Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Shoju » Fri Apr 12, 2013 11:25 am

And in today's "Hi, I'm a republican, and say stupid shit and think I'm smart" category, we have a gem from

Re-Election campaign for Texas Rep Steve Stockman.

Image


What a FREAKING IDIOT.
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 5069
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby KysenMurrin » Fri Apr 12, 2013 11:37 am

Ouch. Particularly bad on the back of news stories circulating recently of toddlers accidentally killing their parents with guns.
KysenMurrin
 
Posts: 4962
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:37 am
Location: UK

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby fuzzygeek » Fri Apr 12, 2013 1:27 pm

You think he's stating serious policy and not trying to be funny?
Image
User avatar
fuzzygeek
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3447
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:58 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Paxen » Fri Apr 12, 2013 4:12 pm

fuzzygeek wrote:You think he's stating serious policy and not trying to be funny?


Still in a bit of bad taste with the recent incident where that 4-year old killed his playmate.
Paxen
 
Posts: 561
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:38 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Fri Apr 12, 2013 11:36 pm

Klaudandus wrote:Not sure what Fridmarr would think of this
http://news.yahoo.com/5-hard-changes-ad ... 00206.html
To some degree I like all of it.

I think number one is a little odd though. I'm for phasing out all tax deductions, that I own a house and have children is a stupid reason for me to pay less taxes than someone else who makes as much as I do. To that point though, simply isolating state/local tax reductions is odd, and using the stupid "over 10 years" claim makes me want to kick the dog. He's also not entirely correct, like in WA where we do not have an income tax to deduct, for some years (it changes as tax policy changes) we can deduct sales tax in its place. His broader point is that we need to increase taxes overall (aka more revenue) and I'd agree with that to an extent.

I'm all for reducing military spending, significantly.
I'm all for less punishment of "victimless crimes".
I'm all for reducing the effect of special interests. The trick here is how to accomplish that. He seems to be advocating that it can be accomplished by reducing subsidies, which I'm in favor of, but I think that's a pretty small step. You reduce it drastically by reducing the power that such a small group of people has to influence corporations on a global scale, which can be accomplished by transitioning that power to the state/local levels where it always should have been.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Nooska » Sat Apr 13, 2013 1:36 am

A "scary" thing about political standpoints.

Fridmarr, if you were to move over here, to Denmark, you could probably find some poeple agree ing with you in the conservative party, but to a large degree, what you propose and want over the course of what I've read of you in thsi thread, you would be more at home on the left, with us from the socialists people's party.
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1602
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby fuzzygeek » Sun Apr 14, 2013 10:16 am

Paxen wrote:Still in a bit of bad taste with the recent incident where that 4-year old killed his playmate.


Unless this silly bumpersticker came out in direct response to that news story, this criticism is nonsensical.
Image
User avatar
fuzzygeek
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3447
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:58 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Sun Apr 14, 2013 12:29 pm

The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9508
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Mon Apr 15, 2013 8:52 am

The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9508
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby KysenMurrin » Mon Apr 15, 2013 11:31 am

I don't really disagree with the overall sentiment of the article, but that big quote near the top seems fishy. Saying that fundamentalist views aren't mainstream by comparing them to polls of... Catholics?

The article itself I can't see really doing much more than preaching to the choir - a number of the things talked about (like belief in the geocentric model of the universe) most readers would find hard to believe were held as true by an influential number of people.
KysenMurrin
 
Posts: 4962
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:37 am
Location: UK

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Shoju » Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:53 am

Klaudandus wrote:http://churchandstate.org.uk/2013/02/christian-fundamentalists-are-driving-our-country-into-the-dark-ages/
thoughts?


DISCLAIMER
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I am commenting, because Klaud asked for thoughts. I'm not interested in some long and drawn out argument where you tell me I'm wrong, and try to show me why. I've come to the conclusion that my opinion, is based on my life experiences, growing up in the very thing that this article is talking about. I'm biased. I will willingly, and openly admit my bias about it as someone who grew up in some of the scariest circles of the fundamentalist Christian Movement, during some of it's darkest times.

When I speak about Christianity, and my distaste, I'm not saying that I hate you. I'm not saying that I hate your religion. Unless, you are a fundamentalist. Then, Yes. I hate your religion. But I don't hate you.

I'm willing to have civil conversation about my opinions, but so help me, if this turns into the type of shit that it has in the past, I'm done.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
END OF DISCLAIMER

It echos my sentiments of the fundamentalist Christian movement, both in, and out of the political arena.

There is a large push in fundamental churches to create derision between them, and everyone else. Even other branches of Christianity that differ from their own. It's one of the biggest reasons I hold the belief that Catholicism, and Fundamental Christianity are in fact two different religions, in a similar manner that there is a difference of religion between Jewish, Muslim, and Catholicism/Christianity. We've been over the topic before, and I'm not really interested in hashing it out again. But Understand that from a fundamentalist point of view, you are wrong. They are right. You're going to hell. They are not. I'm willing to concede that at a technical level, they are "the same", but this isn't something you can be technical about. To me, there is a large enough divide in the doctrines, and ideologies of the evangelical/pentacostal - fundamentalist movement, that it is it's very own religion.

Fundamentalists truly believe that Secular is bad. Wrong. Immoral. The direct influence of Satan on Earth. They have set upon themselves an impossible standard to live by, and they build upon this ideology, by segregation of other religious points of view.

An Anecdote
As a child, there was a wildly popular christian singer. Amy Grant. When I was around 10, she decided to "Go Secular". The Church held a party, in which they took all of their Amy Grant items; Shirts, Tapes, Records, Posters, and had a bonfire. She was essentially banned and blacklisted.
End Anecdote

After living through it, and looking back at it, I just don't understand how they can be so blindly fanatical to the point that their doctrine ends up being contradictory. As I said in a PM with someone, they have set upon themselves the desire to live closely to God, and it isn't enough to be saved. There is no "Well, I'm saved, and I'm going to Heaven." If you stray, you will go to Hell. How do you stray? Sin. But you sin every day. If I Fight with my wife, and Sin, by disrespecting her, leave the house, get in a car, and die in an accident, by their own standard, I've died a sinner, and the only place for me, is Hell.

You sin with your mind, and not just your actions. And it will send you to hell. How do you stay saved? No one has ever answered that question to me. I was "saved" and "Baptized" not only by water, but in the Holy Spirit (Which IMO is a sort of group think induced something) by the time i was 14. Am I saved forever? Am I a sinner because of what has happened in my life since? Am I a sinner, because I believe that if God is real, I'm probably pretty unhappy with him for what he allows done in his name without smacking some sense into people?

And what I've described, is what I see this playing out in politics. I'm not quite sure why the fundamentalist movement has risen to the top in the political atmosphere. I somewhat believe that because the message is so divisive, that it ends up with the most airplay.

And here is where I say something some may disagree with.

But, the reality (at least to me) is that the type of Christianity I see play out in our political arena feels closer to WBC doctrine than the doctrine of non fundamentalist, and even non evangelical Christianity, Especially in the younger demographics. They may not cheer at the chaos and devastation and call it the "wrath of God", but on moral issues, they are close.

And it sickens me to see it. As I grew older, and realized that I truly felt at odds with the faith of those around me, I came to a lot of the same conclusions as this article does. The biggest being the underlying sentiment that disagreement isn't a disagreement with a person or even with doctrine. It's a direct attack on God. The more I see that happens with the fundamentalist movement, The more that I'm wary of it. I see parallels in their beliefs, and the dreaded "Sharia Law" of Fundamentalist Islam that they claim to so vehemently despise. Their worldview and political ideology has shifted. They don't want a conservative voice. They want a theocracy. Any anyone who is against them, is the enemy.
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 5069
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Tue Apr 16, 2013 5:02 pm

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/features ... 3357.story

holy shit, this is bad, as in... disgustingly bad.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9508
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby fuzzygeek » Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:31 pm

Merit pay is well and good, but it is pretty much impossible for some idiot legislator to draw up a system that isn't completely ass backwards when it comes to how one goes about measuring performance, or implementing a metric that doesn't lead to system gaming and horrible results. More legislation is almost never the answer.

Speaking of which: http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/ ... r_all.html
Legalize polygamy. Discuss.
Image
User avatar
fuzzygeek
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3447
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:58 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:53 pm

fuzzygeek wrote:Merit pay is well and good, but it is pretty much impossible for some idiot legislator to draw up a system that isn't completely ass backwards when it comes to how one goes about measuring performance, or implementing a metric that doesn't lead to system gaming and horrible results. More legislation is almost never the answer.

Speaking of which: http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/ ... r_all.html
Legalize polygamy. Discuss.


Well, the problem with the system in florida is, as the article states:
Kim Cook, one of the plaintiffs, teaches at W.W. Irby Elementary in Alachua, which has students in pre-K-to-second grade. Cook was her school's "Teacher of the Year" last year, the lawsuit noted.

The test-score portion of her evaluation was based on the work of fourth- and fifth-grade students at nearby Alachua Elementary. When they showed less than expected growth, her initial evaluation pegged her as "unsatisfactory."

Bethann Brooks, another plaintiff, is a health-science teacher at Central High School in Brooksville who works mostly with older students who want to be nursing assistants. Her evaluation was based partly on ninth- and 10th-graders' reading test scores. " I don't teach most of those students," she said a telephone call with reporters. "And those I do teach are enrolled in my health–science-related classes."


Your evaluation as a teacher depends on kids from other schools, that are on other grades, and on subjects not related to yours. WTF.

As for polygamy. I don't care really. After my brush with marriage, in which it failed right before getting married, thank the FSM... I don't think I'd want a wife, let alone two.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9508
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Passionario » Wed Apr 17, 2013 3:04 am

fuzzygeek wrote:Legalize polygamy. Discuss.


From a purely legal viewpoint, legalizing polygamy, polyandry or any other kind of marriage with more than two partners has one major problem that legalizing gay marriage doesn't have: namely, divorce. With gay marriage, deciding who gets to keep which property and who gets the custody of the children is just as simple (if painful) as with straight marriage. With polygamy, you'd need to rewrite the entire procedure from scratch, and it would be far more complicated.
If you are not the flame, you're the fuel.
User avatar
Passionario
 
Posts: 2290
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 2:52 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Paxen » Wed Apr 17, 2013 4:07 am

I'm not sure exactly how valid this argument is, but I'd like to mention it anyway:

It's unlikely that polygamy/polyandry will be balanced, as in, there will be about as many polygamy unions as polyandry unions. (On the surface it seems as if polygamy would be the norm in the west, but I'm not really sure about that.) This would then lead to many people not being able to find a spouse (as they're all "taken"), which could concievably lead to unrest in society. (Some people have theorized that this is already happening in muslim countries - but I've seen nothing but speculation about it.) A counter-argument would be that there are several other factors that could create such "surplus" people - one-child policy of china combined with a lower regard for girls has already created a not insignificant surplus of chinese males, and you see similar trends in India. You also have a lot of people in the west who fail at finding spouses, and they haven't done much beyond raging on the internet - but then they'd mostly blame themselves for failing to attract a wife, instead of blaming others for stealing all the women.

This is all speculation really, but it brings me to my point: Gay marriage is undoubtedly a stabilizing factor on society. "Defense of marriage"-people love to talk about how many benefits there are for married people, they just fail to bring any valid arguments for why this applies to heterosexual couples and not homosexual couples. So the evidence seems to indicate that allowing more people to marry is a net benefit to society. Polygamy/polyandry matches may bring similar benefits, but it also may bring its share of problems.
Paxen
 
Posts: 561
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:38 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Nooska » Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:43 am

One thing polygamy (is polyandry the version where one woman has more than one husband?) would do in the world of today - give more time and less stress to households that took advantage of the possibility.

Legally, of course, there is nothing prebventing multiple adult households - its a perception issue (and then there is the "can only marry one of them, so can't marry any"/"secondary wife/husband" issues that stems from the lack of legal union) - for instance if my finacee and I wanted another man or woman in our houshold, there is nothing legally stopping us form doing so - and in regards to custody it would, in the case of 2+ women, always be the borth mother and the father of record that has custody - which could create issues of course. In regards to custody in a multiple man situation, thats a bit more tircky, though it could be decided by the involved parties by declaration, though shared custody would be better for the children involved.

As to the divorce issues. Dividing up ownership would be relatively easy under normal rules with a bit of common sense - if 1 person wants to exit the union, they quite simply get 1 share of any commonly owned property (including land, house and chattel). Custody would be a bit trickyer if the exiting spouse was a birthparent, as it then becomes a birthparents rights versus the good of the child (which could be one and the same, but could also be in opposition) - though that can still be the case today, as unless both birthparents are exiting, the union would sitll have 1 birth parent in it.

In reality, I think the biggest hurdle to a functioning polygamic legal union, would be opposition from the same groups that generally oppose gay unions, on the same grounds - either based in religion or personal philosophy, that its "unnatural" or some other reason.

Looking at the knowledge we have from the animal kingdom - humans developed as polygamous originally, with males having more than 1 female (males are generally larger than females) - in the animal kingdom that is usually a very distict sign that the larger gender is dominantly polygamous.
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1602
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:54 am

Passionario wrote:
fuzzygeek wrote:Legalize polygamy. Discuss.


From a purely legal viewpoint, legalizing polygamy, polyandry or any other kind of marriage with more than two partners has one major problem that legalizing gay marriage doesn't have: namely, divorce. With gay marriage, deciding who gets to keep which property and who gets the custody of the children is just as simple (if painful) as with straight marriage. With polygamy, you'd need to rewrite the entire procedure from scratch, and it would be far more complicated.

I don't think that's a big deal. We have plenty of multi party property disputes to draw from.

I really don't care either way but there is no judicial reason to legalize it. People are polygamists by choice and they have the same exact legal protections (the ability to marry one person) as everyone else. So it would only be legalized through the legislative process, which means it's going to have to become much more popular than it currently is.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Skye1013 » Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:58 am

I actually don't have any qualms about polygamy/polyandry. I would draw the line in the sand where the article mentions - legal-aged, consenting adults, but other than that, I can't see any real reason to prevent it. Sure, some laws in regards to taxes or divorce might have to be reinterpreted (through courts or legislation) to encompass a multiple spouse household... but just because something is difficult doesn't mean it's something that shouldn't be done.
"me no gay, me friends gay, me no like you call me gay, you dumb dumb" -bldavis
"Here are the values that I stand for: I stand for honesty, equality, kindness, compassion, treating people the way you wanna be treated, and helping those in need. To me, those are traditional values. That’s what I stand for." -Ellen Degeneres
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." -Jon Stewart
Horde: Clopin Dylon Sharkbait Xiaman Metria Metapriest
Alliance: Schatze Aleks Deegee Baileyi Sotanaht Danfer Shazta Rawrsalot Roobyroo
User avatar
Skye1013
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3588
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 5:47 am
Location: JBPH-Hickam, Hawaii

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby fuzzygeek » Wed Apr 17, 2013 8:15 am

Fridmarr wrote:there is no judicial reason to legalize it.


Is there any judicial reason to make it illegal?

Fridmarr wrote:People are polygamists by choice and they have the same exact legal protections (the ability to marry one person) as everyone else.


Is this substantially different from people arguing that the Equal Protection clause isn't applicable in Same Sex Marriage because gay people also have the right to marry someone of the opposite gender?

As far as divorce/inheritance determinations: that's what probate courts are for.

Also yes I intended to include polyandry in the original post. I'm curious as to why the original editorial singled out polygamy.

It's unlikely that polygamy/polyandry will be balanced


I don't see this as being a useful argument. Am I missing something?
Image
User avatar
fuzzygeek
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3447
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:58 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Wed Apr 17, 2013 9:17 am

No there isn't a judicial reason to make it illegal, but that has no relevance, because the legislative branch has already done that. The only judicial concern then becomes whether or not there is reason for the judicial branch to overrule the legislative process.  In this case, there is isn't any that I can see.
 
Within our current system (and I say that so we don't get spun out of control on a discussion of rights and choices), it can easily be considered different if the court decides that homosexuality is not a choice.  If the court does not take that stance, then our current marriage laws would not contradict the equal protection clause. The court could easily rule that way which effectively returns gay marriage to legislatures. Though I don't think that's the issue they are reviewing anyhow.I don't see an equivalent with polygamy however.


The only way I see legalized polygamy it's through legislative action. And in truth gay marriage will also probably follow that path.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Paxen » Wed Apr 17, 2013 11:31 am

fuzzygeek wrote:I don't see this as being a useful argument. Am I missing something?


I tried to make the argument for why it could be in my post (TLDR version: people get angry when somebody hogs all the women/men.) I'm not sure how great the effect is, if it has any at all, but I've seen the argument made.

Counter to that is that nobody else has any say in what consenting adults get up to.
Paxen
 
Posts: 561
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:38 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Wed Apr 17, 2013 1:53 pm

In his novel Friday, Robert Heinlein envisaged a world in which family units were formed from multiple men and women all married to one another and living together, sharing in the duties of earning money, raising children, etc.

While an interesting idea, I doubt very much it would work in practice.

The concept of poly marriage exists in many places in the world, and I don't have any particular issue with it provided it isn't exploitive. It's certainly not for me, however.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1687
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Thu Apr 18, 2013 1:29 pm

So the whole argument for austerity is based on an a spreadsheet error...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/ ... CV20130418

Honest Mistake or Deliberate Error?

"Reinhart and Rogoff, however, say their conclusion that there is a correlation between high debt and slow growth still holds."
Yeah, but their results actually had that growth as negative, rather than just slowing down as the corrected spreadsheet now shows.

-0.1 to 2.2 growth is quite a difference, specially on a global scale.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9508
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby fuzzygeek » Thu Apr 18, 2013 1:46 pm

Probably an honest mistake, but their methodology seems a little dodgy, as does the "well our math was wrong, but our central premise is still correct." statement.

If you want to make something deliberately misleading, you adjust your inputs *before* publishing them and your formulae, so anyone double-checking your work comes up with the same numbers in the end.
Image
User avatar
fuzzygeek
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3447
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:58 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest