You are not logged in.

Gougai! Gougai!

HOLY SHIT PEOPLE, IT'S NOT BAD ENOUGH WE'RE GETTING AN UTENA EXHIBITION RIGHT NOW

THEY. ARE. MAKING. A. NEW. MUSICAL. NEXT. YEAR. START LOSING YOUR SHIT RIGHT NOW

#101 | Back to Top06-24-2009 11:22:26 PM

Stormcrow
Magical Flying Moron
From: Los Angeles
Registered: 04-24-2007
Posts: 5971
Website

Re: Politics

Man, this is a big issue with me. I am perfectly happy to have a civil discussion with someone about whether what Obama has done is good or bad. That's perfectly reasonable. But anyone who claims he hasn't done ANYTHING is either arguing in bad faith or massively ignorant. Maybe both. Satyr's list is good, but you should also add the tobacco bill he just signed. Spoon-san's dad is quite right, we haven't had a proactive president like this in a long long time. Sure, there are things he hasn't done that he said he would, and there are way more things he hasn't done that people wish he would. But on top of his already mammoth agenda, he's been touring Europe and the Middle East, trying to rebuild our shattered image abroad and form new relationships with countries that we've had very hostile interactions with recently. Oh, and did I mention that he eased restrictions on travel to Cuba and allowed Cuban Americans to send money to their families? These things are NOT trivial. Obviously I'm a fan, and I'm speaking from that position, but even if you disapprove of these things, how can anyone argue they didn't happen? It makes less sense than denying the holocaust for crying out loud!

OK, rant off. Now to debate: let's talk about the bailouts.

I think what you're talking about is called moral hazard, Prince. It's a very valid concern that if an investor doesn't have to face consequences they may make reckless investment decisions, knowing they won't get in trouble. The problem is, in this case, the banks already MADE the reckless decisions. So we kind of had nothing to lose. Also, it's important to note that the way these companies are run these days, most of the INDIVIDUALS who were responsible for these decisions will never have to suffer the consequences. Look up golden parachutes and you'll see what I mean. Now I'm a little ambivalent about the bailout, mostly because we're already in debt up to our eyeballs, and I'm getting genuinely nervous about where this money is coming from. Because I actually know where it's coming from, and I think most people really don't get it. (Here's a hint, look in the mirror.) But the arguments for the bailout are reasonable too...

Complicating the issue of refinancing the home loans is that no one person owns them anymore. To refinance them, you now have to negotiate with many different entities, many of whom are based in foreign countries, or may be foreign citizens. Our government can hardly enforce a renegotiation on them, so... problem. Of course, getting paid a little less beats having an unwanted house on your hands, so they should be somewhat amenable, but you see what I mean I hope.

I just wish we'd finally legalize, regulate and tax marijuana, that would make a decent dent in our financial problems. Might fix California's budget problem entirely.


"The devil want me as is, but god he want more."
-Truck North
Honorary Hat Mafia Member

Offline

 

#102 | Back to Top06-25-2009 12:09:22 AM

Nilamarthiel
The Icon Icon
From: Northern Michigan
Registered: 02-05-2007
Posts: 3972
Website

Re: Politics

Mainly I was asking because, well, I am ignorant[ish], and I don't get the news. Literally. At all. My connection is too slow to browse through some of the most basic websites with articles. It actually took fifteen minutes for PolitiFact to load. That doesn't count the flash ads. [There's a reason IRG is my homepage -- minimal graphics for faster load time! emot-biggrin] And, as I'd said, no television. Basically, I needed to prove to my grandparents that Obama is not as bad as they are hearing, and they really need to stop calling him "a blight on America" in my presence. Sure, I didn't vote for him, but I sure the fuck did not want McCain/Palin due to my lust for peace and [inversely] feminist rage.

Offline

 

#103 | Back to Top08-07-2009 10:57:45 AM

satyreyes
no, definitely no cons
From: New Orleans, Louisiana
Registered: 10-16-2006
Posts: 10328
Website

Re: Politics

It's been a busy couple news days -- most of it good regardless of your politics!  emot-biggrin

- First and foremost, July employment numbers indicate that job losses have fallen to their lowest level in months, and the unemployment rate held steady or even fell for the first time in over a year.  Nate Silver of 538.com correctly points out that some of the improvement in the unemployment rate is due to discouraged workers giving up on finding work and therefore no longer being counted as "unemployed," but even so, this is unambiguously good news.  As of this morning, the Dow was higher than it's been all year.

- Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed as the next Justice of the Supreme Court by a vote of 68-31.  Nine Republicans crossed party lines to vote for Sotomayor; all sixty Democrats (except Ted Kennedy, who abstained due to illness) voted for her as well.

- "Cash for Clunkers" was extended.  Now, for several more months, there will still be $4500 in it for you if you trade in your gas guzzler for a car with better mileage.  This program seems to have done a great job stimulating consumer spending on cars (though we may see a dip later in the year once everyone who wanted to trade has done so) and should have generally positive effects on carbon emissions and gasoline consumption.

- After a couple of the most lethal months for coalition troops since the occupation of Afghanistan, today we seem to have killed Baitullah Mehsud, a key Pakistani Taliban leader and the mastermind behind Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto's assassination a couple years back.  The Taliban are not a monolithic organization, so this is not a case of "cut off the head and the body will follow," but it's a step in the right direction.

- Florida Senator Mel Martinez, the Senate's only Hispanic Republican (and one of the nine who voted for Sotomayor), announced that he will resign imminently; previously, it was expected that he would simply wait till his term expires in 2010 and then retire.  This move will allow Florida's moderate Republican governor, Charlie Crist, to appoint Martinez's replacement.  There is some speculation that Crist, who is thought to have designs on that Senate seat as a stepping stone to the presidency, may appoint himself.  (This is perhaps more wonkish news than the previous few items.)

- And Twitter was shut down yesterday by a denial-of-service attack.  LJ and Facebook were also attacked and suffered slowdowns.  Google was also attacked, but no one noticed because Google has more processing power than anyone else on the planet.  The media is reporting that all these attacks were targeting a single individual, a pro-Georgian blogger [the country, not the state] who is blaming the Russian government (which seems farfetched to me).

Last edited by satyreyes (08-07-2009 11:08:45 AM)

Offline

 

#104 | Back to Top08-07-2009 11:16:03 AM

Asfalolh
Knight of Gates
From: Barcelona (Catalonia)
Registered: 10-23-2006
Posts: 2005

Re: Politics

Satyr, did you edit your post to add the news concerning Sotomayor, or it's me who didn't read it well the first time? I was about to comment how the only USA news I heard today was Sotomayor's new place in the Supreme Court, and that you hadn't mentioned it... emot-confused

(If you had originally already written about Sotomayor, I guess I'm having a weird day...)

Offline

 

#105 | Back to Top08-07-2009 11:47:50 AM

satyreyes
no, definitely no cons
From: New Orleans, Louisiana
Registered: 10-16-2006
Posts: 10328
Website

Re: Politics

Asfalolh wrote:

Satyr, did you edit your post to add the news concerning Sotomayor, or it's me who didn't read it well the first time? I was about to comment how the only USA news I heard today was Sotomayor's new place in the Supreme Court, and that you hadn't mentioned it... emot-confused

(If you had originally already written about Sotomayor, I guess I'm having a weird day...)

You're not going crazy; I added that in via edit once I realized that I'd left out one of the most important parts emot-biggrin

Some context on her confirmation: until and including the Clinton years, most justices were appointed close to unanimously if they were appointed at all.  It's only in recent years that a judge's politics have begun to matter in their confirmation.  The Democrats are responsible for that trend, I'm afraid.  When George W. Bush appointed John Roberts as Chief Justice in 2005, the Democrats split 22-22 on his confirmation, even though none of them could point to specific gaps in his experience, temperament, etc., that made him an unfit justice; they just didn't like his politics.  Similarly, when Samuel Alito was confirmed in '06, Democrats voted against him 40-4, again on matters of politics (though to be fair, Alito was a much more hard-right conservative than Roberts had been).  The Republicans appear to be having their revenge now, as they voted against Sotomayor 31-9.

Compare that to the previous few appointees.  Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed 96-3; Stephen Breyer 80-10; Anthony Kennedy 97-0; Antonin Scalia 98-0.  Only Clarence Thomas, who barely scraped through with a 52-48 vote when Bush I appointed him in '91, faced substantial opposition, and that was because of serious sexual harassment allegations rather than his politics.

Offline

 

#106 | Back to Top08-07-2009 11:48:19 AM

Stormcrow
Magical Flying Moron
From: Los Angeles
Registered: 04-24-2007
Posts: 5971
Website

Re: Politics

Regarding the Martinez resignation, two things:

1. Crist has said he won't appoint himself, so we'll see.

2. Martinez mumbled something about not wanting to "warm a seat", that is, to hold the senate seat until his term expires, even though his influence is waning. This is a lot like Palin saying she wouldn't "take that paycheck" as governor of Alaska. I think there is something fundamentally wrong with these people, and I'm glad neither of them ever represented me. Or should I say, pretended to represent me. Because if either of them were serious about their jobs, they wouldn't claim that it was somehow beneath them to retain them. This whole "lame duck" concept has always grated on me, because the fact is that these posts are pretty unique. There is only one governor of Alaska. There are only two senators from Florida. So it seems to me that there's no reason someone in such a post should lack influence or power. I understand their political capital diminishes as the time when they can repay favors dwindles, but if that's the only way they can get things done, doesn't that reflect poorly on them as leaders? And yet, at least in Palin's case, you had a substantial portion of Americans thinking what she was doing was somehow ballsy, instead of pathetic cowardice. I find myself wondering why either of them ever took the job in the first place.


"The devil want me as is, but god he want more."
-Truck North
Honorary Hat Mafia Member

Offline

 

#107 | Back to Top08-07-2009 12:03:45 PM

satyreyes
no, definitely no cons
From: New Orleans, Louisiana
Registered: 10-16-2006
Posts: 10328
Website

Re: Politics

The comparison between Martinez and Palin is interesting; both are stepping down in the middle of their first term for no adequately explained reason.  I have no clue why Martinez is resigning.  He's not too old (at 62), and unlike Palin, apart from his notorious involvement in the Terri Schiavo affair a lifetime ago he has not been followed by substantial controversy or scandal.  Possibly Martinez is frustrated at being in a 60-40 minority -- historically, members of the minority party tend to be more likely to decline to run for reelection -- but why now instead of when his term expires anyway in just one year?  The only thing I've read that makes any sense is that Martinez has expressed an interest in becoming the president of his alma mater Florida State University, a position that just became open.  Maybe Martinez and Palin have both just decided this life isn't for them?  Or maybe Martinez wants to make sure he gets replaced by a Republican -- but Crist will be in a sticky situation as far as whom to appoint.

Last edited by satyreyes (08-07-2009 12:05:09 PM)

Offline

 

#108 | Back to Top09-26-2009 02:00:10 PM

Nanami's Rose Groom
Rose Assignee
From: Czluchow, Northern Poland
Registered: 04-07-2007
Posts: 1717
Website

Re: Politics

Our politicians have forced the law of "forced chemical pedophile castration", after they're sentenced. Sounds good... I think... emot-confused


"Get back to the surface, where the sunlight is so dazzling"

Offline

 

#109 | Back to Top09-26-2009 02:10:50 PM

spoon-san
Someday Shiner
Registered: 03-18-2009
Posts: 3423

Re: Politics

Nanami's Rose Groom wrote:

Our politicians have forced the law of "forced chemical pedophile castration", after they're sentenced. Sounds good... I think... emot-confused

That's interesting.  On one hand, it, I imagine, will be very effective in putting a decline on pedophilia related incidents, on the other hand, that's a very permanent punishment.  I think it is just, but there are occasionally people who do change their whole ways and outlook, and for that, while they technically have to lie in the bed they have made, that part of me and I guess many of us which appeals to mercy may have mixed feelings.  Or maybe I'm just projecting my own feelings. 

But still, you reap what you sow.  Law of the universe.

edit:  v Thanks for the clarification.  Well...in that case, what problems I did have with it are not as great.  But still, it makes you think about the humaneness of it, despite their own inhumane actions.

Last edited by spoon-san (09-26-2009 02:33:48 PM)

Offline

 

#110 | Back to Top09-26-2009 02:26:32 PM

Asfalolh
Knight of Gates
From: Barcelona (Catalonia)
Registered: 10-23-2006
Posts: 2005

Re: Politics

spoon-san wrote:

Nanami's Rose Groom wrote:

Our politicians have forced the law of "forced chemical pedophile castration", after they're sentenced. Sounds good... I think... emot-confused

That's interesting.  On one hand, it, I imagine, will be very effective in putting a decline on pedophilia related incidents, on the other hand, that's a very permanent punishment.

Not all the procedures for chemical castration turn it into a permanent punishment; some of them are temporal, and only take effect while the individual keeps taking a specific medication.

That aside, I heard about the new Polish law in the evening news, and it evolved into a familiar discussion about whether it is "human" to force someone into castration, especially someone who has already stayed in prison and, thus, should be considered rehabilitated...

Offline

 

#111 | Back to Top09-26-2009 02:34:48 PM

Nanami's Rose Groom
Rose Assignee
From: Czluchow, Northern Poland
Registered: 04-07-2007
Posts: 1717
Website

Re: Politics

That's actually not how you think. The punishments for pedophilia were extremely low (up to 5 years prison, I think) in Poland. After they got back, they started to harm children again. That's why the law was issued, and what's more important, the punishment for pedophilia acts was increased to 15-20 years (almost as much as for murder, which is usually from 25 to life). I think it should be the judge's decision if one should be castrated or go to prison for a looong time.


"Get back to the surface, where the sunlight is so dazzling"

Offline

 

#112 | Back to Top09-26-2009 02:42:56 PM

NajiMinkin
Hacker Ringleader
From: The Incredible Edible Egg
Registered: 06-23-2007
Posts: 2537

Re: Politics

One thing I'll say is that I assume pedophilia to be more psychological than it is biological. So I'm pretty sure that this would be effective only as a method of humiliation and additional determent than really a cure, although I doubt that ever much of a goal. Meh. I wish there were an endless supply of money so we could just send everyone who messed up to really well maintained prisons. I don't actually believe in rehabilitation being much of an option in most situations, but I don't like amputation, execution or torture as a way for a government to run things.


http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f64/_u_t_e_n_a_/100x100/starryklimtsig.png

Offline

 

#113 | Back to Top09-26-2009 02:44:55 PM

spoon-san
Someday Shiner
Registered: 03-18-2009
Posts: 3423

Re: Politics

Only 5 years?  Heh, no wonder.  You learn something new every day.  In that case, yeah, high time to crack down.  I mean, don't get me wrong, I know and think those people are sick, but I'm not one of those people who think people doing something so morally depraved ought to be put through inhumane things, but a slap on the wrist is pretty inhumane as well to past and potential victims.

Offline

 

#114 | Back to Top09-26-2009 03:04:35 PM

Asfalolh
Knight of Gates
From: Barcelona (Catalonia)
Registered: 10-23-2006
Posts: 2005

Re: Politics

NajiMinkin, I believe that chemical castration consists of lowering the testosterone levels in order to inhibit sexual desire, but this procedure has other consequences. Actually, studies are being carried in Spain to find out how chemical castration effects general behaviour, especially in regard to violence against women (not only molestation, also beating and murder). Apparently it's been shown useful to improve anger management, so in a way you could say that psyche is also affected in the process.
I must also add that the studies I mention are based on the cooperation from volunteers who are willing to be chemically castrated - these might feel humiliated, but if it's the way to avoid other aggressions and harder punishments, some do accept going through it.

Offline

 

#115 | Back to Top09-26-2009 03:16:31 PM

allegoriest
Delicious Duellist
From: Cloudcuckooland
Registered: 10-16-2006
Posts: 2506
Website

Re: Politics

I'm going to second asfaloh- I think its more is a medical thing to limit the chemicals in your brain. I don't think you go sterile, and it's not dipping your junk in acid to dissolve it. (Apparently, everyone I knew swore that was it...) And I think as soon as they stop taking it, they can get it up again or what have you.

...I'd look it up, but I'm far too trippy. D: Sorries.


http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a94/leeness/Ruka--Juri-banner-1.png

Only a lemming must be concerned with the ends of the world.

Offline

 

#116 | Back to Top09-26-2009 08:33:33 PM

NajiMinkin
Hacker Ringleader
From: The Incredible Edible Egg
Registered: 06-23-2007
Posts: 2537

Re: Politics

...I actually totally knew that. What a space adventure today has been! emot-rolleyesemot-redface

Still, it seems weird to me. And very base and Darwinist, like some other things that didn't work out so well. But meh pedophiles put us in very complicated moral situations so poo. emot-frown


http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f64/_u_t_e_n_a_/100x100/starryklimtsig.png

Offline

 

#117 | Back to Top09-27-2009 06:08:24 AM

Stormcrow
Magical Flying Moron
From: Los Angeles
Registered: 04-24-2007
Posts: 5971
Website

Re: Politics

Actually, I'd be surprised if chemical castration is much of a deterrent, but then I suppose I don't really know how pedophiles think. Mostly it seems to me that rational thought isn't the driving force behind such behavior. I mean, if you're whack enough to think that touching a 5-year old is a good idea, I don't think "they might reduce my testosterone levels" is going to be much of a concern. It would probably be more effective as a means of rehabilitation actually, although Naji makes the excellent point that it only addresses the biological urge, not the psychological one. But it's also true that they're related.

Coming from the perspective of protecting the citizens, pedophiles can be more dangerous than murderers. They're a bit like a cancer, in that they can make healthy people into deranged freaks like them. It's not quite that simple of course, but it seems like that sort of thing is more insidious than just shooting a convenience store clerk. But you'll also never hear me say that a person can be punished based on how their crime MIGHT affect their victim years later. And then again on the punishment side, it's true that pedophiles have an EXTREMELY high rate of repeat offense. This is a case where I may actually be ok with capital punishment, as long as guilt can be adequately established. So if the chemical castration thing actually works, I'm all for it.


"The devil want me as is, but god he want more."
-Truck North
Honorary Hat Mafia Member

Offline

 

#118 | Back to Top09-27-2009 06:35:43 AM

dlaire
A Whole Orange
From: Poland
Registered: 04-08-2007
Posts: 2322

Re: Politics

I don't like the word 'castration' in Polish debate - it's not removing balls so the word that is used just isn't correct. Basically, it's making pedophiles take one pill every day to put their libido down. Sex addicts use similiar kind of pill. Still, pills won't solve any problem, therapy is necessary. As far I know, criminals are supposed to leave jail when they are capable of living healthy social life. But:

NajiMinkin wrote:

One thing I'll say is that I assume pedophilia to be more psychological than it is biological.

I'm afraid not every one is curable. I talked with my friend about that and she told me that some of them hurt kids for sadistical pleasure, not sexual, which means they are sadists per se. I want to think about that issue that Nanji presented, but I have never heard about anyone who after therapy was 'cured'. I'm sure it's not sexual orientation, which is often said to be stable, but still. I hate to think that those people aren't capable of controlling this, but hey, we're responsible for our actions. That's how society works. That's why I don't find castration a bad solution - it's just the same punishment as like putting in the jail IMO.

I am still bitter about this change because cases in Polish courts take YEARS, because it's really easy to postpone the case. emot-rolleyes I think that's the thing that has to be improved first.

Offline

 

#119 | Back to Top09-27-2009 08:35:34 AM

satyreyes
no, definitely no cons
From: New Orleans, Louisiana
Registered: 10-16-2006
Posts: 10328
Website

Re: Politics

dlaire wrote:

I don't like the word 'castration' in Polish debate - it's not removing balls so the word that is used just isn't correct. Basically, it's making pedophiles take one pill every day to put their libido down. Sex addicts use similiar kind of pill. Still, pills won't solve any problem, therapy is necessary. As far I know, criminals are supposed to leave jail when they are capable of living healthy social life.

This may be true, but in America, anyway, prison is rarely taken seriously as a way of rehabilitating criminals.  Most of us think of prison, in order, as A) a punishment for the criminal, B) a public safety measure to keep the criminal off the streets, and C) a deterrent to discourage others from committing crimes.  If you say "I think the point of prison should be to reform criminals and teach them how to be productive members of a community," you would probably be laughed at as among the most liberal of liberals.  Similarly, if you say "I think criminals should be treated humanely while in prison," a lot of people will instantly accuse you of undermining the foundations of the American judicial system.  Studies on whether criminals can be rehabilitated have had mixed results and the issue probably deserves further study, but near-term reform seems unlikely.  There's also the complicating factor that we imprison 1% of our adult population -- more than any other nation in the world, including China.  (1 in 4 prisoners in the world is a prisoner in America.)  Consequently, our prisons are overcrowded and it's all we can do to manage our inmates, much less give them therapy.  Maybe if we didn't go around jailing people caught with two grams of pot in their glove compartment we wouldn't have this problem.  emot-mad

Pedophiles in particular I don't have much to say about.  It wouldn't particularly bother me to see people who have abused children put in jail for life, if such a law wouldn't encourage child abusers to kill their victims to eliminate witnesses (since in many states life in prison is the worst sentence you can hand out anyway).  If we have to release pedophiles, we should do effectiveness studies to see whether chemical castration actually works, and if it does, I would use it.  The only moral problem I have with any of this is that some nonzero percentage of convicted child molesters are probably innocent, a possibility that haunts every conceivable punishment regime; but at least prison time and chemical castration are reversible if new exonerating evidence comes to light.

Last edited by satyreyes (09-27-2009 08:41:17 AM)

Offline

 

#120 | Back to Top10-20-2009 12:40:42 PM

satyreyes
no, definitely no cons
From: New Orleans, Louisiana
Registered: 10-16-2006
Posts: 10328
Website

Re: Politics

Satyr, what cool item appeared in the New York Times today involving policy and/or politics?

Thanks to Obama's Justice Department, people can now safely use medical marijuana in the states where it's legal!  emot-dance

Wait a second, what?  Wasn't medical marijuana legal in those states anyway?

Yes and no.  Remember that America uses federalism; states have laws separate from the federal government's, but the federal government is top dog.  In fourteen states, such as California and Michigan, it's legal under state law to buy and use marijuana with a doctor's prescription.  But the federal government has its own laws against marijuana, and under George Bush those laws were enforced even in states that have legalized marijuana.  As a result, many people were imprisoned for buying or selling marijuana they obtained by prescription.

So what changed?

Attorney General Eric Holder announced yesterday that he thinks the (federal) Justice Department has better things to do than prosecute people whose marijuana transactions are legal as far as their home states are concerned.  As a result, the United States will no longer be sending the DEA to arrest people who buy or sell marijuana legitimately.  Technically, those people are still committing a federal crime, but this announcement "decriminalizes" it; theoretically you could be arrested, but you won't be.

Isn't that a pretty small change?

Not if you live in one of those fourteen states and rely on marijuana to treat pain, nausea, or one of the other various conditions cannabis can help with, in which case you now don't have to worry about the Feds raiding your house; also, not if you're a civil liberties wonk like me who is always pleased to see any progress in the area of letting adults do what they like as long as it's safe.

Why is this so surprising?

Because it's a states' rights position; Holder basically said that the states get to decide on what conditions, if any, marijuana is legal within their own borders.  Generally Democrats in recent history have not been states' righters.  When the issue of whether the federal government could prosecute medical marijuana cases came before the Supreme Court in 2005, only the conservative justices William Rehnquist and Clarence Thomas, and the moderate Sandra Day O'Connor, voted not to give Congress the power to ban medical marijuana grown for personal use when the state has consented.  Similarly, it was primarily Democrats who voted to establish a national drinking age in 1984, rather than let states decide independently, much to the ire of conservative groups, and Reagan signed the bill only under protest.  I'm excited because I hope this news reflects a broader attitude of the Obama administration to scale back the reach of the federal government when it comes to civil liberties.

Offline

 

#121 | Back to Top10-20-2009 07:28:35 PM

Stormcrow
Magical Flying Moron
From: Los Angeles
Registered: 04-24-2007
Posts: 5971
Website

Re: Politics

Well it's about damn time. I'm guessing Kansas is NOT one of the states where it can be prescribed, but I mostly look forward to the day when we won't be shoving so much money up our own collective ass by trying to stop people from smoking weed on their couches.

Have I ever mentioned how much I love this Obama dude?


"The devil want me as is, but god he want more."
-Truck North
Honorary Hat Mafia Member

Offline

 

#122 | Back to Top10-21-2009 12:23:07 PM

Bluesky
Chpn Dlst
From: Your window
Registered: 10-25-2008
Posts: 1939
Website

Re: Politics

Stormcrow wrote:

Well it's about damn time. I'm guessing Kansas is NOT one of the states where it can be prescribed, but I mostly look forward to the day when we won't be shoving so much money up our own collective ass by trying to stop people from smoking weed on their couches.

Have I ever mentioned how much I love this Obama dude?

I wish we had an Obama over here. emot-frown

I'm kind of worried about my political sympathies now, because I actually do agree with chemical castration as a punishment for paedophilia. And 5 years in jail for a paedophile is just not long enough, at all. Ever.


/人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\

Offline

 

#123 | Back to Top10-24-2009 01:06:44 PM

Bluesky
Chpn Dlst
From: Your window
Registered: 10-25-2008
Posts: 1939
Website

Re: Politics

DLBE POST GAIZ :OOOO

Not that I expect anyone particularly cares about English politics, but I was wondering if any of you were aware of what's going down at the minute with the leader of the British National Party appearing on Question Time? For those of you who don't know, the BNP is a far-right nationalist organisation that has ties to white supremacy groups and is generally quite reviled here for being racist, homophobic and Islamaphobic. Unfortunately they're also getting to be quite popular (1 million voters and an MEP), so the BBC decided to let their leader, Nick Griffin, on a long-running political programme called 'Question Time'. It's been all over the English papers and facebook, incidentally.
I was wondering if anyone has an opinion on this, because quite a few people here seem to be saying that he shouldn't have been let on the programme as it gives him publicity and a chance to try and win people over, but the BBC's saying that it's not fair to censor him. Personally as much as I'm against the BNP, I do recongise that the 1 million people who voted for him chose him to be their representative and have a right to make their opinions heard. On the other hand, the BNP are notorious for being racist shits and holocaust deniers, so...yeah, that's not great.
I suppose it kind of comes down to media responsibility and free-speech and all that in the end.


/人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\

Offline

 

#124 | Back to Top10-24-2009 01:59:22 PM

Mylene
Fighting Evil By Moonlight
From: Next to Paradox
Registered: 10-19-2006
Posts: 3704

Re: Politics

Miss Bluesky wrote:

I suppose it kind of comes down to media responsibility and free-speech and all that in the end.

I haven't heard about this yet (I've been sick, and haven't been keeping up with local, let alone international news recently), but I do think he should be allowed to speak.  As repulsive as his social values might be to me, if people of preferred parties are allowed on the show, so should be members of the far right.  Otherwise, they can play the martyr and persecution card, rallying their supporters into a furor over the discrimination they face, yada yada.  Nothing more eyerolling than a friend of mine that went from moderate to extreme right when her parents started homeschooling her holding a sign at a tea party stating, "Protest is the purest form of free speech...unless you're conservative."  emot-rolleyes

Offline

 

#125 | Back to Top10-24-2009 02:02:15 PM

Stormcrow
Magical Flying Moron
From: Los Angeles
Registered: 04-24-2007
Posts: 5971
Website

Re: Politics

I have to say I support the BBC's decision. If we're fortunate, pointing out to people that this man has real political prospects may scare whatever rational people are left in the world into voting for a change. Or teaching some children that hate is wrong, or whatever you do to stop people from being moronic bigots. I have to confess I'm not terribly optimistic about that one at the moment, hatred seems to be on the rise all over the globe. But in any case, if people are stupid enough to vote for this guy, the BBC can't really be blamed for that. And since the BBC (unlike, say, FOX) attempts to be an honest broker, they're not allowed to take sides, no matter how obvious that side may be to an individual.

As for your political sympathies, it's not like it's wrong to hate child molesters. I mean, they're repugnant. It doesn't make you some kind of fascist to want them in jail for a long time.


"The devil want me as is, but god he want more."
-Truck North
Honorary Hat Mafia Member

Offline

 

Board footer

Powered by PunBB 1.2.23
© Copyright 2002–2008 PunBB
Forum styled and maintained by Giovanna and Yasha
Return to Empty Movement