Political discussion thread

HarbouringTheSoul wrote: King of Loss wrote: HarbouringTheSoul wrote: JJLehto wrote: I say tend because often, like bailouts, massive outcry still won't do anything..but yeah! The outcry wasn't massive enough. That's the main flaw of democracy: Status quo is god. To actually change something via the grassroots method, you need to have a very sizable portion of the population to be willing to go to extreme measures to fight for their positions. The easier way is of course bribery or, as it is called in the US, campaign donations. What democracy? The one that exists in the US even though it has become cool to deny that it does.

The United States isn't a democracy.  It's primarily a republic, and is best described as a democratic republic.

King of Loss wrote: HarbouringTheSoul wrote: JJLehto wrote: I say tend because often, like bailouts, massive outcry still won't do anything..but yeah! The outcry wasn't massive enough. That's the main flaw of democracy: Status quo is god. To actually change something via the grassroots method, you need to have a very sizable portion of the population to be willing to go to extreme measures to fight for their positions. The easier way is of course bribery or, as it is called in the US, campaign donations. What democracy?

The one that exists in the US even though it has become cool to deny that it does.


Edited by HarbouringTheSoul - January 08 2013 at 18:00

JJLehto wrote: I say tend because often, like bailouts, massive outcry still won't do anything..but yeah!

The outcry wasn't massive enough. That's the main flaw of democracy: Status quo is god. To actually change something via the grassroots method, you need to have a very sizable portion of the population to be willing to go to extreme measures to fight for their positions. The easier way is of course bribery or, as it is called in the US, campaign donations.

Well Slart actually produced something not biased and accurate!
Granted, he'd like to resolve the issue by allowing more government, which already creates the situation


You are  100% right HtS.
I've tried to be apathetic, but I just never could, and that's the very reason. f**ked up as things are, when masses DO actually do something things tend to happen. I say tend because often, like bailouts, massive outcry still won't do anything..but yeah! People whine and moan and this and that but leave it there. Vote, protest, write...get off your ass. Anything. At the least you can take pride in you didn't just let yourself get steamrolled.

What really irritates me is the accusation that the dysfunctional political system of the US is the result of some diabolical conspiracy to control everybody. It's not. It's the result of a well-meaning voting system implemented over 200 years ago that turned out to be very awful. Certainly those who benefit from it are keeping it from being changed, but that's just because it's a unfortunate part of human nature that we do anything to hold on to power once we have it. Nobody's trying to control your lives (well, there probably are a few very unpleasant characters who are trying to control your lives, but they're few and they're not succeeding). In a democracy, the only thing that keeps your situation from improving is your own apathy. If you shout loud enough and encourage enough people to shout with you, you can always change things you don't like. That's not to say I'm any better than you; if I were an American, I would be just as apathetic. Unfortunately, that's also part of human nature: We're extremely fond of complaining, but we're not so fond of doing something about it.

JJLehto wrote: What boggles my mind is: it seems like the bailouts only "helped" the economy by restoring faith in the system, fake faith. That it was all bullsh*t, but just the fact it was being done let them accept it. Basically supporting a system of smoke and mirrors by clouds...like nothing about this should exist, but it continues by forced blindness. It's insane.

Welcome to economics. How do you think the stock market works?

JJLehto wrote: Keep in mind this is from rolling stone..not exactly a "crazy right wing" or "fox kissing" publication: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/secret-and-lies-of-the-bailout-20130104 I sincerely supported the ideology behind the bailouts, and I have no doubt it was well intentioned by many in power (after all the economy is tanking and a lot of very smart people are telling you pass this or a domino will crash the world economy) but this further proves why government action tends to be a failure. Even if its well intentioned, most government action is corrupt/a failure/to line the pockets of wealthy. And whenever something is passed in haste, under fear and threats of disaster, and with bi partisan support it tends to be the worst!

rushfan4 wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: rushfan4 wrote: And that is why friends should never talk religion or politics. Why not?  Haven't you learned something?  I have. It is just difficult to try and explain one's point of view on these subjects without insulting the beliefs of the other parties involved in the discussion.  The "bleeding heart" in me doesn't want to offend while explaining my view but inevitably ends up doing so.    But as long as we can walk away as  then it is all good.

No worries, I don't feel insulted.  I realize that it's easy to slip up and say something potentially offensive (I've done it!).  So yeah,

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: rushfan4 wrote: And that is why friends should never talk religion or politics. Why not?  Haven't you learned something?  I have.

It is just difficult to try and explain one's point of view on these subjects without insulting the beliefs of the other parties involved in the discussion.  The "bleeding heart" in me doesn't want to offend while explaining my view but inevitably ends up doing so.    But as long as we can walk away as  then it is all good.

rushfan4 wrote: Fair enough.  Use of "bigot" was more of a generalization out of frustration then meant for specifics, but it is a term that unfortunately frequently applies.  (Again this is just my experience and opinion).    As I recall from my history lessons from years ago, one day the leader of the Roman empire (I believe a descendant of Julius Caesar) was pissed off by the religious leaders of the time and decided to change the official religion of the Roman empire to Christianity to the detriment of all other religions, so at that point the tables were turned and have been so for many years since.  Personally, I feel that the stories told in Greek and Roman mythology are more imaginitive and entertaining and do a better job of explaining the various nuances of why we are here and why things happen.   Those beliefs could just as likely be true as what Christianity teaches.  So too, could Norse mythology as well as the American Indian spirit Gods.  If I am not mistaken, Muslims actually believe in the same God as Christians do; they just believe that Mohammed was the real deal, and Jesus was just a previous emissary of God, but not his son.  My point is that different societies in different countries have created different stories in order to help their people understand why we exist, but also control their people by adding the good vs evil fear factor.  There is a reason so many Kings carried the blood of God.  But you have already agreed that leaders abuse religion so no point on continuing to ramble on there.   And despite my rant, as I have previously said, I respect everybody's right to believe and have faith in whatever they believe and have faith in.  Just keep said beliefs within your various religious zones and leave me out of it.  For what it is worth, my comments have leaned more towards atheism instead of agnostic, but that is just more of the mood I am in at the moment.  Despite my not having faith and in many ways finding religious people to be quite silly in their beliefs I can't say for 100% certainty that you are wrong and that there is not some supreme being or beings that created the universe and watch over us.

No one can know for sure why Constantine (the Roman leader you're talking about) changed the policy of the Roman Empire; some say it was entirely political, as he saw that Christianity, despite still being a small minority, was growing despite persecution and wanted to capitalize on that.  Some say that his conversion was genuine.  I've actually never heard the explanation you provided before, and I'd be interested to see who came up with it and how he argues for it.

I would say that Christianity has more evidence than the other ancient religions because it is a historical religion; there are real historical records of the Son of God coming down to earth and dying and rising from the dead, with dates and everything.  Other religions have myths of gods coming to earth, but they all happen in the distant past and are not attested by witnesses.  The gospels were written as historical records, not as mere myths.  Of course, it's up to you whether you accept the records as true or not; I don't deny that there are a great number of miraculous things in them that are difficult to believe, and I'm not trying to force you to believe them, just to get you to consider them historically. 

Muslims and Christians don't believe in the same God.  That myth has been around for a long time, but ask any orthodox Christian or Muslim and they'll tell you it's not true.