Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Civil Wrongs

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

    Who are these progressives who believe in this? I do not know of any, unless its some nut case somewhere. To me this looks like a nightmare a conservative had, and then thought it was reality.

    Really guys, some of these accusations seem to be pulled out of the air, with a hyper extrapolation involved. Progressivism is basically about evolving, but not evolving in such a fashion as you listed. One thing is certain, and that is change. If the change is the result of other change, and adjustment is needed, then that is progressive. But some things should be off the table, and breaking apart a family unit, intentionally, so that all becomes wards of the state is not progressive. It's absurdity. These are not progressives, if someone promotes this. They are idiots. Let's call them what they really are. Progressivism isn't pure, for many are conservative in some areas. Unlike conservatism, the modern kind, most of us progressives are not pure ideologically. The purists seem to be the modern liberal. Both modern cons and and modern libs are an aberration, with their demanded purity. That is how I see it anyways, as a FDR progressive. Not rocket science to understand that a strong nuclear family, and extended family, is what gives stability to society. Anyone who acts against this is guilty of stupidity. And destructive beliefs.
    Any time you make people dependent on the government instead of each other, you are doing exactly what JDJ said.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #47
      Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

      Who are these progressives who believe in this? I do not know of any, unless its some nut case somewhere. To me this looks like a nightmare a conservative had, and then thought it was reality.

      Really guys, some of these accusations seem to be pulled out of the air, with a hyper extrapolation involved. Progressivism is basically about evolving, but not evolving in such a fashion as you listed. One thing is certain, and that is change. If the change is the result of other change, and adjustment is needed, then that is progressive. But some things should be off the table, and breaking apart a family unit, intentionally, so that all becomes wards of the state is not progressive. It's absurdity. These are not progressives, if someone promotes this. They are idiots. Let's call them what they really are. Progressivism isn't pure, for many are conservative in some areas. Unlike conservatism, the modern kind, most of us progressives are not pure ideologically. The purists seem to be the modern liberal. Both modern cons and and modern libs are an aberration, with their demanded purity. That is how I see it anyways, as a FDR progressive. Not rocket science to understand that a strong nuclear family, and extended family, is what gives stability to society. Anyone who acts against this is guilty of stupidity. And destructive beliefs.
      The progressive motto should be, 'Judge me not by the result of my policy but instead by the intended compassion '

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #48
        Originally posted by SupPackFan View Post

        The progressive motto should be, 'Judge me not by the result of my policy but instead by the intended compassion '
        You should get yourself a bumper sticker with that on it.

        But I agree with your implication that conservatives see compassion as a weakness, to be resisted. And to never ever allow it to influence public policy and law. I think that may be a lack of wisdom. I think it may be an age old destructive force in humanity.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #49
          Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

          You should get yourself a bumper sticker with that on it.

          But I agree with your implication that conservatives see compassion as a weakness, to be resisted. And to never ever allow it to influence public policy and law. I think that may be a lack of wisdom. I think it may be an age old destructive force in humanity.
          Well, we are in agreement. I would just describe my position differently - as logic over emotion. A giant bureaucracy like the US government is not capable of judging empathetic equivalency. Every supposedly compassionate decision made by this monstrosity has potential to do more damage than good via unintended consequences. Such decisions can only be fairly and sanely made by smaller entities closer to the issue requiring assistance. Such as local governments, charities, or even state institutions - but not the federal government.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #50
            Originally posted by SupPackFan View Post

            Well, we are in agreement. I would just describe my position differently - as logic over emotion. A giant bureaucracy like the US government is not capable of judging empathetic equivalency. Every supposedly compassionate decision made by this monstrosity has potential to do more damage than good via unintended consequences. Such decisions can only be fairly and sanely made by smaller entities closer to the issue requiring assistance. Such as local governments, charities, or even state institutions - but not the federal government.
            You would just be swapping a big gov't burocracy, the federal govt, for 50 big state govt burocracies subject to the same things that plague the federal. Or swap it for 5000 local burocracies. The solution is a streamline efficient federal burocracy. We have the technology today to change the monster into something better. We do not elect the politicians that will do it. When we blame big gov't for this or that, we forget that the politicians gave us that gov't , and if it is not working, then they need to lose their jobs. But they are not held accountable really. So if gov't is inefficient, it is the fault of DC politicians. Change them out. No burocracy should be more powerful than our elected represenatives.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #51
              Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

              Who are these progressives who believe in this? I do not know of any, unless its some nut case somewhere. To me this looks like a nightmare a conservative had, and then thought it was reality.

              Really guys, some of these accusations seem to be pulled out of the air, with a hyper extrapolation involved. Progressivism is basically about evolving, but not evolving in such a fashion as you listed. One thing is certain, and that is change. If the change is the result of other change, and adjustment is needed, then that is progressive. But some things should be off the table, and breaking apart a family unit, intentionally, so that all becomes wards of the state is not progressive. It's absurdity. These are not progressives, if someone promotes this. They are idiots. Let's call them what they really are. Progressivism isn't pure, for many are conservative in some areas. Unlike conservatism, the modern kind, most of us progressives are not pure ideologically. The purists seem to be the modern liberal. Both modern cons and and modern libs are an aberration, with their demanded purity. That is how I see it anyways, as a FDR progressive. Not rocket science to understand that a strong nuclear family, and extended family, is what gives stability to society. Anyone who acts against this is guilty of stupidity. And destructive beliefs.
              You're right, that anyone who acts against a strong nuclear family, and extended family, is guilty of stupidity. Though many progressive's may not say or believe their intention is to cause the destruction of the family unit, they act to do so. Promoting gov't to be responsible for the members of families, relieves parents of their responsibility to provide for the existence of their family unit. When responsibility is off ones shoulders they are not as eager to find the strength to push harder.

              Adversity builds strength. It helps people to learn how to survive and better themselves. Gov't is trying to limit adversity through more free education, welfare, less personal responsibility, less punishment for serious crimes, etc., for the poverty class, the class which needs the most strength to work their way out of their situation.

              While causing more adversity for the stronger, responsible, law abiding, self reliant middle class, leaving little wiggle room to enjoy the fruits of their labor and or prosper. Gov't makes it so hard for those who have acquired these strengths, to maintain and progress. Once you get to a certain level, which is not upper middle class. You are responsible to give, give, give. A barrier, (a wall), has been built so strong making it very hard to cross that barrier, where their is enough acquired and left, so you can actually enjoy your life without never ending piles of adversity keeping you down.

              Progressives ACT to destroy the family unit and minimize individual strengths by robbing them of realizing their potential, then punishing them by taking from them, if they have not risen enough to join the elite class. Think of the game "Shoots and Ladders" Everyone is trying to climb the ladders, trying to win, but gets sent down the shoot if they land on the wrong spot, either back a level or all the way back to the beginning. It's our progressive gov't that are putting those obstacles on the board, sending you down the shoot. BUT, 1 person does win the game. That person will join the elite class in our progressive American society.

              Progressives create what they oppose by their ACTIONS!
              Last edited by msc; 07-01-2016, 05:04 AM.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #52
                Originally posted by msc View Post

                You're right, that anyone who acts against a strong nuclear family, and extended family, is guilty of stupidity. Though many progressive's may not say or believe their intention is to cause the destruction of the family unit, they act to do so. Promoting gov't to be responsible for the members of families, relieves parents of their responsibility to provide for the existence of their family unit. When responsibility is off ones shoulders they are not as eager to find the strength to push harder.

                Adversity builds strength. It helps people to learn how to survive and better themselves. Gov't is trying to limit adversity through more free education, welfare, less personal responsibility, less punishment for serious crimes, etc., for the poverty class, the class which needs the most strength to work their way out of their situation.

                While causing more adversity for the stronger, responsible, law abiding, self reliant middle class, leaving little wiggle room to enjoy the fruits of their labor and or prosper. Gov't makes it so hard for those who have acquired these strengths, to maintain and progress. Once you get to a certain level, which is not upper middle class. You are responsible to give, give, give. A barrier, (a wall), has been built so strong making it very hard to cross that barrier, where their is enough acquired and left, so you can actually enjoy your life without never ending piles of adversity keeping you down.

                Progressives ACT to destroy the family unit and minimize individual strengths by robbing them of realizing their potential, then punishing them by taking from them, if they have not risen enough to join the elite class. Think of the game "Shoots and Ladders" Everyone is trying to climb the ladders, trying to win, but gets sent down the shoot if they land on the wrong spot, either back a level or all the way back to the beginning. It's our progressive gov't that are putting those obstacles on the board, sending you down the shoot. BUT, 1 person does win the game. That person will join the elite class in our progressive American society.

                Progressives create what they oppose by their ACTIONS!
                Utter nonsense MSC. It fails because if there are 5 progressives in DC, I would be shocked. Progressivism, which I identify with FDR progressivism did none of those things you sling like an arrow. What that kind of progressivism did do, was to provide a tremendous ladder up from poverty, by making jobs availiable, making what we consumed, that paid middle class, even if lower middle class, wages. This is the way you minimize poverty, and then what capitalism has no place for, for all workers are being used that are required to make what is consumed, are then cared for by redistribution of income. Yeah, that is a progressive idea, and it is driven by a common morality and human decency. For any capitalistic system will never use all of the unemployed. That is the downside of capitalism, which we have to accept. The only question then is, what about these people, who will be poor, for the system does not need them? The cons want to say they are just lazy, as if saying that will change the natural law involved in capitalism, that says all of the people will not be needed to supply goods and services. This is how poverty within a capitalistic system was created in the first place. And our current form, neoliberalism, creates more unemployed, for we sent their jobs to communists and Mexicans in mexico.

                I think you have the modern liberal, confused with real progressives. And the real progressives are FDR progressives. He would never want to break apart families. He would have put this 100 million who are out of the work force, to work, building this infrastructure, improving America with public works projects, for progressivism was always about work first. Look at what FDR did. It was not enough, but it kept my grandpa from doing without shoes and a winter coat. He worked in a CCC camp, until he was able to survive in the private sector.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

                  Utter nonsense MSC. It fails because if there are 5 progressives in DC, I would be shocked. Progressivism, which I identify with FDR progressivism did none of those things you sling like an arrow. What that kind of progressivism did do, was to provide a tremendous ladder up from poverty, by making jobs availiable, making what we consumed, that paid middle class, even if lower middle class, wages. This is the way you minimize poverty, and then what capitalism has no place for, for all workers are being used that are required to make what is consumed, are then cared for by redistribution of income. Yeah, that is a progressive idea, and it is driven by a common morality and human decency. For any capitalistic system will never use all of the unemployed. That is the downside of capitalism, which we have to accept. The only question then is, what about these people, who will be poor, for the system does not need them? The cons want to say they are just lazy, as if saying that will change the natural law involved in capitalism, that says all of the people will not be needed to supply goods and services. This is how poverty within a capitalistic system was created in the first place. And our current form, neoliberalism, creates more unemployed, for we sent their jobs to communists and Mexicans in mexico.

                  I think you have the modern liberal, confused with real progressives. And the real progressives are FDR progressives. He would never want to break apart families. He would have put this 100 million who are out of the work force, to work, building this infrastructure, improving America with public works projects, for progressivism was always about work first. Look at what FDR did. It was not enough, but it kept my grandpa from doing without shoes and a winter coat. He worked in a CCC camp, until he was able to survive in the private sector.
                  You're not getting what's going on here. You can live in the day of FDR, and insist on going back to what existed during that time, with reason you believe it worked, but that's not the situation today.

                  Look, I believe we're all in agreement that jobs have been lost to over sea's. I think we all want to bring the jobs back. It IS a problem. It has undoubtedly been created by the Washington corrupt by allowing global trade to effect the American population negatively, by good deals for their purposes, which were bad for America. Now it has to be reigned in. You seem to think that we can stop free global trade in it's tracks and all will be well. That's not the case.

                  Other things, namely progressive policies or idea's passed off as progressive have collectively compounded to the problem of poverty. It's not just a lack of jobs. It's not possible to address the bad trade deals, and expect poverty to be reduced significantly. Can't we just agree that we have a problem with global trade and leave that discussion to how we differ in going about how to bring the jobs back, and simultaneously discuss the progressive policies that have also contributed to poverty?

                  What I've said in the last post is NOT nonsense. Our gov't influenced education system has taught students these progressive policies as if it was the only righteous way for America to operate. This indoctrination is a large reason why a generation of voters can not see the difference between progressive and out of control. Nothing wrong with, and necessary to consume some natural sugar that you get out of fruit, in fact it's healthy, but consuming mass quantities of processed sugar is not only unnecessary, but harmful.

                  That brings us to your comment about redistributing, to take care of the poor which will always exist, driven by morality and common decency. Helping the few in need would be the natural sugar consumed from fruit. Being robbed of all you have to offer plus most of what you have to survive and prosper, to carry the rest of the country and carry many others throughout the globe would be the mass quantities of processed sugar being consumed by the American people. Unhealthy!

                  Most important what you need to realize is the mindset that has been created by these out of control progressive policies. Even if you brought jobs back, too many people have been conditioned to expect the gov't to take care of them, they lack the sense of personal responsibility, strength, skills and abilities, work ethic, and moral fiber to go out there, get the available job, work hard at it, overcome obstacles, and successfully deal with adversity. The drive is not there for too many. Not saying more jobs will not help many, but far too many don't have what it takes because of the way progressive policies have conditioned their minds and emotions.

                  Ignore the psychological aspect and you're ignoring reality.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by msc View Post

                    You're not getting what's going on here. You can live in the day of FDR, and insist on going back to what existed during that time, with reason you believe it worked, but that's not the situation today.

                    Look, I believe we're all in agreement that jobs have been lost to over sea's. I think we all want to bring the jobs back. It IS a problem. It has undoubtedly been created by the Washington corrupt by allowing global trade to effect the American population negatively, by good deals for their purposes, which were bad for America. Now it has to be reigned in. You seem to think that we can stop free global trade in it's tracks and all will be well. That's not the case.

                    Other things, namely progressive policies or idea's passed off as progressive have collectively compounded to the problem of poverty. It's not just a lack of jobs. It's not possible to address the bad trade deals, and expect poverty to be reduced significantly. Can't we just agree that we have a problem with global trade and leave that discussion to how we differ in going about how to bring the jobs back, and simultaneously discuss the progressive policies that have also contributed to poverty?

                    What I've said in the last post is NOT nonsense. Our gov't influenced education system has taught students these progressive policies as if it was the only righteous way for America to operate. This indoctrination is a large reason why a generation of voters can not see the difference between progressive and out of control. Nothing wrong with, and necessary to consume some natural sugar that you get out of fruit, in fact it's healthy, but consuming mass quantities of processed sugar is not only unnecessary, but harmful.

                    That brings us to your comment about redistributing, to take care of the poor which will always exist, driven by morality and common decency. Helping the few in need would be the natural sugar consumed from fruit. Being robbed of all you have to offer plus most of what you have to survive and prosper, to carry the rest of the country and carry many others throughout the globe would be the mass quantities of processed sugar being consumed by the American people. Unhealthy!

                    Most important what you need to realize is the mindset that has been created by these out of control progressive policies. Even if you brought jobs back, too many people have been conditioned to expect the gov't to take care of them, they lack the sense of personal responsibility, strength, skills and abilities, work ethic, and moral fiber to go out there, get the available job, work hard at it, overcome obstacles, and successfully deal with adversity. The drive is not there for too many. Not saying more jobs will not help many, but far too many don't have what it takes because of the way progressive policies have conditioned their minds and emotions.

                    Ignore the psychological aspect and you're ignoring reality.
                    Look, basic common sense economics has not changed. What changes is only technology. What worked so well under the FDR model, because it was based on a set of principles, that did not allow such great disparity in income to be sustained, has not changed. These principle will always work out the best of working and middle class americans. The principles of free trade globalization are a 180 from what worked out for americans post ww2. There should be NO surprise that these principles are destructive to the American people. So, that some people will try to frame this as returning to the past is a misdirection. It is nothing more than returning to what worked, instead of returning to the principles in place during the gilded age. So globalization is a return to neoliberalism of the gilded age, with globalization being the new scheme to create income disparity.

                    If our economic model works for the people, you will minimize social chaos, for an economy that impoverishes a people will always create more social problems, than anything else. Youl can never minimize social problems unless you have an economy that allows a people to prosper by their work. This globalization hardly does that, but takes it away. Unless we understand how the economy you have is interconnected to various other parts of a society, and that it affects those other parts, in negative ways, if it does not provide for the people, then we will never get very far in addressing and working on those vast number of problems. In the real world, if you want growing social problems, if you want to make people who would be moral, if they had their luxury, you better damn well not destroy an economy in order to serve the elites. For poverty, financial insecurity, drives the creation of immorality. Immorality does not happen all the time in a vacuum. It is so easy to be moral when you have enough, when you have security. And that is where the economic model comes in. We have to get a handle on this, by seeing the big picture while we understand what helps to create immorality.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

                      Look, basic common sense economics has not changed. What changes is only technology. What worked so well under the FDR model, because it was based on a set of principles, that did not allow such great disparity in income to be sustained, has not changed. These principle will always work out the best of working and middle class americans. The principles of free trade globalization are a 180 from what worked out for americans post ww2. There should be NO surprise that these principles are destructive to the American people. So, that some people will try to frame this as returning to the past is a misdirection. It is nothing more than returning to what worked, instead of returning to the principles in place during the gilded age. So globalization is a return to neoliberalism of the gilded age, with globalization being the new scheme to create income disparity.

                      If our economic model works for the people, you will minimize social chaos, for an economy that impoverishes a people will always create more social problems, than anything else. Youl can never minimize social problems unless you have an economy that allows a people to prosper by their work. This globalization hardly does that, but takes it away. Unless we understand how the economy you have is interconnected to various other parts of a society, and that it affects those other parts, in negative ways, if it does not provide for the people, then we will never get very far in addressing and working on those vast number of problems. In the real world, if you want growing social problems, if you want to make people who would be moral, if they had their luxury, you better damn well not destroy an economy in order to serve the elites. For poverty, financial insecurity, drives the creation of immorality. Immorality does not happen all the time in a vacuum. It is so easy to be moral when you have enough, when you have security. And that is where the economic model comes in. We have to get a handle on this, by seeing the big picture while we understand what helps to create immorality.
                      Still you're ignoring the psychological aspect. We are not in agreement about FDR,, but for my point let's go on the premise that the FDR model is best. Perhaps if you took the people that existed in the day of FDR, the mentality of the people in that day may make it work, but we're dealing with an entire new breed of mentality. You can't just ignore the events that have occurred and the progressive policies that have caused people to grow the mentality of dependency and the mentality that blames society for their ill fortune. You can structure new policy to end free global trade and even mirror FDR's economic policy, but you can't turn back the hands of time and change the deep seeded mentality. Like I said, there would be many grabbing those new available jobs, but too many will not know what to do with them and be able to throw themselves into those jobs with the work ethic that existed in the minds and with the abilities acquired by the people of yesterday.

                      Regardless of who or what party created this destruction, society is being blamed and held responsible for the lack of finance in good families and poor behavior of people that do wrong. Gov't, democrats, and liberals/today's progressives, make excuses for the individuals who resort to crime, not hold them responsible for their actions, release them from responsibility of not having the drive, and blame everyone and everything, but the individual. And those following law that have maintained sense of responsibility are punished by being forced to take responsibility for all not contributing to society. Not just the people who are genuinely in need, but ALL who don't contribute. "It's not his fault that he's that way. It's society's fault". Well, it's not my fault or the fault of society. Some can't find a job that they're genuinely eager to work at, but many don't have one, because they've decided it's to hard to work toward it and at it. Not enough shame and too much blame coming from individuals.

                      People will react to every policy. You think a policy may work, but you HAVE to consider how individuals, rich, poor, and middle will react. You may want a policy to go a certain way and in theory it may sound good, but if you don't consider what drives or doesn't drive individual's in their current status, it may alter the intended outcome of any policy. The way people should react vs the way people WILL react.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by msc View Post

                        Still you're ignoring the psychological aspect. We are not in agreement about FDR,, but for my point let's go on the premise that the FDR model is best. Perhaps if you took the people that existed in the day of FDR, the mentality of the people in that day may make it work, but we're dealing with an entire new breed of mentality. You can't just ignore the events that have occurred and the progressive policies that have caused people to grow the mentality of dependency and the mentality that blames society for their ill fortune. You can structure new policy to end free global trade and even mirror FDR's economic policy, but you can't turn back the hands of time and change the deep seeded mentality. Like I said, there would be many grabbing those new available jobs, but too many will not know what to do with them and be able to throw themselves into those jobs with the work ethic that existed in the minds and with the abilities acquired by the people of yesterday.

                        Regardless of who or what party created this destruction, society is being blamed and held responsible for the lack of finance in good families and poor behavior of people that do wrong. Gov't, democrats, and liberals/today's progressives, make excuses for the individuals who resort to crime, not hold them responsible for their actions, release them from responsibility of not having the drive, and blame everyone and everything, but the individual. And those following law that have maintained sense of responsibility are punished by being forced to take responsibility for all not contributing to society. Not just the people who are genuinely in need, but ALL who don't contribute. "It's not his fault that he's that way. It's society's fault". Well, it's not my fault or the fault of society. Some can't find a job that they're genuinely eager to work at, but many don't have one, because they've decided it's to hard to work toward it and at it. Not enough shame and too much blame coming from individuals.

                        People will react to every policy. You think a policy may work, but you HAVE to consider how individuals, rich, poor, and middle will react. You may want a policy to go a certain way and in theory it may sound good, but if you don't consider what drives or doesn't drive individual's in their current status, it may alter the intended outcome of any policy. The way people should react vs the way people WILL react.
                        You are acting like this dependency you are so concerned with provides for people who will not work, and get so much from welfare as to be quite comfortable, and see no reason to work. That sir is a delusion, on the part of the right, who have not understood what the welfare reforms did, to welfare. Go out and try to get on food stamps, after you lose a job, and then stay on them as long as you want. Talk to unemployed people who have done this, and find out the reality. But as long as you argue from a nonreality, how can we even serioiusly discuss this? The welfare system of today is not the LBJ system that encouraged dependency. The welfare system of today is subsidizing business, so they can pay non living wages. But you guys will not rail against that. Unless we get a min wage that is a living wage, you can rail all you want, but this ends up in the very fabric of American society disintegrating, and its in that process now, as this election cycle is showing.

                        The welfare reforms were intended to get welfare folks into work, and so they tied welfare with work for the majority of those who use it. There is nothing wrong with this at all and it should have been done years ago. But then what happened economically after this reform became law? The economy crashed, and the economy was also hit with free trade globalization, which took 60 percent of our industry, living wage jobs, and in return, the service sector had to take up the slack, except it is not large enough to take up the slack. Never was. So now you have millions, who needed social safety nets, working people, not the generational poverty, and the reforms took away the help these honest working people needed. And that is exactly where we are, not where you think we are.

                        So today, our low wage service sector economy which has replaced our FDR model, REQUIRES welfare, in order for the people to survive. And you rail against dependency, that the change in models is creating? But in most cases, you have to have a job to get some welfare, like food stamps. SO, the low wages are driving people into safelty nets, for like it or not, accept it or not, human beings have to survive. And they will do whatever it takes to do that, for it is hardwired in. I really do not think the right side actually is able to grasp the totality of what is going on. They get stuck on these knee jerk reactions to dependency upon safety nets, when the economic model is actually creating greater use of it. If you want to solve dependency, you reject free trade globalization, which is creating new dependency. It is one thing to actually have an economy that has enough living wage jobs, and quite another to have what we have now. Unless one understands how an economy creates spending in welfare. to rail against dependency is little more than cruelty.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

                          You are acting like this dependency you are so concerned with provides for people who will not work, and get so much from welfare as to be quite comfortable, and see no reason to work. That sir is a delusion, on the part of the right, who have not understood what the welfare reforms did, to welfare. Go out and try to get on food stamps, after you lose a job, and then stay on them as long as you want. Talk to unemployed people who have done this, and find out the reality. But as long as you argue from a nonreality, how can we even serioiusly discuss this? The welfare system of today is not the LBJ system that encouraged dependency. The welfare system of today is subsidizing business, so they can pay non living wages. But you guys will not rail against that. Unless we get a min wage that is a living wage, you can rail all you want, but this ends up in the very fabric of American society disintegrating, and its in that process now, as this election cycle is showing.

                          The welfare reforms were intended to get welfare folks into work, and so they tied welfare with work for the majority of those who use it. There is nothing wrong with this at all and it should have been done years ago. But then what happened economically after this reform became law? The economy crashed, and the economy was also hit with free trade globalization, which took 60 percent of our industry, living wage jobs, and in return, the service sector had to take up the slack, except it is not large enough to take up the slack. Never was. So now you have millions, who needed social safety nets, working people, not the generational poverty, and the reforms took away the help these honest working people needed. And that is exactly where we are, not where you think we are.

                          So today, our low wage service sector economy which has replaced our FDR model, REQUIRES welfare, in order for the people to survive. And you rail against dependency, that the change in models is creating? But in most cases, you have to have a job to get some welfare, like food stamps. SO, the low wages are driving people into safelty nets, for like it or not, accept it or not, human beings have to survive. And they will do whatever it takes to do that, for it is hardwired in. I really do not think the right side actually is able to grasp the totality of what is going on. They get stuck on these knee jerk reactions to dependency upon safety nets, when the economic model is actually creating greater use of it. If you want to solve dependency, you reject free trade globalization, which is creating new dependency. It is one thing to actually have an economy that has enough living wage jobs, and quite another to have what we have now. Unless one understands how an econoPmy creates spending in welfare. to rail against dependency is little more than cruelty.
                          You are dead wrong. Here in NY, there is a barrier, that allows welfare, when not working, if you play the system right, which many seem to know how to do. Can't tell you how many times myself and people not in the system can't understand how people are getting benefits when we know they're not meeting what we understand to be the requirements for benefits. People learn how to play the system. People will always learn how to get around things and find loopholes. Rich or poor. Loopholes that screw the honest people subsidizing benefits.

                          We have second and third generations planning their families with welfare checks, planning to grow their family on that secured income.

                          And NO, I never claimed that welfare pays so much that people are comfortable as per middle class standards, but many have been born and raised with low standards of what comfort is. They are raised and taught by too many parents and community, that "this is what you've got. This is how it works. This is what to expect for the rest of your lives. The only way you'll get more is if rich people give up their money, and that ain't happening." Then you have many within certain communities that ridicule people who want to work, saying, "What's the matter, we're not good enough for you? You think you're better than us?" Many are shunned if they don't accept and conform to status quo and do not function with the shared bitterness.

                          So what is comfort? Owning a modest home, modest car, and working all the time just to keep that roof over your heads and drive to work, pay for insurance you can't afford to use, have to buy and pay for cell phone service, have no dental care, taking out loans for your child's college knowing you may not be able to pay it back or knowing your child will have to struggle to pay it back OR living on welfare, knowing that your kids will have medical and dental care, and a chance at a good future with guaranteed college and no struggle to pay off a loan to keep them from prospering.

                          Now once you've had a middle class life, you understand that, quality of life during these years of raising your family is just as important, to offer your child a healthy life and a chance at a good future, but when you've never had it, it might seem too uncomfortable to sacrifice the existing necessities.

                          You seem to counting on the majority of people to think the way you do, there for responding to policies the way you would respond. But that's not the way it is. Can point out fundamental Islamists. Western society believes they will respond to what we respond to in a similar way that we would respond. Different cultures, different beliefs, different things that drive us, and completely different mentalities. That's an example, but different mentalities are a reality.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by msc View Post

                            You are dead wrong. Here in NY, there is a barrier, that allows welfare, when not working, if you play the system right, which many seem to know how to do. Can't tell you how many times myself and people not in the system can't understand how people are getting benefits when we know they're not meeting what we understand to be the requirements for benefits. People learn how to play the system. People will always learn how to get around things and find loopholes. Rich or poor. Loopholes that screw the honest people subsidizing benefits.

                            We have second and third generations planning their families with welfare checks, planning to grow their family on that secured income.

                            And NO, I never claimed that welfare pays so much that people are comfortable as per middle class standards, but many have been born and raised with low standards of what comfort is. They are raised and taught by too many parents and community, that "this is what you've got. This is how it works. This is what to expect for the rest of your lives. The only way you'll get more is if rich people give up their money, and that ain't happening." Then you have many within certain communities that ridicule people who want to work, saying, "What's the matter, we're not good enough for you? You think you're better than us?" Many are shunned if they don't accept and conform to status quo and do not function with the shared bitterness.

                            So what is comfort? Owning a modest home, modest car, and working all the time just to keep that roof over your heads and drive to work, pay for insurance you can't afford to use, have to buy and pay for cell phone service, have no dental care, taking out loans for your child's college knowing you may not be able to pay it back or knowing your child will have to struggle to pay it back OR living on welfare, knowing that your kids will have medical and dental care, and a chance at a good future with guaranteed college and no struggle to pay off a loan to keep them from prospering.

                            Now once you've had a middle class life, you understand that, quality of life during these years of raising your family is just as important, to offer your child a healthy life and a chance at a good future, but when you've never had it, it might seem too uncomfortable to sacrifice the existing necessities.

                            You seem to counting on the majority of people to think the way you do, there for responding to policies the way you would respond. But that's not the way it is. Can point out fundamental Islamists. Western society believes they will respond to what we respond to in a similar way that we would respond. Different cultures, different beliefs, different things that drive us, and completely different mentalities. That's an example, but different mentalities are a reality.
                            Well, the nation is not like new York. Here and throughout the south, and probably the rest of the nation, no job, no food stamps, except in very specific cases which is not the majority of those that need food stamps. You should have no food banks run by charities if new York gives out food stamps, so easily. But even if they do, as you say, what is the average that is dispensed? Are you even aware of how deep this has been cut when compared to pre welfare reform. No, I think you get your info from people who live inside bubbles. I know more unemployed poor people than I do employed ones. I know more people with non living wages which qualifies them for a little bit of help in food stamps, which is only temporary. And I will take the reality of what I personally know over what some other right wing person spins reality to be.

                            We are creating new poverty, because your team brought back treason upon America's working people. Cruz is a part of that. The people you have supported are the men who have insured we will have poverty, and now when they induced it, they start talking about how bad dependency is. It's utter bullshit, but when you are surrounded by perpetual bullshit, you finally lose the ability to smell it. I see this is just a lack of human decency, which has always been a tremendous problem on the right side, as they wear their religion on their lapels, making the people Christ railed against minor offenders compared to this lot we have today.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                              Well, the nation is not like new York. Here and throughout the south, and probably the rest of the nation, no job, no food stamps, except in very specific cases which is not the majority of those that need food stamps. You should have no food banks run by charities if new York gives out food stamps, so easily. But even if they do, as you say, what is the average that is dispensed? Are you even aware of how deep this has been cut when compared to pre welfare reform. No, I think you get your info from people who live inside bubbles. I know more unemployed poor people than I do employed ones. I know more people with non living wages which qualifies them for a little bit of help in food stamps, which is only temporary. And I will take the reality of what I personally know over what some other right wing person spins reality to be.
                              I think a few historical facts need to be interjected here. First, President Clinton twice vetoed the welfare reform bill. He finally signed it in August of 1996 nearing the election as polls indicated welfare reform was very popular. Even as signing it he criticized the bill - saying he would come back to it later and "change what is wrong". Even though Bill Clinton promised welfare reform during his 1992 campaign he never intended to actually do it. However, republican governors like Tommy Thompson took Bill Clinton's words and ran with them, implementing welfare reforms in their states. These reforms were immediately successful and popular. But always remember - democrats were dragged against their will into welfare reforms.

                              In July of 2012 President Obama issued a bureaucratic order allowing states to waive the work requirements included in the 1996 welfare reform bill, essentially, rendering it useless. Another of the many unconstitutional acts Obama has taken. A bill that was fought over for months before being passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President - and Obama simply reverses it using his pen and his phone.

                              Just thought I would add some facts to this conversation.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by SupPackFan View Post
                                I think a few historical facts need to be interjected here. First, President Clinton twice vetoed the welfare reform bill. He finally signed it in August of 1996 nearing the election as polls indicated welfare reform was very popular. Even as signing it he criticized the bill - saying he would come back to it later and "change what is wrong". Even though Bill Clinton promised welfare reform during his 1992 campaign he never intended to actually do it. However, republican governors like Tommy Thompson took Bill Clinton's words and ran with them, implementing welfare reforms in their states. These reforms were immediately successful and popular. But always remember - democrats were dragged against their will into welfare reforms.

                                In July of 2012 President Obama issued a bureaucratic order allowing states to waive the work requirements included in the 1996 welfare reform bill, essentially, rendering it useless. Another of the many unconstitutional acts Obama has taken. A bill that was fought over for months before being passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President - and Obama simply reverses it using his pen and his phone.

                                Just thought I would add some facts to this conversation.
                                Well that does explain why here in NY welfare is out of control. If there was a state to take advantage of any law granting more welfare, it would be NY.

                                And to BD, when you say the rest of the nation is not like NY. I say fair enough. You are 100% correct.

                                However it is insulting to say that I get my info from people who live inside a bubble. I get my info, just as you get yours, from my life experience in my environment. What I say about what goes on in NY, is just as real as what you say goes on due to your life experience in your environment. I don't need people to tell me what I have seen for the past 50 years with my own eyes.

                                NY should be used as a cautionary tale. This is a Democrat state, taking advantage of and implementing most of what Democrats want. So keep the Dems in office and this is what the rest of the country will end up looking like. I have been so fortunate to have lived with the Democrat model, for a peek into what Democrat/liberal policies will do. If the rest of the nation is not like NY, it's because they've fought against or resisted the Federal Gov't preferred Democrat policies. So if you don't want the rest of the nation to end up like NY, you'd better vote against having Democrats in office.

                                מה מכילות החדשות?

                                Working...
                                X