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

Litmus Test of sorts

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

  • Sluggo
    replied
    Re: Litmus Test of sorts

    Originally posted by Good1 View Post
    I don't agree with everything you've noted, Sluggo, but close enough that (as BD said) we could definitely work together. I'm also finding myself much closer to Libertarian than I'd at one time thought.

    the only real bone of contention between us is your perspective on abortion: It would be hard for me to suggest leaving it up to the individual when anyone who decides (for themselves) to abort their child is, in fact (from my perspective), killing a real, living, human being without due process.
    Abortion is a touchy subject, always has been ever since and before Roe v Wade. Without my own emotional responses to it, it is tough to separate the emotional debate from the logic. The emotion behind the value of life can be overwhelming to the argument, we all have different life experiences and upbringing that gets us to these points. If you are really curious I will elaborate but for this conversation my chief concern is the role of government in the determination of life. History tells us all to often that government enforcement of really any belief, or moral compass, or the nanny of the populace tends to lead to some form of tyranny.

    And I am well aware of my own contradictions to that, making me an imperfect Libertarian at best but more likely just an argumentative pain in the ass.

    Leave a comment:


  • DavidSF
    replied
    Re: Litmus Test of sorts

    Originally posted by Sluggo View Post
    Abortion?

    While I personally cannot stand the idea of Abortion, I recognize that individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and accept the responsibility (or even consequences) of those choices they make. I think the government should stay out of the issue entirely making this a question to each individual for their own conscious. No reliance on a government to do this for you. Not the best solution, but one that ends one area of dependence on a government to enforce the moral compass of a nation. I recall our Founders all were trying to escape that mentality elsewhere.

    Guns?

    Very few restrictions. Consider legislation restricting access to guns for violent criminals and those with mental health concerns. Either way, must be documented in a manner which is admissible in a court for the purpose of due process. Other than that, no other restrictions of any kind. Restore the individuals part in taking an active role in the protection of their own and their family's rights. No matter what is said otherwise, the government demonstrates repeatedly with consistency that they cannot do this on their own for you.

    Taxation?

    Reduce taxation by ending duplicated departments at the Federal and State level, and slowly phasing out all entitlements at the Federal Level. I've offered this before. Work out a system of exchange. At the federal level end the Department of Education, in exchange end the State level departments of Transportation. Look for other ways to minimize the need for multiple layers of bureaucracy. Because of the damage done with decades of government mismanagement I see little other methods to reduce the burden on the tax payor.

    All entitlements should be phased out. Over time, Social Security should become a private matter. The original concept was not a bad one, but our endearing government shifted the idea to a manner which is unsustainable. I have all the evidence I need with the ratio of those paying in to those paid out at inception of the plan vs. today (and any realistic estimates for tomorrow.) Healthcare and Welfare should be state concerns to be handled in a manner in which they see fit. It does not end either one, but keeps them a little closer to home (i.e. voter driven.)

    Education?

    End the Department of Education in full, no replacement. There was a time in this nation's history where the education standards in the US were second to none. That predates the Department of Education, ever since we have continually dropped to where we are no longer in the top 10, hardly in the top 20. End the bureaucracy, end the red tape and federal funds carrot trick, empower the states, and watch the scores slowly start to rise. If a State continues to lag behind, vote for a change.

    To be honest, the most ideal solution is a free market solution where competition in schools does for the students what they can expect in a mixed economic model. Actually have to compete and succeed based upon their own merit. That would also be more leverage in dealing with unions, which have far more interest in protection for the teacher than the education of the student.

    Foreign Policy?

    End this mentality of being the world's police department, as in yesterday. I have less problem with protections and relation with allies but I have every problem with our hypocritical stances on military and socialist dictators around the globe. We should protect our own, we should protect our allies, and we should stand by those decisions. The caveat to that is we should avoid alliances that come with entrapping relational contradictions with other nations.

    Overall we should simplify and end this complicated foreign affairs policy that makes sense to no one. As well we should treat the UN for what it really is. A useless organization where nations go to debate one another. Still participate perhaps, but largely ignore.

    Economics?

    Follow true Keynesian economics. I've explained this in multiple threads but it boils down to several very simple concepts. One, stop micromanaging the economy. End this mentality of developing an economic model of total dependence on deficit spending for multiple decades at a time. Two, when stimulus is needed apply the spending only in the way in which Keynes himself suggested. Quit squandering the funds for political gain over actual economic impact. Three, once done with stimulus get the hell out of the way and allow the private sector to improve from the temporary but substantial government spending. Improve on the merit of the economy, not the continual spending the government does today to manipulate the outcome for their own self-serving purposes. That means less reliance on regulation generally outdated the moment it passes.

    If we followed Keynes' theories we would not have near the number of government developed economic bubbles, that once pop with such disastrous and lasting recessions difficult to get out of. Actually reduce the amplitude of the economic cycle between trough and peek to have overall trending sustained growth. That is what Keynes really wanted.

    I do believe in a mixed economic model, but the primary driver must be the private market. If we are to even get close to economic freedom that means less restrictions on movement of human participation as well as the movement of financial capital. If we taxed our corporations far far less, we would see less need for the private sector to move that capital investment overseas.

    Social Issues ala Gay Marriage, Vice Issues (drug war, gambling, prostitution) that sort of thing?

    Gay marriage could be solved quickly with ending government involvement in marriage. If you want to be "married" then go to a church and enjoy that distinction. As far as the government is concerned a union is just that between consenting adults.

    End the "War on Drugs" and overnight our dependence on an increasing cost, the prison industrial complex, would go away. This nation incarcerates way too many, for way too long, in a very disproportionate way, for very little gain, at way too much cost.

    Gambling and Prostitution and other "sin laws" should be limited to resulting harm to others. Example, if you want to gamble your life's savings away you should live with the consequence. If you harm your children in doing so that is another matter. Drink yourself in to a stupor, be my guest. Harm someone else in doing so and that is another matter. Censorship should be a responsibility of the parent, not the government to do in your place. If you are unwilling to be a parent, don't be one. I'm sure you follow...

    Overall note. This will have some obvious flaws, every system does there is no choice in that. But, if we looked at government as there to protect the rights of the individual then you can imply criminal law could be limited to rights violations of others. You could look at things in terms of force, or fraud, or participation in, or other actions which imply risk to someone other than self. Robbery, rape, murder, fraud, child endangerment, etc. would all still exist in criminal law.

    There will be complications of course, perhaps even contradictions to items like abortion (depending upon when you think life starts,) but it would mean the number of laws on the books would greatly diminish. We would not have to rely on "hate crime"... crime would simply be crime. We would not have to rely on law relating to one's self, which would bring back personal responsibility and consequence for the self. We would not have to rely on "sin" law. Etc.

    End this mentality of the government being your parent and your moral compass leader. Historically speaking, this never works and eventually ends in tyranny (of some sort.)

    Political Parties?

    Our two party system is (and always has been) an epic disaster to our political scene. If we had more than two strong parties then early on we would not have seen such a quick shift from a republic to a democracy (which is quickly becoming synonymous with socialist state.) Calls that result in tyranny of the majority would not be so prevalent. We might, just might, reverse the tide on this police state we have developed here.

    What we would really do with 3 or 4 solid political parties is leash political power, restrict the career wealthy politician, slow the political pendulum from "left" to "right," slow the speed of spending and interference, and force political compromise.

    And anything else I didn't mention but you remembered.

    I'm sure I will think of other things, but this makes me pretty close to Libertarian... by total accident.
    I don't agree with everything you've noted, Sluggo, but close enough that (as BD said) we could definitely work together. I'm also finding myself much closer to Libertarian than I'd at one time thought.

    the only real bone of contention between us is your perspective on abortion: It would be hard for me to suggest leaving it up to the individual when anyone who decides (for themselves) to abort their child is, in fact (from my perspective), killing a real, living, human being without due process.

    Leave a comment:


  • DavidSF
    replied
    Re: Litmus Test of sorts

    Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
    Since I agree with most of what you wrote, does that make me a conservative? LOL.

    Actually I am not a con, but an old liberal, not a modern one. Which means that the old liberal could work with someone like you if we were in congress.

    I am dead set against ideological beings, partisans. I think they are so harmful to a rep. republic, which demands compromise in order to move forward.

    What I don't understand is why we are not willing to try a particular manner of solving problems, leftwing or rightwing, and then give it some time. If at the end of that time it has not worked, we then try what the other party supported. If that doesn't work, then we put our heads together to find something that does work. Yet we do not operate in such a sane manner. Why? Ideology inhibits it, doesn't allow it. For it must be my way or the highway, and for some reason we find something positive in such a demeanor. But it doesn't work! But yet an ideological being will never accept that his way did not work. He wants to try it again, change a few minor things and give it another go, forever and ever and ever. He will simply not accept that his way didn't and wouldn't work. This is a problem created by the human ego, the source of all disorder and evil in this world. And the entity that guarantees the problems humanity has always faced will never be solved. We keep bringing the old remedies to the table, even if they failed miserably in the past. We do not learn from history. Why? Ideological driven beings are incapable of learning. And so I spit spittle on all of them. Greater idiots can not be found than these beings. They are the problem, and have always been the problem.

    There is a way out of this, but that requires that we drop everything and look with fresh eyes, eyes not tainted by the past. There are no solutions in the past, if there were, we would not face such problems. So the past cannot solve anything, as what could be solved was solved. The past only contains failures, yet we want to repeat those same ways that gave us the failures. If this isn't actual insanity, insanity does not exist.

    There is no place for ideology if we want to actually address and solve age old problems that has afflicted humanity since we walked out of Eden. This is where intelligence has to take control, but ideology negates intelligence. An ideological being is never intelligent. He is just a follower of other brains that could not solve anything.
    What you see here is what happens when you make the opposing party your enemy instead of your opponent. This rank partisanship started slowly under Clinton, grew under Bush, and has come to [this] under Obama. NOT that those presidents were or were not responsible for it, just that it started/grew under their watch. I remember the remarks made about Bush from those who were moving over to the ardent left: Crass, objectionable remarks that had all the emotion of a blind partisan but none of the reason of a genuine opponent. We're hearing the same comments, today, about Obama. It is my observation that this type of comment is born of frustration at not seeing what we want/expect to see.

    What I hear most frequently from the ardent left as an excuse for their behavior is "...well, when 'YOU GUYS' were in control, you did it too" (or similar). IMO, no one can excuse or even rationalize such behavior, so they try to salvage what little dignity they have left by attempting to drag everyone else down into the sewer with them.

    I just read Obama's speech today that he was supposed to use to talk about the Navy yard shooter and that is how he started out: Sympathy for the families and the "well investigate and find out what happened" and the rest. But he seemingly could not stop at that: He had to move on from that lofty platform to lambast Republicans for not agreeing with him... Geez, if the man doesn't want to talk about Benghazi or the NSA Spying on us, just SAY SO. Throwing up [sic] all these smoke screens in constant attempts to drive our attention away from the scandals HIS ADMINISTRATION has brought down on our heads is loathsome.

    Leave a comment:


  • OldmanDan
    replied
    Re: Litmus Test of sorts

    Originally posted by USCitizen View Post
    You were the first and sole poster to wander off topic.
    You're too emotional.
    Just post your thoughts on the issues as they come up and we'll see what you really are


    Abortion?
    Guns?
    Taxation?
    Education?
    Foreign Policy?
    Economics?
    Social Issues ala Gay Marriage, Vice Issues (drug war, gambling, prostitution) that sort of thing?
    Political Parties?
    And anything else I didn't mention but you remembered.
    What part of "And anything else I didn't mention but you remembered," do you not understand?

    BTW, this must be your first post that you didn't mention MNC's or Visas. Maybe there's hope for you yet.

    Leave a comment:


  • USCitizen
    replied
    Re: Litmus Test of sorts

    Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
    I liked Good1's post and noted it. I was simply responding to a different post. These threads do wander in an out from the OP and that is not an issue if there is a general relation to the OP and not a totally different line of thought.

    You don't like my response because it hits too close to home. You call it a straw man but it is not a straw man. I have given actual examples of this behavior many times on this forum.
    You were the first and sole poster to wander off topic.
    You're too emotional.

    Leave a comment:


  • OldmanDan
    replied
    Re: Litmus Test of sorts

    Originally posted by hermanboo View Post
    So instead of responding to the OP and giving your opinion, you just can't resist whooping on that same poor old straw man's ass you continually drag out?

    Gotta tell you, in my opinion it is tiresome and adds little to any discussion. I can appreciate that it might make you feel better though so have at it.
    I liked Good1's post and noted it. I was simply responding to a different post. These threads do wander in an out from the OP and that is not an issue if there is a general relation to the OP and not a totally different line of thought.

    You don't like my response because it hits too close to home. You call it a straw man but it is not a straw man. I have given actual examples of this behavior many times on this forum.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sluggo
    replied
    Re: Litmus Test of sorts

    Abortion?

    While I personally cannot stand the idea of Abortion, I recognize that individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and accept the responsibility (or even consequences) of those choices they make. I think the government should stay out of the issue entirely making this a question to each individual for their own conscious. No reliance on a government to do this for you. Not the best solution, but one that ends one area of dependence on a government to enforce the moral compass of a nation. I recall our Founders all were trying to escape that mentality elsewhere.

    Guns?

    Very few restrictions. Consider legislation restricting access to guns for violent criminals and those with mental health concerns. Either way, must be documented in a manner which is admissible in a court for the purpose of due process. Other than that, no other restrictions of any kind. Restore the individuals part in taking an active role in the protection of their own and their family's rights. No matter what is said otherwise, the government demonstrates repeatedly with consistency that they cannot do this on their own for you.

    Taxation?

    Reduce taxation by ending duplicated departments at the Federal and State level, and slowly phasing out all entitlements at the Federal Level. I've offered this before. Work out a system of exchange. At the federal level end the Department of Education, in exchange end the State level departments of Transportation. Look for other ways to minimize the need for multiple layers of bureaucracy. Because of the damage done with decades of government mismanagement I see little other methods to reduce the burden on the tax payor.

    All entitlements should be phased out. Over time, Social Security should become a private matter. The original concept was not a bad one, but our endearing government shifted the idea to a manner which is unsustainable. I have all the evidence I need with the ratio of those paying in to those paid out at inception of the plan vs. today (and any realistic estimates for tomorrow.) Healthcare and Welfare should be state concerns to be handled in a manner in which they see fit. It does not end either one, but keeps them a little closer to home (i.e. voter driven.)

    Education?

    End the Department of Education in full, no replacement. There was a time in this nation's history where the education standards in the US were second to none. That predates the Department of Education, ever since we have continually dropped to where we are no longer in the top 10, hardly in the top 20. End the bureaucracy, end the red tape and federal funds carrot trick, empower the states, and watch the scores slowly start to rise. If a State continues to lag behind, vote for a change.

    To be honest, the most ideal solution is a free market solution where competition in schools does for the students what they can expect in a mixed economic model. Actually have to compete and succeed based upon their own merit. That would also be more leverage in dealing with unions, which have far more interest in protection for the teacher than the education of the student.

    Foreign Policy?

    End this mentality of being the world's police department, as in yesterday. I have less problem with protections and relation with allies but I have every problem with our hypocritical stances on military and socialist dictators around the globe. We should protect our own, we should protect our allies, and we should stand by those decisions. The caveat to that is we should avoid alliances that come with entrapping relational contradictions with other nations.

    Overall we should simplify and end this complicated foreign affairs policy that makes sense to no one. As well we should treat the UN for what it really is. A useless organization where nations go to debate one another. Still participate perhaps, but largely ignore.

    Economics?

    Follow true Keynesian economics. I've explained this in multiple threads but it boils down to several very simple concepts. One, stop micromanaging the economy. End this mentality of developing an economic model of total dependence on deficit spending for multiple decades at a time. Two, when stimulus is needed apply the spending only in the way in which Keynes himself suggested. Quit squandering the funds for political gain over actual economic impact. Three, once done with stimulus get the hell out of the way and allow the private sector to improve from the temporary but substantial government spending. Improve on the merit of the economy, not the continual spending the government does today to manipulate the outcome for their own self-serving purposes. That means less reliance on regulation generally outdated the moment it passes.

    If we followed Keynes' theories we would not have near the number of government developed economic bubbles, that once pop with such disastrous and lasting recessions difficult to get out of. Actually reduce the amplitude of the economic cycle between trough and peek to have overall trending sustained growth. That is what Keynes really wanted.

    I do believe in a mixed economic model, but the primary driver must be the private market. If we are to even get close to economic freedom that means less restrictions on movement of human participation as well as the movement of financial capital. If we taxed our corporations far far less, we would see less need for the private sector to move that capital investment overseas.

    Social Issues ala Gay Marriage, Vice Issues (drug war, gambling, prostitution) that sort of thing?

    Gay marriage could be solved quickly with ending government involvement in marriage. If you want to be "married" then go to a church and enjoy that distinction. As far as the government is concerned a union is just that between consenting adults.

    End the "War on Drugs" and overnight our dependence on an increasing cost, the prison industrial complex, would go away. This nation incarcerates way too many, for way too long, in a very disproportionate way, for very little gain, at way too much cost.

    Gambling and Prostitution and other "sin laws" should be limited to resulting harm to others. Example, if you want to gamble your life's savings away you should live with the consequence. If you harm your children in doing so that is another matter. Drink yourself in to a stupor, be my guest. Harm someone else in doing so and that is another matter. Censorship should be a responsibility of the parent, not the government to do in your place. If you are unwilling to be a parent, don't be one. I'm sure you follow...

    Overall note. This will have some obvious flaws, every system does there is no choice in that. But, if we looked at government as there to protect the rights of the individual then you can imply criminal law could be limited to rights violations of others. You could look at things in terms of force, or fraud, or participation in, or other actions which imply risk to someone other than self. Robbery, rape, murder, fraud, child endangerment, etc. would all still exist in criminal law.

    There will be complications of course, perhaps even contradictions to items like abortion (depending upon when you think life starts,) but it would mean the number of laws on the books would greatly diminish. We would not have to rely on "hate crime"... crime would simply be crime. We would not have to rely on law relating to one's self, which would bring back personal responsibility and consequence for the self. We would not have to rely on "sin" law. Etc.

    End this mentality of the government being your parent and your moral compass leader. Historically speaking, this never works and eventually ends in tyranny (of some sort.)

    Political Parties?

    Our two party system is (and always has been) an epic disaster to our political scene. If we had more than two strong parties then early on we would not have seen such a quick shift from a republic to a democracy (which is quickly becoming synonymous with socialist state.) Calls that result in tyranny of the majority would not be so prevalent. We might, just might, reverse the tide on this police state we have developed here.

    What we would really do with 3 or 4 solid political parties is leash political power, restrict the career wealthy politician, slow the political pendulum from "left" to "right," slow the speed of spending and interference, and force political compromise.

    And anything else I didn't mention but you remembered.

    I'm sure I will think of other things, but this makes me pretty close to Libertarian... by total accident.

    Leave a comment:


  • hermanboo
    replied
    Re: Litmus Test of sorts

    Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
    Liberals will never let us do away with welfare. They love it because they benefit far more than it costs them, they want to feel good about taking care of the poor without having to make personal contact with them, and it gives them an issue that they feel they can take a high ground on and lord it over someone who believes in personal responsibility.
    So instead of responding to the OP and giving your opinion, you just can't resist whooping on that same poor old straw man's ass you continually drag out?

    Gotta tell you, in my opinion it is tiresome and adds little to any discussion. I can appreciate that it might make you feel better though so have at it.

    Leave a comment:


  • OldmanDan
    replied
    Re: Litmus Test of sorts

    Originally posted by Evil_inKarlate View Post
    Apparently I'm very much in tune with reality. :-)
    Ditto everything in the OP with two exceptions.

    In some cases, consumption of alcohol and similar substances is a case of responsible self-medication. I'm not advocating allowing anyone receiving welfare to be wino on our dime, but there may need to be some allowances made. (Actually, a better approach would be to just do away with government welfare entirely and let society decide, through voluntary donations, how much 'caring for the poor' etc is a societal priority.)

    People of like minds will always form de facto political parties. Outlawing political parties sounds good now since our large ones have essentially hijacked the government to be 'of, by, and for the Republicrats', but doing so would be no more effective than the war on drugs. What is needed is safeguards put in place to prevent such hijacking. Ballot access laws need to have low and even hurdles; many states make it ruinously onerous for non-Republicrats to even get on the ballot, never mind fund a campaign once you're there. And we need Acceptance Voting (aka approval voting) - people should not be bullied into selecting 'the lesser of two evils,' but should be allowed to express their true preferences at the ballot box.
    Liberals will never let us do away with welfare. They love it because they benefit far more than it costs them, they want to feel good about taking care of the poor without having to make personal contact with them, and it gives them an issue that they feel they can take a high ground on and lord it over someone who believes in personal responsibility.

    Leave a comment:


  • eohrnberger
    replied
    Re: Litmus Test of sorts

    I'm very much in alignment with the OP and Good1, with a few exceptions, but yeah, we'd get along well enough on congress to work together I think. Good point Blue.

    Some say that this board has the conservative perspective over represented.

    This thread is a basis on which to dispute that assertion. Seems that we are all very much moderates, to moderate-conservative, and not extreme.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evil_inKarlate
    replied
    Re: Litmus Test of sorts

    Apparently I'm very much in tune with reality. :-)
    Ditto everything in the OP with two exceptions.

    In some cases, consumption of alcohol and similar substances is a case of responsible self-medication. I'm not advocating allowing anyone receiving welfare to be wino on our dime, but there may need to be some allowances made. (Actually, a better approach would be to just do away with government welfare entirely and let society decide, through voluntary donations, how much 'caring for the poor' etc is a societal priority.)

    People of like minds will always form de facto political parties. Outlawing political parties sounds good now since our large ones have essentially hijacked the government to be 'of, by, and for the Republicrats', but doing so would be no more effective than the war on drugs. What is needed is safeguards put in place to prevent such hijacking. Ballot access laws need to have low and even hurdles; many states make it ruinously onerous for non-Republicrats to even get on the ballot, never mind fund a campaign once you're there. And we need Acceptance Voting (aka approval voting) - people should not be bullied into selecting 'the lesser of two evils,' but should be allowed to express their true preferences at the ballot box.

    Leave a comment:


  • Blue Doggy
    replied
    Re: Litmus Test of sorts

    Originally posted by Good1 View Post
    I'm pretty sure the following will come as no surprise to anyone here:

    Abortion: Should be illegal since I do believe "life" does begin at conception and I also believe:
    • Statistically, the incidence of women seeking abortions because they were raped or because their physical life is threatened by carrying an unplanned child to term is almost nil (at approximately >1% of all abortions);
    • it is observable that a living (not dead, not inanimate) human being (not a giraffe, a newt, or a tree) starts at conception;
    • Killing the result of a rape, the child, does not un-rape the mother and it does not punish the rapist: It holds the child responsible for the acts of the father.
    • Abortion results in even more psychological turmoil for the mother



    Guns: Background checks that include mental health organizations, O.K.. But leave the guns in the hands of those trained to use them (which includes hunters, collectors, and recreational shooters). Make training widely available and lower cost by encouraging business owners to open ranges and clubs.

    Taxation: Can't discuss without also mentioning the size of government and its reach: WAY too big and unwieldy. Trim down government and, thereby, government programs ... THEN implement a flat-rate type of income tax. Let the STATES determine sales tax and add on their own income tax if they must. Taxes should generally be low.

    Education: K-12 is in ruins: Too many special interests (which I call the "Parade of Stars") marching through our classrooms demanding attention or special attention. We're too far away from teaching our kids to be competitive as we keep trying to teach them why Johnny has two daddys or how the only way they'll be productive is to work in a union, or that reason and observable data is ridiculous because they should believe we sprang from some cosmic ooze. Educate our kids on math, science, history, and literature up through 10th grade. THEN parse them into "Going to College" and "not going to College." The Academics ("going to college") get all the AP and College Prep classes including reasoning and statistics to prepare them for an academic pursuit. The Productives ("Not going to college") get 2 years of business courses, apprenticeships, and work-release programs to prepare them to enter their future. Let's stop kidding ourselves into believing every one of our children are college-bound and will be immensely successful. If they're not going to college, let's face it and make them still productive members of society.

    Foreign Policy: Cut off all foreign aid to countries who don't need it OR who do not support us. ABSOLUTELY their choice if they don't want to walk beside us, but they also don't get our money (particularly if they continue to berate and degrade us publicly). We've got needs of our own that money can be spent on.

    Economics: Reagonomics no longer works: The top keeps what the government gives them and does not "trickle down" their windfalls anymore. SO STOP it! Quit expecting that "growing economy" to overtake the debt: IT IS NOT GOING TO, give it up. Quit artificially suppressing inflation, quit printing more money, and quit monetizing our debt so rapidly. If we have to spend money we don't have, for crying out loud, SPEND IT on projects that will create jobs. We will never again be the heavy weight in the trade balance ... so quit trying. Build our competency base to where we can crush any foreign competitor with superior service...

    Vices: Including homosexuality ... I don't favor them. Gambling always brings thieves and killers; drugs (other than Mary Jane) kill people and render them useless. If Gays want to enjoy Federal benefits, no problem: Change the federal law and let them join in civil unions. "Marriage" (the word) is already taken and it means a union between a man and a woman... services performed by a city or county official isn't a marriage but what it's called is not what is barring homosexuals from getting federal benefits... so quit haggling over co-opting the word and expend energies on changing the law.

    Political Parties: Disillusioned. I currently believe very few in either political party can be trusted. I am more inclined to trust a conservative from either of the major parties... but cannot bring to mind, right now, who that might be at this point. Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and those boys ... maybe.
    Since I agree with most of what you wrote, does that make me a conservative? LOL.

    Actually I am not a con, but an old liberal, not a modern one. Which means that the old liberal could work with someone like you if we were in congress.

    I am dead set against ideological beings, partisans. I think they are so harmful to a rep. republic, which demands compromise in order to move forward.

    What I don't understand is why we are not willing to try a particular manner of solving problems, leftwing or rightwing, and then give it some time. If at the end of that time it has not worked, we then try what the other party supported. If that doesn't work, then we put our heads together to find something that does work. Yet we do not operate in such a sane manner. Why? Ideology inhibits it, doesn't allow it. For it must be my way or the highway, and for some reason we find something positive in such a demeanor. But it doesn't work! But yet an ideological being will never accept that his way did not work. He wants to try it again, change a few minor things and give it another go, forever and ever and ever. He will simply not accept that his way didn't and wouldn't work. This is a problem created by the human ego, the source of all disorder and evil in this world. And the entity that guarantees the problems humanity has always faced will never be solved. We keep bringing the old remedies to the table, even if they failed miserably in the past. We do not learn from history. Why? Ideological driven beings are incapable of learning. And so I spit spittle on all of them. Greater idiots can not be found than these beings. They are the problem, and have always been the problem.

    There is a way out of this, but that requires that we drop everything and look with fresh eyes, eyes not tainted by the past. There are no solutions in the past, if there were, we would not face such problems. So the past cannot solve anything, as what could be solved was solved. The past only contains failures, yet we want to repeat those same ways that gave us the failures. If this isn't actual insanity, insanity does not exist.

    There is no place for ideology if we want to actually address and solve age old problems that has afflicted humanity since we walked out of Eden. This is where intelligence has to take control, but ideology negates intelligence. An ideological being is never intelligent. He is just a follower of other brains that could not solve anything.

    Leave a comment:


  • DavidSF
    replied
    Re: Litmus Test of sorts

    Originally posted by reality View Post
    Just post your thoughts on the issues as they come up and we'll see what you really are


    Abortion?
    Guns?
    Taxation?
    Education?
    Foreign Policy?
    Economics?
    Social Issues ala Gay Marriage, Vice Issues (drug war, gambling, prostitution) that sort of thing?
    Political Parties?
    And anything else I didn't mention but you remembered.
    I'm pretty sure the following will come as no surprise to anyone here:

    Abortion: Should be illegal since I do believe "life" does begin at conception and I also believe:
    • Statistically, the incidence of women seeking abortions because they were raped or because their physical life is threatened by carrying an unplanned child to term is almost nil (at approximately >1% of all abortions);
    • it is observable that a living (not dead, not inanimate) human being (not a giraffe, a newt, or a tree) starts at conception;
    • Killing the result of a rape, the child, does not un-rape the mother and it does not punish the rapist: It holds the child responsible for the acts of the father.
    • Abortion results in even more psychological turmoil for the mother



    Guns: Background checks that include mental health organizations, O.K.. But leave the guns in the hands of those trained to use them (which includes hunters, collectors, and recreational shooters). Make training widely available and lower cost by encouraging business owners to open ranges and clubs.

    Taxation: Can't discuss without also mentioning the size of government and its reach: WAY too big and unwieldy. Trim down government and, thereby, government programs ... THEN implement a flat-rate type of income tax. Let the STATES determine sales tax and add on their own income tax if they must. Taxes should generally be low.

    Education: K-12 is in ruins: Too many special interests (which I call the "Parade of Stars") marching through our classrooms demanding attention or special attention. We're too far away from teaching our kids to be competitive as we keep trying to teach them why Johnny has two daddys or how the only way they'll be productive is to work in a union, or that reason and observable data is ridiculous because they should believe we sprang from some cosmic ooze. Educate our kids on math, science, history, and literature up through 10th grade. THEN parse them into "Going to College" and "not going to College." The Academics ("going to college") get all the AP and College Prep classes including reasoning and statistics to prepare them for an academic pursuit. The Productives ("Not going to college") get 2 years of business courses, apprenticeships, and work-release programs to prepare them to enter their future. Let's stop kidding ourselves into believing every one of our children are college-bound and will be immensely successful. If they're not going to college, let's face it and make them still productive members of society.

    Foreign Policy: Cut off all foreign aid to countries who don't need it OR who do not support us. ABSOLUTELY their choice if they don't want to walk beside us, but they also don't get our money (particularly if they continue to berate and degrade us publicly). We've got needs of our own that money can be spent on.

    Economics: Reagonomics no longer works: The top keeps what the government gives them and does not "trickle down" their windfalls anymore. SO STOP it! Quit expecting that "growing economy" to overtake the debt: IT IS NOT GOING TO, give it up. Quit artificially suppressing inflation, quit printing more money, and quit monetizing our debt so rapidly. If we have to spend money we don't have, for crying out loud, SPEND IT on projects that will create jobs. We will never again be the heavy weight in the trade balance ... so quit trying. Build our competency base to where we can crush any foreign competitor with superior service...

    Vices: Including homosexuality ... I don't favor them. Gambling always brings thieves and killers; drugs (other than Mary Jane) kill people and render them useless. If Gays want to enjoy Federal benefits, no problem: Change the federal law and let them join in civil unions. "Marriage" (the word) is already taken and it means a union between a man and a woman... services performed by a city or county official isn't a marriage but what it's called is not what is barring homosexuals from getting federal benefits... so quit haggling over co-opting the word and expend energies on changing the law.

    Political Parties: Disillusioned. I currently believe very few in either political party can be trusted. I am more inclined to trust a conservative from either of the major parties... but cannot bring to mind, right now, who that might be at this point. Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and those boys ... maybe.

    Leave a comment:


  • USCitizen
    replied
    Re: The Problem of the Left

    Originally posted by reality
    A quick test then.

    Just post your thoughts on the issues as they come up and we'll see what you really are


    Abortion?
    Guns?
    Taxation?
    Education?
    Foreign Policy?
    Economics?
    Social Issues ala Gay Marriage, Vice Issues (drug war, gambling, prostitution) that sort of thing?
    Political Parties?
    And anything else I didn't mention but you remembered.

    I'll join the fun too, In order mine are:
    Personally pro-life but abortion should be allowed as a matter of liberty

    What part of shall not be infringed don't you understand?

    Low income, middling sales taxes. Cut spending drastically as will be discussed on social issues.

    Increase standards and keep the dummies in school until they can pass, even if they go over 18. You shouldn't get your full rights until you can demonstrate basic competency in reading, math, civics, and science.

    We have hungry people here. We have endangered people here. Let foreign govs handle their own shit. Let foreign countries fight their own civil wars. Quit tossing money around to nations that hate us. Quit tossing money around to nations that like us. Quit tossing money around period.

    Gays can get "married" but i'd call everything sanctioned and recognized by the state a civil union. You'd still call them your spouse with the proper honorific (husband for males, wife for females). You could still say "we're married." etc. VICE: Blanket legalization, regulation, and taxation of all vice issues. Drugs, Gambling and Prostitution should all be drug out of the dark and into the light where they can be cleaned off as much as possible and their damage mitigated through knowledge, and made up for through tax contribution. Welfare is an ugly, ugly thing that should be closed out as much as possible and done away with where possible. Requirements to join up should be: get your tubes tied or get and stay on the pill, get a goddamned job or provide proof you are constantly searching for one, random hair follicle drug testing, revocation of the ability to purchase cigarettes, alcohol or other psychoactives just to start with. Affirmative Action: Poof up in smoke and let's hear no more of such bigotry.

    SHould be done away with and never given power again. People should associate with each other as people, not as partisans. Partisans don't accomplish anything but vitriol and finger pointing.

    Now your turn. TSquiz you too, if you please.
    I pretty much agree with all of your positions.

    I am fed up with "Representatives".
    We should have Propositions, but you need to take a test to vote on the Propostion.
    Last edited by tsquare; 09-16-2013, 01:42 PM. Reason: Moved from other thread

    Leave a comment:


  • reality
    started a topic Litmus Test of sorts

    Litmus Test of sorts

    This got clipped from the "problem of the left" thread. Tsquiz and US Citizen disagree on each other's appellation of the other as extreme. SO here's a test for them and myself and everyone else.


    Originally Posted by USCitizen
    If you are determining my party affiliation based upon T's postings, you should see me as somewhat left of Al Sharpton.
    On the other hand, there's the reality.
    A quick test then.

    Just post your thoughts on the issues as they come up and we'll see what you really are


    Abortion?
    Guns?
    Taxation?
    Education?
    Foreign Policy?
    Economics?
    Social Issues ala Gay Marriage, Vice Issues (drug war, gambling, prostitution) that sort of thing?
    Political Parties?
    And anything else I didn't mention but you remembered.

    I'll join the fun too, In order mine are:
    Personally pro-life but abortion should be allowed as a matter of liberty

    What part of shall not be infringed don't you understand?

    Low income, middling sales taxes. Cut spending drastically as will be discussed on social issues.

    Increase standards and keep the dummies in school until they can pass, even if they go over 18. You shouldn't get your full rights until you can demonstrate basic competency in reading, math, civics, and science.

    We have hungry people here. We have endangered people here. Let foreign govs handle their own shit. Let foreign countries fight their own civil wars. Quit tossing money around to nations that hate us. Quit tossing money around to nations that like us. Quit tossing money around period.

    Gays can get "married" but i'd call everything sanctioned and recognized by the state a civil union. You'd still call them your spouse with the proper honorific (husband for males, wife for females). You could still say "we're married." etc. VICE: Blanket legalization, regulation, and taxation of all vice issues. Drugs, Gambling and Prostitution should all be drug out of the dark and into the light where they can be cleaned off as much as possible and their damage mitigated through knowledge, and made up for through tax contribution. Welfare is an ugly, ugly thing that should be closed out as much as possible and done away with where possible. Requirements to join up should be: get your tubes tied or get and stay on the pill, get a goddamned job or provide proof you are constantly searching for one, random hair follicle drug testing, revocation of the ability to purchase cigarettes, alcohol or other psychoactives just to start with. Affirmative Action: Poof up in smoke and let's hear no more of such bigotry.

    SHould be done away with and never given power again. People should associate with each other as people, not as partisans. Partisans don't accomplish anything but vitriol and finger pointing.

    Now your turn. TSquiz you too, if you please.
Working...
X