Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'government'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Navigating and Using MLP Forums
  • Site Problems & Questions
    • Subscriptions & Donations
  • Moderation and Rules
  • Roleplay World
    • Equestrian Empire
    • Everfree Empire


  • Approved Characters
    • Approved Cast Characters


  • Regular Banner Submissions
  • Contest Banner Submissions


  • Fanfiction Requests
  • Pony Fanfiction
  • Non Pony Fic Recordings


  • Canon Characters
  • Original Characters


  • Pony World Cup
  • Forum Events
  • Episodes
  • Making Christmas Merrier
  • Golden Oaks Library Readings
  • BronyCon


There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.


  • My Little Pony
    • Welcome Plaza
    • FiM Show Discussion
    • Sugarcube Corner
    • Equestria Girls
    • My Little Pony: The Movie
    • Classic Generations
    • Pony Life
  • Events
    • Forum Events
    • Making Christmas Merrier
    • Golden Oaks Library
  • Roleplay World
    • Everfree Planning, OOC & Discussion
    • Everfree Roleplays
    • The Archives
  • Octavia's Hall
    • Commissions
    • Requestria
    • Octavia’s University of the Arts
    • Canterlot Gallery
  • Beyond Equestria
    • General Discussion
    • Media Discussion
    • Forum Games
    • Ask a Pony
    • Forum Lounge
  • Canterlot
    • Throne Room
    • Feedback
    • Site Questions
    • Support
  • Poniverse
    • Canterlot Avenue
    • PoniArcade
    • Ponyville Live!
    • Gallery of Goodwill
  • Conventions

Product Groups

  • Commissions
    • Valtasar's Digital Art Commissions
    • Midnight's Commission Shop
    • Ariida-chi's Commissions
    • Ambergerr's Art Shop
    • Ezzy-Arts
    • Deerie's Commissions
    • Ody's Commissions
    • Moony Commission Shop
    • SonicPegasus Commissions
    • Berry-Bliss Commissions Store
    • Unicornia Workshop
    • Usager
    • PoisonClaw's Traditional Commissions
    • Lucha
    • Nihi The Brony's Commission shop
    • 11newell's commission shop
  • Hosting
  • Commissions Closed

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



Website URL

Discord Username

Discord Server








Steam ID


Personal Motto



How did you find us?

Best Pony

Best Princess

Best Mane Character

Best CMC

Best Secondary/Recurring Character

Best Episode

Best Song

Best Season

Hearth's Warming Helper

Fandoms Involved In

Found 19 results

  1. This question used to seem like it had an obvious answer: Monarchy right? I mean the rulers name Is Princess Celestia. But a lot of canon has been added to the show that the answer is much more blurry now. First Argument: A monarchy is differentiated from other government types because the ruler is chosen from heredity. But who was the ruler before Celestia? Discord, Celestia took that power away from Discord, with weapons, the elements of harmony. Yes, they were colorful rainbow weapons, but a rose by... well you get the idea. Celestia took that power from Discord through a military takeover, not heredity. This could mean that in realty Equestria could be a Dictatorship, or Despotism. "Dictators usually resort to force to gain despotic political power"( This is exactly what Celestia did. Yes, the people rejoiced and life was better, but that doesn't change the fact she did it. BUT! A point could be made for the other side too. Monarchies aren't required to be ruled absolutely. "monarchies are not necessarily authoritarian; the enlightened absolutists of the Enlightenment were monarchs who allowed various freedoms"( Celestia seems to give out much of her power to local authorities (i.e. Mayors). Also, a few military generals traded Dictator in for a name better suited for monarchies. An example would be after Napoleons successful coup, he became an Emperor. (I'm not going to cite that because its so easy to confirm) Another Point: "Many monarchs once claimed the right to rule by the will of a deity"( Celestia isn't just ruling on behalf of a deity, she is the diety. This could be evidence enough that Equestria is a Monarchy but also... ... that it is a Theocracy. However, theocracies have always been ruled by religious leaders, NOT gods (for obvious reason). So this point may or may not hold value depending on how you define it. * * * These are my notes on possible government types for Equestria's possible governments. Needless to say, I overanalyze the crap out of cartoon ponies. You may notice that I never said one answer definitively. I want to see what you guys think Equestria's Governmental type truly is. Post your thoughts below.
  2. I have always been fascinated with how history has often repeated it's mistakes over and over. If every grand mind in the forum got together, maybe we can change this, do something good for the world as a whole. This could all start with a few simple questions. What in your eyes is a perfect world, a utopia? Brought to you by Equestria's newest philosopher, Tranquil Claw I'm thinking of starting a daily question for the forum to answer and discuss. Should I do this? I'll let you decide.
  3. As some of you may be aware, at this very moment there's an attempt of overthrowing Erdoğan's goverment trainspiring at this very moment in Turkey. Armed forces have arisen predominantly in the city of Istambul and have blocked bridges, streets, avenues and most means of vacating the metropolis, subsequently broadcasting a communicate in which they announced the new reign of martial law and curfew over people's prior freedoms. As of now, there's signs of this being a mutiny of a substantial part of the troops, instead of a few cells and squads as some have informed. Sources also have stated that parties of civilians have manifested and even rallied in favour of the Constitutional Government and some others of the Army. What are your thoughts on the matter at hand?
  4. Imagine this: using newly discovered scientific methods, governments have gained the ability to wipe out all the memories of the worst criminals. Do you think that this would be a just punishment for some crimes? If so, which crimes would this be perfect for and which crimes would it not be perfect for? Do you think these criminals could be released back into society after their memories are wiped? Do you think people who commit crimes do it because of what they've experienced in life or because of who they are? Would wiping their memories restore them to being a cooperative citizen?
  5. So today (7th May 2015) the UK gets to vote on the next prime minister! In the UK a first past the post system is used: For a majority government to be held a party must win: 326 house of commons seats for a national majority, If not a "hung parliament" will occur and the Queen will invite the biggest party to form a government with other parties to reach the required number of seats. So! Your thoughts/discussion on what is going to happen today! Everything is open for discussion from the way the system works to whether you are voting to the parties themselves! I have already voted ! (UK bronys that can, make sure you vote! :3)
  6. Since there are 4 rulers, and the definition of oligarchy is a handful of people are in power,wouldn't that make Equestria one?
  7. So what if the government of your country started endorsing MLP, what kind of impact do you think it would have on your country? Post how you think your government would endorse MLP and how you would feel about it, remember it can be in anyway you like.
  8. If a country starts creating laws based on things we see in MLP and norms based on lessons and things like that, what do you think that country would be like? Would it even work?
  9. I realize the terms "Princess Celestia" and "Princess Luna" implies a monarchy, but I have a feeling that it goes beyond that. Using the political spectrum, I would like you guys to identify what kind of government Equestria follows.
  10. A response to questions from my earlier post There are already laws that state that a person can be denied the right to own guns if they are declared, by a court, to be mentally incompetent (or whatever the proper legal term is). The point is, they deserve their day in court. I'm not against a mentally ill person, having proper legal representation, having certain of their rights curtailed to protect themselves and others. But, as I said, it is unconstitutional to deny someone a right without a trial, or to make sweeping laws that deny rights to entire groups of people. Most of the time, a friend or family member or someone close to a person knows if there is a problem, and can report the person. That person can then get treatment, and in some cases can get a court hearing. But it is not right to deny everyone the right to self defense just to keep a few dangerous people from getting them. This doesn't address the real problem. Requiring a mental examination before getting a gun is declaring someone guilty until proven innocent. How do you prove a negative? How do you prove you aren't crazy? It creates a slippery slope whereby the government can create arbitrary criteria for mental illness. It evokes memories of the Soviet Union where criticism of the government was declared a mental illness. The government has been amassing databases on us. They know our emails, what we read at the library, who we call, and what we had for breakfast. Doctors ask kids if their parents have guns at home. Maybe you think guns are bad and should be banned, and so you don't have a problem with this. But is this a society you want to live it? It's all fine and good when the government uses its overwhelming power to enforce laws you like. What happens when they do things you don't like? Internet censorship, anyone? It's for our protection, after all. It all goes back to fundamental morality. People are sovereign. They have the right to determine their own lives. As such, they have the right to defend their lives. The government, as constructed in the USA, does not have the authority to abridge the right to own guns. In that sense, it does not matter what the consequences of gun banning is, good or bad. The government does not have that authority. We have the right to have access to the best tools to defend our lives. I said in my last post that the type of gun used in a crime has little affect on the outcome of the crime. The logical conclusion of this is that, if you want to ban guns, you have to ban all guns. You cannot ban “assault rifles” and allow hunting rifles. Plenty of crimes have been committed with hunting rifles. A deer rifle is just as capable of killing a person. Most gun banners do in fact want to ban all guns. They just aren't honest about it. In the 1980s and 1990s, the talk was about banning hand guns and not rifles. Now it's all about “assault rifles” and “high capacity” magazines. If there was another mass killing and hunting rifles were used, would anyone say, “well, the assault weapons ban worked. Good job, no problem.” Basically, I'm forcing the issue: Either you ban all guns and hope it works, or you admit that there isn't much difference between guns and focus efforts differently. The gun banners know that they wouldn't be successful in trying to go after all the guns at once. But they can chip away at gun rights, little by little. Gun banners want to put the second amendment in a box. Then they want to make that box smaller and smaller. Most politicians are smart enough to declare that they believe in the second amendment. But they answer the question, almost word for word, this way: “I believe in the second amendment, for purposes of hunting, sporting, and self defense.” A focus-grouped response, well-rehearsed. But why the qualifier on a basic right? What if politicians were to say: “I believe in the first amendment, for purposes of news, art, and entertainment.” Um, no, I believe in the first amendment. Period. In Diane Feinstein's latest attempt at a gun ban, she listed some thousand or so guns that were specifically protected from a ban. I didn't check the list, but I would guess they are hunting rifles and shot guns. I doubt there was any AK variants on that list. During questioning, she mentioned the list of protected guns and said, “isn't that enough?” I'd like to know what would happen if someone wanted to ban several hundred books, and said, “there are tens of thousands of protected books in the Library of Congress. Isn't that enough?” Getting back to “... for the purposes of...,” let's look at it piece by piece. For the sake of illustration, I will take the point of view of someone wanting to ban guns. Hunting: You can, in fact, hunt with an AR 15 or AK style gun. You can hunt with “assault rifles.” Restrictions on hunting have to do more with the type of ammunition you use. I'm not a hunter, but I did take a hunting safety course in Wisconsin. The law states that you must use a shoulder fired gun and use soft point bullets. Soft point bullets do more tissue damage and are more likely to kill, rather than would, and animal. Requiring a shoulder fired gun means that I could not use my Browning 1919 belt fed, bipod mounted 308. Even though you can use a black polymer, semiautomatic, AR 15 with 100 round drum, it is not necessary. You can hunt just as well with a wood grain, rifle stock, bolt action rifle. If you miss with your first shot then the animal will run away and you don't get a second shot anyway. That being the case, you really don't need the 5 rounds that a hunting rifle usually holds. A single shot will do just fine. Therefore, a ban on everything but single shot, wood grain rifles with no pistol grips would satisfy the second amendment. Sporting: In Canada, you can get a hand gun but it can only be used at a range. You can't even shoot your hand gun on your farm. Hand guns are to be used only for sporting purposes. In the USA, people shoot any and all guns for all manner of sporting: paper targets, clay targets, bottles, cans, old cars, just about anything can be shot up in one's back yard, at a range, or at competitions. People shoot everything from 22 lr to 50 BMG. People even get together to shoot machine guns. So the question is, what is a legitimate sporting purpose? Is is a government licensed gun range, or can it be in your back yard? Clearly, you don't need a 50 BMG to shoot a target. A rim fire will do just fine. Therefore, we can ban everything except bolt action and revolver, rim fire guns. In fact, you can hit a target with an air rifle. But we'll let you have your rim fire. Thus, such a ban is consistent with the second amendment. Self defense: Vice President Joe Biden said that the best way to deal with a home invasion is to fire two blasts into the air from a double barrel shot gun. What if you live in an apartment in the city? What if you are in your bedroom and the invader is in the living room? Do you run past him in order to get outside to fire the warning shots? There can be a hundred different self defense situations. It is not possible to have a response method that will work for all of them. But, since I'm trying to take the point of view of someone who wants to ban guns, I will do just that. I could say that a shot gun or revolver is the best weapon for self defense. Pump action shot guns are not necessary. As Uncle Joe says, a double barrel will work just fine. If you want a hand gun, a 38 Special revolver is all you need. Therefore, a ban on semiautomatics is consistent with the second amendment. Taking the three situations, we can ban all guns except hunting rifles, rim fire rifles, break action shot guns, and revolvers no bigger than 38 calibre. There is also the issue of how difficult it can be to get a gun. In some states or cities in the US, it can be very difficult to get a permit to buy a gun. Forget about how hard it is in certain countries. But what usually happens is that punishments for minor gun infractions get stiffer and stiffer. “Zero tolerance” policies mean that judges don't have the ability to look at a situation and use common sense. It might make good political headlines to declare that police will “crack down” on illegal gun ownership. But does it make sense to arrest someone who inadvertently violates a technicality? In New Jersey, it is illegal to stop for something to eat on the way home from the gun range. You must take your gun directly home. According to New York's ironically named SAFE Act, you can own a high capacity magazine but you can't put more than 7 rounds in it. A judge ruled this provision arbitrary and capricious. Some states require weapons registration. What purpose does it serve for the government to have a list of your guns? Most guns used in crimes are stolen. Even if the gun is used by the owner, the police will say “yep, it says on the list he owned the gun.” What purpose was served by that? Do any of these laws really stop a criminal from committing a crime? Does it make sense to arrest a man who stops to use the bathroom on his way home from the range? Does it make sense to arrest someone who has 8 rounds in his 10 round magazine? Here is a fun exercise for you. Go to your state's website and read the gun laws. Unless you are a lawyer, you won't make heads or tails of the mind-numbing legalese. I researched Wisconsin's gun laws when I lived there. I wanted to know what the limits on open carry were. But there is a fundamental problem with researching laws: You cannot prove a negative. Navigating state statutes is very difficult. Is it legal to carry a loaded hand gun in public? If it is, then maybe you can find the law stating such. But what if you just didn't look hard enough? My research said it was illegal to take a gun within 1000 feet of a school. But people had told me that the law was thrown out. Do I trust that advice or take my chances? 1000 feet is a long distance. What if there is a school a block away from me? What about that office building used by the school, is that considered school property? Can you carry your gun in a place that serves alcohol? What if you go to a family restaurant that has a liquor license, have you violated the law? A short search on line will reveal many cases of good people falling afoul of the law due to violations of stupid technicalities. Again I ask: Do criminals really care about these laws? How can they be, when chances are that you yourself don't even know what they are, let alone have the intent to violate them. Nobody but a lawyer is going to read state and federal statues. Most gun owners find out what the law is by talking to dealers or taking a concealed carry class. It is also a fact that legal gun owners are very law abiding. Most of us don't know what the law actually says, on any issue. We just use common sense and don't do stupid things. For example, in your state, is it illegal to steal from a store? Are you sure? Then tell me what the statute is. Is it a misdemeanor or a felony? What class felony? There is a 99.9% chance that you have no idea. You simply assume that stealing is illegal. You live your day to day life without ever knowing what the law actually says. We use common sense to know the difference between right and wrong. So why not apply those standards to gun ownership. There are some 80 million law abiding gun owners. There are a lot of people who have a lot of guns stored safely in their homes. These are people you know and even trust. If someone already owns a gun, then there is nothing anybody can do to stop them from using that gun to commit an act of evil. So what is the point in this “security theater” of having these gun laws that only punish good people? If you trust a person to keep his gun locked at home, why wouldn't you trust that person to have it strapped to his hip? The truth is, millions of people legally carry their guns in public, every single day. There is a good chance you walked by someone carrying a gun. You might have even talked about the weather with him or her. Gun banners talk about “gun safety” and “common sense” gun laws. Nobody knows more about gun safety than the NRA, which has the Eddie Eagle program designed to teach children to not touch a gun that they find. Yet the NRA is enemy number 1 for the “gun safety” groups. That's because it's not about safety. “Safety” has been used an excuse by governments to violate many rights. National security, safety of our country, and so forth. To me, common sense says that if we can trust a person to own a gun, we can trust him to carry it. Common sense says that if I don't want to rob that store, then carrying a gun doesn't change that. Common sense says that you need a very good reason to deny someone of their rights, and “safety” isn't good enough. Common sense says that if someone breaks into your home, the police are 15 minutes away but your gun is right there. Common sense says that an “active shooter” can best be dealt with by several “armed responders.”
  11. Hi everypony! The thing is Mexican government will likely approve Telecom Bill, which allows them to censor any TV/Internet content that they consider it shouldn't be there. They will also remove intenert access in any regions within Mexico that they want. I know this situation already happened in some countries, and I remember when SOPA Bill striked some time ago, but then again, what can a person do to stop this? I'm not even an adult but I know tweeting stuff about this will not solve the whole problem. What would you do? Has your country experienced this thing too? What do you think about all of this? Thanks for reading and replying There's more info here:
  12. Hello Everypony, I'm rascal. And I'm the producer and creator of a multi media studio, that do ponies! We do all sorts of things like animations, audio plays, dramatic readings and the like. And well, we're in need of some serious help. We have an organisation/ government, that is a part of several projects were working on. And we need OCs to fill all the positions and roles in this organisation. Your Ocs may get drawn, animated, voiced, mentioned or anything else. The government your Oc would be working for is the Inquisition, an organisation that deals with all evil and corruption in Equestria. They fight demons and others who want to destroy, control, corrupt, or do any harm to the world. And so they are a big organization, with many wings and divisions, and ponies running show. And so this is why we need peoples OCs, because we've come up with some characters, but we can't possibly do all of them. We need 42 OCs, from all of you guys. ((I'll be updating the count)) We can take any ponies, of any race and gender. Though I would like to request no one's with ridiculous colour schemes or no alicorns. But with so many needed I'm happy to overlook those factors, but when we do finally productions we may cut off someone's wings or horns. But when we do, we come by to ask you. These are your ponies and we wont do anything with them without your position. These are your characters. And it doesn't matter if your pony doesn't quite exactly fit in with this, we can always find a way! Though, out of those 539 Ocs that are needed, we need 6 changelings. I hope that we can gather all the characters needed, and please do tell your friends about this as well. We need every character we can get. I hope to see some characters soon, And I love it if people would give us links to the characters, it makes it easier on us. So please, post a character page link. We can not use just names or pictures, we can only use profile links because we can organise them properly then and be able to use them. And I will also say this, giving us advice on your character right now is probably not needed. Right now we are collecting ocs and telling us information that may be useful in the future can be easily lost on this thread, there for when we go to ask for your permission we will also ask for your advice on how your character acts and such. But if you've got that all sorted in your profile then we won't be knocking on your virtual door as much. And if you want to learn more, go to our website: We have a lot of information there for everybody about our projects and you'll be able to see your oc's picture when we've processed them and got them done. All ocs on those lists as well are the ones we have processed, if your oc isn't on there it's because we still have to put them in a suitable branch of the Inquisition. What is required when posting - A character profile link that can be provided in the character database Not is required when posting - A picture of your oc - A description of how they fight in a situation or something like that - Where you want your character to go. Thank you, from everybody at Tartarus productions
  13. Okay, so lets get this started. Let's just say there's some Black Mesa-esque lab in America (because thats where everything happens), but instead of the Resonance Cascade happening, they opened a portal to Equestria. Humans who go through will still be humans(no reverse EG magic, this is science) and now the government is trying to figure out what to do. It is still a secret from the public. Would the secret get out(of course it will because otherwise there would be no fun )? What would the government do? Peace or War? What would the general public do if the secret got out? What would YOU do? What do you think Equestria would do? This is from a global and national scale, down to personal scale. Just an interesting topic for me and I want to see what you guys's scenarios would be.
  14. Social interaction is a very important part of our everyday lives. We have friends, we have enemies, and we have those people who we know who they are, but we don't interact all that much. The social dynamics between people and groups has always fascinated me to no end, expecially between the people and their government. It's like a catnip to me. Which is why I have this blog! Who wouldn've known. Now if you read my last post earlier about the functions of Law Enforcement, (and I suggest you do), you would have seen that it has been presented to us in court that the state believes that they are under no obligation to protect their citizens on their soil. This of course is in direct violation of the Constitution because in the constitution all citizens of the United States are protected under the law and under the established governement. We are living in a society where governments are not obeying their own rules. So why should we live by their rules? Currently the state and the people are locked in what I call a Reciprocal relationship. You lead these relationships with your friends and your family as well. You do nice things for them, and they do nice things for you. You do your chores, help your parents with work around the house, and you don't abuse drugs or hurt people, and in return they will drive you places, support you with food, clothe you, and make sure that you are stable throughout your childhood and your teenage years. The state and the people lead a very similar relationship. The peasants and citizens support the crown by putting them in power, and allowing them to make decisions on behalf of the group, and in return the crown protects the citizens from harm, supports them in times of need, and creates infastructure to help support a growing population. If you have indeed read my last post, then you will realise that the government is not taking care of the first and probably the most important critera of this relationship. You are not protected. Under United States Law you are not obligated to be under the protection of the police force EVEN IF you are an American citizen. And yet through this the state expects the sacrifice of the citizen to go to war, to keep the government in office, and furthermore to not be required to render aid when it is needed. The United States Military is currently on a 6 hour standby alert. They can have boots on the ground anywhere in the world within 6 hours of the order being given. The military is also required to give aid during natural disasters to citizens in need. The hurricane that swept through New Orleans several years ago, I am sure many of you remember that event. It took more than a week for medical supplies, men, and other needed materials to reach New Orleans from the US military. Established groups who help during natural disasters had been present for several days even before the US miltiary started moving people in to help out with the disaster. What makes the situation more infuriating for me is that the moment the military arrived, they began operations by confiscating every single firearm in the state. Aid supplies were passed onto other organizations like Red Cross and the local Ambulance corps, but the manpower that was transported there were used to take away firearms from citizens in the area. Now the motivations for such an order are clear for anyone who is seeing this event just in it's own context. The military would like to be able to help the humanitarian groups operate in safety within an area that has been lawless for a week. It makes sense, and I would have supported this order had I not known that the weapons were never returned. Even when people who had their weapons taken directly requested that they have their weapons back, the US Military refused to give them back their weapons after what they considered a 'Temporary Confiscation'. Each of the people who had their weapons taken had a paper that said that their weapons would be returned to them following the reclaimation of the city and surrounding area. No weapons have been returned to date. So here we have a lazy Government that is quicker to kill it's own citizens in a foreign country for whatever reason it wants, who is lazy to render aid to their own citizens when a natural disaster takes place, and who believe they have no obligation to protect their citizens. So as this comes to a wrap I also want to mention that if you are living in America right now you are 8x more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist. Don't you feel protected?
  15. This is something i skeched up and drew a couple weeks ago. Anyway i think its a little cute :3! I'm really getting better at this drawing stuff
  16. To some, this may be directed as more of a rhetorical question, but it'll be interesting to see the opinions on this. So, do you think the world/country is rolling downhill like a snowball heading for hell & are the good times really over? By that I mean have we finally gotten to that point of no return for the economy, would life be better in a simpler time? (no current modernizations, such as a time before 1953) or even thoughts on why the world is so corrupt. (You can really stretch this topic as far as imaginable really) I'm leaving this question pretty vague because of all the aspects that relate to the question that may be left out in some opinions but added in others. I could probably write a decent sized paper on this topic, but I'll give a taste of a summary instead. Disclaimer: If you are offended by what you are about to read, I am not liable for any offence that is taken. Instead if you have a problem, do what the Government does, and blame the problem on another part of the Government. There is no doubt in my mind that we are rolling downhill like a snowball heading for hell, it's just the matter of when we'll reach the destination and melt. You can take many topics and blame them for the way we ended up, such as religion, currency, foreign trade, overpopulation, politics, outsourcing, etc. etc. But it's not really just one that gave us that initial "push" downhill, it was all of them working together to give us that shove (metaphorically speaking). The whole thing that made me want to begin a topic over this was Merle Haggard's song "Are the good times really over" the song begins with the line "I wish a buck was still silver back when the country was strong" and after that, he lists many things that lead to what he believes is the downfall of our country. Most of what I believe is to blame is what I had listed two paragraphs above (religion, currency, foreign trade, overpopulation, politics, outsourcing, etc. etc.) and I'm positive there is more things to add to that as well, but I believe it all generates within those topics. A few of those topics are what I call short term gain, long term loss and most are basically generated because of power especially religion. Probably without religion, I think it'd be safe to say there wouldn't have been as many wars, I say that because usually when you try to get someone to believe in something they don't want to, a issue arises. Originally, religion was put into play to scare people into following a "common order" so people weren't running all over killing each other, stealing, etc. then folks start to deviate from the norm and they make their own religions, then I bet you can guess what happens... they have a dispute over it and try and destroy each other (this is why we should have all just been puppies...) And to touch on the "Are the good times really over" aspect; I definitely think we hit that mark as a country too for many obvious reasons such as illegal immigration, outsourcing and many other stupid things that match up with those two examples. Another thing that is very jacked up is how the United States seems to always get sucked into helping these worn down third world countries, and if we don't people get all hot n' bothered and throw a fit (not just people in our country, others as well) I think it's very straight forward that we need to line up our own railroad tracks before we go lining up someone else's. The country was strong back when we had jobs here, such as automobile manufacturers for example. Thanks to outsourcing we are going broke. And they also worry about "sweatshops" in other countries and how they should put a stop to that, but personally, I think that idea would backfire like a old Buick. If we put a stop to the sweatshops, those people will come here to the united states because they won't be getting paid at all when they were getting paid before (not saying they were getting paid a lot, but still). We don't need more folks coming in and taking what jobs we do have left. People stick their hand out to Uncle Sam for some money when Uncle Sam is the one on the sidewalk living in a box.... damn welfare... anyways... And I'll just stop there because like I said, it's possible to drag this on forever. Should be interesting... Anyways, that is along the lines of where i'm going with this topic. Like Grandpap always said "There's never any wrong answers, but there is always going to be ignorant answers." Grandpap was a self-certified philosopher.
  17. This is a crosspost of something that actually won't appear on my Tumblr until tomorrow, but because of the nature of the blog system here I can post it immediately without it being lost. (Unlike how Tumblr tends to function, with its dashboard feature.) I was listening on the way home to a debate on the Intelligence Squared segment of NPR last night, where you have Oxford-style debates on political issues. This was the first time I had ever listened to such a debate and I found it absolutely well as enraging. The debate itself was over the question of "Should the government be allowed to intervene in the obesity crisis." The subject, however, is mostly irrelevant to my post apart from how I will take examples from it to show what raised my ire. The side that argued against government intervention had an argument that boiled down to two main points of view: 1. The current government policy isn't working, therefore no policy should be enacted and the entire thing scrapped. 2. Government is an evil that should be fought against and reduced as much as possible because it is too easy for government to harm civil liberties. (Essentially Republican/Libertarian party line that is usually ignored by Republican politicians when they are elected to office.) Both of these bother me for different reasons, as both are arguments that can be made against any sort of government intervention or expenditure or spending, and often are. Current education policy isn't working, therefore scrap the Department of Education. Welfare systems are abused therefore they should be eliminated. Etc etc. I take issue with this because it does not make any sense to me. It'd be as if a family were to say "we have an issue with how this grocery store stocks products, therefore we will never shop for food again." If a policy isn't working, what makes sense isn't to junk the entire program running it. What makes sense is to alter that policy to work more efficiently. For example, in the debate, the side against government intervention made the extremely good point about how current government policy on obesity stigmatizes obesity and, as a result, obese people. As recent studies have shown, this significantly harms any effort to reduce obesity. What actually helps is what is commonly termed "fat acceptance," where people accept themselves and learn to hold a positive body image, and as a result, they actually tend to lose weight far more often than those with a negative body image do. But instead of using this to argue for a change in the policy, they used it to argue for completely junking the program entirely, which just doesn't make any sense to me at all. The second issue, that of "government is evil, therefore reduce it entirely" also bothers me for entirely different reasons of ideology as well as pragmatism and practicality. We have so many issues with our government in this country because far too often, regardless of party affiliation, the Representatives, Senators, and other political officials both elected and appointed are too concerned with serving corporate interests and the interests of themselves instead of the common good. For example, at the same time the government is attempting to combat obesity, those in Congress undermine such attempts by serving the interests of food corporations, through such actions as continued increased subsidies for corn farming and promotion in usage in food, as well as through actions such as declaring the tomato sauce in pizza to be a vegetable, on behalf of the food corporations. In addition, at no point did either side actually attempt to look at some of the other underlying causes of obesity that the government could confront, such as urban planning. Right now, most cities in the United States are designed and continue to be designed around vehicles rather than walking. People have to drive everywhere in order to get to anything, and even some of the most walkable cities in the United States are a pale shadow of cities elsewhere in the world. Those most affected by the obesity crisis, such as those at or below the poverty line, have little to no access to fruits, vegetables, and the better food choices available at supermarkets because all of the supermarkets are located in areas where they can't locally access them, and they can't afford the gasoline needed to constantly drive to those places. We also have far too much corporate promotion of "buy more food" because food is consistently sold as a product to make a profit on, instead of being treated as a necessity. Ultimately, my issue with the debate was that it focused far more on party ideology and not on practical, common sense and critical thinking analysis of the issues, and that a large part of what is encouraging the obesity crisis is something that can't be solved, either by the government or by private interests, because far too many interests are focused on things that would promote it instead of combating it. And again, the issue of "government policy in this manner is failing, therefore get rid of the program entirely" is something that must stop if things are to improve in any sense of the word. Sadly, I don't believe any people in power would be willing to listen to my point of view, because it contrasts so heavily with what they desire to do. Regardless of the letter next to their name, D or R, those in power in the federal government currently are far more focused on themselves and what helps them instead of what helps the majority of the American people. But I don't see this as a case of "government itself is evil." I see this as "the people in power need to be replaced with people who actually care." The government as an institution isn't the problem. It's the people in charge.
  18. It is a well known fact that a large sum of non-bronies assume bronies (or pegasisters, if you're into that term) to be hypocritical individuals. I've been noticing that it's actually true, at least, for me. I watch a show that pushes the notion of friendship, and take part in a community that (generally) pushes "love and tolerance", whenever I really do not partake in much social interaction, and don't make actual friends, really, and judge and hate many other people based on certain qualities, past events, etc. I'm curious to see how many others are hypocritical in this sense, as I am. Also, if you are like me, why do you think the show captivates you so much? I'd say it's really only the innocence that really motivates me to really stay active in the watching of and participation of the MLP show and community.