American Politics

[Wiimeiser 452]

Unfortunately it looks like the only revolution that'll be happening in the US is a Russian Revolution, followed by the Fallout series. In Soviet Dixieland, government protests against the people.

[AcmeSigns 97]

The main reason I can see that we'll never get term limits for Congress is that they are always called for by the party in the minority. Once they are the majority...well...no incentive.

 

Perhaps the new GOP-controlled Congress will prove me wrong. If it did pass President Obama would probably veto it though.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Not if he is no longer President.  Bills like this take time to formulate and get through various committees.

[Odainsaker 2,137]

My own provincial hometown of San Antonio had in the 1990s what were considered among the most restrictive term limits in the U.S., for our City Council members and mayor were strictly limited to only two 2-year terms, or four years of total service.  Amusingly, it was the bureaucracy of city management that pushed local politicians to loosen those limits, for the ever-newer crops of council members were too lacking in institutional knowledge and incapable of contributively grasping or initiating long-term projects.  The civil servants were becoming exasperated at having to continuously re-explain and often re-litigate the same issues repeatedly from the beginning, and when the freshman council member promising changes had finally been brought up to speed regarding current planning, policy, and practical reality, the councilor's term limits kicked in and they ran out of time.  Everything would suddenly be wound back to square one with a brand new council member who wanted to retrace or redo all the previous initial steps of the predecessors, and very little ever got accomplished even as a lot of time and money was frittered away.  Voters ultimately relaxed the limits to four 2-year terms, or eight years of service as councilors, with four additional 2-year terms if they step up to serve instead as mayors.  The experience made me ambivalent about term limits...they can be useful, but they will not themselves necessarily bring us better governance.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

There are more issues to term limits than appear on the surface.  Some of the advantages:

 

• Regular injection of "new blood" gives rise to different perspectives
• Retirement of incumbents caused by limits changes their attitude with respect to what to do next

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Tough Sledding?

 

Well?

[Duke87 1,070]

Of course, lawsuits.

 

This is why we can't have nice things.

[NMUSpidey 3,956]

...each year from 1997 to 2007 more than 20,000 children under the age of 17 required emergency room trips after sledging accidents, and 4.1% of the cases required hospitalisation.

 

 

So what?  20,000 kids spanned over ten years is not that many.  Sledding accidents are a minor risk, and a risk worth taking if my childhood is to be believed.  Out of over 70,000,000 (so that's like, 2000 out of 70,000,000 every year, or 1 in 35,000 if my math is to be trusted despite the fact that I don't really know if this is statistically accurate but just roll with me on this), with like 80 kids each year needing some kind of hospitalization, I wonder how that fares against kids getting hurt playing baseball, or football or hockey or just running around in the house as kids are wont to do.  Although, since the American health care system is so screwed up and plain ol' awful, I can imagine that an injured kid would break some parents' banks and send them to the litigators.

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

If you make your world idiot proof, or safe for idiots, you will end up with a nation of idiots.

Oops.  Too late.

 

Quoting from a Zero Hedge member. Anyway imposing restrictions on sledging (in the US) is so retarded. The effects of alcohol and binge drinking do hundreds of times more damage to children than sledging ever will.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Go out and play, but leave the toboggan at home?  With all this snow, you've got to be kidding.  This kind of bubble wrap thinking is part of what's wrong with kids today.  Nanny state, indeed.

[Sabretooth78 808]

 The effects of alcohol and binge drinking do hundreds of times more damage to children than sledging ever will.

 

But unlike alcohol, does sledding provide a boon to the legal and medical communities?  If there is an accident, is fault as easily assigned?

 

There are reasons why we legislate the cr-- out of some things and yet leave worse things to run their course.  Follow the money.

[Compdude787 916]

Why is this even needed? Lawyers need to quit taking the fun out of life.

[LexusInfernus 908]

...each year from 1997 to 2007 more than 20,000 children under the age of 17 required emergency room trips after sledging accidents, and 4.1% of the cases required hospitalisation.

 

 

America:

 

In 10 years over 20.000 children have gotten into a sledging accident, of which a fraction requires hospitals. "Wont anyone think of the children?!! QUICKLY, BANB SLEDGING, ITS KILLING YOUR CHILDREN!"

 

Every year, over 10.000 people get killed by guns, and many more injured. "Don't you dare touch my guns bruh, don't you dare touch em!"

 

Priorities much? 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

More bubble wrap?  Snap, snap, :kitty:

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Presidential hopeful commits political suicide.

 

Measles is not funny and if your kid (or you) gets it, it could kill him.  Vaccination is not optional.  That guff about autism has been debunked.

 

People don't understand what "childhood diseases" were in the 1940s unless you were around then and had friends and classmates die of them.  Measles was "eradicated" in North America yet there are outbreaks in several American states and at least two Canadian provinces.  This virus can attack the brain and either kill you or turn you into a gork.

[AcmeSigns 97]

 

America:

 

In 10 years over 20.000 children have gotten into a sledging accident, of which a fraction requires hospitals. "Wont anyone think of the children?!! QUICKLY, BANB SLEDGING, ITS KILLING YOUR CHILDREN!"

 

Every year, over 10.000 people get killed by guns, and many more injured. "Don't you dare touch my guns bruh, don't you dare touch em!"

[emphasis added]

 

Priorities much? 

 

Source please?

 

1. How many of these are suicides? That's more of a mental health issue than a gun issue. No one called for banning/restricting belts after Robin Williams' suicide.

2. Gang related? Who, as it turns out, gun laws don't seem to matter to anyway.

3. Police initiated shootings? They already have proven they can't hit their target and many times have fired on innocent people (and I don't mean Michael Brown ~ I mean really innocent people).

 

I realize that the anti-gun propaganda machine will go on-and-on about 'child' deaths, but if you think about it, everyone is someone's 'child'. Even I am. And I'm 65.

 

Toss aside any rhetoric & so-called 'statistics' from either side of the gun debate and go to an unbiased source:

[note: Because the Government is ponderously slow, the 'most current' statistics may sometimes be years old]

 

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-9

[note that while there were 12,664 homicides in 2011, not all were by a firearm (8,583) and that only 565 were under the age of 18]

 

http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/Pages/welcome.aspx

[The National Institute of Justice is the research, development and evaluation agency of the U.S. Department of Justice]

 

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

 

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

 

And finally:

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

More on public health and political stupidity.

 

The GOP candidates had better do some fast back tracking or they will be handing the election to the democrats.  Oh, well, stupidity is its own reward.

[Compdude787 916]

I know that the correlation between vaccines and autism is completely false, (and what's so bad about autism anyway?) but people ought to have the freedom to even make stupid decisions. And if other people are vaccinated, they should not be able to get the diseases that the un-vaccinated people have. Thus, one person's decision to not get vaccinated should not affect anyone who is vaccinated, so there's no need for government influence here. When vaccinated people do get the diseases that they should have been vaccinated against, it isn't the fault of the un-vaccinated people; it is the fault of the vaccine failing at its job.

Government is NOT our parents, nor is it a god, and it should not be taking power away from the actual parents of children to do what they want to do with their children.

The real issue here is the Obama administration letting in a horde of illegal immigrants over the southern border without ensuring that they were vaccinated. Therefore, it is not the Republicans' fault. However, if they don't grow a spine to stand up to the narcissist president Obama, they will be partially complicit in Obama's efforts to turn America's government into a tyranny.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Viewing America from next door, you are already on the slippery slope to either a police state or a revolution.  The question really is whether Thomas Jefferson or the media will win this one.

[Duke87 1,070]

people ought to have the freedom to even make stupid decisions.

 

Yes, when said stupid decisions only affect themselves. By all means, if an adult wants to buy into some conspiratorial mumbo-jumbo, or do something stupid that destroys their life, let them. Protecting people from themselves is just ridiculous nanny-statery.

 

Problem is, this:

 

And if other people are vaccinated, they should not be able to get the diseases that the un-vaccinated people have. Thus, one person's decision to not get vaccinated should not affect anyone who is vaccinated

is a completely false myth that needs to STOP being perpetuated. Vaccines do wonders to boost immunity to a disease but they are not magic shields that make whoever has them totally immune. You CAN still get sick if you are vaccinated, your odds of doing so if you are exposed are merely greatly reduced. Vaccines really work their wonders not so much by preventing you from catching a disease if you are exposed to it, but rather by preventing you from being exposed to it since no one is carrying it. This means that in order for a vaccine to be maximally effective, everyone or at least almost everyone has to have it. Allowing people to opt out defeats half the purpose, and once people start getting sick it is a legitimate public health crisis.

 

Besides, even if we forget about all that, the fact remains that we are not talking about decisions someone is making about their own health and well being. We are talking about decisions being made about the health and well being of children who are too young to be aware of or appreciate the consequences of the decision.

 

And by the way, this isn't about immigration. There are plenty of US citizens whose parents are also US citizens who aren't vaccinated because it's actually not compulsory to vaccinate your children, and a lot of parents who've gotten swept up in this idiocy have opted out of doing so. What needs to happen is the opt out needs to be gotten rid of. Failing to vaccinate your kids ought to be a criminal offense because really, it's child abuse.

[LexusInfernus 908]

I know that the correlation between vaccines and autism is completely false, (and what's so bad about autism anyway?) but people ought to have the freedom to even make stupid decisions. And if other people are vaccinated, they should not be able to get the diseases that the un-vaccinated people have. Thus, one person's decision to not get vaccinated should not affect anyone who is vaccinated, so there's no need for government influence here. When vaccinated people do get the diseases that they should have been vaccinated against, it isn't the fault of the un-vaccinated people; it is the fault of the vaccine failing at its job.

Not everyone can get vaccinated, even if they wanted too. Some people have to weak immune systems to handle a vaccine, or some children are just to young to get their vaccine shots. They have to rely on herd immunity, meaning that the people around them are vaccinated and form a shield around the people who can't be vaccinated. But with these morons not vaccinating their kids because they are dumb idiots, they weaken the herd immunity to the point that its no longer effective. And as a result, people get sick, including those who couldnt be vaccinated. 

 

Furthermore, the people who are affected by not getting vaccinated are not the ones who make the choice. It are their parents that make the choice, and their choice can result in Polio and a life time of being crippled because of it. Thanks mom and dad, and thanks government for giving these two morons the choice to leave me crippled for life. 

[NMUSpidey 3,956]

And you're also forgetting that babies right out of the womb don't get vaccinated their first hour out in the air.  My kids are getting their vaccinations as they should, but the smallest one can't get certain vaccines until a certain age and many vaccines need to be given in stages and require multiple visits over the course of months.  These easily preventable diseases were eradicated until the anti-vaccination idiots got inexplicable airtime.  Giving them a voice and a choice is such a bad idea and they should be shouted down wherever they pop up.  If I lost one of my little ones to or they were permanently maimed by measles or mumps or polio because some freakin' mongoloid didn't vaccinate his/her own kids, I would be beyond pissed.  So no, no choice for them.  It absolutely does affect others, and in profound ways.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Vaccination of school age children must be mandatory, excepted only on medical grounds.  No one has the right to endanger the whole community.  The skewed idea of freedom that some people have is wrong, and the whole idea needs correction.  Whatever happened to 'the greatest good for the greatest number'?  The current 'let George do it' attitude will get a nice deadly outbreak of something serious like polio going.

  Edited February 9, 2015 by CaptCity  
Let's watch the hyperbole please...

[Compdude787 916]

Just because I said people should have the freedom to choose whether they get vaccinated or not doesn't mean I oppose vaccinations. I don't see any serious issues with vaccines personally, but that is no reason to force that belief on others. I oppose making vaccinations compulsory, except for people entering this country, because that is an overreach of government influence. And most diseases aren't really a death sentence, and for the most part they are treatable.

With every decision you make, there will be positive and negative results for whatever action you take. Some people think that the negative consequences of getting vaccinated outweigh the benefits, and if they have that opinion, well, then they can do what they want. I know that with freedom comes responsibility, and I think we need to emphasize the importance of responsibility in making decisions.

It is also worth nothing that liberals were the ones who started the whole anti-vaccination movement, not conservatives. Just gotta throw that out there...

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

There is a separate autism thread, but I note that autism appears to be a genetic problem, not environmental nor pathological.

[NMUSpidey 3,956]

Let us return to discussing the issue at hand, not each other.

[CapTon 592]

This doesn't pertain to the current discussion, but this made me a little angry:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/02/09/republicans-described-as-unwilling-to-help-poor-in-classroom-assignment-parent/?cmpid=cmty_twitter_fn

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Interesting if true.  Teachers are supposed to protect the students from philosophies in general and particularly the teacher's.  Equal attention needs to be given to all sides of any question.  As an educator myself, I consider this quiz marking tainted since IMHO, the student had the correct answer.

[CaptCity 4,915]

Sure would like to know that context in which that was given. Speaking as a teacher, there's all kinds of reasons that doesn't qualify as a 'test'. Seems more like something from a 'propaganda' class rather than a government class.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Sure would like to know that context in which that was given. Speaking as a teacher, there's all kinds of reasons that doesn't qualify as a 'test'. Seems more like something from a 'propaganda' class rather than a government class.

Well, you and I are certainly in agreement.  Politics doesn't belong in the classroom unless it happens to be the class subject, and even then it must be very, very neutral.