I love war.

[Collective Foal]

Holy hell I have to spell this out.

 

P-R-O-V-E

 

M-E

 

W-R-O-N-G

 

Find the sources, actually get yourself an argument, and then you can MAYBE try to disprove me. Because this stupid begging the question crap you constantly serve up to the table gets really old, really fast.

 

EDIT:

 

And I really have to ask this question, BTG. What freedoms have you had removed??? I seem to recall you were unemployed for quite some time. I assume you collected unemployment, yes? And I'm pretty sure that's the government, WHO YOU REALLY DON'T WANT TO BE INVOLVED IN YOUR MONEY, giving you fucking money so you can live. I mean, you COULD have the system you seem to want where the government is itsy bitsy and can't control you, but then you'd probably be dead of hunger. But that's just my own thoughts.

[rairii]

Well I mean, a bunch of people getting their dick in a knot and complaining about their freedoms being taken away over the internet just doesn't seem as "borderline civil war" to me as actual riots happening over the shooting of an unarmed black teen.

 

But that's just me.

[Collective Foal]

Good point

[Vapymid]

So, if it happens - who is going to fight whom? Who is going to support the government and who will be against?

 

Any idea?

 

Regards

[BTGBullseye]

Holy hell I have to spell this out.

 

P-R-O-V-E

 

M-E

 

W-R-O-N-G

You seem to have a completely different opinion on who has to provide evidence when I say that exact thing (although I do so with a lot less hostility) to others... (as does ThePest179) You should learn to discuss different opinions civilly instead of arguing violently against anything you don't like.

 

Find the sources, actually get yourself an argument, and then you can MAYBE try to disprove me. Because this stupid begging the question crap you constantly serve up to the table gets really old, really fast.

And I could say the same to you. Although, I would much rather you didn't as you are only arguing in a violent manner when a civil debate will do quite nicely. (though I am doubtful you are capable of such a feat at this point)

 

And why are you so against analysis of information to extrapolate that which isn't said? (the 'begging the question crap' as you put it) It's not something new, as it's been going on for centuries, and in recent decades has been refined well enough to accurately determine everything from political affiliation, to alcoholism, to pregnancy, to sexual orientation, to your favorite foods, or even the clothing you wear, all using nothing but location metadata from an individual's phone. (the NSA is doing it right now)

 

And I really have to ask this question, BTG. What freedoms have you had removed???

How about the freedom to not have everything I say in a phone call or e-mail monitored... (that was ruled as covered under the 4th Amendment, and is being violated thoroughly by the NSA right now) Or have my metadata collected so that someone can know more about my life and preferences than I decide to make public. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment and http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv (section 1) and https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/01/effs-game-plan-ending-global-mass-surveillance

Freedom of religion is suppressed in almost every school (including government-run public schools) and college campus in the USA. (and you frequently can get harassed if you aren't a democrat that is pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, and anti-gun) http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

 

Those are two that have directly affected me in recent years, but that doesn't mean that I don't care about the MANY other violations that have taken place. They don't have to affect me directly right now for it to be wrong, and make me want to stop it. (and there are many who feel the same way)

 

I seem to recall you were unemployed for quite some time. I assume you collected unemployment, yes?

My financial situation is not relevant to this discussion. Also, simply being unemployed isn't enough to qualify for unemployment. (contrary to what many seem to believe) You first have employment duration and wage limits that you have to meet, and then you have to lose your job through no fault of your own. (like a layoff) Most companies have devised ways of avoiding these qualifications, including falsifying performance records. (just look at IBM for innovative ways to cut 30+ year employees out of their pensions and unemployment benefits) In addition, it only lasts for a few weeks, during which there are stringent rules to keeping those benefits concerning how you go about searching for a new job.

 

And I'm pretty sure that's the government, WHO YOU REALLY DON'T WANT TO BE INVOLVED IN YOUR MONEY, giving you fucking money so you can live.

On the contrary, the money is paid by the company you were fired from. It passes through the government, yes, but it originates at the company. (hence why companies would rather fire you without reason before 90 days, or after 90 days with a crappy performance review) This is a unique feature of the US version of unemployment benefits. (it doesn't work this way anywhere else that I can tell)

 

I mean, you COULD have the system you seem to want where the government is itsy bitsy and can't control you, but then you'd probably be dead of hunger. But that's just my own thoughts.

If the government wasn't trying to tax the hell out of domestic companies, and giving massive tax breaks to companies that use H1B employees in our high paying fields, (tens of thousands of jobs that would be over 50k/yr for domestic workers are under 20k/yr for H1B employees who don't pay taxes or contribute to the US economy beyond the food they buy) most of the 46.5m people on foodstamps could actually work a full-time job at a decent wage... Hows that for a fix for 2 problems. (unemployment, and subsistence on the government just to survive) I most certainly would be for change that would allow me to get work in a field that I have knowledge in, besides burger flipping. (over 8 years of IT work in a private setting for numerous small businesses and individuals, as well as extensive private computer related experience going back over 20 years, plus a year of welding in college)

[Collective Foal]

Here's the thing BTG. I've provided my sources already. I've done so several times. You never do. That gives my argument weight, and deducts it from yours. Sure, I'm getting heated. That's because I'm passionate about what I'm discussing. It becomes difficult to be civil when you're constantly confronted with a wall of crap and an unchanging stubborn mindset that has no backup to it.

 

It's actually too late for me to say anymore, but I'll try to get a response in soon. I have work tomorrow. Good night all

 

Edit: I honestly see no point in continuing to post here. You're very clearly set in your way of thinking, and no number of facts, sources, or statistics will convince you otherwise. It's just tiring to discuss when all you do is cop out with lame, unsupported excuses.

 

I wanted to change people's minds and improve their way of thinking, but it isn't going to happen. So there's no point in getting annoyed when it's going to be in vain.

 

My final statement is:

 

War is a heinous act that i almost always incited by angry men who lust for power and have no concerns for their fellow man. To encourage warful behavior is to encourage everything terrible about us. I don't want to be a race of terrible brutes. I want to be part of a world that is happy and full of love for one's neighbors (you know, that thing that every single holy book ever says you should do).

[BTGBullseye]

Here's the thing BTG. I've provided my sources already. I've done so several times. You never do. That gives my argument weight, and deducts it from yours. Sure, I'm getting heated. That's because I'm passionate about what I'm discussing. It becomes difficult to be civil when you're constantly confronted with a wall of crap and an unchanging stubborn mindset that has no backup to it.

You haven't been reading my posts if you haven't seen me post any sources. I however have gone back and looked at each of yours and found minimal citations, and what you do cite intentionally avoids anything except your side of the argument, even going so far as to omit pieces of information in some. (most of what you post is also media overhyped news on relatively unimportant or irrelevant issues)

 

I honestly see no point in continuing to post here. You're very clearly set in your way of thinking, and no number of facts, sources, or statistics will convince you otherwise. It's just tiring to discuss when all you do is cop out with lame, unsupported excuses.

Funny... I was thinking the same thing about you. I don't stop trying to explain my opinion in a civil and logical manner though.

 

I wanted to change people's minds and improve their way of thinking, but it isn't going to happen. So there's no point in getting annoyed when it's going to be in vain.

Attempting to insult people for not believing what you tell them to doesn't help.

 

War is a heinous act that i almost always incited by angry men who lust for power and have no concerns for their fellow man. To encourage warful behavior is to encourage everything terrible about us. I don't want to be a race of terrible brutes. I want to be part of a world that is happy and full of love for one's neighbors (you know, that thing that every single holy book ever says you should do).

Now that's something I do agree with... I however am not above acknowledging that human nature is to destroy or enslave people who won't fight back. (I am also not above voicing my desire to destroy or imprison the individuals who would and do try to do that)

[Rover]

 

And I really have to ask this question, BTG. What freedoms have you had removed???

How about the freedom to not have everything I say in a phone call or e-mail monitored... (that was ruled as covered under the 4th Amendment, and is being violated thoroughly by the NSA right now) Or have my metadata collected so that someone can know more about my life and preferences than I decide to make public. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment and http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv (section 1) and https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/01/effs-game-plan-ending-global-mass-surveillance

Freedom of religion is suppressed in almost every school (including government-run public schools) and college campus in the USA. (and you frequently can get harassed if you aren't a democrat that is pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, and anti-gun) http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

 

Those are two that have directly affected me in recent years, but that doesn't mean that I don't care about the MANY other violations that have taken place. They don't have to affect me directly right now for it to be wrong, and make me want to stop it. (and there are many who feel the same way)

 

 

You're right about the 4th amendment stuff.

But I have to take issue with your other points here. It's a common narrative in conservative circles that because teachers and school officials aren't allowed to proselytize their captive impressionable audience, religion is suppressed in schools. Not being able to use the government to impose religion on people whether they want to or not is not the same as being oppressed. Students can pray, read their holy books and even wear t-shirts with anti-gay messages on them and be protected by the first amendment (here's the pinko-commie ACLU defending a student's right to do just that http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/nyregion/aclu-says-antigay-shirt-ban-at-connecticut-school-was-illegal.html) schools do sometimes overreact yes and this IS a problem, this is mostly due to the staff not having a clear understanding on the first amendment on this issue. I really wish school administrators received some better education on this, it's not too complicated.

 

I've been quite amused the recent years by conservative christians howling about how they are so oppressed because they're no longer able to use the government to impose their religious values on everyone else as effectively as they used to. Even though religious exemptions continue to exist for a lot of legislation. It mostly seems to stem from the fact that government employees and business owners who serve the public aren't allowed to discriminate against those icky gay people anymore, because not being allowed to discriminate against others is itself the worst oppression imaginable. Just like in the civil rights era, they'll eventually get over it.

In addition, having your opinions criticized by other private citizens isn't a violation of your rights. Sometimes you'll find yourself in a place where your opinions are unpopular. I doubt I'd be very popular if I were a gay pro-ssm pro-choice anti-gun socialist atheist in Alabama or something. I do admit that with the resurgence of the P.C. movement certain elements on the left have become obsessed with ideological purity as much as their extremist peers on the right have. But other elements of the left are already pushing back (Jonathan Chait published a great piece on that a little while ago. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/01/not-a-very-pc-thing-to-say.html?mid=nymag_press) However, conservatism is an extremely powerful force in American Politics, the American public has been shifting a good deal to the right since the eighties. The persecution complex is getting really old.

[BTGBullseye]

But I have to take issue with your other points here. It's a common narrative in conservative circles that because teachers and school officials aren't allowed to proselytize their captive impressionable audience, religion is suppressed in schools. Not being able to use the government to impose religion on people whether they want to or not is not the same as being oppressed. Students can pray, read their holy books and even wear t-shirts with anti-gay messages on them and be protected by the first amendment (here's the pinko-commie ACLU defending a student's right to do just that http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/nyregion/aclu-says-antigay-shirt-ban-at-connecticut-school-was-illegal.html) schools do sometimes overreact yes and this IS a problem, this is mostly due to the staff not having a clear understanding on the first amendment on this issue. I really wish school administrators received some better education on this, it's not too complicated.

Unfortunately they have a nasty habit of kicking people out of school in certain states for having a prayer meeting on the grounds... Or having a meeting that is pro-gun... Or numerous other things. (I remember one issue where a guy was expelled for having a sticker of a hand grenade [it was for a clothing brand] in his car window) It's only the outright suppression of anything related to Christianity specifically that is what has affected me. (and Christianity was singled out while muslims and Jews were completely ignored) It usually has nothing to do with preventing conflicts between religions, and everything to do with 'we don't want Christianity at this school'. (I have even seen it at my niece's and nephew's schools all their lives, just for praying quietly to themselves before eating)

 

I've been quite amused the recent years by conservative christians howling about how they are so oppressed because they're no longer able to use the government to impose their religious values on everyone else as effectively as they used to. Even though religious exemptions continue to exist for a lot of legislation. It mostly seems to stem from the fact that government employees and business owners who serve the public aren't allowed to discriminate against those icky gay people anymore, because not being allowed to discriminate against others is itself the worst oppression imaginable. Just like in the civil rights era, they'll eventually get over it.

Ok... No idea what you're going on about, as there hasn't been any forced religion in this country since it's independence. If you're thinking on the laws specifically, that was just normal legislation, nothing untoward. Also, I recall nowhere that ever made it illegal to hire homosexuals, or legal to discriminate against them. (and California has been the popular respite of that type for over a century, with no issues)

 

In addition, having your opinions criticized by other private citizens isn't a violation of your rights.

Never even implied it was.

 

Sometimes you'll find yourself in a place where your opinions are unpopular.

As will just about anyone.

 

I doubt I'd be very popular if I were a gay pro-ssm pro-choice anti-gun socialist atheist in Alabama or something.

True, but if you weren't in the middle of the road with a sign, I doubt they'd pay you much mind.

 

I do admit that with the resurgence of the P.C. movement certain elements on the left have become obsessed with ideological purity as much as their extremist peers on the right have.

'Right' extremism has been greatly overstated by the media. (coincidentally, all major media except Fox is controlled by vocal or extremist anti-Republican pro-democrats)

 

But other elements of the left are already pushing back (Jonathan Chait published a great piece on that a little while ago. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/01/not-a-very-pc-thing-to-say.html?mid=nymag_press)

Not a bad article, but it fails to mention that the meaning of 'liberal' has changed significantly over the years, and nobody seems to recognize that.

http://netrightdaily.com/2011/11/the-definition-of-liberalism-has-changed-greatly-over-time/

http://www.postlibertarian.com/2012/04/defining-the-terms-liberal-and-conservative/

http://www.politicalcompass.org/faq#faq21

 

By these definitions, I am a classic liberal, a modern conservative, and closer to Ghandi's politics than any other major historical figure. (my Political Compass results: http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2?ec=-0.88&soc=-2.05) I consider myself to be a Constitutionalist.

 

However, conservatism is an extremely powerful force in American Politics, the American public has been shifting a good deal to the right since the eighties.

Please provide sources. (not trying to dispute this, I'd just like to see proof if you don't mind)

 

The persecution complex is getting really old.

And the persecution that I do actually get is getting just as old, as is the saying that it is a persecution complex. (I've been turned down for jobs quite obviously for not being a Democrat, and that is persecution)

[Rover]

Unfortunately they have a nasty habit of kicking people out of school in certain states for having a prayer meeting on the grounds... Or having a meeting that is pro-gun... Or numerous other things. (I remember one issue where a guy was expelled for having a sticker of a hand grenade [it was for a clothing brand] in his car window) It's only the outright suppression of anything related to Christianity specifically that is what has affected me. (and Christianity was singled out while muslims and Jews were completely ignored) It usually has nothing to do with preventing conflicts between religions, and everything to do with 'we don't want Christianity at this school'. (I have even seen it at my niece's and nephew's schools all their lives, just for praying quietly to themselves before eating)

 

Regarding guns, a lot of schools do really have absurd "zero-tolerance" policies enforced by administrators who are clearly completely insane. Here is a story about a boy being suspended for pointing his fingers like a gun.

Here is a story of a boy being suspended for having an imaginary bow and arrow.

And here is a story about a boy being suspended after threatening a classmate to unleash the power of the one ring.

There are so many stories like this, I'm actually keeping a file on them. It's insane, I have no other word for it. Insane.

It's not part of an anti-gun agenda, it's part of an extremely weird and insane anti-child agenda.

Regarding christianity in school, like I said, school administrators sometimes get it in their heads no expression of religion is allowed at schools, mainly because of the many lawsuits brought against schools who go the other way and engage in some form of school-sanctioned proselytization by teachers or allowing only one specific religious group to come and distribute religious literature among students. Some schools violate the establishment clause, or the federal equal access act (by for example blocking gay or secular student clubs) and promptly get hit by a lawsuit to bring them back into compliance with the law, the result sadly is this makes other school administrators overreact. The good news is, you can hit them with a lawsuit too, can even get the ACLU to help like I demonstrated in my previous post.

It shouldn't be necessary of course, but for some reason many schools appear to be run by complete idiots.

 

Ok... No idea what you're going on about, as there hasn't been any forced religion in this country since it's independence. If you're thinking on the laws specifically, that was just normal legislation, nothing untoward. Also, I recall nowhere that ever made it illegal to hire homosexuals, or legal to discriminate against them. (and California has been the popular respite of that type for over a century, with no issues)

 

Several states still have laws on the books barring the non-religious from holding public office http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists#United_States though of course if push came to shove, these would be unenforceable.

While I'll take your word for it that there hasn't been any legislation making it a crime to hire lgbt people or non-theists for that matter, for a long time it was not prohibited to discriminate against them either. Though people enjoy explicit protection on the basis of their religion, race and gender, sexual orientation is often not included in non discrimination laws. This is not to say that in those states it's easy for an employer to fire someone who is gay, not at all. But making the protection as explicit as race, religion and gender is proving difficult in some areas.

Other examples of christian privilege has been the routine use of government property to display christian symbols, messages etc. Often at the local level. And the howls of outrage and oppression when someone decides to have the courts rule on the constitutionality of such displays. The prohibition of same sex marriage is another example where a christian majority believes it has the right to decide for others who they can and can't marry. It's an arbitrary prohibition based soley on religious dogma. Giving people the choice to marry someone of the same gender has zero effect on anyone but the individuals choosing to marry. Yet the rhetoric coming out of the christian right has been one of terrible persecution and oppression because some people now have a choice they didn't have before. I'm not exaggerating. http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2015/02/07/wingnuts-christianity-is-going-to-be-outlawed/

 

I do admit that with the resurgence of the P.C. movement certain elements on the left have become obsessed with ideological purity as much as their extremist peers on the right have.

'Right' extremism has been greatly overstated by the media. (coincidentally, all major media except Fox is controlled by vocal or extremist anti-Republican pro-democrats)

 

Let's not get into a debate over media echo chambers. That could go on for a while.

 

Not a bad article, but it fails to mention that the meaning of 'liberal' has changed significantly over the years, and nobody seems to recognize that.

http://netrightdaily.com/2011/11/the-definition-of-liberalism-has-changed-greatly-over-time/

http://www.postlibertarian.com/2012/04/defining-the-terms-liberal-and-conservative/

http://www.politicalcompass.org/faq#faq21

 

By these definitions, I am a classic liberal, a modern conservative, and closer to Ghandi's politics than any other major historical figure. (my Political Compass results: http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2?ec=-0.88&soc=-2.05) I consider myself to be a Constitutionalist.

 

I know, in Europe the term "liberal" is still closer to what it used to mean.

 

Please provide sources. (not trying to dispute this, I'd just like to see proof if you don't mind)

 

Personally I feel the U.S. and the west in general are in a conservative wave right now, you linked the political compass before so I'll link it as well here. http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012 you'll see both Obama and Romney on the right-authoritarian end.

Now of course they differed in some social issues but even when it comes to stuff like gay marriage, Obama only "evolved" on the issue once polls showed it would be politically safe or advantageous to do so.

Here is Europe btw: http://www.politicalcompass.org/euchart you'll see them all comfortably nestled in the right authoritarian end.

Now maybe the people who run this website are raging lefty socialists, but I've seen little evidence.

On a few social issues the left is gaining ground, granted.

On the other hand, unions are in decline, income inequality greatly on the rise, continued deregulation of industries and regulatory capture have met with little real voter opposition, even after major calamities. Firm opposition to any and all tax increases with the rise of the Tea Party. And let's not forget about the rise of the religious right, now powerful enough to make birth control once again a contested issue, though decidedly losing the battle against gay rights. The only democrats getting into the white house have to be centrists, though they can afford some liberal leanings on social issues. Now I know some on the right frequently call Obama a radical ultra-left socialist and the second coming of Joseph Stalin, meanwhile the real socialists in Europe are laughing their assess off and are pretty sure Obama's not one of them. I'm also fairly certain that in 2016 America will elect another Republican president.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0731/America-s-big-shift-right

 

The persecution complex is getting really old.

And the persecution that I do actually get is getting just as old, as is the saying that it is a persecution complex. (I've been turned down for jobs quite obviously for not being a Democrat, and that is persecution)

 

I can't comment on this.

[BTGBullseye]

Regarding guns, a lot of schools do really have absurd "zero-tolerance" policies enforced by administrators who are clearly completely insane. Here is a story about a boy being suspended for pointing his fingers like a gun.

Here is a story of a boy being suspended for having an imaginary bow and arrow.

And here is a story about a boy being suspended after threatening a classmate to unleash the power of the one ring.

There are so many stories like this, I'm actually keeping a file on them. It's insane, I have no other word for it. Insane.

It's not part of an anti-gun agenda, it's part of an extremely weird and insane anti-child agenda.

I remember some of those as well, now that you mention them. I agree with your assesment of those instances.

 

many schools appear to be run by complete idiots.

I can definitely support that sentiment.

 

Several states still have laws on the books barring the non-religious from holding public office http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists#United_States though of course if push came to shove, these would be unenforceable.

If the majority decided that they wanted everyone in office to be a person of faith, then that's the right of the people. It's no different than putting a minimum age limit on being a candidate for the presidency. (that age limit is 35 years old BTW)

 

While I'll take your word for it that there hasn't been any legislation making it a crime to hire lgbt people or non-theists for that matter, for a long time it was not prohibited to discriminate against them either.

That's equivalent to saying that for a time there was nothing prohibiting discrimination against blue people with a limp. Anti-discrimination came about all around the same time, and almost everyone that wasn't a (non-Irish) white male of at least 35 years of age was discriminated against in some form. (and in reality, they still discriminate, except now they just find legal fake reasons to discriminate, like 'overqualified')

 

Though people enjoy explicit protection on the basis of their religion, race and gender, sexual orientation is often not included in non discrimination laws. This is not to say that in those states it's easy for an employer to fire someone who is gay, not at all. But making the protection as explicit as race, religion and gender is proving difficult in some areas.

Naturally... Specifying only certain areas of discrimination leaves the door open for huge discrimination of any and everyone else, "because the law says it's only those groups we can't discriminate against".

 

Other examples of christian privilege has been the routine use of government property to display christian symbols, messages etc. Often at the local level.

What most people seem to not get is that there is no such thing as "separation of church and state" in the constitution... What it says in the first amendment is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Nowhere in that does it say anything about religious symbols on public property. There are an awful lot of people that don't really know what the words say, much less mean.

 

The meaning of the part about religion was to prevent the government from interfering with religions like Britain did. The Church of England was appropriated so that the King had complete and total authority over the religion, even to the point of outlawing other religions as blasphemy. The founding fathers didn't want that to happen, so they put that wording in. It wasn't an accident that they didn't say that religion wasn't allowed to interfere with the government.

 

The prohibition of same sex marriage is another example where a christian majority believes it has the right to decide for others who they can and can't marry. It's an arbitrary prohibition based soley on religious dogma. Giving people the choice to marry someone of the same gender has zero effect on anyone but the individuals choosing to marry. Yet the rhetoric coming out of the christian right has been one of terrible persecution and oppression because some people now have a choice they didn't have before.

A lot of people take sides without realizing what exactly they are or aren't fighting for. Homosexuals have had the ability to have every single benefit of marriage, except for the title, for a very long time. Marriage (until recently in some states) was always defined as 1 man, 1 woman. (other than polygamy, [1 man, multiple women] which was outlawed in the USA a very long time ago as well) The entire fight was over changing the definition of a word that has not had it's meaning changed in thousands of years. (always been between heterosexual men and women)

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#History_of_marriage

 

Why they felt the need to change the meaning of a word? I'd say that P.C. movement you're against so much had quite some influence.

 

Let's not get into a debate over media echo chambers. That could go on for a while.

And we have a thread for that in another forum.

 

I know, in Europe the term "liberal" is still closer to what it used to mean.

It is indeed, but even so, it's still being perverted from what its real meaning is.

 

Personally I feel the U.S. and the west in general are in a conservative wave right now, you linked the political compass before so I'll link it as well here. http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012 you'll see both Obama and Romney on the right-authoritarian end.

The right is the neo-liberal side... A.K.A. the US version of liberal. (the left and right are switched in the US as well as the terms describing them) http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/axeswithnames.gif

 

Now of course they differed in some social issues but even when it comes to stuff like gay marriage, Obama only "evolved" on the issue once polls showed it would be politically safe or advantageous to do so.

Here is Europe btw: http://www.politicalcompass.org/euchart you'll see them all comfortably nestled in the right authoritarian end.

In other words, governments are pretty much the same everywhere... Authoritarian shitholes that want to control your life.

 

Now maybe the people who run this website are raging lefty socialists, but I've seen little evidence.

They may or may not be... All evidence points to them using no bias when making the compass though.

 

On a few social issues the left is gaining ground, granted.

Which left are you speaking of now? The US version, or the rest-of-the-world version?

 

On the other hand, unions are in decline, income inequality greatly on the rise, continued deregulation of industries and regulatory capture have met with little real voter opposition, even after major calamities. Firm opposition to any and all tax increases with the rise of the Tea Party.

I would certainly hope unions would be in decline. 90% of them do nothing at all beneficial for their members, and just sit there and forcibly take dues out of employee's paychecks. (I see it as synonymous to the mafia's 'protection' money shakedowns) Taxes have pretty well been blamed for declining economies across the globe for decades, and there is proof to back that up. (the businesses and rich move out of countries that tax them, leaving nothing but the impoverished and broken economies)

 

And let's not forget about the rise of the religious right, now powerful enough to make birth control once again a contested issue

So you think that there should be legal regulations that say that privately owned Christian businesses, and Christian hospitals should have to violate their beliefs, just because someone doesn't want to go to a different location, or a store to get their damn birth control? That is quite obviously a violation of the first amendment. (and the supreme court agrees)

 

The only democrats getting into the white house have to be centrists

Forgotten the political compass already I see... They're all in the center of the authoritarian neo-liberal quadrant, if that's what you mean.

 

Now I know some on the right frequently call Obama a radical ultra-left socialist and the second coming of Joseph Stalin, meanwhile the real socialists in Europe are laughing their assess off and are pretty sure Obama's not one of them.

There are idiots all along the spectrum.

 

I'm also fairly certain that in 2016 America will elect another Republican president.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0731/America-s-big-shift-right

Most likely... There is a large percentage of people in this country that are just trying to get away from the guy that gave away a trillion dollars to companies, just so they could go bankrupt anyways, and who happened to be the same guy that put a 4 trillion dollar 'free' healthcare bill through in record time, that actually fines people through taxes far more than having health insurance ever would. (I could get into more detail, but that's something for another thread)

 

I can't comment on this.

Most can't... It goes against what the media and all the US liberals are saying in the strongest possible way. (again, something really for another topic)

[Rover]

If the majority decided that they wanted everyone in office to be a person of faith, then that's the right of the people. It's no different than putting a minimum age limit on being a candidate for the presidency. (that age limit is 35 years old BTW)

 

First of all, religious tests for office are unconstitutional http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Religious_Test_Clause and yes this applies to the states as well.

Second, would you also be okay if a majority decided to put into legislation that white people or christians are unfit for office?

I'm fairly sure these "tyranny of the majority" scenarios are why things like the bill of rights exist.

 

That's equivalent to saying that for a time there was nothing prohibiting discrimination against blue people with a limp. Anti-discrimination came about all around the same time, and almost everyone that wasn't a (non-Irish) white male of at least 35 years of age was discriminated against in some form. (and in reality, they still discriminate, except now they just find legal fake reasons to discriminate, like 'overqualified')

 

Oh yes, the United States has a very rich history of discriminating and oppressing almost every single non-wasp group.

However you do realize homosexuality used to be a crime right? And many laws criminalizing homosexual behavior did not start being repealed until the latter half of the 20th century, or even the early 21st with Lawrence V Texas. It is more than reasonable to offer this group of citizens some more explicit protection given the history.

 

Naturally... Specifying only certain areas of discrimination leaves the door open for huge discrimination of any and everyone else, "because the law says it's only those groups we can't discriminate against".

 

So would you be in favor of scrapping the language that gives explicit protection to people on the basis of race, gender and religion? I mean why have that if it just leaves the door open for other forms of discrimination?

 

What most people seem to not get is that there is no such thing as "separation of church and state" in the constitution... What it says in the first amendment is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Nowhere in that does it say anything about religious symbols on public property. There are an awful lot of people that don't really know what the words say, much less mean.

 

The meaning of the part about religion was to prevent the government from interfering with religions like Britain did. The Church of England was appropriated so that the King had complete and total authority over the religion, even to the point of outlawing other religions as blasphemy. The founding fathers didn't want that to happen, so they put that wording in. It wasn't an accident that they didn't say that religion wasn't allowed to interfere with the government.

 

A common narrative in conservative circles, often used to justify actions and policies that give the outward appearance of government privileging one faith over other faiths or non-faith. You'll only see this argument made by people who would be in the comfortable dominant majority faith. It stems from a desire for religious privilege and dominance, not religious liberty.

Thankfully many constitutional scholars and supreme court justices have interpreted the first amendment differently than you have.

Only a government that is neutral regarding religion can safeguard the religious freedoms of all its citizens, and please don't give me that bull about secularism being a religion too. Do you really want the government endorsing one religion over others? I'm sure you don't mind if it's your religion, but what if it's not?

Sure you can vote for religious reasons, go into government for religious reasons, be motivated by religion while in office etc.

But I'm with supreme court justice Harry Blackmun on this

When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some

Regardless, christianity is well represented (some stats show overrepresented) in U.S. government on both the federal and state level with a vast majority of representatives and officials being christian. It's part of the reason of why howls of christian persecution are mostly met with exasperated sighs and face palms by non-christians.

 

A lot of people take sides without realizing what exactly they are or aren't fighting for. Homosexuals have had the ability to have every single benefit of marriage, except for the title, for a very long time. Marriage (until recently in some states) was always defined as 1 man, 1 woman. (other than polygamy, [1 man, multiple women] which was outlawed in the USA a very long time ago as well) The entire fight was over changing the definition of a word that has not had it's meaning changed in thousands of years. (always been between heterosexual men and women)

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage# ... f_marriage

 

Why they felt the need to change the meaning of a word? I'd say that P.C. movement you're against so much had quite some influence.

If you're talking about same-sex unions, according to wikipedia hawaii was the first to legally recognize those in 1997, wich is not THAT long ago. To add to that DOMA created an unequal situation for a long time until it was struck down.

It's actually a very simple freedom issue. Do you believe marriage should only be between a man and a woman? Then it is within your right to marry someone of the opposite sex and choose never to marry someone of the same sex.

That's the end of it, that's where your influence ends you made a choice and it concerns only you. However you don't get to take away the choice of others to go into a same sex marriage with all the same benefits and social status. Things change, societies change, definitions change that's how its always goes. Let other people be free to make choices you yourself would not.

 

regarding the meaning of the term "liberal" I've simply come to accept its new meaning in the U.S. as opposed to its more traditional use in Europe. So in this discussion when I say "liberal" I mean modern day "American liberal"

Same goes the U.S. political spectrum, someone who is considered "centrist" in the U.S. may be considered right or at least right of center in Europe.

The political compass does provide a nice standardized spectrum to put the U.S. in a wider perspective though.

 

Which left are you speaking of now? The US version, or the rest-of-the-world version?

The U.S. left

 

I would certainly hope unions would be in decline. 90% of them do nothing at all beneficial for their members, and just sit there and forcibly take dues out of employee's paychecks. (I see it as synonymous to the mafia's 'protection' money shakedowns) Taxes have pretty well been blamed for declining economies across the globe for decades, and there is proof to back that up. (the businesses and rich move out of countries that tax them, leaving nothing but the impoverished and broken economies)

 

Unions have done a lot of good in the past, it's when they become too powerful they become counter productive, it's about balancing power. If employers have too much power over their labor force the result is lower wages and worse working conditions. Workers are also consumers, and if they don't have the means to consume plenty of goods and services, it hurts the economy.

If unions have too much power and ask for too much employers will simply pack up shop and go elsewhere, also bad.

It's about balance of power.

I don't think the problem lies with taxes themselves, without taxes you can't really have a state and without a state you can't really have a well functioning market. I don't see companies rushing to set up shop in Somalia for instance. The problem lies with the ease capital can flow across the globe. Political power ends at the border, financial power does not. The financial powers are playing a 21st century game against political nation-state powers playing by a 19th century rule book. Which leads to tax competition.

I suppose your solution is to aggressively slash taxes all across the globe until states can do little else but run a police force and a military, leaving everyone else to fend for themselves hoping charity will be there to catch them should they slip up.

Myself I'd rather see the nations of the world work something out together to make it harder for them to be played out against each other by the ultra rich elite.

 

So you think that there should be legal regulations that say that privately owned Christian businesses, and Christian hospitals should have to violate their beliefs, just because someone doesn't want to go to a different location, or a store to get their damn birth control? That is quite obviously a violation of the first amendment. (and the supreme court agrees)

 

Again it's so simple, against birth control? Don't use it. Don't impose that choice on other people. There are already plenty of religious exemptions for religious organizations and businesses. If you're the only pharmacy around for miles, don't use your position to make others involuntarily subject to your own personal religious prohibitions. So yeah I would support legislation to force them to have stuff like that on the shelves in certain situations. If they're not being forced to use it, their rights are not being violated. they're only prohibited from effectively imposing their own religious values on everyone else.

This is moot of course if there is a store/pharmacy/hospital nearby that isn't under such religious prohibitions.

 

Most likely... There is a large percentage of people in this country that are just trying to get away from the guy that gave away a trillion dollars to companies, just so they could go bankrupt anyways, and who happened to be the same guy that put a 4 trillion dollar 'free' healthcare bill through in record time, that actually fines people through taxes far more than having health insurance ever would. (I could get into more detail, but that's something for another thread)

 

If people are so concerned about spending, I don't see why a Republican would have their preference though. Republicans spend money, just on different things.

The way I see it, Americans simply go back and forth between the two. If one party isn't producing an economic boom lets try the other one, if that one doesn't manage, back to the other one. And so it goes.

 

These are getting long...so very long.

I'll let you have the last word, I'm calling it quits for now

[BTGBullseye]

First of all, religious tests for office are unconstitutional http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Religious_Test_Clause and yes this applies to the states as well.

Second, would you also be okay if a majority decided to put into legislation that white people or christians are unfit for office?

I'm fairly sure these "tyranny of the majority" scenarios are why things like the bill of rights exist.

Except that the 7 state's constitutions state only that someone must believe in God, not that they must be a specific religion. The problem that always ends up happening (and is right now) is that when atheists are in charge they actively try to remove religion of any other kind from any form of visibility. Christians tend to discourage, yes, but they don't fight tooth and nail to kill every other religion.

 

Also, as it is in state legislature and state constitutions, it technically is overridden by the US Constitution. Unless they secede from the Union, those 'laws' can never be applied.

 

Oh yes, the United States has a very rich history of discriminating and oppressing almost every single non-wasp group.

However you do realize homosexuality used to be a crime right? And many laws criminalizing homosexual behavior did not start being repealed until the latter half of the 20th century, or even the early 21st with Lawrence V Texas. It is more than reasonable to offer this group of citizens some more explicit protection given the history.

Your opinion is to give specific wording over more useful generalized wording? Seems perfectly illogical to me.

 

So would you be in favor of scrapping the language that gives explicit protection to people on the basis of race, gender and religion? I mean why have that if it just leaves the door open for other forms of discrimination?

I would if they could find a way to do so, but since this country is on the path to following the letter of the law to the exclusion of the spirit of the law... As far as I can tell you're one of those type of people that would rather have specific words to follow than an idea.

 

A common narrative in conservative circles, often used to justify actions and policies that give the outward appearance of government privileging one faith over other faiths or non-faith. You'll only see this argument made by people who would be in the comfortable dominant majority faith. It stems from a desire for religious privilege and dominance, not religious liberty.

So who is this 'comfortably dominant majority faith'? You seem to be attributing a lot towards it. Don't say 'Christians', as that covers well over 100 different denominations in this country. (and most of them are non-hostile to opposing religions)

 

Thankfully many constitutional scholars and supreme court justices have interpreted the first amendment differently than you have.

And most of those have read nothing of what the founding fathers wrote afterwards that explained the meaning of the words. The few who have, ignored it.

 

Only a government that is neutral regarding religion can safeguard the religious freedoms of all its citizens, and please don't give me that bull about secularism being a religion too. Do you really want the government endorsing one religion over others? I'm sure you don't mind if it's your religion, but what if it's not?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" - Says it all. Making it illegal to say a prayer out loud in a public location would be a violation of this, as would making a prayer mandatory. It does not prohibit religious influences from being displayed on public grounds. A display of the ten commandments doesn't force people to follow them, as is evidenced by Christians that have sex outside of marriage, or that say "God damn", etc.

 

Sure you can vote for religious reasons, go into government for religious reasons, be motivated by religion while in office etc.

But I'm with supreme court justice Harry Blackmun on this

When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some

What you and he fail to recognize is that the bible quite thoroughly says that God loves everyone equally... It does say that in the old testament that the Jews are his people of choice, but because they were just as, if not worse than the rest of the people of the world, he stopped giving his favor to them. (this is going off all Christian bibles here)

 

This is where people say the country was built on Christian beliefs, because as far as I can tell, each and every one of the bill of rights was lifted from somewhere in the Christian bible, and belief system. (I can go into detail on most of them, but that is really something for another thread)

 

Regardless, christianity is well represented (some stats show overrepresented) in U.S. government on both the federal and state level with a vast majority of representatives and officials being christian. It's part of the reason of why howls of christian persecution are mostly met with exasperated sighs and face palms by non-christians.

Now are they actually Christian, or do they just say they are to get the Christian votes? That's the problem. Saying that 'the Christian majority' is being represented is very difficult to say accurately, with the majority of politicians saying many things that they will fight for once in office, which they then fight for the exact opposite of once in. (evidence: Obama. Just do a search for "Obama campaign lies")

 

If you're talking about same-sex unions, according to wikipedia hawaii was the first to legally recognize those in 1997, wich is not THAT long ago. To add to that DOMA created an unequal situation for a long time until it was struck down.

It's actually a very simple freedom issue. Do you believe marriage should only be between a man and a woman? Then it is within your right to marry someone of the opposite sex and choose never to marry someone of the same sex.

That's the end of it, that's where your influence ends you made a choice and it concerns only you. However you don't get to take away the choice of others to go into a same sex marriage with all the same benefits and social status. Things change, societies change, definitions change that's how its always goes. Let other people be free to make choices you yourself would not.

You're looking at it from a completely different way than I'm trying to show you. Every single benefit of marriage, (tax status, next of kin, power of attorney, etc.) excluding the official title of "married" is given to anyone who wants it, and it has been that way since before the 60's. (my parents remember people getting group 'marriages' this way in the early 60's)

 

They are perfectly free to do that, but please don't change the meaning of words that haven't changed ever in recorded history, simply to try and make homosexual unions 'acceptable'.

 

Same goes the U.S. political spectrum, someone who is considered "centrist" in the U.S. may be considered right or at least right of center in Europe.

In order to be considered a middle of the road person in the US, you have to be leaning towards neo-liberalism... I do agree with that assessment. Which is unfortunate, since that isn't actually middle of the road.

 

The political compass does provide a nice standardized spectrum to put the U.S. in a wider perspective though.

That it does.

 

Unions have done a lot of good in the past, it's when they become too powerful they become counter productive, it's about balancing power. If employers have too much power over their labor force the result is lower wages and worse working conditions. Workers are also consumers, and if they don't have the means to consume plenty of goods and services, it hurts the economy.

If unions have too much power and ask for too much employers will simply pack up shop and go elsewhere, also bad.

It's about balance of power.

My family has direct experience with forced unions... They forced my uncle to quit a good paying job with great benefits for a crappy (literally, dealing with pigs) job with no benefits, just because he didn't have enough saved to live off of for the duration of the forced strike. (all over a $0.25 raise that he didn't care about)

 

A forced union is bad in general.

 

I don't think the problem lies with taxes themselves, without taxes you can't really have a state and without a state you can't really have a well functioning market. I don't see companies rushing to set up shop in Somalia for instance. The problem lies with the ease capital can flow across the globe. Political power ends at the border, financial power does not. The financial powers are playing a 21st century game against political nation-state powers playing by a 19th century rule book. Which leads to tax competition.

I suppose your solution is to aggressively slash taxes all across the globe until states can do little else but run a police force and a military, leaving everyone else to fend for themselves hoping charity will be there to catch them should they slip up.

Myself I'd rather see the nations of the world work something out together to make it harder for them to be played out against each other by the ultra rich elite.

I'm not saying completely remove all taxes, but 50% is considered very high by anyone that has done research on taxes. The sweet spot is somewhere between 30% and 40%. (though I personally would like to see it down nearer the 15% mark)

 

Again it's so simple, against birth control? Don't use it. Don't impose that choice on other people. There are already plenty of religious exemptions for religious organizations and businesses. If you're the only pharmacy around for miles, don't use your position to make others involuntarily subject to your own personal religious prohibitions. So yeah I would support legislation to force them to have stuff like that on the shelves in certain situations. If they're not being forced to use it, their rights are not being violated. they're only prohibited from effectively imposing their own religious values on everyone else.

This is moot of course if there is a store/pharmacy/hospital nearby that isn't under such religious prohibitions.

So if nobody else in the area carries birth control, you have to violate your religious principles, rearrange your store to carry a new product, (limiting space available for other products) and invest money into a product that may or may not sell? Not only is it unconstitutional, it's forcing bad business practices.

 

If people are so concerned about spending, I don't see why a Republican would have their preference though. Republicans spend money, just on different things.

The way I see it, Americans simply go back and forth between the two. If one party isn't producing an economic boom lets try the other one, if that one doesn't manage, back to the other one. And so it goes.

It's unfortunate that no matter which you vote for, you get the same thing. It's been that way since the 90's.

 

These are getting long...so very long.

Very true.

 

I'll let you have the last word, I'm calling it quits for now

So am I, as this really isn't the thread we should be having constitutional debates in.

[Rocket Propelled Gordon]

I feel we are getting a little off-topic, people.