The General American Politics Thread

[SuperStingray]

I usually ignore your comments, but today, I feel like being an asshole.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the most intelligent candidate in the election!

[Spooky Mulder]

Fox News will always be #1, because it tells the truth without this unprofessional Limey bullshit.

Spiky...you're joking, right?

[SuperStingray]

That guy was insulting Herman Cain with that question. I applaud the political mastermind Herman Cain for trolling the trolls.

Edited November 17, 2011 by SuperStingray

[Stacy]

I can tell already that this is going to be a reasoned debate with someone well-informed about the subject in question.

Edited November 17, 2011 by BW199148

[Flyboy Fox]

Just days after Cain stumbled enunciating a position on Libya, the presidential candidate has been caught referring to the language Cubans speak as 'Cuban.' Even worse, it happened in Miami while meeting at the Versaille restaurant on Wednesday afternoon. After biting into a croquette, Cain asked, "How do you say 'delicious' in Cuban?" Of course, Cubans speak Spanish. But hey, not knowing things is part of Cain's brand these days.

Cain brought up the GOP debate on foreign policy two days earlier.

“That’s a tough subject. You don’t want to get your facts mixed up,” he said.

He defended his view that presidents and presidential candidates don’t need to be immersed in the fine print of world affairs – they simply need to be leaders who can surround themselves with the right people and sift through their advice.

“I’m not supposed to know anything about foreign policy. Just thought I’d throw that out,” he said, a dig at his critics.

“I want to talk to commanders on the ground. Because you run for president (people say) you need to have the answer. No, you don’t! No, you don’t! That’s not good decision-making,” said Cain.

But the Libya thing (and his response to it) takes the cake. Completely avoiding answering a legitimate question about why he flubbed by yelling "999!" like a child blocking their ears and going "lalala I can't hear you!" is quite... scary behaviour from a presidential candidate. How anyone is defending this man as intelligent or politically astute, I don't even know... He's quite clearly a moron of the highest calibre.

[Stacy]

But the Libya thing (and his response to it) takes the cake. Completely avoiding answering a legitimate question about why he flubbed by yelling "999!" like a child blocking their ears and going "lalala I can't hear you!" is quite... scary behaviour from a presidential candidate. How anyone is defending this man as intelligent or politically astute, I don't even know... He's quite clearly a moron of the highest calibre.

Yeah the Libya interview just made him look a bumbling idiot if he acts like that in debates it will hurt his chances to become president.

[SuperStingray]

Well, if nothing else it completely diverted my attention from Rick Perry's incredible gaffe last week. So if nothing else, he's a fantastic distraction.

[Dark Qiviut]

But the Libya thing (and his response to it) takes the cake. Completely avoiding answering a legitimate question about why he flubbed by yelling "999!" like a child blocking their ears and going "lalala I can't hear you!" is quite... scary behaviour from a presidential candidate. How anyone is defending this man as intelligent or politically astute, I don't even know... He's quite clearly a moron of the highest calibre.

Absolutely. Cain may be a former CEO, but being a former business man does NOT mean he can handle business practices and foreign policy as a president well. But his flubs as of late regarding his blanket bashing of OWS (and I'm not a fan of the movement, either), his bullshit 9-9-9 plan, sexual harassment accusations, and Libya flub will not make me vote for him. Cain's presidential candidacy has been a huge P.R. nightmare over the past few months and has gotten worse. Edited November 17, 2011 by Dark Qiviut

[Flyboy Fox]

And don't talk about that flag like you know everything; you know nothing because you don't even live here.

[Tornado]

Arrogant as usual.

You think I don't know that, stop thinking I am unintelligent.

Edited November 17, 2011 by Tornado

[Flyboy Fox]

Yo, okay. Tornado and BW, what is UP with the two of you? If you're not butting heads in the pony thread it's in another thread like this one.

BW, I know you mean well, but if you keep throwing out macros and making generalisations and spouting stereotypes, no one is going to take you seriously. That's not how debate works. Try to post less on emotion and more on facts.

Tornado, again I'm sure you're not trying to instigate, but you don't need to be so acerbic and inflammatory when you respond to BW. Your personal dislike of BW really shows through in your responses, and that should be kept out of debates.

I'm all for debate and for the right to disagree with each other, and if this was a one off, I would let it go because debates do get heated. But you two seem to get personal every single time you interact on the forum, and it's wearing thin.

[Stacy]

BW, I know you mean well, but if you keep throwing out macros and making generalisations and spouting stereotypes, no one is going to take you seriously. That's not how debate works. Try to post less on emotion and more on facts.

I'm all for debate and for the right to disagree with each other, and if this was a one off, I would let it go because debates do get heated. But you two seem to get personal every single time you interact on the forum, and it's wearing thin.

Sorry, Flyboy I know the Flag debate has gone off topic but I personally don't understand why people take pride in the Confederate flag, I dislike the flag and this how I personally feel on that subject and if bothers people I am sorry. I am also sorry for the overuse of Stereotypes but personally SpikySprinter makes himself out like a stereotype especially with Fox News and overbearing remarks about freedom I can't take him seirously.

Everytime I post something Tornado doesn't like he just gets ratty with me obessed with always proving me wrong. I am trying ignore him but I am not gonna lie and say I do find it difficult.

EDIT: American's yabbing on about Freedom of Speech is bullshit because your Country wouldn't stand for it if Islamic Exteremists started preaching hate on your streets also not to mention you went into Vietnam trying stop people voicing their want for communism what gives America the right to have all the freedom when no one else can, not to mention your country censors stuff to shit so, Freedom of Speech my ass. I don't need Freedom of Speech to say what I am saying now even if you think it is wrong.

Edited November 17, 2011 by BW199148

[Velotix von Skruviktorrius]

Alright fine, I'll butt in because finally there's something I can discuss reasonably here.

Hate speech laws creep me out on such a base level. It's such a garbage level of censorship and it shows that you're fine with big brother keeping a finger up your ass.

I wouldn't word it quite like that but I certainly hope my country's government is actually paying attention to what's going on in its borders, and hate speech laws represent that attitude; there's a basic standard of civility that people are expected to maintain and if they can't self-regulate (and they can't), then sure, have the government step in to give them a reason to behave themselves. Paranoia about government intervention on anything seems to be a uniquely American problem; I have no problem with them setting the rules so long as they're held accountable for doing so.

At any rate, that's not why I originally stopped by, so let's try this again.

Hate speech laws creep me out on such a base level. It's such a garbage level of censorship and it shows that you're fine with big brother keeping a finger up your ass.

Name me a time when the government doesn't have some kind of control over you. Even in the bathtub. Be honest.

Honestly, there's never a moment when Big Brother doesn't have a finger up your ass - to continue the allegory - unless the government doesn't exist at all. If you have laws, the government is responsible for setting them and making sure they're being enforced, even if they're not directly doing the enforcing. They have a vested interest in paying attention to what their citizens and especially state officials are actually doing, so they also have an interest in playing Big Brother at least some of the time.

[Nepenthe]

@BW: In the case of extremism, sure, naturally people would protest as they did with the Ground Zero community center, but there would also be opposition against attempts to silence them under the guise of free speech. Not every American is hypersensitive.

Also, you forget people protested the Vietnam War in spades.

And finally, free speech has never been universal. It is only for protecting unpopular speech and expression from governmental silence, not what would legally be considered lewdness or indecency. Even then, what that constitutes that is forever changing all the time, so decrying censorship is silly.

I can't believe a negative comment I made about my own region in a single country has sparked a nationality war though. -.-

[Tornado]

EDIT: American's yabbing on about Freedom of Speech is bullshit because your Country wouldn't stand for it if Islamic Exteremists started preaching hate on your streets

And if that is the case (and I want examples), that is no less wrong.

also not to mention you went into Vietnam trying stop people voicing their want for communism

Vietnam had nothing, I repeat nothing, to do with Freedom of Speech (nor can it be summed up anywhere near as simplistically as "voicing their want for Communism").

In fact, it was one of the greatest triumphs of Freedom of Speech in the country when you look at what happened domestically; because the things that happened during Vietnam on the home front would never have been allowed just ten years earlier.

what gives America the right to have all the freedom when no one else can

Last I checked, there wasn't a finite amount of freedom of speech divided up among the world's countries; and any lacking/restrictions of free speech laws in your country are generally the fault of the people living there.

And, for the record, the answer to your question is that little piece of paper tacked on to the beginning of the Constitution which theoretically overrides all restrictions (though admittedly in practice it is ignored far too often), which makes the United States distinct because no other country with Free Speech provisos makes them absolute.

not to mention your country censors stuff to shit so, Freedom of Speech my ass.

So, once again, because things are flawed the concept doesn't apply whatsoever?

I don't need Freedom of Speech to say what I am saying now even if you think it is wrong.

You act as if freedom of speech applies on this board in the first place (what with being a private message board and all); but regardless, you kind of do. Compare you living in England, even with what I personally would say are excessively restrictive laws limiting free speech, to a random guy living in China and get some perspective.

Edited November 17, 2011 by Tornado

[TheGerkuman]

The thing is, people have different on what counts as freedoms. For instance, in the UK we would not consider that a person has the right to have a gun, yet in the US it is. Is there a right answer to the question, and is it fair to ask countries to abide by the rules/standards of another?

Personally, while I don't believe that owning a gun is an inalieable right that people have, on the other hand the US does and I don't believe I should be telling them to believe anything different. (Though I am allowed to tell them that I think they're wrong and vice versa)

[Velotix von Skruviktorrius]

Compare you living in England, even with what I personally would say are excessively restrictive laws limiting free speech, to a random guy living in China and get some perspective.

I'm now curious as to what you find excessive in our law, because I don't really have a problem with it - I suppose laws are a reflection of the culture they were built for.

Funnily enough I'd say the US allows far too much to be said without punishment, so I suppose I can see where this is going already. Still, as I said, I'm curious.

[SuperStingray]

The thing is, people have different on what counts as freedoms. For instance, in the UK we would not consider that a person has the right to have a gun, yet in the US it is. Is there a right answer to the question, and is it fair to ask countries to abide by the rules/standards of another?

Personally, while I don't believe that owning a gun is an inalieable right that people have, on the other hand the US does and I don't believe I should be telling them to believe anything different. (Though I am allowed to tell them that I think they're wrong and vice versa)

The thing about rights is that they don't exist by nature. In the immortal words of George Carlin, "We don't have rights. They're imaginary. We made 'em up. ... Personally when it comes to rights, I think one of two things is true: either we have unlimited rights, or we have no rights at all." If it's physically possible to have those rights taken away, they aren't natural to begin with. The reason we have different countries is that people have different philosophies. If there were objective rights, an objective God and an objective morality, then we wouldn't have conflict in the first place. The only reason we need both laws to limit ourselves and freedoms to empower ourselves is that humans are a paradoxical species that can't advance as a collective with the restrictions we have to prevent ourselves from killing each other. So I believe in freedom of speech, not because it's the right thing, but because it helps the system work.

Democracy's certainly better than the alternatives, at least any that I can think of, but on its own, it's redundant in that it's meant to give the individual power, but it only does so if that individual is in the majority of people for or against the same cause. Freedom of speech is probably the best countermeasure to that shortcoming because its the vehicle that gives that the minority power. To elaborate, freedom should not be lauded simply by virtue of it being freedom. A mom who lets her kid eat candy every day isn't a proponent of freedom, she's a shitty-ass parent. But both have the right to argue that candy is good for you. It may be wrong, but society would get nowhere if people didn't have the ability to argue for their causes in the first place. Symbols like the Confederate flag carry a lot of ugly weight, but the freedom of speech that let's people hang that flag in pride is the same one that gives people the ability to oppose it.

Edited November 17, 2011 by SuperStingray

[Tornado]

I'm now curious as to what you find excessive in our law, because I don't really have a problem with it - I suppose laws are a reflection of the culture they were built for.

Off the top of my head?

English slander/libel litigation is weird (because if I understand them correctly, the burden of proof is on those accused to prove they didn't do it rather than the one making the accusations to prove that they did); and I cannot see the justification of regulating hate speech since the entire point of such laws are to give unequal protection for specific groups of people and thus are incredibly arbitrary basically on purpose.

Edited November 18, 2011 by Tornado

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

I cannot comprehend how any rational person would want to "punish" people for hate speech?

You really want me to give a serious answer?

Let's try that at it's worst hate speech (or any malicious speech) can incite people to cross the line from making a "speech" to committing a crime. Anyone can say "N---ers should hang from a tree", "Gays should just die", or my favorite "White people should be exterminated" (and who hasn't heard something close to this?), but there are people who are likely to go an extra mile and actually do those things to those very people.

Now that's just at its worst. The psychology on all of this is a lot more complex and I am no expert on it, but it shouldn't take anyone with a fourth grade education to be able to connect the dots that way. If hate speech simply stayed as "speech" then there wouldn't be any need for "punishing" it, but that's never a guarantee. There's a lot of rationalizing that goes into this, and it's to keep that damn line from being crossed.

Words can hurt just as much as sticks and bones, mostly psychologically.

Edited November 18, 2011 by ChaosSupremeSonic

[SuperStingray]

You really want me to give a serious answer?

Let's try that at it's worst hate speech (or any malicious speech) can incite people to cross the line from making a "speech" to committing a crime. Anyone can say "N---ers should hang from a tree", "Gays should just die", or my favorite "White people should be exterminated" (and who hasn't heard something close to this?), but there are people who are likely to go an extra mile and actually do those things to those very people.

Now that's just at its worst. The psychology on all of this is a lot more complex and I am no expert on it, but it shouldn't take anyone with a fourth grade education to be able to connect the dots that way. If hate speech simply stayed as "speech" then there wouldn't be any need for "punishing" it, but that's never a guarantee. There's a lot of rationing that goes into this, and it's to keep that damn line from being crossed.

Words can hurt just as much as sticks and bones, mostly psychologically.

You're describing two entirely different crimes and just connecting them with "slippery slope" logic. Taking away a person's right to verbally display their racism won't stop them from being racist. If anything, taking away the verbal venue will make it all the more likely for them do more physical harm in compensation. And even then you can't completely stop hate speech just by telling people they can't do it. Culture isn't something the government can force change upon- the only way to stop hate crime is to raise people not to be racist.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

You're describing two entirely different crimes and just connecting them with "slippery slope" logic.

Wait, since when is hate speech an actual crime in the US at least? Last I checked it was perfectly legal so long as it doesn't lead to an actual crime that involves it or something along those lines. Akin to yelling "fire" in a theatre and causing people to panic and end up killing someone in the stampede out of fear for their life.

Taking away a person's right to verbally display their racism won't stop them from being racist. If anything, taking away the verbal venue will make it all the more likely for them do more physical harm in compensation.

I never said take away a person's right to verbally display racism. I said that verbally displaying it at its worst can end up causing physical harm by people who are more than willing to actually do it as a result.

Not to mention that your example is no less of a "slippery slope" than mine when you make that justification.

And even then you can't completely stop hate speech just by telling people they can't do it. Culture isn't something the government can force change upon- the only way to stop hate crime is to raise people not to be racist.

You're talking about doing something completely different than I am. The most I said was that if hate speech stayed as hate speech and didn't actually ignite a hate crime then there wouldn't be a need to punish such a thing and the main reason such a thing is punished is to help keep that line from being cross, not to stop actual hate speech. Anyone can say whatever hateful thing they want so long as they keep it as a speech.

Edited November 18, 2011 by ChaosSupremeSonic

[SuperStingray]

Wait, since when is hate speech an actual crime in the US at least? Last I checked it was perfectly legal so long as it doesn't lead to an actual crime that involves it or something along those lines. Akin to yelling "fire" in a theatre and causing people to panic and end up killing someone in the stampede out of fear for their life.

It's not- I misspoke. I meant that as more of a "social crime" in that context more than a literal one.

I never said take away a person's right to verbally display racism. I said that verbally displaying it at its worst can end up causing physical harm by people who are more than willing to actually do it as a result.

You're talking about doing something completely different than I am. The most I said was that if hate speech stayed as hate speech and didn't actually ignite a hate crime then there wouldn't be a need to punish such a thing and the main reason such a thing is punished is to help keep that line from being cross, not to stop actual hate speech. Anyone can say whatever hateful thing they want so long as they keep it as a speech.

I'm confused. Are you saying that hate crimes should be punished or hate speech should be punished so they don't become hate crimes?

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

I'm confused. Are you saying that hate crimes should be punished or hate speech should be punished so they don't become hate crimes?

I'm really saying that hate speech can incite hate crimes is the main reason why they can be "punished" so that the line between the two doesn't get crossed. If hate speech stayed as hate speech, then there's no need to punish it; if it incites a hate crime, then it should be punished. And the two can overlap when someone actually gets the incentive to take that speech and actually commit the crime that relates to it.

Like I said, I'm no expert, but there's a relation between the two that any person with some sense can connect. And hopefully you see the point I'm making.

Edited November 18, 2011 by ChaosSupremeSonic

[Flyboy Fox]

I don't think anyone is arguing about whether free speech is a good thing. Of course it is. However, the problem is not in free speech itself, but where free speech meets incitement to riot/violence/suppression of other rights.

Let's look at an example. People are perfectly within their rights to speak out against homosexuality if they are against it, as daft as many of us may think their viewpoint is. Very few people would take the stance that it should be illegal to openly speak in opposition of homosexuality. The question is how far does that right extend?

"Homosexuality is a sin."

"Homosexuality is a sin and homosexuals will go to Hell."

"I hate gay people."

"Gay people are faggot pussies."

"Gays are fags and should die."

"Uganda has it right; burn the faggots!"

"I don't want no fags allowed in this school/workplace/establishment!"

"Let's picket this person's funeral and tell their family how he/she's going to hell for being a faggot!"

"Let's mail out fliers to people telling them how gays will burn in hell and encouraging them to reject anyone gay or else be a fag enabler and also go to hell!"

"I'm going to tell this kid every day that he's a worthless queer."

"I'm going to stand in a public place and denounce queers as sinners all day long."

"I'm going to throw a party and base it on rabble-rousing the people to chant about death to queers."

"I'm going to congratulate and cheer on people who do violence to faggots - hey, I'm not doing it myself so I'm clean!"

Many of those things are, in my opinion, stupid things to say but people should be allowed to say them. It is their right. But are all of these things okay to say? At what point does it become bullying? At what point does it become oppression? Is it worse to incite a whole room or stadium of people to cheer about violence towards gays than just to say it to one person? Does a person have any responsibility if another person commits a violent act because the first person insisted that's what should happen? Of course, the situation applies to many many more situations.

I don't claim to know the answer. But I've seen where free-speech has led to horrible hateful things, and whilst I never want to remove a basic right, I think there is a hard-to-determine overlap between freedom to say what you like and intent to incite violence/cruelty/criminal activity. Without at least some rules of conduct, we could easily fall into complete anarchy. It's a delicate situation.