Spoiler
Believe you me, I am glad this thread is back... kind of. It was legitimately the only thing a really cared to scan the forums for. That being said, what defines 'nationalistic bullshit?' While there are quite a few people here who possess far too much Nationalism, I think it's healthy to allow them to be as open about it as possible. Expecting this thread not to get controversial or heated isn't a good expectation on part of the Administration team, and trying to enforce these expectations kind of kills a thread centered around Politics. The only way we can have a healthy political discussion is to allow people to get 'offended' when someone halfway across the world possesses a largely different opinion than you.
This is my introduction, I guess. It's also not targeted at any individual, as we're all guilty. I'm merely pointing out that, for the most part, we are (at least almost) grown ass men (or women). We should not cower at the thought of someone's feelings getting hurt over the internet at the expense of intelligent discussion.
Anyways. What shall we discuss first, gentlemen?
Edit: Forgive me. I have been reading a bunch of legal documents for hours on end, and did not see the paragraphs under the rules, and therefore did not know that to start, we'll give a run down on ourselves.
Howdy! I classify myself as a Libertarian, although if I were to label myself more appropriately I am probably more of a Classical Liberal (hence Classical, not the modern day kind- I find that icky); I am grounded in Conservative principles and am a stout believer in both the Constitution and God (non-denominational Christian). I do not consider myself an American, rather I consider myself a citizen of the beautiful, sovereign Commonwealth of Kentucky. I do not believe in things such as political correctness, the forced integration of cultures (note 'forced'), wealth redistribution, amnesty (I'm not anti-immigrant, I just want said immigrants to actually get citizenship), and pretty much most points of Socialism. I believe the only way to promote peace in the world is to allow free trade between nations, and I do not believe in the regulation of commerce in and of itself domestically. There's some other stuff, but you don't care about that, right?
On the subject of regulation, you're still in favour of things like environmental and safety regulations for food, drugs, manufacturing etc. right?
There's a baseline of regulation that is probably needed.
Environmental regulations as in what, exactly? I have no problem with a State having public parks that can't have this or that done to them; however, I believe it pretty much stops when it comes to private property. The only example I can think of acceptable environmental control on private property is preventing
public health hazards, i.e. the water table.
In terms of food, drugs, and manufacturing. Yes and no. Entities like the USDA are good for testing the quality of food, and a lot of the other stuff they do. I have no problem with them putting a sticker on packaging verifying, say, this beef is USDA approved for quality, or certifying producers as safe producers of quality food. I also believe in setting a baseline of worker's rights things, and promoting a safe work place. As with food and drugs, I have no problem with a body approving a product that they believe to be quality. That aside, there are a few things that entities such as the USDA do that are far too overreaching. A prime example is trying to force traditional farmers (traditional being a bashed method of food production, but in reality has no ill effects for anything) to convert to organic farming techniques (organic farming only estimated to be able to produce the food to support 4 billion people worldwide). As an extension, many of these entities have leaders who do not really want to do everything honest, rather they are zealots of a political belief trying to push agendas that are not proven in the slightest.
Poll
