Gaming Steve Message Board

Random Encounters => Everything Else => Topic started by: syphonbyte on May 16, 2005, 10:35:37 am

Title: Politics
Post by: syphonbyte on May 16, 2005, 10:35:37 am
I think that we all knew this was coming after the Religion topic was started. I suppose it would be a good thing to localize all politics discussion here, anyhow, that way we don't have stuff cropping up in other topics. So, I guess I'll start things off by talking about my own political opinions, that way we can start trashing them.

I'm a Republican, but not an extreme right-wing guy like a lot of Republicans are becoming. Basically, I have very right-wing views on the economy and I'm a big Reaganomics fan, but I'm far more moderate on social issues. I believe in the rights of people to do pretty much what they like as long as it stays within legal boundaries. Maybe I should make a list of stuff:


That's all I can think of, at any rate.

^Props to those of you who know that quote^
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Psilontech on May 16, 2005, 12:18:09 pm
I am guilty of being a liberal.

close half of out military bases across the world, which suprisingly, is one of the few things I think Bush is doing right... they cost too much money and serve too little purpose.
After this whole Iraq crap is finished with, we need to cut military spending significantly... Its not like we are at a direct threat of invasion...
As for Health Care, copy canada's way of doing it.
Gay Rights: Let 'em do what they want to do. Its no skin off of my back.
Death Penalty: If these is little chance of rehabilitation, then fry the sucker. No need spending tax dollars on feeding the leech on society.
Significant reforms need to be made in education... for the love of god, 8 people in my english class spelled 'peace' in 'a seperate peace' as peice!!!!
Abortion: Hey, first trimester, I'm all for it, but after that... no.
Legalize Prostitution, Gambling, Drugs, and have all them regulated and taxed!! You know how many billions of dollars would be saved by stopping that retarded 'war on drugs' and taxing it?? Help us get out of that multi-trillion dollar defecit 'our' leaders have gotten us into... How long has it been sence the government has been without debt?
Oh, and as for "if you've done nothing wrong you have no reason to worry", that theory if full of crap, and I like you less for saying it.;)
Uh... Can't think of anything else right now, someone post their opinions and I will either agree with you or tell you why your opinion is wrong ;D
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Legodragonxp on May 16, 2005, 02:41:31 pm
I liken thread like this to smashing ones thumb with a hammer, painful and pointless. Why not add to it...
-Abortion- You make your own choice and you live with it. Don't tell others how to deal with their bodies.
-Gay rights - When they balance it both ways I'll be fine with it. My only issue now is that I (male) could not get a girlfriend covered under my health insurance (academic, I'm married), but if I had a boyfriend I could. The line is already blurred. Otherwise, do mess with me I won't mess with you.
-Religion in government - Touchy, but inherent to the system. There is not a 'single solution' to the problem.
-Gun Control - I believe it was Heinlien that said, "An armed society is a polite society". I think people need to go armed more. I think a lot of the stupidity that we see and down-right bullying would go away if the fear of getting shot for being an @$$hole were there.
-Death Penalty - If there is proof they did it beyond a reasonable doubt, kill them. Save the money. Sorry, we waste far too much money on these guys with all the court crap and lodging.
-Education - Discontinue 'grades' (1st grade, 2nd grade, etc...) and go to a system of educational testing. If you pass the test you go on, if you don't you stay back. Too many people are sliding, and too many smart people are being held back. Sorry if we hurt your feelings, study more. No more free rides.
-Homeland Security - What you do at home is your business. In public you'll most likely be under more scrutiny. I don't think the NSA should be working to hunt citizens down for non-national security matters. Yes I know, massive gray area... How would you like a speeding ticket mailed to you because they tracked you with a J-STARS to your home?
-Middle East - There are two stories unfolding. One oil is getting harder to come by, and when it runs out in the middle east the industrialized nations will give up on them. Secondly there is the fear that these nations will attack ours and blackmail ours with WMDs or terrorism. Sadly, we need to be influencing the middle east as long as possible if we (the Western World, not just the USA, look up the defense budgets for the top ten countries in the world, then see who pisses and moans when the USA does stuff, pot-to-kettle-come-in-kettle)
-Health Care is F-ed up. Time to make all the lawyers sick so that they can wait in line too. There needs to be price fixing and liability insurance reform.
-Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid - Cap it and enforce it. Make it criminal to defraud it.
-Taxes are not good, but the current system is so intertwined to our economy any major revamp could be destabilzing. No matter what the rules are, the rich will find a way around it, get used to it.
-Environment - Time to swing the other way. Too many things are too being held up because of environmental paperwork. There is a need for protection, but some of the rules are getting downright stupid. (Many military based are still open because the cost to clean them up is higher than leaving them there)
- Foreign Oil - Declare war on energy. Make hydrogen power a national emergency. Devote to it like the manhatton project. Yes it'll cost billions but we are going to have to do it anyways.

My opinions are mine. Great thing about this country, you get to have them.
-Lego


Title: Re: Politics
Post by: s0lidmetal on May 16, 2005, 03:11:39 pm
OH boy...

Abortion
It should be the mothers' choice.  Some people can't afford another baby.  You have to be a pretty greedy person if you wouldn't die for the happines of your family...  For those who can afford a baby they would just neglect and hate it anyway and it would be screwed up.  Plus the aborted babies can be used for stem cell research to cure the world.  Remember, Hitler was an un-aborted baby.  ;)

Stem Cell Research
Why not?

Gun Control
Crimes are not commited by people with licensed guns!  The FBI needs to find out where these guns are coming from and bust them.

Gay Marriage
Gay people don't complain when straight people get married so lighten up!

Religion in Government
Religion influences Govt way too much.  The only reason it's popular is because all the southern states are religious freaks.  Politicians get a larger vote because they appeal to the religios crowd.

Death Penalty
So you guys hate abortion but don't mind killing possibly innocent men?  It should be the prisoner's decision to die.  Life in prison is far more painful than death.  Though, they shouldn't have TV, clean clothes, or other luxeries taxes pay for.

Environment
Global warming?  Who cares?  I'll be dead before it affects me.  By the time it does any real damage to us we'll probably have figured out some solution.

Taxes
Technically the Govt doesn't have the authority to tax US citizens (http://www.861.info/message.html).  We'll see about that.

Education
School should be optional.  That way we could remove the idiots who drag the rest of us behind in school.  And there should be a 3 strike system that will permanently expell anyone who misbehaves.  Kids today misbehave all they like because teachers have no power...everyone is too afraid of being sued nowadays to do anything.  I like Legodragonxp's idea for an education plan too.

Disabled/Retarded Persons
Why are there rehibilitation programs for these guys?  They don't get any smarter so why should they be forced to go through school to be laughed at?  They're just gonna end up getting disability chegks from the government for the rest of their days.

Selective Breeding/Eugenics
We need to breed particular types of people: Mindless workers who will work for cheap, possibly slaves.  Polititions.  And Proffesionals.  If this system doesn't work, the next best thing would be an application proccess to have children.  The test would include a physical, and an IQ test.

War on "Terror" aka Iraq
The war was a complete mistake frome the start but we gotta finish what Bush started.

Video Games and Media in general
There should be no age limits to any media.  I never understood that.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Tr0n on May 16, 2005, 03:15:00 pm
I'm really not any sort of classification, because I don't know much about politics.  If my opnions classify me, lemme know.

Abortion:  1st trimester only... the emotional waves will be felt for a lifetime, but it should be her choice.  Also acceptable if the mother is going to die if she has the child.... it should be her choice.

Gay Rights:  Homosexuals are humans too.  While I do not support their sexual style, I must respect their humanity and give them all of the freedoms of their country and religion.

Religion in Gov't:  We just can't do that anymore.  Too many religions and too many views.  We'd spend all year arguing and never get anything done.  And we'd get opposing votes by one religion just because they don't like the other.  That happens enough with the bipartisan system as it is.

Gun Control:  If you disarm the population, you make them cannon fodder for who who do not follow the law.  I forget who said it, but "if you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have them."

Death Penalty:  I'm still torn.  I'm more for it than against it.  I do acknowledge that no one truly has the right to take a life aside from God.  But tell that to the family of a ten year old who was raped, chopped up, and it was all filmed.  I say, "fry him."

Education:  It needs a MAJOR overhaul, especially in the south.  It needs more funding than almost anything else.  An educated population is a powerful one (but also a dangerous one to whomever has been controlling them all along, which is why I think education in America sucks so bad).

Homeland Security:  If I were a terrorist, I'd strap a nuke to a truck carrying Mexicans over the border.  It would be sure to blow up something in America.  Moral of the story:  for all the freedom we've been restricting, we've done little to nothing to seal the holes in our country's security.  It's worse today than it was on 9/11.... and that's from a stupid citizen's point of view.  Do it right and close borders to all without proper ID or just let it go.

Middle East:  I didn't know we had the right to invade any country that might have "weapons of mass destruction."  Since we obviously do, why aren't we stationed in about eight other countries all over the world?  Oh, yeah.... look who our president is.  He's finishing what daddy started and he's getting my friends and relatives killed to do it.  Oh wait... we got Saddam.  Then why the hell are we sending MORE of our brave men and women over there when chidren are dying in OUR streets and you can find drugs, sex, and guns at every street corner in America?  Why are we shoving our fat noses where it doesn't need to be if our country is rotting from the inside?  Pull those soldiers out of the middle of nowhere, let them lead their lives, and put all of this wasted money into reforming OUR country.  We need help more than most of the places we're poking around in!

Health Care:  Capitalism at it's finest.  People are sick and dying, ladies and gentleman!!!  We need all the help we can get and we're letting our grandparents and children die because the pharmacutical companies want to make an extra dime.  This is the one area where there should be no bickering or haggling.  Besides, if you truly want more money, you know that you can't make more money off of a dead man, right?

Social Security:  I'm torn again.  There needs to be some program in place, but not one that's crippling our economy.  The current state of it all is dragging the nation down.  It needs reform or it needs to be ditched.

Taxes:  We can all complain, but it's not going to change.  It's controlled by the biggest crooks in the country, where the rich have their hands in everyone's pockets, even the government's.  I've given in to the fact that the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer (most do not even file... but they don't own anything either).  I do not desire to be rich, not do I desire to be poor.  I just try to keep my head up.

Environment:  If it keeps going, Earth is going to be a wasteland.  While I like big towering cities, it's not as much a matter of aesthetics as it is a matter of making the planet unlivable.  We need to preserver what we have left and save it for research.  All these people running scared because of meltdowns need to understand that nuclear energy is possibly the world's savior as it stands.  Besides, planes crash and cars collide, do we all just walk?  No.  Chain reacting fusion needs to happen if the coming energy crisis is to be averted and our environments are to be saved.  I also thing that zoning laws need to be redone and need to be nonnegotiable.  I've seen places that residentials couldn't move onto that a company pays a few million and can set down a processing plant.  That land is priceless, and that few million bucks or whatever shady deals that happened are going to cost way more when the surface of Earth gets to be a few hundred degrees.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Cool AN on May 16, 2005, 03:15:16 pm

Video Games and Media in general
There should be no age limits to any media.  I never understood that.


Surely you can't agree on a six year old playing GTA, they are still very easily effected at that time.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: s0lidmetal on May 16, 2005, 03:52:27 pm
If they're smart enough to figure it out, that is.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ameg on May 16, 2005, 04:18:23 pm
Man, this is the first political thread I've ever seen where people aren't screaming at each other half way down the first page. Too bad. I was really looking forward to screaming.

Abortion: ONLY if the mother or child will die from giving birth.

Gay Marriage: Personally gays just sicken me, it just seems unnatural. Give'm unions if you must.

Gun Control: Without it, criminals will have guns. With it, criminals will have guns. Without it, I will have a gun.

Stem Cell Research: We don't need human embryos for it. I've heard that pig fat works just as well.

Middle East: EVERYONE thought they had WMDs, including anti-war countries. Not only this but Iraq has served as a vacuum for terrorism. Many extremists who could have pulled off another 9/11 are dead or captured because of our presence of there. I would much rather that they blow themselves up in Iraq than over here.

Education: I'm in the 8th grade and....man are some of these kids dumb. I mean I'm tutoring a 16 year old who failed this grade twice. Something has got to be done. Lego's and Solid's ideas sound good to me.

Environment/Fuel: Well since oil isn't going to be around for much longer, then we will probably soon find another (cleaner) source of energy. Nuclear energy is probably the future although how thats going to power cars isn't apparent to me.

Death Penalty: If they deserve it, go for it.

Taxes: Booooooooooooooooooooooooooo *ahem* ooooooooooooooooooooooooo. Tax system is much too complicated. Lets just put a consumption and flat tax up there and do away with the current web.a



Title: Re: Politics
Post by: syphonbyte on May 16, 2005, 06:14:54 pm
How long has it been sence the government has been without debt?

I belive that was Jefferson's presidency. Seriously.

Quote from: Legodragonxp
Foreign Oil - Declare war on energy. Make hydrogen power a national emergency. Devote to it like the manhatton project. Yes it'll cost billions but we are going to have to do it anyways.

I'm with you 100% on this. We need hydrogen and fusion power ASAP or the damn commies will get it first. (Joke)

Quote from: s0lidmetal
Technically the Govt doesn't have the authority to tax US citizens

I'm pretty sure that's the 18th amendment, or around there... congress gets authority to levy an income tax. I'll check out the link, though.

All in all, I'm really impressed at the maturity of everybody in this topic. I'm also sort of suprised that there are actually other conservatives out there... although I suppose I'm just used to more liberal attitudes, being that I live in a college town and all.

Yeah, I feel like expounding on my views about the War now, since I sort of dodged it in my post. I think that, looking back, there is no way we should have invaded Iraq. Maybe bombed it or something, but invasion was a bad idea. Unfortunately, hindsight is 20/20, and we didn't know what kind of quagmire we'd be walking into. (Resisting urge to post giant image of Quagmire from Family Guy...) I believe that there were definitely WMDs in Iraq, but they probably got buried in the middle of the desert when we invaded. Nobody will ever find them now. What we need to do now is either: allow the UN to have a bigger part in the occupation and reduce our military presence (<-How do you spell that word?), which would make us look good but in the end result in Iraq reverting to a dictatorship, or we could launch very large-scale attacks and quit sitting around with our thumbs in our *ahem* rears. That wouldn't look so good, but might allow democracy a better foothold in the country.

Either way, we need to rework our policy in the middle east. I think that we've been buddy-buddy with Israel too long, and the only good that came from it was the Camp David Accords and Israel's bombing of an Iraqi nuclear facility in the 80's. We need to warm up to mideast nations and try to show that we aren't hostile to Islam. If we can do that, then we can probably reduce tensions and try to fix the problems that Britain started when they drew lines around oil fields and called them countries after World War I.

And I guess that's it for now.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ameg on May 16, 2005, 06:42:34 pm
  Although at times it seems we have our thumbs up our asses, we have launched large attacks since after the war was over. Falujah and the Operation Matador that just ended seem to have made some progress. I notice that there isn't nearly as much bad news coming from Iraq of late, but unfortunatly news stations can't report "There was no bombs today", so no good news gets reported. I honestly believe the only reason this war seemed so bad is because the amount of media attention it got.

  As far as us being buddy buddy with Israel, if we wern't they would be at war right now. The Jews are surrounded by enemies right now and we have to act as the balancing force to make sure that they realize we won't let them invade Israel (although last time they tried they Israel whooped up on em).
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: syphonbyte on May 16, 2005, 07:32:37 pm
It may be true that Iraq has been getting negative media attention, but I don't think it's as responsible as the media in Vietnam. I belive that a lot of it has to do with popular opinion against the president which translates into opinion against anything he does.

But on the subject of Israel, I don't think it's our place to protect them. If they want their holy land, they can defend it like the Ottomans did for hundreds of years. You don't see Christians running in, even though it's our holy land as well. It seems to me that a lot of people aren't very good at sharing in Israel.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: DevilMachine on May 16, 2005, 09:59:19 pm
all I have to say is this -

if the entire world had voted on the last USA elections, Kerry would have won with a gigantic majority.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: syphonbyte on May 17, 2005, 06:41:36 am
Perhaps, but the entire world isn't made of U.S. citizens, therefore the statistic doesn't really matter. It's not the world's place to dictate who becomes the president of the U.S. because it's not up to the world.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Legodragonxp on May 17, 2005, 07:29:11 am
all I have to say is this -

if the entire world had voted on the last USA elections, Kerry would have won with a gigantic majority.

True, but the majority of the world would like to see the USA fall apart and be sidelined, so that isn't exactly a compliment to Mr. Kerry. The last election proved two things. Our country needs work, and we are split on what we need to do. There is another election in a few years we'll see what happens then. Even if Kerry had won, he would have had his power severly limited by the republican controlled congress.

Neither person is really what we need, but there wasn't a whole lot of choice. Change will not happen overnight from internal stimuli. We as a country would tear itself apart (in my opinion) if left to its own internal workings. I could go on, but it would probably be better handled on a thread about economics rather than politics. Leaders come and go, but money runs the world.
-Lego
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: pfellah on May 17, 2005, 02:33:36 pm
I'll jump in for a few minutes while I wait for my ride home from work:

Overall: I don't consider myself Democrat or Republican. Like the original poster, I'm more conservative on economic issues and more liberal on conservative issues. I might be willing to be a Libertarian, but they take it too far with some issues.

Abortion: while it's my general preference that people wouldn't put themselves in that situation, it should be legal. You don't force people into parenthood who clearly aren't ready... all that does is screw up two lives. And I always notice that very few pro-lifers are prepared to dig into their pockets to cover the societal costs of all these unwanted babies.

Gay Rights: If we supposedly separate church and state, why should gays who are in a committed relationship be entitled to lesser citizenship? Gays have to pay the same taxes the rest of us do, but they don't get to enjoy the same benefits -- so how about we let gays pay 60% or 70% of the taxes of a heterosexual, since they're viewed as lesser citizens? And if marriage is about procreation, what about hetero couples who are medically unable to have babies, or hetero couples who just don't WANT to? I don't see the harm of civil unions. (Just for point of reference, I'm hetero and married... if you're wondering where my opinion is rooted.)

Church and State: They need to be separate, but some of the little stuff like putting "God" on money or making people say the Pledge of Allegiance just needs to roll off people's backs. There are some things that just exist as traditions without implying any meaning. On the other hand, they don't teach math in church; they shouldn't teach religion in schools -- the most valid SCIENTIFIC theory of human development is evolution; if you are teaching a SCIENCE class, it's valid course material.

Gun Control: Technology develops, and laws adapt to technology. Witness Napster. Clearly the FCC concept of "fair use" isn't "put it on a website so 10,000 total strangers can download it". Similarly, keeping a gun in your home for personal protection and keeping a freaking arsenal are separate concepts and should be handled separately. A piece in your house? More power to you. Automatic weaponry and teflon-coated cop-killer bullets? There's no valid reason a citizen needs to have those. And remember, the 2nd was for the creation of a WELL-REGULATED militia... not a bunch of mouth-breathing weekend-warrior asshats.

Death Penalty: Absolutely. Some people can't be redeemed, so the planet is better without them. Particularly the sickos who prey on little kids.

Middle East/Iraq: I agree with GWB that we don't need to get the permission of the French (billions a year from the UN food-for-oil program; heckova reason to preserve the status quo, wouldn't you say?), but taking our troops into battle should be a last resort after ALL other avenues have failed, and I don't believe in my heart we exhausted all other options, nor did the Bush administration do the proper due diligence.

Gonna let the rest go for now... may re-edit later to add more comments.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ameg on May 17, 2005, 03:17:23 pm
on the subject of Israel, I don't think it's our place to protect them. If they want their holy land, they can defend it like the Ottomans did for hundreds of years. You don't see Christians running in, even though it's our holy land as well. It seems to me that a lot of people aren't very good at sharing in Israel.

Alot of my opinion about Israel is based on my religion. After all, Jesus was a Jew and even as a Christian I believe the Jews were the chosen people of God. However religion aside, its in the United States best interest that the Israelies and Muslims get along. If the entire Middle East is in a gigantic war, what happens to oil prices? And as the leading super power of our time, it should be our duty to be peace keepers of world. Spiderman said it best "With great power comes great responsibility". We can't just burrow into our country and let the world be damned.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: syphonbyte on May 17, 2005, 04:29:19 pm
Well, no, we certainly can't ignore the world, but I think our current mideast policy is far too hostile towards Muslims, at least according to them, and I think that our alliance with Israel is putting us in a bad position in the mideast. The only way I can see of actually solving the mideast problem would involve reconciliation between the big 3 religions, and I don't see that happening any time soon, so I think the US should at least try to be friendly to everybody over there.

Another place we need to start paying attention to is China. They're going to become a very big player in the world market very soon, and there's nothing anybody can do about it. The US needs to make sure they're on our side so we don't get a second cold war started. Luckily, China and the US rely on each other pretty heavily when it comes to trade, so I don't see any wars starting between us in the near future. We still need to watch out, though.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Nuriboy on May 17, 2005, 04:41:47 pm
uggh, this thread is going to be long and arduos.. so many arguments...

-Abortion-  I believe in a woman's right to choose. However, there are still limits to this, and abortion should be always used as a last resort IMO.

-Gay rights - As a gay man myself, I am actually against gay marriage. It offends many religious beliefs and just frankly causes chaos. I am all for a "joining" though, where a gay couple recieves the same rights as a married couple would.

-Religion in government - Meh, this is hard. Evangelism/zionism obviously has an extreme grip when you get to the bottom line. This doesn't work and needs to be stamped out.

-Gun Control - If you stop the media fearmongering, I'm sure average joe wouldn't worry about osama turning up on his doorstep as much as he is convinced of it now. People have a right to protect themselves, but I think guns shouldn't be as easily available as they are now.

-Death Penalty - If the evidence is irrefutable, and the crime is most heinous (IE child rape, mass murder) then.. I guess I'm for it.

-Homeland Security - A total joke. The *TERROR ALERT* colour coded chart needs to ****ing go. The patriot act is probably the worst idea ever. Your "freedom" is an illusion people.

-Middle East - The best way to support our troops is to bring them the hell home. Iraq was unjustifyible and so many of my friend's families have been murdered.. I'd better shut up about this issue as It gets me so freaking angry. The US needs to stop being so sly and fervently supporting Israel.. a two state solution needs to happen. The palestinians need to stop the bombing, and the israelies need to quit being so ****ing land greedy and tear down that apartheid of a wall. My friend's dad is palestinian had his house completely demolished while he was at work, without his knowledge. Some soldiers just came to his house, threw his wife and kids on the street and sent in the bulldozers. How would you guys react to something like that if it happened to you?

-Health Care - should be a system in place similar to the NHS or canada.. for people in poverty.

-Taxes: Rich are getting richer, poor are getting poorer. Not good.

-Stem cell research: So many diseases could be cured by this kind of research, and the US is stubbornly ignoring it. If you can save many lives this way - why not?

hmm, I always thought of myself as a raving liberal, but I guess I'm a bit conservative that I thought.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: sgore on May 17, 2005, 04:51:01 pm
Overall
I'll be a democrat when i grow up.

Abortion
Pro-choice. Who are we to tell someone who's obviously had enough problems and choices to make whether to have her baby? (why is our gender (male) even part of this debate. we really have no right to tell someone not to or to do something?)

Stem Cell Research
it could save lives.

Gun Control
I'd rather not have a shooting at my school.

Gay Marriage
Though I myself am not Gay, In diffrent religons, there are many diffrent types of marrige. it violates the constitution to only recognize some but not others. Why the supreme court not realized this yet is beyond me.

Religion in Government
Sad as it is, it's hugely there. I understand looking at your religous belifes to help you decide what's right but in politics you don't represent your religon, you represent the people of america. and not all people of america may believe what you believe.

Death Penalty
what right to we have? then again what right did they have in the first place. but still if the whole nation followed eye for eye tooth for tooth we would all be walking around blind and eating through a tube.

Environment
At the moment we've got this as our one liveable planet. let's not screw it up. (and even if we someday find another, we still have no right to screw eigther up.)

Taxes
I think of taxes sort of like charity, hopefully (if they aren't going to porkbarreling or stuff like that.) they're going to public hospitals and public schools and to homeless shelters and parks and all of that stuff. that's what people say they go for...

Education
As much as i hate homework and all that, education is a good thing. and important. Give it more money!


(But honestly, the no child left behind act is just stupid. it takes money from public schools and sends it to private schools. tax-payer money.)

Healthcare
Again, fund it more!

War on "Terror" aka Iraq
"Support our troops!"
well i do support our troops. (how can you not i mean they're risking their lives out there.) But i totally oppose the war. it was started under false pretenses. yes sadam was a threat but not as much as we were led to believe. after 9/11 osama was our top priority. yet more focus was put on sadam. bait and switch. now let's just get our troops home.

war in the middle east
gone on too long. work out a deal. too many people have died.

Video Games and Media in general
I think the rating system put in place is good, but a little too strict. the orignal sims was rated T. the thing is like some cartoonish type thing when you look at it. it got a T rating. as for other meda, same basically.
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Nuriboy on May 17, 2005, 05:02:18 pm
I'm liking sgore's views the "bestest" so far.  :)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: sgore on May 17, 2005, 05:04:05 pm
thanks!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ameg on May 17, 2005, 06:25:29 pm

-Gun Control - If you stop the media fearmongering, I'm sure average joe wouldn't worry about osama turning up on his doorstep as much as he is convinced of it now. People have a right to protect themselves, but I think guns shouldn't be as easily available as they are now.

-Homeland Security - A total joke. The *TERROR ALERT* colour coded chart needs to f**king go. The patriot act is probably the worst idea ever. Your "freedom" is an illusion people.


Hmm, we shouldn't worry about being criminalized but we should worry about the CIA, NSA, FBI knocking on our door? I'd much rather have security go through my bag than have Osama sitting next to me on a plane.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: ankrit on May 17, 2005, 11:45:13 pm
My views are so mixed that if I were more abitous I would start my own party.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: stuck on May 21, 2005, 08:29:52 am
the only thing i have to say for gay marriage is its up to the states (as indicated by the constitution) but churches should decide what to do, as marriage is based on church
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: s0lidmetal on May 21, 2005, 12:50:21 pm
People are such morons.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ameg on May 21, 2005, 01:02:08 pm
Meaning?.... Try to clarify a bit more when you insult people. You could end up offending a friend.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: s0lidmetal on May 21, 2005, 01:08:53 pm
No matter what, people will always base their political views on ther feelings, and not the logical decision.  And I don't mind offending people.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ameg on May 21, 2005, 01:19:17 pm
No matter what, people will always base their political views on ther feelings, and not the logical decision.


To ignore your feelings and beliefs negates their purpose. If we don't come up with views based on what we know, what we believe in, and what we believe is right and wrong, then they serve no purpose.



And I don't mind offending people.

I've notice. Perhaps if you considered other people's opinions then you would come to see why rather than remaining in the dark on the reasoning behind them.



Also, I found this link that states my feelings on Iraq and terrorism perfectly. It's pretty much exactly what I think, but can't find the words to explain.  http://www.ejectejecteject.com


Title: Re: Politics
Post by: s0lidmetal on May 22, 2005, 04:18:19 am
Hey if your dog craps on the sidewalk you still have to clean it up.  Yeah your dog did it but your still responsible for it.  We should finish what we started.

Knowledge is opposite of beleif/faith.  I know 2+1 doesn't equal 5.  Even if I beleived in it alot 2+1 will never be 5.  Science doesn't answer everything, but it answers a hell of alot more than the bible.  And we could learn so much more about everything if people would just stop saying 'god did it for a purpose!' and support science.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ameg on May 22, 2005, 06:48:45 am
But life isn't 2+1, its x+y+z. There are just so many things that we don't know, can't fathom, and have no explanation. Matter has no explanation. Where did it first come from?

If we did everything on knowledge and nothing on our morales and beliefs, then the world would be over-run with criminals. A belief in God, in whats right and wrong and fear of punishment is what makes humans greater than any other animal.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: s0lidmetal on May 22, 2005, 12:13:54 pm
What's right and what's wrong is all perspective- it depends who you ask.  Is it relally bad to kill someone?  Why?  There is no right or wrong answer, only an educated guess infuenced by religion an politics. 

We could be making so much progress if we focused on what we do know, and less on what we don't.  Why are we here on Earth? WHO CARES, Let's cure cancer!  We'll figure it out later.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ameg on May 22, 2005, 12:33:05 pm
Well these morales are what makes the world what it is. Its not bad to kill someone but we should cure cancer so we can save a life? Be sure that you are fully detacthed from your morales before you start complaining about others'.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pir0 on May 23, 2005, 01:07:23 pm
I'm canadian and to me America's a mess right now. Then again, who cares about Canada? D:

I'm pretty mad at how America's trying to tie us down. With all the softwood lumber, the oil from alberta, our beef, and our cheap drugs, you'd think they'd appreciate canada. The sad truth is they don't.

Banning canadian beef because of a infected cow that used to be american makes no sense at all to me.

If we want our future generation to survive we better start being eco friendly, I don't want my future son or daughter to live in a pollution filled world.


You americans are all right but your government has gotta stop beating us up. Canadians are people too >:
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ameg on May 23, 2005, 02:10:55 pm
....barely  :D
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: s0lidmetal on May 23, 2005, 04:19:51 pm
The politicians have to appeal to alot of people for more votes so they do rotten things like that.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: sgore on June 30, 2005, 07:46:16 pm
I'm canadian and to me America's a mess right now. Then again, who cares about Canada? D:

I'm pretty mad at how America's trying to tie us down. With all the softwood lumber, the oil from alberta, our beef, and our cheap drugs, you'd think they'd appreciate canada. The sad truth is they don't.

Banning canadian beef because of a infected cow that used to be american makes no sense at all to me.

If we want our future generation to survive we better start being eco friendly, I don't want my future son or daughter to live in a pollution filled world.


You americans are all right but your government has gotta stop beating us up. Canadians are people too >:

actually i'm pretty sick of the canada bashing too. Canada's been on our side for like since the start of their country as an independant one. (most of canada anyway.) and we under appretiate them. The country is getting a swelled head. let a little helium out. (I mean at least there's some sort of reasoning behind all the jokes about france. They don't like us. They find us uncivilized and most probably make the exact same jokes about us (although both sides shouldn't. We're supposed to be allies and yet culturaly we seem to be at each other's throats))

Frankly i just have one question. For once. Could everyone (i mean in general), possibly, look around for a little bit, take a deep breath, and be people? Forget about making apparences, putting a spin on things, Pleasing voters, religous debates of galatic proportions, waring both politicly (with guns) and Culturally (with words), Forget about greed and Money, forget about popularity and social status. Even for a few minutes! People would realize what a hell of a mess so many things are in!
People are dying sad, lonley and hungry in the streets, security is tight enough that people are frisking old ladys and yet a guy sneaks a replica of a bomb into a plane bathroom, their are still tons of Neo-Nazis and KKK members and all these other prejiduice people (and not just against minoritys but also aganst majorities) When the fact is we're all people dang it! Why can't it just be understood that not everyone is exactly the same and that may not be a bad thing!
Pollution is destroying this planet and the o-zone layer and nobody seems to care. The people that do are regarded as Tree huggers and health nuts! Education! one of the most important things in the world Is still underfunded as people are still failing and dropping out everyday! Losing something so valuble as a mind is a horrible thing to do! The state of health is horrible! People need to be rich to afford the prices for this stuff! it costs like $400 just for a doctor to come in ask you how you feel and stick a popsicle stick in your throat so he can look inside in most hospitles. Free clinics don't have enough doctors, and because of all this the death toll of the world is still rising. Much of the world is in horrible condition Hungry, scared and dying. We're so full of our selfs at times we can't even spare a buck for that guy on the street because we all "Know" he's just going to spend it on drugs or beer or something and that there's no chance this guy really needs food and clothing and a place to sleep. Yet for some odd reason people still crazly give money to celebritys who don't need it and end up feeding their real and proven addictions because of it! People are fighting all the time about crazy things that nobody needs to lose their lives over! The whole entire planet is going so crazy that we don't even notice! We're all people! Did the song "Put a little love in your heart" not tell you anything?

If everyone stopped even for a minute to see how crazy we're all going over everything that doesn't matter, we might just see how amazingly much we've neglected the things that do.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Daxx on July 01, 2005, 01:48:27 am
If everyone stopped even for a minute to see how crazy we're all going over everything that doesn't matter, we might just see how amazingly much we've neglected the things that do.

I guess the thing is, that people think these things are important.
It's all very well to call for sanity, but you're asking to change human nature. We should do the best with what we have.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: sgore on July 01, 2005, 01:24:30 pm
but aren't compassion and common sense part of human nature?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: sgore on September 20, 2005, 03:11:35 pm
but aren't compassion and common sense part of human nature?
Although i think they are, I don't even remember if that question was rethorical or not...lol.

I was sort of wondering exactly what happened to this thread, It was nice to see an actual civilized discussion of political views online. Even if some of my views, and some of other peoples aren't the same, i would still hate it if everyone thought like me...the world needs tons of diffrent opinions, that's the only way to keep things checked and balanced. both sides keep the other from going too far crazy in their directions...lol.

(also... I hate being the last person to post before a thread falls into oblivian. It makes me feel like i can really clear out a room or something...lol.)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Leng on September 20, 2005, 06:39:24 pm
Economic policy: Robotic communism.  See my other posts under "China is insane".

Military/foreign policy: Get the **** out of other countries and shrink the military.  Stop pandering to huge defense contractors so we can spend less money and get better hardware.

Abortion: Not touching this issue with a ten foot pole.  My feeling are way to ambivalent to come to a decision.

Gun Control:  Free gun access, exclusively for the purpose of violently overthrowing the government.

Death penalty: no.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: DevilMachine on September 20, 2005, 08:16:45 pm
the New Zealand elections were just held. The Labour party won by less than 1%, so its not over yet apparently.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on September 21, 2005, 09:13:12 am
yeah, robotic communism is surely the future. Guns- no way (living in a country where guns are illegal, I appreciate not being scared of being killed by accident or on a whim, if someone wants me dead theyre going to have to work at it). Death penalty- hell yeah, not as a detterent but as a way to stop spending money on the wellfare of incurable psychopaths and free up jail space for petty criminals.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: 762 on September 21, 2005, 05:24:01 pm
Guns are fine the way they are. I have not once walked down the street and thought, "Oh, man! I sure wish guns were illegal so I don't get shot!" If people are crazy enough to kill you for walking down the street, they're not gonna need a gun to make it any easier. I'm thinking knife, pipe, wire, string, poison gas... Nobody having guns doesn't make you any safer.

"When there is mutual fear, men think twice before they make agressions upon one another."
-Hermocrates of Syracuse

And one last thought: Guns are illegal in Britain?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ameg on September 21, 2005, 06:38:36 pm
"When there is mutual fear, men think twice before they make agressions upon one another."
-Hermocrates of Syracuse

Got that from Rome:TW didn't ya?  :D

  My opinion on guns is that whether legal or not, the bad guys are gona have em. The thing is if they were gona come into your house and murder you while you sleep, then their not going to go "Oh! Guns are illegal, I better not get one!" But I feel much more comfortable knowing that if someone did break into my house, we have protection rather than being at the mercy of a criminal.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Leng on September 22, 2005, 12:31:52 am
Right.

"Would it make you feel any better, Little Goil, if dey was pushed tru windahs?"
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on September 22, 2005, 02:05:10 am
Yes, guns are illegal- the murder rate is a whole lot lower as well. (you can use shotguns for hunting but not very powerful ones)

Quote
Guns are fine the way they are. I have not once walked down the street and thought, "Oh, man! I sure wish guns were illegal so I don't get shot!" If people are crazy enough to kill you for walking down the street, they're not gonna need a gun to make it any easier. I'm thinking knife, pipe, wire, string, poison gas... Nobody having guns doesn't make you any safer.

Guns make killing REALLY easy. A 90 pound weakling can kill a professional boxer with a gun, you need strength to bludgeon someone to death and you need a certain amount of skill to stab someone properly, as for poison gas- how available is that? (quite actually) but a lot of these crimes require premeditation. like i said- if someone wants me dead theyre going to have to put some effort into it.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: ChaoticCreature on September 22, 2005, 07:21:16 am
Guns dont cause people to get bad or do bad stuff, But it makes it far easier for bad people to kill others, if its possible to control the import of guns in U.S then i think it would be a good idea to make guns illigal cause it would make it harder for people to kill others.. Yeah they will use other metodes (you can learn self defence against those things) but it would cancel some things like for an example.

if someone found his girlfriend in the bed with another dude he might want to kick the **** out of that dude (if he had a gun it could go far worse) there are moments in some peoples lives where they should not have firearms or the likings near them.

Your children finding and by accident shooting with a gun/killing a brother or shooting themselves, stuff like that is heard to happen in the U.S.:/ that would certaintly decrese too if guns where banned

a gang with guns are harder to take care of by the police then one with knives

Shootings in scools happens quite often in the U.S. compared to every other country with guns banned:/

you can far easier defend yourself against a knife,pipe,fist and other things then guns/flying bullets with self defence lessons or just a fit body.

im not saying guns are the reason for all killings or the likings:P but people do die because of them and sometimes children gets a hold of them/witch can end bad
so im sure it would decrease the overall deathrate. other solution is to reasearch on non leathal guns (actually a big research topic at the moment) in case you people really have to be able to kill/neutrelize others. anyway I belive there are other stuff that causes deaths more than guns cause its not the gun you have to look at its the one holding it.. if you can fix him then you can fix the problem. (the part of the problem not involving playfull minors, insanity, momentary insanity or the likings of more or less uncontrollable stuff)

good links stats and stuff on the topic

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/stun-gun.htm
couldent find a great link on non letahl guns research cause im lazy:P


Quote
My opinion on guns is that whether legal or not, the bad guys are gona have em.
try looking at other countries without guns before making such judgments. just a friendly suggestion
you might find yourself wrong.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on September 22, 2005, 07:30:16 am
If only the bad guys have guns you can potentially arrest them for possesion of firearms before they strike.

Quote
My opinion on guns is that whether legal or not, the bad guys are gona have em.
lots of robberies in England are performed with accurate replicas- its a serious problem. theyre cracking down on toy guns that look too realistic.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: syphonbyte on September 22, 2005, 04:25:21 pm
If you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: ChaoticCreature on September 23, 2005, 03:03:18 am
Quote
If you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns.

Instead of just stating it, try arguementing for it, or at LEAST show some links or some references to other countries with guns banned.. Everyone can make statements like that.

in denmark most outlaws dont have guns. some few people have guns cause ypu can get a gun certificate (only hunters and the likings seem to get that, dunno how it works) It has never happend in denmark that a student have been going amok with a gun in scool in denmark. I have Never heard of chiildren accidently shooting anything ever either, but there could be a single or two accidents there for what i know.. in the entire history of denmark:P. and yeah there has been some robbings with fake guns once in a while but almost none with real guns. if noone has guns noone gets them. its not easy getting a gun here in denmark, and if you as robber dont fear that people have guns in thier homes, you dont get/need one)

but yeah it might be wrong to do in the U.S. depending on if its at all possible for them to control the gun import or not (dunno how U.S. security is) but as said before if you can fix the dude behind the gun that would be more effective than outlawing guns. but outlawing guns could cancel the scool amok students and nosey children with happy triggerfinger accidents and the likings.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on September 23, 2005, 03:40:32 am
ummm...yeah ???

the biggest reason for not banning guns in the US is the fact that its a multi-billion dollar industry. think of all the gun stores going out of business.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: syphonbyte on September 23, 2005, 03:54:26 am
In countries that DO have guns, there is still lower gun violence. Look at Canada. Lots of them are even bigger gun nuts than we are, but we still have more gun violence. I'm just saying that if you outlaw guns, it's not going to stop gun violence from happening. If anything it will make it harder for people to defend themselves when a criminal with a gun goes to shoot them. It's just like outlawing drugs; it hardly keeps drug use down at all. People will always find a way to get what they want.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on September 23, 2005, 04:12:31 am
How can you defend yourself with a gun? do you shoot the other guys bullets out of the air? If someones pulled a gun on you then you cant retaliate, the only thing you can do is kill or seriously hurt the other guy, its still a death but it was him and not you.
I'm not saying theres a way of completely outlawing guns in the US, its too late for that (unless you 'magic' away every gun in the country) but you have to admit that guns make a country less safe, whether its everyone that has them or just criminals.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: LadyM on September 23, 2005, 04:41:02 am
The reason we have guns in America is because it is our constitutional right. This was based on our history of allowing citizens to bear arms against countries that would be hostile to us and our own government. It is one of the freedoms that we have to protect our property and our country and for the people to maintain control over their government. Of course our government has changed alot in the last 200 years and people think we no longer need this right.  With our military stretched so thin right now, its a good example of how something could happen now that would require our citizens to pick up arms and protect our country. Another example would be New Orleans, during a crisis or disaester a gun would come in handy for protecting life and property.

As with any weapon, a gun can be misused. Learning gun safety is an important part of owning one but no.. many people don't do that. Many states have classes and allow you to conceal and carry a pistol after training. NC is one of those states. Even if you took the guns away, people will find other ways to kill each other. It's human nature and they did it well before there ever was a gun. There has been guns in my family for years and no one has ever shot anyone. Most law abiding citizens will not go around shooting each other. You also will never hear of the good things about guns on the news, only the bad stories make it. The stories of people saving themselves or others or preventing crime is hardly ever told.

If you are interested in more information about guns and gun safety in America, here is the NRA website. NRA (http://www.mynra.com/default.aspx)

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on September 23, 2005, 05:17:25 am
Oh yeah i forgot, you dont want to give up guns in case King George the third trys to get his land back  ;D

You live in a country with two borders- one to a friendly country and another with an indifferent one- i cant see people being drafted in to repel a land invasion any time soon.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: LadyM on September 23, 2005, 05:43:35 am
At the time the constitution was written, yes we had just gained our freedom. I was giving you the historical basis of why we have that right. We now have terrorists in our country. We also have people who kill and rape and steal. There are many reasons to maintain the right to bear arms. It's what makes our country unique. Owning a gun is also a responsibility as well as being a right.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Cobra on September 23, 2005, 06:28:17 am
Shame there arent alot of responsible people in your country (I used to be anti-firearms although I have heard some convincing arguments in my time so now I'm more on the fence).
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: ChaoticCreature on September 23, 2005, 09:50:59 am
well okay they could at least set some minumum requirements for getting a gun (like being sane) or the likings. Anything. i really dont see how guns save lives. i would rather have rope or a rubber boat,lighter whatever then a gun. yeah you can kill people that try to attack you/steal whatever you have but that dosent save lives, thats taking them.

and if you have to defend yourself get a taser or something:/

anyway
Quote
the biggest reason for not banning guns in the US is the fact that its a multi-billion dollar industry. think of all the gun stores going out of business.

yeah im sure guns whont be banned because of that and because of those who defend them blindly
but setting minimum requirements would be a nice way to keep guns from "loonies" or criminals (yeah they could get a friend to buy it:/)

hmm well Make guns with fingerprint "locks" that could work? only unlocks in the hands of the owner(witch should be determined at the shop or something)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on September 23, 2005, 10:04:08 am
there is resaerch and developement going into biometric guns- but youll always have people that can get rid of the failsafes or bypass the system entirely.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: ChaoticCreature on September 23, 2005, 10:17:03 am
thats right but as long as its not super easy to bypass it could reduce them being misused... but non lethal guns seem to be the way for the U.S :) since there are many gun lovers and stores, non lethal guns/phasers :P would be handy:) and hopefuly make everyone happy? or is this a terryfying suggestion too:P *waits for some gun luvr to verbally hate that suggestion too:P*
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on September 23, 2005, 10:45:25 am
i think you mean tazers- phazers are sci-fi
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: ChaoticCreature on September 23, 2005, 11:05:17 am
Quote
i think you mean tazers- phazers are sci-fi

i meant phaser sci-fi like;) invent something similar and i think they could replace guns(or that it would be a good idea to do:). Tazers have too limited range
a gun that neutrulizes its target instead of killing or wounding it
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on September 23, 2005, 03:11:12 pm
try googling 'Plasma Tazer' and see what that comes up with.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: syphonbyte on September 23, 2005, 05:49:25 pm
You can build a gauss pistol with (sort of) household materials. I don't think it can hurt people though.

Anyhow, I realize that a lot of violence occurs in america because of guns, but you have to remember that America is very, VERY different from all other countries. Like I said before, other countries have even MORE guns (relatively) and yet they have lower gun violence. It's hard to say what the real cause of all the gun violence is.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: ChaoticCreature on September 23, 2005, 11:59:14 pm
Quote
You can build a gauss pistol with (sort of) household materials. I don't think it can hurt people though.

Still cool;)

Quote
Anyhow, I realize that a lot of violence occurs in america because of guns, but you have to remember that America is very, VERY different from all other countries. Like I said before, other countries have even MORE guns (relatively) and yet they have lower gun violence. It's hard to say what the real cause of all the gun violence is.

to that i will answer with a quote from something i said myself:)
Quote
if you can fix the dude behind the gun that would be more effective
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on September 24, 2005, 01:36:49 am
Maby its to do with genetics- australians are all decended from cockney convicts so theres a sort of cultural dishonesty, not to mention aptitudes at certain sports ( ;Dalthough recently not Rugby or Cricket ;D). Americans are decnded from people disgruntled by their lot in their respective European countries. maybe gun violence is caused by a genetic propensity to being disgruntled.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Daxx on July 26, 2008, 05:47:40 pm
The generic politics thread returns from the depths!

I guess this is like the generic Religion thread, so to kick things off here's the most beautiful irony you'll hear all week.

"No regime should ignore the will of its own people"
- G. W. Bush
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on July 26, 2008, 06:30:55 pm
.... Damn.... Ladies and gentlemen, the world just got a lot bleaker. George Bush just used up all the irony in it.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Daxx on July 29, 2008, 07:59:10 am
Speaking of deficits over in the election thread, it's not looking great in the latest predictions from the White House:

(http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/6339/gr2008072900627om4.gif)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/28/AR2008072800953.html?hpid=topnews

From the article:
"The federal budget deficit will grow to a record $482 billion in the fiscal year that begins in October, the White House said yesterday, driven by war costs, tax rebates, and a slowing economy that will leave the next president little room to fulfill costly campaign promises.

White House budget director Jim Nussle said unexpectedly slow economic growth, sharp declines in housing prices and an unanticipated increase in inflation will help drive next year's tide of red ink close to half a trillion dollars, up sharply from February's $407 billion estimate."
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on July 29, 2008, 01:13:07 pm
Wasn't the surplus under Clinton predicted? And wasn't it gained simply because of the whole internet boom? The deficit is definitely his fault but the surplus belongs to the people.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Daxx on July 29, 2008, 01:38:57 pm
Wasn't the surplus under Clinton predicted? And wasn't it gained simply because of the whole internet boom? The deficit is definitely his fault but the surplus belongs to the people.

Not really, since the surplus itself reached a peak at the end of his term.

(http://www.hells-handmaiden.com/images/budget_deficit_or_surplus.gif)

It's an amusing myth that says Republicans are fiscally responsible, at least within the last couple of decades. Both parties spend a lot, the Republicans just borrow where the Democrats tax.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Mr. Consideration on July 29, 2008, 01:46:19 pm
Hooray for the Democrats! ;)

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: PatMan33 on July 29, 2008, 02:05:16 pm
Hooray for fudging the numbers!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Legodragonxp on July 29, 2008, 02:10:28 pm
First hit on costs, so accuracy is questionable, but hard numbers are tough to come by:
http://zfacts.com/p/447.html

The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11     

FY   $ Billion
2003   53.0
2004   75.9
2005   85.5
2006   102.0
2007   133.6

(http://img362.imageshack.us/img362/4294/costofwardx5.jpg)

Of course this assumes that all the money spent on the war on terror is deficit spending (which wouldn't be accurate since there was a military budget in the first place). I'm guessing the next two years are increases due to bank bailouts?

EDIT-ADDITIONAL
(http://img383.imageshack.us/img383/5508/bigmoneypi5.jpg)
I just wanted to point out that a huge part of the Reagan/Bush Sr spending could be attributed to the Cold War and First Gulf War whereas President Clinton downsized the military as much as possible during his eight years. When called upon by Bush Jr, a lot of spending was needed to bring everything back up to par.

This is only part of the issue, but worthy of mention in my opinion.
-Lego
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Werechicken on July 29, 2008, 02:19:59 pm
Didn't Clinton engage in the Kosavo conflict though? surely that would have cost the US military a chunk of money as well and in Carters time the cold war was still being fought which would have cost far more.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Legodragonxp on July 29, 2008, 02:24:39 pm
Reagan engaged in an economy drag race with the Soviet Union during the Cold War when he took office. The Soviets basically went broke trying to keep up with the US military build-up (both real and imagined (SDI).

Carter was engaged in the Cold War as well, but inflation and the oil crisis are more likely the cause of the shortcomings there.

Kosovo for the most part probably fell within the US's european military budget, which had been geared for a much larger force to stop the 'red threat'

-Lego
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Daxx on July 29, 2008, 07:01:59 pm
Actually those predicted numbers for the deficit in 08 and 09 are probably higher because they're including pretty low-ball estimates for military spending as well as excluding some factors like the housing crisis, which will most likely push the deficit over 500 or maybe even at the outside 600 billion dollars.

As for deficit trends being in part due to military spending - I'd say that's about right, at least to some small degree. The war in Iraq has cost the US a ridiculous amount of money for almost nothing in return. There's absolutely no need for the US to spend that much money on the military; Clinton's cutbacks were probably pretty sensible in that regard. Military spending accounts for a sizeable amount of government expenditure in the US and so alterations in that are going to have an effect. It's a guns and butter thing.

However, much of it has to do with attitudes towards fiscal policy in general. As an example, the Clinton administration had a rule (PAY-GO) regarding public spending which was designed to support a balanced budget which was immediately disregarded by the Bush administration when they came to power. Then there's tax policy. Bush's tax cuts for the rich just weren't sensible given the rest of his policies - that sort of reduction of revenues along with an increase in spending was never going to be good for the budget.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Met on November 06, 2008, 07:36:03 pm
Rallies and such at my school about Californian Propositions.

(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y234/OmegaMet/n518948414_994322_6627.jpg)
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y234/OmegaMet/n518948414_994323_2064.jpg)
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y234/OmegaMet/n518948414_994324_2600.jpg)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on November 06, 2008, 10:32:35 pm
Hard to tell what's going on there.  Are the two opposing sides staring each other down?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Gorman Conall on November 06, 2008, 10:48:02 pm
Me and many others got called mean names over an issue here in Ohio.

Issue 6 here had plans to bring a casino to Ohio. It failed and i was one of them that voted no, Ought to hear the nasty things I got called.

One person without knowing anything about me called by a stupid god lover or something like that.

I told him god has nothing to do with it, I said i don't feel with the economy as horrible as it is that we need an addicting money hog for morons to blow their money at hit poverty level and then mooch off of welfare.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brutus on November 07, 2008, 01:34:20 am
well people make assumptions like that don't they. i'm betting he assumed your a god lover because the bible says no to gambling.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Mr. Consideration on November 07, 2008, 07:26:26 am
It's wierd to think I would also vote 'No' on that Issue but that my reasons would be so distant from Gorman's. Democracy, eh?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on November 07, 2008, 07:40:27 am
Oh be quiet Mr. Consideration, you're just a stupid God lover.

We had a similar debate in my state a few years ago, of whether to have a state lottery.  I wasn't sure what I thought at the time, but now I'm glad it passed for two reasons.  First, all the surrounding states had lotteries.  If people were going to be tossing away their money, it might as well stay in the state.  Second, the lottery funds college scholarships, which has helped pay for my school.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Andrew Ryan on November 07, 2008, 07:41:48 am
Oh be quiet Mr. Consideration, you're just a stupid God lover.

Lol wut?

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Mr. Consideration on November 07, 2008, 07:44:46 am
Oh be quiet Mr. Consideration, you're just a stupid God lover.
Lol wut?

One person without knowing anything about me called by a stupid god lover or something like that.

Irony, Andy.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Met on November 07, 2008, 09:30:23 am
Hard to tell what's going on there.  Are the two opposing sides staring each other down?

Pretty much. Me and a friend of mine we're trying to get a fight to break out. He grabbed a "Yes on 8" sign and I grabbed the "no on 8" sign. We both started each other names and then started fighting. No one else got into it though.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brutus on November 08, 2008, 01:52:40 am
vere-wee iwespawnsibwle.


they were never gonna fight. they were just their so they could feel moral supperior to all of you non-protesting losers.
What have you done for the good of the world lately eh? nothing? oh thats what i thought.

i seriously doubt protesting has every done anything big.

"If you don't do what we say we will gather in large numbers and stand in the street in no way effecting you!"

i just consider it the quivelant of holding your breath when your 5 and you dad won't give you some pennys.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Cobra on November 08, 2008, 02:30:37 am
Hard to tell what's going on there.  Are the two opposing sides staring each other down?

Pretty much. Me and a friend of mine we're trying to get a fight to break out. He grabbed a "Yes on 8" sign and I grabbed the "no on 8" sign. We both started each other names and then started fighting. No one else got into it though.

Should have worn pro and anti skub shirts respectively instead.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brutus on November 08, 2008, 03:12:50 am
do you think Michelle Obama would have been a good choice for Republican Vice Presidential Candidate?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Plank of Wood on November 08, 2008, 03:19:27 am
You should have held up a sign saying "Everything is fine!" and "Up for Scrabble Latter?"
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Andrew Ryan on November 08, 2008, 10:53:53 am
do you think Michelle Obama would have been a good choice for Republican Vice Presidential Candidate?

What are you implying here?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Met on November 08, 2008, 10:56:17 am
You should have held up a sign saying "Everything is fine!" and "Up for Scrabble Latter?"

Ha. XKCD is great.

Next protest we'll make some Pro/Anti Skub signs. "Everything seems pretty ok to me.", "Up for Scrabble Later?", "I like eggs", "I like shrimp"
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brutus on November 09, 2008, 03:23:06 pm
do you think Michelle Obama would have been a good choice for Republican Vice Presidential Candidate?

What are you implying here?

i'm making discussion not supporting the idea.

what do you think woulda happened?

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Andrew Ryan on November 09, 2008, 05:18:24 pm
I think she would be a very horrible vice-president because of her lack of political experience.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ultramarine on November 09, 2008, 05:28:15 pm
^Agreed, and the same can be said for Palin.
It was political suicide once McCain joined forces with her.

Hopefully Obama will be taking the lead, let his wife do the laundry :D
I was kidding btw, though I don't know how skilled she would be to help Obama with advice and what not, I personally feel that in the time of need she could be dependable.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: /lurk on November 10, 2008, 05:42:20 am
She's a lawyer, so if anything she'd probably be more qualified than Palin.

But "more qualified than Palin" isn't really saying much.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bona Fide Supraman on November 10, 2008, 10:44:54 am
Well let's face it, Palin was special.

I mean, the woman didn't believe in evolution, yet believed that polar bears would adapt to live on the ground when the ice melts.

Now, believing either is stupid...but both?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Null on November 10, 2008, 11:25:31 am
According to some of her campaign aids, Palin thought Africa was a country and not a continent. Do you realize how close we came to potentially putting a complete idiot in the white house... again?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brutus on November 10, 2008, 12:27:07 pm
Thats what you get when you choose a god damn beauty contestant.

If McCain dies in the nest 4 years (and he is almost 80) you know that she would have become president had america made the wrong choice.

very close.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on November 10, 2008, 03:26:27 pm
McCain won't be running angain anyway. Unless the GOP is REALLY out of ideas.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Andrew Ryan on November 10, 2008, 03:30:43 pm
To tell you the truth, I think the GOP's going to be out of the picture for at least another 16 years. At least until the democrats screw it up.  :P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brandonazz on November 10, 2008, 03:38:56 pm
So eight years. No political party can go eighteen years without what is perceived as a screw up.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: /lurk on November 10, 2008, 03:47:43 pm
Thatcher went twenty one years, then the Tories won '92 as well, though I suppose it depends on one's definition of screw-up.


Just because no American party can go more than eighteen years without screwing up... <_<


Edit: Roosevelt/Truman lasted twenty years in office according to Wikipedia. Not quite sure how that works.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brandonazz on November 10, 2008, 03:55:41 pm
By screw-up I mean irreversible gaffe.

And we have the internet.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Andrew Ryan on November 10, 2008, 08:04:43 pm
By screw up I mean something big... I mean REALLY big...

*cough* Obama sex scandal *cough
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on November 10, 2008, 09:58:41 pm
Just because aides say stuff, doesn't make it true.  I don't think someone could run a state, even Alaska, and be that out of touch with reality.

I wonder if people were saying it was the end of the Republican party when Clinton won in 92?  I wasn't really following politics at the time, seeing as I was 6.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: /lurk on November 11, 2008, 08:45:46 am
By screw up I mean something big... I mean REALLY big...

*cough* Obama sex scandal *cough

An Obama sex scandal could be really big: he is black, after all.



I suppose you'd have to ask Michelle.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Null on November 11, 2008, 10:54:28 am
I suppose, but she has surprised (as an shocked) be before. That the aid will not give his name is cowardly and underhanded, so you may be right. As for the end... when George Bush won in 2004 it was supposed to be the end of the democratic party and the beginning of a permanent republican majority, as karl rove would have us believe. Knowing how that turned out... the current deceleration of death seems premature, sure.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Gorman Conall on November 13, 2008, 09:28:11 am
No trying to debate but its related to politics.

My cousin i grew up with just got back from the army a couple days ago. He will be leaving again monday, According to him mots of the armed forces supported McCain, And from the people he has talked to many people are proud of what they are doing in Iraq and do not want to leave until the job is done.

On a side note i haven't got around to taking down my McCain sign yet..last night somebody stole it  >:(.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Mr. Consideration on November 13, 2008, 09:42:05 am
Regardless, Obama won.

Your anecdotal evidence isn't quite enough to merit a re-count...

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Gorman Conall on November 13, 2008, 10:07:10 am
Regardless, Obama won.

Your anecdotal evidence isn't quite enough to merit a re-count...



Didn't say it did, I was just sharing something i heard from somebody who is actually in the armed forces is all.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Josasa on November 13, 2008, 02:41:35 pm
Thats what you get when you choose a god damn beauty contestant.

If McCain dies in the nest 4 years (and he is almost 80) you know that she would have become president had america made the wrong choice.

very close.

Well John McCain's mother is still alive and well. She was actually walking with him on one of his campaigns.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brutus on November 13, 2008, 02:47:12 pm
hey on a lighter (but still political) note.

Roy Clendinen, a prisoner in an American Prison, sued the government for cruel and unusual punishment when they refused to refrigerate his icecream and it melted.

Donald Edward Beaty, an inmate in Arkansas who sued when his Game Boy was confiscated

David Joyner, a prisoner in Texas, sued Penthouse magazine when he suffered "mental anguish" because Paula Jones' pictures weren't revealing enough. (Actually, there's nothing funny about this one)

How do these cases even get through the door? Legislation should be passed to prevent it.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brutus on November 13, 2008, 03:00:00 pm
then again. we here in britain had a guy sue claiming his human rights had been breached when they tried to take him out of his cell so he could actually face trial.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on November 13, 2008, 03:02:39 pm
My cousin i grew up with just got back from the army a couple days ago. He will be leaving again monday, According to him mots of the armed forces supported McCain, And from the people he has talked to many people are proud of what they are doing in Iraq and do not want to leave until the job is done.

Yah, but democracy doesn't give soldiers any more of a right to decide the direction of the country than anyone else.

What would be the name for a government run by the army anyway? A Militocracy?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on November 13, 2008, 03:15:14 pm
Military junta? >_>
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Uroboros on November 13, 2008, 03:16:56 pm
And from the people he has talked to many people are proud of what they are doing in Iraq and do not want to leave until the job is done.
This isnt a strike-out against you Gorman, more just an underwhemed moan. Maybe this is ignorance talking here, but exactly when would the job be 'done'?

I mean, when you invade somewhere, people tend to shoot at you, even if it isnt the lands officially sanctioned army. Given the nature of the opposition, no amount of high-profile military manuevers would ever overcome them. Military presence might make people think twice, but it'll also generate more angry people willing to fight against the occupation. No matter how disciplined, I maintain that with time, any unit/group will stop being law and rulebound soldiers, and start being "the big dogs" with guns. You know how divisionary/power psychology works, right? The us vs them? The might makes right? There is never a clean war. If it is barely holding stable with the assistance of external military, you're never going to be 'done' until there is a military of equivilent size and ability to take its place. Unless of course you just annex Iraq. :P

Or is this about Osama Bin Laden? You know, like how it was about Saddam Hussein for some reason? Why was that? 9/11? Things get a bit hazy about the 'why' when you look back. If its about Osama, good luck identifying the corpse amongst the other fragged and bled-out cadavers, assuming he isnt already dead. He makes a great motivational scapegoat, you know, like Saddam. Oh yeah, that was it. He apparently had weapons of mass destruction, despite experts and investigators saying its massively unlikely. The Taliban? They were around for ages before the 9/11 redirected spark to the war.

To be honest, I really lost track of exactly what that war is about right now. I kinda shut off, given every damn news report since shortly after 9/11 has talked about that war, referenced 'the enemy combatants' or 'taliban' or 'osama bin laden' and such, it just started to smell like a daily portion of cattle swill, and I just didn't feel like eating any more. Can someone with a relatively well-informed overview of the situation tell me whats going on, on this warfront? I promise i'll try not to be a cynical eyerolling grouch. For a moment at least. :3
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on November 13, 2008, 07:09:13 pm
Can someone with a relatively well-informed overview of the situation tell me whats going on, on this warfront?

Brown people hate our values, so we shoot them.

What?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Andrew Ryan on November 13, 2008, 07:20:04 pm
Can someone with a relatively well-informed overview of the situation tell me whats going on, on this warfront?

Brown people hate our values and try to blow us up to show us how much they hate them, so we shoot them.

What?

Fixed
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Uroboros on November 13, 2008, 07:52:56 pm
Thats silly, those people blew up when they tried to blow you up didn't they?
I'm pretty sure they've been long dead.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Null on November 13, 2008, 07:58:29 pm
So... everyone blame religion.  :P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: HanianKnight on November 13, 2008, 08:17:36 pm
No not religion, we're blaming skin color.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Null on November 13, 2008, 08:22:38 pm
I know. I am changing the topic... well, poorly.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brutus on November 14, 2008, 07:41:59 am
To Paraphrase Dylan Moran

What America does is it trudges into other parts of the world and takes them over. Then all the locals and natives will sit around a table discussing the possible options. "What do we do about these americans?".

America very slowly builds a starbucks around them.

then they fill up on Latte's and Cappuchinos and just don't care anymore.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on November 14, 2008, 08:52:29 am
Uroboros, since you asked, here is what I understand to be the goal in Iraq, what it will mean for the job to be done. 

The main goal at this point is to achieve stability and security in the country, to have an Iraqi military and police force that can ensure the safety of the country.  From what I hear we are very close to this goal.  Violence has been decreasing for months.  I don't think there were any US casualties in Iraq last month.  I can't remember anything specific about civilian deaths, but I'm pretty sure those are down, too.  Another big goal was to have a government that was as democratic as possible, protecting the interests of all the various groups and sects in Iraq.  At this point, though, it looks like we will settle for a government that can stand on its own well enough for us to pull out.  But the current government is certainly a lot better than Saddam's.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Uroboros on November 14, 2008, 08:58:50 am
As cynical and bitter as I may sound/be about the war given how it all came around so hamfistedly, I also understand that just pulling out too suddenly is like yanking the only weight-bearing pillar from under a building. So, the war right now, is about damage-control and policing, until the force can withdraw. Whilst i'm still largely against the war, how it was started and what it was initially about, at least there is a chance of something good being salvaged from this clusterf**k. Fingers crossed, thanks for the lowdown.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on November 14, 2008, 09:07:46 am
But the current government is certainly a lot better than Saddam's.

Only if you value ideals like shaky democracy over prosperity and relative safety and liberalism.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on November 14, 2008, 09:27:23 am
But the current government is certainly a lot better than Saddam's.

Only if you value ideals like shaky democracy over prosperity and relative safety and liberalism.

I value shaky democracy over a dictator who among other things gasses his own people, yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein%27s_Iraq
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Andrew Ryan on November 14, 2008, 01:26:50 pm
Look, which ever way we slice it, whether we went into Iraq or didn't go into Iraq, people still would have died either way. My main point about Iraq is that it should have been handled in the way as we handled the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, by supplying arms, training, and support to freedom fighters within the country so that they fight the war for us (that are NOT religious extremists, like the Taliban). As of now, if we would have taken this course, a lot of lives, both Iraqi and US, could have been saved.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: /lurk on November 14, 2008, 02:03:43 pm
I'm sure you could have diplomatically muscled Saddam out. Or at least ensure that a pro-western governor would take over when you assassinate him.

Although I guess the CIA doesn't have a good record with assassinating people, what with Castro still being alive.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: HanianKnight on November 14, 2008, 02:10:29 pm
Look, which ever way we slice it, whether we went into Iraq or didn't go into Iraq, people still would have died either way. My main point about Iraq is that it should have been handled in the way as we handled the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, by supplying arms, training, and support to freedom fighters within the country so that they fight the war for us (that are NOT religious extremists, like the Taliban). As of now, if we would have taken this course, a lot of lives, both Iraqi and US, could have been saved.

I honestly don't think illegally supplying rebels with arms is the best way to pacifate a situation. Plus, in 1991 the Iraqi's did revolt against Saddam, President Bush(the old one) told the Iraqi's to take matters into their own hands. Then after they did revolt we let Saddam massacre them without helping them at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprisings_in_Iraq
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on November 14, 2008, 02:43:07 pm
Slowly diminishing the power of Saddam would be the right way to do it i think. Something they could have done and did (look at Kurdish area before the war.)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dr. Croccer on November 14, 2008, 03:02:44 pm
The casualties of both wars and the re-ocurring violence probably killed more than Saddam did during his entire reign.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bona Fide Supraman on November 14, 2008, 03:05:23 pm
Slowly diminishing the power of Saddam would be the right way to do it i think. Something they could have done and did (look at Kurdish area before the war.)

1. Quite hard to do. He was a dictator, after all

2. Then they don't get to choose the next government
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on November 14, 2008, 03:48:36 pm
Although I guess the CIA doesn't have a good record with assassinating people, what with Castro still being alive.

Yeah, but that guy is like Rasputin. He's Cuba's greatest love machine!.

But yeah, as with almost all oppressive regimes, change comes from within. Muscling in and telling people how to live is a sure fire way of getting your viewpoint ignored.

You know that Iraq was a wealthy, developed nation with a rich culture and a large middle class population and liberal values (for a middle eastern country, anyway) before the invasion, and now its basically a third world state full of religious extremists and maniacs.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on November 14, 2008, 03:51:53 pm
Slowly diminishing the power of Saddam would be the right way to do it i think. Something they could have done and did (look at Kurdish area before the war.)

1. Quite hard to do. He was a dictator, after all

2. Then they don't get to choose the next government

Again have you seen the situation in Kurdistan?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bona Fide Supraman on November 14, 2008, 04:44:19 pm
Why?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on November 14, 2008, 04:59:51 pm
Urgh.... That would save me time as i do not have to explain it.

Anyway i guess i have to try to explain it. Over Iraq after the first gulf war there was a no flight zone over larger parts of Iraq including the Kurdistan. This no flight zone and some other reason led to the area of Kurdistan developing a decentralized government not answering directly to Saddam regime. One can see this is a way to slowly brake down the grip Saddam had on the country and is likely that this would also work for other parts of Iraq. USA and is allies could have slowly extended there control over the area and giving it to the locals  and limiting that control of Saddam in the process. Boil the water of the dictator slowly if you wish.

The only problem could be doing this legally but USA had not problem with going to war with them with any really valid reason so it should not be a problem. The Inhabitance would most likely not care as they would get more autonomy. Some of the elite might not agree but the elite would not have any choice really. And after all is the elite like Saddam we wish to get rid of.

This method could probably be use in many nations suffering form a smiler problem. But it would need a new way of thinking and be UN sanctioned i think if it really would be a method to us for rogue nations. It would also be costly but far form as costly as a full out war and infrastructure and development would follow as is a integral part of how this plan works.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on November 14, 2008, 05:41:27 pm
So basically, you leave the dictator in power, but slowly strip him of any control over his country?  I don't know, sounds to me less like slowly boiling water and more like backing him into a corner, where a dictator would likely lash out in an act of desperation.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Doctor Z on November 14, 2008, 06:46:48 pm
... Well, after he's got no control over anything, even the lights in his home, you go in and assassinate him. :D
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on November 14, 2008, 07:06:33 pm
Well like DrZ says. With no power he can not do much. Even if he can do something then you will get Casus belli at least. Something i do not think USA had :P

I think this would be a safer method then the road USA took. It is sort of a modern Divide and Conquer method.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Cow on November 14, 2008, 07:23:00 pm
Screw that! We ain't got that kinda patience! We's Americans from Texas. *Pitchoo* *Pitchoo*
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on November 14, 2008, 07:26:14 pm
Hmm... well, I'm no military strategist, but I don't know how well what basically amounts to siege warfare would work today.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on November 14, 2008, 07:30:26 pm
It is a bit more advanced then siege warfare. :P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brutus on November 15, 2008, 03:41:27 am
i remember i while back i was talking with my dad about the first gulf war. I thought it was wrong of the west to interfere with saddam's invading Kuwate because the only reason Kuwate isn't part of Iraq anyway is because we devided it up to start with. It was basically a country re-uniting itself.

My dad explained that i was wrong because if saddam had gotten hold of Kuwait he may then have attempted to attack Saudi Arabia *gasp*!

got me thinking. So what if he would have attacked the Saudis (their is no way of knowing that but whatever) just because a couple of countries are gonna fight does that give far far more powerful first world powers any right to interfere? We did it to each other for thousands of years now they're doing the same and we topple governments because of it. A bit of infighting with nearby countries is what is ultimatly neccesary for democracy and peace to advance. Think about it.  If it wasn't for WW2 we wouldn't have the E.U and the U.N. If it wasn't for the cold war we wouldn't have NATO. Fear of war makes peace and the best way to develop a good fear of war is to suffer through it.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: /lurk on November 15, 2008, 05:33:03 am
If he attacked Saudi Arabia he'd have lost.

Which is unfortunate, because he'd probably have improved it on taking over (for the survivors of the mass-murders, anyway.)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on November 15, 2008, 05:35:25 am
Might makes right Brutus ;)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: SBD on November 15, 2008, 06:33:29 am
Google Ads:

(http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/imgad?id=CI2zwryrwLbhIxDYBRhaMgh1KhSav9Ac-g)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Kenobro on November 15, 2008, 08:39:22 am
(http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/imgad?id=COCZr-fk55Ku0QEQ2AUYTzIItfq8xKJNUeE)


Why do we even have this ad?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Mr. Consideration on November 15, 2008, 08:47:43 am
That advert is incredibly awesome.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: SmileyMan on November 15, 2008, 11:37:53 am
i think kim jong-il is a pretty cool guy. eh make people clap and doesn't afraid of anything
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on November 15, 2008, 02:26:52 pm
i remember i while back i was talking with my dad about the first gulf war. I thought it was wrong of the west to interfere with saddam's invading Kuwate because the only reason Kuwate isn't part of Iraq anyway is because we devided it up to start with. It was basically a country re-uniting itself.
Except that you're wrong.  Kuwait was an autonomous region regognised by the British and Ottomans, not a chunk carved out for colonial purposes.  And even if it was a country reuniting itself, Kuwait didn't want to be united.

A bit of infighting with nearby countries is what is ultimatly neccesary for democracy and peace to advance. Think about it.  If it wasn't for WW2 we wouldn't have the E.U and the U.N. If it wasn't for the cold war we wouldn't have NATO. Fear of war makes peace and the best way to develop a good fear of war is to suffer through it.

What?  We had WWII to stop the actions you seem to say are okay.  You almost seem to be saying we should let countries destroy each other because it builds character.  There's no need to have a people 'suffer through it' if war can be avoided or intervened.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Josasa on November 15, 2008, 02:45:50 pm
i remember i while back i was talking with my dad about the first gulf war. I thought it was wrong of the west to interfere with saddam's invading Kuwate because the only reason Kuwate isn't part of Iraq anyway is because we devided it up to start with. It was basically a country re-uniting itself.
Except that you're wrong.  Kuwait was an autonomous region regognised by the British and Ottomans, not a chunk carved out for colonial purposes.  And even if it was a country reuniting itself, Kuwait didn't want to be united.

A bit of infighting with nearby countries is what is ultimatly neccesary for democracy and peace to advance. Think about it.  If it wasn't for WW2 we wouldn't have the E.U and the U.N. If it wasn't for the cold war we wouldn't have NATO. Fear of war makes peace and the best way to develop a good fear of war is to suffer through it.

What?  We had WWII to stop the actions you seem to say are okay.  You almost seem to be saying we should let countries destroy each other because it builds character.  There's no need to have a people 'suffer through it' if war can be avoided or intervened.

If you're going to get into a debate over WWII with Brutus, prepare to be amazed...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brandonazz on November 15, 2008, 03:04:59 pm
Brutus, don't source your dad. Any and all arguments beginning with "My dad told me that..." are automatically disqualified.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on November 15, 2008, 04:21:06 pm
Unless your dad is a special military envoy or something  :P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Andrew Ryan on November 15, 2008, 06:41:58 pm
Unless your dad is a special military envoy or something  :P

Doesn't anyone read around here?
His father was a legatus to Pompey the Great; his mother was the half-sister of Cato the Younger, and later became Julius Caesar's mistress.  ;D

Wow, Brutus must be really special considering he has parents from different time periods.  ;)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Josasa on November 15, 2008, 10:01:48 pm
Unless your dad is a special military envoy or something  :P

Doesn't anyone read around here?
His father was a legatus to Pompey the Great; his mother was the half-sister of Cato the Younger, and later became Julius Caesar's mistress.  ;D

No wonder he's an expert on WWII and the Persian Gulf War!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brutus on November 16, 2008, 05:59:09 am
Wait, When did i claim to be an expert on WW2 or the gulf war? The gulf war reference in my argument is not an important part. It is simply an introductory statement in an argument against interfering with smaller countries such as the Iraq war or the war in Afghanistan or any other poor nation thats been invaded by the most powerful countries on the planet. I am NOT quoting my dad as an information source and if your saying that i am then your completely misunderstanding me. I was saying something my dad said got me thinking then saying my argument. Honestly i think some of you guys purposefully misunderstand things sometimes .

Brutus, don't source your dad. Any and all arguments beginning with "My dad told me that..." are automatically disqualified.

with all due respect would you go back and actually read my post before saying that. I wasn't even agreeing with my father let alone sourcing him as information. I didn't even say the rest of the argument i had with my father. I was arguing against a hypothetical situation and at the same time criticising many real wars that are happening now.

Except that you're wrong.  Kuwait was an autonomous region recognised by the British and Ottomans, not a chunk carved out for colonial purposes.  And even if it was a country reuniting itself, Kuwait didn't want to be united.

What?  We had WWII to stop the actions you seem to say are okay.  You almost seem to be saying we should let countries destroy each other because it builds character.  There's no need to have a people 'suffer through it' if war can be avoided or intervened.

after reading into it i see in the example of Kuwait i was incorrect but my argument still stands as colonial powers did chop up countires before giving them Independence and then call them evil invaders when the country starts to unite itself back to how it was.

Stop putting words in my mouth. Since when does "a little bit of fighting" become "LET THEM DESTROY EACH OTHER!!!".

What right does a first world power have to directly intervene through military means with a political disagreement or even a war between 2 much smaller countries that represent no threat to them whatsoever?
If you give them a right to invade any country they see as a threat to its neighbors then your giving them that great excuse to invade anyone they feel like aslong as they tell everyone its to stop the fighting.

Small countries fighting wars with eachother is always going to happen wether or not you invade and interfere. What i am saying is that the only way peace can be maintained is through vast interdependance between countries. Quarreling and fighting leads to unification over time either as sides agree to come togather (like with early Germany) or when one province or nation conquers the rest (like most other countries). ultimatly the only way you are going to stop people from fighting wars is to let them grow tired of it. Then the problem is gone for good.

i guess what i'm trying to say put simply is. . . .   several large countries that are dependant upon each other are not going to go to war with eachother but many small nations are going to constantly fight. Ultimatly fighting does lead to unification, interdependance and peace. But thats not in the interest of the most powerful nations is it? no they want them small and divided so they try and keep them that way.

WW2 was not fought to stop anything but the expansion of a rival (the fact that that rival just happened to be evil had nothing to do with it). It was just a war between 2 sets of Allies. Thats it. WW2 started because Hitler started to represent a direct and large threat to the allies. The last straw was invading poland. It wasn't a war fought on the basis of Good Vs Evil although it does appear that way.

if the countries that interfere with others affairs were actually trying to stop wars they would be making an effort to make the people in the countries feel like they're part of a bigger picture and startuniting into blocks and depending on each other by setting up organisations similar to the E.U or A.U and encouraging similar groups and countries that are culturally similar and speak the same langauge (like Iraq and Kuwait) to unite.

imagine if some far more pwerful country was stopping the allies and axis from going to war during WW2. we'd still be in this situation of hating each other and wanting to go to war. but now for the first time in history Europe is getting along really well  and war is unthinkable! all because we are tired of fighting eachother.

i apologise for making a long post but you don't really have a right to cpmplain about the post being long unless someone if forcing you to read it. a long post is what is required to explain what i'm trying to say without sounding as though i think war and killing are good.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: /lurk on November 16, 2008, 09:45:19 am
Wait a minute. Countries never come together peacefully (and seldom split apart peacefully) and conquering them only causes more grief for the winner.

Also, Kuwait and Iraq hated each other. That was why they were fighting in the first place. I suppose you think that Serbia should have kept Kosovo and that China can do whatever the hell they like in Tibet, just so long as you only have to learn the name of one country?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Josasa on November 16, 2008, 11:52:52 am
I told you you'd be amazed!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brutus on November 16, 2008, 01:56:42 pm
Wait a minute. Countries never come together peacefully (and seldom split apart peacefully) and conquering them only causes more grief for the winner.

Also, Kuwait and Iraq hated each other. That was why they were fighting in the first place. I suppose you think that Serbia should have kept Kosovo and that China can do whatever the hell they like in Tibet, just so long as you only have to learn the name of one country?

Tibet is better off in the hands of the chinese anyway. The Lama (as i call him) treat his country like his own personal bitch with the entire people living under his iron rule as his slaves and him and a few of his friends living in absoloute wealth. No wonder he wants it back. The Lama or china is a bad choice but China is the lesser of two evils. Remember though that the lesser of 2 evils is still evil.

you kinda missed my point. anyone who feels their is more to gain that to lose by going to war will always go to war. So if you up the stakes of going to war by uniting fractured regions into blocks and then have them develop interdependance they are far far less likely to go to fight with each other. The key to peace is to never have one dominating power. Just lots of Equals, all depending on each other and everyone always shunning and shaming attackers aswell as imposing sanctions but never actually ganging up one one another with armies.

Thats why i beleive that Nuclear weapons have saved untold millions of lives. If you up the stakes of warfare fewer are willing to take the risk.

the truth is that War will ultimatly breed peace as people become tired of fighting, regions unite and interdependancy develops.

Stop two countries from fighting and you only put the problem on hold for a year or so.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Plank of Wood on November 16, 2008, 02:09:58 pm
Tibet is better off in the hands of the chinese anyway. The Lama (as i call him) treat his country like his own personal bitch with the entire people living under his iron rule as his slaves and him and a few of his friends living in absoloute wealth. No wonder he wants it back. The Lama or china is a bad choice but China is the lesser of two evils. Remember though that the lesser of 2 evils is still evil.

I'm calling Poe's law on this guy.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brutus on November 16, 2008, 02:22:30 pm
Tenzin Gyatso was Dictator of Tibet. He presents himself as this humble, spiritual man but he isn't like that. He ran a regime that had Torture, execution and even disembowelment as relatively common punishments with him and a few of his friends living in paradise and the rest of the country in absolute misery.

According to a state department internal memo the lama once took over 100 thousand dollars a year for his living expenses and over 1 and a half million to train covert guerrillas to fight against china. Thats him denouncing violence is it?

should he really be returned to power?

He's an ex-dictator who wants his slaves and life of luxury back.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Plank of Wood on November 16, 2008, 03:03:52 pm
Sorry, it's just the way you wrote it made it look like satire of some biast american news show or something.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Andrew Ryan on November 16, 2008, 08:23:02 pm
Tenzin Gyatso was Dictator of Tibet. He presents himself as this humble, spiritual man but he isn't like that. He ran a regime that had Torture, execution and even disembowelment as relatively common punishments with him and a few of his friends living in paradise and the rest of the country in absolute misery.

According to a state department internal memo the lama once took over 100 thousand dollars a year for his living expenses and over 1 and a half million to train covert guerrillas to fight against china. Thats him denouncing violence is it?

should he really be returned to power?

He's an ex-dictator who wants his slaves and life of luxury back.

An ex-dictator? He was spiritual leader of the country of Tibet, which was forcibly conquered by the Chinese. Besides, he only had political power for about a month before the Chinese invaded of which since then he was slowly being conquered by the Chinese. If anything, he wasn't a dictator, he was a theocratic leader, much like the Ayatollah of Iran. While I do not agree with his spiritual beliefs and even though I do not agree with everything he has said or done I do believe that having Tibet under a theocratic rule is better than it being held hostage by Chinese Communist Imperialism.   
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Grangan on November 16, 2008, 09:47:58 pm
@thatguyinanotherthreadwhoaskedhowpublicschoolsareindoctrinatingchildren*breath*
Well, first those children who were chanting and singing "Obama".
And any social studies class that explicitly implies- or states- that corporations are evil and yay for communism.
The very idea of sex ed is appalling.  With no knowledge of its immorality, sex seems appealing.  Also, it's the parent's choice if their child even knows about sex.  If the parent doesn't want there kid to know how to produce children, then too bad for their branch of the family.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on November 16, 2008, 10:06:34 pm
Woo.  Okay, homework kept me from posting in this thread all day, as it would require more thought than a post in other sections.  I'm not even sure what we're talking about now.

If we're still on Kuwait, Brutus, you seem to be confusing two different unifying forces.  One is countries invading, conquering, and annexing their neighbors, and the other is groups of countries grouping together for mutual interests.  The groups in the second category, such as the EU, AU, NATO, and the UN are deeply opposed to actions in the first category.  The EU and UN may have been the results of WWII, but they were formed as a way to prevent such conflict in the futre, not to sit back and let countries 'consolidate' into large blocs via war.  The US and its allies had every right under the UN, if not an obligation, to come to the aid of Kuwait.

If we're talking about Tibet and the Dali Lama, I'll have to do some research.

On a long shot, if we are talking about Grangan's point... eh, I don't want to talk about it, and most of the people active in this thread aren't in the US, so I don't think it will be a very constructive conversation.  But one person teaching kids to sing that creepy Obama song can't be used to criticize the whole public school system.  I'm not even sure if that was a music teacher.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brutus on November 17, 2008, 03:14:56 am
An ex-dictator? He was spiritual leader of the country of Tibet, which was forcibly conquered by the Chinese. Besides, he only had political power for about a month before the Chinese invaded of which since then he was slowly being conquered by the Chinese. If anything, he wasn't a dictator, he was a theocratic leader, much like the Ayatollah of Iran. While I do not agree with his spiritual beliefs and even though I do not agree with everything he has said or done I do believe that having Tibet under a theocratic rule is better than it being held hostage by Chinese Communist Imperialism.   


Quote from: Wikipedia
As well as being one of the most influential spiritual leaders of Tibetan Buddhism, the Dalai Lama by tradition is also Tibet's absolute political ruler

people seem to forget that the title Dalai Lama basically means king, but in a more of a Henry VIII kinda sense with him also holding spiritual power. Who ever was Dalai Lama held absolute power over a country and lived in complete luxury while the rest of the countries people served him as slaves. Thats what Tibet was like before the Chinese invaded. exactly as i said it was earlier. Just because he only held his rule for a short time that doesn't mean he should be reinstalled as dictator. The reason that people support the Dalai Lama is because they just wanna feel better about themselves but they don't really know the full story.

The Dalai Lama is not the peaceful, spiritual and poor man he presents himself as. It's a lie as he is trying to juxtapose himself with the evils of the PRC which are far more widespread than the atrocities committed by the Dalai Lamas. He just wants more supporters.

also he seriously claims to be the 14th re-incarnaton of this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chenresig) for Christ's sake. You do that anywhere else and people think your insane.

"Americans, you should elect me as president because I'm the second reincarnation of Jesus! (the four armed version!)"

I suppose it is a matter of opinion which would be worse to live under the rule of. The Lama or the Chinese but just keep in mind it was the Chinese who banned Tongue pulling, mutilation and torture as punishments for meager little crimes..

also the Chinese introduced secular education, running water, electricity and freed over a million people from life of slavery. (95% of The population of Tibet).

Here's a video of a man from old Tibet who lived under the rule of the Dalai Lama criticising him and old Tibet itself to a crowd of "free Tibet" idiots. (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=H4Z6aFq0FEg&feature=related)

He experienced it first hand and he says that the Free Tibet crowd are not qualified to talk about Tibet and know nothing about what they're talking about. While a bunch of people in San Francisco with American accents whine and bitch about their country Tibet being ill-treat. Its all Bull****. they Don't know anything they just want to feel Superior than everyone by believing they're crusading for the good of the world and they'd like to think their ancestors were invaded by the chinese and that they're part of an exiled peoples because its more interesting. They're losers, they know their protesting will do nothing bit that doesn't matter because they're doing it for themselves and not Tibet.

also Tibet is part of china anyway. Tibet was chinese in the Yaung, Ming and Qing dynastys for hundreds and hundreds of years.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=acHkXqik_Bo&NR=1

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Xsoc4-QnplY&NR=1

Inkling. . . . . ..

I didn't confuse the two, Where'd you get that from? I was saying that those are the ways countries generally unite and if the west actually wanted to make peace they would either just let them slowly come to it themselves or impose membership to E.U like organisations upon them and force them to start collaberating with eachother.

they have a right because the U.N says it? Why does the U.N have a the right to say that? just because they can doesn't mean they should be allowed. No one has the right to interfere with other people's business when it has nothing to do with them because they won't be helping them. They are serving themselves all under the guise of helping the people they're invading.

You cannot impose a democracy on a country that isn't ready for it (like Iraq) they just arn't ready. Germany's people weren't ready for democracy after they had their new constitution (one of the most democratic in the world) imposed on them after WW1 and it didn't work did it? They knew that when the went into Iraq to impose democracy on it but they didn't care because that wasn't their main aim. just the lie they were using to justify their actions.

Maybe i would believe more powerful countries when they say the are keeping the peace if they actually had any long term peacekeeping solutions going but they don't. They're not trying to stop them from hating eachother and they're not trying to make them collaborate with each other. They are keeping them divided and competing with each other because thats what they want. hell I'd believe them if they weren't taking advantage of the situation but they're doing that to.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Mr. Consideration on November 17, 2008, 07:51:52 am
@thatguyinanotherthreadwhoaskedhowpublicschoolsareindoctrinatingchildren*breath*
Well, first those children who were chanting and singing "Obama".
And any social studies class that explicitly implies- or states- that corporations are evil and yay for communism.
The very idea of sex ed is appalling.  With no knowledge of its immorality, sex seems appealing.  Also, it's the parent's choice if their child even knows about sex.  If the parent doesn't want there kid to know how to produce children, then too bad for their branch of the family.

That's why America is the most far-right Western nation on Earth, and by far the most reactionary. Communism is demonised in America constantly. Calling someone a 'Socialist' was considered an insult, when in most countries it's considered a perfectly legitimate and reasonably common political affiliation.

Corporations aren't evil, per se, but they are created to make money for the shareholders, not any altruistic desire to create jobs and opportunities. It is in the interests of American corporations to slash the rights of their workers because there is so class conciousness  or labour movement of any kind and they can get away with it. Perhaps people get a negative impression of most corporations because their activities have a largely negative effect on the environment, working people and health.  Considering how brainwashed you are, I'd say the American education system has a strong bias the other way.

It always amazes me that Americans scoff at people in China or the USSR who are 'brainwashed' by their Government, then will tell with a straight face to the camera 'America is the greatest nation in the world'. That they will decry aggression by other countries whilst living in the most aggressive and militant nation in the world. That they will complain about Socialism removing 'Liberties' when America is by far the least Liberal country in the Western world whilst simultaneously being the one most ill-deposed towards Socialism.  You really have nothing to argue from; economic liberalism has caused your economy to be rapidly in the ****ter, causing your President to nationalise banks (which is, of course, merely a pragmatic move. Any relation to any other political philosophy is quite a co-incedence). It quite obviously doesn't magically make people rich because they try hard. I know some cleaners who try incredibly hard and work insane hours and wierdly enough they don't magically become richer.

Sex is not ****ing immoral unless you are a religious psychopath. How about you stop forcing your ****ing values down everyone's throat? What happened to Mill's principles of Liberty? You know, those principles your country claims to be built upon?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on November 17, 2008, 07:58:00 am
I think sex ed should be taught freely to all, but they should teach Stork Theory alongside sex theory as the explanation for where babies come from.
Teach the controversy!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yuu on November 17, 2008, 08:09:12 am
     Disgusting...

     There's a line between holding steadfast to one's sociopolitical and/or spiritual beliefs and shoving it down other people's throats.

     Extremist movements tend to cross that line. And that's where **** finally hits the fan.

     The UnHoly Roman Empire, the KKK, the Nazis, large corporations, politicians, they're all the same.

     The world is one big piece of **** and we can't do anything about it. Whatever we do we can't change anything.

     The world should form two huge nations, one overly humanist, one overly non-humanist. And they should just all ******* kill each other and then all the rest should die with them.

     ****
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Didero on November 17, 2008, 08:12:03 am
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v64/LeoMulder/CalvinHobbsCalmDown.jpg)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Uroboros on November 17, 2008, 08:19:28 am
With no knowledge of its immorality, sex seems appealing.
Explain why you believe sex is immoral.

Quote
Also, it's the parent's choice if their child even knows about sex.  If the parent doesn't want there kid to know how to produce children, then too bad for their branch of the family.
Indulging in child cruelty is a choice too, too bad for the recipients.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Mr. Consideration on November 17, 2008, 08:21:46 am
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v64/LeoMulder/CalvinHobbsCalmDown.jpg)


(http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/7650/rosesforstalinbyvladimitd7.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
(http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/rosesforstalinbyvladimitd7.jpg/1/w565.png) (http://g.imageshack.us/img148/rosesforstalinbyvladimitd7.jpg/1/)

No, I'm Not!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on November 17, 2008, 08:22:18 am
Oof.  I'll get back to you after I crawl out from under these walls of text.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Null on November 17, 2008, 10:32:10 am
Quote
@thatguyinanotherthreadwhoaskedhowpublicschoolsareindoctrinatingchildren*breath*
Well, first those children who were chanting and singing "Obama".
And any social studies class that explicitly implies- or states- that corporations are evil and yay for communism.
The very idea of sex ed is appalling.  With no knowledge of its immorality, sex seems appealing.  Also, it's the parent's choice if their child even knows about sex.  If the parent doesn't want there kid to know how to produce children, then too bad for their branch of the family.
Abstinence-only sex ed crap sprouted by he religious right in this country is absolutely ridiculous. They believe that if you teach only abstinence, that solves all the problems with STD’s, unwanted pregnancies, and of course the supposed immorality of sex thing. It is insane. People are going to have sex no matter what you tell them. Refusing to tell them how to do it so that they can minimize things like STDs and pregnancies… or FAMILY PLANNING… or anything like that causes more problems than it solves. The MORALITY of it be dammed, its not up to anyone but the couple if they want to have intimate relations.


I would vote republican sometimes, but the nutters of the religious right scare the **** out of me.

Quote
hat's why America is the most far-right Western nation on Earth, and by far the most reactionary.

Thats crap. You cannot hold everyone accountable for an extreme Ideology.

Quote
you really have nothing to argue from; economic liberalism has caused your economy to be rapidly in the ****ter,

Name one country who is not right now. Even china is having problems (if you call slower growth a problem. they do)


EDIT: ^ all of this came out more forceful than I had originally intended.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brutus on November 17, 2008, 01:11:09 pm
Sex is not immoral. Its just an activity. A man putting his penis into a person who consents to it is no more mmoral than two people having a conversation.

the idea that sex is immoral is just what fathers teach who don't like the idea of someone sleeping with their daughters.

kids are gonna start ****ing the second they get the chance. I know i did. Isn't it better they know as much as you can about it so you know any possible mistakes you could make?

stop being such a prude.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Doctor Z on November 17, 2008, 01:29:20 pm
As the resident... well, you know, I feel I should get my two cents in.

I'm rather sure I'm the most liberal person on this board, at least when it comes to sexuality. Fetishes, polygamy, all that fun stuff, bam, I'm in it.

By the same token, sure, I get carried away some times. But I'm still an ethical person. Not moral, of course. No ones moral, because everyone's morals are different. I am not stalking young girls or raping people. I'm a healthy young adult, and just because I **** people, doesn't make me a monster.

So, if someone who engages in all the stuff I do comes out relatively fine, wouldn't you think that someone who learns "Oh, hey, penis goes in the vagina, baby pops out!" would be exactly the same as before, no less "moral" or ethic then before? Only, they would know... well, the above.

That is all.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Mr. Consideration on November 17, 2008, 02:02:18 pm
I'm rather sure I'm the most liberal person on this board...

'Sup.


Quote
hat's why America is the most far-right Western nation on Earth, and by far the most reactionary.

Thats crap. You cannot hold everyone accountable for an extreme Ideology.

Quote
you really have nothing to argue from; economic liberalism has caused your economy to be rapidly in the ****ter,

Name one country who is not right now. Even china is having problems (if you call slower growth a problem. they do)


EDIT: ^ all of this came out more forceful than I had originally intended.

You elected them, China is a capitalist country, and due to globalisation and co-independence.

Don't have time for a longer response...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on November 17, 2008, 02:23:51 pm
Argh, I don't have the time to write lengthy posts on Mondays.  I still had comments to make on Kuwait, but it looks like we've moved on.  People would rather talk about sex, no surprise there.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Doctor Z on November 17, 2008, 02:37:56 pm
I'm rather sure I'm the most liberal person on this board...

'Sup.

God damn it, I know I'm not the overall most liberal, but I meant in terms of sexuality. Jeeeesus.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Andrew Ryan on November 17, 2008, 03:04:12 pm
You elected them, China is a capitalist Facist country, and due to globalisation and co-independence economic reform and international trade.

Don't have time for a longer response...

Fixed.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: tomasgaquino on November 17, 2008, 03:16:37 pm
Actually, they're on the other side of authoritarianism, the very same one the fascists fought.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: sgore on November 17, 2008, 03:20:09 pm
The very idea of sex ed is appalling.  With no knowledge of its immorality, sex seems appealing. 

Seems appealing?
Have you ever taken a high school health class before?
I think people walk out less interested.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Null on November 17, 2008, 04:26:38 pm
Quote
You elected them, China is a capitalist country, and due to globalisation and co-independence.

Don't have time for a longer response...

China has a "controlled economy", not very economically liberal in most ways. My point is, no matter what country you live in (I dont know what country you are from) chances are your economy is in the crapper right about now because almost everyone else's is.

And America is not the farthest right, that dubious distinction goes to the current government of Italy....
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: HanianKnight on November 17, 2008, 04:39:45 pm
@thatguyinanotherthreadwhoaskedhowpublicschoolsareindoctrinatingchildren*breath*
Well, first those children who were chanting and singing "Obama".
And any social studies class that explicitly implies- or states- that corporations are evil and yay for communism.
The very idea of sex ed is appalling.  With no knowledge of its immorality, sex seems appealing.  Also, it's the parent's choice if their child even knows about sex.  If the parent doesn't want there kid to know how to produce children, then too bad for their branch of the family.

*fromtheguywhoaskedabouthowschoolsareindoctronatingchildren*

I'm not aware of any social studies classes that advocate communism, or the idea that corporations are evil. Most early history classes are basically fluff about the Founders, basic colonial history(very very basic), and possibly some events from other parts of the world. It's only when you reach junior high that they start teaching anything that would be more modern( Civil War-WW2).

The only mention of corporations at all would be in High School History classes when they cover monopolies and Labour Unions. Even then, teachers aren't advocating any of the sides, they merely present the material. If a teacher is presenting one side in more positive light than the other, by that time I would think teenagers could decide whether or not to join the commies. Most History classes don't even get to the subject of Communism at all, except for passing comments about the Soviet Union being formed.

As for Sex-Ed class. Parents must sign a form stating that they wish for their child to take the class. Sex-Ed classes also heavily talk about STD's, AIDs, Teenage Pregnancies, and how effective most birth-control devices are. In fact, Sex-Ed classes are incredibly biased toward abstinence as the only way to stay STD free.

As for the children chanting Obama, I don't really know the background of the incident, I doubt you know the full story either. Even if it is as bad as you would think it to be, it is not representative of the public school system, and really just reflects what one teacher did. A teacher that I'm sure has been punished for whatever it is that she did.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: PatMan33 on November 18, 2008, 10:07:54 pm
I'm rather sure I'm the most liberal person on this board, at least when it comes to sexuality. Fetishes, polygamy, all that fun stuff, bam, I'm in it.

No... you just talk about a lot of stuff for the shock-value. Get over yourself and come back down here with the rest of us. You're probably nowhere near as special or unique as you think.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Gorman Conall on November 18, 2008, 10:31:20 pm
Long post here but i urge you to read it.

Ya know...I'm starting to have a problem with religion now..

Know why?, Because its taking the god damn blame for everything!.

I can think of plenty of reasons people shoulden't have premarital sex, With god NOT included in to the freaking mix!.

Actually it does not even have to premarital because premarital would only apply in religion. So lets say having sex with anyone YOUR not planning to stay together with permanently.

Lets start with what if you settle down?. Did you know many husbands leave their wives because they can't deal with the pain that comes from things that happened in their wives past?. Imagine this....lets say someday you are going to settle down with some one. What do you want that someone to do with other men or women before you meet?, The answer is probably nothing.

Thats only one side of it. Lets say you are having a consensual one night stand with a chick. Chances are sometime in her life this chick is gonna settle down and you are obviously not planning to stay with her so  you are possibly causing future pain for some other guy and possibly fights between the two for your own damn selfish pleasure.

You have no business sleeping with anyone you aren't planning to stay with marriage or not. Now will such actions cause pain to everyone?. Of course not! everyone different, I'm sure Doctor z would be unaffected because of his personal views. But what if the women Doctor z sleeps with ends up with someone that does not share Doctor zs views?.

This applys no matter the belief. If you believe we are nothing more then animals then thats fine. But our feelings and our minds does not function as such. Its what sets us apart, We are capable of poetry and art and great leaps of intelligence. Look at society, Look at what we have built, look at our relationships. we have these because we are different from animals.

If we are different in all of those aspects from animals then there is no reason we should act like animals when it comes to sexual relations.

Now lets talk STDs and Babys. I know many young single mothers that had sex got pregnant and daddy said buh bye!. Why? Because it was ether *casual sex* or two stupid people that were young and thought they would stay together but diden't.

If you are committed to staying with a person married or not then two people are likely to work through the issues of baby's and STDs.

Now of course not everyone who thinks they will stay together actually will. But you minimalize all the damage this way.

What would bother you more?. If your SO slept with one guy?, or 50?

Has one STD from one stupid mistake? or 5 because she never learned?

Has one baby to one daddy? Or 4 to 4 daddy's?

Stop blaming religion for BS like this. Sex is bad all around outside of set circumstances its as simple as that.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: PatMan33 on November 18, 2008, 10:37:58 pm
Well, hey, you're entitled to your opinion. I would like to point out that one thing I see as a growing issue with divorce is the "throw away" nature of society nowadays. If people have a problem they just get rid of it. Why try to make things better? It's irritating.

Anyway, I disagree with many of your points, Gorman, but it was an interesting read and I'll have to think about it. What I would say to you is to try to look at some of the positives, your post seemed very negative.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Gorman Conall on November 18, 2008, 10:53:10 pm
Well, hey, you're entitled to your opinion. I would like to point out that one thing I see as a growing issue with divorce is the "throw away" nature of society nowadays. If people have a problem they just get rid of it. Why try to make things better? It's irritating.

I agree, Most people try to bury their problems instead of work through them. Its getting out of hand really.

Indeed it is my opinion but thats part of the point. This next part is not really a reply to you PatMan just a further clarification of one of my points.

Doctor Z has his opinion

Gorman has his

Doctor z sleeps with Vannessa

Gorman ends up marrying Vannessa

Gormans hurt by what Vannessa did with Doctor Z

Doctor Z never sees Vannessa again and has no idea about Gorman or the situation.

Gorman is pained for months, Gorman and vannessa fight every now and then about what Vannessa did with Doctor z..

Now the worst case scenario if the doctor z sleeps with vannessa is Gorman and Vannessa get a divorce. Its only Gormans views that cause this but  Doctors views are no more valid then Gormans. They are both personal views.

Now the worst case scenario if Doctor z DIDEN'T sleep with Vannessa.

Doctor Z simply diden't get an hour or two of pleasure from a girl he had no future with.

I didn't pull my earlier sentence out of my ass. Husbands have left their wives because they couldn't emotionally handle their wives past. So its not like I'm the only person in the world that could be affected by my scenario.

Doctor Z I'm not attacking you BTW. I'm just using your name because you said you are a polygamist so your views are the exact opposite of mine. So don't take my posts personal its nothing agians't you at all.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: PatMan33 on November 18, 2008, 10:55:54 pm
I don't think we should ever talk about DoctorZ. Ever.

I'm sorry Gorman, but you can't sway me on this point. :P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Gorman Conall on November 18, 2008, 11:02:53 pm
I don't think we should ever talk about DoctorZ. Ever.


Agreed!  ;D. Agreed!.

I'm sorry Gorman, but you can't sway me on this point. :P

Thats okay, My intention was not really to sway anybody (how often does that happen in a debate ???)

But more to prove their is logical reasoning behind sex being bad or immoral other then ZOMG BIBLE NUB.

Its just lately I'm finding the argument being,

If your against sex its because your religious!.

If your against abortion its because your religious!

If your against gambling its because your religious!. etc..

Not just here ALL OVER. Its been annoying me so i decided to reply for once.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: PatMan33 on November 18, 2008, 11:10:32 pm
Oh no, you can't sway me on the point about he-who-shall-not-be-talked-about. The other stuff is open for swaying! Sway away! ;D
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brutus on November 19, 2008, 01:05:14 am
if a relationship breaks up because of one partner having had a one night stand or a previous partner then they weren't gonna be together forever anyway.

both me and my girlfriend have had previous partners and its the same with every couple i know and its never been a problem really. Its the norm ad you expect it.

hell i meet her ex on a diaily basis and we're quite good friends really. along as you get a sense of closure that their relationship has ended and its time for yours to begin then it isn't a problem
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on November 19, 2008, 02:35:13 am
Also, Gorman, I think your point uses rather circular logic. Why would you be hurt or affected by what your partner had done prior to meeting you if you weren't already of the opinion that premarital sex was somehow bad?

Surely its none of your business to be offended by what your partner may or may not have done. They're a human being same as everything else, and they are entitled to do whatever they like. If you really love them, what the hell does it matter how many previous partners they've had. If the knowledge affects you so negatively then maybe you should examine why. Sounds to me like a sign of insecurity that you think you'd be unable to deal with the fact that a partner had a life before you, so to speak.

But I digress. As for babies and STDs; thats why people use condoms. They're not hard to come by. They're 99.99% effective. Hell, some places give them out for free :P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brutus on November 19, 2008, 03:30:51 am
Why do people refuse to beleive that safe sex is safe. My god the way to stop STDs spreading is to encourage people to use condoms not encourage them not to have sex.

People are gonna have sex. Thats a fact. We're are hardwired to want it and resisting sexual urges can pervert sexual desires.

Aslong as you wear a ****ing condom then you don't have to worry. 

Honestly i encourage each and every one of you to have as much sex as you want, preferably with as fewer partners as possible. Don't resist. just don't go crazy and keep it safe and you'll be fine.

It is just sex. Its a huge part of life. Enjoy it. It is really fun after all.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Veraal on November 19, 2008, 07:29:50 am
i don't see everyone's problem with sex, and about secks ed; i think i knew more than i was taught in those few lessons of giggling and laughing.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Andrew Ryan on November 19, 2008, 07:30:54 am
Why do people refuse to beleive that safe sex is safe. My god the way to stop STDs spreading is to encourage people to use condoms not encourage them not to have sex.

People are gonna have sex. Thats a fact. We're are hardwired to want it and resisting sexual urges can pervert sexual desires.

Aslong as you wear a ****ing condom then you don't have to worry. 

Honestly i encourage each and every one of you to have as much sex as you want, preferably with as fewer partners as possible. Don't resist. just don't go crazy and keep it safe and you'll be fine.

It is just sex. Its a huge part of life. Enjoy it. It is really fun after all.


Except if your dead... like me....
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: PatMan33 on November 19, 2008, 07:39:41 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaWCjueQ97k

You will get pregnant and die.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on November 19, 2008, 08:19:06 am
I didn't really want to talk about sex, but since everyone else is, here goes.

Yes, I do think sex should be saved for marriage.  And while part of my thinking is from my religion, it's more than that.  Someone said a page back or so that sex is no more immoral than having a conversation.  And that is your view, according to your morals.  But there is definitely an emotional aspect to it, which is why I think it should be saved for a lasting relationship.  Now that may be a reflection of my worldview, but I'm fairly confident that it holds true.  Otherwise you would go around bumping uglies with every person you met.  What do you think, in the long term, is going to be more enjoyable?  Shacking up with a girlfriend in a relationship that will last a month or two, or even hooking up with that hot girl from the party last night, or waiting and sharing an act of love with someone you have committed to spending the rest of your life with?

It is true that sex is a hardwired desire, primal urges and all that.  But people are also hardwired to lie, cheat and steal.  If you don't believe me, go watch a class of 2 and 3 year olds.  Kids will snatch away toys from each other without a second's hesitation, and lie as soon as they learn to talk.  Just because you have a desire to do something doesn't necessarily mean you should.  Show some farking self restraint and you'll earn the rewards.

/end rant

Now I would really like to get back to Politics.  Can we talk Politics?

EDIT:  I know, let's talk about the BNP and the party list getting posted online.

theirs apparently a vicar on the list aswell as policemen and many army soilders.

they'll be fearing their jobs about now

I know it's an extreme and unpopular party, but is party membership grounds for firing in the UK?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on November 19, 2008, 08:51:58 am
Otherwise you would go around bumping uglies with every person you met. 

Whoa. Thats a bit of an overgeneralisation. I'm a firm believer in sex before marriage, but honestly I wouldn't have sex outside of a formal relationship (even if wasn't exclusive). I find the idea of a one-night stand personally unnappeling, but I certainly wouldn't presume to tell others not to have one night stands.
The idea of 'saving yourself' seems awfully naeive, considering how many relationships fail anyway, and how long it could take before you find a like minded person that you'd actually tie the knot with, and even then, it seems strange that anyone would want to limit their personal experience so much by sticking to only one sex partner over their entire life.

Now I would really like to get back to Politics.  Can we talk Politics?

But Ink... this IS politics >_>
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on November 19, 2008, 08:56:08 am
Yes, it is an overgeneralization, and that is my point, that there is a lot more to sex than there is to a conversation.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Uroboros on November 19, 2008, 09:02:07 am
Post dissect-o-bot GO!

Did you know many husbands leave their wives because they can't deal with the pain that comes from things that happened in their wives past?. Imagine this....lets say someday you are going to settle down with some one. What do you want that someone to do with other men or women before you meet?, The answer is probably nothing.
I'd say a person that insecure simply isnt ready for any real relationship, full stop.
People have histories, they simply don't begin to live the moment you enter a relationship with them.

Quote
Thats only one side of it. Lets say you are having a consensual one night stand with a chick. Chances are sometime in her life this chick is gonna settle down and you are obviously not planning to stay with her so  you are possibly causing future pain for some other guy and possibly fights between the two for your own damn selfish pleasure.
But with this logic, nobody should eat meat in case they settle down with a strict vegan in the future, who is personally hurt by the happymeal you ate eight years ago. I hate to say it so flatly but if people are going to let the past unrelated to them, interfere with their present relationship so much, then they are either incredibly emotionally frail, incredibly judgemental, or the relationship itself is incredibly thin.

Quote
But what if the women Doctor z sleeps with ends up with someone that does not share Doctor zs views?.
Then if a person is so fragile as to expect their partner to have lived a past clean of anything that might potentially offend or hurt them, they should SAY SO up front, before the relationship, so they can have a heart-to-heart, and retell their entire history to each other, so they can tell if they're compatable. Honestly though, that is some stupendously high-maintenance high-standard stuff you're talking about. If you live by these standards you're talking of... well... good luck I guess.

Quote
If we are different in all of those aspects from animals then there is no reason we should act like animals when it comes to sexual relations.
There is also no reason we should deliberately exclude ourselves from the all the behaviours that our natural biology asks us to follow, either. Deliberate seperation from our natural impulses, needs and drives for no reason, is just absurd, and tends to cause issues and problems in the long run.

Quote
If you are committed to staying with a person married or not then two people are likely to work through the issues of baby's and STDs.
Staying together simply for the sake of a baby, especially if neither person really has lasting feelings for the other, is a perfect way to make both lives a living hell, and often the childs too. Resentment can quickly become a factor in such relationships. By all means, both be there for the child, keep on good terms, have a strong presence in the childs life, be a real parent to it, be able to openly talk with the other parent in a friendly and amicable way, but deliberately halting yourself from being involved with other people is robbing both parents of finding a personal relationship. It may work for some, but they are likely in the few.

Quote
Sex is bad all around outside of set circumstances its as simple as that.
No, just... no. Denied :P
ANYTHING tends to be bad all-round, outside of being responsible and using common sense.
You say that religion isnt in the middle of all this, but really, in your viewpoint right here? Bluntly, i'd have to say yes, it really is.

i don't see everyone's problem with sex, and about secks ed; i think i knew more than i was taught in those few lessons of giggling and laughing.
When I was young, I was the original "dumb kid". Imagine Ralph from the Simpsons. Yeah, that was me. I learned a little, but not much in SexEd. Most of it was restrained giggling, much like everyone else. Just like someone else said, the SexEd class left most of the kids vowwing never to have sex. Its amazing what watching someone give birth can do to you. Yeah sure, its a kind of scare tactic, but it was a simple truth.

Quote
Someone said a page back or so that sex is no more immoral than having a conversation.  And that is your view, according to your morals.
Yeah, to each their own and all that. We all live life according to the ways we think we should. That isn't really disputed. It's just that occasionally someone will use 'immoral' as a way to imply that someone else is being defaultly irresponsible or bad, rather than as a reflection of their own internalised worldview and opinion. There is a big difference between saying "I think that is wrong" and "You are being immoral". I'd blame that very wording on the base of a lot of unnecessary discussions, which would have otherwise just fizzled quickly in a "Whatever man, you do what you do, I do what I do", right before they got back to playing Mario Kart with their ordered pizza.

There are morals, regarding our personal worldview, which apply mostly to just ourselves. Our internalised mirror of the world, our own code of conduct, our own rules of engagement. Then there are morals, regarding the world, as the worldwide acknowledged base of civilised conduct, such as : "hurting people is bad". Try as we might to keep these two kinds seperate, people just love blurring the line and getting all philosophical about such a simple thing, in an effort to cover their attempts to assert their personal morality over accepted 'polite conduct'.
"But Joe! Saying prolonged torture is bad is just your personal opinion of morality!"
When really, doing that is no better or useful than turning every discussion into a philosophical hopscotch about "but for all we know we could really be dreaming". I don't really think any of us here really has a deep problem with how each of us view the world or operate within it. After all, for our differences in opinion, nobody here has professed a belief in anything outright harmful, but me? I can't help but feel frustrated when people misuse the assertment of morality.

Babbling ends.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Gorman Conall on November 19, 2008, 09:09:41 am
Also, Gorman, I think your point uses rather circular logic. Why would you be hurt or affected by what your partner had done prior to meeting you if you weren't already of the opinion that premarital sex was somehow bad?

The thing is while there are a variety of reasons a person could be hurt by it depending on their views its does not matter. What matters is for whatever reason they are hurt by it.

Try to look at it through this perspective.

I have been with my SO for just over 3 years. A year in she admitted doing something with someone, It was not sex but it was something.

I could not fully explain why but it hurt like hell for months and if i think about it now it still does. At first i thought i was insane because the public norm is there is nothing wrong with it.

I looked around online i guess if anything for my own counseling. What i found was..i was  not insane but actually i was pretty normal. Most people were pained at least a little by their partners pasts. The worst cases were people breaking up or divorcing. I sat to think for a bit and then it dawned on me.

The only thing i know about other people are what they show me. That tough jock down the street that i label as a pig could actually be going through the same thing in his private time. I wouldn't know because nobody go's out blabbing to people about what bothers them or how they feel, Especially not men.

Around his friends he may act like a pig. But he may be a gentlemen when the peer pressure is not on him.

Look at a crowd of people from that hot cheer leader to that man in a suit. You would have no idea what sorts of emotional pools they have. You could look at me for example, If you were to see me in person i would be a guy in a leather jacket that kinda stays back from the crowd. You would never know that in my private time that i write poetry and story's because in person without knowing me i would seem nothing more the punk/jock. I don't go out announcing to people on the street that i write poetry just like no one would go out announcing how hurt they are that their partner slept with someone else.

As for STDs and baby's i wish i could agree with you because i am all for birth control and condoms. But most people just don't use them. My very best friend is an intelligent guy..but he does not use a condom with his girlfriend. He um. how do i make this family friendly?...uh...the train leaves the station before the passengers are done boarding.

That sort of self birth prevention will not work and my buddy is gonna end up with a baby he ain't ready for. They don't use condoms because it does not feel as good as normal (this is what I'm told). I can't tell him otherwise.

I feel the best thing to do even without religion is to teach people to try to have as little sex as possible with people that aren't someone they are committed to. It saves pain, Helps stop the spreading of STDs, and helps prevent unintended pregnancy. Now these can happen with a committed couple but a committed couple is likely to work through it. The same can not be said for one nighters.

Sex is a primal urge. So is stealing and fighting, If we suppress one urge we can suppress them all. If its too much then masturbate!. The churches may not agree but the its better then the other option.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Uroboros on November 19, 2008, 09:38:12 am
I have been with my SO for just over 3 years. A year in she admitted doing something with someone, It was not sex but it was something.
If it was before you were with her, not to be judgemental or anything, but thats insecurity. Maybe a little jealousy. Sometimes when you're really into someone, you hurt over silly things, but that is just part and parcel of loving someone. As they say, love hurts. People do, say, and feel silly things when you're really into someone. No amount of planning or thinking will really avoid that. If it was something she did whilst she was with you, then thats either cheating, or what you felt was a little betrayal or something that just plain stung you. Things that arent technically cheating can still hurt like hell too. Like if she was just fakely flirting with a long-time friend, you can be certain nothing is meant by it, but it can still sting you. Love hurts, even the best partners will make you ache. Its just the way it tends to go. Just as there is no strong relationship that hasn't endured a few arguements and stark disagreements. Actually, i'll shut up, this is something close to your heart and I don't want to go stepping on any heartstrings here...

Quote
My very best friend is an intelligent guy..but he does not use a condom with his girlfriend. He um. how do i make this family friendly?...uh...the train leaves the station before the passengers are done boarding.
Egh, well, eventually he may learn a hard lesson. It'll be a rude awakening but the damage will already be done. Short of lecturing and browbeating him over something in his personal life, there isnt much you can do. I had a friend who was like that, and well, he paid the price...

Quote
I feel the best thing to do even without religion is to teach people to try to have as little sex as possible with people that aren't someone they are committed to. It saves pain, Helps stop the spreading of STDs, and helps prevent unintended pregnancy. Now these can happen with a committed couple but a committed couple is likely to work through it. The same can not be said for one nighters.
Actually, only having sex with someone you're commited to doesnt help stop unintended pregnancies and STDs at all. "Working it out" isnt the same as preventing it. I would much rather people have one-night stands with protection, than save themselves for somebody they fall in love with and not bother with protection. All it boils down to is common sense, and someone who refuses to consider protection is going to pay even less attention when you say they should save themselves.

Quote
Sex is a primal urge. So is stealing and fighting, If we suppress one urge we can suppress them all. If its too much then masturbate!. The churches may not agree but the its better then the other option.
But sex is an urge that doesnt intrinsically harm someone else. The stance of sexual surpression is quite eerily akin to Jack Thomspons videogame surpression approach. This all ties in with the entire "the few doesn't represent the many". Just as there are violent nutjobs in every otherwise stable religion branch, there are always senseless protectionless screw-arounds who leave a trail of distraught single parents and children in their wake. Plus, haven't been able to surpress stealing, fighting, or anger, by and large.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Doctor Z on November 19, 2008, 12:49:24 pm
Shacking up with a girlfriend in a relationship that will last a month or two, or even hooking up with that hot girl from the party last night, or waiting and sharing an act of love with someone you have committed to spending the rest of your life with?
I don't think they are mutually exclusive. If anything, it's better to ... well, for lack of a better term, "practice" on people you don't have any intentions of a lifelong relationship with, so that when you and your partner finally do... "bump uglies" it's much more enjoyable for the other party, as well as you.

Besides, how would you know this person is right for you? Sexual compatibility is very much so a major part of any relationship. You wouldn't want to marry the person to find out they are horrible in bed, right?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bona Fide Supraman on November 19, 2008, 12:59:39 pm
I don't think some people understand the point of sex ed.

It isn't to tell children about the wonders of sex. They will find that out anyway. Off mates, the internet, and basically through society.

Sex ed teaches them how to do it safely.

The logic is: They will do it anyway, but it's better if they use a condom.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brutus on November 19, 2008, 03:33:05 pm
I have been with my SO for just over 3 years. A year in she admitted doing something with someone, It was not sex but it was something.

I could not fully explain why but it hurt like hell for months and if i think about it now it still does. At first i thought i was insane because the public norm is there is nothing wrong with it.

As for STDs and baby's i wish i could agree with you because i am all for birth control and condoms. But most people just don't use them. My very best friend is an intelligent guy..but he does not use a condom with his girlfriend. He um. how do i make this family friendly?...uh...the train leaves the station before the passengers are done boarding.

I know how you feel. but your overreacting. My girlfriend has had 2 previous sexual partners. To be honest i'm glad she had the first one. I don't think i could handle the emotions involved with being her first sexual partner (she's very very emotional). The second one did bother me a bit not because the relationship was different but because of the guy. He was one of those dickheads who considered himself a bit of a player (but really wasn't) and i was worried he thought of her as more of a notch on his belt than a girlfriend.

i guess i'm consoled by the fact that later when me and my girlfriend wen't out drinking one time she got incredibly drunk and told one of her girl talk friends some comparative details and an opinion of me which later ended up getting back to me without her knowing.  ::)       

Anyway i stopped being bothered when i found out that she didn't feel used by him.

Guess how i found that out. BY TALKING ABOUT IT. Talk to her about it. You may find out the real reason it bothers you and with all due respect chances are that it probably won't be the fact that she blew a guy.

It will be a lack of closure or some unanswered questions you don't realise you have.

Everyone has a history. Sorry but your gonna have to face that.

Welcome to 21st century sex ethics, bitch.

Secondly, if your friend had had proper sex education he'd know that pulling out is a terrible form of contraception.

fighting sexual urges CAN pervert secual desires.

An abstinate 40 year old will be incredibly horny, lets say he's a teacher. He spends all day reccuringly thinking about sex while being around kids and slowly starts to associate the two.

Uh damnit!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Null on November 19, 2008, 07:23:23 pm
Quote
fighting sexual urges CAN pervert secual desires.

An abstinate 40 year old will be incredibly horny, lets say he's a teacher. He spends all day reccuringly thinking about sex while being around kids and slowly starts to associate the two.

Oh god, ew. But you hear all these stories in the news about priests, people who spend their lives trying to repress sexual urges. They cannot marry, they are not supposed to have sex. Then you hear these stores in the news... there is defiantly a correlation between that and their lifestyle.


Can we change the topic now?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on November 19, 2008, 07:36:30 pm
Yes, subject change time.

I know, let's talk about the BNP and the party list getting posted online.

theirs apparently a vicar on the list aswell as policemen and many army soilders.

they'll be fearing their jobs about now

I know it's an extreme and unpopular party, but is party membership grounds for firing in the UK?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Grangan on November 19, 2008, 07:40:02 pm
Oh my [note to self:don't use lord's name in vain], I've completely derailed this thread, haven't I?
Umm... please talk about something else.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Null on November 19, 2008, 07:56:54 pm
I had never heard of the BNP party prior to that. I did some research, they apperently have a... most unpleasant view on people different than themselves. Racist and whatnot. I would guess that would be a problem for people in certain positions... I hope some of you brits can enlighten us on the subject?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on November 20, 2008, 12:25:24 am
Being a member of the BNP disqualifies you from being able to join the army, the police and the prison service, basically because they're a racist hate-group and being a racist would be a conflict of interest in those jobs. Thats what the news said anyway.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brutus on November 20, 2008, 03:03:13 am
while i hate the BNP more than anyone i still beleive they deserve a compensation for having something so horrible done to them. Just imagine what would happen if this happened with the labour party or the tories.

I hate them but they've been wronged and it should be put right. We do have free speech afterall they can say whatever they want and it would be un-democratic to not treat them like any other party.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on November 20, 2008, 07:21:15 am
I was basically thinking the same thing as what Brutus said.  By all accounts they are a horrible group, but unless the party, and not just a few individuals connected to it, have been involved in some sort of criminal activity, I'm surprised that the UK would put them in such a quasi-illegal status.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Uroboros on November 20, 2008, 07:43:22 am
I by no mean these as blanketing "they're all like this" statements, but I think of it this way : If you go in for a job interview and they don't like your demeanor or recorded work ethic, don't be surprised if you don't get the job. Employment by the military, the police, or prison security, means you are given a good degree of immediate power over other people, and it is well documented how breaches of the rules by such people, can easily slip by. The military are held within strong rules, yes, but when deployed, things change. You know how the psychology of war and power goes. That is a position you want to minimise the potential 'timebombs'. Similar authority complexes can easily develop with police and prison security, though at least those who are outside of a prison are less likely to be caught in a 'total lockdown' situation where there is no recourse or way to report or complain. Being a member of the BNP already says something of your personal persuasion, and the three types of job previously mentioned tend require a 'straight hand'.

For the same reason you don't give a rabid KKK skinhead jury duty where there is a race difference in the case, there will be natural apprehension for BNP members entering jobs where there is additional elbow-room for abuse. On the freedom of speech issue, you are missing a vital secondary point. People keep chanting the brilliance of freedom of speech, and yet what about freedom of privacy and the virtually auto-passed laws and such (patriot act?) that people were willing to shrug off and say that its a sacrifice for the greater good? What about the freedom to peaceful protest, yet many of them were locked down upon and many people arrested without charge? I don't even need to elaborate on the Guantanamo Bay deal, either. Laws themselves, are sacrifices civilised people obide by, by mutual agreement, for the greater good when facing the minority of troublemakers. Freedom and law have always sat at opposite ends of the table, and yet both are essential in part for an operating society. Its an uneasy balance, and the fine-print is always shifting too and fro... so please contemplate a little before you see the BNP ban as an outright breach of freedom of speech/expression. Law itself is a black mark against freedom. The balance is rarely perfect, but in the case of the BNP, i'm willing to say in this case : "Better safe than sorry".
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on November 20, 2008, 08:16:15 am
While I agree with many of your points, I still think it creates a dangerous precedent to fire people based solely on party affiliation.  I would really like to hear if these people actually get fired, and if so, how long they had held these jobs and if there had been any complaints or suspicions about them.  But seeing as just releasing their names was apparently illegal, I don't know if we'll get that information.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on November 20, 2008, 08:22:21 am
Well, I'm no industry insider, but I would hope that a racist police officer or prison guard would be fired regardless of political affiliation. If that doesn't happen then I would agree with you Ink, that it would be setting an uneasy precedent. However, I would say the primary reason that BNP members are barred from these offices is because the BNP is fundementally a racist organisation. Nobody votes BNP for their economic policies or their wish to remain seperate from Europe :P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Mr. Consideration on November 20, 2008, 08:38:48 am
Surely they'd vote UKIP if that was the case?

http://www.localgibson.com/bnp/

Find-a-Fascist! The White Pages!

I'm loathe to reveal my post code, but I have a BNP member living on my street, less than a hundred yards away.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Andrew Ryan on November 20, 2008, 01:05:17 pm
Well, I'm no industry insider, but I would hope that a racist police officer or prison guard would be fired regardless of political affiliation. If that doesn't happen then I would agree with you Ink, that it would be setting an uneasy precedent. However, I would say the primary reason that BNP members are barred from these offices is because the BNP is fundementally a racist organisation. Nobody votes BNP for their economic policies or their wish to remain seperate from Europe :P

While I agree with you on this issue that nobody votes for the BNP (Just like nobody votes for the Communist party in the U.S.) I must say it is very undemocratic of you to ban a political party based solely on their racism. Despite my general hatred of all racists I still see that the UK still is a democracy, where people can pretty much think and believe what they like without proper objections from the government. I believe the proper and rational thing to do in this situation would be not to ban the party and let members asscend to public office, at least until a complaint of blatent racism or any other objections comes from a co-worker, underling, or other associate of the said individual. To let racists use positions of power to abuse the people they hate is pretty bad, but to ban a political party simply because it has some racist views! What are we, Communists!

P.S. Just so you know, I don't agree with ANYTHING the BNP party says or does, I just want to justify that they have the right to public office just as much as any other political party.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on November 20, 2008, 01:14:46 pm
Andrew, you fail at paying attention.

The party isn't banned. The issue is that paid up members of the party (that is, you actually have to be an official member, rather than just voting for them) are barred from getting jobs in the Police, Prison service or armed forces, due to the fact that these are jobs racists should not be employed in, the way you don't employ a paedophile at a school or a militant vegan at a meat packing warehouse.

Also, the various communist parties in England doesn't get any votes either. In case you somehow got the impression that everyone in Europe was some sort of Bolshevik because we have a wellfare state.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Doctor Z on November 20, 2008, 01:21:19 pm
Suuuuure, Yuri! ;)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on November 20, 2008, 01:22:34 pm
Dem! My plans hev been foiled!

To the nuclear escaype wessel!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Andrew Ryan on November 20, 2008, 01:24:30 pm
Throw him in the ChronoSphere!  :P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brutus on November 20, 2008, 01:24:50 pm
us ban a party? we'd never ever do that.

we wouldn't ban the anti-puppy/kitten party.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Uroboros on November 20, 2008, 03:49:38 pm
Dem! My plans hev been foiled!

To the nuclear escaype wessel!
(http://wiki.nexuswar.com/images/thumb/f/f7/FCeye.gif/250px-FCeye.gif)
OH MY. CITIZENS Celdur-R-GSF, Celdur-R-GSF, Celdur-R-GSF AND $victimname, PLEASE REPORT FOR TROUBLESHOOTER DUTY IMMEDIATELY.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on November 20, 2008, 05:06:02 pm
Uroboros brings up a good point. Surely the guidance of Friend Computer is the greatest form of government there is?

*Krakow Sam attempts to use Machine Empathy to escape a swift and violent death*
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brutus on November 21, 2008, 10:30:33 am
the main thing i think is wrong with Obama is he's too nice. (This is not election talk this is president talk)

i saw a thing on T.V that said Obama had a moment of anger and fury then they said they would show the footage.

I was expecting some militant black guy with his face about an inch away from the camera screaming "GET THE **** OUT OF MY WAY YOU ****EN ****S AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRGH!!!!!"  Then an unprovoked assualt on a reporter.

then it cut to a shot if Obama being a tiny bit annoyed because the reporters wouldn't leave when his son was with him.

thats how unuse to him being angry people are. That was a fit of rage as far as we're conserned.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: MetallicDragon on November 21, 2008, 11:27:03 am
So being able to control his anger is a bad thing?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on November 21, 2008, 12:16:33 pm
Yeah! USA need someone like Hitler or Stalin that and purged the ranks a bit!

Naa..... I am sure Mr. O will got do great job.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: sgore on November 21, 2008, 03:12:18 pm
then it cut to a shot if Obama being a tiny bit annoyed because the reporters wouldn't leave when his son was with him.
I don't know Brutus, if the story was as you described it there probably would have been a bigger scoop at hand than Obama's supposed anger.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brutus on November 22, 2008, 05:45:05 am
it was something like that. i dunno the specifics on the american president i watch british news for gods sake.

So being able to control his anger is a bad thing?

when did i say that?




Gaming steve forum members <3 Strawmen.


on later news

Obama is tring to create 2.5 million more jobs for americans

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7743571.stm
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: sgore on November 22, 2008, 08:02:43 am
i dunno the specifics on the american president i watch british news for gods sake.

Fair enough.

Anyone want to discuss various cabinet appointments?
I've heard arguments for and against Clinton for secretary of state.
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-2008/2008/11/21/barack-obama-appears-all-set-to-name-hillary-clinton-secretary-of-state.html
Personally, I think she'd do a good job with it, and I do like the idea of choosing former rivals. I'm curious what other people think.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on November 22, 2008, 09:02:28 am
So much for all that Change.  Hard to change business as usual in DC when so many of the big name positions are either people from Bill Clinton's administration, or are married to him.

Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State
Eric Holder for Attorney General - Clinton's Deputy Attorney General
Bill Richardson for Secretary of Commerce - Clinton's Secretary of Energy
Rahm Emanuel for Chief of Staff - senior advisor to Clinton under various titles
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Andrew Ryan on November 22, 2008, 10:33:22 am
Sounds like a purely Democratic cabinet to match Bush's purely Republican Cabinet.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Null on November 22, 2008, 10:38:38 am
That certainly is a change. Not exactly the change I was hoping for, with all these insiders. That they are all a democrat is to be expected, but they are all well known Washington insiders. Nothing really NEW.

My state's former senator gets the health department. He came to speak about health care at the campus once, and I was impressed. He will do a good job, I think.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on November 22, 2008, 10:44:41 am
Well, of course.  If anyone actually thought Obama would put McCain or any other Republican in his cabinet, I'd like to interest you in some beachfront property in New Mexico.  But for all his talk of changing the way Washington works, he sure is bringing in a lot of the Democratic Old Guard.

EDIT: You mean Tom Daschle, Null?  Didn't know we had any South Dakotans on the forum.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: sgore on November 22, 2008, 12:40:26 pm
He said in the 60 minutes interview he's going to put at least one republican in his cabinet.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/obama-pledges-to-appoint-republican-to-cabinet/
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brandonazz on November 22, 2008, 01:12:54 pm
Obviously, change just meant Democrats instead of Republicans.

Obviously
.

That aside, I can't criticize his choices. America did well under Clinton, and Obama is choosing those people who also have experience in cabinet or administrative positions. Clinton is well connected outside of the US and able to use her husband as a resource, though that might lead to a conflict of interests.

And I don't know who else he could sensibly pick besides people like that. The last thing I want is Joe the Plumber as Secretary of Commerce.

Well, of course.  If anyone actually thought Obama would put McCain or any other Republican in his cabinet, I'd like to interest you in some beachfront property in New Mexico.
He said in the 60 minutes interview he's going to put at least one republican in his cabinet.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/obama-pledges-to-appoint-republican-to-cabinet/

Either Obama is a liar, or you better learn to make it rain, Inkling.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on November 22, 2008, 01:20:48 pm
Forgive me for not reading the blog section of the New York Times.  I stand corrected.  At least, I will when he names and nominates the Republican.  

I'm guessing the Republican will be Secretary of Agriculture or Secretary of the Interior.  Obama's cabinet is going to be very interesting, with Hillary, Bill Richardson, who is seen by some as a traitor to the Clintons, Tom Daschle, the former Senate Majority Leader who is going to have to transition to being a subordinate, and our myserious token Republican.

Now these people do have experience and are well qualified.  But Obama's message was more than just Change from Republican to Democrat, especially while he was running against Hillary.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Null on November 23, 2008, 10:33:03 am
Yep, Daschle. He did alot of seminars and speeches after we booted him out of Washington.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Haseri on November 24, 2008, 10:06:12 am
the main thing i think is wrong with Obama is he's too nice. (This is not election talk this is president talk)

i saw a thing on T.V that said Obama had a moment of anger and fury then they said they would show the footage.

I was expecting some militant black guy with his face about an inch away from the camera screaming "GET THE **** OUT OF MY WAY YOU ****EN ****S AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRGH!!!!!"  Then an unprovoked assualt on a reporter.

then it cut to a shot if Obama being a tiny bit annoyed because the reporters wouldn't leave when his son was with him.

thats how unuse to him being angry people are. That was a fit of rage as far as we're conserned.

Wait, you think Obama being nice is wrong? What, you want him to be an Angry Black Man (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AngryBlackMan)?

Yes, I am aware Obama an example on that page...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brutus on November 24, 2008, 02:29:15 pm
why don't people understand anything?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Kenobro on November 25, 2008, 12:51:26 pm
why don't people understand anything?

Because, they don't?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ultimatum on November 25, 2008, 12:54:04 pm
why don't people understand me

Fixed.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: PatMan33 on November 25, 2008, 01:47:28 pm
Hah! That's the correct answer!

(http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i177/PatMan33/Other%20Crap/Ulti-LeaveBrutusAlonecopy.png) (http://www.gamingsteve.com/blab/index.php?topic=386.msg645229#msg645229)

If you'd like to use this banner, paste the following code into your signature...
Code: [Select]
[url=http://www.gamingsteve.com/blab/index.php?topic=386.msg645229#msg645229][img]http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i177/PatMan33/Other%20Crap/Ulti-LeaveBrutusAlonecopy.png[/img][/url]
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Null on November 25, 2008, 02:23:00 pm
Hah! That's the correct answer!

(http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i177/PatMan33/Other%20Crap/Ulti-LeaveBrutusAlonecopy.png) (http://www.gamingsteve.com/blab/index.php?topic=386.msg645229#msg645229)

If you'd like to use this banner, paste the following code into your signature...
Code: [Select]
[url=http://www.gamingsteve.com/blab/index.php?topic=386.msg645229#msg645229][img]http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i177/PatMan33/Other%20Crap/Ulti-LeaveBrutusAlonecopy.png[/img][/url]

Okay

Faux Pas? I dunno. I dont plant on keeping it. Its just so FUNNY.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Veraal on November 25, 2008, 02:26:26 pm
erm...

well, this is certainly awkward.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brutus on November 25, 2008, 02:50:49 pm
there can't be two winners. one of you came first.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Null on November 25, 2008, 04:06:42 pm
I know I did not win anything. It amused me to put it there. But if you insist.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on December 02, 2008, 09:48:35 pm
The Georgia Senate runoff election is over, Republican Saxby Chambliss has won.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/02/georgia.senate/index.html

This means that the Democrats will not get a filibuster-proof 60 seat majority.

The race in Minnesota is still in a recount, as far as I know.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Cow on December 07, 2008, 03:00:15 pm
By the way, Al Franken is my favorite comedian turn politician.

P.S. Saxby is a funny name.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on December 07, 2008, 03:04:38 pm
Off the top of my head I can't think of any other comedians who have gone into politics, so I guess Franken wins by default.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on December 07, 2008, 07:08:33 pm
other comedians who have gone into politics

Boris Johnson.

M I rite?  :P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on December 07, 2008, 10:43:40 pm
Oh, yes.  Well... In that case make it any other American comedians going into American politics.  There have been plenty of actors, but few comedians.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on December 08, 2008, 10:46:20 pm
Oh look, a double post.

Politics Thread: Canada Edition
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/12/04/canada.crisis/index.html
So Canada's Parliament has been suspended until late January.  The Prime Minister was allowed to do this by the Governor General, who represents Queen Elizabeth as Head of State.

Seriously Canada, what the heck are you doing?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Doctor Z on December 09, 2008, 07:20:34 am
**** if we know.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Andrew Ryan on December 09, 2008, 07:23:34 am
Wow, Canada may actually be handling this situation worse than the U.S.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Doctor Z on December 09, 2008, 08:10:07 am
Well, I'll try to explain what the hell is going on, as far as I know.

Our PM, Stephen Harper, is a Conservative. Republican to you southerners.

His economic proposal was very much so concerned with pushing the Conservative agenda. And contained dickish moves, such as not letting the Federal Union strike for the next 2 years, when they don't have reason to strike for at least 3 years. Which leaves some wondering what he has up his sleeve that will make the FU want to strike within the next two years.

So, the place is in an uproar. The Liberals (democrats) and the NDP (socialists), with the support of the Bloc Quebecois (Frenchies) teamed up to take him down. Stephen Dion, the Liberal leader, is an idiot, however.

Since everyone is against him, Stephen Harper petitioned the Governor General to suspend parliament, to prevent a non confidence vote from shoving him out of power.

I assume he is going to use the 2 months or so to come up with a better economic proposal, and try to win back the Canadian peoples support.



That's all I know.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Mr. Consideration on December 09, 2008, 09:14:30 am
Surely that has to be illegal?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Doctor Z on December 09, 2008, 10:19:31 am
I don't know Canadian political law well enough to say.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Null on December 09, 2008, 10:20:47 am
It sounds more like a legal move that has been used in a way it was never intended.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on December 09, 2008, 11:57:13 am
It sounds to me like some old provision that has never been used until now.  I would expect that the next party in power will get rid of the rule.

In other news, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich has been arrested on federal corruption charges over his attempts to sell Obama's vacant Senate seat.

Yes, I had to cut and paste Blagojevich.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: huggkruka on December 10, 2008, 12:23:52 am
In Sweden, all hope seems to be lost as the Green Party, the Leftist Party and the Socialist Party has formed an unstoppable coalition. If they can keep from tearing eachother apart until 2010, they will certainly come to power.

I'm going to vote Pirate Party.  ;D
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on December 10, 2008, 06:20:46 am
I happen to be a Social democratic but i am not sure over this coalition. But then again maybe the Green party will learn that is not that easy to actually be in executive position.

I hope that they will heavy invest in new technology, infrastructure and environment. I also hope that they will start to reform the IP laws more towards what they where intended for rather then protecting the status quo of a few powerful companies. The later part i do not have that much hope. I almost want to vote Pirate Party just to shake the foundations. Let us see a real debate about what IPs are for and not some talk based in warped ideas.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: /lurk on December 10, 2008, 08:02:17 am
In Sweden, all hope seems to be lost as the Green Party, the Leftist Party and the Socialist Party has formed an unstoppable coalition. If they can keep from tearing eachother apart until 2010, they will certainly come to power.

I'm going to vote Pirate Party.  ;D

You mean they weren't canny enough to get in on the action? I though pirates were supposed to be devious and clever.

Or was that ninjas?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Andrew Ryan on December 10, 2008, 03:14:43 pm
In order to win, the pirates and the ninjas need to come together and fight this coalition. Pirates and Ninja's '09! Woot!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on December 10, 2008, 03:30:48 pm
So you saying the unknown ninja party (Well i guess there a stealthy party. They claim to be ninjas after all) need to come out of hiding join the pirate party in a coalition to fight the two other coalitions?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Andrew Ryan on December 10, 2008, 03:38:02 pm
Coalitions never did anybody any harm.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Doctor Z on December 10, 2008, 04:22:50 pm
But can they overcome the racial and cultural tensions that such a Coalition would surely escalate?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Null on December 10, 2008, 04:33:29 pm
If they fail and break apart they might not be able to pass much of anything, though.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brandonazz on December 17, 2008, 03:20:33 pm
Obama has chosen a second Republican for his cabinet as the Secretary of Transportation. Some feller from Illinois, I hear.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brandonazz on January 05, 2009, 04:17:52 pm
May I present the new senator from Minnesota.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_mwsDFm7bQ
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Andrew Ryan on January 05, 2009, 04:26:51 pm
I'm guessing Al Franken won, didn't he?

Yes, I know that isn't how you spell his last name...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on January 05, 2009, 09:23:06 pm
No, you got his name right.

It looks like by the current vote count Franken has won, and he will likely get the seat, but the race is still far from over.  There will almost certainly be a lawsuit over how many of these previously rejected ballots should or should not be counted.

And Brandon, thanks for kick starting this thread.  Seriously, with Blagojevich, Franken, the New York Senate Seat, Bill Richardson passing on the Secretary of Commerce nomination, and Israel/Gaza, there is plenty to talk about.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brandonazz on January 06, 2009, 05:33:07 pm
<leans back on rocking chair>

More 'bout Gaza, ya say? No kiddin'.

<puffs pipe>
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Gunner on January 06, 2009, 05:34:27 pm
Eh, I may not be too versed in Middle Eastern/Israeli politics, I just feel the One-State solution would've worked better, and would have stopped this madness.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on January 06, 2009, 07:29:21 pm
Please elaborate, Gunner.  The main idea I hear tossed about is two states, Israel and Palestine side by side or something like that.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: /lurk on January 06, 2009, 07:32:44 pm
I thought that was already the situation?

If it isn't, who the hell is Israel bombing and embargoing?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on January 07, 2009, 04:06:24 am
Well Israel is not really recognizing Palestine. Palestine in a way exist as a limbo state within Israel.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Gunner on January 07, 2009, 07:50:09 pm
Please elaborate, Gunner.  The main idea I hear tossed about is two states, Israel and Palestine side by side or something like that.
Its a bit late for a peaceable convergence, but there was talk for the combination of the two Palestine states.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Null on January 07, 2009, 07:52:19 pm
I dont know why they fight over that strip of land so much. It really is a ****ty peice of real-estate in the scheme of things. I wouldn't want it.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: eropS on January 07, 2009, 07:54:14 pm
Seems to me Hamas is the cause of this... Then again, im a pro-Israel supporter but i dont think bombing civilians is the way to go. However, cant say im sympathetic towards Gaza...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Mr. Consideration on January 08, 2009, 08:44:28 am
It's entirely Israel's fault, in this case. You have to remember the Western Media has a very strong pro-Israel bias.

What the Western Media isn't reporting is that Hamas were firing Rockets in response to an attack by Israel in November which wasn't reported on due to the election.

So, rather than Israel going overboard in response to Hamas's violence, the truth is Israel provoked Hamas. Then went overboard hitting back.

The whole war (although we're not supposed to call it a war yet. It's an incident. Almost a thousand dead in this 'incident')  has been sickening me, utterly. Israel bombed a school this week; claiming Hamas militants were firing rockets from within a school. Their statement on the issues was along the lines of 'Aren't Hamas terrible, forcing us to kill so many civilians to get at them?'

None of it makes sense, and it looks like Israel is utterly to blame for this conflict.

My solution is one democratic state with no state religion where Jews and Muslims learn that they can get along. There's no need for this war at all.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: MetallicDragon on January 08, 2009, 12:52:46 pm
I dont know why they fight over that strip of land so much. It really is a ****ty peice of real-estate in the scheme of things. I wouldn't want it.

I believe it is a very holy place; correct me if I'm wrong.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on January 08, 2009, 01:19:23 pm
Yes, it is a very holy city to both Jewish and Muslim people, which is why a 'non religious' combination of muslims and jews isn't a practical solution.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brandonazz on January 08, 2009, 01:57:34 pm
I have to agree. Secular government hasn't seemed incredibly viable in recent years. Ottoman rule appears religiously impartial by comparison.

They were pretty good about that.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on January 08, 2009, 07:11:13 pm
Just for the record, the religious parties in Israel, at least the hardline ones, are minorities.  The main parties are secular, the religious ones just threaten to cause turmoil in ruling coalitions and have to be appeased now and then.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Josasa on January 08, 2009, 08:06:11 pm
My solution is one democratic state with no state religion where Jews and Muslims learn that they can get along. There's no need for this war at all.

Israel does not have a proclaimed state religion. It just happens to have a population majority that practices the Jewish faith. The democratic system is already at work.

Also is this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rocket_and_mortar_attacks_in_Israel_in_2008#November) the attack you were referring to?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brandonazz on January 09, 2009, 12:35:01 pm
So Blagojevich is holding a press conference in response to the impeachment.

He is making an impassioned speech about how he helped people with programs and bills and reforms, with a focus on health care, explaining how the official impeachment charge is bogus, and it is. We now why they're impeaching him, but he hasn't even been convicted. If they would get some official charges through, I'd feel less like he was a victim.

He has people helped by his programs lined up on his left.

I feel really sorry for the apparently corrupt little guy.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Grangan on January 09, 2009, 12:41:11 pm
I hate anyone further to the left than Ronald Reagan.
I don't feel like debating any higher than that today.  Sorry.  :(
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Josasa on January 09, 2009, 01:35:02 pm
So Blagojevich is holding a press conference in response to the impeachment.

He is making an impassioned speech about how he helped people with programs and bills and reforms, with a focus on health care, explaining how the official impeachment charge is bogus, and it is. We now why they're impeaching him, but he hasn't even been convicted. If they would get some official charges through, I'd feel less like he was a victim.

He has people helped by his programs lined up on his left.

I feel really sorry for the apparently corrupt little guy.

This is Chicago politics (since it largely dominates Illinois politics overall) at its best. This entire scandal has been covering the front page of the Chicago Tribune for the past few days and it's actually quite annoying. There are 13 accusations (these are all taken from the Chicago Tribune itself) that are being planted on Blagojevich.
1. Plotted to obtain a personal benefit in exchange to fill the vacant seat in the United States Senate.
2. Plotted to condition the award of the state financial assistance to the Tribune Co. on the firing of Chicago Tribune editorial board members.
3-8. Plotted to trade official acts in exchange for campaign contributions in numerous instances including (not listing them since there are a  few. Maybe when i have more time).
9. Disregarded authority, procedure and the separation of powers by unilaterally expanding a state health care program.
10-12. Bought $ 2.5 million flu vaccines that were never used; starting a progream to import prescription drugs that was ruled illegal by the federal government; giving a contract to a politically connected firm that mishandled an initiative to save the state money (i'm not sure how that's only two charges).
13. Violated state and federal law in his hiring and firing of state employees.

Under each of these sections there is more information, but as i mentioned before i'm short on time.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brandonazz on January 09, 2009, 01:49:49 pm
Al Capone would be proud.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: eropS on January 09, 2009, 10:30:47 pm
So.... what happens when Israel Annex's Gaza?

WW3?

Middle East go boom?

What?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Andrew Ryan on January 09, 2009, 11:16:09 pm
The same thing that happened last time...

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on January 11, 2009, 08:53:39 pm
Could a lot of this problem go away if the neighboring Arab countries would just let the Palestinians migrate in?  From what I hear on NPR in the morning, Egypt is as responsible for blocking the border and keeping out humanitarian aid as is anyone else.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Raz on January 11, 2009, 09:03:31 pm
Seems Lebanon might be starting to dog-pile Israel.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on January 12, 2009, 03:54:51 am
A little old, and not anything to do with Israel, but heres a video of an interview with Gary Kasparov about Russia:
http://www.dailymotion.com/relevance/search/Bill%2BMaher/video/x396zz_garry-kasparov-schools-bill-maher
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on January 24, 2009, 07:54:55 am
Hey, here's some more about Blagojevich.  He's been Impeached by the Illinois House, and will soon be tried by the Illinois Senate.  And he says this whole thing is just a plot to raise taxes.

No, really.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/01/23/blagojevich-says-hes-the-victim-of-a-plot/
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Andrew Ryan on January 24, 2009, 12:46:49 pm
The victim of a plot...

Where have I heard that before?  ::)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brandonazz on January 24, 2009, 04:25:31 pm
I almost feel sorry for the little furball.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on January 24, 2009, 07:33:58 pm
I don't.  In the face of overwhelming evidence he is completely unrepentant and unapologetic.

Andrew, I'm at a loss.  Where have you heard that before?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Andrew Ryan on January 24, 2009, 08:00:36 pm
*Cough* Julius Caesar *Cough*
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on January 24, 2009, 08:16:35 pm
Oh, I was thinking it was someone more... modern.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Andrew Ryan on January 24, 2009, 09:07:13 pm
Sorry, it's what you get when someone knows more about Rome than about the U.S.  :P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brandonazz on January 24, 2009, 09:33:51 pm
Parah Salin.

The gotcha media plotted against her.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Andrew Ryan on January 24, 2009, 09:34:42 pm
I wonder if they still are?  ;D
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on January 25, 2009, 03:41:56 am
Sarah Palin has a fairly large following in Alaska, so she's in no danger of losing her seat any time soon.

Of course, she might've lost some of that when they brought up that she made rape victims pay for their own rape kit exams. (Yes, I'm aware that she only charged it if they had insurance that would cover it but that raises their premiums, which means they're paying for it anyway.)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: LadyM on January 25, 2009, 10:43:00 am
It's hard to take you serious with an avatar that looks like that.  :P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on January 27, 2009, 01:49:11 pm
I feel the need to go off on Blagojevich some more.  So after his attorney quit, he hires a PR firm instead.  In lieu of showing up at his trial before the Illinois Senate, he goes on a morning and talk show blitz.  He says that impeachment proceedings are a violation of his constitutional rights, but instead of making any attempt at legal action, he keeps talking to Whoopi and the ladies on The View.  At this point I'm really starting to think that this man is insane.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brandonazz on January 27, 2009, 02:00:43 pm
They really need to present the evidence against him and stop this carnival.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Haseri on January 28, 2009, 10:14:55 am
At this point I'm really starting to think that this man is insane.

Really?! I only know about him from watching the Daily Show, and I still think Jon Stewart's movie ideas from Monday's episode were concocted under more sane conditions.
Title: The more things Hope and Change, the more they stay the same...
Post by: Axelgear on February 04, 2009, 04:17:24 pm
Article link (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-renditions_31jan31,0,2998929.story)

The majority of the politically involved here are probably well aware of the "renditions" program the CIA has. It's the program instituted by the Clinton administration through which the CIA kidnaps foreign and local citizens, ships 'em off to Egypt and Morocco, and tortures them (Or, in the preferred vernacular, uses "enhanced interrogation techniques") to extract information.

Well, less than a month after the announcement of the closing of Guantanamo Bay, there have been three incidents of waterboarding and no other forms of torture, the Obama administration has announced they're going to continue a program that has left terrorism suspects being electrocuted, beaten, and forced to spend days and nights in cells up to their knees and deeper in filthy water.

The title of the thread really says it all, to be honest.
Title: Re: The more things Hope and Change, the more they stay the same...
Post by: Andrew Ryan on February 04, 2009, 04:24:03 pm
So basically your bashing Obama for something he hasn't abolished, that's been in place for a fair number of years, and used by every president since Ronald Reagan?
Title: Re: The more things Hope and Change, the more they stay the same...
Post by: Axelgear on February 04, 2009, 04:29:06 pm
Actually, this policy was instituted by Clinton in 1995. As for torture usage, it's just plain immoral before we go into logical reasons.

And, yes, I'm "bashing" him for not abolishing it. He takes down Guantanamo to look good but then doesn't deal with as heinous an abuse of international law as this? Obama's as bad as anyone as far as this policy goes just for letting it happen. Worse, he's a bit two-faced for it. He's practically mimicking Bush's policies and yet people seem to sing his praises...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: gec05 on February 04, 2009, 04:34:24 pm
Merged topic since this is a political discussion.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on February 04, 2009, 04:52:59 pm
Thanks, Gec.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: MetallicDragon on February 04, 2009, 04:56:22 pm
I read that article, Axel, and it doesn't sound nearly as bad as you make it seem. From what the article said, Obama is just permitting "Renditions", or taking prisoners out of the US to friendly countries. It sounds like Obama's administration is doing things to reduce mistakes being made, such as sending them somewhere where they would get tortured. From the article:
Quote
"Under limited circumstances, there is a legitimate place" for renditions, said Tom Malinowski, the Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. "What I heard loud and clear from the president's order was that they want to design a system that doesn't result in people being sent to foreign dungeons to be tortured.

Also,

Quote
In his executive order on lawful interrogations, Obama created a task force to re-examine renditions to make sure that they "do not result in the transfer of individuals to other nations to face torture" or otherwise circumvent human-rights laws and treaties.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on February 04, 2009, 05:04:32 pm
The only reason to perform "renditions" is to take people where they can be tortured. Otherwise, it's just expedition, isn't it?

Also, a task force doesn't mean any changes have occurred. It seems worthy of note, certainly, but until the task force makes recommendations and they are enforced, renditions are still occurring. This is, so far, Obama saying "Do it... Until we figure out something better", instead of simply canceling the policy, or halting it until these "revisions" can be made.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Null on February 04, 2009, 06:30:39 pm
That's old news. The outsourcing of 'inconvenient' prisoners has been happening for years.

Where are the aforementioned prisoners? We can't tell you much, but we can say that they are not here!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on February 04, 2009, 06:37:30 pm
Never said the policy was new. I'm disappointed in Obama for not changing it and think it's two-faced to seem like the Golden Child for closing Gitmo and then simply continue this policy.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: MetallicDragon on February 04, 2009, 06:38:21 pm
Never said the policy was new. I'm disappointed in Obama for not changing it and think it's two-faced to seem like the Golden Child for closing Gitmo and then simply continue this policy.

But he is changing it to keep these prisoners from being tortured...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Null on February 04, 2009, 06:44:28 pm
The gitmo name is irreversibly tainted... removing it from the equation was smart. Closing it sounds great at first glance but what happens to the people who were there... moving them around guarantees nothing in the way of improvement. It may change but that doesn't mean that it wont stay the same in ways that matter.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on February 04, 2009, 07:01:18 pm
But he is changing it to keep these prisoners from being tortured...

No, he's created a task force with no specified powers to review prisoner cases. How this will do anything is unspecified. If he had, say, put the policy on hold until changes and revisions were made, that's change. This is just more of the same with a "We're working on it" slapped on the side. Not much good for the people being tortured until Obama either does something about it or okays it and gets them out of this quasi-legal limbo.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on February 04, 2009, 07:54:15 pm
I haven't read the article, but I think the wise thing to do is to look into policies and figure out what the heck is going on before going in and shutting everything down, no questions asked.  That's why the order he signed on Guantanamo closes the detention camp in something like 100 days, not immediately.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Raz on February 04, 2009, 07:58:59 pm
There could need to be time to organize everything being shut down due to bureacracy.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on February 05, 2009, 04:39:51 am
Hence why I said cease the renditions until the process can be reviewed. Otherwise, you're just extending the problem. It'd be like sending more people to Guantanamo even though it's been ordered closed.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on February 09, 2009, 10:09:53 am
I guess Obama still has some adjusting to do before he's used to being President.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ce887_8qhqk
*bonk*
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on February 09, 2009, 11:58:19 am
Someone needs to dub that with the Scout sound effects so that, when he hits it, there is a loud "BONK!"
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Cow on February 09, 2009, 04:05:38 pm
Oof! That's got to hurt.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 09, 2009, 04:21:58 pm
He's just like George!  :D
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brandonazz on February 10, 2009, 12:30:05 pm
So it looks like the Israeli government is posed for a right hook.

Ugh.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on February 10, 2009, 12:42:09 pm
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/09/senate.porn.candidate/index.html

Change you can believe in.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dr. Croccer on February 10, 2009, 01:10:40 pm
So it looks like the Israeli government is posed for a right hook.

Ugh.
The main problem I have with the main Israeli parties is that basically all of them want to impose some different unethical apartheid measures on the Palestinians, which is why I'm not interested in the politics. Honestly, Likud and Kadima are as interesting choices of ruling parties as piss and poop are foodstuffs.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Andrew Ryan on February 10, 2009, 08:44:49 pm
So it looks like the Israeli government is posed for a right hook.

Ugh.

Damn...

Well their goes all our hopes for talks with Iran.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on February 10, 2009, 09:42:21 pm
You know, Obama doesn't have to get permission from Israel to talk to Iran.  I don't keep track of the Israeli political parties, but a shift to the right doesn't automatically mean Israel will stall out any attempts for talks.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Andrew Ryan on February 10, 2009, 10:05:33 pm
Yah, but it will make negotiations harder considering that Israel now wants to expand Israeli settlements into Palestine.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on February 11, 2009, 05:29:25 am
... You're kidding, right? Israel wants settlements in Palestine like I want to spend the night in my brother's room. You just don't wanna put yourself in harms way.

Israel's actions have spoken louder than words. They've offered the velvet glove wrapped over the iron gauntlet. Palestine wants aid? They gave it aid. They want trade routes open? They are willing to do that. However, they're all on the condition that Palestine stops blowing their kids up. Hardly unreasonable, really.

Besides, Palestine is the one to blame for any problems with talks with Iran. The Egyptian government has been sponsoring the latest negotiations specifically because they want to make Iran the centre of Middle-Eastern political focus.

So stop talking about an "Israeli apartheid" when all they've done is offer Palestine freedom after freedom and the Palestinians have turned their government into a dictatorship that funds attacks on Israeli soil.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on February 11, 2009, 07:34:46 am
Sorry but i do not agree. Israel have show pretty clearly that they do not give a damn as a hole about Palestine. They may help with one hand but they take it way with the other. Did you know that Israel targets the police in Palestine? How the heck is Palestine going to keep there own criminal elements in check (Like say... Terrorist?) if they do not have some sort of security force to deal with the problem?

I think part of the problem is that Israel do not want a strong Palestine. They want Palestine to fail. If they wanted to get rid of the terrorist they would work with the Palestinian government and go in with other means. There strategy now will just create more terrorists because is those that has lost everything that makes the perfect candidates for terrorist.

Palestine is not one strong nation. And to claim they should be able to keep there citizens in 100% check when even a nation like the USA or Israel it self can not do it is asking to much. If you want the violence to stop then you need a strong Palestine.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on February 11, 2009, 08:36:36 am
I don't follow the Israel/Palestine issue as much as I should, frankly it's just too depressing. 

Axelgear, Israeli settlements in disputed territory have been set up in the past, so I guess you do want to spend a night in your brother's room.

Yokto, seeing as Hamas is now the elected government of the West Bank, the police Israel targets may themselves be terrorists.  I have heard that when polled, a majority of Israelis and Palestinians support a peaceful two state system, I guess they just can't figure out how to get there.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dr. Croccer on February 11, 2009, 09:16:25 am
... You're kidding, right? Israel wants settlements in Palestine like I want to spend the night in my brother's room. You just don't wanna put yourself in harms way.
Lol?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7861076.stm



Quote
Israel's actions have spoken louder than words. They've offered the velet glove wrapped over the iron gauntlet. Palestine wants aid? They gave it aid. They want trade routes open? They are willing to do that.
They restricted both a few months ago, which is one of the largest reasons Hamas
attacked them again.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2008/11/20081113143955227206.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/21/israel-gaza-strip-middle-east


Quote
T However, they're all on the condition that Palestine stops blowing their kids up. Hardly unreasonable, really.
Though, again, Israel should just hold itself to it's own promises.
Quote
So stop talking about an "Israeli apartheid" when all they've done is offer Palestine freedom after freedom and the Palestinians have turned their government into a dictatorship that funds attacks on Israeli soil.
:D This is hilarious. Let's look at the timeline, shall we?

1948 - Israel declares independence, Arab states invade the land. Both disregarding the international and Palestinian (Arab Higher Committee) opinion. The Arab states get a good portion of Palestinian land and Israel remains independent, tens of thousands of Palestinians flee the country. The only independent Palestinian state is the All-Palestine Government in the Gaza strip.

1956 - Suez Crisis. Israel, France and Britain launch a surprise attack on the fledgling Egyptian republic, Israel annexes the Gaza strip and the Sinai and independence fighters in the former become a problem.

1964 - the PLO is created as a result of discontent and independence movements against Israel.

1967 - Six-Day War. Israel launches an attack on Egypt out of fear of an invasion and is promptly invaded by it's allies, and defeats all of them. It annexes the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, gaining the entire Palestinian population under it's rule.

1969-1970 - the PLO supports Egypt in the War of Attrition and gives limited support.

1972 - Munich Olympics Massacre, a militant PLO faction kills Israeli athletes.

1974 - Arab Summit recognise the PLO as a legitimate respresentative of the Palestinians, the US and Israel do not because the PLO doesn't acknowledge Israel as a legitimate country.

1982 - Israel invades Lebanon in an attempt to destroy the PLO, which launched small attacks on Israel. The Sabra and Shatila Massacres happenn, when the IDF allows Fascist Lebanese groups to massacre Palestinian refugee camps.

-1987-1993 - First Intifada. General discontent and poverty in the Palestinian areas cause a lot of uproar, ranging from protests and boycotts to riots and attacks. The important thing is the Israeli response, with IDF soldiers shooting at demonstrators and children who throw rocks at them.

-1993 - Oslo Accords. The PLO and Israel make several agreements, the IDF will retreat from Gaza and it will become an autonomous Palestinian state and the West Bank will get a degree of autonomy.

-1995 - Rabin, the Israeli president who secured the Oslo accords, is assassinated by an Israeli extremist. The accords are strained. Netanyahu, leader of the nationalist-conservative Likud party becomes president and starts to question the accords.

-2000-2006 - Second Intifada starts, primarily out of the neglect of the Oslo Accords by Israel, who wanted to install new measures. It's even more violent than the next one and it marks the birth of several militant Palestinian groups, such as Hamas. Israel decides to withdraw from the Gaza strip.


You basically see an increase in Palestinian violence when Israel does something wrong and the reprisals the latter use to solve it only make things worse. Israel needs to grow up and treat the issue like other modern, civilised countries do.

Oh and for the ''freedoms'' the Israelis give to the Palestinians...

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/actions_details.asp?ActionID=321

Quote
The prohibition of discrimination on the basis of race, colour, national or ethnic origin is a fundamental principle of human rights law enshrined both in the treaties that Israel has promised to uphold, and in international law.

Despite this, racist discrimination is integral to many of Israel's policies in the Occupied Palestinian Territories including: the Israeli settlements, the development of the Fence/Wall and the stringent restrictions imposed on the movement of Palestinians.

In the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Israeli settlements - and large areas of land around them - are for Jewish people only. This policy does not just exclude Palestinians; by denying them access to land they could use to farm or build on, this demarcation causes great hardship. Restrictions on the movement of Palestinians in the West Bank aim to prevent Palestinians from approaching Israeli settlements or from using roads frequented by Israeli settlers. While Amnesty acknowledges that some restrictions are necessary to respond to security threats, but the restrictions in their current form are discriminatory and disproportionate in terms of their impact on Palestinian individuals and communities.

Different laws apply to Israelis and Palestinians. Israeli settlers living in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are governed by Israeli civilian law, whereas Palestinians are subject to more restrictive and less protective military law.

The Wall has been built inside the West Bank, in violation of international humanitarian and human rights law. Its construction has led to the demolition and confiscation of homes, land and property owned by Palestinians, and has further restricted their movement. Israel’s need to secure its borders and prevent and block entry to suicide bombers or other attackers do not require such a barrier to be built inside the West Bank: such a structure can be built on Israeli territory or on the Green Line.

The stringent restrictions on movement imposed for years by the Israeli authorities on more than two million Palestinians who live in the West Bank are unlawful as they are disproportionate, discriminatory and violate the right to freedom of movement. The restrictions are imposed on all Palestinians because they are Palestinians and in order to benefit the Israeli settlers whose presence in the occupied West Bank violates international law. They should be lifted now.



http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m40836&hd=&size=1&l=e

Quote
Oppressing to be on the Safe Side: The Situation of East Jerusalem Palestinians
Lubna Masarwa, Alternative Information Center (AIC)


 


One of many security cameras in Jerusalem's Old City. This one outsitde the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.


This article is based on a presentation given by Lubna Masarwa, Social Movements Coordinator of the Alternative Information Center, at the third annual Alternative Conference to the Herzliya Conference, tilted "Security—For Whom? Security and Information Withholding Policies," which took place on 22 January at the Cinematheque in Haifa. The conference was sponsored by Isha L’Isha: Haifa Feminist Center and the Coalition of Women for Peace.

Under the guise of security requirements, the Israeli government implements an intolerable chokehold upon East Jerusalem and interferes in the private lives of its Palestinian residents. Just last year alone, the Israeli government cancelled the "residency" status of more than 1,500 inhabitants of East Jerusalem for "security" reasons. This is a 200 percent increase from the previous year.

When we know this and yet keep quiet, we are an accomplice to injustice.

In this article, I will present a partial picture of the life of East Jerusalem residents. I will attempt to touch on the heavy price paid by Palestinian society in al-Quds due to Israeli defined "security considerations," a designation trotted out by Israeli authorities on almost every possible occasion with intent to win battles in the demographic war over it sees itself engaged in against the Palestinians of East Jerusalem.

In fact, a central and publicized objective of Israel concerning everything related to East Jerusalem is the creation of a demographic and geographic reality that will bring about an increase in the number of Jews living in the city and the largest possible decrease in the number of Palestinians living there. In order to reach this objective, the state enlists all of its institutions.

For instance, the National Insurance Institute (NII), intended to serve the welfare of residents, also acts as a supplementary political appendage, serving the Zionist vision of Israel and harming residents through the non-provision of social services that it is obligated to provide.

Almost every day, we receive complaints from tens of East Jerusalem residents whose national security allowances have been terminated. From conversations I conduct with the NII clerks, it appears that residents of East Jerusalem, in order to receive their national insurance benefits as mandated by law, must meet near impossible conditions. They must provide receipts proving payment of city taxes and electricity for up to the past seven years, photographs of their house, and proof they have no property in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The waiting periods for these residents can last years, and, in the meantime, they remain without the ability to receive medical attention or their legally mandated benefits—in numerous instances, the sole family income.

Fadwa, whose national insurance allowance was taken from her four years ago, was required to bring in receipts for city taxes and electricity, and when she did this she was told that the electricity fees were not high enough. Fadwa sits at home every day for fear that the NII investigators will come to check whether she does indeed live at the address she gave. For years she has sat at home, but the NII does not come. In the meantime she cannot allow herself to have another child, as she has no money for the fertility treatments she requires.

All of our correspondence and the 'favors’ we called in, did not help us understand why Fadwa’s rights were taken from her; why they don’t give this 40 year old Palestinian woman, a resident of East Jerusalem, health insurance?

Why is the right of a woman to bring children into this world taken from her?

Why do we keep quiet?

Why did the media ignore her story, turning its back on her?

Fadwa was finally told to change her address, leave Jerusalem’s Old City and that perhaps this will help. Or perhaps not.

In addition to the revocation of residency status, Israel employs home demolitions, settlement expansion, land confiscations, the placing of checkpoints and fences, and the negation of the right to education for 9,000 Palestinian minors.

Thus, for example, the streets of East Jerusalem’s Old City are covered by cameras. My friend Hanna, from whom a wallet was stolen, told me not long ago how the police brought her to a room full of screens, documenting everything occuring in East Jerusalem. She succeeded in identifying her bag in the hands of a Palestinian minor, and, via the screens, the police managed to follow him home where he was subsequently arrested. Another parent asked me for help, after being arrested when a camera in the Old City caught him slapping his child for returning home late. Another friend with connections in the police, via these cameras, managed to identify someone who entered his store and stole a mobile phone.

These cameras penetrate into the private lives of Palestinians in Jerusalem in order to instill fear, but they do not catch drug deals, home demolitions and the violence of settlers against Palestinians. The security cameras prefer not to see these things, selectively passing over the larger crimes being perpetrated against the Palestinian residents of East Jeruslaem.

What is amazing is that, to date, no organization or human rights group has objected or even touched upon this topic, as if it is obvious that everything is security—yet, security for whom? Certainly not for us.

At times I think that Israeli society is truly obsessed with security, while at other times I believe that this is an easy tool for the state to use in order to implement its policy of transfer in the city.

Everyone today is talking about security. Recently, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) submitted a court petition against the surprise roadblocks set up by the tax authorities and NII, once or twice each week, in the main--and only--entrances to the neighborhoods of East Jerusalem. These roadblocks are set up with the assistance of police patrols and the Border Police, who stop cars and check whether the driver has a debt to any state authority. Those who are caught with a debt have their cars confiscated on the spot and no matter what their schedule, they must go find the money owed. In the meantime, traffic jams are created, delaying the travel of school pupils, university students and workers.

What is amusing in this story is that ACRI must prove to the judge that these are not security checkpoints, but intended to collect debts. Anything "security" is taboo, untouchable.

ACRI contends that that the sole reason for these checkpoints is to collect debts. This is in contrast to the contention of the tax authorities and NII, which argues that they join checkpoints organized by the police and implement debt collection as an add-on to the security checks already taking place at the checkpoint.

The police and security authorities assist the various state institutions to collect debts, to strengthen the chokehold and invasion of the private lives of Palestinians.

Soldiers stand everyday on the streets separating West and East Jerusalem, stopping every Palestinian and everyone who looks Palestinian, in order to write down their identification numbers, delay them and only then let them go. Why? This is security, and security cannot be questioned.

In the case of Sheikh Saed, one of the villages in East Jerusalem, the Israeli High Court ruled in 2005 that the Wall should not be built around the village and that a change in the Wall’s route should be contemplated. This same week, perhaps out of respect for the High Court decision, the security forces built a high barbed wire fence around Sheikh Saed, in addition to a checkpoint manned 24 hours a day. Whoever enters or exists must do so through two revolving doors, where, with the switch of a button, soldiers can jam shut while you are in them. Moreover, Sheikh Saed cannot be separated from the neighboring village of Jabar al Mukhabar. Residents of the former rely on the health and education services provided in the latter. The practical meaning of this is that every child and pupil, aged one or aged 18, must be checked and have her/his school bag examined.

As a result, children arrive late to school. Numerous parents prefer to give up on their children’s right to education, particularly preventing girls from going out.

The attempt to bring volunteers to the village to teach girls who dropped out of school failed, as the soldiers, in compliance with Israeli security laws, forbade entry into Sheikh Saed of anyone not listed as a resident of the village, or of Jabar al-Mukhabar, in her or his identification card.

Otherwise, if you managed to enter the village, you will be required to provide a security permit in order to exit. When I want to meet girls with whom I work, the meetings have to take place at the checkpoint. We sit on the fence.

Sheikh Saed is one big prison in which hundreds of Palestinians are held, with no health centers, no high school, no ability to freely enter and exit, no right to host friends and with no right to learn.

A huge prison within Jerusalem that can continue to exist because we avert our eyes from it and prefer to believe that everything is done for our security.

Yet, we are collaborating with the Israeli state when accept these claims at face value. We are collaborating when we do not bother to know, or to know but consciously close our eyes.

We are collaborating in this injustice every time we do not verify the information sold to us by the media. And if there is something I want, it is that the public will choose to take more courageous action in order to halt the daily harm to civilians, to not make due with emotional solidarity.

 


http://www.poica.org/editor/case_studies/view.php?recordID=547

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYJ_HdI55eM

And much much more.










Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Null on February 11, 2009, 09:26:47 am
Much much more than many want to read, that is?

My main beef with Israel is the settlements. They keep plopping people down in harms way in areas that they clearly should not be in according to their treaties and such. And when those settlements are threatened they respond with a hammer. They should dismantle the settlements, by force if necessary since people in general have proved incapable of moving their own asses out of harms way if their house is involved, as it is with houses on coastal sandbars in America or houses on the slopes of active volcanoes elsewhere.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dr. Croccer on February 11, 2009, 09:37:09 am
Much much more than many want to read, that is?

My main beef with Israel is the settlements. They keep plopping people down in harms way in areas that they clearly should not be in according to their treaties and such. And when those settlements are threatened they respond with a hammer. They should dismantle the settlements, by force if necessary since people in general have proved incapable of moving their own asses out of harms way if their house is involved, as it is with houses on coastal sandbars in America or houses on the slopes of active volcanoes elsewhere.
Yeah, me too. By internation law, all those settlements are illegal and even by Israeli law, at least half are illegal. Not to mention the fact that the majority of colonists are extremely Orthodox Jews who aren't to positive about Palestinians as well. There are many Palestinian home videos of them being treated like dirt by the colonists.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on February 11, 2009, 11:15:09 am
Yeah the setters are a big issue. And if Israel can not control there settlers then how can we expect that Palestine should be able to control there dissidence?

Both Israel and Palestine have common problems and they must try to work together to solve them i think. What Israel is doing now is just creating more asymmetric warfare.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Andrew Ryan on February 11, 2009, 04:35:57 pm
Ah Israel, creating political instability in the Middle East since 1948.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: eropS on February 11, 2009, 05:42:21 pm
(http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j106/Gianni989/israeli_lion_rescuing_cub.jpg)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on February 11, 2009, 09:39:34 pm
Sorry but i do not agree. Israel have show pretty clearly that they do not give a damn as a hole about Palestine. They may help with one hand but they take it way with the other. Did you know that Israel targets the police in Palestine? How the heck is Palestine going to keep there own criminal elements in check (Like say... Terrorist?) if they do not have some sort of security force to deal with the problem?

Hamas, a militant terrorist organization whose constitution declares that Israel is an evil that must be eradicated from the planet, IS the government of Palestine.

For the record, Israel hasn't been firing missiles into Palestine except in response to missile attacks. Reciprocation, y'know? And, when Israel does it, they aim at people responsible for the original shooting, not civilians.

I think part of the problem is that Israel do not want a strong Palestine. They want Palestine to fail. If they wanted to get rid of the terrorist they would work with the Palestinian government and go in with other means. There strategy now will just create more terrorists because is those that has lost everything that makes the perfect candidates for terrorist.

... They have worked with the Palestinian government. Repeatedly. Every time they have, Palestine has started opening fire on them. Again, and again, and again.

And, yes, Palestine is a breeding ground for terrorists, but they are so because they have made themselves so. Israel has done everything humanly possible to fix that.

Palestine is not one strong nation. And to claim they should be able to keep there citizens in 100% check when even a nation like the USA or Israel it self can not do it is asking to much. If you want the violence to stop then you need a strong Palestine.

Feh, I never said they could, but not being a dictatorship is a good start, or declaring that a goal of your country is the annihilation of your chief aid partner.

I'm not saying that solving this problem is easy, I'm just saying that Israel isn't to blame here (Or, if any blame is owed to it, a far, far, far greater amount lies with Palestine and the surrounding nations, and perhaps with Britain and the UN, than Israel).



I don't follow the Israel/Palestine issue as much as I should, frankly it's just too depressing.

Watching a war between ideologies that is ultimately fought by forcing those who just want to live in peace into a combat zone... Yeah... It's pretty sad.

Axelgear, Israeli settlements in disputed territory have been set up in the past, so I guess you do want to spend a night in your brother's room.

I'm going to have to ask for some details there. Which nation owned the territory at the time?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7861076.stm

Before I say anything, I've got to say one thing: I was actually named after Benjamin Netanyahu.

Sorry, just thought that was cool to mention since he was in the article.

Back on topic, though, I can see the article as saying that Israel is building more in settlements that are right on the border (Hence them being described as partially on Palestinian land). Given that the borders of these countries have shifted regularly, I'd say that building in these settlements is hardly surprising, since they were likely, at one time, in fully Israeli held territory.

Just my supposition on that.

They restricted both a few months ago, which is one of the largest reasons Hamas attacked them again.

If I recall rightly, the latest peace treaty required Palestine to not have any rockets fired into Israel and, if all went well, not only would Palestine get opened trade routes with Israel, but with Egypt too.

Palestinian terrorists fire rockets into Israel, trade gets restricted. Quite honestly, that makes logical sense to me.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2008/11/20081113143955227206.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/21/israel-gaza-strip-middle-east

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090204/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_gaza_hamas_un


Though, again, Israel should just hold itself to it's own promises.

When has Israel fired an unprovoked attack on Palestine? I admit, there certainly are a staggering amount of Palestinian casualties, but the number would be zero if the Palestinian government could keep its fingers off the trigger.


1948 - Israel declares independence, Arab states invade the land. Both disregarding the international and Palestinian (Arab Higher Committee) opinion. The Arab states get a good portion of Palestinian land and Israel remains independent, tens of thousands of Palestinians flee the country. The only independent Palestinian state is the All-Palestine Government in the Gaza strip.

Yep. There were riots around this time where the Palestinians routinely assaulted Israeli settlements, if I recall rightly.

1956 - Suez Crisis. Israel, France and Britain launch a surprise attack on the fledgling Egyptian republic, Israel annexes the Gaza strip and the Sinai and independence fighters in the former become a problem.

Israel captured the Sinai and the Gaza strip... But they left due to international pressure, which is why Israel didn't take control until after the Six Day War in 1967. They didn't annex them until much, much later.

1964 - the PLO is created as a result of discontent and independence movements against Israel.

The PLO is a domination movement, who believe that an "armed solution" is the only way to set things right in the Middle East. Fun bunch.

1967 - Six-Day War. Israel launches an attack on Egypt out of fear of an invasion and is promptly invaded by it's allies, and defeats all of them. It annexes the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, gaining the entire Palestinian population under it's rule.

Very justified fear of invasion, given that there was chatter amongst the defeated nations beforehand talking of invasion, and their armies were massed on its borders...

You don't attack a country with the intent of excising her people and not expect repercussions. Israel has, however, since returned some of the captured territories.

1972 - Munich Olympics Massacre, a militant PLO faction kills Israeli athletes.

"We don't like your politics so we're going to shoot a bunch of unarmed people who are in no way affiliated with your government!"

The mark of a civilized group, really. [/Sarcasm]

1974 - Arab Summit recognise the PLO as a legitimate respresentative of the Palestinians, the US and Israel do not because the PLO doesn't acknowledge Israel as a legitimate country.

You don't acknowledge me, I don't acknowledge you. Simple. How can Israel acknowledge them as leaders if the PLO doesn't acknowledge their ability to, well, acknowledge them?

1982 - Israel invades Lebanon in an attempt to destroy the PLO, which launched small attacks on Israel. The Sabra and Shatila Massacres happenn, when the IDF allows Fascist Lebanese groups to massacre Palestinian refugee camps.

They didn't allow them to, Croccer. The agreement was made to allow Phalangist forces into the camp to find members of the PLO hiding within them; a clean-up operation to get rid of terrorists. A massacre ensued and the higher-ups in the chain of command were either unwilling or incapable of responding. Given that any interference would have likely resulted in further slaughter and been lambasted as Israel causing problems where they weren't wanted, it was an inevitable international incident either way.

Israel wasn't blameless here, no sir, but it's sketchy here.

-1987-1993 - First Intifada. General discontent and poverty in the Palestinian areas cause a lot of uproar, ranging from protests and boycotts to riots and attacks. The important thing is the Israeli response, with IDF soldiers shooting at demonstrators and children who throw rocks at them.

A fun fact of note: The PLO had this lovely habit of hiding militants, suicide bombers, and others in crowds of civilians and children because they knew Israeli soldiers would have a gleam of conscience and, y'know, not shoot at kids. However, Israeli troops, like all good soldiers, are trained to follow orders and they pulled the trigger.

If it comes down to an "Us or them" situation where your life and the lives of your wo/men may be in danger, you damn well better pull the trigger.

-1993 - Oslo Accords. The PLO and Israel make several agreements, the IDF will retreat from Gaza and it will become an autonomous Palestinian state and the West Bank will get a degree of autonomy.

Velvet glove, as noted.

-1995 - Rabin, the Israeli president who secured the Oslo accords, is assassinated by an Israeli extremist. The accords are strained. Netanyahu, leader of the nationalist-conservative Likud party becomes president and starts to question the accords.

Yep.

-2000-2006 - Second Intifada starts, primarily out of the neglect of the Oslo Accords by Israel, who wanted to install new measures. It's even more violent than the next one and it marks the birth of several militant Palestinian groups, such as Hamas. Israel decides to withdraw from the Gaza strip.

What neglect? Israel pretty much stuck to the word of the agreement. Israel had already agreed upon the withdrawal from the strip as a part of the Oslo agreement.

You basically see an increase in Palestinian violence when Israel does something wrong and the reprisals the latter use to solve it only make things worse. Israel needs to grow up and treat the issue like other modern, civilised countries do.

Not to be childish but... Palestine started it.

Seriously, though, Israel gets shot at by Palestine, Israel shoots back, and the two go back and forth before one tries to put a stop to it with a peace treaty.

I'm curious, though, just how would you have Israel deal with it? They offer peace treaties and restoration even after repeated wars and terrorist actions, and you say they're supposed to "grow up"? Israel's been losing its people in a pointless war for decades because the Palestinians won't acknowledge that other human beings have the right to live.



There's more to write, but I've been at this for well over an hour now and I need to take a break. Seriously, this is a long discussion to go through.

eropS's cartoon really put it best, though.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on February 12, 2009, 05:44:54 am
Axel i do not agree with you. I do agree on some issues but not on the hole. Hamas is not just a terror organization is also a political movement. There is a smiler potion that Sinn Féin and IRA. And if you know anything about that conflict then you would know that Sinn Féin and IRA where split in many faction with different goals. Not until UK started to accept Sinn Féin did the situation actually get better.

I think one must try to work with the more moderate factions of Hamas whatever Hamas have proclaimed. Hamas like it or not was elected and is the closet thing to a democratically elected government in Palestine.

Heck i see that they elected Hamas as a response to Israels unwillingness to work with the Palestinian government in the first place. Israel did not work well with PLO ether.

And for those that do not know. The rockets which the Palestinian terrorist are using are mainly homemade very inaccurate explosive devices. This is not some wildly organized attack. This is small groups acting independently. So to shoot back with missiles is largely ineffectual. Especially when these small groups lunches there rockets then scoot away as fast as possible. What is needed is people on the ground going after people and there manufacture. No retaliation with missiles. Even the smartest missiles will still create a lot of collateral damage. And for every person who lose his life a new martyr is born. For every person who lose his home one more terrorist is at risk of being born.

Tell me when have ever conventional weapons like this work against terrorist or freedom fighters?

(BTW: I Do not like how some people just throw around the word dictatorship to justify any action. We see this when people talk about Russia yet oddly enough not when we talk about Georgia which are about as democratic. Is far to simplified to use a world view where there are only democratic and dictatorship in the world. The world is not black and white.)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 12, 2009, 05:52:38 am
As for justifying Israel's actions as 'reciprocation' I would have thought Axel, that as a self identified Christian you would recognise that 'An eye for an eye' is a futile resolution to conflict that just breeds more and more animosity.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on February 12, 2009, 07:48:52 am
As for justifying Israel's actions as 'reciprocation' I would have thought Axel, that as a self identified Christian you would recognise that 'An eye for an eye' is a futile resolution to conflict that just breeds more and more animosity.

Which, of course, is like saying that Christians should see the justice system as futile because punishing people for their actions is just going to make things worse.

Sorry. Bunk.

Axel i do not agree with you. I do agree on some issues but not on the hole. Hamas is not just a terror organization is also a political movement. There is a smiler potion that Sinn Féin and IRA. And if you know anything about that conflict then you would know that Sinn Féin and IRA where split in many faction with different goals. Not until UK started to accept Sinn Féin did the situation actually get better.

The IRA, for the record, having also shot civilians and bombed churches and other non-government buildings after stating that they hated Protestants.

The IRA only got nice after the Irish Tiger happened. There was no decrease in violence until Ireland's economy came out of the metaphorical toilet that it was in. It's nothing to do with politics and all to do with economics.

Israel, for the record, has sat down at the negotiating tables a lot. Most recently last year. Hamas shot missiles at them while the peace treaty was being enacted. That's hardly a party you can negotiate with, is it?

I think one must try to work with the more moderate factions of Hamas whatever Hamas have proclaimed. Hamas like it or not was elected and is the closet thing to a democratically elected government in Palestine.

Except they're no longer democratically in power and have murdered members of other parties (Most notably the Fatah party, who, despite being tied to terrorists themselves, have done more for the peace process than Hamas) to prevent them from being toppled from power.

So, again, they're not exactly friendly.

Heck i see that they elected Hamas as a response to Israels unwillingness to work with the Palestinian government in the first place. Israel did not work well with PLO ether.

Primarily because the PLO funded terrorism too, they just did it more indirectly. Whereas the PLO had things like the martyr brigades and gave them money, Hamas fires the rockets themselves. Again, hard to be friends with someone who blew up your neighbour's son or daughter the previous day.

And for those that do not know. The rockets which the Palestinian terrorist are using are mainly homemade very inaccurate explosive devices. This is not some wildly organized attack. This is small groups acting independently. So to shoot back with missiles is largely ineffectual. Especially when these small groups lunches there rockets then scoot away as fast as possible. What is needed is people on the ground going after people and there manufacture. No retaliation with missiles. Even the smartest missiles will still create a lot of collateral damage. And for every person who lose his life a new martyr is born. For every person who lose his home one more terrorist is at risk of being born.

As Machiavelli said, a man will sooner forget the loss of his grandfather than his home.

However, Israel doesn't just shoot back at these small groups, to do so is impossible. They target the heads of organizations, sending in night raids and helicopter attacks to take out the top names. They try to minimize casualties and only aim for soldiers.

Hamas shoots civilians.

I could respect Hamas if it wasn't for this fact. If Hamas only targeted the IDF, went for military and not civilian targets, actually fought like an honest militia instead of committing wanton acts of destruction and murder, then we'd have a battlefield we could negotiate around. As it stands, though, the PLO and Hamas and pretty much every person who has ever opposed Israel hasn't seemed to want some orderly conflict resolution or peace; they've wanted genocide.

I can't sympathize with anyone whose doctrine includes the eradication of a people, unthinkingly, unfeelingly, without any compassion.

Tell me when have ever conventional weapons like this work against terrorist or freedom fighters?

Yes. In both Vietnam and Korea, armies who used terror tactics were held at bay (And could have been defeated if it wasn't for the army having their hands tied). In Germany, post WWII, there was a Nazi resistance that used traps like piano wire being set at neck height where US jeeps drove regularly, but it was pacified. In countless dictatorships, resistances have been crushed underfoot like so many ants beneath a boot-heel, though their tactics were far more brutal than anything Israel has, or is willing, to field.

Terrorists can and have been defeated. It's a long and arduous process but it can happen. Peace can be brought about in the Middle East. It came achingly close in the last treaty, but, after Hamas fired a rocket into Israel (Either due to a rogue faction they couldn't control or because it was just a standard pointless murder), Israel closed its borders and both sides effectively broke the treaty.

(BTW: I Do not like how some people just throw around the word dictatorship to justify any action. We see this when people talk about Russia yet oddly enough not when we talk about Georgia which are about as democratic. Is far to simplified to use a world view where there are only democratic and dictatorship in the world. The world is not black and white.)

Yes, but, by definition, any country where the people do not have the right to access their government or have any say in its processes is a dictatorship. Hamas is a dictatorship, which is another strike against them in this, really.

Recently, one of my mother's students went to Israel and he said he spent most of his time in the air-raid shelters there because of how common the rocket attacks were.

This is a senseless war, one Israel has tried to put a stop to many times. They've made concessions, given aid to a government who has declared they should be annihilated, done things that, in all honesty, were Israel not some tiny little nation, probably would've been solved by any other power by simply sending in troops and pacifying the country by stabilizing it.

That's why I am behind Israel in this thing: For any faults on their part, considerably fewer than those of the surrounding nations, they've TRIED to put a stop to the conflict. They haven't tried to use terrorist tactics, they've tried to help those in need, they've done all they can to help alleviate the suffering of those oppressed...

They're not perfect, but they're a damn sight better than Hamas.


Let me ask you this, by the way: Why is it Egypt has closed its borders to Palestine for so long as well? Why is it that Israel is not the only country to do so? And why is no-one condemning Egypt for doing so?



Edit: Just thought to add this now: Why is it no-one has said Hamas needs to grow up? If they used words instead of guns and rockets, they'd be trading again by now. I could say things like how some areas of Palestine are bloated on the wealth of stolen aid, how Hamas leaders like having an enemy so they can stay wealthy and powerful like so many dictators... But I want to see what someone else says. Israel has proven itself very willing to negotiate and has done everything it said it would in the last peace treaty, or did until Hamas renewed attacks. Why doesn't Hamas grow up, hm?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on February 12, 2009, 08:38:53 am
Well Vietnam pretty much showed that conventional weapons did not work. USA did not win even with there superiority. USA won almost every battle but did not win the war. conventional is ineffective against asymmetric warfare. You need to go in with other means.

(I am not even going to get in to Korean war conflict. A conflict that was mainly a conventional war. And a conflict which is not officially over and have no clear winner.)

And you pretty much bring up the problem i have tried to point out. Hamas is not that unified. It got a lot off different factions. Some worse them scum. Some can however help get control over the situation. To put them all in the same boat is the same as doing that with IRA and Sinn Féin. It will get you no where.

Compromise is not always the solution. But one needs strong diplomacy. One needs to understand the other side. Both in the war against them and in the hopes of finding a peaceful solution.

These last 8 years pretty much shows that what Israel has done has not been effective. The result speaks for it self. There using the wrong methods.

And again. Dictatorship is far to simplified to describe the political situation in Palestine. Heck Anarchy would be more appropriate. Is not like there is one ultimate leader that makes all the distinctions. And because there is no clear leadership structure is very hard for the Palestinian government to actually do something productive. Why i propose that if we really want peace we need a strong government. Not what we have today.

Also you forgetting that that certain faction in Israel have committed terrorism (Dr. Croccer even posted one of those impotent events). And that helped create the nation in the first place. Read history.

So stop handling Terrorist like there rational thinking men (by our standards) and try to understand them. You do not have to sympathize with them to do so.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 12, 2009, 08:50:22 am
As for justifying Israel's actions as 'reciprocation' I would have thought Axel, that as a self identified Christian you would recognise that 'An eye for an eye' is a futile resolution to conflict that just breeds more and more animosity.

Which, of course, is like saying that Christians should see the justice system as futile because punishing people for their actions is just going to make things worse.

Sorry. Bunk.

I was obviously mistaken in my assumption that the purpose of justice systems was rehabilitation and/or keeping dangerous people off the streets rather than 'punishment'.

You also seem to be seeing things in black and white, as usual. But this is rather secondary to the argument at large, so I'm not going to pursue it and I'm asking now that you don't blow this up into another 18 paragraph phrase by phrase dissection.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on February 12, 2009, 09:02:43 am
Well Vietnam pretty much showed that conventional weapons did not work. USA did not win even with there superiority. USA won almost every battle but did not win the war. conventional is ineffective against asymmetric warfare. You need to go in with other means.

It's also ineffective when you're not allowed to attack your enemy's supply lines or supply depots. Give people the freedoms they need and they'll win you the war.

(I am not even going to get in to Korean war conflict. A conflict that was mainly a conventional war. And a conflict which is not officially over and have no clear winner.)

I'd say that, since North Korea is ruled by a madman who kidnaps film stars and directors to make his own personal movies while his people starve and South Korea is a nation in economic prosperity, there is a clear winner there.

And you pretty much bring up the problem i have tried to point out. Hamas is not that unified. It got a lot off different factions. Some worse them scum. Some can however help get control over the situation. To put them all in the same boat is the same as doing that with IRA and Sinn Féin. It will get you no where.

Hamas is not unified because it is, in part, made up of a coalition of terrorists. Wouldn't the logical thing to do, if they want peace, to be to eschew the elements of their group that are terrorists and even hunt them down and prosecute them? The whole point of being peaceful and friendly is that you help get rid of the people who start taking pot-shots at the people you want to be friends with.

Compromise is not always the solution. But one needs strong diplomacy. One needs to understand the other side. Both in the war against them and in the hopes of finding a peaceful solution.

I understand the other side. The Palestinians have been paying for their forefather's mistakes and then made more mistakes as a result. The only difference between them and Germany circa WWII is that they have routinely had their backsides handed to them when Israel proves itself the stronger of their nations.

These last 8 years pretty much shows that what Israel has done has not been effective. The result speaks for it self. There using the wrong methods.

Over the past few decades, Israel's policy of Total War was effective in fighting off several nations that tried to wipe it off the map. In the past decade, they've tried peace treaties that have just given their enemies time to take pot shots at them.

It seems to me that what you're saying is that Israel should go back to total war. It'd work, I think, if they started doing things like helping rebuild Palestine and educating its people instead of letting them continue to murder Israelis. It'd take a decade or two to accomplish but it has a far better chance to work than these peace treaties seem to...

And again. Dictatorship is far to simplified to describe the political situation in Palestine. Heck Anarchy would be more appropriate. Is not like there is one ultimate leader that makes all the distinctions. And because there is no clear leadership structure is very hard for the Palestinian government to actually do something productive. Why i propose that if we really want peace we need a strong government. Not what we have today

The official Palestinian government is a dictatorship. The unofficial government is factional. Hamas keeps protecting the factions that break the peace treaty process instead of excising them, however. A huge step in the right direction would be Hamas allying with Israel to help excise militant forces from their territory. They'd be loathed by their population but it'd be a step towards peace because it'd show unity and a willingness to work together.

Also you forgetting that that certain faction in Israel have committed terrorism (Dr. Croccer even posted one of those impotent events). And that helped create the nation in the first place. Read history.

Not sure what incidents you refer to there. You could mean the retaliation against the Munich murderers. You could mean the allowance of an outside faction into Palestinian camps to hunt down PLO members that turned bad. How it helped create the nation, I am unsure, though, given that Israeli settlements being raided by Palestinians were what caused the uprising of Israelis that led to the nation taking so much of the territory it occupies today. Israelis rose up to secure the territory because so many settlements were isolated and surrounded by Palestinian lands that it just wasn't going to work well.

Palestine shot first, Israel ended it.

So stop handling Terrorist like there rational thinking men (by our standards) and try to understand them. You do not have to sympathize with them to do so.

I understand them and I see so many solutions and possible ways out of the problem that won't be taken because every last one of them wants to hold onto power.

Want to end the problem? You either need Hamas to start to work with Israel and recognize their right to exist, or you need Israel to wipe Hamas off the map like Hamas has declared it will do to Israel so many times. At least then, the Palestinians can have things like freedom of speech and proper laws, and a marketplace that actually has food in it.


The solution will have to come some day, when a straw breaks the camel's back and either they negotiate or one annihilates the other, and I see Israel as being the only nation here who is working to a peaceful end, while Hamas seems eager to let militants run wild within Palestine.


Now that I've suggested solutions, Yokto, what do you suggest? Israel has been to the negotiating table countless times, negotiations don't work when Palestine's government refuses to control militant elements within its borders, so... What would you have them do?


I was obviously mistaken in my assumption that the purpose of justice systems was rehabilitation and/or keeping dangerous people off the streets rather than 'punishment'.

Let me clarify then: Law enforcement. If police can't capture a dangerous suspect, they shoot him. They'll end his life because he is too much of a threat to let him go free. The same can be said for any of Israel's retaliatory strikes; they target people and areas rife with terrorist activity, instead of bombing Palestinian schools.

The prison system is for rehabilitation and confinement, but officers carry a gun for a reason. If police officers didn't enforce the law, and use the necessary amount of force to prevent suspects from evading justice, we'd have anarchy. To say Israel should do any less is foolhardy.

You also seem to be seeing things in black and white, as usual. But this is rather secondary to the argument at large, so I'm not going to pursue it and I'm asking now that you don't blow this up into another 18 paragraph phrase by phrase dissection.

I say this for what I hope will be the last time: Argue with my argument, not my methods.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 12, 2009, 09:12:05 am
They target people and areas rife with terrorist activity, instead of bombing Palestinian schools.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-obama

Oops.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Cow on February 12, 2009, 09:17:16 am
Those are UN schools. It's different. /sarcasm
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on February 12, 2009, 09:28:25 am
Well both North Korea and South Korea is still here. Nether side managed to meet there objective. It is a draw. (And one of the few wars you actually can say had a stalemate situation with no winners or losers.)

I do not need to debate which people is better off. That is not the issue. Also we are moving of the topic at hand.

And officially Palestine is a Democracy with free elections. In reality it is more of a Anarchy.

You are trying to make a black and white picture of the situation when is not. You also mixing up conflicts of a different nature. After all Israels conventional weapons do work against conventional attack (Something i have not denied) But it does not work against the kind of war there fighting in Palestine. I think 8 years of hostile show this.  World War II only lasted for 6 years in comparison.

Asymmetric warfare against a highly motivated enemy can last for decades and is always gruesome. One should not let the enemy choice the battle field. Israel must realize this. They need more surgical instruments and to try to gain a understand with the Palestinians. They need the Palestinians to stop the terrorist. Naturally this will not come free. Palestinians will want something in return. But what they want will probably have less of a cost then the war it self. In most cases is just peace and freedom.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on February 12, 2009, 09:39:31 am
Quote
Israel accused Hamas of using civilians as cover, and said the Islamist group could stop the assault on Gaza by ending its rocket attacks on Israel.

Quote
Explaining its attack on al-Fahora school, the Israeli military claimed that a mortar was fired from the playground, and it responded with a single shell which killed known Hamas fighters; the resulting explosion was compounded because Hamas "booby-trapped the school". Two Hamas militants were among the dead, both part of a rocket-launching cell.

Quote
The invasion has yet to achieve what Israel says is its goal of stopping rocket attacks. Hamas fired more than 30 into Israel yesterday, one to within 20 miles of Tel Aviv at Gadera, wounding a baby.

Try reading the article through, next time. Hamas launches weapons from within civilian groups and uses them as shields. Blame Hamas for its cowardly tactics instead of Israelis for the casualties of war Hamas deliberately ensures occur.


Well both North Korea and South Korea is still here. Nether side managed to meet there objective. It is a draw. (And one of the few wars you actually can say had a stalemate situation with no winners or losers.)

But the North Koreans didn't win. South Korea remained free. The North is also slowly being strangled to death and is at the brink of collapse, and has been for years now. As I said, it would have been a victory, had the US not had its hands tied.

And officially Palestine is a Democracy with free elections. In reality it is more of a Anarchy.

Yes, and, officially, Afghanistan was a free and open democracy before the Soviet invasion but it didn't stop the mass execution of political prisoners.

You are trying to make a black and white picture of the situation when is not. You also mixing up conflicts of a different nature. After all Israels conventional weapons do work against conventional attack (Something i have not denied) But it does not work against the kind of war there fighting in Palestine. I think 8 years of hostile show this.  World War II only lasted for 6 years in comparison.

It's far more than 8 years of hostility, and, for the record, NATO occupied Germany well until around the time of George Bush Sr., the war long over by then.

Israel has TRIED negotiating. They've tried it countless times! What would you have them do!?

Asymmetric warfare against a highly motivated enemy can last for decades and is always gruesome. One should not let the enemy choice the battle field. Israel must realize this. They need more surgical instruments and to try to gain a understand with the Palestinians. They need the Palestinians to stop the terrorist. Naturally this will not come free. Palestinians will want something in return. But what they want will probably have less of a cost then the war it self. In most cases is just peace and freedom.

Israel hasn't done anything to Palestine beyond blocking off access to it through Israel. Egypt and pretty much all of Palestine's neighbours have done the same thing because the country is a hotbed of terrorist activity.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Want peace? The Palestinians need to make the first move and stop their factions from assaulting Israel. Israel has upheld bargain after bargain and Palestine has broken them.

If Palestine cooperates with Israel, then the bridge is crossed and, after a brief conflict of trying to expunge militant elements, Palestine and Israel can co-exist.

Israel trying to cooperate with Palestine hasn't worked, so Palestine has to make the first move here.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on February 12, 2009, 09:57:52 am
*goes cross-eyed from the massive posts*
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on February 12, 2009, 10:00:08 am
The goal of both nations where to make a unified Korea. Nether have succeeded. I am pretty sure that North Korea will eventually fall but that is not the issue. And you can not claim that south was the winner when that happens. Is as silly as claiming USA won the cold war.

It was a draw. Both failed to meet there objectives. Both nations are still around. And though one could Officially argue that the war is not over (Which would be true as both nations have not reached a peace.) But even if one does that then the wars outcome is interment.

And yes. Like i said that is Officially what is said. And you claimed they Officially where a Dictatorship. Which they De Jure are not and De facto. See the problem? You claiming they are something that there not.

The Second Intifada is little more then 8 years old. Before that there was relative peace since the Oslo accord.

Also you pretty much claiming that the weaker, younger part with less control should have full responsibly and clean up the station. It is like asking a child to take full responsibility for is action under the treat off hitting it. And i do not support hitting children.

I think i have been pretty clear that i want Israel to talk more and find way to work with the Palestinians, try to understand them. And if force is to be used it should be very surgical. Troops on the ground rather then missiles form the sky. But what do you think they should do? You have not tried to add much of creative input. Defend there failed policy pretty much.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on February 12, 2009, 10:34:00 am
The Second Intifada is little more then 8 years old. Before that there was relative peace since the Oslo accord.

Didn't Palestine START said war of the rocks?

Also you pretty much claiming that the weaker, younger part with less control should have full responsibly and clean up the station. It is like asking a child to take full responsibility for is action under the treat off hitting it. And i do not support hitting children.

Actually, I have said repeatedly that the best thing would be for Hamas to ask Israel for help in that area. It'd not only open the door of cooperation, but would give Israel reason to be more friendly in the following negotiations.

Oh, and Hamas could take the "Death to Israel" part out of their constitution.

I think i have been pretty clear that i want Israel to talk more and find way to work with the Palestinians, try to understand them.

They've tried it. Tried it a lot. That's what the Oslo accords were and the recent attempts at the peace treaty were, with Egypt, one of the most anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli nations on the planet, sponsoring it and then saying it was Hamas's fault for breaking the truce.

And if force is to be used it should be very surgical. Troops on the ground rather then missiles form the sky.

They've tried that too. Israel does try and minimize casualties. Problem is, putting Israeli troops on the ground gets Israelis killed and Palestinians end up dead anyway (Which is why Palestinians like to keep kids in the war zones).

Honestly, though, lemme ask you this: Are you willing to volunteer to go into Palestine to hunt down Hamas militants? It's suicide to send in troops unless you're sending in an army or a very, very efficient raiding party. A huge part of the peace process, though, is getting Palestine to release Israeli troops who were captured.

So using the best laser-guided weapons possible is really the only solution.

Oooor you could blame Hamas here for using human shields. Either one.

But what do you think they should do? You have not tried to add much of creative input. Defend there failed policy pretty much.

I've already offered several possibilities.

1. Hamas allies with Israel to cleanse itself of militants. Not only does this help ensure that, come the next peace treaty, any missiles fired are not coming from Hamas, but it also means that Hamas and Israel have a common bridge to work over. They both have stated they want peace and are willing to stride over their histories to get to it.

2. Israel annexes Palestine and steadily opens trade routes, rebuilding the territories. Once it's no longer a cesspit, the Palestinians may be more pliable.

3. Israel creates settlements for Palestinians. Outside Palestine, within Israeli borders, but away from major population centres. Those who leave Palestine for these settlements are declared Israeli citizens and are put under probation. At first, these settlements won't be too great. I admit, it's pretty much going to be Jim Crow style "Separate but equal" stuff, but, eventually, after the probationary period, these people and those born to the area will be given full rights as citizens.


I admit, option three is pretty awful and unlikely to work but, to be honest, I don't see many solutions to this problem that don't start with Hamas making the first step. I have other ideas but they require cooperation from Hamas which, to be honest, I don't see happening.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Null on February 12, 2009, 10:53:19 am
Both of those sides have consistently eroded any empathy I used to have for them. Both of them, they deserve each other.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on February 12, 2009, 10:54:31 am
The whole thing is awful, yes, but, to be honest, when Israel kills civilians, at least they're doing it by accident and not aiming for them.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on February 12, 2009, 12:42:34 pm
Are you so sure about that?

The fact is that we are not talking about two functioning nations. The Palestinian government have very little control. And the Israeli government have own domestic terrorism even it it is to a lower degree then Palestinian.

Also remember you say that Hamas should Allie it self with Israel.  But I asked what Israel should do not Hamas.

And remember Israel did not live up to the accord which is a big part of why the second intifada started.

But really i do not need really to debate this. 8 years and the situation has not become any better. 8 years.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on February 12, 2009, 03:32:50 pm
Also remember you say that Hamas should Allie it self with Israel.  But I asked what Israel should do not Hamas.

This isn't something Israel can do on its own. They've offered peace treaty after peace treaty, and you just can't have peace if the other guy doesn't agree to put his gun down too.

And remember Israel did not live up to the accord which is a big part of why the second intifada started.

I'm curious, what violation of the accord do you speak of? Israel didn't build new settlements, to my knowledge, and the construction upon existing settlements was not a violation of the accord.

But really i do not need really to debate this. 8 years and the situation has not become any better. 8 years.

Actually, it hasn't gotten better in decades... Except in the areas captured by Israel during the wars, where there's been economic prosperity and good governance.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Raz on February 12, 2009, 03:36:19 pm
Don't believe everything you hear and read. That goes for any country. A lot of it can often be propaganda.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on February 12, 2009, 03:37:47 pm
Yes.

Yes it can.

Moving on...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on February 13, 2009, 07:05:16 am
Alex i put you in the situation of the Israeli not the situation of Hamas. (Heck if i anyone could control both sides then there would be no conflict :P)

The main issue was Israeli Settlers. Many Palatines felt that Israel was not taking the situation serious enough. Also with the Yitzhak Rabin the talks pretty much stalled.

And last time i looked the economy of Israel was kept partly afloat due to American aid in for forms of loans. (check with CIA if you do not believe me.) I would not call Israels economy healthy right now.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 13, 2009, 07:55:31 am
Yes.

Yes it can.

Moving on...

So you're just skirting over a perfectly valid point?

You're acting like Israel can do no wrong based mainly on 'evidence' provided by the Israeli government. Your rejection of the news story I cited was mainly based on accusations of schools being used as dissident strongholds and so forth, but never stop to consider this could just be a fabrication of the "This Jewish guy tried to burn down the Reichstag" variety.
I'm not saying it *is*, and I think its quite plausible that terrorists or 'freedom fighters' may indeed be operating out of schools, but you have to at least keep an open mind and acknowledge that both sides have every reason to lie through their teeth when they can get away with it.

Now, you may have got the idea that I'm pro-Hamas. I'm not, I'm just focussing on them specifically because of how pro-israel your arguments are.
In my opinion they are both pretty much as bad as each other. Israel's foreign support and political clout have basically turned them into a spoiled bully, while Palestine is clearly worryingly theocratic and  hotbed of terrorist activity.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on February 13, 2009, 08:02:29 am
What is it that they used to say? The truth is the first casualty of war?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dr. Croccer on February 13, 2009, 02:55:56 pm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7861076.stm

Before I say anything, I've got to say one thing: I was actually named after Benjamin Netanyahu.

Sorry, just thought that was cool to mention since he was in the article.

Back on topic, though, I can see the article as saying that Israel is building more in settlements that are right on the border (Hence them being described as partially on Palestinian land). Given that the borders of these countries have shifted regularly, I'd say that building in these settlements is hardly surprising, since they were likely, at one time, in fully Israeli held territory.

Just my supposition on that.
That doesn't change the fact that around 70% of Israeli settlements are illegal by their own laws and that they've done nothing to stop it.

They restricted both a few months ago, which is one of the largest reasons Hamas attacked them again.

If I recall rightly, the latest peace treaty required Palestine to not have any rockets fired into Israel and, if all went well, not only would Palestine get opened trade routes with Israel, but with Egypt too.

Palestinian terrorists fire rockets into Israel, trade gets restricted. Quite honestly, that makes logical sense to me.[/quote] They didn't do anything, that's the point. Israel choked trade for no reason.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2008/11/20081113143955227206.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/21/israel-gaza-strip-middle-east



Though, again, Israel should just hold itself to it's own promises.

When has Israel fired an unprovoked attack on Palestine? [/quote] Priceless quote. A few weeks actually.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=83300&sectionid=351020202
Quote
I admit, there certainly are a staggering amount of Palestinian casualties, but the number would be zero if the Palestinian government could keep its fingers off the trigger.
Erm, no. Israel should just behave and not launch massive airstrikes in densely populated areas.


1948 - Israel declares independence, Arab states invade the land. Both disregarding the international and Palestinian (Arab Higher Committee) opinion. The Arab states get a good portion of Palestinian land and Israel remains independent, tens of thousands of Palestinians flee the country. The only independent Palestinian state is the All-Palestine Government in the Gaza strip.

Yep. There were riots around this time where the Palestinians routinely assaulted Israeli settlements, if I recall rightly. [/quote] Err, no. You're confusing it with Great Arab Revolt in 1936, which was more of a civil war, considering that paramilitary Jewish organisations like Haganah fought off and attacked Arabs in both conflicts.



1964 - the PLO is created as a result of discontent and independence movements against Israel.
Quote
The PLO is a domination movement, who believe that an "armed solution" is the only way to set things right in the Middle East. Fun bunch.
So did organisations like Haganah, which were the primary reason Israel even exists.

1967 - Six-Day War. Israel launches an attack on Egypt out of fear of an invasion and is promptly invaded by it's allies, and defeats all of them. It annexes the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, gaining the entire Palestinian population under it's rule.
Quote
Very justified fear of invasion, given that there was chatter amongst the defeated nations beforehand talking of invasion, and their armies were massed on its borders...
The Egyptian army was four times small than that of Israel and most military bases were already by the border so it's obvious that their army is there.
Quote
You don't attack a country with the intent of excising her people and not expect repercussions. Israel has, however, since returned some of the captured territories.
...After local uprisings and half of West Bank is still theirs as well as they regard East Jerusalem as Israeli territory.

1972 - Munich Olympics Massacre, a militant PLO faction kills Israeli athletes.

"We don't like your politics so we're going to shoot a bunch of unarmed people who are in no way affiliated with your government!"

The mark of a civilized group, really. [/Sarcasm] [/quote] They did it without any orders and were sort of the black sheep of the PLO.

1974 - Arab Summit recognise the PLO as a legitimate respresentative of the Palestinians, the US and Israel do not because the PLO doesn't acknowledge Israel as a legitimate country.

You don't acknowledge me, I don't acknowledge you. Simple. How can Israel acknowledge them as leaders if the PLO doesn't acknowledge their ability to, well, acknowledge them? [/quote] No, they didn't regard Israel as a legitimate country, i.e. with a realistic base. They regarded them as negotiaters but they didn't view the state of Israel as a ''real'' state, like Russia.

1982 - Israel invades Lebanon in an attempt to destroy the PLO, which launched small attacks on Israel. The Sabra and Shatila Massacres happenn, when the IDF allows Fascist Lebanese groups to massacre Palestinian refugee camps.

They didn't allow them to, Croccer. The agreement was made to allow Phalangist forces into the camp to find members of the PLO hiding within them; a clean-up operation to get rid of terrorists. A massacre ensued and the higher-ups in the chain of command were either unwilling or incapable of responding. Given that any interference would have likely resulted in further slaughter and been lambasted as Israel causing problems where they weren't wanted, it was an inevitable international incident either way.

Israel wasn't blameless here, no sir, but it's sketchy here.[/quote] It was incredibly stupid to allow Fascist Nationalists into a refugee camp of foreigners. It isn't the first case of the IDF being careless towards Palestinians.

-1987-1993 - First Intifada. General discontent and poverty in the Palestinian areas cause a lot of uproar, ranging from protests and boycotts to riots and attacks. The important thing is the Israeli response, with IDF soldiers shooting at demonstrators and children who throw rocks at them.

A fun fact of note: The PLO had this lovely habit of hiding militants, suicide bombers, and others in crowds of civilians and children because they knew Israeli soldiers would have a gleam of conscience and, y'know, not shoot at kids. However, Israeli troops, like all good soldiers, are trained to follow orders and they pulled the trigger.[/quote] There weren't any snipers. What are you on about? The PLO didn't have any forces there and only gave a few directions to protesters. That's it.
Quote
If it comes down to an "Us or them" situation where your life and the lives of your wo/men may be in danger, you damn well better pull the trigger.
What do kids with rocks want to do with your women?

-1993 - Oslo Accords. The PLO and Israel make several agreements, the IDF will retreat from Gaza and it will become an autonomous Palestinian state and the West Bank will get a degree of autonomy.

Velvet glove, as noted.[/quote] The IDF, that is.

-1995 - Rabin, the Israeli president who secured the Oslo accords, is assassinated by an Israeli extremist. The accords are strained. Netanyahu, leader of the nationalist-conservative Likud party becomes president and starts to question the accords.


-2000-2006 - Second Intifada starts, primarily out of the neglect of the Oslo Accords by Israel, who wanted to install new measures. It's even more violent than the next one and it marks the birth of several militant Palestinian groups, such as Hamas. Israel decides to withdraw from the Gaza strip.

What neglect? Israel pretty much stuck to the word of the agreement. Israel had already agreed upon the withdrawal from the strip as a part of the Oslo agreement.[/quote] They didn't. Did you read my post? Rabin promised to do so but he waited a few years and got killed. Likud who came after him had no intentions of giving them autonomy. It wasn't untill around 10 years after the accords that the plans were actually conducted and not in the way promised.

You basically see an increase in Palestinian violence when Israel does something wrong and the reprisals the latter use to solve it only make things worse. Israel needs to grow up and treat the issue like other modern, civilised countries do.

Not to be childish but... Palestine started it.

Seriously, though, Israel gets shot at by Palestine, Israel shoots back, and the two go back and forth before one tries to put a stop to it with a peace treaty.[/quote] No. Again, can you read? The Palestinians weren't the first. They demonstrated, yes, but how is that bad?
Quote
I'm curious, though, just how would you have Israel deal with it?
Like the British handled the Irish problem: let the people decide. And don't, DON'T use unnecessary violence.

But it's too late now. If Israel would've behaved about 20 years ago against Palestinian demonstrators and given them what they wanted instead of bullets, things would've been okay. But now it's just ****ed up. The fact that Israel doesn't do anything but bomb and wall them is only making it worse.

p
Quote
They offer peace treaties and restoration even after repeated wars and terrorist actions, and you say they're supposed to "grow up"?
Yes, because they don't uphold their own deals. They shoot everything that is slightly suspisious and that causes a Hamas resprisal.
Quote
Israel's been losing its people in a pointless war for decades because the Palestinians won't acknowledge that other human beings have the right to live.
lol?



Title: Re: Politics
Post by: eropS on February 13, 2009, 11:32:30 pm
In the end, all that matters is that for the moment

USA likes Israel, and therefore, the Middle East can't do a whole lot about what Israel does, because well, whose going to say 'no'? The UN? Ha.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Raz on February 13, 2009, 11:36:32 pm
Obama will likely cut off Israel, seeing as how they are trigger-happy lunatics. Continuing to support them would be worse for America's image.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 14, 2009, 05:29:50 am
Nah, that's not going to happen.

Obama isn't some magical man thats going to solve every problem. He may open up links with Hamas and other enemies (Nixon going to China) but he'll never stop supporting Israel.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on February 14, 2009, 08:01:30 am
What Sam said.  I think Obama has more sense than to cut off a major ally just for them taking a slight turn to the right.  (Which may not even happen, it depends on what coalition forms out of all the parties.)  Israel is one of those third rail policy issues, if he messes with it too much it could easily cost the Democrats their majorities in the House and Senate, plus it would stir up all that sillyness about Obama being the Antichrist.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Null on February 14, 2009, 08:06:33 am
The Antichrist? Seriously? My opinion of evangelicals has always been that they are somewhat loopy and out there, but that... he's the antichrist because he... is somewhat liberal and made it to the presidency? Dumb asses.


Anyway, Obama does have an opportunity here because the Israelis feel that their relationship with the USA is vital for their own security. That means they would go to... considerable lengths to keep it that way. He has more power over them than anyone else and can use that to make his displeasure known... far more valuable than cutting off relations! Not manipulative at all

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on February 14, 2009, 08:19:42 am
Yes. In fact i think that for there to be a drastic change in policy there needs to be a Nixon going to china. That is someone so Israel friendly that no one could criticize him for changing policy. Obama may be a Israel friendly but do not have that status.  (If USA would get a Jewish Rabin president then he could probably pull a Nixon.)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Null on February 14, 2009, 08:57:28 am
They care more about security. Technology, weapons and support are what they want, not talking. Nixon was not giving any of that to china, nor did there exist any sort of alliance. It is completely different. Also, Nixon was a dirtbag.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on February 14, 2009, 09:09:19 am
I think you missing the analogy here. The phrase: "Only Nixon could go to china" (old Vulcan proverb ;) ) Refers to that only someone so distance form the chines political (consider so anti-communist) could do the trip. Anyone else would have been seen as a communist traitors. But that card could not be used against Nixon.
Title: Re: Gripe Thread
Post by: Yuu on February 14, 2009, 10:55:28 pm
After stealing billions worth of money from the national treasury and still having the courage to plaster their faces all over the streets, I guess they really do.
Title: Re: Gripe Thread
Post by: Raz on February 14, 2009, 10:55:54 pm
Viva la revolution?
Title: Re: Gripe Thread
Post by: Yuu on February 14, 2009, 11:11:53 pm
The only semi-effective revolution down here is the NPA. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_People%27s_Army) Don't wanna fall under the rule of those guys. :P

Everyone who helps Big Sister is helped by Big Sister. And everyone who opposes Big Sister is either bribed, threatened or killed.



I really like it how Obama's been ignoring Big Sister since he started running for presi
Title: Re: Gripe Thread
Post by: Raz on February 14, 2009, 11:14:42 pm
Obama is changing gears basicly, leading USA down the real path that it's strayed from eh.
Title: Re: Gripe Thread
Post by: Yuu on February 14, 2009, 11:19:17 pm
True that.
Title: Re: Gripe Thread
Post by: smjjames on February 14, 2009, 11:21:43 pm
Or at least trying to, despite Congress and the Senate bieng up to it's usual monkey business. Still, it's better than last year in that they are trying to get things done.
Title: Re: Gripe Thread
Post by: Raz on February 14, 2009, 11:22:09 pm
That and this isn't the politics thread so eh.
Title: Re: Gripe Thread
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 15, 2009, 05:46:50 am
I really like it how Obama's been ignoring Big Sister since he started running for presi

Last I checked Obama wasn't the President of the Philippines.
Title: Re: Gripe Thread
Post by: Yuu on February 15, 2009, 06:19:40 am
What I meant was that Obama's been actively ignoring her even when he was still campaigning. Compare that to when Bush was president of the US.
Title: Re: Gripe Thread
Post by: smjjames on February 15, 2009, 06:25:20 am
I really like it how Obama's been ignoring Big Sister since he started running for presi

Last I checked Obama wasn't the President of the Philippines.

He means Hillary Clinton....

What I meant was that Obama's been actively ignoring her even when he was still campaigning. Compare that to when Bush was president of the US.

Or are you talking about his wife?
Title: Re: Gripe Thread
Post by: Doomsday on February 15, 2009, 06:30:07 am
What I meant was that Obama's been actively ignoring her even when he was still campaigning. Compare that to when Bush was president of the US.

Because frankly, as Americans, we don't really care. I may be unduly harsh, but there are far worse things going on in the world than what is happening in the Philippines. Just because our politicians don't publicly tout out opinions on every major issue for every country around the world, doesn't mean that that they don't get informed about it. Seeing as we have military bases in the Philippines, and actually perform military ops there quite frequently, I'm gonna call BS. Maybe we haven't done anything recently, but our forces are spread just a bit thin and we're not really responsible for others. I mean, it isn't our responsibility to make YOUR Government work right, now is it? Thinking like that is what got us buried in at least three wars with no real 'clean' end to them. However this is not the Politics thread.

James: By Big Sister I think he means Big Brother (don't change the gender of it even if the person{s} in question are female, as Big Brother refers to the type of government rather than its leader). He's talking about their current 'president', Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
Title: Re: Gripe Thread
Post by: smjjames on February 15, 2009, 07:39:03 am
However this is not the Politics thread.

I guess we could move this little snippet over to the politics thread...
Title: Re: Gripe Thread
Post by: Null on February 15, 2009, 08:53:14 am
I say that Doomsday should do more research on the subject of rice prices and insurgency in said country before dismissing all of that country's problems, but Bush had a problem of not minding his own business. Just because you yourself have not heard from obama on this issue does not mean nothing has been said.
Title: Re: Gripe Thread
Post by: Yuu on February 15, 2009, 01:48:26 pm
Bush had a problem of not minding his own business.

This.


Is what I'm getting at.
Title: Re: Gripe Thread
Post by: Inkling on February 16, 2009, 06:50:11 am
I'm going to agree with Doomsday, in part.  Obama has a ton of stuff on his plate and he's been in office less than a month, give him some time.  Also,  Clinton's in Asia on her first trip as Secretary of State, maybe she'll address the issue of your country then.  But Yuu, first you complain of Obama ignoring you, then of Bush not minding his own business.  It seems like you're arguing against both sides of the coin, so what do you want from the US President?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 16, 2009, 12:28:42 pm
I'm happy with a US president that doesn't meddle with the affairs of the rest of the world, but then, I'm not really in a part of the world that would benefit from meddling.  :-\

Also, I think I may currently be primed against intervention as a result of reading too much politically charged science fiction. Oh, Culture, must you always meddle in the affairs of less developed civilisations?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Cow on February 16, 2009, 05:20:23 pm
Yep.  ;D
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Saganmaineiac on February 16, 2009, 06:34:39 pm
Frankly, I love Britain and every other monarchy in Europe! Just call me a Monarchist. 8)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 16, 2009, 06:35:54 pm
Oh dear :P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Andrew Ryan on February 16, 2009, 06:37:05 pm
Frankly, I love Britain and every other monarchy in Europe! Just call me a Monarchist. 8)

GET HIM!!!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Saganmaineiac on February 16, 2009, 06:41:43 pm
Is this what I get as a welcoming party?
Frankly, I love Britain and every other monarchy in Europe! Just call me a Monarchist. 8)

GET HIM!!!
...not gonna listen to rash people who declare monarchy insane. It's just my opinion.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brandonazz on February 16, 2009, 06:55:55 pm
Personally, I welcome our monarchic overlords.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on February 16, 2009, 07:48:03 pm
Frankly, I love Britain and every other monarchy in Europe! Just call me a Monarchist. 8)

You're a Monarchist.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ultramarine on February 16, 2009, 08:04:50 pm
Who isn't these days? :P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on February 17, 2009, 06:48:59 am
Not Hugo Chavez, that's for sure...
Title: Re: Gripe Thread
Post by: Yuu on February 17, 2009, 07:04:26 am
I'm going to agree with Doomsday, in part.  Obama has a ton of stuff on his plate and he's been in office less than a month, give him some time.  Also,  Clinton's in Asia on her first trip as Secretary of State, maybe she'll address the issue of your country then.  But Yuu, first you complain of Obama ignoring you, then of Bush not minding his own business.  It seems like you're arguing against both sides of the coin, so what do you want from the US President?


Ok, I'll explain it to you guys piece by piece so that you can understand it more clearly.

First of all, I am not arguing against both sides of the coin.

Secondly, I am not complaining about Obama ignoring the president of the country I am currently residing in. Actually, I like it that way. It's about high time she'd stop sucking up to the US administration to make herself look good while she erases everyone who tries to speak against her, especially the newscasters.

Thirdly, I really don't like what Bush did when he started to mind everyone's business so much that he forgot about his own.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Andrew Ryan on February 17, 2009, 07:29:41 am
Thirdly, I really don't like what Bush did when he started to mind everyone's business so much that he forgot about his own.

I think we can all relate to that. >.>
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 19, 2009, 11:37:46 am
Its a moot point anyway, the British public have generally shown themselves to be unreceptive to stunts like this, and if they were allowed in to protest it would just result in them being mercilessly mocked by all and sundry.

Not to try and get this moved to the politics thread (Though it should be, I think), but, in the US, they have to have the police there to keep these people from being lynched.

I think its a matter of perspective.
I can see why these protesters would need police protection while picketing the funerals of dead soldiers, but this is a protest over a play. Those happen fairly frequently and are generally the subject of mockery. Its not just that people wouldn't be familiar with the WBC here, since a few journalists have filmed some quite well publicized documentaries about them.

As for the whole 'freedom of speech thing' you can't claim their actions are unopposed in the US since they're required to keep a long distance away from the funerals they're 'protesting' at. I guess in this case the government has just decreed the distance is a lot further than it is in the states :P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on February 19, 2009, 11:45:02 am
Cut and pasted from off topic:

I'm going to agree with Sam on this one.  A country can deny you a visa for whatever reason they like.  A list of reasons for entering the country might have things like education, business, travel, etc.  If your stated reason in coming to a country is to protest and attempt to cause an international incident, having a visa denied shouldn't be a surprise.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on February 19, 2009, 12:22:47 pm
I'm going to agree with Sam on this one.  A country can deny you a visa for whatever reason they like.  A list of reasons for entering the country might have things like education, business, travel, etc.  If your stated reason in coming to a country is to protest and attempt to cause an international incident, having a visa denied shouldn't be a surprise.

They can, which is why this isn't a legal problem and why I don't oppose it too strongly, but you can't really deny that this is an attempt to prevent them from voicing their opinions. They want to go to another country and voice their opinion there. The UK stopping them is no different from police officers in the UK telling them they can't say that. Could you imagine if a head of a civil rights group was coming to the UK from the US and they stopped them because they were an "extremist"?

As for the whole 'freedom of speech thing' you can't claim their actions are unopposed in the US since they're required to keep a long distance away from the funerals they're 'protesting' at. I guess in this case the government has just decreed the distance is a lot further than it is in the states :P

They're told to keep back from funerals for a lot of reasons.

1. Private property.
2. Noise disturbances. You're given permits for public protests (Something the Phelps family are never lacking in), and if this conflicts with another public action going on at the time (Say, a funeral), then you can't do it and have to be restricted.
3. It's technically disrupting a public service (The funerals of soldiers are paid for by the government).

I will admit that probably every reason there is a legal cover for respect for the dead, but they're legal reasons none the less.

However, what they are not done is silenced or forcibly excised from the region. They're allowed to protest, within reason, and they should be allowed to do so in any country that values things like freedom of speech.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Josasa on February 19, 2009, 12:57:03 pm
...
However, what they are not done is silenced or forcibly excised from the region. They're allowed to protest, within reason, and they should be allowed to do so in any country that values things like freedom of speech.

The government protects the rights of its citizens. Having foreigners coming over and protesting about something the government is doing doesn't make much sense. I'm all for rights, but they only extend to those that are able to call a specific country 'home'.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Plank of Wood on February 20, 2009, 06:54:50 am
I'm going to agree with Sam on this one.  A country can deny you a visa for whatever reason they like.  A list of reasons for entering the country might have things like education, business, travel, etc.  If your stated reason in coming to a country is to protest and attempt to cause an international incident, having a visa denied shouldn't be a surprise.

Could you imagine if a head of a civil rights group was coming to the UK from the US and they stopped them because they were an "extremist"?

But the WBC isn't a civil rights group.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on February 20, 2009, 07:27:33 am
The government protects the rights of its citizens. Having foreigners coming over and protesting about something the government is doing doesn't make much sense. I'm all for rights, but they only extend to those that are able to call a specific country 'home'.

Indeed, which is why none of this is in any way illegal. Nothing the UK has done has any legal implications. However, this is a non-violent protest group who, despite having very nasty language, has never actually done anything inappropriate. Even if they're just visiting, banning them is like banning anyone with a message to get through. Even if the message is one you don't agree with, you're banning them because of their opinion and proclivity to voice it, not because of any given threat on their part.

But the WBC isn't a civil rights group.

A fact of which I am very much aware, but it doesn't change anything. Free speech in a non-violent form is the same no matter whether that speech is vile or saintly; you can't allow one without the other because the definition is mutable. As long as they've made no threats, obey the law, and commit no crimes, something they have done with a frankly disappointing tenacity (I'd love to see them in jail, really), they deserve as much of a chance to speak as you do.

Free speech is a two way street; denying one person a chance to speak because you don't like their views lets anyone do the same.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 20, 2009, 07:40:37 am
Ok, I think all your flinging around of sacred rights has finally caused you to paint yourself into a corner.

You defend the right to free speech, but also presumably also the right to property and such.
If the Phelps family wanted to protest on your front yard you would be well within your rights to tell them where to stick it.

Britain is, for all intents and purposes, property of its citizens, who are represented by their government.
The government doesn't want the WBC here. I'm pretty sure the overwhelming majority of citizens don't want them here. The Phelpses are not welcome on our property :P

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on February 20, 2009, 07:52:46 am
You defend the right to free speech, but also presumably also the right to property and such.
If the Phelps family wanted to protest on your front yard you would be well within your rights to tell them where to stick it.

Britain is, for all intents and purposes, property of its citizens, who are represented by their government.
The government doesn't want the WBC here. I'm pretty sure the overwhelming majority of citizens don't want them here. The Phelpses are not welcome on our property :P

A logical argument and one I can agree to... But it sets a bad precedent. The government didn't deny them because "The British people don't like you", they denied them because they were "extremists". I.E. They held a view considered extreme. Britain banning people from visiting because they don't like their politics is not a good precedent to set, especially when it allows in countless people who willingly chant "Bomb Denmark" in response to a cartoon.

When you start banning people from a country "just because you don't like them", it sets a very nasty precedent. After all, what's the difference between banning the Phelps clan and the hypothetical civil rights leader? Any way you slice it, this is just an attempt to stifle a voice because you don't like it, and that runs very much contrary to any ideals of free speech.

Never have I said that Britain doesn't have a right to keep the Phelps family out... But doing so isn't exactly stopping me from getting alarm bells going off in my mind.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Plank of Wood on February 20, 2009, 08:07:06 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_baptist#Banned_from_entering_the_UK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_baptist#Banned_from_entering_the_UK)

According to Wikipedia they were stopped from entering because they would incite hatred towards the homosexual community. Not really resitriction of free speach.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on February 20, 2009, 08:12:44 am
Isn't it? So telling people how awful certain pollutants are to your health isn't allowed because it incites hatred against factories? Or that saying how sociopaths manipulate everyone they meet is bad because it's unfair to sociopaths? How about informing people that owning slaves is a moral evil? Is that unfair to slave owners?

Informing people of a perceived fault or evil is fine, as long as you don't incite violence.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Plank of Wood on February 20, 2009, 09:50:43 am
Well erm... err.

Damn. You've pretty much annihalted my arguement there.

*runs*
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: /lurk on February 20, 2009, 09:58:13 am
And here I thought crows were smart enough not be scared of strawmen. You disgrace your fellow avians, Plank!


Besides which, since when was Axel against the freedom of people to own slaves? I thought he was all about owning stuff that nobody wants him to.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on February 20, 2009, 10:30:49 am
No-one owns a person, Lurk.

Seriously, though, inciting hatred is a bunk charge. Otherwise, the KKK would've been arrested long ago, as would the Nation of Islam, and countless other organizations. Hell, the BNP should've been jailed a thousand times over.

Hatred is a natural emotion, a necessary one at times to initiate change. You can't say the old establishment is bad without giving some reason for it to be distasteful compared to the new one that you seek to create. Ergo, if you ever wish to speak about any sort of change, you could be deemed to be inciting hatred.

Inciting violence, well... Now we're in new territory altogether... The WBC, however, has never advocated or used violence, so they're really blameless there.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 20, 2009, 06:47:59 pm
No-one owns a person, Lurk.

Parents own a kid.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on February 20, 2009, 07:30:15 pm
Ownership is a Social construct and can in theory be applied to anything or anyone. However not everyone agrees on what one can own. In the end is all about recognition.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Cow on February 20, 2009, 07:35:37 pm
Exactly. It's just like the North didn't recognize Southern ownership of slaves during the American Civil War.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on February 20, 2009, 07:56:54 pm
Thank you lurk for once again derailing a conversation with your unrelated comments.  I don't know how the forum would survive without your delightfully irreverent potshots.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on February 20, 2009, 10:55:09 pm
Thank you lurk for once again derailing a conversation with your unrelated comments.  I don't know how the forum would survive without your delightfully irreverent potshots.

That is so getting sig'd.  ;D

With your permission, of course.

Parents own a kid.

No, they are stewards of the child and there's a world of difference. If they owned a child, they would own them all the way into adulthood and beyond. What they do is act as a protector of the child because, legally speaking, the child is not mentally and emotionally mature enough to make decisions regarding their life. It's generally assumed that, by around the age of 18, they're mature enough to do so and are thus granted full rights at this time.

It's also why a child can sue for the right to be emancipated from their parents legally. No slave can sue their master to be freed from them.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 21, 2009, 05:51:23 am
It's also why a child can sue for the right to be emancipated from their parents legally. No slave can sue their master to be freed from them.

This new kind of slave I just made up can.

I hope this proves the point that, as Yokto said property laws are ALL MADE UP.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: /lurk on February 21, 2009, 08:21:08 am
Thank you lurk for once again derailing a conversation with your unrelated comments.  I don't know how the forum would survive without your delightfully irreverent potshots.

Well hey I'm not the one who brought it up. Maybe people just really like talking about slavery?

Anyway, you should just feel lucky that Axel used slavery as an example instead of Hitler.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on February 21, 2009, 08:35:42 am
Oh, wait.  I didn't see where Axel mentioned slavery.  My bad.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on February 21, 2009, 03:35:19 pm
This new kind of slave I just made up can.

I hope this proves the point that, as Yokto said property laws are ALL MADE UP.

So... Your solution, instead of a reasonable argument, is deconstructivist relativism? Excellent. Thank you for resorting to the philosophical legal equivalent of "La la la, I'm not listening".
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 21, 2009, 05:09:01 pm
Hey Axel, argue with my points, not with the way I argue  :-*
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on February 21, 2009, 08:26:39 pm
Well all law is made up. >_>

That does not mean we can not debate it. The fact that human put so much value in to it is reason good enough.

Ehh.... What where we talking about? <_<
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on February 21, 2009, 09:36:07 pm
I am arguing your points. Deconstructivist relativism is a non-argument because it leads to mob rule and moral relativism (I.E. Anything is okay). Said ideas essentially let you justify any action, no matter how morally indefensible, up to and including genocide, dictatorships, and oppression, all based around the idea that "the majority wanted it".

It's a bad argument, a bad idea, and, despite its technical accuracy (All laws and societal builds are made-up, so it's not wrong), useless in defense of any idea.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 22, 2009, 05:20:35 am
Its not useless at all Axel. You're treating relatively recently formed laws which are only so deeply revered in your own country as the basis for your morality.

Your objection to barring the Phelpses access is on the grounds they aren't violent, because thats how your countries laws are set up. I prefer to take more of a broad 'do no harm' approach to my moral decisions (as well as a little pragmatism :P) and from that standpoint letting a bunch of racist, homophobic bigot extremists into a country when their specific aim is to rabble-rouse is not a particularly valid course of action.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on February 22, 2009, 08:26:44 am
Coincidentally, I live in Canada. Don't assume.

As for "do no harm", you do far more harm barring them than you do letting them in. Without freedom of speech, it's really up to the masses to decide which speech they do and don't want to allow, which is a bad thing for anyone who wants a society that doesn't oppress its people. As far as verbal "harm" goes, it's relative. Remember my statements before about how saying anything you think is bad is considered wrong could be deemed "verbal harm". Don't like companies using slave labour? Oh, sorry, can't say that. You're verbally harassing the company. See the problem here?

They're homophobic bigots (I dunno about racists, never heard them say anything about that, and extremism is a relative term. Extreme compared to what? On what scale?), they're not nice, and very few people, if any outside their immediate circle, like them. However, barring them from entering a country to speak is a bad precedent because it means ANYONE can be for whatever reason is desired by those in power for whatever reason they like.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brandonazz on February 22, 2009, 10:32:28 am
I don't like homophobes.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 22, 2009, 11:45:18 am
As for "do no harm", you do far more harm barring them than you do letting them in.

Only if you ascribe to a slippery slope line of thinking where barring a bunch of buttholes from a country is inevitably going to lead to you holding hate rallies and beating on people who are different from you
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Saganmaineiac on February 22, 2009, 01:01:08 pm
Carol II: Kings and communists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_II_of_Romania
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Kenobro on February 22, 2009, 01:01:56 pm
How is that relevant to the current discussion?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on February 22, 2009, 01:41:21 pm
I don't like homophobes.

Neither do I.

Only if you ascribe to a slippery slope line of thinking where barring a bunch of buttholes from a country is inevitably going to lead to you holding hate rallies and beating on people who are different from you

It won't lead to that, not by itself, but the ability to do this can be used again with precedent if the mood changes.

Slippery slopes always exist, it just depends on who walks down them. You might think "Well, our leaders are responsible", but you don't want to open the door for later abuses.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Saganmaineiac on February 22, 2009, 01:42:05 pm
How is that relevant to the current discussion?
it's politics!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on February 22, 2009, 02:02:19 pm
How is that relevant to the current discussion?
it's politics!

No, Sagan.  That isn't how this thread works.  You either discuss the current topic, or bring up a new one.  A Wikipedia link with no more context than what is in the link itself doesn't count as changing the subject.

Back to the discussion at hand, Axel, you can't assume that every country, even Western European countries, have the same stance on freedom of speech as the US or Canada.  For instance, Nazi groups are allowed to have a public parade in a mostly Jewish community as an excercise of freedom of speech, yet in Germany, if I remember correctly, just the display of a swastika is criminal in some circumstances.  I don't know the ins and outs of British freedom of speech protections, and I don't know if they are idealistically on the right or wrong side of this, but from a realistic point of view they have (as I said before) every right to deny people access to the country who have no constructive business there.

Also, we would be less likely to mistake you for an American if your avatar wasn't an American founding father.  Is there some Canadian leader you could use?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on February 22, 2009, 02:43:44 pm
Back to the discussion at hand, Axel, you can't assume that every country, even Western European countries, have the same stance on freedom of speech as the US or Canada.  For instance, Nazi groups are allowed to have a public parade in a mostly Jewish community as an excercise of freedom of speech, yet in Germany, if I remember correctly, just the display of a swastika is criminal in some circumstances.  I don't know the ins and outs of British freedom of speech protections, and I don't know if they are idealistically on the right or wrong side of this, but from a realistic point of view they have (as I said before) every right to deny people access to the country who have no constructive business there.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: This isn't a legal issue. England is able to deny non-citizens access to their country on any grounds, really. "I don't like the colour of your hat" is a valid excuse if it comes from the Prime Minister. This is, however, a philosophical one.

I'll say it a fifth time for all involved: THIS IS NOT A LEGAL ISSUE! ENGLAND HAS EVERY LEGAL RIGHT TO DO THIS!

Philosophically, though, this isn't a good route to take, at least in my mind.

Also, we would be less likely to mistake you for an American if your avatar wasn't an American founding father.  Is there some Canadian leader you could use?

Actually, I'm about to change it to a Communist Duck.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Null on February 22, 2009, 03:57:42 pm
Quote
Slippery slopes always exist, it just depends on who walks down them. You might think "Well, our leaders are responsible", but you don't want to open the door for later abuses.

No, they don't. Slippery slopes are a logical fallacy. Infact, you can google logical fallacy and slippery slope will be right there at the top. The slippery slope does not exist. For example it was believed that America had to stop the spread of communism in Vietnam or else all of southeast asia would fall to communism. That did not happen now, did it? No. Some religious people say that if we let gays marry in america we will have polygamy, underage marriages and man/animal marriages or whatever. But we wouldn't.

The slippery slope NEVER exists and is just a logical falsehood.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: MetallicDragon on February 22, 2009, 04:51:01 pm
Quote
Slippery slopes always exist, it just depends on who walks down them. You might think "Well, our leaders are responsible", but you don't want to open the door for later abuses.

No, they don't. Slippery slopes are a logical fallacy. Infact, you can google logical fallacy and slippery slope will be right there at the top. The slippery slope does not exist. For example it was believed that America had to stop the spread of communism in Vietnam or else all of southeast asia would fall to communism. That did not happen now, did it? No. Some religious people say that if we let gays marry in america we will have polygamy, underage marriages and man/animal marriages or whatever. But we wouldn't.

The slippery slope NEVER exists and is just a logical falsehood.

I thought the whole idea of Free Speech was that of a slippery slope. We let the bigots say whatever they want, because if we start silencing them then it opens the floodgates to banning whatever we want from being said.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Josasa on February 22, 2009, 05:50:35 pm
Quote
Slippery slopes always exist, it just depends on who walks down them. You might think "Well, our leaders are responsible", but you don't want to open the door for later abuses.

No, they don't. Slippery slopes are a logical fallacy. Infact, you can google logical fallacy and slippery slope will be right there at the top. The slippery slope does not exist. For example it was believed that America had to stop the spread of communism in Vietnam or else all of southeast asia would fall to communism. That did not happen now, did it? No. Some religious people say that if we let gays marry in america we will have polygamy, underage marriages and man/animal marriages or whatever. But we wouldn't.

The slippery slope NEVER exists and is just a logical falsehood.

But how can you know the outcome of something that did not happen? Who is to say that if the US did not get involved in Vietnam that other countries would not follow? What if the rulers of other nations did not see the massive destruction that was Vietnam and were not deterred from launching political coups of their own? What if the larger Communist nations were not 'scared' away from backing other potential revolutionary groups?

And however extreme the suggestion about polygamy and such is, how can you know the true outcome of something that doesn't happen? You can't.

I'm not suggesting that a slippery slope does or does not exist, just that the way you are arguing it is not very reasonable.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 22, 2009, 05:57:30 pm
The slippery slope NEVER exists and is just a logical falsehood.

Generalisations are always true  ;)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Null on February 22, 2009, 06:02:38 pm
Quote
Slippery slopes always exist, it just depends on who walks down them. You might think "Well, our leaders are responsible", but you don't want to open the door for later abuses.

No, they don't. Slippery slopes are a logical fallacy. Infact, you can google logical fallacy and slippery slope will be right there at the top. The slippery slope does not exist. For example it was believed that America had to stop the spread of communism in Vietnam or else all of southeast asia would fall to communism. That did not happen now, did it? No. Some religious people say that if we let gays marry in america we will have polygamy, underage marriages and man/animal marriages or whatever. But we wouldn't.

The slippery slope NEVER exists and is just a logical falsehood.

But how can you know the outcome of something that did not happen? Who is to say that if the US did not get involved in Vietnam that other countries would not follow? What if the rulers of other nations did not see the massive destruction that was Vietnam and were not deterred from launching political coups of their own? What if the larger Communist nations were not 'scared' away from backing other potential revolutionary groups?

And however extreme the suggestion about polygamy and such is, how can you know the true outcome of something that doesn't happen? You can't.

I'm not suggesting that a slippery slope does or does not exist, just that the way you are arguing it is not very reasonable.

But, you see, it hasn't. You can what if and predict the future all day but in the end while a cause-and effect relationship exists, saying Cause A will lead to B which will lead to C is faulty because, yes, you can't know the true outcome.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Josasa on February 22, 2009, 06:06:05 pm
Yes and because you cannot know the true outcome, you cannot say that certain things cannot happen. When making a statement you can't contradict yourself.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Null on February 22, 2009, 06:33:58 pm
Anything theoretically "can" happen. Your argument states that things could have happened differently. My point is that they did not, because the path the said events took did not come to pass because the said slippery slope assumptions were predictions, and since you cannot know the true outcome beforehand, things will not come to pass as predicted.

Slippery slope claims to know the outcome of something that can happen. It can come to pass, but in practice it does not. Your statements are slippery things because anything can and could have happened. The fact is they did not. Things could have happened exactly the way it was predicted, but they did not and they almost without exception do not.

There is no contradiction, since I never said that it cannot happen. I simply stated that they do not, meaning that while the event can happen it almost invariably never comes to pass.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Josasa on February 22, 2009, 06:41:02 pm
I was just pointing out that in your first post you said that things 'could not' have turned out that way, when they actually could have. I don't think this discussion is getting anywhere though...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on February 22, 2009, 07:38:43 pm
While I was playing a game, all this happened...

Slippery slopes, I will state, are the idea that, while a given action does not indicate a certainty of a secondary change to follow, it increases the odds of such a change occurring. It's why people would argue that the legalization of same-sex marriage will make polygamous marriages occur; because there is an increase in the likelihood of such a change happening if another augmentation to the definition of a legal marriage contract has already occurred. One change makes it far harder to resist another than if that change had not occurred.

However, gay marriages don't mean we WILL have polygamous marriages. That all depends on who is voting. However, once the precedent for a change is set, it will take far less effort from those trying to cause the augmentation to induce the following change.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on February 24, 2009, 06:20:17 pm
However in science a empty claim like you did right now is not scientific. You still need to back up that statement or else you are just making a empty claim. Not matter how likely you think it is.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on February 24, 2009, 06:44:35 pm
What particular claim are you challenging? That precedents make successive changes easier?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on February 25, 2009, 08:00:22 am
To tell the truth i do not really care.

Democracy is always about majority rule. The majority is not always right however that i agree on. But even thinks like Freedom of Speech is not immune to this.

I personally think there should be a forum for everyone to voice there options. Also the choice for other not to listen to there options. Reminds me a bit about those Muhammad caricatures. I think that they had the right to do it. I also think that people have to right to protest that they did it. And i think people have the right to just ignore it. It is kind of a double edge sword.

To limit the freedom of speech is something one should be careful about. But one should not use it to justify bad behavior ether.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on February 25, 2009, 12:20:45 pm
All freedoms are double edged swords. A freedom that goes one way goes the other. Saying that the majority ruling and overriding things like freedom of speech is a ludicrous thing because it's like saying that the majority should be allowed to enslave people simply because the group is large enough to do so. You can't say that mob rule is a good thing because, thanks to repeated demonstrations (Witch hunts, the French Revolution, etc.), it has proven to be nothing but destructive.

Things like Freedom of Speech being protected is the only way to keep a society secure and free. A society with freedom of speech enshrined as a core value cannot do things like suppress new thoughts and ideas and, likewise, people are free to counter these ideas.

Your freedom, my freedom, everyone's freedom, they're all the same legally speaking. A horrific hate speech is as valid as a beautiful poem to be heard by those exercising this freedom. Once you say one thing isn't okay, for whatever reason, anything can be censored because of how relative it is.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on February 25, 2009, 01:11:42 pm
You're doing the all or nothing thing again, Axel.  The truth is that, in the US, at least, there are several types of speech that are not protected: libel, slander, fighting words, child pornography, and the classic example of yelling fire in a theater, to name some off the top of my head.  (It helps that I'm in a First Amendment class this semester.)  Once again, the law is not black and white, there are shades of grey in anny issue.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on February 25, 2009, 02:31:56 pm
Alex i am not claiming it is a good thing. I am saying that is how it works. At least in a democracy. But that is why open debate is so impotent and that any change in the basic rights of the citizens in a democracy must take time and very well founded.

(Also i like to point out that the French revolution did open up for new ideas and had a positive side to it. Revolutions however seldom turns out well. I can not really name one that did. (American revolution was not so much a revolution as a secession form the British crown. It did turn out pretty well however.))
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on February 25, 2009, 03:03:54 pm
You're doing the all or nothing thing again, Axel.  The truth is that, in the US, at least, there are several types of speech that are not protected: libel, slander, fighting words, child pornography, and the classic example of yelling fire in a theater, to name some off the top of my head.  (It helps that I'm in a First Amendment class this semester.)  Once again, the law is not black and white, there are shades of grey in anny issue.

Wrong. Those things are not illegal as a denial of free speech, but on violations of other rights. One does not supersede the others and, hence, the violation of one of said rights causes the freedom to use the others to be negated to some extent.

-Libel: Protected IF the statements are true. If they are false, they constitute an attack on the person and, therefore, are criminal in nature. The speech is protected, your attack is not.
-Slander: Libel, but spoken.
-Fighting Words: Fighting Words ARE protected, they simply indemnify another party if they attack you. You're allowed to say Fighting Words
-Child Pornography: Do I really need to explain how this violates someone's rights?
-Yelling Fire in a Theatre: The statement used creates a danger to the life and limb of others when performed due to deliberate actions on your part. It's also probably in violation of the policies of the theatre owners. Hence, again, not a restriction of freedom of speech, just a protection of other rights.

As I like to say, your speech is free, you just have to deal with the consequences.

Alex

For the love of chili-cheese fries, it's Axel! Why does no-one get this right!? Nothing against you, Yokto, but so many seem to think it's Alex. It's not.

i am not claiming it is a good thing. I am saying that is how it works. At least in a democracy. But that is why open debate is so impotent and that any change in the basic rights of the citizens in a democracy must take time and very well founded.

Which is a key point of why I hate democracy and favour republics. A democracy, a.k.a. mob rule, is like two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for lunch. A republic has a list of what's not on the menu... And typically grants the sheep a gun to defend itself just in case.

(Also i like to point out that the French revolution did open up for new ideas and had a positive side to it. Revolutions however seldom turns out well. I can not really name one that did. (American revolution was not so much a revolution as a secession form the British crown. It did turn out pretty well however.))

Some revolutions do turn out well but, yes, they are rare in their successes both in achieving change and being a positive outcome.

The French Revolution was a witch-hunt later on, though. That's why you have things like the Red Terror, where the blood from the guillotines ran so thick that huge trenches had to be dug to accommodate it. Eventually, Paris stank of rot and decay because of it.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on February 25, 2009, 03:22:34 pm
Sorry Axel, but you are wrong.  There are restrictions on the freedom of speech, plain and simple.  Here's a more complete list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States#Types_of_restraints_on_speech
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: MetallicDragon on February 25, 2009, 03:30:07 pm
Denying someone of free speech for any reason is still denial of free speech... that's kind of the definition.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on February 25, 2009, 03:34:45 pm
Republic for me as a system governed my a elected minority elected by a minority. Like the Roman Republic. This minor general serves is own interests and not the common man.

However i believe in democracy and that educating the population is the way to do it rather the trying to build some prefect ideal government. (Because lets face it. The only government that can become better and better is that which changes with the times.)

I want as much freedom of speech as possible without directly harming someone. That does not mean the law was prefect form the beginning. I am glad that in Sweden Child Pornography is now illegal for example.

In the end the world is not black and white. We need laws we can work with.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on February 25, 2009, 10:01:27 pm
Sorry Axel, but you are wrong.  There are restrictions on the freedom of speech, plain and simple.  Here's a more complete list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States#Types_of_restraints_on_speech

Those restrictions aren't restrictions, per say, but simply enforcement of other guarantees of rights. Freedom of Speech, one could say, is always free, but you just have to deal with the consequences. As such, if your speech results in defamation of character, you can be charged with slander. However, if it does not, you can not.

This is different from, say, littering, in which hurling garbage on public property is a crime, or assault, in which case any such action is a crime. Yelling profanities is not a crime. Yelling them at someone and harassing them is but only because it his harassment, not because the speech is somehow wrong. You could be yelling Rubber Baby Buggy Bumpers, the speech is fine, but the actions it invokes are not.

Your speech is free, the consequences will cost you, as it were. Why do you think just about every single one of the things you linked to there is not a felony but, rather, a civil matter? Fighting words, for example, or slander, or libel. The only one that is criminal is any action that causes a potential danger to health and safety.

So, again, your speech is free, but the consequences may cost you. An example of the difference can be seen in libel. If you say so-and-so is bad and it affects their character in public society, they can sue you for whatever damages you may have caused (Though this is impossible if what you said is true). If there was a law against saying so-and-so is bad so that in doing so, you are automatically guilty of a crime, then this is a restriction of free speech. It's a thin line but it's there.

Edit: Pressed post too soon.

Republic for me as a system governed my a elected minority elected by a minority. Like the Roman Republic. This minor general serves is own interests and not the common man.

A Republic is a representative democracy with a constitution and a senate that exists to act as a "sober second thought". It is better than a standard democracy because it prevents mob rule and ensures that the majority cannot oppress the minority.

However i believe in democracy and that educating the population is the way to do it rather the trying to build some prefect ideal government. (Because lets face it. The only government that can become better and better is that which changes with the times.)

The best government is one that doesn't exist because it is not needed. However, since this is a pipe dream, we need a government that is going to work.

I want as much freedom of speech as possible without directly harming someone. That does not mean the law was prefect form the beginning. I am glad that in Sweden Child Pornography is now illegal for example.

Child pornography is a violation of a person's rights and, therefore, a crime. It has nothing to do with denying them the right to free speech.

Speech rights are, generally speaking, unlimited but that doesn't mean that you can't commit a crime in the process of exercising them. The two are not incompatible. Child pornography is not illegal because of any message involved being denied, it's why NAMBLA (A group that advocates pedophilia) is legal but child porn is not; because rights were violated in the process and, therefore, a criminal action was made.


I think we can agree here, at least to some extent...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: PatMan33 on February 25, 2009, 10:11:12 pm
It sounds like you're both kind of saying the same thing and all you're really doing is defending the way you said it. Maybe you need a new topic? :-[
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on February 25, 2009, 10:15:35 pm
Actually, Pat, I think you're pretty much right. Still, if my last Math teacher taught me anything, it's that even if you reach the right answer, if the way you reached it is flawed, it's still wrong.

Honestly, I think we can agree on certain things, at the very least to agree to disagree. I just view that freedom of speech is more or less unlimited in its exercise but, if you commit a crime or some other slanderous or libelous action in the process, the consequences of that action are still yours to deal with. Of course, I would try to limit the only things that can be claimed as being violations of rights of others, ensuring that any laws that could be created as attempts to circumvent Freedom of Speech would be invalid. Hence, for example, you couldn't make it a law that it's illegal to insult someone, or to speak badly of the government, since no rights are being violated there.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on February 25, 2009, 10:21:13 pm
Agree to disagree, then.  Though you and some of my Political Science professors would have fun together.

Moving on, Obama's not State of the Union address, and the Louisiana Governor's response.  Discuss amongst yourselves.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on February 25, 2009, 10:22:50 pm
Didn't see it. Don't really care. I like pie.

Seriously, though, it's late here, so I take my leave of politics for the night.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on February 26, 2009, 05:12:39 am
Moving on, Obama's not State of the Union address, and the Louisiana Governor's response.  Discuss amongst yourselves.

Link?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: PatMan33 on February 26, 2009, 06:22:11 am
Here's the speech, it's pretty good! Not sure if he'll be able to do any of what he said but it was a good speech.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHcNfHpWH5k

It basically starts here (Part 1 is a lot of applause) and you just have to follow the string of links along the way. There are seven parts including the first.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on February 26, 2009, 09:11:10 am
It sounds like you're both kind of saying the same thing and all you're really doing is defending the way you said it. Maybe you need a new topic? :-[

Axel always seems to do that. Even when i pretty much agree with him he still thinks i am against him.

Republic for me as a system governed my a elected minority elected by a minority. Like the Roman Republic. This minor general serves is own interests and not the common man.

A Republic is a representative democracy with a constitution and a senate that exists to act as a "sober second thought". It is better than a standard democracy because it prevents mob rule and ensures that the majority cannot oppress the minority.
[/quote]
Sounds just a bicameralism to me and not what defines a republic. I do not think there is any connection between the two actually. (Finland is normally seen as a Republic vs Sweden Constitutional Monarchy. We are both Unicameral however and our political systems are very simpler.)

But i am not sure two chambers are needed. In Sweden to change the constitution is not easy even with one chamber (The Riksdag). There needs to be a majority for the change in the constitution between two elections. In that way it might even be more efficient then a bi-cambial system. But i have not seen any real on the pros and cons of the systems.

(Also i mention the child pornography in Sweden because it was legal a wile back and defend with the freedom of speech but this was change. I am not that in to it. Making child pornography was however illegal before that but not possessing it. Freedom of Speech trails are also the only trails in Sweden that use a Jury.(Mob rule rather then Experts?))
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on March 17, 2009, 10:34:40 am
So everyone is really mad at AIG for giving their employees $165 million in (contractually obligated) bonuses now that the company is being propped up by the government.  It sounds like a bill will be proposed in the next 24 hours that would specifically tax those who got the bonuses to get the money back.  I have a problem with a law that specific, but I guess when the government pays to run the company, it can do things like that.  Here's an article:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/17/aig.bonuses/index.html

but what really got my attention in the article is this:

Quote
Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa didn't appear to be joking, however, when he spoke with Cedar Rapids, Iowa, radio station WMT.

"I would suggest the first thing that would make me feel a little better toward them [AIG executives] is if they follow the Japanese example and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say, 'I am sorry,' and then either do one of two things: resign or go commit suicide," he said.

"And in the case of the Japanese, they usually commit suicide."


Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brandonazz on March 17, 2009, 03:28:36 pm
What.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Andrew Ryan on March 17, 2009, 04:11:23 pm
(http://i194.photobucket.com/albums/z23/cakin12/cute12.gif)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on March 17, 2009, 04:40:28 pm
Hardly the worst blunder a politician has ever made but something tells me that someone more in touch could have informed this gentleman that hari-kari has fallen into disfavour with the Japanese. What's next, calling Japan Nippon?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Josasa on March 17, 2009, 04:51:04 pm
Hardly the worst blunder a politician has ever made but something tells me that someone more in touch could have informed this gentleman that hari-kari has fallen into disfavour with the Japanese. What's next, calling Japan Nippon?

Well if you wanted to get really technical it wouldn't be Nippon, but Nihon.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on March 17, 2009, 09:28:45 pm
A bit late on this one, but just a little information on President O'Bama.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/17/obama-tells-visiting-president-i%e2%80%99m-a-little-bit-irish-too/
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Daxx on March 18, 2009, 04:44:33 am
A bit late on this one, but just a little information on President O'Bama.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/17/obama-tells-visiting-president-i%e2%80%99m-a-little-bit-irish-too/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6K8yfQYOTQ

Relevant bit at 3:20 to 3:40. Couldn't find a shorter clip, sorry.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on March 19, 2009, 10:32:30 am
The link, she is broken!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Gungnir on March 24, 2009, 08:35:38 pm
Back to that proposition 8 thing: Here's a video that is incredibly hypocritical and...well, yeah.

http://www.ornery.org/preservingmarriage.html

WOW. Are any of these arguments not contradictory of themselves?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Andrew Ryan on March 24, 2009, 08:46:09 pm
No, all of them are religiously motivated.

All of them.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Daxx on March 24, 2009, 09:02:39 pm
Ugh. I seriously cannot fathom people who are actually that bigoted, that they would use non-reasons like those to discriminate against and repress others based on their religion, and not any actual reasons based on civics.

I guess it just goes to illustrate that old saying - that America's freedom of religion extends to choosing what church you attend.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on March 25, 2009, 06:12:11 am
They make some valid points. They're just arguing for/against the wrong thing. They're arguing against gay "marriage" for the reasons of the consequent legal actions that may follow, not because of the act itself.

For example, Churches that rent out their grounds for weddings being forced to do so to homosexual couples is actually fairly possible. It isn't like the acknowledgment of gay "rights" hasn't led to stupid stuff before in religious organizations, like eHarmony (http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2008/11/19/eharmony-settles-lawsuit-starts-gay-site) (Which, for the uninformed, was founded and outright claims to be a Christian dating site).

There's also things like adoption agencies. Catholic adoption agencies DON'T give children to people they view as unfit, and this includes those they consider morally unfit. They're allowed to deny on the grounds of them being single parents now, but if this changes... Well, if you watched the video, you'd know that they were more willing to close their adoption agencies in Massachusetts than comply with the law.

They're objecting to governments effectively giving gays the ability to force religious organizations to act like their principles don't matter. That's a very legitimate objection with a very real reason behind it.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on March 25, 2009, 08:19:52 am
I don't see why we are talking about Proposition 8 again, the vote took place almost five months ago.  Remember that this was a constitutional amendment in California, not a Bible Belt state.  I kinda doubt that the majority of California voters were motivated solely by religion.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on March 25, 2009, 09:26:50 am
Personally, I figure that we should abolish marriage contracts and replace them with civil unions for everyone but I think I said that already.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on March 25, 2009, 10:28:29 am
...Yeah, I don't think you're going to find much support for that.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on March 25, 2009, 10:32:47 am
Depends on how it is sold in. This is actually something that has become of interest in Sweden, even by the church. Simply have a system which legally handles civil unions then the church may have whatever marriage ceremony they wish. This is in line with the idea to separate the church form the state. Something most Swedes and Americans agree on.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: /lurk on March 25, 2009, 11:48:02 am
You'll have to forgive me if I descend into speeking my branes, but the Church vs. LGBT is a case where I reckon the proper solution is very obvious and I just don't understand what everyone's worried about.

For example, Churches that rent out their grounds for weddings being forced to do so to homosexual couples is actually fairly possible. It isn't like the acknowledgment of gay "rights" hasn't led to stupid stuff before in religious organizations, like eHarmony (http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2008/11/19/eharmony-settles-lawsuit-starts-gay-site) (Which, for the uninformed, was founded and outright claims to be a Christian dating site).
So they're selling a service - for profit - but you can't use it because you're blackgay. Absurd.

The implication of a site like eHarmony is that gay people can't be Christian, which is clearly untrue. A dating site for Christians would be expected to provide its service to Christians, which eHarmony clearly wasn't doing.

Quote
There's also things like adoption agencies. Catholic adoption agencies DON'T give children to people they view as unfit, and this includes those they consider morally unfit. They're allowed to deny on the grounds of them being single parents now, but if this changes... Well, if you watched the video, you'd know that they were more willing to close their adoption agencies in Massachusetts than comply with the law.
Why would we want people so clearly bigoted running an adoption service in the first place?

When the equality act was introduced in the UK, the catholic adoption agencies griped for a few weeks and then caved in.

Quote
They're objecting to governments effectively giving gays the ability to force religious organizations to act like their principles don't matter. That's a very legitimate objection with a very real reason behind it.
If people had the right to violate the laws of the land because of their religion, I'd have converted to Satanism ages ago.

The Dark Prince requires virgins to slake his lust... by proxy.



Exaggerated, full of bile and maybe a strawman or two, I know. But who could disagree?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Daxx on March 25, 2009, 11:58:55 am
...Yeah, I don't think you're going to find much support for that.

I'd support that. The government has no place promoting religious institutions through the legal system. If there are genuine reasons for promoting stable family environments through tax breaks, legal protection and so forth it should not be predicated on a religious ceremony.

Unfortunately your argument earlier was predicated on the fact that religious institutions should be able to break the law because of their religion. If a racist person wants to operate an adoption agency, they cannot deny services to black people because anti-discrimination law serves to protect against that sort of bigotry. There is little to no difference between the two circumstances, only the homophobes are using religion to protect themselves from the implications of their actions. I think /lurk explained this already, but it deserves restating.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on March 25, 2009, 12:06:27 pm
What I mean is that I don't think you're going to find much support for that in the voting population of most states.  If a state like California votes to not recognize gay marriage, I doubt many states would vote to 'unrecognize' straight marriage.  I know that isn't what you are saying, but I'm certain it would be portrayed that way.

Also, I think you are giving me credit for one of Axel's arguments.  Please, please don't confuse the two of us.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on March 25, 2009, 03:48:34 pm
I'd support that. The government has no place promoting religious institutions through the legal system. If there are genuine reasons for promoting stable family environments through tax breaks, legal protection and so forth it should not be predicated on a religious ceremony.

I agree. The marriage contract, as established, is clearly based on marriage as laid down in the Bible, which is why incest is banned (Even before the discovery of genetics), why only two people may get married, why those incapable of reproducing couldn't get married until recently...

At least in the US, it's a clear act of favouritism to one religion over all others beliefs or the lack thereof.

Unfortunately your argument earlier was predicated on the fact that religious institutions should be able to break the law because of their religion. If a racist person wants to operate an adoption agency, they cannot deny services to black people because anti-discrimination law serves to protect against that sort of bigotry.

Which, coincidentally, I think is stupid. If the adoption agency they run is a private institution, they should be entirely within their rights to exercise Freedom of Association. It's not a fun or nice thing but rights are a two-way street. If people find this adoption agency's policies offensive, they can object to them and not donate money to them.

There is little to no difference between the two circumstances, only the homophobes are using religion to protect themselves from the implications of their actions. I think /lurk explained this already, but it deserves restating.

There's NO difference between them. Lots of anti-black types use religious material to support them. It doesn't change the point here. I don't condone their condemnation but I defend their right to do so.

You'll have to forgive me if I descend into speeking my branes, but the Church vs. LGBT is a case where I reckon the proper solution is very obvious and I just don't understand what everyone's worried about.

If people disagree, maybe the solution isn't as obvious as you think.  ::)

So they're selling a service - for profit - but you can't use it because you're blackgay. Absurd.

The implication of a site like eHarmony is that gay people can't be Christian, which is clearly untrue. A dating site for Christians would be expected to provide its service to Christians, which eHarmony clearly wasn't doing.

Except when you consider that some denominations consider homosexuality to be unChristian, some even believe it represents possession by a demon, a belief they are entitled to as much as you are that being gay is no big deal.

A private organization is ALLOWED to say "I'm sorry, but we don't want to serve you" because of a criteria they set. Or would you say "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service" is somehow discriminatory against nudists?

Why would we want people so clearly bigoted running an adoption service in the first place?

When the equality act was introduced in the UK, the catholic adoption agencies griped for a few weeks and then caved in.

Why would WE? Heh, clearly you need to define we there. I would say that it's not something I'd want, no, but, thankfully, we don't get to demand such things of people, or, at least, we shouldn't. It's wrong to say "Hey, your beliefs are bad, so you don't get to decide what you do with your money."

No-one's rights are being violated here, except those of the Church.

If people had the right to violate the laws of the land because of their religion, I'd have converted to Satanism ages ago.

The Dark Prince requires virgins to slake his lust... by proxy.



Exaggerated, full of bile and maybe a strawman or two, I know. But who could disagree?

I can. It's a strawman to the factor of ten. No rights are violated here. It's not a violation of someone's rights to discriminate against them unless their rights are violated in the process. If someone doesn't like gays, it's exercising Freedom of Conscience to feel that way and the same goes for anyone who doesn't care. If someone doesn't want to associate or do business with gays, it's Freedom of Association for them to do so. As long as they accept no government money in regards to this business or what have you, it's none of your business and none of mine either.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: HanianKnight on March 25, 2009, 05:54:24 pm
While possibly a bit off-topic, it still pertains to the gay marriage argument...

I don't really see why the churches are so opposed to it. If gay marriage was legalized(correct me if I'm wrong) wouldn't churches still have the right to not perform them? I'm pretty sure that some churches don't perform marriages if there is a massive age difference, or if one of the spouses is not the same religion. Legalizing gay marriage wouldn't force churches to do anything, it would just allow other churches to perform them and have the union recognized by the government.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Andrew Ryan on March 25, 2009, 06:38:56 pm
It's not that, it would just legally recognize gay marriage as having the same moral and legal as regular marriage. It would also force everyone within the state to recognize gay marriage as a legitimate form of marriage, which is against most Christians (including moderate Christians) theological and moral beliefs.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Null on March 25, 2009, 06:47:00 pm

I can. It's a strawman to the factor of ten. No rights are violated here. It's not a violation of someone's rights to discriminate against them unless their rights are violated in the process. If someone doesn't like gays, it's exercising Freedom of Conscience to feel that way and the same goes for anyone who doesn't care. If someone doesn't want to associate or do business with gays, it's Freedom of Association for them to do so. As long as they accept no government money in regards to this business or what have you, it's none of your business and none of mine either.

Oh, I see, racism and discrimination is oaky as long as you don't drag the government into it. It is people's inherent right to deny employment to someone because of their race, sex, or gender. And to say that those people have to treat everyone fairly would infringe on the freedom of the bigots to be bigots. You defend the right to be racist because its an opinion and people have the right to their opinion? What about the right to be treated as a equal as a human being? Does that not count?

I'm sorry for the sarcasm but the fact that you are arguing that it is a basic right to be able to  deny other people basic rights blows my mind.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: /lurk on March 25, 2009, 06:50:18 pm
I can.

Yes, but you're Axelgear. You'll argue against anything that makes sense.


I'm a bit miffed about how you think it's okay to deprive people of the right to adopt and marry freely in favour of the rights of people to be bigoted.

I mean, the second isn't even a legal right that people have.

It's not that, it would just legally recognize gay marriage as having the same moral and legal as regular marriage. It would also force everyone within the state to recognize gay marriage as a legitimate form of marriage, which is against most Christians (including moderate Christians) theological and moral beliefs.

I would think that part of being deemed "a moderate Christian" is not flying off into a foaming rage whenever someone implies that homosexuals might be entitled to human rights too.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on March 25, 2009, 07:00:35 pm
Actually, Hanian, it's already happened in some areas. For example, there's a private campground owned by the United Methodist Church group in New Jersey. Emphasis on private; it's owned entirely by the UMC).

A gay couple wanted to use the campground for a civil union ceremony, but were denied for obvious reasons. They sued the Church and won, resulting in the Church losing tax exempt status on the park property.

Seems to me that they have a very legitimate claim here in respect to that.

Oh, I see, racism and discrimination is oaky as long as you don't drag the government into it. It is people's inherent right to deny employment to someone because of their race, sex, or gender. And to say that those people have to trade everyone fairly would infringe on the freedom of the bigots to be bigots. You defend the right to be racist because its an opinion and people have the right to their opinion? What alternate plane of reality do you inhabit again?

You say like I disagree with any of these things. Discrimination against someone for an innate feature that they can't control like race or sex or gender is silly; people are people. If it evolves into full blown hatred, I'd call it reprehensible.

However, yes, you said it perfectly. I defend the right of someone to their beliefs. They are free to be as racist and as stupid as they want to be because rights are a two-way street. We have to let them be free to believe what they want to believe or we eliminate the basis for our own.

No, it is not. Bus companies can't say "all blacks must sit in the bank of the bus" anymore. You can't put up a help wanted sign and say "Irish need not apply".

Bus companies can't and don't primarily because they're publicly owned or subsidized. Even if they weren't, it's bad for business, for the same reason said sign would be a bad idea.

I don't agree with racism, but I think that making laws against people holding and espousing such beliefs are wrong and dangerous.

Yes, but you're Axelgear. You'll argue against anything that makes sense.

And you're Lurk. You'll argue in favour of whatever you believe is morally right without consideration of implications. It's who we are.

I'm a bit miffed about how you think it's okay to deprive people of the right to adopt and marry freely in favour of the rights of people to be bigoted.

I mean, the second isn't even a legal right that people have.

Maybe not in your country, but it is in Canada and the US. It's called the Right to Freedom of Conscience. It's the right to determine, espouse, and hold your beliefs, no matter how bigoted and full of hatred, regardless of societal opinion.

I would think that part of being deemed "a moderate Christian" is not flying off into a foaming rage whenever someone implies that homosexuals might be entitled to human rights too.

Last I checked, marriage contracts were a privilege, not a right. This is another reason why I suggest civil unions for everyone, though; because they're mutable that way, and can be argued on the basis of what is logical, not dogma.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: /lurk on March 25, 2009, 07:06:28 pm
You say like I disagree with any of these things. Discrimination against someone for an innate feature that they can't control like race or sex or gender is silly; people are people. If it evolves into full blown hatred, I'd call it reprehensible.

However, yes, you said it perfectly. I defend the right of someone to their beliefs. They are free to be as racist and as stupid as they want to be because rights are a two-way street. We have to let them be free to believe what they want to believe or we eliminate the basis for our own.

Actually it seems that what you're saying is that it's okay for them to act on their beliefs, which is a very different thing.

You don't have to persecute gays at every opportunity to "not like gays."
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: HanianKnight on March 25, 2009, 07:09:51 pm
Wait, so the Church wasn't forced to perform the ceremony, they just lost their tax-exempt status?

Well if Civil Ceremonies were legal in New Jersey at the time, then the Church could be seen as "Why let a Church that doesn't want to go along with state laws get tax-exempt status from the state".

In that case the Church still doesn't have to perform the ceremony, they just have to start paying taxes.


(In case something was factually incorrect about tax-exempt status, I'll just point out that I know very little about it).
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Null on March 25, 2009, 07:10:35 pm
Incredible, Axelgear. I will only reiterate my comment that your right to hold a discriminatory opinion and act upon it does not trump others right to be treated as an equal as a human being. Not by a long shot.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on March 25, 2009, 07:32:44 pm
It's not persecution to disagree with them. These aren't people breaking into gay homes and beating them or spraying "bundle of sticks meant for kindling" (You know what I'm talking about) on their wall, they're peacefully disagreeing with an attempt to alter a legal contract.

They're free to act on their beliefs too, Lurk, for exactly the same reasons. They're free to do so until it impacts another person's rights (As the saying goes, your right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins). They're also free to advocate public policy as they see fit and this is just one circumstance of such.

I will repeat that I agree that marriage contracts are discriminatory and it needs to change. I believe I stated before (And if I didn't, I apologize) that they were arguing against the consequences of it passing and that was what raised some good points, like government controlling private institutions and forcing them to commit actions that violate their rights (Such as Free Association).


Wait, so the Church wasn't forced to perform the ceremony, they just lost their tax-exempt status?

Well if Civil Ceremonies were legal in New Jersey at the time, then the Church could be seen as "Why let a Church that doesn't want to go along with state laws get tax-exempt status from the state".

In that case the Church still doesn't have to perform the ceremony, they just have to start paying taxes.


(In case something was factually incorrect about tax-exempt status, I'll just point out that I know very little about it).

Tax exempt status was withdrawn because they refused to comply with a local law that states that people must be treated equally with regard to race, gender, etc.

Churches are granted tax exempt status because they're a non-profit organization, for the same reason sports groups, labour unions, veterans groups, and so on, all are. They didn't change their methods or become for-profit. Their status was revoked because they stuck to their principles despite a law that violated their rights.

I can guarantee that if this was for a less savory group (Say, a White Power rally) wanting to use the grounds for a meeting place and the Church said no, they'd not be in the same situation, despite apparent discrimination for someone because of their beliefs.

Incredible, Axelgear. I will only reiterate my comment that your right to hold a discriminatory opinion and act upon it does not trump others right to be treated as an equal as a human being. Not by a long shot.

You don't have a right to be treated as an equal by anyone but a government body. Your rights are to be treated with respect, but you don't have to be. It's someone's right to hold their beliefs, and you don't get to determine them. After all, if you had a right to be treated as an equal, wouldn't businesses giving better customers better service plans be a form of illegal discrimination?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Daxx on March 25, 2009, 07:45:30 pm
Incredible, Axelgear. I will only reiterate my comment that your right to hold a discriminatory opinion and act upon it does not trump others right to be treated as an equal as a human being. Not by a long shot.

You don't have a right to be treated as an equal by anyone but a government body. Your rights are to be treated with respect, but you don't have to be. It's someone's right to hold their beliefs, and you don't get to determine them. After all, if you had a right to be treated as an equal, wouldn't businesses giving better customers better service plans be a form of illegal discrimination?

And here's the heart of your faulty reasoning.

Unfortunately in the modern world, we recognise the rights of people to be treated as equals whether that's by an individual, a business or organisation with some sort of public stakeholdership or whether that's the government. This extends from the right not to be murdered, to the right not to be assaulted, to the right not to be sexually harrassed, to the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of colour, and to the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of sexuality as examples.

These rights are not intrinsic, but then neither is the right to freedom of speech (as we've covered before). No right is "god given", they are state given as part of the social contract which the members of the group (or more specifically in this case the social planners and lawmakers) draw amongst themselves and impose on their members.

As such, we recognise two conflicting rights - the right of the individual to be free from discrimination, and the right of the organisation to freedom of religious practice (note: not in this case the right to freedom of religious belief, as you say, since it's strictly impinging on their actions, not beliefs). In general society regards the former to supersede the latter, or for there at the least to be a grey area - /lurk's facetious remark about Satan worshippers sacrificing virgins demonstrates the point quite effectively. Furthermore, in this specific circumstance remember that one group is getting preferential treatment by the government and therefore this preferential treatment is being withdrawn because they are failing in their legal requirements (leading us neatly back to the discussion before about marriage).
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: eropS on March 25, 2009, 07:49:28 pm
Boy am i happy Daxx is back, this thread is fun to read again!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on March 25, 2009, 07:58:37 pm
Alright, I'll agree, my statement was erroneous. A human must be seen as a human being for rights to be respected, but that's really as much as it comes down to.

I do not disagree that marriage contracts are discriminatory, so they need to be changed or fixed in some way. As such, I'll list my points:

1. Marriage contracts, at present, are discriminatory. This needs to change.

2. A person has a right to their opinions and beliefs, even if they're discriminatory.

3. The Church has a valid reason to be fearful of the legalization of gay marriage, due to the legal consequences.

4. They shouldn't have to be, as long as property rights and rights to freedom of association and conscience are respected.

I feel that there is some level of misinterpretation in my statements, so I thought I'd clarify it. I feel that, for example, if a diner doesn't want to let gays or people of a certain race in, they shouldn't have to because it's private property. If things like property rights were protected in this way, then the Church wouldn't need to worry because gays couldn't force them to acknowledge them. This would take legs out of the Church opposition to homosexuals getting "marriage contracts" and, at the same time, protect the Church from having their beliefs, practices, and property attacked.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Daxx on March 25, 2009, 08:04:47 pm
Okay, so this leads to the more interesting discussion about why churches fear the implications of equal rights. You mention legal repercussions - what specifically do you see churches facing?

For now, let's run with the example of a revocation of tax exempt status, which has come up already. Why do churches have tax exempt status? If it because they are religious institutions, why do they have tax exempt status in the first place? If it is because it is a charitable organisation, what legal responsibilities do they have, in order to maintain that status?

EDIT: Let's have other people weigh in on this too, don't feel like you can't contribute.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on March 25, 2009, 08:21:13 pm
It's actually neither. They're a tax-exempt organization because they're a non-profit organization. Sports groups, labour unions, and other similar groups are also tax-exempt for the same reasons. It's a 501(c) form, look it up if you would like to know more about it.

Now, as for the implications, it's fairly simple. Their adoption agencies would be forced, by law, to give enhanced status to gay couples when, before, they were more free to deny them (They don't want to, period, though, and shouldn't have to justify it, I think, as long as they're not getting subsidized). It was denying them on a technicality but I argue that they should be free to set their own standards, as long as the parents they give the children to aren't legally unfit.

It's also a fear that they will be forced to let gays have ceremonies on Church grounds because, if they don't, they'll be charged with discrimination, a charge that would undoubtedly come out in favour of the homosexual couples because it's true. It's an immoral thing to make illegal, though.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Raz on March 25, 2009, 08:30:01 pm
Churches as non-profit organizations is rather shaky grounds. All their 'donations' give them quite a bit of money in most cases, and some even squeeze their members for as much as possible. The only real reason they remain tax-exempt is because of tradition. I don't think I've ever heard of any nation successfully taxing churches for very long. The Catholic Church is by far the best example in both the past and current of how not non-profit churches are.

Also, what do you mean by sports groups? Not leagues like the NBA or NFL, those are very much profiting organizations.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on March 25, 2009, 08:36:12 pm
That they are. I meant things like amateur sports teams, as covered under 501(c)(3).

Just for my personal amusement, I list the following extra examples:

-501(c)(13) - Cemetery companies
-501(c)(21) - Black lung Benefit Trusts
-501(c)(5) - Horticultural associations.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Null on March 25, 2009, 08:42:32 pm
I would say that church, as a organization, needs funds to exist. Facilities need maintenance, things need to be bought, and activates need to be funded. Where you think the money comes from to build a church in the first place? Large organizations take a lot of funds to keep up and running. When you donate to any non-profit, a large chunk of your donations go into just keeping things up and running within the organization itself, because that framework needs to exist before anything else can happen.

You may think churches are ripping people off, but most of that money goes into mundane, necessary stuff that you don't really see from the outside.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on March 25, 2009, 08:46:42 pm
And, when you consider that you're also funding their spread, money is expected to go into that too. Churches, by most any definition, exist to proselytize, so spending money to build more hardly goes against their core values. They don't exist to make a profit, they exist to spread their doctrine.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Raz on March 25, 2009, 08:47:37 pm
That doesn't stop their being used to make money.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Null on March 25, 2009, 08:50:55 pm
It exists on donations. A non-profit that does not make money does not exist very long.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Raz on March 25, 2009, 08:52:43 pm
Or they should give back whatever they don't use, instead of possibly using it for building projects. I'm pretty sure at this point, church 'expansion' is pretty pointless since they're practically everywhere in any 'flavor'.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on March 25, 2009, 08:57:17 pm
It's not pointless to its members. They can't give it back either because donations are not equal and it'd just be a colossal waste of money to do so when it can be used for charity or to help Church programs.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Raz on March 25, 2009, 09:00:13 pm
I said whatever they don't use.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Null on March 25, 2009, 09:03:55 pm
I think they save up any extra for lean times, or future projects. Anyways, its impossible to know who put in what amount in the collection plate (thats what makes it so nice when you attend the church service with someone you know who wants you to be there. 1's look alot like any other bill from a distance) so they wouldn't know how much you have in the first place, let alone refund you.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on March 25, 2009, 09:05:48 pm
I actually tried to look into that once; how much groups like the Catholic Church rake in. I can't find any details but I didn't look hard. They do have a lot of money stockpiled, though, and I would assume it's for those very reasons, Null, given that the amount going in and going out is STAGGERINGLY high. This is, after all, an organization that caters to over a sixth of the world's population, a number I can only imagine Coca Cola or McDonalds being able to rival.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Null on March 25, 2009, 09:22:05 pm
Join the catholic church and get a filling whopper for your soul. The Church - we [ful]fill your soul up.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on March 26, 2009, 10:51:56 am
All churches are not created equal.  There is a huge difference, financial and otherwise, between a large Catholic church with support from Rome and say a little rural independent Church of God congregation that barely meets the bills every week.  Some churches no doubt build up more savings than necessary and the pastor gets stinking rich, while others give as much as they can into outreach, such as helping the poor.  A fiscally responsible church should have some money in savings for a rainy day fund, the same as any person or organization.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on April 07, 2009, 03:49:45 pm
Yeah, it's a double post.  You gonna do something about it?

President Obama has filled another vital administration position.  Cue the pot jokes in 3...2... (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/07/actor-kal-penn-joining-the-obama-administration/)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on April 07, 2009, 03:51:43 pm
Maybe this is why he left House?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: emmet on April 07, 2009, 04:06:55 pm
An actor? In politics? This is madness!

>_>

<_<
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Andrew Ryan on April 07, 2009, 04:56:08 pm
Well if an Austrian Bodybuilder can be Governor of California...

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on April 07, 2009, 05:22:52 pm
Why is it everyone who hears "actor" and "politics" thinks Arnold? What, you forgot Ronald Reagan? He was the bloody President!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Andrew Ryan on April 07, 2009, 05:41:22 pm
Well yeah, but he was a crap actor. At least Arnold had some talent...

The key word being "some".
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on April 07, 2009, 09:07:37 pm
I don't think Reagan was a bad actor, his stuff is just a lot older than Ahnold's movies.  Though I can't recall ever seeing a Reagan movie and I've seen tons of movies with the Governator.  Evil robots from the future get more air time on tv than black and white cowboy movies.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on April 08, 2009, 06:53:25 am
Depends on the channel you watch. The Western Channel, for example...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on May 25, 2009, 01:20:24 pm
So hey, I hear Members of the British Parliament have been spending all kinds of government money on personal expenses, and everybody's upset about it.  Any of our members from the United Kingdom want to give their opinion on it?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Plank of Wood on May 25, 2009, 01:26:31 pm
It's hiliarious. Seriously, everyone in the UK MUST watch Have I Got News For You while this expenses thing is still going on.

"Brown has managed to convince the UN that our primary place of residence is the Falkland Islands and Britian is a holiday home which is thus paid for with the expenses claims."
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Daxx on May 25, 2009, 01:38:49 pm
So hey, I hear Members of the British Parliament have been spending all kinds of government money on personal expenses, and everybody's upset about it.  Any of our members from the United Kingdom want to give their opinion on it?

It's been a bit of an old boy's club for years, and spending money on personal expenses is nothing new. No-one really cared all that much as long as they weren't abusing it overly, but a few people went too far. That, and then tried to defend it (which is what really turned it into a scandal of broadsheet proportions). Reform will probably be good for Parliament.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Huckbuck on May 25, 2009, 01:58:00 pm
I've heard they've got some pretty old fashioned traditions in the Parliament, there was something about the distance between the seatings of the different parties, it was a bit longer than two swords lenghts so that no duelling would occur :P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on May 25, 2009, 02:45:00 pm
What about a pistol duel? >_>
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brandonazz on May 25, 2009, 02:46:04 pm
It's a very old tradition.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on May 25, 2009, 03:22:21 pm
I was going to suggest a duel with spears or something, but then I guess that would hardly be chivalrous.  We were much more creative with our duels in the US.  Like, say, a duel with barrels of gunpowder.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Plank of Wood on May 25, 2009, 03:46:05 pm
The Queen can't enter parliament and the house of lords wear wigs. That's about it.

Our duels involve throwing scandals at eachother and making everyone cheat on their wives. I'm sure it should be at least two rent boys apart in length in that case.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Haseri on May 28, 2009, 04:25:35 am
Also, you can't call anyone a liar.

Yeah, we're pretty crazy...

The Daily Show report on the expences thing was pretty good as well. But Have I Got News For You is required watching.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bona Fide Supraman on May 28, 2009, 04:08:24 pm
So hey, I hear Members of the British Parliament have been spending all kinds of government money on personal expenses, and everybody's upset about it.  Any of our members from the United Kingdom want to give their opinion on it?

Yeh, it's been massively abused, but I do kinda feel for some of the MP's. What a lot of people seem to be forgetting is that they do have a housing allowance for a reason. People seem to be angry about people decorating second homes with the allowances, but it would be covered by second homes allowance for any other company in the world.

But on the other hand, a duck house and a moat is possibly taking it too far....

 
It's hiliarious. Seriously, everyone in the UK MUST watch Have I Got News For You while this expenses thing is still going on.

"Brown has managed to convince the UN that our primary place of residence is the Falkland Islands and Britian is a holiday home which is thus paid for with the expenses claims."

Great fun
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Plank of Wood on June 05, 2009, 10:04:03 am
Apperently Parliament is being reformed, or as the New Statesman put it: "THE PEOPLE'S REVENGE THE END OF AN ERA" accomanied by a picture of the House of Commons burning.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bona Fide Supraman on June 05, 2009, 10:45:59 am
Yeh, some good stuff going on in British Politics atm. We may even get a general election soon...but probably not. More likely, the second PM in a row we haven't voted for.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Haseri on June 05, 2009, 10:54:07 am
Nah, we're going to have Brown until the general election. When that is though, is another matter. It could be next year, it could be in a few months. We just don't know.

Hopefully, my Gran was successful in her council elections...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Saganmaineiac on June 05, 2009, 12:06:06 pm
we don't need a new MP, we need a new king! I've been waiting for Charles to succeed his mum for a while...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Plank of Wood on June 05, 2009, 02:17:02 pm
we don't need a new MP, we need a new king! I've been waiting for Charles to succeed his mum for a while...


Lolwut?


Anywhowm, Moth stroking and a new type of cloud over North Korea. That's right, this week's HIGNFY is out.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Gunner on June 05, 2009, 02:39:06 pm
we don't need a new MP, we need a new king! I've been waiting for Charles to succeed his mum for a while...
Lolwut?
He's from Maine, USA too.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: munchkin5 on June 05, 2009, 02:58:38 pm
It's funny because the twon he's from has the same name as a town on the english east coast not too far from where I live. But on another note the royals are useless.

In government we have a choice of Labour and the Tories, who are basically two sides of the same pack of cheating bastards, and the lib dems don't have enough of a chance to win really, due to a lack of numbers.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Plank of Wood on June 05, 2009, 03:02:48 pm
I should note that out of the Three Major parties the Lib Dems have the most posters up yet the least number of seats.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bona Fide Supraman on June 05, 2009, 04:06:20 pm
It's funny because the twon he's from has the same name as a town on the english east coast not too far from where I live. But on another note the royals are useless.

Why are they useless? They are figureheads and representatives of the country, and to that end they do a damn good job. What the hell makes them useless? Is it the money they have? Perhaps forgetting the money they bring into the country in the form of tourists wanting to see the queen.

And all the money they give to charity, not to mention the work they do in general towards charitable institutions.

But, you know, I guess you're far too much of a rebel to consider this, I mean they are royalty, so therefore must be useless, right?

In government we have a choice of Labour and the Tories, who are basically two sides of the same pack of cheating bastards, and the lib dems don't have enough of a chance to win really, due to a lack of numbers.

You say that, but had you been actually following the news you would have seen the results of the local elections, in which lib dems beat labour. Had it been a general election, conservative would have been in power, with lib dems as the opposition.

And what is that "cheating bastards" comment all about? Please evaluate.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Doomsday on June 05, 2009, 05:38:52 pm
And what is that "cheating bastards" comment all about? Please evaluate.

uhh... wha? Huh? I'm but a simple yank, but I would believe he is referring to the scandal in which a lot of members of your parliament and in your political parties were using tax money in gross and (assumingly) illegal and immoral ways. But what do I know? >.>
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on June 05, 2009, 08:57:36 pm
I thought the money was being spent in a mostly legal way, just using a loophole that the general public didn't know about or approve of.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Haseri on June 06, 2009, 01:23:09 am
Yay, my Gran won her council seat! Her county, Worcestershire, has, like 42 Tory councillors. And she's one of them.

HIGNFY just seems to get funnier each week. What luck they decided to be on air during this whole expences thing.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bona Fide Supraman on June 06, 2009, 03:09:18 am
And what is that "cheating bastards" comment all about? Please evaluate.

uhh... wha? Huh? I'm but a simple yank, but I would believe he is referring to the scandal in which a lot of members of your parliament and in your political parties were using tax money in gross and (assumingly) illegal and immoral ways. But what do I know? >.>

Not really. Almost all of them did it in legal ways, if exploiting a bit of a stupid system. I think what most people seem to be forgetting is that they are actually entitled to a second home allowance, and that is for the home and decorating + furnishing it.

Obviously there were the few dishonest ones that did things like "flipping," but it hardly seems fair to call all of them "cheating bastards."

What pisses me off the most about the story is that whilst the country is in billions of pounds worth of debt, for some reason it seems important that Gordon Brown paid back £180.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Plank of Wood on June 06, 2009, 03:17:48 am
using tax money in gross and (assumingly) illegal and immoral ways

I don't consider a few bags of dog biscuits and a house for ducks illegal.

The MPs were doing something that was technichly legal however it was extremely dishonest to use public money for things that MPs could afford themselves; or just being greedy with it and going on shopping sprees.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Doomsday on June 06, 2009, 06:57:16 am
Hey, I don't know how your politics work (which I believe I said in the first place). -_-' The whole English Parliamentary System is confusing and seems overly complicated to me. *shrugs*
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: munchkin5 on June 06, 2009, 07:32:36 am
It's funny because the twon he's from has the same name as a town on the english east coast not too far from where I live. But on another note the royals are useless.

Why are they useless? They are figureheads and representatives of the country, and to that end they do a damn good job. What the hell makes them useless? Is it the money they have? Perhaps forgetting the money they bring into the country in the form of tourists wanting to see the queen.

And all the money they give to charity, not to mention the work they do in general towards charitable institutions.

But, you know, I guess you're far too much of a rebel to consider this, I mean they are royalty, so therefore must be useless, right?


As in they have become redundant, they no longer serve a purspose for running the country, and basically use up a lot of money in the process. I'm not saying we should get rid of them, i'm just saying there isn't a lot of point in them being there. I'm not sure about the figures but despite tourism money they also use up a lot of money, including all that they give to charity. As far as i'm aware it comes from both a) their estates, and b) taxes. So them not being there would allow all of that to be spent in more important places.


In government we have a choice of Labour and the Tories, who are basically two sides of the same pack of cheating bastards, and the lib dems don't have enough of a chance to win really, due to a lack of numbers.

You say that, but had you been actually following the news you would have seen the results of the local elections, in which lib dems beat labour. Had it been a general election, conservative would have been in power, with lib dems as the opposition.

And what is that "cheating bastards" comment all about? Please evaluate.

As in Labour and Tories have similar policies, despite being opposing parties and it seems that for a while that what the British government has done, has been for the benefit of it's MPs and the better off people in the country. For instace labour gave tax breaks to big companies in the 90's.

Also you could blame the recent expenses scandal on the system, but ultimately parliment controls the system, and even then there were obvious abuses of it, like claims on mortgages that no longer exist and a local MP who tried to claim back a £5 charity donation.

Cheating bastards in retrospect was a bit harsh, although it still seems that people in government are doing a pretty bad job for the "man on the street". Even then it's unlikely that anyone new would make a noticeable diffrence and people would still complain like they always have.

I'm giving an "average joe's" viewpoint here, so if you have a deeper understanding of politics than i do and can tell me where things are going right in government at the moment then i'd be glad to hear them. It would definitely make a diffrence to the oppinions i get from my parents and the news.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bona Fide Supraman on June 06, 2009, 07:56:55 am
As in they have become redundant, they no longer serve a purspose for running the country, and basically use up a lot of money in the process. I'm not saying we should get rid of them, i'm just saying there isn't a lot of point in them being there. I'm not sure about the figures but despite tourism money they also use up a lot of money, including all that they give to charity. As far as i'm aware it comes from both a) their estates, and b) taxes. So them not being there would allow all of that to be spent in more important places.

No, they don't run the country, and haven't done for ages. They are figureheads, and the work they do is in strengthening relations with other countries and supporting worthy causes.

Sure, the taxpayer does pay for some, but that is pretty much just for travel and security. The estate generates a lot of money, it is true, but this is taking money from nobody. It is their estate. Removing any status from the royals wouldn't entitle anybody else to the estates. The BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5123580.stm) quotes the figure of taxpayer money being spent as £37.4m, which may seem a lot, but when you consider that they forgo rent on a huge amount of propoerty they own, it almost balances out. And £37.4m, to put that into perspective, that's the cost of one footballer.
 (http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/transfers/chelsea-consider-16340m-bid-for-villa-1698059.html)
As in Labour and Tories have similar policies, despite being opposing parties and it seems that for a while that what the British government has done, has been for the benefit of it's MPs and the better off people in the country. For instace labour gave tax breaks to big companies in the 90's.

Also you could blame the recent expenses scandal on the system, but ultimately parliment controls the system, and even then there were obvious abuses of it, like claims on mortgages that no longer exist and a local MP who tried to claim back a £5 charity donation.

Cheating bastards in retrospect was a bit harsh, although it still seems that people in government are doing a pretty bad job for the "man on the street". Even then it's unlikely that anyone new would make a noticeable diffrence and people would still complain like they always have.

I'm giving an "average joe's" viewpoint here, so if you have a deeper understanding of politics than i do and can tell me where things are going right in government at the moment then i'd be glad to hear them. It would definitely make a diffrence to the oppinions i get from my parents and the news.

So wait, you're claiming that the 2009 Budget (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/how-budget-affect-me/5202163/Budget-2009-Income-tax-hits-highest-level-in-20-years-with-clampdown-on-loopholes.html) was just benefiting the middle class?

The parties have both come towards the middle in recent years, yes, but that doesn't mean they are the same.

And as for the expenses scandal, I've already made my views on that clear in another topic. I mean, £5, who gives a ****, really? Yes it's immoral, and I'm sure he's been punished for it, but it's not even a drop in the ocean.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Didero on June 06, 2009, 08:18:51 am
And as for the expenses scandal, I've already made my views on that clear in another topic. I mean, £5, who gives a ****, really? Yes it's immoral, and I'm sure he's been punished for it, but it's not even a drop in the ocean.
So you're saying misbehaviour should go unpunished if the results aren't that big? :-\
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: munchkin5 on June 06, 2009, 09:09:17 am
As in Labour and Tories have similar policies, despite being opposing parties and it seems that for a while that what the British government has done, has been for the benefit of it's MPs and the better off people in the country. For instace labour gave tax breaks to big companies in the 90's.

Also you could blame the recent expenses scandal on the system, but ultimately Parliament controls the system, and even then there were obvious abuses of it, like claims on mortgages that no longer exist and a local MP who tried to claim back a £5 charity donation.

Cheating bastards in retrospect was a bit harsh, although it still seems that people in government are doing a pretty bad job for the "man on the street". Even then it's unlikely that anyone new would make a noticeable difference and people would still complain like they always have.

I'm giving an "average Joe's" viewpoint here, so if you have a deeper understanding of politics than i do and can tell me where things are going right in government at the moment then I'd be glad to hear them. It would definitely make a difference to the opinions i get from my parents and the news.

So wait, you're claiming that the 2009 Budget (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/how-budget-affect-me/5202163/Budget-2009-Income-tax-hits-highest-level-in-20-years-with-clampdown-on-loopholes.html) was just benefiting the middle class?

The parties have both come towards the middle in recent years, yes, but that doesn't mean they are the same.

And as for the expenses scandal, I've already made my views on that clear in another topic. I mean, £5, who gives a ****, really? Yes it's immoral, and I'm sure he's been punished for it, but it's not even a drop in the ocean.

The parties are still similar, even if they aren't the same, and the differences aren't significant enough to make any difference depending on which party was in power.

That guy still made a selfish and immoral decision (hence the earlier name calling), despite the fact it was only £5.

You also can't say that the system doesn't benefit MPs, and probably more than is fair. And although recently there has been more balance between who is effected by tax increases ect. there is still more they could do, for instace the U.K has some of the highest duty on fuel in Europe, which if you think about it will effect people on lower wages a lot more.

As for the royals, they are still unnecessary.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on June 06, 2009, 09:16:32 am
And as for the expenses scandal, I've already made my views on that clear in another topic. I mean, £5, who gives a ****, really? Yes it's immoral, and I'm sure he's been punished for it, but it's not even a drop in the ocean.
So you're saying misbehaviour should go unpunished if the results aren't that big? :-\

That's how punishment usually works.  You get in bigger trouble for stealing 5,000 than 5.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: munchkin5 on June 06, 2009, 10:12:14 am
What worries me is why, if it was only £5, he bothered putting in a claim, especially for a charity donation.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bona Fide Supraman on June 06, 2009, 10:19:51 am
And as for the expenses scandal, I've already made my views on that clear in another topic. I mean, £5, who gives a ****, really? Yes it's immoral, and I'm sure he's been punished for it, but it's not even a drop in the ocean.
So you're saying misbehaviour should go unpunished if the results aren't that big? :-\

No, I'm saying that atm England is in about £2 trillion worth of debt, yet we are worrying about a fiver? I mean, by all means, punish him, but as I said, it is the least of our worries.

That guy still made a selfish and immoral decision (hence the earlier name calling), despite the fact it was only £5.

Look above

The parties are still similar, even if they aren't the same, and the differences aren't significant enough to make any difference depending on which party was in power.

Well, they are. I mean, they just are. We aren't going to swing from communism to rigid capitalism, but, they are different. Look at Thatcher's Tory leadership, with mass privatisation, compared to today.

You also can't say that the system doesn't benefit MPs, and probably more than is fair. And although recently there has been more balance between who is effected by tax increases ect. there is still more they could do, for instace the U.K has some of the highest duty on fuel in Europe, which if you think about it will effect people on lower wages a lot more.

.....I'm thinking about it, really hard, yet still fail to see how it affects people on lower wages more...they both have to pay the same amount.

Hey, I don't agree with high income tax anyway. If you want money you have to work for it. Piss off should I be punished if I study hard and get a good job.

And as for MP's, British MP's are amongst the worst paid in Europe. People are having hissy fits about claims for furniture, which they are entitled to.

As for the royals, they are still unnecessary.

....Why? I just pointed out how useful they are. I mean, perhaps they aren't entirely necessary, but then neither is sport, or entertainment of any kind. This forum isn't necessary, neither is the internet in general. Hell, lets just go back to being hunter-gatherers if you want to claim that only things that are necessary are worth having.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: munchkin5 on June 06, 2009, 10:38:53 am
Higher prices effect people on lower wages more because they have less money to spend in the first place. E.g a man with £100 spends £5, he has spend 1/20 of all his money, a man with £1000 spends £5 he has only spent 1/200 of all his money.

And the descion that MP made was a descion a person in government shouldn't of made hence my problem with it, not that i think £5 is a lot of money in comparison to other government spending, which it clearly isn't.

You explained two reasons why the royals are useful, one was that they bring tourism to britain, which sdmitedly i hadn't considered, and secondly that they give money to charity. Yet i still don't see how this balances out with the amount of money being spent on them no-matter how much it seems insignificant in front of other things. I also don't see how at least one of those two things couldn't be done without them.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bona Fide Supraman on June 06, 2009, 11:46:06 am
But they are both spending £5, which is the point.

So are you arguing that any rise in costs is simply beating down on the poor? The costs rise for everyone.

And the MP, admittedly, was wrong. I'm not denying that and I hope appropriate action is taken, but it's been blown out of proportion massively, due to the nature of politics.

And as for the Royal family, what about the figurehead bit, diplomatic relations and all that. They do a good job and if we got rid of them it would be a disgrace.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: munchkin5 on June 06, 2009, 12:40:05 pm
The point with a rise in fuel prices is that it's a commodity which everybody uses and in most cases would find it very difficult to go without. So rising the price of it rises the price for everyone which has a bigger impact on low income families because they have less disposable income. Whereas rasing duty on things such as electrical items and luxury food items would also generate income but would effect the lower classes much less.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: PatMan33 on June 06, 2009, 12:41:53 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8u7px_GzWQ​
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bona Fide Supraman on June 06, 2009, 12:43:40 pm
If I'm honest, I think it's a matter of opinion as to whether you think that matters or not, though I see what you're saying.

Again, a righty here, so yeh.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on June 06, 2009, 01:44:24 pm
This is usually the part of the discussion where Lurk says something about how you're an evil objectivist who rides around in a limo, sneering at the lower classes...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Andrew Ryan on June 06, 2009, 04:16:47 pm
Hey, I don't have enough money for a limo!  >:(
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bona Fide Supraman on June 06, 2009, 04:45:22 pm
This is usually the part of the discussion where Lurk says something about how you're an evil objectivist who rides around in a limo, sneering at the lower classes...

Well I don't have a limo, and I rarely sneer, but I do believe that if you apply yourself then pretty much anybody can get out of the lower class. I mean, people complain about the gulf in education, but it isn't so much the teaching itself, but the attitude towards it.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: /lurk on June 06, 2009, 04:58:55 pm
This is usually the part of the discussion where Lurk says something about how you're an evil objectivist who rides around in a limo, sneering at the lower classes...

Yeah Axelgear, y-

Wait what?



Munchkin's right about shared costs, Supraman's right about the royal family.







And I only did that once.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on June 06, 2009, 08:02:41 pm
Just being snarky, Lurk. Someone has to keep you on your toes with a little role reversal now and then.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on June 08, 2009, 06:12:48 am
So lets talk about the EU parliament election. We probably should have talked about it a bit earlier. Maybe some of you lazy ones actually would have voted then! (Yeah i know who you are!) >_>

I am a bit disappointed. Though things got better in Sweden. More people voted then the last time and it whet a bit better for my parties i was hoping on. The Pirate Party got one mandate and Social Democratic Party and the Green Party Strengthened i am happy to hear. On the right Liberal People's Party also strengthen there position which also happen to be the party on the right side that i am closest to. So at least that is somewhat good news for me. Not so good news is that Sweden Democrats seems to be still growing strong especially in the part of Sweden i live. There nationalist party that tries to get rid of it past as a Nazi party.

In other parts of Europe it seem that the conservatives are getting stronger. I believe that is purely based on the fact that so few voted. Those that do not vote are generally people who would have voted for the left. It seems that nationalist parties are also getting more support in there bad times which i do not like. I am not happy at all with how it has turned out.

I hope people start to realize that they have to vote. If they do not then is the same thing as say it is OK whatever happens. People need to realize that EU laws are above national laws.

And again for those of you who did not vote. You really have no right to complain. I do because i really did vote. But you that could but did not chose to trow your vote away. The only thing you have proved is that you do not care about democracy and the political process.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Gungnir on June 08, 2009, 06:16:28 am
/me begins a slowclap.

Yeah, go vote!

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_J0JzvcrfTDo/SOZmaA9jX7I/AAAAAAAAAjw/h2quD2POIGE/s320/vote_or_die2.jpg)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Luminar on June 08, 2009, 06:17:40 am
The parties worth a damn never have the remotest chance of getting in. It's pretty much inevitably going to be tories come next election in the UK, and though i'll vote against them I amount to pretty much the same as a non-voter. I vote, I have zero influence, should I not bother complaining too?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on June 08, 2009, 06:27:27 am
Yet the result in Sweden contradict your statement. Every vote counts. Even small parties can get huge influrence (in fact some would argue a bit to much) as the can tip the scales in favor for one side or the other.

When you do not vote you do not change anything. Your letting others decide for you. But if you do vote you at least are sending a true statement even if you lose. Every vote counts and its up to you to make you vote mean something.

The Party i voted for did not get any new mandates but i am happy to see that both more people voted in Sweden and that the party i vote for got more support. If anything it made parties i did not vote for weaker. And if people like me had not voted then the result would be quite different. My little vote, 1 of the 3 106 893 votes that was cast in Sweden did have a small effect and i am proud that i voted.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bona Fide Supraman on June 08, 2009, 06:32:15 am
The parties worth a damn never have the remotest chance of getting in. It's pretty much inevitably going to be tories come next election in the UK, and though i'll vote against them I amount to pretty much the same as a non-voter. I vote, I have zero influence, should I not bother complaining too?

"What if everybody thought like that?" is generally the argument used against such statements.

I for one am truly pissed off that Green Party is growing in Europe. Idiots like them have made all the bloody annoying rules that seem to come out of Europe. Like banning good lightbulbs.

I like that the Pirate Party got a MEP though. Not that one MEP can do anything at all...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Flisch on June 08, 2009, 06:51:41 am
Even I voted, despite my lazyness. Now I have the right to complain, har har.

I amount to pretty much the same as a non-voter. I vote, I have zero influence, should I not bother complaining too?
Not voting is much like not steering your vehicle while driving. You can't complain if something gets seriously screwed up.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Luminar on June 08, 2009, 07:11:10 am
I like that the Pirate Party got a MEP though. Not that one MEP can do anything at all...

Labor here was outvoted somewhere by the Monster Raving Loony Party. Kind of goes to show people have wised up to the fact they're not the labor party the people wanted. What actually HAPPENED to old labor, instead of this invasive and useless new labor crap?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Andrew Ryan on June 08, 2009, 07:18:02 am
I think that went out along with Margret Thatcher.  :P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on June 08, 2009, 07:26:04 am
Note that the Pirate Party is not just a protest party. (Though i still believe that voting for a protest party is better then not voting at all. Also they do get a lot of the protest votes i am sure.) There actually a party that has a sound platform even if not all of you might agree with them. But hay its politics.

Some of you might know of them. There a party that which to reform the copyright and paten laws. They also for personal privacy and government transparency. They seems a bit lacking when it comes to stance on other issues however.

Personally i do not have anything against the greens getting more power. Most Green issues are Global issues so EU is a good arena for parties like that i think.

Labor i think has lost its way. It is trying to market is self as a Social Reformat type of party (Social Democrat) but in reality today there more of a market liberal party. At least in my book.

Bona Fie Supraman what lightbulbs was banned?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bona Fide Supraman on June 08, 2009, 07:32:27 am
I like that the Pirate Party got a MEP though. Not that one MEP can do anything at all...

Labor here was outvoted somewhere by the Monster Raving Loony Party. Kind of goes to show people have wised up to the fact they're not the labor party the people wanted. What actually HAPPENED to old labor, instead of this invasive and useless new labor crap?

I love the MRLP!! They are hilarious. And being beaten by them must have been massively humiliating for labour...

Note that the Pirate Party is not just a protest party. (Though i still believe that voting for a protest party is better then not voting at all. Also they do get a lot of the protest votes i am sure.) There actually a party that has a sound platform even if not all of you might agree with them. But hay its politics.

Some of you might know of them. There a party that which to reform the copyright and paten laws. They also for personal privacy and government transparency. They seems a bit lacking when it comes to stance on other issues however.

Personally i do not have anything against the greens getting more power. Most Green issues are Global issues so EU is a good arena for parties like that i think.

Labor i think has lost its way. It is trying to market is self as a Social Reformat type of party (Social Democrat) but in reality today there more of a market liberal party. At least in my book.

Bona Fie Supraman what lightbulbs was banned?

Yeh I know about the Pirate party, they stand for some pretty decent values, like against insane breaches of privacy (eg. monitoring E-mails.)

Anyway yeh, you can no longer buy 100W lightbulbs, and they are slowly phasing out all lightbulbs to replace them with energy-saving ones. Which are terrible, and ugly, and give off horrible light.

I can understand them wanting to promote energy saving lightbulbs, but surely it's somebodies choice as to whether they have to use them or not.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on June 08, 2009, 07:42:02 am
Oh you mean those fairly efferent heating elements? Trust me those traditional 100 watt lamps needs to be phased out.

I am not sure what environmental lighting you have where you live but here in Sweden they general last longer an have better light then regaler old wolfram filament based ones. Sure they do look a bit weird compared to regular old globe ones but there are other options to like LED.

The only really bad thing i can think of with most of these Eco lights is that they do not generally work with dimmers. (And if you use regaler lights use dimmers. They last a lot longer.) The extra cost is not that big of a issue as they last longer which offsets the cost.

Of course the main reason you might be using them is to heat your house. In that case i feel sorry for you >_>

And yeah... I guess i have studied the problem a bit to much. But what the heck. My father is a electrician and a home owner so i have been exposed to both the pros and cons of light bulbs and how to efferently heat your home.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: /lurk on June 08, 2009, 07:59:31 am
Anyway yeh, you can no longer buy 100W lightbulbs, and they are slowly phasing out all lightbulbs to replace them with energy-saving ones. Which are terrible, and ugly, and give off horrible light.

I can understand them wanting to promote energy saving lightbulbs, but surely it's somebodies choice as to whether they have to use them or not.

Well hey, if you don't want to save energy and money at no cost to you, there'll always be a nice, state-funded padded cell waiting for you.



Unless the Tories screw that up too.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bona Fide Supraman on June 08, 2009, 08:13:09 am
I guess you guys don't understand my problem with it.

I hate those bulbs. The light quality is terrible. They take ages to light up, and the light has this weird greyish glow.
And 100W light bulbs are necessary, we have one in our garage and it actually lights it up so you can see what thell you are doing. With any less than that, it's too dim.

And /lurk, what's your problem with the tories? What have they screwed up for you to be saying "too"?

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on June 08, 2009, 08:28:29 am
Well the fluorescent light that normally used as low energy lamps can have in theory any color many of the newer ones tend to be towards more natural light tone. That is there blue in tone and i guess you could think that is greener vs the reddish tone of regular lamps. This has more to do with trends i think then anything else. People just want to have a light that is more like the light they would expect form the outside. Technology wise there is not anything really stooping light form being more Yellow Reddish.

But i am a bit surprise your not using a traditional fluorescent light already.

One issue i did not mention is that is even more impotent to recycle fluorescent lamps then regular light bulbs. You should do both but fluorescent light have more of a negative impact on the environment if you just throw them out with the garbage.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on June 08, 2009, 08:30:46 am
In other parts of Europe it seem that the conservatives are getting stronger. I believe that is purely based on the fact that so few voted. Those that do not vote are generally people who would have voted for the left. It seems that nationalist parties are also getting more support in there bad times which i do not like. I am not happy at all with how it has turned out.

Wait, so are you saying that lazy people are more likely to vote for the left?  Does that mean that responsible and, I guess, hard working people vote for the right?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bona Fide Supraman on June 08, 2009, 08:43:15 am
But i am a bit surprise your not using a traditional fluorescent light already.

Kinda my family's small protest towards greenies constantly telling us what to do.

And thinking wind farms are a good idea. They aren't, wind is a terrible, terrible power source.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: /lurk on June 08, 2009, 08:49:33 am
In other parts of Europe it seem that the conservatives are getting stronger. I believe that is purely based on the fact that so few voted. Those that do not vote are generally people who would have voted for the left. It seems that nationalist parties are also getting more support in there bad times which i do not like. I am not happy at all with how it has turned out.

Wait, so are you saying that lazy people are more likely to vote for the left?  Does that mean that responsible and, I guess, hard working people vote for the right?

No, he's talking about borderline fascist fringe groups like the UKIP or the BNP.

I don't know what the American equivalent would be.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Didero on June 08, 2009, 09:00:26 am
And thinking wind farms are a good idea. They aren't, wind is a terrible, terrible power source.
You might want to add some arguments to that statement. Before you get /lurk'ed...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bona Fide Supraman on June 08, 2009, 09:03:50 am
No, he's talking about borderline fascist fringe groups like the UKIP or the BNP.

I don't know what the American equivalent would be.

Haha what? UKIP aren't borderline facist. They just want out of the EU.

BNP on the other hand, yes.

And thinking wind farms are a good idea. They aren't, wind is a terrible, terrible power source.
You might want to add some arguments to that statement. Before you get /lurk'ed...

Well there's the problem of what happens when it isn't windy....

It's not like I hate all wind energy. Hydro-electric seems pretty good, as does tidal power. But that's because the tides won't suddenly stop.

I can understand solar power in places like Saudi and stuff, but wind and solar just don't seem viable in England.

Obviously, we need to get our arses into gear with fusion, because that would be awesome.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on June 08, 2009, 09:14:08 am
In other parts of Europe it seem that the conservatives are getting stronger. I believe that is purely based on the fact that so few voted. Those that do not vote are generally people who would have voted for the left. It seems that nationalist parties are also getting more support in there bad times which i do not like. I am not happy at all with how it has turned out.

Wait, so are you saying that lazy people are more likely to vote for the left?  Does that mean that responsible and, I guess, hard working people vote for the right?

Partly yes. But not only. A lot of people chose not to vote and those would have voted for the left in general. They do not vote because they feel because they feel often betrayed and that there vote does not matter. I this is a very illogical way to think. After all it is with your vote you can do change.

And is not just about the hard working part. It is not the people sleeping all day that vote for the left. It is workers mainly. Workers that have long hours and work hard all there life.

It is more about people not feeling that they have any value then anything else. Now those in the top they do feel they have value (sort of goes with being on top). But everyone need to understand that we are all equal and we all can effect the political system. We might just be drops but a we are also the many. It is our numbers that makes us strong and it is with our numbers we can make change.



As for low energy lamps. Do some research and check what is out there in the market. You will be surprised on what you can buy. If you want low energy lamps that have a warmer light to it (like the yellow-redish glow of a light bulb) you can. If you want a globe formed housing for you lamp you can.

As for wind farms. Well wind power is a pretty good supplement. It can not replace all the power production but can complement what we already have. Naturally it is limited to where you build it and such but is not something that is terrible.

Edit: And what happens when the wind stop blowing is that the hydro electric dams (or power plants) starts to produce power. Hydro actually works as a sort of battery and other forms like coal do not need to run 24/7. Also is very rare for the wind not to blow any ware. both the production and the consumption fluctuate all the time and hardly anyone notice. (Extreme cases it can trigger shutdowns. Normal due to some safety system being triggered by mistake.)

  my self do not agree with most Greens. But i still consider my self Green. In fact i am very interested in the Viridian Design moment. Going green with the help of technology striving forward towards a better future. I am totally against those wish us to go back to a pre-industrial era.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Plank of Wood on June 08, 2009, 09:19:52 am
Vote Laaaaabouuuuuurrrr.

I'm aware that we'll get kicked into the Opposition bench in the next General Election, but to hell with it anyway.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bona Fide Supraman on June 08, 2009, 09:32:41 am
Vote Laaaaabouuuuuurrrr.

I'm aware that we'll get kicked into the Opposition bench in the next General Election, but to hell with it anyway.

If you're lucky. By these elections we just had it would be UKIP or Lib Dem.

As for low energy lamps. Do some research and check what is out there in the market. You will be surprised on what you can buy. If you want low energy lamps that have a warmer light to it (like the yellow-redish glow of a light bulb) you can. If you want a globe formed housing for you lamp you can.

Well how about the fact that a powerful one is about twice the size of a normal bulb.

As for wind farms. Well wind power is a pretty good supplement. It can not replace all the power production but can complement what we already have. Naturally it is limited to where you build it and such but is not something that is terrible.

Edit: And what happens when the wind stop blowing is that the hydro electric dams (or power plants) starts to produce power. Hydro actually works as a sort of battery and other forms like coal do not need to run 24/7. Also is very rare for the wind not to blow any ware. both the production and the consumption fluctuate all the time and hardly anyone notice. (Extreme cases it can trigger shutdowns. Normal due to some safety system being triggered by mistake.)

Do you have any idea how long it takes to get a coal burning power station going? It can't just be done in an instant.

I remember hearing that a country, I can't remember which one...Norway or Sweden I think...spent loads of money on wind farms, but hasn't been able to close a single fossil fuel plant because of just such a reason.

And what the hell is the point of having energy that isn't constant when you can have other kinds which is. It just seems like a massive waste of money.

I'm not saying that wind is totally useless. Obviously, it makes some electricity (bloody tiny amounts in comparison to other sources, but whatever,) but I'm saying that it would be much more use to focus on other energy sources.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on June 08, 2009, 09:58:27 am
Odd because Norway have on fossil fuel power plants and what little Sweden got is mainly used as reserve power production when needed. Not that is relative to. To get hydro power up and going takes very little time. Coal is slower but Nuclear works best when it run continuously. In Sweden Most of the production is ether Hydro or Nuclear. Form the statistics i have seen in power production in Sweden it is actually the introduction of alternatives (Like Wind) that have lowered to used of Fossil fuels.

But again because fossil fuels stands for so little of the production in Sweden (only used when one absolute must) it is hard to say. So what little Wind power we have (Because we do not have a lot) basically just measure up to the small use of fossil fuels we use.

Denmark is more relent on Gas and Wind power. Maybe some more clear trends can be seen there.

Also there is a bit hard to see trends power is exported and imported between nations. Some statistics takes this in to account wile others do not.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: /lurk on June 08, 2009, 10:08:22 am
Vote Laaaaabouuuuuurrrr.

I'm aware that we'll get kicked into the Opposition bench in the next General Election, but to hell with it anyway.

Maybe if we all jump ship we can get the Lib Dems in?

That would be novel.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Plank of Wood on June 08, 2009, 10:45:49 am
Makes sense, we Loyal Labour types don't care who get's into government as long as they're not Conservative.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on June 08, 2009, 10:56:51 am
Labour is horrible at the moment and they need to lose the election as a kick in the pants. I'm not that keen on the Tories winning, but at this stage I'd rather them than the same *******s that we've had for the last 10 years.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on June 08, 2009, 12:06:02 pm
hey, I have some questions about how these elections work. (Yes, I could just go look it up myself, but I have you all right here.  You can ask me about US stuff later.)

I'm taking it that the people elected to the EU represent the parties of the country they came from.  So how does everything work out at the EU?  Do they vote by coalitions of similar parties, by country or region, or both?

We seem to be talking, at least when it comes to the UK, about both EU and national elections.  I wanted to see if I'm remembering this correctly.  When you vote for Parliament and/or the EU, do you vote for the party, or individual candidates?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Plank of Wood on June 08, 2009, 12:11:03 pm
As far as I am aware they're going to abolish government as we know it in the UK because a few MPs were a little dishonest. And liked ducks. So the whole how our election works debate is completely irrelevent.

Yeah, you vote by Party.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: munchkin5 on June 08, 2009, 12:33:09 pm
Vote Laaaaabouuuuuurrrr.

I'm aware that we'll get kicked into the Opposition bench in the next General Election, but to hell with it anyway.

I lost a little bit of respect for you there Plank.

Also when it comes to general election at least you vote for an MP in each region and the party that wins the most seats gets in. However as far as i'm aware, i don't think it works that way in the European Parliment elections.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bona Fide Supraman on June 08, 2009, 12:40:59 pm
Maybe if we all jump ship we can get the Lib Dems in?

That would be novel.

As I already said, Lib Dem came second in the Local Elections.

UKIP came second in European

hey, I have some questions about how these elections work. (Yes, I could just go look it up myself, but I have you all right here.  You can ask me about US stuff later.)

I'm taking it that the people elected to the EU represent the parties of the country they came from.  So how does everything work out at the EU?  Do they vote by coalitions of similar parties, by country or region, or both?

We seem to be talking, at least when it comes to the UK, about both EU and national elections.  I wanted to see if I'm remembering this correctly.  When you vote for Parliament and/or the EU, do you vote for the party, or individual candidates?

The votes we just had were for European MEPs and Local councillors.

The local elections:

The country is split into councils and everybody votes for councillors to run the council. I don't know how many councillors there are per council, but it is a few, as the result can be "hung" - with no single party in control.

The European Elections

The country is split again, into fewer parts, and in each bit (I don't know how it's done) there are a number of MEPs elected.

They go to Brussels and sit around doing stuff that nobody really know all that much about, and then they tell us that all sheep must be electronically tagged. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/feb/08/sheep-tags-european-union)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Plank of Wood on June 08, 2009, 12:41:46 pm
By the time of the General Elections comes around absolutly everyone will have resigned in the labour party, I'm personally looking forward to John O'Farrell as minister.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Doctor Z on June 08, 2009, 01:08:30 pm
What IS a mandate, anyway? I'm Canadian, so yeh. Don't really pay attention to European politics as much.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Plank of Wood on June 08, 2009, 01:11:03 pm
Mandate is the maximum amount of time that you are the head of state until the next election. Or at least that's what I think.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bona Fide Supraman on June 08, 2009, 01:19:55 pm
Mandate is the maximum amount of time that you are the head of state until the next election. Or at least that's what I think.

I thought it was an order that someone had to follow. Like, the EU might issue a mandate so all countries have to impose laws meaning bus drivers have to work fewer hours, therefore making certain rural bus routes have to stop operating, for instance mine, the only one that actually goes into town from where I live. (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-11356593.html)

It's where we get the word "mandatory"....or maybe we get mandate from mandatory...either way, they're related.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Plank of Wood on June 08, 2009, 01:27:10 pm
I'm pretty sure there's more than one meaning.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: munchkin5 on June 08, 2009, 01:35:32 pm
I think supra is right it's just an official decree, althought he amount of time one term is could be mandated, or mandatory or whatever.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Plank of Wood on June 08, 2009, 01:37:58 pm
Ah, here's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_(politics)) the definition according to wikipedia.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: munchkin5 on June 08, 2009, 01:41:22 pm
Well i looked it up in the dictionary and it gave a more general definition but that seems to be more specific.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Doctor Z on June 08, 2009, 02:01:49 pm
I meant like the Pirate Party getting one mandate.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on June 08, 2009, 02:37:54 pm
Oh it might just be miss translation form my side. What i meant was they get a seat in the European Parliament. Some Swedish words have different meaning in English. I may have to look in to that.

Btw that they do vote for stupid rules is one good reason to vote for a party that will not vote for dumb things like that and some parties profile them self as being such. Of course one law i might like you might hate so do not be surprised if people do not agree with you. But i general i am inclined agree that EU is messing a bit to much with national or even more local issues. And sometimes that can create great issues. I am not that happy with EUs politics when it comes to alcohol and there seems to be little understanding for the Swedish model when it comes to wages and such. (In Sweden we do not have minimum wage. The unions with the employees works out a set minimum wage without the government getting involved. It is a bit different but it works and is stable.) I of course have a list of small nagging things i do not like when it comes to EU laws and how it spends it money but that is why i vote. In hope that i can change the system. I might not change every little bit i do not like but i hope it will at least move towards the right direction.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bona Fide Supraman on June 08, 2009, 03:47:15 pm
Oh it might just be miss translation form my side. What i meant was they get a seat in the European Parliament. Some Swedish words have different meaning in English. I may have to look in to that.

Btw that they do vote for stupid rules is one good reason to vote for a party that will not vote for dumb things like that and some parties profile them self as being such. Of course one law i might like you might hate so do not be surprised if people do not agree with you. But i general i am inclined agree that EU is messing a bit to much with national or even more local issues. And sometimes that can create great issues. I am not that happy with EUs politics when it comes to alcohol and there seems to be little understanding for the Swedish model when it comes to wages and such. (In Sweden we do not have minimum wage. The unions with the employees works out a set minimum wage without the government getting involved. It is a bit different but it works and is stable.) I of course have a list of small nagging things i do not like when it comes to EU laws and how it spends it money but that is why i vote. In hope that i can change the system. I might not change every little bit i do not like but i hope it will at least move towards the right direction.

Well I just think they meddle with things which are impossible for them to understand.

I mean, take this bus thing I mentioned above, for example.

They set a limit of 36.5 miles, after which a bus driver has to start taking more breaks, and as such, longer routes can no longer run.

This limit may seem fine, to a bunch of guys sitting around in Brussels. Hell, in terms of city driving, 36.5 miles is a long way.

But stick it onto rural roads with a speed limit of 60mph, and that's only half an hour of driving. Bus routes in England go (or used to) way further than that.

The problem is that they try to make wide, all encompassing rules, when in fact due to the different cultures/circumstances/needs of each individual country, it just ends up being impossible. But they still do it, just pissing off millions of people each time.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on June 08, 2009, 03:58:57 pm
Hey, when did that bus law go into effect?  That might partly explain my insane bus ride from Oxford to Edinburgh a few summers ago.  I still say that I ended up in Purgatory for a while on that trip.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bona Fide Supraman on June 08, 2009, 04:00:52 pm
Nah, it was fairly recent. Within the last year I think.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Daxx on June 08, 2009, 04:21:15 pm
I suspect that if I were more politically inclined I would stand as an MP some day.

Frankly I'm not really impressed with any of the current offerings at the moment - Labour are useless and incompetent, the Lib Dems have no sense of coherent policy and probably never will, and the fringe parties like the Greens and UKIP are irrelevant. The Conservatives are the only half-credible party but unfortunately instead of marketing themselves as strong and sensible, they look like they're picking up the Change mantra from the states without actually developing the solid policy base that Obama had. If Cameron could emphasise policy over image I'd be more inclined to respect him.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on June 08, 2009, 04:25:05 pm
I think that that issue is more of a national one. Though i can understand the view behind it. Sweden was also effect by a smiler law.

Anyway. Would not hiring more bus drivers be a solution? Bah... Lets replace drive all together. I really need to read up on it more to judge it.

Also your forgetting. We not electing people form Brussels. We are electing people form all over Europe. So some of them could very well relate. But there is a tendency to regulate to much and regulate in to much detail. Often there is a good idea behind it but it can turn ugly quickly. Especially when many do not take account local differences.

Maybe i should start a British party. Does not seem like i would have much of a completions :P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bona Fide Supraman on June 08, 2009, 04:39:42 pm
I suspect that if I were more politically inclined I would stand as an MP some day.

Frankly I'm not really impressed with any of the current offerings at the moment - Labour are useless and incompetent, the Lib Dems have no sense of coherent policy and probably never will, and the fringe parties like the Greens and UKIP are irrelevant. The Conservatives are the only half-credible party but unfortunately instead of marketing themselves as strong and sensible, they look like they're picking up the Change mantra from the states without actually developing the solid policy base that Obama had. If Cameron could emphasise policy over image I'd be more inclined to respect him.

That's the problem with politics. Interviewing MPs they all seem to say that they have a strong desire to help their party win the next election. None of them seem to be interested at all in running the country.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bona Fide Supraman on June 09, 2009, 01:33:09 pm
Sorry for double posting, but this is a bump.

I was wondering if anybody could help with this.

Basically, I'm having an argument with a friend.

I think that it is fascist to ban any political party, even undesirable ones like the BNP, and therefore there is an irony in a group called "Unite Against Fascism" calling for said party to be banned.

He doesn't.

Any help?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Doomsday on June 09, 2009, 01:45:42 pm
It really depends on the semantics of the argument. Largely, you are right though. However, there are certain elements of political parties (in my country at least) that don't get that and even manage to confuse the definition of Fascism with other words. Ignorant people and self-righteous people are the easiest to manipulate, throw in a lack of education or just a general disregard for progress in general.

I suppose even European nations have their "rednecks". >.>
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bona Fide Supraman on June 09, 2009, 01:48:47 pm
Yeh, but for some reason fascism seems to be synonymous with "extreme right wing" as well.

So what does that make China, when they withhold civil liberties and stuff? Is that fascist or is there another word?

Also, I want to point out that I don't support the BNP, but I think they have the right to stand. I just hope the British people aren't stupid enough to vote them in.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ultimatum on June 09, 2009, 02:12:13 pm

All this worry about the BNP is really unnecessary.They are small,insignificant party who lets face it,have gained a few seats in a useless EU parliament(which has no real power) and its gained  them is extra funding,really.

So I won't be having sleepless nights because of the BNP.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Plank of Wood on June 09, 2009, 02:17:22 pm
Every country has a stupidly bigoted far right wing party; the only time they actually get in power is when 70% of registered voter's houses are on fire and think that foreigners own everything that isn't nailed down.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Luminar on June 09, 2009, 02:31:24 pm

All this worry about the BNP is really unnecessary.They are small,insignificant party who lets face it,have gained a few seats in a useless EU parliament(which has no real power) and its gained  them is extra funding,really.

So I won't be having sleepless nights because of the BNP.

It still displays that some people actually buy their poisonous gibberish enough to vote for them.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Doomsday on June 09, 2009, 02:43:09 pm
Every country has a stupidly bigoted far right wing party; the only time they actually get in power is when 70% of registered voter's houses are on fire and think that foreigners own everything that isn't nailed down.

On that note, I hear that Iran are likely to vote out Ahmadinejad. Apparently he said some pretty crazy stuff in the past, and is completely off hinge (calling his opponent's wife some pretty foul things).
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Gungnir on June 09, 2009, 03:53:46 pm
They vote in that country?

Huh. I woulda thought ahmadinajad banned that or something. >_>
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Doomsday on June 09, 2009, 04:11:01 pm
He's only the 6th President, so it's not like it's impossible that he won't still do that, but I mean... the Ayatollah, that is to say the Religious Leader of Iran, holds the real power on most international and military issues. Presidents in Iran, as I understand it, set budget and internal policy and stuff like that. *shrugs* He's still an eyesore and getting rid of him would do wonders in improving Iran's perception in the world and could possibly help with the Middle East "Peace" process.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on June 10, 2009, 11:23:45 am
Sorry for double posting, but this is a bump.

I was wondering if anybody could help with this.

Basically, I'm having an argument with a friend.

I think that it is fascist to ban any political party, even undesirable ones like the BNP, and therefore there is an irony in a group called "Unite Against Fascism" calling for said party to be banned.

He doesn't.

Your friend is right (Though I don't know if his reasons are sound).

Your argument falls down because your definition of fascism is, to put it bluntly, made up.

Fascism isn't a doctrine of banning everything, its a specific type of totalitarian regime.

Its like saying republicans (lower case r) are hypocrites because they're 'banning' monarchy in their country, the same way a monarch might ban democracy or a republican government.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Doomsday on June 10, 2009, 12:28:05 pm
"Fascists advocate the creation of a single-party state. Fascists believe that nations and/or races are in perpetual conflict whereby only the strong can survive by being healthy, vital, and by asserting themselves in combat against the weak. Fascist governments forbid and suppress criticism and opposition to the government and the fascist movement."

" fascism -
1. A political regime, usually totalitarian, ideologically based on centralized government, government control of business, repression of criticism or opposition, a leader cult and exalting the state and/or religion above individual rights. Originally only applied (usually capitalized) to Benito Mussolini's Italy.
2. By vague analogy, any system of strong autocracy or oligarchy usually to the extent of bending and breaking the law, race-baiting and violence against largely unarmed populations."

Depending on the semantics of argument being made, fascism can be applied in a number of ways. Forcing your ideals and disallowing opposing points of view (no matter how erroneous, idiotic, or dangerous those points of view are) can be considered a form of fascism. It is  not though, technically speaking, true fascism. It's a totalitarian/fascist ideal. Both sides are right, but I favor your side of the argument but that's mostly because I believe in the freedom of assembly and representation. European politics, from what little I can discern from the chaotic system, doesn't allow for that though. So I can see the need to ban parties, but that doesn't make it any less wrong in my opinion.

The US has never, as far as I can tell, openly banned a political party of any kind. Sure, our system discourages these parties because they usually lack the funding to win major elections and lack a general cohesive political plan. Most fringe parties in the United States focus on niche issues, or issues that don't resonate with a large portion of the populous. This is why you'll likely never see any major wins from parties like the Libertarian Party, or the Marijuana Party. I may not support those parties, I may consider a vote for a third party a waste, but that doesn't mean that they don't have the right to exist.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on June 10, 2009, 01:49:37 pm
I pretty much agree with Doomsday.  It sounds like what you and your friend are arguing over is whether banning the party is a good idea or bad idea, and you are giving it a label (which may or may not be true) to drive the point home.  Banning a political party flies in the face of the freedom of speech and the rights to assemble and of association.  However, it can be a different story when a party advocates violence or breaking the law.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on June 10, 2009, 02:19:02 pm
Well, its all very well being high and mighty and being all "FREEDOM", but you have to understand the background for considering banning these sorts of parties. I know the US like to think of themselves as the heroes of WW2 and all that, but they weren't particularly badly affected by the rise of fascism in the way oh say... Germany was and I think its perfectly reasonable that a certain unpleasant political party be banned in certain countries.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bona Fide Supraman on June 10, 2009, 02:50:42 pm
I pretty much agree with Doomsday.  It sounds like what you and your friend are arguing over is whether banning the party is a good idea or bad idea, and you are giving it a label (which may or may not be true) to drive the point home.  Banning a political party flies in the face of the freedom of speech and the rights to assemble and of association.  However, it can be a different story when a party advocates violence or breaking the law.

Well that is the point. They want what is currently breaking the law to be lawful. It's how politics work. For instance, the marijuana party obviously advocate something against the law. But they want to get in power so it isn't breaking the law any more.

Again, not condoning BNP in any way.

Well, its all very well being high and mighty and being all "FREEDOM", but you have to understand the background for considering banning these sorts of parties. I know the US like to think of themselves as the heroes of WW2 and all that, but they weren't particularly badly affected by the rise of fascism in the way oh say... Germany was and I think its perfectly reasonable that a certain unpleasant political party be banned in certain countries.

Someone call Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law) on that?

But no, I don't think it is reasonable, if you want to call yourself a democracy. It undermines the very foundations of democracy. You just have to hope that nobody does vote for them. Otherwise you can't call yourself a true democracy.

Anyway, my point wasn't whether it was good or bad in context, but whether the basic concept was fascist, and I think we've agreed it is, even if in this case fascism is "the greater good," or perhaps "the lesser evil."
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on June 10, 2009, 03:05:52 pm
Much like Hitler, you've failed to understand what Godwin's law is.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brandonazz on June 10, 2009, 03:09:03 pm
Is it possible for a mod to add a poll to a thread that they did not start?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on June 10, 2009, 03:11:45 pm
Yes.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bona Fide Supraman on June 10, 2009, 03:55:59 pm
Much like Hitler, you've failed to understand what Godwin's law is.

What? What did I do wrong?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brandonazz on June 10, 2009, 06:59:43 pm
Yes.

Mind adding a poll relevant to the banning BNP discussion?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Doctor Z on June 10, 2009, 07:04:21 pm
Much like Hitler, you've failed to understand what Godwin's law is.

What? What did I do wrong?
Talking about Germany in the 1930s-1940s =/= Godwins Law.

Alluding to fact that Germany was controlled by fascists =/= Godwins Law

Comparing your opponent to Hitler = Godwins Law.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Doomsday on June 10, 2009, 07:47:43 pm
What Bona Fide probably meant was something akin to "Reductio ad Hitlerum", rather than Godwin's Law, but still Godwin's law is not just about calling/comparing an opponent to Hitler, but rather at some point comparing something to Hitler or the Nazis.

Godwin's Law - As a discussion "grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

It doesn't specifically state that you must compare your opponent to Hitler or Nazis, just that a comparison is made, in this case comparing/insinuating that the BNP is a threat like Hitler/the Nazis were circa late 1930's. If Sam had gone a bit further with his statements, then Godwin's Law would apply. It just barely skirted around it though.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on June 11, 2009, 03:19:55 am
Its not Involving Hitler or the Nazis, its as the discussion gets longer the probability someone will be compared to nazis or hitler approaches 1.

To demonstrate:

"Oh, you know who else was a vegitarian? HITLER." is an example of a sentence which would fulfil Godwin's law in a hypothetical discussion about vegitarianism.

"I wonder what Nazi vegetable production and consumption was in the last years of the war" would NOT fulfil Godwin's law as it is not comparing anyone to Nazis, but is brining up Nazis in a neutral context.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Luminar on June 11, 2009, 03:23:30 am
In a democratic society, I see no problem with forbidding parties which aren't democratic. To vote one in would potentially result in the end of democracy for that society, which is a Bad Thing.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on June 11, 2009, 05:17:45 am
Actually it depends on the organization as far as i am concerned. You should not be able to bad a organization for being Fascist, Communist or Anti-Democratic. But you can fight a organization that brakes the law. Be it a company, political party or whatever.

My general answer is no. No bans. But if a political organization breaks the law then there not immune. In fact the organized crime often mix with politics. And Banning these most extreme political factions will not amount to anything anyway.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: /lurk on June 11, 2009, 08:20:09 am
I think you'll find that there are lots of banned organisations in democratic countries.

Like Al-Qaeda, or the IRA or hell all of these. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_organization)


So you might want to be more specific with the poll question, because I don't think anyone's going to argue against banning these guys.
Come onnnnnn Axelgear....
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bona Fide Supraman on June 11, 2009, 10:17:45 am
Again, there's no problem with it, it is the right thing to do, but you did just forfeit your right to call yourself a true democracy.

Which really isn't that important.


Godwin's Law - As a discussion "grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

That's the definition I was using, and you were kinda comparing the BNP to the Nazis. I mean, you never explicitly said it, but saying "a certain party in War time Germany"....come on!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Gungnir on June 11, 2009, 10:36:26 am

"Oh, you know who else was a vegitarian? HITLER." is an example of a sentence which would fulfil Godwin's law in a hypothetical discussion about vegitarianism.

Technically that's known as reductio ad hitlerum...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on June 12, 2009, 10:57:12 am
Yeah. Smiler but yet completely different. But i guess it could be a Subtype of Godwin's law. Anyway pointing out Godwin's law (especially if the topic is about totalitarian rule, Nazi Germany or anything smiler to begin with) just make you look like a idiot.

When is it Quasi OK to use it is when a topic is Derailed by Hitler or Nazism.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Raz on June 12, 2009, 11:10:45 am
Vegetarianism...*
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Doomsday on June 13, 2009, 10:56:03 am
I nominate this man for "Political Bonehead of the Year":

Congressman Mark Kirk (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#31334121)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on June 13, 2009, 01:26:44 pm
That was a pretty dumb thing to do.

In other news, Ahmadinejad has apparently won reelection, and Tehran is in flames.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/13/iran.election/index.html
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on June 13, 2009, 01:48:01 pm
Yeah, 'apparently' being the operative word. I'm pretty sure I remember hearing the other guy won and then there was the usually shady stuff.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Little on June 13, 2009, 11:10:29 pm
Yeah, I think the opposition actually won, but Ahmadinejad fudged everything up by rigging the election in his favour.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bona Fide Supraman on June 14, 2009, 04:20:38 am
Well they were both claiming victory before either of them knew.

Though it does seem odd that he won with 80% of the votes...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Doomsday on June 14, 2009, 07:32:28 am
67.something% of the votes... when it should have been (by all indications) a lot closer. He may have won anyway, but there is no way he actually won by that much, not with a voter turn out of almost 85% including an increase of about 300% in Iranian citizens voting from other countries (most of whom supported Mussavi overwhelmingly).
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Andrew Ryan on June 14, 2009, 10:20:51 am
Sounds like either Ahmadinejad won fairly or intimidated voters into voting for him. I can't really tell which because reports of the election are so varied and mixed I can't tell up from down.

Edit: Nuclear War!  :D

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090614/ap_on_re_as/as_koreas_nuclear
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Plank of Wood on June 14, 2009, 11:03:13 am
WHY DOES EVERYONE WANT TO KILL EVERYONE FOR NO REASON?!?!?!?!


I am now officially pissed off.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: madis on June 14, 2009, 11:31:49 am
Nuclear war?!  :o

I hope they like winter and radiation.

Idiots. I hate politics.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Doomsday on June 14, 2009, 11:45:47 am
Then don't come here.

In a surprise twist, Israeli Prime Minister actually agrees to creating a Palestinian State, but his insistence on a Demilitarized state (while agreeable to the US) is likely, in my opinion, to kill the deal with the Palestinians, specifically the Hamas faction. Well, enough of my blabbering, here's the article.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ml_israel_palestinians

I hope that the Arab nations and Palestinians call him out on his (in my opinion) bluff.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on June 14, 2009, 11:56:38 am
Everyone does not want to kill everyone for no reason, just North Korea in this case.  And I don't think they actually want nuclear war because if they have any sense they should know that they would literally be blown off the map.  I think North Korea is trying to play a game of chicken with the whole world.

Also, North Korea being crazy isn't a reason to say you hate all politics period.  I think you must have just hated politics to start with.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Raz on June 14, 2009, 12:25:04 pm
Kim Jong Il, or however it's spelled, and his family are the real problem in North Korea. I'm extremely surprised the man hasn't been eliminated yet, he's such an annoying little thorn. The man has simply brainwashed or intimidated his entire populance.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Plank of Wood on June 14, 2009, 02:56:18 pm
Threatening Nuclear War for the sake of International Penis Wiggling would probably set off alarm bells in even the most indoctrinated population. Especially when the USA, Japan, Russia and China are all apposed to North Korea's penis wiggling and they are far more experianced in this particular field.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Saganmaineiac on June 14, 2009, 03:09:47 pm
huh. a midget thinks he can rule the world with a second Korean War. He just might be wrong. ;)

I won't worry a bit about this unless the missiles reach America. Doubtful they would reach Maine though... or target maine...for if they did...they'd nuke LA. ::)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on June 14, 2009, 05:30:42 pm
Yes USA probably do not have so much to fear form North Korea right now. But even a local nuclear war could have dire consequences. Some of the worlds largest economies are around North Korea and the global effects could be detrimental. And then we have not even start to include the horrific human losses. I am not sure what North Korea is trying to do. Are they trying to provoke a war? It is very unlikely that USA would attack them if they had no Nuclear Weapons. But this portering might actually backfire. Especially if they use what little support they got form china which i bet is getting pretty sick of them right now.

The only other reason i can see is that they try to use it to get aid. A form of holding the world at ransom.

As for USA being able to strike North Korea. Any nation with ICBMs can pretty much do that. They do not really need to be in South Korea to do so. And even so they would rather keep the war conventional then be force to handle the long term effects of nuclear fallout in the region. But heck it is propaganda. What is one to expect?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on June 14, 2009, 08:41:54 pm
Sagan, just because North Korea can't get a nuke to your house doesn't mean that they aren't a threat.

I think you hit it on the head, Yokto, they're trying to blackmail the world for aid and trying to keep their people whipped up into an anti-western and anti-US frenzy.  And I think the US would use long range stealth bombers with smart bombs before we brought out a nuke.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on June 15, 2009, 07:10:54 am
Everyone does not want to kill everyone for no reason, just North Korea in this case.  And I don't think they actually want nuclear war because if they have any sense they should know that they would literally be blown off the map.  I think North Korea is trying to play a game of chicken with the whole world.

Also, North Korea being crazy isn't a reason to say you hate all politics period.  I think you must have just hated politics to start with.

Even North Korea doesn't want to kill everyone for no reason. They want to threaten everyone until western embargoes and sanctions are dropped.

Honestly I think half these problems are in part caused by people not giving certain countries much respect and assuming they're some different class of people who are more like knife-wielding baboons than human beings.

But maybe that's me being unrealistic and 'give peace a chance-esque'.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Doomsday on June 15, 2009, 07:21:53 am
To be fair, we are still technically at war with North Korea and we aren't really obligated to do crap for them. We have an Armistice Agreement and full on fighting hasn't gone on in over 30 years, but we are still technically at war. The US and China do more for North Korea than North Korea's Leaders do for North Korea. We sanction them for human rights issues, we sanction them for blatant war-mongering and attempted strong-arm coercion of neighboring countries, and so on. North Korea's leaders don't seem to care for their people at all, because if they did they'd realize that acting like this hurts them more than it helps.

Saber-rattling (or sabre-rattling if you prefer) is not a viable means for obtaining what you want anymore. The international community will not be blackmailed by some power hungry egomaniac (I think they had enough of that from the US when Bush was president >.>). I'm all for peace, despite realizing the practical impossibilities and instability of it, but North Korea's actions are contrary to what peace is.

And I thought I was the idealist here. >.>
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on June 15, 2009, 11:34:14 am
Everyone does not want to kill everyone for no reason, just North Korea in this case.  And I don't think they actually want nuclear war because if they have any sense they should know that they would literally be blown off the map.  I think North Korea is trying to play a game of chicken with the whole world.

Also, North Korea being crazy isn't a reason to say you hate all politics period.  I think you must have just hated politics to start with.

Even North Korea doesn't want to kill everyone for no reason. They want to threaten everyone until western embargoes and sanctions are dropped.

Honestly I think half these problems are in part caused by people not giving certain countries much respect and assuming they're some different class of people who are more like knife-wielding baboons than human beings.

But maybe that's me being unrealistic and 'give peace a chance-esque'.

I guess I misworded that, but I was responding to Plank of Wood.  Like I said in the next sentence, I don't think they want nuclear war, either.  Of course the people of North Korea are just as human as anyone else, but the government is incredibly repressive and either have a few screws loose or are incredible risk takers for the game they're trying to play with the world.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on June 19, 2009, 11:07:25 am
Double the post, double the fun.

So yeah, the Iranain election and fallout.  Supreme Leader Khamenei apparently made it clear that he was standing by the election results and Ahmadinejad in his sermon for Friday prayers.  We're going to have to see if the protesters and reformers have the cahones to defy such a direct order from the political, spiritual, and military leader of the country.

Also, you've got to love it when the audience at the state run prayers, led personally by the head of the country, starts chanting "Death to America," "Death to Israel," and "Death to Britain."
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Cow on June 19, 2009, 11:48:27 am
I call stolen election on that one. It's just too fishy.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Doomsday on June 19, 2009, 11:52:46 am
The early consensus seems to be that Protests will continue. The Army (not the personal army of Khamenei, the Revolutionary Guard, which I said wrong earlier >.>) and members of the police seem to have sympathizers in them, as some have said that they will refuse orders to fire on protesters. There seems to be a split in not just the political bodies in Iran but even some top Clerics (with a higher moral and religious standing than Khamenei, in terms of religious rank) are siding with the Protesters. If there is more bloodshed, if there is a massive crackdown, with major military action, you can't expect the international community remain relatively neutral, and the US will be able to come out in full support for the protesters if that happens. If you get the US involved, with Iran's already horrid financial situation, then Iran's ability to sustain itself abroad and at home is gone. With just a little economic pressure, with continued diplomatic pressure, and with the support of the International Community for the younger generation, the regime's farce of diplomacy will be untenable. I dunno... It's looking bad...

Well, to be fair, there are reasons (not necessarily good reasons)  as to why they chant that for America and Britain. You get British Rule for so long and then after Iranians take back their country, the US basically overthrows an elected president of Iran in 1953 (I think it was). Israel is just a scapegoat for Muslim nations in that region, that's normal especially for Iran which is constantly raising tensions with Israel. *shrugs* The US is also a major boogieman, especially after the NeoCon policy of preventive/preemptive war. So, while common, it's still not exactly helpful. Comments like that only serve to raise tensions among those who want change and diplomacy (the protesters) and the hardliners (the government/army) as well as the international community (read as: the US). Khamenei is trying to provoke the US and international powers into interfering so he can claim with more fact/authority that these protests are being spurred on by foreign powers.

Warning - while you were typing a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post.  Edit:

Thank you, Captain Obvious. :-p
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Cow on June 19, 2009, 11:54:48 am
Warning - while you were typing a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post.  Edit:

Thank you, Captain Obvious. :-p

You're welcome.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Kenobro on June 19, 2009, 11:55:31 am
That wasn't exactly a compliment...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Cow on June 19, 2009, 12:03:49 pm
That wasn't exactly a compliment...

That makes it all the more funny, my friend.

Back to important issues: Ahmadinejad (I spelled it right!) is likely to be deposed if the protests pick up steam and grow into full blown revolt. Realizing this, he has two choices: 1. Chill out. This is altogether unlikely. Or: 2. Crack down hard. This would give the U.S. (among others) an even bigger reason to be P.O.'d with the Iranian government.

So, way I see it, Ahmadinejad is screwed.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Doomsday on June 19, 2009, 08:16:07 pm
Ahmadinejad doesn't have real control, especially since the Army is sort of fractured. The Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, has all the power which is (becoming) the problem. Before it was a protest about unfairness and a stolen election, now that they are going against the Supreme Leader's order to stop or fave violence, it is a protest against the very core of the government or at the very least, a reprimand on the position of Supreme Leader and on Khamenei directly. The Revolutionary Guard is the Supreme Leader's personal army, and they have far less scruples about firing into groups of people under orders. They did it back in 1999, they'll do it again.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on June 19, 2009, 08:31:03 pm
Stupid timezones, I want to follow the stuff that happens saturday as it happens, but I'll probably be asleep.  Either the Supreme Leader's threats scare people away and we end up with a more or less official President of Iran that no one in the world but Russia sees as legitimate, or the protestors show up anyway and call Khamenei's bluff.  I have a feeling that the **** is gonna hit the fan tomorrow.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Doomsday on June 20, 2009, 08:42:13 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKUZuv6_bus
One of the most moving things I've seen, yet.

I'm not at all religious. I don't belief in Christianity, or Islam, or Judaism.. but to people like this... to those who fight and die in the streets of Iran for their freedom... I can only pray and hope for the best for them. The situation, the people, and the struggle of those there... it tears at my heart in a way I didn't expect. If I could give a message to those there, it would be: "Assalaamu alaykum", and "Allah-o Akbar"
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on June 20, 2009, 10:03:53 am
That video and many other things I have seen coming out of Iran sends a chill up my spine.  I've never seen something like this happen live.  This appears to be becoming much more than a fight over how an election was rigged.  On CNN this morning they were saying that some of the protesters were chanting "Death to Khamenei."  Riot police may be blocking the large protests from forming, but the crowd definitely has the cahones to stand up to the Supreme Leader's threats from yesterday. 

I wish there was something I could do to support these people standing for a free and more democratic government, but I don't know of anything I can do.  The whole United States seems to be holding its tongue so as not to give the government ammunition against the reformers.  We need some kind of international action, at least some resolutions or something.  The UN won't do crap, I hope the EU or some other organization will put some pressure on Iran.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Cow on June 20, 2009, 01:27:57 pm
Well, it's not like we can do anything, really. All the Middle-East needs is one little push and then things start to hit the fan. Doing something might make the Iranian government get meaner and more violent. Those protesters have some serious testicular (and I suppose ovarian) fortitude to stand up to madmen like them.

P.S. They could do a kind of "Charlie Wilson's War" with the Iranian protesters. It might not work, but it looks like a decent option if things heat up over there.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Andrew Ryan on June 20, 2009, 02:59:53 pm
Jesus Christ, thins are going to hell and a hand basket over there.  :-\

Edit: Btw, 19 dead.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/20/iran.election/index.html
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Doomsday on June 21, 2009, 09:00:48 pm
I still can't watch some of the videos out there. There was a piece CNN did about Neda... it was an interview with an Iranian-American... She... was so emotional, her voice so full of sadness and hope.. certainty. She was talking about how the Regime had created a martyr, and how people were saying "Give us the strength of Neda". It was all very moving...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bona Fide Supraman on June 22, 2009, 03:04:03 am
I've already been invited to about 4 groups about that.

Anyway, some people did analysis of the results and found that in one region the number of votes for Ahmadinejad overshot those of eligible voters....so yeh, pretty blatant now.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Doomsday on June 22, 2009, 04:26:47 am
The Guardian Council itself admitted to anomalies in only 50 Cities (the claim was 170 cities).  Even after that statement though, they continue to deny any real voter fraud or vote manipulation. They also make the claim that.. well here... this is an translated excerpt from the Government-run TV.

Quote
Iran's Guardian Council has admitted that the number of votes collected in 50 cities surpass the number of those eligible to cast ballot in those areas.

The council's Spokesman Abbas-Ali Kadkhodaei, who was speaking on the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) Channel 2 on Sunday, made the remarks in response to complaints filed by Mohsen Rezaei -- a defeated candidate in the June 12 Presidential election.

"Statistics provided by Mohsen Rezaei in which he claims more than 100% of those eligible have cast their ballot in 170 cities are not accurate -- the incident has happened in only 50 cities," Kadkhodaei said.

The spokesman, however, said that although the vote tally affected by such an irregularity is over 3 million, "it has yet to be determined whether the amount is decisive in the election results," reported Khabaronline.

Edit: This is somewhat important, because it is either a chink in the armor of the regime, or it is a deliberate attempt to try and placate some Iranian protesters. Either way, I think it's only going to galvanize people against the government that much more. Especially when you have an unelected official dismissing over 3 million voters (or even worse, admitting to blatant vote fraud on some level), it sends the wrong message.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on June 22, 2009, 07:43:49 am
I haven't been able to watch the Neda video(s) either.  I already feel helpless to do anything here, if I watch that video I'll be going crazy.

An irregularity of 3 million votes, no big deal.... I was going to say that Iran must have hired Baghdad Bob to run Government TV, but I think he would do a better job at this.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Doomsday on June 22, 2009, 08:46:49 am
Finalyl found the video for what I was talking about earlier. This is an interview with Melody Moezzi.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTk7oBodXmU
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on June 23, 2009, 03:36:14 am
Ayatollah can't keep the kids down!

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/48967,features,pictures-tehran-revolution-westernised-iranians-who-challenge-the-ayatollahs-theocracy-islam
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brandonazz on June 23, 2009, 07:17:52 pm
(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii120/Brandonazz/buchanan.jpg)

A Republican-supported conference in favor of the reassertion of English as the only national language.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Doctor Z on June 23, 2009, 07:53:53 pm
White Nationalist?

I heard of another Nationalist party that emphasised white people... :3
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brandonazz on June 23, 2009, 08:13:50 pm
Look closely at the banner.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Gungnir on June 23, 2009, 08:14:49 pm
I find it humourous that the ad below your post, brandon, says "Blame Palin?"
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brandonazz on June 23, 2009, 08:20:01 pm
What's with you people and your abstention from the use of Adblock.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on June 23, 2009, 09:15:54 pm
What's your source for that, brandon?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brandonazz on June 23, 2009, 09:25:35 pm
Ugh, don't make be backtrack my stumbles.

Here? (http://themoderatevoice.com/36471/about-that-new-republican-majority/)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on June 23, 2009, 09:59:36 pm
Oh, I just got the banner.  Someone needs a better proofreader.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Andrew Ryan on June 23, 2009, 10:22:42 pm
Oh the irony...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Doomsday on June 24, 2009, 10:04:14 am
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/13/iran-demonstrations-viole_n_215189.html

You can't help but feel so utterly helpless when listening to this interview. you can even see it on the face of the anchor and interviewer, it's heart-breaking. I... I understand that political and policy implications of what's being asked, but at the same time.. I want to be able to do something for these people.

If you look at the Daily Shows footage from Iran Pre-Elections (and ignore all the jokes, sarcasm and such), it paints an even clear picture of who these people are; what they and their culture is like. It... the things coming out of Iran are heart-breaking, gut-wrenching, and at times difficult to look at.

Admittedly, a lot of what is coming out is biased towards those on the streets. We are only getting half the picture... half the story... but the side of the oppressed and/or innocent is always more compelling and sympathetic than the side of the oppressor. I've toyed with the idea in the past... but... with everything that's been happening in the world... I think I should go back to school... take up Political Science... maybe start running for local offices in the future... I dunno... I've always been politically minded... but seeing these things... hearing them... it makes me want to take action in whatever way I can. As self-centered and as vain as that is.... I just... I dunno... there are very few things that can move me as much as these past 12 days have.

Daily Show Link: http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=231547&title=jason-jones-behind-the-veil
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: /lurk on June 24, 2009, 10:25:56 am
Dude that... that's like... way to many... ellipses, man. We'd... understand better if... you, like... used sentences.

I don't mean to be flippant about the situation, but gushing about it here isn't going to change things. If you want to do something, go out and do something!

Seriously: if you want to make a difference, what the hell are you doing on the internet?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Didero on June 24, 2009, 10:49:06 am
Seriously: if you want to make a difference, what the hell are you doing on the internet?
Trying to get other people to do the hard work? That's always fun.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on June 24, 2009, 11:10:19 am
Lets chip in to get Op a plane ticket to Iran  :D
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Doomsday on June 24, 2009, 11:32:29 am
Dude that... that's like... way to many... ellipses, man. We'd... understand better if... you, like... used sentences.

I don't mean to be flippant about the situation, but gushing about it here isn't going to change things. If you want to do something, go out and do something!

Seriously: if you want to make a difference, what the hell are you doing on the internet?

It's on old habit that I never really broke, and gets worse if I'm A) tired or B) emotional. So, shove it.

What can I do? All I can do is make sure people know what's going on... I do that the best I can, which means going to the internet.

Trying to get other people to do the hard work? That's always fun.

Don't be flippant. There is little to nothing that can be done unless you are an Iranian in Iran, so the hardwork is already being done by those there and who are directly effected by it. What would you have me do? I'm one person.

Lets chip in to get Op a plane ticket to Iran  :D

I have no problem dying, so go right ahead. *rolls eyes*
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Didero on June 24, 2009, 11:39:44 am
Trying to get other people to do the hard work? That's always fun.
Don't be flippant. There is little to nothing that can be done unless you are an Iranian in Iran, so the hardwork is already being done by those there and who are directly effected by it. What would you have me do? I'm one person.
Oh, I didn't mean it as an attack on you! I meant it as a response to Lurk's remark, aimed at people on the internet that want to change something but are too lazy to. From your posts I gather you're not lazy, but just unable to do something about this mess.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Doomsday on June 24, 2009, 12:01:40 pm
My apologies then. *shrugs* Once I vent, it no longer bothers me so much. I only hold grudges with people I actually know and such.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Plank of Wood on June 24, 2009, 12:04:26 pm
The UK has now cut off relations with Iran.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on June 24, 2009, 12:14:56 pm
We had relations with Iran beyond installing the fascist regime they had before the Theocracy?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Plank of Wood on June 24, 2009, 12:20:09 pm
Apparently we do, or did.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Didero on June 24, 2009, 12:30:17 pm
Both countries threw out representatives from the other country, so I'm guessing there was at least some communication.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Doomsday on June 24, 2009, 12:30:30 pm
More relations than the US.. you guys had an Embassy there and they had one in England. The complete cut is news to me... I only heard of two diplomats being expelled in response to 2 British diplomats being expelled.

Let's not forget that it's the US who helped insert the Shah into power, not just England.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Plank of Wood on June 24, 2009, 12:53:33 pm
Oh, yeah. THAT Embassy.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brandonazz on June 24, 2009, 01:28:13 pm
We had relations with Iran beyond installing the fascist regime they had before the Theocracy?

I thought we did that.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Andrew Ryan on June 24, 2009, 02:06:00 pm
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_on_re_us/us_sc_governor_where

Wow... Who knew?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: /lurk on June 24, 2009, 02:49:17 pm
He's resigning because he slept with a woman?

...

What's with you Americans?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: PatMan33 on June 24, 2009, 03:18:44 pm
 :-\

I don't think he's say he will resign as Governor, at least not yet. He did resign as the chair of the Governor's association though. And he slept with a woman who wasn't his wife... I think that would be a shot to your public image in most countries. In politics your public image is all you have.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on June 24, 2009, 03:39:29 pm
If by most countries you mean protestant countries. Yes.

Berlusconi is still in office in Italy even though he's been photographed in public with several hookers and his wife publicly denounced him after he went to an 18 year old's birthday party :P

In France politicians have affairs all the time and don't ever seem to lose their jobs because of it.

In England they get to keep their jobs but get shunted into the background >_>
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on June 24, 2009, 03:55:20 pm
Can not remember it even being mentioned in Sweden. If memory serves me right the former prime minster Göran Persson did divorced his wife and during his term and married a other. It was really not a big issue.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Cow on June 24, 2009, 04:28:25 pm
If by most countries you mean protestant countries. Yes.

Berlusconi is still in office in Italy even though he's been photographed in public with several hookers and his wife publicly denounced him after he went to an 18 year old's birthday party :P

In France politicians have affairs all the time and don't ever seem to lose their jobs because of it.

In England they get to keep their jobs but get shunted into the background >_>

Do they ever disappear "in a forest for a hike", causing many to presume them dead, and then show up four days later and cry about it on national television?

P.S. I think Berlusconi just fits the criteria for magnificent bastardry. Decide for yourself.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: PatMan33 on June 24, 2009, 05:04:13 pm
Berlusconi is still in office in Italy even though he's been photographed in public with several hookers and his wife publicly denounced him after he went to an 18 year old's birthday party :P

In France politicians have affairs all the time and don't ever seem to lose their jobs because of it.

In England they get to keep their jobs but get shunted into the background >_>

He didn't lose his job though.

Now yeah, he probably will lose his job and yeah, the news is going to make it all about the affair because that pleases the ad reps; however, the real reason he would need to step down is because of the irresponsible nature of his actions. As the Governor, he has the final say on several issues. When he leaves the state or is unable to do his job, his duties are passed onto the Lieutenant Governor. In this case, he didn't notify anyone and therefore he was still in charge. If something had happened he would have been the go-to guy. He was out of contact and nobody knew where he was. Yeah, it probably would have been passed off to the Lieutenant Governor anyway but the fact still stands that he broke protocol and left a vulnerability at the highest level of state government.

And hey, in the end you have the recognize and respect that this is the way things work over here. The Governor didn't recognize or respect the system and that is why he should step down.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on June 24, 2009, 07:57:31 pm
I've toyed with the idea in the past... but... with everything that's been happening in the world... I think I should go back to school... take up Political Science... maybe start running for local offices in the future... I dunno... I've always been politically minded... but seeing these things... hearing them... it makes me want to take action in whatever way I can. As self-centered and as vain as that is.... I just... I dunno... there are very few things that can move me as much as these past 12 days have.

If you really feel that convicted, then you should consider it. But first, some advice.  Know that local level issues rarely get to this level.  Most local officials spend their time dealing with zoning questions, the school board, and trying to meet the budget.  Also know that if you're going to run for office or be involved in politics on an official level, you have to be a people person to at least some extent.

But yeah, what can we as individuals do?  On another site I have seen stuff about setting up a proxy to help Iranians get information out, and donating to the Iranian Red Crescent.  I don't have the information on either, but it sounded like the best way to make donations was to call up your local Red Cross and give money specifically meant for Iran.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Doomsday on June 24, 2009, 08:20:03 pm
If you really feel that convicted, then you should consider it. But first, some advice.  Know that local level issues rarely get to this level.  Most local officials spend their time dealing with zoning questions, the school board, and trying to meet the budget.  Also know that if you're going to run for office or be involved in politics on an official level, you have to be a people person to at least some extent.

I know and all that is really unappealing for me.. but in order to run for any higher office with a chance to succeed (especially with the way the DNC/RNC/Government charges a candidate to be placed on a ballot) you either have to be rich, have held a lower office, be a lawyer, and so on. So in order to get up to the Gubernatorial and/or Senate level you have to basically start at the bottom, especially if you don't have "name power". As much as I like politics, I don't particularly like how the system has evolved in some aspects. I dunno... *shrugs* it's just going to take a lot of work and time.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on June 24, 2009, 09:23:42 pm
Another way to see if you really want to follow such a path is to go out and volunteer.  You missed a great chance in 2008 and the next round of elections will be in 2010, but there may be some local stuff coming up in your area for 2009.  If you want to get in on local issues, then read the local news and attend city council or other local government activities that are open to the public.  If you want to get involved you really just have to get out there and look to see what's going on.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Doomsday on June 25, 2009, 02:11:21 pm
So more bravado out of North Korea. Threatening the US with Nuclear Annihilation? Pfft... their puny weapon systems couldn't touch us. Japan, or South Korea is another matter, even China nd Russia should by worried about their unstable "ally".

I found this particularly amusing last night.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=231560&title=welcome-to-the-jong-il

I wonder how much longer that they can keep this bravado up. And how long Russia, China, and the US will tolerate this rhetoric before we respond.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Raz on June 25, 2009, 02:26:31 pm
I still support the crushing of North Korea. They're a real threat, unlike Iran or Afghanistan. I'm surprised China hasn't decided to simply destroy them, but then again, they do have their own domestic problems right now, what with imploding and such. If a war did break out, South Korea would likely be the worst hit.

Kim Jong must be a damn good poker player though, since he likes making so many bluffs.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: eropS on June 25, 2009, 02:29:41 pm

Kim Jong must be a damn good poker player though, since he likes making so many bluffs.

That and everyone he plays with is probably to scared to beat him...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Plank of Wood on June 25, 2009, 02:44:06 pm
It helps to have the potentionial to kill millions of innocent civilians and put the world Billions in debt when making threats.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on June 25, 2009, 03:04:45 pm
debt dose not work that way >_>
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Plank of Wood on June 25, 2009, 03:07:25 pm
So repairing downtown Seoul or Tokyo and clearing up fallout while paying back the insurance money is perfectly within budget? Cool.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on June 25, 2009, 03:30:20 pm
You do not make the world in dept. dept can only exist in the form of someone being in dept to someone else. So it would balance at world level.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Doctor Z on June 25, 2009, 03:38:19 pm
He bombs a bunch of major cities, the countries those cities are in need to borrow alot of money and resources for reconstruction. There you go, dept! :3
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: MetallicDragon on June 25, 2009, 03:48:37 pm
Debt*
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Doctor Z on June 25, 2009, 03:58:51 pm
Sh... Shut uuuuup.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Cow on June 25, 2009, 07:03:50 pm
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/26/world/asia/26korea.html?ref=global-home

RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on June 26, 2009, 01:38:08 am
He bombs a bunch of major cities, the countries those cities are in need to borrow alot of money and resources for reconstruction. There you go, dept! :3

Still not how it works  ::)

But yes there could be great economic harm. (Well it will be great economic harm if there would be a nuclear war even if very limited :P)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Plank of Wood on June 28, 2009, 03:11:55 pm
British embassy workers have been arrested in Iran. (http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/article.aspx?cp-documentid=148231177)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Saganmaineiac on July 14, 2009, 09:23:43 am
What's happening today?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on July 14, 2009, 09:38:30 am
I just listened to the European anthem on youtube. That's tangentially related to politics.

Yay EU. >_>
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on July 14, 2009, 10:25:42 am
Damn... Using Beethoven for political propaganda should be illegal. Who can say no to something that has a anthem like that? <_<
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on July 14, 2009, 10:26:36 am
Well, it beats Souza marches. BAM! take that America, your patriotic music is LESS ROUSING.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Cow on July 14, 2009, 10:29:07 am
I just listened to the European anthem on youtube. That's tangentially related to politics.

Yay EU. >_>

Heh. Europe. It's like a smaller Canada. Then again, Canada is like the United States, but smaller. So Europe = The U.S.  :o

Well, it beats Souza marches. BAM! take that America, your patriotic music is LESS ROUSING.

Not to an American (read: Me). It's subjective.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on July 14, 2009, 10:31:36 am
I was making a sarcasm.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brandonazz on July 14, 2009, 10:32:35 am
It is the chief export of Krakow Sam.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: martyk on July 14, 2009, 10:38:29 am
I just listened to the European anthem on youtube. That's tangentially related to politics.

Yay EU. >_>

Heh. Europe. It's like a smaller Canada. Then again, Canada is like the United States, but smaller. So Europe = The U.S.  :o

Don't be crazy, we're considerably bigger than you.

Also, Europe, Canada and the US are all very different.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Cow on July 14, 2009, 10:40:25 am
I was making a sarcasm.

It's not quite an internet commodity, though, is it? However, I too was "making a sarcasm". I'm not very patriotic. Except after I watched "The Patriot". That movie is crazy awesome.

I just listened to the European anthem on youtube. That's tangentially related to politics.

Yay EU. >_>

Heh. Europe. It's like a smaller Canada. Then again, Canada is like the United States, but smaller. So Europe = The U.S.  :o

Don't be crazy, we're considerably bigger than you.

Also, Europe, Canada and the US are all very different.

Go look at a globe. See Europe? It has less land mass than the continental U.S.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brandonazz on July 14, 2009, 10:42:33 am
"The Patriot"

AMERICA **** YEAH.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Cow on July 14, 2009, 10:43:51 am
Oh wait, I just googled it.  Europe is slightly larger than the U.S. Damn.


"The Patriot"

AMERICA **** YEAH.

High five!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Doomsday on July 14, 2009, 11:50:29 am
.... Well... I can't very well be the bearer of bad news in a situation like this, so despite the sarcasm/hypocrisy on my part:

Woooooooooooo!

AMERICA! **** YEAH!
Freedom is the only way, yeah.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Andrew Ryan on July 14, 2009, 11:54:15 am
Oh wait, I just googled it.  Europe is slightly larger than the U.S. Damn.

Not if you include Alaska!  :D
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Didero on July 14, 2009, 11:55:22 am
Also, size doesn't matter.


Right, whoever's reading this?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Plank of Wood on July 14, 2009, 11:57:38 am
We have a larger population, more % urbanised and have a higher total GPD. And if we take it into account that Scandinavia is the penis of Europe, and Florida is the penis of the US then we are "Bigger" than the US.

 ;D
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Cow on July 14, 2009, 12:17:09 pm
We have a larger population, more % urbanised and have a higher total GPD. And if we take it into account that Scandinavia is the penis of Europe, and Florida is the penis of the US then we are "Bigger" than the US.

 ;D

Why is your continent's penis on the top of it's head?  ???
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brandonazz on July 14, 2009, 12:18:08 pm
They're European, Cow.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Cow on July 14, 2009, 12:22:24 pm
They're European, Cow.

I see. Fancy hats and all that.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: munchkin5 on July 14, 2009, 12:44:28 pm
We're not european, we're British.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on July 14, 2009, 12:48:17 pm
Sorry Munchkin, but Britain is part of the EU :P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: munchkin5 on July 14, 2009, 12:49:20 pm
Thank you captin obvious, but that wasn't what i was getting at.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Saganmaineiac on July 14, 2009, 01:10:28 pm
The UK started the idea of a UN.
It's called sarcasm
"What does that taste like?"
"Damnit Goku!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBm_2IUn4MU

Oh btw, 50th page.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on July 14, 2009, 01:14:32 pm
Sagan, let's have a little talk.  Just because someone mentions a word that was in one of the DBZ Abridged epsisodes doesn't mean you should post that episode in the thread.

This is the politics thread, isn't it? Let's talk politics.  The Sotamayor Senate confirmaiton hearings are going on this week.  She's pretty much a shoe-in, but there may still be some fireworks from it.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: gec05 on July 14, 2009, 01:23:44 pm
Also, stop counting the page numbers and find something more constructive to post about instead.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brandonazz on July 14, 2009, 01:27:16 pm
Sagan, let's have a little talk.  Just because someone mentions a word that was in one of the DBZ Abridged epsisodes doesn't mean you should post that episode in the thread.

This is the politics thread, isn't it? Let's talk politics.  The Sotamayor Senate confirmaiton hearings are going on this week.  She's pretty much a shoe-in, but there may still be some fireworks from it.

When I woke up to the radio this morning, they said that the biggest issue would be a comment from fifteen years ago about a wise latina possibly making better decisions than a regular white male.

Is that truly the best criticism that they can come up with?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ultimatum on July 14, 2009, 01:41:49 pm
At Sagan.
No the USA did. More specificly President Wilson did after WW1,but it fell apart because of the USA's refusal to get involved any futher,it was also because of WW2,which the league of nations was set up to prevent ever happening,it failed.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Cow on July 14, 2009, 02:52:48 pm
Is that truly the best criticism that they can come up with?

Yes. Yes it is.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Little on July 14, 2009, 03:13:12 pm
Is that truly the best criticism that they can come up with?

It really is. Kinda sad, isn't it?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on July 14, 2009, 04:20:38 pm
On one hand it is sad.  And yet you know that if some white guy had said white men making better decisions than latina women, he wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brandonazz on July 14, 2009, 04:35:34 pm
I'd say the same thing, but she said 'wise,' rather than just flat out ethnic superiority, so I let it slide.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Cobra on July 14, 2009, 07:38:22 pm
"The Patriot"

AMERICA **** YEAH.

The patriot, 2 Australians defend America from the British.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on July 15, 2009, 05:16:09 am
At Sagan.
No the USA did. More specificly President Wilson did after WW1,but it fell apart because of the USA's refusal to get involved any futher,it was also because of WW2,which the league of nations was set up to prevent ever happening,it failed.

I would not say that League of Nations is the same as the UN. Is a smiler concept but the organizations where different.

USA was instrumental in the formation of the UN anyway. And is not like there was one person or nation behind the creation. It was a team effort. Part of why League of Nations failed was because so few supported it.

Historically there have been a few that have tried create world spanning organization dedicated to peace and development. UN has been the most successful one so far.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Plank of Wood on July 17, 2009, 02:25:00 pm
Communism! Wonderful Communism! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8112103.stm)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Cow on July 17, 2009, 03:18:12 pm
Mao got banhammer'd from beyond the grave?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brandonazz on July 19, 2009, 02:00:04 pm
Interactive timeline of coverage of quotes in the presidential campaign. (http://memetracker.org/viz-elec.html)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brandonazz on August 13, 2009, 12:33:14 pm
British NHS to Republicans: Stop lying. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/13/british-health-system-hit_n_258418.html)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Andrew Ryan on August 13, 2009, 12:43:12 pm
Ohhhhh...

'Dey just got served....

 8)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Cow on August 13, 2009, 02:10:07 pm
British NHS to Republicans: Stop lying. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/13/british-health-system-hit_n_258418.html)

That's the most ballsy thing any Brit has said since WWII. Probably.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Plank of Wood on August 13, 2009, 03:27:16 pm
British NHS to Republicans: Stop lying. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/13/british-health-system-hit_n_258418.html)

That's the most ballsy thing any Brit has said since WWII. Probably.


I'm sure Ian Hislop has said balsy things, considering how many times he's been sued.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Saganmaineiac on August 13, 2009, 03:57:28 pm
The democrats will soon owe the brits a favor. :D
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Plank of Wood on August 13, 2009, 04:28:13 pm
Indeed, we shall give them a few minutes extra break in our Tea Mines when we otherthrow humanity.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Cow on August 13, 2009, 04:31:17 pm
Indeed, we shall give them a few minutes extra break in our Tea Mines when we overthrow humanity.

For the glorious socialism 'stache- Er, I mean... For America! Yeah, that.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Saganmaineiac on August 13, 2009, 04:33:40 pm
For the Glorious Royal Crown I say! Huzzah! ;D
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on August 13, 2009, 05:45:14 pm
Damn those RoyalCommies with there free health care! It is evil i tell you! There just out for you soul which they use as fuel in there factories!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on August 13, 2009, 06:51:29 pm
Given the number of people protesting the public health plan in the US, I'm going to bet that, if it goes through, the Dems are going to get smashed out of office pretty darn fast next election. I could be wrong but it's a very observable trend...

Also, I'm confused as to why people would say that it's okay to ban a political party. Well, no, not confused, just a tad appalled.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Raz on August 13, 2009, 07:06:15 pm
All the idiots just rise up together, rallied and given a bloodlust by the Republicans. Honestly, they need to just give up, they lost, fair and square. No reason to go around inciting rebellion, like they attempted a few times. Just read some stories of the things the protestors have done, how crazy they are. 'Losing our america!' 'No socialism!' ('Screw the poor') etc.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on August 13, 2009, 07:14:48 pm
Given that the ones protesting are usually lower to middle class, this isn't "Screw the poor" because it's the poor protesting. They're upset about things and they have every right to be angry. They're not idiots, they're people with valid political concerns.

For the record, they're also not the ones doing stupid things. More than one person has been beaten by pro-Democrat thugs at these protests, including a cancer patient

(Edited for accuracy)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brandonazz on August 13, 2009, 07:32:27 pm
Given that the ones protesting are usually lower to middle class, this isn't "Screw the poor" because it's the poor protesting. They're upset about things and they have every right to be angry. They're not idiots, they're people with valid political concerns.

Since when do people consistently favor what's actually in their interests?

the woman who claimed Republicans scarred her face because of how much they hate Obama

I think you've got your story confused.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on August 13, 2009, 07:48:32 pm
Since when do people consistently favor what's actually in their interests?

Isn't that a self-defeating question? If the answer's never, both sides of the argument are moot, since people are advocating what they consider to be in people's best interests.

I think you've got your story confused.

... Right, sorry, had that backwards... Sheesh, that is embarassing.

Edited for logical consistency. Feth, I'm tired...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Josasa on August 14, 2009, 12:58:44 am
Quote from: Obama
"If you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. It's the Post Office that's always having problems." (http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/blog_entry/steve_foley/2009/08/11/hello_barry_obama_healthcare_the_post_office)

His logic is undeniable. Hell, the government has already ruined so much, why not do more?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on August 14, 2009, 04:49:40 am
Personally, I don't think Obama believes half of what he's doing will work. He does it to pander to his base. The guy's proven to be ridiculously savvy at times so I can't think that, with the statements he makes sometimes, he's oblivious to things like people being outraged about what's occurring. Whether he'll do something is another story, but I'm certain he's got more depth than people think.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on August 14, 2009, 05:27:20 am
Well republicans are fighting facts with fiction. That is what annoy me. And people go with it! Nothing really new. If you have nothing then fight something with you believes not with what you know. As i see it people on this subject are ether Dumb, Zealots or Dishonest. Some are absolutely dumb but the biggest group i think is the Zealots. These are the people that think that Public health care is base because it turns the county in to a communist state or is against the bible or something like that. People who have made up there mind. The Dishonest group is probably political that know that public health care is not so bad but is does not sever there interest to promote it so they fuel the fire for the Zealots and try to keep people ignorant. They might also be people who stands to directly profit form it. Lobbies getting played by big companies. Companies making a lot of money out of the current situation and so on. They like to pour money in to think tanks to get the "facts" that group one base there judgment on. Not to say there the spider in the net or anything. The situation can arise without dishonest men so do not blame it all on them. (Also make you look like a crazy.) But it does happen. Just look at the tobacco industry.

what one can do is simply put the people that attack you up against the wall. Be on the offensive not the defense. If they make a claim then demand that they can back it up. If they cant then just ignore them polity. Take the higher ground and do not let them drag you down to there level.

That being said there are technical difficulty in implementing a public heal care system in USA. But i think it can be done. And i think in the long run USA will save money. In some ways USA has a better situation then Europe has in this regard. The Demographics on USA is a lot more favorable then Europe for example where we are having a larger and larger part of the population getting old which in turn leads to more need for health care but at the same time having less to support it. USA still have a comparability high growth of young people (which will lead to other problems in the future) that can support the potential public health care. Anyway it will probably not be a overnight reform. That is unlikely. But a small gradual change which the heal care system can cope with. So the fear that the hole system will collapse is pretty unfounded i would say. And in the end i am sure that less money will be spent in the health care system but with same or better result.

And here some Anecdotal evidence (Yes i know. Lowest form of evidence you can have. But hay is something.) Form my experience of the Swedish health care system is that it works very well on average. All my family member including my self have had pretty much only positive experiences with the system. Lucky i have never been that sick so i have not need to use it that much. My other family member have also not has use it that often. But it happens. And when we need it it has always been there.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Saganmaineiac on August 14, 2009, 06:07:30 am
Good one Yokto! ;D
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on August 14, 2009, 07:45:24 am
Why is it dumb if people don't want public healthcare? They don't want increased taxation and increased government control over their choice in doctors and this is perfectly reasonable. They don't WANT it because they want to be able to reduce their taxes, not increase them. Just because the system might work (personally, I think it won't) doesn't mean that it's right to put it in place.

These people, whom you call Dumb, Zealots and Dishonest, are people of a differing opinion to you. The Dishonest, I agree, certainly exist, but they're not the people we're talking about here. The Dumb and Zealots you talk about are people whose opinions differ from yours, who want less government control in their lives, less taxation and more individual freedom. These are people who are willing to pay for their medicine either from their own pocket or by insurance. Why is it that someone whose priorities differ from yours must be unintelligent or a fanatic?

Perhaps, Yokto, you're more than a little prejudiced. You think that, because a system works for you, it must be the best and it will work for everyone. I love the Canadian public health system but I would never seek to impose it elsewhere. It's a great system, possibly one others could be modeled off, but different strokes work for different folks. However, you seem to declare that anyone who suggests that this thing isn't the bees knees is somehow an idiot, a fanatic or a liar. Great way to rationally discuss something there.

Of course, then again, I disagree with you, so I must be a fanatical and idiotic liar and that makes my opinion moot, doesn't it?.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on August 14, 2009, 08:09:44 am
I want to comment on two points from Yokto.  First, there are people with legitimate criticisms of the healthcare overhaul.  The crazy people, unfortunately, are just the loudest voices of opposition, and may be the only ones you're hearing if you're in another country observing this from a distance.  To say that everyone opposed to something this complex is a liar or an idiot is oversimplifying things way too much.

The second point is that Obama and the Democrat's plans are not technically a public healthcare system.  It isn't an across the board, universal plan, if that's what you meant.  It is my understanding that the government would be offering the option of what amounts to public health insurance as an alternative to what insurance companies offer.  If the proposal was for universal healthcare, for the government to take over the whole thing, this issue would be dead in the water.  Whether it would work or not, that's not what the American public wants.

EDIT: Dangit Axel.  I'm posting what I was going to say anyways.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on August 14, 2009, 08:15:48 am
By all means, Inkling. It's always good to voice your opinion, even if someone said something similar. "What he said" is a tad too simplistic at times.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Josasa on August 14, 2009, 11:04:49 am
There are several problems with what you are saying Yokto. The first is that, as Axel mentioned, I want lower taxes and I prefer to make my own choices. I also enjoy seeing money spent wisely and not thrown away. A perfect example, as I posted before, was brought up by Obama himself. The Post Office is doing horribly. It's billions in debt, has mediocre service at best, and isn't really trusted to ship anything larger than an envelope. There's a reason UPS and FedEx are doing so well, most of it stems from the fact that they are privately owned and they understand how to manage money. It's just that simple.

And you always seem to use your experiences in Sweden as some support. But I must remind you, the United States of America is not Sweden. The United States of America has a GDP of roughly $14 trillion while Sweden has roughly $500 billion. That's about 28 times larger (30 when you use the actual numbers). The United States of America has about 306 million people while Sweden has about 9 million. 34 times larger. The United States of America is roughly 22 times larger than Sweden. All of these fun little facts point out that the United States of America is not Sweden, nor is it similar in really any way, shape or form. These statistics all point out that the United States of America faces much different problems than the nation of Sweden, including energy concerns for a larger population over a large land area, deteriorating infrastructure over a vast swathe of land, the education of a much larger student body, and the management of an economy the likes of which the world has never seen. All very difficult problems that Sweden can't compare to.

Now, on that note, I'm going to share some of my experiences. I actually work at a doctor's office as a 'clerk' I guess you could say. The doctor I work for participates in a large variety of medical institutions worldwide, mainly focusing on wilderness medicine and outdoors medical work (even though he works from an office and still sees patients there). He actually has connections up in Canada, of whom I worked with on a project or two. The funny thing was, when that this woman from Canada needed to have surgery on her arm-a routine surgery, nothing complicated at all-she had to wait roughly two weeks to receive an MRI (basically an x-ray for soft tissue of the body). When my doctor found out about this he was astounded. In the United States of America receiving an MRI is a matter of hours, not weeks. At most you could wait two days to receive an MRI. Because of this, she ended up coming down to the U.S. to receive the surgery. All was good. I'm not saying that Canada's healthcare system is bad, just that the U.S. excels in some areas. Well, a lot actually.

Now another example. I actually had major back surgery because I had scoliosis. It was intensive and took roughly 7 hours to complete. So I can reasonably say that I've been through the U.S. healthcare system and I can say that I had no problems with it. In fact, there service was amazing, I've had zero problems with my back since the surgery, and the after care from the nurses was wonderful. Now, had their payroll been issued by the government on a flat pay rate, I'm not so sure that things would have worked out the way they did. But again, these are just my experiences and they cannot speak for everyone.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brandonazz on August 14, 2009, 11:31:14 am
Huzzah, it's a conservative gang bang!

Be gentle to Yokto, guys.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: /lurk on August 14, 2009, 12:11:54 pm
Josasa, what you just said doesn't mean anything. I could tell stories about people receiving same-day treatment on the NHS, or people in america getting shafted by their insurers, or whatever, but it really wouldn't add anything to the topic. Don't gripe at Yokto if all you've got are anecdotes.

Axelgear, you're misrepresenting the plans - as far as I can see, receiving public healthcare money won't reduce your choice in doctors, and how it's going to be payed for (if it can't recover the costs on its own) hasn't even been decided yet. Where, then, is this "increased taxation and increased government control"?

Yokto, chill out a bit. Don't got capitalising Things at Random.

Inkling... yeah, fair enough, good point.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Josasa on August 14, 2009, 01:40:27 pm
Josasa, what you just said doesn't mean anything. I could tell stories about people receiving same-day treatment on the NHS, or people in america getting shafted by their insurers, or whatever, but it really wouldn't add anything to the topic. Don't gripe at Yokto if all you've got are anecdotes...

Well, perhaps if you chose to actually read my post, you would see that there was some substance there. And I do realize that my anecdotes don't mean much, I just felt like sharing some of my experiences, the same exact thing that Yokto did in his post. There was no difference. When you think about it, though, a doctor choosing to ignore their own health care system in order to have the procedure done in the U.S. does say something.

But if you would be so kind as to fill us in on a few stories about the NHS that would be helpful, seeing as the British health care system is world renowned in innovation and top notch quality. It only helps to create a bigger picture.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on August 14, 2009, 02:15:59 pm
I actually have to admit that my post was a bit provocative. A bit top provocative maybe. But at least i got some result. ;)

Well to go back to the 3 categories of people. First i must explain the first part of this argument from my side so i hope people can see what i am getting at. The first part is that i know that those that claim that a public health care system can not be done in USA are simply wrong. I do not really need to debate this. That is not to say that is something that will be easy to implement or even the best way to go. But it is doable.

So back to the 3 groups. Most got very angry when i called the first group the dumb group. Yes i probably should just have called them the first group. A neutral term for a group of people in this case who jumps at the first shred of evidence that supports there assumption. This group may jump to this conclusion for any manner of reason and do not have to be tied to any tax. This group is often a pseudo intellectual group that do some research. But they do not delve deep enough. There Conformist biest in general and are more willing to take the word of a Consecrative think tank (in this case) over a independent study that was published in a scientific journal. There not really dumb dumb. There just more willing to overlook things that contradict there own view. They think there right.

Group two have on the other hand made up there mind and they do not need to look for evidence. This might be because of religious reasons or ideological ones. But they have made up there mind in general long before the issue was even presented to them. They believe there right.

Group tree seems to be the most excepted group apparently. Not that we like them but everyone knows that politicians are just dishonest ;). Anyway this group generally do not care about the truth. They care about what can benefit them the most and if being dishonest does this then they will do so. So is not much to say about it really. (But remember is not just politicians in this group. Politicians gets some times a bit to much flak.)

Of course people can blend a bit between the groups to but they general belong to one of these categories if they say that public health care is totally impossible.

As for my Anecdotal evidence. Yes i know i use a lot of first hand experience and i should not really. But to attack it my experience with "USA is different" is pretty dumb. Of course it is and i have not denied it. But if you going to do that you should also tell me why the difference matters and most of the time people do not even try. Random critic: "I mean in Sweden they the Metric system and in USA is Imperial! Of course the public health care model can not work in nation that uses Imperial! That is absurd!" And that is how crazy it sometimes get if you ask me >_>.

Josasa response with Anecdotal i think was brilliant. That is the way to do it. A positive experience of the US system vs my positive experience of the Swedish system pretty much makes both system equally valid in my book. Off course both our experiences do not account for much if we are trying to settle a argument. But at least that is fighting smart.

But lets try this form the top. Maybe we can get something out of this debate rather then a dumb Anecdotal contest of whatever. >_>

So here is my question: Why should not USA have a public health care system?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on August 14, 2009, 05:34:43 pm
Hurray, you got a result because people were offended by you insulting people. That's... Something to be proud of, I guess.

Let's do this sequentially, shall we? First, claiming that a system shouldn't be done isn't the same as saying that it can't be put into place, it just means that it'd be ridiculous to do so. The US government could try and give everyone solid gold pirate hats, but it'd not make it wise.

Second, these people have more than just a shred of evidence. They're not just jumping to conclusions, they're very angry at what they've seen and don't want the government interfering with businesses. Saying that they are somehow brainwashed sheep who bleat at the first suggestion is kind of ironic when you point out how they accept the word of one group of people paid to do a study and you accept the word of another group of people paid to do a study. You question the political motivations of one, but not the other. Why? Does it occur to you that your results could be as politically predestined as theirs? Of course not. Even if it isn't, however, you're broad-brushing again. Far more people than you think have done their research, probably more than you, and don't like what they've seen.

Disagreeing with your point of view doesn't make them stupid.

Third, these people who do so for ideological reasons, that's... Kinda silly to assess. Bible thumpers aren't at work here, except by coincidence. Libertarians certainly fill a percentage of the opposition camp, but their opposition is usually not this vocal, not unless they see serious flaws or violations of property rights.

Fourth, politicians are naturally dishonest. Both groups are dishonest. Why is it, though, that you only assume that it's the Republicans who are being dishonest here? You didn't say it in this post, but you clearly pointed to them in your last one.

Public health in the US is seen, by some, to be antithetical what the nation is founded on and, given that it's already heavily in debt, is adding more to it NOW, of all times, really the wisest idea? Do you really want to take a risk on adding even more of a burden to the US's stretched budget with a system that could cost billions, or even trillions, and be bankrupt within a few years? Even if you think that giving people public health insurance is a great idea, you can't honestly believe that now, of all times, is the best time to do it? When is Obama going to pull the troops out of Iraq anyway? Wasn't that his big promise when he was getting elected? Why has everyone forgotten that at this point?

Axelgear, you're misrepresenting the plans - as far as I can see, receiving public healthcare money won't reduce your choice in doctors, and how it's going to be payed for (if it can't recover the costs on its own) hasn't even been decided yet. Where, then, is this "increased taxation and increased government control"?

For starters, anyone who doesn't have government-approved healthcare must pay an extra 2.5% of their income in taxes. How's that for starters? That's 250 dollars out of every 10,000. Assuming an income of, say, 40,000 dollars, two incomes of around that amount, that's an extra 2000 dollars in taxes a year. Interestingly enough, although the bill says that they are getting taxed, it then says that it's not a tax. This, for the record, means that the Federal government controls this undemocratically, allowing them to raise or lower this amount without Congressional oversight.

Those two tidbits are on pages 167 and 203 of the bill respectively.

Also, the government has 100% total access to your financial records and can make them matters of public record, as they're now necessary for determining how much you pay for government healthcare. It is, as was pointed out before, like insurance, but, unlike insurance, you pay more depending on how much you make. That latter part is probably fine by most but you can see why flat tax favouring people like Republicans oppose it, and anyone can oppose it on basis of personal privacy.

Pages 58-59 of the bill.

Oh, and on page 124, it mentions that no company can sue the government for price fixing. Hey, though, it's alright for the government to undercut prices and have an effective monopoly, though, right?

I've got a LOT of this, believe me.

A link to the text of the bill, if you're interested (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3200ih.txt.pdf).

I agree that some of the bandied about stuff is insane, like people being told to end their lives... But it doesn't mean that a lot of other stuff isn't true.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on August 14, 2009, 06:33:58 pm
Well like i said there are those that really do not delve deeper in to the problem Axel. And those can be categorized in the 3 groups. And yes there are people who belong to the group 2. People that do not like this out of ideological reasons. (But not likely that that anyone do it because is against there religion. That was in a wider context :P)

Also i do not like how you implied that all politicians are dishonest. They are not. Some belong to group 1 or 2. Some do research the issue more in detail.

But if we are honest here and i think we should then you have to agree that public health care can be implemented in USA without the hole system collapsing. It can be done but it might be hard and might also not be that good of idea. What i am mainly against is that a lot of people paint doom and gloom over all this without any base in reality. Like the world would go under if USA did this. Like there would be a great domino effect that lead to the total collapse of USA and lead to a fascist tyranny of the state or worse. And those that think this will happen are the ones that belong to the 3 groups.



So back to my question: Why should not USA have a public health care system?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on August 14, 2009, 06:43:46 pm
I honestly think that any system implemented will be costly and shoddy. The US government is a morass of bureaucracy that has routinely proven incompetent at managing a comprehensive... Anything, really. I have no doubt that they might be able to implement the system but it will be far worse than what already exists.

Besides, I already answered that question. Do you honestly think, even if you believe that this is appropriate, that NOW is the time to be taking the risk? Their economy just had a recession (however artificial it might've been), they're STILL at war... They need to clean up their act before they start tossing other things on the pile to see if it stands or collapses. If it stands, great, but they're ignoring existing problems (ones that they promised to solve). If it collapses, it's more junk. It's a no-win situation.

Also, you're still broad-brushing people. You're saying that anyone who disagrees with it clearly either didn't do the research or is just stubborn. Could it be that you're wrong, though? Might it not be that, in fact, these people HAVE done their research and have come to a different conclusion as you?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on August 14, 2009, 07:03:14 pm
Well i though i made my self clear. People that Paint this with Doom and gloom. As it was the end of the world. There the ones belong the the 3 groups. You have to admit that there is no evidence behind such a prediction. I have no problem with people that have moderate critique. There is a difference. Are we clear now?



OK so your first problem with it is that you thing that US bureaucracy will hinder it form working efficiently. Maybe. Do you have anything to support that statement? Any studies or that like?

Second problem you have with it is timing i see. It would be to costly to do it now you think. But when would it be a good time then? And are you sure the cost would run away? Is there anything that support the claim that United States public debt would sharply rise due to public health care reform?

(Note i am not saying there is none but i would like to see something that supports these statements form a credible source)



By the way. As a side question. What do you think USA should do to reduce the public debt?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on August 14, 2009, 07:25:43 pm
I'd say that their argument isn't that this is the end of the world, simply that a government that asks people to inform those spreading "false information" about government plans, has reneged on at least two major promises, has sought to increases taxes and, now, seeks to ignore its people in favour of pushing through a very unpopular bill that increases government controls... All these things are signs of a bad government. They're not saying that it's the end of the world, just that this is a very, very bad government.

Out of curiosity, why is it that people RAGED at George Bush for doing stuff like this but Obama is beloved by much of the media? He's left Guantanamo open, he's left the troops in Iraq, he's continued wiretapping and now he's adding more malarkey to the list. There has to be some reason here...


Now, as for bureaucracy, my favourite example is that certain states have legalized marijuana for medicinal use but have to keep the state grow-ops secret because it's still illegal under federal law. Go government, one hand clearly not knowing what the other is doing. I'm certain I can find other examples, though. For example, 3 million dollars was appropriated by Senate CJS Appropriations Subcommittee member Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.). That they're both Democrats doesn't surprise me, for the record. They wanted that money to help make NASA images more available to the public, unaware that NASA TV, a program already freely available from NASA, is free to air and can be put on any television network with no cost, while NASA's images are available from their website for free as well.

Or how about the 700,000 dollars attempted to be appropriated by Senate CJS Appropriations Subcommittee member Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)? The money was to try and devise a system of stations to monitor the weather and collect data in the state. Incidentally, tehy were apparently unaware that the local weather network already has such stations and gathers the data anyway.

The US government is not one cohesive government; it's more like 50 or so separate governments all jammed together and trying to work together as best they can, a bit like the EU if it had far more legislative power. You can't expect that system to work smoothly.


Finally, on the subject of debt matters, I can't say that any time will necessarily be good but I can say that now is definitely bad. If the system works, it might not significantly raise government debt (but it will have to a little, as the government has finite resources, and money must be shifted from elsewhere to cover the new layers of bureaucracy that this will generated). However, if it does collapse and is as fantastically expensive as many predict it will be, it will have a terrible effect on the US's debt.

As for how to reduce it, well... My answer is probably unsurprising: Reduce taxes. At first, that might seem counterproductive and, at first, it might be, but, to induce an economic upturn, people need money to invest. If you reduce taxes and give people more money to spend, it's more money flowing into the economy, creating new jobs and helping the world go round. When things really get up there and the bubble starts to grow again, raise taxes again.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brandonazz on August 14, 2009, 09:49:26 pm
So many words!  :)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on August 14, 2009, 09:50:57 pm
My thoughts exactly.  I'll get back to this tomorrow.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on August 15, 2009, 06:50:52 am
OK you give examples on how funds have been spend unwisely in the past but is it this way every time? Is funds always spend unwisely or have the federal government actually been able to carry out reform in the past? And if it has been able to do big scale reforms in the past why should it not work this time? Is that not the question? Not if the government have made unwise spending in the past?

It seems like your cherry picking single cases that fits in to your world view. Even go so far as to take attempts in to account (would not a attempts mean the measure fail to gain support and therefor the system worked in this case?)



On Dept. Here you come with rather empty statements that it could collapse and could be fantastically expensive as many predict. Who are these many? What do they have to back up there statements? It all very fuzzy and do not build a strong case.



I am not going to talk about how you solution to reduce the public debt might or might not be the right thing to do. After all i did ask you what you think. Though if reducing taxes can be seen as a investment why not public health care? Though i think we should just drop it if it does not really directly relate to the issue at hand.

But what i am going to talk about is some of your other statements. The EU legislative branch in many ways have more power then the Federal US counterpart. EU law is above any national law. Federal law is however not always above state law as states have greater autonomy in the Federal system (in general). The States in a federation have sovereignty in certain areas which the federal government can not take away unless all the federations member states willing gives up this power (basically reforming the federation. Normally needing rewriting of the constitution and so on.). Though the Minister consul in Europe has the power to Veto anything the Parliament decides on and the Ministers are all chosen by the national governments of each member nation.

Also you have not given a good reason why it can not work smoothly. After all a lot of machine has a lot more then 50 parts and still works smoothly. Though i know it can not really compare but you need to come with something. A well respected economic theory for example would help (Though be warned. Economy is still considered to be one of the softer sciences. As such even the best founded theories in Economic science generally have less weight behind them then a theory of physics, chemistry or biology for example.) A study form a neutral part that show a strong correlation would be nice to. I am sure there is a lot of evidence out there but you need to look for it to build a strong case.

Quote
Out of curiosity, why is it that people RAGED at George Bush for doing stuff like this but Obama is beloved by much of the media? He's left Guantanamo open, he's left the troops in Iraq, he's continued wiretapping and now he's adding more malarkey to the list. There has to be some reason here...

I feel that that is a argument against the man fallacy by the way. It really have nothing to do with the discussion at hand as we are talking about a reform. Obamas support for the Reform should have no impact ether way if we base our judgment on purely objective view on the issue.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Saganmaineiac on August 15, 2009, 08:16:55 am
Great News!
 On 14 August, 2009, the United Kingdom imposed direct rule on the Turks and Caicos Islands after former premier Michael Misick's last legal appeal failed. The Caribbean islands' administration has been suspended for up to two years and power has been transferred to the British-appointed governor, with the United Kingdom also stationing a supply vessel in between Turks and Caicos. Politicians were accused of selling crown land for personal gain and misusing public funds.[16] Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Chris Bryant said the decision to impose rule was "a serious constitutional step which [the  government] has not taken lightly," but that the measures were "essential in order to restore good  governance and sound financial management."[17]
Britain is an Empire Again!!! :o
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Haseri on August 15, 2009, 08:25:53 am
Again? My dear Sagan, we never left.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on August 15, 2009, 08:31:07 am
I do emphasize that I have a whole LIST of these things. The Federal government might not always spend wastefully, but it clearly does enough of it to be wary when it is suddenly deciding to throw billions at something all at once. As for doing big scale reforms in the past, the only ones that it's ever done that seem to work well have been the ones to CUT expenses, not to add them. The additions just bring new problems and it'd be silly not to expect them.

For the record, all the ones I told you about? They succeeded. They got their money. There's a research program in the US that's cost almost a hundred million dollars in the past 24 years, and it got another 4.5 million this year, to determine all the things that can be done with wood. Not only is this primarily a job for the private sector, you'd think that 24 years with little to speak of would be a hint to shut the program down. There's over 12 million in subsidies being given to develop Hawaii's floricultural industry over the past 6 years, but it's already a booming 100 million a year business, so it doesn't need the money. The government is laden with things like this and there's a lot more where these came from.


Now, as for the financial cost, America spends 16% of Federal Funding on Healthcare NOW. That's for Medicare. 440 billion dollars spent a year just helping, let alone paying for the majority of people's healthcare. If its costs keep growing at its current rate, it's only going to get worse. This would add more bureaucracy, more cost, and make it worse, while taking away freedoms from people and companies.


As for reduced taxes compared to public healthcare, the former will significantly increase the amount of money that can be spent and produces jobs. Lack of public healthcare doesn't mean that people will be without healthcare, but lack of money will reduce jobs.


Now, as to why the US doesn't work smoothly, it's because it has effectively got two governments, one the Federal, one State. As I said before, in some states, Marijuana is legal for medical use... But you can still be arrested for using it by the Federal government because it's illegal there. There's HUGE differences from state to state. Even the school system is highly localized.


Finally, as for it not running smoothly, the whole thing is one big bit of bureaucratic rigmarole. I'm not saying that it can't be done but, as with the golden hat example, it doesn't make it wise to do so. You could put the system in place, but it's not a good idea to do so. It'll raise costs, it'll hurt doctors and insurance companies with price fixes, it'll... Well, I've already listed a few reasons, really.


Oh, and in regards to the whole argument to the man bit, that was an idle question, unrelated to this question. I just want to know why Obama is so beloved by the media, why newspapers declare posters of him shown as the Joker to be racist, etc. Why, when he's at least as bad, if not worse, than Bush are they not tearing him apart?

Again? My dear Sagan, we never left.

... Win.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yannick on August 15, 2009, 08:40:41 am
Sagan, since when are you British?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on August 15, 2009, 08:45:39 am
When did he say he was?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Veraal on August 15, 2009, 08:48:15 am
He seems like he wants to be.

He's like a weeaboo only he is weeaboo for England.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Saganmaineiac on August 15, 2009, 09:32:27 am
Exactly. :) :)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on August 15, 2009, 09:53:29 am
Axelgear again you move off topic. You are being to wide and that only reflect badly on when we are trying talk about why a public health care reform might be bad. That is why i did not like how you added your criticism to on the Obama bit (And Bush was also not criticized that much in his run. Especially not after 9/11. But again all this do not matter for the issue at hand so lets drop it or make a topic about it separate form issue we are talking about.)

Smiler you list of bad speeding can be seen as a Irrelevant Conclusion as you have not proved a link to them and the current reform. Issue not answered by your claim is if the government always spends there money badly, if they are more likely to spend the money badly on larger reforms then small reforms or even why the government spend money badly. You need to address this. To show that is a bad investment because the risks are to great and the payoff to small.

I do not think we need to talk about how the reduction in taxes will lead to more or less employment and such (Especially considering it is a complex issue with no easy answer.) It is a different topic all together and does not have really with the issue at hand. But like i said. Both can be seen as a investment. Less taxes could in maybe lead to a positive feedback loop that improves the economic situation (or may have the oppose effect). A public health care system could lead to less people being sick increasing the productivity and decreasing the long term care. Somewhat smiler to the issue if the city should fix the potholes in the street. Fixing them will cost money. But not fixing them will also cost money as verticals will get damage and so on. So one needs facts to back up ones statements. Prognosis about the potential benefits and cost. Without it have nothing. You basing you judgment simply on a gut feeling. And those have been so many times wrong in the past. Our intuition lies to use daily and is not a scientific way to solve problems.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on August 15, 2009, 11:34:31 am
Yokto, just so you know, you need to review your writing before you post it. It took me five minutes to figure out that "Smiler you list of bad speeding" meant "Similarly, your list of bad spending".

As for the link between them and the current reform, the link is that they're things being done by the very people voting on this reform. It shows that it's not in good hands, doesn't it? They spend money badly because they're, as I said, more like 50 separate countries than one unified one, and this leads to a lot of favouritism and diversion of funds from their proper places. I should add that this whole thing screams of a distraction to attempt to curry votes amongst a lot of liberals while distracting people from the issues I mentioned before, much as what occurred with the whole gay marriage fiasco with Bush. Not a direct opposition to the bill, just a comment, though it does shine an unfavourable light and the reasons for its creation and necessity.

As for the risk, the risk is the potential loss of any amount of money if it fails. I can't say how much. Could be a dollar, could be a trillion. As I said, this might work out. I don't think it will, but there's a possibility. Even if it could, though, it's still not desirable because it's a restriction of people and an enhancement of government control over people's options and over private businesses.

In terms of public health making sure that people aren't as sick, though, that's a strange idea. Public health would ensure that people might receive a different standard of care (possibly worse, given price fixing) than they get now, but that doesn't ensure that they won't get sick in the first place. That's about prevention and the best way to prevent it is for people to exercise more and get a better diet. They're already inoculated against most major diseases anyway, usually at a young age. Government healthcare may help people pay for treatments but that's all. People these days can go to the doctor anyway, even without insurance, and get put on a payment plan if they can't afford it. Convalescence from getting sick will take just as long either way.

This isn't about intuition. I've listed my reasons, I've backed them up and you just handwave them. You want public health because you see it as a good thing and, perhaps, it might be. However, people don't want it or its consequences. They want more freedom to do with their money as they see fit and more choice in how they handle their health, by themselves, without the government dabbling into it too much. Even if this thing could ride in on a golden chariot and do everything promised, it'd still not be worth it for those reasons alone.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on August 15, 2009, 12:12:55 pm
Yeah i got dyslexia and i sometimes miss what i have written. You see i read what i think i have written when i read it a 2nd and a 3rd time. And i did actually fix some errors before i posted it. I guess i missed some of them. Anyway.

Again you must show that there is some systematic link to this. Not only cherry picking some juicy examples. Should the opposition do the same and cherry pick examples of how bad judgment the other side has to prove that this reform is sound?

And you put the nail on the head when it comes to risk. You seem not to know the risks or potential benefits of this reform so how can you do a informed decision on the issue? I know i cant. Same with the prospects of actually saving money in the long run. We do not know because we do not have any figure on it. (As in you and me. I am sure there are some wise men that have done some serious calculation on this. And if someone claimed to be that wise ask them if you can see the figures and do not take it for face value. Else you become a group 1 person.)

And i am not hand waving them. Is the fact that you do not really back them up with anything more the ideological reason. Reason i feel form personal experience is wrong but that do not account for anything ether. But at least it weight with equal weight as your claims.

But lets turn the question around this time. Lets see if the other side can defend there point. I guess i may play the devils advocate now and take the side of those that think that the reform is a bad idea.



So i turned the question: Why should USA make a Public Health care reform? (No need to answer if your not going to defend the issue.)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Josasa on August 15, 2009, 12:53:46 pm
Yokto, he's provided you with a plethora of reasons, all of which you've seemed to ignore under the guise that "he hasn't backed them up." By the way these aren't cherry picked issues, they cover a wide variety of screwups that the government has involved itself with, all of which support his argument that the government cannot handle large scale (or even small scale) projects because of the large bureaucracy and miscommunication between local and national governments. At the same time you've provided nothing to back up your argument. All you've done is say "those aren't connected," or "show how they are linked" and then swept them to the side while they are valid and reasonable connections for Axel's argument. You are hand waving, you just probably don't realize it.

To answer your earlier question, the reason the U.S. should not have a public health care system is:
1. The United States government is already heavily in debt.
The recession hurt. Plain and simple. It's still hurting. One of the worst things to do during a recession or depression is to raise taxes, that's a simple economic fact. Raising taxes causes people to reconsider purchases or stockpile money in order to successfully 'live their lives.' In order to reestablish the economy we need people spending, not saving it up. The government cannot spend the people's money for them. And even if they could that would only create stagnation and destroy the economy by supporting those businesses that aren't necessarily the best. That's the beauty of capitalism, the strong survive while the weak go under. It works because it's actually very similar to nature and natural selection when you think about it.

2. The bureaucracy is inefficient and wastes the funds allotted to them.
Axel has already really nailed this topic with his many examples, all of which support the argument. You can say that you fail to see the connection and wave it off. Along with all of his reasons is the Post Office, which was established a long time ago in order to carry out a simple job, to deliver mail. In recent years it seems to have failed, mainly because it is also in debt and owes several billion dollars. At the same time the private sector businesses are slowly taking over while providing better service than their federal counterpart.

3. This is would be considered a bad investment by many, something which the U.S. government cannot seem to grasp.
People's health is important, don't get me wrong, but we already have a system setup that provides health care for a large majority of Americans. But as Axel said, this new system wouldn't prevent anything. People would still get sick, there's no stopping that. So how could this be considered a good investment? We can't be sure about anything, but thinking that this new system would save more lives than the current system is foolhardy. If the U.S. government programs have anything to show, it's that flat line payrolls and guaranteed rates do not encourage productivity or a good work ethic. The doctors and nurses would work their hours and go home, why work overtime when they aren't being paid? In general, this kind of switch would be detrimental to American health, not beneficial.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on August 15, 2009, 01:59:00 pm
Well i was hoping to see if the other side could defend there point but i feel i am that i should try to defend my self.

For use to make a informed choice about the matter do we not need to be able to quantify the risks and benefits? What Axel have done is mentioned a lot of situations where the government have spend money unwisely. Though even this is debatable at times. How do you know the money for research was not well spent for example? Sure Axel portrays it in that light but i do not know. Maybe all that money have had positive impact. If you for example spend 10 million USD for a industry that is making 100 USD every year but you can prove that spending these 10 million USD increased the industries revenue with 15 million USD then most would agree that it was fairly well spend money (Though it might have been more effective to spend it on a other area. But at least it would be better then just letting the money stay in the vault. Not this was just a hypothetical situation.)

Some of the arguments also makes little sense form my perspective on a more basic level. Like the problem with states wanting to improve there region more then what might be good for the hole Federation. Sure there might be situation like that but what we are talking about is a Reform that would be Nation wide are we not? Which states should have equal benefits form and also equal risk.

And yes i sweep things aside that is not well founded. I will do the same with the other team if they dare to make unfounded statements not related to the issue at hand.



Quote
1. The United States government is already heavily in debt.
Reducing taxes might have bad effect to. Bush lowered taxes and this help put USA in the situation it is now. Just lowering taxes might not have the benefits of getting people to spend money. If the government take money that has stagnated and spend in on reforms and infrastructure it might have positive effect as it start to simulate several industries that makes money out providing servers for the government. People might be employed directly by the government to lowering the unemployment. Increasing the debt might also simulate the economy simply because how the economy works. It needs people to borrow for the wheels to continue to spin. Read up on Fiat Currency if you do not believe me. A big problem with resections are that people are not borrowing money after all. The Reform could have positive effect in that it provides more jobs in the health care.

But there is a bit longterm problem with debt. And that is the debt USA have to other nations mainly. As long as you only borrow for you self you can always correct the problem. But if nations China, Japan or Saudi Arabia is not getting payed then in the worst case scenario they stop exporting goods and resources to USA. And because USA is not in the bad situation of importing a lot more then they export it could mean a stop to the life style Americans are so used to. Sure it might hurt a bit at first for a nation like China to do so. losing out on consumers that would give them cash. But if USA is not paying then China is not really losing anything. They just have to start consuming there products them self or find new buyers. This could happen if USA is not very careful about what they do. In fact nation like china might demand that USA start paying in resources and manufactured goods rather then USD before it comes a export stop. But even this is a losing proportioner as other nations will just start to eat up what is left of USA.

Quote
2. The bureaucracy is inefficient and wastes the funds allotted to them.
Already said why is not such a sure thing as you and Axel claim. There will be always a bit inefficiency in all systems. And there is some in the health care system as it is right now. I could for example counter with a rather poorly back upped statement of my own that a rather reason study could not show that there had been any benefit to privatization and deregulation any market in Sweden except in the Telecom sector. And that the study could not say for certain that it had anything to do with the privatization and deregulation of the sector but could as well have to do with the technical development in the business. That statement as poorly back upped as it is as strong as the statements you have come up with. But i guess is not interested to here how service has gone down and the the cost of electricity and railway use have gone up in Sweden after privatization and deregulation of the market opening it up to private interests. Also we see smiler trend in other nations where privatization and deregulation have been introduced. It i said that UK is the only country in Europe that has privatized and deregulation railway system more then Sweden. It is also said the UK is the only nation which has worse functioning railways system then Sweden in Europe.

Quote
3. This is would be considered a bad investment by many, something which the U.S. government cannot seem to grasp.
Well i know this much about the health care system in USA. They must help someone that could die without medical help even if they have no way of paying for there treatment. But they are not obligated to do any measure to improve on quality of life. And that can have a bit impact. How big we do not know because no one is willing to put up some reliable numbers so we can quantify this. But it could defensively have a impact. If hospital are obligated to stop the bleeding form a lost hand injury but not obligated to sew the hand back on the patient and do the costly rehabilitation then you can i hope start to see how there might be conflict. Those that do not have the money for expensive treatment might also need medical treatment later on when the situation has worses to a life treating status and thereby costing more to fix. These situations do happen and you can not deny it. But this is why we need to quantify it. All this might just be exceptions. Sure it may happen that someone loses hand because no one was able to pay for the surgery to reattach it. But it could just be exceptions to the rule. And that is why we need to quantify!

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on August 15, 2009, 02:32:21 pm
Right. I'm getting bored of this. Saying that spending 10 million on an industry that already makes ten times that amount is hardly good logic. Spending taxpayer money to subsidize an already profitable industry is robbing Peter to pay Paul. If you feel that it is somehow a good idea to do so, you're not thinking with the same kind of logic I am.

If someone else chooses to debate this issue, I'd be glad to. My statements to Yokto are plenty of things on my ground and if someone would like to read them and make their own statements, go ahead. Yokto, though, I am not going to continue this with you. It's become too long-winded and frustrating. If you would prefer to discuss another topic, though, I'd be glad to.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Josasa on August 15, 2009, 02:38:34 pm
Well i was hoping to see if the other side could defend there point but i feel i am that i should try to defend my self.

For use to make a informed choice about the matter do we not need to be able to quantify the risks and benefits? What Axel have done is mentioned a lot of situations where the government have spend money unwisely. Though even this is debatable at times. How do you know the money for research was not well spent for example? Sure Axel portrays it in that light but i do not know. Maybe all that money have had positive impact. If you for example spend 10 million USD for a industry that is making 100 USD every year but you can prove that spending these 10 million USD increased the industries revenue with 15 million USD then most would agree that it was fairly well spend money (Though it might have been more effective to spend it on a other area. But at least it would be better then just letting the money stay in the vault. Not this was just a hypothetical situation.)

Axel already pointed out that most of these projects were detrimental, or that they were already undertaken. Why would you do spend a large sum of money on projects that have already been completed? That's being wasteful and inefficient.

Some of the arguments also makes little sense form my perspective on a more basic level. Like the problem with states wanting to improve there region more then what might be good for the hole Federation. Sure there might be situation like that but what we are talking about is a Reform that would be Nation wide are we not? Which states should have equal benefits form and also equal risk.
 
And yes i sweep things aside that is not well founded. I will do the same with the other team if they dare to make unfounded statements not related to the issue at hand.

I'm not exactly sure were you got this from. The reason the separate state and national governments were brought up was because of the miscommunications and inefficiency that bureaucracy creates.

And no, it seems like you are cherry picking your way through his argument. All of his points were valid and supported, you are just choosing to ignore the ones you have no response to.

Quote
1. The United States government is already heavily in debt.
Reducing taxes might have bad effect to. *Bush lowered taxes and this help put USA in the situation it is now. Just lowering taxes might not have the benefits of getting people to spend money. **If the government take money that has stagnated and spend in on reforms and infrastructure it might have positive effect as it start to simulate several industries that makes money out providing servers for the government. ***People might be employed directly by the government to lowering the unemployment. Increasing the debt might also simulate the economy simply because how the economy works. It needs people to borrow for the wheels to continue to spin. Read up on Fiat Currency if you do not believe me. ****A big problem with resections are that people are not borrowing money after all. The Reform could have positive effect in that it provides more jobs in the health care.

But there is a bit longterm problem with debt. And that is the debt USA have to other nations mainly. As long as you only borrow for you self you can always correct the problem. But if nations China, Japan or Saudi Arabia is not getting payed then in the worst case scenario they stop exporting goods and resources to USA. And because USA is not in the bad situation of importing a lot more then they export it could mean a stop to the life style Americans are so used to. Sure it might hurt a bit at first for a nation like China to do so. losing out on consumers that would give them cash. But if USA is not paying then China is not really losing anything. They just have to start consuming there products them self or find new buyers. This could happen if USA is not very careful about what they do. In fact nation like china might demand that USA start paying in resources and manufactured goods rather then USD before it comes a export stop. But even this is a losing proportioner as other nations will just start to eat up what is left of USA.

*This is a pretty bold statement and you do nothing to back it up. Some evidence would be nice, but until then that can be swept aside and regarded as null and void in terms of debate.

**I believe this is called stealing, or communism if you prefer. If the government were to seize funds of any kind that would be horrible and detrimental to both the political and economic freedoms of it's constituents.

***The keyword there is might. But now, if the government is in debt and decides that it needs to be the one to stimulate the economy by spending large sums of money, how is this helpful? Well, it's not, it only increases debt and doesn't secure the trust of the people by encouraging them to spend money as well. And at the same time there is always the government inefficiency which is normally much more pervasive and influential than any inefficiency found in the private sector.

****I agree completely. The people need to start borrowing, the only problem is that the banks are not ready or willing to begin shilling out loans again. This is due in large part to the CRA Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act), which I've pointed out many times before. This is the perfect example of the government stepping in where it's not supposed to. From this it forced the banks to stop redlining, forcing them to give out loans to those people that could not afford to repay them. It's horrible decisions like these that show how inefficient the government truly is when it comes to economics.

Quote
2. The bureaucracy is inefficient and wastes the funds allotted to them.
Already said why is not such a sure thing as you and Axel claim. There will be always a bit inefficiency in all systems. And there is some in the health care system as it is right now. I could for example counter with a rather poorly back upped statement of my own that a rather reason study could not show that there had been any benefit to privatization and deregulation any market in Sweden except in the Telecom sector. And that the study could not say for certain that it had anything to do with the privatization and deregulation of the sector but could as well have to do with the technical development in the business. That statement as poorly back upped as it is as strong as the statements you have come up with. But i guess is not interested to here how service has gone down and the the cost of electricity and railway use have gone up in Sweden after privatization and deregulation of the market opening it up to private interests. Also we see smiler trend in other nations where privatization and deregulation have been introduced. It i said that UK is the only country in Europe that has privatized and deregulation railway system more then Sweden. It is also said the UK is the only nation which has worse functioning railways system then Sweden in Europe.

I believe Axel and I have already addressed how inefficient the government is. If you choose to ignore it, that's your own decision.

Quote
3. This is would be considered a bad investment by many, something which the U.S. government cannot seem to grasp.
Well i know this much about the health care system in USA. They must help someone that could die without medical help even if they have no way of paying for there treatment. But they are not obligated to do any measure to improve on quality of life. And that can have a bit impact. How big we do not know because no one is willing to put up some reliable numbers so we can quantify this. But it could defensively have a impact. If hospital are obligated to stop the bleeding form a lost hand injury but not obligated to sew the hand back on the patient and do the costly rehabilitation then you can i hope start to see how there might be conflict. Those that do not have the money for expensive treatment might also need medical treatment later on when the situation has worses to a life treating status and thereby costing more to fix. These situations do happen and you can not deny it. But this is why we need to quantify it. All this might just be exceptions. Sure it may happen that someone loses hand because no one was able to pay for the surgery to reattach it. But it could just be exceptions to the rule. And that is why we need to quantify!

Statistics and numbers are nice and all, but they do not always provide the most accurate, or even correct solution to a problem. You're looking at this from a very scientific and reasonable perspective, which is nice when it comes to science. It helps when things actually follow set patterns and laws established by nature. But we are talking about people, human beings that don't really fall into any category. That's one of the major reasons why you're statement about the different groups failed.

These are people that have different spend their money in more ways that you can imagine, using logic (which is bad logic for the most part), or even emotions to fuel their decision making. I'll say it because we all know it, but everyone on this board is generally of a higher intelligence than the general populace. We can see things in a reasonable light. But this does not mean that a majority of the human population behaves or thinks like us. It is because of this that we cannot believe that statistics and numbers, very reliable figures, can be used to map out trends in economics. Sure, economics mainly deals with numbers and the general spending of numbers, but in reality economics would do better if it were placed under philosophy or sociology. Because of this we cannot rely on the quantitative value of our evidence. There will always be those people that cannot be mapped out (and sadly, this makes up a majority of the human population).
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on August 15, 2009, 03:12:47 pm
To Josasa. Still do not matter in the specific case of a health care reform if you can not prove that the same thing will happen with the health care reform. Am i not the one who often get criticized for using Sweden as example and that it does not apply because Sweden is not USA. The situation is the same really. Bad Reforms do not have to mean that this reform will be bad. And in USA there have been several successful reforms to. It is not a way to quantify the issue to make a good argument for or against the issue. I mean i am starting to do this more and more with my own think. Why do you think i am holding back? Well is because i do not wish to fight fire with fire. I am trying to fight smart. Sure it can get you somewhere to but is likely to just preaching for your own masses.

But you hit the nail right in the head. What i am trying to do is have a scientific apogee on this. Not the easiest thing. The Scientific method though simple as it is can be very hard to follow. But i know it can be applied anywhere. After all what science does is just measure things and make up theories to predict the outcome of those measurements. So what i am trying to do is simply determent the best course of action based on the best knowledge we have. Sure you might prefer gut feeling but i do not. Gut feeling many times lies as often as it tells the truth. After all people who follow they gut still get in to trouble. They still make mistakes. They still fail. Science. Sciences fail less often. And even though the social science that we are working with here and now is often referred to as the soft science it is still being science. The fact that it often has gone with gut feelings is rather then strictly following the scientific method is why it is has been branded soft science to begin with.

But if you can not agree try use science then we do not really have anything to talk about. You can not convince me or anyone else that follows science as strict as me.  For the rest of you who do not wish to use science i suggest you just ignore me. Of course if you start to see that due to the method i follow i tend to be more right then whatever conviction you normally follow then feel free to abandon your old ways. But remember i am trying to conduct science not faith, Ideology or anything else.



To Axel. It is a logical investment because it pays off.  Making 50% form the money you invested in generally considered to be pretty good. Of course the money might be better spend else were anyway but is better then letting the money just lay in the vault where they do nothing good. Of course the logical thing to do after that is to take back the 10 million you invest invested and maybe even a bit more then reinvest it back. (If you believe you will still have the same payoff). This is simple economics really. After all we are talking about growth here.



But yes i tried to steer this toward getting the other side to defend there stance. I would like to see how well the other side would do. Would you be willing to deconstruction empty claims with me for the other side? You might find it fun then me just attack you for poorly backed up claims.

So who is willing to defend a public health care reform?

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Josasa on August 15, 2009, 03:30:01 pm
I wouldn't say that I'm going on a gut feeling, just that I'm being very pessimistic and for good reason. You seem to be very optimistic, basing your claims on quantitative evidence, which we haven't seen much of.

But I think I'm backing out of this discussion as well. I think it has lived long enough.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on August 15, 2009, 03:44:01 pm
To Axel. It is a logical investment because it pays off.  Making 50% form the money you invested in generally considered to be pretty good. Of course the money might be better spend else were anyway but is better then letting the money just lay in the vault where they do nothing good. Of course the logical thing to do after that is to take back the 10 million you invest invested and maybe even a bit more then reinvest it back. (If you believe you will still have the same payoff). This is simple economics really. After all we are talking about growth here.

Except that the industry would get by just fine without that 10 million dollar investment but, if you want to go the financial cost route, fine. A 90 million dollar industry getting taxed 40 percent brings in 36 million. A 100 million one brings in 40 million. This puts you 6 million in the red. It costs more to repeat the investment. To justify your investment, you'd have to charge 100% of their income. You'd be better off reducing their taxes. That way, they get to keep more of their income and spend it on things, either reinvesting it into the business, buying new businesses or buying luxuries (which, of course, are other businesses being funded).
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on August 15, 2009, 04:19:54 pm
I wouldn't say that I'm going on a gut feeling, just that I'm being very pessimistic and for good reason. You seem to be very optimistic, basing your claims on quantitative evidence, which we haven't seen much of.

But I think I'm backing out of this discussion as well. I think it has lived long enough.

No no. I am not trying to optimistic of pessimistic about this. And like i said i have not presented any quantitative evidence. I am as bad as Axel in this case. But i was hoping to see some quantitative evidence form Axel so we could start to make a risk analyst of the problem. But we have not really. Now i am checking to see if the other side can present any.

If i have any optimism for this it would be same gut feeling optimism that you have pessimism for this. I just have to try to that to side however to make this as fare as possible.



Though that is not the example i made Axelgear. I talked about investing 10 million and get 15 million as a result. Not investing. Now even if we used you 40% tax model and got a industry worth 105 out of it and you would still just get a increases in tax revenues by 6 million (42 total. Your math was off. Your example only gives you a increases in tax revenues of 4 million) But like i said to get back that 4 you can increase the tax to 48% (which would get the government a increase in tax revenues by 14.4 netting them a direct profit of 4.4 million). The revenues the industry would only get to keep 54.6 million of the 105 million however. But is still better then 54 they would keep if the industry was just worth 90 without the initial investment of 10 million form the government.

Investing in lowering taxes might have a greater effect.Or investing the money in a different industry for that matter. But we where not comparing it with any of those options. We where just comparing it to letting the money lay in the vault.

Edit: I think i made a mathematical mistake. the i net increase of tax revenues for the would be 14.4 not 10.4 giving a profit of 4.4 not 0.4 One could also reduce the tax a bit more netting the industry a bit bigger profit. Note that the industry still makes money out of this deal even with the increase in tax. 105 * 0.52 = 54.6 90 * 0.60 = 54.0 I hope this was not to hard to follow. It is also logical to think about it because the increase was 5 million form the original investment of 10. is that 5 million that the Government and the industry have to share. so rather then 4.4 0.6 it could as well be 2.5 2.5. The taxes need to be increased to 43.809523809523809523809523809524% for a break even.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on August 15, 2009, 04:49:15 pm
The increase in tax revenues of six million is LOWER than your investment. 10 - 6 is 4. I used a rough amount of 100 million for the sake of simplicity.

Now, for calling my math flawed, you've kinda gone and made yourself look silly. At a 48% tax at 95 million, the government gets a return of 45.6 million. The difference between 54.6 and 45.6 is... Doo de doooo.... 9 million dollars! So, again, you're coming back in the red. Your investment costs you more than you get in return.

Lastly, at 40% tax, without the initial 10 million subsidy, they have a profit of 57 million. Higher than the 54.6 you espouse.

You may want to do the math properly next time.

Edit: A tax of 44 percent (I had to round) on 105 million, 46.2 million return. A tax of 44 percent on 95 million is 41.8 million... You really need to improve your math. (105 / 100) * 44 = 46.2. (95 / 100) * 44 = 41.8.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on August 15, 2009, 05:05:25 pm
No Axel your the one doing it wrong. Remember the tax increase i talked about was to recoup the investment that investment we did. If one invest 10 million in the industry and that investment increased the revenue of the industry to 105 form 90 then you need a increased in taxes on the industry to by a little more then 3.8%. if you do not do this then you will lose money but the industry will earn more. If we toy with the idea of the government investing 10 to increased the industry form 90 to 100 you will have to increased taxes by 6% form 40% to 46%. But nether the government or the industry would gain anything form it. They would not lose anything ether however so keep that in mind. If you do not do any increased in taxes the government will lose money on any of the situations mentioned. If the you increased the taxes but do not make the investment the government will earn more money but at the expense of the industry.

You are the one doing the incorrect math. Where did you get the figure 95 million form for example? And where did you get the 57 million figure? My guess is that you used the faulty 95 million as base when we used 90 million as base.  You seem to pulling numbers out of your hat.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on August 15, 2009, 05:09:26 pm
It didn't increase it from 90 to 105. I took 100 and subtracted 10. That's what I used in my original statements since it was easier to explain the math that way.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on August 15, 2009, 05:32:20 pm
But that was not my example. Those 5 million might not seem much but is all this is about really. Without it you can not make a profit. You can just break even if you take the 90 and increased it to 100 with a investment of 10. If you invested 10 to 90 and got 95 out of it then you could not make any profit form it at all to give a example of the opposite situation.

So is no wonder your numbers where off.

We could do the math with a tax decreased to see how much industry need to grow to keep the same tax revenues. Again a hypothetical situation. The Government decides to decreased there taxes by 5% form 40% to 35%. For simplicity we use 100 as base rather then 90 as in our first example. The formula we get is X*0.35=40. X is how must profits the industry must make for use to break even form the tax reduction reform.  40 is of course the money we expect to earn and 0.35 is the tax. We move 0.35 over so we get X=40/0.35. The industry must grow to 114.28571428571428571428571428571 form 100 for us to break even. If we used 90 is base we would get X*0.35=36, X = 102.85714285714285714285714285714 . In ether case the industry needs to grow with 14.2857142857142857142857142857%

Oh and some more interesting figures. to break even with a base of 90 and with 10 investment you need a 11.111...% growth (The industry needs be 100 when you collect the tax.) Also note that in the tax cut example the industry gets to keep a larger share. The industry could only lose if the tax cut would lead to a reduction of of the industry.

Feel free to double check my math.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on August 15, 2009, 05:45:47 pm
Yes, it would, and it might take time but it could, probably would, occur. The industry is listing record profits, though, so giving them a tax break or subsidy now is unnecessary.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on August 15, 2009, 05:59:21 pm
Well we are talking about a hypothetical situation. And both situations would be better then keeping the status quo in actually. of course in the real world you can not be sure a investment will pay of or that tax cut will stimulate economy. At least not to the degree one where hoping for.

Also in the real world one should take in to account a substantial economy and in those cases a growth in the economy might be bad. Though the models really is not that different. You just have to take account of the resources around us so one can get stable long term growth rather then a short spurt that will lead to economic ruin due to resource depletion. On top of that one can take account Quality of Life which is really a better aim for once society then pure economic growth. In other words trying to get as much QL as you can for you money. But now i am drifting off >_>
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on August 15, 2009, 06:10:28 pm
I think this has drifted sufficiently. Personally, as I said before, I'm bored of this topic. Still, a good way to do it would be, in my mind, to set a certain amount of time during which you will not tax a company above a certain amount. That is, if they brought in 20 million and you charge 40% taxes, 8 million, you set that as the most that you'll tax them for, say, five years. That doesn't mean that the amount would go down if they suffer a recession but it's a good way to ensure that profits can be reinvested without the budget being rocked.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on August 15, 2009, 06:40:20 pm
Well i like the model where you only tax pure profit. That is if they invest back there money they will not be taxed on the money they invested. Only when they take out money form the company will they be taxed. The tax should be fairly high because of this so to promote investment over taking out money form the company. It may be progressive as well even though here in Sweden we do not have a progressive tax on profit. Of course added to this there might be other taxes i like to call sin tax. These taxes should be on activities and products that form societies view we wish to reduce but can not abolish. Pollution and tobacco to name two.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on August 15, 2009, 07:59:18 pm
All interesting concepts, really...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on August 16, 2009, 09:06:55 am
Well, I would like to say that the treatment I received after I developed Gastritis earlier this year was excellent.

>_>


Yay, anecdotes.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Saganmaineiac on August 16, 2009, 09:27:27 am
Krakow, have you been drinking too much?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on August 16, 2009, 09:56:18 am
I've gotten more than my money's worth with my healthcard. I love the Canadian public health system.

As I said before, though, apples and oranges... And grapefruits and pears and a lot of other kinds of fruit in this case. What works for one may not work for another.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on August 16, 2009, 12:21:13 pm
Why i tried to make this scientific rather then going all with anecdotes and such :P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on August 17, 2009, 07:00:39 am
Krakow, have you been drinking too much?

I had a few beers, which was basically the tipping point, I was having stomach trouble before then :P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brandonazz on August 17, 2009, 02:47:31 pm
(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii120/Brandonazz/fid4a60c2dc4b5437a9009158f1.gif)

Should money go back to NASA?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Cow on August 17, 2009, 02:53:42 pm
Yes, yes it should. We need something to fall back on when Earth becomes inhospitable, you know.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Josasa on August 17, 2009, 03:35:06 pm
No, no it shouldn't. Private businesses need to be the ones to start carrying the ball now, not government agencies. However much they accomplished, they were inefficient at times too. Besides, they don't seem to want to do anything interesting anyway.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brandonazz on August 17, 2009, 03:38:25 pm
What's interesting, then?

Entertainment and luxury services?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on August 17, 2009, 04:47:43 pm
Hell yes. Start building the space hotels Branson. Snap snap.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: /lurk on August 17, 2009, 04:58:53 pm
But people go to space to get away from the tourists!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on August 17, 2009, 05:32:44 pm
I think the percentage of budget drop isn't so much funding cuts as it is more funding being available and going elsewhere.

However, I think that NASA should be funded but not just because of space exploration. NASA could fund itself if it was allowed to patent its inventions (Velcro alone is worth billions), so it's endlessly valuable to the planet to keep them going. Whether or not it should be allowed to patent its own inventions, and therefore fund itself, is another question entirely.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brandonazz on August 17, 2009, 05:44:24 pm
I think the percentage of budget drop isn't so much funding cuts as it is more funding being available and going elsewhere.

Quote
Congress has approved these cuts to NASA's budget:

    * $553.8 million in fiscal 1995
    * $155.5 million in fiscal 1996
    * $131.7 million in fiscal 1997
    * $61 million in fiscal 1998
    * $51.3 million in fiscal 2000
    * $10.8 million in fiscal 2004

Do you ever google before posting? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on August 18, 2009, 05:09:50 am
That Graph is misleading. It starts at 0.50% when it should start at 0% . I hate graphs like that. (But i support space exploration)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on August 18, 2009, 07:20:39 am
I think the percentage of budget drop isn't so much funding cuts as it is more funding being available and going elsewhere.

Quote
Congress has approved these cuts to NASA's budget:

    * $553.8 million in fiscal 1995
    * $155.5 million in fiscal 1996
    * $131.7 million in fiscal 1997
    * $61 million in fiscal 1998
    * $51.3 million in fiscal 2000
    * $10.8 million in fiscal 2004

Do you ever google before posting? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget)

NASA budget as of 2008 is higher than it's been since 1995, at 17 billion, up from 14.9 billion in 2000. In fact, NASA's funding has never been lower than 11 billion since 1962. Since 1970, it's only been higher than 18 billion once.

The graph you show shows its recent peak of budget spending, at 1%, in 1991 and it has been in continual decline since... But the numbers you provide show it declining only to around 15 billion and then rising to 17 billion as of 2008.

This agrees with my theory that, yes, the apparent decline in NASA's funding as a percentage of the budget is from the growth of the federal budget, not a significant change in NASA funding.

Maybe you should think before being so snarky, hm?  ;)

Edited for clarity.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on August 18, 2009, 01:07:09 pm
Recommend that the graph would also pun in relationship to other expenditure.

But the same amount of money year after year is equal to a decrease in funding as dollar continue to devalue. Most stable nation have a inflation of around 2-5%. If we estimate that USA inflation is 4% per year we get that in less then 20 years the value of the USD would be half. (If i did the math right). One can mix a lot with number to make them show what one wants to show.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on August 18, 2009, 03:29:57 pm
Yes, but inflation is clearly not accounted for in the graph, just dollar amount in reference to percentage of the actual federal budget.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on August 18, 2009, 03:46:10 pm
Was more a reference to your statement about the spending.

But what i think is that the budget have been pretty stable as it. But all other areas have gotten more to keep up with the inflation. It would be interesting to see how much it was during the Apollo era. In a graph. Hay... Maybe Wolfram can help me >_>
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Cow on August 19, 2009, 03:44:23 pm
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/08/town_hall_talk_frank_grills_op.html?hpid=topnews

Barney Frank is a pimp.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: /lurk on August 19, 2009, 03:48:48 pm
Bloody hell. They actually photoshopped a hitler moustache onto Obama?

Why haven't they been litigated into oblivion?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Kenobro on August 19, 2009, 03:52:38 pm
Because of the first Amendment, that's why.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on August 19, 2009, 04:02:08 pm
I'm pretty sure the first amendment doesn't cover libel :P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: /lurk on August 19, 2009, 04:07:41 pm
About the only time that sort of thing would be acceptable is if you were actually Hitler.

Or at least Nick Griffin.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on August 19, 2009, 04:48:34 pm
I'm pretty sure the first amendment doesn't cover libel :P

Parody does.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Josasa on August 19, 2009, 09:20:10 pm
No, no, no they've got it all wrong! They're trying to make him look like Charlie Chaplin.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on August 19, 2009, 09:24:59 pm
There are a dozen places to go with this:

-It's political speech, even if it is completely retarded.  I can dig out the notes from my First Amendment class tomorrow if you want, but this is completely covered by free speech.

-Can you imagine the precedent it would set if the President of the United States sued a random private citizen for an insulting poster?

-Bush was visually made Hitler, a vampire, a chimp, pretty much anything derogatory you can think of.  Should the people who made those images have been sued?

-Libel is for defamatory written words, not images.  Minor point, but still.

-Waste of photoshop if you ask me.  All you need is a few quick strokes with a sharpie for the Hitler 'stache.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: /lurk on August 20, 2009, 05:33:44 am
But the LaRouche PAC is neither a "random private citizen" nor an entertainment program.

Honestly I'm not sure what the hell they are.

Edit: Nobody talking about Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi? Maybe the case is overshadowed by the reductio ad hilterium going on over in the states, but it's big in the news here.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Plank of Wood on August 20, 2009, 07:27:06 am
Mainly because it took place in Britian, or more to say Scotland, and Abdelbaset isn't a "Middle Eastern" national par ce, but a Libyan one; so Americans don't actualy know/feel involved. But that's just my opinion.



And besides, how do you not know they actualy were just putting a Charlie Chaplian moustache on Obama and it was just a big misunderstanding?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: /lurk on August 20, 2009, 07:40:49 am
I dunno, big Hilary did have a go at us during a press conference - a lot of people on the plane were American.

I didn't realise Charlie Chaplin was still so popular in the states <_<
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on August 20, 2009, 07:44:05 am
I was actually about to mention the Ali Mohmed thing.  (Also, we Americans might not be talking about it because we just woke up.  It's all over the news here right now.)  What the hell, Scotland?  Since when is cancer a reason to release a mass murderer?

And I didn't realize the Obama Hitler poster was from a PAC and not the woman holding up the sign.  PAC stands for a political action committee, groups which usually are trying to support a candidate for office.  In this case I guess they're just making political points, and it's still protected speech.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on August 20, 2009, 11:17:02 am
Release someone on compassionate grounds if they are, say, someone who committed manslaughter, causing an accidental death or something similar, especially if they have a family. Releasing a deliberate murderer, though... I agree, what the hell, Scotland?

As for slander/libel/whatever, no-one lied or said anything outside of what is protected speech. If someone says his policies are socialist, that's protected under free speech. Giving him a Hitler mustache is parody.

If they said that Obama was snorting nose candy off of the back of some lady-of-the-evening's rear end (and deliberately stated that this occurred, not just as a joke), we'd have another story entirely. THAT is slander/libel, as it is a deliberate lie intended to cause harm to someone.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: /lurk on August 20, 2009, 11:26:57 am
It was a life sentence, and he served it. What would have been accomplished by keeping him in prison instead of letting him go to die in peace? He's hardly going to be crashing any more planes.

For one nation under god, you're not exactly big on Christian compassion.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Andrew Ryan on August 20, 2009, 12:03:18 pm
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/20/us/20intel.html?no_interstitial

The CIA is full of morons...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on August 20, 2009, 12:38:23 pm
Lurk, Axel is from Canada, not the US.  Up there it's One Nation Under Hockey, or something.

There is a lot about this case I would like to know.  Is it common practice in Scotland to let the convicted free because they're about to die anyways?  Is there any kind of precedent to go on here?  I'm not an expert on sentencing structure, especially not in the UK, but my understanding of a life sentence is that you stay in the prison system for the rest of your life, period. (Meaning you still see the doctor, etc.  You stay in the system, not neccesarially the prison building.)

Convicted criminals who are in for life or a long term die in prison all the time.  Ali Mohmed killed something like what, 270 people?  I'm guessing that was one of the worst crimes currently being punished by the UK.  Why does he deserve to be freed and not others?  Is prostate cancer some kind of get out of jail free card?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: /lurk on August 20, 2009, 01:46:19 pm
A lot of people who receive a life sentence are released eventually. If not, then usually they'll have their sentence suspended for at least a little while at the end. It's seldom that somebody actually dies under full police guard - people aren't often both dying and deadly.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on August 20, 2009, 03:11:54 pm
At that point they would be being held for punishment for the crime, not for public safety.

Well, I've been trying to do a little research on the Scottish legal system and came up with stuff for England and Whales and the UK as a whole, but not much on Scotland.  However, it does seem that a life sentence does not actually mean a life sentence in the UK.  And according to lurk and Sam, the UK's system does seem to be geared more towards protecting the public, not punishment. 

But I still don't think a person who blew up 270 people and served 8 years of a life sentence should get to be set free and sent home, where he was greeted as a hero and will spend his last days as happily as they can make them.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: /lurk on August 20, 2009, 03:58:31 pm
What would have been gained by keeping him? At least this way his family can be happy. For a couple of months, anyway.

The United States legal system is based around punishing criminals, rather than having protecting the public as its priority?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on August 20, 2009, 04:17:14 pm
I though the American system was based on making money >_>
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on August 20, 2009, 06:12:39 pm
It was a life sentence, and he served it. What would have been accomplished by keeping him in prison instead of letting him go to die in peace? He's hardly going to be crashing any more planes.

For one nation under god, you're not exactly big on Christian compassion.

My goodness, how quickly you generalize. As Inkling so wonderfully pointed out, I live in Canada. Still a nation under God (it says so in our Constitution) but your reference is clear. Compassion is given to everyone, but justice is too. If someone attacks me and then honestly begs for forgiveness, I'd be willing to concede it. This was a man who committed cold-blooded murder of many, many people without (to my knowledge) any sign of repentance. Not only is he not deserving of compassion, letting him go free is an incredible of violation to the compassion we owe the families of the people whose lives were lost.

The guy could crash more planes. In fact, I don't see why he wouldn't, he's going to die soon anyway, he may as well go out with a bang. This is hardly the point, though.

What would have been gained by keeping him? At least this way his family can be happy. For a couple of months, anyway.

This is. This guy doesn't get to be happy. He cost 270 people their lives, for which he lost only lost eight years or so from his. If my hot-blooded, angry side had a say, I'd declare that he have his eyes gouged out, his tongue cut out, his mouth sewn shut and his eardrums burst, before being tied up and given to the families of the victims to do with him as they will.

Then drowned, slowly, if he's still alive when they're done. It's not all he deserves but it's cheaper and easier than what he does.

My cold, rational side, which is hard to listen to when dealing with a man like this, is ultimately far more correct, however, in saying that he deserves to finish his sentence and die in prison. There is no room for compassion to be given to him if he did not give compassion himself.

If you take someone's life, your own life is forfeit. The justice system exists both to protect the public and to punish the guilty and, in this case, the guilty definitely need to be punished.

Edited to stay on one topic.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on August 21, 2009, 03:37:12 pm
Is it just me or did Axelgear just prove Lurk in some twisted way? >_>
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on August 21, 2009, 04:45:10 pm
Yeah, a little  :P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on August 22, 2009, 06:52:53 pm
Not sure what I proved, exactly. My sentiment stands.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brandonazz on August 23, 2009, 09:05:57 am
(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii120/Brandonazz/image63.png)

Is there anything wrong with this allocation?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on August 23, 2009, 11:36:42 am
It would be nice to have the numbers on how much money is being spent to go along with the percentages.

National Defense has the best lobbyists.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on August 23, 2009, 03:18:51 pm
Good post Brandon. Yeah to little research in to energy if you ask me. Natural resonances and environment to is a bit low. One can see that during the oil crises the Energy research jumped up and once the crises was over the funding was pulled out.  With the bush administration it seemed to have gotten a really really low priority. Space research also had a lower priority during the bush era even though bush clearly stated the goal of building a moon base and sending a manned mission to mars. Environment seem to have about the same funding as always which has always been low. Defense really dominates the spending however and standing in general for more then 50% of all research spending.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: /lurk on August 23, 2009, 05:58:26 pm
But surely all possible ways to explode someone have already been discovered?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brandonazz on August 23, 2009, 06:44:41 pm
I assume that means you haven't yet seen District 9, /lurk.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on August 23, 2009, 10:57:05 pm
Yokto, the chart doesn't necessarily show that funding was pulled.  It shows that it decreased as a percentage.  Energy spending could have remained constant this whole time and other things were just given more money.

Lurk, there are still undiscovered and undeveloped ways of delivering the explosion to the bad guys.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on August 24, 2009, 02:33:59 am
Yokto, the chart doesn't necessarily show that funding was pulled.  It shows that it decreased as a percentage.  Energy spending could have remained constant this whole time and other things were just given more money.

Thats bad if there was inflation. Which there was.  :-X
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on August 24, 2009, 06:29:32 am
And still is. Is show more where the focus lies. Of course what this doe not show is how much the Government has increased is spending or not as a total (and for it to be meaningful it must take in to account inflation)

It is rather clear that Defend research is the where most of the money i spent. Health is the other big one and maybe not so odd that spending in this area have gone up. More people are fat today then ever before taxing the system more. Also more and more people are getting old even if this has more effect in Europe and Japan then USA which has relativity high growth rate compared to the rest of the western world. China will have smiler problems with a aging population most likely in the future to. Of course all there nations will have less problem with overpopulation then nation that continue with a high growth rate. So nether option is really good. There just challenges to overcome. Being tech friendly as i am i think the Aging is easier to solve in the long run then overpopulation.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on August 24, 2009, 07:41:36 am
At this point, having a military is mostly about mobility. The costs of keeping the advanced tech that we have now is so high that no small nation could afford it, yet alone a terrorist group. No two industrialized nations on the planet can fight anymore because they're so interdependent or at least close allies with someone who has nukes, so the US Armed Forces are basically just looking for ways to maintain superiority and reduce cost.

A while back, a group was brought in to help cut pork spending in the US government, reducing unnecessary spending, and I'd love to see this done with the US military. It's aging now and needs to be revitalized; old inland Cold War bases shut down, old battleships and carriers replaced by new ones (and probably sold to Canada, sadly...). Such things need to be done soon and, if they are done properly, they'll save billions in the long run.

Also, more funding for NASA. They've paid for themselves several times over with the boosts they've provided to the US economy, let alone the world. I figure NASA should be allowed to patent new discoveries and fund themselves with it. They could also allow reduced royalty fees to US businesses, to give them an advantage on competitors, but that might violate NAFTA. Then again, when's that ever stopped America?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on August 24, 2009, 08:36:59 am
We are seeing a few cuts to excessive military spending, like when Congress cut funding for the F-22 a few weeks ago.

Now I don't completely understand the funding structure or how Congress decides who gets what money, but I can understand how National Defense gets so much spending.

Example one, a billion dollar jet fighter program will build a new jet that is faster, harder to shoot down, with a longer range and better weapons system.  Production of the new jet will boost the economies of several states, and usage of the plane will ensure the continued use of multiple military bases, boosting the economies of several other states.  Plus it keeps America strong and makes for incredible flyovers at sporting events.

Example two, a billion dollar program to research alternative energy sources.  The funding will go to a few universities and private research firms where they will research getting biodiesel from pond scum and other weird things like that.  While they may very well make a breakthrough in energy production, this isn't guaranteed.  If you get nothing in return your constituents think you dumped a billion dollars down the drain.  If you do get results other sectors of the energy industry will suffer.  Now thousands of coal miners who used to be loyal supporters are unemployed and calling for your head on a stake.

This is a hypothetical, exaggerated situation, of course.  But things like this are part of the reason why there is so much pork in the US budget, and why Congress doesn't always make the best decision.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Didero on August 24, 2009, 09:29:18 am
But investing in a new fighter jet is just creating something that'll require even more maintenance costs than the previous version, because it's more complex. Also, there isn't really a need for jets that are even harder to shoot down, since they rarely get shot down as it is.
Besides, won't faster jets make sporting events more boring, since the flyovers will be shorter?

And if you get a breakthrough in energy sources, it isn't just good for the economy, but also for the planet, which should be worth something too.


Also, I'm not sure how I got here...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on August 24, 2009, 12:06:47 pm
Oh, don't get me wrong.  The logic in my two examples is all kinds of flawed.  I'm just saying, that's how it could be presented or interpreted.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on August 24, 2009, 03:42:13 pm


Rant.

Well is a myth that USA is so technological superior in defense that no other nation that compare. Technology wise many Western nation have comparable technology level. In some areas a bit behind but in many also a bit beyond what USA has. This has a bit to do with that other nations actually have smaller armies and USA seldom retires old stuff (and some of the old stuff is really good. I see no reason to retire the A-10 for example and i do not think there are any plans to do so.) But keeping so much old hardware makes modernizing the army hard. Rather then have a few weapon systems that easily upgraded with the latest in technology USA develop newer and newer system and keeps the old. Sweden has for example only one active Jet fighter that functions as a multi roll aircraft. USA has a lot of specialist jets all having there particular mission in mind. This is costly and makes it hard to update.

Also this is a care of being the best vs being just good enough. pushing for the latest and most expensive will not give you the best bang for the buck. In a war with china USA would have a hard time wining for example not because china has such a high tech army but because they have a high tech army enough that also have a lot more manpower then USA. And would USA try to invade a western country USA would have a hard fight on there hand because the nation though smaller would have a very well equipped army with equal or some case  superior technology to back them up. Sure nothing can measure up with the F-22 one on one but as a hole that edge is lost due the the enemy being able to compensate in other areas.

Now it does not really matter. No Western nation is likely to go to war with USA in any foreseeable future. Nations like China and Russia might become hostile but even this is very unlikely and if that where the case we would probably see the same kind of proxy wars as we saw during the cold war. Such a war would most likely be very asymmetric like the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. Still USA is very weary that potential enemies like Iran might acquire high technology that even USA do not currently possess. Iran have show interest in the Russian Supercavitation torpedo system Shkval which could be really bad for USA ability to project power over the region. Especially if they also manage to acquire submarines with Air-independent propulsion like the latest generation of Swedish and German Subs. There is no chance that Iran would be able to defeat USA but it would be able to put up such a good fight that USA might be unwilling to put pressure on them. Just think of what the press would say if a carrier was lost in the Persian gulf. Lucky as of now there few nations to are willing to sell any weapon system to any nation. Russia being the nation to watch out for making deals with less reputable nations considering they actually have technical knowledge and weapon system that no other nation have yet fully developed.



Anyway i guess all this ranting is mainly to point out that USA could provably spend there defense research money more efficient >_>
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on August 24, 2009, 05:48:35 pm
Hope you feel better with that rant out of your system, Yokto.  I'm not going to get into what would become a bragging contest over which country has the best military.  But we are in agreement that the defense budget could be spent more efficiently.  Even though I used the F-22 as an example, I'm not expecting spending cuts to be a priority any time soon, even on programs that are clearly pork.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on August 24, 2009, 06:03:52 pm
Well i heard about what you should do if your looking to get funds to your research project.

First of all. Make sure is really expensive. If it can be done cheep and effective then find a way to make it very expensive. Expensive project are projects that normally gives a lot to of jobs. They get more coverage to. If you can try to put it in as many states as possible. No one what to cancel a project affecting there state.

This i think is a big reason why so much is spend on defense vs many other things. Defense projects are just expensive. At least a lot of them. If you do research on green project then they tend to be cheep. Energy can get expensive but it has a lot if people working against it to. Space is expensive in general but it also fairly well funded. Basic research can go ether way with both cheep projects and huge expensive project like CERN.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on August 24, 2009, 06:48:36 pm
I think it needs to be pointed out that no two industrialized nations on the planet will ever go to war unless they're suicidal. Every battle from this point forth will be fought between an industrialized nation and some smaller one or two proxy states. The proliferation of nuclear weapons ensures that invading another country without first neutralizing their capacity to utilize a nuclear arsenal would be a suicidal exercise in and of itself, but the follow-up of their allies retaliating would simply be undesirable to the extreme.

No nation could win in a nuclear war. As such, proxy battles are the way of the future. Whether that's better or worse depends on where you live. Maintaining superiority for the US government is not about outdoing other industrialized nations, it's about outdoing Achmed Q. Mohammad or whatever the next military fiasco's generic identity is, typically limited to small explosives and a Kalashnikov.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on August 24, 2009, 07:16:40 pm
Well there was WWI... Oh and WWII... And Russo-Japanese War of 1905 Though some would say that Russia was not fully industrialized until Stalin rebuild the country. Really there have been a lot of wars between industrialized nations. Iraq was fairly industrialized during the gulf war. Not that they had a good army. I would say the same about Iran when Iraq and Iran was fighting.

Nether of these nation when to war because they wished to commit suicide. All sides though they would be the winners though is rather clear one side normally made some grave misjudgment of the situation. Japan was hoping for example that USA would sue for peace after there grave defeat at pearl harbor and the Germans where hoping that the allies would do the same after there victories in Europe. Japan was hoping that the USA would be willing export resonances which they needed in there war against china. Germany longterm plans where to defeat the Soviet union and build a unified Europe. Not all agreed on how it would play out but none of the leaders of these nations though they would lose.

But note that you can not be sure that every proxy war will be with a enemy that is equipped with far inferior technology. One of the big reasons why USSR lost in the conflict in Afghanistan was because USA gave the mujahideen rather advanced FIM-92 Stinger which made it very hard for the soviets to project power with there Hind helicopters which though not suited for the altitude have been one of the strongest weapons the Russians had against the mujahideen. Technology can turn make a big difference especially in asymmetric warfare.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Doctor Z on August 24, 2009, 09:23:22 pm
He was talking about the industrialized nations today. That happen to have nuclear weapons.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on August 25, 2009, 05:55:11 am
If so he should have said Nuclear powers :P

And like i said. Lesser industrialized states have gone to war with each other. Heck even nuclear powers have had minor skirmishes. Just look at the Kashmir region. Both India and Pakistan are nuclear powers after all.

Democracy seems to be a lot better way to promote peace. No stable Democracy i know of has gone to war with a other Democracy in modern times. Some nation lay in the borderline like the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Though i like to think there is nothing that guaranties peace. Helps people to keep on there toes. Like nothing guaranties Democracy will last forever ether so one always have to guard it.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on August 25, 2009, 08:39:30 am
I think the reason that 'industrial' nations aren't going to war any more is because the 'first world' is becoming more culturally homogeneous. It is easy to justify a war when you're fighting pickle-eating Bosch or funny looking gooks or whatever your target of choice is. Now, however, everyone is becoming more and more similar, especially the young people. Street scenes in different countries are starting to become more and more alike and everyone is largely realising that the people they would wage war against are a little too similar to make slaughtering them a comfortable proposition.

Hence, most of the largely publicised conflicts these days seem to be waged largely on cultural grounds, with the brunt of the aggression being between the Middle East and the West.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on August 25, 2009, 09:03:09 am
Well all the nations are democratic to and often tied in to alliances and such. How many western nations are not in NATO for example. And most of Europe are now members of a EU. A organization created partly to keep peace in Europe. Lots of factors play a roll in creating this relative peace we have not just one.

Cultural difference is normally emphasized in war rather then being the course of them. It tend to be used more as a excuse then anything else.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brandonazz on August 25, 2009, 08:33:20 pm
(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii120/Brandonazz/pyramid.jpg)

Big Macs are delicious, yes or no?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on August 25, 2009, 08:58:46 pm
I'm not sure if I've ever even had a Big Mac.  If you want a good burger, find a well respected local place and chow down.

I don't know jack about the politics of farm subsidies, so I don't think I'll comment.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on August 25, 2009, 10:40:52 pm
Ted Kennedy has died.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/26/obit.ted.kennedy/index.html
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Hammerman58 on August 25, 2009, 10:54:23 pm
That is terrible. If it wasn't for the one woman being killed he could of ran and probably won the presidency.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Andrew Ryan on August 25, 2009, 11:13:35 pm
Crap! Now the democrats don't have enough votes to push the bill through!

Health Care reform is doomed!  :o
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on August 25, 2009, 11:30:44 pm
Even if they did get it through, the popular dissent could lead to a disastrous loss for the Democrats next election and the utter eradication of the healthcare reform and many more budgetary fixes besides.

If so he should have said Nuclear powers :P

I said "every battle from this point forth" and meant it.

And like i said. Lesser industrialized states have gone to war with each other. Heck even nuclear powers have had minor skirmishes. Just look at the Kashmir region. Both India and Pakistan are nuclear powers after all.

Yes, but neither of them has directly fought each other. The Kashmir region hasn't seen direct conflict between India and Pakistan in over two decades, just insurgency issues (at least so says my research). The two haven't been directly at war since after India developed nuclear weapons.

Democracy seems to be a lot better way to promote peace. No stable Democracy i know of has gone to war with a other Democracy in modern times. Some nation lay in the borderline like the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Technically, Hamas WAS elected. I should add that so was Hitler, so was Stalin (whether by the people or by representative democracy), as have many terrible dictators throughout history been. Pure democracy is no better than anarchy. Constitutional democracies, and the difference there is huge, are what can protect a nation from tyranny, so long as its people ensure their government obey it.

Though i like to think there is nothing that guaranties peace. Helps people to keep on there toes. Like nothing guaranties Democracy will last forever ether so one always have to guard it.

That's a very sensible thing to say. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on August 26, 2009, 02:21:56 am
Though i like to think there is nothing that guaranties peace. Helps people to keep on there toes. Like nothing guaranties Democracy will last forever ether so one always have to guard it.

That's a very sensible thing to say. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Then we are slave to our own fear of oppression - Alfred N. Onymous
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on August 26, 2009, 05:33:24 am
If so he should have said Nuclear powers :P

I said "every battle from this point forth" and meant it.

Yeah the problem with that theory is that is unfalsifiable by looking at history as all those historic events can not be used to contrict you statement. I do not think that is as simple as you make it out to be and that other factors have played a larger roll. :P
[/quote]
And like i said. Lesser industrialized states have gone to war with each other. Heck even nuclear powers have had minor skirmishes. Just look at the Kashmir region. Both India and Pakistan are nuclear powers after all.

Yes, but neither of them has directly fought each other. The Kashmir region hasn't seen direct conflict between India and Pakistan in over two decades, just insurgency issues (at least so says my research). The two haven't been directly at war since after India developed nuclear weapons.
But it is a historical example of a conflict though not on a larger scale where two nuclear powers have had minor conflicts with each other which have lead to losses on both sides. Though this might be limited war is still war.

Democracy seems to be a lot better way to promote peace. No stable Democracy i know of has gone to war with a other Democracy in modern times. Some nation lay in the borderline like the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Technically, Hamas WAS elected. I should add that so was Hitler, so was Stalin (whether by the people or by representative democracy), as have many terrible dictators throughout history been. Pure democracy is no better than anarchy. Constitutional democracies, and the difference there is huge, are what can protect a nation from tyranny, so long as its people ensure their government obey it.

Yes. I do see palatine as a democratic and legitimated nation. A very young and unstable one which is still maturing but still

As for Stalin. Stalin was not really elected by a popular majority. Problem with Communism in practice have been that is very soon develop in to a rather conservative oligarchical rule. There was not open election or anything

Hitler is a other matter. He manage to get elected though democratic means. Though it should be pointed out that Germany was rather unstable and Hitler used a lot of undemocratic methods to achieve this goal. He also dismantled the democracy once he was in power.

The Japaneses Democracy was also hijack by Quasi Fascist factions which also dismantled there democratic system they have had before WWII. All these nations went to war after the democratic power had been reduced to nearly nothing.

Though i like to think there is nothing that guaranties peace. Helps people to keep on there toes. Like nothing guaranties Democracy will last forever ether so one always have to guard it.

That's a very sensible thing to say. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Then we are slave to our own fear of oppression - Alfred N. Onymous
Ahh... Yes. One should not overact ether like some Bush Administration and become what one was fighting against the very first start. I would say that this is this fear that has destroyed many democracies. Only though knowledge can we stop being slaves to ignorance.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety - Benjamin Franklin
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: /lurk on August 26, 2009, 07:20:56 am
Though i like to think there is nothing that guaranties peace. Helps people to keep on there toes. Like nothing guaranties Democracy will last forever ether so one always have to guard it.

That's a very sensible thing to say. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Then we are slave to our own fear of oppression - Alfred N. Onymous
Ahh... Yes. One should not overact ether like some Bush Administration and become what one was fighting against the very first start. I would say that this is this fear that has destroyed many democracies. Only though knowledge can we stop being slaves to ignorance.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety - Benjamin Franklin

Just gimme gimme gimme gimme
Fried chicken  - Queen
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on August 26, 2009, 08:36:14 am
Yeah the problem with that theory is that is unfalsifiable by looking at history as all those historic events can not be used to contrict you statement. I do not think that is as simple as you make it out to be and that other factors have played a larger roll. :P

Well, no, the theory is entirely falsifiable. It's simply that we have to wait and see. We can make a reasonable assumption by examining the state of affairs of the world before and after nuclear weapons and examine exactly how the state of geopolitics has changed.

It's got other strings attached, yes, but nuclear weapons really do go a long way to preventing open warfare and force it into proxy armies fighting.

But it is a historical example of a conflict though not on a larger scale where two nuclear powers have had minor conflicts with each other which have lead to losses on both sides. Though this might be limited war is still war.

It is a conflict, but neither one has fought the other directly since they both had nuclear weapons. Neither nation would dare attack the other.

Yes. I do see palatine as a democratic and legitimated nation. A very young and unstable one which is still maturing but still

It was a legitimate nation long ago, I think. The maturity you expect, I would like to see too, but I do not think it will come until old grudges can be set aside.

As for Stalin. Stalin was not really elected by a popular majority. Problem with Communism in practice have been that is very soon develop in to a rather conservative oligarchical rule. There was not open election or anything

Yep. Communism fails on the large scale. Hard. A small group, such as, say, a commune (see what I did there?) of around 10-100 people could get it to work, especially in a survivalist situation where everyone's contribution is necessary. It's only when you start talking about large scale that it collapses like a ton of bricks.

Hitler is a other matter. He manage to get elected though democratic means. Though it should be pointed out that Germany was rather unstable and Hitler used a lot of undemocratic methods to achieve this goal. He also dismantled the democracy once he was in power.

Yes he did, but he still got elected, didn't he?

The Japaneses Democracy was also hijack by Quasi Fascist factions which also dismantled there democratic system they have had before WWII. All these nations went to war after the democratic power had been reduced to nearly nothing.

That may be so, but didn't they all have to get elected to get into power anyway? The only exception is the communists and that was a popular rebellion.

Ahh... Yes. One should not overact ether like some Bush Administration and become what one was fighting against the very first start. I would say that this is this fear that has destroyed many democracies. Only though knowledge can we stop being slaves to ignorance.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety - Benjamin Franklin

Stop making me agree with you, it's... Unnatural. Of course, I should add that this statement applies to the Obama administration... Still wiretapping, still torturing, still keeping prisoners without trial, still having troops in Iraq but no-one mentions it anymore. Change we can believe in!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on August 26, 2009, 10:58:07 am
Yeah the problem with that theory is that is unfalsifiable by looking at history as all those historic events can not be used to contrict you statement. I do not think that is as simple as you make it out to be and that other factors have played a larger roll. :P

Well, no, the theory is entirely falsifiable. It's simply that we have to wait and see. We can make a reasonable assumption by examining the state of affairs of the world before and after nuclear weapons and examine exactly how the state of geopolitics has changed.

It's got other strings attached, yes, but nuclear weapons really do go a long way to preventing open warfare and force it into proxy armies fighting.

That is not what i said. I said your theory can not be disprove using historical records and that is what i am against. Wait and see is not a good approach when your trying to predict what might happen in the future.



Well the point is that if you look at modern history two democratic nations has not really gone to open war with each other. But there are a lot of gray cases and one could mix and match it to fit ones definition for decided outcome. The same thing your actually doing by saying no industrialized state have gone to war. But Democracy holds up a lot better. Germany and Japan was not democratic when WWII started and i think you will find very few that actually dispute it. Sure they have been democratic in the past but so have many other nations. If anything this show that once democracy is abolished then armed conflicts with other nations are a lot more likely to happen.



As for communism. Well i do not agree with the communist system to start. But it should be noted that very few revolutions have ever succeed with replacing a autocratic or oligarchical rule with a more democratic and open government. The French revolution as a huge failure really. Both for the Nobles that started it and the common man.

Some would argue that the American revolution was a success but the American Revolution was not a revolution in that sense. It was succession form the British Empire.



I am also not going to defend the Obama administration. I think in general that even the left wing American politicians are to on the Right. Obama is no exception.

As Supreme Overlord i would rule with a iron fist and bring progress to America!
>_>
<_<
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on August 26, 2009, 12:21:23 pm
That is not what i said. I said your theory can not be disprove using historical records and that is what i am against. Wait and see is not a good approach when your trying to predict what might happen in the future.

Wait and see is not the attempt to predict it, wait and see is the attempt at falsifiability. Don't confuse the two. My reasons for suggesting it are based on history. My declaration of how it can be falsified, and therefore declared untrue, is to wait and see. How else would you suggest we test it?

Well the point is that if you look at modern history two democratic nations has not really gone to open war with each other. But there are a lot of gray cases and one could mix and match it to fit ones definition for decided outcome. The same thing your actually doing by saying no industrialized state have gone to war. But Democracy holds up a lot better. Germany and Japan was not democratic when WWII started and i think you will find very few that actually dispute it. Sure they have been democratic in the past but so have many other nations. If anything this show that once democracy is abolished then armed conflicts with other nations are a lot more likely to happen.

No, neither was. Japan was still a monarchy and Germany was a socialist dictatorship. Democratic nations tend not to willingly go to war unless attacked first. As shown by these examples, though, democratic nations can easily elect a dictator and follow them to war.

As for communism. Well i do not agree with the communist system to start. But it should be noted that very few revolutions have ever succeed with replacing a autocratic or oligarchical rule with a more democratic and open government. The French revolution as a huge failure really. Both for the Nobles that started it and the common man.

Very few indeed. It's primarily because once someone takes power, they are very much opposed to relinquishing it, fearing a return to the old ways. It's why grass-roots and slow changes are often the best path to success. Then again, the attempts of Gandhi may be called a revolution, not just a violent one...

Some would argue that the American revolution was a success but the American Revolution was not a revolution in that sense. It was succession form the British Empire.

Secession, to be accurate. The dictionary definition of a revolution is "an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed." I'd say that it counts. Hence, it is both.

I am also not going to defend the Obama administration. I think in general that even the left wing American politicians are to on the Right. Obama is no exception.

You say that like being on the Right end of the political spectrum is a bad thing.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on August 26, 2009, 12:59:23 pm
No but i want to make a model for predictions wait things to happen and explain them after they happed. That is the easy way though also rather useless. Especially if you just recored what happens without analyzing the events that let to the situation :P

Your prediction no industrialized nation (or is it more specifically no Nuclear power?) would go to war with a other nation is something i can not refute because i according you your terms i am not allowed to use any historical observations that might contradict your statement. After all that was in the past. I can only use future events to refute you statement and then is no garanti that you will not say that if such a event do happen that you say in the future form that event. So how can i refute you statement exactly? I mean on a purely theoretical level. :P



The Nazis had nothing to do with socialism even though they use in there propaganda. The Nazis where on the contort very well connect with the industrialist and have much of there support form the middle-class rather then the lower-class. That being said the Nazis manage to get a lot of supporters form those that had no where else to go. Many who where down on there luck form the middle-class and lower-class joined SA and worked as the Nazis muscles during the early years. But as a hole they where very hostile against what we normal call socialism. This include Communism and Social Democracy. The conflicts with the Communists where very strong from the start. No Nazism has most of it ideological connection to Italian Fascism and pushed very conservative values in general.

And such and to describe Japan as a Autocracy ruled by a Monarch is to oversimplify the situation a lot. The Emperor did not have as much power during WWII as you might believe. A lot of the power was in quasi fascist factions often connected to the military. This is a very complex time for Japan.



And yes i meant Secession. My spelling is a bit off as anyone who know me knows. Also if your going to quote a dictionary you should also say which it is form. And i make a difference between Secession and Revolution.



Axel i am a freaking socialist. What do you think i would say about right wing politics? :P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on August 26, 2009, 01:39:27 pm
No but i want to make a model for predictions wait things to happen and explain them after they happed. That is the easy way though also rather useless. Especially if you just recored what happens without analyzing the events that let to the situation :P

Your prediction no industrialized nation (or is it more specifically no Nuclear power?) would go to war with a other nation is something i can not refute because i according you your terms i am not allowed to use any historical observations that might contradict your statement. After all that was in the past. I can only use future events to refute you statement and then is no garanti that you will not say that if such a event do happen that you say in the future form that event. So how can i refute you statement exactly? I mean on a purely theoretical level. :P

What historical observations would those be? My statement is that they would never go to war directly and that they would use proxies to settle their disputes. So far, you've not suggested anything besides the Kashmir conflict which, as I already said, has not involve direct warfare since when India became a nuclear power. There've been terrorist activities, guerrilla warfare, but never direct conflict between Pakistani and Indian forces, especially not since Pakistan gained nuclear weapons too.

You can disprove my statement by showing a nation attempting an invasion of a nation with nuclear weaponry. To my knowledge, this has not occurred.

The Nazis had nothing to do with socialism even though they use in there propaganda. The Nazis where on the contort very well connect with the industrialist and have much of there support form the middle-class rather then the lower-class. That being said the Nazis manage to get a lot of supporters form those that had no where else to go. Many who where down on there luck form the middle-class and lower-class joined SA and worked as the Nazis muscles during the early years. But as a hole they where very hostile against what we normal call socialism. This include Communism and Social Democracy. The conflicts with the Communists where very strong from the start. No Nazism has most of it ideological connection to Italian Fascism and pushed very conservative values in general.

They hated Communism and Parliamentarian politics. They were, however, socialists. They had strong collectivist beliefs, opposed economic liberalism, tried to put as much control and power in the hands of the state as possible... They were socialists, Yokto. Have you read their 25 Point Program? It included so many lovely points like the state having direct duty to abolish all incomes not earned by work, nationalization of all businesses that have become corporations, profit sharing in large enterprises, land reform, social security...

You can try and convince yourself all you like that they were not socialists, Yokto, but they were. They came from a country that had suffered a terrible economic blow and wanted to blame someone, specifically a very wealthy group.

And such and to describe Japan as a Autocracy ruled by a Monarch is to oversimplify the situation a lot. The Emperor did not have as much power during WWII as you might believe. A lot of the power was in quasi fascist factions often connected to the military. This is a very complex time for Japan.

It certainly was, but there was a lot of power in the Emperor's hands. He was officially the head of the military as of 1937. The head of the military by birthright would indicate some measure of monarchy, wouldn't you say? It was he who officially decided to surrender to the United States (though that very nearly didn't work).

And yes i meant Secession. My spelling is a bit off as anyone who know me knows. Also if your going to quote a dictionary you should also say which it is form. And i make a difference between Secession and Revolution.

The Random House Dictionary. I would offer that Secession is just a different kind of Revolution, unless the changes made to the government are incredibly minor. The American government totally shifted their government's control system and processes, even if they didn't change the form of assembly too greatly.

Axel i am a freaking socialist. What do you think i would say about right wing politics? :P

If you're a reasonable person, that they have their valid arguments but that you ultimately disagree. I make the same concession to both sides of the table. Declaring that a political association is automatically wrong is dangerous to any open-minded individual's ability to develop their views.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on August 26, 2009, 02:02:07 pm
Ummm, why would anyone disagree with a valid argument?

If you think the opponant's argument is valid but still disagree with them then you are obviously a bit funny in the head. More than half the reason anyone disagrees with anyone is because they don't think their arguments are valid (I'll leave the other slightly less than half open to things like our innate irrationality)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Josasa on August 26, 2009, 02:03:28 pm
I see you have both been using Japan as an example. Now I'm not saying I'm an expert on the subject, but I am studying Japanese as a language in school, from a native Japanese person. Along with this I've been very interested in Japan during World War II and before that, seeing as my grandfather was a part of the Pacific campaign. I've read several books on this subject.

First off, the Emperor is god. He is a living deity. Saying he didn't have as much power as you think is false. He was their ruler and they obeyed him. Also, to point another thing out, the Japanese government was never truly democratic. There was the Diet, modeled after the British system, but this was an oligarchy of wealthy business owners who were eventually shoved out of place by the military.

Things really got bad during the occupation of Korea and eventually the invasion of China during the 1930's. A military hierarchy formed, pushing those in the uniform to the top. It was a horrible management system, almost to the point where the Kwangtung Army was running around and doing things independent of the Japanese government. One of the things that was stressed was the home life of the Japanese people. Military officers were coming home from abroad to find that living conditions were not the greatest, and this upset them greatly. This eventually led to the military coup which replaced the government.

Now here is the thing which is hard for many westerners to understand. The Emperor had control over all of these proceedings. But he was very inactive politically. Instead of putting an end to this chaotic overthrow, he let them carry on and replace the 'democratic' government system. A perfect example of this was the line from the book Japan's War by Edwin P. Hoyt: "They were talking about rebellion, as they had been for several days. "Destroy the corrupt elements who hide underneath the emperor's sleeves," they said. It was always the army way to blame "those around the emperor"; they dare not blame the emperor himself." The emperor was the ruler of Japan, but one that would not step up to the plate. It was only because of him finally realizing the reality of the war, that he finally announced the surrender of Japan.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on August 26, 2009, 03:49:13 pm
OK i think i have to be a bit more clear on Japan.

Well technically the Emperor has the same power during the Shogunate era. Same Dynasty calming to be descended form Amaterasu the sun goddess. But even so the emperor had very little power. As you point out the democracy of japan was far from being a fully democratic nation though has the seeds sown for it. But what happen like you pointed out is that millinery interest took over. The Emeperor was not the architect behind the War but others where. The Emperor could probably have stopped it i am sure but is that he is a inactive rules that in think is the most significant part of this. The Emperor was mainly a passive figure and not a active one in WWII.

Lucky towards the end of the war he realized that there was no point to this conflict and helped to end it. Though it had to bring Japan to the bring of is destruction for him to do so.

Also note that i am not trying to defend the Emperors passive behavior. Being passive is also a sin.


Axelgear first you do not make you standing on you theory clear. Are you talking about Nuclear powers or Industrialized nations? That is two totally different things. Sweden and Germany are two heavily industrialized nations for example but we have not nuclear weapons. If we are just talking about industrialized nations then WWI and WWII contradict your statement. You really have to flesh out your theory about why these nations would not go to war.



So the Nazis hated the two blocks major of socialism there is (As Social Democracy is Democratic in nature). Is that not telling you something? Also there action do not go with the socialist ideals. They have very strong ties with industrialist No the Nazis tries to Reform the word Socialism to suit there own needs. They used a lot of propaganda to capture as many people they could. But i think there actions speak for them self. Just take the strong Nationalism that is central to Nazism which you can not deny. Any true socialist would agree with me that Nations are not the people and that Nationalism is just a construct to control people. Heck there is a reason why the The Internationale is the anthem of the socialist movement. There are so many things that go against socialism ideals that i could probably go on all night how huge the difference but i do not feel like i need to.

 I am sure that moderate conservatives would not like to that Nazism would be called a moderate conservatives movement and Liberals would not like it if i called in a Liberal movement. Today i feel that people try to connect the Nazi and Fascist to much with a lot more moderate political movements that really have nothing to do with Nazism. Like someone said. Your a Nazism if you build roads because Hitler build roads :P



Oh as we are defining definitions i take it that the Secession of the southern state in USA was also a revolution by the definition you are using?

Not that it really matters are we both agree that revolutions seldom work :P

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brandonazz on August 26, 2009, 04:08:14 pm
Ted Kennedy has died.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/26/obit.ted.kennedy/index.html

 :(
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on August 26, 2009, 05:23:32 pm
Ummm, why would anyone disagree with a valid argument?

If you think the opponant's argument is valid but still disagree with them then you are obviously a bit funny in the head. More than half the reason anyone disagrees with anyone is because they don't think their arguments are valid (I'll leave the other slightly less than half open to things like our innate irrationality)

Valid is the wrong word for it. I'm trying to think of a way to say "Your argument has merit but also has certain flaws" or "Your argument has merit but clashes with certain values" or "Your argument has merit but your driving goal is different to mine", all in one phrase. I can agree that the idea of giving everyone free access to medicine is a great thing, for example, but it encounters a few dozen other problems quite rapidly, both economically and philosophically.

That's what I'm trying to say.


OK i think i have to be a bit more clear on Japan.

Well technically the Emperor has the same power during the Shogunate era. Same Dynasty calming to be descended form Amaterasu the sun goddess. But even so the emperor had very little power. As you point out the democracy of japan was far from being a fully democratic nation though has the seeds sown for it. But what happen like you pointed out is that millinery interest took over. The Emeperor was not the architect behind the War but others where. The Emperor could probably have stopped it i am sure but is that he is a inactive rules that in think is the most significant part of this. The Emperor was mainly a passive figure and not a active one in WWII.

Lucky towards the end of the war he realized that there was no point to this conflict and helped to end it. Though it had to bring Japan to the bring of is destruction for him to do so.

Also note that i am not trying to defend the Emperors passive behavior. Being passive is also a sin.

I have to repeat that the Emperor was officially the head of their war effort. He had total control of what they did, he just chose not to exercise it.

Axelgear first you do not make you standing on you theory clear. Are you talking about Nuclear powers or Industrialized nations? That is two totally different things. Sweden and Germany are two heavily industrialized nations for example but we have not nuclear weapons. If we are just talking about industrialized nations then WWI and WWII contradict your statement. You really have to flesh out your theory about why these nations would not go to war.

I specifically stated nuclear powers for clarity. I also offered you a way to disprove my theory. If you'd care to take the challenge, go ahead. If not, let's move on.

So the Nazis hated the two blocks major of socialism there is (As Social Democracy is Democratic in nature). Is that not telling you something? Also there action do not go with the socialist ideals. They have very strong ties with industrialist No the Nazis tries to Reform the word Socialism to suit there own needs. They used a lot of propaganda to capture as many people they could. But i think there actions speak for them self. Just take the strong Nationalism that is central to Nazism which you can not deny. Any true socialist would agree with me that Nations are not the people and that Nationalism is just a construct to control people. Heck there is a reason why the The Internationale is the anthem of the socialist movement. There are so many things that go against socialism ideals that i could probably go on all night how huge the difference but i do not feel like i need to.

They hated Communism and Parliaments, not democracy in and of itself. They just did what a disturbing number of socialist governments have in the past: Got elected and shut the doors to the halls of power behind them. Their actions do speak for themselves, in that they did exactly what they said they would; taking control of industry and trying to rebuild Germany for the people.

They were socialists, Yokto. Maybe a different brand of socialist to you, to most socialists, but socialists they were all the same.

I am sure that moderate conservatives would not like to that Nazism would be called a moderate conservatives movement and Liberals would not like it if i called in a Liberal movement. Today i feel that people try to connect the Nazi and Fascist to much with a lot more moderate political movements that really have nothing to do with Nazism. Like someone said. Your a Nazism if you build roads because Hitler build roads :P

No-one likes the idea that they might share the same waters with monsters. I don't like that Vladimir Putin calls himself a centrist and I'm certain that communists hate Stalin for attaching his name to their ideology. I don't think that pupils of Marx like communists calling themselves Marxists or when people call them Marxists either. I doubt people on the Right wing like getting called fascists.

At the end of the day, they were all dictators. The extremes of any ideology lead to terrible things; from the Anarchy of extreme Libertarianism to the ultra-conservative Fascists to the dictatorships of Socialists... Acknowledging that these people subscribed to the same philosophies we do doesn't invalidate the philosophies themselves, they merely act as warnings of what too great an excess can lead to.

Oh as we are defining definitions i take it that the Secession of the southern state in USA was also a revolution by the definition you are using?

Not that it really matters are we both agree that revolutions seldom work :P

Yes, actually, the attempted secession of the South was a revolution, a failed one. Revolutions do rarely work out for the better but, when they do, they do have interesting results.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on August 26, 2009, 06:16:10 pm
Bah... Like i said. The Emperor was not the lead figure. He chose to stand behind the curtains. To say he and he alone ruled over Japan is ignorant.



OK So lets make this clear. You theory is that no Nuclear power would go out in to total war with a other Nuclear power?

Any other conflict is just a minor engagement or a none nuclear nation fight a nuclear nation. (for example USA vs Iraq)

Because what you did at first was NOT to clearly state this.



No the Nazis did certain things that a socialist. But they are not Socialist because of that. (Heck they even band the Social Democratic party!).  I mean according to use Everyone is Nazi. All major political parties after all say there doing the work of the people in the hopes of making it better for the people. Conservatives claims this. Liberalist claims this. Green parties claims this. EU skeptic parties claims this. Every democratic party claim to have the support of the people and doing the work of the people.

The Nazis did not nationalize any major industries in Germany. The only thing being nationalized between WWI and WWII was Deutsche Bahn which is the railway system in Germany. This is honestly the only example of nationalization i could find during the Nazi era.

Most of there Anti-capitalist rhetoric was clearly aim to gain support with the workers and as a way to hit against the "Jewish world conspiracy". Very little property was ever taken form citizen and when it was it normally was because they where Jews or some other minority.

The liberties of companies where not reduced but the liberties of the individual was.

The Nazis did not really care about socialist ideals and focus on building a German Empire for a Aryan people. It was just one more thing they could use in there goal for more control.

Though i do not know why i should even argue this with you as you clearly seem to have no interest in reading up on history and really try to understand what the Nazis where about or how they are connected to other political movements.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brandonazz on September 06, 2009, 11:51:44 pm
In other news.

(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii120/Brandonazz/42109cb.jpg)

Haw haw.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Crazen on September 07, 2009, 11:58:30 am
(I just read the poll)

no. being in a democratic government pretty much gives you the right to belive or say anything you want.
it doesnt mean other people have to buy into it though.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on September 07, 2009, 12:10:32 pm
I think we're all in agreement around here that Glenn Beck has multiple screws loose.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Kenobro on September 07, 2009, 12:11:38 pm
Who's Glenn Beck?  I don't really watch any news except GMA in the morning and don't scan any news websites frequently.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brandonazz on September 07, 2009, 12:15:16 pm
Don't worry about it then.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on September 07, 2009, 01:17:34 pm
Actually his show will be on in about 45 minutes on fox news, if you want to check it out for yourself.  Have fun.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Gorman Conall on September 07, 2009, 03:37:25 pm
I like Beck  :'(.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Krakow Sam on September 07, 2009, 03:51:59 pm
... He thinks healthcare reforms are a way of paying black people reparations for slavery >_>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Beck#Political_views


Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Gorman Conall on September 07, 2009, 04:05:41 pm
So? i have my own opinions about the proposed health care reform too. I may not agree with that part of what beck thinks but he is free to believe that becuase its not all that of an outrageous of claim.

I agree with quite a bit of his other opinions. Except global warming, Don't agree with that at all.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brandonazz on September 07, 2009, 05:00:32 pm
We didn't say he wasn't free to believe those things.

We just said he was a moron for believing them.

And uh.

its not all that of an outrageous of claim.

Come again?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Gorman Conall on September 07, 2009, 05:09:50 pm
We didn't say he wasn't free to believe those things.

We just said he was a moron for believing them.


Well that's your opinion i guess, Your free to believe whatever just as he is. I don't really think its fair to call Beck a moron because you disagree with him but whatever floats your boat.


And uh.
 

its not all that of an outrageous of claim.

Come again?


From Obamas actions and the people he was with before his presidency and the people he surrounds himself with now its really not that far fetched, In my opinion anyway.

It might be outrageous to you, You and i see things differently.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on September 07, 2009, 05:58:29 pm
I think imagining Obama and his supporters could have such a motivation isn't as outlandish as how healthcare would actually accomplish that.

I admitt that I've never watched much of his show.  I've just seen clips of it and clips from his radio show where he has a complete meltdown.  Granted, those clips are him at his craziest or most controversial, but even when calm and collected, he's got the crazy eyes.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: MetallicDragon on September 07, 2009, 06:02:41 pm
There's a big difference (or a fine line?) between disagreeing with someone and thinking their idea is completely moronic.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Cow on September 08, 2009, 04:35:18 pm
For example, if I were to say, "Monkeys are never, EVER brown," you wouldn't just disagree, you would think I was a moron for believing that. Do I have to get out the "Get Off My Phone" video? Not only is he crazy, he believes others are crazy for not liking his craziness. To quote Rick James, "Cocaine is a hell of a drug."
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Gorman Conall on September 08, 2009, 06:55:11 pm
Whatever floats your boat.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on September 08, 2009, 09:37:09 pm
No, I think you should bring out the "GET OFF MY PHONE" video.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: dndfreak on September 08, 2009, 10:46:49 pm
Quote
The Neo-cons finally convinced me. Obama is just terrible.

First, Obama turned us all in to commies and nazis and then he let the government be taken over by Muslims and General Motors. Next he burned all our bibles and then he took away all our guns and tanks. And he pulled all the troops out of Iraq before we could find the WMD's!

Then Obama made all the sick, helpless people go to the doctors office. And of course he made my grandparents go before his "Death Panel". Grandpa was saved cause he is half black but poor grandma got sent to a Death Panel resort in Alaska, with Sarah Palin, where they both were water boarded.

And then Obama rounded up all of America's children and made them become democrats and watch Sesame Street. Next he took all the white people and put them in concentration camps where they had to watch re-runs of Sanford and Son and listen to Jimi Hendrix.

Oh and Michelle Obama wore shorts to the Grand Canyon.

It is so awful to have that black man ruin the country. He acts like he was elected President or something. That Glenn Beck fellow was right all along but it is to late now. We should have voted for Rush Dimbulb for President.I might even leave the country and move to Texass.

Somebody posted this on facebook and it made me laugh so hard...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Haseri on September 09, 2009, 06:44:46 am
I call Poe.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Plank of Wood on September 09, 2009, 09:11:50 am
I called it a paragraph in.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Grazony on September 09, 2009, 11:12:09 am
I really can't tell if that person is being sarcastic as hell or thinks that he is right..... :-\
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on September 09, 2009, 11:20:30 am
Go with your first guess, Graz.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Grazony on September 09, 2009, 11:23:49 am
Well I don't know. I mean I have heard worse from white people in my town about the black community and they believe every word they say.  :-\
Of course they're all old.  :P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: dndfreak on September 09, 2009, 11:30:27 am
It's sarcasm.  This was posted in obama's official group in a thread about guessing which personal attack the right was going to try yet.  The popular vote seems to be that he is campaigning for the use of hand sanitizer despite the fact that soap is more effective.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brandonazz on September 09, 2009, 04:02:41 pm
That isn't Poe.

That isn't even very-well veiled sarcasm.

It's blatantly satirical.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: dndfreak on September 09, 2009, 05:10:55 pm
OF COURSE IT WAS!  THIS WAS ON OBAMA'S FACEBOOK GROUP!

For those of you who do not know, you can not post on it until you click the little button that officially makes you a fan of Obama.  Good luck finding a hater that's willing to bolster his statistics, even by one member.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Detoxicated on September 09, 2009, 05:27:31 pm
Okay, whoever stated that Nazi germany was socialist is completely wrong. The socialist part of national socialism was quickly erased, there was free enterprize, only certain firms got merits for doing public duties (like building tanks). There was no liberalism, i grant you that, but it was free enterprize, just anyone non nazi was basically unfree. Also everyone had own property, as that fit the belief of social darwinism in germany at that time (if they struggle to get to the top that will make them hardyer). Banks were made private again (even after the great depression). Furthermore id like to stretch out that NS-Germany saw the communist parties as the threat from the inside as they saw bolshewism as the threat from the outside.

Also id like to note that the "democratic" nation of the US openly removed the elected president of chile (free votes, the people wanted allende) which was a democratic nation. So yea they do declare war or act undemocratic.

The reason why there hasnt been conflicts in europe since ww2 is because of the EU. This economical union led to an interdependence between the states, they couldnt go to war if they wanted to.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on September 09, 2009, 06:08:16 pm
Should be noted that the Communist party was banned before the Nazis came to power but the Social Democrats where banned during there reign. Is not that odd that the communist where banned due to there rather revolutionary tendency (though i do not really agree with banning even with the revolutionary tendency. Though half of you would probably agree to banning them if we look at the pole.)

I would say that the Nazis seemed to benefit mainly big business. There system drew mainly inspiration form Italian fascism which subscribed to a idea that they called corporatism. A system where industrial leaders had great say in there field of experience. That is not to say is totally bad idea because both Nazis and Fascist try to put it in to practice. Many successful Government, even socialist ones have had a dialog with the industry. Though one should be weary of taking it to far or you will just create a Plutocratic Oligarchy which in worst case could decay in to a Kleptocracy which has happens so many times though history.



My view on the relative peace is that there are many factors playing in. WMD, Prevalence of Democracy, International cooperation and even UN have all played there part i think. The Democracy guaranties peace with other democracies theory i do not think is correct. It is to simplified. But i think that having functioning Democracy in the world do reduce the risk of open war. But is just one factor. A bit factor. But one of many.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on September 10, 2009, 11:13:46 am
Sudden change of topic! (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6127514/Sentenced-to-death-on-the-NHS.html)

Opinions?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: /lurk on September 10, 2009, 11:41:02 am
Some doctors and campaigners wrote a letter mildly critical of NHS end-of-life care to a newspaper. Great.

But why would you go to all the trouble to track down and post an obscure news story from a completely different country?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Doomsday on September 10, 2009, 11:45:02 am
If true it sounds like something horribly wrong with the Doctors, rather than something inherently wrong with the system. It also seems like a lot of to do about nothing really. I'm not familiar with the British Health Care System, but isn't it also on the patient to make sure they get a second opinion? Aren't the doctors liable for misdiagnosis? Especially when it culminates in an even more severe condition or in death? I mean if it comes down to pulling the plug or living in a vegetative state until I just fade away, I'd go for the plug every time.

On a related note (though not directly), http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090910/pl_politico/26970

Also, make note that I'm watching this thread... hot button topics and all. <.< >.>
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Brandonazz on September 10, 2009, 03:15:04 pm
Sudden change of topic! (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6127514/Sentenced-to-death-on-the-NHS.html)

Opinions?

I think it's signed by five doctors and one other with such awe-inspiring titles as "Consultant" and "Lecturer," and such impartial ones as "Chairman of Choose Life" and "Chairman of the Medical Ethics Alliance."

Quote from: Official Website
The Medical Ethics Alliance affirms the unique value of all human life, its God given dignity...

We ... are a non-profit organisation and have been established to promote pro-life policies.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on September 14, 2009, 06:25:48 am
Another topic change! (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/opinion/13dowd.html?adxnnl=1&ref=opinion&adxnnlx=1252933561-Q/pMxvPorm9LtATop4lCEg)

Opinions?

Personally, I'm getting kind of sick of people saying that opposition to Obama MUST be tied to racism, because there can't be any other reason people would not like him...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on September 14, 2009, 06:39:29 am
Well the problem as i see it is that many opposed to him like throwing words like Nazi, Commie and Fascist. They might as well just say that he is black :P . But that would not be PC would it? Really i can see why some people do not like his politics but try to meet it with facts rather then shallow words that really just detract form the politics.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on September 14, 2009, 07:05:30 am
That's a perfectly reasonable response, Yokto. It's great to debate with facts instead of insults because they just make people more insular and less open to reasoned discussion. However, I've got a big problem with people instantly responding that any declaration that Obama is doing bad things is met with declarations of racism or that people are afraid of having a black man as their President.

Let's not forget the anger at the "Obama as the Joker" posters, where people said that was racism. I kid you not...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Cobra on September 14, 2009, 07:14:09 am
I thought Obama as Two-face was a better shop anyway.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on September 14, 2009, 08:13:56 am
Why, thank you!  Unless someone did a better version that I never saw.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: dndfreak on September 14, 2009, 09:13:57 am
I don't call racist when people bash Obama.  I call it racism when they can't say WHY.
Here's an example:

Person: Obama s*cks!
Me: Why don't you support the leader of our nation?
Person: He's like Hitler!
Me: How is he like Hitler?
Person: Umm... Lots of things!
Me: O.K., name one.
Person: Umm... The healthcare bill he's passing is Hitler's reform!
Me: Do you even know what's in the bill?
Person: ...no.
Me: Do you know what Hitler had for healthcare?
Person: ...no.
Me: Try again.
Person: Umm...
Me: You got nothin, do you?
Person: Umm...
Me: There's ONE thing that you know about this president, and that is the color of his skin.
Person: Are you calling me racist?
Me: Ok, then if it's not that then what is it?
Person: Umm...
Me: I rest my case.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Grazony on September 14, 2009, 09:36:52 am
I don't hate president Obama for being black or hate him at all actually. His smiles is just creeps the f*** outta me.... And really when I hear people talking about Obama being evil or something else were I live, work, and eat(takeout) I ask them if they vote for McCain or Hilliary. They usually respond:
Person: "No I didn't vote at all."
Grazony: "Then why complain?"
Person: ........
Of course I didn't get to vote either, but thats because I was still seventeen... >__>

So next election when I am able to vote and the guy I voted for didn't make it, then I complain about it.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on September 14, 2009, 11:06:49 am
I really hate people who complain and did not vote. (Exceptions for groups that are not allowed to vote for some reason.) We have them here to in Sweden.  >:(
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on September 14, 2009, 11:20:11 am
You have people like that anywhere. It's taken me 12 years to get citizenship and I'm voting for the first time in the next election (whenever that is, Canada doesn't have regular elections), and I'm voting for the Conservatives. For the first time in a few decades, we've not had a nearly daily news title about some scandal or political corruption since they got into office and, if people are wise, we'll be breaking that long cycle of lib-lib-con that we've had going for a while now.

Also, dndfreak, there's lots of reasons people don't like Obama, not the least of which is healthcare reform. That's just the one that's mobilized people; the straw that broke the camel's back. I'm still surprised when people seem to get upset that people are still asking to see Obama's birth certificate. If he's genuinely not born in America, he's not eligible for the position.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: dndfreak on September 14, 2009, 11:49:00 am
Also, dndfreak, there's lots of reasons people don't like Obama, not the least of which is healthcare reform.

I used that because I've literally had that conversation at least 20 times, not because that's the only problem people have.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: /lurk on September 14, 2009, 12:37:57 pm
Also, dndfreak, there's lots of reasons people don't like Obama, not the least of which is healthcare reform. That's just the one that's mobilized people; the straw that broke the camel's back. I'm still surprised when people seem to get upset that people are still asking to see Obama's birth certificate. If he's genuinely not born in America, he's not eligible for the position.

But they already did see Obama's birth certificate. That's been verified over and over again. Not to mention that the rule that you have to be a "natural born" citizen to become president is stupid in the first place, but that's another matter.

The opposition to healthcare reform seems to have nothing to do with actual policy that he's trying to implement. What did he do before now to make people hate everything he does on principle?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: dndfreak on September 14, 2009, 01:35:36 pm
Same thing I've been wondering.  There's only one reason I've come up with, and that's racism.  Even those who aren't racist just stop liking because it's rubbed off from the racists all around them.  It really just makes me sick...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Snork on September 14, 2009, 01:41:34 pm
Poor guy, I can almost imagine him barricading himself in the oval-office.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on September 14, 2009, 01:54:27 pm
Oh, come on.  Yes, there are some people who hate him because he's black.  There are also people who are suspect of any action he makes because he's a Democrat.  This isn't new and it happens with both parties.  It's flawed to be opposed to whatever the president does simply because he's from the other party, but it isn't as bad as racism.

And there are legitimate reasons to be skeptical of proposed healthcare reform.  Stupid things like 'death camps' have unfortunately gotten the most attention.  Some of the proposed House healthcare bills had an estimated price tag near a trillion dollars.  Despite all the noise we've been hearing, there is some agreement on certain things, like health insurance covering preexisting conditions.  Hopefully Congress will come up with a compromise bill and we can actually get something done.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Josasa on September 14, 2009, 01:54:35 pm
Also, dndfreak, there's lots of reasons people don't like Obama, not the least of which is healthcare reform. That's just the one that's mobilized people; the straw that broke the camel's back. I'm still surprised when people seem to get upset that people are still asking to see Obama's birth certificate. If he's genuinely not born in America, he's not eligible for the position.

But they already did see Obama's birth certificate. That's been verified over and over again. Not to mention that the rule that you have to be a "natural born" citizen to become president is stupid in the first place, but that's another matter.

The opposition to healthcare reform seems to have nothing to do with actual policy that he's trying to implement. What did he do before now to make people hate everything he does on principle?

But there was some controversy over the birth certificate presented, things that were never publicly cleared up. I'm not a conspiracy theorist or anything, but when things like this generally show up there needs to be a large response to put this stuff down. Otherwise it just festers and grows out of proportion.

And however 'stupid' it may appear to you, it is law. Until it is struck down you have to follow it. I'm pretty sure that's how it works over in the U.K. if I'm not mistaken?

If you have bothered to pay attention to the news, it would clearly show that there has been widespread discord because the people do NOT want the healthcare bill to pass. Americans enjoy their freedom, something which must appear strange to you Europeans, but that is one of the many things that makes us different. Instead of wasting money, we enjoy accumulating it by putting it to good use in the economy rather than feeding the ever expanding bureaucracy that you Brits are so keen of.

Same thing I've been wondering.  There's only one reason I've come up with, and that's racism.  Even those who aren't racist just stop liking because it's rubbed off from the racists all around them.  It really just makes me sick...

Or maybe the fact that many people have differing opinions than each other? Maybe it's the fact that people want less interference in their lives? Maybe they want an economy that works? Maybe they wish to keep the taxes low so they can live a decent life rather than handing over a majority of their paycheck to the government?  ::)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: dndfreak on September 14, 2009, 01:57:31 pm
Josasa, I'm not talking about the people that know what's going on.  I'm talking about the idiots that don't watch the news, don't read the paper, never look up anything and yet still think that Obama is Hitler.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Josasa on September 14, 2009, 02:00:13 pm
I apologize. I was way out of line. However much I disagree with you there was no reason for that.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on September 14, 2009, 02:12:15 pm
But they already did see Obama's birth certificate. That's been verified over and over again. Not to mention that the rule that you have to be a "natural born" citizen to become president is stupid in the first place, but that's another matter.

I agree that the rule is stupid. However, no-one has ever actually seen the birth certificate that has asked to verify it. There's been an internet scan of it and, while I do admit that there's certainly enough evidence for him to have been born in Hawaii (his name in the local newspaper, for instance), the fact that he's not invited someone to see it and confirm it is certainly frustrating for doubters.

The opposition to healthcare reform seems to have nothing to do with actual policy that he's trying to implement.

... What've you been reading?

What did he do before now to make people hate everything he does on principle?

Nothing. They hate what he does for the very obvious reason that they don't like what he's doing. Josasa stated a few rather plain ones.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: MetallicDragon on September 14, 2009, 02:27:41 pm
How about we have a discussion about this proposed healthcare reform? I have not read the bill, but from what I understand, it would create an option to get government-run insurance for everyone, and introduce regulations to keep insurance companies from screwing people over. Is this correct? Anyone have actual facts about it they could share?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Cow on September 14, 2009, 02:34:15 pm
How about we have a discussion about this proposed healthcare reform? I have not read the bill, but from what I understand, it would create an option to get government-run insurance for everyone, and introduce regulations to keep insurance companies from screwing people over. Is this correct? Anyone have actual facts about it they could share?

You're right, methinks, but the public option wouldn't be free, I think... Inform us, somebody.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on September 14, 2009, 02:39:14 pm
My understanding is that there still isn't one bill, there are multiple bills that have been floating around in the House and one of the Senate committees has been working on their own version.  Those are two core ideas in most versions though, the 'public option,' government run health insurance available to pretty much anyone, and regulations on insurance companies and other aspects of healthcare, probably.  There has been some talk of dropping the public option in order to get the other parts passed, which was met with a lot of criticism from democrats.

Oh, and no.  If you're on the public option you'd still have to pay for it, it wouldn't be free insurance.  I don't know what the rates would be, I don't think anyone does yet.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: dndfreak on September 14, 2009, 02:41:11 pm
Well first of all, there are no such things as death panels.

Basically, Medicaid gets a $500 billion cut, and that plus a few tax changes pay for a new government-run insurance plan.  Current insurance companies won't just cease to exist, but their minimal plan has to reach some higher standards and NO INSURANCE COMPANY CAN DENY YOUR CLAIM DUE TO PREEXISTING CONDITIONS.  These things may be nice, but the big catch is a 2.5% income tax for anyone WITHOUT life insurance.  In other words, whether you want insurance or not, you're paying for it anyways.  Companies who don't offer insurance and have a payroll over 250k have to fork over an 8% tax as well.

The idea is to make sure everyone is covered, but the program costs 1.5 trillion dollars over the next decade.

Curse you ninja!

The rate changes depending on your income, ink.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: /lurk on September 14, 2009, 02:46:29 pm
If you have bothered to pay attention to the news, it would clearly show that there has been widespread discord because the people do NOT want the healthcare bill to pass. Americans enjoy their freedom, something which must appear strange to you Europeans, but that is one of the many things that makes us different. Instead of wasting money, we enjoy accumulating it by putting it to good use in the economy rather than feeding the ever expanding bureaucracy that you Brits are so keen of.

Actually, you seem to enjoy wasting money quite a lot. The government expenditure on health per capita is higher in the United States than in the UK. Think about that: The US government spends more tax money on your healthcare than the UK does on mine. But who's paying for private medical insurance?

Also you've got worse infant and adult mortality rates, a lower life expectancy and fewer hospital beds and medical personel per head of population.

 I got this information from the WHO's (http://www.who.int/whosis/en/) online database, so don't bother claiming that I'm making it up. Basically, the only argument you have left is bull**** rhetoric about "freedom," and that doesn't fly in a rational society.


TLDR: Your healthcare system sucks. Someone's got to change it, might as well be the guy you hate.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on September 14, 2009, 02:48:34 pm
Well something people seem not to get is that nothing is free. It must be payed in some way. That is why you have a club fees know as taxes on stuff. (There is a other good reason to have taxes to. It is sometimes called sin tax and is a tax on something seen as undesirable but no one is ready to ban or is even impossible to ban.)

of course some reforms do pay for them self in the long run. But that is because you get a other effect form the reform. Repairing roads with tax funds could reduces the accidence which means that people gain smaller repair bills, issuance bills and sick days for example.

Edit: Oh yes. Lurk is right. USA is already spend tons of money on there health care. The only way it can be this way as a see it is that the system is very inefficient.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Cow on September 14, 2009, 02:55:05 pm
Couldn't we just fold medicaid into public insurance, if it were made free? Does Britain have an equivalent to medicaid? Halp me!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: dndfreak on September 14, 2009, 03:01:50 pm
The govt. insurance plan pays out the exact same way as medicaid does, the difference is that medicaid is nonprofit and cheaply run whilst in the long run the reform will help us recover our debt.  What people don't seem to understand is that this plan will not raise your taxes by any significant amount unless you don't have life insurance, and the insurance you get is pretty much equal to the taxes you would pay otherwise.  This plan doesn't rip off the people in any way, nor does it hurt small business.  Who it does hurt are large corporations like Wal-Mart that refuse to offer insurance by giving them a tax increase dependent on the employee's wages.  In fact, it helps a good amount of citizens by increasing the rate of pay for family doctors.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: /lurk on September 14, 2009, 03:06:05 pm
Couldn't we just fold medicaid into public insurance, if it were made free? Does Britain have an equivalent to medicaid? Halp me!
Britain has free healthcare. We don't need insurance.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Axelgear on September 14, 2009, 03:10:09 pm
I've tried to post this twice and 7 new posts have appeared over those times. Sorry if it's out of date by now.


I can get you the full bill, if you like. I've perused it myself, specific parts mostly, but the thing's as nebulous as pitch and 1017 pages long, if I recall rightly. Not easy reading by any means.

The general rule for private companies is that all healthcare providers that want to provide company plans must do so through the government, who will set prices and regulations not just for companies but doctors too. That's not the be all and end all of the bill but that's a big part of what it means to private companies. Worse, anyone without government approved coverage must pay more in taxes each year (2.5% extra), a lot in the long run... I'm not sure if you must join government regulation to provide to individuals, the bill is referential to other sources in that case, but I wouldn't be surprised. I can't say, though, so don't take my opinion as fact.

It's a big morass of increased government regulation over insurance access.

Actually, you seem to enjoy wasting money quite a lot. The government expenditure on health per capita is higher in the United States than in the UK. Think about that: The US government spends more tax money on your healthcare than the UK does on mine. But who's paying for private medical insurance?

Could this be because of a larger population using Medicaid? Could this be because of a higher obesity and unfitness rate? Could this be because Medicaid is a sloppy system anyway that forces people to use it even if they have pre-existing coverage?

There's a lot of reasons.

Also you've got worse infant and adult mortality rates, a lower life expectancy and fewer hospital beds and medical personel per head of population.

See above. There's also a far greater number of people in the United States, along with a likely incidental amount of poor people, which will result in poorer care, and I don't mean medical care. Poorer quality food, poorer quality living conditions, poorer education into childcare...

It could simply be that some phenomena is causing an increase in premature births, which is the leading cause of infant deaths within the first month.

I got this information from the WHO's (http://www.who.int/whosis/en/) online database, so don't bother claiming that I'm making it up. Basically, the only argument you have left is bull**** rhetoric about "freedom," and that doesn't fly in a rational society.

Heh heh... You clearly don't care much for freedoms, Lurk. That's your opinion. Rational people, however, can differ from you in that opinion and you'd do well to remember that. Freedom of choice means a lot to a lot of people on this forum. Still, I didn't have to bring it up, did I?

TLDR: Your healthcare system sucks. Someone's got to change it, might as well be the guy you hate.

Someone does have to fix certain things. This just isn't how to do it.

Britain has free healthcare. We don't need insurance.

You mean tax-covered healthcare. NOTHING is free.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: dndfreak on September 14, 2009, 03:18:56 pm

Someone does have to fix certain things. This just isn't how to do it.


Then how do YOU propose to do it?  I personally have no qualms with the plan other than the possibility of a few insurance workers getting laid off.  The plan will eventually start to pay for itself, the taxes only affect those who refuse to get the insurance which in most cases is cheaper than paying the taxes, everyone in the US can now get coverage despite any medical conditions, working conditions for large companies will improve, I fail to see any problems.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: /lurk on September 14, 2009, 03:23:41 pm
Oh alright, it's not free, we just pay less than half of what you do for a better service.

Well, not you personally Axelgear, you've got more or less the same deal, as far as I know. Come to think of it, haven't you stated before that you actually quite like Canada's social healthcare system?

I got this information from the WHO's (http://www.who.int/whosis/en/) online database, so don't bother claiming that I'm making it up. Basically, the only argument you have left is bull**** rhetoric about "freedom," and that doesn't fly in a rational society.

Heh heh... You clearly don't care much for freedoms, Lurk. That's your opinion. Rational people, however, can differ from you in that opinion and you'd do well to remember that. Freedom of choice means a lot to a lot of people on this forum. Still, I didn't have to bring it up, did I?

You're implying that a rational person would choose an option that not only makes them personally worse off, but has a negative effect on the common good. But that's not rational.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on September 14, 2009, 03:26:16 pm
To defend lurk a bit. Britons are well know to be the fattest people in Europe. There also well know to have very bad housing, bad teeth hygiene, Very bad food and terrible weather. Some say they also have a shallow genpool to because them being a island nation.   ;D

(But they do have nice gardens)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: /lurk on September 14, 2009, 03:31:51 pm
We're pretty much the sickest people in Europe.

Not like our Scandinavian overlords.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on September 14, 2009, 03:48:51 pm
Healthcare in the US isn't perfect, not by a long shot.  As I said earlier, there is agreement in Congress on several reforms that should take place to improve care.  The process has just gotten hung up on this public option thing.

The US could try switching to a universal healthcare system like the UK or elsewhere, but that isn't what's on the table here.  Such a system would lead to a substantial rise in taxes.  Whether such a tax hike would be worth the benefits is another issue, but it would be a very unpopular move today.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: /lurk on September 14, 2009, 03:54:58 pm
The US could try switching to a universal healthcare system like the UK or elsewhere, but that isn't what's on the table here.  Such a system would lead to a substantial rise in taxes.  Whether such a tax hike would be worth the benefits is another issue, but it would be a very unpopular move today.

I'm not sure that it would: the fact that the NHS uses less tax money per head of population than the American system would suggest that it's possible with a negligable-to-negative tax increase. And if it does increase taxes, then that was money you were going to spent on private medical insurance anyway - only difference now is that it's being spent more efficiently.

But you're right: judging from the reaction to the current proposed reforms there'd probably be an armed rebellion if someone seriously suggested it.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on September 14, 2009, 03:58:50 pm
How many are really rebelling against this? Is it a minority? I mean this was one of the things Obama was vocal about during his election so it should not surprise anyone.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Inkling on September 14, 2009, 04:10:40 pm
Rebelling isn't really the right word.  The people you see at town hall protests and stuff are of course a minority of the population, most people have to be at work.  But here's an article about recent polls of how many people approve of the plan.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/13/AR2009091302962.html
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on September 14, 2009, 05:23:36 pm
Well i know that if i was Overlord of USA and won with the platform that i would reform the health care system to make it one public health care system then i would try to do everything in my power to do so, even if it was unpopular. After all it was one of the big reasons why i was elected.

But then again i saw a lot of people get very pissed at right wing coalition that was elected in the latest national election here in Sweden. I do not know why because pretty much everything they have done so far they said they would do. Seldom has a any political party or coalition been so honest. Yet people seemed to get mad anyway because they where suppose to be the new workers party or some crap like that :P . I think some people where reading in the wrong things really and not listening to what they where saying.

(or in some cases what they where not saying. as in there popular reply on the question on privatization of state owned companies. They said they would not privatize 3 companies by name. Of course anyone with a bit of a brain could figure out that any other state owned company was up for sale if they came in to power as they repeatably only mention these 3 companies would not be sold. So not long after they won the election they of course started to try to privatizes many of the companies not mentioned. Some actually seemed surprised over this They did not manage to sell a lot of them however because of the recession. They did manage to sell off Vin & Sprit AB which the know brand Absolute Vodka is a part of just before the recession.)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Josasa on September 14, 2009, 06:13:12 pm
The US could try switching to a universal healthcare system like the UK or elsewhere, but that isn't what's on the table here.  Such a system would lead to a substantial rise in taxes.  Whether such a tax hike would be worth the benefits is another issue, but it would be a very unpopular move today.

I'm not sure that it would: the fact that the NHS uses less tax money per head of population than the American system would suggest that it's possible with a negligable-to-negative tax increase. And if it does increase taxes, then that was money you were going to spent on private medical insurance anyway - only difference now is that it's being spent more *efficiently.

But you're right: judging from the reaction to the current proposed reforms there'd probably be an armed rebellion if someone seriously suggested it.

*That's where you're wrong. It's quite simple really, but something that you seem to miss time and time again. It's like you're being ignorant on purpose.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on September 14, 2009, 06:35:56 pm
Why is he wrong?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: dndfreak on September 14, 2009, 06:39:00 pm
Well, Josasa believes that it would be impossible for the government to run anything efficiently, apparently.

Problem is, that statement is opinionated.  Someone apparently this engrossed in politics should be able to understand that.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on September 14, 2009, 06:44:52 pm
I like his answer rather then your analysis. But thanks for trying i guess.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: dndfreak on September 14, 2009, 06:55:34 pm
Ok... Lurk said that right now, we are paying insurance companies to be doing what the gov't will be doing if the bill passes (true).  Next, he said that the gov't will be able to do it more efficiently.  This is where the conflict occurs.  Sure they CAN, they have the power and resources.  Will it be more efficient?  Lurk says yes, Josasa says no.

So there you have it, don't know if I can make it any clearer.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Josasa on September 14, 2009, 07:06:25 pm
My argument is against bureaucracy as I've stated several times. Bureaucracy itself is inefficient and only wastes money away that could be spent in better places.

My reasoning is simple. When people go somewhere for a service they expect good results. If they do not get these results then they will not return to this business, because there are other places where their money will get them the better service. In this way, the people choose the best option, simply because they want the best. If the best is not available to them, eventually a new business will arise that will give them the best service.

The problem with government is that there isn't the option of best or worst. You are getting what you are getting, no matter what. In the case of healthcare, the doctors are getting a set wage, the nurses are getting a set wage, and the surgeons are getting a set wage, because it is all coming from the government. That's what bureaucracy does. How does this guaranteed paycheck push those doctors, nurses, or surgeons to go the extra mile for their patients? How does it ask them to give their best when they won't be getting any bonuses. Hell, how would these set wages attract the best minds in the world if there isn't any money for them? Before you know it, the guy that got C's through highschool and just barely managed to get through community college is cutting open your chest to perform open heart surgery, rather than the top-of-his-class genius that didn't devote his time because there was no incentive to go into the medical field.

That's how I see it, and it just doesn't make sense to me.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: dndfreak on September 14, 2009, 07:15:43 pm
Well, that's not all bureaucracy's fault.  In the case of the US, we simply don't have enough doctors right now.  Being a doctor means 100% job security (assuming you don't kill all your patients) since there aren't enough replacements.  To have that motivation you want, we need more people to replace the ones that don't work as hard as they can.  It may be a growing field, but it simply isn't growing enough.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yokto on September 14, 2009, 07:18:54 pm
Yes but what i am asking Josasa is to explain why Lurk is wrong.

Lurk makes a pretty good point at why it would probably be more efficient under government control by comparing UK health care system to US health care system. He pointed out that UK spend less per capita on is citizens yet have a better results. He also pointed out (as did i with a somewhat comical tone.) that it can not be simply explained with UK citizens living more health lives as they do in fact have some of the worst life styles in Europe. (And some would even argue that good public health care system actually try to help people live healthier life styles. Though i can not say i have seen much of this)



Josasa. If you go to a doctor that can not cure you go to the next one right? This is how it works even in a public health care system. You continue to see for the something that cures you. It is not like you chose for several different options what do like when you buy a car. In fact you are very much in the hands of the medical personal and there expert option on what to do. And that is probably a good thing because normally they do find a solution.

Also you talk like there is no bureaucracy in the private sector and that bureaucracy is inherently evil. But bureaucracy is what organize a organization. Bureaucracy is in many ways the glue that keeps organizations together. Of course you do not wish to have to much glue at it will clog the system.

And the fact is that you have to try to explain why UK (and many other public health care countries) have better health care yet pay less for these services. To me that seems to be the very definition of efficiency. Do more with less.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: dndfreak on September 14, 2009, 07:31:10 pm
But that's what the US is known for- being as inefficient as possible.  The fact is that this bill will do nothing but change what we get for insurance.  It does close to nothing as far as the service itself is concerned.  Although it is important, that is not the current issue.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Josasa on September 14, 2009, 07:41:24 pm
The problem with government bureaucracy is that there is no end in sight. Corporations and business are limited in how much bureaucracy they can have, because they only have so much revenue to shift around. If they don't have the money,