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 shouldnt 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

  • #61
    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.
    I will accept that, for it sounds like it may be fact. So, Clinton was not a principled man, obviously.

    But there is a book in print, about the chair, I think of the DLC who visited Clinton in Arkansas and told Clinton what he must do, and if he did it, he would be president. This of course involved a move to the right, to move to the same feeding troughs as the GOP were using, for unions were losing out and their money was shrinking, and would continue to do so, when it came to financial support for candidates. Now, to move right of course would involve welfare, but it also would involve free trade, offshoring of our industry, and so on. Neoliberalism. And so if one does not take this into consideration in regards to welfare reform, NAFTA, and what followed that came from Clinton, PNTR, Glass Stegal, I think one might indulge in a bit of tunnel vision in regards to what Clinton did. So, progressive principles within the dem party began to change and move right, which defines Clinton. Clinton also said, clearly, that the era of big gov't was over. Which is a way of saying, he was gonna move right, into neoliberalism. And of course he did. And at the end of the day, indeed that is exactly what he did. He helped the GOP in offshoring and hollowing out America, in order that profits might be maxed out by banking, and big corporations. This cannot be denied. For that is what happened. And books have been written on it, based upon facts. And it is also a fact, that the America we see today is a direct result of this treason by Clinton, and his role in moving the dem party away from FDR progressivism. And if one can judge what this has done to working and middle class people, it was a change that had tremendous consequences, and has given us the current chaotic election cycle. For we had two candidates that broke the taboo of questioning free trade globalization, which became our reality, thanks to an unprincipled Clinton. People seem to ignore the fact that globalization is not natural economic law, it was a choice made by the GOP, and signed by Clinton, who then went all out on it, agreeing with the GOP.

    ?


    • #62
      Originally posted by msc View Post

      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.
      Ok MSC, I retract what I said about the bubble. I do admit when I am wrong, if I can discern it. So, an apology sir. Sometimes when one feels deeply about an issue, one can go overboard, and I am as human as the next guy, and subject to the whims of human nature. So thanks for pointing that out.

      I will never defend the dems when they are simply wrong about something. I have never agreed with the welfare system since it was given a shot of steroids under LBJ. Heck, I remember before food stamps ever existed and poor people went once a month to pick up commodities. I remember eating some of those big blocks of cheese that came in brown gov't boxes, which was quite good. I had an uncle who was severely disabled an looked like the hunchback of Notre Dame, who got these handouts. Dried eggs, number 10 cans of peanut butter, number 10 cans of pork, that smelled like Spam, dried beans, food that would keep you from starving to death. And IMO, that should have never been changed, for it provided food that would keep the poor from going hungry, and was not as easily abused as food stamps. IF you were hungry this would provide nourishment, to keep people from malnutrition and that is the point, right? He also received a welfare check, which would pay his rent, and utilities with a little bit left over, but not much. He relied then on help from family for clothing and while he was poor, no one went hungry. But that is not the case today MSC. Not here in the South, which I am familiar with. And this welfare before LBJ actually made people try to get off of welfare, while it covered the basics, but being poor like this is no fun, and only mentally affected people would choose it as a way of life. But back in this era it was so easy to get off the dole, for jobs were everywhere, for even the 5th grade educated, if they would work in a factory. Heck, you could even work in a mom and pops fast food place and be paid enough not to be on welfare. I remember quite clearly when the first fast food chain came into town here, a business called Burger Chef. No one but the manager made a living wage there, for all employees were school kids, who got min wage, and part timers for there was a law that said they could only work part time. And still down the street at the locally owned burger stand, or a bbq joint, their employees made a living wage. A different business model, which was replaced by a new business model that did not pay living wages. And this is what happened to America here in the south. Low wages, welfare wages, replaced living wages in even the service sector. I saw this change take place. And this change was a move away from the FDR model, that began before Reagan, for sure, but took off like a jet with Reagan and after Reagan. So, there is a good reason why I think the FDR progressive model is superior for American, unless you are in the upper class. I think this is just a fact, for I watched the changes happen, and what we have today is the result of those changes. I am not ideological driven in this, it is what I experienced, and I am just choosing what I saw that worked out for the non elites the best. If it happens to be underpinned by an ideology, then so be it, but I was not driven by an ideology, at the outset. I just saw what worked out for my class of people the best, and never questioned it until I saw the great changes that began to happen, which devastated my class of people. Only then did I began to go into it, to see what drove it, why the changes happened, and what the difference was between what I grew up under and what started happening once Reagan got elected.

      ?


      • #63
        Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

        Ok MSC, I retract what I said about the bubble. I do admit when I am wrong, if I can discern it. So, an apology sir. Sometimes when one feels deeply about an issue, one can go overboard, and I am as human as the next guy, and subject to the whims of human nature. So thanks for pointing that out.

        I will never defend the dems when they are simply wrong about something. I have never agreed with the welfare system since it was given a shot of steroids under LBJ. Heck, I remember before food stamps ever existed and poor people went once a month to pick up commodities. I remember eating some of those big blocks of cheese that came in brown gov't boxes, which was quite good. I had an uncle who was severely disabled an looked like the hunchback of Notre Dame, who got these handouts. Dried eggs, number 10 cans of peanut butter, number 10 cans of pork, that smelled like Spam, dried beans, food that would keep you from starving to death. And IMO, that should have never been changed, for it provided food that would keep the poor from going hungry, and was not as easily abused as food stamps. IF you were hungry this would provide nourishment, to keep people from malnutrition and that is the point, right? He also received a welfare check, which would pay his rent, and utilities with a little bit left over, but not much. He relied then on help from family for clothing and while he was poor, no one went hungry. But that is not the case today MSC. Not here in the South, which I am familiar with. And this welfare before LBJ actually made people try to get off of welfare, while it covered the basics, but being poor like this is no fun, and only mentally affected people would choose it as a way of life. But back in this era it was so easy to get off the dole, for jobs were everywhere, for even the 5th grade educated, if they would work in a factory. Heck, you could even work in a mom and pops fast food place and be paid enough not to be on welfare. I remember quite clearly when the first fast food chain came into town here, a business called Burger Chef. No one but the manager made a living wage there, for all employees were school kids, who got min wage, and part timers for there was a law that said they could only work part time. And still down the street at the locally owned burger stand, or a bbq joint, their employees made a living wage. A different business model, which was replaced by a new business model that did not pay living wages. And this is what happened to America here in the south. Low wages, welfare wages, replaced living wages in even the service sector. I saw this change take place. And this change was a move away from the FDR model, that began before Reagan, for sure, but took off like a jet with Reagan and after Reagan. So, there is a good reason why I think the FDR progressive model is superior for American, unless you are in the upper class. I think this is just a fact, for I watched the changes happen, and what we have today is the result of those changes. I am not ideological driven in this, it is what I experienced, and I am just choosing what I saw that worked out for the non elites the best. If it happens to be underpinned by an ideology, then so be it, but I was not driven by an ideology, at the outset. I just saw what worked out for my class of people the best, and never questioned it until I saw the great changes that began to happen, which devastated my class of people. Only then did I began to go into it, to see what drove it, why the changes happened, and what the difference was between what I grew up under and what started happening once Reagan got elected.
        Your apology is received as intended. With understanding as we all go there time to time. No worries.

        I also acknowledge your reasoning for believing as you do. But what I do think is that we all have to continue to seek out all avenues that have lead to the state we're in today.

        Just as advance in technology is good for intended purpose, advanced with good intention, an asset in many area's, and inevitable, it has a down side and comes with a cost that has done much harm to society. It has eliminated or harmfully reduced; social interaction, privacy, manual labor, (which many are only capable of), all types of jobs, exercise, etc.. I use this as an example as I believe everyone can relate to this and think I rightfully assume that no one wants to go back to the day eliminating all technology and advances in.

        Life is a path with constant intersections and it's difficult, impossible to figure out which intersection has solely brought us in the wrong direction. Some paths have taken us forward while avoiding large obstacles on the more preferred path, but it doesn't mean that when we've gone off the main road that we won't come to another intersection that can lead us to our desired destination.

        Example: Reagan chose a different path to avoid an obstacle. At the next intersection, we could have gotten back on the main path, but we chose wrong at the next intersection, that lead us farther and farther in the wrong way.

        Example: FDR imprisoned the Japanese. He had an obstacle and with safety as a concern he chose this path. However in the case, regarding Humanity, after the obstacle was avoided, future leaders chose the right path that brought us in the right direction to our desired destination.

        Point is, that none of us can pinpoint the one and only action that has caused the problems that we have today. We have gone so far off course and we can not claim to know where a different path would have take us, because no one, not you or I have knowledge of what would have happened. For example; had FDR not put the Japanese in camps, or what would have happened had Reagan not released some banking regulations. They both chose those paths believing it was necessary to avoid obstacles that we may not have been able to overcome. They both may have been wrong and we'd be better off. Or they both may have been right, though had decisions made at the next intersection been different from what they were, we could have had a completely different outcome. In FDR's case, it could have been worse, and in Reagan's case, it could have been better. It could have been the next intersection that was chosen wrong, while the ones FDR and Reagan chose, were right and necessary.

        Perhaps what I'm saying appears to be too deep, but calculations made in hinesite, are nothing more than assumptions, in fact based on ignorance not knowledge. People will never know the outcome of what would have happened had another path been followed, that we've never been on. We can try and get back to a better path when we learn that we're heading in the wrong direction, but we can't determine what we do not know.
        Last edited by msc; 07-08-2016, 04:58 AM.

        ?


        • #64
          Originally posted by msc View Post

          Your apology is received as intended. With understanding as we all go there time to time. No worries.

          I also acknowledge your reasoning for believing as you do. But what I do think is that we all have to continue to seek out all avenues that have lead to the state we're in today.

          Just as advance in technology is good for intended purpose, advanced with good intention, an asset in many area's, and inevitable, it has a down side and comes with a cost that has done much harm to society. It has eliminated or harmfully reduced; social interaction, privacy, manual labor, (which many are only capable of), all types of jobs, exercise, etc.. I use this as an example as I believe everyone can relate to this and think I rightfully assume that no one wants to go back to the day eliminating all technology and advances in.

          Life is a path with constant intersections and it's difficult, impossible to figure out which intersection has solely brought us in the wrong direction. Some paths have taken us forward while avoiding large obstacles on the more preferred path, but it doesn't mean that when we've gone off the main road that we won't come to another intersection that can lead us to our desired destination.

          Example: Reagan chose a different path to avoid an obstacle. At the next intersection, we could have gotten back on the main path, but we chose wrong at the next intersection, that lead us farther and farther in the wrong way.

          Example: FDR imprisoned the Japanese. He had an obstacle and with safety as a concern he chose this path. However in the case, regarding Humanity, after the obstacle was avoided, future leaders chose the right path that brought us in the right direction to our desired destination.

          Point is, that none of us can pinpoint the one and only action that has caused the problems that we have today. We have gone so far off course and we can not claim to know where a different path would have take us, because no one, not you or I have knowledge of what would have happened. For example; had FDR not put the Japanese in camps, or what would have happened had Reagan not released some banking regulations. They both chose those paths believing it was necessary to avoid obstacles that we may not have been able to overcome. They both may have been wrong and we'd be better off. Or they both may have been right, though had decisions made at the next intersection been different from what they were, we could have had a completely different outcome. In FDR's case, it could have been worse, and in Reagan's case, it could have been better. It could have been the next intersection that was chosen wrong, while the ones FDR and Reagan chose, were right and necessary.

          Perhaps what I'm saying appears to be too deep, but calculations made in hinesite, are nothing more than assumptions, in fact based on ignorance not knowledge. People will never know the outcome of what would have happened had another path been followed, that we've never been on. We can try and get back to a better path when we learn that we're heading in the wrong direction, but we can't determine what we do not know.
          The thing is, I do not believe that the philosophy that Reagan embraced, was an intent on his part to make America for working people worse. He must have believed in what the thought, and that freeing up capitalists, the big ones, would actually benefit ALL americans. He must have thought that deregulating capitalism would work out even better than regulated capitalism, and not just for the people on top. And Reagan didn't do all of the adverse changes either, much of them came later under democrats, Clinton. But this was the path Reagan's economic beliefs put us on.

          Banking could have been deregulated in specific areas, but what seems to have happened is that far too many regulations were removed, creating a system, which human nature could run in a much more free fashion, and this turned a sound banking system into casinos, with the house back up by the taxpayers. More so than the FDIC ever did. Banking used to serve main street much more and it hardly does that at all today, and exotic instruments, risky, of profit has allowed such great wealth to be created for banks. So, why should banks invest in America when they can make such great profits in derivatives, CDIs, and other instruments? The very purpose of a national banking system was changed by deregulation.

          It also seems that a deregulated capitalism led to open borders free trade globalization, which is a flawed economic model if one wants an economy that serves to feed the greatest number of americans. We seem to have forgotten that the kind of economy a nation has can either help the greatest number or it can hurt a significant portion of people who must work for their bread. Deindustrializing any nation can never benefit people who must work for their bread. It is just nonsense to think like that. Nothing could replace industry, and once we allowed offshoring, even what could have taken up some of the slack created by deindustrialization would be offshored as well, which is what has happened. What looked good in theory, on paper, just like Marxism, never worked out. And all that happened is that even greater disparity in income was created and more demand for social safety net spending. And the American dream for so many younger people has been utterly destroyed. The kind of economy we have now is also creating great social unrest, and new social problems. Where will it end? I surely do not know, but I think it will be very serious and threatens the social fabric of America.

          I think we must start making what we consume again, and go back to demand side economics. As we figure out what to do about this new age of robotics and potential AI, and what americans will do to earn a disposable income to buy what the robots make. And no one seems to be thinking about this much, in gov't. They will probably be blind sided by it. Pulling a Hillary Clinton, in her unsophistication.

          ?


          • #65
            Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

            The thing is, I do not believe that the philosophy that Reagan embraced, was an intent on his part to make America for working people worse. He must have believed in what the thought, and that freeing up capitalists, the big ones, would actually benefit ALL americans. He must have thought that deregulating capitalism would work out even better than regulated capitalism, and not just for the people on top. And Reagan didn't do all of the adverse changes either, much of them came later under democrats, Clinton. But this was the path Reagan's economic beliefs put us on.

            Banking could have been deregulated in specific areas, but what seems to have happened is that far too many regulations were removed, creating a system, which human nature could run in a much more free fashion, and this turned a sound banking system into casinos, with the house back up by the taxpayers. More so than the FDIC ever did. Banking used to serve main street much more and it hardly does that at all today, and exotic instruments, risky, of profit has allowed such great wealth to be created for banks. So, why should banks invest in America when they can make such great profits in derivatives, CDIs, and other instruments? The very purpose of a national banking system was changed by deregulation.

            It also seems that a deregulated capitalism led to open borders free trade globalization, which is a flawed economic model if one wants an economy that serves to feed the greatest number of americans. We seem to have forgotten that the kind of economy a nation has can either help the greatest number or it can hurt a significant portion of people who must work for their bread. Deindustrializing any nation can never benefit people who must work for their bread. It is just nonsense to think like that. Nothing could replace industry, and once we allowed offshoring, even what could have taken up some of the slack created by deindustrialization would be offshored as well, which is what has happened. What looked good in theory, on paper, just like Marxism, never worked out. And all that happened is that even greater disparity in income was created and more demand for social safety net spending. And the American dream for so many younger people has been utterly destroyed. The kind of economy we have now is also creating great social unrest, and new social problems. Where will it end? I surely do not know, but I think it will be very serious and threatens the social fabric of America.

            I think we must start making what we consume again, and go back to demand side economics. As we figure out what to do about this new age of robotics and potential AI, and what americans will do to earn a disposable income to buy what the robots make. And no one seems to be thinking about this much, in gov't. They will probably be blind sided by it. Pulling a Hillary Clinton, in her unsophistication.
            Those regulations had to be removed for the liberals to push their social agenda. If the regulations had stayed in place, those bad mortgages could not have been written in areas of town where the real estate was essentially worthless.

            ?


            • #66
              Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
              The thing is, I do not believe that the philosophy that Reagan embraced, was an intent on his part to make America for working people worse. He must have believed in what the thought, and that freeing up capitalists, the big ones, would actually benefit ALL americans. He must have thought that deregulating capitalism would work out even better than regulated capitalism, and not just for the people on top. And Reagan didn't do all of the adverse changes either, much of them came later under democrats, Clinton. But this was the path Reagan's economic beliefs put us on.

              During the Reagan years real (median) family income raised by $4,000, inflation rates dropped from 10% down to 4%, unemployment dropped from 9.3% to 5.4%, the poverty level dropped 3.3%, federal revenue grew by 60% while the top 10% of taxpayers paid an increased share and the bottom 50% paid a reduced share, Under Reagan the rich did better, the poor did better, everyone did better including the middle class.

              I am always irritated by conversations so filled with sweeping generalizations and code words, but no real facts. If we are going to discuss something let us define exactly what we are discussing. What you believe has destroyed our economy is free trade agreements (NAFTA, CAFTA), banking deregulation, income tax cuts, and some general change in corporate attitude? Am I correctly interpreting your views? Is this what your beef is with neoliberalism and the so-called destruction of the FDR model?
              Originally posted by msc View Post
              Point is, that none of us can pinpoint the one and only action that has caused the problems that we have today. We have gone so far off course and we can not claim to know where a different path would have take us, because no one, not you or I have knowledge of what would have happened. For example; had FDR not put the Japanese in camps, or what would have happened had Reagan not released some banking regulations. They both chose those paths believing it was necessary to avoid obstacles that we may not have been able to overcome. They both may have been wrong and we'd be better off. Or they both may have been right, though had decisions made at the next intersection been different from what they were, we could have had a completely different outcome. In FDR's case, it could have been worse, and in Reagan's case, it could have been better. It could have been the next intersection that was chosen wrong, while the ones FDR and Reagan chose, were right and necessary.

              Perhaps what I'm saying appears to be too deep, but calculations made in hinesite, are nothing more than assumptions, in fact based on ignorance not knowledge. People will never know the outcome of what would have happened had another path been followed, that we've never been on. We can try and get back to a better path when we learn that we're heading in the wrong direction, but we can't determine what we do not know.

              I would contend we even need to go back another step. We need to properly define what todays problems are with facts and statistics, not with emotions and anecdotal evidence. Before claiming that rich people dont pay their fair share, or that Wal-Mart does not care about its employees, or that police shootings are on the rise, or that the middle class is worse off today than in 19-whatever I need some real evidence of the scope and range of the problem or if there even is one.

              We have two political parties hell-bent on ruling the issue of the day whether they need to make one up or not. You would never know about the drops in teenage pregnancy and abortions listening to the religious right. Keeping the federal funding of Planned Parenthood and its abuses on the front page is too important. But in reality they should be happy with the direction things are moving. The Hilary lefties want you to believe in some fictitious war on women. Nobody mentions that including the factors of education and experience women make 95 cents on the dollar. Considering the female college graduation rate of 3-2 over men, future women will rule this nation. Another non-issue. Yet we have these issues shoved down our throats on a daily basis.

              On the subject of this thread the race issue in this country is all about emotions and anecdotal evidence trumping facts and logic. Saturation of media coverage on rare singular occurrences has skewed the public image of the entire issue renewing racial tensions in areas where hatred was quickly dying off. In fact, I believe the generational dissipation of racism inspired by the baby boomers is exactly why some are so invested in resurrecting race based hatred. Expecting a consistent 85%+ of the black vote requires keeping this issue front and center. There are a few bad cops in this nation but not a racist epidemic.

              ?


              • #67
                All you have to do is compare the official numbers of people who are killed by the police in the US compared to other nations and that should show that you do indeed have a problem.

                ?


                • #68
                  Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
                  All you have to do is compare the official numbers of people who are killed by the police in the US compared to other nations and that should show that you do indeed have a problem.
                  We indeed do have a problem but the problem isn't guns, it's moral values. We had just as many guns per person when I was a kid but didn't have these killings. It is the moral values that have changed.

                  ?


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post

                    We indeed do have a problem but the problem isn't guns, it's moral values. We had just as many guns per person when I was a kid but didn't have these killings. It is the moral values that have changed.
                    Moral values change all the time all over the globe it's why we in the UK are completely different now that we were during colonial times.
                    Just because a black person has a child while not being married doesn't automatically make them bad people any more than me being an Atheist means I'm going to commit crime simply because I don't follow the bible.

                    Lastly what does the moral values of criminals have to do with the figures for people being killed by the police?

                    ?


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post

                      Moral values change all the time all over the globe it's why we in the UK are completely different now that we were during colonial times.
                      Just because a black person has a child while not being married doesn't automatically make them bad people any more than me being an Atheist means I'm going to commit crime simply because I don't follow the bible.

                      Lastly what does the moral values of criminals have to do with the figures for people being killed by the police?
                      The overwhelming majority of those killed by police were committing crimes. That is a moral decision. We didn't even have police in the community I grew up in because we had moral values and didn't need police. Our house didn't have locks on the doors. Car keys were left in the car all the time. I drove to school with a .22 in my car every day to shoot woodchucks on the way home. The gun was left in my unlocked car all day and I never worried about it jumping out of my car and killing someone.

                      ?


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by SupPackFan View Post
                        During the Reagan years real (median) family income raised by $4,000, inflation rates dropped from 10% down to 4%, unemployment dropped from 9.3% to 5.4%, the poverty level dropped 3.3%, federal revenue grew by 60% while the top 10% of taxpayers paid an increased share and the bottom 50% paid a reduced share, Under Reagan the rich did better, the poor did better, everyone did better – including the middle class.

                        I am always irritated by conversations so filled with sweeping generalizations and code words, but no real facts. If we are going to discuss something – let us define exactly what we are discussing. What you believe has destroyed our economy is free trade agreements (NAFTA, CAFTA), banking ‘deregulation’, income tax cuts, and some general change in corporate attitude? Am I correctly interpreting your views? Is this what your beef is with ‘neoliberalism’ – and the so-called destruction of the FDR model?

                        I would contend we even need to go back another step. We need to properly define what today’s problems are with facts and statistics, not with emotions and anecdotal evidence. Before claiming that rich people don’t pay their fair share, or that Wal-Mart does not care about its employees, or that police shootings are on the rise, or that the middle class is worse off today than in 19-whatever – I need some real evidence of the scope and range of the problem – or if there even is one.

                        We have two political parties hell-bent on ruling the issue of the day whether they need to make one up or not. You would never know about the drops in teenage pregnancy and abortions listening to the religious right. Keeping the federal funding of Planned Parenthood and its abuses on the front page is too important. But in reality they should be happy with the direction things are moving. The Hilary lefties want you to believe in some fictitious ‘war on women’. Nobody mentions that – including the factors of education and experience – women make 95 cents on the dollar. Considering the female college graduation rate of 3-2 over men, future women will rule this nation. Another non-issue. Yet we have these issues shoved down our throats on a daily basis.

                        On the subject of this thread – the race issue in this country is all about emotions and anecdotal evidence trumping facts and logic. Saturation of media coverage on rare singular occurrences has skewed the public image of the entire issue renewing racial tensions in areas where hatred was quickly dying off. In fact, I believe the generational dissipation of racism inspired by the baby boomers is exactly why some are so invested in resurrecting race based hatred. Expecting a consistent 85%+ of the black vote requires keeping this issue front and center. There are a few bad cops in this nation – but not a racist epidemic.
                        Trouble is, the "bleeds it leads" crap dominates the issue. There is police bias, but we don't have an accurate picture of where and to what extent. Because we are fixated on police shootings (a very small number compared to total police/civilian interactions), we don't know how many police detention and arrests are racially biased. We don't compare the number or portion of busts (police) and prosecutions (district attorney). We don't compare between whites going up the river for the same drug offense as blacks. We don't compare one metro area (Dallas) with another (Chicago) to see if one police force is better at minimizing bias. We don't debate those points, which would reach a solution much faster than investing our time in the "Lead that Bleeds" tactic.

                        ?


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post

                          The overwhelming majority of those killed by police were committing crimes. That is a moral decision. We didn't even have police in the community I grew up in because we had moral values and didn't need police. Our house didn't have locks on the doors. Car keys were left in the car all the time. I drove to school with a .22 in my car every day to shoot woodchucks on the way home. The gun was left in my unlocked car all day and I never worried about it jumping out of my car and killing someone.
                          You seem to be arguing that it's ok for the police to kill people for committing a crime?
                          The job of the police is to catch the criminals not enforce on the spot executions for criminal activity that's why we have a court system and prisons and you have the death sentence for the serious criminals only after a lengthy process to make sure you only execute the guilty.

                          The idea that you have that crime didn't exist back when you were a kid is bloody laughable the only difference is that you didn't have 24 hour rolling news and the internet to tell you about all the crime in the area. There was just as much crime and indeed statistics produced by the police themselves show crime is on the decline in the US.

                          The homicide rate per 100k people in 1950 was 4.6 and it rose to a maximum of 10.2 in 1980 and is now back down to 4.5 for 2014 which is the last year I have data for.

                          http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0873729.html
                          http://leftcall.com/4557/u-s-crime-r...-surprise-you/

                          https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourc...aph+since+1940

                          ?


                          • #73
                            During the Reagan years real (median) family income raised by $4,000, inflation rates dropped from 10% down to 4%, unemployment dropped from 9.3% to 5.4%, the poverty level dropped 3.3%, federal revenue grew by 60% while the top 10% of taxpayers paid an increased share and the bottom 50% paid a reduced share, Under Reagan the rich did better, the poor did better, everyone did better including the middle class.

                            I am always irritated by conversations so filled with sweeping generalizations and code words, but no real facts. If we are going to discuss something let us define exactly what we are discussing. What you believe has destroyed our economy is free trade agreements (NAFTA, CAFTA), banking deregulation, income tax cuts, and some general change in corporate attitude? Am I correctly interpreting your views? Is this what your beef is with neoliberalism and the so-called destruction of the FDR model?
                            There is an old saying. Figures do not lie, but liars can figure. So, HOW in the world can the stats say that income for working people have been stagnant since the 1970s and yet Reagan looks so good? Which stats have liars involved?

                            You do remember what the tripling of energy costs did to this economy, right? Do you also remember that by the time Reagan got in, within a few years the industrialized economy had finally adjusted to the tripling of energy costs, and the gas shortages had finally stabilized? HOW would this affect our economy? We cycled out of something. And Reagan was the benefactor of that. So how much of this being beneficial to him, is then attributed to him? This is not a simple thing, is it? An economy is very complex, with an so many interrelationships.

                            Reagan will go down in history as the president who put us on the path of hollowing out America, and the collapse of the American empire. Of putting us on the path of crony capitalism and the corporate state, oligarchy. History will not have the view of him, that you do, nor of the presidents that came after him, that continued us on the Reagan path.

                            Liars can figure sir. In the 1970s, there were still much of American households that had only the father working, and so household median income was one employed family member. In the 1980s the number of wives who went into the workforce expanded, thereby driving up potentially household income. So, get outta town. Figures do not lie, but liars can figure, and IMO, that is going on with your stats. Why did you not catch it? Because it, on paper, makes Reagan look good? So perhaps you are comparing a one income household prior to the 80s with a two household income, of the 80s? I remember when wives started moving into the work force, for it happened in my own large, extended family. It seemed that one income no longer was enough, my wife went to work, my brothers wife went to work, my sister went to work, even my mother who had never worked outside the home, went to work. Yes, anecdotal, but you would see this across America, driven by necessity.

                            The FDR model will stand on its own, and the Reagan neoliberal model of today falls on its face. You must adopt denial to think otherwise. And of course, you do, not because of anything but a damned disconnected from reality, ideological belief. That is the truth here. You are in the group that Ike said had no place in America.
                            Last edited by Blue Doggy; 07-09-2016, 05:08 AM.

                            ?


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

                              There is an old saying. Figures do not lie, but liars can figure. So, HOW in the world can the stats say that income for working people have been stagnant since the 1970s and yet Reagan looks so good? Which stats have liars involved?

                              You do remember what the tripling of energy costs did to this economy, right? Do you also remember that by the time Reagan got in, within a few years the industrialized economy had finally adjusted to the tripling of energy costs, and the gas shortages had finally stabilized? HOW would this affect our economy? We cycled out of something. And Reagan was the benefactor of that. So how much of this being beneficial to him, is then attributed to him? This is not a simple thing, is it? An economy is very complex, with an so many interrelationships.

                              Reagan will go down in history as the president who put us on the path of hollowing out America, and the collapse of the American empire. Of putting us on the path of crony capitalism and the corporate state, oligarchy. History will not have the view of him, that you do, nor of the presidents that came after him, that continued us on the Reagan path.

                              Liars can figure sir. In the 1970s, there were still much of American households that had only the father working, and so household median income was one employed family member. In the 1980s the number of wives who went into the workforce expanded, thereby driving up potentially household income. So, get outta town. Figures do not lie, but liars can figure, and IMO, that is going on with your stats. Why did you not catch it? Because it, on paper, makes Reagan look good? So perhaps you are comparing a one income household prior to the 80s with a two household income, of the 80s? I remember when wives started moving into the work force, for it happened in my own large, extended family. It seemed that one income no longer was enough, my wife went to work, my brothers wife went to work, my sister went to work, even my mother who had never worked outside the home, went to work. Yes, anecdotal, but you would see this across America, driven by necessity.

                              The FDR model will stand on its own, and the Reagan neoliberal model of today falls on its face. You must adopt denial to think otherwise. And of course, you do, not because of anything but a damned disconnected from reality, ideological belief. That is the truth here. You are in the group that Ike said had no place in America.
                              So, if FDR gets credit for his time in office, why does Reagan not get credit for the happenings during his time in office. Does FDR get the blame for our 20 trillion national debt because he promised things that could not be delivered?

                              ?


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post

                                You seem to be arguing that it's ok for the police to kill people for committing a crime?
                                The job of the police is to catch the criminals not enforce on the spot executions for criminal activity that's why we have a court system and prisons and you have the death sentence for the serious criminals only after a lengthy process to make sure you only execute the guilty.

                                The idea that you have that crime didn't exist back when you were a kid is bloody laughable the only difference is that you didn't have 24 hour rolling news and the internet to tell you about all the crime in the area. There was just as much crime and indeed statistics produced by the police themselves show crime is on the decline in the US.

                                The homicide rate per 100k people in 1950 was 4.6 and it rose to a maximum of 10.2 in 1980 and is now back down to 4.5 for 2014 which is the last year I have data for.

                                http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0873729.html
                                http://leftcall.com/4557/u-s-crime-r...-surprise-you/

                                https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourc...aph+since+1940
                                For some crimes in progress, it is perfectly acceptable for police to kill the person. If he is threatening the lives of others, the police are quite justified in killing him. The killer in Dallas was a good example. He was a threat to others and refused to surrender. He needed to be killed. The point is, if you don't want to put yourself in jeopardy, cooperate with the police. The same can be said for a mugging. If you want to stay alive, give the guy with the weapon your wallet and live another day. People who commit a crime and then try to fight the police when caught are putting themselves in jeopardy. They have to share the blame for their predicament.

                                ?

                                Working...
                                X