America - The Official Thread

[TenEightyOne]

Due process, a trial by jury. It does not guarantee a death penalty. Obama is contemplating killing without even knowing if he is guilty.

Badly timed? He did it throughout his entire career. A badly timed publicity stunt repeated annually for over a decade? Huh?

I hadn't seen the Children of the Americas charity work, that's very commendable, I stand corrected and applaud him for that.

Last year's speech where he announced he'd be doing the same; that did seem badly timed and one in the eye (as it were) for the people of a very rich country who still have to pay for health care.

Given his pro-bono stance why does he continue to vote against public healthcare rather than use his undoubted experience and knowledge to make it work? He's also on record as wishing to repeal HMO 1973. That's what made some people cynical about his very-publicised ops late last year.

 

[Danoff]

Sounds like saying murder is okay with due process... but then that would mean that all men were not created equal.

If someone violates the rights of another person, that person forfeits his right. Murderers can be executed, in many cases without due process (as would be the case if someone who broke into your home and attempted to kill you)

 

[FoolKiller]

Given his pro-bono stance why does he continue to vote against public healthcare rather than use his undoubted experience and knowledge to make it work? He's also on record as wishing to repeal HMO 1973. That's what made some people cynical about his very-publicised ops late last year.

As someone with severe health problems; it is not the responsibility of strangers in society to take care of me and it is none of their gorram business.

To quote Penn Jillette, "Just because it's a good idea doesn't mean government should do it."

 

[TenEightyOne]

If someone violates the rights of another person, that person forfeits his right. Murderers can be executed, in many cases without due process (as would be the case if someone who broke into your home and attempted to kill you)

I'll just get my coat

So why try them if they lost their right? You don't lose your rights by violating those of others, even though you may lose certain freedoms.

@FoolKiller why should you pay for yourself? I pay a quarter of my earnings in tax, 20% of everything I buy in more tax, and when I cark the graspers will take half of what's left.

Why should I pay and my society pay for healthcare? That's just crazy, the right to health and education is (in my opinion) one of the basic things a modern society should have. Raising people in its image is the job of society, otherwise you just end up with an every-man-for-themself police state.

Doesn't make it my business, but if you're part of society then society should look after you, not just police you.

 

[Danoff]

So why try them if they lost their right?

The purpose of trials is to establish the facts and determine whether the person is guilty of what they are accused.

You don't lose your rights by violating those of others, even though you may lose certain freedoms.

Here's what I just read:

You don't lose your rights by violating those of others, even though you may lose rights.

 

[TenEightyOne]

You don't lose your rights by violating those of others, even though you may lose rights.

Your rights are inalienable in law. The scales weigh liberty and justice and may remove your freedom (to come and go) in order to make further balances.

The right remains whether or not you are free in the moment to exercise it.

 

[FoolKiller]

@FoolKiller why should you pay for yourself?

Because I know how to take personal responsibility. I won't be a drain on society just because I was born this way. I qualify to draw disability now. I could stop working and have society pay for my food and bills. Instead, I get up and go to work, once after having my defibrillator shock me. In the three years I have been on the transplant list I have only had one battle with depression, when the company I worked for went bankrupt and my job no longer existed. I was depressed because without being a productive member of society I felt worthless. The thing that I hated most was the idea that I couldn't provide for myself.

I had my first job interview less than a week later and had an interview lined up every week after until I found a new job four months later, at a time when average unemployment time was over a a year. I applied for over 50 jobs a week. Finding a job became my job. I started filling out applications and looking for openings the moment my wife went to work and didn't stop until dinner time.

Why? Because it is my problem. No one did this to me.

I pay a quarter of my earnings in tax, 20% of everything I buy in more tax, and when I cark the graspers will take half of what's left.

Wow. My health insurance only runs about $5,000 a year, and that's after me spending four days in the hospital twice this year. Good God, you all pay way too much. Heck, I think I pay too much in taxes and that government wastes what it does have.

Why should I pay and my society pay for healthcare? That's just crazy, the right to health and education is (in my opinion) one of the basic things a modern society should have.

We had healthcare reform here. Everyone is mandated by law to buy a plan, the government has their own set up if you need it, so that we all share the burden of the cost. They even have aid for those with low incomes. But there is a huge number of people not buying into it. So many, in fact, that they are having to specifically target ads to young adults. The First Lady even had the gall to call young people "knuckleheads" on TV to explain why they should comply.

And those ads; this is how our government views twenty-something's in this country.

Raising people in its image is the job of society, otherwise you just end up with an every-man-for-themself police state.

No, you wind up with non-autonomous, independent free thinkers who question the ills of society. These people lead civil rights movements, protest the laws that hurt groups or individuals, and move society forward. If we all are raised in society's image we would still have slavery, or Jim Crowe laws, or black and white water fountains. Women wouldn't be able to vote, and government would run unchecked.

Sorry, "I think. I am. I will." I have that on a shirt. I'm planning to get a shirt that says, "Property of Nobody," on the front and says "I am responsible for my own actions," on the back. I also have shirts with the quotes from my sig in them.

I work to challenge the status quo every day. I am not registered Republican or Democrat, I've only voted for one from either of those parties in the last ten years. If I grew up in the image of society I would be voting Republicrat, I would say bomb the terrorists and those who may, possible, kind of sort of be loosely affiliated with terrorists, I would let them monitor everything I do without complaint, because terrorists, and I would call for Edward Snowden's head on a silver platter.

I work hard to teach my daughter to question what she is told at school and even from me. When she says, "My teacher says," I say, "What do you think?"

Doesn't make it my business, but if you're part of society then society should look after you, not just police you.

By looking after me they do police me. If I lived in England and refused to participate in NHS, by not paying the taxes and paying my doctors out of pocket at price we agreed upon, would I be a criminal or not?

 

[TenEightyOne]

I work hard to teach my daughter to question what she is told at school and even from me. When she says, "My teacher says," I say, "What do you think?"

Good. Kids like that are a pleasure to teach. I used to end the year with a class that had more questions than they started with, that's how they learn best, teach them not to accept anything they hear

Incidentally, the tax I referenced is everything, not just healthcare. I didn't make that very clear. I'm still entitled to go to private doctors if I wish to and to refuse to participate in the NHS. It would make no difference to my tax burden. It's accepted in modern societies that people are entitled to certain basic protections including safety of person and property. Safety of person means ensuring that they're of good health and mind, so why would you make them pay for their own health? It just seems crazy.

Terrorism, I'm not sure how you can oppose NDAA (which doesn't, as far as I can see, provide any Capital legislation not already covered by other Federal or International law) but take that stance? I doubt you've ever really lived with terrorism in the way that people who grew up around army bases or Troubled areas in the 70s or 80s did. It's insidious and dangerous and, fortunately for America, it's something that's quite rare there. That doesn't mean that capital punishments are in order, they're not really a punishment, just an end. Yet you actively support it without due process? There seems, to me, to be a contradiction there.

 

[FoolKiller]

Good. Kids like that are a pleasure to teach. I used to end the year with a class that had more questions than they started with, that's how they learn best, teach them not to accept anything they hear

I should also add that she is in a completely private school (no government money or standards) and she is currently three years ahead of the government standards for her age.

Incidentally, the tax I referenced is everything, not just healthcare.

I understand, and it's part of that whole societal system thing you so dearly love. I have far more money at the end of the day because I only pay 6% in sales tax and 25% income tax is reserved for a far higher tax bracket than me.

I didn't make that very clear. I'm still entitled to go to private doctors if I wish to and to refuse to participate in the NHS. It would make no difference to my tax burden.

You'd still pay the tax. You cannot legally become completely uninvolved with the NHS, if you wanted.

It's accepted in modern societies that people are entitled to certain basic protections including safety of person and property. Safety of person means ensuring that they're of good health and mind, so why would you make them pay for their own health? It just seems crazy.

How do you protect property by involuntarily taking their earned money and giving it to others via government programs?

Terrorism, I'm not sure how you can oppose NDAA (which doesn't, as far as I can see, provide any Capital legislation not already covered by other Federal or International law) but take that stance?

NDAA allows arrest and indefinite detainment without charges due to suspicion of terroristic activities. How is that morally right?

I doubt you've ever really lived with terrorism in the way that people who grew up around army bases or Troubled areas in the 70s or 80s did.

Doesn't mean I should live like I have, or spend every day in fear. Sorry, I don't accept giving up freedoms out of fear.

It's insidious and dangerous and, fortunately for America, it's something that's quite rare there.

But we all get treated like potential terrorists every day.

That doesn't mean that capital punishments are in order, they're not really a punishment, just an end.

I only accept killing as OK if the person is in the act of trying to kill me or others, and it is the only way to stop them. I definitely don't accept drone-bombing a car that a guy we think talked to terrorists is riding in, nor do I accept drone-bombing an already hit target after first responders arrive, nor do I support drone bombing the funeral of a killed terrorist. These are all things our government and society do, and anyone raised I society's image would be expected to support.

Yet you actively support it without due process? There seems, to me, to be a contradiction there.

There is no contradiction. I said nothing of the sort. I think you meant @Danoff, and even then he said it was allowable where they are trying to kill you, as self defense. If they force the you or them issue are you supposed to let them kill you and let the courts take care of it later?

 

[TenEightyOne]

How do you protect property by involuntarily taking their earned money and giving it to others via government programs?

You protect people first, then property. The function of a police force is to protect and serve. Why wouldn't the function of the health service be to do the same thing? Otherwise you have a legislature that's punitive without being remotely pastoral. That's basically going to end up as a corrupt bank state.

There is no contradiction. I said nothing of the sort

You're right... it was in the bit where you said "If I was a republican I would...", my bad

There's no doubt that it's allowable to kill in self defence, the law is clear on that. There are times when people make their own judgements and act on them through necessity or choice. It's still for the courts to judge that action if called upon to do so.

That doesn't equate to a right to kill, just an understanding that there are times when murder (literally) is warranted by perceived or actual necessity.

 

[FoolKiller]

You protect people first, then property. The function of a police force is to protect and serve. Why wouldn't the function of the health service be to do the same thing? Otherwise you have a legislature that's punitive without being remotely pastoral. That's basically going to end up as a corrupt bank state.

So, you really should have said people then property, not people and property.

But here is the bigger issue with your statement, which I will require for reference.

Safety of person means ensuring that they're of good health and mind,

How can you ensure it in a free society? Do you take the fish and chips out of the fat man's hands and make him eat salad? Do you go to the club and confiscate all the cigarettes? Do you ban candy and soft drinks? Do you mandate daily exercise?

Free people make choices, then you pay for it. It is impossible to ensure health without becoming a health-police state.

When my health is in my hands I know my ability to succeed is up to me because I choose my doctors so I know I have the absolute best, I negotiate my costs, and I take full responsibility for my health habits. I am responsible for me. No one else.

Why should I be responsible for a smoker who eats at the all-you-can-eat buffet every night? Why should anyone be responsible for my birth defect? It's not some societal agreement. A guy in California couldn't care less about me. If I setup a Website collecting funds for my medical bills he would be unlikely to even know it exists.

And ultimately why on Earth would I trust my health to the government. They are inefficient, reactionary, and have a history of denying life-saving treatments to people who do use their aid systems. See here, here, and here for examples.

And I think that is something you don't understand. We have aid systems here for the low/no income and disabled people. I qualify for one of them. I choose to not participate, because it is my choice and my desire to be productive. My mental health is better when I recognize myself as being a productive member of society. I would be very unhappy to think that my health issues are being paid for with other people's money taken by force of law.

It seems like the moral high ground to say it should be a law, but that is ultimately taking money from citizens at gunpoint and giving it to someone else who may or may not have created their own problem. Self responsibility is, to me, a far higher morality as it does not require government to use force against others to provide for you.

You're right... it was in the bit where you said "If I was a republican I would...", my bad

I said Republicrat, but yes.

There's no doubt that it's allowable to kill in self defence, the law is clear on that. There are times when people make their own judgements and act on them through necessity or choice. It's still for the courts to judge that action if called upon to do so.

Which is what Danoff was saying.

That doesn't equate to a right to kill, just an understanding that there are times when murder (literally) is warranted by perceived or actual necessity.

But you said rights are only given by law. We have laws here that allow lethal force in self defense. That was part of the recently infamous George Zimmerman trial.

 

[Danoff]

Your rights are inalienable in law. The scales weigh liberty and justice and may remove your freedom (to come and go) in order to make further balances.

The right remains whether or not you are free in the moment to exercise it.

Here's what I read:

Your rights are inalienable in law. The scales weight your rights to come and go to make further balances. The rights remain whether or not they remain.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Here's what I read:
Your rights are inalienable in law. The scales weight your rights to come and go to make further balances. The rights remain whether or not they remain.

You and I are unlikely to agree on whether or not they remain (Hint: they don't, they're a condition not applied until the host reaches the capability for large social sentience, which some of our ancestors did).

 

[Danoff]

You and I are unlikely to agree on whether or not they remain (Hint: they don't, they're a condition not applied until the host reaches the capability for large social sentience, which some of our ancestors did).

When I say "here's what I read", I mean "here's what you sound like to me". And in both cases, you sound like you're saying you have rights except you don't. You're contradicting yourself.

 

[Danoff]

The right remains whether or not you are free in the moment to exercise it.

You and I are unlikely to agree on whether or not they remain (Hint: they don't...

WTH?

 

[TenEightyOne]

In the context of America;

Rights, a recognised concept (if not universally agreed) in world society are specifically provided for in US law and are inalienable. A system of balance exists to weight actions based on right, necessity, merit, all the arguments that one might put before a group of their 'peers'.

To exercise your right to freedom (you're only an electrical organism in your human host) you have to negotiate your part in the society (however much you opt in or out). That means that you are free to exercise your rights, the controls to protect the rights of those you may act 'against' are ruled on in law. To make such balances the law may restrict your movements to investigate or to continue to protect the rights of others.

That doesn't change the existence of your universal right, your legal right as a US citizen, or the rights of those around you. Having a right doesn't mean that you should always have freedom to act; the Constitution and the esteem in which its held is proof of that.

When I say you "lose your right" I should be clear that you lose the ability to exercise the right, the law restricts your physical expression of the right. The concept of right remains in place from a legal and social standpoint.

Life > Human Host > Universal Rights > Legal Rights

That's the order in which 'right' is attained, no actual rights in modern society until you reach the optional Universal or Legal stage.

 

[Danoff]

Rights, a recognised concept (if not universally agreed) in world society are specifically provided for in US law and are inalienable.

Inalienable by others - you can voluntarily divorce yourself from your rights. Your right to life and liberty, for example, is eliminated in US law the moment you violate some other laws which are put in place to protect the rights of others.

For example, if you rob a bank, you have voluntarily (under the eyes of US law and the constitution) divorced yourself from your right to liberty. That is the legal framework behind which the police put you in jail. You do not have a right to liberty while you're in jail. It's not that you still have a right to liberty you're just not allowed to exercise it (that makes no sense), it's that you lost it when you robbed a bank. Again, this is in the eyes of the United States court system.

A system of balance exists to weight actions based on right, necessity, merit, all the arguments that one might put before a group of their 'peers'.

The court system does not exist to "weigh" anything*. The court system is in place to carry out the law. Did you violate the law and if so, which ones. That is what the United States court system is in place to do. I don't see how there is any argument on this.

To exercise your right to freedom (you're only an electrical organism in your human host) you have to negotiate your part in the society (however much you opt in or out). That means that you are free to exercise your rights, the controls to protect the rights of those you may act 'against' are ruled on in law. To make such balances the law may restrict your movements to investigate or to continue to protect the rights of others.

Absolutely 100% no friggin way. No prisoner, none, is in prison because they voluntarily "negotiated" their part in society and accepted their imprisonment to be part of it. Not a chance, go talk to them, ask them yourself. They are in prison because they have no choice, and guess what, that means their right to "freedom" has been either infringed, or forfeit. Those are the only two options. I have no idea how you can twist your head into thinking that prisoners still have an uninfringed right to freedom perfectly intact and that their state is simply a "negotiated" state, as though it is voluntary. Seriously, visit a prison.

That doesn't change the existence of your universal right, your legal right as a US citizen, or the rights of those around you. Having a right doesn't mean that you should always have freedom to act; the Constitution and the esteem in which its held is proof of that.

If you mean you're not free to violate the rights of others - yes that's true. If you mean that having your right doesn't mean you should always have the freedom to act in a way that doesn't violate the rights of others - well then I have no idea what you're talking about. Prisoners** do not have the right to walk out of the prison - even though that action would not violate anyone else's rights. Why do they lack this liberty? Because they lost it when they violated the rights of others.

When I say you "lose your right" I should be clear that you lose the ability to exercise the right, the law restricts your physical expression of the right. The concept of right remains in place from a legal and social standpoint.

There's nothing here I totally disagree with and yet, I have the uneasy suspicion that you didn't mean what you wrote. I'll make a change that will probably shed light on that. The law doesn't restrict your physical expression of your right. The law concludes that you have lost your right. The concept of rights remains in place from a legal and social standpoint.

Life > Human Host > Universal Rights > Legal Rights

That's the order in which 'right' is attained, no actual rights in modern society until you reach the optional Universal or Legal stage.

Objective rights -> Life -> Legal rights



* Except in sentencing, which is not at all what we're talking about.
** Actually guilty prisoners

 

[FoolKiller]

Arg, political correctness runs amok again.

http://banbossy.com/

The COO of Facebook and the president of Girl Scouts of America are trying to make term bossy unacceptable. Apparently, they get called that and think it is because they are women while men are called great leaders.

I am unaware of a gender discrepancy for bossy. To me someone is bossy when they act like an ass to get what they want.

I think if they are being called bossy they should check their own personality.


Or as I said on Twitter, "Sheryl Sandberg is not bossy. She is just being strong and determined to socially ban free speech."

 

[TenEightyOne]

Arg, political correctness runs amok again.

I think if they are being called bossy they should check their own personality.

Or as I said on Twitter, "Sheryl Sandberg is not bossy. She is just being strong and determined to socially ban free speech."

Firstly check what a "boss" is and what they represent in a hierarchy, and why it might be inappropriate beyond its literal dictionary context.

Then decide why you might call a girl bossy but not a boy - if you wouldn't act any differently then you're not the problem, but lots of other people still are.

Why did you say Cheryl Sandberg was not boss, if you could have used the word? And what's political about it?

There used to be a saying in Britain before the 70s (only said to boys); "You don't hit girls". It seems funny now but that was genuinely something that society thought was acceptable advice for its young men. The humour's in the omission of course.

I think you need to consider why it's more likely that a girl would be called bossy than a boy when they aren't actually any different from each other apart from in gender. A lot of people still believe that there's an entrenched difference between the capabilities, role, potential and place in society for the two.

When you say "I think if they are being called bossy they should check their own personality" you're either doing really smart irony, taking the Michael or you genuinely mean it. I can't imagine the latter is true when you yourself have a daughter.

 

[FoolKiller]

Firstly check what a "boss" is and what they represent in a hierarchy, and why it might be inappropriate beyond its literal dictionary context.

A person in charge of a worker or organization.

I have to female bosses. My direct report manager even refers to them as boss to their face.

There is a vast difference between someone who leads and someone who is bossy, and it isn't the pluming downstairs.

Then decide why you might call a girl bossy but not a boy - if you wouldn't act any differently then you're not the problem, but lots of other people still are.

I don't just call girls bossy, nor does anyone I know. I've been called bossy when I would get impatient with my staff. My penis did not exempt me from that.

Why did you say Cheryl Sandberg was not boss, if you could have used the word? And what's political about it?

What? I said she wasn't bossy...you know, playing on the word she is trying to get rid of, and then defined her by the words she used to say how men are seen as opposed to bossy. In short, I was mocking her using her own words, while pointing out the ridiculousness of her movement.

There used to be a saying in Britain before the 70s (only said to boys); "You don't hit girls". It seems funny now but that was genuinely something that society thought was acceptable advice for its young men. The humour's in the omission of course.

It's not unique to Britain, and is still unacceptable to do here, including by women. Say that you are an equal opportunity puncher and suddenly you are a misogynistic a-hole.

I think you need to consider why it's more likely that a girl would be called bossy than a boy when they aren't actually any different from each other apart from in gender.

I never see it happen. That's the point.

A lot of people still believe that there's an entrenched difference between the capabilities, role, potential and place in society for the two.

Hey, I'm all for unisex sports No more male and female stuff. I want to see who is the best of the best.

When you say "I think if they are being called bossy they should check their own personality" you're either doing really smart irony, taking the Michael or you genuinely mean it.

Maybe these female executives tried to overcompensate in a male-dominated world and actually were bossy, and deserved the title. Bossy refers to an attitude, not a gender.

I can't imagine the latter is true when you yourself have a daughter.

Why? She can be bossy, yelling, pushing, taking things. I tell her to stop being bossy (exactly what this movement wants to stop) and tell her to use her big girl words and share and compromise with her friends. I watched her one day choreograph an entire dance to "Let It Go" from Frozen with her cousins. She never once was bossy, but she did display signs of good leadership in convincing them to join her and follow her lead, despite one cousin being almost three years older than her.

Political correctness does more harm than good in my mind. My handicap parking pass became a disabled parking pass. Here's the problem: I'm not disabled, but I do have a handicap.

You can't run from words because a few jerks started using them in a derogatory way. Change the word and in a generation it becomes offensive again. The problem isn't the word. The problem is our willingness to accept it becoming derogatory and change our lexicon to run and hide from it.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I took your first post in the wrong light, perhaps - and I'm grumpy.

Sometimes you have to try to change society for people who don't see that a change might make it better - the masses enjoy their opiates after all.

I see the "that girl's bossy" attitude on a daily basis, perhaps it's more of a problem in Britain, that modern free-thinking example of perfect Victorian society?

EDIT: I know why! You said "political-correctness-gone-mad". It's a phrase beloved of 'readers' of a daily tabloid in the UK and makes me irrationally cross

Here's the paper, contains partial nudity, lies and Murdoch's political propoganda-of-the-week. It's a sort of giggling schoolboy of a paper, it likes to publish details of celebrity sex but has to use words like "bonk" to say it

 

[FoolKiller]

There is gender bias here (not in my workplace of 75% women - or is there?) but we rarely use the term bossy as they say it is used. We jump straight to the other B-word, which rhymes with witch. But even that requires being aggressive on the woman's part first to be called that by more than a handful of people.

I also think their point is made weak at a time when we have a chance that our next president will be female.

 

[Beeker1972]

Well we can call "Bossy" women Hunts - H + C ... lets see what happens then ... Well I did go through sensitivity training when I asked my secretary who was a lesbian hand me the pair of dikes when I was zip tying some wires together at work.

 

[TenEightyOne]

'Ere's an article ov'rrat'Beeb abaht it. Interesting quote from a Professor of Yakkin-'n'-All't-Such-Like at the astonishingly named "University of Sheffield".

Some commentators say the word should be "reclaimed", rather than banned. "But the thing with 'bossy' is that there's an infantile element to it," says Sara Mills, research professor in linguistics at Sheffield Hallam University. "You think of 'bossy' as being like a little kid who's claiming more than they have the right to claim. Although it comes from boss, it has those connotations of [being] infantile."

@Beeker1972 I bet you're a right laugh

 

[Sanji Himura]

2 Dead and 25 injured at the South by Southwest Music Festival. A drunk driver was driving the wrong way, pursued by the police when he turned into the festival and ran into a bunch of people. He was arrested via taser.

This is breaking news.

 

[FoolKiller]

Well I did go through sensitivity training when I asked my secretary who was a lesbian hand me the pair of dikes when I was zip tying some wires together at work.

Similar thing happened to Adam Carolla. He was on The Tonight Show and told a story about needing a lineman dyke to open the packaging on his kids toys and all the GLBT folks got in a hissy because they thought it was jab at Queen Latifa, who was sitting next to him.

 

[GTPorsche]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/weeks-waking-body-bag-miss-man-dies-22898990

 

[Beeker1972]

People just need to grow some stones and get over the name calling.

Similar thing happened to Adam Carolla. He was on The Tonight Show and told a story about needing a lineman dyke to open the packaging on his kids toys and all the GLBT folks got in a hissy because they thought it was jab at Queen Latifa, who was sitting next to him.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Man caught on film committing sexual assault has died.

He was never charged.

 

[DK]

# Guess who's back, back again? SOPA's back, tell a friend.