• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

World Politics

Page 38 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
A

Anonymous

Guest
CentralCaliBike said:
I thought I was on ignore ;)
You were, but I wanted to read your responses on this thread. Now I am trying to figure out why I changed my mind?;)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
CentralCaliBike said:
Seriously, I was going for the simplified version.
Which is one of the major problems with conservative political rhetoric.
 
Jul 23, 2009
1,120
0
0
Thoughtforfood said:
Which is one of the major problems with conservative political rhetoric.
There is a difference between a modern conservative and of conservatism in general - I tend to think of myself a fiscal conservative, I favor the Bill of Rights (a lot of modern conservatives seem to miss the point) and, therefore, I am not interested in government regulated morality (gets to close to government involvement in mandating religion which has never had a good track record).
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
CentralCaliBike said:
There is a difference between a modern conservative and of conservative in general - I tend to think of myself a fiscal conservative, I favor the Bill of Rights (a lot of modern conservatives do not) - and, I am not interested in government regulated morality (gets to close to government involvement in mandating religion which has never had a good track record).
Well, a true conservative is just a conservative liberal in terms of traditional political philosophy. However, you are correct in your statement that modern conservatives in the US are not what has traditionally been considered conservative.

I am more fiscally conservative than not, but am fully a backer of a mixed economic system. I also recognize that our political system was set up to be ineffective, and one of the big reasons was to avoid tyranny. I also recognize that socialist economic thought was incorporated into governmental economic policy to protect against the tyranny of profit motive. Corruption is its own entity, and is incorporated into most every human endeavor.
 
Jul 23, 2009
1,120
0
0
Thoughtforfood said:
Well, a true conservative is just a conservative liberal in terms of traditional political philosophy. However, you are correct in your statement that modern conservatives in the US are not what has traditionally been considered conservative.

I am more fiscally conservative than not, but am fully a backer of a mixed economic system. I also recognize that our political system was set up to be ineffective, and one of the big reasons was to avoid tyranny. I also recognize that socialist economic thought was incorporated into governmental economic policy to protect against the tyranny of profit motive. Corruption is its own entity, and is incorporated into most every human endeavor.
I agree about corruption being an entity - not sure if you agree about human nature, but I see this as evidence of man's basic nature.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
CentralCaliBike said:
I agree about corruption being an entity - not sure if you agree about human nature, but I see this as evidence of man's basic nature.
I think that human nature is neutral actually. Nobody is all good, and nobody is all bad (except Hitler and Stalin, but if they liked puppies, I will give them a pass...). I think that most anyone is capable of evil and good. I do believe in suffering the consequences of your actions. I do also believe that some people act in ways that they have little to no control over because of things that have happened to them. I also believe that poverty is a necessity in a capitalist society, but not to motivate. There is an inherent necessity for the poor because someone has to do the menial tasks. I do believe that those people deserve more than they get in many cases, and that if government steps in and gives them some of the wealth, I am okay with that. I also believe it can be taken too far as in the "Great Society." That was Liberal paternalism, and based in racism.

As far as health care, my biggest problem with it is that it is not a market, and shouldn't be treated as such. Does everyone deserve it? That is a hard question for me to answer because the excesses of the corporations and medical professionals involved have created a system that is ineffective and forces those of us who do pay for insurance to already pay for those who don't. I also factor into the equation my belief that in a society as prosperous as is ours, it is incumbent upon our government to ensure some equality because it is a necessary component of Capitalism to exploit inequality for greater profit for those that have the means to do so.
 
Jul 22, 2009
302
0
0
Sorry, let me get this straight. You think some unemployed guy, or some underemployed guy who breaks his leg is ineligible for health care because he can't afford health insurance ? So he can go ahead and live out the rest of his life crippled as a result ?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Laszlo said:
Sorry, let me get this straight. You think some unemployed guy, or some underemployed guy who breaks his leg is ineligible for health care because he can't afford health insurance ? So he can go ahead and live out the rest of his life crippled as a result ?
If you are referring to me, then you misread what I wrote. Those of us who have insurance already pay for those without health care in our current system. Paying for them through the government will be no different. That was my only point.

Straight now?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Thoughtforfood said:
I think that human nature is neutral actually. Nobody is all good, and nobody is all bad (except Hitler and Stalin, but if they liked puppies, I will give them a pass...). I think that most anyone is capable of evil and good. I do believe in suffering the consequences of your actions. I do also believe that some people act in ways that they have little to no control over because of things that have happened to them. I also believe that poverty is a necessity in a capitalist society, but not to motivate. There is an inherent necessity for the poor because someone has to do the menial tasks. I do believe that those people deserve more than they get in many cases, and that if government steps in and gives them some of the wealth, I am okay with that. I also believe it can be taken too far as in the "Great Society." That was Liberal paternalism, and based in racism.

As far as health care, my biggest problem with it is that it is not a market, and shouldn't be treated as such. Does everyone deserve it? That is a hard question for me to answer because the excesses of the corporations and medical professionals involved have created a system that is ineffective and forces those of us who do pay for insurance to already pay for those who don't. I also factor into the equation my belief that in a society as prosperous as is ours, it is incumbent upon our government to ensure some equality because it is a necessary component of Capitalism to exploit inequality for greater profit for those that have the means to do so.
When do we get to have a full discussion of the excesses of government? I realize you do not trust business, but many do not trust government for the very same reasons.

When I see Barney Frank in vertical black and white stripes, then maybe there will be some sort of equivocation on my part. Really, once in political theatre a person is there forever (as long as they buy enough votes). Private corruption, sooner or later, winds up in hand cuffs. You can't say the same for public corruption except in very few cases.

Why we are so ready to trust popularity contest winners (generally with no expertise, just look at the junior Senator from Minnesota) is completely beyond me.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
CentralCaliBike said:
Since the 1960s the United States culture has changed it's value system - we went from valuing the individual for having a sense of responsibility, hard work, education, and independence to a society that demands individual rights without individual responsibility, a society that expects to be paid but not to give full value to the employer. I believe it is interesting that it was in the 1960s that our view on the government's role in providing for the citizens changed as well - enter "The Great Society".

These concepts cannot be discussed in this country today. These are all code words for bigotry, racism, heartless, mean-spirited... you know, all the things conservatives are called everyday. I should have thrown in homophobe in there too. Oh, and right wing nut-job. Can't forget that one.

But lucky for us the far left is so open minded.
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,119
0
0
CentralCaliBike said:
- A strong state >>> basic rationale for government in the first place, protection of it's citizens
So a universal health care system and a robust public education program should be part of said strong state. They both protect and preserve their society's traditions, intellect, and health. Or would that be too modern an interpretation of 'protection'.

-
collectivism over individualism.>>>> the Bill of Rights recognizes that the United States had a young and, at the time, multi-religious/political viewpoints, that being the case we had the bill of rights to prevent an in place majority from the abuse of in place minorities in order to avoid civil war and disinigration of the state. Burke came from a society that was far more cohesive in religion and politics (although it was changing to a certain degree)
I understand where Burke came from, but not so much US conservatism, as they in effect defend liberal values. When liberal values are now being put to action (anti-torture, principle of sovereignty, fair trial of terrorists) many tend to hesitate?

- resistance against revolutionary change, while allowing gradual transformations. See his opposition to the French Revolution (Compare that to Bush's revolutionary interpretation of 'self defense' and foreign intervention in a well established body of international law) >>> Burke had a strong fear of the nature of revolution and he was right about the violent tact it was going to take - there were several generations of violence in France and Europe that England was able to avoid for the most part because England went the gradual change route instead of revolution.
Again, I understand Burke's ideas in that volatile time, but if one calls oneself a true conservative, I can't understand why some, now, seem to be inclined to take revolutionary action to achieve certain political goals. Burke was very hesitant to interfere with 'other societal traditions, cultures and civilizations' as they had their own way of doing things.

Hence, the latest foreign interventions are thus counterintuitive to true conservatism - international law transgressions aside - because they are in many ways intended to ensure regime change, or produce a revolution!

That's hypocritical IMO.

Wrath v. gun control. If man is essentially revengeful, why not restrict people's access to guns. >>> You will not stop violence by regulating firearms - individuals who are inclined to kill are not likely to be impressed with gun control (also, I have had a couple of experiences where lawfully owned firearms prevented violence - I have prosecuted a large number of cases where unlawfully owned guns were used to murder people).
Funny you say that. When the US military fights abroad for whatever purpose, the first thing to do to transition to peace and stability is 'demilitarize and disarm' the local population. Somehow they understand that it - although (sources of) violence are not necessarily addressed - limits the amount of damage that can be done.

I also understand the rhetoric that 'guns in themselves' don't kill, but people do. Again, in foreign policy, the US (and other states) are very keen on preventing some from accessing and/or developing nuclear capacity. Apparently they 'know' that some are 'evil people' who could potentially kill millions when they push the button. Why not allow them to access the bomb, acknowledging that they can do evil with, while not preventing people from accessing guns at home. Americans are not inherently evil anymore? But then what about the conservative idea that people tend to be evil?

Before you say that a gun is not a nuclear weapon - which it is not - a gun (like the bomb) has a disproportionate killing capacity locally contrary to more conventional weapons (knives, clubs etc on the domestic stage).

Violence, according to conservatism, will never be rooted out due to man's tendency to evil. Limiting access to those objects that have the potential to be instantly lethal in rapid succession should thus be morally obligatory for the State to impose.

Homicide numbers reveal that those states with liberal gun control laws, have higher homicide rates (US, Switzerland, Israel, India, ****stan) than those that do not. To allude to DC's gun restrictions would be a rather painful reference. It's as if the US disarmed the Iraqi population, without adequately patrolling the borders, so that arms continued to pour into the country.

Glutony v. barring government regulations to control people from becoming obese, or leading unhealthy lives. Capitalism is thus placed before its concern for society's health. >>> not really sure where you were going here.
Lots of resistance against the strong hand of the state (see point 1 as well) to temper people's vices, which is one of the philosophical underpinnings of conservatism.

Sloth (laziness, disinterested attitude) leading to increased detachment from society. v. State's receding influence in public affairs, (ie. leaving education to the private sector, ie a bad public transportation system, allowing people to live alone in their cars) turning more and more people into mere consumers, isolated individuals instead of engaged, and passionately involved in the public sphere. >>> a large number of the people I come into contact with have the vice of sloth, they also seem to enjoy welfare (mostly complaining that the government did not give them a "real" attorney).
Hasty generalizations aside, what does the US do again to temper the vice of sloth and re-engage/re-connect them with society?

Burke for example was rather pronounced in his opinion of 'stupidity' >>> again, missing the point here.
Enlighten me... Most (TV-)conservatives I have seen/heard seem to adhere to the abject motto 'vague sentiments and general discourses'. Even if liberals did the same, shouldn't conservatives be better than that and take their own principles to heart? Or did they figure that intellect is not really worth preserving?
 
Mar 18, 2009
13,318
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
These concepts cannot be discussed in this country today. These are all code words for bigotry, racism, heartless, mean-spirited... you know, all the things conservatives are called everyday. I should have thrown in homophobe in there too. Oh, and right wing nut-job. Can't forget that one.
If the shoe fits...

All anyone has to do is listen to Limbaugh, Palin, Hannity, Beck, etc. to know what conservatism has become in this country. Aside from their hateful social beliefs, the party is bereft of ideas. The solution to every problem is to cut taxes.

 
Mar 10, 2009
7,119
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Whatever happened to the idea that people have to plan for a day when they may be old? Somehow because folks failed to plan and eventually need help they can't (or don't want) to afford it then becomes society's fault?
I think many people do plan ahead - sometimes even with the limited means they have - and then they still get bit in the bum. That seems to be unfair, like the people who got hit by a catastrophe like Katrina. In the latter case, many people perceive it to be unjust, because they did not have control over their lives.

Which brings me to the second point, I don't believe many people out there intentionally and purposefully fail to address their future. And if one is unaware of what arrangements to make for the future, can one be held responsible? It's easy to say that these things need to be top priorities on our list, but the fact is, many - it might sound strange - have never learned some of the required skills (financial responsibility, projecting and prioritizing, deferred consumption, life planning) or the vehicles available (Roth-IRAs, life insurance, college saving funds etc) and to some many vehicles are financially out of reach.

The idea that everyone has full control over their lives, is (IMO) rather misguided, essentialized and romanticised. Society's transformation/development seems to have picked up speed, and quickly drops people off the back, faster than you can say Popovich...

It really rewards people who are the most irresponsible among us, doesn't it?
I don't even think it rewards the irresponsible. A reward proper is given in return for something, and in your statement it refers to 'irresponsibility'.

I don't think food stamps and xxx$ per month are a reward of any kind, I don't think beneficiaries perceive it as a reward - although they might get accustomed to it and come to see it as an entitlement - and I don't think people in general perceive it as a reward they can expect in case their irresponsible behavior backfires.

People - especially the young - generally have magical ideas of the future, and I doubt many would therefore intentionally choose the life of irresponsibility and dream of ending up living off welfare.
 
Jul 23, 2009
1,120
0
0
Bala Verde said:
Homicide numbers reveal that those states with liberal gun control laws, have higher homicide rates (US, Switzerland, Israel, India, ****stan) than those that do not. To allude to DC's gun restrictions would be a rather painful reference. It's as if the US disarmed the Iraqi population, without adequately patrolling the borders, so that arms continued to pour into the country.
I thought you were for the Bill of Rights. Bill of Rights aside, take a look at the homicide rates in the most liberal voting areas of the United States and at those same rates in the most conservative (and most limited gun control laws).
 
Jul 23, 2009
1,120
0
0
Bala Verde said:
Which brings me to the second point, I don't believe many people out there intentionally and purposefully fail to address their future.

I don't think food stamps and xxx$ per month are a reward of any kind, I don't think beneficiaries perceive it as a reward - although they might get accustomed to it and come to see it as an entitlement - and I don't think people in general perceive it as a reward they can expect in case their irresponsible behavior backfires.

People - especially the young - generally have magical ideas of the future, and I doubt many would therefore intentionally choose the life of irresponsibility and dream of ending up living off welfare.
I see people who come through the court system day after day with no employment history to speak of - because of the cases I do, I have reviewed school records for a number of people who have been in and out of the system, generally I have found a complete disinterest in education (similar to employment).

A number of years ago, when I first started out I worked collecting child support (mostly for families with children on welfare). What I discovered is that, for many, welfare is generational in nature. Of course some will choose to leave the system but the majority just did not find the interest or motivation.

Then it goes much further - I have seen individuals claim they need a public defender because of a disability which did not allow them to work where the evidence was clear there was no disability (one guy got caught carrying a 25 inch television he had stolen, but claimed he had a bad back). I have been to parole hearings for murderers who had children after they went to prison - when asked how that was possible by the parole board the response was "conjugal visits" - when asked who the murderer thought was going to pay, the response was welfare (the one this year at least admitted that it might not have been responsible to have decided to have a child under that circumstance - but he did want an out date). I suppose I am a bit jaded when it comes to the nature of man and the effects of providing all the necessities; and it certainly has created a belief that we are headed down the wrong road at a very fast pace.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/23/business/23rates.html?_r=1

I am sure some will point out that the NY Times is a front for corrupt business and the conservative agenda but ask yourself - how are we going to pay the interest?
 
Jul 23, 2009
1,120
0
0
A last thought for the night - lets say the government loses the power to borrow (sort of like a homeowner who lost their house to foreclosure); how are all of the people who have little to no experience with responsibility, limited work experience (if any), missed most of their classes starting in middle school - going to react when the welfare check does not reach them?

Did our society teach them what they needed to know to survive; and was that society's responsibility in the first place?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Scott SoCal said:
When do we get to have a full discussion of the excesses of government? I realize you do not trust business, but many do not trust government for the very same reasons.

When I see Barney Frank in vertical black and white stripes, then maybe there will be some sort of equivocation on my part. Really, once in political theatre a person is there forever (as long as they buy enough votes). Private corruption, sooner or later, winds up in hand cuffs. You can't say the same for public corruption except in very few cases.

Why we are so ready to trust popularity contest winners (generally with no expertise, just look at the junior Senator from Minnesota) is completely beyond me.
Again, corruption is its own entity. I would suggest that the greatest majority of corruption on the part of business is never prosecuted, and when it is, they get golf jail for the most part. I think your perspective is skewed, because there is plenty of political corruption prosecuted. Not nearly as much as there should be, but then again, the same is very true of business corruption.

Here is the biggest problem I have with those who want to point only at governmental corruption. That corruption involves business corruption almost all of the time. See, politicians don't take money or do favors for other politicians. It is when business corruption intersects with governmental corruption that we have a problem.

Fact is that corporations have a larger influence over government than voters. They have the money to finance campaigns. If you take government out of business, what you are left with are the people who once corrupted government having no need to deal with politicians any longer. Then you think they will turn ethical? No, I will take the check on their power of the inefficient and illogical influence of government any day. I have no desire to live in a place where business has free reign because at least with politicians, we can throw them out.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
CentralCaliBike said:
I see people who come through the court system day after day with no employment history to speak of - because of the cases I do, I have reviewed school records for a number of people who have been in and out of the system, generally I have found a complete disinterest in education (similar to employment).

A number of years ago, when I first started out I worked collecting child support (mostly for families with children on welfare). What I discovered is that, for many, welfare is generational in nature. Of course some will choose to leave the system but the majority just did not find the interest or motivation.


Then it goes much further - I have seen individuals claim they need a public defender because of a disability which did not allow them to work where the evidence was clear there was no disability (one guy got caught carrying a 25 inch television he had stolen, but claimed he had a bad back). I have been to parole hearings for murderers who had children after they went to prison - when asked how that was possible by the parole board the response was "conjugal visits" - when asked who the murderer thought was going to pay, the response was welfare (the one this year at least admitted that it might not have been responsible to have decided to have a child under that circumstance - but he did want an out date). I suppose I am a bit jaded when it comes to the nature of man and the effects of providing all the necessities; and it certainly has created a belief that we are headed down the wrong road at a very fast pace.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/23/business/23rates.html?_r=1

I am sure some will point out that the NY Times is a front for corrupt business and the conservative agenda but ask yourself - how are we going to pay the interest?
Which is a minority of the population regardless of your experience. What you see is a small sample size, so do not confuse that with the majority of citizens. Just because your statistics are skewed does not mean you have a relevant statistical sample for the entire country. That is one of the problems I see. If you deal with the dregs of society, you tend to believe they are far more numerous than they are in actual proportion.

It is also a myth that a single black mother with 8 children and no job is the typical welfare recipient. In reality, that is not the typical person receiving government assistance. It is just the most effective picture a conservative politician can paint in order to inflame the anger of a white constituency. You guys can deny all you want that race is a factor, and in your individual cases, that might be true. However, you are blind if you think it does not play a role in political rhetoric proffered mostly by Republicans. Just because every statement about race is not racist does not mean that there are not MANY that are racist.

Just because something exists, and is promoted as a vision of what is typical by a politician, does not mean that vision is real.
 
Jul 22, 2009
302
0
0
Thoughtforfood said:
If you are referring to me, then you misread what I wrote. Those of us who have insurance already pay for those without health care in our current system. Paying for them through the government will be no different. That was my only point.

Straight now?
Thank you for the clarification.

I have trouble trying to understand how people who oppose a public health care system expect the unemployed/ underemployed etc to afford health care. So this is where fraud comes in I guess, where those who seek health care on the public dime claim to be unable to afford and yet are ?

You are worried that you'll have to pay yet again for public healthcare on top of your health insurance which already has factored in the cost of treating the uninsured public ?

There is a serious dispairity between public health care vs that which you can get from your insurance which you are willing to pay extra for ?
 
Sep 24, 2009
1,851
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
When do we get to have a full discussion of the excesses of government? I realize you do not trust business, but many do not trust government for the very same reasons.

When I see Barney Frank in vertical black and white stripes, then maybe there will be some sort of equivocation on my part. Really, once in political theatre a person is there forever (as long as they buy enough votes). Private corruption, sooner or later, winds up in hand cuffs. You can't say the same for public corruption except in very few cases.

Why we are so ready to trust popularity contest winners (generally with no expertise, just look at the junior Senator from Minnesota) is completely beyond me.
Why Barney Frank and why not GWB?

Can you imagine the State's rights, SCOTUS conservative justices overruling the Florida Supreme Court and stopping the recount, had Gore been ahead? If you say yes, you're beyond a doubt, an incredible liar.

Then in 2004, Ohio Secretary of State guarantees he'll deliver an Ohio victory for GWB, and delivers on that promise. This is ok?

Starting illegal wars and torturing people is ok by you?

Oh, but Barney Frank has overstepped the line. Whatever dude.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Bala Verde said:
I think many people do plan ahead - sometimes even with the limited means they have - and then they still get bit in the bum. That seems to be unfair, like the people who got hit by a catastrophe like Katrina. In the latter case, many people perceive it to be unjust, because they did not have control over their lives.

Which brings me to the second point, I don't believe many people out there intentionally and purposefully fail to address their future. And if one is unaware of what arrangements to make for the future, can one be held responsible? It's easy to say that these things need to be top priorities on our list, but the fact is, many - it might sound strange - have never learned some of the required skills (financial responsibility, projecting and prioritizing, deferred consumption, life planning) or the vehicles available (Roth-IRAs, life insurance, college saving funds etc) and to some many vehicles are financially out of reach.
The idea that everyone has full control over their lives, is (IMO) rather misguided, essentialized and romanticised. Society's transformation/development seems to have picked up speed, and quickly drops people off the back, faster than you can say Popovich...


I don't even think it rewards the irresponsible. A reward proper is given in return for something, and in your statement it refers to 'irresponsibility'.

I don't think food stamps and xxx$ per month are a reward of any kind, I don't think beneficiaries perceive it as a reward - although they might get accustomed to it and come to see it as an entitlement - and I don't think people in general perceive it as a reward they can expect in case their irresponsible behavior backfires.

People - especially the young - generally have magical ideas of the future, and I doubt many would therefore intentionally choose the life of irresponsibility and dream of ending up living off welfare.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of our public education system. If you are correct then maybe we really don't need a public heathcare system that we can't afford but a education system that actually works. Just looking at public education results would seemingly cause people to wonder if that is what is in store for (public) healthcare. But I guess not.

Ok, you have a problem with the word 'rewards', so I wthdraw and replace it with 'enables', which I believe is actually worse. Would we not be better off as a society if we created a system that 'enabled' folks to take care of themselves and prospered (speaking of people who are able, not people who are unable)? How can it be that we allow people to barley exist with hand-out instead of getting (persuading, helping, begging) them to provide for themselves with a hand-up?

I agree in a safety net. But should we coddle the people who should not be there?
 
Jul 22, 2009
302
0
0
CentralCaliBike said:
I thought you were for the Bill of Rights. Bill of Rights aside, take a look at the homicide rates in the most liberal voting areas of the United States and at those same rates in the most conservative (and most limited gun control laws).
why not compare the homicide rates between the States and her northern neightbour ? State boundaries are fairly meaningless to those who do not respect the law; national boundaries have a bit more effect.
 
Jul 22, 2009
302
0
0
CentralCaliBike said:
A last thought for the night - lets say the government loses the power to borrow (sort of like a homeowner who lost their house to foreclosure); how are all of the people who have little to no experience with responsibility, limited work experience (if any), missed most of their classes starting in middle school - going to react when the welfare check does not reach them?

Did our society teach them what they needed to know to survive; and was that society's responsibility in the first place?

it is an individuals responsibility to learn too.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
S Off Topic DIscussions 12
Similar threads
2019 Rugby World Cup

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts