Politicking

Here's something I've discovered: politicians spend most of their time debating issues that should be no concern of government. This thread is somewhate inspired by the "Abortion Debates" thread, because abortion and the right to have or not have one is always floating to the surface of political debate like so many dead fish.

I'm sorry, but what? Aren't there more important, populace-affecting things to deal with here? And before anyone thinks of accusing me of using this thread to forward my own political agenda, hear me out. True, I think a woman should have the right to choose. Some people don't. They say abortion is murder. They pull out thin arguments about the soul, to which me and mine flash the zygote or whatever right back. Everyone believes what they believe and tries to force it on everyone else. And, for the most part, I think that's just the way people are.

Now when did this become an issue of national concern? Why does the government want to have a say in these proceedings? For those who don't want abortions, don't have them. For those that do, do. Because people are naturally inclined to try and spread their beliefs, which more often than not results in conflict, shouldn't it be the role of the government to minimize dissention among the ranks?

It's the same thing with gay marriage. Why does it matter to those who think it's wrong? How does it, in any way, amount to more than a decision of a few individuals who want to become legally sanctioned couples? With this, and with something like abortion, personal views get hijacked into political standpoints; talking head politicians debate about the 'morality' of letting people live their lives harmlessly, while national unemployment and homelessness are rocketing higher every year.

Politicians make decisions that affect a great number of people. Shouldn't they be concentrating on those things that actually concern a great number of people? However you feel about abortion or gay marriage, chances are you won't be affected by either unless circumstances in your life bring you to a point where you, personally, are put in a position to make a choice.

Is this any way to rule?

I agree that the government OUGHT to work on issues that affect the greatest number of people as you said pipking...

I believe the philosophical principle is called "communitarianism"

"bringing about the greatest good for the greatest number of people"

whereas I think the before said issues are imprtant, I agree that they should not be on the front line...

there are bigger things to worry about in this country or any country...

and I feel that if you take care of the most important problems first, maybe other smaller problems will be solved...

Now here's the rub: is this all just distraction? Are politicians using these issues to polarize people and divert their attention from meaningful governing?

If you have Bush talking against gay marriage, rallying support behind this idea of the sanctity of the straight couple, people with similar inclinations will stand up and say "We support you." Even though Bush's reign has pretty much oblitorated the economy - he's not making promises to fix it, but instead trying to restrict freedoms of a small group of people. This is what the debate has become. Iraq is a mess - but really, what's more important: establishing stability in the country you invaded, or making sure a few women keep babies they neither want nor can care for?

I think marriage is an issue that will effect all of us. More or less, you can't have a marriage in a vacuum. It is doubtful that any marriage laws could be confined to singular states. People move, and then things will start to clash.

Generally, there are alot of things the government has no right to regulate, but they do.

Even though Bush's reign has pretty much oblitorated the economy - he's not making promises to fix it, but instead trying to restrict freedoms of a small group of people.

Pip, and how does a President in a country with a free market lose jobs? Unless Bush goes around to everyone saying 'You're fired!" The truth is, a bad economy isn't his fault. And the only thing a government can do to make an economy better- make it more free. Slash gov't spending, taxes and useless regulations. How do you think he should 'fix it'? More regulation, higher taxes and protectionism will only cripple the economy. When the gov't interfers with the economy, it has the touch of death. Bush has made the only reasonable reactions to a poor economy: less gov't interference.

I agree that Iraq and the economy are the biggest issues, and I see marriage and abortion as ancillary issues.

Well, pipking is gay. I expected nothing else than these views.

Wow, are all 720 posts of yours that insightful?

I simply don't want to get too heavily into this because I'm a radical ideologist and thus the contemporary liberals don't really want to listen to me.

I agree with Pipking though, if our governments actully cared about something worth caring about then our world would be a lot greater. Our enviroment would be in fantastic shape.. we would have peaceful governments co-operating with one another, and we'd probably be powering our cars with Hydrogen fuel.

You may call me a dreamer, but I don't think it's that hard to achieve. Simply there is a different between what the 'western' culture deems as the most important thing to middle eastern culture. The difference is that western culture revolves around the economy and the middle eastern would revolves around religion.

Such a clash of beliefs in so many aspects is really what seems stupid to the peaceful but seen as the most important thing to politicians and religous leaders.

I don't know about arguing about this with you peeps anymore. It seems I'm too easily branded a 'hippy' or perhaps soon I'll be 'gay'.

I HATE Politics So Much!!

Hippies unite! And thanks m00se and Mrs. G for your insightful comments.

In terms of Bush's culpability - by diverting a goodly amount of government funding to the war in Iraq, Bush's administration put the economy in jeopardy. Yes-no? Not being American, I can only repeat what I hear on the news (and am woefully under-researched), and the news says the economy in the states is bad because Bush and his cronies used too much money they didn't have to fund the war. Even today I heard a news pundit call it "another Vietnam" which doesn't bode well.

Now I'm not going to speculate any on the legitimacy of the war on/in Iraq, because it's a moot point. What remains relevant are the money spent on it, home defense, and the soldiers abandoned in anarchy. September 11 is a tragedy that is unlikely to be repeated - and if, God forbid, it is repeated, it's unlikely that the 'war on terror' will have any impact on those people interested in seeing America fall. In fact, Bush's alienating foreigners to his own detriment - American terrorist groups, bent of bringing down the government, are far more dangerous because they seem to be normal, patriotic Americans, and so... well, whatever.

The point is, the government is all about distraction. Justify the war by calling it 'pre-emptive defense,' and a frightened and vulnerable poplace will not request a reciept for government spending; create war heroes from average captured Americans and people will rally behind the cause. Talk about abortion as a national crisis and ignore that a lot of people can't afford health care in the first place. Talk about gay marriage and stoke the fires of personal belief (and EVERYONE has an opinion they're more than happy to debate endlessly) to distract from the degredation of the evironment, the very real possibility that, by 2010, weather systems will completely change and the icecaps could very well be melted. Millions of dollars are spent on commissioned reports regarding the impact of gay marriage, and yet the Electric Car sits in a dusty warehouse never to be revealed to the buying public. I'm not saying it's a concious decision to focus on one instead of the other (or even as a shady diversion tactic), but the fact remains that governments have become less the intelligent ruling body of the people than their tabloid distractors.

Originally posted by pipking
Hippies unite! And thanks m00se and Mrs. G for your insightful comments.

Hehe.

In terms of Bush's culpability - by diverting a goodly amount of government funding to the war in Iraq, Bush's administration put the economy in jeopardy. Yes-no? Not being American, I can only repeat what I hear on the news (and am woefully under-researched), and the news says the economy in the states is bad because Bush and his cronies used too much money they didn't have to fund the war. Even today I heard a news pundit call it "another Vietnam" which doesn't bode well.

Decent objection, but the purpose of war is to preserve the state in the long run. Bush's war spending isn't the bad part, his ridiculously large spending on things like the Medicare extension and failure to veto any spending bills is. As for "another Vietnam" that is more wishful thinking on part of the media, than it is truth. There is no way to compare it to the Tet offensive (except our comming victory). The Tet offensive featured tens of thousands of regular and trained North Vietnamese. The rebellion led by the power-hungry Al-Sadr is a rag tag group of a couple thousand militia men. His religious credentials are lacking, and he has faced opposition from the popular cleric Ayatollah Sistani.

Now I'm not going to speculate any on the legitimacy of the war on/in Iraq, because it's a moot point. What remains relevant are the money spent on it, home defense, and the soldiers abandoned in anarchy. September 11 is a tragedy that is unlikely to be repeated - and if, God forbid, it is repeated, it's unlikely that the 'war on terror' will have any impact on those people interested in seeing America fall. In fact, Bush's alienating foreigners to his own detriment - American terrorist groups, bent of bringing down the government, are far more dangerous because they seem to be normal, patriotic Americans, and so... well, whatever.

I understand the point you are trying to make (but I disagree). The purpose is to prevent a catastrophic attack on US soil (i.e. a state aids terrorists w/ WMD). The 'war on terror' is a long term strategy aimed at destroying the dangerous cult of death that exists within the current Islamic culture, which combined with eliminating state sponsors of terror, should eradicate fundamentalist Islamic terrorist problems.

The point is, the government is all about distraction. Justify the war by calling it 'pre-emptive defense,' and a frightened and vulnerable poplace will not request a reciept for government spending; create war heroes from average captured Americans and people will rally behind the cause. Talk about abortion as a national crisis and ignore that a lot of people can't afford health care in the first place. Talk about gay marriage and stoke the fires of personal belief (and EVERYONE has an opinion they're more than happy to debate endlessly) to distract from the degredation of the evironment, the very real possibility that, by 2010, weather systems will completely change and the icecaps could very well be melted. Millions of dollars are spent on commissioned reports regarding the impact of gay marriage, and yet the Electric Car sits in a dusty warehouse never to be revealed to the buying public. I'm not saying it's a concious decision to focus on one instead of the other (or even as a shady diversion tactic), but the fact remains that governments have become less the intelligent ruling body of the people than their tabloid distractors.

Actually, I see gloom and doom global warming scenarios as the 'distraction'. Global warming is, at best, a junk science. There are so many areas that affect global temperatures, and fields that we cannot predict accurately (i.e. magnetic fields, sun spots, cloud microphysics, volcanic eruptions, etc...), that in the long run, any gloom and doom scenario for global warming is not only scientifically suspect, but also irresponsible.

The government hasn't 'become less intelligent', it has merely assumed more responsibility and shown itself to be consistently inefficient and under par(in other words, it always was 'less intelligent').

Also, I see things like 'healthcare' as red herrings to actual realities. Who is to say that the government should be interfering in this department when it only sends to wreck and ruin every other department.

Electric cars? Should the government be funding this or should private enterprise be funding this?

Originally posted by Bobslob
Electric cars? Should the government be funding this or should private enterprise be funding this?

Here we go, this is it. If the government wants to make it concerned with every aspect of our life, such as marriage, abortion and telling us what is going to kill us or not, they can make themselves concerned with our enviromental problems.

Bobslob, you point out that claims of global warming is simply irresponsible? You should live where I live. I live in the Snowy Mountains in Australia, and there is evidence of global warming. The first is that global warming is directly affecting the hole in the ozone layer...yes, that is right up to where I live. It's there and it's growing. More species are become extinct up here because of this and there is enough science to prove this. Come up here and I'll show you.

I don't think it's just the Bush admin being irresponsible. It's every government in the world, including my own. If they simply cared about what was best for the people, every single one of them, then perhaps we would be living in a better world.

Yet agression (terrorists) leads to agression (Bush) which in turn leads to agression (terrorists) which in turn leads to more agression (Bush).... where does it stop? And when do we start thinking about the things that matter to us?

I said 'gloom and doom' scenarios are irresponsible.

Bobslob, you point out that claims of global warming is simply irresponsible? You should live where I live. I live in the Snowy Mountains in Australia, and there is evidence of global warming. The first is that global warming is directly affecting the hole in the ozone layer...yes, that is right up to where I live. It's there and it's growing. More species are become extinct up here because of this and there is enough science to prove this. Come up here and I'll show you.

Global warming is, by definition, global- and not local.

Yet agression (terrorists) leads to agression (Bush) which in turn leads to agression (terrorists) which in turn leads to more agression (Bush).... where does it stop? And when do we start thinking about the things that matter to us?

To be blunt, it stops when we've killed the last one of them. The fact is, our own defense is something that 'matters to us'.

Originally posted by Bobslob
I said 'gloom and doom' scenarios are irresponsible.


Global warming is, by definition, global- and not local.


To be blunt, it stops when we've killed the last one of them. The fact is, our own defense is something that 'matters to us'.

1. You clearly mentioned global warming: "Global warming is, at best, a junk science."

2. It is global. A hole in the ozone layer does not only affect us, it affects the amazon, to name a few. As does forest clearing, which also happens to a lesser extent here. It may not affect you city dwellers, but neither does an Iraqi war. The threat of terrorism has been heightened not to an extent where we should live in fear, it has been heightened to an extent where it is simply a security CONCERN. It has the same chance of happening as being hit by a bus and not many people leave the house in fear of being hit by a giant freaking bus.

3. To elaborate, the chance of us all dying from a doom and gloom situation is not much less than the chance of dying from a terrorist attack. I think that working on something that prevents us from a major enviromental catastrophe is a much greater concern than waging war on a middle eastern country.

Regarding the war on terrorism: Bush was irresponsible to go into Iraq thinking it would be like D-Day. It is obvious he had the plan to keep troops in there for a shorter time. Now he is talking about sending more troops in. Thousands of protestors all over the world knew this. I'll admit, there are many people who simply protested because their friends were going and it was cool to rebel against the government, but those of us who are educated and smart enough to make a proper judgement had the opinion that the war was unjust, unneccesary and we did not have enough information to know that there were weapons of mass destruction. We were proved right: we found no weapons of mass destruction, we're in the country for longer than we thought and now Bush knows he has made a mistake, whether he cares to admit it or not. I don't think an Iraq war is going to make my life more secure, I think it is making it less secure. It's obvious because this is happening now and will continue to happen. A whole generation is now growing up in Iraq wanting to avenge the deaths of mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters killed by Coalition Forces. It will hardly be secure in short-term or the foresee-able long-term. It will take perhaps centuries for this to fix itself now.

Regarding global enviroment situations: it makes me saddened to hear that you call these situations 'doom and gloom', because simply, Global Warming for one will get out of control, whether it happens to our children or to their children. That is something worth fighting for. To be realistic, I would rather make sure my child's life is secure before someone elses child. Those are just my fatherly instincts. I don't think waging a war on a middle eastern country is making anything safer.

By waging war through choice rather than neccesity, we are sending a message to the world that our countries are war-mongerers. By only fighting war in neccesity, and fighting a war with a message of peace, that makes things better. That is my ultimate opposition to the war. And I think that if our countries went to war in a solar-powered tank, then perhaps it would actully give the war a different image, no matter how stupid it sounds.

Hippies unite!
And then take over the world to get rid of contemporary liberals.

Because fossil fuel is something finite (ie., we're gonna run out sooner or later), and because the people who 'own' it are few and powerful, having the government invest in a techonology that will not only diffuse the power of said few but also tangibly benefit the greater Earth in the long run... well, that makes sense to me.

I guess it's all about priorities. To me, things like abortion & gay marriage (just to keep my same examples), aren't really a big deal in the grand scheme, and should be dealt with locally, personally, without the government's hand in. The fact that they keep popping up in political debate strikes me as pointless. All parties have made their views known - there is no blanket solution that will make everyone happy. And though it's not the government's responsibility to ensure warm-fuzzies for the people, they do have a responsibility to rule justly, with concern for all involved. These are not debates that can be satisfied with restrictive legislation. To quote Kodos: "Abortions for some, tiny American flags for everyone else!"

[applause]

On defense, I... remain skeptical. I think homeland security is an important issue to a country brutally attcked from without, but I can't help but shudder to think about covert racial profiling and 'Freedom' Fries, excessive, unchecked government spending and bills passed into law restricting freedoms so dearly fought for under the banner of America the Beautiful not so long ago. It is definitely something the government needs to concern itself with, and regardless of how I feel certain countries are doing that, the fact remains that security is much more important to discuss than abortion.

So why, then, can we not get away from matters of personal, private concern? This is the question.

[quote]Originally posted by The Tourist.

1. You clearly mentioned global warming: "Global warming is, at best, a junk science."

Yeah, I did. My point was that there is no accurate scientific way to predict what will happen. Furthermore, even if there was a rise in temperature in the recent past (globally, which has not happened), that would not be evidence of man induced warming. A little known and often ignored fact is that temperature has been highly variable over time. There was a Middle Age warm period, followed by a mini-Ice Age. Global temperature can be affected by far more things than just man made CO2.

2. It is global. A hole in the ozone layer does not only affect us, it affects the amazon, to name a few. As does forest clearing, which also happens to a lesser extent here. It may not affect you city dwellers, but neither does an Iraqi war. The threat of terrorism has been heightened not to an extent where we should live in fear, it has been heightened to an extent where it is simply a security CONCERN. It has the same chance of happening as being hit by a bus and not many people leave the house in fear of being hit by a giant freaking bus.

Well, just to clear it up, I'm not a city dweller. Global warming? No. There has likely been no net warming in the past 70 years. And concrete evidence shows slight cooling over the past 20 years.

but those of us who are educated and smart enough to make a proper judgement had the opinion that the war was unjust, unneccesary and we did not have enough information to know that there were weapons of mass destruction. We were proved right: we found no weapons of mass destruction, we're in the country for longer than we thought and now Bush knows he has made a mistake, whether he cares to admit it or not. I don't think an Iraq war is going to make my life more secure, I think it is making it less secure. It's obvious because this is happening now and will continue to happen. A whole generation is now growing up in Iraq wanting to avenge the deaths of mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters killed by Coalition Forces. It will hardly be secure in short-term or the foresee-able long-term. It will take perhaps centuries for this to fix itself now.

There were other reasons than WMD, although that was a big one. Firstly, our intelligence and nearly every other intelligence agency in the world said that Saddam had WMD. Saddam was obligated to disarm following the Gulf War cease fire. Iraq was a safe haven for terrorists. Iraq set bounties on the heads of Israelies by giving thousands of dollars to suicide bombers. Abu Nidal, Abdul Rahman Yasin, Khala Khadr al-Salahat, Abu Abbas, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi- all terrorists with connections to Iraq. Right up until the end, Saddam had projects on weaponizing things like Anthrax. Also, the Congressional Resolution on the use of force in Iraq stated more than WMD, Saddam's failure to comply with the cease-fire, failure of full cooperation with inspectors, ending support for international terrorists groups, human rights violations and threats against neighboring countries. You add his WMD use, to outstanding weapons not accounted for by the weapons inspectors, to ties to international terrorist organizations and intent to make more weapons- and its becomes clear that Saddam was a danger.

Regarding global enviroment situations: it makes me saddened to hear that you call these situations 'doom and gloom', because simply, Global Warming for one will get out of control, whether it happens to our children or to their children. That is something worth fighting for. To be realistic, I would rather make sure my child's life is secure before someone elses child. Those are just my fatherly instincts. I don't think waging a war on a middle eastern country is making anything safer.

Like I said, global temperature readings say otherwise. Now, I am in favor of a scientific approach to global warming. My stance is that there are too many variables that cannot be accounted for when talking about global warming, making such things highly unscientific and inaccurate (which is why I ultimately find it irresponsible). That is further compounded by evidence of significant climate changes before man produced CO2 became significant.

By waging war through choice rather than neccesity, we are sending a message to the world that our countries are war-mongerers. By only fighting war in neccesity, and fighting a war with a message of peace, that makes things better. That is my ultimate opposition to the war. And I think that if our countries went to war in a solar-powered tank, then perhaps it would actully give the war a different image, no matter how stupid it sounds.

If not now, then when? When Saddam had definitively gained WMD? When he started to show them off and blackmailed us with them? When the mass graves around his country had 500,000 instead of 300,000 people in them? When he passed off a WMD to a terrorist organization? This isn't a problem that was going to go away. It had to be done sooner or later, and it could only have gotten worse.

On defense, I... remain skeptical. I think homeland security is an important issue to a country brutally attcked from without, but I can't help but shudder to think about covert racial profiling and 'Freedom' Fries, excessive, unchecked government spending and bills passed into law restricting freedoms so dearly fought for under the banner of America the Beautiful not so long ago. It is definitely something the government needs to concern itself with, and regardless of how I feel certain countries are doing that, the fact remains that security is much more important to discuss than abortion.

Racial profiling isn't ideal, but it is realistic. After all, Muslim extremists that try and fly airplanes into buildings have provably looked a certain way. Do you know of a better way? 'Freedom Fries' is harmless, and of course, people have every right to peacefully disagree with France's stance. Excessive gov't spending is bad, but most of that bad spending comes from welfare programs and inflated education spending (surprisingly more than the war). Now, the 'Patriot Act' is hardly ideal, but it isn't a disaster either. As for curtailing rights to freedom of speech and religion, in Canada (for instance), anti-discrimination laws can make Biblical teachings on homosexuality a criminal offense, is that right?

Not to mention that if we all did not only TALK but actaully DID something, then the future would be better! That is the problem with political discussions - they are ONLY DISCUSSIONS!

You are welcome, pipking. I still wonder why you never replied to me private messages. My comment was sarcastic. A revenge.