Partisan Politics Good For America?

[Indy]

I have a tall friend that lives like that too. He is pretty nice as well.

[SwingMan]

I have a tall friend that lives like that too. He is pretty nice as well.

Just saying, especially these days, it's tough to find an Old School/Classical Liberal - multiply that a few fold for one who's gay as well. I know 2 thus far - one a friend and one a cousin.....

[Indy]

I would think if you are in a traditionally "privileged" group that is also persecuted in some way, you will likely be a Libertarian, since a huge portion of that is allowing people to live the lives they want to live, as long as they don't affect anyone. White, male homosexuals definitely fit in that group.

[SwingMan]

I would think if you are in a traditionally "privileged" group that is also persecuted in some way, you will likely be a Libertarian, since a huge portion of that is allowing people to live the lives they want to live, as long as they don't affect anyone. White, male homosexuals definitely fit in that group.

One would think - unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case these days. I'm sure there's more, be they gay or straight, that fit into the Old School/Classical Liberalism 'category', but they're definitely the exception to the "rule" at present. Hopefully that starts to change - along with the general entitlement mentality that permeates society now.

[Nodack]

I hadn't heard that term before either. Was reading from tha link. Some of it seems a little harsh.

"Adopting Thomas Malthus's population theory, they saw poor urban conditions as inevitable; they believed population growth would outstrip food production, and they regarded that consequence desirable, because starvation would help limit population growth. They opposed any income or wealth redistribution, which they believed would be dissipated by the lowest orders."

That's one way to get rid of poor people. They can't mooch of society if they're dead. That's an actual plan?

I think poor people are poor for various reasons. You can't put them all in one neat folder and say they are all just lazy and need to be eliminated. Some are just lazy slobs trying to mooch off of society. Some have had a bad break in life. Some never got the education to move on to better things. Some were born not as bright as others and no matter how hard they try they will never be doctors and lawyers. Some went to war for their country and came back broken.

I may be naive, but I think it's partly the job of smart people to figure out how to make our society as a whole better. People in Washington as our elected leaders are supposed tobe looking out for all of our best interests, not a select few. I think of us all as a whole built out of individuals and not just all individuals looking out for ourselves. When we go to war we instantly call upon all those poor people to fight our war for us because we are all Americans and need to stick together as a "United We Stand" country. But in reality we just use them as disposable pawns.

I think that is a fundamental difference between Americans. Some see us as a collection of individuals loosely tied together where the emphasis is on individual rights and not on the greater society as a whole. Others see us as united society where we are all one country and the emphasis is on the greater good of all as a whole.

Out of time. Have to go to work. Be nice.

[Dan H]

I may be naive, but I think it's partly the job of smart people to figure out how to make our society as a whole better. People in Washington as our elected leaders are supposed tobe looking out for all of our best interests, not a select few. I think of us all as a whole built out of individuals and not just all individuals looking out for ourselves. When we go to war we instantly call upon all those poor people to fight our war for us because we are all Americans and need to stick together as a "United We Stand" country. But in reality we just use them as disposable pawns.

The theory is that the people who are closer to the situation on the ground are going to be better equipped to judge what a person needs.

Say there's an accident and your house is flattened by a tornado. Who knows what you need to get help better, your neighbor, or some guy in the state capitol? The guy in the state capitol, or some guy in DC? You add levels of bureaucracy, you decrease the effectiveness of government. Our government can't even build a functioning e-commerce site, for Pete's sake.

I think that is a fundamental difference between Americans. Some see us as a collection of individuals loosely tied together where the emphasis is on individual rights and not on the greater society as a whole. Others see us as united society where we are all one country and the emphasis is on the greater good of all as a whole.

See, I regard the great thing about our society is that we have a fundamental respect for the rights of the individual. We can debate about the proper place of charity, but I think that for things like poor relief, private charities do a far better job than government assistance has shown throughout the years.

The Constitution wasn't written for a bunch of our betters to sit around Congress and the White House and manage our lives. I know what's best for me, not some guy in Washington. And if I make a mistake and choose poorly? That's my responsibility, not someone else's.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”


― C.S. Lewis

[Indy]

The theory is that the people who are closer to the situation on the ground are going to be better equipped to judge what a person needs.

Say there's an accident and your house is flattened by a tornado. Who knows what you need to get help better, your neighbor, or some guy in the state capitol? The guy in the state capitol, or some guy in DC? You add levels of bureaucracy, you decrease the effectiveness of government. Our government can't even build a functioning e-commerce site, for Pete's sake.

I think this is true in many instances. But I think there are many where it isn't. I don't think the average person in rural middle-america knows how best to protect themselves on-line, or from ebola, or from terrorist threats, or even threats from a nation. There are times where it is much more beneficial to pool the knowledge and experience of others far outside your "neighborhood" to support you.

That is why a balance is needed between local, state, national, and international/global influence. And that is why it is so tricky to get it right (no matter which "side" you are on).

[Indy]

I know what's best for me, not some guy in Washington. And if I make a mistake and choose poorly? That's my responsibility, not someone else's.

But sometimes your poor choice can greatly affect the people around you in your community, and even further out.

[Nodack]

Look at us guys, talking to each other like human beings. I love it. Isn't this much better than just slinging mud?

[Indy]

Go @&$! yourself!

[Dan H]

The theory is that the people who are closer to the situation on the ground are going to be better equipped to judge what a person needs.

Say there's an accident and your house is flattened by a tornado. Who knows what you need to get help better, your neighbor, or some guy in the state capitol? The guy in the state capitol, or some guy in DC? You add levels of bureaucracy, you decrease the effectiveness of government. Our government can't even build a functioning e-commerce site, for Pete's sake.

I think this is true in many instances. But I think there are many where it isn't. I don't think the average person in rural middle-america knows how best to protect themselves on-line, or from ebola, or from terrorist threats, or even threats from a nation. There are times where it is much more beneficial to pool the knowledge and experience of others far outside your "neighborhood" to support you.

That is why a balance is needed between local, state, national, and international/global influence. And that is why it is so tricky to get it right (no matter which "side" you are on).

National defense is one thing - even the founders felt strongly enough about that to engender a national Navy in spite of their strong beliefs against a standing army - but I think common sense response to Ebola is another. Importing victims from other countries, not so common sense. Enforcing quarantine, common sense. Such actions worked against Scarlet fever; lack of forced quarantine helped the Spanish flu spread much more. I'll be interested to see if Australia remains Ebola-free given that they've closed their borders.

[Mori Chu]

Do you think i should create a Politics folder for these kinds of threads? Or should I leave it here as it is?

[SwingMan]

Do you think i should create a Politics folder for these kinds of threads? Or should I leave it here as it is?

If you do, I'm going to make it off-limits for myself - big mistake for me to talk any politics here, as it'll only lead to animosity and I've had enough for a lifetime or two.

In otherwords, fight amongst yourselves - I've got enough gray hair.....

[Indy]

I think "general" fits the bill.

[Nodack]

The theory is that the people who are closer to the situation on the ground are going to be better equipped to judge what a person needs.

Say there's an accident and your house is flattened by a tornado. Who knows what you need to get help better, your neighbor, or some guy in the state capitol? The guy in the state capitol, or some guy in DC? You add levels of bureaucracy, you decrease the effectiveness of government. Our government can't even build a functioning e-commerce site, for Pete's sake.

If my house is flattened by a tornado and I am the only one, my neighbor will probably call 9/11 and help in the form of police and fire departments will come. They will help me escape and treat my injuries if there are any. I will call my insurance company and they will hopefully rebuild my house and eventually I will be up and running again. The local response was sufficient.

If my house along with my entire neighborhood and a few others gets flattened by tornados then my neighbor won't be calling 9/11 because all the phones are dead and his house is flattened as well. If it's big enough, the local emergency crews are all overwhelmed with the magnitude of the disaster and the governor no matter which party they belong to is going to call Washington for help. It has happened over and over.

Hurricane Katrina hit and the government response wasn't so great. Hurricane Sandy hit right before a Presidential election. Romney said before Sandy that if elected he would abolish FEMA because it wasn't needed. He claimed that it should be the States that should handle their own emergencies and not the Federal Government. Sandy hits and the New Jersey Governor Christy (Romney supporter) asks for FEMA help. Republicans stuck trying to win a Presidential election back Romney and refuse to help. Christy gets mad and bashes his fellow Republicans and asks Obama for help. Obama does help infuriating Republicans who black balled Christy from all Republican events after that. Romney goes on to collect some cans of food and goes to a shelter unannounced and cleans already clean dishes to show his support. I think that episode lost Romney some votes because it showed America that America did need FEMA and that if elected Romney would have done nothing to help because he believes only the individual state should handle it's own emergencies and not the Federal Government in any way.

We did send 1.8 billion in aid as US taxpayers. It's been a couple of years now and 3/4 of the money has yet to be given out by the state I believe.

Our government can't even build a functioning e-commerce site, for Pete's sake.

I recall it had some major problems at launch, but I am unaware of it not working properly now. It was a huge undertaking and it didn't roll out smoothly. I play WOW and when they first came online or have an upgrade to the site it goes down for periods of time and is glitchy. When Apple rolled out their iPhones for the first time there was major software glitches trying to get them activated, but after awhile they smoothed them all out. Then there are bugs that are irritating, but then there is an update soon after that fixes those bugs. If you aren't a fan of the whole thing, then you are going to look for reasons to not back it. Our government didn't build an e-commerce site. They hired companies that supposedly are experts at e-commerce sites to build it. Our government doesn't build Apache helicopters. They hire Boeing that makes them. Our government doesn't build M1 Abrams tanks. They hire General Dynamics to build them.

National defense is one thing - even the founders felt strongly enough about that to engender a national Navy in spite of their strong beliefs against a standing army - but I think common sense response to Ebola is another. Importing victims from other countries, not so common sense. Enforcing quarantine, common sense. Such actions worked against Scarlet fever; lack of forced quarantine helped the Spanish flu spread much more. I'll be interested to see if Australia remains Ebola-free given that they've closed their borders.

I think our founding fathers were great, but in the end they were just a bunch of guys making it up as they go. They weren't Saints and they couldn't see into the future. They wrote slavery right into the Constitution. It took a new political party called the Republicans that fought to amend the Constitution and take slavery out. Our founding fathers didn't want a standing army, but could you imagine a US today without a standing army? If the founding fathers wrote the Constitution today I have a feeling they would change a few things. I think both sides use the Constitution to bolster their side when it's convenient, but in the end times change and America with it. Whether or not we have Universal Health Care is something we as Americans decide, not our founding fathers in the 1700s that had no clue what would become of the world hundreds of years later. It doesn't say we should have Universal health care in the Constitution, but it doesn't say we shouldn't. "Promote the general welfare" Nothing promotes our general welfare more than our health. It doesn't say we should have a stock market either.

We imported a few American health care workers back to the US to treat them. They were quarantined and all survived. The only person who didn't survive came to the US on their own and lied several times to do it. If that person survived they would have been put up on charges. Maybe we should close our borders to all air traffic from Southwest Africa. That doesn't mean they can't fly somewhere else first and then fly here.

If it's the States responsibility to handle their own affairs and not the over reaching Government then it should be up to each separate state to decide whether to allow people from Africa to enter their state. What if Texas bans all flights from Africa and tests every person for ebola from every flight internationally and domestically? What if New Mexico decides that's infringing on peoples rights and decides not to ban any flights or test anybody? What if they allow a bunch of people with Ebola in and it spreads? They are right next to Texas and even though Texas went to extremes to stop the spread they still get it because NM did it's own thing and spread it to the other states.

Our Federal Government isn't perfect by any means, but in cases like Ebola I want the Feds to be the ones calling the shots, not 50 individual states all doing their own thing.

[Mori Chu]

Wow, great post, 'Dack.

[Indy]

See why I asked him not to shy away?

[Nodack]

Thanks guys. I really appreciate it.

[Dan H]

So much "yup" in this article:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... Fi_zP8cTde

[SDC]

wow, what a bloodbath. #wednesdaynightmassacre