Political Thread Of Fail And AIDS (Geeto ahead!)

[TTQ B4U]

She may not have a position in 23 months.

 

https://massie.house.gov/newsroom/press-releases/rep-massie-introduces-bill-to-abolish-federal-department-of-education

 

 

Probably not a bad idea. We do need to go through and evaluate what role the Federal Gov't has in things.

[Exodus]

We have laws against monopolies because they were a problem

 

[SpaceGhost]

Probably not a bad idea. We do need to go through and evaluate what role the Federal Gov't has in things.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Exodus]

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Just saw that in my feed. Awesome.

 

BL?

[BStowers023]

Many things could operate perfectly fine and in most cases BETTER without the government. Everything has become so regulated now, we keep steering further and further away from a capitalist society. What I'm afraid of is that Trump does a horrible job and some nut job clown like Bernie Sanders comes in and fucks the country up even worse and we go from 16 straight years of poor presidency to a guaranteed 24. I'm biased but I don't think we will get headed in the right direction until a libertarian mindset comes into office. Doesn't have to be a claimed libertarian but even someone like a Rand Paul. Someone who backs the constitution but wants less government regulation and more power to the people.

[Geeto67]

 

very funny

 

[Geeto67]

Many things could operate perfectly fine and in most cases BETTER without the government.

Maybe. Somethings can really only operate one way however.

 

Everything has become so regulated now

Regulation is a form of problem solving. When you deregulate you subject the people to the problems that the regulation solved and relieve them of the ones they create.

 

Moving backwards is seldom the answer but often the answer proposed by those with the most interest in cheating, not because it fulfills a greater public good but because they want to go back to the way that gave them more of an advantage. What needs to be done but is seldom accomplished is a review of the regulation to see if it still holds a control in place or the market has rendered it obsolete and then adjusted to maintain the solution rather than remain static, but neither party has the appetite for that work so it seldom happens.

 

Think of regulation in the market place under our current system as a jetty pole in the ocean. the pole is un-moving as the market ebbs and flows around it. It needs to be more like a buoy, loosely tethered to a position but bobbing and moving with the marketplace to provide optimal guidance.

 

 

we keep steering further and further away from a capitalist society.

America has always been a mixed economy society, even back when it was a colony. Complete free market is a dream never realized in practice. We are not more a mixed economy than we were before, despite having more regulation than before. A lot of this is due to the circular nature of growth in markets.

 

 

I'm biased but I don't think we will get headed in the right direction until a libertarian mindset comes into office. Doesn't have to be a claimed libertarian but even someone like a Rand Paul. Someone who backs the constitution but wants less government regulation and more power to the people.

 

 

I feel like libertarians are just people who failed history class. Keep in mind every regulation is meant to address a harm. If you want to know what the world would be like without that regulation, just look at what was going on before the regulation was enacted. I also feel like libertarian activists don't have alternative solutions to the problem that regulations try to solve. It's a good philosophy for a person to live by individually but bad philosophy by which to govern masses of people.

 

by the way, regulation is sometimes how you return power to the people when other factors have unfairly leveraged things against the masses.

[Geeesammy]

Maybe. Somethings can really only operate one way however.

 

 

Regulation is a form of problem solving. When you deregulate you subject the people to the problems that the regulation solved and relieve them of the ones they create.

 

Moving backwards is seldom the answer but often the answer proposed by those with the most interest in cheating, not because it fulfills a greater public good but because they want to go back to the way that gave them more of an advantage. What needs to be done but is seldom accomplished is a review of the regulation to see if it still holds a control in place or the market has rendered it obsolete and then adjusted to maintain the solution rather than remain static, but neither party has the appetite for that work so it seldom happens.

 

Think of regulation in the market place under our current system as a jetty pole in the ocean. the pole is un-moving as the market ebbs and flows around it. It needs to be more like a buoy, loosely tethered to a position but bobbing and moving with the marketplace to provide optimal guidance.

 

 

 

America has always been a mixed economy society, even back when it was a colony. Complete free market is a dream never realized in practice. We are not more a mixed economy than we were before, despite having more regulation than before. A lot of this is due to the circular nature of growth in markets.

 

 

 

 

 

I feel like libertarians are just people who failed history class. Keep in mind every regulation is meant to address a harm. If you want to know what the world would be like without that regulation, just look at what was going on before the regulation was enacted. I also feel like libertarian activists don't have alternative solutions to the problem that regulations try to solve. It's a good philosophy for a person to live by individually but bad philosophy by which to govern masses of people.

 

by the way, regulation is sometimes how you return power to the people when other factors have unfairly leveraged things against the masses.

Ive always gotten an A in history class GFY

[Otis Nice]

I feel like libertarians are just people who failed history class. Keep in mind every regulation is meant to address a harm. If you want to know what the world would be like without that regulation, just look at what was going on before the regulation was enacted. I also feel like libertarian activists don't have alternative solutions to the problem that regulations try to solve. It's a good philosophy for a person to live by individually but bad philosophy by which to govern masses of people.

 

by the way, regulation is sometimes how you return power to the people when other factors have unfairly leveraged things against the masses.

 

I'm not reading this entire thread. I'm not even going to read the rest of this post. I probably won't read anyone else's and may or may not even care to check if you or anyone else cares enough about my post here to reply.

 

That being said, what say you to regulations where it's been made illegal to use solar energy, collect rain water, or raise your own food, or any other number of things where one should be able to live freely on land they own how they see fit? They've been regulated to death, but what harm do any of them or a plethora of others cause?

[Draco-REX]

OT, but you do realize the irony in this statement, right?

[Geeto67]

what say you to regulations where it's been made illegal to use solar energy, collect rain water, or raise your own food, or any other number of things where one should be able to live freely on land they own how they see fit? They've been regulated to death, but what harm do any of them or a plethora of others cause?

 

I am not going to openly fully defend the entirety of a situation where the usefulness of the regulation depends on the particular situation, esp in a system where some legislative abuse or a fast moving change rendering the need obsolete is possible.

 

Where I grew up in NYC, there was a large immigrant population that liked to raise poultry. I don't really see a problem with regulations that prevent people from raising poultry in condos and co-ops because of the health and safety concerns. As long as there is a justifiable reason and the law is narrowly tailored to preventing harm to others or protecting a general public good a cas can be made for it.

 

Personally I do generally agree that people should be able to live freely on land that they own how they see fit, but with the caveat that they can't be openly fucking it up for their neighbor or community. I know a lot of those rainwater cases turn on how the collection by multiple people can harm a community accessed water table or foster the spread of insect or standing water spread disease without careful monitoring and so the law may have some justification, but again that is on a case by case basis. In some of those cases the law may have outgrown its usefulness through changes in population or other outside factors and one thing the system does poorly is readjust laws that are already in place to better meet a change in market.

 

On a personal note, generally I can't stand real estate covenants but those are things a property owner agrees to and not regulations. The oversight on them is low and they have been used in the past to do some pretty nasty things (like racial discrimination in housing). They are almost always an example of how the idea that you can't fuck up your neighbor's property value can be taken too far if not held to scrutiny. Good intention, but often bad execution.

 

TL;DR: people should live freely on their land as long as their actions don't directly harm or contribute to harm to the their neighbors or communities, and there is adequate oversight of the laws that restrict that.

 

OT, but you do realize the irony in this statement, right?

 

That it's an absolute statement mocking absolute statements? Yes, that's partially why I chose it as a response.

[o0n8]

http://cdn.quotesgram.com/img/21/54/1622260073-quote-the-inherent-vice-of-capitalism-is-the-unequal-sharing-of-blessings-the-inherent-virtue-of-winston-churchill-219067.jpg

[zeitgeist57]

I will agree with Kerry...

 

I've been emailing the City of UA regarding putting up a carport. Even something 18'x20' to cover two cars in my driveway (which wraps around the back of my house so it's not very visible from the street) HAS to be approved, with a building permit, which initially I felt was kind of crazy...with a touch of "mah rights R being infringed!!1!1".

 

But as I thought about it - especially when I was emailing a couple of companies that sell pre-engineered steel carports - I realized that there are wind- and snow-weight certifications that good carports need to be engineered. Plus, anything over 400sqft has to pass "neighborhood uniformity design" guidelines through City code. I wouldn't want someone elses' shittily-constructed lean-to blowing apart in a summer storm and causing damage to my house, property, or family. It's a good thing to have some city engineers checking all this garbage out.

 

A lot of regulations ARE there because someone was harmed or killed in the past. In certain situations, I'm definitely realizing the benefit of government oversight.

[xlr8tn]

I am not going to openly fully defend the entirety of a situation where the usefulness of the regulation depends on the particular situation, esp in a system where some legislative abuse or a fast moving change rendering the need obsolete is possible.

 

Where I grew up in NYC, there was a large immigrant population that liked to raise poultry. I don't really see a problem with regulations that prevent people from raising poultry in condos and co-ops because of the health and safety concerns. As long as there is a justifiable reason and the law is narrowly tailored to preventing harm to others or protecting a general public good a cas can be made for it.

 

Personally I do generally agree that people should be able to live freely on land that they own how they see fit, but with the caveat that they can't be openly fucking it up for their neighbor or community. I know a lot of those rainwater cases turn on how the collection by multiple people can harm a community accessed water table or foster the spread of insect or standing water spread disease without careful monitoring and so the law may have some justification, but again that is on a case by case basis. In some of those cases the law may have outgrown its usefulness through changes in population or other outside factors and one thing the system does poorly is readjust laws that are already in place to better meet a change in market.

 

On a personal note, generally I can't stand real estate covenants but those are things a property owner agrees to and not regulations. The oversight on them is low and they have been used in the past to do some pretty nasty things (like racial discrimination in housing). They are almost always an example of how the idea that you can't fuck up your neighbor's property value can be taken too far if not held to scrutiny. Good intention, but often bad execution.

 

TL;DR: people should live freely on their land as long as their actions don't directly harm or contribute to harm to the their neighbors or communities, and there is adequate oversight of the laws that restrict that.

 

 

 

That it's an absolute statement mocking absolute statements? Yes, that's partially why I chose it as a response.

 

I just had an "aha" moment

[Geeto67]

I just had an "aha" moment

 

Now is when you have the "aha" moment and not the various other threads were members told me to go back to where I came from?

 

 

Let's change the subject shall we...:

 

https://apnews.com/c41ee620816a492190ee249d282cedf9

 

I am curious about how those who voted based on "trustworthiness" are feeling about an administration that is turning out to be ethically bankrupt with a high number of conflicts of interest.

[xlr8tn]

I thought they were talking about under a rock haha

 

 

It does explain though why your ideas are so far off of most people here though...you're the east coast version of Kalifornia.

[TTQ B4U]

Let's change the subject shall we...:

https://apnews.com/c41ee620816a492190ee249d282cedf9

I am curious about how those who voted based on "trustworthiness" are feeling about an administration that is turning out to be ethically bankrupt with a high number of conflicts of interest.

 

 

Distraction story IMO. Anyone with a brain and memory knows why Nordstrom did what they did. Time to stay on-point as a country and work towards fixing the problems with this country.

[BStowers023]

Distraction story IMO. Anyone with a brain and memory knows why Nordstrom did what they did. Time to stay on-point as a country and work towards fixing the problems with this country.

 

Nope! We have to deflect and create Fake News to deter us from the real issues.

[Geeto67]

Distraction story IMO. Anyone with a brain and memory knows why Nordstrom did what they did. Time to stay on-point as a country and work towards fixing the problems with this country.

 

ok, explain this logic to me.

 

If it were just the original news item on Nordstrom's I would agree with you - not relevant and who cares.

 

However, the CIC decided to comment on it and in doing so came dangerously close to violating some pretty clear ethics rules attached to the position as well as demonstrating why conflicts of interest is a concern with this administration. That is actually worth reporting on because "ethics" and "trustworthiness" were not only primary to the recent election but also core to the CIC position.

 

You understand his twitter commentary and attempt toward enriching himself and his family to the determent of the american public right? where's all your fire and brimstone about best interests of the country and the preservation of the rights of the citizens?

 

And furthermore a whitehouse spokesperson potentially further violating some pretty clear ethics rules reinforces that the position is being used for personal gain of the CIC.

 

the message you send with this comment is that the rights of the american people really don't matter so long as my party's agenda is winning. Is that the intended message? because if not what are you trying to say? I don't know how you can ignore an action that sets a precedent that the president can use his force of office to bully a private sector company and private citizens into specific action that benefits only his family.

 

 

Nope! We have to deflect and create Fake News to deter us from the real issues.

 

This is not fake news. These events actually happened and have real legal impacts. As there is not action taken at the moment maybe you can make the case that it is speculative but it isn't fake by any stretch of the imagination. It isn't a pizza place in DC running a human trafficking ring, LOL.

 

This is a clear case of the CIC acting against against the interests of a select group of it's citizens to his family's personal gain. How do you not see it as a problem?

 

 

And we haven't even addressed whether this represents a 1st amendment violation as well considering that the action may have been facilitated by a financial boycott by private citizens turning nordstroms into an unwilling participant in a political statement.

 

but apparently constitutional rights violations aren't "real problems", LOL.

Edited February 9, 2017 by Geeto67

[jeffro]

I will agree with Kerry...

 

I've been emailing the City of UA regarding putting up a carport. Even something 18'x20' to cover two cars in my driveway (which wraps around the back of my house so it's not very visible from the street) HAS to be approved, with a building permit, which initially I felt was kind of crazy...with a touch of "mah rights R being infringed!!1!1".

 

But as I thought about it - especially when I was emailing a couple of companies that sell pre-engineered steel carports - I realized that there are wind- and snow-weight certifications that good carports need to be engineered. Plus, anything over 400sqft has to pass "neighborhood uniformity design" guidelines through City code. I wouldn't want someone elses' shittily-constructed lean-to blowing apart in a summer storm and causing damage to my house, property, or family. It's a good thing to have some city engineers checking all this garbage out.

 

A lot of regulations ARE there because someone was harmed or killed in the past. In certain situations, I'm definitely realizing the benefit of government oversight.

 

Or an easy way for the city to cherry pick money from its citizens.

[TTQ B4U]

However, the CIC decided to comment on it and in doing so came dangerously close to violating some pretty clear ethics rules attached to the position as well as demonstrating why conflicts of interest is a concern with this administration.

 

You understand his twitter commentary and attempt toward enriching himself and his family to the determent of the American public right? where's all your fire and brimstone about best interests of the country and the preservation of the rights of the citizens?

 

I stand by my point. The media touts Trump's Hotel and is keeping Ivanka's clothing brand in the news and garnering more benefit for her income than his simple comments. By yours and other libs own point, he's so disliked and that if anything, his tweets and comments are more harmful than helpful to her thus no fire and brimstone needed.

 

And furthermore a whitehouse spokesperson potentially further violating some pretty clear ethics rules reinforces that the position is being used for personal gain of the CIC.

Meh....she's had her talking to and that's been made clear in the briefing.

 

the message you send with this comment is that the rights of the american people really don't matter so long as my party's agenda is winning.

The message I'm sending is the left is in disorder and continuing to whine about misc. irrelevant and impactful issues than actual policy. Forgive me if I don't give a shit about the size of his hands, the crowd size, the way he combs his hair, if he uses a robe at night, if he tweets that Madonna is a ditz or if Ivanka sells shoes.

 

I don't know how you can ignore an action that sets a precedent that the president can use his force of office to bully a private sector company and private citizens into specific action that benefits only his family.

Overall he's done more good in the past 3 weeks towards benefiting the country as a whole and clearly gives a shit more about making America Great again. I'll take an Ivanka Commercial vs having BLM Ass-hats in the white house or worrying about where a queer will pee or the feelings of radical Muslims who might have their kids killed by a drone as they plan their next attack.

 

This is a clear case of the CIC acting against against the interests of a select group of it's citizens to his family's personal gain. How do you not see it as a problem?

I watched Obama fuck up a lot of things over 8 years and and so have many, thus why Trump is where he is. He can grab pussy on TV and I'd be okay with that too. Time to put the trivial bullshit aside and let someone actually move the country forward.

[Geeto67]

I stand by my point. The media touts Trump's Hotel and is keeping Ivanka's clothing brand in the news and garnering more benefit for her income than his simple comments. By yours and other libs own point, he's so disliked and that if anything, his tweets and comments are more harmful than helpful to her thus no fire and brimstone needed.

 

Statements directly from the president have consequences. By tweeting and the subject matter of the tweet, he is making a statement to retailers that the president will consider them a political enemy for their non-politically motivated business decisions. It's unmistakably saber rattling even if no saber is drawn.

 

harmful or helpful doesn't matter, and esp with this president who has shown blatant disregard to the rights of his citizens - it's an abuse of power anyway you slice it.

 

Meh....she's had her talking to and that's been made clear in the briefing

Ethics violations are civil in nature so it's all we can hope for. However, if it was our previous commander in chief I imagine we'd hear "lock her up" from the alt right as well.

 

The message I'm sending is the left is in disorder and continuing to whine about misc. irrelevant and impactful issues than actual policy. Forgive me if I don't give a shit about the size of his hands, the crowd size, the way he combs his hair, if he uses a robe at night, if he tweets that Madonna is a ditz or if Ivanka sells shoes.

 

And the right is continuing to whine about comedy portrayals of the president on non-news television. Last I checked conflicts of interest and constitutional rights are impact issues. I don't give a shit about the size of his hands or crowd size either but I do care when he uses the office of the president to make US citizens feel deprived of their rights. You seem to be willing to give him a pass on ethics transgressions because of the subject matter where there is something far greater at stake. Next you'll tell me reporting on his fictional statements isn't news either (hint: when the president makes a verifiable lie to the public in order to gain public support - that's news).

 

Overall he's done more good in the past 3 weeks towards benefiting the country as a whole and clearly gives a shit more about making America Great again. I'll take an Ivanka Commercial vs having BLM Ass-hats in the white house or worrying about where a queer will pee or the feelings of radical Muslims who might have their kids killed by a drone as they plan their next attack.

 

So basically you don't give a shit about human rights or effective policy, so long as it looks like his campaign promises. It doesn't matter that foreign immigrants aren't the problem when it comes to domestic terrorism (the majority of terrorist actions in the last 30 years were performed by American citizens or green card holders who have lived for extended periods in the states) or that an effective ban on muslims hurts the country as a whole. You don't want Muslims here period, regardless if they are American citizens.

 

I watched Obama fuck up a lot of things over 8 years and and so have many, thus why Trump is where he is. He can grab pussy on TV and I'd be okay with that too. Time to put the trivial bullshit aside and let someone actually move the country forward.

 

OK so you don't believe in American values, you just believe in your party's values. got it. Everything is trivial including the constitution to you except the things you dislike.

[TTQ B4U]

Statements directly from the president have consequences. By tweeting and the subject matter of the tweet, he is making a statement to retailers that the president will consider them a political enemy for their non-politically motivated business decisions. It's unmistakably saber rattling even if no saber is drawn.

 

They and the world knows where he stands without having to send a tweet.

 

harmful or helpful doesn't matter, and esp with this president who has shown blatant disregard to the rights of his citizens - it's an abuse of power anyway you slice it.

 

Yawn....blatant disregard to the rights of citizens? Please...

 

Ethics violations are civil in nature so it's all we can hope for. However, if it was our previous commander in chief I imagine we'd hear "lock her up" from the alt right as well.

 

Clinton is/was a crook and liar. 4000% worse than a mean tweet. Again, please stop the drama.

 

And the right is continuing to whine about comedy portrayals of the president on non-news television.

 

I don't recall seeing much of anything about SNL, etc. That too when it appears is BS news that continually gives the media a bad-rap. They too need to stop inflating or even reporting on such crap. It's laughable what we've come to.

 

I do care when he uses the office of the president to make US citizens feel deprived of their rights.

 

Not sure what you're referencing.

 

You seem to be willing to give him a pass on ethics transgressions because of the subject matter where there is something far greater at stake.

 

We have better things to worry about then his defending Ivanka's shoe business in a tweet. Yes, we have a lot more at stake.

 

Next you'll tell me reporting on his fictional statements isn't news either (hint: when the president makes a verifiable lie to the public in order to gain public support - that's news).

 

I'm not sure what' you're referencing here either.

So basically you don't give a shit about human rights or effective policy, so long as it looks like his campaign promises.

 

Not sure where human rights are being hurt and what he is doing is effective policy. If you're referencing the the moratorium on people from the middle east then yes, I support the hell out of it and wish it covered some other countries even.

 

It doesn't matter that foreign immigrants aren't the problem when it comes to domestic terrorism (the majority of terrorist actions in the last 30 years were performed by American citizens or green card holders who have lived for extended periods in the states) or that an effective ban on muslims hurts the country as a whole. You don't want Muslims here period, regardless if they are American citizens.

 

It doesn't matter. The point is we don't need any more Somolians here. If they are MD's or actual professionals that can contribute to the country we can consider it, but more of the Karl/161 area ones.....no thanks. Let us not forget the OSU turd and the ones in the MN Mall that were from Somalia and their acts of terror. Green Card holder issues were addressed.

 

OK so you don't believe in American values, you just believe in your party's values. got it. Everything is trivial including the constitution to you except the things you dislike.

 

Obama represented Obama Values. He was about as arrogant of a fuck as Trump is. He couldn't lead for shit. All but a few left dems would run the opposite way of him if he tried to get them out of a burning building.

 

Yes, time for Americans First and time to get our country back on track. We need to get our house in order and take care of our own people and cities before trying to bring in more of the lefts voter base of warn-torn immigrants we can't care for effectively.

[zeitgeist57]

 

If Obama mentioned his admiration for Putin during his presidency...would the alt-right have condemned him as being a communist?

Edited February 9, 2017 by zeitgeist57
spelling edit

[Geeto67]

You have convinced me Tim: You actually have absolutely no idea how the government works or what political power means or how it is exercised. If you don't understand what rights you are conferred as an American citizen then obviously you aren't going to understand when others were deprived of them.

 

By the way, the America's First movement was a peace organization that got infiltrated by the Nazi's as a way to pressure the American Government to stay out of WWII. It's actions partially contributed to Pearl Harbor through the isolationism stance. Considering the present administration won on the back of foreign discrimination and hatred for geopolitics, and a strong isolationism policy it's not hard to draw a direct parallel between the Nazi's vision of America First and the modern equivalent (with Russia taking the place of Germany).

 

I leave you with this final thought: "Conservationism" based on a contempt of a group of people or a brand of liberalism in abstract is not only representative of a poor set of values, it isn't real conservatism. As a political philosophy Conservatism's main crux is to look at the objective problems that face the nation and present alternative, non-government based solutions to those problems based on the concepts of individual liberty, economic liberty, and general anti communism beliefs. Individual liberty for one class of American citizens that comes at the expense of other American citizens or it's guests is not liberty it's tyranny and oppression. Conservatism is not ignoring root causes and facts related to the problem because it fits your narrative and agenda better.

 

If you overlook white supremacy empowerment in the government because you want to discriminate against a class of people different from you your silence is tacit support of those values.

 

If you overlook constitutional rights violations when it suits you or supports your politica agenda, then you cannot claim to be "pro America" or "pro constitution".

 

If you don't understand that the president has a responsibility to all under his protection and that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF HIS ACTIONS HAS REAL CONSEQUENCES and view the office as only a tool of the party in power then you are a fool yearning for the yoke of tyrannical facisim.

 

So what are you Tim?

 

I leave you with this: every time the president tweets about a company the financial market responds. This is a power that he can exercise to punish individuals, companies, whole sections of the private sector. They don't respond because he is trump, they respond because he is president and the office of the president carries weight. When he punishes a private non-political entity because it impacts the financial well being of his family and it is only in his interest and not the interest of the nation - that is the very definition of corruption, and it is blatant and on display for all to see. You being ok with corruption because it advances your agenda means you can't make the moral argument someone else is worse because you don't care about corruption at all, you just care about your party.