military, politcal, and economic discussion

[jcagle]

They? Don't you live in a democracy? Where the power belongs to the "demos", people.

No, we don't live in a democracy in the U.S. We live in a representative republic.

[jcagle]

Remember we started with the opinion that there should not be income tax. And me disagreeing thinking that there is a fine balancing act between the different types of taxes, income tax included.

So have you taken the time to really study the Fair Tax Act yet?

[jcagle]

Well I think I'm going to take a break from this thread here. At some point I can come back with my head cleared and discuss these things some more, ok?

I don't mind discussing it all, but it does become quite overwhelming for me, and I've got a life to live, and politics isn't my life. I have to keep Jesus #1 in my life.

"Politics shmolitics, too confusing" ~ MxPx

[syzygy]

surely the major threat to USA is internal rather than external.

[syzygy]

oh! i forgot about the threat to US power from Grenada. silly me !

[syzygy]

trifecta! my third post in a row.

didn't this thread start out on capitalism vs socialism? surely the greatest exponents of former are drug runners, closely followed by the Anti-Pup, one
W.Gates!

[EarlSmith]

People around the world do not understand the United States. Our history if studied would show you we were founded as a Constitutional Republic. A pure demoncracy (yes I think this is the correct spelling) always falls apart because when people realize they can vote themselves unlimited benefits, they do. A Constitution like the US has and Iraq now has is supposed to restrain the ability of the people to vote themselves unlimited benefits. This happens always at the expense of the people paying the taxes. So demoncracies always collapse. Always!!!
Now what has happened in the US is the Court system that was restrained by the Constitution for more than 50 years began just after the War for Southern Independance(CSA) to start to ignore the US Constitution. It began slowly but in the last 50 years the counts have taken over as the 9 dictators in control of the US. They have used the Constitution to gather more and more power to themselves. And the American people have sat by and allowed it to happen because in part the courts have removed the restraining power of the Constitution from the demoncratic leanings of the people. So the US is becoming more and more like a pure demoncracy with unrestrained benefits and unrestrained taxes to support them.
I have voted in the past like I said for the lessor of the two evils. I have decided this next time I must and will, vote for a return to a Constitutional Republic and vote for the Constitution Party.
If you want to have a reasoned dissussion of politics you must know the true history. I cannot discuss these issues with someone who just has an opinion of what the US is. The US is good and bad, but it started as very, very Good. You must study history to know that. The old cliche, You must know where you have been to know where you are going, applies here. I would also add, you also must know where you are to know how to get to where you want to go. By a study of history you will know where we don't want to go again.

[EarlSmith]

To answer Rarsa:

They? Don't you live in a democracy? Where the power belongs to the "demos", people.

No, we live in a Constitution Republic.

That happens when there is more money than goods. For example, oversaving based OVERPRICED tax only.

If oversaving was a peoblem, there would be very low or no interest rates. So in a capitalist society the people would try to find a better return on their investment by investing in research so they could build better goods that would sell better. You must also realize that the money in a country whether in circulation or stored in savings represent the true value of goods or services.

What taxes were cut?

The largest one tax that that applies to the whole country is the Federal Income Tax.

You and the world seem to have a problem with the US going into Iraq, no manner what the reason. When the US is attacked, the President must try to insure it will not happen again. Wether he was right or wrong on Iraq, he has until now stopped attacks on US soil. Neither you or I know all the facts, until I do, I will support the President. I do not base my opinion on the reports of liberal reporters. The fact is the people of Iraq are better off because of us. I only wish we would hold up the blue finger that showed we voted in the same number as the people of Iraq! They are fighting for freedom with every vote.

[rarsa]

Knowing history goes both ways. I completelly agree that to understand a society you must learn it's history.

One of the sad parts of the US education is that Universal history is very inconspicuous in the curriculum (yes, I've lived in the US). It's sad to see that people does not know the cultural importance of Irak in our current western style laws and society. We have that same problem in Canada. Universal history should be part of the curriculum since elementary school.

If it is difficult to fully understand the current state of the US based on its history which is fairly short (a couple of hundred years). It is even more difficult to understand the current state of the middle eastern cultures that have been there for thousands of years. Maybe after so many social experiments, those middle eastern countries have learned that Dictatorship works better for them to keep peace, stability and prosperity, regardless of what we think of that.

If the US stoped meddling in other countries affairs it would be a safer place. It is a fallacy that the 'terrorists' attacked the US out of the blue. The US has been meddling on the region for a long time to support their economic interests. As an empire... that's what empires do, wether I like it or not. That's what history shows. but the US should stop talking from both sides of the mouth. And people in the US should stop believing and making their own the spoonfeed information from the government.

So yes, the barbarians are at the gates.

The US is good and bad, but it started as very, very Good.

Another thing we agree on. It started as an anti-imperialist republic. It has now became the empire.

vote for a return to a Constitutional Republic and vote for the Constitution Party.

Yes. US people should learn about the alternatives. In the case of the constitution party, for example, they should understand that they mean by that. As I see it is a wacko extreme right wing religious party. They are using their interpretation of the constitution to push their agenda. Yes, I encourge to go the official site and read it from the horse's mouth http://www.constitutionparty.com/. But that's just me looking from the outside and with no vote, or saying. You'll vote for what you think it's best for you. That's sovereignity, that's the kind of self determination that you've denied the Irak people.

Go ahead, get a biblical fundamentalist government, but don't complain about muslim fundamentalist countries somewhere else.

I dread both. I believe in a secular government with freedom of religion.

[EarlSmith]

It is good we do agree on many things.

The Constitution Party is the only party which is completely pro-life, pro-gun, pro-American sovereignty and independence, and in favor of a strong national defense. It is also the only party that is anti-globalist, anti-free trade, anti-deindustrialization, and anti-unchecked immigration. We also oppose special rights for homosexuals, the constantly increasing expansion of unlawful police laws,and both foreign aid and military interventionism.

What part of this do you not agree?

This statment really surprised me.

Maybe after so many social experiments, those middle eastern countries have learned that Dictatorship works better for them to keep peace, stability and prosperity, regardless of what we think of that.

When in their history have they had a chance to try a Constitution Republic? Do you really think all those people found in the mass graves in Iraq would agree with you? Ask the Kurds the question" Do you really want to live in a country where the government can come in the night and take your women and children away never to be seen again except in mass graves?" Look at all the people who leave these kinds of countries. I guess they are just stupid people who don't know what is good for them. God, protect us from people who think like this!
Well, after that last statement I see I can no longer continue this dialog. I just wish liberal so called do gooders like you would be required to live in a place like the old Iraq for a year.

[rarsa]

It is good we do agree on many things.

The Constitution Party is the only party which is completely pro-life, pro-gun, pro-American sovereignty and independence, and in favor of a strong national defense. It is also the only party that is anti-globalist, anti-free trade, anti-deindustrialization, and anti-unchecked immigration. We also oppose special rights for homosexuals, the constantly increasing expansion of unlawful police laws,and both foreign aid and military interventionism.

What part of this do you not agree?

Let me list them:
- completely pro-life: I'm not pro abortion but I wouldn't want to be in the shoes of a woman having to make that choice.
- pro-gun: I won't even get started. Guns are to kill. How does that go with being pro-life?
- anti-unchecked immigration: I agree with the broad meaning. I haven't read what they propose to see if I agree.
. We also oppose special rights for homosexuals: What does that mean? Does that mean that they support the same rigths including the right to marry, to inherit and to addopt? I agree, no special rigths are needed, just guarantee the same rights as heterosexuals.

[rarsa]

Actually I am reading the party's platform with great amusement.

I agree with many of their points, others just scare me while others are totally conflicting.

e.g. On the "Character" section : "qualities of honesty, integrity, reliability, moral uprightness, fidelity, prudence, temperance, justice, fortitude, self-restraint, courage, kindness, and compassion." But on the crime section they support capital punishment. How's that for self-restraint, courage and compassion.

In the drug abuse section they don't even talk about preventing demand, about treatment of the addict and creation of soccial programs to prevent it in the first place.

On the Education section... Why don't they just plainly say that they need to return to the caves age?

Actually the whole platform they are speaking out of their asses (sorry for the expression). It is full of contradictions and loopholes. The platform talks a lot about what they don't want, but little about what they really propose. Unless of course they don't feel there is a need to "impose" their solutions unto others. So every man (or woman) for his/her own. Caves age thinking.

In keeping with this requirement, we wholeheartedly support realistic efforts to preserve the environment and reduce pollution - air, water, and land.

But they reject government regulations and suppervision. I know they oppose drugs, but I'm sure they were smoking something when they wrote this parragraph.

We reject the notion that sexual offenders are deserving of legal favor or special protection, and affirm the rights of states and localities to proscribe offensive sexual behavior.

Uups. So they DO want different rights for homosexuals... "Sexual offenders" that's rich. talk about compassion and kindness. Did they mention that they are for Liberty?

Ok, I'll stop here. I'm really glad that this party has the right to express their ideas. I know that if they ever get into power they will keep the US to itself: No foreign interference. So I guess it would be good for the rest of the world. But I happen to think that the US has many great things and I personally appreciate many US citizens so I hope they never win.

It was quite telling that you asked "How could I disagree with them" as if those things you mentioned were all great.

After reading the first page I thought they were wackos. Now after reading their platform I KNOW they are wackos.

[rarsa]

By the way EarlSmith: I thought that we were in agreement on not meddling in other countries affairs.

Actually that was one of the parts of the Constitution party platform I agreed with.

I'm even more confussed now. Do you support the constitution party or not?

You seemed upset that I was suggesting that same thing.

[jcagle]

The constitution party sounded good to me at first, but I think I've got a bit more of a libertarian bent.

[Dougal]

oh! i forgot about the threat to US power from Grenada. silly me !

Mate, I'm afraid doubting the existence of the US army would be a little too "out there" for this argument.
Just like doubting the existence of the Ozzie army... to protect you from the sharks, right? Unless the wanker (Howard) thinks the Japs still want to invade you (why would they? they have a better arrangement at the moment, cashing in on your resources...).

In your place I'd go down to the rockpools by that sea-water swimming pool place and chill out, hoping that the whole karma thing really works...

[Dougal]

I see the President as a person who was a jet fighter pilot

Does anyone remember Project X (the film, not the band)?

[Flash]

No. How does it go?

[Dougal]

No. How does it go?

The USAF trains chimps as pilots...

[Pizzasgood]

pro-gun: I won't even get started. Guns are to kill. How does that go with being pro-life?

Guns are to kill. Correct. BUT, to kill what? There are other things than men to shoot. Deer, for example. And don't get me started on the morality of hunting. Deer at least have a small chance, unlike cows (unless they break out). And for whom is it to decide that a plant has less of a right to live than an animal? I have nothing against vegitarianism, but the arguement that it is more moral is garbage.

Also, guns are great for defense. Not just from men though. Would you rather go up against a wolf or bear with a knife or gun? Or are knives evil too? They're more of a tool than a gun, because you can carve and cut tape and stuff.

Yes, there should be an age restriction on guns, and maybe a type restriction (who hunts with a machine gun? Don't answer that....), but unless you have done something to make it a good idea to not have a gun, you should be able to own one.

Besides, do you think making a law will stop someone who is already breaking other laws? "Hey dude! I'd murder you, but it's illegal for me to own a gun." Sure it will make it more difficult, but it doesn't really do much. Just like the mesh bookbags at my school. I've accidentally brought my pocket knife to school many times, and purposely smuggled in a cd player and a game-boy on several occasions, and the mesh only made me be slightly more careful of where I put them (the knife was only in my pocket because I forgot to remove it). A gun would be no trouble at all. Just wrap it in my jacket, or put it somewhere else. All the mesh accomplishes is making the backpack-makers richer because they sell more backpacks (mesh are flimsy pieces of junk. I've already worn out one this school year, and I'm not getting another. I'm using my good old opaque pack for the rest of the year whether they like it or not.).


I can't really say much on most of the stuff in here, because I have no experience in those areas. I do want to make a comment about the "supporting the president because you voted for him" deal. That is one of the things that really ticks me off when I hear it. As some others have said, it is an issue of the lesser of two evils. It is rare that you find someone who shares the exact same beliefs as you do, and even rarer that he/she is a choice on the balot. Sure, you could write-in, but that's essentially wasting your vote. Which is why I hate political parties, or at least the party system we have. You wind up being forced to choose sides when neither is what you want. I especially hate it when you are classified by a party or a vote, when there are only two effective choices.

Actually, it's almost like the Windows-Mac-Linux situation. Most people take the two big ones, so the rest are forced to go mainstream or suffer the consequences. The only way to get a perfect solution is to make your own Linux distro (or even separate os), but then you will have very little support. Except with political parties it is more biased. So you wind up choosing the one either with the most stuff you agree with or the least that you disagree with.

It's also like standing up to a dictator. If everyone stopped obaying him, he would be powerless. The problem is that everyone is scared of him, so they can't get enough people to rebel at the same time. If enough people voted for a third party, it could win. But, everyone is scared of wasting their vote.

Also, back to the Linux analogy, many of the "other" choices are only half-formed. Some are sheare idiocy, while others aren't complete. Some are good, but lack the funds and support to get big. Many of the bigger ones have the same problems as the mainstreams. So again, you have to compromise.

But in the end, at least there is an option. We have a choice of which evil we want. Many places don't have that luxiary. In fact, we even get the oportunity to select the possible evils. That doesn't work out that well, though.


Please keep in mind that the above is from someone who has yet to have the opportunity to vote, and has only experienced 1.78 decades (though only the latter half are memorable in any decency, let alone qualify as "experience").


As for my views on money, why should I pay more just because I'm a harder worker? If I choose to work my butt off, where does that mean the gov can take more of my money? In my mind, taxes are to pay the government for the services I recieve, such as maintaing the roads, keeping murderers behind bars, and protecting the country. Working harder doesn't mean I'm using any more services than the lazy bum next door. So why would I have to pay more?

And as for "saving" money, it's not really saving anyways. It's just not spending it on taxes. Do you really think I'd stick that money in a bank? Nope. I'd spend it somewhere else, either to get better food (ramen noodles only sustain you for so long), on better equipment (thus I could make more money), to buy something for pleasure (not the best use, but it boosts my moral and puts the money back out there), on charity, or else invest it. Like I told my sister when we were playing the Farming Game, cash just sits there, but more crops make more money (theoretically).

Whatever I do with it, it still goes back out into the economy. But I'd rather use it for something useful than to have the government decide what to do with it, which could mean something I disagree with. Like welfare. I'm for helping the poor, but not for helping the lazy. I might not always know the solution, but I can usually still tell when it's broke.


Oh, and with illegall immigrants, I don't know much about why they don't bother to do it legally, but if they're too lazy to come in legally, they can stay out. And don't pull any of this Native American garbage on me. They weren't born here any more than Europeans were. They just got here first. I could say the same about Canadians, Brits, Russians, and basically anyone who doesn't live on the site where man was created. Our ancestors were stronger than the Natives, so they took it. I won't sugar coat that. But that doesn't change the fact that I was born here, and Juan Fulano wasn't. I didn't conquer America, and I won't pay the sins of those who did. In fact, they weren't even my ancestors in the first place. My family came over much later. But they did it legally. The other week, I saw a tv program that complained that our laws were "forcing" Mexicans to cross the desert to illegally enter the country and were causing them to die. I say, "So?" They could stay in Mexico. We aren't making them come, and we sure aren't making them come illegally. If they want to kill themselves, that's their problem. By their logic, I should be able to threaten people that I'll kill myself unless they give me a car, and they should comply. If Juan wants in, he can do it legally.

Umm... I can't remember who made the comment about just making it legal, but I think it was Rarsa. But I don't imagine you Canadians (let alone the Brits) have many Mexicans flooding your boarders, so it might not be much for you to say "Let 'em in." But we have enough people as it is. We worked hard to make our country as good as it is. If we can do it, they can too. Either they fix their own mess instead of running away from it, or they at least take the time and have the respect to do the thing properly and come in legally. I can understand if they have to bend rules because they're escaping a dictator, but that isn't the case for the majority.

And no, I don't want illegal immigrants cleaning the streets. That just encourages them. I say make all those lazy bums mooching off of welfare do it. Otherwise bring out the chain-gangs. They might as well make themselves useful while they're sitting there in prison.



Sorry if I got a little hot during this post. I might or might not have, depending on your point of view. I definately went on longer than I ment to. I was going to stop after that bit about parties, but I just kept on-a-going. Also, if I said something stupid, I blame it on sleep deprivation. I also may be ignorant of some key details on some of those subjects, which is why I originally wasn't going to touch on them. Oh well.