The State of the World

reim0027 wrote:Another point for me is I hate the party system.  It is republicans vs democrats.  You belong to a party and they tell you what to think.  Why can't we have people in the government that act like adults instead of posturing to make their party the leader?

I actually like that system, you know what you're voting for. Here(ireland), you've got a bunch of different parties and to be honest there's really no difference between them and with so many parties you're always going to get coalitions that are constantly bickering. Don't get me started on who's in goverment, it's the same in the UK.

AnCapaillMor wrote:

reim0027 wrote:Another point for me is I hate the party system.  It is republicans vs democrats.  You belong to a party and they tell you what to think.  Why can't we have people in the government that act like adults instead of posturing to make their party the leader?

I actually like that system, you know what you're voting for. Here(ireland), you've got a bunch of different parties and to be honest there's really no difference between them and with so many parties you're always going to get coalitions that are constantly bickering. Don't get me started on who's in goverment, it's the same in the UK.

It sounds great in theory, but the dual-party system kind of sucks. It seems like it's blinded a good majority of the US - most people I know vote based solely on the person's party rather than analyzing the person's individual ideas beforehand.

At least this is the way I see it. I hate politics, but I hate the way the people in my area view politics even more.

My only concern with a two (or more) party system is that party members get indoctrinated into a culture of hate.

Same team guys. Same team. Just like in sports. Would you love it if the ball gets thrown your way every time so you're always making the big play? Absolutely. But that's not how a team works and arguing over who gets the ball is far less productive than coming together to see whose hands have the greatest chance of success with the ball at the moment.

Just gonna leave this here for all the 'Muricans, as a little comfort

Bumping this thread for the sake of conversation pertaining to that of gender. So, yeah, what actually defines the gender of an individual?

Lotsa things

Soul of Stray Demon wrote:

SirArchmage wrote:The government isn't working, so we are trying to turn it off and on again and see if that works.


Though really it is that the Republicans in Congress are trying to make sure Obamacare(a national healthcare thing) keeps getting delayed. They tried lobbying against it and lost, so this is what is happening. The whole thing is kind of ridiculous.

Actually Obamacare had already passed, this is just the republicans throwing a fit, (No seriously, this pretty much is like's a child temper tantrum.)

I saw something from the republican side about how Obama refuses to negotiate about obamacare... when really what he said is that he refuses to negotiate with anyone who is willing to shut down our government just to get their way.

I don't consider myself Republican or Democrat, but I can't help seeing this as being similar to terrorism. (The Republicans are shutting down the government to get what they want,.... which is well, what terrorists would want to be able to do.) Even in my attempt to stay impartial... I just can't see how the republicans can say they are in the right.

But I digress. Government is messed up, people want things to work perfectly so when they don't, they all whine about it like it's everyone else's fault..  
(I have a feeling this may come across different then how I mean it)

IMO you've been somewhat thrown by media feeding you incomplete information.  It's almost laughable how ignorant it is to pin the shutdown on either party alone.

While the Republicans certainly did try to "de-fund" Obamacare, the core basis of the dominant argument in their circle was that the government had already made special exceptions for corporations (that doesn't sound very democratic, but the Democratic party did it!), and that it was going to be a mess for smaller business/individuals and wanted to delay Obamacare's implementation - something the Democratic party has already done for "select" parts of the country!

Their other basis for argument was that the bill had already been implemented differently than what had actually passed --> need I point out that this fact makes it...questionable at best in terms of being in conformance with the United States' constitution?

However, during the shutdown the act took somewhat of a backseat to the budget as a whole, including the debt ceiling (if you want a depressing statistic, check out the last time USA actually passed and implemented a budget!), and unless some form of budget agreement is made it's going to shut down again in January.  The debt ceiling is a very real issue; the national deficit is an utter joke and no serious effort to curtail it by either party's main representatives puts no end in sight...at least no good end.  If you equated the government's behavior over the past 10-15 years (encompassing both parties!) and put the #'s into figures at an individual level, you'd have a clear-cut example of a deadbeat drag on society who can't manage his own finances and continually borrows money.

So while you're calling it terrorism, it's arguably the opposite; shutting this nonsense down in an effort to create some semblance of a responsible plan would be a laudable effort, if that was the actual motivation of the Republican party (doubtful, aside from maybe a few people who get drowned out).  What does our constitution say about running the budget?  About upholding laws as voted for?  The whole thing smells, and so does the coverage of it.  The deficit accrued under both Bush and Obama each independently provide objective evidence of gross incompetence.  I find it somewhat amazing that the public views them materially differently, but then that can be traced directly to who has the media in their pocket at the moment.

One has to consider the reality of how little difference there is between the two parties in function anyway, though.  Both have consistently ignored the long-term interests of the country to better their own position, and the only true difference between them is what side of an issue they plant their claims on...often a rather separate item from "how they actually vote and act".

The sad thing is, self-interested behavior is predictable and expected given the government's base setup; if you look at the US Government as a firm and then pick up any microeconomic theory textbook, the conclusion that it will run itself into the ground is really hard to escape.

No Serious, this is not a single-payer plan. In fact, it is a very moderate health care plan but it is being opposed (despite it being already law) by the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party because they resent the law because it passed with no GOP votes.

It also raises costs despite being the "affordable care act", government officials can opt out of it (trolololol - our law is not your law!), passed along with a ton of other crap that has questionable relevance, and has already been implemented with a different timetable than what was agreed upon, effectively meaning that a different law has been enforced than was passed.

It is rational to oppose that.  Part of a deal is its time table.  That deal was (amusingly in a sickening way) not upheld by either party, despite them supposedly having a majority vote on it.

I don't mind putting blame on the Republican party for some of this nonsense; I actively dislike what both parties have become.  However, I do mind seeing ignorance of the circumstances and posturing by both parties + media coverage leading one to conclude that this whole shutdown is somehow the fault of one party, even while the other has more actively contributed to the largest deficit growth in history with that being a core issue in the shutdown.

Given Obamacare's expense and USA's rather flagrant inability to budget for additional expense and the altering of the law that was passed, pushing against that was pretty rational.  However, the Republicans were never serious and won't be in January, either, or there would be MAJOR entitlement program cuts between now and January.  They won't do that, because it's unpopular and their real incentive is to win office.  They're not personally or even truly career-accountable for anything else other than winning office.  These gestures by the Republican party are pathetic (most Republican officials decry government excess and then wallow in excess paid by taxpayers) and the blame-game + mismanagement by the Democratic party sickening.

Without a complete alteration in the government's incentive structure, it's hard to picture a scenario where both parties wouldn't become corrupt, generally sooner than later.  Both have been corrupt a long time; likely longer than any of our lifetimes.

I was referring to the shutdown itself, not why it was done. The government is back up with no change, so all that it did was give the American populace something to worry about. I was pretty sure this was going to happen from the beginning and I didn't see the point behind putting us through this. I didn't mean terrorism in terms of the government, but in the eyes of the people. Having our government shutdown can be quite worrysome, and regardless of the reason's it was done, I don't think that was the solution.



Now on the gender thing..

Gender as a word, is normally used to reference to one's social identity. In that way, what determines your actual gender, would just be how you identify..

It's not that simple because the same terms that are used for gender, are the same terms used for sex (your body.) Because of this it tends to cause much confusion among people.

I've never seen much reason why it should matter what someone else identifies as anyway. If you're going to accept one person as female, but not another, just because of they were born, then I could easily use that argument for a number of topics, such as race and handicapped.

GrinTwist wrote:Bumping this thread for the sake of conversation pertaining to that of gender. So, yeah, what actually defines the gender of an individual?

IMO, biology. You're allowed to be as masculine or feminine as you want regardless though.

Do I seriously have to explain this again.

Your body is described by the word "Sex" sex
seks/Submit
noun
1.
(chiefly with reference to people) sexual activity, including specifically sexual intercourse.
"he enjoyed talking about sex"
synonyms: sexual intercourse, intercourse, lovemaking, making love, sex act, (sexual) relations; More
the facts of life, reproduction;
informalthe birds and the bees
euphemistic
a person's genitals.
2.
either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions.




Your mind is determined by the word "Gender"
gen·der
ˈjendər/Submit
noun
1.
the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones).

So the answer to the question, what determines someone's gender, truly is just how they identify..

I think the so-called 'government-shutdown' is a good thing. I have a similar view as Ghandi on government.
All problems in our society are ultimately the result of unhealthy/untrue beliefs and thoughts.

Spoiler:

Just as people within gangs and families apparently do not always work together well, people within states and different states do not exist well together. This is not because the governing system does not work, or because there is something 'bad between them'; this occurs because each party is holding onto a harmful view, belief or desire even when it harms themselves.
I think the only way to ever have an absolutely properly functioning government is when every person within that community is of a healthy mind-and when such occurs, whatever governing system that will work best will naturally emerge as a result. I think that's a series of loose, community-based loose direct democracy. No large-scale state or 'world government' will or can resolve our society's issues because the government is ultimately entirely different from the actual cause of those issues.

Scientifically and biologically? Just depends on what is in their pants.

But socially? Well like all things about social interaction it gets into grey areas. Most would agree with biology, though plenty of people count themselves as the opposite gender. So while an xray of a body would prove female, someone may go around addressing themselves as male. So, as Pendant so eloquently put.........

Lotsa things.