The USA Political Thread

[lennco]

Here you can spout your USA political views.

Rules:
1. Keep it clean
2. No fighting
3. Respect the views of others.
4. US Political views, No Religious views
5. Have fun

:wave:

 

[GILSAN]

The thing you appear to be missing the point of here is that this law "legalized discrimination". The veto of this law simple prevented the legalization of discrimination. No rights were REDUCED or REMOVED through anything that happened in Arizona.

You're the one that's missing the point. If Gays can refuse straights into their Bars, then a Christian Photographer has the right to refuse photographing a Gay Wedding. Vetoing this law has legalized discrimination against Christians. Their rights were REDUCED or REMOVED. Now it's open season against them, now they can be legally sued for the most ridiculous reasons, thanks to a vindictive minority that hate Christians and hold an exaggerated amount of power with the help of the MSM and the Liberals

 

[DU]

You're the one that's missing the point. If Gays can refuse straights into their Bars, then a Christian Photographer has the right to refuse photographing a Gay Wedding. Vetoing this law has legalized discrimination against Christians. Their rights were REDUCED or REMOVED. Now it's open season against them, now they can be legally sued for the most ridiculous reasons, thanks to a vindictive minority that hate Christians and hold an exaggerated amount of power with the help of the MSM and the Liberals

Firstly, it is not legal for a gay bar to refuse entry to someone based on their being straight. That would be discrimination. They could be sued for refusing entry. Imagine that, a bar owner perhaps a gay man, perhaps a non-Christian, perhaps a woman, perhaps a Christian woman, perhaps a satan worshipping grand mother of a practising Catholic minister could be sued (so much for this being open season against Christians).

The veto PREVENTED something from becoming a law. It did not reduce or lessen existing law. Nothing was legalized at all against any group. How you get this is open season on Christians? Who had rights removed? Did I miss the "rights removed bill" that wasn't vetoed?

The law didn't say Christian so I fail to see how this affected them alone? What would happen if the only gas station in your little town in Mississippi was owned by a black muslim who hated all whites and Christians? What then? His rights to be a fucktard must be protected!

The non-MSM media you watch is really messing with your brain as you're totally misunderstanding what happened here.

There was an attempt to LEGALIZE DISCRIMINATION as long as you ASSERT your RELIGIOUS (not Christian) beliefs and can prove that those religious beliefs were unduly burdened.

It wasn't about Christians it wasn't even about gays (though this appears to be the pretext under which the whole thing started). It was about ANYONE (not just govt affiliated - so it was extension of existing law) being able to assert religious freedom. The problem I have is that I don't see how an anti-gay photographer is "unduly burdened" by having to take and organize photos.....

A lot of this is stupid... I don' t know any KKK members who would want to eat in black cafe and I don't know many straight people who want to hang out in a gay sex club.. and I don't know many men who want to hang out in a womens' gym....

I think that there has to be a better way of getting rid of rampant selfism and grow acceptances of people. Homophobes, racists, sexists, misogynists are all of the same group: selfish, self righteous idiots.

 

[GILSAN]

Homophobes, racists, sexists, misogynists are all of the same group: selfish, self righteous idiots.

You forgot to add Liberals to your list

 

[DU]

You forgot to add Liberals to your list

I don't consider "liberals" to be a valid grouping or generalization.

 

[Theo Goodman]

]Ah, now I see why you reply with fragmented quotes; they don't show up when someone quotes you, which makes it difficult to reply.

A quote is in itself a fragment,but I can attach who made each quote.

]I have no idea what an "authoritarian statist cultist argument" is. I tried to run it through Google Translator, but they didn't have a bullsh*t category.

Really? So you are really going to go so low as to call what people write bullshit and even add a * ? Let me wiki that for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult
Like I said if we must call each other or each others arguments names ,then we can.

]Well, jeez. What's the point of a central government? Please don't tell me you think people as individuals would be better off without any government.

Yes I think people would be better off without goverment. However to continue then we would have to clearly define what "goverment" "central goverment" "individuals" and "better off" are since we might have different opinons about what these things are.

]Knock yourself out.

I didnt say that I was going to do anything so I am not sure what you mean.

 

[verbster]

Really? So you are really going to go so low as to call what people write bullshit and even add a * ? Like I said if we must call each other or each others arguments names ,then we can.

Next to "authoritarian statist cultist argument," bullshit is a pretty docile description. But I guess you didn't get the joke.

Yes I think people would be better off without goverment.

I look forward to reading your rationale, but since I don't believe people can live without leadership of some kind, I suppose that means you might take a shot at the definitions below.

However to continue then we would have to clearly define what "goverment" "central goverment" "individuals" and "better off" are since we might have different opinons about what these things are.

I've got a pretty good grip on what "individuals" and "better off" mean, but you better give them a shot anyway so there's no misunderstanding. As far as clearly defining "goverment" and "central goverment", I very much look forward to your definitions. By the way, it's government, not "goverment".

 

[DU]

I look forward to reading your rationale, but since I don't believe people can live without leadership of some kind

Errr... isn't that now?

 

[Theo Goodman]

QUOTE=verbster;4617457]Next to "authoritarian statist cultist argument," bullshit is a pretty docile description. But I guess you didn't get the joke.

w I dont mean it as hard as you think I do, it just has a nice ring to it with three nice words ending with cultist. I understand you opinion and most others here but I dont go around calling them liberal, religous freaks,or truther chicks.

QUOTE=verbster;4617457]I look forward to reading your rationale, but since I don't believe people can live without leadership of some kind, I suppose that means you might take a shot at the definitions below.

First of all you seem pretty convinced that we do need what you call "quote=verbster leadership". I dont think leadership is really the right word. As long as people want to have a leader for a basketball team something else and they do so voluntarily then that is fine. -leadership- could be so many things that do not have to be goverNment.
Government is not the white house or the capital building, it is the initiation of force by police and other goverment employees with guns or other lethal and non-leathal weapons. That is a short definition of government.
I think people are smart enough to do without an authority that tells it what it can and can not do. That we would be "better off" (which is really subjective -better off) if we could organize things ourselves, we would be more efficient more peacefull and overall -better off-. Either you think people are more or less stupid and need an authority to rule over them or you dont, that is the basic binary. From most comments here in the thread I doubt anyone agrees, which is fine.
-

verbster said: Do you mean indirect connection? Anyway, why would you think that bringing up paying taxes to pay for a public street was a good basis to support an argument about the rights of private property?

I think JB said that he thinks the businesses that did not want to serve gays had public roads that lead to them, and that somehow that justifiies the law that they must serve whomever comes in. I am just saying that the people that own that business also paid for that public road since they also pay taxes, but they do not get to decide who to serve or what to do on their private property. So just because a public road leads somewhere should mean that you need to surrender your right to private property? There is a direct link between everything public and taxes, without taxes and debt there would be no public roads or other -public- things.

-

DU said: What discrimination against what protected class occurred here?

That is the main thing that needs to be discussed. What are the -protected- "classes" and why, and is that ok. Not what is the current law. I dont think it is open season on christians.

 

[verbster]

Government is not the white house or the capital building, it is the initiation of force by police and other goverment employees with guns or other lethal and non-leathal weapons. That is a short definition of government. .

Wow. That explains a lot about your core beliefs. Too scary for me.

I think people are smart enough to do without an authority that tells it what it can and can not do. That we would be "better off" (which is really subjective -better off) if we could organize things ourselves, we would be more efficient more peacefull and overall -better off-.

I would truly enjoy seeing seven billion (or even 350 million) people be able to organize themselves into a more efficient, peaceful, better off life.

Either you think people are more or less stupid and need an authority to rule over them or you dont, that is the basic binary. From most comments here in the thread I doubt anyone agrees, which is fine. .

You're now telling me I think people are stupid if they agree with what I say. That's funny. Think about it.

 

[Theo Goodman]

Wow. That explains a lot about your core beliefs. Too scary for me.

Without guns, the monoply of violence, and the threat of violence the "government" has 0 power. That is how it is now, is that scary? What is scary to me is that people just accept this monoply of violence and "social contract" that they were never asked about,never agreed too, never signed, that is enforced with brutal force.

You're now telling me I think people are stupid if they agree with what I say. That's funny. Think about it.

Then too stupid to organize things without an authority to tell them what to do, maybe not stupid per se. Not sure what is funny about that.

---------- Post added at 11:38 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:30 AM ----------

Lot of action over at everyones favorite news channel RT. First

truther chick -quote=DU, I think that DU called her a "truther chick" once in this thread (isnt that a tad sexist, are women "protected class"?

anyway the often refered to as "state run" media outlet RT has abby martin speaking out Against Russia on her show. She got a ton of attention for that in the MSN, so that pomted another anchor to resign on air. http://rt.com/usa/rt-reacts-liz-wahl-042/
BTW: I think Russia has a contract to have about 20,000 troops stationed where they are now, I think they have around 15,000 there atm.
Oh yea , good old war monger Hillary Clinton had to get her 2 cents worth in ,even though she is not in the GoverNment. She decided it was cool to compare Putan to Hitler, where is the outcry on the left?! Normaly when somone does something like compare anything to anything German people go totaly batshit. You can not compare anything to Hitler or East Germany, it simply can not be done, unless you are Hillary Clinton. I have a theory, not a conspiracy theory, that she is just pissed because Putan messed up her whole Syrian conquest.

 

[verbster]

Without guns, the monoply of violence, and the threat of violence the "government" has 0 power. That is how it is now, is that scary? What is scary to me is that people just accept this monoply of violence and "social contract" that they were never asked about,never agreed too, never signed, that is enforced with brutal force.

I didn't mean violence wasn't scary. I meant your vision, or rather, lack of, was scary. We're animals, man. We still have all the instincts of survival in us. Like it or not, that's what you have to deal with. In the history of humankind (scientific or biblical), can you show me a time that humans haven't been violent? Show me a time with no government, brutal or otherwise. It's going to take a long time to evolve violence out of the human animal, if ever.

Then too stupid to organize things without an authority to tell them what to do, maybe not stupid per se. Not sure what is funny about that.

You seem to have a low regard for quite a few fellow citizens, especially those who don't agree with you. Nothing funny about that, either. . . doesn't fit in too well with your new world order.

 

[Theo Goodman]

Verbster:I didn't mean violence wasn't scary. I meant your vision, or rather, lack of, was scary. We're animals, man. We still have all the instincts of survival in us. Like it or not, that's what you have to deal with. In the history of humankind (scientific or biblical), can you show me a time that humans haven't been violent? Show me a time with no government, brutal or otherwise. It's going to take a long time to evolve violence out of the human animal, if ever.

I agree that we have the instincts of survival in us and that humans are violent. However this does not justify the exsitance of government. I am not proposing that the humans -evolve out of violence-. I also do not claim that humans were not are not or wont be violent.

You seem to have a low regard for quite a few fellow citizens, especially those who don't agree with you. Nothing funny about that, either. . . doesn't fit in too well with your new world order.

No, quite the opposite. I think that we can do very well without government. If I really thought that people were stupid then I would not think that. However what I mean is that the idea that government is neccessary is the idea that people can not do without government, that they are somehow too "stupid" to live without government. So I am not saying that you are stupid, but rather that -you- are saying other "verbster: fellow citizens" think people are stupid ,or -"unable"-. This shows a scary vison of people, or lack thereof.

 

[DU]

Wow. That explains a lot about your core beliefs. Too scary for me.

What's scary maybe, is that he's not too far from the truth. The government is no longer for the people by the people - it's many generations removed from that.

We're not in a police state - but look around the world and what do you see? Ukraine, Syria, Afghanistan, Israel, China, Argentina, Egypt, Greece.

---------- Post added at 12:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:08 PM ----------

No, quite the opposite. I think that we can do very well without government. If I really thought that people were stupid then I would not think that.

You're very naive though if you think it's implementable. People are not created equal. In small colonies this type of theoretical future may work - however, there are always those who are enterprising and those that are lazy and those that are stronger that change the natural flow to harmony.

I'm not sure anymore what the answer could have been anymore but it's not libertarianism and it's not chaotic form or anarchism. Maybe some form of social anarchism that Libertarianism corruptly raised its head from would have worked.

Too late now... now we have all the messes that we have.

 

[Theo Goodman]

DU:People are not created equal.

I agree we are all different and not equal.

hDU: however, there are always those who are enterprising and those that are lazy and those that are stronger that change the natural flow to harmony.

well yes that is true, doesnt mean that we need government though.

Ukraine, Syria, Afghanistan, Israel, China, Argentina, Egypt, Greece.

all have lower prision populations per capita and some do not have state execution as opposed to the USA.

DU: You're very naive though if you think it's implementable

Yea we should just all give up since we have a mess now, we should learn from history - lets vote to change things! That wouldnt be naive at all.

---------- Post added at 11:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:09 PM ----------

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNdag6XT4Yw

 

[JB Lions]

all have lower prision populations per capita and some do not have state execution as opposed to the USA.

For someone who has a problem with government/control, that's not a list of countries (Ukraine, Syria, Afghanistan, Israel, China, Argentina, Egypt, Greece.) I would hold up as any kind of example. And the U.S. has less than 1% of it's population in prison. And there are certainly examples I could find of people that deserve to be executed. If it wasn't our system, in the old days it would be people on their own. If you were married and somebody came and raped and murdered your wife and daughter, does that person not deserve to be put in the ground?

The reality is anytime you get a group of people together, a natural type of government emerges. I remember seeing a documentary on some hippie commune wanting to live all free. But then natural leaders emerged. Someone crossed the line and had to be dealt with, how people live in the community needed to be addressed, shelter, food, security, decision making etc.

I think it's interesting looking at the different systems and trying to think which is best. Personally, I like the government to stay out of my/people's business as much as possible. But no system in place at all, you would have anarchy. Do you have any examples where that has actually worked?

 

[DU]

well yes that is true, doesnt mean that we need government though.

Power corrupts absolutely. You don't think that in any system you would have a power struggle... organize to control that power struggle.. and form the very form of control you describe as a government.

And the U.S. has less than 1% of it's population in prison.

1% sounds like not a lot... but it's a lot.

 

[verbster]

I agree we are all different and not equal.
well yes that is true, doesnt mean that we need government though.

That's exactly why it means we would need government. We wouldn't need government if every person thought like every other person, sort of like a hive of bees or ants. But if everyone believed and acted just like everyone else, would you really want to live like that?

Yea we should just all give up since we have a mess now, we should learn from history - lets vote to change things! That wouldnt be naive at all.

I see you made two jokes in one sentence! If you learn anything from history, it's that it has taken humans this long to get where we are now, which really isn't that great.

 

[Theo Goodman]

JB: For someone who has a problem with government/control, that's not a list of countries (Ukraine, Syria, Afghanistan, Israel, China, Argentina, Egypt, Greece.) I would hold up as any kind of example

I am not holding those countries up. DU commented that we do not live in a police state - yet- and listed those countries. The ironic thing is that all of those countries have less people in prison per capita than the USA yet they are being used as examples of a rising police state.

JB: If you were married and somebody came and raped and murdered your wife and daughter, does that person not deserve to be put in the ground?

imho this is a totaly different issue than if the state has the power to officaly sentence you to death, and again this was brought up to show that some of the countries in the list ,that do not exactly scream of freedom and liberty, the state doesnt even have that power,as opposed to the USA. Therefore we are in fact closer to a police state then we would like to belive if we are using that list as a benchmark.

JB:
The reality is anytime you get a group of people together, a natural type of government emerges.

This is what I was talking about in regards to "leadership". The main difference would be that the hippies or whomever -voluntarily- joined that group. The socalled social contract is not voluntary.

JB: how people live in the community needed to be addressed, shelter, food, security, decision making etc.

Free assosiation and organization is not government. You could call it that if you wanted but the main difference is the free assosicaton part.

JB:Do you have any examples where that has actually worked?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Spain they had something simmilar to what I am talking about in Spain, note that they call it "anarchy" but there was not chaos. Of course it didnt last long as there was a civil war and later intervention from the stalinists and faschists. I can find more examples.

Power corrupts absolutely. You don't think that in any system you would have a power struggle... organize to control that power struggle.. and form the very form of control you describe as a government.

I disagree. However this is why a libertarian government is still a government and would be corrupted over time, lets just take the USA for example, starting with very libertarian structures in the articles of confederation and then slowly moving on to what we have today. This shows the decay of the libertarian model over time and one reason, not the only one, would be that power corrupts.

I see you made two jokes in one sentence! If you learn anything from history, it's that it has taken humans this long to get where we are now, which really isn't that great.

isnt

verbster: your vision, or rather, lack of

quite "scary"?

 

[Domainace]

Not sure I have time or the patience to jump in here again, but two points:

1- Almost half of all Americans will be arrested sometime in their life. This link says that almost half of all males are arrested before they turn 23.
In any other country of the world I am familiar with, this is an outrageous statistic. Being arrested is a traumatic and often life-destroying experience in most countries. In the US, it's just par for the course. And yet, the country is not a police state, right?
2- The police presence in the US is quite heavy. Yet, crime is far from under control. The fallacy here is that government and police are needed to keep people from becoming animals. That opinion reflects an especially poor opinion of human beings. When people are left on their own, they form cultures -and the culture discourages anti-social behavior. In countries with a strong culture, that is more than sufficient to maintain a peaceful society. In countries with a decayed or absent culture, people run amuck - and no amount of police can stop that. It's not your government that keeps you safe. It's your culture. The more you assign cultural responsibilities to the government, the farther you go down that line to chaos.

That's why I choose a country with a strong culture over one with a strong government. Because cultures may start out rough but eventually achieve balance. Governments go the other way.

 

[JB Lions]

2- The police presence in the US is quite heavy..

We went thru a lot of this earlier in the thread. Wanted to highlight the part I quoted, to show you how ridiculous it was and it's funny seeing Gilsan like the post because:

Police per 100,000

Gilsan in Portugal - 462
United States - 256

So if the U.S. is a police state, then where Gilsan lives is?

Some other countries that have more police than the United States:

Australia
Austria
Belgium
France
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Netherlands
Spain
UK
many more

So out of those 132 countries, U.S. is 42, meaning 90 countries have more police like the ones I just mentioned

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

That's why I choose a country with a strong culture over one with a strong government. Because cultures may start out rough but eventually achieve balance. Governments go the other way.

Think we touched on that a bit with the guns and Iceland. Countries like that or the one you're in are mostly the same culture. United States, biggest melting pot in the world. It plays a part.