Current or modern politics in the United States

[rupertramjet]

If you look at Politics in the United Kingdom, we have a blandness which is pathetic. We have three Party leaders who look like clones of each other, Milliband being the one that did not come out quite right, and still looks like a twelve year old getting over excited. The Policies of the major parties had been almost identical, prior to the election, yet now Labour want to spend spend spend, despite the fact we have crippling debts.

At least in the US you have two major Parties with very different policies, so the ability to actually vote for change!

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by wildtig2013

There shouldn't be a law giving Mothers the right to breast feed their babies in public! Why do people get so offended when they see a Mother breast feeding? Is it because they see a Nipple? Considering the little amount of fabric women of all ages are wearing at the swimming pool and on the beach; that's the only explanation I have for people not wanting to see a woman breast feed in public. After all, some of the swimsuits nowadays pretty much leaves the entire breast uncovered except for the nipple area. I bet these same men who don't want to see a woman breast feed in public have ABSOLUTELY NO OBJECTION WHATSOEVER to seeing a woman topless in public!!

http://www.click2houston.com/news/Te...i/-/index.html

It is a taboo. Taboos are not always logical. They arise out of social conditioning. For example, horsemeat is perfectly fit to eat and some people reckon it is very good meat; but the British collectively won't eat it, and were bitterly offended when the news came out that someone (possibly an organised crime syndicate) has been adulterating our beef supplies with horsemeat for gain. Horses are our companions in a way that cows aren't. We wouldnt eat our dogs or cats either except in the direst extremity, such as a lengthy siege.

In Britain, women are legally allowed to breastfeed in public and anyone (such as department stores or supermarkets) who tries to forbid them to breastfeed can be prosecuted. Yet it's extremely rare to see women breastfeeding in Britain. Like it or not, no change in the law can override village law, and breastfeeding in public is frowned on here. Any women doing so would have to brazen it out against a stone wall of silent and stern disapproval. We used to repress spitting on the pavement using the same technique, and that is one taboo I want back! Spitting on the street is a vile trick and our social conditioning against it needs to be restored.

[Puhbear69]

Originally Posted by wildtig2013

There shouldn't be a law giving Mothers the right to breast feed their babies in public! Why do people get so offended when they see a Mother breast feeding? Is it because they see a Nipple? Considering the little amount of fabric women of all ages are wearing at the swimming pool and on the beach; that's the only explanation I have for people not wanting to see a woman breast feed in public. After all, some of the swimsuits nowadays pretty much leaves the entire breast uncovered except for the nipple area. I bet these same men who don't want to see a woman breast feed in public have ABSOLUTELY NO OBJECTION WHATSOEVER to seeing a woman topless in public!!

http://www.click2houston.com/news/Te...i/-/index.html

That's were breasts are made for ... copyright by mother nature.

Do they fear they (man !) getting a hard one because of a woman is feeding her hungry baby? Wake up hillbillies, that's a very normal natural thing, much more natural than running around with assault weapons - that's pro life !!

Or do you prefer a heartbreaking crying baby and a mother with a bad conscience because her baby is crying of hunger ???

Sorry for that drastic speech, but I'm loosing more and more respect of that ignorant and with a false morality equipped persons.

And if it disturbs someone seeing this - just look in an other direction!

[9876543210]

wildtig2013,

Originally Posted by wildtig2013

There shouldn't be a law giving Mothers the right to breast feed their babies in public! Why do people get so offended when they see a Mother breast feeding? Is it because they see a Nipple? Considering the little amount of fabric women of all ages are wearing at the swimming pool and on the beach; that's the only explanation I have for people not wanting to see a woman breast feed in public. After all, some of the swimsuits nowadays pretty much leaves the entire breast uncovered except for the nipple area. I bet these same men who don't want to see a woman breast feed in public have ABSOLUTELY NO OBJECTION WHATSOEVER to seeing a woman topless in public!!

That is a tough one and I think Scounds may be right about it being a "taboo".

I clicked on your link and saw the case is in Texas so immediately thought "there they go again, those idiot Texans". But then actually read the article. Women should be able to breastfeed anywhere they need to but, I have to say, it can make me a bit uncomfortable when I run into it. Not sure why as I normally have no problem looking at a womans bare breast; in fact I usually really like it.

But suing if someone interferes? Interferes in any way? That seems a bit much. Be interesting to see what happens with this.

[Reclaimedwg]

Originally Posted by 9876543210

wildtig2013,



That is a tough one and I think Scounds may be right about it being a "taboo".

I clicked on your link and saw the case is in Texas so immediately thought "there they go again, those idiot Texans". But then actually read the article. Women should be able to breastfeed anywhere they need to but, I have to say, it can make me a bit uncomfortable when I run into it. Not sure why as I normally have no problem looking at a womans bare breast; in fact I usually really like it.

But suing if someone interferes? Interferes in any way? That seems a bit much. Be interesting to see what happens with this.

There has been cases of Mothers who breast fed their babies in a dressing room, behind a closed door or a curtain and were told to leave the premises or be arrested.

A baby is hungry.

A Mother should have the right to feed that baby!

Do these people who are against breast feeding in public like being told when they can eat and where?

[9876543210]

wildtig2013,

Originally Posted by wildtig2013

There has been cases of Mothers who breast fed their babies in a dressing room, behind a closed door or a curtain and were told to leave the premises or be arrested.

A baby is hungry.

A Mother should have the right to feed that baby!

Do these people who are against breast feeding in public like being told when they can eat and where?

As I said earlier, this is a tough one. I really can't tell you why I've felt uncomfortable when seeing a woman breast feeding. It makes no sense because, in virtually any other context, the more women's breasts the better. I don't care about size, shape or color; I just like them a lot.

So why would I (or most any other males) feel uncomfortable when seeing a woman breastfeed? Maybe Scounds is right with his taboo idea but it may go deeper. My girlfriend just came in the room and she has the same reaction. But she can't explain it any better either. She did have the idea that its a very personal and private practice between the mother and child.

Girlfriend just came back in and said that this goes against our current and modern norms whereas many cultures around the world view that without prejudice. So, it looks like Scounds was right. Its a western civilization taboo that needs to be changed.

[Cheekymonkey]

-- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

[9876543210]

qwerty007,

Originally Posted by qwerty007

POSITIONING...

Hillary Clinton Announces Support For Gay Marriage

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2900557.html

I thought the same exact thing yesterday when I saw that. Great minds think alike?

On a side note:

What's the word on Marco Rubio? You think that maybe a Rubio/Jindal ticket might be enough to get the job done?

Rubio came out as a tea partier and only now seems to be "thinking of" moderating "some" of his ideas. The only thing I've seen him "moderating" so far is his stance on immigration but I don't think it will be enough to bring many minorities (er hispanics, they lost the blacks a long time ago) back to the Republicans.

Rubio-Jindal? Too early to tell but I doubt it. Watch what the Republicans are doing to women and you'll have a better idea of where things are going. The Arkansas legislature just passed several laws which will pretty much outlaw abortion and even contraception. The Democratic Governor vetoed them because he believed they'd be thrown out in the courts but the Republican legislature overrode the veto. Now, N Dakota and several other states run by Republicans are considering even more stringent laws. Some of these even ban contraception!

Banning contraception? Can you imagine that? Even now in the 21st century? Whats the matter with these people?

As I said earlier, I don't think these people learned a thing from the last election.

One last thing. Did you see the speech by Reince Priebus yesterday? He said something I found intersting while talking about why the Republicans lost the last election so badly. He said something to the effect (I'm paraphrasing), "My mother said its not what you say, its how you say it".

What??? I don't remember anyone saying that to me. What I do remember people saying to me is, "Its not what you say, its what you DO thats important".

I think this is what Jindal was saying about the Republicans being the "stupid" party. They just continue being the stupid party.

On another side note:

Who do you think Hillary would choose as a running mate? How about a Clinton/Emmanuel ticket? Wouldn't that sew up a TON of votes...

Right now I really don't know. Too far out.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by 9876543210

As I said earlier, this is a tough one. I really can't tell you why I've felt uncomfortable when seeing a woman breast feeding. It makes no sense because, in virtually any other context, the more women's breasts the better. I don't care about size, shape or color; I just like them a lot.

So why would I (or most any other males) feel uncomfortable when seeing a woman breastfeed? Maybe Scounds is right with his taboo idea but it may go deeper. My girlfriend just came in the room and she has the same reaction. But she can't explain it any better either. She did have the idea that its a very personal and private practice between the mother and child.

Girlfriend just came back in and said that this goes against our current and modern norms whereas many cultures around the world view that without prejudice. So, it looks like Scounds was right. Its a western civilization taboo that needs to be changed.

When Betty Boothroyd MP became the first ever woman speaker of the House of Commons, she had overcome a lot of very unsubtle sexism in her career. She was a former Tiller girl and was extremely proud of her service in this dance troupe and how it toughened her character so she could cope with shit like the local paper listing her vital statistics when she was announced as a parliamentary candidate for South East Leicester in 1956 and added that "she was well worth whistling at." She used to dance on stage at the London Palladium; so of course she was an attractive woman. She had no illusions and she wasn't surprised that this method was used to belittle her. She had a thick skin and a very determined personality. She was put under pressure to rescind a parliamentary ban on breastfeeding in the chamber of the House of Commons; the idea was that MP mothers might breastfeed during a debate on the floor of the House rather than leave the chamber to do so. Ms Boothroyd is reputed to have reprimanded the members proposing this change in extremely blunt West Yorkshire vernacular. In public, her opposition was more polite, but emphatic and I think well explained.

Other professional women - lawyers, accountants and teachers - do not demand the right to breast-feed while in court, with clients or in front of a class. I imagine there would be uproar if they did. Why, then, do women MPs choose to give their own profession a bad name by demanding privileges not available to other women?

There are some things one should not do in public. I try not to have to blow my nose in public because it isn't terribly nice to have to watch people do that; but it can't always be avoided, and when it has to be done, it has to be done.

In the House of Commons, it isn't hard for nursing mothers to retire to a cubical, so I think Ms Boothroyd was quite right. But where there is nowhere where a nursing mother can go to feed her baby privately, one has to allow her to feed her baby without humiliating her for it. I certainly think that if a nursing mother retires to a department store changing room, the store has absolutely no business to disturb her there; that isn't over-zealous, but just plain shitty behaviour. If they provided a special room for feeding and changing babies as most stores and supermarkets do nowadays, she wouldn't be nursing her baby in a changing room anyway. In return, nursing mothers should show some consideration, as I try to do when I need to blow my nose, and do these necessary things as discreetly as possible, showing consideration for everybody else. I am in the British majority who do not like seeing nursing mothers in public, but in truth I can't remember when I last saw it. Our laws, probably in line with EU resolutions, forbid any actions to discourage mothers from nursing their babies in public, but in fact we do discourage it here, regardless of what the law says.

I am afraid I am satisfied that mothers should only nurse in public when they have no alternative. By not doing so, they are being courteous and considerate and helping to maintain standards. But in return, they are entitled to be given decent and accessible facilities in all frequented public places so they can nurse their babies and change their nappies privately in a clean and comfortable and secure environment.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by begos

Stephen Colbert's sister won the Democratic primary for the congressional seat representing the Charleston, South Carolina area yesterday.

The Republican primary, however, did not produce a clear winner. That means that ex-Gov. Mark "I'm hiking the Appalachian Trail -- if you now what I mean" Sanford and some other guy will compete in a runoff election to decide which of them will run against her.

Headline and link from NBC news.

Sanford, Colbert sister advance in South Carolina special primary
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news...l-primary?lite

I actually hope Sanford wins the runoff because the race between him and Elizabeth Colbert Busch could prove pretty entertaining. Naturally, I also hope to hell that he suffers an overwhelming loss to her in the end.

The district concerned appears to cover the Atlantic seaboard of northern South Carolina, including that of the state capital, Charleston. I am not sure what the economic circumstances of the voters might be, but I'm inclined to suspect that this is relatively posh ground. South Carolina has only one Democrat Congressman out of seven; Mr Clyburn, who represents District Six, covering the greater metropolitan area of Charleston and the surrounding towns. Obviously, I googled this, I don't carry this data in my head.

It would be a significant reverse for the Republicans if a Democrat was elected. But by selecting damaged goods such as ex-governor Sanford to run for this district, they will be testing their support. Mr Sanford was derelict in his duty by absconding from his post. I'm sure that many voters think the problem is that he was in Argentina, getting his leg over with a lady who was not his wife. But would it have been OK if he spent 2 weeks on the Appalachian Trail without leaving contact informaton in case an emergency arose? Isn't he supposed to be available if some emergency such as an Atlantic hurricane were to crop up?

Of course, there's the minor matter of him deceiving his wife and family; I trust she hired a good divorce lawyer. I imagine he posed for election as governor on his clean cut image as a family man, like they always do. But I suspect that he will win the run off and that it will be up to Ms Colbert-Busch to defeat him in the real election, if she can. There hasn't been a Democrat in that seat for over thirty years. She will have a bit more chance simply because it is likely that some Republican voters will be very unhappy that they are being asked to vindicate Mark Sanford. But even so, I think the odds would favour him over her, based on the voting record of that district.