Also in the news

[marbles]

5 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

The US being a third world country is not my opinion, though, all the evidence is there. I even posted some of it for you. 

 

No, not really.
I don’t want to continue arguing with you, or I would post just as many internet articles/opinions saying otherwise.

You go on believing what you like.  Doesn’t matter to me.

Edited 20 January 2022 by marbles

[Countryfox]

37 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

Civilised discussion over tapas and a few glasses of wine here, or a shootout in the US?! 🙄 

 

13 minutes ago, marbles said:

 I do own a gun,

 ..  Errr ..  I think I’ll leave you both to it Debs ..  bye bye now ..    

[marbles]

2 minutes ago, Countryfox said:

 

 ..  Errr ..  I think I’ll leave you both to it Debs ..  bye bye now ..    

lolol

its a Texas thing

[FoxesDeb]

2 minutes ago, marbles said:

lolol

its a Texas thing

Whereas a civilised discussion is a civilisation thing 

[marbles]

11 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

Whereas a civilised discussion is a civilisation thing 

Thought we were having a civilized discussion

No name calling.  No threats.  No crying.  No foul language.

Edited 20 January 2022 by marbles

[bovril]

Wasn't the 'Third World' just those countries that were neither NATO nor Warsaw Pact? So Sweden and Ireland were technically Third World. 

[Scotch]

The thing that always gets me about the U.S and the American people (as a sweeping generalisation) is their willingness to make their political allegiance part of their personality. 

 

Being a republican or democrat means so much to them and is such an integral part of who they are that it leads to folk having opinions on political matters based on who they vote for as opposed to voting for whoever represents their political beliefs.

 

Now, I'm not niave enough to believe that there aren't Democrats with right leaning views on certain things and vice versa but the vocal majority seems to be " I'm blue/red and agree with everything that falls in line with that party's belief system". 

 

From the outside looking in... It's bonkers. 

[Scotch]

4 minutes ago, bovril said:

Wasn't the 'Third World' just those countries that were neither NATO nor Warsaw Pact? So Sweden and Ireland were technically Third World. 

I think that's part of the traditional meaning of the phrase. So anyone politically aligned with us or the US would be first world and Russian/Chinese allies would be second. Leaving anyone else to be third. 

[marbles]

31 minutes ago, Scotch said:

The thing that always gets me about the U.S and the American people (as a sweeping generalisation) is their willingness to make their political allegiance part of their personality. 

 

Being a republican or democrat means so much to them and is such an integral part of who they are that it leads to folk having opinions on political matters based on who they vote for as opposed to voting for whoever represents their political beliefs.

 

Now, I'm not niave enough to believe that there aren't Democrats with right leaning views on certain things and vice versa but the vocal majority seems to be " I'm blue/red and agree with everything that falls in line with that party's belief system". 

 

From the outside looking in... It's bonkers. 

Sweeping generalizations make things so much easier

 

I think you are both right and wrong on political allegiance

Right in that it does seem to be everywhere - but only since Trump.  I honestly don't remember the hardline stances before him.  There was some, but not as prevalent as it is today.

Wrong in that I think its a case of the vocal minority making things seem much worse than it really is.  Its a rarity to actually talk to someone who holds such a strong feeling one way or the other.  They will say "I'm red/blue", but when you actually talk to them - yes they may be more red/blue than anything, but they are nothing like the hardcore fux you see in media.

 

Me - I lean red, but there are things on both sides I agree and disagree with.  As are 99% of the people I talk to (blue or red).  

 

Hopefully my rambling makes sense.

Edited 20 January 2022 by marbles

[Guest SO1]

19 minutes ago, Scotch said:

The thing that always gets me about the U.S and the American people (as a sweeping generalisation) is their willingness to make their political allegiance part of their personality. 

 

Being a republican or democrat means so much to them and is such an integral part of who they are that it leads to folk having opinions on political matters based on who they vote for as opposed to voting for whoever represents their political beliefs.

 

Now, I'm not niave enough to believe that there aren't Democrats with right leaning views on certain things and vice versa but the vocal majority seems to be " I'm blue/red and agree with everything that falls in line with that party's belief system". 

 

From the outside looking in... It's bonkers. 

Please don't believe all the BS you read in the media. Economic status means so much more than political leanings when it comes to who people most associate with. I find many not so cut and dry with their opinions. More than willing to have a conversation to share ideas and not expect to convert to their way of thinking. And still remain respected friends. At least until their back is turned  and me and my wife can talk.

[Guest SO1]

4 minutes ago, marbles said:

Sweeping generalizations make things so much easier

 

I think you are both right and wrong on political allegiance

Right in that it does seem to be everywhere - but only since Trump.  I honestly don't remember the hardline stances before him.  There was some, but not as prevalent as it is today.

Wrong in that I think its a case of the vocal minority making things seem much worse than it really is.  Its a rarity to actually talk to someone who holds such a strong feeling one way or the other.  They will say "I'm red/blue", but when you actually talk to them - yes they may be more red/blue than anything, but they are nothing like the hardcore fux you see in media.

 

Me - I lean red, but there are things on both sides I agree and disagree with.  As are 99% of the people I talk to (blue or red).  

 

Hopefully my rambling makes sense.

Great minds think alike

Edited 20 January 2022 by SO1

[leicsmac]

8 hours ago, marbles said:

The suggestion is not to separate down party lines - which would quickly lead to even more mistrust, but dividing up the US into separate countries.

Some states already have the capabilities to operate completely on their own.  Some (California) are such a complete disaster, they would probably become barren wastelands.

Maybe that would still lead to conflict.  Maybe conflict is inevitable.  That's what the leaders seem to want. 

 

 

 

I would submit that would simply result in migration to individual nations with a particular political majority and the division among party lines happening anyway.

 

The time is going to come when the choice is between humanity acting as one on a particular issue, or simply dies piece by piece divided, fighting with each other over vastly reduced resources. And that day might not be that far away, if the global average temperature records and their drastic increase are anything to go by.

 

WRT the recent debate, my two pennyworth:

 

- the fact that there are no other laws regarding bodily autonomy to save the life of another except for abortion proves those laws are more about controlling women than saving lives.

- gun ownership is part of the national psyche of the US; it's often barbarous but I see no good way of taking that out.

 

 

5 hours ago, SO1 said:

Please don't believe all the BS you read in the media. Economic status means so much more than political leanings when it comes to who people most associate with. I find many not so cut and dry with their opinions. More than willing to have a conversation to share ideas and not expect to convert to their way of thinking. And still remain respected friends. At least until their back is turned  and me and my wife can talk.

...and yet the government (and by extension the people, who directly elected them after all?) seem to be totally dysfunctional in terms of getting stuff done in mid or long term, often due to partisan bickering. Why is that?

 

6 hours ago, bovril said:

Wasn't the 'Third World' just those countries that were neither NATO nor Warsaw Pact? So Sweden and Ireland were technically Third World. 

[WigstonWanderer]

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

The time is going to come when the choice is between humanity acting as one on a particular issue, or simply dies piece by piece divided, fighting with each other over vastly reduced resources.

I know which outcome my money would be on 

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

I know which outcome my money would be on 

You need to find an extraterrestrial bookie then.

[marbles]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

 

 

- the fact that there are no other laws regarding bodily autonomy to save the life of another except for abortion proves those laws are more about controlling women than saving lives.

- gun ownership is part of the national psyche of the US; it's often barbarous but I see no good way of taking that out.

 

 

 

 

 

In my head, I cant think of any other time it would come into play in order to save someone life, but there are laws regarding it - 

Anal exams during entrance to prison

Rape suspects being forced to give samples

There was even a case of a Jehovah's Witness being forced to receive a blood transfusion to save her life, that she explicitly did not want due to religious beliefs.

Not sure if it falls into the same category, but parents can lose custody over serious medical neglect (refusing medical treatment).  In some cases, they can be charged criminally.

Now, at what point does one persons right to bodily autonomy supersede another's? 

The Texas anti-abortion case is saying that once a heartbeat is present, the child takes precedent.

IMO, the argument is made about controlling women as a way to distract from what abortion is really about.      

 

Unfortunately there is no solution to the gun problem here in America.

You cant take them away, there's just too many.

Its sad that in certain states its illegal to have marijuana, but in those same states you can legally enter an establishment with a concealed (or unconcealed if you choose) gun.

I wish there was an answer.  I really do.  

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 21 January 2022 by marbles

[marbles]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

 

 

 

...and yet the government (and by extension the people, who directly elected them after all?) seem to be totally dysfunctional in terms of getting stuff done in mid or long term, often due to partisan bickering. Why is that?

 

 

No, its not an extension of the people.  No one holds you accountable for what your elected officials do.

 

As for the disfunction, its always been that way, to an extent.

As I stated earlier, its gotten worse since Trump was in office.  I think his term cranked everything up to 11.

Politicians argue about every damn thing.  There is no compromise anymore from anyone.   

Someone needs to step up and say "enough of this crap" and work to end it on both sides.  Will it happen before a civil war?  Who knows.

  

[leicsmac]

31 minutes ago, marbles said:

In my head, I cant think of any other time it would come into play in order to save someone life, but there are laws regarding it - 

Anal exams during entrance to prison

Rape suspects being forced to give samples

There was even a case of a Jehovah's Witness being forced to receive a blood transfusion to save her life, that she explicitly did not want due to religious beliefs.

Not sure if it falls into the same category, but parents can lose custody over serious medical neglect (refusing medical treatment).  In some cases, they can be charged criminally.

Now, at what point does one persons right to bodily autonomy supersede another's? 

The Texas anti-abortion case is saying that once a heartbeat is present, the child takes precedent.

IMO, the argument is made about controlling women as a way to distract from what abortion is really about.      

 

Unfortunately there is no solution to the gun problem here in America.

You cant take them away, there's just too many.

Its sad that in certain states its illegal to have marijuana, but in those same states you can legally enter an establishment with a concealed (or unconcealed if you choose) gun.

I wish there was an answer.  I really do.  

 

 

 

 

 

Organ donation. Say a friend is dying and you're the only match that can be found before they do, so their life is directly reliant upon you... and yet you cannot be legally compelled to donate that organ, to compromise your own bodily autonomy, in order to save their life. You'd be a bastard, but it still isn't illegal.

 

Hell, even corpses cannot be compelled to do so (though I don't actually agree with that).

 

It's the double standard that is clearly prevalent regarding the matter that makes one think it's more about controlling women than saving lives. In no other case does the bodily autonomy of an individual come second to preserving someone's life in a legal setting when that person has not committed a crime.

 

Do agree about the gun debate.

 

24 minutes ago, marbles said:

No, its not an extension of the people.  No one holds you accountable for what your elected officials do.

 

As for the disfunction, its always been that way, to an extent.

As I stated earlier, its gotten worse since Trump was in office.  I think his term cranked everything up to 11.

Politicians argue about every damn thing.  There is no compromise anymore from anyone.   

Someone needs to step up and say "enough of this crap" and work to end it on both sides.  Will it happen before a civil war?  Who knows.

  

This is fair enough too. I'm just not sure how such unity can be achieved now, but it does have to be done.

[leicsmac]

To elaborate on the above:

 

 

[marbles]

Just to add to Californias problems.  It’s now come out that Union Pacific Railroad is threatening to stop hauling in Cali due to the amount of thefts that have taken place.  Video recently surfaced of train tracks littered with debris from train cars that had been robbed.  Apparently UP found out that thieves have been arrested, released and not charged under Californias new laws.

 

 

 

Edited 22 January 2022 by marbles

[Guest SO1]

8 hours ago, marbles said:

Just to add to Californias problems.  It’s now come out that Union Pacific Railroad is threatening to stop hauling in Cali due to the amount of thefts that have taken place.  Video recently surfaced of train tracks littered with debris from train cars that had been robbed.  Apparently UP found out that thieves have been arrested, released and not charged under Californias new laws.

 

 

 

Building more prisons and incarcerating more people won't solve our problems. https://www.prb.org/resources/u-s-has-worlds-highest-incarceration-rate/ 

"America the shining city on the hill, whose beacon light guides freedom loving people everywhere" Ronnie Raygun. Time for the ruling class and its masters to start solving our problems with carrots instead of sticks. A lot more of us than there are of them. But as long as those Amazon boxes keep coming everything is a-ok.

[marbles]

In your opinion, what is the answer?

 

I am all for more prisons.

If we have the highest incarceration rate, it means we commit the most crimes.  Hiding that fact by offering “if you promise to behave, you can go free” is not going to solve anything.

Say all you want about giving it to the ruling class.  They are not the ones who are suffering.

 

 

Edited 22 January 2022 by marbles

[Guest SO1]

17 minutes ago, marbles said:

In your opinion, what is the answer?

 

I am all for more prisons.

If we have the highest incarceration rate, it means we commit the most crimes.  Hiding that fact by offering “if you promise to behave, you can go free” is not going to solve anything.

Say all you want about giving it to the ruling class.  They are not the ones who are suffering.

 

 

In terms of non violent crime it would make more sense to give people a hand up instead of locking them up for long periods in a cement box. Has to be a soul crushing experience? So much for rehabilitation.

And this is what we spend to keep them in a box.

https://smartasset.com/mortgage/the-economics-of-the-american-prison-system

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal

Just another profit opportunity

 

The ruling class and their billionaire masters who own them are the people who control the governments and write the laws. The ones who are most responsible for creating this mess we're in. More poor in prison will not solve our problems. Our problems are created at the top not the bottom. Blaming the poor has to stop.

[FoxesDeb]

58 minutes ago, marbles said:

In your opinion, what is the answer?

 

I am all for more prisons.

If we have the highest incarceration rate, it means we commit the most crimes.  Hiding that fact by offering “if you promise to behave, you can go free” is not going to solve anything.

Say all you want about giving it to the ruling class.  They are not the ones who are suffering.

 

 

In your opinion, what does locking up criminals convicted of 'smaller' crimes actually achieve? I'm genuinely not sure if the US believes in rehabilitation like we do in Europe, is it a thing over there? 

Do you not think the money spent building more prisons would be better spent at the root of the crime problem, trying to stop the crime in the first place? After all, locking people away does nothing to address the actual issue, and it also does absolutely nothing to help the victims. 

[Parafox]

5 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

In your opinion, what does locking up criminals convicted of 'smaller' crimes actually achieve? I'm genuinely not sure if the US believes in rehabilitation like we do in Europe, is it a thing over there? 

Do you not think the money spent building more prisons would be better spent at the root of the crime problem, trying to stop the crime in the first place? After all, locking people away does nothing to address the actual issue, and it also does absolutely nothing to help the victims. 

You post some seriously sensible stuff, Deb. Good onya. 

BTW, my wife's name is Deb. She is also uncompromising and straight down the line. Are you also a difficult person to live with? 

[FoxesDeb]

1 minute ago, Parafox said:

You post some seriously sensible stuff, Deb. Good onya. 

BTW, my wife's name is Deb. She is also uncompromising and straight down the line. Are you also a difficult person to live with? 

I asked my husband, am I difficult to live with? He said 'no dear'. I think that will answer your question, if you can imagine the tone of his voice