American Politics during the Obama Presidency

Personally, I think it's just fine for folks to say that the mosque [I]should[/i] be built somewhere else, as long as they acknowledge the legality of building it there. Whether it's a good idea or not is another story. My own opinion is that I don't particularly care. I understand folks are worked up. But, as long as people acknowledge that they have the right to build wherever they want (zoning laws aside) then it should be perfectly legitimate to also express the opinion that it shouldn't be built there, even if it is legal.

But, I'll try to stir the pot on a similar issue: Profiling. This is one I don't understand. At what point do we, as a nation, say: At airports, it is perfectly legitimate to profile Muslims and Muslim-looking passengers?

To me, it's the same issue as when I walk down the street and a homeless guy is asking for a handout to buy food. When I was younger, I gave when I could. Having seen that most of them blow the money on drugs or booze, I rarely give anything any more. Perhaps the next guy asking me for money because he's hungry will be sincere and legit. But, he's lost the right to have me respect him because his peers have abused the privilege. In other words, rightly or wrongly, I judge him based on my experience with his peers.

Now, I understand that profiling has added depth. There's race and religion involved, and there's government action at issue rather than a private citizen choosing not to give. But, why can't we, as a nation say: This religion has been responsible for the majority of the terrorist acts and attempted terrorist acts on our soil, so they have lost the right to be viewed equally under the law, at least where profiling is concerned? True, the result will be that many completely benign Muslims might be subjected to extra screening. But, if they're looking for anyone to blame for this, it shouldn't be airport screeners or the U. S. Government. Just like the homeless guy, they have their peers to thank for these consequences. And, just like the homeless situation, we shouldn't have to go through the anti-profiling charade of searching "at random" when we know that the real threat comes from a discrete group.

Like Black Shirt, I believe that most Muslims living in America love this country. But, I might crank the percentage down to 99% rather than 99.9%. The problem is that the remaining 1% (or some fraction thereof) are psychopaths who have repeatedly demonstrated that they are capable of heinous acts in the name of their religion. I believe this will only get worse in the future. So, why can't we acknowledge this reality and stop pretending that profiling is random and based only on non-religious and non-racial factors?

To sum up what may appear to be contradictory views: I believe that any religion ought to have the right to build a house of worship near ground zero. Personally, I would tax any religion that does so, but that's another discussion. But, in terms of equal treatment, my own view is that we are entitled to take Muslim identity into account when we try to protect ourselves -- I. E. That Muslims have forfeited the right to be treated equally in this regard, if only based on hard-learned lessons.

So I guess it would be OK for the Japanese to put one of their religious shrines next to Pearl Harbor, or how about a New Black Panther recruiting station next to Gettysburg, or a Neo Nazi headquarters near Auschwitz?

The point I am trying to make is there are places which deserve reverence due to their standing in history; it is not a matter of "legal" but a matter of respect for what occurred there.

FYI, I understand the unions in New York state / city are attempting to unite behind a "no build" pledge. Last time I checked New York was a very union state and I don't think you can compel a company to do a job they are not interested in.

[QUOTE=Punter 127][size=3][b]What part of[red] “It's Bush's Fault” [/red]don't you understand? [/size][/b][/QUOTE]Punter's response was out of line, but that college economics class story is totally illogical.

If everyone were equal, there would be no more "haves" and "have-nots". Crime would disappear and everyone would get along. People would be more productive because their jobs would be less stressful and more enjoyable. Health care costs would go down and productivity up, growing the "pie" and increasing prosperity for everyone.

It really is that simple!

[QUOTE=Esten]Punter's response was out of line, but that college economics class story is totally illogical.

If everyone were equal, there would be no more "haves" and "have-nots". Crime would disappear and everyone would get along. People would be more productive because their jobs would be less stressful and more enjoyable. Health care costs would go down and productivity up, growing the "pie" and increasing prosperity for everyone.

It really is that simple![/QUOTE]It's even simpler - consider this: If you wouldn't benefit (as in "get a better grade") from your work - if you wouldn't get any more for yourself from working your @ss off, than you would from sitting on said @ss - would that have an effect on your personal motivation? If all your labors were going to "The Greater Good" and you'd get neither profit nor penalty from your labors or your lack of it - would you bust your buns anyways, or would you coast?

The students in that story DID coast. They blamed others for not working, rather than getting their own rear in gear. They EARNED their failing grades.

Are you an angel, that you would "bust your buns anyways" with no chance of personal profit? Or do you take proper pride in EARNING what you've got, and figure (as men and animals and even plants figure) that you worked hard for it and you deserve it?

History, ethology, even physiology shows that a living creature will put forth effort to gain a reward or to avoid a penalty (pain). If there's no reward to be gotten, no penalty to be avoided, creatures from planaria to [I]Homo sapiens[/i] will slack off and not give a fuck. "Crime would disappear" because nobody would have anything to steal. "People would get along" because they'd have no energy to do otherwise. But "the pie" would disappear because nobody would bother to make it.

This is the underlying reason why the "Worker's Paradise" of the Soviet Union and Communism International collapsed - because we need bread for our tummies, and the tummies of our mates and children; and "Glory To The Motherland" is an insufficient substitute. It does us no good, does our personal genetic-future survival no good, if we and our children die but The State survives. That, sadly, is the repeated and repeated result of "Equality of Results" - also stated as "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" (and the worker carries more and more slackers till he's buried under their weight and put in his grave).

Esten, it is simple, but it is the opposite of what you wrote. Communism proved the lie about equality. If everyone had to stay equal, they would drop to the lowest level. As in the classroom example, everyone else would start imitating the laziest worker. But people do not want to be equal, they want to be better. So, some would take from others and the equality would vanish.

[QUOTE=Westy]It's even simpler - consider this: If you wouldn't benefit (as in "get a better grade") from your work - if you wouldn't get any more for yourself from working your @ss off, than you would from sitting on said @ss - would that have an effect on your personal motivation? [/QUOTE]People would still be motivated to work hard, because they would have a shared purpose of maintaining and growing the pie for everyone. Kind of like an Amish community.

BTW, I got some great weed for you boys... I got it from the professor at Fox News College. We both enjoy toking up and indulging in some dry humor...

[QUOTE=Esten]If everyone were equal, there would be no more "haves" and "have-nots". Crime would disappear and everyone would get along. People would be more productive because their jobs would be less stressful and more enjoyable. Health care costs would go down and productivity up, growing the "pie" and increasing prosperity for everyone.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=Esten]People would still be motivated to work hard, because they would have a shared purpose of maintaining and growing the pie for everyone. Kind of like an Amish community.[/QUOTE]Esten,

I have come to respect you for being a "True Believer", as opposed to most "Democrats" who are either "Beneficiaries" or "Vested Interests".

That having been said, I have to ask you: "[i]What color is the sky in your world?[/i]"

Anyway, your statements exemplify something that I came to understand many years ago: Liberal policies have always failed in the past, and will always fail in the future, and the reason is very simple: [b]Liberals always devise solutions to problems that are based on manifestly inaccurate models of human behavior.[/b]

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Jackson]models of human behavior.[/QUOTE]So do we really think mongers and their chicas are "models of human behavior?"

Philosopher Jackson - how's the view there up on Mount Olympus.

You are too fucking funny!

[blue]============================================

Hi Ricardo,

I can appreciate your position.

With one simple statement, I've cut right throught all your years of professional liberal bullshit, and there isn't anything funny about that.

To address your other point: Yes "mongers and their chicas" stand as a perfect demonstration of realistic "models of human behavior".

Thanks,

Jackson

Just 70 days until Election Day on Tuesday November 2nd, 2010!

[QUOTE=Esten]People would still be motivated to work hard, because they would have a shared purpose of maintaining and growing the pie for everyone. Kind of like an Amish community.[/QUOTE]More like the Soviet Union, China and Cuba. All great models of motivation through oppression.

You are suggesting that the productive portion of America's society should eat bitterness and like it for the greater good.

[quote=]If everyone were equal, there would be no more "haves" and "have-nots". Crime would disappear and everyone would get along. People would be more productive because their jobs would be less stressful and more enjoyable. Health care costs would go down and productivity up, growing the "pie" and increasing prosperity for everyone.[/QUOTE]And we could all ride unicorns into the sunset! Vote for Esten!

Our new No-nation anthem:

"Imagine there's no countries.

It isn't hard to do.

Nothing to kill or die for.

And no religion too.

Imagine all the people.

Living life in peace."

I hope I can get into one of the gulags near the ocean, I like the smell of the salt air while I toil for the greater good.

I have come to the conclusion that Esten is just toying with us. Nobody, not even Fidel Castro, could believe this equality bullshit.

Esten is probably waiting to see how long it takes us to wake up and realize that his comments are solely for comedy relief.

[QUOTE=El Alamo]I have come to the conclusion that Esten is just toying with us. Nobody, not even Fidel Castro, could believe this equality bullshit.

Esten is probably waiting to see how long it takes us to wake up and realize that his comments are solely for comedy relief.[/QUOTE]The same thought crossed my mind. No one could be that foolish. Still, if you've read this thread for a while, you might be convinced otherwise.

[QUOTE=Canitasguy]So do we really think mongers and their chicas are "models of human behavior?"

Philosopher Jackson - how's the view there up on Mount Olympus.

You are too fucking funny!

[blue]============================================

I've cut right throught all your years of professional liberal bullshit, and there isn't anything funny about that.

Yes "mongers and their chicas" stand as a perfect demonstration of realistic "models of human behavior".[/QUOTE]Did you see how today Ron Paul ripped the state-side equivalents of the Argentine Private rag-head bashers, a few million new assholes for their never-ending anti-muslim rants? And he is spot on about the war-mongers who fuel those flames! He is my new hero!

And thanks for the flattery. I am touched that you recognize me as the "professional" I am. Such a complement coming from a distinguished amateur economist, sociologist, philosopher, human behavior observer, political scientist, pundit, prognosticator, know-it-all is humbling!

(And who's Ricardo. Heheh)

Of course my last two posts were not serious.

It gets boring repeating the same political arguments and being serious all the time. I've said before I enjoy dry humor, and when Punter responded to Jackson's ridiculous college story, I decided to as well. I had a good laugh, don't know about others. I can't read what I wrote without laughing. Although it's not 100% surprising some took me seriously. There are some grains of truth in what I wrote, just like in Jackson's story. But do I really subscribe to that view - of course not and that should be obvious to anyone who has followed what I have written before.

Which brings us full circle to Jackson's story. Of course the core lesson in that story about human motivation is true. There are some logical leaps of faith but the core lesson is correct. What's ridiculous about it is linking it to "Obama's socialism" and implying this is Obama's goal and we can avoid it in the upcoming elections. LOL! This is complete misinformation, just the kind that Fox News and friends love to disemminate in their attempts to shift perception. In fact that story has been circulating for awhile, the original versions merely referenced socialism but not Obama. At some point someone decided to throw in Obama's name. Neither he nor Dems have any vision or plan to eliminate inequality. If you honestly believe they do, you have absolutely been fooled by the right wing media.

[QUOTE=Esten]Neither he nor Dems have any vision or plan to eliminate inequality.[/QUOTE]Perhaps they don't believe that they can completely "eliminate" inequality but they are sure as hell are trying and will continue to try with every last breath.

Joe the Plumber got the only honest answer Obama has ever given.

[quote=] If you honestly believe they do, you have absolutely been fooled by the right wing media.[/QUOTE]Guess I have been fooled. But I don't watch much TV and I almost never watch tv news (including Fox News)

Liberalism is a philosophy that is based upon going against human nature and the natural pursuit of individual best interests (not selfish interests) with the objective of creating a false and unnatural equilibrium of social and economic justice. What is completely mind boggling is that despite a myriad of clear historical examples of the failures and falsehoods of liberalism the liberal elites and media are able to indoctrinate new generations of believers.

WW, that is the problem with the Liberal Elites, the great majority of them are no where close to being "middle class" but they are great at telling the rest of the poor unwashed masses how things should be.

I do not recall any of the Liberal Elites who wish to lord over us coming down to the level of the average "Joe" and live what they preach for others. They believe they are not the Liberal Elite but should be the Ruling Elite since the masses don't have the sense God gave a goose and need their "enlightened" direction.

Yes I can hear one now as he wings his way over the huddled masses, who wait on his pearls of wisdom, on his private jet. "How distressing, my Perrier is tepid. Be a good man and fetch me another."

Is that you Esten?