took over a third of your income? I'm not gonna bust out my calculator for exact numbers, but just think of that. The upper tax bracket is 388k. So you make 400k/year but they take 140k of it.

Morrigan, it boils down to a difference of world views.  You seem to view taxes as punishment, or "legalized theft."  I see taxes as a responsibility to society.  An extra 5 or 10% in taxes seems like more than a fair trade for the power and opulence that wealth provides.

In reality, I'm mostly ambivalent to taxing the rich.  What I want is an equitable system with limited income disparity and safe-guards in place to protect the poor from the whims of the wealthy.  How we can achieve that is anyone's best guess, and taxing the rich probably isn't the best answer, but it feels right, if nothing else.

Also, I wanted an opinion or three about this article... http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/if-we-want-better-health-insurance-for-all-why-are-we-making-it-illegal

What's wrong with that?

I think it dramatically oversimplifies the costs and needs associated with health care in order to shoe-horn it into a Libertarian discussion on how government is the source of all problems.

Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: adrien on March 12, 2012, 05:48:22 PM
Biden is one crazy cat.

Hes a complete and utter asshole i find....
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on March 12, 2012, 06:25:04 PM
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-things-rich-people-need-to-stop-saying/

The thing about rich people isn't how deserving they are, it's that they're often hard to replace.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: BleakOne on March 12, 2012, 06:30:59 PM
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-things-rich-people-need-to-stop-saying/

The thing about rich people isn't how deserving they are, it's that they're often hard to replace.

They are?  ???
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: lordcooper on March 12, 2012, 08:02:01 PM
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-things-rich-people-need-to-stop-saying/

The thing about rich people isn't how deserving they are, it's that they're often hard to replace.

No they're not.  Take all the money from 100 rich people and split it between 200 poor people.  Now you have 200 rich people!
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on March 12, 2012, 08:15:13 PM
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-things-rich-people-need-to-stop-saying/

The thing about rich people isn't how deserving they are, it's that they're often hard to replace.

No they're not.  Take all the money from 100 rich people and split it between 200 poor people.  Now you have 200 rich people!

And the most politically-connected of them can give their wives pantyhose imported from America!  (I wasn't gonna to play the communist card, but you totally started it.)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: morrigan on March 12, 2012, 08:27:18 PM
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-things-rich-people-need-to-stop-saying/

The thing about rich people isn't how deserving they are, it's that they're often hard to replace.

No they're not.  Take all the money from 100 rich people and split it between 200 poor people.  Now you have 200 rich people!

And the most politically-connected of them can give their wives pantyhose imported from America!  (I wasn't gonna to play the communist card, but you totally started it.)

Going back to the bias in media discussion a page or so ago, this is a good example. Obviously it's cracked.com, but it still stands as an example. Liberals hate fox news and conservatives hate msnbc and go on and on about bias, but people seem to lose sight of the fact that every story has two sides. It can sometimes be hard to put yourself in another person's shoes. Obviously the rich couldn't be rich without the working class to produce for them, but that doesn't change the fact that the jobs wouldn't exist without the rich as well. I don't understand how anybody can use either side of that argument as though it stands alone and is definitive. How can you claim there would be no jobs without the rich, but not automatically see the other side and realize there would be no one to work those jobs without the "little man", and vice versa?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on March 12, 2012, 08:42:49 PM
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-things-rich-people-need-to-stop-saying/

The thing about rich people isn't how deserving they are, it's that they're often hard to replace.

No they're not.  Take all the money from 100 rich people and split it between 200 poor people.  Now you have 200 rich people!

(I was struggling to articulate the distinction I had intended: you can cause those 200 people to have lots of money--and who doesn't want that?--but they still won't make lots of money.)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on March 12, 2012, 08:44:34 PM
I don't mean to be quarrelsome, but not every story has two sides.

The new American tradition of always presenting the 'view from the other side' warps discourse by giving credit to counter-arguments which deserve none - like putting climate change denial on the same level as actual environmental science, or presenting Intelligent Design and evolution as equals. The 'two sides' approach is abused by pundits to undercut good ideas with batshit.

For example: jobs would indeed exist without the rich. They would not exist without workers. There's no good reason to assume symmetry in all situations.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: lordcooper on March 12, 2012, 09:24:24 PM
Seriously.  I'm hardly a rich bloke and I've employed various people in the past, on an 'equal share of profits' basis.

@brytta: I afraid I don't get the pantyhose reference, but I do lean heavily towards communism, maaaaaaaaaaaaaaan.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: BleakOne on March 12, 2012, 09:50:41 PM
jobs would indeed exist without the rich. They would not exist without workers. There's no good reason to assume symmetry in all situations.

QFT
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Sardaukar on March 12, 2012, 09:53:48 PM
So, I want to ask something, and I want to make it clear ahead of time that it's not an attack. I genuinely want an explanation since we have some very well-spoken people on this forum and I'm interested in the reasoning. It seems that most liberals are in favor of taxing rich people a higher rate than less-rich people.
...
Isn't it enough that if you tax a flat 5% people who make more already pay more just by the benefits of math? I don't want this to turn into a big corporations and the filthy rich find loopholes conversation, so let's just go with the minimum tax brackets. Why is it ok, in a country that is supposedly striving for equality, for some people(as long as it isn't "you") to still be treated differently? There's a big difference between having to pay 10% at the lowest bracket and 35% at the highest. 

I don't think you understand progressive income taxation.  The highest income earners aren't paying 35% on all their income.  They pay the 35% rate only on that income that is in above a certain point.  I can't be bothered to look up the cutoff points, but let's say the top income tax bracket starts at $200,000 per year.  If I make $200,001 in a year I'm only paying 35% on that $1 over the cutoff.

So if you think about it, unless a marginal tax rate is over 100% there is no scenario where earning more income would then lead to you actually taking home less money after taxes.  You didn't say it explicitly in your post, but I think you may believe is the case.

Why do you think that's fair and not just legalized theft?

If progressive income taxation is legalized theft, why isn't a flat tax legalized theft?  If it's theft, what difference does it make what the rates are?

How would you all feel if you went to school for 8-10 years, studied your asses off, became a doctor and just because you put forth the extra effort and had the ability to gain all this specialized knowledge, the government took over a third of your income?

It turns out I can answer this question. 

I spent 4 years earning a degree in engineering, then 4 years earning my MD, and then 6 years after that in specialty and subspecialty medical training.  So that's 8 years of school and 6 more years of training.  Now I'm rich.  Not rich rich (Musashi rich!), but still, you know...  Rich.  I make more than 98% of the country or so.  More than billions of people in the world, in fact.  And it turns out...  I don't mind paying taxes.  It's because I'd like to live in a community with good streets, and police, and firefighters, and schools.  I like knowing that many veterans are getting good healthcare, that poor children of my state aren't totally screwed for healthcare, and that the old people of this country won't have to eat cat food or starve.

So I've studied my ass off (and much more), I've gained all this specialized knowledge, the government takes a lot of my income, and this is how I feel about it: not that bad at all.  I have a job, my family has enough to eat, we're financially secure, we have health insurance, we have a nice house, and I even drive an awesome car.  Making more money wouldn't change that.  Neither would making 3% less on my income in the top income tax bracket.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: morrigan on March 12, 2012, 09:57:09 PM
I don't mean to be quarrelsome, but not every story has two sides.

The new American tradition of always presenting the 'view from the other side' warps discourse by giving credit to counter-arguments which deserve none - like putting climate change denial on the same level as actual environmental science, or presenting Intelligent Design and evolution as equals. The 'two sides' approach is abused by pundits to undercut good ideas with batshit.

For example: jobs would indeed exist without the rich. They would not exist without workers. There's no good reason to assume symmetry in all situations.

I do see your point, and yes I'll agree that it doesn't work in all situations. However, I think in this case I either didn't go into enough detail, or you're oversimplifying. Obviously, without rich people there would still be jobs. There would still be things that people need and things that needed to be done to make society(at whatever level) work. However, unless I'm just really missing something, I think it's pretty safe to say that there would be fewer jobs and less variety of jobs. Sure, if we lived in a society of complete equality, where everyone performed a job and traded what they needed for what they made, then it's possible that we might still have the same technology level, but I don't know for sure that that would be true. I'm not an economics expert, I admit it, but I believe that in most societies, different classes of people at different levels of wealth desire/need different products and commodities. Rich people like luxuries and can afford them, which makes a demand, which then opens up the opportunity for there to be jobs for people to fill producing those luxuries. Also, because of the specialized knowledge or difficulty in making certain things or performing certain services. society tends to place greater value on certain things or services, which causes the price of those things to rise, because people then are willing to pay for them. The higher prices then naturally elevate people to a higher class when they provide them.

Like I said, I'm not an expert, but is this not how it works on a basic level?
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: morrigan on March 12, 2012, 10:08:05 PM
So, I want to ask something, and I want to make it clear ahead of time that it's not an attack. I genuinely want an explanation since we have some very well-spoken people on this forum and I'm interested in the reasoning. It seems that most liberals are in favor of taxing rich people a higher rate than less-rich people.
...
Isn't it enough that if you tax a flat 5% people who make more already pay more just by the benefits of math? I don't want this to turn into a big corporations and the filthy rich find loopholes conversation, so let's just go with the minimum tax brackets. Why is it ok, in a country that is supposedly striving for equality, for some people(as long as it isn't "you") to still be treated differently? There's a big difference between having to pay 10% at the lowest bracket and 35% at the highest. 
[quote[
I don't think you understand progressive income taxation.  The highest income earners aren't paying 35% on all their income.  They pay the 35% rate only on that income that is in above a certain point.  I can't be bothered to look up the cutoff points, but let's say the top income tax bracket starts at $200,000 per year.  If I make $200,001 in a year I'm only paying 35% on that $1 over the cutoff.

So if you think about it, unless a marginal tax rate is over 100% there is no scenario where earning more income would then lead to you actually taking home less money after taxes.  You didn't say it explicitly in your post, but I think you may believe is the case.

I actually didn't understand that, but thank you for explaining it.



Why do you think that's fair and not just legalized theft?

Quote

If progressive income taxation is legalized theft, why isn't a flat tax legalized theft?  If it's theft, what difference does it make what the rates are?


I actually do, but understand the need for it with our government's current spending practices. I'd much rather prefer we export more than we import and try to produce more here, but failing that, if we're paying income tax don't see why we wouldn't aim for equality and expect everyone to pay a flat tax.

How would you all feel if you went to school for 8-10 years, studied your asses off, became a doctor and just because you put forth the extra effort and had the ability to gain all this specialized knowledge, the government took over a third of your income?

Quote

It turns out I can answer this question. 

I spent 4 years earning a degree in engineering, then 4 years earning my MD, and then 6 years after that in specialty and subspecialty medical training.  So that's 8 years of school and 6 more years of training.  Now I'm rich.  Not rich rich (Musashi rich!), but still, you know...  Rich.  I make more than 98% of the country or so.  More than billions of people in the world, in fact.  And it turns out...  I don't mind paying taxes.  It's because I'd like to live in a community with good streets, and police, and firefighters, and schools.  I like knowing that many veterans are getting good healthcare, that poor children of my state aren't totally screwed for healthcare, and that the old people of this country won't have to eat cat food or starve.

So I've studied my ass off (and much more), I've gained all this specialized knowledge, the government takes a lot of my income, and this is how I feel about it: not that bad at all.  I have a job, my family has enough to eat, we're financially secure, we have health insurance, we have a nice house, and I even drive an awesome car.  Making more money wouldn't change that.  Neither would making 3% less on my income in the top income tax bracket.

Fair enough, but that's how you feel. Not everyone feels the same, nor should they be expected to. They're taking taxes from you, and you don't mind. That's you giving of what you have, which is a personal choice that everyone should have the choice to make. Also, I have no problem with taxes being used for infrastructure. That, in my mind, is a very legitimate use for taxpayers' money, because everyone benefits from it, including the people being taxed. However, without such expensive social programs, we wouldn't need to collect nearly as many taxes, and if someone is being taxed, and their money is going to feed a family that keeps having children they can't afford because they know the government will pay for them and that taxpayer is against such things, then I feel like it amounts to theft. Did I explain my feelings a little more clearly that time? I'm not trying to be vague, it just happens at times. I guess another way to say it is if a person's income tax is going toward programs that they disagree with, and I don't mean irrationally extreme points of disagreement like some jerk saying something like, "Eff roads! I don't need no stinking roads!", then the government is not using their money to represent them. The phrase "No taxation without representation" was pretty popular at one point in our history.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: brytta.leofa on March 12, 2012, 10:45:56 PM
@brytta: I afraid I don't get the pantyhose reference, but I do lean heavily towards communism, maaaaaaaaaaaaaaan.

In all the cold-war spy thrillers, Western-manufactured nylons were supposed to be a highly prized luxury behind the Iron Curtain--where confiscating the ill-gotten wealth of the middle class (if not starving them to death) was kind of the starting point.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.  You can appreciate the humanitarian goals and philosophical underpinnings of controversial systems (Communism, National Socialism) without supporting the sad way things turned out (China, Russia, North Korea, Cambodia, Vietnam, Nazi Germany, etc.).
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Sardaukar on March 12, 2012, 10:57:31 PM
How would you all feel if...

...this is how I feel about it: not that bad at all.

Fair enough, but that's how you feel. Not everyone feels the same, nor should they be expected to.

So let me get this straight.  You asked how I felt.  So I told you.  And then you dismissed my opinion by saying my feelings, which you'd asked for, are irrelevant because they're the feelings of only one person.  Why did you ask how I felt, then?  Would you have been more receptive to reading about my feelings if they'd supported your argument about the tyranny of a 35% top marginal tax rate?

Now that you've dismissed the feelings that you'd solicited from this one doctor, you're still not totally out of luck.  You don't need to take my word on the feelings that the rich have about taxation, because we have data that can be examined... And it turns out that millionaires do support higher taxes... on millionaires. (http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/10/27/most-millionaires-support-warren-buffetts-tax-on-the-rich/?mod=e2tw)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Old Kank on March 12, 2012, 11:09:01 PM
I'd much rather prefer we export more than we import and try to produce more here, but failing that, if we're paying income tax don't see why we wouldn't aim for equality and expect everyone to pay a flat tax.

A flat tax shifts the burden onto the poor.  That's... the opposite of aiming for equality.

I have no problem with taxes being used for infrastructure. That, in my mind, is a very legitimate use for taxpayers' money, because everyone benefits from it, including the people being taxed.  ...  I guess another way to say it is if a person's income tax is going toward programs that they disagree with, and I don't mean irrationally extreme points of disagreement like some jerk saying something like, "Eff roads! I don't need no stinking roads!", then the government is not using their money to represent them. The phrase "No taxation without representation" was pretty popular at one point in our history.

So taxation to pay for infrastructure is acceptable because everyone benefits from it, but government support of higher education is not?  Everyone benefits from having a better educated public: crime goes down, unemployment goes down, GDP goes up, productivity goes up.  The same could be said of healthcare.  Does it matter that the effort is focused on the individual rather than the public if they all serve a public good?

Also, you're perverting 'representation.'  You vote - or at least U.S. citizens have the right to vote - therefor you are represented.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: timb on March 12, 2012, 11:30:23 PM
In case you had missed this  :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBrHkxqNT7s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBrHkxqNT7s)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: morrigan on March 13, 2012, 12:54:31 AM
How would you all feel if...

...this is how I feel about it: not that bad at all.

Fair enough, but that's how you feel. Not everyone feels the same, nor should they be expected to.

So let me get this straight.  You asked how I felt.  So I told you.  And then you dismissed my opinion by saying my feelings, which you'd asked for, are irrelevant because they're the feelings of only one person.  Why did you ask how I felt, then?  Would you have been more receptive to reading about my feelings if they'd supported your argument about the tyranny of a 35% top marginal tax rate?

Now that you've dismissed the feelings that you'd solicited from this one doctor, you're still not totally out of luck.  You don't need to take my word on the feelings that the rich have about taxation, because we have data that can be examined... And it turns out that millionaires do support higher taxes... on millionaires. (http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/10/27/most-millionaires-support-warren-buffetts-tax-on-the-rich/?mod=e2tw)

No. I wasn't dismissing your thoughts or feelings on it. I was just making a counterpoint. Also, your opinions are obviously not the feelings of just one person, but a percentage of the population, as are the opinions of those who feel the opposite. Technically, you're dismissing the thoughts and feelings of those who might feel differently than you by implying that only yours matter on this subject. I'm sorry you felt I was dismissing you, I definitely appreciate you taking the time to answer.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Case on March 13, 2012, 12:55:08 AM
It seems that most liberals are in favor of taxing rich people a higher rate than less-rich people. Why do you think that's fair and not just legalized theft? Isn't it enough that if you tax a flat 5% people who make more already pay more just by the benefits of math?
Because the value of a dollar for an individual decreases with each additional dollar.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Aruven on March 13, 2012, 12:56:51 AM
It seems that most liberals are in favor of taxing rich people a higher rate than less-rich people. Why do you think that's fair and not just legalized theft? Isn't it enough that if you tax a flat 5% people who make more already pay more just by the benefits of math?
Because the value of a dollar for an individual decreases with each additional dollar.

I just kind of gave up on government this last week.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: morrigan on March 13, 2012, 01:06:27 AM
I'd much rather prefer we export more than we import and try to produce more here, but failing that, if we're paying income tax don't see why we wouldn't aim for equality and expect everyone to pay a flat tax.

A flat tax shifts the burden onto the poor.  That's... the opposite of aiming for equality.

I have no problem with taxes being used for infrastructure. That, in my mind, is a very legitimate use for taxpayers' money, because everyone benefits from it, including the people being taxed.  ...  I guess another way to say it is if a person's income tax is going toward programs that they disagree with, and I don't mean irrationally extreme points of disagreement like some jerk saying something like, "Eff roads! I don't need no stinking roads!", then the government is not using their money to represent them. The phrase "No taxation without representation" was pretty popular at one point in our history.

So taxation to pay for infrastructure is acceptable because everyone benefits from it, but government support of higher education is not?  Everyone benefits from having a better educated public: crime goes down, unemployment goes down, GDP goes up, productivity goes up.  The same could be said of healthcare.  Does it matter that the effort is focused on the individual rather than the public if they all serve a public good?

Also, you're perverting 'representation.'  You vote - or at least U.S. citizens have the right to vote - therefor you are represented.

I don't understand how a flat tax shifts the burden onto the poor if it's a fair tax to begin with. I'm certainly not saying they should pay more than they already do. As for the higher education thing, don't get me wrong, I love education, but no. I don't think the government should pay for it. Not in the form that it is right now anyway. Possibly if there were some kind of change in the education system. Perhaps some sort of aptitude testing, followed by specialized education in a field you qualify for. As it is, the government pays for people to go to school just because they are poor, not because they have the ability to actually be even halfway decent at the profession they are studying. There's no guarantee of any benefit from this. Obviously, there's never any guarantee, but I imagine that if we paid for people to go to school who actually put forth some effort and displayed some ability rather than just being poor, they'd probably have more of a chance of making good use of the degree they obtained. Also, I'm not entirely convinced that educating everybody in the nation -is- beneficial. I didn't study up on it, but I read recently that we actually have a shortage of skilled and unskilled labor in the country due to the higher emphasis on going to college. Like people above pointed out, we have to have the working class to run this country as well, and people with college degrees don't want to work as warehouse laborers, machinists, die casters, janitors, etc. They want to be teachers, engineers, doctors, nurses, architects, etc.

Yes, the original use of representation as I used it meant something else, but I've been told already in this thread that as times change our definitions and interpretations of things must also. I can guarantee you that no matter who I vote fore, Republican or Democrat, it won't be my needs or desires being looked after. I'm far from wealthy, and I'm not the poorest of the poor. I have a mix of liberal and conservative beliefs and neither party suits me.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: morrigan on March 13, 2012, 01:07:52 AM
It seems that most liberals are in favor of taxing rich people a higher rate than less-rich people. Why do you think that's fair and not just legalized theft? Isn't it enough that if you tax a flat 5% people who make more already pay more just by the benefits of math?
Because the value of a dollar for an individual decreases with each additional dollar.

I just kind of gave up on government this last week.

Heh, fair enough. I try to on the daily, but for some reason just can't quit hoping. I'm an eternal optimist...in a pessimistic sort of way..
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: jstorrie on March 13, 2012, 02:17:41 AM
I think it's pretty safe to say that there would be fewer jobs and less variety of jobs.

Why is it safe to say that? If there was the same sum total of wealth, the group as a whole would have the same amount of purchasing power, the same ability to invest, etc. Why do you assume the resources are only useful if they're all in one guy's pocket?

Sure, if no single person can afford a gold-encrusted iPad then there will be no demand for gold-encrusted iPads. But then, instead, multiple people afford the not-gold-encrusted ones. The gold-encrusting, in fact, was useless and a waste of wealth, so there's more useful stuff if time and energy isn't put into ornate, low-utility luxury products.

Look, I understand that we're working in very reductionist terms here, but still. You just assume these things for some dogmatic reason. There's no legitimate explanation for them. The 'the economy needs rich people' argument has been obviously wrong for years. The economy just needs wealth, period, almost regardless of how it's distributed.

Now, the argument that society as a whole doesn't have a right to wealthy peoples' assets is at least one that has some debate to it. Not a lot, though. There are a variety of simple and good reasons why a nation might come to the conclusion that progressive taxation is legit. Here are a few:

1. Poor people are people, too, and sometimes they need help to not starve.
2. Widespread class disparity is bad for society as a whole because it provokes crime, disease, stagnation, and misery.
3. A nation wherein opportunity is maximized across the board maximizes its ability to develop the best quality of citizens, thus ensuring the nation's own continued progress.
4. Wealthy people tend to benefit more from the institutions of the nation, which are taxpayer-funded, than poor people.

I don't understand how a flat tax shifts the burden onto the poor if it's a fair tax to begin with.

American taxes are actually pretty close to regressive, really. Don't think that any of the politicians advocating for flat taxes want to make American taxation more progressive. It's a buzz-word, a GOP talking point. The tax system is already weighted such that rich people pay proportionally less. Do the math!

I'm getting the impression that you have a lot of strong feelings about how your government is, and how you want it to be, but you're not actually basing them on any rigorous examination of the systems in play. A lot of the things you're arguing are just flat wrong, man.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Aruven on March 13, 2012, 02:18:56 AM
It seems that most liberals are in favor of taxing rich people a higher rate than less-rich people. Why do you think that's fair and not just legalized theft? Isn't it enough that if you tax a flat 5% people who make more already pay more just by the benefits of math?
Because the value of a dollar for an individual decreases with each additional dollar.

I just kind of gave up on government this last week.

Heh, fair enough. I try to on the daily, but for some reason just can't quit hoping. I'm an eternal optimist...in a pessimistic sort of way..

I am the ancient alien dude at 21 :P I'll leave politics to the guys who want to lose some hair over it - Nothing is changing anytime soon!
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: BleakOne on March 13, 2012, 02:45:01 AM
For some reason I want to say this can all be solved with Metrics.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: timb on March 13, 2012, 02:54:28 AM
 ;)


(http://i44.tinypic.com/1z3pif7.jpg)
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: lordcooper on March 13, 2012, 03:00:00 AM
See, poor people are still people, whereas bears are bears.  Bears eat things that can be found outside, whereas people quite like having hot meals.  Unfortunately not everyone can afford hot meals.  It's nice to share.
Title: Re: American Political Thread
Post by: Kismetic on March 13, 2012, 03:09:13 AM
You're talking Socialism in the Republican Thread, jstorrie.  I hope you're snickering!  In a world where all wealth is divided, what drives the need for diversity in the market?  Philanthropy?  Any time someone has more than their neighbor, someone's gonna use the word "rich" like a ruler, because that's what people do, compare and contrast.  It's inherent down to our grammar.  So, tell me, man, what's wrong with having more, so long as you don't take gleeful pride in your neighbor's downfall?

Though, I have to admit, greed has gotten out of hand, lately ...  Fucking bankers and brokers!