The main source I get my information from is my Uncle Sam. He’s very good about telling me all the things I need to know and none of the crap I don’t. (He decides which is which of course but that’s ok I have faith in him just like my god) Uncle Sam has something he likes to call his NS of A. This NSA does something incredible! It filters all the information Sam considers wrong or bad for us all and simply plucks it out of the internet and buries it in a “graveyard of the inconsistent”. All information deemed societally inconsistent is ‘let go’ of here were it enters a separate dimension containing other people that are socially unacceptable, so the ideas still get built, we just don’t have to deal with it which would un-purify the current government. (At least that what Sam says) What a truly perfect system of justice! Next to the good lord of course. The reason why this great system is so pure is because us citizens wont believe any other information than that which Uncle Sam presents us with. Nothing from any other country and especially nothing from those damned scientists!
The following was done after reading Tocqueville chp. 2 The harm principle is an interesting, efficient, and simple approach to resolving moral conflict. It is discussed in the article that John S. Mill came up with the term in 1859. It basically states that we should almost never stop people from behavior that affects only themselves, because people know what they themselves. Mills argued that when acting ignorantly that we can often do things stupidly that we will end up regretting later. So, Mills also thought that people should be challenged to make sure they don’t regret their actions.
We were asked to read this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/22/women-in-politics_n_5607061.html
Id like to start this blog by saying it seems to show a sort of discrimination(to me at least) in the way it describes that women take the main roles/chores around the house, and because of these roles/chores they are deemed unfit to run for a political position or make politicaladvances. This would seem like a fitting topic of debate in like, the 60's or 70's. Right now, it seems like a disscusion we shouldn't be considering. If we are to have equality in our nation, then we need to promote it from a governmental standpoint, like when uncle Sam wanted YOU to join the army. But it seems like the government isn't really focused on supporting its people in the same way it supports itself or maybe the laws have changed. The argument that Lawless states, disscusing that women are just more overlooked than biased against because the candidate seekers dont think of a womens name when they are considering candidates. This seems true but rediculous. Why shouldn't equal examination for candidates occur? The people should be able to run for any political position they want, no matter what a candidate seeker "thinks" about a person. Prompts
1. Who do you think won the debate last night? Why? Which candidate impressed you the most? 2.Was this a debate of substance, or political theater? Explain (you should probably quote some candidates here). I don’t think anyone one the debate. Trump got his ass handed to him on a silver platter, but nobody really one or lost. There were a few candidates who had some super solid points, others seemed there to give and take blows between each other. Jeb Bush, Marcos Rubio, and a few others seemed to be covering their asses a lot but also dealt some damage to everyone else along the way… that’s what most of the debate was like, just hating on the other candidates to get ahead of each other. The debate was both of substance and political theater. A few candidates seemed really on top of it *ehem* Rand Paul, Jeb Bush, Marcos Rubio. But others, Donald Trump, Chris Christie, seemed like little monkeys throwing personal-insults-shit at each other as well as the rest of the candidates. For this post, we are supposed to find one candidate from the republlican side and also choose a topic that was going to be talked about widely. I chose Rand Paul and his ideas on foreign affairs. He says that the government needs to learn when to advance military reach and when to fall back. He also went on to say that he did not support the Iraq war and that he doesn't think we should butt-in on the Syrian/Russian conflicts.
Quotes of importance: "...intervention makes us less safe." "Everytime weve toppled a... dictator, we've gotten chaos, the rise of radical Islam..." "Think before we act, and know that most interventions if not a lot in the middle east have actually backfired on us." |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |