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:

 

[verbster]

Given that Democrats have voted into office the worst 2 Presidents in the history of the country, whose inept guidance have consistently derailed American foreign,military, economic and social policies, I'd say that whether you identify yourself as a Republican or Democrat says quite a lot about you.

The two worst were Buchanan (D) and Harding (R), but I'm guessing you somehow think Obama is worse than Bush. That's pretty funny.

it's pretty easy to make inept statements about inept guidance. . . What normal person uses "derailed" anyway?

 

[Theo Goodman]

From my perspective, this kind of discussion helps many people, as once in a while stuff gets exposed for the BS it is. For example, when someone complains about good family values going out the window in the U.S., it immediately makes me want to know what good family values are. And if the person doing the complaining can't define what he's complaining about, that says a lot. Just like it does if someone's definition of good family values is based on religious teachings or even of the nuclear families of the 50's. It's not necessarily good or bad, but it gives some insight to the complainers. But when the statement is just tossed out there with nothing to reference it to, well, that says a lot, too.

Sure, defining what you are complaining about is normaly a good idea.

I do not want to enforce my family values on anyone even though I have my set of values in the context of my family, this is my personal opinon and I think the best way for us to deal with family matters.


Even though I was not the complainer I think the main thing is that people -feel- (I dont have sources,links, ect it is a feeling anyway) that it is becoming harder to be a nuclear family (traditional not infected by atomic radation).

I am not sure one could say this or not, however the general gist of it I can understand in so far that tax is thieft and the beef is that this thieft being used for things that the person does not want, asked for and in fact disagrees with.

So really it all comes down to stealing from people by using the threat of violence and then using the theifted resources in ways that the people that were stolen from disapprove of, and not about what party you belong to, what party Abe Lincon was in, or what the sterotype of a liberal or conservative is.

 

[DU]

I am not sure one could say this or not, however the general gist of it I can understand in so far that tax is thieft and the beef is that this thieft being used for things that the person does not want

But a lot of people still want the things they want as well.

What do most people seem to really hate? The idea that anyone get anything for free that they don't need themselves. And it's driven by shortsighted views - why do so few focus on middle class entitlements? Because the middle class doesn't even realize they have them...they're too busy pointing out the disgust they have for welfare.

So examples of what people seem to really hate?

If cars pay tolls to pay for roads (and profit) then they get mad that cyclists or walkers can use it for free - why don't they pay for a bike lane?
People with some money or income get mad that their taxes pay for the food of people that would otherwise go hungry because I have to use coupons and eat on a budget.
Healthy people hate that some people require housing or care that their money pays for.
Sons and daughters of immigrants hate them damn foreign children at the border because ... well they was born here.

But...

Hungry people want to be fed
Sick people want to be better
Sons and daughters want people to take care of their aging parents

I tell people that are employed - you're one pink slip away from realizing how lucky you are to have employer subsidised ealth care insurance.

Of course after all that

he fix and answer is obviously the Church and charity.

 

[Theo Goodman]

But a lot of people still want the things they want as well.

What do most people seem to really hate? The idea that anyone get anything for free that they don't need themselves. And it's driven by shortsighted views - why do so few focus on middle class entitlements? Because the middle class doesn't even realize they have them...they're too busy pointing out the disgust they have for welfare.

So examples of what people seem to really hate?

If cars pay tolls to pay for roads (and profit) then they get mad that cyclists or walkers can use it for free - why don't they pay for a bike lane?
People with some money or income get mad that their taxes pay for the food of people that would otherwise go hungry because I have to use coupons and eat on a budget.
Healthy people hate that some people require housing or care that their money pays for.
Sons and daughters of immigrants hate them damn foreign children at the border because ... well they was born here.

But...

Hungry people want to be fed
Sick people want to be better
Sons and daughters want people to take care of their aging parents

I tell people that are employed - you're one pink slip away from realizing how lucky you are to have employer subsidised ealth care insurance.

Of course after all that

he fix and answer is obviously the Church and charity.

-But a lot of people still want the things they want as well.-

Great go for it, you can want what you want, in fact, please want whatever you want--it doesnt mean that it is ok for you to endorse the use of violence and coercion to meet your wants.

 

[Domainace]

Family values don't need to be defined. The government should stay away from trying to enforce their own "family values" on the public. This why I referenced Mao's Red Book. The government has no business in determining what proper family values are, short of indisputable cases of abuse.

This is one area where Republicans are almost as bad as Democrats. It's not the government's job to define family values, though they clearly want to. There are daily reports of children being forcibly separated from their parents over the most minor "violations." If the government can take away your children with such ease, how can you call yourself free?

"Family values", at least to me, simply means allowing families to have their own values, and not forcing them to follow politically created pseudo-values.

 

[JB Lions]

Can you guys expand on what you're talking about, with specifics:

So really it all comes down to stealing from people by using the threat of violence and then using the theifted resources in ways that the people that were stolen from disapprove of.

it doesnt mean that it is ok for you to endorse the use of violence and coercion to meet your wants.

What are you talking about there?

 

[JB Lions]

There are daily reports of children being forcibly separated from their parents over the most minor "violations." If the government can take away your children with such ease, how can you call yourself free?.

Since there are daily reports, this should be easy. Can you link to one of them, one you disagree with? I don't know of anybody that's had their kids taken away. I know they do it in extreme cases for the welfare of the child. I'm sure you would be ok if there was a situation where parents kept their kids in cages and they were starving to death, for somebody to take some action. But you cited minor violations, do you have examples?

 

[Domainace]

Here are 2 just from the past week. They are far from the worst examples, but certainly overreach. Other cases include parents smoking, too much xbox, bath photos of toddlers, obesity, it goes on and on.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/07/21/living/mom-arrested-left-girl-park-parents/
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/0...r-old-son-walk-alone-to-park-800-metres-away/

And here the state threatened to remove a child for twirling a pencil in school.
http://pix11.com/2014/06/10/nj-dad-...take-away-son-after-pencil-twirling-incident/

 

[JB Lions]

Here are 2 just from the past week. They are far from the worst examples, but certainly overreach. Other cases include parents smoking, too much xbox, bath photos of toddlers, obesity, it goes on and on.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/07/21/living/mom-arrested-left-girl-park-parents/
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/0...r-old-son-walk-alone-to-park-800-metres-away/

And here the state threatened to remove a child for twirling a pencil in school.
http://pix11.com/2014/06/10/nj-dad-...take-away-son-after-pencil-twirling-incident/

They weren't forcibly removed. One article said the case is being dropped. The other with the kid and the pencil, the kid is still with the dad. One, the mother was arrested, we'll see what happens with that. You find some random (extreme) examples and go to - "If the government can take away your children with such ease, how can you call yourself free?" As if the government is just going around scooping up kids.

Do people overreact sometimes? Yes.

But this happens more not with the examples you provided, but with true neglect. Sexual or other other type of abuse, criminal activity etc.

I was actually thinking about this awhile back. What age do you think it's ok for kids to wander around by themselves or stay at home by themselves?

Found some info - http://www.latchkey-kids.com/latchkey-kids-age-limits.htm

 

[forge]

Here are 2 just from the past week. They are far from the worst examples, but certainly overreach. Other cases include parents smoking, too much xbox, bath photos of toddlers, obesity, it goes on and on.

And here the state threatened to remove a child for twirling a pencil in school.
http://pix11.com/2014/06/10/nj-dad-...take-away-son-after-pencil-twirling-incident/

How can you read the pencil-twirling story and not be horrified? It's overreach times 1000. These "protective" state agencies are absolutely out of control. Common sense unfortunately seems to be a vanishing concept. And probably it's not even about common sense -- unfortunately it seems to be about abuse of authority, power, control... and, yes, corruption.

 

[Domainace]

You find some random (extreme) examples and go to - "If the government can take away your children with such ease, how can you call yourself free?" As if the government is just going around scooping up kids.

The point being, of course, is that they can and do try. Frightening stuff.

Regarding at what age kids can be trusted to be by themselves, that's up to the parents in most countries - even in China. That's family values. You know, up to the family, and maybe community. Though the cases cited are a minority (I hope so, anyway), they are such violations of common sense that they shouldn't exist at all and indicate a seriously dangerous trend.

Of course, you could just not worry about it until the government actually is just going around and scooping up kids. As though you'll be able to do anything about it at that point.

 

[verbster]

How can you read the pencil-twirling story and not be horrified? It's overreach times 1000. These "protective" state agencies are absolutely out of control. Common sense unfortunately seems to be a vanishing concept. And probably it's not even about common sense -- unfortunately it seems to be about abuse of authority, power, control... and, yes, corruption.

How can you be horrified by this story when you haven't heard the other side of the story and have no idea what may have really happened? By calling the protective state agencies out of control, you are intentionally lumping the majority of very caring agency workers who not only have common sense, but use it. As always it's easy to find a horror story and pass judgment based on it, but what about all of the kids that are truly being protected?

 

[JB Lions]

The point being, of course, is that they can and do try. Frightening stuff.

Regarding at what age kids can be trusted to be by themselves, that's up to the parents in most countries - even in China. That's family values. You know, up to the family, and maybe community. Though the cases cited are a minority (I hope so, anyway), they are such violations of common sense that they shouldn't exist at all and indicate a seriously dangerous trend.

Of course, you could just not worry about it until the government actually is just going around and scooping up kids. As though you'll be able to do anything about it at that point.

There is no "that point". That's you and the crazy thinking you've demonstrated throughout this thread. You let it slip out from time to time, read the bold in my quote again, you just can't help it. It's the old seek and ye shall find. You look for this stuff. Or course you'll find some examples. I can find examples in your country as well. I can say your country is ___________ whatever I want, then go find news clips, video etc, backing that up.

 

[verbster]

-But a lot of people still want the things they want as well.-

Great go for it, you can want what you want, in fact, please want whatever you want--it doesnt mean that it is ok for you to endorse the use of violence and coercion to meet your wants.

Theo, I don't know if it's a language issue or what, but wtf are you talking about? What violence and coercion? To meet what wants?

 

[verbster]

Family values don't need to be defined. The government should stay away from trying to enforce their own "family values" on the public. This why I referenced Mao's Red Book. The government has no business in determining what proper family values are, short of indisputable cases of abuse..

When someone makes a statement that family values in the States are being lost, of course those values must be defined by the person who said it. He may have a reasonable point, but if readers don't know what he considers good family values, the term is diluted. if one family thinks it's okay for parents to smoke and drink in front of the kids, and other parents think it's good to show romantic affection in front of the kids, and yet other parents won't allow tv to be watched, that's all family values, but knowing how the values differ from your own is necessary.

There is no way to avoid governmental/political influence on family structures. When child hears Daddy calling President Obama a derogatory name, that influences family values just as much as the brand of car the parents are loyal to. That loyalty or belief gets passed on to further generations.

This is one area where Republicans are almost as bad as Democrats. It's not the government's job to define family values, though they clearly want to. There are daily reports of children being forcibly separated from their parents over the most minor "violations." If the government can take away your children with such ease, how can you call yourself free?.

How can one political party be worse than another when it comes to family values? That just seems to be true depending on which party affiliation you are.

"Family values", at least to me, simply means allowing families to have their own values, and not forcing them to follow politically created pseudo-values.

What politically created pseudo-values are you talking about? If anything, the family values demonstrated in movies and on TV have a huge impact on real family values.

 

[Domainace]

Gosh, JB, back to name calling again. Next up will be another joke about Hiroshima or the like? And you use my paraphrasing of your comment as the definition of crazy. That's pretty well wacko right there. I'll go back to ignoring you, if it's not too upsetting for you.

There is no way to avoid governmental/political influence on family structures. When child hears Daddy calling President Obama a derogatory name, that influences family values just as much as the brand of car the parents are loyal to. That loyalty or belief gets passed on to further generations.

You just made an argument for the opposite here, family values influencing personal politics.

How can one political party be worse than another when it comes to family values? That just seems to be true depending on which party affiliation you are.

Like I said, they are both bad. But any party that calls for an expanded government will win that competition by default.

What politically created pseudo-values are you talking about? If anything, the family values demonstrated in movies and on TV have a huge impact on real family values.

I agree. And much of what you see on TV or in movies is politically motivated, even if not consciously. People tend to adopt attitudes they are bombarded with - that could be from family and friends, or from media. Since I raise a family with someone who has very different attitudes than I was used to, I was forced to re-examine many of my assumptions about family values and child-rearing. Sometimes I discovered I had no good reason for those values - they were just what I grew up with, and what were commonly practiced in the US. Then, when I took the time to research things, it suddenly wasn't so cut and dry.

The media serves as an echo chamber for ideas that are often promoted by an interest group or by flawed research and a government agency that uses that to justify enhanced powers.

By the way, I know there are some very nice people who work for the government. Many of them agree with me about government overreach. Others, though they are well-intentioned, are so immersed in the system that they can't see how flawed it is. They recognize when someone goes overboard, but they believe that those people are the exceptions in a generally good system, rather than the natural product of a system that enables poor behavior.

Call me cynical, but governments are incapable of having the citizens' best interests at heart. For one, governments don't have hearts. For another, governments inevitably become about their own survival. On a small scale, the 2 concerns can be merged, as voters will only allow responsive governments to survive. On a large scale, governments don't have to worry about a few voters. Good intentions of individuals aside.

 

[eyedomainous]

You're a bit wrong on this. In fact, there's a pretty serious recall for salmonella going on right now for snacks and energy bars containing organic carob. There's also a number of serious recalls involving processed foods containing peanuts

Of course there is a 'process' in making energy bars, but they are not generally considered to be fully Processed Foods like Doritos, or Pringles, etc.. Organic carob, for example, is not a processed food.

Same with peanuts, the peanut part of a Babe Ruth candy bar, or the almonds in an Almond Joy, etc., are not the Processed Food part.

But... point made, one should never say never. In theory its possible to get a foodbourne pathogen, like salmonella, from a fully processed food, or drink, like pasteurized milk, or apple juice, but that would likely be the result of faulty processing.

 

[JB Lions]

Gosh, JB, back to name calling again. Next up will be another joke about Hiroshima or the like? And you use my paraphrasing of your comment as the definition of crazy. That's pretty well wacko right there. I'll go back to ignoring you, if it's not too upsetting for you.



You just made an argument for the opposite here, family values influencing personal politics.



Like I said, they are both bad. But any party that calls for an expanded government will win that competition by default.



I agree. And much of what you see on TV or in movies is politically motivated, even if not consciously. People tend to adopt attitudes they are bombarded with - that could be from family and friends, or from media. Since I raise a family with someone who has very different attitudes than I was used to, I was forced to re-examine many of my assumptions about family values and child-rearing. Sometimes I discovered I had no good reason for those values - they were just what I grew up with, and what were commonly practiced in the US. Then, when I took the time to research things, it suddenly wasn't so cut and dry.

The media serves as an echo chamber for ideas that are often promoted by an interest group or by flawed research and a government agency that uses that to justify enhanced powers.

By the way, I know there are some very nice people who work for the government. Many of them agree with me about government overreach. Others, though they are well-intentioned, are so immersed in the system that they can't see how flawed it is. They recognize when someone goes overboard, but they believe that those people are the exceptions in a generally good system, rather than the natural product of a system that enables poor behavior.

Call me cynical, but governments are incapable of having the citizens' best interests at heart. For one, governments don't have hearts. For another, governments inevitably become about their own survival. On a small scale, the 2 concerns can be merged, as voters will only allow responsive governments to survive. On a large scale, governments don't have to worry about a few voters. Good intentions of individuals aside.

It fits, that's on you. I find it hilarious you talking about government overreach (in the U.S.) and mentioning China, as if the government telling it's people how many kids they're allowed to have isn't overreach.

Even in your reply to what I said:
"The point being, of course, is that they can and do try. Frightening stuff."

Only frightening if you're the paranoid type. You really think the U.S. government wants to go around scooping up kids? I'm sure they would rather have kids in homes where they don't have to do anything, where kids aren't abused or in dangerous situations. But maybe they have some plan. They could kick out the homeless people they're holding against their will in the FEMA camps (another funny, paranoid thread in this forum) and scoop up kids and train them there, to do some super secret stuff against the citizens in the future.

Call me cynical, but governments are incapable of having the citizens' best interests at heart. For one, governments don't have hearts.

Cynical, with a little crazy, paranoia. The government is out to get us all. Like you said "Frightening stuff." Little overly dramatic aren't we.

 

[Theo Goodman]

Can you guys expand on what you're talking about, with specifics:





What are you talking about there?

in so far that tax is thieft

 

[JB Lions]

So you feel that governments are pretty much thieves and tax paying people are getting stolen from? Is that just in the U.S. or do you feel that way when you pay taxes in Germany as well?

This:

"So really it all comes down to stealing from people by using the threat of violence and then using the theifted resources in ways that the people that were stolen from disapprove of"

What threat of violence?

Do you feel there is a better option out there? Things just pay for themselves? What exactly?