Politics - To Our American Bretheren [Archive] - BoLS Lounge : Wargames, Warhammer & Miniatures Forum

Chronowraith

02-21-2012, 07:48 AM

Honestly, as an American, this article scares the hell out of me more than any of the links posted previously;

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-01-05/opinion/opinion_obeidallah-santorum-sharia_1_rick-santorum-santorum-two-santorum-one?_s=PM:OPINION

I wouldn't say that the stereotypical American is, "fat and retarded". I'd say it falls more along the line of "fat and ignorant". Ignorant and mentally disabled are two very different states of being. One implies helplessness, the other does not. I haven't decided which is the better of the two honestly.

So I'll handle Sarah Palin first. She's a nutjob. 95% of America thinks she is a nutjob, even the Republicans out there. In my office of 250ish people, there is likely a single person who thinks she could ever handle a job above short-order cook. My apologies to short-order cooks, I personally don't even think she could handle that. In the presidential election of 2008, people voted for McCain... not Palin. The position of Vice-President is *almost* that of a figurehead.

As for the story about Republicans and climate change, evolution, immaculate conception - welcome to having a political party that is dominated by religion. I don't agree with Republicans on any of the subjects, but in the U.S., they can believe the world is made of fruit and cheese and as long as they get the requisite votes in the major elections they can be a political party.

As for religion in politics- it wasn't always this way. The Red Scare screwed this country up something fierce. In order to separate ourselves from the Soviets in the 1950's and 60's, the U.S. began introducing more and more religion into politics since it differentiated "us" from "them". It's NOT supposed to be this way despite what one side may say. Relgion did not used to be stamped over everything. Our coins didn't say "In God We Trust" until the early 20th century and the phrase "under God" was only added to our Pledge of Allegiance in the 1950s (with the original pledge written 60ish years earlier and only adopted during WWII as a way of instituting Nationalism). This methodology of including religion to stave-off the Soviets is what lead to today's problem with our congress spending most of its time trying to legislate social issues, something with which Congress was not founded to do (that's up to States, who must operate within the boundaries of the U.S. constitution).

As Eldargal mentioned, all of the scientific issues mentioned are horribly complex. I agree more with the scientific community on both issues. I studied climate while doing undergrad research years ago (amongst other things) and it really is a horribly complex idea.

I should also point out that while half of our political institutions have a religious bent, that does not reflect the actual landscape of the U.S. During 2008, only 60% of the voting population chose to even visit the polls. Doing some simple math, that's roughly 130ish million people. That leaves another 100 million people who didn't even cast a ballot and those are just the people eligible and registered to vote. In non-presidential elections we are usually lucky to break 40% voter turnout nationwide. Then, in our primary elections where the candidates are actually selected we have voter turnout around 15-20%. So people will turn out for the popularity contest between two people other people selected for them but not to actually vote and thin the crazy out of the field. That is the number 1 problem with our political system, apathetic voters who are so disenfranchised with the system that they don't even bother to be a part of it (of course this doesn't stop them from whining about it 2 years later).

Point of fact, only 55 million people are registered Republicans. There are 72 million registered democrats. This means roughly 100 million people fall somewhere between the parties or just don't care enough to register as one or the other. 55 million people is only 1/6th of our total population (roughly, actual percentage is around 17%).

Aldramelech

02-21-2012, 08:34 AM

Well I'm half American and I am a large mammal who could be considered thick by most of the college educated know it alls on this forum, I also love guns and find Ms. Pallin mildly amusing........... So I guess its all my fault.

Gotthammer

02-21-2012, 09:09 AM

As for religion in politics- it wasn't always this way. The Red Scare screwed this country up something fierce. In order to separate ourselves from the Soviets in the 1950's and 60's, the U.S. began introducing more and more religion into politics since it differentiated "us" from "them". It's NOT supposed to be this way despite what one side may say.

Penn Jillette has an interesting take on the subject of the rise of mentioning religion in politic (http://youtu.be/kJGxVeQw3SE)s.

DrLove42

02-21-2012, 09:18 AM

@ Chronowraith - That article is actually a little scary. Although I'm sure an America with a ban on all porn would result in a civil uprising within a month.

I was in the middle of the protests in Washington a few years back about Obama's health care bill. I have never been quite so scared in my life. The mentality of the people there was shocking

@ Eldargal - You say its people who take side in politics and never swing that are the problem. But its a fact. I've been a Labour man all my life. 1 grandparent was a party member and a judge. Another worked in mines, then a public gardener. Both my 'rents work for the NHS. I'm Labour through and through. I support them not because I was born that way, but because they're policies are right. And in my eyes have always been right. I can see the point of view on the other side, but I don't shift because the opposite side's policies are from their point of view, not mine.

And of course its all Aldramech's fault! it all makes sense now :P

I'd like to apoligise if i i advertantly insulted any Americans in this...didn't mean it in any way like that.

lattd

02-21-2012, 01:37 PM

I haven't really got a political party i agree with some policies from all and disagree with some policies. But some american politics are crazy, but then some of the english political parties are disgraces eg the BNP.

DarkLink

02-21-2012, 03:44 PM

This is to the Yanks amongst our numbers, but also as a general point

Any post starting with someone pointing fingers, particularly at any given nationality/ethnic group, is going to go downhill quick.

Everyone knows what the stereotype of an American is. Fat and Retarded. Now I know that most if not all of you on here do not fit into this category. And i'm sure you don't like having that stereotype applied against you

And the equivalent stereotype for british people is the elitist, arrogant prick, but I'm sure that's not particularly accurate either. You should read this: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Eagleland

I also like you you capitalized retarded, as if it's a medical condition Americans suffer from or something. If you're going to resort to ad homenin attacks based on sweeping generalizations and stereotypes, then this thread isn't going to last long.

But my question is if you don't want this stereotype why in gods name do you let Republicans open their mouths and what in the name of all that is holy makes people vote for them?

Really? This is where you're going to try and take this? Bashing people over politics?

that you should spend more money on coal and build more pipelines across Americ Pipelines Obama has cancelled because of their ecological impact

Actually, the Obama's move on pipelines was a stupid one from an ecological standpoint. There are generally two ways to move oil, pipelines and ships. Pipelines break less frequently and have a comparatively insignificant impact on the environment even when they do break. If a ship crashes, though, hundreds of miles of coastline will be impacted and requires a major cleanup that is both expensive and extremely environmentally damaging. Pipelines are, environmentally, a very clean and safe way to transport oil. Shipping, not so much.

And you'd better believe that if the US doesn't buy Canada's oil, Canada will just ship it to China. This isn't a choice between pumping oil or not pumping oil, it's a choice between a pipeline or shipping it to China. Since shipping it has much bigger environmental risks, the pipelines to America are the cleaner choice.

The reason Obama cancelled the pipeline is pure politics. He needs the green groups for the next election, and they're just as ignorant as you seem to be. He tried to delay the program so he could get the environmental vote, then approve the program after the election, but the Republicans forced his hand on the issue and he decided that votes were more important than the environmental impact.

So next time, do a bit of research before you start bashing people over stuff like this.

The 2nd story comes from a Newpaper (so no link) that when running for Vice President gun-nut and all round idiot Sarah Palin knew absolutly nothing about foreign policy or the world around her, thinking Latino people were decended from Native Americans, that the Queen ran the UK and that Saddam has ordered 9/11.

Yeah... I've never understood why some of the conservative candidates and voters get so worked up over certain things like that. I won't deny there's a lot of stupid people out there, and people who pander to those stupid people for votes. I facepalm whenever I hear someone supporting the idea of building a three thousand mile wall to block off mexico.

In a recent (2007) survey only 23% of the Republican Party believed in Global Warming, 30% in evolution, yet 94% in the Immaculate Conception.

Global warming, as it sounds like you see it, is pretty much bunk. There are some significant environmental impacts around the world, but a broad increase in temperature caused by human carbon emissions probably isn't one of them. The same group that initially proposed global warming was also shown to have manipulated their data when presenting it to the public for political reasons (that whole climategate thing), and recently admitted that there is little data to support the idea that worldwide temperature averages have actually risen over the last couple of decades.

Yes, there are some big environmental issues out there right now, but most of the big global warming stuff is a big political swindle.

As for immaculate conception, it is actually theoretically possible. It's been observed in some animal species. I don't know if it's been scientifically observed in humans, but just keep that in mind. And also, don't be a douchebag just because someone doesn't share your religious beliefs.

So my question is this...how do you function as a country when half your political system belive that religion has a place in politics

Dunno, we seem to be doing as well as the rest of western democracy. Which is to say, our problems are primarily economic rather than political or religious. Everywhere you go you get biased, opinionated idiots voting based on logical fallacies and catchy slogans rather than solid research and information. It's not an American thing, it's a human thing. You're asking a loaded question, one which I could turn around on you quite easily.

thats guns are good

Wait, you think they're bad? Why? I'd love to hear whatever bull**** argument you'd try to come up with.

And since I'm sure you'll bring up murderers and whatnot, murder is a cultural thing. You should be much more concerned about how acceptable people find violence outside of self defense to be as opposed to what means they use to inflict harm on others. You could write whole books on stuff like that. You could walk from one socio-economic ethnic group to the next and have extremely different crime rates, simply because of their economic status and cultural baggage they carry around. Look up Culture of Honor for starters, if you want to know why murder rates are so high in, say, the Los Angeles ghettos. It's not because guns somehow magically turn people into killers. It's because you get a culture where personal honor must be defended at all cost, and tolerance of disrespect is unacceptable. Escalation of violence naturally follows that, regardless of the presence of weapons.

A bit of food for though, gun ownership in America is actually on the rise. There have been pretty significant increases in gun sales and the percentage of households with firearms. Over the last few decades, Concealed Carry Permits have become much more widespread, and now almost all of the 50 states will hand out a permit to anyone with a clean record (called a Shall-Issue permit). Only a few states are still May-Issue.

And guess what? Gun related crimes, as well as violent crimes in general, are on the decline.

free health care and equal rights for gay people are bad and the entire system is being funded by lobbyists (Lobbyists for the health care industry spent $1.4 million a day to defeat Obamas reforms)?

You live in england and think that government run health care is a good thing? That's the first time I've heard that before.

The stance of most conservatives is not that universal healthcare is a bad thing. The issue is that is is considered an impracticable thing. In particular, putting it under government control is seen as a bad thing. For precisely the reasons of stupidity and political manipulation that you point out, government programs tend to be more expensive and less efficient than competitive private counterparts. So conservatives tend to be against any big government programs, regardless of what they are.

I just don't get how people like this can still be put in power in the modern world, least of all in charge of one of the most powerful nations on earth

Yeah, I can see how you don't get it, since you didn't seem to do your homework on a lot of the things you brought up.

Look, people in general are pretty ill informed. We're all opinionated, and it's pretty well established that human beings are not actually very rational at all.

Attacking large groups over their political or religious beliefs with massively sweeping generalizations is not a good way to start a discussion about anything. All it does is kick off the downward spiral of irrationality and dick moves.

eldargal

02-21-2012, 06:35 PM

Well that there is a bias, hence my point.;) It would be difficult for you to admit Labour policies were bad if they were or that some Tory policies may be good, or at least, necessary. Personally I do what my family have always done, take an interest, maintain an informed opinion on each party but don't fall into the trap of partisanship.

@ Eldargal - You say its people who take side in politics and never swing that are the problem. But its a fact. I've been a Labour man all my life. 1 grandparent was a party member and a judge. Another worked in mines, then a public gardener. Both my 'rents work for the NHS. I'm Labour through and through. I support them not because I was born that way, but because they're policies are right. And in my eyes have always been right. I can see the point of view on the other side, but I don't shift because the opposite side's policies are from their point of view, not mine.

Replace 'prick' with b*tch and it would be accurate in my case.:p But I don't think DrLove intended to cause offense.

And the equivalent stereotype for british people is the elitist, arrogant prick, but I'm sure that's not particularly accurate either.

To be fair, it is republicans that tend to come out with the worst one-liners which grab the headliners. One of them recently claimed the Dutch murder all their old people, for example.

Really? This is where you're going to try and take this? Bashing people over politics?

Yep, pipelines = good.

Actually, the Obama's move on pipelines was a stupid one from an ecological standpoint. There are generally two ways to move oil, pipelines and ships. Pipelines break less frequently and have a comparatively insignificant impact on the environment even when they do break. If a ship crashes, though, hundreds of miles of coastline will be impacted and requires a major cleanup that is both expensive and extremely environmentally damaging. Pipelines are, environmentally, a very clean and safe way to transport oil. Shipping, not so much.

And you'd better believe that if the US doesn't buy Canada's oil, Canada will just ship it to China. This isn't a choice between pumping oil or not pumping oil, it's a choice between a pipeline or shipping it to China. Since shipping it has much bigger environmental risks, the pipelines to America are the cleaner choice.

The reason Obama cancelled the pipeline is pure politics. He needs the green groups for the next election, and they're just as ignorant as you seem to be. He tried to delay the program so he could get the environmental vote, then approve the program after the election, but the Republicans forced his hand on the issue and he decided that votes were more important than the environmental impact.

So next time, do a bit of research before you start bashing people over stuff like this.

Easy, see my first post, it makes for a highly motivated core of voters to go out and scare more people.;) The wall idea is one of my favourites too, it wasn't effective two thousand years ago it isn't going to be effective now.

Yeah... I've never understood why some of the conservative candidates and voters get so worked up over certain things like that. I won't deny there's a lot of stupid people out there, and people who pander to those stupid people for votes. I facepalm whenever I hear someone supporting the idea of building a three thousand mile wall to block off mexico.

From an archaeological perpsective it certainly is bollocks. Many of the techniques used for mapping climate and temperature in the past were pioneered to assist archaeology. For most of the past ten thousand years or so since the end of the last ice age it has been two or more degrees centigrade higher than it is now. Ignoring issues with data collection, statistical bias and poor computer modelling if the world is warming it is probably natural and simply returning to its usual interglacial temperature point. Humans are having an impact, but not through C02, but through deforestation and land clearance (destroying shade cover over vast areas does raise the ground temperature as well as cause erosion which along coastal areas gives the impression of sea level rise). To quote a childhood friend of my fathers in the Royal Society 'it is nonsense, but nonsense you have to agree with if you want funding and the peace and quiet to pursue research without ideologues bashing down your door'.

Global warming, as it sounds like you see it, is pretty much bunk. There are some significant environmental impacts around the world, but a broad increase in temperature caused by human carbon emissions probably isn't one of them. The same group that initially proposed global warming was also shown to have manipulated their data when presenting it to the public for political reasons (that whole climategate thing), and recently admitted that there is little data to support the idea that worldwide temperature averages have actually risen over the last couple of decades.

Yes, there are some big environmental issues out there right now, but most of the big global warming stuff is a big political swindle.

As for immaculate conception, it is actually theoretically possible. It's been observed in some animal species. I don't know if it's been scientifically observed in humans, but just keep that in mind. And also, don't be a douchebag just because someone doesn't share your religious beliefs.

Sadly yes, but the potential for much more damage is in the US. If the evangelists get more power over education you could see a real drop in the quality of your education which would be devestating. Knowledge where it at yo.

Dunno, we seem to be doing as well as the rest of western democracy. Which is to say, our problems are primarily economic rather than political or religious. Everywhere you go you get biased, opinionated idiots voting based on logical fallacies and catchy slogans rather than solid research and information. It's not an American thing, it's a human thing. You're asking a loaded question, one which I could turn around on you quite easily.

The NHS isn't bad, really. Most of the horror stories are completely overblown, it isn't as good as some of the European systems but it is good.

You live in england and think that government run health care is a good thing? That's the first time I've heard that before.

The stance of most conservatives is not that universal healthcare is a bad thing. The issue is that is is considered an impracticable thing. In particular, putting it under government control is seen as a bad thing. For precisely the reasons of stupidity and political manipulation that you point out, government programs tend to be more expensive and less efficient than competitive private counterparts. So conservatives tend to be against any big government programs, regardless of what they are.

The thing that bothers me most about the 'big vs small' guvmint thing in America (I'm very much in favour of small guvmints) is that so many people who claim to want small government are in favour of the death penalty. The LAST power I want to give any government is the that of life and death over the populace, even with an independent judiciary.

Chronowraith, that article illustrates something that I've always found very ironic. The theocratic government of Iran and the extreme wing of the Republican party really would get along swimmingly.:rolleyes:

Ooh, past my bedtime.

Necron2.0

02-21-2012, 07:11 PM

The reason why people would vote for a Republican with the views you've stated, Dr., is because the overwhelming majority of those who'd vote for the Republican ticket do not give a rat's flaming buttocks for the issues you've mentioned. Rabid environmentalism may play big in the UK, but it doesn't put food on the table here. As for the Palin, McCain didn't choose her for her mental acuity. He chose her because he was an old white man running against a young black man, and he needed a gimmick.

Verilance

02-21-2012, 07:31 PM

Canada will just ship it to China. This isn't a choice between pumping oil or not pumping oil, it's a choice between a pipeline or shipping it to China.

If you think trying to build a pipeline across America was hard, it is nothing compared to having to build a pipeline across British Columbia so that they can ship the oil to China.

Every Native Community will most likely oppose it and since they "own" the land it will be very difficult for Alberta to get its oil to the coast

wittdooley

02-21-2012, 08:27 PM

In regards to Palin - as others have stated, most Americans think she's a fool. She's embarrassingly ignorant in public and is one of the worst public speakers I've ever seen.

In regards to religion & republicans - It's a shame these to ate linked so inorexably. Religious fundamentalism is a huuuuuuge deal in middle America. You could argue the crazy Christians in the "middle" are just as bad as the stereotypically "worst" muslim fundamentalist: indoctrination starts very early, most are armed, and most are ignorant and easily swayed to a political viewpoint. There are plenty of things that make sense when it comes to being a republican, particularly fiscal conservativism. Sadly, that sentiment of fiscal responsibility gets mixed with all the anti-abortion, hyper religious nut jobs.

In regards to Obama- full disclosure: I voted for him in 08. I was relatively fresh out of college. I was a bright eyed, bushy tailed teacher that really liked what be said he'd d in regards t education. So did th NEA (national educators association). So they endorsed him and lots of teachers voted for him. But he didn't do anything he said he would to improve education. Young teachers can no longer get jobs because teachers unions protect ****ty teachers. And he supports them. He's going to lose a lot of the educator vote this time around, which could certainly turn swing states like Ohio. But he'll still get the majority of the minority vote, because he supports welfare and unearned entitlement. And because he's black.

Aldramelech

02-22-2012, 12:21 AM

I'd like to see Boris Johnson as the next PM with Amanda Holden as Deputy PM and free pancakes on pancake day.

eldargal

02-22-2012, 01:14 AM

Best guvmint ever!:rolleyes:

I'd like to see Boris Johnson as the next PM with Amanda Holden as Deputy PM and free pancakes on pancake day.

I remember watching Palins first public appearance (at that big, vulgar conference-concert thing American politicians are so keen on) and being really impressed with her. I thought a smart, indepedent, competent female republican would really be good for America and good for women. Then I saw her first unscripted interview and if I facepalm, I would have facepalmed. The depth of her stupidity took my breath away, literally.

I still love when someone said, in defence of her foreign policy aptitude or lackthereof, something long the lines that she is an expert on foreign policy because on a clear day she can see Russia from her front door.:rolleyes:

Lord Azaghul

02-22-2012, 08:53 AM

This is to the Yanks amongst our numbers, but also as a general point

But my question is if you don't want this stereotype why in gods name do you let Republicans open their mouths and what in the name of all that is holy makes people vote for them?

You lost a great deal of my respect right there with that statement.

Its about has ignorant has you're claiming the majority of Republicans are.

wittdooley

02-22-2012, 12:47 PM

I remember watching Palins first public appearance (at that big, vulgar conference-concert thing American politicians are so keen on) and being really impressed with her. I thought a smart, indepedent, competent female republican would really be good for America and good for women.

That, honestly, really describes Hillary Clinton. If she was 10 years younger and looked like Palin, she would have beaten Obama in the Primaries. I'm firmly convinced of that.

As sad as that statement is, if/when the United States elects its first female President, she is going to be attractive. Not model attractive, mind you, but Palin gives you a good idea of what a female candidate in the US will have to look like.

But she's going to have to be Hella sharp. I mean, moreso than ANY man.

Honestly, I'd say Kirsten Gillibrand is our next reasonably viable candidate. She's attractive enough, but not disarmingly so that women won't vote for her and she'll still be taken seriously.

I realize how shallow that sounds, and how much of a poor indictment that is of America, but it is how it is.

Further, if the Government was REALLY concerned with more people getting to the polls, they'd make voting day a Federal Holiday. I mean, FFS, Presidents Day and Martin Luther King day are federal holidays. You're telling me that we can't have one once every 4 years to determine the most important decision in the country?

As it stands, the majority of that 60% (at best) votership is unemployed (this includes folks on welfare, unemployment, those that "home school," and those that are stay at home parents--the majority of this population is undereducated or completely uneducated) or retired (pretty much every old person votes in the US--pretty much all of whom are voting for whomever the Republican candidate is) or highly motivated with a very distinct viewpoint. The middle class is probably the least represented (I'm sure there are stats to back this up somewhere) because both parties are so focused on getting either the very rich or the very poor vote.

The biggest issue is our bipartisan system. There aren't any other successful democratic nations with only two political parties in the world. It creates a real problem; you're either a republican or a democrat. People that hold moderate views, or people that are fiscally conservative and socially democratic (like myself) don't have a viable place. Sure, there are Libertarians, etc., but those parties have little to no chance of getting a candidate elected. I mean, I care about Gov't Spending and couldn't give a Frack about being "green" unless it saves me money, but I don't think we have any place telling a woman she can't abort her faetus(which, in the US, is legally defined as not a human), nor do I care if a dude wants to marry another dude. I care about education, but think we need to get rid of our "everyone should go to college" (not everyone should) philosphy. There isn't a party for me that will be able to elect a candidate.

It is. What is it.

Lord Azaghul

02-22-2012, 03:06 PM

A few points off of whittdooley.

Female Present: I'm not sure about recently, but at late as 10 years ago, the problem with Women in leadership roles, especially politics was other Women. I recall reading several studies/polls that concluded it was Women who had the hardest time voting for a Female candidate!

I agree she'll have to be attractive - but not so attractive she's intimating! People naturally like 'good looking' people.

Not sure I understand your 'unemployed voter ship' statement. MY understanding is that the greatest voter demographic is the elderly - whom are retired - not unemployed. My experience has also been that the unemployed tend NOT to vote republican.

Bipartisanship is ruining our country. It creates a lot of unfortunate stereotypes, and it attempts to quality the majority of people into 2 very unrealistic and unreasonable categories.

Moderation is ALMOST not permitted!

MaltonNecromancer

02-22-2012, 04:23 PM

I don't know about anyone else, but I miss "The West Wing". Everyone was so dignified and intelligent.
...

So anyway, I like America. They make good films and better TV.
I like Britain. We make 40K and "Doctor Who" and "Being Human".

I only actually have two things to really add, in response to DarkLink:

You live in england and think that government run health care is a good thing? That's the first time I've heard that before.

My dear fellow, the NHS is the only real religion the British have. To appreciate our attitude, watch that episode of "The Simpsons" where Lisa gets shown a vision of the future and sees who she's going to get her heart broken by (he's some British guy or other). She dumps him in favour of Homer. Because yeah, Homer's fat and sweaty and stupid and doesn't really work, but life's better with him than without. The NHS is Homer Simpson and the UK public is Lisa - just because we complain doesn't mean we don't love it. The alternative is a nightmare none of us want - we all see the US system and the thought chills me to the core.

I mean, really what you have to understand is that if you're English, you like to complain. If England was an X-Man, s/he'd be The Complainer, and his/her power would be To Find Fault With Everything.

So when you hear English people complain about the NHS, what they're actually doing is simply enjoying one another's company. The actual notion that the NHS might be dismanted would lead to people getting skinned alive in front of their children. (And I'm not kidding - the suggestion that David Cameron might even slightly hurt the NHS cost the Conservative part 4% in an opinion poll this week, putting Labour 1% ahead of them for the first time since the election. That is a ludicrous number of people!)

YOU WOULD NOT BELIEVE HOW MUCH WE LOVE THE NHS.

Wait, you think they're bad? Why? I'd love to hear whatever bull**** argument you'd try to come up with.

Umm... Guns kill people?

Why would I want guns in the hands of untrained amateurs? Or even worse, trained professionals who could kill me dead?! I mean seriously, why?

Again, this is a cultural thing. To give you some personal context, here in the Uk, there was the case of a teacher who had posted a single photo of himself with toy dart guns, posing like Hitman (he was a fan of the game or something). HE MADE THE NATIONAL PAPERS, with most of them calling for him to lose his job - it was a minor outcry.

Then, when you've got something like the Raoul Moat case, where a nutter goes off with a gun killing people, there's no gun lobby here to argue that guns are good. The number of legal hoops you have to jump through to own black powder weapons is Herculean, let alone something that can actually fire off bullets properly.

I think you have to remember that perspective on guns is coloured by culture. If you can't imagine not being allowed to own them, you should visit the UK some time, and see what it's like in a land without firearms. I'm not saying we don't have shootings. It's just... well, they're really rare - despite what people may say about gangland violence, or what Guy Ritchie films may present.

There's also the fact that even carrying a prop gun (which includes anything that could be mistaken for a gun) carries a sentence of five year's imprisonment here. A man had been robbing banks in the 90's using a tire iron in a plastic supermarket bag, pretending it was a shotgun. He'd done this because he'd assumed that as it wasn't a gun, he wouldn't be done for armed robbery. The judge ruled that the trauma he'd caused meant it didn't matter that there was no gun, and so now the law in the UK is incredibly tight.

And frankly, that's kind of how most of us like it. I can't imagine any way my life or the life of any of my friends would be improved by owning a gun. I could always go grouse shooting if I want to hunt I suppose - shotgun licenses are (relatively) easily available. But I don't know why I'd want to. Quite genuinely. The whole idea of wanting to own one is really quite bizarre to me.

I'm not saying it's wrong per se, it's just... kind of weird. And a bit lame.

I will say that when I heard people in the US were lobbying to own fully automatic assault weaponry "to go hunting", I laughed so hard that a little bit of wee came out. Who do they honestly think they're kidding? Hunting with a fully auto M4? What the hell are you hunting, frakking laser-powered death moose?

Why can't they just come out and say "I want it because I think it's cool; I can't justify it at all"?

Bizarre.

eldargal

02-22-2012, 11:45 PM

Rules me out, I can't even get a paid museum position because I frighten all the female academics and make them feel inadequate.:mad:

I agree she'll have to be attractive - but not so attractive she's intimating!

I agree with MaltonNecromancer on the NHS. As to guns, if you like eating grouse and pheasant that is reason enough to own one.:p Damned things are delicious.

The Girl

02-23-2012, 01:49 AM

But he'll still get the majority of the minority vote, because he supports welfare and unearned entitlement.

http://www.census.gov/sipp/workpapr/wp246.pdf

I suggest reading that, and comparing the OFA's 2010 TANF data to the 2010 Census data.... and maybe talking to said minorities before you speak about why they vote for certain candidates.

Now that I've done that...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAB858elJOw&feature=related

DrLove42

02-23-2012, 03:06 AM

Note to self - People are touchy about politics :P

I'm obviously an outsider to the US system. I don't live there and I only have a vague idea how the system works.

But to me the Political face of the country is what people know best and what you frequently get judged on. People in another country will have never met you, but they'll have seen the head of state thanks to the media. So you have to choose who to put as the front man for a country. Whereas Obama seems to me to be a modern forward person, the Republican candidates seem to be living in the 70's

Unless I'm very much mistaken in debates last night both front guys for the Republicans said Obama's position on Iran wasn't hard enough. If you read the subtext there, they're both gunning for a gorram good war. One of them also said that Obama was undermining "religious tolerance" at the same time as preaching a christian government.

And to balence things out - no politics works. I spent yesterday in a workshop trying to fix the damage that new EU legislation has had on our industry, which threatens to completly destroy it, a £10 billion a year industry.

Then theres Camerons assault on the NHS. As i've previously stated both my parents work for the NHS. I'm donating Bone Marrow to an 8 year old girl with Leukemia next week, paid for by the NHS. My father in law has had a kidney replaced and is on medication that would cost £50 a week all paid for by the NHS. I will defend that service to my last gorram breath because it is outstanding and significantly better than the alternative.

eldargal

02-23-2012, 04:14 AM

Huh, beginning to think I should have watched that show.

http://www.census.gov/sipp/workpapr/wp246.pdf

I suggest reading that, and comparing the OFA's 2010 TANF data to the 2010 Census data.... and maybe talking to said minorities before you speak about why they vote for certain candidates.

Now that I've done that...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAB858elJOw&feature=related

lattd

02-23-2012, 04:51 AM

The west wing gives a good site into US politics even if it is outdated and dramatised, whenever i see discussions on american politics i always think of this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE

Necron2.0

02-23-2012, 07:38 AM

Umm... Guns kill people?

Guns don't kill people ... I KILL PEOPLE!!!

Besides, not owning guns doesn't make Brits one iota less violent, it just makes them more creative, like with the use of nail guns, acid baths and dismembering folks and stuffing them into walls. ;)

Necron2.0

02-23-2012, 07:48 AM

I'm obviously an outsider to the US system. I don't live there and I only have a vague idea how the system works.

Actually, it's a real easy system to understand. Picture kids on a huge school's playground choosing sides for a game of <<insert game name here>>. Now, remove all notions of civility and ratchet down the maturity level by about half. There - you have American politics in a nutshell.

I miss the days when politicians were more honest - straight-up buying votes with whiskey. Ah, those were the days.

The notion that people anywhere choose their leaders is a complete fiction. A bigger fiction still is that people choose them rationally. Do you think anyone in their right minds would have chosen Obama? Seriously, the guy's one talent (and it was obvious from the beginning) is the ability to read what others have put on his teleprompter. The man had no experience, whatsoever, and he still doesn't. At most, what people get is a choice between bag-o-poop-A and bag-o-poop-B.

wittdooley

02-23-2012, 08:44 AM

http://www.census.gov/sipp/workpapr/wp246.pdf

I suggest reading that, and comparing the OFA's 2010 TANF data to the 2010 Census data.... and maybe talking to said minorities before you speak about why they vote for certain candidates.

Now that I've done that...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAB858elJOw&feature=related

While I sincerely appreciate the link, when linking a 168-page document, a summary of the argument you're trying to make MIGHT help. I don't have time to read 168 pages of that without some direction or context.

In terms of my statement, I'll firmly stand by it. Obama is STILL going to get the majority of the black vote in the US because he is black. He's still going to get the majority of the Latino vote because he (and by he, I mean the Democratic Party) supports low-income assistance. I don't know where the dispute there can be?

EDIT: After browsing the doc, I'm GUESSING your argument is going to be that, for example, 45% of the 225K households receiving both Unemployment and Food Stamps are white, non-Hispanic. Fine. I'll point out that the A: Hispanics & African-Americans combined account or about 50% of those households, and that B: Hispanics & African-Americans only make up around 28% of the actual population. So, in effect, they're a much smaller percentage than the minority groups using the social welfare programs.

REGARDLESS, and this is purely anecdotal, I'd argue that low-income whites aren't as likely to vote for a black candidate, despite his support of social welfare, for one of two reasons: 1. They're ultra religious, or 2. They're racist. I've taught in low-income white school districts where I saw the refusal of low-income white families not vote for Obama or a democrat (despite being more about helping them than the Republicans) because he was black, or a democrat, or both.

It's no different than a candidate condemning abortion getting the majority of the ultra-religious Right vote.

Necron 2.0 is on the money there. Obama got a lot of the young vote because he did appear more "hip" and "current." And in a nation where the a large number of the post-college population likes to embrace either things more 'ethnic' or things more 'socioeconomic' (see Hipsters), he's a lot easier to relate to and like than a crotchety, 65-year old white guy like Newt Gingrich, despite the fact that Newt is CLEARLY smarter than anyone he's been debating against.

EDIT: And here's the thing about Obama's substantial public speaking ability: it follows on the heels of what could quite possibly be the worst public-speaking president in the history of the US in G-Dub.

Aldramelech

02-23-2012, 11:31 AM

Charlie Sheen, I'd vote for him...............

Psychosplodge

02-23-2012, 12:35 PM

The notion that people anywhere choose their leaders is a complete fiction. A bigger fiction still is that people choose them rationally.

In my part of the world you could put a red rosette on a piece of plywood and it would get elected....
Why do they let people vote who seem incapable of actually making an evidence based decision...?

MaltonNecromancer

02-23-2012, 04:12 PM

Guns don't kill people ... I KILL PEOPLE!!!

Besides, not owning guns doesn't make Brits one iota less violent, it just makes them more creative, like with the use of nail guns, acid baths and dismembering folks and stuffing them into walls.

Guns for show; knives for a pro :D

Necron2.0

02-23-2012, 04:45 PM

Guns for show; knives for a pro :D

... But to be sure, go ANFO. :cool:

Psychosplodge

02-23-2012, 05:28 PM

You know what happens to mofos that carry knives? They get shot, that's what....

MaltonNecromancer

02-23-2012, 05:40 PM

http://d.images.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/11777875.jpg

Grenadier

02-23-2012, 07:54 PM

Let me see if I follow your logic correctly. If I, as an American, do not wish to earn the stereotype of being fat and retarded, I should not vote for a Republican? By extension I'll be a healthy and intelligent American if I vote for a Democrat? And what is your nationality? I'm pretty sure it has a few stereotypes of its own.

As a college educated and underweight Republican and American let me tell you why some of us vote for Republicans:

America is a nation cursed with a broken two party system that is ideologically driven. I've never seen my nation more sharply divided between the right and left than it is now. Not every American is on board with a socialist and left wing agenda. History in this nation has shown that whenever a left leaning president comes to power the role of government expands greatly. This is a direct result of liberal ideology which places more faith in government and less faith in its citizens. President Obama is a big government type of president. Many of the Democratic senators and congresspersons also favor big government. And the majority of Conservative minded Americans prefer small government.

I noticed a classic European criticism of Americans in your post: the right to bear arms.

In America you have three types of "gun culture." The first type, and the one the stereotypes are based upon is what I would call the criminal gun culture. The ghetto gangsta types portrayed in movies and rap videos. The criminals who buy and sell illegal firearms. The other type is what I call "the redneck militia type." This gun culture is composed of extremist types who believe firmly in this right but in general do not treat the right to bear arms responsibly. The final gun culture type, and the one I fall into, is the responsible gun owner culture. This culture is composed of collectors, exhibition shooters, hunters, and others. The common theme in this culture is a respect for the power of a gun and the responsible use and ownership of them. Many in this culture are more intelligent than in the other two cultures. The criminal element glorifies guns and uses them as a means to an end. The redneck culture glorifies them and zealously clings to them in the mistaken belief that rights do not come with responsibility. And the responsible culture understands the right to bear arms as our founding fathers intended.

As a gun owner I do not take pics of myself brandishing a gun all gangsta style. Nor have I ever once used my guns to kill a living thing. I do not hunt and am opposed to it. What I do with my guns, however, is target shooting. I consider this to be a sport. It is like golf in that sense. Something you can learn to do and spend a great deal of time perfecting.

Guns are inextricably a part of America's history. Many Americans, and even more Europeans fail to understand the intention of the founding fathers when they granted us this right. And many myths and falsehoods surrounding gun ownership exist. But it is a supreme waste of time for anyone to dispel these myths and explain to those unwilling to understand.

Religion and politics:

Our founders understood that there needs to be a separation between church and state. Thomas Jefferson, along with many of our founders, was a man of religious faith.

In 1801 Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. His letter to them contained the phrase " a wall of separation between church and state." This led to the Establishment Clause. An excerpt from this letter:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter that which lies solely between Man and His God, that he owes account to no other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and state. (Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorized only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its Chruch, but subject here, as a religious exercise only to the voluntary regulations of discipline of each respective sect.) Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

This letter more than anything exemplifies our founding fathers, more specifically Thomas Jefferson's view of the role of religion and government in this nation. At its essence it simply means that in this nation religion will not be sponsored by the government. That means there will be no official religion in America that is directly endorsed by the government. Unlike England of the day and other nations abroad who in fact allowed their religion and politics to become intertwined and ultimately corrupted. Our founders intended that here in America anyone of any religious sect would be free to practice their faith without government persecution. Likewise, religion would stay out of government so that a church would not run the state. This letter also exposes the view of where rights comes from that Jefferson and others had. The phrase "natural rights" means just that: natural rights. Rights we have by virtue of being living and thinking beings. Some can argue whether or not such rights come from a Creator or not. But it is clear that rights do not come from government. For that which the government gives to you it can always take away from you.

Fast forward to today. Religion, or more accurately the Christian faith, is beset by anti-religion movements here in America and abroad. And all too often such elements grossly misinterpret the Establishment Clause and use it as the basis of legal suits against religion, often enforced by the ACLU. In reality America is supposed to be a land in which religion is not only tolerated but also welcomed. A land where people should be free to express their religion. And it would also seem that people mistake separation of church and state as "separation of society and religion." In the context of the founders State only meant government. But to the leftists, atheists, and secularists it appears that see State as society. And wish to eradicate religion from their society altogether. And, this is my own personal opinion, that many on the left, that is to say the extreme left have replaced organized religion and belief in God with government. In my opinion many have more faith in government than they do religion or their fellow man.

Without actually getting into a debate about the merits of religion I will say I would hate to live in a nation that has entirely turned away from religion and instead replaced it with the church of government. Conservatives, by nature, prefer a smaller and less intrusive government that provides maximum liberty. And it is my sincere belief that only small government can provide maximum liberty. The bigger the government gets the more it intrudes into one's daily life. And the more it intrudes the less liberty you have. Government has but one role in my opinion: to provide protection of rights and liberty to its citizens and to provide national defense.

Whereas many liberals on the left, the Democratic party feel government has a much bigger role. Some would like to see a cradle to grave entitlement society in which the citizens are heavily dependent on the government. Republicans believe more in independence from government. The left in America would like to use government to impose various forms of social change. They will use government to force their views and agendas upon citizens. For example, the global warming and green agenda.

It is not that many Republicans disbelieve in global warming. Rather they just don't believe its the government's job to force anyone to "go green." Take for example the incandescent light bulb or the CFL light bulb. One is reputed to be bad for the environment because it uses more energy than the other. Meanwhile the other, which uses less energy, actually is more harmful to the environment due to toxic things inside it. I recently bought a CFL and the box described a very elaborate cleaning process I should employ should I break the bulb. This included wearing protective gloves and a mask! Liberal Democrats would have it so the government will dictate to me which light bulb I must use.

More often than not Republicans do not object so much to the idea or concept but rather how it is implemented. Liberals in this nation want to tell us how to raise our kids, what we should drive, what we should eat, and many other things. They want to tax fattening foods, ban salt, so on and so on. What this, to a Conservative Republican, represents is government infringing on our liberties. We do not necessarily oppose everything a left winger stands for. We do, however, often oppose who to fix it or implement it.

It seems to me you are grossly misinformed and rather ignorant about the Republican party. And for this I do not blame you. You're not an American. You don't live here. You only know what they teach you in your schools or what you read in your newspaper or the BBC. And I find it remarkable that you would rely so heavily on these for sources of information. The media is extremely heavily liberal biased and often do not print the truth. For example, your criticisms of one Sarah Palin. Do you realize that much which has been leveled against her comes from "gotcha questions" and then intentionally taking out of context any replies? This is how the media is here. They will not give you the entire context. And without it there can be no truth. It helps to have the entire clip, not just a Media Matters approved carefully selected 20 second clip.

Republicans like myself vote in opposition to the leftist agenda here in America. We do so because we don't want government intruding in our lives. And we do not entirely oppose things like gay marriage, global warming. Nor do we want dirty air and water or to throw granny off a cliff, and we certainly do not want the church to dictate our laws.

This is to the Yanks amongst our numbers, but also as a general point

Everyone knows what the stereotype of an American is. Fat and Retarded. Now I know that most if not all of you on here do not fit into this category. And i'm sure you don't like having that stereotype applied against you

But my question is if you don't want this stereotype why in gods name do you let Republicans open their mouths and what in the name of all that is holy makes people vote for them?

This question comes up today after two news stories. The first (here) (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17104543) shows one of the front runners for presidential candidate declaring global warming to effectivly be a myth invented for political reasons, that you should spend more money on coal and build more pipelines across America. Pipelines Obama has cancelled because of their ecological impact

The 2nd story comes from a Newpaper (so no link) that when running for Vice President gun-nut and all round idiot Sarah Palin knew absolutly nothing about foreign policy or the world around her, thinking Latino people were decended from Native Americans, that the Queen ran the UK and that Saddam has ordered 9/11.

In a recent (2007) survey only 23% of the Republican Party believed in Global Warming, 30% in evolution, yet 94% in the Immaculate Conception.

So my question is this...how do you function as a country when half your political system belive that religion has a place in politics, thats guns are good, free health care and equal rights for gay people are bad and the entire system is being funded by lobbyists (Lobbyists for the health care industry spent $1.4 million a day to defeat Obamas reforms)?

I just don't get how people like this can still be put in power in the modern world, least of all in charge of one of the most powerful nations on earth

Chronowraith

02-23-2012, 08:56 PM

The left in America would like to use government to impose various forms of social change. They will use government to force their views and agendas upon citizens. For example, the global warming and green agenda.

Both parties push large amounts of social change. Democrats push the green agenda, global warming, and entitlement programs while republicans try increasingly harder to tie religion into the government. Republicans try and force laws to regulate abortion, scientific research that violates their RELIGIOUS views, social regulations like the definition of marriage and restricting the rights of all people to marry, and advocates of a robust military. So Republicans are hardly advocates of small government.

Both parties are advocates of small government when it suites whatever their needs are.

Religion, or more accurately the Christian faith, is beset by anti-religion movements here in America and abroad

The primary anti-religion movements are to remove religion from government. Most religious statements and passages in our government are modern additions and were not included by the "founding fathers". Coinage has only born the statement "In God we trust" since the early 20th century. The pledge of allegiance has only had the phrase "under god" since the 1950's.

Grenadier

02-23-2012, 11:00 PM

Gay marriage rights are murky territory if one is to view it from a government or religious argument. By championing gay marriage one could suggest that perhaps the left is dabbling in injecting religion into politics. After all, marriage is a religious institution. Your argument does have merit however. By opposing gay marriage on the basis of traditional values, which stem from religion, then in effect Republicans are also bringing religion into politics.

However I disagree with you that Republicans are intentionally trying to tie religion to politics. They are not advocating a government sponsored religion nor are they trying to use government to abolish religious expression. More so than the Democrats ever will Republicans defend the right to religious expression.

It does, however, get murky again when we consider what religious expression is. You cite the coinage and religious statements that exist, such as "Under God." I personally do not see these as a government endorsement of religion. Rather, I see it as religious expression. People should not forget that our government is comprised of people. Those who work in government all the way up to the president are people with their own religious views. And so they should be allowed to express religion like any common citizen. So there should not be any objection to such expressions. There should also be the inclusion of non-Christian expressions. 10 Commandments on walls? So what? Throw up something of pertinence and value from another faith beside it I say. But don't deny the right to freely express religious belief, even if it is in the public arena.

Also, I am one of the few Conservatives who do not oppose gay marriage. Quite the contrary. I support it. That's because I adhere to true Conservative values. And one of the most important things to people like me is liberty. If I have the liberty to marry any woman I can win over would I not be a hypocrite then if I'd deny this same liberty to a gay couple? How can I claim to love liberty if I would deny others the same liberty? My views is also due in part to actually having a brain in my head:

As much as it pains me I can level a harsh criticism against Republicans and Conservatives: they fail to recognize there are three things: Political affiliation, religious or lack thereof affiliation, and ideological leanings. This same criticism can be hurled at the left as well. But in my mind these are all three distinct and separate things. Most people allow each of the three to influence the other. And combine them. Well, it might be okay for people to allow their ideological stance to combine with their political affiliation. After all, in America the Democrats and liberals to extreme left are all in one camp, and the same for the Republicans. So much so that political party and ideology are often one and the same for many people. But religious views do not need to influence political stances. Sadly people on both sides often let this happen. So...maybe my religion will say "Gay marriage is wrong. This, that, and the other is wrong." But it doesn't mean politically I will oppose a thing based on religious views. Besides, in the end we do not answer to politicians for our lives. We answer to God. Assuming of course there is one. Let God deal with the holding of people to account for their lives. Let government let people live their lives as they see fit. And I do deeply wish more on my side held similar views to mine.

Anent religious expressions in government:

I can concede that the Pledge of Allegiance with the controversial statement included may cross the line. There may well be an argument that it does violate the Establishment Clause. After all, what is the Pledge of Allegiance? It's essentially a statement in which one swears allegiance to this nation. But, by including "under God" in it one can argue that you're being required to also recognize Christianity as a government officially sponsored religion. Therefore, if you're an atheist it is reasonable for you to take offense to the Pledge of Allegiance. And so maybe this statement should be taken out of it. By the way, I don't a history lesson on these matters. I know American history well.

***What I alluded to about Christianity being beset is something larger than removing religious statements or symbols from government. I was referring to the anti-religion movement in terms of social agenda not politics.

Anent abortion:

I personally am not against restricting abortion and so I will not argue the pros and cons of government getting involved in it. Let it be known that I do disagree with abortion but I still consider the women right's argument as a valid one. However, I also consider the rights of fathers and the unborn child. Abortion supporters care not for the rights of the child or the father. I also do not believe that tax payer dollars should pay for abortion or other contraceptives.

"Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born." -Ronald Reagan.

And yes, we are advocates of a robust military. And I do not see how a strong military equates to bigger government. In my mind it equates to a stronger military which can better defend this nation and its interests. Good tools for a strong nation include wise leadership and a willingness to engage in effective diplomacy, a strong economy, an edge in technology, medicine, industry, education, and a robust military. After all, diplomacy sometimes fails and when a war is inevitable it is good to have a robust military.

Lastly, you can claim Republicans are not advocates of smaller government for the reasons you gave above. That's fair enough. But I suspect those things you cited are the result of things you dislike about the Republican party and to you these things represent larger government. Likewise I could claim the same about a liberal Democrat agenda. But in reality, while Republicans do in fact advocate specific things, the end result is a Republican government is smaller than a Democrat government. The reality is SOME level of government IS indeed necessary to the running of a nation. It's my belief a Conservative minded Republican government is the better form. And in the end it comes down to this or that side being unhappy with the other side's vision of the role of government. I for one prefer a Republican vision of it based on Conservative values.

eldargal

02-24-2012, 12:17 AM

Military is the strongest tool of the government, you can't have a strong military and a small government, it is a contradiction. In fact this is why for much of our respective histories both Britain and the USA distrusted the standing military and kept it as small as possible, or abroad. In fact it was the English distrust of standing armies which became the American distrust of standing armies in the American colonies. That changed in the USA with WWII and the growing feeling the nations problems coud all be solved with the military. Indeed the Founding Fathers of the US distrusted standing militaries and for good reason:

A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.
It is in fact one of th reasons behind the right to bear arms, but unfortunately with modern militaries being what they are it is woefully obsolete unless you also train the populace in insurgency tactics. I'm not anti-gun either, I do believe in keeping guns out of the hands of morons and those with criminal or violent tendencies though.

It is also glib to blame the negative image of Republicans purely on media bias, the fact is they tend to say incredibly stupid, headline catching things more than Democrats. Witness Santorum claiming the Dutch euthenase ten percent of their population against their will each year. As I mentioned in a previous post I was very impressed with Sarah Palin, then I watched her interviews, yes, in their entirety. I watched as many as I could hoping perhaps it was a left wing bias that was trying to make her look bad. Alas, I came to the conclusion she is just an idiot.

As to abortion, I don't like it. I wouldn't have one. But I would fight to the death to protect a womans right to have one, though. Banning abortion will just result in more deaths of mothers and children in underground abortions. Not to mention I can't support any measure which reduces women's control over their own bodies, something the religious right seem obsessed with.

These are just a few nitpicks though, Grenadier, on the whole I agree with much of what you say.

Just to clarify, none of the above comments about standing militaries should be perceived as an insult to servicemen past or present, it isn't soldiers and militaries that are the problem so much as the governments which control them.

I've had like five hours sleep so I apologise if I'm a bit incoherent.

Grenadier

02-24-2012, 01:14 AM

No need to apologize for seeming incoherent. I understood you quite well. Nor would I have taken anything you said as insulting towards service men and women. And before I continue I'd like to say it's good to be able to debate intelligently here. It certainly dispels that image the Greek woman who wrote that disparaging article about 40k players!

Now...

Regarding the military I'll use a sentence from your James Madison quote:

"A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive, will not long be safe companions to liberty."

The key words being "overgrown executive."

That is what my concerns are based upon. The size of the military itself isn't anything alarming to me. It is if it is woefully undersized however. This is because our military is under civilian authority. The President is supposed to present a case for war to Congress. And then Congress alone will vote on whether or not we go to war. If war is the choice at that point the President becomes Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. As I understand it this title does not apply to him when there is not a state of war. That being said, then, the military should not be an instrument of oppression against the nation it serves.

Since the key words are "overgrown executive" it reinforces in my mind to have a separation of powers. The office of the president is the Executive Branch and Congress is one part of the Legislative branch. So in theory the military shouldn't be a threat to its own citizens since the Legislative branch represents the citizens. Together they vote up or down. Should the Executive ever overstep its bounds regarding the use of military then we have a clear violation of the Constitution. Such as the fracas over Obama and the War Powers Act anent Libya.

And when in American history has the military ever been a threat to the liberty of its own citizens? There are no examples I can think of. The use of it to put down protests during the 60's? That might be a legitimate example. But other wise our system has done a fine job keeping the military in its rightful place. And consequently, in my opinion, as long as our system continues to work in this fashion the actual size of the military should not be a concern. Unless it has grown too small. Remember that in addition to protecting the nation, our military is a great experience for many people. You can learn good values such as discipline and duty from your experience in the military. As well as valuable skills that can help you out in the civilian sector.

Regarding Sarah Palin....

I'd like to point out that it is a bit harsh to label her as a total idiot. While it is clear that she has not always been well informed in some areas of knowledge this by no means should be taken that she is bereft of any intelligence. For example, the statement she made about being able to see Russia from her backyard. The liberal media ran wild with this in an effort to portray her as a stupid person.

Her statement first of all was just an expression. Often someone describes their local region as their "backyard." It's not always just a reference to the actual property you own. And at it's narrowest point the Bering Strait which separates both nations is only 55 miles wide. And in that space are two islands. One belongs to Russia and the other to Alaska. If you're on that island you actually can see Russian territory: the other island. And apparently you can see Russia from other points in Alaska, such as from St. Lawrence island.

So what we have here is a lighthearted comment entirely taken out of context with the sole purpose of attacking the woman's intelligence. And while you may not technically be able to see any significant Russian of city, and you are viewing it from Alaskan owned island, the truth is you are seeing Russian territory.

And while she may not be the intellectual equal of Barrack Obama she isn't a total idiot. When she ran as vice-president her area of expertise was limited entirely to governing her state. I'd wager many governors are not on par with the elitist media's idea of what intelligence is.

On a side note I'd also like to point out something many Obama supporters fail to grasp:

On paper Sarah Palin and Barrack Obama's credentials to serve in the White House are not all that far apart. In fact, in terms of political experience Palin may well have had the edge on Obama due to the nature of their jobs (before he became president.) That's because Obama was just a community organizer and then an ineffective and lackluster senator of marginal achievement. The role of a senator is a representative one. Not a leadership role at all. The role of governor is an executive role. That's a leadership role.

As for liberal media or right media. It's clear to me that at least in America the liberals dominate the media with any other point of view being the minority. The loathed and despised Fox News appears to be the only cable news media which is not slanted to the left. MSNBC is so heavily tilted to the left that I no longer consider them and their employees to be ethical or professional. CNN and NBC both appear to be cheerleaders for Obama. Often choosing not to report much if any on stories which may be a negative regarding him. And with liberal media figures constantly engaged in vicious personal attacks against Republican figures I take it all with a grain of salt. Referring to Palin again, surely even you'd agree that some of the media attacks on her crossed the line.

I think it is safe to say that no Americans, right or left, can truly rely on any media source to give them a professional and ethical service anymore. The media, much like our government, is irreversibly broken. Any time any media figure so much as appears to champion any particular politician they've lost their objectivity and credibility in my opinion.

And my final words Eldargal: I am all for saving the mother's life and so if an abortion is necessary for that I must accept it. I might even consider it acceptable if the pregnancy was the result of rape. Or if the baby will be born with something that shall severely decrease its quality of life. What I oppose are abortions chosen simply because a woman doesn't want the responsibility of being a mother. Maybe she finds it's too much of an imposition and change to her lifestyle to become a mother. Still, I advocate having the child and giving it up for adoption before choosing an abortion no matter what. It gives life a chance. And yes, a woman has a right to make choices involving her body. Can't deny that. The problem is when she's pregnant she now has another life in her body. And by extension this gives the father some right to it in my opinion. Not all men will be deadbeats. Some of us want the kid. I think that any woman who'd consider an abortion is morally obligated to inform any man she is with about it before they choose to have sex. Sure, many a guy won't really care being in the...erm..."heat of the moment." But some of us do. I ended a long relationship because the woman told me she would have an abortion if she got pregnant and didn't care about how I felt about it. She told me this after the...um.."heat of the moment." And she wasn't using contraceptives. Consequently I elected for us to no longer have those "heated moments" and then ended our relationship.

eldargal

02-24-2012, 01:43 AM

Oh, quite, the oversized executive is certainly the key phrase, but the fact is with a larger military there is the tendency for the executive to become oversized to match it. Witness the unprecedented expansion in federal power under Woodrow Wilson in response to WWI. I would certainly agree that the military of the US has not and probably will not be a thread to liberty, however the industrial-military complex is (as foreseen by Eisenhower), if only for its influence in Washington. If the military is not a threat, though, why then the need for an armed citizen militia as per the second amendment?;)

My comments about Palin may be coloured by a profound dissapointment, I was incredibly impressed with her initally and thought she could be a wonderful advancement for women. The media were certainly quite cruel to her, I would accuse them of sexism had they not been quite cruel to most republicans regardless of gender.:rolleyes:

Saving lives and feminism (in the true sense of the word, women's right to control their life) are the only reasons I support abortion. If you ban it, more women and children will die and you can't tell me this is a good outcome. However if you have abortion you also have to accept that some women will have them for the wrong reasons. There are ways of limiting this which also need support (birth control being the obvious example).

I'm not overly fond of Obama if only for his repeated snubs of Britain. Not professional, whatever his personal feelings may or may not be.

Grenadier

02-24-2012, 01:58 AM

Please don't get me started about Woodrow Wilson. Despicable man he was...despicable.

Eisenhower called it right I think. But at the time of WW1, and to a degree in WW2, it was sadly necessary to grow both the military and the Executive in my opinion for the sake of war time national security. However, that's not to say it could have been done better. Such as not rounding up the Japanese and putting them in what amounted to prison camps. But I would argue in times of war sometimes for the sake of the nation a little liberty must give way. Luckily the era of massive world wars is over and hopefully we should never see such things again.

I wasn't entirely a supporter of Palin but I nonetheless would defend her when it was warranted. There is a double standard in how the media treats Liberal women and Conservative women in American media. Essentially it is perfectly acceptable to bash and attack a female Conservative while Liberal women are sacred. Also, the National Organization for Women tend to not support Conservative women in the same fashion they would a Liberal woman. Though Hilary Clinton got some crap thrown at her it would never rise to the same level as a Palin or other Conservative woman would get. And while Hilary Clinton is a left winger I do admire her for going against the grain of the left. She will do as she pleases and not let them master her where others are happy to be following the left's orders.

The problem I see with abortion, aside from the fact that some people simply devalue human life, is that it can easily be turned into a tool to decrease personal responsibility. I feel the growing lack of personal responsibility for behavior (in more ways than abortion) and choices is detrimental to the health of society.

DrLove42

02-24-2012, 04:51 AM

Wow. I would like to take the time to thank you Grenadier for what is definently a well thought out and eloquent counter argument, as opposed to al lot of the intitial replies of "Oh god you say we suck therefore you must suck too!" replies.

I'll admit i've had to skim read your post, as i am at work and unfortunatly don't have the time to read the detailed reply you have provided.

But you are right on many points. And at the end of it politics will always comes down to personal choice.

My problem always comes from a international perspective i'll admit. Most elections in other countries have little to no effect on me. Germany (ok thats a bad choice from a Brit)....France (no not much better)...Spain....lets go with Romania (safe option) could have a election next week and get a new leader. And basically none of the decisions made by the new or former governemt would have any effect on me. But thats not the case for the States. Like it or not the States is the biggest power in any political pool these days. So a country that I have absolutly no say in the democratic process of WILL affect me and my life in a big way. In the 60's that was destroying the world in Nuclear fire. Now its destroying the economy of the world (admittadly EVERYONES fault there) or destroying the world in pollution. People may not believe in global warming, but the realities of the emissions cannot be ignored. The US produces 25% of the worlds CO2 for less than 10% of the worlds population. And the idea of someone who is fuelled by his beliefs getting into the Oval Office and deciding "Well. I don't believe in it. So i'm just going to ignore anyone who says otherwise and soldier on" is worrying to the rest of the world

I touched on gun culture and you again answered very well with your 3 groups. Your first is the stereotype and probably isn't as common as the media portray to the rest of the world. The 2nd (your redneck friends) is terrifiying to me. I have driven across the deep south. I've heard local radio there and seen things that make me think the gene pool needs something stronger than chlorine in it down there. And the 3rd is the reasonable one. You sya you only target shoot, but do you own your own gun? Do you keep a handgun in the house? What would you do if someone broke into your house? Thats the one thing I admire about it, is the rights to defend your own property. IF you catch someone breaking into your house in this country and do anything more severe than smile and offer to make them tea (woo British stereotyping!) you'll probably end up in Jail for 25 years.

I will ask what Knife crime is like in the US? Its our main problem over here in a culture that isn't armed. Armed police here are a rarity. Which i'm thankful for.

Final points - I'm pro-choice for abortion. However it does, as Eldargal mentioned promote a culture of "**** him. Now I'm pregnant. **** it. I'll just get it aborted, so i don't need to be careful next time" thats fuels the casual sex approach we have in the west. Although I grew up in a town with the highest ratio of teenage pregnancy in Britain, 10% of my school had dropped out by 16 for sprog-popping and i once heard a woman claim she had 5 kids by 6 dads. I choose to not to think that one through too much

I'm also pro gay marriage. I'll admit that I used to be more reserved about that. I wasn't sure. But since getting engaged myself and growing a bit I have no problem with it. Marriage these days isn't religious unless you choose it to be.

Also - I'm agnostic. Believe whole heartedly in the existance of a god or a higher power (as a scientist thats probably a bit wierd, but theres too much that can't be explained still) but don't believe in any organised religion. I don't need a set of rules applied from a 1000 year old book to tell me whats right and whats wrong in life.

Final Final point - On the subject of relgion. Watch Dogma. Truely brilliant film, and a great commentary on what is wrong with modern religion

Chronowraith

02-24-2012, 05:03 AM

And yes, we are advocates of a robust military. And I do not see how a strong military equates to bigger government. In my mind it equates to a stronger military which can better defend this nation and its interests. Good tools for a strong nation include wise leadership and a willingness to engage in effective diplomacy, a strong economy, an edge in technology, medicine, industry, education, and a robust military. After all, diplomacy sometimes fails and when a war is inevitable it is good to have a robust military.

I speak in strictly number terms here. It's a well known fact that the US Department of Defense is the worlds largest single employer if you were to break out each agency into it's own "company". Even if you took away troop numbers the Department of Defense is still one of the worlds largest employers of a civilian workforce.

Lastly, you can claim Republicans are not advocates of smaller government for the reasons you gave above. That's fair enough. But I suspect those things you cited are the result of things you dislike about the Republican party and to you these things represent larger government.

I feel the need to say that I'm an independent. I don't agree with either party's approach. I dislike how Republicans try and tackle social issues that our federal government was never designed to address. I also dislike how Democrats feel the need to bloat government necessarily.

By the way, I don't a history lesson on these matters. I know American history well.

But not everyone taking part in the discussion knows American history well. Hence any lingering on the subject at times.

You cite the coinage and religious statements that exist, such as "Under God." I personally do not see these as a government endorsement of religion. Rather, I see it as religious expression.

The reason being there is a fine line between expression and endorsement and usually expression implies endorsement (although I'll admit that is not always the case). Lastly, the phrase appears on Federal Coinage and a federally endorsed pledge of allegiance.

I will also point out at this time that I'm not a rabid anti-religious person. I argue these points out of fairness. If our coins said, "In Buddha we trust" I can guarantee that most social conservatives would be throwing a fit.

I'd write more but it's time for work.

Grenadier

02-24-2012, 05:35 AM

I knew the Department of Defense was a huge employer but not as big as you say it is. Nonetheless, I'm content with that. It does employ a lot of civilians. And military personnel do have good benefits as well as learning useful skills they can parlay into a job when they become civilians. And so I do not see it as a bad thing that it is so large. America is in dire need of jobs as it is. So anything that employees people is a good thing in my opinion. Regardless of our political affiliation we all have bills, families to feed, and the like in common. Well that and dying eventually too....

Democrats as well try to tackle social issues that government has no business being in. As I've alluded to previously there are certain things which I consider to be personal choices that the left often tries to control. Or they will try to impose social change through the government. For example: hate crimes, hate speech, and the whole politically correct thing. While in theory these ideas are good more often than not they fail in practice. Especially hate crimes. The spirit of them is good I think. But I also see them as discriminatory. For example, assault is assault regardless of the victim's status. Beat up a straight guy and its the same as beating up a gay man. However, the gay man receives special status by virtue of being a cherry picked minority. And that can earn him special treatment in terms of the law. Even though the actual crime is the same. If I'm not wrong hate crimes were created to combat the discrimination against certain minorities within the judicial system. So it is ironic that these hate crime laws have become discriminatory themselves. I also feel they exacerbate the problem because those not protected by hate crime laws may well eventually begin to feel discriminated against. Or even persecuted. As for hate speech, while such nonsense is reprehensible it's still speech. To criminalize certain types of speech in my opinion is the same as criminalizing thought. Social change may well be a necessary thing in our world. But it is not the government's place to force it upon people. I believe the liberal method of doing so reflects their lack of faith in their fellow man and their faith in government.

Yes, it is good you pointed out that not everyone knows American well and so I apologize for my previous statement.

I'd also agree that expression can imply endorsement. It certainly appears to do so in our Pledge of Allegiance or on our coinage. To that end I'd not necessarily oppose removal of these. But would a president swearing in with a hand on the bible be an endorsement? I don't think so. Provided the president could opt out of using the bible, or if he were so inclined to use another religious text. The same with court. Where you have to swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth so help you God. The way I see it what we need in this country is choice. You may choose to or to choose to opt out of thing without any penalty for your choice.

To give you an example of when it does not imply endorsement I'll cite a recent event at a nearby local high school. The Freedom From Religion Foundation, ever on the lookout for public signs of religious expression, took exception to a tradition the high school held. Before every football game they would have a prayer. In my opinion it's not such a big deal. But the FFRF had a different view. And so they leaned on the school and threatened them with their cronies the American Civil Liberties Union (which almost always is suing on behalf of some left wing or anti-religion agenda.) Claiming the usual separation of church and state rule. Consequently the school caved and gave up their traditional prayer before football practice. Now, this is in fact a public school and so it does receive taxpayer funding. However, in my local region almost all public schools fund their extracurricular activities through fund raising. Such as selling disgusting and overpriced chocolate bars and other things. And since the game itself has nothing to do with government I don't see how the prayer would even remotely be considered a government endorsement of religion. Yet, it is what it is and the FFRF scored another victory in their agenda to push Christianity out of the social arena.

As for me I side with fairness in all things. And I'm only a social Conservative regarding certain things. For example, I'm supportive of gay marriage. But I oppose legalized drugs. I'm for certain forms of entitlements. But opposed to a society dependent upon them. I'm for the right to bear arms. But also for stricter gun laws. Such as nobody convicted of a violent crime should be allowed to own a firearm. Or someone with a mental illness that may lead them to committing a violent crime. I'm also for a "firearm license." It'd be the same thing as your driver's license. You have to take a test and pass it. This would prove a person is competent in the use of a firearm and gun safety. Or not. And you'd also have to periodically renew the license but also prove again competency. Failure to do so results in revocation of the license. Also, using a firearm to commit a crime also results in permanent revocation, in addition to the penalties for the crime committed. Of course this is just an idea of man. But as a responsible gun owner I would not object to having such a requirement.

Grenadier

02-24-2012, 06:30 AM

Dr. Love:

I pm'd my reply to you because I didn't see yours before I posted my last response. And I didn't want to double post with another very long message.

DrLove42

02-24-2012, 06:57 AM

Dr. Love:

I pm'd my reply to you because I didn't see yours before I posted my last response. And I didn't want to double post with another very long message.

I haven't got anything yet :confused:

Grenadier

02-24-2012, 07:57 AM

Perhaps I did something incorrectly then. I'm still familiarizing myself with the functions here.

My time is limited so I can't give more articulate answers. But to answer your question regarding the knife related crime rates I don't know what they are.

Yes, I do own firearms and they're not kept at a gun range. They're kept inside my apartment. In America the gun laws vary from state to state, and in some cases varies between locations within states. This can create a convoluted mess of laws to sort out. The laws vary in terms of what kinds of firearms you're allowed to own, how old you must be to possess one, and what you can do with them. For example, my state allows owners to acquire a permit which allows them to "conceal and carry." This does not mean, however, you can conceal and carry wherever you please. There are logical and reasonable restrictions involved. You can also carry a pistol in a holster on your hip in the open where I live. But doing so does raise eyebrows understandably.

I do not object to certain ideas regarding the restriction of them. This includes an idea of mine: you must have a valid operator's license to legally drive a vehicle in America. After all, operating a vehicle is an awesome responsibility. The act of driving is one of a nature that does in fact put the vehicle's occupants and people outside the vehicle at risk. So why not apply this to firearms? But on a much deeper level?

You'd have to reach a minimum age requirement.
You'd have to pass a test designed to prove or disprove you are either competent with the safe use of firearms or not.
Persons with any violent crimes in their history, or persons with significant mental disorders that may lead them to violence will not be permitted the license.
You'd have to periodically renew this license, demonstrating each time that you are competent by retaking the the test.
Should you commit any crime involving the use of a firearm you own you will have the license permanently revoked. In addition, of course, to appropriate penalties for the crime committed.
If you are found in possession of a firearm without the license then you will not be given the right to apply for license.

This would not just be required by states but it would also be a federal requirement and subject to federal penalty.

On to some thoughts about the right to bear arms:

I have a theory that in my mind, and in some part, may account for why European nations or the U.K. disallow the right to ban arms. And it has to do with the view of Thomas Jefferson on this matter. The aforementioned nations have a long history of oppressive governments, bloody wars, and bloody revolutions. And today it seems many of these nations have "big governments" which intrude very much into the lives of citizens in many various ways. It's my belief that the right to bear arms is denied to them as a tool of oppression. It is easier to control citizens who cannot easily oppose tyranny than it is to control armed citizens. That's not to say I think any specific nation over there is tyrannical. Merely more controlling of its people than America is.

Some quotes from Jefferson which support my theory:

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny from government."

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it is not needed until they try to take it."

"When the people fear their government there is tyranny. When the government fears the people there is liberty."

"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to always be kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all.

These quotes I feel support my belief that the citizenry has not just the right but the moral obligation to rise up against tyranny if it is so necessary. I dare say if the citizens of some of today's more notorious oppressive regimes were armed they too would rise up. It is also said that some Japanese general advised against the invasion of the American mainland because they would be facing a gun behind every bush and every tree.

Now let us move on to crimes involving weapons. And for this I turn again to Jefferson to support my point:

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make thing worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They serve rather to encourage rather than prevent homicides for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

And:

"The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining or aiding them in their pursuits."

What does this have to do with crimes involving the use of weapons, be it a knife or a gun? I contend that no form of weapon by virtue of existing increases the rate of crimes. I also contend that their deterrent value in crime prevention, while not easily measured, is plainly evident. You say there is a high rate of crime involving knives where you are from. And the myth of America is because we allow citizens to own guns we have high crime rates. It is my belief that the crime statistics would not significantly decrease if Americans were suddenly stripped of their Second Amendment right. Likewise, I do not believe the crime statistics in the U.K. would significantly increase if the citizens there suddenly were granted this right.

That's because weapons do not commit crimes. People do. And while a weapon may indeed facilitate the commission of the crime, the fact remains that it was a person's criminal intent that motivated the crime. Now, in my life I've never once used a gun to commit a crime. Nor, by virtue of having one, did I ever feel encouraged to commit a crime. And God knows there have been times in my life when committing a crime was a temptation. Responsible gun owner do not feel emboldened by owning a gun. They should neither feel encouraged to commit a crime or feel intrinsically safer for having one.

Regarding Jefferson's two quotes:

Even back then people understood that weapons do not commit crimes. But crime will always exist. There's always going to be those of criminal inclination who will seek to take from you, harm you, or kill you. And such people will certainly use whatever weapon they can get their hand on if it helps them achieve their goal. In the case of the U.K. the common knife is the weapon of choice. No doubt if the right to bear arms existed there you'd see more gun crime than knife crime. But not a significant increase in overall crime. But, like I said, crime deterrent by the right to bear arms is not a thing one can measure easily. But they do indeed deter some crimes.

More importantly, they level the playing field. By stripping the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms you are in effect forcing them to be subject to the will of criminals. Worse, you're asking them to depend upon the government and police for protection!

The grim reality is the police are not in any position to protect. They are a reactionary force who respond to a threat. If a man was breaking down my front door and armed with a weapon I would be lucky if I was able to get a call through to 911 before the assailant takes action. And even if I could it is a certainty that the police will arrive too late to rescue me. However, due to my right to bear arms, in this scenario I have a reasonable chance of defending myself. All citizens of any nation by virtue of being living beings have a God given right to defend themselves, their loved ones, and their property from assailants. I find it appalling that any government would punish any citizen for defending themselves by any means necessary. And I pity the people in the U.K. for having to be subjected to criminals with little recourse but to smile at them and hope for the best. You can never be certain of an assailant's true intentions.

Also, I'm sure any reasonable man regardless of his location would, if his life or those of his family members were in danger, he would use any means at his disposal to protect them. Even if it meant he had to kill the assailant.

And lastly, do me a favor:

Refrain from condescending remarks regarding people in the South or the use of any negative stereotypes of the people therein. While not a southerner I am a member of a much maligned and stereotyped minority in America. That being the Appalachian people. They can be found in 13 states, from the north to the south. I myself am in Kentucky in the mountains. Despite most of us being white we nonetheless are a minority due to the rampant poverty, our location, and our heritage. To most people in America as well as abroad the Appalachian, regardless of his skin color (yes we have blacks and other races here) is a ridiculed and scorned individual. Conjuring images of barefoot hillbillies dressed in overall with funny hats and drinking moonshine. The hypocritical rules of political correctness do not apply to us. We're seen as ignorant and grotesque wretches, not fit for civilized society. Because we are poor, ignorant, racist, and prone to having sex with family members. And so I'm understandably offended by remarks about "your redneck friends" and the gene pool.

Psychosplodge

02-24-2012, 08:39 AM

Your right to bear arms essentially comes from the fact that early American law is based on English law of the time, and it was at that time permissible for an Englishman (possibly restricted to protestants not sure on dates) to bear arms. This was essentially the case up until about the early twenties were the government started to fear a repeat of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia and restricted and eventually removed it. (At least that's how I remember it being taught in history)
Though it does make a nice story about freedom tyranny and scary English kings...

DrLove42

02-24-2012, 09:02 AM

Its no problem. Also I just like to emphasise anything I said in the previous point wasn't sarcastic. I do genuinely appreciate the chance for an intelligent discussion on the subject. I enjoy learning things that I don't know and expanding my knowledge so I can make a more informed decision or opinion about things (case in point I just spent 10 minutes reading the Wikipedia entry on Appalachia)

So point 1 - I'm sorry for any implied offence towards any group of people. I am not a racist and aplogise for any broadsweeping comments I may have made that appear that way. Also the comment of "your redneck friends" is not a comment on anyone in particular you know. Its a part of a british saying. Saying "the folks up north" or "our friends on the continent" doesn't refer to anyone in particular. You referred to your grouping as "redneck militia type" and my comment of "your redneck friends is just as sweeping a statement". So any insult is not intentional I promise. Also chlorine in the gene pool is again a saying here. I'm obviously not condoning cultural genocide, but would you argue against trying to prevent future generations making the same mistakes as the previous ones?

At the same time. Its the stereotype. As I said in the first post stereotypes probably apply to less than 0.001% of a population but they still persist. The stereotype of an Englishman is breifcase, bowler hat, Hugh Grant accent, tea crumpets and saluting the queen every morning. The stereotypic French person is romantic, stripy blue top with garlic round their neck. Stereotypes are broadly applied, but that doesn't mean they're true.

But they do come from somewhere. I'm sure the person you described "poor, ignorant, racist, and prone to having sex with family members" exists somewhere (as i'm sure do the other stereotypes). And thats obviously isn't the best culture to promote. Its the "U S A! U S A! U S A!" culture of we're the best, we don't need anyone else approach that isn't great. In a recent study one in 5 American 10 year olds couldn't find the USA ona map of the world. Its the culture of nothing outside our borders matters therefore we can just do what we want.

I saw in a recent debate both the Republican front runners advocated building a new wall across the entire mexico border. While I wish we could do that in this country to slow immagration, it seems like one of their top priorites is spending a fortune on a minor issue (again...not American I don't know what the mexican immagration problems are like there) when theres far more glaring ones in play? So many of their other policies seem to just be "i'm going to abolish everything the current government did first". If its not overturning the Obamacare policy, then its overturning gay marriage (btw congrats on Maryland for passing the bill (here) (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17149605)- something the republicans have already pledged to overturn at the next election)

As I feel the conversation seems to be focussing on gun culture I'd like to ask some questions (becasue I don't know the answers and would genuinely like to be informed).

Is the ammendment to carry weapons therefore based around the concept of the people should have the right to govern themselves? And that if they disagree with the choices afflicted on them, they have the right to rise up and overthrow an oppresive power?

Have you ever read any Tom Clancy (btw he is a Republican. Hes the kind of republican that needs to be on the news more than the type who currently are) books? Particularly Executive Orders? In that the entire government is gutted except our protagonist, the de facto president, that has to rebuild. Thats another good indication in where the system could use cleaning. Unless i'm mistaken (and please correct me if i'm wrong) isn't the US government built around being run by the people? Why is it then it (and i'll admit 95% of all governments) run by career politicians who have no comprehension of what the people the "govern" actually want?

Right....thats it for me for now. Home time. Gotta pick up my order from GW, and just found out Tom Clancy had a new book out recently and I don't have it yet. Toodles

wittdooley

02-24-2012, 09:48 AM

First: Love this Thread.

In regards to gun control and the militia/southern mentality:
To our British friends: it terrifies most of us respectable, licensed gun owners in the United States, too. The fact that we have people like that, from the most undereducated portion of our country, still driving around with Confederate Flags and espousing nonsense like "the south will rise again" is horrific.

In regards to Palin, again:
Here's the deal. I think it's ignorant for any of us to say that a person that has achieved a high political rank in the United States is stupid. You have to be elected, and if you're re-elected, it says even more. For as non-sensical as voting can be in the US, to get elected you at least need to be smart enough to A: Look credible, B: convince people to vote for you, or C: be smart enough to find the right people to help do the first two. With Palin, I think the prevailing problem is her seemingly unpreparedness for the "gotcha" moments. As a politician, particularly an-oft lampooned female, you'd think you'd take as many precautions as you can to not be put in those situations. She didn't, and W didn't often either. Obama doesn't place himself in those situations as often, which is probably more of a compliment to his handlers than to the president himself.

In regards to abortion:
But here's the thing, Gren.... The law doesn't consider it a life until a post-aboritionable point anyway. While ethically and morally, many conservatives consider it to be, the law doesn't agree. And here's the thing: our government doesn't give any unfit mothers any good reason to not have a kid, particularly if they're receiving social welfare anyways. More kids = more $$. Which just creates a cyclical situation where these people continue to breed, and teach their kids that's the way it's done. I have at least 7 kids that I taught, all of whom are under 21, that already have at least one child. Every one of them had sub-21 year old parents with limited educations. And then to expound it, many of our best and brightest are too consumed with their careers to have kids.

At the risk of sounding a bit crazy, I'm one American that would be wholly for some kind of birthing license in the US. The last thing we need is more uneducated, unmotived people spawning and sucking more money out of our social service programs. With all that being said, I'd rather a 17 year old meth head abort a baby than give birth to it and get the tax write off. I know that sounds incredibly callous and elitist, but hey...it is what it is.

Mexican Immigration is a huge problem in the US, but here's the thing: most Hispanics illegally entering our country are doing the jobs that the lazy, welfare sucking, government entitled class should be doing, but don't because they're getting gov't cheddar to sit around. For chrissakes, there are people complaining about the proposed law in Florida that you'd have to be drug tested to collect welfare! It SHOULD be mandatory. And also, this is purely anecdotal, but hispanic immigrants and their families from my experience are some of the most hard working people I've ever met, and most care for and appreciate deeply the education their kids receive in the country. The same can certainly not be said for the "redneck militia-types" I've worked with.

And I though the French stereotype was beret wearing, white flag waving, America haters with a cappucino?

lattd

02-24-2012, 10:33 AM

And I though the French stereotype was beret wearing, white flag waving, America haters with a cappucino?

I thought it was smelly, white flag waving, British Hating, frog eating, strike loving lazy buggers :rolleyes:

I would liken the American "Red Neck Hick" to the British Chav.

wittdooley

02-24-2012, 10:57 AM

I thought it was smelly, white flag waving, British Hating, frog eating, strike loving lazy buggers :rolleyes:

I would liken the American "Red Neck Hick" to the British Chav.

Do they hate the British too?!?! Too much hate.

lattd

02-24-2012, 11:50 AM

Yea very much and the rude V finger gesture came about from Anglo-French wars.

Grenadier

02-24-2012, 01:12 PM

Okay, in an effort to be less wordy I'll attempt to reply to Dr. Love (everytime I read your name lousy 70's porn music pops into my mind by the way) and WittDooley in the same post.

Dr. Love...(there goes that music again)...

Anent the stereotypes, I'll say I despise all forms of stereotypes.They can be used to hurt people and help foster ignorance. But I am a realist and know that they will always exist. Consequently I should not take offense to them as often as I do. Also, I will readily admit that it does seem within every stereotype there is sadly a small kernel of truth. Appalachians are rednecks. Black folk love fried chicken. Mexicans are lazy. British folks have teeth so bad they can eat corn through a picket fence. Jews are miserly. How was copper wire invented? A Jew and a Republican both found the same penny. On and on they go. And they're nothing more than a gross labeling of a large group of people. And in reality some Appalachians are white trash. Some black folks love fried chicken. And some Brits have bad teeth. Then again....all of these things can be found in any group of people! Some reason had to exist for any group of people to earn a stereotype. That reason often is something as simple as common traits amongst the people. Still, be that as it may stereotypes are ugly things which society would be better off without. You should see a "meme" a friend of mine made based on the Englishman stereotype. She calls it the "Egregious Englishman."

Now, there is nothing wrong with the USA! USA! mentality. For me it is about patriotism. This is my nation. I live here. And so my nation is more important to me than your nation or any other one. It is true many who have the mentality you spoke of aren't terribly bright and know little of their beloved nation's history. For example, one of my idiot stepbrothers. A stereotypical redneck with the IQ of a retarded dog.

True story:

Fourth of July. I asked him what the holiday was all about. After seeing the puzzled look on his face and practically hearing rusting gears slowly turn inside his skull he said "to let off fireworks."

Appalling!

I pressed him on this. And explained it is to celebrate our nation's independence. Again he didn't quite follow. So I asked him "we fought a war with this nation to secure our independence. What nation was it."

Once again the bewildered look of a man with a seldom used brain trying to work through something. Finally he said "Germany?"

So yeah, I don't like that kind of patriot. If you're so damned stupid you don't know even the most basic facts about your nation's history then what in the Hell are you proud of it for?!?

See, me personally, I know American history well. It has a lot of pros and cons. But my patriotism celebrates America's achievements and good points. And it also allows me to accept its flaws and hope to see them corrected. And so I too will proudly shout "USA! USA! USA!" when it is appropriate to do so. Like when we finally bagged Bin Laden. I'd have shouted it had I been alive when we landed on the moon as well. Or when we helped defeat Hitler. Or when Martin Luther King finally got a well deserved memorial in D.C. But not simply because blithering idiots in the crowd do so.

Yes, it appears based on the founding father's views, as demonstrated in the supplied quotes from Jefferson, that the Second Amendment does grant the right to govern themselves, and if necessary, to rise up and overthrow a tyrannical government. Remember: in America it is government for, of, and by the people. Not government for, of, and by the government.

WittDooley ol' boy....on to you....

I agree with what you said about the redneck types. Every time a shooting hits it big in the media my first thought is "oh God what have they done now?" I automatically expect it to be some right wing extremist redneck. And if you think the south is undereducated I invite you to southeastern Kentucky in the Appalachian mountains. Most people here make the most ill educated southerner look like Einstein. And the Confederate flag? I call it the Traitor's flag.

Also, the old argument that the Mexicans come here and do the job lazy Americans won't due doesn't always hold true. It depends on where you're from. Appalachia has a horrific and sadly institutionalized unemployment rate. It has a long history of being impoverished. In fact, in my county it is what I call a "minimum wage economy." Our sole industry is coal. But that employs a tiny percentage of the population. Everything else exists to support it. With the exception of coal miners the only folks who make a great living here are the handful of lawyers or doctors. Everyone else? They're blessed by God himself if they can land a lousy minimum wage job, part time job mind you, stuffing grocery bags or flipping burgers. Without industry other than coal there is little to no demand for well educated or highly skilled workers. Not that there are many like that here thanks to a piss poor educational system here. And this is true in most of Appalachia, except for perhaps the bits of it in the northern states which have always been better off.

As for abortion...I consider it sad state of affairs when the law gets to determine what is or is not a life. That judges can decide what is or is not a life is frightening. One doesn't even need to see it from a religious based morality. To me its just as reprehensible from a natural point of view. When the law is bereft of morality it no longer can be good. But this is a debate for another time and place.

Aldramelech

02-24-2012, 02:35 PM

Bored now.............

Psychosplodge

02-24-2012, 07:01 PM

If it can;t survive on it's own it's not really life, but really that's another argument....

eldargal

02-25-2012, 12:31 AM

The French don't hate Americans by and large. Parisians hold you in contempt, but they hold everyone in contempt including other French and each other. Other French tend to be fine with Americans. The British though, well, nine hundred years of intermittent warfare and constant bickering hasn't made for the best relationship at some levels.:rolleyes:

Do they hate the British too?!?! Too much hate.

One reason Europeans do view the 'USA! USA!' thing with distaste is that the last time we saw that kind of overt patriotism in Europe it led to WWII. Now I'm not for a moment saying they are one and the same, but there is a reason for it and it isn't envy or snobbishness or whatever else Americans tend to think it is.:)

I agree it is distasteful that a court or judge or what have you can decide what is considered life, if only because it is an incredibly complex issue from a scientific perspective alone, without bringing morality into it. But I do think if the foetus can't survive outside the mother then it can't be considered an independent life, rather it is part of the mother. As technology improves our ability to support premature births increases but we ar a long way from being able to sustain 'life from conception'.

Grenadier

02-25-2012, 02:29 AM

I think it was something far different than "USA! USA!" type thinking that led to WW2. National Socialism did indeed tap into that sort of mentality in the German people. But their attitude was much more complicated than the simplicity of "USA! USA!" thinking. For the German people had much deeper social issues going and other things which fed into what Hitler did to motivate them into war. After WW1 the Versailles Treaty was pretty harsh and Germany was essentially a humiliated nation with little pride in itself. So there was kind of spirit of vengeance lingering in the hearts of many Germans. "USA! USA!" thinking is really simplistic. And mostly harmless. It's unthinking and blind patriotism but it lacks the more sinister elements of the mentality that led to the rise of ****sm. I'm sad to say but most who think "USA! USA!" have a kind of blind and ignorant mindset that's all about love of country. Which isn't so bad, but it could use a dose of refinement and intellectual thought. I will say, however, there is a small minority who think that way one should keep an eye on. That being the so-called Neo ****s. The white supremacist types. The KKK types. Fortunately, though, these idiots are a small minority over all and have made such ***** of themselves and look so stupid that they've essentially become marginalized. They rear their ugly heads from time to time but few people take them serious. And I find that this is an effective tool for combating such morons. Laugh at them, mock them, marginalize them. And over time most people will.

As for the French I've never had the misfortune of encountering them so I can't really comment on their nation. As far as I'm concerned the best things to come out of France are French kissing and pasteurization!

scadugenga

02-25-2012, 02:51 AM

Wow, the things you miss being away from the Forums for awhile.

Perhaps this thread should have been titled "It's time to dispel American stereotypes to non-Americans."

I pretty much agree 100% with DarkLink, so I won't go into a whole lot of rambling.

However, gun ownership is another story.

Myth 1: Banning gun ownership will reduce violent crime

Fact: Taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens means you're creating a society of victimization. There are proven statistics (the one I remember best is in Florida) where concealed carry laws going into effect reduced violent crime by over 20%. When a armed robber was interviewed (from prison, of course) he stated that he was much less likely to rob someone now, since he couldn't tell if that person was armed or not. Gun ownership bans only affects the people who would legally own guns. They're called criminals for a reason, people.

Myth 2: Redneck gun ownership.

Fact: Yes, rednecks, hillbillies, and ridgerunners (an Alabaman term) can be kinda scary to a non-redneck/hillbilly/ridgerunner. However, they tend to be amongst the most self-controlled and knowledgeable gun owners around. Sure, their ideology may make you cringe, but they're more likely to use a gun to put food on the table than to put a human body in the ground.

Myth 3: Militia nutjobs

Fact: They do exist, yes. But they exist in places no normal person wants to be in anyways--like Montana and Michigan. They are not numerous, and we're all quite happy to let them pretend the world will end in their remote part of the American wilderness. Besides, it gives something for the BATF folks to do when not supplying guns to arms dealers in "sting" operations that get border patrolmen killed.

I am a gun owner. I'm licensed and legal. Though to be honest, if someone were to invade my home and threaten violence--well, that's what I have a sword for. I have far more years invested in that particular skill set than I have in shooting (though I've been shooting for a few years as well.) A sword carries a deeper psychological impact (shock value--who uses swords?), I have no worries about over-penetration. (Get your mind out of the gutter...) and I can control exactly where, and to what extent, I cause an injury. With a gun, it's very easy to shoot to wound, and end up killing someone.

That being said, there is a martial artist's maxim that I take to heart: When your life, or the lives of your loved ones, are at risk--it is far better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.

Now, for the elective reading bit: I have found these two links to be very educational for the uneducated person re: gun ownership and why it may save your life.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/02/robert-farago/chicago-dgu/

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1285487_Street_robberies_and_you___The_Basics.html

Grenadier

02-25-2012, 03:13 AM

I forgot a class of gun culture. I call it "the armed idiot" class. Simply put: its populated by people who mean no harm, they're not rednecks, racist supremacists, gangsta thugs...they're just simply absolute imbeciles who by virtue of their stupidity are dangerous to others.

Want an example of the armed idiot? Tune into the History Channel and watch the show "Ax Men." One of the fellows on it is "Swamp Man" Shelby Stanga. Lives down in Louisiana and makes his living harvesting waterlogged logs. Apparently there's a lot of money in that. And he's always carrying around a pistol. Understandable since his environment is laden with dangerous animals. But when he gets excited he's prone to whipping it out and firing willy nilly while gleefully shouting "awwww maaaaayun!" Or "turtle soup tonight!" In one episode he nearly shot off his toe. And in the last episode he was using the barrel of his pistol as a kind of lever to cause a massive tree to tip over. This could easily distort the barrel such that if he fires it it may well explode.

The "armed idiot" is the one gun culture I fear most. These are the fools who fire their guns up into the sky in celebration of just about anything that makes them happy. Blissfully unaware that bullets do return to earth. And it does happen that such bullets have injured and killed hapless victims.

eldargal

02-25-2012, 05:42 AM

Sorry I should have been clearer. The last time Europe saw really overt nationalism was in the lead up to WWII, so it makes Europeans uncomfortable. But the nationalism was, as you mention, symptomatic of the humiliation Germany experienced after the War. As I said they aren't the same thing, American nationalism really isn't aggressive. Honestly it is quaint more than anything else. But it is still distasteful to most Europeans.

Of course German humiliation at the Treaty of Versaille was the fault of Woodrow Wilson so we can still blame that on you 'merikans.:p

The French really don't deserve their reputation in America to be honest. I mean Parisians are a bit nasty sometimes but otuside Paris they are lovely. I recommend going to Lyon over Paris especially if you are into food.

I think it was something far different than "USA! USA!" type thinking that led to WW2. National Socialism did indeed tap into that sort of mentality in the German people. But their attitude was much more complicated than the simplicity of "USA! USA!" thinking. For the German people had much deeper social issues going and other things which fed into what Hitler did to motivate them into war. After WW1 the Versailles Treaty was pretty harsh and Germany was essentially a humiliated nation with little pride in itself. So there was kind of spirit of vengeance lingering in the hearts of many Germans. "USA! USA!" thinking is really simplistic. And mostly harmless. It's unthinking and blind patriotism but it lacks the more sinister elements of the mentality that led to the rise of ****sm. I'm sad to say but most who think "USA! USA!" have a kind of blind and ignorant mindset that's all about love of country. Which isn't so bad, but it could use a dose of refinement and intellectual thought. I will say, however, there is a small minority who think that way one should keep an eye on. That being the so-called Neo ****s. The white supremacist types. The KKK types. Fortunately, though, these idiots are a small minority over all and have made such ***** of themselves and look so stupid that they've essentially become marginalized. They rear their ugly heads from time to time but few people take them serious. And I find that this is an effective tool for combating such morons. Laugh at them, mock them, marginalize them. And over time most people will.

As for the French I've never had the misfortune of encountering them so I can't really comment on their nation. As far as I'm concerned the best things to come out of France are French kissing and pasteurization!

Grenadier

02-25-2012, 08:10 AM

Woodrow Wilson.

(spits in contempt at the mention of that vile man's name.)

I know nothink! Nothink! Of the French really. Just the usual stereotypes. And have never met anyone from there. If I ever got to travel abroad I don't think France would be high on my list of places though. I'm not sure how well treated I'd be in England but I'd like to see it and Scotland. Then Germany and the Czech Republican.

MaltonNecromancer

02-25-2012, 08:49 AM

Scadugenga, I must take issue with a number of things you've said. This is largely because I live in the UK, where we have some of the strictest gun control laws in the world, and as a nation, we're pretty okay with that. In fact, you never hear anyone ever ask for looser gun controls, only stricter ones. Which I'd be in favour of myself.

So...

Myth 1: Banning gun ownership will reduce violent crime

Guns are banned here, and yes, we still have violent crime... we just don't have many shootings. Which is a good thing. Because getting beaten up isn't as bad as getting shot.

Fact: Taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens means you're creating a society of victimization.

Ummm... This statement is veeeeery over-the-top. Seriously, guns aren't the only way to avoid being a victim! Confidence, self-defense classes, knowing the right places to walk through prior research... The list goes on. No-one I know has ever owned a gun (with the exception of one friend who owns a black-powder musket, though I don't think that's the kind of gun you're talking about here; I can't see the forty second reload time allowing him to defend himself as effectively :rolleyes:). No-one I know has ever complained about not being able to own a gun. EVER. Honestly, I don't think it even occurs to people as an option - culturally, you don't ask for guns here; you ask for stronger policing. I honestly think most UK citizens care in the slightest about their relative inability to own firearms, and I don't think many of us generally feel like victims. I mean, I've been attacked three times, mugged once, and I can honestly say I don't think a gun would have been of the slightest help. I was burgled once; can't see how a gun would have helped because I was out at the time.

I mean,"a society of victimization" is a great sounding bit of hyperbole, but it's just not true.

There are proven statistics (the one I remember best is in Florida) where concealed carry laws going into effect reduced violent crime by over 20%. When a armed robber was interviewed (from prison, of course) he stated that he was much less likely to rob someone now, since he couldn't tell if that person was armed or not. Gun ownership bans only affects the people who would legally own guns. They're called criminals for a reason, people.

Now, these stats are all well and good for the USA - your country does have a real... well, "thing" for guns, in the same way the UK has a "thing" for tea.

All I will say is that I personally like living in a country where no-one can carry a gun on the street without being locked up for many, many years. I like the fact that gun crime is largely unknown (outside of the occasional horrendous shooting every few years or the occasional sad bit of gang violence). I like the fact that my nation's police don't carry firearms unless they're part of the highly elite SO19 rapid response firearms unit.

England's a nation of thugs, no doubt. We have knife crime and murders, and more violence on the streets after a night out drinking than is readily concievable. But we don't have guns, and I tell you now: I firmly believe our nation is better off because of it. And I don't think I'm alone in that. Seriously, I've never heard a single person complain about our hyper-strict control of guns.

(Well, except the same mate with the black powder musket, but that's only because it means he has to set his modern-day D20 game in the US so the characters can shoot the baddies. :))

Anyway, I think it's just a different culture. I'm not US-bashing; I like America and American culture quite a lot. All I would really say is: come on holiday to the UK. See for yourself how it feels.

Oh, and I'm with Eldargal on the French; it is a really lovely country, and apart from the fact that when you're outside of Paris, 90% of the time you'll be driving at 10 miles an hour behind a tractor, it's great. Plus their horror films are excellent.

Grenadier

02-25-2012, 09:13 AM

Fortunately for Americans Thomas Jefferson disagreed with that viewpoint. All too often this kind of debate over guns between Englishmen and Americans seems to be boil down to "my nation is better because we ban guns (or allow guns.)

England doesn't have a frame of reference when it comes to gun crime stats due to the fact they don't have guns. So it is a bit foolish to compare the crime rates of the two nations on the basis of firearms. Also, plenty of other factors come into play. Such as numbers. America is a much larger nation with a much larger population. And we have much larger areas such as poor ghettos and the like that have higher crime rates than other areas. Its my belief that if the English were allowed to carry firearms there'd be no appreciable uptick in violent crimes. Likewise if guns were suddenly banned in America there'd be no appreciable descrease of violent crimes. Again, the weapon of choice doesn't commit crime. People do. And wherever you go there will be criminals. Logically speaking, it makes sense that America by sheer size of population and diversity of race, ethnicity, and economic status, would have a higher criminal element than the smaller population of England. Ultimately, in my opinion, it's foolish to debate with the British if allowing guns or banning guns affect the rate of crime since both nations can't really compare to each other for the reasons cited and any I left out.

scadugenga

02-25-2012, 09:32 AM

Malton, a few things:

1) Everything I wrote was within the context of American culture and about life here, not the UK. So much of your disagreement confuses me. Not once did I compare the UK and America. Guns are banned in the UK. You never had the right to own them. So why would my statement even remotely suggest than you can/did? Or that you should?

2) Here's another myth for you: Guns are more deadly than knives. A knife is an incredibly deadly weapon, you need no more than 3 or 4 inches of blade to be able to deliver lethal injuries to someone. And in fact, if you have a chat about knife-fighting with someone truly experienced and trained with the weapon (say an escrimador/kali practitioner) and they will tell you the most likely outcome of a knife fight: the loser dies, the winner goes into the hospital for a long long time.

Guns are more randomly deadly than blades, to be sure. But in the end a gun, knife, baseball bat (cricket bat?) et al are simply tools. They facilitate one person being able to kill/injure another. It's the person behind the tool that should be the real concern, not the tool itself. :)

Grenadier

02-25-2012, 09:36 AM

I wonder what hurts more. A gunshot or a vicious knife wound?

One of these days I might regale you all with the story of how my pocket knife got me in trouble with the Secret Service.

MaltonNecromancer

02-25-2012, 10:54 AM

Everything I wrote was within the context of American culture and about life here, not the UK. So much of your disagreement confuses me. Not once did I compare the UK and America. Guns are banned in the UK. You never had the right to own them. So why would my statement even remotely suggest than you can/did? Or that you should?

But that would mean that the main argument for owing guns is "because we've always been allowed to in the past", which is a silly, silly argument. We used to allow people to buy cocaine at the chemist, and some Victorian headache relief drinks worked because they had raw opium in them! Just because you've always done something is no reason to keep doing it!

I also don't think a discussion of the relative lethality of guns to knives is helpful either. True, a knife is a tool... but I can use a knife to lay carpet, cut up a steak, make the Ork Mega-Dred I'm currently working on. All a gun does is kill things and put holes in paper targets. In terms of versatility, there is a genuine need for knives to be legal, unlike guns, where no such need exists (in terms of common citizenry, you understand).

Also, again in the UK, we attempt to strictly control knives. Granted, it doesn't work, but that's largely due to how concealable a knife is. However, anyone carrying a blade over two inches long in the UK is looking at getting that knife confiscated and destroyed at best, or being sent to prison for a few months.

"my nation is better because we ban guns (or allow guns.)

But I never said that! I just don't get why anyone would ever want to own a gun! It's bizarre to me. It's not that "My nation's better" it's more a case of "my country doesn't understand your country".

I get the history; I understand that for many years in the distant past, America required a militia. I genuinely don't see why America needs a militia now. You've not been invaded in a hundred years, and if you were, the nukes would do the talking and that would be it for the planet.

England doesn't have a frame of reference when it comes to gun crime stats due to the fact they don't have guns. So it is a bit foolish to compare the crime rates of the two nations on the basis of firearms.

But we do have guns, both legal and illegal! They're just much harder to get hold of. I think you can make a relative comparison; at the end of the day, people are just people - they'll always want a reason to batter each other.

I wonder what hurts more. A gunshot or a vicious knife wound?

According to my mate Chris, they're both pretty bad. The knife wound was deeper and harder to stitch up, the gunshot was more painful due to the burning.

Frankly, I don't want either.

Why can we all just have a cup of tea and get along? :)

Chronowraith

02-25-2012, 11:30 AM

Myth 3: Militia nutjobs

Fact: They do exist, yes. But they exist in places no normal person wants to be in anyways--like Montana and Michigan. They are not numerous, and we're all quite happy to let them pretend the world will end in their remote part of the American wilderness. Besides, it gives something for the BATF folks to do when not supplying guns to arms dealers in "sting" operations that get border patrolmen killed.

Your attempt to dispel this myth just leads to another myth itself. According to statistics I've seen from federal government agencies, states such as Michigan, West Virginia, and Virginia possess far more militias than those in Montana or Idaho. The FBI and ATF assess that this is largely due to many of those states having some of the most lax gun control laws in the union. That being said, most of those states also have relatively high unemployment as well, there are several correlations to be made - not just gun control laws. This isn't really even intended as a comment on gun control, just disputing your comment that militias only exist in parts of the U.S. with low population. That is in fact the actual myth.

Or did you forget this story from back in 2010?
http://articles.cnn.com/1996-10-11/us/9610_11_militia.update_1_fbi-agents-militia-members-bomb-plot?_s=PM:US

Now admittedly that story takes place in West Virginia, a place ill-reputed for it's back-woods nature. However, West Virginia is still densely populated compared to most of the U.S. and it's well within driving distance of Washington D.C. (I know several people who live in WV and who commute to jobs in the DC Metro area).

I would also say that I'm licensed to carry and military qualified on several weapons as a job requirement. Personally, I'm all for gun control... but that's me.

Lastly, regarding your links about gun ownership... those are some extremely biased sites and just as biased as the links provided by anti-gun and gun control advocates. In fact, the "Truth about Guns" website is so blatantly biased that it has links like the "ATF Deathwatch".

The best way to win over people to your side is to present unbiased facts to them and let them make the call. No sensational reporting like the aforementioned "ATF Deathwatch", no politicking, and no misrepresentation of the facts. Present both sides of the story and the numbers that attempt to back up both. Only the ignorant like being force fed an opinion.

Grenadier

02-25-2012, 12:03 PM

It may well be a fruitless endeavor trying to explain guns and America to someone from a nation which such a vastly different view. The one commonality is that England has been the way it is regarding guns for a very long time, and America has been the way it is on this matter for a very long time. So long that both views have become institutionalized within the culture. And so to you gun ownership, or the desire to own one, is a foreign concept. Any effort to explain it from an American point of view may be a futile effort. Not because you're stupid or anything like that but rather the cultural difference is so great between us that reaching understanding on this matter is excpetionally difficult. It would be like trying to convince a dog to love catnip and a cat to love eating its own poop.

Nonetheless I'll try.

You think the desire to own a gun is bizarre. Why would anyone want one? Well, then you might ask all sorts of other questions. Such as "why would anyone want to own a car? Or a boat? Why would anyone want to spend hours painting tiny little plastic soldiers? Why?"

What I'm suggesting is this is all about preference. Why own a knife? Or a screwdriver?

You seem to believe that a gun is not a tool. I disagree. It is a tool. A tool for a specific purpose. A purpose determined by he who wields the gun. Dispense with any myths like "guns kill people." While that is true one can just as easily kill with any of thousands of objects. Big screwdrivers do some rather nasty damage to a person let me tell you.

Yes a gun is a tool. You may think a gun can only do one thing: kill. While it can kill it does other things. Things like providing enjoyment by engaging in sport shooting. A gun can provide protection and defense. And they can even provide entertainment. And for some, most importantly, they provide survival. And they're also collectible. Which can be profitable. Now I'll go on to explain each of the above in a bit of detail.

Killing:

Dispense with the notion that "guns kill people." They do not. People do that. The gun is just the tool they've chosen for the job. So yes, sometimes people are murdered by them. And sometimes they die because of a gun related accident. A gun is a dangerous thing but it still a tool. A lot of people die every year from accidents involving other tools. I knew a guy who fell onto a table saw and died from the injury sustained. Guns also can be used to kill the bad guy. Guns can also be used, if one is so inclined, to commit any number of crime. Not a recommended use of it I must say.

Sport shooting:

This includes hunting or just shooting at clay pigeons or other targets. A golfer uses his club to hit a small ball a great distance. His aim is to get closest to the hole in as few swings as possible. A hockey player uses his stick to move a puck into firing position and hopefully score a goal. To this end a gun is just a piece of sporting equipment. Sporting equipments technically are tools for a very specific task. I myself engage in target shooting. I refuse to hunt because I love animals and I'd be mortified if I killed one and wracked with guilt.

Entertainment:

While it is on the wane it still exists. Gone are the days of Annie Oakley and The Wild West Show. But there still are "exhibition shooters" out there who perform incredible feats of accuracy and "trick shots" that entertain audiences. I've seen guys toss a washer into the air and be able to pass a bullet through the hole in its center. Or cut a playing card in half. And while my skill with a gun is considerable I've got a long way to go before I can pull off a feat like this.

Survival:

Not every American has equal and easy access to food. While this not so much an issue in heavily populated states or the large cities it is an issue in some of the less populated states and especially those with high poverty rates. For example, I'm an Appalachian. And where I live is one of the most impoverished places in this nation. In many aspects its not all that different from some third world countries. And despite government handouts like food stamps people are still in need. One cannot make it living off the government. So many families here are fed by hunting. The men in the family will hunt to put food on the table. This can also be profitable. Such as in Louisiana. There are families who make a living hunting alligators. Also, some believe that hunting helps the environment by curbing overpopulation of animal species. This is a somewhat controversial belief and one I particularly do not believe in. In addition, many in areas like mine and elsewhere often encounter highly dangerous animals which would kill them. What is the most dangerous animal you'll run into over there in England? A rat? Where I live bears come down and get into my garbage. And it's not uncommon for me to find a rattlesnake or copperhead sitting on the sidewalk in front of my apartment. So sometimes people need to defend themselves. I'm not so worried about the animals myself. I have a way with them and can easily catch a snake.

Collecting:

Rare guns, or antique guns can be worth a lot of money. Many gun collectors don't even fire them. But there's big money in gun collecting. I personally always wanted Luger. I did have a M1 Carbine. During some hard times I sold it off and made 1400 bucks for it.

Security and defense:

Dispel any notions that you can always rely on the cops to come save you or stop a crime. They're reactionary. They often do not arrive on time. There are plenty of documented cases in which a crime was stopped by an armed citizen. There've been examples where a criminal was held at gunpoint until the police arrived and arrested him. And there have been instances in which lives were saved because a citizen had a gun.

When I was a child I lived in a hollow with a second family. One day a man armed with a pistol came walking into the hollow. We spotted him coming as he was still quite far from the house. He was intent on killing one of the family members for some transgression he imagined. But by the time he got to the house he had two pistols, one deer rifle, and one 12 gauge shot gun staring at him. After some words he turned around, pistol in hand, and walked away.

My last word on the gun issue:

It's understandable why someone raised in a nation which has disdain for guns doesn't understand why another nation embraces them. I can't fault you for that. After all, to me as an America I can't fathom why you guys still have a royal family and why some of you like them. Especially since the concept of a royal family is as alien to an American as owning a gun is to a Brit. It is what it is my friend. And it ain't what it ain't. These are just things which make our nations and cultures unique.

But that would mean that the main argument for owing guns is "because we've always been allowed to in the past", which is a silly, silly argument. We used to allow people to buy cocaine at the chemist, and some Victorian headache relief drinks worked because they had raw opium in them! Just because you've always done something is no reason to keep doing it!

I also don't think a discussion of the relative lethality of guns to knives is helpful either. True, a knife is a tool... but I can use a knife to lay carpet, cut up a steak, make the Ork Mega-Dred I'm currently working on. All a gun does is kill things and put holes in paper targets. In terms of versatility, there is a genuine need for knives to be legal, unlike guns, where no such need exists (in terms of common citizenry, you understand).

Also, again in the UK, we attempt to strictly control knives. Granted, it doesn't work, but that's largely due to how concealable a knife is. However, anyone carrying a blade over two inches long in the UK is looking at getting that knife confiscated and destroyed at best, or being sent to prison for a few months.

But I never said that! I just don't get why anyone would ever want to own a gun! It's bizarre to me. It's not that "My nation's better" it's more a case of "my country doesn't understand your country".

I get the history; I understand that for many years in the distant past, America required a militia. I genuinely don't see why America needs a militia now. You've not been invaded in a hundred years, and if you were, the nukes would do the talking and that would be it for the planet.

But we do have guns, both legal and illegal! They're just much harder to get hold of. I think you can make a relative comparison; at the end of the day, people are just people - they'll always want a reason to batter each other.

According to my mate Chris, they're both pretty bad. The knife wound was deeper and harder to stitch up, the gunshot was more painful due to the burning.

Frankly, I don't want either.

Why can we all just have a cup of tea and get along? :)

lattd

02-25-2012, 01:37 PM

Watching bowling for Columbine, explains a lot of the issues surrounding the gun culture in America.

MaltonNecromancer

02-25-2012, 08:43 PM

The one commonality is that England has been the way it is regarding guns for a very long time, and America has been the way it is on this matter for a very long time. So long that both views have become institutionalized within the culture.

Yeah, basically this. As far as the Queen, my whole feeling is that if you're going to have a figurehead, well, why not her? She's better than David Cameron. :) I reckon might lose the royal family after Prince Charles takes the throne. Basically because the Queen is scarily hyper-competent at being a national figurehead and Charles...? Not so much.

Dispense with the notion that "guns kill people." They do not. People do that

All I can think of when I read this is the glorious episode of "King of The Hill" where they have the following exchange:

Hank: "Guns are dangerous"
Bill: "Guns are dangerous? Well, I can't believe that. Surely the government would have said something."

I miss that series...

Also reminds me of this song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJ83KXUloP8

Watching bowling for Columbine, explains a lot of the issues surrounding the gun culture in America.

Saw it when it first came out; thought it raised a number of pertinent issues, although it wasn't helped by Michael Moore's embarrassingly obvious left-wing bias (and this is coming from someone who's extraordinarily left-wing).

Necron2.0

02-25-2012, 11:57 PM

I wonder what hurts more. A gunshot or a vicious knife wound?

I'm assuming that's rhetorical? If not, knife wounds are by far more painful.

As for the motivations of inanimate objects ...
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_y8ag4VGcCHo/TTQdIZmSm0I/AAAAAAAAKq0/yurr2rNyAGc/s400/guns24.jpg

wittdooley

02-26-2012, 12:07 AM

Watching bowling for Columbine, explains a lot of the issues surrounding the gun culture in America.

Oh god no. There's your problem. Michael Mooreia just awful, and bowling for columbine is one of the most dishonest "documentaries" in recent American history.

Grenadier

02-26-2012, 02:55 AM

Michael Moore is a hypocrite. He threw his support to the Occupy bowel movement all the while he himself is part of that unholy 1 Percent they loathe. Made more evident by his lawsuit in which he's seeking more money for his crappy films. And of course his glorification of Cuba's health care system and how much better off we'd be if we were like that. Seemingly unaware that many Cuban's flee to America. You have to wonder if things are so great in Cuba then why are they coming here to live? Michael Moore is no better than Bill Maher: a leftist with extreme views and exploit the media so they can get rich. Moore's bias is so extensive I feel he discredits himself completely. He, like Maher, are unwilling...or rather incapable, of welcoming another point of view, or entertaining one counter to the left. The moment a man allows his ideology to run his mind to the extent opposing points of view are not just ignored but treated with contempt and scorn is the moment the man no longer is a free thinker. Both of these reprehensible men are not free thinking men. They're just slaves to their ideology.

MaltonNecromancer

02-26-2012, 08:42 AM

They're just slaves to their ideology.

From an outsider's point of view, this seems to be the problem with the vast majority of American politics at the moment. Despite my complete loathing for right-wing economic theory, I do feel quite sorry for the Republican party - there are some decent people there, but they're at the mercy of things like the Tea Party, the Religious Right, that it seems impossible for sane and rational right-wing policies to come through, and so you're left with vile creatures like Rick Santorum making mainstream progress.

We have a different problem in the UK, in that we have absolutely no left-wing. The Conservatives are right-wing, Labour are centre-right, and the Liberal Democrats... well, lie down with dogs, end up with fleas. Nick Clegg's words were all left-wing, but he showed himself to be centre-right all along.

It seems that in America, the left-right debate is largely fought by the most ridiculous, and in the UK, the left-right debate is largely a centre-right vs. right debate.

*Sigh*

The one positive thing I will say about Michael Moore is that his mid-90's series, "TV Nation" did used to make me laugh on a fairly regular basis. The "serial killer in your neighbourhood" piece was genius/disturbing in equal measure.

lattd

02-26-2012, 10:01 AM

Grenadier

02-26-2012, 10:24 AM

I am on the right myself. Primarily because it is on the right where you find Conservatism. You don't find it on the left. And as many of my own views lie within Conservatism I therefore vote Republican. Perhaps this "right wing economic theory" is exactly what America needs right now. Because it is obvious Obama's left wing economic theories have utterly failed.

I gather from your words you're on the left. You clearly have scorn for Rick Santorum. While he is not my candidate of choice he's a very respectable figure. I understand many on the left loathe him due to him being religious and his views on contraceptives. However, to my knowledge he hasn't allowed his religious views to influence his policies. I know that the institution of religion is something that most people on the left (at least in America.) have absolutely no respect for.

And the Tea Party is much misaligned and the media has done everything in its power to discredit that movement. Including making up lies. Oddly enough the American leftist media is entirely supportive of the Occupy bowel movement. And while there may be the oddball here and there within the Tea Party any reasonable person would not assume the whole of the party is that way.

I want to give you a little perspective on them:

When Glenn Beck held a rally at the Mall in Washington D.C his audience was composed of mostly Tea Party members. Many of them wore shirts or hats with the American flag on it. Some held in their hands copies of the Constitution. One liberal media outlet took photos of these people and ran a piece "Ridiculous images of the Glenn Beck rally. And I ask "what is so ridiculous about displaying patriotism?

After this rally had ended and the crowd dispersed the grounds of the Mall were left spotless. Free of trash.

Some time later two liberal figures, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, both comedians held a sort of counter-rally intended to mock the Beck rally and the Tea Party. After the rally the grounds of the Mall, in particular the WW2 memorial were covered in garbage and left for the city to clean up. That demonstrated to me a certain lack of respect on the part of the liberals attending the rally.

The liberal media from day one has tried their best to portray the Tea Party as racist. Including creating lies. In its infancy a man showed up at some event then candidate Obama was attending. The man was carrying an assault rifle on his shoulder. The liberal media ran wild with this and tried to cast the Tea Party as racist right wing extremists. The photographs and video footage of this man showed the weapon and the man's back. We were led to believe he was a white man. As it turns out the man in question was a black man. The footage had been carefully edited so as to not show his skin color.

The Tea Party has to apply for permits to have their rallies or protests in public spaces. And they do so. Meanwhile, the Occupy bowel movement does not do so and instead invades public places.

To my knowledge there was but one violent incident involving a Tea Party member and an opponent. I've not heard of another and I am one who watches the news all day long. Likewise, wherever the Tea Party goes they do not vandalize. They do not burn flags. They do not engage in illegal activities. And the leave the place in the same condition they found it.

Meanwhile, since the rise of the Occupy bowel movement there have been many crimes committed by protestors associated with them. Including rape, child endangerment, public lewdness in the form of masturbating in public, having sex in public, as well as illegal drug use, theft, vandalizing both private and public property, destroying both private and public property, and assaults. In addition they're known to defecate on police cars and burn the American flag. As well as some of them dressing in outlandish costumes and brandishing signs with very offensive statements on them. There is even an anti-Jewish element within this group.

Yet the liberal media in this country has thrown its support behind these extremists and criminals while continuing an ongoing campaign of demonizing the Tea Party. Aside from wishing to take from the rich to give to the poor the Occupy bowel movement has yet to put forth intelligent ideas. Meanwhile the Tea Party has stood for smaller government and responsible economic policy.

Disclaimer: I am not a Tea Party member or an "Occupier." I'm a man who believes in fairness. And the liberal media has not once been fair to the Tea Party. And I suspect this may also be true of the media in England. I've done my own homework and researched both groups myself as well as using various media outlets and news sources to form my own opinion. And taken as a whole I'd sooner throw my lot in with the Tea Party than the Occupy bowel movement. The Tea Party largely is a respectful group of patriotic Americans, including some members who fall into this or that minority with a positive message and real ideas that could help restore America. The Occupy movement is largely a group of leftists and anarchists wreaking havoc wherever they turn up.

Lastly, the problem here in America is polarization. It's either the left or the right. There appears to be no middle ground. Obama was the man of hope and change. He promised us a "post-racial" presidency. Yet the liberal media places at race baiting and sling race cards at anyone who so much as questions Obama's policies. If you were to believe the liberal media then the only Americans who cannot possibly be racist are liberals who voted for Obama and support him. While Obama himself has made every effort to stay above the racial fray he has further divided the nation with his doctrine of class warfare. It's clear the far left right now is out of control in this country and are disciples of Saul Alinsky. It's my depressing opinion that this division is only going to get worse. And that it'll take decades for America to heal and recover from all that is currently wrong with it. At this point this nation is so broken that even if Obama lost the election and someone much more suited to lead won things will not improve. Something has got to give in this country. I don't know what that is. And I have no idea what will happen. All I know is America is purely and utterly butt screwed without the benefit of lubrication.

From an outsider's point of view, this seems to be the problem with the vast majority of American politics at the moment. Despite my complete loathing for right-wing economic theory, I do feel quite sorry for the Republican party - there are some decent people there, but they're at the mercy of things like the Tea Party, the Religious Right, that it seems impossible for sane and rational right-wing policies to come through, and so you're left with vile creatures like Rick Santorum making mainstream progress.

We have a different problem in the UK, in that we have absolutely no left-wing. The Conservatives are right-wing, Labour are centre-right, and the Liberal Democrats... well, lie down with dogs, end up with fleas. Nick Clegg's words were all left-wing, but he showed himself to be centre-right all along.

It seems that in America, the left-right debate is largely fought by the most ridiculous, and in the UK, the left-right debate is largely a centre-right vs. right debate.

*Sigh*

The one positive thing I will say about Michael Moore is that his mid-90's series, "TV Nation" did used to make me laugh on a fairly regular basis. The "serial killer in your neighbourhood" piece was genius/disturbing in equal measure.

MaltonNecromancer

02-26-2012, 11:49 AM

Lastly, the problem here in America is polarization.

Yeah, I'd quite agree with that. We have the opposite problem here. :(

the liberal media

I hear this phrase a lot. Then I see "Fox News" and the pundits on there, and wonder - if these guys are liberal, what the hell is Conservative?

All I know is America is purely and utterly butt screwed without the benefit of lubrication.

Not just America my friend. All Western countries. The reasons behind this strike me as outrageously complicated, but can be boiled down, bizarrely, to a wargaming analogy.Finances seem to me, to be a lot like the most brutal wargaming tournament you can imagine, with lots of WAAC players.

These guys spend their lives trying to bend and break and take advantage of the rules as much as they can, looking for loopholes. Eventually, one of them finds an exploitable phrase/combo/whatever, that won't be a problem if they do it the once, but wil quickly destabilise the whole thing if everyone starts to do it.

What happens next is obvious: the second the exploit is discovered, EVERYONE starts to use it. And nothing bad happens. So they keep doing it... and still nothing bad happens. So more of these pinheads start doing it, and the whole thing seems perfect. And all the people getting shafted ask for a FAQ or something that'll stop this tomfoolery, but nothing comes, because under right-wing fiscal policy, the government doesn't do a thing to interfere. And so the problem builds.

Then it collapses under it's own weight.

Suddenly, these WAAC players are left screwed by circumstance. But they've beeged and pleaded the government not to interfere (so they could WAAC), so what can they do? Why, go to the government and say "We've screwed our companies, and we don't feel like paying for it. So here's how it's going to go now. You pay to keep us in the game... or we'll take you with us."

And instead of sticking to it's "no-touch" policy, the government, rather than letting these people who wanted no government intervention choke and burn as right-wing economics dictates, instead keeps them afloat with massive cash handouts.

It's simple. Too much government intervention in finances = problems, as the government can't run things. No government intervention = WAAC madness, as everyone who can play the system uses it to make huge money for themselves and no-one else. That whole "Greed is Good" thing? Nonsense of the highest order. Greed is disastrous.

The last time this happened was in the run-up to The Great Depression. Typically, after a stock market crash like the credit crunch, it takes 2 - 4 years for the recession to hit... hence why it's really hitting now. Give it another few years, and we'll be in a depression that will be harder get out of than a shotgun wedding.

Not good.

Obama, or whoever is in power can do nothing. A president only has 100 days to put policy in place, and then that's it. They have to wait to get re-elected for a second 100 day window. The only thing that can save America is a fundamental change in the nature of American citizens. Which can't happen. So yeah, not looking good.

:(

Oh, and as you were saying about considering opposing viewpoints, might I recommend:

http://www.amazon.com/Injustice-Why-social-inequality-persists/dp/1847424260/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1330278584&sr=8-3

It is the single best book on the rationale behind sensible, logical, left-wing politics, and why they're not stupid. It's not an anti-right diatribe, and it's not America or UK specific, instead looking at recurring patterns in all nations. It's well worth everyone's time, especially those with an interest in all sides of the debate.

Chronowraith

02-26-2012, 12:05 PM

Occupy bowel movement

I want to point out that the only way to see polarization come to an end is for people's attitudes to change. People need to respect that other people have opinions that differ from theirs and that those OPINIONS hold just as much merit as their own. So instead of mocking, minimalizing, or otherwise disrespecting legitimate movements, just state why you disagree and move on.

This change in attitude needs to occur right down to the individual level in the States and unfortunately this sort of disrespectful attitude is something the media (both sides) has engendered in our society.

So by using disparaging phrases like, "Occupy Bowel Movement" or "Obama/Romney Care" individuals perpetuate the very behavior and attitudes that they claim to dislike. This isn't something that will happen from a top level and work it's way down, politicians have proven that much.

Grenadier

02-26-2012, 02:23 PM

Replying to both fellows above me in order:

Fox News is resoundingly loathed by the liberal media. And it has recently come to light that Media Matters actually has a rather unethical mission to destroy Fox News. This included trying to "plant a mole" at FNC and to hire private investigators to dig up dirt on its employs. One universal criticism of FNC is that it is not fair and balanced as they claim to be. And having watched CNN for years before switching to FNC as a matter of preference I'm able to make some legitimate comparisons.

Is Fox News tilted to the right? Well, there may be argument for that. For many of their commentators and contributors are on the right. Sean Hannity is clearly an extreme right winger type. Bill O'Reilly is a right leaning independent with a commitment to traditionalist values. These are perhaps FNC's most notorious figures. But this also leads into the "Fox lies and isn't fair and balanced" criticism.

It seems most of the critics of Fox (and to be fair all the media in general) forget something. There's the "hard news" segments of the show and then the opinion guys. Those who present the hard news actually are being fair and balanced in my estimation. To be fair CNN covers what they do in terms of hard news fairly as well. However, any and all television news channels can be biased based on what they choose to cover. You can assured that what they do bring to you will be free of lies and minimal bias. But it what they DON'T bring you that reveals their bias. For example, the liberal media in America tends to go soft on any stories that makes liberal figures and policies look bad. They'll only cover it when it is absolutely necessary. Some liberal outlets would focus on the negatives of the Iraq war while barely reporting on any positives for example. A classic example of this was when General Petraeus was going to deliver a report to Congress. Before the report was even delivered many within the liberal media were already calling his report a lie.

This subtle bias is nothing new. And it comes down through the editors who decide what hard news gets covered. We then move on over to the opinion guys. People who loathe Fox will tell you that guys like Hannity or O'Reilly lie and spin. But in reality both men are commentators hired to comment on the news. They're hired to give their opinions. And as such they're under no obligation to be "fair and balanced." This is true of the liberal outlets as well. Essentially, the opinion guys on any news channel don't have to be fair and balanced. However, we do expect to get an opposing point of view. If we were stuck with only Hannity's point of view then critiques of him are well warranted. On any of those shows they do make an effort to present an opposing view. This comes in the form of liberal commentators and contributors. And FNC has a pretty good list of liberals in their employ: Bob Beckell, just about as left as a man can be, and co-host of The Five. Alan Colmbes, a rigid left wing ideologue, used to co-host with Hannity on his show. Juan Williams, a liberal fired from NPR often co-hosts The Five and even fills in as host for O'Reilly. They bring in a variety of Democratic politicians, pundits, etc as well. Recently they hired Sally Kohn as a contributor. She's an outspoken lesbian and GLBT rights advocate.

Ultimately all of these people present their opinions, which naturally are biased according to their views. And that's perfectly acceptable provided all views are presented. To be fair Hannity fails the worst at this on FNC because he always stacks the panel in his favor.

Lastly, this also applies to FNC's competitors. Some do a better job than others. The worst offender would be MSNBC. They show a severe lack of professionalism there. CNN, while tilted to the left, do much better at presenting hard news than any other news outlet. Which is to be expected of the inventor of the 24 hour cable news cycle. They are sufficient, but could be better, at showing both sides.

Having worked in print media I've come to understand the nature of media bias. We must just accept the fact it's biased. And give credence to those outlets which make a good effort at showing both sides and ignore the ones who don't. FNC must be doing something right, after all, because they have for many years consistently trounced the other networks, especially MSNBC in the ratings.

Now to the Chrono:

You're right. People need to respect that other people have different views. And I readily admit that I have zero respect for the views of the Occupy movement. Nor do I have respect for the views of anyone who proves they too lack respect for opposing views. For example, Bill Maher. The man continually insults and demeans religious people and Conservatives and has displayed nothing but contempt for anyone who doesn't share his leftist and atheist views. Also, as a Conservative I've had to deal with disrespect constantly from Democrats and other liberals. Like when congresswoman Maxine Waters recently called Republicans "demons." Or all the personal attacks against George Bush, Sarah Palin, or other Republican figure. Here's a good example of the kind of disrespect for those who have opposing views: Remember at some big dinner for Obama the comedienne Wanda Sykes said "I hope Rush Limbaugh's kidneys fail?" She got a pass because comedians always do. But such a joke seems to show she has no respect for him. And now she's got some PSA on TV lecturing us not to use the word gay to describe something because it will hurt the gay folks feelings? Already in this very thread I've seen some Republican politicians get disrespected. And often times many on the left refuse to respect the views of conservatives.

Again, I'm an Appalachian. My people don't get the benefit of the hypocritical rules of political correctness. We're routinely mocked in the entertainment industry. Which shows me that those who do so have no respect for us. I'm also a Catholic. And we've been under fire for a long time from many sources. Rightly and wrongly to be fair. So when a guy like Bill Maher has diarrhea of the mouth insulting my religious faith it shows no respect for me and other Catholics. And I'm a conservative Republican. The liberal elites, be they in the news media or entertainment industry are insulting and showing disrespect on a daily basis. To be fair there are people on "my side" who do the same thing.

I don't. I will indeed insult Occupy but they've proven to lack respect for my side. And it is my opinion any message of theirs, any ideas they have, will not be valid until the movement cleans itself up and knocks off the various forms of criminal behavior. I also give respect to those on the other side who've earned it. Such as Bob Beckell. He's shown that he respects my side's views and ideas. And I value that in a person. And so I respect him. Plus the guy is just downright hilarious if you ever see him on The Five. Humor is always good for bridging the gaps eh? Anyone on "the other side" who doesn't behave like a Bill Maher, but shows respect, can have my respect. Those do not will not get it. And anyone on the other side who wishes to stifle a person's opinion from being heard won't get my respect. Like NPR for for firing Juan Williams for statements that didn't measure up to the liberal standards. Right or wrong his statements were sincere and worth being heard. A man should not be fired for that in a land that supposedly supports free speech. If someone has an opposing view to mine I'll respect them as long as they show me they respect my views and those from my side of the fence. Respect is something many seem to need to earn in our world.

Also, it is not disrespectful to call it Obama or Romney care. That's because they were the guys who created it. They have ownership of it.

MaltonNecromancer

02-26-2012, 03:06 PM

I don't. I will indeed insult Occupy but they've proven to lack respect for my side.

So... you complain that you're not treated with respect, so you'll treat others with the same disrespect.

I hate to say it, but that's quite an immature attitude, and not in the spirit of healthy debate. I get that being disrespected makes you angry, but if you disrepect them in return, you'll just generate the same bad feelings.

I hate to say it, but if you're not prepared to show respect, you shouldn't expect to be shown it. This whole "Respect is earned" nonsense is just excuse-making for cruelty. Respect should be given automatically - that's what good manners are.

That's what I tell the kids I teach, and if it's true for them, it's GOT to be true for us adults too.

Chronowraith

02-26-2012, 06:32 PM

So... you complain that you're not treated with respect, so you'll treat others with the same disrespect.

I hate to say it, but that's quite an immature attitude, and not in the spirit of healthy debate. I get that being disrespected makes you angry, but if you disrepect them in return, you'll just generate the same bad feelings.

I hate to say it, but if you're not prepared to show respect, you shouldn't expect to be shown it. This whole "Respect is earned" nonsense is just excuse-making for cruelty. Respect should be given automatically - that's what good manners are.

That's what I tell the kids I teach, and if it's true for them, it's GOT to be true for us adults too.

I agree with what MaltonNecromancer says here 100%. If you are unwilling to treat others with respect then you certainly shouldn't complain about people who treat you with the same contempt and/or disrespect that you show them.

Also, it is not disrespectful to call it Obama or Romney care. That's because they were the guys who created it. They have ownership of it.

Obama doesn't own the Health Care act. To say that is misrepresenting the facts. The actual bill was written by a panel of lawyers, experts, and politicians, it was supported by the president, and it was approved by OUR countries legislative branch filled with elected officials. Romney's bill went through the same process just at a state level.

To say that either of these gentlemen "own" their respective bills completely ignores the hundreds and potentially thousands of people who worked to see these bills to fruition. It is not like they personally penned every word and then tried to ramrod it through the federal/state system by executive order.

scadugenga

02-26-2012, 10:36 PM

I didn't mean its the be all and end all but the different perceptions are rather interesting, the sense of trust that Canada has means despite having more guns than america they have less gun deaths, this may be a very common misconception, but having spoken to a few Americans i always found they have very little trust for anyone but their friends.

Canada also has a markedly different scope of population density.

Moore is an unbelievable a-hole, particularly with "Bowling."

Canada has more guns, yes, but fewer people, and more spread out. America's population centers are much denser, with a higher disparity in economic means. This means you will see more violence, gun or otherwise than you will in areas with a lighter population density. You will also need to understand that the VAST majority of gun violence in America is perpetrated by people who acquire/purchase guns illegally. (IE: ********ers, career criminals, etc.)

Canada and the US have approximately the same land area. (Somewhere in the order of 9.something million km2, of which Canada edges out the US slightly.) However, the US has almost 10 times as many people. (313 million in the US, 34 million in Canada)

You reverse the population numbers, and I bet Canada has the same issues (or close to it) as the US has violence-wise.

What really pissed me off about "Bowling" is not just is skewed Canada argument, but that his tragic story of the 6 year old who got a gun and accidentally killed another child? What he doesn't tell you (after the sob story about how mom works too much and too far away) is that the house they were living in? It was a freaking crack house! Surprising, then--that the child would have access to a gun!

/rant

Anyone who takes "Bowling" for gospel really needs to do their actual, fact-based research.

@Chronowraith: You will a) hopefully note that the Militia bit was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. b) Also note that I did mention Michigan. c) I fully consider West Virginia to be right up there with Michigan, Montana, and a few other states that I avoid like the plague. :P Civilization is good.

Now-on to the links: I am not saying that I espouse or endorse the entire websites---merely the specific articles mentioned. If you read the first one, you'll have seen (hopefully) a Chicago cop's response. Now, I've lived in this area (Chicago) for a looooong time. I know a lot of cops. Those articles are spot on.

Grenadier

02-27-2012, 12:36 AM

Preaching to the choir Chronowraith. I mean that Romney and Obama own their health care in the sense that it a signature piece of legislation for them. They signed them into law. It's the classic "the buck stops here." Sure, legions of underlings crafted the things but in the end both men signed them into law.

Also, I feel you and Malton both have entirely taken my comments on respect out of context or missed the point. The irony is Malton's reply to me pretty much said exactly what I said. Not in so many words. I was tired when I wrote that so failed to articulate the point sufficiently.

Again: I give respect when it is earned. If treated with disrespect I won't give it. Yes, I disrespect certain leftist figures. But only because they've shown absolutely no capacity to respect people on my side of the fence. When Bill Maher labels everyone who follows a religion as stupid why should I, as a Catholic, respect that view of his?

With me everyone gets a fair chance. Including people I've not met personally such as media and entertainment figures. Everyone has a clean slate. Including those who have views I may not agree with. Such as Juan Williams and Bob Beckell as I described. They get respect from me because they do not disrespect my side of the fence. I would be happy to know people like that personally. I'd not be happy to know someone like Maher personally.

Part of earning respect from me is showing good character. If you're a person who continually denigrates a large swathe of people based on their views, religion, politics, that shows me you do not have good character. And that is not a respectable trait in a person.

I disrespect the Occupy movement not for their beliefs but for their actions. They've proven to be an unruly mob with no respect for certain institutions and people. As evident by their vandalism and other antics.

This is not an immature attitude on my part. It's common sense. You get what you give. You disrespect people then you don't get respect from those people. Remember, their views and opinions are not the issue for me. Their character is what is important.

Also, those I've complained about have shown through their own words and actions to have a long history of disrespecting people like me. Some have built their careers on it. I don't do that. And I'm not a politician or media figure. Just a regular guy.

eldargal

02-27-2012, 12:46 AM

I have to agree with Grenadier on the Occupy movement. Though I wouldn't turn their name into a pun as I dislike that sort of thing. With the exception, perhaps, of the Occupy Wall Street crowd the Occupy movements are spoiled, whiny brats* with no idea of what they actually want and no idea how to get it if they did know. They are/were a public menace and gross inconvenience to no purpose. The Occupy London crowd lost any sympathy and respect I had when they occupied St. Pauls at great expense to an institution that can hardly be considered capitalist.

*I know this is a generalisation, I had friends in the Occupy London movement. But they left when it turned into an excuse to sit around making a nuisance of themselves instead of actually drawing attention to legitimate grievances.

Grenadier

02-27-2012, 01:10 AM

"He would use a pun would pick a pocket."

I believe when you're a person or a group of persons with a message your conduct colors the message. And how you deliver your message is just as important as the message itself is.

Without rehashing the differences between Occupy and the Tea Party it is obvious that one group presents its message in a much more peaceful and respectful fashion than the other. I illustrated this in a previous post.

But I'll give two more examples of groups with a message and how they deliver it:

The Westboro Baptist Church. Christian extremists. They hate the gay folks. And in a gross abuse of free speech they've been know to show up at the funerals for soldiers who died in Afghanistan or Iraq and deliver their hateful message. It's their belief that the soldiers deserved to die because they support a nation that tolerates homosexuality.

While it's understandable that anyone in the GLBT world takes offense to anyone of religion condemning their lifestyle there is a better way for the religious to present their message than the Westboro people do. And it most certainly is understandable why anyone in the GLBT world would loathe the Westboro people and have no respect for them.

Now let's consider some gay rights activists. In San Francisco it's not uncommon for some gay rights supporters to openly mock and blaspheme Christianity. Dressing up as priests, nuns, and even Christ and engage in behavior that is offensive to people of faith. And for a while some were even invading church services with the sole intention of disrupting the services.

Ok, so now you have two examples of groups with a message and how they deliver those messages. Remember: you get what you give.

If Westboro acts like a bunch of hateful idiots towards a specific group of people then they deserve no respect from those people. Likewise, when some gay rights activists openly blaspheme and insult the faithful they too deserve no respect from the people they offend.

Now, some people may well be inclined to think what one side does is just fine because that side has been oppressed. Since Christians have been so terrible to the GLBT community then any behavior like this on the part of some of its members is justifiable and should be given pass.

I say no to that. You cannot justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior. Which is a theme with many on the left. And an excuse for many on the right. Remember: you get what you give.

It is better for both sides to treat each other with respect. Especially if one side feels persecuted and all they want is to be tolerated. Some in the GLBT world are as guilty of intolerance as their opponents on the other side. This is true of any group.

Gone are the days of Martin Luther King. Why can't more people follow his lead? His brand of protest did not show intolerance to the people he was protesting against. King's efforts to advance the cause of civil rights worked for many reasons. The most important of which was the righteous morality of it. A morality that was pure. But another reason his efforts worked so well was because he showed tolerance and respect.

The thing about intolerance and disrespect is it begets more of it. So every time an intolerant Christian rants about the evils of homosexuality it will be no surprise then that some on the other side will rant about the evils of Christianity.

This common theme applies not just to the two examples I provided. It also applies to every single group of people whatever their cause may be. The left or right, religious or atheist, radical Islam and western civilizations. you name it. And it applies to individuals.

It's my belief that this effect is at the heart of not just America's problems but the world's problems. But what can we call it? It begins with with intolerance and disrespect. And evolves into anger and hostility. I for one readily admit lack of respect and sometimes anger for certain people or groups. It's human nature. But I'm not the one who gets the hostility ball rolling.

Gotthammer

02-27-2012, 01:26 AM

I say no to that. You cannot justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior.

I will indeed insult Occupy but they've proven to lack respect for my side.

Though I heartily agree with you that intolerance begets more intolerance. I prefer the Bill & Ted philosophy of be excellent to each other.

Grenadier

02-27-2012, 02:12 AM

Man...I was trying to forget that movie. You've brought it back to plague my mind.

Gotthammer

02-27-2012, 04:04 AM

http://billandted3.com/

DrLove42

02-27-2012, 04:08 AM

Ah how my little post questioning the american system has grown. I do enjoy a good political debate

My opinion on the Occupy groups remains tainted. The ones in london only 20% of the people actually stayed int heir tents over night. I almsot understand why people think its a good way to protest in London or New York.

But then I saw "Occupy Brighton" and the 2 tent "Occupy Southampton". And I question if they should really pick their targets better

Also - Be excellent to each other.

PS - They're making a third Bill and Ted film

Grenadier

02-27-2012, 04:33 AM

This is a great thread I think Dr. Love. It's been intelligent and surprisingly civil. Ordinarily on forums in such debates I see people just ripping into one another and insulting each other. Often insulting the other's intelligence. I'm not seeing any such thing here. Which is very refreshing.

Am I mistaken but were there not some violent riots in England recently? Looting and smashing store windows. Some shop being raided for the stuff inside it? Was that Occupy? Or something else. This was last year I think. Or maybe the one before that. And of course there's the nonsense in Greece with their rioting.

Even if these are not directly Occupy related I think the spirit behind them is related. And I don't think this spirit is entirely a positive one. What I see in America's Occupy movement is a mob of unruly college aged kids with a sickening since of entitlement and envy. The kinds who would rather have it given to them than to go out and earn it for themselves. This may not be true of each and every one of them but it is for some no doubt. I've seen plenty of interviews with people at Occupy protests that reinforce my opinion.

Having went to college myself there's one thing I learned: a lot of college kids are highly impressionable, very idealistic, and have an over inflated image of their own intelligence. I'm not saying this to disparage them mind you. But there's a certain type of college kid which invariably lends itself to protesting. In addition they often have a lack of respect for the establishment, authority, etc. Personally, I think such types are worse if they're on the left. Colleges and their staff tend to be mostly liberal. Some more so than others. In general, unless you're on a specific campus, if you're a conservative you're in the minority.

A lot of these kids come in all full of piss and vinegar. Passionate. Idealistic. But easily given to angst. And it can be stirred up and fostered. While Occupy has all age groups it seems most are college aged kids. As if they just plucked them off of campuses and gave them marching orders.

But their youth and inexperience I think in some ways contributes to Occupy's rather disorganized and incoherent message. The only thing they seem to be about is "hate the rich." They don't seem to offer intelligent solutions for the problems they speak of. Colleges are breeding grounds for the protestor type.

Please keep in mind what I said is just general observations from my own experiences in college. And I've had real experiences. Like a girl protesting against China's human rights abuses. Which is quite legitimate in my opinion. But she claimed that in China they take forced abortions and can them for human consumption!?! Seriously?

I've even participated in a protest myself a couple of times. But I like to know everything I need to know about something before I choose to protest. A lot of protesters are herd animals you see. And it seems to me most of the Occupiers are herd animals.

DrLove42

02-27-2012, 04:49 AM

The Britsh riots weren't Occupy.

There were the student riots, confined to London. That was a protest of the Studnet Fees at University. It started peaceful ,and then some people got bored, and some more joined who just wanted to wreck stuff

The big ones in July were just an excuse to loot. "Officially" it was casued as a response to the police shooting a drug dealer who they believed to be armed (and back to Gun Control :P). In the end it was just a vent for people to let off steam and for bored teenagers and chavs to go looting.

For protestors I agree that you're right and it is a lot of entitlement. But you do have to draw the line between protest types. Theres 3 types in my mind - Marches, Occupations and Violent.

As discussed, violent is often caused by idiots who are bored and are done not to achieve anything but fopr them to have the fun of doing it.

Marches are the most common type. People join in and protest in a large one off body. A lot of the people here are casual protestors, people who have day jobs but feel disenfrachised y something. One of the biggest problems however is demonstrtaed by the student riots here. People join in, just to cause trouble and the message is lost in the news by the violence. This is not only the most common form of protest, but also the best. Because....

Occupations are just annoying. They reach the point where its just a bunch of smelly hippies taking drugs in their own little camps and disrupting peoples day. They don't achieve anything and they (in my opinion) damage their movement by turning opinion aginast themselves.

Psychosplodge

02-27-2012, 05:02 AM

Am I mistaken but were there not some violent riots in England recently? Looting and smashing store windows. Some shop being raided for the stuff inside it? Was that Occupy? Or something else. This was last year I think. Or maybe the one before that. And of course there's the nonsense in Greece with their rioting.

.

Not in any civilised part of the country, there wasn't. Only places like London, Manchester, Liverpool, Nottingham, and Minor disturbance in Leeds.
I think he means the ones that that followed the police shooting dead the armed man who didn't comply with their instructions. Started as General rioting, and spread to looting after police didn't take a heavy approach the first night (which they probably would have been condemned for had they done.)

DrLove42

02-27-2012, 05:05 AM

Discussing the police is a whole other area. If the police had done what they needed to do to stop the rioting spreading they'd have been crucified for excessive force.

The fact the government (and to some extents the law) doesn't support the police really. Its there to punish them if they mess up slightly and to protect the criminal over the victims...

Psychosplodge

02-27-2012, 05:11 AM

Good point that would completely derail this thread lol

Grenadier

02-27-2012, 05:28 AM

I agree Dr. Love. I should have made a distinction between the three types. While all seem to carry the common trait of "protest" how they do so is entirely different. And how they do so is what really matters and may well determine the results. Martin Luther King and his supporters were marches. And they were effective. Marching I think is the best way to "protest." I also believe you can lump most rallies in with marches. Consider the rally the lazy man's march because they stay in one place. The loathed Glenn Beck-Tea Party rally was a successful and respectful event. The mockery of it months later was not and amounted to little.

Many years ago my county underwent unrest. Oppressive coal companies abusing coal miners. Led to violent picketing. Even against the women. A documentary was made on this and my late great aunt was a key figure in the picket lines. She was arrested along with many of the miner's wives and held in jail for a long time. And some of them had been beaten by the police. Somehow my great-aunt got a pistol while she was in jail! The coal operators hired gunmen to come in and deal with the picketers and striking miners. And they had the police in their pocket. It earned my county the nickname "Bloody Harlan."

A picket line is a strange kind of protest. It's not a protest in the usual sense. And it's not exactly a rally or a march. But by their very nature they are primed for violence. Of course the coal operators were the villains what with their heavy handedness. What are your thoughts on picket lines Dr. Love? Do they do this sort of thing over there in your country?

My concern with the police and protesters is provocation. While there are instances of police going overboard and being heavy handed it is not always the case. In regards to Occupy there's likely even police who sympathize with them. I do not envy the police because regardless of what their feelings and views are these are men and women with a job to do. They can't simply drop their badge and join in with the protesters. I feel many protesters lack an understanding of the concept of duty (as it pertains to police.) While some cops treat it like a job the best cops treat their job as a duty. And they will do their duty.

But often the provocation isn't from the police. Sometimes the protesters intentionally do something to provoke the police. It's a very dirty and underhanded tactic in my opinion. It's like when the bully plays the victim. Or like how Iran will get very belligerent and piss off everyone and then they get slapped and act like the victim. The far left plays by a very dirty rulebook and intentional provocation is one of their tactics. So it won't surprise me if some Occupy event in America turns bloody. This kind of provocation is very dangerous. Not just for police and protesters but also general society. But cause it is intended to manipulate public opinion and can easily fan what may have been a peaceful protest into a full on bloody riot.

wittdooley

02-27-2012, 10:45 AM

What I see in America's Occupy movement is a mob of unruly college aged kids with a sickening since of entitlement and envy. The kinds who would rather have it given to them than to go out and earn it for themselves. This may not be true of each and every one of them but it is for some no doubt. I've seen plenty of interviews with people at Occupy protests that reinforce my opinion.

Couldn't echo this more. Here are some things that get swept under the rug about the Occupy Movement in the United States:

These kids can all "afford" to participate in the Occupy Movement. So you're talking about kids with some kind of means, typically from families that can fiscally support them.

The Occupy movement cost NYC a great amount of money, as the city was forced to provide for and protect the movement, with little respect or regard given to that fact.

The Occupiers are all "updating" their movement on iPhones, iPads, and other luxury trinkets.

The Irony, to me, of it all, is that the majority of these kids can claim to be in the "99%", but they're mostly members of the top 10% of the 99%.

They think they want to complain about jobs. Here's the thing: jobs exist in the United States. The problem is thus: we have lots of newly graduated college kids that refuse to work menial, part-time, or non-degreed specific jobs. I could go find a part time job today if I needed to supplement my income. They don't want to, because they think they're too good for them.

Grenadier

02-27-2012, 11:15 AM

Right on all accounts. While a number of them may be the real thing with real grievances many of them are kids who come from far better backgrounds than I and most people in my region come from. But folks here wisely see through the class warfare and ideologically driven agenda. As I said, a lot of college kids get all wrapped up in the idealism and passion. So few really think things through. I've seen so many kids on campuses rail against this or that but know so little about it. They are the "useful idiots." The smartest of them eventually wise up and mature. The best of those refine their idealism and passion and can go on to contribute to change in good ways.

Another aspect of it not many people talk about is the nature of jobs. A lot of kids now go to college for esoteric studies. A lot of very specialized programs, studies, courses, and degrees. Many of which don't really translate well into jobs after college. And some of the more traditional areas of studies don't always do a person well post-college too. How many theater majors actually end up going into a field related to their studies? How many art majors end up finding work in an art related field?

Meanwhile trades and skills are less being sought after. Everyone wants to go to college to study some high tech field associated with the internet or such. And while there are jobs for that all too often there's too many people competing for them. Many people now look down on the skills and trades. Not as many want to be mechanics, carpenters, builders, etc. Many consider such work beneath them or only the less intelligent people work in those fields. A lot of the kinds of jobs and careers that people depend upon every day for things are shunned by some people. There are even some who view military service as a bad thing. Only the high school failures should go to the military. The elite are far too intelligent for such a lowly thing.

Couldn't echo this more. Here are some things that get swept under the rug about the Occupy Movement in the United States:

These kids can all "afford" to participate in the Occupy Movement. So you're talking about kids with some kind of means, typically from families that can fiscally support them.

The Occupy movement cost NYC a great amount of money, as the city was forced to provide for and protect the movement, with little respect or regard given to that fact.

The Occupiers are all "updating" their movement on iPhones, iPads, and other luxury trinkets.

The Irony, to me, of it all, is that the majority of these kids can claim to be in the "99%", but they're mostly members of the top 10% of the 99%.

They think they want to complain about jobs. Here's the thing: jobs exist in the United States. The problem is thus: we have lots of newly graduated college kids that refuse to work menial, part-time, or non-degreed specific jobs. I could go find a part time job today if I needed to supplement my income. They don't want to, because they think they're too good for them.

wittdooley

02-27-2012, 11:49 AM

Right on. When I got laid off from my full time teaching job and had to sub, I needed something else to supplement my income. I found a job at FedEx workin on the dock within 2-weeks of looking. They were ecstatic to have me on BECAUSE I wasn't 'typical' for them.

Was I more educated and more intelligent than most of the dudes I worked with? Probably. But I still learned a lot at that job, and would probably still be doing it had our facility not shut down (2 lay offs in 2 years. Yikes!). Further, had we stayed open I could most probably have become managment there had I chosen that.

When I was still teaching, I tried to use my story as an exemplar for my students. While you may love photography, if it's really something you want to pursue as a career you need to supplement it with business, or marketing, or something that can A) make you some money on its own, or B) if you're able to build a business in your passion, will help support that growth of that business. Needless to say, very few listened :D. But it is what it is.

Grenadier

02-27-2012, 04:26 PM

Where I am from there is very little demand for anyone with college education because there's so very few jobs here you need degrees for. Likewise there's not that much demand for people who know a trade or skill. Because its so impoverished here. Worse still there is but one industry: coal mining. Which I do not find to be a desirable career choice. My college education here has proven to be worthless. My pretty little degree is about as useful as toilet paper. In fact I may hang it over my toilet for in case I run out of butt wipe.

I foolishly joined an accelerated program to get a degree mental health professional degree. Problem was this degree was a very broad one. Covered a great many fields ranging from social worker to actual therapy. And consequently everyone who was a state employee here already, in various fields like being an SSI caseworker, Child Protective Services, so forth and so on, all enrolled in the program.

And every two years they crank out a batch of graduates with a 4 year degree. You can go on to the Masters Program as well. Each program crams 4 years of education into just two. So guess what happened?

Suddenly these misbegotten mountains were flooded with highly educated graduates. Most of whom ALREADY had jobs in the related fields around here. And took the program just so they could get promoted, pay raises, or transfers. And there are very rarely any openings.

In short: for me it was all a vast waste of my time. And I am slapped with 40,000 bucks in student loans I can't begin to repay.

It also left me with the impression that this program, and likely many other programs across the nation, especially in poor places like this are nothing more than just a college's way to make money off of people without actually benefiting them at all. The college I earned my degree from isn't even here in my area. It's several hours away and offered the program via an extended campus arrangement with the local community college. That college no doubt has made a fortune giving people in my area an education which doesn't benefit them in this region much.

Psychosplodge

02-27-2012, 05:44 PM

That's like the UK higher education system, which produces something like 1700 forensic science graduates per annum, for an industry which consists of approx 700 positions nationally...

DrLove42

02-28-2012, 03:25 AM

I know I took my PhD for reasons

1) Its more experience to make me look better :P
2) It pays
3) Its 3 years for the market to improve.

British Manufacturing, in particular aerospace is strong, but we produce a huge number of graduates every year

And as a side topic - 3 news stories caught my eye today

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17187180 - About Damn Time.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17182562 - Say what you like about it being only crazy militia types that cause trouble, but this kind of thing never happens over here, where as it seems to be an annual occurance in the States

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17185486 - Santorum describes himself as "it makes him want to throw up" that religion isn't centre to the government. He also derided all "climate science" and those Wall Street Bailouts....you know the ones that stopped the entire country collapsing.

EDIT - UPDATE - Just seen that in the past Santorum tweeted;

If people thought about gay sex as much as I do they'd understand how disgusting it is

Jeez.....

EDIT EDIT - Just seen this linked on Facebook. A member of the American poulace was bored with a gun and a bulletproof vest...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57385166-71/man-shoots-himself-to-test-bulletproof-vest/?ttag=fbw

Ouch

Grenadier

02-28-2012, 07:33 AM

At least there's a bright side with this crap.

If there's ever a zombie apocalypse there'll be plenty of highly educated people to replace losses and to help rebuild civilization amongst the survivors.

That's like the UK higher education system, which produces something like 1700 forensic science graduates per annum, for an industry which consists of approx 700 positions nationally...

MaltonNecromancer

02-28-2012, 10:56 AM

Rick Santorum:
If people thought about gay sex as much as I do they'd understand how disgusting it is

Seriously Rick, I don't like seafood, so I don't eat at the seafood buffet.

You don't like hot sweaty man-on-man action?

1.) No-one says you have to.
2.) No-one says you have to join in.
3.) No-one says you have to google images of it.
4.) No-one says you even need to think about it.

I don't spend all my damn time thinking about things I'm not interested in. What's wrong with you man? If you don't like something THAT HAS ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT ON YOU PERSONALLY AND NEVER WILL, then just ignore it!

DrLove42

02-28-2012, 11:06 AM

I'm more concerned he spends a lot of time thinking about gay men for a straight, married religious person :P

Psychosplodge

02-28-2012, 12:31 PM

At least there's a bright side with this crap.

If there's ever a zombie apocalypse there'll be plenty of highly educated people to replace losses and to help rebuild civilization amongst the survivors.

Yes because being able to poke something while wearing white coveralls and going hmmmm is going to be high on the list of skills to rebuild post zombie apocalypse (http://www.play.com/Books/Books/4-/477955/The-Zombie-Survival-Guide/Product.html?searchstring=zombie+survival+guide&searchsource=0&searchtype=allproducts&urlrefer=search)

MaltonNecromancer

02-28-2012, 04:27 PM

I'm more concerned he spends a lot of time thinking about gay men for a straight, married religious person :P

Yup.

Self-hatred is a terrible thing when turned outwards.

Yes because being able to poke something while wearing white coveralls and going hmmmm is going to be high on the list of skills to rebuild post zombie apocalypse

Ah the zombie apocalypse; the male power fantasy de jour for the teenager who's outgrown Spiderman.

http://www.cracked.com/article/136_5-reasons-you-secretly-want-zombie-apocalypse/
http://www.cracked.com/article_18683_7-scientific-reasons-zombie-outbreak-would-fail-quickly.html

And if a zombie apocalypse ever did happen and somehow was as dangerous as silly films make it look, in some countries (hi Iraq!), the only way you'd notice is because life would be significantly less dangerous. Zombies got no guns, speed, IEDs, RPGs or concept of stealth.

Hostile militant with even nothing but a basic grasp of military strategy trumps zombie in threat level every single time. God help you if s/he actually knows what they're doing...

Psychosplodge

02-28-2012, 04:35 PM

How have I never seen that article before it's brilliant.
But the reason it gets out of hand is the people who would be all "it's my x you can't kill them..." or it has to be 28 days later infectious...

Grenadier

02-28-2012, 06:30 PM

Santorum's view on homosexuality is based upon his religious faith. I too am a Catholic but I do not share his view. I will not condemn anyone for a view I may disagree with though. Also, to my knowledge Santorum has repeatedly stated he would not let his religious views dictate any policies he would have as president.

My problem with American politics is the left and right alike seem incapable of tolerating opposing views. Just because something is controversial or unpopular doesn't make it any less valid. There are plenty of people who support views on either side of the fence. The left would characterize Santorum's views on homosexuality as extremist. The left generally considers any religious opponent an extremist by virtue of just being religious. Likewise, people on the right consider many left wing views, such as legalizing drugs or gay marriage extremist.

And both sides will act as if one opposing view is enough to completely dismiss the other side. That's absolutely ridiculous. Each side will seize on one or two things about the other and bash one another relentlessly. Since when is it a bad thing for people to have controversial and clashing opinions on issues? I thought this was what can lead to good debates. And good debates can lead to changes in policy. And in society. Wouldn't it work better if both sides would actually debate the issues with each other instead of trying to destroy each other?

Aldramelech

02-29-2012, 11:51 AM

Never met a gay wargamer........... Not saying its a good or bad thing.

Psychosplodge

02-29-2012, 12:21 PM

You might have, they just might never have felt the need to share it...

Grenadier

02-29-2012, 12:37 PM

I don't care what kind of person the gamer is. But if they're a leftist I shall redouble my effort to beat them! Seriously though, I rarely get to play. So I don't care. I'll play anyone. Even a man in a dress if need be. Boy...that'd make for an interesting battle wouldn't it?

MaltonNecromancer

02-29-2012, 01:45 PM

I don't care what kind of person the gamer is.

Damn straight (no pun intended). :)

This is how everyone should be.

But if they're a leftist I shall redouble my effort to beat them!

Awww... but we Socialists aren't that bad! We're there for you, even if you have no-one else to turn to... ;)

Well, we Northern English, left-wing unionists are. I don't know too much about these damn Commies. Dragging our good name and reputation through the dirt... *grumble, grumble*

Never met a gay wargamer........... Not saying its a good or bad thing.

Umm... You probably have. Why would they tell you? It's not like it matters. "Oh, you're gay? Oh, well then your Grey Knights get Psycannons for five points cheaper than listed in the codex". :D

Frankly, most gamers I've met tend to define themselves as gamers first and anything else second. If I were gay, I certainly wouldn't define myself purely by my sexuality, any more than I do as a heterosexual. It's part of me, but no more so than my love of beat-'em-ups, my hatred of CoD, my mild obsession with Doctor Who, or my loathing for ignorance.

Sexuality is only a part of us, and it's usually only a part we chare with people who, shal we say, "need to know"?

Given how reactionary many people are (especially young people), I can easily see why it might not get brought up in conversation. A gay gamer friend of mine grew up in the comparatively accepting UK, and still got so badly beaten up that he finished school without a single GCSE to his name (despite having a confirmed IQ of 160). Never forget that a gay person tends to live their lives in fear to a large degree; they usually don't know who they can trust and who will actively try to kill them (and I'm saying that without hyperbole - I've had other gay friends queerbashed and put in hospital for quite a long time).

There's a reason I'm so very anti-homophobes.

Aldramelech

02-29-2012, 02:30 PM

I don't tend to interact with strangers much and I play people at my club only, if one of them were gay I'd know it, I've known them all for a very long time.

Many years ago I lodged with a gay married couple, I worked with one of them and they had a cheap room going and I got to know lots of their friends and I have to say in my experiance that most gay men are very definately gay before they are anything else and are not shy about making sure you know it.

I've never really understood homophobia at all, I reckon most people who are, arn't very secure in their sexuality.

Grenadier

02-29-2012, 02:51 PM

I don't know much about your left over there. But I'm positive it is much different than the left over here. To be fair there seems to be different degrees of left here. Same with the right. So often when I refer to the left I mean the more extreme degrees.

I view ideological stance like it is a sliding scale. And the middle point on the scale, Zero, would be moderate. Then to the left or right you'll have varying degrees. And you could take this scale and adjust it for your stance on every issue. And I believe most free thinking people in America would find that the majority of their stances fall close to the middle point. With some deviating a degree or two to the left or right.

Only those who are entirely to the extreme are the ones I can't stand being around. The way I see it once you've become a rigid ideologue you are no longer a free thinking person. Take me for example, I call myself a conservative because most of my views fall to the right a couple of degrees from center. But not all. If I was a right wing ideologue I'd not support gay marriage which fall beyond the zero point on the left. I just can't stand those who are entirely on the extreme end of left and right.

I never had much of an issue with gay folks despite my Catholicsm and being a conservative. In high school I was part of a small clique of guys and gals. One of the guys was my best friend. We'd stay the night at each others house often. And went on to be roomies in college. It was then I learned he was gay. By that point I'm like "ah well, should've said so sooner." It didn't change a thing in terms of our friendship. And strangely, all of the guys and gals from clique wound up turning out to be gay or lesbian! One even went on to be a transvestite. I'm the only one out of the gang who is straight. Must've have been something in the water for them!

Damn straight (no pun intended). :)

This is how everyone should be.

Awww... but we Socialists aren't that bad! We're there for you, even if you have no-one else to turn to... ;)

Well, we Northern English, left-wing unionists are. I don't know too much about these damn Commies. Dragging our good name and reputation through the dirt... *grumble, grumble*

Umm... You probably have. Why would they tell you? It's not like it matters. "Oh, you're gay? Oh, well then your Grey Knights get Psycannons for five points cheaper than listed in the codex". :D

Frankly, most gamers I've met tend to define themselves as gamers first and anything else second. If I were gay, I certainly wouldn't define myself purely by my sexuality, any more than I do as a heterosexual. It's part of me, but no more so than my love of beat-'em-ups, my hatred of CoD, my mild obsession with Doctor Who, or my loathing for ignorance.

Sexuality is only a part of us, and it's usually only a part we chare with people who, shal we say, "need to know"?

Given how reactionary many people are (especially young people), I can easily see why it might not get brought up in conversation. A gay gamer friend of mine grew up in the comparatively accepting UK, and still got so badly beaten up that he finished school without a single GCSE to his name (despite having a confirmed IQ of 160). Never forget that a gay person tends to live their lives in fear to a large degree; they usually don't know who they can trust and who will actively try to kill them (and I'm saying that without hyperbole - I've had other gay friends queerbashed and put in hospital for quite a long time).

There's a reason I'm so very anti-homophobes.

MaltonNecromancer

02-29-2012, 03:35 PM

I don't know much about your left over there. But I'm positive it is much different than the left over here.

It really is. In America, it seems that the left is kind of the politics of the educated middle class. Over here, there are kind of two types: one is the politics of the educated middle class, who feel that things should largely be equal, and that all inequalities are unfair, especially those which occur "naturally" as a part of business (because we feel that there's nothing "natural" at all about inequality in the modern world).

The second type is the Northern working class man, strong in't arm, strong in't head, likes his beer, is good in't bed. Heavily based around the unions, it could best be described as the politics of "hanging together" (as Benjamin Franklin would have it). The union power may have been almost utterly destroyed by Margaret Thatcher (in the words of Frankie Boyle, "they don't need to pay for a state funeral. Just give us the money and we'll dig a hole so deep we'll be able to hand her over to Satan personally." Most of my Northern working-class lefties don't laugh at that joke; they just grimly nod...) but many working class remain thoroughly Socialist in outlook. Largely because it has been demonstrated time and again that the British right wing are quite willing to do anything if it means lining their own pockets. That may or may not be true, but if you're Oop North and lived through Thatcher's Reign of Terror, there's a good chance that's how you view it.

After the banking systems privatised profits and public losses, people are even more committed to this outlook.

The trouble is, our "left-wing" party, the Labour party, sold out its left-wing principles. It moved to a more central line, with left-wing social policies, and right-wing fiscal ones, largely in the name of courting votes from affluent middle class voters in the South who usually voted Tory(Conservative). This began in 1997 or so, under Tony Blair's "New Labour" rebranding.

This now leaves the UK without any true left-wing party to vote for, unless you count the Socialist Worker's Party (who are a frakking embarrassment, not to mention totally fringe), or the Green Party (who are too fringe to have a snowball's chance in Hell of winning).

Thus, all political discourse here tends to be a matter of arguing about exactly how right-wing our finiancial policies should be. The Tories are ideologically committed to privatising everything, even stuff that doesn't make sense, like education. Labour are a total bloody mess, under an ineffectual leader called Milliband - he's a charisma-free zone who hasn't really made any of Labour's policies clear enough, and isn't a strong enough leader to call out the Tories on any of their more monstrous policies (like the "academy" schools fiasco - I won't go into it, suffice to say that I have yet to meet a single teacher in favour of it, and I know a lot of teachers). The only other party are the Liberal Democrats, and their leader was actually heard on an open mike saying to the leader of the Tories "This is embarrassing; I need to find something I disagree with you about".

:mad:

The British Political System isn't great from my point of view. It's not got the problem of lobbyists and religious lunacy that the US system does (despite being an atheist, I have no problem with religion. A man chooses for himself and lets others do the same. Religion and politics shouldn't mix though - it's always a recipe for unfairness). Instead, it has a perennial problem of cronyism, and a worship of "competition" as though it were some great panacea for all problems. Which it isn't. Competition doesn't breed balance. It breeds an apex predator.

Here's a very helpful, easy-to-read guide if you're still interested.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BritishPoliticalSystem

Grenadier

02-29-2012, 04:14 PM

Oh man, that's entirely different than it is here. Where to begin?

The American left likes to present itself as the politics of the educated middle class. And many of our colleges serve as left wing indoctrination camps. I myself had a professor who's method was less education and more indoctrination. This I think is due in part to the teachings of Saul Alinsky. College aged kids are perfect to pull into your ranks because while they may be intelligent most are inexperienced. Combine this with their youthful idealism and impressionism it's no surprise many campuses across the nation are hotbeds of the far left.

Meanwhile they present the right here as uneducated, racist, ignorant, and as our president disrespected many of these "clinging to guns and the bible." To the left here the right consists of two types: the evil Republicans and corporations who are greedy and wish to keep the poor in poverty. And then the idiots who are not smart enough to go to college so they join the military.

For the most part labor unions in this nation are affiliated with the far left. Obama has done very well to exploit them. And perhaps in some instances there is socialism at play in some groups.

The issues our left supports do not always clash with the issues conservatives support. But the left here is a very vicious and oft deceptive group and use clever "name changes" to make their ideas seem better. Taxing people becomes "income enhancement" for example. And they often sneak in other issues inside of one issue. But above all the left refuse to tolerate an opposing point of view. They will use lies, ruthless personal attacks, and media campaigns to destroy anyone viewed as an enemy. For example, Media Matters seeking to plant a mole at Fox News and to hire private detectives to dig up dirt on their employees, in an orchestrated campaign to discredit the news network. This is a classic tactic taken right out of the far left's bible, "Rules for Radicals" written by Saul Alinsky.

It is true you will find more religious people on the right than you will on the left of course. And that might reflect that atheism naturally lends itself more to the left. Religion isn't a bad thing entirely but some seem incapable of divorcing their religion from their ideology and thus their politics. To me these are all three distinctly separate matters. And it is easy for any of the the three to influence the other. But a thinking man will separate the three. Only by doing so can one keep their mind open and their thoughts flexible. I value having sincerely held core beliefs. But there are times when it is necessary to change even these beliefs. When you lock yourself entirely into an ideology you are no longer able to change them.

I think also the reason you find more religious people on the right is a result of the sharp division in America. Left and right alike, through their various manifestations, absolutely seem intent on there being no middle ground in America. They want for there to be only two sides. And they insist we all choose a side. The division is destroying the nation.

I'm reasonable enough to know that the solutions cannot always be found in any particular side. Sometimes the right has the best answer. Other times liberals. I don't believe any good solution can be found in the extreme ends of either though.

I find it remarkable that the terms "left wing" and "right wing" are used. And both want to be the wing in power....but if you think of America as an airplane...then you have to ask yourself "how can any plane fly with only one wing?" We need both wings. But what we need is for them to sort themselves out and abandon the divisiveness and corrosive nonsense.

From what you say I get the impression that despite any problems going on over there at least the left and right are much more mature than over here.

The end result is this nation on both sides have strayed very far from the vision our founders had of America. The left likes to denigrate the Constitution and claim it no longer applies. I disagree with that. It still applies but like all things it needs to be repaired from time to time to keep it working correctly.

Both sides here are very vicious and now it seems as if there no longer are any rules of conduct. I see much more of the disgusting stuff coming out of the left than I do the right, but some on the right engage in all that as well.

In terms of political views I find it difficult to know where some on the left stand as well as the right. Because in many ways reasonable people on both side are closer than they let on. For example, the left here will tell you that Republicans are all racist and will do anything to keep the black man down. What they won't tell you is a Republican president fought for a civil rights act but it was blocked by a democratic Speaker of the House. This same Democrat, when he was president passed the civil rights act. They pretend as if liberal Democrats are the only people in America who aren't racist.

At times its hard for me to follow either side because the demonizing and viciousness can be very overwhelming.

Long ago liberalism in America wasn't entirely a bad ideology. Neither is conservatism. Both are oppositional on many issues but there is common ground between some of the issues. Unfortunately over the decades the political parties became consumed with their ideological stance. So much to the extent Democrat is synonymous with liberal and Republican is synonymous with conservative. And the ideological movements themselves have been taken over by the extreme elements with in.
It really is. In America, it seems that the left is kind of the politics of the educated middle class. Over here, there are kind of two types: one is the politics of the educated middle class, who feel that things should largely be equal, and that all inequalities are unfair, especially those which occur "naturally" as a part of business (because we feel that there's nothing "natural" at all about inequality in the modern world).

The second type is the Northern working class man, strong in't arm, strong in't head, likes his beer, is good in't bed. Heavily based around the unions, it could best be described as the politics of "hanging together" (as Benjamin Franklin would have it). The union power may have been almost utterly destroyed by Margaret Thatcher (in the words of Frankie Boyle, "they don't need to pay for a state funeral. Just give us the money and we'll dig a hole so deep we'll be able to hand her over to Satan personally." Most of my Northern working-class lefties don't laugh at that joke; they just grimly nod...) but many working class remain thoroughly Socialist in outlook. Largely because it has been demonstrated time and again that the British right wing are quite willing to do anything if it means lining their own pockets. That may or may not be true, but if you're Oop North and lived through Thatcher's Reign of Terror, there's a good chance that's how you view it.

After the banking systems privatised profits and public losses, people are even more committed to this outlook.

The trouble is, our "left-wing" party, the Labour party, sold out its left-wing principles. It moved to a more central line, with left-wing social policies, and right-wing fiscal ones, largely in the name of courting votes from affluent middle class voters in the South who usually voted Tory(Conservative). This began in 1997 or so, under Tony Blair's "New Labour" rebranding.

This now leaves the UK without any true left-wing party to vote for, unless you count the Socialist Worker's Party (who are a frakking embarrassment, not to mention totally fringe), or the Green Party (who are too fringe to have a snowball's chance in Hell of winning).

Thus, all political discourse here tends to be a matter of arguing about exactly how right-wing our finiancial policies should be. The Tories are ideologically committed to privatising everything, even stuff that doesn't make sense, like education. Labour are a total bloody mess, under an ineffectual leader called Milliband - he's a charisma-free zone who hasn't really made any of Labour's policies clear enough, and isn't a strong enough leader to call out the Tories on any of their more monstrous policies (like the "academy" schools fiasco - I won't go into it, suffice to say that I have yet to meet a single teacher in favour of it, and I know a lot of teachers). The only other party are the Liberal Democrats, and their leader was actually heard on an open mike saying to the leader of the Tories "This is embarrassing; I need to find something I disagree with you about".

:mad:

The British Political System isn't great from my point of view. It's not got the problem of lobbyists and religious lunacy that the US system does (despite being an atheist, I have no problem with religion. A man chooses for himself and lets others do the same. Religion and politics shouldn't mix though - it's always a recipe for unfairness). Instead, it has a perennial problem of cronyism, and a worship of "competition" as though it were some great panacea for all problems. Which it isn't. Competition doesn't breed balance. It breeds an apex predator.

Here's a very helpful, easy-to-read guide if you're still interested.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BritishPoliticalSystem

lattd

02-29-2012, 04:33 PM

The sad thing is the "left" of UK politics ie labour just went about screwing everyone over and allowing union to become crazy again that they are just as bad as the tories. Now don't get me wrong i agree with equality but certain people should get benefits in monetary form, they should get it in food stamps, and students really shouldn't get the bum rap they are given nor should youth, but they are easy targets.

Studying law and criminology at university and watching the news nearly 24/7 has made me so disillusioned with mp's, none of them are there for voters its all about them, and they masquerade this image that they are doing the voters wishes but the mp's expenses showed the truth.

MaltonNecromancer

02-29-2012, 05:22 PM

students really shouldn't get the bum rap they are given nor should youth, but they are easy targets.

So very true. The UK has demonised it's youth for so long now, and it sickens me. the vast majority of young people are glorious. They're funny, and kind, and decent. And 90% of them wear hoodies. (For our American brethren, "hoodies" over here are synonymous with "violent criminal youths who would stab you for kicks".) It's very much the fault of the media, and I despise it.

I see much more of the disgusting stuff coming out of the left than I do the right, but some on the right engage in all that as well.

Speaking as an outsider, I see lots of it from both sides. Once again, it's that choice between bad and worse.

At times its hard for me to follow either side because the demonizing and viciousness can be very overwhelming.

I totally feel for you.

I have several friends move out to the States, and they have nothing but positive things to say about the land and it's peoples. It seems that America never gets the leadership she deserves. Too many fools playing to the peanut gallery, and not enough intelligent people to listen.

From what you say I get the impression that despite any problems going on over there at least the left and right are much more mature than over here.

I don't know about more mature. England has a culture of not taking things too seriously. That's not to say that we view things as humorous; far from it. But anyone who publicly displays passion of any kind, well... he's not to be trusted. As a result, politicians can't quite play to the extremes that they can in the States. That's not to say that Brits don't feel things passionately; far from it. It's just you're not allowed to talk about it, or else you risk the most extreme social censure from absolutely everyone. It's the main reason we don't have politics and religion mixed. Personal belief is a cornerstone of most people's moral compass - everyone I've ever met believes that everyone should be free to believe whatever they like, be it Zoroastrianism, Catholicism, atheism, Islam (though since 9/11 there has been a disgusting level of Islamophobia bubbling away; I've had several Muslim friends insulted and attacked.)

However, if you were to publicly talk about your beliefs? Madness. Not that there's anything wrong with what you believe, just, you know... Why are you so passionate about it? Extreme passion discomfits an Englishman like little else. (The only exceptions are love of football (soccer to our American cousins), love for one's pets (the grandest illustration of this being when Queen Victoria gave her support for the Society For The Prevention of Cruelty To Animals at the same time as her soldiers were butchering children in India) and when an English person is drunk; then you can be as passionate as you like. Hence the reprihensible levels of Friday and Saturday night violence that wrack my beloved country like some kind of social herpes.)

Basically, politicians here rely on a few key touchstones: better education through improved testing, reducing crime by having more police, how they're going to improve the NHS (and they all claim to know how to improve it - the politician who damages the NHS commits career suicide here) and low taxes. That's about it. Other concerns come and go, but those four remain, because really, precious little else matters.

Grenadier

02-29-2012, 07:49 PM

I mean mature not in the sense of childish but rather more mature in the sense of intelligence. Both sides here can be very childish. And very stupid. For example, on the left leaning Huffington Post a guy who writes for The Simpsons named Doyle trashed Catholicsm. Calling us a "cult of flesh eating cannibals." That's incredibly juvenile. I don't know what to be offended by this more over. The appalling immaturity of his article or the insult to my religion.

You said some stuff about no displays of passion over there, not talking about it, and facing social censure from everyone if you do. And I personally believe this is how things are shaping up over here and it is primarily coming from the left. Or at least it appears our left is the cause of it simply because the left dominates American media. Conservatives in the media are a minority. Fox News is the sole and strongest media outlet (on television that is) for a view other than liberal. Apparently print media also is largely to the left and I hear radio media is fairly even. Though I never listen to the radio to confirm this for myself. And then, lastly, we have the internet...and it is what it is.

The above sets it up for my thoughts on the no displays of passion and social censure thing. Any time a Republican, religious figure, or other non-left leaning person steps out of line somehow the media's many forms is on them like sharks. And anytime anyone presents a view counter to the liberal mainstream they are beset with all kinds of attacks. Even, at times , attacking their own. I see this all day long in the news and on the internet. I also read a report about conservative leaning college students often face discrimination on campus. And often on campuses non-liberal guest speakers are shouted down and their speech disrupted.

It seems to me that there is a deliberate effort under way to stifle opposing points of view here in America. Without a doubt I'm sure plenty on the right would do the same, and probably try to, but they're not effective being the minority voice.

And this brings me into freedom of speech. If anyone knows a thing about America its that we love our free speech. And don't get me wrong, I would never advocate stifling it. But I personally feel a great many Americans abuse this right. They take freedom of speech to mean freedom from civility. Our politicians on both sides, media on both sides, and many others are using more and more coarse rhetoric than in the past. And more and more what passes for a debate in America is nothing more than shouting matches full of name calling.

To quote Stan Lee "with great power comes great responsibility." Well, freedom of speech is great power granted to the people. But so few use it responsibly. Sure, we can say whatever we want to here. But how we say things is as important as what is being said.

lattd

03-01-2012, 01:52 AM

Its not even folk devilling any more its become everything is solely the youths fault when all the youths have learnt has come from the generation before. Peoples opinions on Mr Cameron may vary but his "hug a hoodie" speech as the media love to call it was right. I have to say the media has way too much power in the UK.

What i find entertaining though is the BBC which is mean to be unbiased is a big labour fan boy, they will lambaste the tory front bench for being etonian, but always skip over the fact that labours is oxbridge.

Psychosplodge

03-01-2012, 02:47 AM

It's also somewhat ironic that about half the "labour" frontbench have never really had a proper job....

DrLove42

03-01-2012, 03:13 AM

It's also somewhat ironic that about half the "labour" frontbench have never really had a proper job....

This is th ebiggest problem with all politics now. Its not the Labour its all parties. They've never had real jobs. They went from School to College to Uni (all likely in daddy's pocket, particularly if they were Tory) to a job in a cabinet office to MP to government. None of them have never worked a day in their life and are completly out of touch with normal people

Who would you rather have choosing your education system? - A teacher or a career politician who learnt about it from a book?
Wo would you rather have selecting health care options? - A doctor or a career politician with shares in a Pharmacetical company?

It just gets worse with the Lobbying system in America...

So very true. The UK has demonised it's youth for so long now, and it sickens me. the vast majority of young people are glorious. They're funny, and kind, and decent. And 90% of them wear hoodies. (For our American brethren, "hoodies" over here are synonymous with "violent criminal youths who would stab you for kicks".) It's very much the fault of the media, and I despise it.

I'm wearing a Hoody now. Only difference is mine says "Hard Rock Cafe" on the front and i;ve never stabbed someone. The hoody is a University item...no student doesn't have at least 1. Its when the hood goes up theres trouble :P

Speaking as an outsider, I see lots of it from both sides. Once again, it's that choice between bad and worse.

Personal belief is a cornerstone of most people's moral compass - everyone I've ever met believes that everyone should be free to believe whatever they like, be it Zoroastrianism, Catholicism, atheism, Islam (though since 9/11 there has been a disgusting level of Islamophobia bubbling away; I've had several Muslim friends insulted and attacked.)

There was a show on C4 recently, called something like "Make Bradford British" or something. I didn't watch it but by the looks of it they locked a bunch of racist people from every culture (asian, British, arabic etc) in a house and made them talk to each other. Seems like a good idea to get people to actually talk to each other, but the TV advery made it look like the picked the most bone idle ignorant people they possibly could to represent "Britain". I know how have to go a long way to find a white person in Bradford...

I had a thought about the systems the other day. In the US from a British point of view you have 2 parties. From my point of view you have the Democrats who seem to want to push America into the future, with research on stem cells and global warming, free choice on Abortion, sexuality and free health care to all.

And the Republicans,w ho based on news over here, seem determined to pull America back into the 80's

Not that being back in the 80's is a bad thing. We're back there here in the UK right now. Tory government, general strikes, massive unemployment and we're about to go to war in the Falklands....its 1982!

And one final point before I go. This week the government had to shut down a jobs programme because people accused them of "slavery". Basically unemployed people were given jobs to they could "earn" their dole money. For the amount of unemployment benefit they were getting paid, they were getting far more per hour than that job would usually pay. The point that everyone complained about was that if said unemployed (who you could argue was then employed, but still being paid by the government not the company they worked for) person decided to stop working they wouldn't get paid.

I'm sorry but isn't that a JOB? Don't work don't get paid? You're basically saying "we tried to get you a job, but you decided not to work, so we'll just keep paying them again."

MaltonNecromancer

03-01-2012, 03:36 AM

I'm sorry but isn't that a JOB? Don't work don't get paid? You're basically saying "we tried to get you a job, but you decided not to work, so we'll just keep paying them again."

That's a massive oversimplification.

This complaint you make about the "work experience" scheme is one of those things that assumes that all people on the dole are work-shy scum. They aren't. Yes, some of them are, but let's be fair: are all 40K gamers asocia,l fat, neckbearded, virgins? Some are, definitely. But not all.

If you don't want to be tarred with that brush, don't tar others.

Many people on the dole are on the dole because we are in a recession and that's what happens.

"There, but for the grace of god, go I"

and you.

Yes, the benefit system needs sorting, but the total cost of the benefit system is a drop in the ocean when compared to the bailout of the banks, the cost to the NHS of smoking and drink related illness, etc...

Did you know that the cost of cleaning up a single car crash costs the taxpayer £1,000,000? Yet how many scumbags still drink and drive?

Benefits are an emotive issue, because it's seen as "something for nothing". I've lived in council housing on benefits through no choice of my own, and the fantasy that "you can find work if you look hard enough" really is a fantasy sometimes. I sat through many, many intervies in the three months I was unemployed, and even with my GCSE's, A-Levels and BA, found it incredibly hard. That was in 1999. The work market is horrendous now.

Some people are out of work for no reason other than poor luck, and will stay out of work for a long time because the UK does not have the jobs at the moment. Vilifying them isn't the answer, nor is adapting the benefits system so that it undermines the minimum wage - that hurts all of us. The dole is designed to be less than it takes to live on. If you need to work in a job they force you into for your dole money, then that becomes the new minimum wage and we all suffer.

Stop thinking of the unemployed as some chav-scum, single-parent, Jeremy Kyle mass of laziness and middle-fingers, and start thinking of them as 17% of the population (which is what they are now). If the cliche of the basement-dwelling neckbearded billy no-mates doesn't apply to you, then why should your stereotype apply to them?

Recessions just suck. They suck for everyone, and they're a fact of life. The Kondratiev cycle proves as much. Blaming the poor is the same chicanery and misdirection the banks have always used.

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

DrLove42

03-01-2012, 04:05 AM

I wasn't even considering that all dole people are lazy bums. it just happens that all the people I know personally who ARE on the the dole are....and that includes my Sister-In-Law. But I know that over 50% of the people on it are people who would work hard if they had the option.

I know how shocking the market is out there now. When I graduated I applied for over 100 jobs. And then ended up getting my PhD placement, ironically the first one I applied for.

My problem with the jobs issue thats been highlighted is that there were people being offered employment for their benefits and they refused the work. Thats the issue

I'm not going to go as far as saying that the dole should be paid in food stamps, thats just ridiculous. But maybe dole is paid in a "currency" that can't be spent on booze or cigs. The same can be said about child support. I support the governments idea of a cap, but support labours idea of that cap being set locally far more. In Southampton I pay in rent the same amount per month for a 2 bed flat what my in-laws pay on their mortgae for a 3 bedroom house in Coventry

But then that opens a whole new problem - people would move to the South where the cap would be higher so they could get more money. Its the same idea as the government changing the minimum wage and private sector wages based on area. If you know you can get paid more in down s'aff you'll move there. And the North-South drain/divide is already wide enough

Psychosplodge

03-01-2012, 04:19 AM

This is th ebiggest problem with all politics now. Its not the Labour its all parties. They've never had real jobs. They went from School to College to Uni (all likely in daddy's pocket, particularly if they were Tory) to a job in a cabinet office to MP to government. None of them have never worked a day in their life and are completly out of touch with normal people

Who would you rather have choosing your education system? - A teacher or a career politician who learnt about it from a book?
Wo would you rather have selecting health care options? - A doctor or a career politician with shares in a Pharmacetical company?

It just gets worse with the Lobbying system in America...

Personally I think the idea of the appointed peers over the hereditary peers in the house of Lords has removed an important balance to the system, regardless of what you feel about the aristocracy just consider this, they were generally very wealthy from none business means so didn't need the support of lobbyists/directorships of national companies etc and weren't dependent on popular support for their position, so could essentially vote for what they thought was right... Now it might look somewhat un-democratic but the majority of power resides in the commons, and more importantly it generally worked... Now you have all these people who owe their position there to a party, and if they go down the elected route what's the point of having a second house?

I think the problem is these very wealthy middle class politicians. They rely on an income from somewhere, which they take steps to protect, at the same time as having no real idea of the value of money(expenses scandal anyone?)

DrLove42

03-01-2012, 04:26 AM

My favourite quote was when those students stormed the Tory Party tower a few years back and made it to the top floor in "protest" (and then started throwing fire extinguishers off this 20 floor building...). ONe of the newspapers reported it as

"A group of people, who've never worked a day in their lifes and have had everything paid for them, suddenly find themselves at the top and have no idea what to do when they got there. In other news some students attacked the Tory party HQ today..."

eldargal

03-01-2012, 04:35 AM

Exactly this. We used to have a largr group of people who could judge legislation fairly and without worry about pandering to voters. Now we have a bunch if idiots appointed by whatever party they toadied up to. Another thing people always forget about the aristocracy is that there is a logn tradition of political neutrality. Not always but quite often. Advise, inform, debate but don't take sides. Clearly the biggest threat to the democracy.:rolleyes: Far better to waste millions of pounds on an ineffectual fox hunt ban and replace hereditary peers with appointed lobbyists.

Personally I think the idea of the appointed peers over the hereditary peers in the house of Lords has removed an important balance to the system, regardless of what you feel about the aristocracy just consider this, they were generally very wealthy from none business means so didn't need the support of lobbyists/directorships of national companies etc and weren't dependent on popular support for their position, so could essentially vote for what they thought was right... Now it might look somewhat un-democratic but the majority of power resides in the commons, and more importantly it generally worked... Now you have all these people who owe their position there to a party, and if they go down the elected route what's the point of having a second house?

I think the problem is these very wealthy middle class politicians. They rely on an income from somewhere, which they take steps to protect, at the same time as having no real idea of the value of money(expenses scandal anyone?)

MaltonNecromancer

03-01-2012, 05:21 AM

A friend of mine suggested replacing The House of Lords with a "jury" of people, who would come in and serve for a period of about three months, exactly like jury duty. No-one gets too much power, there's no way to influence them, and you get a genuinely representative view of the people's actual views on some of the nonsense the government tries to pass.

Seemed like an interesting idea.

Psychosplodge

03-01-2012, 05:31 AM

That sounds a horrendous idea, that's basicly putting more power in the hands of civil servants that are "advising" these individuals, also given that probably about a third of the eligible population share characteristics with the average subject of a police fly on the wall documentary, I wouldn't let them have the responsibility for running a bath, let alone the country...

Grenadier

03-01-2012, 09:00 AM

The key word when trying to describe the Democrats or Republicans in America is seems Each side has its own ideas on any issue. And if the other side disagrees with them then they make every effort to cast a vision of what the other side seems to be. And this is perpetuated in the media. In America the media is heavily tilted towards a liberal bias. And many foreign media outlets also lean to the left. Consequently the Republicans and their constituents get a raw deal in which what they seem to be is dictated by those who want them to appear a certain way.

There is little point to combat it either. I thought about trying to present Republican views on important issues. But we're the regressive party wanting to take America back to the past. We are whatever people want us to seem. Consequently our ideas on issues are invalid.

lattd

03-01-2012, 02:17 PM

Worst more shocking is Britain's love affair with locking people up, especially kids when all research and evidence says this is just a waste of money and doesn't work.

Psychosplodge

03-01-2012, 03:05 PM

Worst more shocking is Britain's love affair with locking people up, especially kids when all research and evidence says this is just a waste of money and doesn't work.
BS, Short sentences don't work, but they can't commit crimes while locked up.
Having witnessed a family members car being broke into last week, and the amount of damage done to steal nothing (Resulting in a new door being required - due to incompetence in smashing a window ffs) I have no sympathy!!
Lock them in a 6ft box 22hours a day, out for 3 meals a day and 30 mins excercise, and serve full sentences with no visitors, not half out on parole, and see how many re offend.

Our justice system is a joke

Grenadier

03-01-2012, 03:12 PM

Today was a great day for the far left in America and a day of losses for Conservatives.

We learned today that Andrew Breitbart, a major Conservative figure died last night. He's famous for bringing down Congressman Weiner for, well, showing off his weiner. Breitbart, ever the controversial figure was well hated by the left and no doubt his passing comes as a relief to many of them.

And today the religious community took a big hit as Democrats blocked an amendment that would allow employers who object to contraceptives based on religious beliefs to opt out of providing them through contraceptives. The Respect for Rights of Conscience Act was effectively stopped by a vote of 51-48. It would have exempted employers from a new mandate in the Patient's Protection and Affordable care act. At stake here is the right to religious institutions, such as Catholic run hospitals and other institutions, to freedom of religion. In essence the mandate forces them to go against their religious beliefs.

The Democrats may as well be saying to religious institutions "we do not care about your religious rights or conscience and you will be forced to violate them by providing something that goes against your beliefs." And it being a government mandate then means any religious institution that defies this will suffer penalties. Religious freedom then is being trampled on.

But it's a big win for those who want more access to contraceptives. And perhaps a win for the anti-religion movement in this nation as well.

To me that this amendment has been blocked represents just another example of how both sides of an issue have completely and utterly failed Americans. First of all, this amendment is only addressing the mandate contained in Obama's health care overhaul. It doesn't alter any existing state or federal laws in effect currently. So on the surface the Blunt amendment would not restrict access to contraceptives. Furthermore it would have continued to safeguard the religious rights provided in this nation for over 200 years.

The failure to reach a compromise in my opinion hurts the nation. As it is contraceptives are not all that hard to get in America. Even the poor can gain access to them via numerous charities and organizations who provide them. In my town I can walk in and get a bag of condoms from the Health Department free of charge. And women have access to contraceptives through them as well.

Exactly how does blocking this amendment hurt America? Well, not at all if you have no respect for the religious rights of people. But if you have deeply held religious beliefs and the government has the power to force you to violate them it hurts those of faith. And it may well have unforeseen effects to come. Also, this sets an unfortunate precedent. If the government now has the power to force religious institutions to violate their conscience and beliefs what will the government be able to do to them next? Which religion will be the next forced to go against its beliefs? Islam? Hinduism? Judaism?

Two sides of one issue: unfettered access to contraceptives for women, provided by taxpayers and employer's insurance or the rights of religious people to practice their faith without government intrusion upon it.

Solution: some middle ground.

Chronowraith

03-01-2012, 06:09 PM

Exactly how does blocking this amendment hurt America? Well, not at all if you have no respect for the religious rights of people

You could argue the fact that preventing the law from passing actually does more to protect the religious freedoms of individuals while stifling the freedoms of religious organizations. The issue here is incredibly complex. Many religious institutions and groups hire and employee people of different faiths and beliefs. Those individuals may disagree with their employer on the issue of contraceptives. So one angle of this debate is a personal freedom vs religious freedom. Which one trumps the other?

Then you have the health issue. The birth control pill, i.e. hormone therapy, is used to treat a variety of other medical conditions in addition to its use as a contraceptive. So in this debate you weight the health of individuals against the religious freedoms of a particular group. Again, which trumps the other?

I really don't see how anyone can complain about the government being too large while at the same time expecting individuals to seek out public assistance (i.e. the health department) for their contraceptives. That is, at least, a conflict of interest.

Grenadier

03-01-2012, 09:20 PM

The Supreme Court doesn't allow any religious institutions to discriminate against who they hire. Theoretically an Evangelical could work for an atheist organization. Including holding a leadership role. Or a Muslim could work for a Jewish institution. And on and on. Nobody is allowed to discriminate in hiring based on religion.

The point being nobody is forcing anyone of an a different religion or lack of to work for an organization with beliefs counter to their own. If you're an atheist working for a Catholic hospital that is entirely your choice. But now the government can force the institution to go against its conscience and beliefs?

The collective rights of religious groups or individuals outweighs the individual rights of people seeking contraceptives. Especially since they have numerous other sources they can get their contraceptives from. They're even given for free by some organizations. Let groups like Planned Parenthood provide it for them. I personally think the best solution is for religious institutions affected by this to simply get out of the game entirely. This way they can practice their religious views without having to be forced to violate them by a government that doesn't respect their views. Getting out of the game is well within their rights. At least for now.

This is a blatant attempt to undermine a specific religion in this country. People want to cloak it in public health or women's rights, which may well have legitimate merits on those two fronts, but it doesn't negate the fact it is a deliberate attack on Christian religious freedom. In another hypothetical scenario if the impacted faith of a government mandate was Islam or other minority religion there would be a huge outcry from the people supporting this real attack. If some government mandate in America required Muslims to violate their faith it would be universally denounced.

With this precedent it opens the door for more attacks on the Christian faith. Or any other one. Give big government an inch and it'll take a mile. Any religion can now be a target. But again, this only hurts the religious, not those who have no respect for religion.

scadugenga

03-01-2012, 11:43 PM

I'm sorry, Grenadier--for the most part I've been reading your posts with approval. You seemed to be a more moderate conservative and understand there needs to be balance within the parties to achieve actual progress in our country's political arena.

And then your last post basically turns 180 degrees from your original posts.

Religion, of any path of believe, has zero business being involved in our government. Our Founding Fathers understood this. Unfortunately Republicans don't quite seem to get it. Neither, apparently, do you.

I can say this as someone whose mother was northern Baptist, father was southern Church of Christ; raised Methodist, educated in Lutheran schools, and married by a Catholic priest. All this has contributed to me becoming solidly agnostic. My pagan friends have more faith, and good will towards others than just about any other "Christian" I've met.

Personally, I've lost all respect for the Catholic church. Until they step up and stop shielding child molesters from the law and start acting like the agents of spiritual and social guidance that they are supposed to be--well, Christopher Titus said it best. "You know what I wish they had? Oh! A God that they could pray to for guidance! Or maybe a book with some rules in it that they could read!"

Forgive me if I remain true to the ideals of this country and want religions of any flavor the eff out of my government.

So yes, I'm glad that amendment failed. Republicans have already pushed the envelope too far as it is under the Bush (junior, not senior) administration. Patriot Act--I'm looking at you.

Of course, Obama also screwed the pooch by signing the Indefinite Detention bill...

Religious institutions already get massive tax breaks in this country. They should be happy with that. God/s know that right now we're all feeling the tax crunch. Particularly with a number of tax breaks for the everyday person getting set to expire this year. A religious hospital center had revenue over $3.6 billion and paid no income taxes on its "nonprofit" (IE Church) operations. They also paid no taxes on their capital gains of over $300 million.

Now, I don't consider myself a Republican, or a Democrat. I'll vote (or abstain from voting) depending on the candidates available, what their track record is, and how many "buckets full of crazy" they are. The craziest will not get my vote. If both major players are jackholes, then I'll generally avoid the vote. (EG 2004 elections) A two party system has shown repeatedly that it will not work, and us poor working schlubs pay the price for it. Every freaking four years.

Sadly, the majority of voters are uneducated about the candidates, vote solely along party lines (because it requires less thought) and generally eff up the vote count for those of us who actually do the research.

But the real sad truth? Is that politician has become a "career path."

Which means left or right, they're not looking out for the welfare of the country, they're looking out for themselves first and foremost.

And while you're throwing out far left crazies, I'll toss you one from your side of the fence. :)

http://oaklawn.patch.com/articles/republican-congressional-candidate-says-holocaust-never-happened

It's sad that Illinois has so many effing idiots running for office. It's like we're a magnet or something.

eldargal

03-01-2012, 11:59 PM

Psychosplodge

03-02-2012, 02:27 AM

One thing about birth control is that it helps moderate PMS, so if you don't want your wife/girlfriend/whomever making a spirited attempt to kill you or just being really annoyingly sulky once a month, always support legislation which supports birth control.:rolleyes:

http://chzemokid.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/emo-scene-hipster-so-this-is-suppossed-to-happen-once-every-month.jpg

By once a month, you mean 3 weeks out of 4? :rolleyes:

Seriously though, I had the republican nomination contest summed up to me like this,

"It's a choice between a member of a church that holds unsolicited post mortem baptisms, and a religious nutjob who wants to bomb Iran to stop a different type of religious nutjob getting nukes"

DrLove42

03-02-2012, 03:00 AM

I have to say I'm agreeing with Scadugenda on this one

If your in a position that someones requests contraceptives from you, your probably some kind of health or advisory service. You don't get many people walking into Starbucks or Subway and asking for contraceptives....

So if you are in the position to be asked, you've committed to helping people. Surely refusing people is worse? If that person has made the decision to get contraceptives that's there choice. You refusing them is a breach of their rights (and we all know how big modern politics is on "breaching someones rights").

Also...****'s running as republicans. That must say a lot....(Edit - seriously? N-a-z-i is blocked by the profanity filter?)

And then theres this (Obamas birth certificate is still a fake says self appointed racist sheriff (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17229009)). Why can't they just try and use actual politics to argue with him or just accept that hes not white?

Also vis a vis PMS control - Contraceptive Implant...all I'm gonna say. My other half hasn't had any in the 2 years shes had one :p

Drunkencorgimaster

03-02-2012, 07:34 AM

I had a thought about the systems the other day. In the US from a British point of view you have 2 parties. From my point of view you have the Democrats who seem to want to push America into the future, with research on stem cells and global warming, free choice on Abortion, sexuality and free health care to all.

And the Republicans,w ho based on news over here, seem determined to pull America back into the 80's

Not that being back in the 80's is a bad thing. We're back there here in the UK right now. Tory government, general strikes, massive unemployment and we're about to go to war in the Falklands....its 1982!

And one final point before I go. This week the government had to shut down a jobs programme because people accused them of "slavery". Basically unemployed people were given jobs to they could "earn" their dole money. For the amount of unemployment benefit they were getting paid, they were getting far more per hour than that job would usually pay. The point that everyone complained about was that if said unemployed (who you could argue was then employed, but still being paid by the government not the company they worked for) person decided to stop working they wouldn't get paid.

I'm sorry but isn't that a JOB? Don't work don't get paid? You're basically saying "we tried to get you a job, but you decided not to work, so we'll just keep paying them again."

Other than a rather rose-colored picture of the Democrats, I find myself inclined to agree with you on much of this. Weird.

MaltonNecromancer

03-02-2012, 10:52 AM

But now the government can force the institution to go against its conscience and beliefs?

The collective rights of religious groups or individuals outweighs the individual rights of people seeking contraceptives. ... I personally think the best solution is for religious institutions affected by this to simply get out of the game entirely. This way they can practice their religious views without having to be forced to violate them by a government that doesn't respect their views...

This is a blatant attempt to undermine a specific religion in this country.

Ummm. I hate to quote scripture, but really, the Bible has already got this one covered. 1 Peter 2:13-17 covers the fact that Christians must submit to civil authorities:

13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, 14 or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.

15 For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men.

16 [Act] as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but [use it] as bondslaves of God. 17 Honor all men; love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king.

If a Christian disagrees with the laws of the land, that's tough. As you say, "I personally think the best solution is for religious institutions affected by this to simply get out of the game entirely."; I quite agree with you - Religion has absolutely no place in medicine. Tending the the spiritual needs of those who are sick? Absolutely. But in every other aspect, they need to stay out.

Now, if a Christian or Catholic disagrees with the availability of contraceptives, that's their moral choice. But let's be real: we don't see Jews or Muslims working in a pig abbatoir all too often.

What you describe as an "attack on Christians"? I think you're reading too much into it. Seriously, no-one's coming to take your faith away. I could no more make you an atheist than you could make me play WHFB. :) If you need a place to commune with God, you have many wonderful churches, as well as the whole rest of the the world He created for you. Your faith is bulletproof.

Regardless, the Bible is clear - where possible, follow the rules of the land you live in.

Now, here I suspect we gat into a Biblical slanging match where we throw Bible quotes at one another in order to prove the relative "righteousness" of our cause. If you want to go there, I can. I have read the Bible quite extensively, and will join in ifyou like.

But that's not what I want.

Secularism isn't attacking you. You could no more take the Christianity out of America than you could take out American Football. It's part of your cultural DNA. What secularism is doing is delineating quite clearly where the line is. It then leaves it to you to choose where on the line to stand. If you disagree about the placement of the line, short of becoming a legislator, there's little you can do. But the line has to be made by the secular, because the moment one religion can break the laws, every religion will, and then there will be madness.

Catholic doctors who disagree with contraception can always choose to work in other jobs in the medical profession which mean they don't have to compromise their morals. I doubt many anaestesiologists have to give out condoms.

Grenadier

03-02-2012, 01:05 PM

MaltonNecromancer

03-02-2012, 02:17 PM

For example the FFRF recently forced a school in my area to abandon a long held tradition of a pre-game prayer. Which has absolutely nothing whatsoever ever to do with separation of church and state.

If I was a parent, I'd be as angry as you about my children being made to pray as you are by their inability.

And the whole "it's a tradition" thing? that just makes me angrier. I despise traditions that are upheld for no reason beyond the fact that "that's what we've always done".

So which of us is right? Whose offense wins?

You?

Me?

The only answer is to say that no-one gets to pray, because prayer belongs in church and home. You wanna pray publicly? Cool! Just do it away from me and my kids. It's not about banning you - it's about asking you to respect my freedoms too.

Why should people of faith only practice their faith in the synogogues, chruches, or mosques?

Because it makes people who are not of that faith (like me) deeply uncomfortable when we get forced into public prayer.

I believe there is no god. I believe that this universe has no plan, guide or goal. I reached this conclusion by spending a good part of my life reading religious texts and looking at the way the world works, and deciding that religion is nonsense. Religion is a revolting thing which causes huge amounts of evil and wrong and for no good reason, because it makes as much sense as believing in Santa Claus. The universe ia vast and complicated and god is a reductio ad absurdum argument that annoys me. Life is a lucky cosmic happenstance, no more significant and important than nuclear fusion. It certainly has no meaning or point. All this is my point of view, and my point of view alone.

Now, if that statement makes you feel uncomfortable, Grenadier, I am truly sorry. But I'd like you to now put yourself in my shoes. That uncomfortable, angry feeling you may have over the statement of my beliefs? That's how I get when I see public prayer - people stating their beliefs.. I don't like to talk about my atheist too often, because all I do is make religious people like yourselves angry. And who am I to tell you what to believe, you know? I'm just some guy.

But my beliefs are as valid as yours. I've studied the Bible. I've studied religions. Why are my beliefs that public prayer is wrong any less valid than yours that they are right?

I don't want to attack your religion. I don't want your religion to go away. You're as free as I am: believe what you want to believe!

Just do it where it's appropriate: amongst like-minded people. Who seem to congregate (no pun intended) in churches.

At the end of the day, it's not about attacking you; if you feel like a victim when you're a member of one of the largest faiths in the world, mate, you need to take a step back. It's about respecting everyone - and that includes people of other faiths, and people of no faith.

We're as valid as you.

While the anti-religion movement may not come into your home or church to take away your religious rights they will continue to try to sweep religion out of sight and push it into the shadows.

Agent Seely Booth is a devout Catholic character on the TV series "Bones", and is presented in a noble and positive light. So is the Marvel superheor "Daredevil". Religious characters are all over TV in greater or lesser ways. Religion is part of the tapestry of Americana.

You're assuming that what you're seeing is an attack, when it's just a minor paradigm shift.

Also, seriously: you're forgetting Hanlon's Razor.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HanlonsRazor

They are fundamentally incapable of relating or sympathizing with those of faith.

That's very patronising. I'm actually insulted by that one.

I had faith when I was a boy. I know exactly how faith feels; it's a warm blanket of hope you wear when you're scared or depressed. It's a sense of community and belonging, and being part of something, and a sense of togetherness... having people who share a common outlook. It's a deep connection to a vast and impossible love that extends beyond anything as paltry as this existence. It's a powerful, powerful thing.

But I'm glad to be rid of it, and I wouldn't want it back; if you can't understand why not, that's fair enough. :)

Now, I hope you don't feel offended. I imagine you may, and as I say, I'm really sorry. I am, I suppose, simply playing Devil's Advocate (and isn't that an irony? :))

We're not out to get you. In fact, we just want to be friends. But with everyone, not just you. If that means you get caused minor offense so more of us can get along? That's just a price we'll pay, because it's fairer for everyone.

You can come play with us, or not, but I really hope you'll join us. It'd be a shame if you missed out on the fun because you were upset that we didn't want to pray with you, when we have so many other things in common.

scadugenga

03-02-2012, 05:15 PM

Suggesting that religious hospitals are just tending to spirituality is not entirely accurate. They do actually provide medical services. And often to the poor. The Catholic church is arguably the largest charitable organization the world. And religion sponsored hospitals have done much to improve the state of health all over the world. Especially in poor areas. But maybe the time has come and gone and religious institutions should get out of providing health care to people and turn that over to big government.

My wife works in the health industry. In fact, she works for the #1 independent Childrens' hospital in the country. Now, Chicago's a huge place, they don't call it the 2nd City for nothing. Want to know what one of the major hospitals is in Chicago? Lutheran General. You want to know what they're called amongst the health workers in the city? Lucrative General. They're a Christian hospital (And no one ever implied that a religious hospital didn't provide medical services...) that while being classified as "non-profit" is very much "for profit" in mindset. They don't see anyone that cannot pay. So much for charity...

Faith is not bulletproof anymore in America. While the anti-religion movement may not come into your home or church to take away your religious rights they will continue to try to sweep religion out of sight and push it into the shadows.

That's pure supposition. Faith is still readily prevalent everywhere in the US. Malton quoted the entertainment sector, so I won't go into that. The President is still sworn in on a bible. You can't drive into a town without seeing at least one church, if not several.

Does religion belong in the public school system? Not in any organized way, it doesn't. Schools funded by taxpayers should follow governmental regulations about separation from church and state. Again--Founding Fathers, et al.

That's not saying you can't have individual prayer, etc. in public school. I knew kids that said grace at lunch, prayed before games, etc. No one cared. You just can't have mandated prayer in school. The major failing of your argument is that you are basically substituting "Christianity" for "Religion." There's more than one faith out there, Grenadier. As I mentioned previously--I went to a Lutheran school. As a private school, we had mandatory prayer, religion class and chapel services. But as a private institution, that was their right. (IE No government funding.) I had a Buddhist friend in class--she wasn't Christian, but she was religious--and because it was a Lutheran school, she had to study Christianity, etc. Her parents knew that going in and accepted that as the cost of having a better education than the public school system could provide.

For example the FFRF recently forced a school in my area to abandon a long held tradition of a pre-game prayer. Which has absolutely nothing whatsoever ever to do with separation of church and state. The ACLU is constantly filing lawsuits on behalf of atheists to push religion out of the public view. People in this nation are mocking and criticizing some major football star who displays his faith openly in the NFL. Anyone who thinks there isn't an organized effort in America to force religion out of the public view might need to open their eyes.

If it was a public school--and the prayer was required, then they were right. If the school received taxpayer dollars, it is absolutely an issue of church and state. If you can't see that, then you aren't nearly as open-minded as you are claiming to be.

If you're talking about Tebow--he gets mocked for more than just his religion...and getting "Tebowed" is by no means mockery. If anything, it's flattery disguised as humor.

And now the government has the power to order religious institutes to behave in a way contradictory to their beliefs. Its appalling to me that the left and atheists do not consider this to be a serious abuse of power. I am sure, however, if the role was reversed and the government mandated atheists to pray once a week (thus violating their beliefs) there would be the appropriate outrage.

No, the Government has the power to enforce the law. Religious institutions, particularly Catholic ones, (sorry, but the history is there for all to see...) have long tried to make an end run around that particular issue. (The latest of which, of course, is the shielding of child molesters from criminal prosecution.)

Why should people of faith only practice their faith in the synogogues, chruches, or mosques? Time and time again people on the left claim religion isn't under attack and there is no issue. But since they're the ones leading the charge and winning, and having no respect for the institution of religion of course they'd have this view. They are fundamentally incapable of relating or sympathizing with those of faith.

This is pure straw man--plain and simple.

Grenadier

03-02-2012, 06:26 PM

High school football is extra-curricular. And around here it's mostly funded via donations and fundraisers like selling those nasty $3.00 candy bars. So the argument that a prayer before the game violates separation of church and state doesn't hold much water. Especially to the people of this region.

Of course such hospitals will make a profit. And while the one you cited does so well others do not. And it doesn't negate the fact that for generations they've provided a much needed service, especially to the poor around the world. Where I live churches run free clinics, bring in dentists to fix up people's teeth, and more. And despite this valuable service I advocate for churches to get out of providing such services if in doing so puts them at risk of being forced to violate their beliefs by the ever expanding government.

And in some schools you can't pray in groups. So willing students who would like to do so in some places can't.

And never make the mistake of assuming I think there's only one religion here in America. The failing of your argument is you make assumptions about what I'm thinking. If it exists anywhere in the world as a religion it can be found here in America as well. However, Christianity is the dominant religion in this nation, especially in certain areas. That's not to say that by virtue of being the majority the minority religions should suffer. I'm all for fairness in all things. Fairness, inclusiveness, and the option for people who object to opt out without any penalty. This means all people can be free to express their religious, political, or ideological views even in the public arena.

But I am seeing very little of it (it being fairness, inclusiveness, and the right to opt out) these days coming out of the media or government. For example, some liberal media figures recently have been mocking Santorum and Romney's religion. And getting a pass for it. There is an unspoken bigotry at play coming out of the left but few denounce it. But should anyone dare say something about Islam there's Hell to pay for it it'll be the liberal media collecting the debt.

You call it a straw man and I call it the truth. I accept that fact that some would think all of this is meaningless. But then it's relative to one's views. If you're in a minority religion, or an atheist, or on the left you won't consider anything that might negatively impact Christians as an issue.

The irony is that although I'm Catholic I've not practiced my faith since high school. And it'll be a long time before I go to a church again, if ever at all. What I'm speaking about has merit and I've seen it with my own eyes. I digest a massive amount of media every single day from numerous sources and covering numerous topics. And in recent years my observations of things have led me to conclude that there is indeed a bigoted backlash against Christians of all denominations. In addition there are some severe double standards regarding what can be said about the various religions. And I am not the only person who has come to this conclusion.

And now I've said my piece and am done with this branch of the topic.