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

For Conservatives, What is Freedom to You?

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

  • For Conservatives, What is Freedom to You?

    Liberals may answer but I want mainly a conservative definition. I have a reason for this, but it would skew the results if I told you.

    Not what are Freedom's benefits or requirements mind you, but it's characteristics

  • #2
    Re: For Conservatives, What is Freedom to You?

    Freedom is the ability to do just about anything as long it does not directly cause or bring harm to another.

    Now you can nit picks about what that means but basically it means as long as I do no harm or restrict you from doing what you want with the same caveat that you don't do harm to me or others then pretty much anything is fair game.

    Prime example, who is hurt other than me if I don't wear my seatbelt? What harm comes to others from that action? I know that the biggest comment is going to be BUT what if you crash and you are in the hospital and your loved ones are emotionally hurt or such. Or cost to people to take care of me in that case.

    If you are so damned worried about what it costs to take care of me if I don't wear my seatbelt while in a car and have an accident then why aren't you as concerned about welfare which shackles me and my income hurting me while giving the money to people who don't do a thing to earn it?

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #3
      Re: For Conservatives, What is Freedom to You?

      Originally posted by Wlessard View Post
      Freedom is the ability to do just about anything as long it does not directly cause or bring harm to another.

      Now you can nit picks about what that means but basically it means as long as I do no harm or restrict you from doing what you want with the same caveat that you don't do harm to me or others then pretty much anything is fair game.

      Prime example, who is hurt other than me if I don't wear my seatbelt? What harm comes to others from that action? I know that the biggest comment is going to be BUT what if you crash and you are in the hospital and your loved ones are emotionally hurt or such. Or cost to people to take care of me in that case.

      If you are so damned worried about what it costs to take care of me if I don't wear my seatbelt while in a car and have an accident then why aren't you as concerned about welfare which shackles me and my income hurting me while giving the money to people who don't do a thing to earn it?
      I'd second this definition.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #4
        Re: For Conservatives, What is Freedom to You?

        I want to do with my person and property what I want, not what someone else wants for me. I want to be able to take care of me and mine and not be force to take care of you and yours. I can make much better choices as to who to support through charity than the government can make for me.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #5
          Re: For Conservatives, What is Freedom to You?

          Originally posted by Wlessard View Post
          Freedom is the ability to do just about anything as long it does not directly cause or bring harm to another.

          Now you can nit picks about what that means but basically it means as long as I do no harm or restrict you from doing what you want with the same caveat that you don't do harm to me or others then pretty much anything is fair game.

          Prime example, who is hurt other than me if I don't wear my seatbelt? What harm comes to others from that action? I know that the biggest comment is going to be BUT what if you crash and you are in the hospital and your loved ones are emotionally hurt or such. Or cost to people to take care of me in that case.

          If you are so damned worried about what it costs to take care of me if I don't wear my seatbelt while in a car and have an accident then why aren't you as concerned about welfare which shackles me and my income hurting me while giving the money to people who don't do a thing to earn it?
          Seat belt laws were made the law of the land because business interests, the insurance lobby wanted them, to help in their profits. Each time we lose some personal freedom, money, the making of money is behind it. Profits RULE, nothing else. This is what happens when capitalism becomes religion-like, or what religion once was, a major controller of people. The making of the most profit possible run this nation today, not the ideals of the founders. And republicans worship these profit makers. They want to give em free rein, as they usurp personal freedom of the populace.

          This is creating a new order in american society, and it has been going on in hyper drive since reagen and the conservative revolution. Cons really don't want more freedom, if it hinders the maxing out of profits for a few of us. I believe that to the bone. Cons want business interests to have the freedom to screw over the unworthy folks. Only the monetary successful folks deserve freedom. It sure seems that way to me.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #6
            Re: For Conservatives, What is Freedom to You?

            Originally posted by Wlessard View Post
            Freedom is the ability to do just about anything as long it does not directly cause or bring harm to another.

            Now you can nit picks about what that means but basically it means as long as I do no harm or restrict you from doing what you want with the same caveat that you don't do harm to me or others then pretty much anything is fair game.

            Prime example, who is hurt other than me if I don't wear my seatbelt? What harm comes to others from that action? I know that the biggest comment is going to be BUT what if you crash and you are in the hospital and your loved ones are emotionally hurt or such. Or cost to people to take care of me in that case.

            If you are so damned worried about what it costs to take care of me if I don't wear my seatbelt while in a car and have an accident then why aren't you as concerned about welfare which shackles me and my income hurting me while giving the money to people who don't do a thing to earn it?
            Our entire system of laws has always been a balancing act between freedom and safety. How many freedoms are you willing to give up to be safe? First no seat belts were required. Then lap belts in the front seat. Now lap belts with a shoulder strap are the law in every state. But a racing harness would be even safer than the shoulder belt, so why are those not required? What about helmets? Do you realize how many lives per year would be saved if all occupants of an automobile were required to wear a helmet? I only offer this to demonstrate how - as a society - we choose what acceptable limitation on freedom we will concede in exchange for safety. Social Security and Medicare are perfect examples of exchanging freedom for safety.

            To answer the question: Rugged individualism and property ownership rights.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #7
              Re: For Conservatives, What is Freedom to You?

              Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
              Seat belt laws were made the law of the land because business interests, the insurance lobby wanted them, to help in their profits.
              You're not accurate here.

              the insurance company I work for, IN automobile claims btw, makes no profit for the research they do. My employer has a few acres with multiple buildings set up to research such things as child safety seats, vehicle construction, home construction ... sometimes alone, sometimes with business partners ... all to the point of making our lives, us common reg'lar, every day folks, better.

              Insurance companies exist to help bridge the unexpected loss. YOU buy insurance, hoping you never need it because if or when you DO need it, and you have to talk to me, you've experienced a loss. Our research arm exists to either help you avoid that loss completely, or to help greatly reduce the impact on that loss. For example, our research folks got to work looking at how roofs are anchored to the structure when they found a significant number of homes in South Florida, in 1992 (you remember who went through South Florida in 1992?) were losing their entire roof: Not just shingles (or tiles), not just portions of a roof ... but entire roofs were detaching and flying, well, mostly into the Gulf of Mexico or thereabouts.

              They developed a different kind of roof anchoring system that they then showed to the Building commission (or commissions) in the state of Florida who, then, adopted it as a requirement. That wasn't so we wouldn't have to pay for roofs to houses: In a hurricane, we're GOING to pay for roofs ... that research and development of the roof anchoring system was to help our policyholders NOT have the roof sucked off their home, leaving them completely exposed to the elements.

              Some time look up "Child Safety Seats" and "Children's Hospital of Philadelphia" and see what you get.

              If insurance companies are as evil and solely (or possibly "soul-LESS-ly") concerned about profit, they wouldn't last long. There are rating companies who catch on to that sort of stuff and the rating companies tend to get that word out pretty quickly. Not that a going business is NOT interested in profit, but as profit structures go, most forms of insurance ... and P&C insurance in particular ... aren't that high on the production list. I remember when California's John Garamendi (Insurance commmissioner) was taking the various insurance companies to court following the implementation of Proposition 103: He was trying to force them to take only 1-2% for profit and also force them to not have such large policyholder protection funds. Then the Northridge earthquake came along and those with large policyholder protection funds were the only ones who survived.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #8
                Re: For Conservatives, What is Freedom to You?

                Originally posted by Good1 View Post
                (clip) Insurance companies exist to help bridge the unexpected loss. YOU buy insurance, hoping you never need it because if or when you DO need it, and you have to talk to me, you've experienced a loss. Our research arm exists to either help you avoid that loss completely, or to help greatly reduce the impact on that loss. For example, our research folks got to work looking at how roofs are anchored to the structure when they found a significant number of homes in South Florida, in 1992 (you remember who went through South Florida in 1992?) were losing their entire roof: Not just shingles (or tiles), not just portions of a roof ... but entire roofs were detaching and flying, well, mostly into the Gulf of Mexico or thereabouts.

                They developed a different kind of roof anchoring system that they then showed to the Building commission (or commissions) in the state of Florida who, then, adopted it as a requirement. That wasn't so we wouldn't have to pay for roofs to houses: In a hurricane, we're GOING to pay for roofs ... that research and development of the roof anchoring system was to help our policyholders NOT have the roof sucked off their home, leaving them completely exposed to the elements.
                More than exposed to the elements, dead, because when the roof blows off the walls fall down. Ever notice how roofers never take off an entire roof at once (at least without bracing the walls)? That's why, the walls are held up by the roof, not supported, mind, but just braced to stand straight.

                This is why they used to think Tornadoes imploded houses, and would advise you to open windows on the East side as they spin counterclockwise. What was actually happening was that the wind would take off a few shingles and get into the attic through the venting, then lift the roof, whereupon the walls collapsed. Since they almost always fell inward they thought the houses were imploding in the low pressure.

                Hurricane clips solve the problem, as they make the house a unit and it takes a much stronger wind to lift the weight of an entire house (though I think it can happen). You are right that you will still have to pay for damaged roofs in any case.

                I used to live in a house with block walls and hurricane clips and thought I was entirely safe, as no wind could lift the mass of block walls. Then I saw what a wooden 2x4 does to a block wall at 160mph.
                Last edited by John Drake; 08-28-2012, 01:07 PM.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #9
                  Re: For Conservatives, What is Freedom to You?

                  Apologies, John: I did not intend to derail your thread. I feel compelled to correct misinformation about the industry I've chosen as a career.

                  As to your question, characteristics of freedom are, well, freedom, closely associated with liberty.

                  Others have already said it, but I'm free to swing my arms until I threaten or contact someone else's nose (assuming they have not invited me to hit them in the nose).

                  This is one of the key objections I have about Obamacare: The so-called "individual mandate." I get that you MUST require everyone to purchase insurance so that the risk pool doesn't get unevenly weighted to the high-risk side. But the only reason you must require everyone to buy insurance (in order to even out the weighting) is the law will require insurers to take all comers (no rejections, no cancellations) thus over-stocking the pool with the higher risks. The whole insurance process is based on some needing it, some NOT needing it, but all who participate paying their premium.

                  So the whole dynamic robs me of my freedom to buy or not buy insurance based on my needs, perceived needs, or lack thereof.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #10
                    Re: For Conservatives, What is Freedom to You?

                    Originally posted by Good1 View Post
                    You're not accurate here.

                    the insurance company I work for, IN automobile claims btw, makes no profit for the research they do. My employer has a few acres with multiple buildings set up to research such things as child safety seats, vehicle construction, home construction ... sometimes alone, sometimes with business partners ... all to the point of making our lives, us common reg'lar, every day folks, better.

                    Insurance companies exist to help bridge the unexpected loss. YOU buy insurance, hoping you never need it because if or when you DO need it, and you have to talk to me, you've experienced a loss. Our research arm exists to either help you avoid that loss completely, or to help greatly reduce the impact on that loss. For example, our research folks got to work looking at how roofs are anchored to the structure when they found a significant number of homes in South Florida, in 1992 (you remember who went through South Florida in 1992?) were losing their entire roof: Not just shingles (or tiles), not just portions of a roof ... but entire roofs were detaching and flying, well, mostly into the Gulf of Mexico or thereabouts.

                    They developed a different kind of roof anchoring system that they then showed to the Building commission (or commissions) in the state of Florida who, then, adopted it as a requirement. That wasn't so we wouldn't have to pay for roofs to houses: In a hurricane, we're GOING to pay for roofs ... that research and development of the roof anchoring system was to help our policyholders NOT have the roof sucked off their home, leaving them completely exposed to the elements.

                    Some time look up "Child Safety Seats" and "Children's Hospital of Philadelphia" and see what you get.

                    If insurance companies are as evil and solely (or possibly "soul-LESS-ly") concerned about profit, they wouldn't last long. There are rating companies who catch on to that sort of stuff and the rating companies tend to get that word out pretty quickly. Not that a going business is NOT interested in profit, but as profit structures go, most forms of insurance ... and P&C insurance in particular ... aren't that high on the production list. I remember when California's John Garamendi (Insurance commmissioner) was taking the various insurance companies to court following the implementation of Proposition 103: He was trying to force them to take only 1-2% for profit and also force them to not have such large policyholder protection funds. Then the Northridge earthquake came along and those with large policyholder protection funds were the only ones who survived.
                    My state did not have seat belt laws until a few years ago. My good friend and state senator, who was against seat belt laws informed me our state capitol was over run with insurance lobbiests, lobbying for the seat belt laws. So, I of course figured that they had a dog in that hunt, and since they are concerned about turning a profit, I put 2 and 2 together. Seems reasonable to me, to do that. But I have not researched these laws, and this may have been an anomaly what happened here.

                    If seat belts save insurance companies money on pay outs for injuries and deaths, it seems reasonable they would seek to pass laws that help their bottom lines. That would be good business, would it not?

                    Actually I have nothing against the seat belt laws, as they perhaps do save lives. But the principle of the thing does bother me somewhat, in forcing people to do the smart thing. Once that door is opened, we can be forced to do many other things. Once you open up pandora's box it is damn near impossible to close it back up.

                    I reckon we are trying to make the world idiot proof? LOL.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #11
                      Re: For Conservatives, What is Freedom to You?

                      Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                      My state did not have seat belt laws until a few years ago. My good friend and state senator, who was against seat belt laws informed me our state capitol was over run with insurance lobbiests, lobbying for the seat belt laws. So, I of course figured that they had a dog in that hunt, and since they are concerned about turning a profit, I put 2 and 2 together. Seems reasonable to me, to do that. But I have not researched these laws, and this may have been an anomaly what happened here.

                      If seat belts save insurance companies money on pay outs for injuries and deaths, it seems reasonable they would seek to pass laws that help their bottom lines. That would be good business, would it not?

                      Actually I have nothing against the seat belt laws, as they perhaps do save lives. But the principle of the thing does bother me somewhat, in forcing people to do the smart thing. Once that door is opened, we can be forced to do many other things. Once you open up pandora's box it is damn near impossible to close it back up.

                      I reckon we are trying to make the world idiot proof? LOL.
                      Yeah, you might be forced to buy medical insurance.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #12
                        Re: For Conservatives, What is Freedom to You?

                        Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                        Yeah, you might be forced to buy medical insurance.

                        Well there ya go. And I have expressed here I was against ACA from the get-go. But we opened that box years ago. And we cannot close it, or so it seems. What's next?

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #13
                          Re: For Conservatives, What is Freedom to You?

                          Originally posted by John Drake View Post
                          Liberals may answer but I want mainly a conservative definition. I have a reason for this, but it would skew the results if I told you.

                          Not what are Freedom's benefits or requirements mind you, but it's characteristics
                          Today, in this election cycle, freedom equals free-enterprise.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #14
                            Re: For Conservatives, What is Freedom to You?

                            Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                            Seat belt laws were made the law of the land because business interests, the insurance lobby wanted them, to help in their profits. Each time we lose some personal freedom, money, the making of money is behind it. Profits RULE, nothing else. This is what happens when capitalism becomes religion-like, or what religion once was, a major controller of people. The making of the most profit possible run this nation today, not the ideals of the founders. And republicans worship these profit makers. They want to give em free rein, as they usurp personal freedom of the populace.

                            This is creating a new order in american society, and it has been going on in hyper drive since reagen and the conservative revolution. Cons really don't want more freedom, if it hinders the maxing out of profits for a few of us. I believe that to the bone. Cons want business interests to have the freedom to screw over the unworthy folks. Only the monetary successful folks deserve freedom. It sure seems that way to me.
                            I so enjoy when I drive my 74 Chevy Blazer and get pulled over in Connecticut for not wearing my seat belt. They are one of the States that has laws that say Police can pull you over for not wearing one. Trouble is, my 1974 Chevy Blazer NEVER had a shoulder belt but the dumb police officer doesn't think about that. BTW you DON'T have to wear a helmet while on a motorcycle. Explain that one other than political pull and feel good laws.

                            Florida, I had a 1970 Monte Carlo SS 454, I was pulled over for not wearing the non-existent shoulder belt and had to go to court. The Police officer also issued a written order for me to install a shoulder belt. The Judge thankfully threw it out and dressed down the officer.

                            Yes seatbelts can save lives BUT why is my choice taken away that hurts no one else. I can also link plenty of articles about people who DIED because they had a seatbelt on. Since it can go both ways, it should be personal choice not enforced choice by the government.

                            This is where Freedom and Liberty come in. I like this quote and will always use it in discussions like this.

                            Edgar Friendly: You see, according to Cocteau's plan, I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think; I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy who likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I WANT high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-o all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to, okay, pal? I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiener".

                            As for you Blue Doggy,

                            You really need to quit assuming that a Conservative and a Republican are the same thing.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #15
                              Re: For Conservatives, What is Freedom to You?

                              Originally posted by Wlessard View Post
                              I so enjoy when I drive my 74 Chevy Blazer and get pulled over in Connecticut for not wearing my seat belt. They are one of the States that has laws that say Police can pull you over for not wearing one. Trouble is, my 1974 Chevy Blazer NEVER had a shoulder belt but the dumb police officer doesn't think about that. BTW you DON'T have to wear a helmet while on a motorcycle. Explain that one other than political pull and feel good laws.

                              Florida, I had a 1970 Monte Carlo SS 454, I was pulled over for not wearing the non-existent shoulder belt and had to go to court. The Police officer also issued a written order for me to install a shoulder belt. The Judge thankfully threw it out and dressed down the officer.

                              Yes seatbelts can save lives BUT why is my choice taken away that hurts no one else. I can also link plenty of articles about people who DIED because they had a seatbelt on. Since it can go both ways, it should be personal choice not enforced choice by the government.

                              This is where Freedom and Liberty come in. I like this quote and will always use it in discussions like this.




                              As for you Blue Doggy,

                              You really need to quit assuming that a Conservative and a Republican are the same thing.
                              Well, I used to know being a republican did not mean you were conservative, as there were moderate republicans. But they seem to be dying off, or like Snow, not running again. Thing is, I can identify with the likes of Ike, a republican. He had to fight the cons of that era, I think.

                              But the dems used to have moderates too, and even some that were a bit more conservative. These days that party seems to have been hijacked by an ideology created outside of reality, in ivory towers by egg heads, who have no experience in the affairs of human nature.

                              I pretty much detest both parties today, really. Neither one represents the interests of my kith and kin. Neither one really represents average working americans, which are still the majority in this nation. The average folks just have not figured that out yet, thanks to very skilled and clever propaganda which is MSM, including Fox.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?

                              Working...
                              X