Ideology or something

[rossmum]

They just allow foreign, hypocritical administrations direct their opinions.

Not necessarily Paladin. That might be happening in this case, but it's not something I'd classify as even semi-common let alone regular enough to stereotype them on. Conservatives, on the other hand... wow. Just wow.

[Dwood]

Not necessarily Paladin. That might be happening in this case, but it's not something I'd classify as even semi-common let alone regular enough to stereotype them on. Conservatives, on the other hand... wow. Just wow.

Liberals on the other hand... wow. Just wow.

[rossmum]

Really the only beefs I have with liberals are their policies on guns, military spending, and the overly nanny-state ones. Socialising everything? Long overdue, but a good half of America seems to think it's still 1950.

Actually, we should probably move away from using 'progressives', 'liberals', and 'conservatives'. They're too broad.

[Dwood]

Really the only beefs I have with liberals are their policies on guns, military spending, and the overly nanny-state ones. Socialising everything? Long overdue, but a good half of America seems to think it's still 1950.

Actually, we should probably move away from using 'progressives', 'liberals', and 'conservatives'. They're too broad.

America is constantly in the 1950s, if it isn't the commies, it's the terrorists, if it isn't the terrorists it's Conservatives, if it isn't the conservatives it's the liberals, if it isn't the liberals it's the CS hackers.

[sleepy1212]

Progressives generally don't base their policy off of religion, veiled racism or "fuck you, got mine".

Political Correctness, expanded entitlements, Affirmative Action, repeated talks about "reparations", and, in this case, the Arizona law. Everything American Progressives do is done within the pretense of race/class warfare. They are wholly preoccupied with both race and class. They view everything as a class struggle which, inevitably, means to them, racism. This preoccupation, in my opinion, makes them the biggest racists of all.

In fact, if mexico wasn't full of poor brown people progressives wouldn't give a shit about border laws whereas everyone else not only defends their borders, but supports enforcing the laws respecting them, regardless of the race of illegals. Why do you think the ACLU is involved? Lady Justice has a blindfold for a reason. Progressives have removed it in every possible way they can.


Not necessarily Paladin. That might be happening in this case, but it's not something I'd classify as even semi-common let alone regular enough to stereotype them on. Conservatives, on the other hand... wow. Just wow.

The Middle East (Suez, Iran hostage, Gulf War, current war), Vietnam, Cuba (missile crisis and later the emmigration), Venezuela, Africa, and Mexico. Progressives (R and D) have a long history of pandering to nations full of brown people. Our current administration is probably the worst for actually buddying up with Communist dictators and praising their economic policies (which are actually responsible for ruining thier nation's economies).

[rossmum]

Well I dunno about where you live but here progressives pretty much own and also if you don't like moving towards socialism you are literally the reason the world still looks at the US as the angry retarded kid with enough muscle to bash people but not enough sense to realise that's not cool :allears:

PC is dumb and is symptomatic of do-gooders, as is the "do everything and remove all responsibility from everyone especially parents" mentality. Do-gooders aren't progressives, they're fucking idiots and in a class of their own. I hate talking politics (or indeed anything, really) with Americans. You all see everything in pure black and white. There's never any grey and there are never any compromises. It's like arguing with a heavily-indoctrinated brick wall.

[Dwood]

Well I dunno about where you live but here progressives pretty much own and also if you don't like moving towards socialism you are literally the reason the world still looks at the US as the angry retarded kid with enough muscle to bash people but not enough sense to realise that's not cool :allears:


America doesn't need people from other countries to tell them how to run it. In fact, isn't that one of the things your parents used to tell you? "Would you jump off a bridge if Jimmies older brother told you to?" Maybe if your countries weren't so butthurt we have enough power and military strength to literally control the world's oceans, then them hating us no matter what we do wouldn't be a problem. I'm happy without socialism in my country tyvm.


You all see everything in pure black and white. There's never any grey and there are never any compromises. It's like arguing with a heavily-indoctrinated brick wall.

By the way you're acting you see the same way- anything non-socialism is automatically terribad. The economy and just about every other situation is too complex to blame it on "Capitalism" in fact, we should probably be making another thread if we're going to continue this b/c it's OT.

[CN3089]

It's not "Hey, jump off this bridge dude" it's more like "hey, maybe you should stop smashing your head into that brick wall"



THIS IS ARE COUNTRY AND WE WILL SMASH OUR HEADS INTO WALLS IF WE DAMN WELL PLEASE http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/CN3089/Emoticons/emot-911.gif

[sleepy1212]

Actually, at least in the States, the earliest progressives were "do-gooders". They're responsible for the hundred or so prohibitions that we've had. Progressives want progress :derp: They believed in using the to government to enforce their versions of morality in order to achieve a "better" society or achieve "progress". hence the term in politics. Modern progressives do the same thing. While they may not be religious in nature the goal is exactly the same: use government to enforce your arbitrary version of morality. They're fanatical, typically ignorant of reality despite being well read and educated, and condescending - imagine the last time you heard some self-righteous christian lecture the world - change "God" to "socialism" or "communism" and you have the modern progressive.

What this has to do with Arizona and immigration is this: Our 3rd World Progressive president does not want secure borders. He wants a welfare or "nanny" state. Flooding the country with illegals claiming benefits without paying into the system damages the economy which forces more citizens closer to the poverty level of the illegals. Not only does this in turn provide nanny-statists with votes but also shifts the demographic and the flow of money, listen up, from the government to the welfare recipients. Socialism.

Now i'll put my conspiracy hat on and ellaborate further. What happens to socialism when there isn't anymore of other people's money? It collapses. If America goes down, so does everyone else. Integrated world economics guarantees that if one of a handful of certain nations goes down, the rest of the world will follow. It's no coincidence that the UN is full of progressives and to quote (progressive) Rahm Emmanuel, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” Like answer the problem of worldwide economic collapse with a one-world nanny state.

[CN3089]

Hmmm yes progressives and liberals are the ones who want to impose their moral standards on others and restrict freedoms :ironicat:

[rossmum]

holy fucking shit i hope he was joking about that

also 3rd world progressive president who wants a nanny state and open borders? welp you're one of those batshit insane 'birthers' or something are you

OBAMA WASN'T BORN HERE ALL THE EVIDENCE MIGHT SAY HE WAS BUT IT'S WRONG HE WASN'T

ALSO HE'S A MUSLIM

OUR COUNTRY HAS BECOME GODLESS AND FULL OF COMMIES

christ you exaggerate horribly, if you want something moving towards nanny state status look at the uk or australia, you guys are so far from it it's not even funny and there is absolutely nothing to suggest you're headed that way any more than the rest of the world. it has nothing to do with them GOT-DAMN LIE-BERALS and everything to do with shitty horrible people who want the government to do everything for them and take all their responsibilities away

go play with dane or something

[rossmum]

also americans seem to think they know how every other country in the world should run themselves so who are you to talk :ironicat:

[Dwood]

We honestly dont care about the other countries. you run yours your way and we will run ours our way.

[paladin]

You seem to think, Ross, that the term progressive is limited to liberals. Also, we left Europe for a reason.

[=sw=warlord]

Also, we left Europe for a reason.

Also Europe isn't in the 1800's any more.

[sleepy1212]

Ross, nice liberal herpaderp

just to be clear:

'3rd world' refers to Obama's love of south american dictators.
don't care about the 'birther' thing but some of it is suspicious
you are right, the current demographic of the US is shifting slowly away from religion i.e., "godless" and marxist ideas like class warfare, labor struggles, etc...guide modern progressives
american liberals want to be just like the UK or Australia, Canada, France, Venezuela, anything but American.


it has nothing to do with them GOT-DAMN LIE-BERALS and everything to do with shitty horrible people who want the government to do everything for them and take all their responsibilities away

If it weren't for Progressives (and Liberal party because they've been consumed by progressives) no one would support those irresponsible fucks. Problem is, these politicians are all to happy to take that responsibility away. They want control and they think that they can manage people's lives better than the people themselves. It's a positive feedback loop and the only thing standing in the way of the collapse it's steamrolling towards is conservatives.

Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not
have, nor do they deserve, either one.
-- President Thomas Jefferson. 1743-1826

The security of a government funded life is not freedom. It's a chain.

E: Paladin is right, and I thought I stated that earlier, that progressives are in both parties. In fact, Bush was a huge assload of progressive policies.

[paladin]

Also Europe isn't in the 1800's any more.

Your right, its worse.

[rossmum]

*breaks out quotes from founding fathers*
*uses some whack logic to bend this to fit literally any argument*

SEE IM RIGHT

i don't know why i even bother. then again, what can you expect from a country which only exists because it sperged out about paying the exact same taxed literally every other british colony (read: about a third of the planet at that time) was paying and threw a huge tanty about it and somehow considers this to be a great and righteous achievement that puts them in a higher moral position than everyone else

you're going to get mad now because both of you are clearly diehard republican nationalists but that's basically what happened and you can't deny it, sorry!!!

also europe (at least, europe a decade ago when i lived there) was a wonderful place to live and i would choose it over america every time if their gun laws were a little less dumb. luckily for me canada exists!

oh and by the way i don't know in what bizzarro drugland universe you're in, sleepy, but i could swear blind that nearly every piece of freedom-violating-for-the-sake-of-perceived-safety legislation introduced in the last few decades (outside gun laws) have all been introduced by your precious conservatives. then again i guess that's okay because most of the time they're only ever enforced when the person in question is brown

[sleepy1212]

nearly every piece of freedom-violating-for-the-sake-of-perceived-safety legislation introduced in the last few decades (outside gun laws) have all been introduced by your precious conservatives PROGRESSIVES.


You seem to think, Ross, that the term progressive is limited to liberals.


progressives are in both parties. In fact, Bush was a huge assload of progressive policies.


Actually, at least in the States, the earliest progressives were "do-gooders" IN OTHER WORDS: CHRISTIANS. They're responsible for the hundred or so prohibitions that we've had. Progressives want progress :derp: They believed in using the to government to enforce their versions of morality in order to achieve a "better" society or achieve "progress". hence the term in politics.

:allears:

[=sw=warlord]

Your right, its worse.
Having seen both sides of the argument.
I would willingly live anywhere in Europe if it meant I didn't have to live in the USA.
All the places I've been to in Europe have been friendly tranquil places filled with equal respect, yes some places are worse than others but at least these countries actually acknowledge they could improve, there's no such thing as perfect and if for some delusional reason you think that you're ways are the ways everyone else should follow then not only are you extremely arrogant but also extremely stupid.

@ sleepy: you do realize there is more than just one sect of Christianity right?
Please if you're going to try to make a point make it a sensible one.

[paladin]

Ive lived in Germany and would much rather be here, in Washington of all states, then there.

[rossmum]

:allears:
very nearly all conservatives are religious on some level, usually quite a big one. a good deal of liberals are too, but they generally try to keep it the fuck away from politics (read: like it should be). it's similar to the gun situation: it's hard to find a conservative who doesn't love guns, and just as hard to find a liberal who does. the exceptions are generally shunned by their peers for it.

you guys still revolted for a fucking retarded reason and also democracy was hardly untried, which brings me to another point: a lot of americans i argue with seem to think a republic and a democracy are the same thing or some such, and then twist a few quotes from the founding fathers to back that up (fucking seriously, that is literally the only way i've ever seen an american back up their political opinions regardless of which way they pull). a republic means no monarchy, a leader that is elected instead. a democracy is a system where the people vote for everything and thus (theoretically) the people run the country. america isn't even a true democracy, not by a long shot. it's a representative democracy like most other democratic countries: the people vote for representatives, who vote among themselves to pick a leader, and then the people vote for whichever leader/party they want. not to belittle what the founders did (i'm related to one of them for that matter) - fucking off the poms while they were at the height of their power is no mean feat - but the way america's system is idolised as some kind of last bastion of freedom is ridiculous. the british figured out the whole 'fuck it let's put a rep democracy in place because the king needs some checks and balances' thing in the 16th century, and it's worked out great for them too (the system, not the people in it).

i dunno what whack politics they teach you guys, but really, it's pretty bad when everyone is either hard left or hard right and the few betweeners (i.e. people with brains! sorry extremist fags) are shafted by everyone else. every country suffers this to an extent, but it seems a thousand times worse with you guys

[Dwood]

Religion is a way of life, and if you're religious then your views are religious. You can't separate that, to do so would be hypocritical.

When I (and typically every American with their head on straight) say separation of Church and state I say that government can't tell me what religion to belong to or what ones I can't belong to, not that religious views should be separate from politics.


are shafted by everyone else. every country suffers this to an extent, but it seems a thousand times worse with you guys

fyi the people in between in America are those who haven't decided which party they want to cater their votes to... Ross you've just grown up in a completely different mindset where even the "far right" for your country(ies?) are pretty far left in America today. Thus, it's culture shock when you see people who (even though fairly moderate conservatives) disagree with you they disagree extremely.

IMHO you're pretty far left on everything but Gun laws.

Edit: And to call our 'reason' for rebellion retarded is pretty retarded. It's been nearly 300 years, I'm pretty sure the ways of thinking has changed in those past ~300 years.

[paladin]

x_j5UWPDmTE

HAHHAA I bet Milwaukee is proud of this democrat

She a model progressive citizen, uneducated and dependent on the government.

[=sw=warlord]

Religion is a way of life, and if you're religious then your views are religious. You can't separate that, to do so would be hypocritical.

And to force your own way on life on others is arrogant, one thing many religious groups hold as a negative sin.
If you cannot separate your religious views from your political views then you really have no place in governing a state which consists of people of many different religions and ideals.

When I (and typically every American with their head on straight) say separation of Church and state I say that government can't tell me what religion to belong to or what ones I can't belong to, not that religious views should be separate from politics.
How is that keeping your head on straight?
By that logic every religion that is practiced in the USA should be all integrated and then used in politics.



fyi the people in between in America are those who haven't decided which party they want to cater their votes to... Ross you've just grown up in a completely different mindset where even the "far right" for your country(ies?) are pretty far left in America today. Thus, it's culture shock when you see people who (even though fairly moderate conservatives) disagree with you they disagree extremely.

Hello British nationalist party. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_Party)
Is that far right enough for you?


I personally think someone should make a separate thread for this because it's gone wildly off the rails about Arizona's immigration bill all the way to international ideals of politics.:raise:

[rossmum]

Religion is a way of life, and if you're religious then your views are religious. You can't separate that, to do so would be hypocritical.

When I (and typically every American with their head on straight) say separation of Church and state I say that government can't tell me what religion to belong to or what ones I can't belong to, not that religious views should be separate from politics.
but they should...? :raise:


fyi the people in between in America are those who haven't decided which party they want to cater their votes to...
could it be because america lacks any serious alternatives to far left, far right or just flat insane?


Ross you've just grown up in a completely different mindset where even the "far right" for your country(ies?) are pretty far left in America today. Thus, it's culture shock when you see people who (even though fairly moderate conservatives) disagree with you they disagree extremely.
your logic is horrific. the bnp and one nation are so far right they make the most god-fearing, closet-racist republican look tame. trying to suggest some of the shit you guys say is moderate is like trying to suggest that pauline hanson was only a little bit of a white supremacist, because everyone's favourite measuring stick of batshit insane racial hate beats her in that field.


IMHO you're pretty far left on everything but Gun laws.
any given internet test will tell you i'm about as far left as it goes, but in actuality i am such a mashup it's hard to tell. on the one hand, i have the sense to realise that socialism is a wonderful thing and the only people who disagree are either indoctrinated to the point of total ignorance or are well enough off for 'fuck you, got mine' to hold true. on the other, i have an incredible hatred for overzealous gun laws, i get incredibly mad every time i hear we've had another cut to the defence budget, and i support the police actually having some useful power (within limits). i try not to subscribe to an arbitrary set of views; i deal with things as objectively as possible on a case-by-case basis. unfortunately, this is apparently quite rare. if more people did the same, we might have a bit more fucking choice.


Edit: And to call our 'reason' for rebellion retarded is pretty retarded. It's been nearly 300 years, I'm pretty sure the ways of thinking has changed in those past ~300 years.
the fact that was an obvious bait notwithstanding, the same taxes you guys threw a tanty over were being paid by every other colony. the other colonies may have complained, but you guys actually saw this as a legit reason to fuck the british off and start your own country. even if you argue it was the straw that broke the camel's back rather than just a massive spergout, it's still retarded. you're lucky you had a few smart guys who figured out how to unfuck the situation and actually make a run of it, which would've worked well if any damn person actually understood what the fuck. you have two political extremes and both will claim to be doing things by the constitution, "if the founding fathers were still alive they'd do this" sort of thing. it's fucking dumb.

[sleepy1212]

@ sleepy: you do realize there is more than just one sect of Christianity right?
Please if you're going to try to make a point make it a sensible one.

did you just throw out some irrelevant nonsense and ignore the entire conversation altogether or did you just get lazy instead of making a coherent point?


very nearly all conservatives are religious on some level, usually quite a big one. a good deal of liberals are too, but they generally try to keep it the fuck away from politics (read: like it should be). it's similar to the gun situation: it's hard to find a conservative who doesn't love guns, and just as hard to find a liberal who does. the exceptions are generally shunned by their peers for it.

i dunno what whack politics they teach you guys, but really, it's pretty bad when everyone is either hard left or hard right and the few betweeners (i.e. people with brains! sorry extremist fags) are shafted by everyone else. every country suffers this to an extent, but it seems a thousand times worse with you guys

considering that most of the US is religious it shouldn't be surprising. I don't agree that religion should be separate from politics. That would require representatives to completely ignore the majority of people they represent. Like Dwood said, for many of those people, their lives are inseparable from their faith. However, being non-religious I think many laws are fucking retarded and by my understanding actually going against their religion.

I really don't know what you're going on about The Revolution for or why but I can speak for myself and many others when I say that the ideology we uphold isn't just about democracy (or representative democracy). It's not the form of government we think is so special. It's the idea that what the founders wanted, what they really wanted, was not what we have today, but a completely free society. Where there is no tyranny, neither from a king, the church, from the government, nor the majority (which is why we have a republic instead of a pure democracy). Most of the other countries in the world do not provide that. They provide that illusion, they provide false security and a dependent citizenship. They claim socialism is better when, what they really have is a heavily taxed public with failing government services that is prone to fall into authoritarianism or dictatorships. If there was merit in Socialism I would make the point that, for Americans and the resistance to it, our leaders are not the kind of people you want managing a system like that when they are obviously corrupt and morally inept.

I agree with you that we are in big trouble as far as partisan politics is concerned. Being a Libertarian Independent Conservative is no picnic, but rather, an exercise in complete frustration. We have a lot of idiots who still think it's R vs D in this country, when it's really Progressives vs everyone else. We have a group of people Rep. and Dem, who want to force this country and its people into something it isn't and doesn't want. I'm more inclined to agree with an old-school democrat than i am a new-school republican and much less a new-school democrat. But part of this is also media, which is heavily aligned with progressives, that makes things more extreme than they really are. Our media has become something that no longer reports facts but rather fuels conflict by portraying a chasm of ideology rather than a simple difference of opinion. I think it's intentional, it's a political move. It keeps people from realizing ,"hey, we actually agree on a lot of shit!"

[=sw=warlord]

did you just throw out some irrelevant nonsense and ignore the entire conversation altogether or did you just get lazy instead of making a coherent point?
I should be saying the same to you.
Basing your entire argument on the Christians is as wrong as saying every terrorist is Muslim.
In case you didn't realize the Amish happen to also be a sect of the Christian faith and yet they don't seem to be taking too much interest in today's politics.



considering that most of the US is religious it shouldn't be surprising. I don't agree that religion should be separate from politics. That would require representatives to completely ignore the majority of people they represent. Like Dwood said, for many of those people, their lives are inseparable from their faith. However, being non-religious I think many laws are fucking retarded and by my understanding actually going against their religion.
You seem to be forgetting just how many people live in your states and if you were to cater to every single religion that was practised in said states it would require a lot more human resources than simply putting your religious views to the side and base the laws and regulations based upon what is better for the people as a whole and not try and wipe the ideals of one way life to suit all.
There's a reason committees and advisor's are used in politics and why debate forums exist, to single out the useless bureaucratic bullshit and get to the meaty parts.
Genetic engineering would be a good example of this, the most common argument I've seen when it comes to genetics is "hurr your playing god stop that".

My hypothesis is that Teh lag will come in here soon freak out and move all the comments on this subject into another thread.

[teh lag]

Actually I was expecting that someone else would have taken note of any problems here but it seems that expectation was too high.

[sleepy1212]

Actually I was expecting that someone else would have taken note of any problems here but it seems that expectation was too high.

thanks for moving it instead of closing the other thread. now we can continue :thumbsup:




I should be saying the same to you.
Basing your entire argument on the Christians is as wrong as saying every terrorist is Muslim.
In case you didn't realize the Amish happen to also be a sect of the Christian faith and yet they don't seem to be taking too much interest in today's politics.

You seem to be forgetting just how many people live in your states and if you were to cater to every single religion that was practised in said states it would require a lot more human resources than simply putting your religious views to the side and base the laws and regulations based upon what is better for the people as a whole and not try and wipe the ideals of one way life to suit all.
There's a reason committees and advisor's are used in politics and why debate forums exist, to single out the useless bureaucratic bullshit and get to the meaty parts.
Genetic engineering would be a good example of this, the most common argument I've seen when it comes to genetics is "hurr your playing god stop that".

First, I'm not going to qualify every statement that can be intentionally misconstrued as a generalization for the sake of argument. The progressives I'm referring to were Christians; which sect is not important for this discussion. However, if anyone had any doubts the information is readily available and, at least in the states, common knowledge.

Second, your statement about "catering to everyone" is blatant groupism. It's the mindset I described in my earlier post about progressive class/race warfare. 'People belong in groups. Politics must put people in groups, assign them an ideology, and form legislation entitling or restricting them'. It's one of the worst things to come out of the Political Correctness movement.

The reality is that our system is not intended to cater to anyone. Instead, it allows people to cater to themselves. Anyone, regardless of race, religion, or creed can participate in government and therefore participate in it's legislation. Any representative with a particular conviction will (in theory) be elected upon that conviction and therefore represent those that share that conviction. They then can cast their vote, based on that conviction, in the Congress. If you do not feel you are being represented in government it is either because you or your candidate were not elected or did not run. Obviously this is simplified and there's a lot more to it than that, but this idea is what it's all based on.

What you're suggesting is that we're allocating legislation based on demographics. It's like saying, "Ok, we passed a Baptist law yesterday so today we have to pass a Shinto law."

[Ifafudafi]

Okay, I usually stay out of this crap, but hate all the ideology-wars too much to keep from saying something.

The biggest issue with America's little political sects is that they have this stupid with-me-or-against-me notion. If you're not a REEL MIDLE-AMERICAN GO GOD WOO, then you're part of a liberal elitist consipracy. If you're not BAN EVERYTHING EXCEPT ABORTIONS AND WEED, then you're an 80-year old racist redneck. If you're not a Republican, you must be a Democrat, and therefore you're WRONG. And vice versa.

I like some ideas on both sides, and hate some ideas on both sides. The conservative need to ban the teaching of evolution and insist that America was founded due to GOD'S WILL AND NOTHING ELSE can go die in a cancer fire, but I like the idea of more moderate gun control (not that we should be handing out free RPGs to civilians, of course.) I can't stand the ultra-nanny-state EVERYBODY'S SPECIAL THEY JUST NEED blah blah blah view of most liberals, but I do think that a purely capitalist economy is not a very good idea. I don't choose to vote for somebody because they're liberal or conservative, or because they're a Democrat or a Republican; I vote for somebody because they're smart; I'd prefer an intelligent guy who'd make the right decision regardless of which ideology belongs do any day. As a fairly old case, President Thomas Jefferson was a massive conservative, and was one of the first American politicians to squeeze his way into office using the "I UNDERSTAND THE COMMON MAN" approach. During his tenure, he made some of the most liberal decisions of his time; most notably, Jefferson made the Louisiana Purchase, which doubled the size of the U.S., without any kind of Congressional approval. Historians (and most people at the time) considered that an excellent decision.

At the root of this issue is the fact that most of the American population is dumb. Extremely dumb. Most conservatives' views are basically the racist blather their parents handed down to them combined with a terrible misunderstanding of U.S. History thanks to terrible schools and teachers, while most liberals' views are the exact opposite of the conservative's views (REBEL AGAINST THE MAN) combined with an equally terrible misunderstanding of U.S. History for the same reasons. The majority of people have neither the ability nor the background knowledge to actually form their own views, so they take the easy way and latch on to the far right or far left. As ross said, the considerably smaller portion in the middle is shunned by both sides, and common sense gives way to constant ideological warfare.

And to briefly touch on the Revolution, there were a number of things besides taxes. Having the mother country across the Atlantic provided a massive disconnect with the colonies, as it took weeks simply to get a message across. Prior to the series of taxes, the colonies were pretty much left to their own devices; it was both the sudden intrustion in coloinial affairs and the fact that taxes were levied without any kind of colonial say (hence the "NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION" line) didn't help. Most people figured that the only way to go was down, so the natural conclusion (seeing that they were doing pretty well with minimal British support) was to seperate entirely. Oh, and King George was quite literally a retarded man-child prone to irrational fits of anger, leaving the colonies few ways to reason with him directly; All-out revolt was probably an overreaction, but even back then the majority of Americans were very easily swayed and not very good at making their own decisions.

Of course, anyone saying "IT'S WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS WANTED HURR" can also die in a fire; instead of looking for solutions buried in a two-hundred year old document, our time imho would be better spent trying to figure out newer, better solutions.

[rossmum]

I brought up my description of the revolution purely because it tends to make Americans mad, but I'm glad to see we managed to integrate it into our discussion :haw:

Sleepy, when you let religion into politics, you get stubborn laws governing what is or isn't arbitrarily wrong. Abortion, gay marriage, so on - none of them are inherently wrong, but because people can't suppress their own beliefs, there's a constant shitfight over whether to ban them or not. THAT is why no religion should have even the vaguest link to politics, regardless of what the majority of voters think.

[Bodzilla]

It's either extreme left or extreme right in america.
after having my sister live for a year there and having some family go there for a couple months, this is the exact response they've given me.

"in america there just isn't middle ground and as such it's very very difficult to convey your opinion, it's not about an individual well informed opinion, it's about a general consensus from a mob. for example:
If you say you support the troops, but dont support the war, chances are they will not understand you.
it's one extreme or the other, because to them if you support the troops you have to support the war.
and if you dont support the war you hate the troops.

either way it's a very very troubling aspect of the country. Great geology though"

[sleepy1212]

Sleepy, when you let religion into politics, you get stubborn laws governing what is or isn't arbitrarily wrong. Abortion, gay marriage, so on - none of them are inherently wrong, but because people can't suppress their own beliefs, there's a constant shitfight over whether to ban them or not. THAT is why no religion should have even the vaguest link to politics, regardless of what the majority of voters think.

There isn't anything inherently wrong with making billions of dollars in profit but there are quite a few people who can't suppress their own beliefs on that matter. There's nothing inherently wrong with guns. There's nothing inherently wrong with national defense or secure borders. There's nothing inherently wrong with lots of things non-religious people take offense to. Are you suggesting that only Atheists have the right to make arbitrary moral statements into law? Or that government shouldn't represent the people and their traditions and culture? Maybe you think the role of government is to force it's citizens to conform to its ideology. That's pretty scary.

If you deny people the right to exercise their beliefs in government you might as well take away their right to vote. We've been down that road. Blacks, women, people who didn't own land or couldn't read or write. People then, believed just as much as you do now about religion, that those people and their views would bring down society if they ever got the right to express their beliefs politically.

[Bodzilla]

this is what Dwood left on my profile

Uhhhhh I don't know about you but religion kind of is a way of life- it's the whole point of being religious in the first place. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean you shouldn't accept it as a fact. For reference, see: ISLAM, BUDDHISM, ETC ETC. it doesn't have to be Christian to be religious. To say you're 'Christian' and then not live your life that way/form your system of beliefs from it is hypocritical. Please, don't call it bull when you cant dispute a claim properly.
and heres my response, it's in relation to this thread and i think it sums up my point of view.


You can be a christian and live your life to the fullest as a chrisitian if you so choose, but to bring that into something that effects people of every religious background is Zionist (see i can use buzzwords too bro)

There are other people out there and believe it or not but the representation for them in a rep dem society should be just as important as it for the christians, and you cant do that by bringing your beliefs into the political devide. all you can do is do whats best for people as a whole.

soon as you dwelve into that shit.... thats where the things you guys are so afraid of, government control, dictatorship, communism, censorship.... comes into play.
because your legislating for a mindset and spin the shit what ever way you want it, but it's fucking wrong. and i'll say that.

[TeeKup]

Religion creates a Bias. The only way for a political environment to be efficient is to have no bias.

Without that bias, people tend to have a greater understand of most things around them than others. One reason I dislike religion and chose to be Agnostic.

[rossmum]

There isn't anything inherently wrong with making billions of dollars in profit but there are quite a few people who can't suppress their own beliefs on that matter. There's nothing inherently wrong with guns. There's nothing inherently wrong with national defense or secure borders. There's nothing inherently wrong with lots of things non-religious people take offense to. Are you suggesting that only Atheists have the right to make arbitrary moral statements into law? Or that government shouldn't represent the people and their traditions and culture? Maybe you think the role of government is to force it's citizens to conform to its ideology. That's pretty scary.

If you deny people the right to exercise their beliefs in government you might as well take away their right to vote. We've been down that road. Blacks, women, people who didn't own land or couldn't read or write. People then, believed just as much as you do now about religion, that those people and their views would bring down society if they ever got the right to express their beliefs politically.
Actually I'm pretty sure you'll notice upon rereading my post that I never mentioned athiests or athiesm, nor any specific religion or lack thereof. I simply stated that in no way, shape or form should any governmental decision, proposal, organisation, or otherwise be influenced by religion or a lack of it. The government can't make citizens conform to an ideology it does not have. There is absolutely no reason, scientific or medical, than either abortion or gay marriage should not be legal. The only objection to either comes chiefly from - you guessed it - religious bigots (who, ironically enough, only adhere to the parts of the Bible which tell them it's okay to hate faggots and brown people).

Also I find your exaggerations both hilarious and mind-numbing. Please do point out where I stated that religious politicians will literally destroy the world - if you're going to compare me to overt racists and sexists, please at least make some effort to do it properly. I simply stated that religion and politics should be as far divided as possible, because allowing the former to interfere in the latter creates a hostile environment to those who do not share the same beliefs (even religious people of the same sect, but slightly less zealous) and essentially is form of the throat-shoving behaviour that I so despise about organised religion. The moment you involve any sect of any religion in the lawmaking process, you are basically flipping a giant bird to everyone else and telling them to deal with it, because that's the religion you follow and you'll be damned if anyone under your jurisdiction is going to get an abortion or openly love the same sex. Because that's wrong. Because you say so.

It might not destroy the world, but if you see anything but bad coming of it, you really need a reality check.

[Dwood]

Religion creates a Bias. The only way for a political environment to be efficient is to have no bias.

Without that bias, people tend to have a greater understand of most things around them than others. One reason I dislike religion and chose to be Agnostic.

Sorry to tell you this Teek, but life creates bias. The way people grow up creates bias. Where they grow up also creates bias. Putting people in groups creates bias. Watching as 70% of the crime in a city being one race creates bias.

[paladin]

Religion creates a Bias. The only way for a political environment to be efficient is to have no bias.

Without that bias, people tend to have a greater understand of most things around them than others. One reason I dislike religion and chose to be Agnostic.


Sorry to tell you this Teek, but life creates bias. The way people grow up creates bias. Where they grow up also creates bias. Putting people in groups creates bias. Watching as 70% of the crime in a city being one race creates bias.

Dwood nailed it. Everything is going to have bias, whether its by political belief, religion, or or attitude that day.

[TeeKup]

Sorry to tell you this Teek, but life creates bias. The way people grow up creates bias. Where they grow up also creates bias. Putting people in groups creates bias. Watching as 70% of the crime in a city being one race creates bias.

Depending on the person, they can reject what they've been taught to them as they grew up. That's exactly what I did. I rejected the ideals given to me as a child as I saw them wrong and obsolete. It's up to people to reject their bias and see anew. There in lies the problem though...people are far too complacent in their own views try and understand/accept other things and people.

[rossmum]

Dwood nailed it. Everything is going to have bias, whether its by political belief, religion, or or attitude that day.
True as that may be, religion is usually one of the stronger biases and it also leaves people who would do anything for their particular sect wide open for exploitation. The last thing anyone needs are puppets of a church (of any sect or religion) in a position of actual power.

[Dwood]

True as that may be, religion is usually one of the stronger biases and it also leaves people who would do anything for their particular sect wide open for exploitation. The last thing anyone needs are puppets of a church (of any sect or religion) in a position of actual power.

True as that may be, Conviction is usually one of the stronger biases and it also leaves people who would do anything using those convictions as an excuse wide open for exploitation. The last thing anyone needs are puppets of any conviction in a position of actual power.

[rossmum]

I agree entirely, only rational and objective people capable of assessing things on their actual merits should be allowed to make any kind of important decisions.

[sleepy1212]

Actually I'm pretty sure you'll notice upon rereading my post that I never mentioned athiests or athiesm, nor any specific religion or lack thereof. I simply stated that in no way, shape or form should any governmental decision, proposal, organisation, or otherwise be influenced by religion or a lack of it.

You literally said religion should have no place in politics. If religion isn't part of politics then clearly a "lack of religion" is. It's not exactly a quantum leap to atheism, unless you consider atheism a religion.


Also I find your exaggerations both hilarious and mind-numbing. Please do point out where I stated that religious politicians will literally destroy the world -

I said "bring down society" - not destroy it. Haven't you been saying that society is worse off for allowing religion to be a part of politics?

if you're going to compare me to overt racists and sexists, please at least make some effort to do it properly.

You're being far too sensitive. I was only pointing out that excluding religious ideals from politics isn't any different than excluding any other point of view and that, for religious people, their faith is inseparable from their point of view. It's natural to them just as being black or being a woman is natural to the point of view of blacks and women. In other words, you cannot completely separate the person from the faith. The only conclusion then, would be to exclude religious people from politics altogether.

I simply stated that religion and politics should be as far divided as possible, because allowing the former to interfere in the latter creates a hostile environment to those who do not share the same beliefs (even religious people of the same sect, but slightly less zealous) and essentially is form of the throat-shoving behaviour that I so despise about organised religion. The moment you involve any sect of any religion in the lawmaking process, you are basically flipping a giant bird to everyone else and telling them to deal with it, because that's the religion you follow and you'll be damned if anyone under your jurisdiction is going to get an abortion or openly love the same sex. Because that's wrong. Because you say so.

The moment you exclude religion from the lawmaking process, you are basically flipping a giant bird to all those people who have a religion and creating a hostile environment towards them.

What you don't seem to see is the "throat-shoving" behavior of non-religious people. The extremists opposite of religion. Even non religious people have unfounded beliefs that cause harm to others when they are legislated. There are a litany of laws based on fear, ignorance, and pure selfishness that have nothing to do with religion and weren't necessarily passed by religious people.

Now, i agree that hard facts and truths should steer government. Problem is, morality doesn't generally consist of hard facts. Truths are not always evident. We simply don't have the convenience of making perfect decisions based on perfect knowledge. In light of that, how do you determine who's ideology is allowed to participate in politics and who's ideology isn't?

[Mass]

The Middle East (Suez, Iran hostage, Gulf War, current war), Vietnam, Cuba (missile crisis and later the emmigration), Venezuela, Africa, and Mexico. Progressives (R and D) have a long history of pandering to nations full of brown people. Our current administration is probably the worst for actually buddying up with Communist dictators and praising their economic policies (which are actually responsible for ruining thier nation's economies).
The United States literally destroys the lives and livelihoods of "brown people" every day, be it funding two sides of a war in Mexico, literal military action and prominent military aid in the Middle East, or unbelievable environmental damage by American corporations in Ecuador. I do not know what "Progressives" think on this issue, for God only knows what you intend with this term, but certainly Americans who are against this sort of behavior and want policies to counteract its damage are not "pandering;" they are enraged at a senseless waste of life and resources. Thanks

[Dwood]

I agree entirely, only rational and objective people capable of assessing things on their actual merits should be allowed to make any kind of important decisions.

I thought you would take what I was saying as worse than intended. *phew* you understood what I was getting at. And I agree. The problem is that in today's society, it's not the merits that get people elected, it's who is most popular or who can hide what they've done in the past the best. Last year's elections in America were not based on merit (it was, rather, who had done the least damage so far), and wound up screwing Americans over pretty badly. If the elections were based on merit and not backroom deals/popularity, Hillary Clinton would have been the Democratic Candidate, and John McCain probably wouldn't have been the candidate for the Republicans.

The key word is should. It won't ever happen because if you get more objective people in gvt, they would base their legislations off of facts and truth, not make their own truth based on how they see fit to 'run' the country.

Edit: Mass, what are you talking about honestly. We go out of our way to cater to these people. Editx2 and don't simply blame the corporations, blame the government for accepting the handouts and letting the corporations do said discrimination.

[rossmum]

Actually I'm pretty sure you'll notice upon rereading my post that I never mentioned athiests or athiesm, nor any specific religion or lack thereof. I simply stated that in no way, shape or form should any governmental decision, proposal, organisation, or otherwise be influenced by religion or a lack of it.

You literally said religion should have no place in politics. If religion isn't part of politics then clearly a "lack of religion" is. It's not exactly a quantum leap to atheism, unless you consider atheism a religion.

Disconnecting religion from politics and introducing atheism to politics are very, very different, considering many atheists themselves have a tendency to try and fuck religion off at every opportunity.

Also I find your exaggerations both hilarious and mind-numbing. Please do point out where I stated that religious politicians will literally destroy the world -

I said "bring down society" - not destroy it. Haven't you been saying that society is worse off for allowing religion to be a part of politics?

Well I guess you got me there. Religion's involvement in politics is bringing down society in the same way that feminists and [insert race here] supremacists are. They legislate in the interests of themselves and the group they belong to.

if you're going to compare me to overt racists and sexists, please at least make some effort to do it properly.

You're being far too sensitive. I was only pointing out that excluding religious ideals from politics isn't any different than excluding any other point of view and that, for religious people, their faith is inseparable from their point of view. It's natural to them just as being black or being a woman is natural to the point of view of blacks and women. In other words, you cannot completely separate the person from the faith. The only conclusion then, would be to exclude religious people from politics altogether.

No, the conclusion would be to find people who are capable of exercising basic self-control and disassociating their personal beliefs from legislation they introduce which affects everyone else. When you're making those kinds of decisions, you need to consider them objectively. That includes religion, race, sex, wealth, and everything else that tends to sway decisions. If you're incapable of that, you have no business to make those choices.

I simply stated that religion and politics should be as far divided as possible, because allowing the former to interfere in the latter creates a hostile environment to those who do not share the same beliefs (even religious people of the same sect, but slightly less zealous) and essentially is form of the throat-shoving behaviour that I so despise about organised religion. The moment you involve any sect of any religion in the lawmaking process, you are basically flipping a giant bird to everyone else and telling them to deal with it, because that's the religion you follow and you'll be damned if anyone under your jurisdiction is going to get an abortion or openly love the same sex. Because that's wrong. Because you say so.

The moment you exclude religion from the lawmaking process, you are basically flipping a giant bird to all those people who have a religion and creating a hostile environment towards them.

Hardly. If they don't like abortion, then don't have one. If they don't like gay marriage, then don't have one. They can decide for themselves what to do instead of sitting there and hoping someone who shares their beliefs is going to come along and tell gays and teenage mothers they're evil and immoral. Excluding religion from lawmaking has literally no cons whatsoever, and if you can't realise that much, you should probably stop and think about it yourself. There is no reason religious people can't apply their own laws to themselves and themselves alone. Oh, wait, there is - then they can't enforce their own skewed morals on people they have no business in interfering with. Forgive the generalisation, as I know not all religious people are like that, but I think you see my point. Majority or not, "Christian nation" or not, whatever the fuck... if someone comes up to me and tells me I can't do something because it's against his beliefs, I'm going to tell him to fuck off in no uncertain terms. It's none of his business. If he doesn't like it, hard fucking luck.

What you don't seem to see is the "throat-shoving" behavior of non-religious people. The extremists opposite of religion.
Addressed above. Of course I do, they irritate me just as badly as religious zealots.


Even non religious people have unfounded beliefs that cause harm to others when they are legislated.
I'm sorry, but this is such ridiculous, unfounded bullshit that I am going to have to call you out on it. In what manner are laws decided in an objective way going to harm others? I sure hope you're not suggesting that either a) legalising things some religions don't like will do any harm to anyone at all or b) that people will instill fucking retarded legislation like making murder fine and dandy just because religion isn't involved in the process, because both of those are really dumb and ignorant.


There are a litany of laws based on fear, ignorance, and pure selfishness that have nothing to do with religion and weren't necessarily passed by religious people.
Your point? There have been just as many that have been passed by religious people, entirely because of religion. Gay marriage and abortion are probably the two best examples.


Now, i agree that hard facts and truths should steer government. Problem is, morality doesn't generally consist of hard facts. Truths are not always evident. We simply don't have the convenience of making perfect decisions based on perfect knowledge. In light of that, how do you determine who's ideology is allowed to participate in politics and who's ideology isn't?
Ideology shouldn't be an issue. Logic and reason are the only things a country should ever be run off of. I think you'll find that still covers things like murder and theft and rape, but it also renders a lot of fucking retarded laws obsolete.

[rossmum]

Also, just throwing this out there, but this is what happens when you let religion into politics (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2010/06/22/2010-06-22_texas_gop_platform_criminalize_gay_marriage_and _ban_sodomy_outlaw_strip_clubs_an.html)

[paladin]

Good for them

9UNy0iq3_Eo

[sleepy1212]

clusterfuck of quotes

I think we're starting to get somewhere. At least you see how fucked up the other side can be. You still can't make people check their god at the door or ask them, "can you stop believing in your god until after we pass this bill?" While we might want people to be more rational we don't have the right to exclude others for being less so... that would just be bigotry masquerading as rationalism.


Also, just throwing this out there, but this is what happens when you let religion into politics (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2010/06/22/2010-06-22_texas_gop_platform_criminalize_gay_marriage_and _ban_sodomy_outlaw_strip_clubs_an.html)

Yea that's pretty fucked.

Just keep in mind it's not always religion. The Soviets banned both the Bible and the Quran and looked how fucked up they were.

[rossmum]

I think we're starting to get somewhere. At least you see how fucked up the other side can be. You still can't make people check their god at the door or ask them, "can you stop believing in your god until after we pass this bill?" While we might want people to be more rational we don't have the right to exclude others for being less so... that would just be bigotry masquerading as rationalism.
They don't really need to stop believing, they just need to hold their tongues when it comes to "should we make abortion a-okay and also recognise gay marriage" since they have no right to restrict others from doing either.


Yea that's pretty fucked.

Just keep in mind it's not always religion. The Soviets banned both the Bible and the Quran and looked how fucked up they were.
Absolute power etc., etc.

At risk of derailing a derail, while the Soviet Union was pretty fucked up, it did take a lot of good things to its grave. I watched a really interesting documentary on SBS (Australia's international interest channel pretty much) which had followed the lives of some kids under Soviet rule. They went back recently and found them, now mostly in their early-mid 20s. Some have done really well for themselves, some are living in the US, some are poor as fuck and living on the floor in some shitty apartment. It seemed pretty much a general concensus though that they felt a lot safer (both in terms of crime and also socially) and that they had a much stronger sense of pupose back then, although none of them really wanted it back now they knew the full extent of what happened. I think that quote by Putin (which I won't bother to paraphrase, I think we all know it verbatim by now) summed it up the best.

[sleepy1212]

They don't really need to stop believing, they just need to hold their tongues when it comes to "should we make abortion a-okay and also recognise gay marriage" since they have no right to restrict others from doing either.

Well, in one sense I don't think that's possible for many situations. It's just too much a part of their lives.

In another, since I'm more familiar with Christianity, there's this: one of Jesus' most famous lines, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." It's been used as an argument against capital punishment for forever. The point of it though, is that no one can be the judge of another because that responsibility falls solely - for christians - in the hands of God. Meaning they have no right, according to Jesus, to pass judgment on others. While they may believe it is a sin to have an abortion they should also believe that God will be their judge. If you've ever spent a lot of time around believers you'd hear a lot of, "just put it in God's hands." What drives me nuts about them legislating morality is just that. If I were a christian I'd realize that god gave us free will and the choice to be righteous or the choice to sin and go to hell. So why the fuck can't they be happy thinking all the gays are going to hell? If you force someone to comply, rather than make the choice on their own, isn't that just as bad?


I'd also like to add that there are plenty of non-religious arguments against particularly abortion, but gay-marriage as well.

[Dwood]

I know a Gay guy who is against abortion. You don't have to be 'religious' to think Abortion is wrong, ross. The idea to leave religion at the door when people walk into a room for debating major legislation is (can't think of the word here) bigotry (not the word I was looking for but I'll go with it). It's like asking a person to leave all of their life experiences behind and to not take them into account while debating the legislation. It just won't happen, it can't happen. And in my opinion, it shouldn't happen. You're always going to get extremists, and when you hit the top of the pyramid.

And just because one group thinks something is ok to do doesn't mean another one has to agree. And now you brought up the exact point I was going to make: the only reason to leave 'religion' at the door while legislating is to influence legislation the way you want it. It'd be the same as if I required every person I voted for to be practicing Hindus.

[=sw=warlord]

I know a Gay guy who is against abortion. You don't have to be 'religious' to think Abortion is wrong, ross. The idea to leave religion at the door when people walk into a room for debating major legislation is (can't think of the word here) bigotry (not the word I was looking for but I'll go with it). It's like asking a person to leave all of their life experiences behind and to not take them into account while debating the legislation. It just won't happen, it can't happen. And in my opinion, it shouldn't happen. You're always going to get extremists, and when you hit the top of the pyramid.

How is it bigotry to ask people to leave their personal religious view at the door when if you mix your religious views with politics that affect many more people than yourself?
The way thing's should work is that you can practice what ever personal ritual you wish to practice as long as it doesn't affect other people.
The whole abortion issue seems to have been clouded pretty badly if I'm going to be honest, Why ban abortion for morality reasons if some of those abortions were the end result of another morally questionable action such as rape?
The questions asked during the discussion of a termination should be, what chance of a decent quality of life would the child have? would it be perfectly healthy or would it have a deformation that would cause it's existence suffering?, How was the child conceived, was it voluntary, involuntary[rape]?
Those are the questions that should be asked not "is it moral in the eyes of god/alah/muhammed/[insert name here]?" morals are so much more than what's written down in a age old book, I think you'll agree relieving a child from a existence of suffering from birth would be a lot more moral than to let it carry on and suffer for it's entire life.

[CN3089]

Why ban abortion for morality reasons if some of those abortions were the end result of another morally questionable action such as rape?

Well, I think abortion should remain legal but this is a fairly weak argument. Two wrongs don't make a right, as every second grader learns.

[rossmum]

So why the fuck can't they be happy thinking all the gays are going to hell? If you force someone to comply, rather than make the choice on their own, isn't that just as bad?
That's the exact reason they shouldn't be allowed to ban things just because they don't agree with them. Last I checked, that's about as "forcing someone to comply" as it gets.


I'd also like to add that there are plenty of non-religious arguments against particularly abortion, but gay-marriage as well.
And they're all equally retarded and baseless, surprise


Well, I think abortion should remain legal but this is a fairly weak argument. Two wrongs don't make a right, as every second grader learns.
But then you also bring in the situational issues. Is avoiding an abortion worth the victim going through the ordeal of having a child only for it to be a permanent reminder? Even if you put it up for adoption literally the second it leaves the womb, it's still going to be doing horrible things to her (already fragile) state of mind. What if the kid finds out one day? How are they supposed to cope with the knowledge they were a rape baby? Wouldn't abortion be the best option regardless?

[Dwood]

How is it bigotry to ask people to leave their personal religious view at the door when if you mix your religious views with politics that affect many more people than yourself?

Because people are elected by those with similar views and they are meant to represent those that voted to put them in office. It's the whole idea behind Democracy and Republicanism.

Edit: And guys, I'm not here to argue about abortion, we're using examples for this 'leave religion behind' attitude when you go in to vote on legislation.

[=sw=warlord]

Well, I think abortion should remain legal but this is a fairly weak argument. Two wrongs don't make a right, as every second grader learns.

Not really, Why add additional effects to such acts by removing a perfectly legitimate treatment that could help resolve some of the turmoil?
Two wrongs may not make a right but by performing a abortion you are in some ways returning the line of events back to the way it was before the first wrong was committed.
Scientists recently found a foetus cannot feel any pain up to the 24 week period (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/10403496.stm) a the nervous system has not linked up with the cortex enough to send pain signals.
You seem to have completely blinded by the issue of what's best for the unborn and mother?
If the child has no chance of a decent life then why would, should it be acceptable to force it to exist knowing it would suffer.
This is euthanasia on a pre-birth scale.



Because people are elected by those with similar views and they are meant to represent those that voted to put them in office. It's the whole idea behind Democracy and Republicanism.



They were voted for their policies or at least some of them but what they were not voted for is to have their personal religious views imposed on them.

[rossmum]

The idea to leave religion at the door when people walk into a room for debating major legislation is (can't think of the word here) bigotry (not the word I was looking for but I'll go with it).
:ironicat:


It's like asking a person to leave all of their life experiences behind and to not take them into account while debating the legislation. It just won't happen, it can't happen. And in my opinion, it shouldn't happen. You're always going to get extremists, and when you hit the top of the pyramid.
Pretty sure it should, since most people are fucking retarded and interpret their 'life experiences' in dumb ways e.g. 'some black kid stole my car, fuck blacks they're all criminals and gangstas' or 'my wife's second cousin's best friend's father's workmate was hit by a drunk teenage driver, all teenage drivers are fucking dangerous and should be suffocated by dumb rules while the bulk of bad drivers (who are in their 30s-50s) get away with blue murder' (this is an accurate description of how things work here regarding provisional licences).


And just because one group thinks something is ok to do doesn't mean another one has to agree.
It does mean that the other absolutely should not ever try and have it banned for that reason alone


And now you brought up the exact point I was going to make: the only reason to leave 'religion' at the door while legislating is to influence legislation the way you want it. It'd be the same as if I required every person I voted for to be practicing Hindus.
Again, :ironicat:

I used to be somewhat religious and I guess I still am, but as time goes on I'm getting more and more fed up with the bullshit that is organised religion and how vehemently people will defend it. Believe whatever you damn well please, but don't force it on me and don't try and guilt-trip me into funding your next fuckoff church with gold leaf adorning the altar and ornate stained glass windows.


Because people are elected by those with similar views and they are meant to represent those that voted to put them in office. It's the whole idea behind Democracy and Republicanism.
So if a slim majority votes to ban something, does that mean the other 150 million people have to just shut the fuck up and deal with it because God damnit that's how the greatest democracy the world has ever seen (what a joke) works?

by the way stop confusing republicanism and democracy they are utterly unrelated

[sleepy1212]

And they're all equally retarded and baseless, surprise

:allears:


You seem to have completely blinded by the issue of what's best for the unborn and mother?
If the child has no chance of a decent life then why would, should it be acceptable to force it to exist knowing it would suffer.
This is euthanasia or eugenics on a pre-birth scale.

by what criteria do you decide that, assuming that decision needs to be made in the first place?





So if a slim majority votes to ban something, does that mean the other 150 million people have to just shut the fuck up and deal with it because God damnit that's how the greatest democracy the world has ever seen (what a joke) works?

by the way stop confusing republicanism and democracy they are utterly unrelated

See: majority ...In a democracy the minority can't do that.

About.com: Republicanism (http://usconservatives.about.com/od/glossaryterms/g/Republicanism.htm)

[rossmum]

my bad, they're related but not in the way most americans think

i hate to quote wikipedia but,


A republic is a form of government in which the head of state is not a monarch[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_note-0) and the people (or at least a part of its people)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_note-1) have an impact on its government.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_note-2)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#cite_note-3) The word "republic" is derived from the Latin phrase res publica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_publica), which can be translated as "a public affair".
notice that first part

america is a representative democratic republic because the people vote for a leader (representative democracy) who is not a monarch (republic)

the two words are not and never will be interchangeable, stop using them as such

[Dwood]

my bad, they're related but not in the way most americans think
the two words are not and never will be interchangeable, stop using them as such

They can be, and are, quite interchangeable, it's like having multiple definitions for a word.

[rossmum]

No, they're not.

The fact so many people believe that makes me seriously question what the fuck they teach you over there, because a republic and a democracy are not the same fucking thing

[Dwood]

No, they're not.

The fact so many people believe that makes me seriously question what the fuck they teach you over there, because a republic and a democracy are not the same fucking thing

O sorry that's not what I mean. I mean, we call our type of government a republic, which it is one under almost all definitions.

[paladin]

america is a representative democratic republicConstitutional federal republic with a strong democratic tradition

ftfy

We are not a democratic government

[CN3089]

Yes you are, for the usual definition of democratic! Americans use a different definition, for whatever reason.

[rossmum]

Do you seriously need us properly-educated folk to explain how a representative democracy is still a fucking democracy?

[paladin]

But were not a representative democracy, were are a Constitutional Republic. Our Constitution gives us our states representatives. Like you said,

a republic and a democracy are not the same fucking thing

Maybe you should take a US history lesson before you try to teach other.

[CN3089]

You're both! There's no contradiction between a democracy and a republic. In fact, I'd wager most republics are democracies~

[paladin]

No, sorry!

[Dwood]

You're both wrong, and I agree with CN3089

[rossmum]

You're both wrong, and I agree with CN3089
Then how do you explain the UK, Canada, Australia, NZ, and fuck knows how many other countries that, while monarchies, are actually run as rep democracies most of the time? The only time that the monarchy side of things really comes into play is if the shit hits the fan or if the rep dem is in a condition of stalemate. Democracies and republics are not the fucking same thing at all, they just tend to co-exist.

Paladin, consider learning about actual political systems before telling me to go and educate myself. The US is a representative democracy because you elect a leader (who has been elected to stand by their party), just the same as we do. You're a republic because you don't have a monarchy and the public are involved in the workings of the government. We aren't a republic because we have a Queen. It's not fucking rocket science and every other country can agree on it, so I don't know why you think the US is so special.

e/ Wait, who's wrong about what? I just assumed you were referring to Paladin and myself, but the point stands - the two are not the same but they often coexist. I really am at a loss to explain why so many people don't understand that.

[Dwood]

If republic = government without a king/central ruler, then most republics probably are democracies due to the representation of the people idea.

note: not all.

[=sw=warlord]

If republic = government without a king/central ruler, then most republics probably are democracies due to the representation of the people idea.

note: not all.
Republic = no monarchy, No royal family lauding it over the state.
Guess what north Korea is, a republic thus why it's called the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
That's a extremely large example of a central ruler but still being a republic and a democratic society.
Reason it's not a monarchy? Because it doesn't have a royal family lauding over the state.
Paladin, Go educate yourself because you truly are starting to lose credit as a educated person.
Everyone so far have explained over and over how you are wrong, get the hint.

[sleepy1212]

It's a republic. See: Pledge of Allegiance.

also,



The Pledge of Allegiance (http://www.thisnation.com/library/songs/pledge.html) includes the phrase: "and to the republic for which it stands." Is the United States of America a republic? I always thought it was a democracy? What's the difference between the two?
The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf. The Framers of the Constitution were altogether fearful of pure democracy. Everything they read and studied taught them that pure democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths" (Federalist No. 10 (http://www.thisnation.com/library/books/federalist/10.html)).
By popular usage, however, the word "democracy" come to mean a form of government in which the government derives its power from the people and is accountable to them for the use of that power. In this sense the United States might accurately be called a democracy. However, there are examples of "pure democracy" at work in the United States today that would probably trouble the Framers of the Constitution if they were still alive to see them. Many states allow for policy questions to be decided directly by the people by voting on ballot initiatives or referendums. (Initiatives originate with, or are initiated by, the people while referendums originate with, or are referred to the people by, a state's legislative body.) That the Constitution does not provide for national ballot initiatives or referendums is indicative of the Framers' opposition to such mechanisms. They were not confident that the people had the time, wisdom or level-headedness to make complex decisions, such as those that are often presented on ballots on election day.
Writing of the merits of a republican or representative form of government, James Madison observed that one of the most important differences between a democracy and a republic is "the delegation of the government [in a republic] to a small number of citizens elected by the rest."

source (http://www.thisnation.com/question/011.html)


What distinguishes a republic is that it has an elected government. Representative democracies are, therefor, a kind of republic.

source (http://www.williampmeyers.org/republic.html)


Republic. That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. [NOTE: The word "people" may be either plural or singular. In a republic the group only has advisory powers; the sovereign individual is free to reject the majority group-think. USA/exception: if 100% of a jury convicts, then the individual loses sovereignty and is subject to group-think as in a democracy.]

Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. [NOTE: In a pure democracy, 51% beats 49%. In other words, the minority has no rights. The minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority.]

source (http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm)

/semantics

[rossmum]

HOLY FUCKING SHIT IT'S BOTH THEY ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE JESUS H. CHRIST

not only do you mutilate our spelling, you also mutilate the meanings of our political descriptors

[Ifafudafi]

You know, a couple of months ago, my grandmother (going on 82) sent me a video saying that America was found as a Republic, not a Democracy, and therefore, you should be a Republican. :downs: (I'm pretty sure it was a parody, but she thought it was completely serious and believed every word of it.)

Anyway, OT: In terms of political systems, a democracy does not necessarily have to be a pure (or direct) democracy, no more than a monarchy has to be an absolute monarchy. The system currently in the U.S. is a representative democracy, meaning that the country is run by elected officials. Even if elected officials hold most of the power, those officials were still elected. If most historians are correct, the founders realized that, as I spent some time explaining in my last post, people are stupid and easily swayed; to put every single ounce of power into their hands would be foolish. Regardless, the simple fact that power is derived from the votes of the country's citizens qualifies it as a democracy.

Sleepy, I'm not sure what you're trying to say. The first source has no idea he's talking about (and yes, textbook authors can be blithering idiots; I've seen quite a few), but the next two just say that the U.S. is both a democracy and a republic, almost directly. Again, as ross said, it's perfectly reasonable to have a republic which is also a democracy, i.e. the U.S.

And, either way, what it was intended to be shouldn't have any bearing on what it must always be. At the risk of adding fuel to the fire, probably the most ideal system imho would be a communist system. I'm not talking about so-called "communist states" like China, and the former U.S.S.R., as they're about as communist as North Korea is a Democratic Republic. Communism was theorized as the "final step" of societal evolution, prefaced by democracy and socialism. In a communist system, there's literally no centralized government; everything is shared and utilized by the entirety of society. Unfortunately, people being, by nature, dumb, greedy, and vain, such a system is an impossibility. A democracy (and a republic, for that matter) are excellent alternatives, but they're by no means perfect.

Which, again, is my main beef with conservatives. Just because it's old doesn't mean it's flawless; the Constitution detailed a groundbreaking governmental system that was way ahead of its time, but it doesn't have to be the definitive word. That's why the amendment system was put in place; if we stuck to WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS INTENDED, blacks and women wouldn't be able to vote. Hell, we wouldn't even have free speech; that was the first amendment added.

[sleepy1212]

You know, a couple of months ago, my grandmother (going on 82) sent me a video saying that America was found as a Republic, not a Democracy, and therefore, you should be a Republican. :downs: (I'm pretty sure it was a parody, but she thought it was completely serious and believed every word of it.)

It could be interpreted that way if you can assert that the US is becoming more democratic through change and less literal interpretation of the constitution. In other words, democrats - where republicans represent the traditional adherence to a strict interpretation of the constitution, therefore strict adherence to a republic rather than a democracy. None of that actually means anything anymore but for an old person who lived with more of the classic partisanship It might not be that far off.

Sleepy, I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Just posting sources for everyone to read The first source has no idea he's talking about (explain) (and yes, textbook authors can be blithering idiots; I've seen quite a few), but the next two just say that the U.S. is both a democracy and a republic, almost directly. Again, as ross said, it's perfectly reasonable to have a republic which is also a democracy, i.e. the U.S.

And, either way, what it was intended to be shouldn't have any bearing on what it must always be. At the risk of adding fuel to the fire, probably the most ideal system imho would be a communist system. I'm not talking about so-called "communist states" like China, and the former U.S.S.R., as they're about as communist as North Korea is a Democratic Republic. Communism was theorized as the "final step" of societal evolution, prefaced by democracy and socialism. In a communist system, there's literally no centralized government; everything is shared and utilized by the entirety of society. Unfortunately, people being, by nature, dumb, greedy, and vain, such a system is an impossibility. A democracy (and a republic, for that matter) are excellent alternatives, but they're by no means perfect.

We could have this discussion, considering this is probably the direction most of us are headed in anyway; though not in an ideal sense. However, making quite a leap in that discussion I would go ahead and put this out there: Anarchy (or possibly Libertarianism) vs Benevolent Dictator. I'm somewhat in favor of this but i'd rather elaborate when the conversation get's there.

Which, again, is my main beef with conservatives. Just because it's old doesn't mean it's flawless; the Constitution detailed a groundbreaking governmental system that was way ahead of its time, but it doesn't have to be the definitive word. That's why the amendment system was put in place; if we stuck to WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS INTENDED, blacks and women wouldn't be able to vote. Hell, we wouldn't even have free speech; that was the first amendment added.

It does have to be the definitive word on at least one thing: power is vested in the people, not the government; the government functions as a temporary trustee of the people's power. Being a conservative, my main beef with modern Liberals (Progressives, also including the republican ones) is the attempt to usurp that power by the government.

This whole "is it a republic or a democracy" conversation got started as a retarded basis for Ross's argument against American Exceptionalism.

Can we move on now?

[Bodzilla]

just keep throwing buzzwords around, i'm sure you'll bamboozle the english teacher eventually :ohdear:

[Ifafudafi]

It does have to be the definitive word on at least one thing: power is vested in the people, not the government; the government functions as a temporary trustee of the people's power. Being a conservative, my main beef with modern Liberals (Progressives, also including the republican ones) is the attempt to usurp that power by the government.

And so we find the biggest flaw in democracy. Power should be invested in the people, but more often not those people are morons. As such, the politicians who tend to identify with the majority of Americans are also morons (looking at you, Sarah Palin.) The best way to "fix" government, imho, isn't to give the government more or less power, but to have the voting population smart enough to realize what's broken and what they need to do to fix it. In one of my ideal visions of American government, the party system would not exist, and the people, rather than voting for somebody because they're conservative or liberal, would vote for them because they consider them the most sensible and competent choice. I really don't like anyone who when asked, will instantly say "I'M A LIBERAL" or "I'M A CONSERVATIVE," because that, to me, indicates that rather than take the time to consider what policies they agree and disagree with, they just attach themselves to a platform and let somebody else do the thinking.

Perhaps it's because I currently live in a region of Texas where old guys in trailers will hang up Confederate flags all the time, but at the moment, I find that there are more intelligent people with liberal tendencies than there are with conservative tendencies. This does not mean that I'm a liberal or an anti-conservative, as I like and dislike policies on both ends. If Sarah Palin was a liberal, I'd still think of her as an idiot, and if Obama was a conservative, I'd still think of him as a highly intelligent person. I'd still vote for Obama and constantly hate on Palin. Really, in modern America, conservatism and liberalism have been warped and twisted from a mindset to an allegiance, and tending toward one side marks you as the eternal enemy of the other. This directly ties into the party system, as you'll have Republicans and Democrats opposing each other on every single policy simply because that's what they do. That's idiocy brought on by idiocy; a politician's primary goal, however nasty the implications, is to get elected, and if they find that pandering to the lowest common denominator (either the xenophobic, racist, narrow-minded ultra-conservative or the rich, narcotic-laden, stick-to-the-man ultra-liberal) gets them the most votes, they'll be more than happy to do so. To get smarter government we need smarter people; intelligence breeds intelligence. Whether our officials are conservative or liberal will be a moot point, because they'll be smart enough to figure out which policies make sense and which policies are dumb, regardless of their political leaning.

And, if I may digress for a second, here's a fun fact: ~100 years ago, the Democrats were the conservatives and the Republicans were the liberals (although the term "radical" was the popular term at the time.) Over the course of the century, the Republicans got old and wanted things to stop changing, so they became conservative, whereas the Democrats, who already were old and didn't want things to change, died, leading all the young kids trying to stick it to the man to take their place. In another few decades, it'll cycle again.

[Dwood]

I doubt it will cycle too much, imho, people are polarized to a point where too much of a switch will mess with their heads if they actually equate their ideals in thei heads. Another thing to note: that not only did the party platforms change but so too have the definitions of conservative and liberal.

[paladin]

Two word can fix all our problems. Term Limits. No more career politicians.

[Bodzilla]

it's not the politicians faults that the publics fucking stupid.

[sleepy1212]

just keep throwing buzzwords around, i'm sure you'll bamboozle the english teacher eventually :ohdear:

mk ityp liekdis now jus4 u

jesus fucking christ stop. it's getting old, your point is meaningless. what's your beef with nouns or don't you know how to stop trolling?

E: @ Ifaf...and pretty much everyone who thinks people are too stupid for themselves.

For one, not agreeing with you doesn't equal stupid however, people really are stupid. If your liberal all conservatives are fat racist uneducated rednecks and if your conservative all liberals are gay hippies too stoned to realize the government is taking control of your lives. In reality, no matter what country you live in, most if its people really are stupid.

You can't fix that by putting all the power in government. Government will never make anyone smarter, in fact, it does just the opposite. The smarter the people become the less power the government has over them. The better recourse is to change society by educating people with facts instead of bias or propaganda, not dump power into government.