View Thread : TAKE NOTE: Political Standing.


Darunia
As of late, I've been analyzing politics, and I hereby declare that I am no longer a REPUBLICAN. While still slightly right on the spectrum, I've found too many things are wrong with the REPUBLICAN party, and that I am incredibly liberal on many, many things. Here are those things now, conveniently listed:

Abortion: OVERWHELMINGLY CONSERVATIVE
Immigration: CONSERVATIVE
Gay marriage: SLIGHTLY LIBERAL
Death Penalty: SLIGHTLY LIBERAL
Religion: OVERWHELMINGLY LIBERAL
Aff. Action: OVERWHELMINGLY CONSERVATIV

alien space marine
The political system no matter how well intended will turn to shit eventually its inevitable.

Socialism will repeat its own mistakes that communism blunderd in,Conservatism and Liberalism are two extremes both dangerous in their own way. The world is over its head I have my faith to give me hope and wisdom you got nothing.

I pity the U.S , neither candidate has the knowledge or inteligence to really manage the country to a greater extent.Your country needs a philosopher,Artist,Warrior,Genius all in one package but instead what you got is crap and shit , The Flip flop and the wreckless Canon.

You realize what happend a year ago is going to bite you in the ass, Hole nations now have a generation that believes the U.S is selfish and evil , The Push to challenge the U.S and bring it to its knees is growing ,The next super powers are going to be about alliances and coalitions and the U.S alliances is growing thin. There is a old saying "if you cant pound your enemies into dust you can make your enemies pound themselves into dust" , Its exactly what Bin ladin is doing he is trying to make you into a ugly monster and have the rest of the world turn on you and beat your ass he is trying exploit your emotions weither it be fear or hatred either one works for him.Pride is what killed the Trojans and pride may be your greatest weakness.

Darunia
How is is that I start this by saying that I'm a moderate, and as always, ASM runs off an an America-bashing political rant? *Ignores it*

A Black Falcon
Darunia, the one thing you have to consider is that in general New England Republicans are more moderate than the national party... look at three of the five New England Republicans in the Senate -- Snowe, Collins, Chafee... and one of the two NH Republicans is also somewhat moderate... the New England Republican party just isn't as radical overall as the national party.

Dark Lord Neo
I'm a member of the New Democratic Party of Canada
third parties are the best

A Black Falcon
When they have actual power, maybe.

Ryan
As of late, I've been analyzing politics, and I hereby declare that I am no longer a REPUBLICAN. While still slightly right on the spectrum, I've found too many things are wrong with the REPUBLICAN party, and that I am incredibly liberal on many, many things. Here are those things now, conveniently listed:

Abortion: OVERWHELMINGLY CONSERVATIVE
Immigration: CONSERVATIVE
Gay marriage: SLIGHTLY LIBERAL
Death Penalty: SLIGHTLY LIBERAL
Religion: OVERWHELMINGLY LIBERAL
Aff. Action: OVERWHELMINGLY CONSERVATIV Wierd. It looks as though you're moderate. That totally contrasts with your personality in every concievable way. :| Besides, you labeled yourself as 'overwhelmingly liberal' on just one topic, religion. And that, I think, is the most difficult to stigmatize into a political ideology. Besides, you just hate Christianity.

Anyway, if we have to statisitfy ourselves:
Abortion: Moderate
Immigration: Conservative
Gay Marriage: Conservative
Death Penalty: Conservative
Religion: Choosing Liberal or Conservative makes no sense, really, for this. I'm a Christian. There are many Democrats who are Christians and many Republicans who are not. There definitely is a liberal mass out there that wants nothing short of the total elimination of God from this country, but they are a small and laughable minority even among liberals, just as the firebrand damners of the far-far right Christians are. However, since I believe in Christ and God, I would therefore have to consider myself on the conservative side of the fence (though I'd like to see the Athiest Army disappear from the face of the earth, and I'd like the super-radical Christian Crusaders to calm the fuck down and grow up.)
Affirmative Action: Conservative
Welfare: Conservative
Education: Conservative
Foreign Policy: Conservative
Stem Cell Research: Liberal (There HAD to be something!)

Okay, this is getting redundant. I simply do not agree on any major issues with the liberal bloc, because most of what the liberal bloc stands for seems to ignore reality for the sake of unfettered idealism, and the rest seems to be deliberate backwards steps.

But this should be no surprise to anyone who knows me. W in 04!

Dark Lord Neo
When they have actual power, maybe.
Well federally they're a third party, and in this province they are. But in some provinces the NDP, wich was started as part of the labour movement they have formed governments.
They have power in the federal government now because we have a minority government and the liberals need the NDP vote to get a majority

Here are my opinions on things
Abortion: Liberal, it's a woman's right to make her own decisions
Immigration: liberal
Gay Marriage: liberal
Death Penalty: the state has no right to take someone's life
Religion: Seperation of Church and State
Affirmative Action: in favour
Welfare: liberal
Education: liberal
Foreign Policy: liberal
Stem Cell Research: Liberal

Great Rumbler
Here are my stances:

Abortion: Conservative
Immigration: Conservative
Gay Marriage: Conservative
Death Penalty: Conservative
Religion: On the Conservative side of the fence, I guess.
Affirmative Action: Conservative
Welfare: Conservative
Education: Conservative
Foreign Policy: Conservative
Stem Cell Research: Conservative

I'm noticing a pattern here...

OB1
It's a cryin' shame.

Great Rumbler
About Darunia becoming a Democrat? Yeah, it is, but there's really nothing we can do about it.

OB1
I mean you being even more conservative than Weltall. You must have some hardcore Republican parents.

A Black Falcon
I can almost copy DLN's. :)

Abortion: fully liberal
Immigration: liberal, I guess -- legal immigration should be encouraged and allowed fully, but illegal immigration shouldn't be condoned or encouraged.
Gay Marriage: fully liberal
Death Penalty: fully liberal
Religion: Seperation of Church and State. And moreso than it is now in this country.
Affirmative Action: in favor
Welfare: fully liberal. We should be doing more for the poor and elderly. In particular...
Health Care: Major topic right now, you know... I definitely am in favor of a more nationalized system. We need to cover the 40 million uninsured. And we have to work, and fast, to lower the skyrocketing costs of insurance. This should also include more perscription drug coverage... allowing buying them from Canada should be a start, but we shouldn't have to go THERE to get decent prices on prescription drugs!
Taxes: If they are needed to pay for important things, then they are needed... we need to be able to afford a decent level of state and national services and taxes are the only way to do it. But if you must cut taxes something like Kerry's plan, where the top 1 or 2 % get higher taxes and the rest a tax cut, is the way to go. It goes without saying that those laws that restrict property taxes to 1% are a phenominally bad idea.
Education: hmm, what is liberal or conservative here... right now the two parties seem to have exactly the same agenda on this, at least in Washington... I'm cautious about more state or national control. If done well it could work, but that kind of thing seems so likely to go badly in this country...
Foreign Policy: liberal. But not a pacifist, really... we shouldn't be fighting unless we REALLY have to, but we should be doing more police actions and UN work. That is good works and something I fully support. So we definitely need a military... it should just be much better trained for peacekeeping.
Stem Cell Research: fully Liberal.

Great Rumbler
I mean you being even more conservative than Weltall. You must have some hardcore Republican parents.

It does look like from that list that I'm extremely conservative, but you've got to keep in mind that I'm NOT AS conservative on those issues as Weltall is. But, yeah, my mom is a hardcore Republican, no question about that.

Dark Lord Neo
Unfortunatly even if the US makes it legal for the elderly to buy Canadian drugs it will still become more difficult because the Canadian government is cracking down on it. Under Canadian law a perscription can only be requested by a doctor who is liscenced to practive in Canada, so the pharmasists that sell it to US seniors are either breaking the law or a Canadian doctor has signed the perscription and they are breaking the law because they have to have personally examined the patient in order to perscirbe a medication.
Drug companies have also said they'd stop selling drugs to Canadian pharmacies that sell drugs to americans.
A better solution would be for the US to adopt Canadian perscription drug policies. These policies make it harder for a company to hold a copyright on medication, so there are more generic brands avalible, and it sets price controls on drugs.

Sacred Jellybean
Abortion: Fully liberal
Immigration: Moderate
Gay Marriage: Fully liberal
Death Penalty: Moderate
Religion: Seperation of Church and State -- but I'm not stringent about this.
Affirmative Action: Moderate
Welfare: Moderate
Health Care: Eh... Liberal, I suppose.
Stem Cell Research: Completely, 100% Liberal.
Drugs: Moderately liberal. As a point of reference, I'd consider a conservative stance being that all drugs, excluding alcohol and tobacco for some reason, should be criminalized to the fullest extent, including cases of simple, non-violent possession.

Now you know, and knowing is half the battle! :far-out:

Dark Lord Neo
Drugs: Moderately liberal. As a point of reference, I'd consider a conservative stance being that all drugs, excluding alcohol and tobacco for some reason, should be criminalized to the fullest extent, including cases of simple, non-violent possession.

I found out the other day that a conviction for simple drug possesion can disqualify you from getting federal finacial aid for going to college in the US. But other crimes like murder and rape don't :screwy:

Dark Jaguar
Abortion: Woman's right to choose sure, but that stops at killing your kids. Put them up for adoption, or wait until technology catches up and you can stick them in a tube to let them grow up, but no killing. One last thing, terminology. Honestly, many MANY decades ago, and even to this day, when you see a pregnant woman, WHEN have you EVER heard her say "Oh, the fetus is kicking!". Thought so, it's always "the baby's kicking!". Since the word has always been used for the fetal stage of human growth, widespread, for such a long time, and since that is what determines the definition of a word, I would CERTAINLY say that fetuses can ACCURATLY be called babies. I say this also because really old dictionaries predating this whole word battle also list it as a valid definition, and also because baby was never meant to be a scientifically specific term. Animal's young are also called babies, and the youngest of a group of siblings, even if they are 10 years old, is often called the baby of the bunch, and that isn't slang either. At the same time, it's totally irrelevent to the argument. The only reason either side fights over such a frivilous thing is as a mind game of sorts. The fact that they can, and are, called babies is in no way some sort of support for pro-lifer's stance. I just wanted to make that clear.

Immigration: Eh, I'm fine with people coming here if they want to. Honestly, I don't have much of an opinion because I don't exactly see the big deal. Illegal immigrants are the only sticking point, simply for the sake of the law, but hey, allowing a lot more in so there are no illegals is a solution that's fine by me. I just haven't put much thought into this.

Gay Marriage: All I can say is let the states decide for themselves, other than that, I honestly don't care in any legal way about this.

Death Penalty: It all depends on the odds here. I suppose I would be for it for murderers, and them alone, so long as the chances of an innocent person being put to death are slim to none. If the odds are too high, then I am against it. Better to let 1000 guilty go free than... chase after them... wait how does that go?

Religion: Not exactly sure if there's a divide on religion here outside of the seperation issue. Government should never force religion on people, and as institutions they shouldn't really seem to support it (let the little pointless stuff like the pledge and money slide, honestly I don't care if those get removed or not because they are non-issues that don't affect my faith), but I do believe that the individual people working IN the government should be allowed to express their religious thoughts. The President can't say "as President, I believe Christianity is the good and right thing for all Amercans", but I think the President SHOULD be allowed to say "Personally, I think Christianity is the good and right thing for all Americans". The key difference is what role the President was in in those statements. Also, and this is just in the sense of sheer manners, even if they are just personal statements, an individual shouldn't flood the media with their religious views.

Welfare: I don't think handouts are the way to go really, but rather teaching the people to fish by giving those who aren't able to afford it a lot more educational oppertunities so they can work and make their own way in the world.

Education: Giving them money? Well some places certainly could use it, but that's not the solution. I suspect a lot of changes wouldn't need a lot of money to fix the problems, just a totally different educational approach

Affirmitive Action: Well this is a sticky subject. Honestly, while I really don't think there's "reverse racism" going on, I also have a hard time supporting hiring people who may not be qualified just because of some sort of minority quota. That might actually encourage a little racism on the part of the people doing the hiring (I can imagine the poor guy, even if he was qualified, being treated like some sort of lamprey just because of color thanks to this, in fact I do believe that's already happening). Affirmitive Action is something I believe serves a purpose, or more accuratly, DID serve a purpose. Racism among higher ups in companies can be traced to SOMEWHAT recent times. At those times, something like this really WAS needed. However, honestly aside from situations involving affirmitive action, I don't think there's that much racism any more. There's the south, I mean the REAL south, but they never even caught up with indoor plumbing, so they might just be a lost cause. Let them devolve into monkeys as nature seems to be intending and the problem will take care of itself I say :D. There is the occasional person, and even the group of 5 or so skin heads hanging around the mall creeping people out here and there (that deserve, and get, their arses kicked), but honestly I'd say racism is on it's last legs as some widespread epidemic like it used to be. As such, I'd say affirmitive action is pretty much a dead concept. If there really is still a corporate racism problem to be dealt with (oh yes, this is for colleges too of course), then I really think something else should be done rather than AA. AA just doesn't seem valid as a solution to whatever remains of the problem...

Foreign Policy: America is PART of the world, so I think it should actively participate in things. The rest? Hey, I'm no taxi driver, I don't have all the answers!

Stem Cell Research: Almost COMPLETELY for it! Honestly, this is ONLY a charged issue because people, on BOTH sides, have no idea what stem cells really are. No, you can't directly transplant stem cells from ANOTHER PERSON into your body any more than you could transplant their kidney into your body. Either way, there will be rejection, because the stem cells don't actually "copy" their surroundings, they detect nearby cells and turn to the DNA inside them to determine what they should turn into. Put human stem cells in a pig and, aside from the stem cells likely not even being able to know what they are next to or what section of the human DNA to access to become something, they are likely to just get killed off by the pig's immune system. Stem cells are most plentiful in fetuses, and other baby stages, this is true because they are undeveloped. However, stem cells are also present, in MUCH smaller numbers (too small to be useful if you just directly harvest them all), in adults. Most are found inside bones, waiting to become blood (bones are where new blood cells are made, in the marrow)). Harvest ALL of those, you could actually help them, but you would destroy the body's ability to make new blood cells. Not good. Baby cells are harvested for learning experience mainly. Also, there is another possible use. The DNA from the stem cells could be replaced with DNA of the future host, so then the stem cells WOULD have the right DNA.

Anyway, my end opinion is stem cell research should DEFINATLY be continued, and honestly, if the bodies of babies have been donated to science, it's no worse to experiment with them than with the bodies of dead adults. HOWEVER, it stops with trying to convince mothers to sacrifice their unborn for the stem cells. I don't think that will happen though. Also, scientists would be foolish to think that there is some endless supply of stem cells waiting to be found in dead fetuses. There aren't THAT many! The waiting lists would still be around just like waiting for some poor organ donar to die so they could get a new kidney. In general, both sides have some big misconceptions about this. Stem cells are certainly promising, but counting on the dead as an endless source is foolish. The better way is finding a way to culture a person's own natural stem cells, that would allow many more, and also asking people to donate some stem cells for cultures just like with blood drives. That would provide MANY more stem cells both for an immediate transplant need (near immediate, no matter what, they still need to get that person's DNA in there which means they will have to start that organ's growing process from the very beginning even if they had a full culture). Anyway, I'm all for it.

N-Man
We're searching for the best way for people to govern themselves, yet not all people want the same things, thus not everyone's vision of the best government is similar. Ultimately, because of the fact that not everyone wants the same thing, all kinds of morality are false (in the context of government at least), as they can't apply to everyone. Notice that "kinds of morality" in that sentence is a synonym for ideology, ie. liberal or conservative or whatever.

As all ideologies represent ideal ways of life, and that not everyone's vision of an ideal way of life is the same, there is no "ultimate government" which will satisfy everyone. Yes? No?

Dark Jaguar
Indeed, since governments are created by humans, none can ever be perfect. That doesn't mean we can't try though :D.

A Black Falcon
Drugs... good category. In that one I'm more conservative. I don't think much should be legal.

Abortion: Woman's right to choose sure, but that stops at killing your kids. Put them up for adoption, or wait until technology catches up and you can stick them in a tube to let them grow up, but no killing. One last thing, terminology. Honestly, many MANY decades ago, and even to this day, when you see a pregnant woman, WHEN have you EVER heard her say "Oh, the fetus is kicking!". Thought so, it's always "the baby's kicking!". Since the word has always been used for the fetal stage of human growth, widespread, for such a long time, and since that is what determines the definition of a word, I would CERTAINLY say that fetuses can ACCURATLY be called babies. I say this also because really old dictionaries predating this whole word battle also list it as a valid definition, and also because baby was never meant to be a scientifically specific term. Animal's young are also called babies, and the youngest of a group of siblings, even if they are 10 years old, is often called the baby of the bunch, and that isn't slang either. At the same time, it's totally irrelevent to the argument. The only reason either side fights over such a frivilous thing is as a mind game of sorts. The fact that they can, and are, called babies is in no way some sort of support for pro-lifer's stance. I just wanted to make that clear.

I can't figure out if this is a yes or a no...

Great Rumbler
That is kind of an odd paragraph, the end of it seems to contradict the beginning. I think it's a vote against though.

Drugs... good category. In that one I'm more conservative. I don't think much should be legal.

Absolutely, I'd almost go as far as to say alcohol should be illegal but since we've learned from history that it'd never work I wouldn't vote for legislature that banned it. It'd just be a waste of taxpayer money to enforce something like that.

As for abortion I'm absolutely against it. As far as I'm concernced an unborn child is just as much alive as you or me and killing it under almost any circumstance is wrong.

A Black Falcon
Alchohol... it was tried and failed miserably. All you can do is try to keep people who have drank any from driving or doing other bad things, really... but we'll never have total success at that. What I think should be illegal, though, is cigarettes. Though there is no chance that it'd work, it'd be really great if they were illegal...

That is kind of an odd paragraph, the end of it seems to contradict the beginning. I think it's a vote against though.

It sure seems so, but the first sentence contradicts that...

Ryan
I personally would not mind if cigarettes disappeared off the face of the earth myself. I don't smoke, and I never intend to. I think it's a filthy habit.

I also think alcohol, as a drug, is exponentially more destructive than tobacco in many ways, and for the life of me, I can't figure out why smokes get so much worse a rap. I don't know why liquor is legal and pot isn't. I enjoy a beer myself from time to time, but I control myself. Unfortunately, many people cannot. This is probably the most confusing issue for me, and I can't figure it out. All I do know is that, even though I drink a little, I'd still rather it not be there, but that's not an option.

On abortion: There are many things about it that disgust me. I do think it's murder in many cases, murder of the most callous sort. People who use abortion for simple birth control purposes are murders, and worse, in my opinion. Of course, such cases have exceptions. It comes down to again, people need to be much more responsible. However, in cases of rape, or other unwanted sexual activity, I do not have issue with a woman wanting an abortion, for in those cases, she did not consent to sex. But I also do not think a woman has total and unfettered right to choose just because she's the vessel. There's a baby inside there that has a future life, and the militant abortionists do their best to make everyone think otherwise, that it's just a lump of messy goo. These people cheapen human life, and I hate them. I believe the same of people who bomb abortion clinics. Murder is murder.

Anyway, I hope that explains my moderate stance on the subject.

Private Hudson
The first sentence almost says that shes allowed to chose whether she kills the baby or not, as long as she choses not to..

Anyways,living in a different country my opinion may differ to some of you people. Hell, I didnt even know the difference between Liberal and Conservative until recently. Im still unsure as to which is Left and which is Right..

Abortion: Undecided. Im kind of leaning both ways. If the pregnancy is a result of a violent crime, Im kind of leaning to pro-choice. If, however it was just an accident with some random guy, your own damn fault, so Im kind of leaning pro-life.
Immigration: I dont really see the issue hear. Let them live and become citizens if they wish, as long as they go through the legal processes. Obviously, some processes will have to be taken. If youre just going to become a burden on the econmy, or have previous serious criminal convictions, perhaps you shouldnt be allowed here. Therere enough of them already allowed here by default simply because theyre born here!I suppose that's why we take the criminals out of society.. and.. just.. keep giving.. money to the burdens? Wha? Just as long as they go through the legal process!Bah!

Gay Marriage: For it.

Death Penalty: I dont really see the point in it. It has never been proven to deter potential criminals. However, perhaps in the most extreme cases it could be a just punishment.

Religion: Huh? Believe what you want? I dont see the big deal about trusting in God. Though you shouldnt be forced to say it if you dont believe in God. But if I was an athiest, I wouldnt be so anal as to not say whatever it is you say that says it! Afterall, if he/she doesnt exist, then saying you trust in he/she shouldnt be a big deal!
Welfare: Liberal
Education: Liberal. I think, at least in my country, Education should have FAR more emphasis, as I believe it to be one of, if not the most important thing for our society. Our government funded schools are HORRIBLY underfunded, while our private schools receive far more government funding! Odd.. it just means that I will definately send my kids to a private school, but for those who genuinly can't afford a private school they are getting a pretty wide shaft.

Stem Cell research: For it.

A Black Falcon
The first sentence almost says that shes allowed to chose whether she kills the baby or not, as long as she choses not to..

Yeah, exactly. Which is why it's so confusing.



Anyways,living in a different country my opinion may differ to some of you people. Hell, I didnt even know the difference between Liberal and Conservative until recently. Im still unsure as to which is Left and which is Right..

Liberals are left, conservatives right. :)

Dark Jaguar
Allow me to make it clear then. I am against abortion. However, I am FOR logical arguments. To that end, I pointed out the whole debate over what word to use to call fetuses is completely pointless as it has no baring whatsoever on who is right.

About the issue of unsolicited pregnancy. I still think it's a human life we're dealing with here. The means of the creation of it, however horrible, are irrelevent to it's own future. The child has nothing to do with the criminal. Again, adoption or something, but not killing.

Now HERE'S a REAL tough question. There are the situations where a doctor must decide between the life of a mother or the fetus (or the mother or neither survives). For the former, hoenstly, I can't answer that! That's a really messed up situation life just offered! That's right up there with a murderer with a gun pointed to your children's heads ordering you to say which one the murderer should kill or they both die. How can there BE a right answer to that? Well, there is ONE right answer.... *Goku breaks in and batters the murderer to a bloody pulp and everyone that matters survives.* For the latter, if the fetus is completely beyond help, no matter what, but the mother can be saved if they just give up on the child doomed to death anyway... Well, I guess logically, I must choose the rational choice, the one who has the actual chance of survival, the mother. What a choice though.

PH, what on EARTH is up with your font? Why did you even CHANGE it?! WHY?!

Okay, the drug issue. Here's my thoughts. All addictive substances like that are filthy vices that all people would be wise to avoid. Wizards excluded, because they are magical, and it makes them look cool :D.

That said, honestly while I would rather people did not hurt themselves, I respect their right to do so to an extent. It's when they start getting to ME that's the problem. The drunkards that suddenly end up on the road for example are threatening MY life, in a VERY immediate way. There is NO justification for that! Smoking doesn't do as much damage, but it's still there, and I would rather NOT have my lungs needlessly damaged (and my various allergen sensitive face holes irritated) due to someone's little addiction. Honestly, the smokers just care about the nicoteen, so why can't they just go with the patch? I'm not saying they have to quit here! I'm just saying they should all be forced to get their fix in a way that doesn't send it into my lungs, that's all. Hey, they can draw cool flaming skull things all over the patches to make them look cool, or whatever.

Here's something that might annoy, but caffiene goes on that list of vices too. It's the least harmful really, AND the least addictive from my experience, but being a slave to a substance is never fun. Myself? I used to drink mountain dew all the time, then I stopped because I suddenly stopped liking the taste. Now I just don't even go near the stuff because, well mainly the bad taste of it totally destroyed any semblance of whatever addiction I may have had to caffeine. Now, either that substance's addictive qualities are even weaker than taste preference, or that really says something about how horrible mountain dew is, I dunno (realistically, I lean towards the former), but for some people, they have got to the point where they really DO go into a horrible mental lapse without their morning coffee. It's just such a pathetic thing to watch these people all irritable, walking around like zombies, until they get that fix. They may think they are just tired, but honestly that's way more than tired. Tired people get over it, these people are experiencing actual withdrawl symptons. How does this affect me? Well, not much really. Once they have that fix, they seem to be up and running efficiently enough. It's just the harm they are doing to themselves that freaks me out. See that sketch from Kids in the Hall where the boss guy tears his own heart out and poors coffee on it telling it to "GET BACK TO WORK!" . Well, actually that was incredibly disturbing for some reason... :D, but it was funny!

All in all, substance addiction is a very harmful thing no one should get involved in if they know what's good for them. If they want to though, it's their right to hurt themselves to a degree, just don't think it gives you the right to hurt ME! Stupid drunk drivers...

That's why whenever I envision myself acting like Sherlock Holmes (you know, that "excentric richy" fantasy we all have, you didn't? Hmm, maybe it was just the cool kids who had that dream...), I'm using a very well built bubble blowing novelty pipe :D.

OB1
DJ, surprisingly I actually agree with a lot of your stances on these issues, but I think that you like most people here don't know just how much of a problem racism still is. The thing is that it's subtle racism that is wide-spread, which in many ways is worse than blunt, obvious racism because it's more difficult for other people to see, therefor making most people think that racism is all but completely gone. It's not, I have seen such racism first-hand, and it disgusts me. And before you ask me, no, I'm not confusing it for anything else. I have friends of various different races and when I spend time with them in public I notice these things. The worse thing we can do right now is try to convince ourselves that racism is no longer a wide-spread problem in our society. It will only get worse that way.

A Black Falcon
Yeah, I was going to say something about that, but didn't get around to it... DJ definitely underestimates how much racism still exists.

OB1
Most white people do. It's very easy to scoff at someone else's claim when you never witness it yourself. And it's especially easy to do that when it's subtle racism, where you really have to be there with the person to see that it happens. So it's basically about trust, and it's much easier to believe that things are rosy than not.

However on the other hand, I can see why some people might totally disregard the chance of this happening when there are some people that exaggerate. But that doesn't make it any less real for the real victims of racism.

Geno
Abortion: Slightly Liberal
Immigration: Slightly Conservative
Gay Marriage: Liberal
Death Penalty: Moderate
Religion: Slightly Conservative
Affirmative Action: Ultra-conservative
Welfare: Moderate
Education: Liberal
Foreign Policy: Liberal
Stem Cell Research: Liberal

I mostly consider myself a moderate. I'm liberal in more places than I'm conservative, but whenever I am conservative, I usually feel more strongly about it than I do about something I'm liberal about.

Private Hudson
[QUOTE=Dark Jaguar]
PH, what on EARTH is up with your font? Why did you even CHANGE it?! WHY?!

[QUOTE]

I'm on a public computer and it has all sorts of language and font hot keys and I don't know how they work and often times it just changes mid-post.. :(

Darunia
I definitely think that the government that governs least governs best; America is so rich and bored that our lawmakers waste time and money coming up with these dumb, unfair laws--liquors-age laws when we can get drafted into a war but can't have a drink before going out; mandatory seat belts, it is illegal to smoke inside a public building in Massachusetts... its insane. People should live as they want as long as it doesnt effect anyone. It's fucking crazy, we need regime change right here (not Bush in particular; we need a new government all together.)

A Black Falcon
Uh, THOSE are your examples of things that don't help the general public good? Drinking age, smoking in public buildings, and seat belts? It'd be tough to find three that are BETTER for the public good, especially seatbelts and smoking!

-iLluSiON-
America is doomed. In 20 years, China will be the world power.


America was a great empire, but it will now perish with the events that are currently happening.

The United States of America
RIP

Dark Jaguar
Illusion, that's delisional.

Darunia, what idiotic things to be concerned about!

First off, I already talked about how alcohol and smokes DO hurt others, so by your own words, those SHOULD be banned.

As for seatbelts, is it really THAT aweful a thing to be forced to wear them?

I WILL demand this to be explained! Why, OH WHY, don't school buses, things many kids MUST ride in to get to public school, have ANY seat belts? Kids, by necesity brought on BY the government, are breaking the law every school day!

Dark Lord Neo
Darunia, how does smoking in a public building not efferct anyone?

A Black Falcon
Seatbelts save lives. Lots of them. If everyone used them traffic fatalities would go down substantially. How many times do you hear of people being thrown from their car and killed? Same with banning smoking -- secondhand smoke kills, especially for people like restaurant workers who had to work around it all the time -- and restricting alchohol.

And yes, Illusion is wrong. But if we continue on this path he'd be partially right, because if we don't change we will succeed at making everyone else in the world utterly detest us.

alien space marine
Seatbelts save lives. Lots of them. If everyone used them traffic fatalities would go down substantially. How many times do you hear of people being thrown from their car and killed? Same with banning smoking -- secondhand smoke kills, especially for people like restaurant workers who had to work around it all the time -- and restricting alchohol.

And yes, Illusion is wrong. But if we continue on this path he'd be partially right, because if we don't change we will succeed at making everyone else in the world utterly detest us.

Darunia maybe you need to be in a severe head on collision, Maybe it might knock some sense into you figuratively and literally. In my car accident the was enough force to give me a big black bruise from the seat belt , If that G force was strong enough to hurt me with what was sopposed to protect myself from damage imagine if the belt waisnt there I might of flew right through the windsheild to my death.The Air bag might of stoped me in that situation but it would have given me a concussion and if the car was on fire that wouldnt have been good. If you want to be a maniac move to africa were traffic deaths is the leading cause of fatalities besides HIV since they dont have good traffic laws or law enforcement on the highway.

Illusion is right your just to blind to see it , America is turning to shit everyday as is my country just more slowly.Infact the hole world is turning to shit.

-iLluSiON-
Thank you Alien Space Marine.

It's pretty evident that America is on a decline. The thing is, it's not just America. It's all of humanity. We need to open our eyes up.
It's come to the point where humanity has become blinded by what really matters: our planet, our goals, and our own blood. There's too much petty fighting going on in the world, and I highly doubt that one day humans will realize that they're going no where. Like Reagan said, perhaps we need some sort of alien invasion for humanity to join hands and stop fighting against another. =)

alien space marine
Thank you Alien Space Marine.

It's pretty evident that America is on a decline. The thing is, it's not just America. It's all of humanity. We need to open our eyes up.
It's come to the point where humanity has become blinded by what really matters: our planet, our goals, and our own blood. There's too much petty fighting going on in the world, and I highly doubt that one day humans will realize that they're going no where. Like Reagan said, perhaps we need some sort of alien invasion for humanity to join hands and stop fighting against another. =)

Reagan also brought up the point isnt there one already were just to blind to see it. I always wonderd what he meant by that ? But I think he meant it in a spiritual sense their is some dark alien force driving us agiast each other we are just too blind to see it.

Jesus said the world lives in darkness ,When people sin their sins travel with them like chains.

The arogant belief that america will go on forever in my mind only ensures its destruction. The world continuously changes for the better or the worse when there is a super power there is always going to be a push for balance of power, The Bible spoke about the king of the North and the South and it even had a set amount, The previous King of the North is likely the soviet Union who is it now or who will be? I suspect a Coalition or alliance in rivalry to the U.S namely the Euro Trash but its no laughing matter if Russia would join with them.

Dark Jaguar
Talk about only thinking of the negative. Yeesh, every era there's this same talk. "REPENT! The end is NEAR!" People thought the SAME thing long ago.

If I were the last human left, I would make SURE every OTHER species went with me! Nyahaha!

A Black Falcon
Humans are the same that we always have been. The difference is that now we have more power to affect our environment.

alien space marine
Talk about only thinking of the negative. Yeesh, every era there's this same talk. "REPENT! The end is NEAR!" People thought the SAME thing long ago.

If I were the last human left, I would make SURE every OTHER species went with me! Nyahaha!

Lets not think about HIV or injustices and starving people because its only thinking of neagotive.Dont think about what if I light my paints on fire cause thats just neagotive and we all know I am invinciple. When you stop caring you stop improving and if you stop improving you degenerate and die more likely of a heart attack because you just dont care your cloging your ateries and the fact you will lose a part of your life.

Maybe the fact they said "REPENT The End is Near" averted the desaster?
At one time we thought a invisible barrier protected us from harm because here in North America that shit doesnt happen but 9/11 proved us wrong.

Now I do agree we should go on with ourlives but not be ignorant or wreckless in how we do it, We could die any day cherish every momment because it could be your last.

Especially you DJ because I am running at you with a knife and Hammer, Slash! Bash! Little kitty!

Dark Jaguar
Perhaps if you didn't use runon sentances that dragged on like a 10 year old, I'd get what you are saying. As it is, you really misinterpretted what I was saying. There are bad things yes, but there are ALSO good things. I'm not saying "ignore the bad", I'm saying "The world isn't ending!".

alien space marine
Maybe it has alot to do with the fact I threatend to turn you into my rug.

Great Rumbler
I'll turn YOU into my redger...bug...flute...what?

Darunia
I can't believe everyone's stance here! You think the government should regulate everything? The government regulates morality to people, and it shouldn't--the goverment should keep the power going, keep the roads paved, provide for the common defense--and little more. It SHOULD NOT tell me what I may drink, what I may do because it allegedly knows whats best for me. As long as I don't murder anyone, let me drink, and not wear a seat belt (though I always have) and smoke indoors (though I would never smoke anyway.) It goes too far, and regulates TOO MUCH! Well, REGULATE THIS!! *Flips off government*

Dark Jaguar
Look Darunia, I don't care if you drink and drive and kill YOURSELF (well that's a lie, but you get what I mean). I care that you drink and drive and might kill ME! See? It DOES threaten other people!

Ryan
I can't believe everyone's stance here! You think the government should regulate everything? The government regulates morality to people, and it shouldn't--the goverment should keep the power going, keep the roads paved, provide for the common defense--and little more. It SHOULD NOT tell me what I may drink, what I may do because it allegedly knows whats best for me. As long as I don't murder anyone, let me drink, and not wear a seat belt (though I always have) and smoke indoors (though I would never smoke anyway.) It goes too far, and regulates TOO MUCH! Well, REGULATE THIS!! *Flips off government*
This is why you're still republican at heart :D

Great Rumbler
It's all about cost vs. benefit.

Dark Lord Neo
If you are in the car with other people you endanger them by not wearing a seatbelt. If you're ever in an accident you become a projectile, and can kill the other people in the car even if they have a seatbelt

Ryan
If you are in the car with other people you endanger them by not wearing a seatbelt. If you're ever in an accident you become a projectile, and can kill the other people in the car even if they have a seatbelt
Depends on the collision angle. From a side impact, maybe. The other angles don't really see this.

-iLluSiON-
What would you do if 8 year-olds were buying alcohol? Let them throw their life down the toilet and perish?

I would.

Dark Jaguar
What would you do if you saw an 8 year old growing up in Oklahoma? Let them grow up to do the only thing people in this forsaken place are good at, get into a fight with some convenience store clerk because he made a pass at "your baby's momma"?

I HATE this state...

A Black Falcon
Darunia, it's not regulation for the point of regulation, it's regulation for the improvement of the health of the general population! You are an idiot. Or you really wish you could buy beer. Or both.

Darunia
It's not that I'm an idiot; it's that your a cock-sucking Canadian liberal. You think that the government should regulate everything---? Fine stay up there, fucking your polar bears and rooting for your loser baseball teams. The purpose of government isn't to regulate, its to provide for a common good--telling the common man what he may and may not do is awful. It's costly and ineffective---every year, how many tens of millions of tax-payers' money is wasted on enforcing moronic laws like this? Just Thursday, the store where I work at got stung by the cops for selling alcohol to an 18-year-old... how many manhours' salaries did it cost for that ridiculous endeavor? Several cops, they paid a cock-sucking back-stabbing teenager, the girl who sold got fired---all of this, to enforce a ridiculous drinking law? Canada doesn't have such a law, yet you dare call me an idiot for complaining about it?

Dark Lord Neo
We have drinking laws, some provinces you have to be 18, others you have to be 19(the justification for the provinces where the age is 19 is they want to try to keep it away from school aged children period)
Having the age set at 21 is stupid, when you are considered an adult in all other respects at 18. But you can't really use the old enough to be sent to war excuse, since people who are in the military actually can drink on base if they are over 18.

On the seatbelt thing you could injure people other than just those beside you, if the car rolled you could go all over the vehicle, if your in the back seat in a normal collision you could fly forward and hurt those in the front. So it really doesn't matter where int eh car you are.

Great Rumbler
It's no coincidence that alchohol is a major cause of traffic accidents. And wearing a seatbelt should just be common sense.

alien space marine
It's not that I'm an idiot; it's that your a cock-sucking Canadian liberal. You think that the government should regulate everything---? Fine stay up there, fucking your polar bears and rooting for your loser baseball teams. The purpose of government isn't to regulate, its to provide for a common good--telling the common man what he may and may not do is awful. It's costly and ineffective---every year, how many tens of millions of tax-payers' money is wasted on enforcing moronic laws like this? Just Thursday, the store where I work at got stung by the cops for selling alcohol to an 18-year-old... how many manhours' salaries did it cost for that ridiculous endeavor? Several cops, they paid a cock-sucking back-stabbing teenager, the girl who sold got fired---all of this, to enforce a ridiculous drinking law? Canada doesn't have such a law, yet you dare call me an idiot for complaining about it?

Ok then get rid of the stop signs and traffic lights, Since we should do and drive as fast and as dangerous as we want!We could drive on the side walks too!

If I remeber Canada decriminalized Pot? OverRegulated? The U.S seems to regulate alot itself perhaps more!I remeber in New York state some dick wanted to put a tax on how much tv people watched.

As for that incident , It is stupid and no were am I saying 18 year olds shouldnt be abled to drink since we can be trained for military combat and vote. You do have a democracy maybe you should run for office and then maybe your closer to having your little empire and loyal legions like you always fantasize.

-iLluSiON-
I'm moving to Canada. End of discussion.

Dark Jaguar
"Backstabbing"? He did something illegal, it's our DUTY to turn people in for doing stupid stuff like this.

And by the way Darunia, the fact is people keep drinking and driving, so we SHOULD enforce that. Why do you want to LET people drink AND drive? THEY are risking MY life!

And by the way, the government SHOULD be telling us what we can and can't do! Stealing and murdering SHOULD be prevented by the government! You seem to suggest that they shouldn't be getting involved in THAT either! If you are, then good day sir!

alien space marine
Having a seat belt is the same as following the traffic laws taking your stops and red lights,Its there for public safety.

If you had to slam the breaks fast it certainly helps to be kept in your seat rather then have to stuggle to keep yourself from being pushed into the steering wheel or other positions, If you were in a accident and you felt the forces inolved like I did you wouldnt be thinking like that, If I didnt fly through the windsheild I could have had a broken nose on the dash board or had a concussion , The seat belt saved my ass.

Darunia
It's no coincidence that alchohol is a major cause of traffic accidents. And wearing a seatbelt should just be common sense.

How did this conversation turn to drinking and driving...? I said there shouldn't be a 21-year-old drinking law, which has NOTHING to do with drinking & driving, which is rightfully so illegal. I do wear a seatbelt, and it IS common sense, but it shouldn't be the law. It's one's right to wear it or not---how can you say I have to wear a seat belt for my own good, while at the same time allow abortion, which absolutely kills a beating heart? I don't understand you crazy bastards.

If I remeber Canada decriminalized Pot? OverRegulated? The U.S seems to regulate alot itself perhaps more!I remeber in New York state some dick wanted to put a tax on how much tv people watched.

Dickhead, you completely missed my point---I'M SAYING that America regulates too much, not that Canada does.

And by the way Darunia, the fact is people keep drinking and driving, so we SHOULD enforce that. Why do you want to LET people drink AND drive?

I absolutely don't; drinking and driving SHOULD be illegal---I fucking said: DRINKING AGES SHOULN'T BE SO HIGH, NOT THAT DRINKING AND DRIVING LAWS SHOULDN'T EXIST! Pay attention.

And by the way, the government SHOULD be telling us what we can and can't do! Stealing and murdering SHOULD be prevented by the government! You seem to suggest that they shouldn't be getting involved in THAT either!

WTF are you blabbering about, I never said murder and theft should be legalized, dopey---I said the government shouldn't regulate everything, NOT that the government should regulate NOTHING AT ALL.

Dark Lord Neo
You should have to wear a seatbelt because you can still endanger other people when you don't.

ASM, Canada didn't decrimilize pot, Chretien was going to but the bill died when he left office and parliment went on a recess, and then Martin called an election and the bill once again died because that session of parliment came to a close.

Darunia
You should have to wear a seatbelt because you can still endanger other people when you don't.

That's just ridiculously stupid; thats like saying no one should be allowed to have gas stoves, because a resulting explosion could kill a hapless pedestrian---its such a ridiculously remote possibility, that its all but IMPOSSIBLE and thus not worth the effort. Who's more likely to get hurt in an accident; the person THROWN through their windshield, or the person in the other car...?

Dark Lord Neo
Who's more likely to get hurt in an accident; the person THROWN through their windshield, or the person in the other car...?
It's not the person in the other car who gets hurth when you don't wear a seatbelt, it's the others in your car.
If you're involved in a rollover, wich are fairly common and you don't wear a seatbelt you are likely to roll around the car a bit before you get thrown out the windsheild, injuring the other ocupants of the vehicle

Dark Jaguar
Let me put it this way Darunia. The roads are OWNED by the government, so they have hte right to tell you how you should act while on the ROADS. You don't need to wear a seatbelt if you are just driving on street you own yourself :D, how's that, that fair?

Fittisize
Wearing seatbelts is the law not only because the government chooses wearing seatbelts to be a law, it's because they save your life. I'm barely 16, and I've already been in two roll-overs (neither time I was the driver, both times it was an SUV at night on a gravel road, and both times the SUV was damaged beyond any repair) and had I not been wearing my seatbelt, I'm not sure what position I'd be in. A wheelchair or ashes, most likely. The worst injury I sustained from the rollovers was a minor concussion from a big-ass speaker that came from the back and hit me on the head. I don't see how anybody can be against something so simple that'll keep you from dying. Of course, I guess that nobody's really making you wear a seatbelt. You can always live life on the edge and not wear one. That is, of course, if you don't mind paying fines and getting demerits if you get caught.

Dark Lord Neo
Here you can be ticketed if the pasangers in your car don't have a seatbelt, because it's the drivers responsibility to make sure everyone is safe.

Dark Jaguar
While I totally understand Darunia's stance that government shouldn't protect us from ourselves on anything (it can go too far), this is certailny not some huge deal. It's the principle you say? What principle exactly? This is hardly stepping over the line in any sense. They make roads, which they own, not us, and tell us we need to wear seatbelts, WHICH IS FOR OUR OWN GOOD.

However, I have yet to get an answer to this. Why, OH WHY, do school buses still lack seatbelts?!

Great Rumbler
Why, OH WHY, do school buses still lack seatbelts?!

I never figured that one out either. Although, there's not as much danger unless you're out in the middle of the aisle.

Dark Jaguar
You're kidding right? The front of those seats are just waiting to snap your neck on impact. Kids can easily get VERY hurt being hurled around in those things in a crash, especially with how large a bus is.

alien space marine
They made it the law to ware a seat belt when driving because if they didnt nobody would ware it and fatalities would go up, Its also about childrens safety its a bad example for kids to think that by the time their old enough to drive they are not obligated to ware a seat belt teenagers and kids think their invinciple and nothing could ever happen to them.People were angry and outraged that their loved ones lossed their lives because they didnt have a seat belt on because they were not obligated to and demanded that there be a law to force head strong teenage drivers or idiot adults to ware one,The goverment didnt just decide to make it a law the public pressured them to.

As for school buses , Well its called stupidity, I remeber when I went to school somtimes the Bus driver would drive like a maniac and when he did sharp turns I would actually fly into the other side of the bus from my seat and land on the opposite side of the aisle.When we hit bumps especially at the back of the bus we would be propelled into the air and somtimes hit the ceiling and we actually sat there purposely because we thought it was fun.

They dont got belts because its expsensive and they would probaily break alot and be vandalised by the students.Still no excuss not to have them !

Dark Jaguar
Well, you're Canadian.

Anyway, let me ask you this Darunia. Do you ALSO have a problem with the law requiring you to drive only on one side of the road, at a certain speed, and for your car to be insured and in working condition?

nickdaddyg
My standings:

Abortion: Ultra-conservative. Abortion is the goal of FemiNazis.

Gay Marriage: Ultra-conservative. Go to Canada for that, and stay out.
Affirmative Action: Ultra-conservative. It's reverse racism.

Welfare: conservative. Get these lazy fuckers to work.

Religion: conservative. Allow 10 Commandments anywhere in public

Crime: ultra-conservative. No aquittals please, ACLU. do the crime, do the time.


multiculturalism: ultra-conservativism. Multiculturalism is the tool of revenge for those who failed to make it in the American establishment.

drugs: ultra-conservative. Illegalize them all. If our jails are crowded, get them out of the country.

Fittisize
drugs: ultra-conservative. Illegalize them all. If our jails are crowded, get them out of the country.
Precisely. I mean, why bother to deal with your own criminals when somebody else can do it!

Dark Lord Neo
Nice sig Fittisize, at least the lower left part

Fittisize
I live in the middle of those two cities (almost), so I had to use both.

Darunia
Anyway, let me ask you this Darunia. Do you ALSO have a problem with the law requiring you to drive only on one side of the road, at a certain speed, and for your car to be insured and in working condition?


My God--they just don't get it. All I say is that the government regulates too much; rather than argue this, they pretend my stance is "DRUNK DRIVING FOR ALL" and "NO LAWS FOR ANY." To answer your question, yes only one side of the street; speed limits perhaps (but not like they are now, because they're ludicrously low and NO ONE obeys them), and ABSOLUTELY NOT should it be mandatory to have your car insured. That is a SEARINGLY strong point of mine; I pay $135 a month, and for what? For the peace of mind of knowing that if I get in an accident, the insurance company will fight me tooth and nail for any payment? I've paid more in insurance since I got my car than my car is worth. Don't tell me "Oh, but what if..." Car insurance should be absolutely optional. I view it as a conservative-control mechanism...it's to protect the rich, and it drives the poor down. My alternative: If someone is at fault in an accident, and sans insurance, the government should impose a fine. I'd rather pay a one-time fine if I were at fault, then pay some rich asshole insruance company half my paycheck every month FOR NOTHING AT ALL.

Dark Lord Neo
The reasong there is insurance rather than a government imposed fine is because the cost of damages in an accident, or injuries is often more than any person can pay. Government run auto insurance plans are the best.

I live in the middle of those two cities (almost), so I had to use both.
You could just use albertagasprices.com and find the price for your own city, instead of worring about gas prices that are about 2 hours away in each direction

Dark Jaguar
Speed limits are fine where they are, and "nobody" is a code word meaning "you", isn't it? Look at me, look at me, you really mean "no one SHOULD obey them", right? A lot of people go the speed limit.

And yeesh, the idea is if someone who can't afford to get their car repaired gets in a wreck and the OTHER person is at fault, they can KNOW they will get their car repaired. Otherwise, if someone else is at fault, it's possible the person at fault ALSO can't afford to get it repaired, and you know as well as I that the person who's car just got wrecked CAN'T just wait until the person who's at fault gets the money together. They gotta drive.

Dark Lord Neo
I think you should be allowed to not get collision insurance (the kind that replaces your car if you are at fault) because some people's cars are worth less than what they would pay for this, and it's your choice to do that and not get your car replaced. But you should have to have it for damage you do to other vehicals and other people (including others in your own car), I really don't care if you get it to protect yourself, though you are pretty stupid if you don't.

Fittisize
You could just use albertagasprices.com and find the price for your own city, instead of worring about gas prices that are about 2 hours away in each direction
But I don't live in a city. The only gas prices on there that are even close to my little town are Edmonton and Calgary (even Red Deer doesn't have any).

As for speed limits, I follow them when I'm driving in town or when I'm in a city (somewhat for the city...) but never on highways, especially four-lane highways, which are really just an inviation to get to wherever you're going real fast. All the highways near me rarely get any traffic, save for the ones going out towards Edmonton and Calgary (which are the only four-lanes) so I disregard nearly every sign when I'm out on the road. All the roads are straight anyways, so there's no real danger.

Dark Lord Neo
As for speed limits, I follow them when I'm driving in town or when I'm in a city (somewhat for the city...) but never on highways, especially four-lane highways, which are really just an inviation to get to wherever you're going real fast. All the highways near me rarely get any traffic, save for the ones going out towards Edmonton and Calgary (which are the only four-lanes) so I disregard nearly every sign when I'm out on the road. All the roads are straight anyways, so there's no real danger.
And I use to wonder why the number of fatalities on that highway were so high.

Fittisize
,,,

But who can resist the fast lane??

The first time I drove on that highway (alone) I put on the song that they played during the freeway scene of The Matrix Reloaded. I drove pretty fast.

Darunia
A lot of people go the speed limit.

Oh---sure; so you nevr exceed 60 on a highway. Suuuure.

Dark Jaguar
Ya know, a lot of highways around here have 65-75 speed limits, so no I don't think anyone here could claim that :D, but could still easily to be going the legal limit.

DLN, in the US, not sure about Canada, the minimum requirement IS protection for the other guy.

Dark Lord Neo
Ya know, a lot of highways around here have 65-75 speed limits, so no I don't think anyone here could claim that :D, but could still easily to be going the legal limit.

DLN, in the US, not sure about Canada, the minimum requirement IS protection for the other guy.
Ya, the minimum requirement here is for you to have protection for the other guy, and other passengers in your vehicle, I think you have to have around $1 million liability, though most insurance companies won't provide less than $2 million.

The speed limits on highways around here is usually about 100km/h. Though the major highways allow about 110km/h. Not sure how that works out in miles. The major roads in bigger cities usually allow speeds of 80km/h, while the smaller ones are about 50km/h

Dark Jaguar
One.... MILLION? HOLY DAMNIT CHRISTMAS! I mean.... that's just ASTRONOMICAL! INSTANT RICH PERSON if ever in an accident rich!

Wait, Canada, Canadian dollars.... never mind :D.

alien space marine
Ya, the minimum requirement here is for you to have protection for the other guy, and other passengers in your vehicle, I think you have to have around $1 million liability, though most insurance companies won't provide less than $2 million.

The speed limits on highways around here is usually about 100km/h. Though the major highways allow about 110km/h. Not sure how that works out in miles. The major roads in bigger cities usually allow speeds of 80km/h, while the smaller ones are about 50km/h

100KM/h is 60M/h if you look at your spedometre they have metric above imperial.

Darunia will love Montreal , Drivers dont give a shit about the traffic laws and go at incredible speeds, You could go 120 KM over the limit and still have a bastard close to your trunk wanting to pass.

Somthing Ive learned from both driving in real life and granturismo is that the faster you go the less control you have and the more yards you need to come to a full stop , If your going like a maniac you will have less time react in a emergency plus weather conditions like rain make driving conditions worse. Its more psychological if you love speed and are addicted to it your decision making is impaired,Leave it to the race track.

Dark Lord Neo
One.... MILLION? HOLY DAMNIT CHRISTMAS! I mean.... that's just ASTRONOMICAL! INSTANT RICH PERSON if ever in an accident rich!

Wait, Canada, Canadian dollars.... never mind :D.
People don't get that much for minor accidents. Just like over there they only get enough to cover the cost of their vehicle or the cost to repari it, and sometimes the cost of renting another vehicle until they have one they can use again. Large sums only come into effect when there is some type of seriouse injury, like someone becoming paralized or being put in a position of needing constant medical care, wich over the rest of their lifetime could easily go over $1 million.

Great Rumbler
Oh---sure; so you nevr exceed 60 on a highway. Suuuure.

Alright I have...but only when the sign said 70.

A Black Falcon
Most highways are 65... it just drops to 50 or 55 in cities, really, in Maine... and of course in towns is 25, while that goes up in the country to as high as 50.

Though in other states I have noticed that the max highway speed is in many cases lower than 65, that's what it is here...

Great Rumbler
Most of the smaller highways around here are 65, but the big interstates are 70.

Darunia
Speed limits are only polite suggestions. :nodding:

alien space marine
I remeber someone vandalized a sign well a pretty worthless one at that on a 4 yard stretch it said 10 KM/H ,Someone added two extra zeros and it became 1000 KM/H which is almost rocket speed on a 4 yard stretch which is pointing out to the city how retarded they are for wasting a traffic sign on that useless little path that anyone with half a brain would have to slow down out of pure common sense.

Dark Jaguar
Ya know Darunia, it's that sort of attitude that's to blame for some of my relative's cronic pain. At the least, they ARE alive anyway, but that hardly justifies it.

Great Rumbler
When you speed all you're doing is getting to your funeral just a little bit faster...

Darunia
Since when am I surrounded by polite old grandparents here? All I hear from you is "comply with the government"; "The government owns us/we must do as it instructs." You're all mindless drone zombies. If the government passed a law banning cars (because all cars are dangerous, don't you know), you'd wholeheartedly support that too. I wash my hands of you people. You're hopeless. :screwy:

A Black Falcon
And you are a danger to society, most likely...

Great Rumbler
More like common sense.

Dark Jaguar
Yeesh Darunia, do you LIKE endangering OTHER PEOPLE, AGAIN?

As I said before, honestly I don't mind if you were the ONLY one your speeding could affect. HOWEVER, your speeding could endanger ME, and YES it IS a viable threat! Car deaths are FAR more frequent than any other method of death you could care to imagine, and just getting one's CAR totalled is STILL enough for me to agree with government regulated speed laws.

YEESH Darunia, the government OWNS the roads! Make a privatly owned highway system, and by all means, do whatever you want with it!

If you REALLY think they made speed laws as some sort of control of people, get a grip on reality. HOW does limiting people to "only" 65~75 MPH controlling us in ANY way, excepting of course ridiculously circuitous and elaborate plans that end in the president being made a cyborg or something. The only explanation that makes ANY sort of sense is that the speed laws were made to PROTECT us, and that's it! Now, they didn't just think "maybe reducing speed will protect", they have EVIDENCE!

Ever heard of something called "reaction speed"? Humans have a limit on how fast they can react to stuff. This limit is unchangeble. No matter how many kung-fu films you watch with people magically dashing around leaving after images, it doesn't change the fact that humans have an internal UNCHANGEBLE reaction speed limit. One can tweak themselves to REACH that limit, or even change themselves to see earlier and earlier signs of somethign happening so the limit isn't as much of an obstacle, but it's still there! http://www.skytran.net/09Safety/03sfty.htm

Next is something I don't even need to source. STuff on the road happens fast, FAST! That is, things can change in the time it takes to simply look at one of the mirrors. It's why cell phones really shouldn't be used when driving, wait for a stop to dial or just don't worry about it. There is often a VERY small lead time of changing events to notice meaning there's no way to train yourself to exceed reaction time but by only a small amount.

Conclusion? Faster you go, harder it is to react to things. It only stands to reason that at a certain speed, reaction to events become completely and totally impossible, TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE. That is, no amount of driving skill will allow you to react in time, EVER. How many of these events normally occur? Well, drive around town. How many times has someone cut into your lane without signalling, or accidently nearly merged into YOU, or ran a light, or any other number of things. The average by most people I talk to says this happens at least once every two drives.

This means that if you REMOVE speed limits, and people drive as fast as they possibly can, once every two drives, an incident will occur they CANNOT react to. Maybe it wouldn't have resulted in an accident. Some of the events I hear about are ones that very well did not need to be avoided. However, you should be able to easily see that you could run into a pretty nasty accident EVENTUALLY without speed limits. This is pure probability. I have not done the math, but I'd say that while less than 50%, it is still higher than the other chances most people are NOT willing to take in their day to day lives.

This is NOT an issue of "letting the government tell us what to do". You've read the debates, you know we often disagree with government regulations on a lot of stuff, but this is just plain stupid to argue against!

Here's a tip. If you want to make it on time, LEAVE EARLIER! Generally, people who speed are very likely just too irreponsible to simply give themselves adiquate time to get to a place. Enough lead time, and correct me if my logic is somehow flawed here (seriously, I dare ya to), and you WILL get there on time. That's the only reason I can ever think of to speed anyway, and with such a simple and SAFE solution, why bother fighting for higher speed limits? One other thing. If you are thinking "Idiot, some of us have to go from one place to another and don't HAVE enough lead time!", well, if your reason for being at the other place is sound, just EXPLAIN that to the other person. They may not be understanding, but you can happily be in the right, unless... A:, that scheduling conflict was YOUR FAULT, or B:, you didn't even bother calling ahead to tell them there was no way, by ahead I mean the sECOND you had whatever event would cause the conflict scheduled, you shoudl have been able to figure out it would happen then. Oh, if you just got contacted RIGHT AFTER the first event, screw them, it's their fault for alerting you then, it's not your fault for obeying speed limits.

Honestly, can you give ONE good reason for them NOT establishing speed limits? Seriously, I'm asking. Your assertion that we "should have the right to risk our own lives" was defeated by my pointing out you are endagering OTHER people's lives (and I HOPE you agree that doing THAT is wrong, despite what action movies might say), and by also pointing out that it's a FACT you would be endangering their lives, not merely speculation. Your assertion it's "just more government control" is completley unestablished conspiracy theory vs a much more likely explanation that they actually DO care about our safety on the roads, and also it doesn't actually limit our freedom in any way except telling us how to behave on government property.

Honestly, am I wrong here? Is there a flaw in my thinking?

Great Rumbler
If the goverment removed speed limits on roads many people would abuse that right and there'd be a lot more accidents than there already are, which is exactly what DJ said. Only condensed...a lot.

Fittisize
He just hasn't adjusted from the Autobahn yet.

Darunia
YEESH Darunia, the government OWNS the roads!

And whats the government, a private club? I thought that the people owned the government; a government which is ruled by the people---or aren't we any longer even a shadow of a republic or a democracy.

Dark Jaguar
By that logic, we should have full access to every single facility that the armed forces use, every single freedom thereof. We should be able to do whatever we want in the white house, or any other government owned property.

What you are suggesting is NOT something the people even WANT! It's what YOU want, and it's for the WORSE!

Did you even BOTHER addressing my points about the OBVIUOS dangers to EVERYONE ELSE on the road?

Dark Lord Neo
Well if the government is run by the people and most of the people think their should be speed limits shouldn't their be speed limits?

Dark Jaguar
Indeed, great point, but that's not Darunia's current argument. Yes, he did change his argument TO this, but hey.

Admitting that yes, indeed, government should set up laws concerning behavior on their property, the next step will be to point out roads are for our use, and as such blah blah blah, THEN we point that out. That's the way it works.

A Black Falcon
There are no speed limits on some roads... the only place in the US I know of is some roads in, I believe, Montana. But they only work in specific places, as in places where there are no houses or people living and, hopefully, isn't likely to be much traffic. See, Darunia, as DJ explained the faster you go the worse your reaction time. That means that there is a direct connection between higher speeds and more accidents. It also makes accidents worse. And given that one of the tasks of any government is protecting its people, speed limits are an obvious and very smart way to greatly reduce road deaths. They're also not that intrusive, really...

Oh yeah, the people don't own the government per se. We choose who represents us there and hopefully they recognize that they are responsible to the people, but 'own the government'? It's impossible for any people to run a government without much of a governing body beyond themselves once you get over a population in the lower thousands (10,000 can be done, but 20,000? Maybe.). That's why no big cities, even in New England, have town meetings. It gets untenable once you get too large. So, you have to have people represent you. Yeah, they are responsible to you. But the people can't do everything so they will necessarially know more than you... and obviously there are some things that the government does that people don't like but should be able to recognize if they thought about it are really for their own benifit. Like taxes, or speed limits.

Yes, this is a tough issue and sometimes the government certainly has gone too far. But my point really is that there is a limit on each end -- too little government (total anarchy!) would be as big a disaster as a too opressive one (think Nazis).

Dark Jaguar
I was actually surprised to find the whole concept of town meetings was still done in smaller towns. I had previously thought it was something that was only done in "the past". And yes, Tulsa is completely devoid of any sort of town meeting.

As ABF pointed out, and as I'm trying to also point out, this really isn't a matter of the government stepping over our rights to tell us what to do and control us. This is a very simple totally non-intrusive law that basically just makes sure we behave ourselves on the road. Once again, I must ask exactly HOW this "horrid" law is a breech of civil liberties?

I have a feeling I know what your response will be, so I'll just make a preemptive strike.

No, this is not some "stepping stone" to much harsher control and laws that really will infringe on our rights. That is a non-sequiter type logical flaw. Non-sequiter literally meaning "does not follow". There is no proof that this law will lead to greater constraints, thus it DOES NOT FOLLOW that this law will lead to much stricter laws limiting our freedom. Provide evidence that this is somehow a gateway, then I will listen to such an argument.

Oh yes, the non-sequiter is a logical flaw used ALL THE TIME in politics, as many of you may have noticed :D.

Great Rumbler
He just hasn't adjusted from the Autobahn yet.

There was a 100 car pile-up on the Autobahn one time. *feels sorry for the guy who was at fault for that wreck*

A Black Falcon
I was actually surprised to find the whole concept of town meetings was still done in smaller towns. I had previously thought it was something that was only done in "the past". And yes, Tulsa is completely devoid of any sort of town meeting.


I think it's mostly a New England thing. And eve n here as I said it's just the smaller towns, not big ones (my town of 20,000 has a town council...), that have them. But they definitely are around. But as I said I'd say that if you get decent showings you can't get much over a population of 10,000 with them...

Dark Lord Neo
While the autobahn has no official speed limit you can still be ticketed for driving too fast.

OB1
I believe there is a speed limit now. I drove through that highway and it's beautiful but friggin' nuts.

Darunia
Lets hear it for the NY Yankees, who were shut out in an incredible 22-0 loss agains the Cleveland Indians!!!! :evilha:

Great Rumbler
Yankees are teh suck.

Private Hudson
I definitely think that the government that governs least governs best; America is so rich and bored that our lawmakers waste time and money coming up with these dumb, unfair laws--liquors-age laws when we can get drafted into a war but can't have a drink before going out; mandatory seat belts, it is illegal to smoke inside a public building in Massachusetts... its insane. People should live as they want as long as it doesnt effect anyone. It's fucking crazy, we need regime change right here (not Bush in particular; we need a new government all together.)

So after reading all (well I perused some) of this thread I came to one conclusion..

Darunia's revolution to overthrow the government because they over-govern the people will result in the following things:
- People will be able to smoke in a public place.
- People will be able to drink at the age of 18.
- People are not required to wear seatbelts.
- Speed limits will be increased.

Yes, bring on the regime change, it will liberate us all!

Dark Jaguar
Problem is, chaos CREATES order :D. Ya just can't get a true anarchy, because they will all inevitably turn into what we have now.

People are free to do whatever they want. Some people start killing others. People defend themselves. People start organizing possies to better this defense. People start creating groups to control these groups. All of this is allowed in an environment with NO RULES, because to say you can't form any sort of controls IS a rule :D. Ya see? It'll all eventually swell into a full fledged government :D. Let's assume there is a rule that says "no rules". Well, how do you enforce that no rules rule? You create a group to enforce it! Boom, it all eventually explodes into... well actually it'll become Cuba or something if it starts out like that.

N-Man
Right, can we agree that "one's freedom ends where another's freedom starts", or however that quote goes..?

Some people start killing others. People defend themselves. People start organizing possies to better this defense. People start creating groups to control these groups.

Okay, let's suppose we have a government whose only duty is to prevent people killing other people. Well, not *just* that, but also stuff like stealing and mugging and whatnot. That's what would be called not an "anarchic" state, but rather a "minarchic" state.

Ya see? It'll all eventually swell into a full fledged government

Well, I don't think it has to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchy

A Black Falcon
If you remove laws, as DJ says laws will form in their place... humans couldn't have a society with no laws forever. It'd never sustain itsself, as many people want laws and order in their societies to reduce risk and improve their lives.

N-Man
I find it rather ironic that a proponent of utopian communism rejects the possibility of the simplest form of government, based on the laws of freedom, which man has lived by for millenia.

That said I'm not entirely sure of what you're saying. I'm not suggesting the destruction of laws, in fact I merely want to ensure that the government's only role is to enforce those laws. Laws such as protection from physical harm, theft, etc.

However, if you're talking about social security-related legislation, which I don't think belong in the government's realm; why couldn't people interested in such a system organize one themselves?

Darunia
All I said was that we have too many stupid laws that we don't need.

Dark Lord Neo
All I said was that we have too many stupid laws that we don't need.
But alot of the ones you've mentioned aren't stupid.

Geno
Go to DumbLaws.com. Those laws are stupid.

A Black Falcon
Exactly, most of the laws you mentioned are quite good...

Great Rumbler
Laws are made for a reason. That reason being...TO ENSLAVE THE IGNORANT WITH KUNG-FU GRIP!!

Darunia
There are too many laws---like the "you can't buy alcohol before noon on Sunday law"---now the slack-jawed Tendites will say "who wants to drink that early anyway", but they'd be missing the point---why shouldn't you be able to? The government shouldn't dictate morality. I'll never give in on this. It dictates too much.

Great Rumbler
If they did that though, then we'd soon become a nation of drugged-out hippies with nothing better to do on Sunday than get drunk and watch the Yankees/Jets. Who wants to live in a world like that?!

Private Hudson
All I said was that we have too many stupid laws that we don't need.

No you didn't. You said we (you) needed a regime change. And said it with such gusto and conviction that really led everyone to believe that you were some kind of.. nut who wanted to bring down the Government, and the very fabric of society so that people could do WHAT they wanted, WHEN they wanted and to WHOM they wanted without and rammifications or repurcussions to deter them from doing so. NOW WHO'S THE IGNORANT FUCK!><!!<!!>!??

A lot of those stupid laws, in fact the only stupid laws you mentioned (Alcohol on Sunday morning, before the age of 21) aren't present in Australia.

Jealous?

Although, you'd be hard up trying to find a place OPEN on Sunday morning from which to purchase said alcohol, but that's beside the point.

Let's face it, you're just an angry alcoholic.

Dark Lord Neo
It's illegal for a store to be open on Sunday in Canada under the Lords Day Act, but none of the stores care, cause they know the charges would be dismissed, and the government knows that all that would happen would be that the law would be ruled unconstitutional. They just haven't gotten around to repeling it because they have more important things to do.

Geno
If they did that though, then we'd soon become a nation of drugged-out hippies with nothing better to do on Sunday than get drunk and watch the Yankees/Jets. Who wants to live in a world like that?!

I do!

...I mean... :wha:

Okay, I don't.

Darunia
Let's face it, you're just an angry alcoholic.

"Let's face it", as if you know me in person; but since you don't, I'll just write that whole spiel off as the ramblings of a glamour-mongering asshole Aussie fuck. This is why things will never get any better or change, because no one cares. They just bend over and take it in the ass. Corrupt or ridiculous laws? Should we change them for the better? Hell no--but rather, lets ridicule those who would.

GORON-TENDOCITY APPROVAL RATE: 31.6%
His Majesty, Emperor Darunia, does not approve of the way things are going in this backwater province of his. :nono:

Great Rumbler
Of yours? Phht. The Dark Lord Frances Von Nintendofan McTinkertonville owns this place!

Private Hudson
Let's face it, you're just an angry alcoholic.

"Let's face it", as if you know me in person;[/b]

Actually, I would say the phrase "Let's face it" is a far more general term than my trying to comment personally about you. It's more along the lines of "From what you've shown us, everyone here can tell that you really just want to drink alcohol legally, and purchase it on Sundays rather than this proposed regime change that you are now claiming you never claimed to have claimed and really only said it in such a profound yet oddly childish manner to get away from the fact that you are just an angry adolescent alcoholic who can't take a joke and instead insults the person who has got your number (figuratively speaking I'm not trying to claim that I know you personally) because you're angry and looking to score your next hit."

but since you don't, I'll just write that whole spiel off as the ramblings of a glamour-mongering asshole Aussie fuck.

Glamour mongering? Coming from the person trying to masquerade his alcohlism off as being a revolutionist with stupid ideas. :wha: You're right, it's much easier to write something off than to admit that you're an idiot.

This is why things will never get any better or change, because no one cares.

Lord knows I don't. I can buy alcohol and go to clubs and buy alcohol, and I can buy alcohol on Sunday mornings. And gee it's great to not be hassled by smokers lighting up in public places. :far-out:

Darunia
I stand my ground and maintain my claims. All of the alcoholism I've shown here is that I support lowering the drinking age; I found it immoral. You're attacks on me as being an alcoholic are as valid as I would be calling you an bigot whom hates Americans--both are insulting exaggerations. I'd ask for an apology, but I know that's above you.--so, I'll just settle for insulting you and your country. Both suck. There--I did it.

Great Rumbler
Young people have enough problems without adding alcholism to that list. Wait...what I am saying? A bunch already are even though it's illegal. I say just leave it, I mean honestly, is it hurting anyone? If you're 15 and can't live without downing a cold one then it's not looking good for you. *steps down off soap-box* Okay, I'm done now.

Private Hudson
I stand my ground and maintain my claims. All of the alcoholism I've shown here is that I support lowering the drinking age; I found it immoral. You're attacks on me as being an alcoholic are as valid as I would be calling you an bigot whom hates Americans--both are insulting exaggerations. I'd ask for an apology, but I know that's above you.--so, I'll just settle for insulting you and your country. Both suck. There--I did it.

I'd love to apologize, however, you're the one who was being beligerant, I was just joking. :)

Young people have enough problems without adding alcholism to that list. Wait...what I am saying? A bunch already are even though it's illegal. I say just leave it, I mean honestly, is it hurting anyone? If you're 15 and can't live without downing a cold one then it's not looking good for you. *steps down off soap-box* Okay, I'm done now.

Well that's like saying that ALL people would be better off without alcohol, so why not just outlaw it altogether. The fact is that when you reach 18 you are considered an adult. You are considered to be old enough and mature enough to have a say in who runs your country. You are old enough to go off to fight and die in a war to protect your freedom to... not drink!

Darunia
Thank you, Private Hudson. They cannot understand that I'm not arguing whether or not alcohol is good or not (though I enjoy it); I'm arguing the nature and legitimacy of the ridiculous law in question. Which is dubious at best.

Great Rumbler
If alcohol is outlawed, then only outlaws will drink alcohol. Or something like that.