The Political Discussion Thread

[SaberBlade]

Corruption and inefficiency are certainly problems, but we also live in a democracy in which we get a revolution every 2-4 years. It's not as if those people are necessarily in power forever if we don't want them to be.

But America is a just a democratically elected republic. So the democracy of the people ends at the voting booth, after that you're stuck with your mistake for the next 2/4/6 (I think it's 6 for senate) years before you can try something different, then the cycle of BS beings again when the guy who elected fails to deliver so plays the blame game. So even if you don't want people in power, if they scream lower taxes long enough, people will believe them.

[Col.Foley]

Yeah, I'm not seeing that historically, sorry. Just naming every empire ever doesn't really prove anything. It seems more like when you shrink your government in half is when decline starts, not prosperity. You're free to disagree, I suppose, but I just don't see any of those countries/empires doing better when their ruling body voluntarily shrunk.

Corruption and inefficiency are certainly problems, but we also live in a democracy in which we get a revolution every 2-4 years. It's not as if those people are necessarily in power forever if we don't want them to be.

The problem is not the ruling body I have never claimed the problem was the 'ruling body' the problem. So I really do not know what you are talking about. Maybe it was a good thing I accidentally closed out this window trying to do...something. . Because you are using a term I have no idea what you are talking about.



But Empires tend to be powerful influential things. And that does tend to let their people enjoy a higher lifestyle off the backs of the people they rule. Take that away, they suffer.

As for the second part of the post, I suggest that you update yourself on what our Government is in actuality, you can start by reading Saber's point.

But America is a just a democratically elected republic. So the democracy of the people ends at the voting booth, after that you're stuck with your mistake for the next 2/4/6 (I think it's 6 for senate) years before you can try something different, then the cycle of BS beings again when the guy who elected fails to deliver so plays the blame game. So even if you don't want people in power, if they scream lower taxes long enough, people will believe them.

Excellent post! But I think I should...clarify a few things about the American system.

One. The people are not exactly silent during the interm. We have the rights of speech and the right to petition. We have the right of a vibrant press. (Which the only press insitututes that are being vibrant is currently under assault by the current administration...no surprise.)

Two, since we do live in a Democratic Republic with 536 elected officials (and countless unelected officials and appointed bearocrats (I hate that word)) you can elect your own official who is perfect, descent, and honest, and actually plans on following his campaign promises, he can even be apart of a new coalition. But then not get anything done because they can be a bit outnumbered, even by the members of their own party.

Three, we have a Constitution. (Like many other Governments) Which provides a blue print and a basis for our Government. The theory here, (again like many other Governments) is that is the powers and rock solid principles of your Government that cannot be violated and how the Government is supposed to operate. What laws they can write, and what laws they cannot write. Our Current politicians are violating the Constitution with reckless abandon.

Four, you should really look at a large swath of Libertarians...they are a very pessimistic bunch.

[mad_gater]

The problem is not the ruling body I have never claimed the problem was the 'ruling body' the problem. So I really do not know what you are talking about. Maybe it was a good thing I accidentally closed out this window trying to do...something. . Because you are using a term I have no idea what you are talking about.



But Empires tend to be powerful influential things. And that does tend to let their people enjoy a higher lifestyle off the backs of the people they rule. Take that away, they suffer.

As for the second part of the post, I suggest that you update yourself on what our Government is in actuality, you can start by reading Saber's point.

Excellent post! But I think I should...clarify a few things about the American system.

One. The people are not exactly silent during the interm. We have the rights of speech and the right to petition. We have the right of a vibrant press. (Which the only press insitututes that are being vibrant is currently under assault by the current administration...no surprise.)

Two, since we do live in a Democratic Republic with 536 elected officials (and countless unelected officials and appointed bearocrats (I hate that word)) you can elect your own official who is perfect, descent, and honest, and actually plans on following his campaign promises, he can even be apart of a new coalition. But then not get anything done because they can be a bit outnumbered, even by the members of their own party.

Three, we have a Constitution. (Like many other Governments) Which provides a blue print and a basis for our Government. The theory here, (again like many other Governments) is that is the powers and rock solid principles of your Government that cannot be violated and how the Government is supposed to operate. What laws they can write, and what laws they cannot write. Our Current politicians are violating the Constitution with reckless abandon.

Four, you should really look at a large swath of Libertarians...they are a very pessimistic bunch.

yeah we have the rights of speech and petition.....for now anyway....at least until Obama is done concentrating untold and unconstitutional amounts of power into the hands of the Federal Government....

[xxxevilgrinxxx]

yeah we have the rights of speech and petition.....for now anyway....at least until Obama is done concentrating untold and unconstitutional amounts of power into the hands of the Federal Government....

weren't you paying attention during the Bush years?
every consecutive admin does this - right and left - because their base demands it

[Giantevilhead]

It's easy to say that charity is better than having the government take care of people but unfortunately, there are problems that NGO's are simply not able to take care of and become concerns for the rest of society.

Homelessness is an obvious example. At least half of homeless people suffer from some form of mental illnesses while between 20% to 25% suffer from serious persistent mental illnesses that require a lot of care. In fact, it was found that 15% of mentally ill people in California have been homeless at least once in an one year period. Prior to deinstitutionalization, this was not such a huge problem. However, since the 1960's, 90% of government run psychiatric hospitals have closed, releasing more than half a million patients. NGO's have not even come close to meeting the needs of mentally ill homeless.

Then there are the substance abusers. Of course, a lot of mentally ill homeless are also substance abusers so there's a lot of overlap. However, there are plenty of substance abusers who are not mentally ill. They often suffer from the same problems as the mentally ill and a lot of them end up with serious mental illnesses caused by their substance abuse. Again, NGO's have been unable to meet their needs.

Finally there are the people who are just too damn lazy to work. Santa Monica is full of these types of people. NGO's can't really deal with these kinds of people at all. Throwing them in jail will cost the tax payers anyway and it could turn them into real criminals. We can't just leave them alone since they're a huge drain on public resources. Not only will they rack up huge hospital bills but they have a habit of spreading infectious diseases, especially TB and the flu. I remember reading a study done by UCLA back in 2004 or 2005 that estimated about one fourth of all TB infections in the country, higher in California and New York, can be traced back to the homeless population.

There are obviously other similar problems like with the elderly population, certain disabled populations, disease control, pollution and toxic spills, etc., where government intervention is pretty much necessary.

[s09119]

One. The people are not exactly silent during the interm. We have the rights of speech and the right to petition. We have the right of a vibrant press. (Which the only press insitututes that are being vibrant is currently under assault by the current administration...no surprise.)

How is the Obama administration assaulting the press, exactly? I mean besides not wanting to talk to the Republican propaganda machine that is Fox News (if you even try to deny that... just don't try). Telling people the President is trying to silence the press when there's zero evidence of that's a little unfair and uncalled for.

Three, we have a Constitution. (Like many other Governments) Which provides a blue print and a basis for our Government. The theory here, (again like many other Governments) is that is the powers and rock solid principles of your Government that cannot be violated and how the Government is supposed to operate. What laws they can write, and what laws they cannot write. Our Current politicians are violating the Constitution with reckless abandon.

Oh, because Bush didn't routinely step all over the Constitution. At the very least, Obama and the Democrats attempt to make a case for why what they're doing is constitutional, unlike Cheney who simply shouted "National security!" at every turn without a care.

[Col.Foley]

weren't you paying attention during the Bush years?
every consecutive admin does this - right and left - because their base demands it

I really wonder which base you are talking about?

Though I suppose in some ways and cases you are right but I am willing to bet that a lot of Bush's base would not approve of what he was doing whenthey came to realize the extent and scope...as I am sure the Obama base would not be happy with Obama when they realized the same thing.

How is the Obama administration assaulting the press, exactly? I mean besides not wanting to talk to the Republican propaganda machine that is Fox News (if you even try to deny that... just don't try). Telling people the President is trying to silence the press when there's zero evidence of that's a little unfair and uncalled for.



Oh, because Bush didn't routinely step all over the Constitution. At the very least, Obama and the Democrats attempt to make a case for why what they're doing is constitutional, unlike Cheney who simply shouted "National security!" at every turn without a care.

He is. First they came for the Jews and I did not care, first they came for Fox News and I did not care. I suppose I should put *said in sing songy voice*

I would ask a question, but since it is quite obvious what the answer is I am not going to bother instead I will say yoou should try watching Fox News sometime, and find out the truth for yourself instead of believing the lies and misconceptions of our current administration.

Oh wait what did they do? Yes they lied. That is pretty assaulting to the press don't ya think? Hmmm. I suppose. And it is not simply not talking to Fox News, because he has, ignoring them is not attacking them. Calling them a Republican Propagandist machine (when they are not), excluding them from the normal ways that things have been done in recent history, and generally lying and making up stories about them. Also things like the Fairness Doctrine that is being bandied about and Net Neutrality is an direct assault on our First Amendment rights.

*sigh*....*snort*....ahem.

So you can violate the Constitution as long as you can explain it?

[s09119]

I really wonder which base you are talking about?

Though I suppose in some ways and cases you are right but I am willing to bet that a lot of Bush's base would not approve of what he was doing whenthey came to realize the extent and scope...as I am sure the Obama base would not be happy with Obama when they realized the same thing.

He is. First they came for the Jews and I did not care, first they came for Fox News and I did not care. I suppose I should put *said in sing songy voice*

I would ask a question, but since it is quite obvious what the answer is I am not going to bother instead I will say yoou should try watching Fox News sometime, and find out the truth for yourself instead of believing the lies and misconceptions of our current administration.

Oh wait what did they do? Yes they lied. That is pretty assaulting to the press don't ya think? Hmmm. I suppose. And it is not simply not talking to Fox News, because he has, ignoring them is not attacking them. Calling them a Republican Propagandist machine (when they are not), excluding them from the normal ways that things have been done in recent history, and generally lying and making up stories about them. Also things like the Fairness Doctrine that is being bandied about and Net Neutrality is an direct assault on our First Amendment rights.

*sigh*....*snort*....ahem.

So you can violate the Constitution as long as you can explain it?

Have you ever compared headlines on FoxNews.com to headlines on every other news site, including international ones? When everyone else's main story is, say "Baby Doc arrested in Haiti," FoxNews had "While GOP tries to repeal job-killing health law... Obama plays FEAR GAMES!" I know, I was checking them. Not only do they focus obsessively on the Democrats and spin every headline into an attack on them, but they ignore other news stories to squeeze in one or two more articles attacking the other party. There's never a big headline going after the Republicans, and every single piece reads like an op-ed, chock full of stuff like "more of the same from Mr. O" or other just non-professional sounding attacks.

You can say it's not a propaganda machine all you want, but the facts are staring you in the face. Hello, every 2012 GOP frontrunner for the presidency is a paid correspondent. And you're still gonna say they're not in bed?

It's not violating the Constitution if you can explain why it's not. So yes, that's exactly it. Just because you disagree with the explanation doesn't make it necessarily a violation. The Supreme Court tends to be on my side here.

[mad_gater]

It's easy to say that charity is better than having the government take care of people but unfortunately, there are problems that NGO's are simply not able to take care of and become concerns for the rest of society.

Homelessness is an obvious example. At least half of homeless people suffer from some form of mental illnesses while between 20% to 25% suffer from serious persistent mental illnesses that require a lot of care. In fact, it was found that 15% of mentally ill people in California have been homeless at least once in an one year period. Prior to deinstitutionalization, this was not such a huge problem. However, since the 1960's, 90% of government run psychiatric hospitals have closed, releasing more than half a million patients. NGO's have not even come close to meeting the needs of mentally ill homeless.

Then there are the substance abusers. Of course, a lot of mentally ill homeless are also substance abusers so there's a lot of overlap. However, there are plenty of substance abusers who are not mentally ill. They often suffer from the same problems as the mentally ill and a lot of them end up with serious mental illnesses caused by their substance abuse. Again, NGO's have been unable to meet their needs.

Finally there are the people who are just too damn lazy to work. Santa Monica is full of these types of people. NGO's can't really deal with these kinds of people at all. Throwing them in jail will cost the tax payers anyway and it could turn them into real criminals. We can't just leave them alone since they're a huge drain on public resources. Not only will they rack up huge hospital bills but they have a habit of spreading infectious diseases, especially TB and the flu. I remember reading a study done by UCLA back in 2004 or 2005 that estimated about one fourth of all TB infections in the country, higher in California and New York, can be traced back to the homeless population.

There are obviously other similar problems like with the elderly population, certain disabled populations, disease control, pollution and toxic spills, etc., where government intervention is pretty much necessary.

NGO's are having trouble in this area because they're not being given a chance....the minute a problem crops up the government immediately swoops in to confiscate taxpayer funds before even giving the private sector a chance to address the problem

[Col.Foley]

Have you ever compared headlines on FoxNews.com to headlines on every other news site, including international ones? When everyone else's main story is, say "Baby Doc arrested in Haiti," FoxNews had "While GOP tries to repeal job-killing health law... Obama plays FEAR GAMES!" I know, I was checking them. Not only do they focus obsessively on the Democrats and spin every headline into an attack on them, but they ignore other news stories to squeeze in one or two more articles attacking the other party. There's never a big headline going after the Republicans, and every single piece reads like an op-ed, chock full of stuff like "more of the same from Mr. O" or other just non-professional sounding attacks.

You can say it's not a propaganda machine all you want, but the facts are staring you in the face. Hello, every 2012 GOP frontrunner for the presidency is a paid correspondent. And you're still gonna say they're not in bed?

It's not violating the Constitution if you can explain why it's not. So yes, that's exactly it. Just because you disagree with the explanation doesn't make it necessarily a violation. The Supreme Court tends to be on my side here.

So the answer is, no you do not watch Fox News. Thank you.

So just because someone can explain when they are not violating the Constitution you automatically believe them?

[Rickington]

Net Neutrality is an direct assault on our First Amendment rights.

So, are you saying (in the quoted sentence ), that you're against net neutrality?

[Col.Foley]

So, are you saying (in the quoted sentence ), that you're against net neutrality?

Yeaasssshh....erm ahem. This is one of those times when you answer a question that ten people will go ah ha see hypocrite! Or something along those lines.

No I am not exactly against....this is such an interesting question.

Actually I suppose when you get down to it I am against Net Neutrality. The internet is a place for human communication and human opinion and human networking. it is a place for human information sharing and gathering. The internet should never be something that is neutral because by our very nature we are not a neutral species. And I do not want to lose people's freedoms to express themselves at the holy writ of 'neutrality'. I am sure there will be places on the net that will be neutral, some that will not be neutral, but that is up to the individual to decide how they present themselves online, and which information they absorb, and how they react to it.

But I am especially not for neutrality that is leglislated, mandated, and forced on us by the Government. Which will be their own small and probably twisted definition of what 'neutrality' is.

[Rickington]

Yeaasssshh....erm ahem. This is one of those times when you answer a question that ten people will go ah ha see hypocrite! Or something along those lines.

No I am not exactly against....this is such an interesting question.

Actually I suppose when you get down to it I am against Net Neutrality. The internet is a place for human communication and human opinion and human networking. it is a place for human information sharing and gathering. The internet should never be something that is neutral because by our very nature we are not a neutral species. And I do not want to lose people's freedoms to express themselves at the holy writ of 'neutrality'. I am sure there will be places on the net that will be neutral, some that will not be neutral, but that is up to the individual to decide how they present themselves online, and which information they absorb, and how they react to it.

But I am especially not for neutrality that is leglislated, mandated, and forced on us by the Government. Which will be their own small and probably twisted definition of what 'neutrality' is.

It is my opinion that the Internet should not be owned/regulated by anyone, be it a government, a corporation, or an ISP (Internet service provider). The internet goes beyond the traditional sense of society/government/nationstate because it goes beyond the boundaries that separate different peoples, etc.

[Col.Foley]

It is my opinion that the Internet should not be owned/regulated by anyone, be it a government, a corporation, or an ISP (Internet service provider). The internet goes beyond the traditional sense of society/government/nationstate because it goes beyond the boundaries that separate different peoples, etc.

The internet is certainly a game changer. But it does not exisist in a void either.

[Rickington]

The internet is certainly a game changer. But it does not exisist in a void either.

True, but it spans beyond our definitions of nation/nationstate, and thus, must not be limited by the laws of one particular nation. If anything, an international law body should be created that disputes tenative issues related to the Internet.

However, for extreme things like child pornography, etc, a little bit of government regulation is absolutely necessary.