NationStates Jolt Archive

Torture in the name of freedom (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,401899,00.html)The great Winston Churchill once said that America had the habit of committing every possible mistake to ultimately arrive at the right decision. The first part of the Churchill quote is proving to be reality, while the redemptive second part has yet to materialize.

Okay, so I know that many of you don't think it needs repairing, which is fair enough, I suppose.

But for those who think that there is something wrong with the country, with the way the government is run, with attitudes perhaps, what do you think can be done to make it better?

What can you personally as a person do? We are good at criticising, but what can we in the real world do to make things better?

Vote Democrat. :)

There really isn't much you can do, at all. Just live with it and criticize fruitlessly.

stand by and second guess until you are no longer the minority.

eventually you'll piss off enough people to change things.

Vote Democrat. :)
There really isn't much you can do, at all. Just live with it and criticize fruitlessly.

The Democrats aren't any better; their record when it comes to human rights is equally as deplorable. I'd say we try to start new parties and balance out the Congress to stop them from screwing anything else up.

The Democrats aren't any better; their record when it comes to human rights is equally as deplorable. I'd say we try to start new parties and balance out the Congress to stop them from screwing anything else up.

I wouldn't say equally deplorable -- slightly less deplorable. We just have to get less deplorable bit by bit, starting with Democrats. New parties aren't very likely to win -- it's a lost cause. Just push your least disliked party to where you want it to be, one issue at a time.

The Democrats aren't any better; their record when it comes to human rights is equally as deplorable. I'd say we try to start new parties and balance out the Congress to stop them from screwing anything else up.

i think we tried that in 1824. won't happen. the two party system in america has been in place too long to change. a needed change that won't happen. people associate with either side, not someone else.

the trouble is that we have given WAY too much power to one political party. no one can be expected to behave well in the face of such an overwhelmingly corrupting force.

we need to add some balance to the government. even just putting a democratic majority into the house would be enough to check this steamroll to hell.

i think we tried that in 1824. won't happen. the two party system in america has been in place too long to change. a needed change that won't happen. people associate with either side, not someone else.
But doesn't that mean that you are essentially governed like the people in former East Germany - by choice? Whether its two parties or one, if the two are virtually indistinguishable, you live in a one-party state, don't you?

How about instead of spending billions on war, we can use the money for public projects. instead of rebuilding iraq, we should rebuild america. take a look at detroit for an example.

you live in a one-party state, don't you?

As long as the people don't get tired of the two parties and a third party isn't created, yes.

But doesn't that mean that you are essentially governed like the people in former East Germany - by choice? Whether its two parties or one, if the two are virtually indistinguishable, you live in a one-party state, don't you?

i don't understand what you're getting at. indistinguishable? did i say that?

i don't understand what you're getting at. indistinguishable? did i say that?

The issues that they disagree on are very minor.

But doesn't that mean that you are essentially governed like the people in former East Germany - by choice? Whether its two parties or one, if the two are virtually indistinguishable, you live in a one-party state, don't you?

Well, pretty much. However, we're also allowed to start new parties and run freely for office once a person interested in running; of course, the law makes it impossible for a person to really run as an independent/third party, which means they have to eventually conform to the desires of the party elite to stand a chance at winning the primary elections.

I'd say we really can't affect the current government's decisions much at all. But look at it this way. If we argue our views using coherent logic and convince others of our own beliefs, we set the stage for elections when the next generation starts to go into government. We're making a little bit of a different in the LONG term. And a little bit of a difference all over the place makes a decent to large amount of difference. Patience is a virtue ;)

the trouble is that we have given WAY too much power to one political party. no one can be expected to behave well in the face of such an overwhelmingly corrupting force.

we need to add some balance to the government. even just putting a democratic majority into the house would be enough to check this steamroll to hell.
I've thought precisely that for a long time. I believe there are a lot of partisans who don't give (or give too much) credit to the Republican House during Clinton's terms in office, for the economy anyway. Not to say they didn't have their problems--the impeachment was pure, unadulterated bullshit, after all--but they forced Clinton to compromise on some stuff and that resulted in some good things. It caused some problems, too, especially in national defense, since every time Clinton tried to go after Bin Laden, Republicans accused him of trying to divert attention away from a non-scandal, but the divided government did have its advantages.

i don't understand what you're getting at. indistinguishable? did i say that?
Ultimately they agree on all the major issues. They both hate the welfare state, they both want to be "tough on terror", neither dares to criticise the military in any serious fashion (the whole "support the troops" thing). In reality, it seems to me like the division between the two parties is more personality-based than policy-based.

It's a bit of a viscious circle. Many people belief some way, the media ponders to those views, reinforces them, thus forces the government to adopt them and so on.

Plus, there is still the Median Voter Theorem, which is a theoretical concept illustrating that in a two-party state, the two parties converge to become almost the same thing.

Okay, so I know that many of you don't think it needs repairing, which is fair enough, I suppose.

But for those who think that there is something wrong with the country, with the way the government is run, with attitudes perhaps, what do you think can be done to make it better?

What can you personally as a person do? We are good at criticising, but what can we in the real world do to make things better?

Launch a revolution, establish a dictatorship of the proletariat, and expropriate the capitalist class. :)

More seriously, there are plenty of avenues (at least for those in the United States) for non-violent popular resistance, and one thing even about nominal democracies is that popular movements can have considerable effects. Change isn't going to happen electorally unless there is an effective mass movement to go with it; that is the current challenge, to rally the immense general dissatisfaction with things into a movement that can change them.

I think a movement expressing a general distaste for the lack of popular participation in decision-making may be a good start, and also one which might lead to the sort of movement I would like to see.

actually, that is how US does the right thing. by mistake and then OOPS and ultimately, they arrive the right decision by learning from past mistakes. they only choose the right thing when something goes wrong because if they choose the right thing it has "economic implication" or other lame excuses.

Well, pretty much. However, we're also allowed to start new parties and run freely for office once a person interested in running; of course, the law makes it impossible for a person to really run as an independent/third party, which means they have to eventually conform to the desires of the party elite to stand a chance at winning the primary elections.
Yeah, the only really strong third party movements in the last fifty years have been cults of personality--the Ross Perot/Jesse Ventura model, if you will. The two main parties have done a hell of a job consolidating power between themselves.

When stuff breaks around my house, I usually find superglue does the trick. Or duct tape. But failing a viable home remedy, I'll either call in an expert, or ask friends or neighbours for advice or a helping hand.

In the case of repairing America, well... what are you talking about, really? Crafting a new Constitution?

Repair America, eh? Well ... it's gonna take a good torque wrench and Chuck Norris. Otherwise, fuck it ... it's salvage.

I've thought precisely that for a long time. I believe there are a lot of partisans who don't give (or give too much) credit to the Republican House during Clinton's terms in office, for the economy anyway. Not to say they didn't have their problems--the impeachment was pure, unadulterated bullshit, after all--but they forced Clinton to compromise on some stuff and that resulted in some good things. It caused some problems, too, especially in national defense, since every time Clinton tried to go after Bin Laden, Republicans accused him of trying to divert attention away from a non-scandal, but the divided government did have its advantages.
the best things clinton did were to pass reasonable versions of the republican platform. he balanced the budget and reformed welfare. the republicans hate him for it because it took 2 of their favorite bitching points away from them.

the best things clinton did were to pass reasonable versions of the republican platform. he balanced the budget and reformed welfare. the republicans hate him for it because it took 2 of their favorite bitching points away from them.
Yeah, I wasn't the first to say it, but it's true--Bill Clinton was the best republican president of the last fifty years.

Hmmm I think Machiavelli covered this:

Those who by valorous ways become princes, like these men ['Moses, Cyrus, Romulus, Theseus, and such like'], acquire a principality with difficulty, but they keep it with ease. The difficulties they have in acquiring it rise in part from the new rules and methods which they are forced to introduce to establish their government and its security. And it ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, then to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them. Thus it happens that whenever those who are hostile have the opportunity to attack they do it like partisans, whilst the others defend lukewarmly, in such wise that the prince is endangered along with them.

MAINSTEAM MEDIA.
America will fix itself once this generation of the internet savvy who know how to get the story themselves reach voting age and become the majority, and people will actually start voting for people who would be good for the office, rather than do what there party tells them to do.


Not that its broken in the first place. Everything thats broken is barely visible in everyday life. Obviously, there are exceptions.

Ultimately they agree on all the major issues. They both hate the welfare state, they both want to be "tough on terror", neither dares to criticise the military in any serious fashion (the whole "support the troops" thing). In reality, it seems to me like the division between the two parties is more personality-based than policy-based.

It's a bit of a viscious circle. Many people belief some way, the media ponders to those views, reinforces them, thus forces the government to adopt them and so on.

Plus, there is still the Median Voter Theorem, which is a theoretical concept illustrating that in a two-party state, the two parties converge to become almost the same thing.

sorry, i'm a little out of it. syntax confuzzled me.
granted. plus, to americans, little things become big things.

where's that theorem from?

Republicans and Democrats have become power-hungry, self-serving, big-government liars. There's no point in wasting your vote on a third party. America, like other societies, is doomed to fall to someonejust like the Roman Empire. It will create a shockwave around the world, and many other countries will fall. World Anarchy will begin and plunge humanity into another dark age.

THAT was my pessimist side.

After a few decades, a neo-America pro-democracy movement will emerge. They will triumph over the anarchy and set up a new, Capitalist Democracy across the world. A few hundred years and the process repeats.

where's that theorem from?
Well, I learned it in an Econ class, but it could fit in just as well with PoliSci or Game Theory.
http://www.mobergpublications.se/arguments/ideology.htm

Everyone forgets to mind their history lessons, failing to remember that America has always pretty much been this way. Which is a source of our strength. We keep our truth like our cars, out in our front yards, sometimes on cinder blocks. The great experiment of our republic is always a work in progress. So long as that work stays in the public eye, and the public is discontent with the machinations taking place in the shadows, things will always progress. Though the progress will rarely be pretty and never without error.

We need to get some of the stagnant old farts out and get some new thinkers in.

I'd like to note that America certainly isnt the only country that needs to be "fixed". Although you wouldnt know it in this forum.

I'd like to note that America certainly isnt the only country that needs to be "fixed". Although you wouldnt know it in this forum.
Of course, but the problem is that the US is in a bit of a unique position. It has taken global leadership on many issues. It does proclaim to stand for certain principles, which it now violates routinely. And compared to the idea that America was when it was founded, the US has certainly deviated the most from the intended direction of all nations on the planet.

How to fix America? File a lawsuit - it's the American Way! :D

Nazz, the impeachment stuff itself was by no means bullshit, it was the political leadership that was. Clinton was as guilty as Barbarus, but the leadership thought he was better than Jesus.

But that's not the important point.


We are ruled, effectively, by a corrupt one-party system, with misinterpretations of the constitutions all over the place, and self-destructive policies on the military, immigration, and the economy. There was, is, and always will be only one method to solve this without destroying the nation.


Armed revolution against the standing government.

Of course, but the problem is that the US is in a bit of a unique position. It has taken global leadership on many issues. It does proclaim to stand for certain principles, which it now violates routinely. And compared to the idea that America was when it was founded, the US has certainly deviated the most from the intended direction of all nations on the planet.Well said. As Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said after the Abu Ghraib scandal broke, "If we're going to claim to be the good guys, we have to be the good guys." US leadership has tried to claim the moral high ground, and has been exposed as liars time and again.

There is probably going to be a leader in America someday soon that realizes our problems, and goes and roots out corruption and lieing in the goverment.

I think I saw this here, I'm not sure, but another thing we need is complete transparency between the goverment and the people. I think the article or discussion talked about how the military is transparent, the goverment needs to be.

I obviously don't have a link to this, because I don't remember where it was. It might have been in my local paper in the SPEAK OUT! section.

Vote Democrat. :)

There really isn't much you can do, at all. Just live with it and criticize fruitlessly.

vote democrap...thats your solution?

they are the same thieves and liars..just a different tune then the repugnicants

vote 3rd party...waste a vote..so what..they are wasted on either of the other parties.

then if enough do that..then maybe they will qualify for election fund credits and get their message out.

funny..the dems and repubs,get money from the fed's for election campaigns..and they have all the money,yet the partys with no money get nothing....great way to keep down the opposition...eh..nothing like a stacked deck to keep the ruling class in power with no threat of any opposition.

keep buying the wasted vote bullshit,it's wasted anyway now,in this system..the 2 partys are so alike it is just semantics on special interest differences,you know..the contributors.:(

Of course, but the problem is that the US is in a bit of a unique position. It has taken global leadership on many issues. It does proclaim to stand for certain principles, which it now violates routinely. And compared to the idea that America was when it was founded, the US has certainly deviated the most from the intended direction of all nations on the planet.
Obviously you're joking. Compare the "ideals" to slavery. Or just the Jim Crow laws those returning from WWII did away with. Please. The only period in American history, even given all of the Bush administrations spectacular failures, better than the one we're in, for everyone including the wider world, is perhaps the late 90s.

You're hyperbole invites ridicule. You want to talk deviation from an ideal? How about Liberia?

There is probably going to be a leader in America someday soon that realizes our problems, and goes and roots out corruption and lieing in the goverment.
But can such a person be elected?

If what I said on the last page happens, of course.

You're hyperbole invites ridicule. You want to talk deviation from an ideal? How about Liberia?
Liberia is actually a good candidate as well.

But as I said, if you don't think America needs repairing, fine.

Please. The only period in American history, even given all of the Bush administrations spectacular failures, better than the one we're in, for everyone including the wider world, is perhaps the late 90s.
?

Oh, it is, but not because of American policy. It's because our government was so divided that neither side could screw around with it enough to cause any major changes that we wern't doing the same thing we are now.

Actually, I'd say the wider world is better off now than it was in the 90's, economically speaking.

the 2 partys are so alike it is just semantics on special interest differences,you know..the contributors.:(

I agree, but there is no way to switch effectively to a 3rd party without giving one of the other two parties complete control, which can never be a good thing. I happen to like the Democratic tune a bit more than the Republican one. It is just playing right into their hands, but there is nothing to do about it. Not enough people will agree with you, and you'll end up making it worse by eliminating any competition.

Vote Democrat. :)

There really isn't much you can do, at all. Just live with it and criticize fruitlessly.

I've voted for Bush, Perot, Clinton, Bush, and Bush. I'm not terribly happy about that record, but judging by Gore's recent remarks in Saudi Arabia and Kerry being about as charismatic as three day old oatmeal...

The Dems have got to stop being so angry (hear that, Hillary? Dean?) and get back to the FDR/Kennedy era exuberance and style.

Originally Posted by Neu Leonstein
Of course, but the problem is that the US is in a bit of a unique position. It has taken global leadership on many issues. It does proclaim to stand for certain principles, which it now violates routinely. And compared to the idea that America was when it was founded, the US has certainly deviated the most from the intended direction of all nations on the planet.



Obviously you're joking. Compare the "ideals" to slavery. Or just the Jim Crow laws those returning from WWII did away with. Please. The only period in American history, even given all of the Bush administrations spectacular failures, better than the one we're in, for everyone including the wider world, is perhaps the late 90s.

You're hyperbole invites ridicule. You want to talk deviation from an ideal? How about Liberia?


i have to agree with n/l
america has wandered left then right then left then right.
now it seems they are (the partys)are marching lockstep.

why wouldnt they..they all have plum jobs,dont want to rock the boat...and snipe at eachother over non issues..or create issues to snipe about..to distract the people from the fact that they are the same...just digging the fact they are the elite power brokers.
and have both(dems and repub's)whored themselves out to the highest bidder.
greedy powerfull people like to stay greedy powerful people...nuff said?

something has to change..i am sick of the system as it stands now.:headbang:

But can such a person be elected?
does such an american exist?
hell no, of course!

Vote Libertarian. <.<

Nazz, the impeachment stuff itself was by no means bullshit, it was the political leadership that was. Clinton was as guilty as Barbarus, but the leadership thought he was better than Jesus.

But that's not the important point.


We are ruled, effectively, by a corrupt one-party system, with misinterpretations of the constitutions all over the place, and self-destructive policies on the military, immigration, and the economy. There was, is, and always will be only one method to solve this without destroying the nation.


Armed revolution against the standing government.

hate to say it..but i am almost to the point that i agree...but i do not want to kill my fellow americans...ever.

but if armed rebellion kicked the greedy fucking whores out on there collective asses..i am all for it.

does such an american exist?
hell no, of course!
Are you from America? If you are, what would you do as president? Exactly what I said, right?

Corruption is the true evil of democracy, because it moves the representitives eyes away from the people and to the campaign contributers.

hate to say it..but i am almost to the point that i agree...but i do not want to kill my fellow americans...ever.

but if armed rebellion kicked the greedy fucking whores out on there collective asses..i am all for it.


SAM, I would never want to kill my fellow Americans either. But the people in government no longer are true Americans. They are false tyrannical dictators, caring only about their own preservation of their power. America is more than a nation and a People, it is also an idea. You must associate yourself with the nation, be one of the People, and believe in her ideas to be an American. They have betrayed America, have committed an unspeakable act of treason against the PEople and against God, and must be removed for this nation to continue.

does such an american exist?
hell no, of course!

Fleckenstein, your ignorance is so overwhelming that I can smell your stench from my computer. I won't even grace you with a response that requires effort.

Corruption is the true evil of democracy, because it moves the representitives eyes away from the people and to the campaign contributers.
But there seems to be a pretty strong pattern that the more funding a campaign has, the more successful it is. And so I don't see either side turning away contributions from anyone who will give them.

does such an american exist?
hell no, of course!


I'm betting you havent met every American, so to make an assertation of such is simply......asshole-ish.

Start applying the Geneva convention to captured terrorists. Specifically, the part that says anyone captured with arms but not in a nation's uniform is a spy and is subject to summary (that means without benefit of even military trial, for anyone who doesn't understand what that term means) execution.

As to what you guys think of my country's policy, why you complaining? It's just doing what you guys have been inisting it do long as I can remember.

But there seems to be a pretty strong pattern that the more funding a campaign has, the more successful it is. And so I don't see either side turning away contributions from anyone who will give them.
Thats exactly the problem.
On a side note, this is the first serious debate I've been had in General since 2004. Wow.

Start applying the Geneva convention to captured terrorists...
Oh, about that.

Did you guys know that many German POWs after WWII were redesignated from "POW" to "DEF" (Disarmed Enemy Forces) and then put to work in forced labour camps?

Apparently it really happened, although I was sceptical initially. Some even claim that thousands were starved to death.

Seems like the whole thing is not that new an idea either.

Start applying the Geneva convention to captured terrorists. Specifically, the part that says anyone captured with arms but not in a nation's uniform is a spy and is subject to summary (that means without benefit of even military trial, for anyone who doesn't understand what that term means) execution.

But what's the fun in that? Break their will, it's more fun. That way when they die they're not martyrs. 1984 can teach you some things. :D

Yeah, I wasn't the first to say it, but it's true--Bill Clinton was the best republican president of the last fifty years.
whoa. that makes clinton the first black republican president!

Vote Libertarian. <.<

Throwing away a vote doesn't help. I recall that in the 1992 elections that they got 98 votes in Connecticut. Until there is some sort of issue that people can decide that it makes SENSE to vote Libertarian... it ain't going to happen.

Oh, about that.

Did you guys know that many German POWs after WWII were redesignated from "POW" to "DEF" (Disarmed Enemy Forces) and then put to work in forced labour camps?

Apparently it really happened, although I was sceptical initially. Some even claim that thousands were starved to death.

Seems like the whole thing is not that new an idea either.

And I can't help but notice the first mention of this supposed incident happened after charges first started getting filed after those idiots who were in that prison scandal. And not to mention, all of the people supposedly involved either as prisoners forced to labor or as the people supposedly carrying it out (which isn't actually all that uncommon in wartime except in the US system, ironically) are rather conveniently dead.

Throwing away a vote doesn't help. I recall that in the 1992 elections that they got 98 votes in Connecticut. Until there is some sort of issue that people can decide that it makes SENSE to vote Libertarian... it ain't going to happen.
Unless the government caves in on itself I suppose.

Unless the government caves in on itself I suppose.

Yeah... but in which case, a political party won't make much of a diff, eh?

Actually fighting a war for oil might have been a start.





----
http://www.royalsreview.com

Yeah... but in which case, a political party won't make much of a diff, eh?
Alternatively, if regions of the US seceded wholly and stopped recognising the government as legitimate. Yet it would still hold the power of military intervention to halt such action.

But what's the fun in that? Break their will, it's more fun. That way when they die they're not martyrs. 1984 can teach you some things. :D

Who said anything about fun? This is a war. You'll find that even extremists start changing their minds quickly enough once they know there is a very real risk of dying like common thugs, which for the most part they are. Just make nothing special of it.

People today have convinced them selves that America is in much deeper trouble then we actually are. One of the things cited as so called "proof" by many economic pestimists is the fact that a lot of manufacturing jobs are moving over seas. The thing that they fail to understand is that though we may be moving the manufacturing jobs overseas, we are keeping the innovation here. Innovation is where the money is. I believe that we do need to work to keep the middle class and ensure that we keep America is the worlds technological innovator, but I do not believe we are in as deep as the media would like us to believe we are. This is not to day that we are not capable of screwing up because if we let the innovation go over seas then we are truly in trouble. Oh yeah one other final fact that your main stream media source probobly convienently overlooked is the fact that America has the worlds fastest growing economy. If you dont believe me, you can check www.forbes.com

Or if you chose to not bleieve me and not check my facts, its ok I understand now go back and enjoy your media brainwashing.
;)

I think a great deal of the trouble with the US is that it is a nation built on systematic inequality. The fact that hegemony holds the exact opposite (ie that it is a meritocracy) greatly aggravates this problem.

Alternatively, if regions of the US seceded wholly and stopped recognising the government as legitimate. Yet it would still hold the power of military intervention to halt such action.

nah. that was tried back in the 1860s. It didn't work back then... and now they have helicopters, Internet, etc.

nah. that was tried back in the 1860s. It didn't work back then... and now they have helicopters, Internet, etc.
My point exactly. Unless the Army decided to stand back. Unlikely though.

I think a great deal of the trouble with the US is that it is a nation built on systematic inequality. The fact that hegemony holds the exact opposite (ie that it is a meritocracy) greatly aggravates this problem.
:mad:
You are a complete moron, our system is not built on inequality. Deomcracy is the most fair system when implimented ever. Our system rewards you based upon your merits and nothing else. In our system we reward those who play the game, and we do not reward those who refuse to play. We reward hard work, if hard work goes unrewarded who will work hard ? How are we un-fair?

"There ain't nothin' wrong with my country!" A 450 pound man says in his wife-beater and sweatpants while eating a fried chicken wing and cradling the bucket of KFC in his other arm. "Sure we may got problems with them fags, but at least our good president George Dubya bush can fix that. That man deserves a medal of honor or somethin'" "While yes them wierd folks named Abu who is Communist and dun bombed those fancy city folks may be attackin' us, we got us that second amendment to protect us. I'd like to thank that thing fer lettin' us get guns so we can kill Commies and other folks that try to take away our freedoms. Hang on, I think I'm missing Nascar. Awe damn, the power went out, I had better take a step outside my trailer and see what the problem is. Well anyway, I'd just like to tell my friends that I watch Fox news and that George Dubya Bush is the greatest man alive! God Bless the United States of Amurica!!" *Pops beer can and raises American flag*

See, we're in good hands!

:mad:
You are a complete moron,
Name calling is completely unnecessary.

our system is not built on inequality.
Is that what you believe?

Deomcracy is the most fair system when implimented ever.
The manner in which a government is elected is only one aspect of a nation state.

Our system rewards you based upon your merits and nothing else.
Nonesense. The owners of slaves were rewarded for owning people, not something I would describe as meritous. In fact if one looks through the history of the US rewards have been apportioned based on things such as 'race', religion and gender, none of which I consider to be meritous in their own rights.
In our system we reward those who play the game, and we do not reward those who refuse to play.
Actually only those who meet certain prerequisites have historically been rewarded for playing the game.
We reward hard work, if hard work goes unrewarded who will work hard ? How are we un-fair?
Plenty of people, otherwise slavery wouldnt have been such a lucrative enterprise....

"There ain't nothin' wrong with my country!" A 450 pound man says in his wife-beater and sweatpants while eating a fried chicken wing and cradling the bucket of KFC in his other arm. "Sure we may got problems with them fags, but at least our good president George Dubya bush can fix that. That man deserves a medal of honor or somethin'" "While yes them wierd folks named Abu who is Communist and dun bombed those fancy city folks may be attackin' us, we got us that second amendment to protect us. I'd like to thank that thing fer lettin' us get guns so we can kill Commies and other folks that try to take away our freedoms. Hang on, I think I'm missing Nascar. Awe damn, the power went out, I had better take a step outside my trailer and see what the problem is. Well anyway, I'd just like to tell my friends that I watch Fox news and that George Dubya Bush is the greatest man alive! God Bless the United States of Amurica!!" *Pops beer can and raises American flag*

See, we're in good hands!
That really made me laugh :D :p

:mad:
In our system we reward those who play the game, and we do not reward those who refuse to play. We reward hard work, if hard work goes unrewarded who will work hard ? How are we un-fair?

What if you think there could be more to life than playing a game designed and moderated by a predominantly white male wealthy lawmaking class?

Unfair to ethnic minorities, women & trannies & gays & lesbians, to farmers, small business, etc.

Fix the U.S.? It's gotta start with personal rebellion. Stop consuming so much: reduce energy usage (gas for yr car, heating, water), support local business & farmers, buy in bulk and EFF packaging. Get to know yr neighbors because every house doesn't need a lawnmower & other infrequently used items. Don't respect a cop because s/he's a cop. Build a self sufficient community and THEN you have to power to drop out of the system.

Not as sexy as big demonstrations and confrontation but there is plenty of room for that too. We need both to reclaim our lives.

We don't need to screw people over to survive.

What if you think there could be more to life than playing a game designed and moderated by a predominantly white male wealthy lawmaking class?

Unfair to ethnic minorities, women & trannies & gays & lesbians, to farmers, small business, etc.

Fix the U.S.? It's gotta start with personal rebellion. Stop consuming so much: reduce energy usage (gas for yr car, heating, water), support local business & farmers, buy in bulk and EFF packaging. Get to know yr neighbors because ever house doesn't need a lawnmower & other infrequently used items. Don't respect a cop because s/he's a cop. Build a self sufficient community and THEN you have to power to drop out of the cheap lives government counts on you to live.

Not as sexy as big demonstrations and confrontation but there is plenty of room for that too. We need both to reclaim our lives.
Basically until you have the power to strip the government of the authority you delegate it.

What if you think there could be more to life than playing a game designed and moderated by a predominantly white male wealthy lawmaking class?

Unfair to ethnic minorities, women & trannies & gays & lesbians, to farmers, small business, etc.

Fix the U.S.? It's gotta start with personal rebellion. Stop consuming so much: reduce energy usage (gas for yr car, heating, water), support local business & farmers, buy in bulk and EFF packaging. Get to know yr neighbors because ever house doesn't need a lawnmower & other infrequently used items. Don't respect a cop because s/he's a cop. Build a self sufficient community and THEN you have to power to drop out of the cheap lives government counts on you to live.

Not as sexy as big demonstrations and confrontation but there is plenty of room for that too. We need both to reclaim our lives.

You might have a case, if MLK Day wasn't a holiday, if the Jim Crow Laws were still around, if gay marriage hadn't made HUGE inroads in the last decade, if small businesses didn't become big businesses (hello, Microsoft, Apple, and Google) and big businesses went out of business (goodbye Enron, Anderson).

I don't even want to get into how one can possibly build a self sufficient community while not respecting the law. :headbang:

Actually fighting a war for oil might have been a start.

That's the type of message that makes me fear America. :eek:

-------

I think the US needs to have a nuke dropped on the White House or the Senate. I mean, the entire government system needs to be scrapped and rebuilt. It is so corrupt that it isn't even funny. Wars for oil? Pork projects? Racist attitudes? Wire Taps? Overspending? Infanstructure falling apart? Enough is enough I say, and I say it's time for the US government to be rebuilt from scratch.

As well, there's more issues that need to be delt with. Outsourcing jobs is one. Company buyouts from foreign interests is another. The US economy is collapsing right now. Two years ago, the Canadian dollar was $0.55 to the US dollar. Now? It's $0.90. That's substancial. Our economy is booming right now, and the US's is so weak that this is happening.

Another issue is the crippling US debt (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock). Some of you will naysay saying 'we can just ignore the debt', or 'we're too strong', but in reality, the US debt is almost double that of four years ago, and the interest is the same as the US spends on a good number of items on the budget. Hell, if the US spent as much as they did on the debt to health care, they could completely make health care free! And what happens if the US doesn't pay it off? You start being unable to pay for things, other countries will refuse to lend anymore, and the US will eventually collapse, turning into Russia, and all the 'banana republics' you hear about.

Yet another issue is defending the US from an invading country. Sound rediculous? Hear me out. Because of the US debt, the US cannot pay the trillions it would take to build the same number of planes, ships, tanks, and guns the US made to fight World War II. Meaning that if World War III came around, the US wouldn't be able to keep up. The other argument is industrial output. In World War II, Japan and Germany was unfortunate to end up going against a country that had infinite resources and a massive industry to back it up. Not now. The US doesn't have those infinite resources anymore. And remember what I said about the economy? Well, because the US economy is weak, it can't kick back into gear nearly as easily. As well, manufacturing jobs are mostly done for, and those foreign buisnesses would probably shut themselves down to help the invasion.

One more major point is the oil crisis. If the US, and every other country in the world doesn't do something about the peak oil (For those who say hogwash to it, remember the very high gas prices after Katrina? Peak oil, NOT greed for the most part), we WILL run out, we WILL have an oil war, and we WILL have a global catastrophie. Countries will collapse, societies will grind to a halt, and food supplies will dwindle as the equipment needed to make food run out of fuel to fun. We need to invest in alternative energy sources, not taking shortcuts conquering oil-rich nations.

These reasons alone would be a glaring reason to get change done in the US. Oh, and remember pork projects? Know what I mean? If not, two good examples from the top of my head. A new large bridge in Alaska to service a town of 53 people? And a study to measure the size of stewardess' noses? That, is pork.

You might have a case, if MLK Day wasn't a holiday, if the Jim Crow Laws were still around,
Your counter-case might have merit if not for the fact that decades after MLK's efforts the socio-economic status of US citizens wasnt so strongly correlated to race...
if gay marriage hadn't made HUGE inroads in the last decade,
...if gay marriage were an acutuality and women had no fear of their reproductivity being controlled rather than having their reproductive rights constantly under siege..

if small businesses didn't become big businesses (hello, Microsoft, Apple, and Google) and big businesses went out of business (goodbye Enron, Anderson).
...if these were the rule rather than being so noteworthy simply because they are so exceptionally at odds with the 'rule'...

I don't even want to get into how one can possibly build a self sufficient community while not respecting the law. :headbang:
Or how one can possibly build a fair and free society when the law is a mechanism that seems to primarily favour and maintain the inequalities of the status quo.

You might have a case, if MLK Day wasn't a holiday, if the Jim Crow Laws were still around, if gay marriage hadn't made HUGE inroads in the last decade, if small businesses didn't become big businesses (hello, Microsoft, Apple, and Google) and big businesses went out of business (goodbye Enron, Anderson).

I don't even want to get into how one can possibly build a self sufficient community while not respecting the law. :headbang:

& you might have a case if black people weren't put away in the clink in disproportionate numbers, shot to death by cops regularly. If the whole goal of the LGBT community was state sanctioned marriages, if small businesses could survive for any length of time without being bought out/put out of business by a big one.

Screw the law, the law says that I can be arrested for "refusing to stop" in some parts, for sitting or lying down in public if I look like a transient. The law says the gov't can spy on me without a warrant, strip me of constitutional rights if I'm subpoenaed to a grand jury. On and on.

The only way to save America is by establishing a libertarian benevolent dictatorship. Most people are clearly too stupid to know what's good for them.

Name calling is completely unnecessary.


Is that what you believe?


The manner in which a government is elected is only one aspect of a nation state.


Nonesense. The owners of slaves were rewarded for owning people, not something I would describe as meritous. In fact if one looks through the history of the US rewards have been apportioned based on things such as 'race', religion and gender, none of which I consider to be meritous in their own rights.

Actually only those who meet certain prerequisites have historically been rewarded for playing the game.

Plenty of people, otherwise slavery wouldnt have been such a lucrative enterprise....
First let me remind you that slavery is long since over, and there are plenty of well inforced anti-dsicrinmination laws (if you doubt this just check a few court dockets). We need not talk about slavery, we recognize that during that injustices were being done. Capitalism is a level playing feild anyone can innovate, anyone can try to start a company, yes a large number of startups fail, but upon study one will find that the failure rate does not have any gender, ethnic, or religious corolation. We do reward everyone. if you dissagree one thing I request of you is just tell me about your plan for a better system. If you can not think of one then why would want to go to another system because it could only get worse.

I've voted for Bush, Perot, Clinton, Bush, and Bush. I'm not terribly happy about that record, but judging by Gore's recent remarks in Saudi Arabia and Kerry being about as charismatic as three day old oatmeal...

You vote for candidates based on their charisma?

The Dems have got to stop being so angry (hear that, Hillary? Dean?)

If anything, the Democrats aren't angry enough; that's why they lose elections.

and get back to the FDR/Kennedy era exuberance and style.

FDR was a pretty partisan guy.

The only way to save America is by establishing a libertarian benevolent dictatorship. Most people are clearly too stupid to know what's good for them.
Or even better, anarcho-capitalism.

Or even better, anarcho-capitalism.

Anarcho-anything is bad. No government at all is a bad thing. I'm sure the Somalis agree.

Anarcho-anything is bad. No government at all is a bad thing. I'm sure the Somalis agree.
The problem is, even with ultra-minimal governments, someone might take advantage of the system and erode personal liberties. Unless there are a number of competing agencies, and the government wields little true power.

The only way to save America is by establishing a libertarian benevolent dictatorship. Most people are clearly too stupid to know what's good for them.

Too stupid because the Libertarians can't make any significant in roads to the goverment?

Benevolent and libertarian are two words that can't be used together. Too many I have read and heard have the screwem mentatlity.....

The problem is, even with ultra-minimal governments, someone might take advantage of the system and erode personal liberties. Unless there are a number of competing agencies, and the government wields little true power.

I believe the only purpose a government should have is maintaining law and order. Everything else should be left up to the individual.

You vote for candidates based on their charisma?

If anything, the Democrats aren't angry enough; that's why they lose elections.

FDR was a pretty partisan guy.

Not based on charisma, but it is a factor. However, it's mostly been voting for the lesser evil.

Um... most people *don't* like the idea that an angry person is running the country. They'll never win by alienating more voters.

So? He also had a style of leadership that's been sorely missing in the DEMs. Kennedy had another style, but it was still leadership. Ditto Reagan.
Johnson & Carter, Ford & Bush 41, IMHO, were not leaders so much as they were just the guys who made the cut.

I believe the only purpose a government should have is maintaining law and order. Everything else should be left up to the individual.
Agreed. Furthermore, it should not be able to prohibit secession and emigration. Its power should be as limited as possible.

Too stupid because the Libertarians can't make any significant in roads to the goverment?

Benevolent and libertarian are two words that can't be used together. Too many I have read and heard have the screwem mentatlity.....

Basically, it would a dictatorship that allowed people to do almost anything they wanted- except vote. You could marry whomever you wanted, have sex with whomever you wanted (in both cases, provided both people consented), do whatever you wanted with your body, say whatever you wanted, worship whatever you wanted, spend your money however you want, etc. Local governments would have a little autonomy, and would be able to decide by popular vote what economic system they wanted.

Agreed. Furthermore, it should not be able to prohibit secession and emigration. Its power should be as limited as possible.

Agreed.

& you might have a case if black people weren't put away in the clink in disproportionate numbers, shot to death by cops regularly.

Chuckle. Put up some stats, or can the rhetoric.
As for shot by cops regularly, of late it's been the cops getting shot in NYC.

If the whole goal of the LGBT community was state sanctioned marriages, if small businesses could survive for any length of time without being bought out/put out of business by a big one.

Um... I posted 3 examples of small businesses that became super-large ones. There are many, many more which do.
By your logic, this place should have been bought out by McDonalds years ago: http://www.louislunch.com/

Screw the law, the law says that I can be arrested for "refusing to stop" in some parts, for sitting or lying down in public if I look like a transient. The law says the gov't can spy on me without a warrant, strip me of constitutional rights if I'm subpoenaed to a grand jury. On and on.

And you can't have a group live together without one. QED. Game over.

Basically, it would a dictatorship that allowed people to do almost anything they wanted- except vote. You could marry whomever you wanted, have sex with whomever you wanted (in both cases, provided both people consented), do whatever you wanted with your body, say whatever you wanted, worship whatever you wanted, spend your money however you want, etc. Local governments would have a little autonomy, and would be able to decide by popular vote what economic system they wanted.
Doesn't libertarianism assume capitalist free-market exchanges to be the default mode of trade?

Doesn't libertarianism assume capitalist free-market exchanges to be the default mode of trade?

Yes. The country as a whole would have free trade, but individual communities would decide their economic policies, so if anyone was dissatisfied because their area was too socialist or capitalist, they could move.

Yes. The country as a whole would have free trade, but individual communities would decide their economic policies, so if anyone was dissatisfied because their area was too socialist or capitalist, they could move.
So basically it's a combination of the merits of libertarianism and the benefits of having a government as the provider of law and order.

Not based on charisma, but it is a factor. However, it's mostly been voting for the lesser evil.

"Lesser evil"? What did you have against Gore and Kerry?

Um... most people *don't* like the idea that an angry person is running the country. They'll never win by alienating more voters.

"Anger" is peripheral, really. The problem with the Democrats is two-fold:

1. They are cowardly. They are afraid of attacking the Republicans on actual policy, even when the Republicans just ask for it.
2. They are incompetent. They have no coherent message of their own.

The two reinforce each other; the incoherence leads to cowardice, and the cowardice to incoherence.

If the Democrats solved those two problems, the anger of the liberal left would be seen as justified, instead of as pure hatred of Bush.

So? He also had a style of leadership that's been sorely missing in the DEMs. Kennedy had another style, but it was still leadership. Ditto Reagan.
Johnson & Carter, Ford & Bush 41, IMHO, were not leaders so much as they were just the guys who made the cut.

This is the problem with this country. We want "leadership." We want "charisma." We want "character." We want "values."

None of that matters. Mao had all four. So did Stalin and Hitler. What matters is policy, policy that WE should be in charge of, not some politician we trust because he manages to portray himself as trustworthy.

"Oh, that candidate is more attractive!" "Oh, that candidate is tougher!" "Oh, that candidate has better moral standards!" "Oh, that candidate can hold his own in a debate!" "Oh, that candidate is good with the media!"

Why should we CARE?

So basically it's a combination of the merits of libertarianism and the benefits of having a government as the provider of law and order.

Basically.

Basically.
Are there any good books on the matter which go into great detail as to the operation of such a state?

Vote Rebulican

The freaking supream court has been legislating from the bench under the democrates. It is not their place to do so.

I say we line up the democratic party.... and "re-educate" them....:sniper:

Your counter-case might have merit if not for the fact that decades after MLK's efforts the socio-economic status of US citizens wasnt so strongly correlated to race...

Oh? You mean the fact that there are proportionally more middle class and upper class non-whites today that there ever have been before? :rolleyes:

...if gay marriage were an acutuality and women had no fear of their reproductivity being controlled rather than having their reproductive rights constantly under siege..

An actuality? Huh?
The subject has been around for a *very* short time in the public forum. That's like demanding for women's lib in 1838. Things take TIME.

Constantly under siege? Okay, two points: 1) Roe v Wade is still the law of the land. 2) WTF makes you think that is a right? Under some people's opinions, that's murder. Right now, it's legal.

...if these were the rule rather than being so noteworthy simply because they are so exceptionally at odds with the 'rule'...


What "rule" are you talking about? My friend who is running his consulting practice in NYC and went from nothing ten years ago and is now grossing $12 million? Or my boss at my first job who started an environmental research firm and grew it from 3 employees to 115 in 5 years?


Or how one can possibly build a fair and free society when the law is a mechanism that seems to primarily favour and maintain the inequalities of the status quo.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The law is what allows you to post here and walk in public with a reasonable expectation of safety.
Show me a lawless society that lasted any significant amount of time.

The freaking supream court has been legislating from the bench under the democrates. It is not their place to do so.

Provide a few examples, please.

Oh? You mean the fact that there are proportionally more middle class and upper class non-whites today that there ever have been before? :rolleyes:

The proportions haven't changed all that much over the past four decades.

A tiny trickle has gone higher than ever before, and symbolically at least that is important, but the structures of racism and race privilege remain strongly in place.

"Lesser evil"? What did you have against Gore and Kerry?

Gore was simple -- his wife. I'm pro Bill of Rights. She's pro censorship. Tack in his refusal to have Clinton help him (or Clintons refusal to do so, either way)... that doesn't inspire confidence.

Kerry literally was three day old oatmeal. As much as I didn't care for Bush, I really didn't have any faith in Kerry... and I'd picked him during the Democratic Primaries as someone I'd vote for. (Gephart scares the bejesus out of me).

"Anger" is peripheral, really. The problem with the Democrats is two-fold:

1. They are cowardly. They are afraid of attacking the Republicans on actual policy, even when the Republicans just ask for it.
2. They are incompetent. They have no coherent message of their own.

The two reinforce each other; the incoherence leads to cowardice, and the cowardice to incoherence.

Not how I'd word it, but that's pretty close.

If the Democrats solved those two problems, the anger of the liberal left would be seen as justified, instead of as pure hatred of Bush.

IMHO, punditry on either side sucks. ;)

This is the problem with this country. We want "leadership." We want "charisma." We want "character." We want "values."

None of that matters. Mao had all four. So did Stalin and Hitler. What matters is policy, policy that WE should be in charge of, not some politician we trust because he manages to portray himself as trustworthy.

"Oh, that candidate is more attractive!" "Oh, that candidate is tougher!" "Oh, that candidate has better moral standards!" "Oh, that candidate can hold his own in a debate!" "Oh, that candidate is good with the media!"

Why should we CARE?

Because that is the way of man. As long as he has enough, he's generally happy enough. Revolutions occur in the middle, not at the top or the bottom.

Gore was simple -- his wife. I'm pro Bill of Rights. She's pro censorship.

You didn't vote for Gore over the censorship issue, of all things? And you thought a president beloved of the religious fundamentalists, the president who appointed John Ashcroft as Attorney General, is going to be any better?

But we agree on Tipper Gore, though, censorship is stupid.

Tack in his refusal to have Clinton help him (or Clintons refusal to do so, either way)... that doesn't inspire confidence.

Yes, that was a dumb campaign error.

Kerry literally was three day old oatmeal. As much as I didn't care for Bush, I really didn't have any faith in Kerry... and I'd picked him during the Democratic Primaries as someone I'd vote for. (Gephart scares the bejesus out of me).

You didn't have any faith in him? What does that mean? What did you think of his policy stances?

(For what it's worth, I voted for David Cobb, the Green Party candidate; I don't mean to imply that I particularly like Kerry.)

IMHO, punditry on either side sucks. ;)

Most of it is stupid and sensationalist, yes.

Because that is the way of man. As long as he has enough, he's generally happy enough. Revolutions occur in the middle, not at the top or the bottom.

But we have a country that's not content, that doesn't trust the government, that dislikes both parties, that is mired in both public and private debt, that has numerous crises waiting around the corner... yet we rely on a bunch of incompetents who never even say what they're going to do to run things.

The lack of democracy in this country, whatever the electoral forms, is sometimes almost astounding.

The proportions haven't changed all that much over the past four decades.

A tiny trickle has gone higher than ever before, and symbolically at least that is important, but the structures of racism and race privilege remain strongly in place.

If you're trying to tell me that life for a minority today is as bad or worse than it was anytime before... say 1984, 1974, 1920... then I'd say you've got a pretty strange POV.

I believe the only purpose a government should have is maintaining law and order. Everything else should be left up to the individual.

Yah. Not to be a pedant, in a state that observes the rule of law, that is always the only function. ;)

If you're trying to tell me that life for a minority today is as bad or worse than it was anytime before... say 1984, 1974, 1920... then I'd say you've got a pretty strange POV.

Oh, it's definitely better. Overt racism and legal discrimination are both dying, the latter more than the former.

But in purely economic terms, relative to the rest of the country the position of, say, the Black community isn't all that much better than it was decades ago. We've had a lot of progress in some areas, but not in that one.

Yah. Not to be a pedant, in a state that observes the rule of law, that is always the only function. ;)
Maybe in the future this will be a reality. :)

Who said anything about fun? This is a war. You'll find that even extremists start changing their minds quickly enough once they know there is a very real risk of dying like common thugs, which for the most part they are. Just make nothing special of it.
I think that just shows the lack of understanding you have for what is happening. You think these guys care if they are martyred?

Maybe in the future this will be a reality. :)

In reality, the US does this right now. The problem is that people have widely different conceptions of what 'law and order' means.

In reality, the US does this right now. The problem is that people have widely different conceptions of what 'law and order' means.
Yet doesn't it also have a government debt that accounts for 40% of its GDP? If it were just providing law and order as an ultraminimal government one would think this wouldn't even exceed 15%.

You didn't vote for Gore over the censorship issue, of all things? And you thought a president beloved of the religious fundamentalists, the president who appointed John Ashcroft as Attorney General, is going to be any better?

Yes.
Ashcroft? That's hindsight. And the religious right ALWAYS votes GOP. I ignore them anyway.

But we agree on Tipper Gore, though, censorship is stupid.


You didn't have any faith in him? What does that mean? What did you think of his policy stances?
(For what it's worth, I voted for David Cobb, the Green Party candidate; I don't mean to imply that I particularly like Kerry.)

*I didn't like his swapping POVs on the war... his campaign staff should have been shot for that. Hey, I *still* haven't heard what his plan was to clean up Iraq. :(
*He opposes the death penalty.
*Wanted to give $50 billion more money to states with budget deficits. I live in Connecticut, where we already get back the LEAST amount of cash from our tax dollars.
*Pro gun control. I consider that the same as censorship.

Now, I did like some of his energy policies, and his idea to give free college tuition for civil service.

But we have a country that's not content, that doesn't trust the government, that dislikes both parties, that is mired in both public and private debt, that has numerous crises waiting around the corner... yet we rely on a bunch of incompetents who never even say what they're going to do to run things.

The lack of democracy in this country, whatever the electoral forms, is sometimes almost astounding.

You think it's ever been any different? :(

Yet doesn't it also have a government debt that accounts for 40% of its GDP? If it were just providing law and order as an ultraminimal government one would think this wouldn't even exceed 15%.

That's the problem. 'Law and Order' currently encompasses far more than just keeping the peace.

Civil rights, environmental protection, anti-trust, the SEC, the FCC, the NEA, & nauseum, are all creations of, and subject to the law. And are purportedly there to maintain order. Moreover, they are a creation of a government that supposedly is limited.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for small government, I just am not so sure that the libertarian party - the US version at least - is philisohpically that different from the other two at heart.

If it were just providing law and order as an ultraminimal government one would think this wouldn't even exceed 15%.
Australia's government isn't ultraminimal, and I'm not sure they actually have any debt left at all.

But ultimately Lacadaemon is right: The services the government provides are defined by the people who want them. Most people vote for governments who do more than your average anarcho-capitalist/radical libertarian would want. There is nothing wrong with that - it's a majority decision.
You personally can try and convince people of the opposite, but I don't really see a basis for believing that a society in which every man and woman has to do everything in their lives themselves, where the only security and certainty in your life is that which you can yourself organise would really find much support. People are lazy.

That's the problem. 'Law and Order' currently encompasses far more than just keeping the peace.

Civil rights, environmental protection, anti-trust, the SEC, the FCC, the NEA, & nauseum, are all creations of, and subject to the law. And are purportedly there to maintain order. Moreover, they are a creation of a government that supposedly is limited.
Indeed. The government can create laws as it pleases, so long as they fit certain criteria. All it should be doing is ensuring that individual liberties are not violated and that all is orderly.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for small government, I just am not so sure that the libertarian party - the US version at least - is philisohpically that different from the other two at heart.
I'm not too familiar with the US version of it, but as an idea in itself it's fervently against big government, so I take to it very well.

The thing with america is it has all the bad things that any democracy has, for america it is simply in it's advance stages.

It might sound wired but i think democracy just isint the answer anymore.

Bush is using religion as a excuse for his behavior.

Remeber dont see a man by his words but by his actions.

But ultimately Lacadaemon is right: The services the government provides are defined by the people who want them. Most people vote for governments who do more than your average anarcho-capitalist/radical libertarian would want. There is nothing wrong with that - it's a majority decision.
You personally can try and convince people of the opposite, but I don't really see a basis for believing that a society in which every man and woman has to do everything in their lives themselves, where the only security and certainty in your life is that which you can yourself organise would really find much support. People are lazy.
Anarcho-capitalism does indeed take it a step too far. For that reason I stressed.

First let me remind you that slavery is long since over,
And so....?

and there are plenty of well inforced anti-dsicrinmination laws (if you doubt this just check a few court dockets).
Which only proves there are plenty of discriminatory practises that it has become necessary to legislate against...

We need not talk about slavery, we recognize that during that injustices were being done.

So; slavery is 'long since over' and 'you' (as in "we", whoever that is) recognise that during slavery injustices were done. And this is relevent because.....?

Capitalism is a level playing feild anyone can innovate, anyone can try to start a company, yes a large number of startups fail, but upon study one will find that the failure rate does not have any gender, ethnic, or religious corolation.
What on earth do you think you mean by capitalism. The theory as formulated according to 'ideal world' circumstances, some political ideology, a particular real world example of capitalism?
As it happens 'studies' have found that 'having an accent' and 'skin colour' can effect one's prospects in many areas (including housing, employment and business). How exaxctly is it you imagine whatever it is you mean by 'capitalism' will cause people to become colour-blind?

We do reward everyone. if you dissagree one thing I request of you is just tell me about your plan for a better system.
Whether or not there is another plan for a better system, much less whether or not I in particular happen to be the one who has it, doesnt prove anything of relevence to my comments whatsoever.

If you can not think of one then why would want to go to another system because it could only get worse.
Your above argument is logically invalid.

The people are lazy when it comes to government because the government has given them the feelling that "One vote dosnt change anything" so in countries with non-compulsary voting the majority is not represented.

The only thing a agree about here in australia is that voting is compulsary so it's our fault if some idiot wins (like john Howard).

Yes. Ashcroft? That's hindsight. And the religious right ALWAYS votes GOP. I ignore them anyway.

And the Republicans always pander to them (somewhat) while in ofifce.

*I didn't like his swapping POVs on the war... his campaign staff should have been shot for that. Hey, I *still* haven't heard what his plan was to clean up Iraq. :(

Fair enough.

*He opposes the death penalty.

No, he doesn't. He opposed it years ago, then changed his view.

You think it's ever been any different? :(

In this country? Yes. The 1932 election is a clear example. But it is definitely rare.

Sorry for being so confrontational, I seem to be in that mood today.

Edit: In regard to that last point, I mean electorally; in terms of popular (meaning grass-roots, not necessarily majority-based) movements, the history is far more inspiring.

I'm not too familiar with the US version of it, but as an idea in itself it's fervently against big government, so I take to it very well.

Yes, but the platform is really just a bit of a philosophical exercise; it's all very John Rawls in that sense. It would be fine if they were setting up a society from scratch, but the plain fact is, if they were ever elected, like all previous governments, they would inherit a running society and its just not feasible to completely disentangle things overnight.

And they don't really propose any radical changes in the structure or theoretical powers of government (although I believe the texas branch wants independence or something). Granted they may disestablish some government departments, or repeal the progressive income tax, but the inherent power to reconsitute them will still be there. And so, because of the problems that they would enter office - theoretically - with, I think it will mean that it would be more of the same. Especially as I don't beleive that they have worked out all the details of how to address competing interests that arise in even a limited government. (For example some of the conflicts between a free market economic system, and and national security - which they support furvently).

For example, I don't imagine they would actually be able to repeal the income tax in short order. Nor could they end public education, as they sometimes promise.

I'm not against their platform per se. I am just a realist about it, and don't think it would lead to the type of revolutionary changes that it claims.

I'm not against their platform per se. I am just a realist about it, and don't think it would lead to the type of revolutionary changes that it claims.
Not unless it goes about it slowly and steadily. For the time being, it won't bring about any manifest change. I would be interested in seeing a libertarian minimal state being set up though as a kind of experiment.

Not unless it goes about it slowly and steadily. For the time being, it won't bring about any manifest change. I would be interested in seeing a libertarian minimal state being set up though as a kind of experiment.

I would be interested too. Partly because I think it would promote a culture of responsible adults (which we don't seem to have now). But mostly because I am generally not in favor of the way governments run around 'fixing' things. It's all so pointless.

Also, too often, people seem to view government as a mechanism to enforce their own proletarian standards of morality on everyone else. Often to bizzare extremes. I once met a fellow who felt medical marijuana is a bad thing, because people might fake terminal brain cancer so they could illicitly smoke weed. Really, WTF?

I would be interested too. Partly because I think it would promote a culture of responsible adults (which we don't seem to have now). But mostly because I am generally not in favor of the way governments run around 'fixing' things. It's all so pointless.
My sentiments exactly. :)

Also, too often, people seem to view government as a mechanism to enforce their own proletarian standards of morality on everyone else. Often to bizzare extremes. I once met a fellow who felt medical marijuana is a bad thing, because people might fake terminal brain cancer so they could illicitly smoke weed. Really, WTF?
Indeed. And in some cases it gives way to majoritarian dictatorships. It might be the only workable solution for the time being, but in the future I would like to see a change.

BTW I wonder if that fellow hadn't had some weed himself before making that statement. :p

Oh? You mean the fact that there are proportionally more middle class and upper class non-whites today that there ever have been before? :rolleyes:
You mean you think the fact that something is 'less unequal' is the same as it being 'equal'?

An actuality? Huh?
The subject has been around for a *very* short time in the public forum. That's like demanding for women's lib in 1838. Things take TIME.
Why has it being around for a short time? Because homosexual people suddenly popped up into existence?

Constantly under siege? Okay, two points: 1) Roe v Wade is still the law of the land. 2)
And so? I make no reference to any ultimate outcome, I stated that such rights were under siege.
Are you suggesting there have been no 'pro-life' marches? Are you suggesting that there is no pressure from within the US aimed at the abolishment of Roe v Wae, or that doctors have not been threatened, clinics picketed and in some cases violence commited against persons and/or property?
WTF makes you think that is a right? Under some people's opinions, that's murder. Right now, it's legal.
The fact it is the law, what on earth do you think a right is? Or are you confused as to the difference between 'is a right', and 'is right'?

What "rule" are you talking about? My friend who is running his consulting practice in NYC and went from nothing ten years ago and is now grossing $12 million?
The 'rule' being a commen vaguely metaphoric referent referring to the 'majority/typical' example/tendancy.
The vast, overwhelming majority of people do not 'gross $12 million at any point in their working career.

Or my boss at my first job who started an environmental research firm and grew it from 3 employees to 115 in 5 years?
And so? I have no idea what you imagine an anecdote that implies inequality disproves with regards to my comments...

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The law is what allows you to post here and walk in public with a reasonable expectation of safety.
No it isnt.
Show me a lawless society that lasted any significant amount of time.
Explain to me how that is relevent...?

BTW I wonder if that fellow hadn't had some weed himself before making that statement. :p

No. He's just really thick. Unfortunately he votes religiously. Especially on complicated ballot issues he has no hope of ever understanding.

No. He's just really thick. Unfortunately he votes religiously. Especially on complicated ballot issues he has no hope of ever understanding.
The double-edged blade of democracy. Even an idiot has a say in a matter. Oh well. Anyway, I am off for now. See you around. :)

"How to repair America?"

Simple:

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/1333/prez9vq.jpg

One click and America is fixed.

ROFL! Nice picture.

By the way, I've noticed that no one has commented or replied to my statement. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10490140&postcount=76) Was it that good of an argument? :eek:

But for those who think that there is something wrong with the country, with the way the government is run, with attitudes perhaps, what do you think can be done to make it better?
Vote Democrat. :)

There really isn't much you can do, at all. Just live with it and criticize fruitlessly.
Neither of those things will change anything.

The American political system is locked so that no amount of campaigning can ever change the interests of the two nearly nearly identical parties. You will just have to keep electing Republicrats forever.

Unfortunately the only solution may be violent revolution.

Send Bush and his fellow loonies to hell.
Don't let the other big party (Democrats) get to power either, they're not that different...
Rather, give the power to one of the small parties (Socialists or Greens), then chances are goof that the US won't totally go down the drain.

And the Republicans always pander to them (somewhat) while in ofifce.

True, but that's no worse that the DEMs pandering the Union vote.

No, he doesn't. He opposed it years ago, then changed his view.

...that's the problem. At least with Bush I knew the evil I was voting for. Kerry changed positions on so many issues over time, but in 2004 (at least according to the NYT articles I was reading at the time) he was anti-death penalty. Perhaps he changed it during the campaign, but that wouldn't disuade me. I'd decided by like August that I couldn't vote for him.
I'd rather KENNEDY had run. At least I know where he stands on everything. :D

In this country? Yes. The 1932 election is a clear example. But it is definitely rare.


Right... that was over 70 years ago. In general (in my studies of history), I've decided that mankind has always been about this screwed up.

Sorry for being so confrontational, I seem to be in that mood today.

Not at all!

Edit: In regard to that last point, I mean electorally; in terms of popular (meaning grass-roots, not necessarily majority-based) movements, the history is far more inspiring.

I hate to quote Billy Joel, but "the good old days weren't always good, tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems."

Send Bush and his fellow loonies to hell.
Don't let the other big party (Democrats) get to power either, they're not that different...
Rather, give the power to one of the small parties (Socialists or Greens), then chances are goof that the US won't totally go down the drain.

This from someone in a country that couldn't even elect a single leader in the last election. ROTFLMAO.

Vote Democrat. :)

There really isn't much you can do, at all. Just live with it and criticize fruitlessly.

Sure you could vote democrat, but your vote doesn't matter. If anyone's vote mattered, we wouldn't need the electoral college. They are the one's whose vote matters. Sure they are supposed to vote the way their state votes, but that doesn't mean they have to.

So first we would need to ge rid of the electoral college. Then we need to adopt a new government, one that embraces life instead of money. Geniocracy Project (http://www.geniocracy.net/index.htm) This is a good place to read about it. I think that only those with the intelligence should be able to vote, and this is the government that supports that. Every educated vote is 'nixed' by an uneducated vote. It's not your 'right' to vote, it is a privelage. And some form of birth control should be implemented. Right now, we are just breeding away our resources like a wildfire. Pretty soon there won't be room to move, all because someone feels that they should be allowed to have 50 kids.

If you are on government assistance, and have a kid, you lose those benefits. If you are able to get knocked up, then you are able to get a job; these people are lazy, and drain the economy.

You mean you think the fact that something is 'less unequal' is the same as it being 'equal'?

I mean that as long as you have a currency based economy there will be inequality. QED. Over the long haul, however, things balance out.

Why has it being around for a short time? Because homosexual people suddenly popped up into existence?

Because it was sociallogically unacceptable. There is a reason why (for example) issues come up at certain times in history. There has NEVER BEEN any society that was (for lack of a better word) "Pro-homosexuality". Brokeback Mountain, had it been made in 1956, would have been branded a deviate film and the whole crew likely ended up in jail.
Human societies evolve. Revolution is an abnormality -- you just don't see people willing to die for most causes.

And so? I make no reference to any ultimate outcome, I stated that such rights were under siege.

Then post examples to clarify your point, or don't make it. I can just as easily say that my Second Amendment Rights to keep and bear arms are constantly under siege. So what? You're not making a case with that.

Are you suggesting there have been no 'pro-life' marches? Are you suggesting that there is no pressure from within the US aimed at the abolishment of Roe v Wae, or that doctors have not been threatened, clinics picketed and in some cases violence commited against persons and/or property?

Are you suggesting that people not be allowed to protest against things they consider wrong? Or that people should not be allowed to lobby to change the law? Or that there is no other crime in the nation?
Of *course* all that you wrote exists. By the same token, there are people out there telling me I can't own a machine gun, lobbying to make all guns illegal, and go out with pots and pans to scare away game during hunting season. They have shot at hunters.

The fact it is the law, what on earth do you think a right is? Or are you confused as to the difference between 'is a right', and 'is right'?

My rights are in the Bill of Rights. It is the highest law of the land. Laws can change -- if this were 1930, I couldn't have a beer. Was taking away my right to consume alcohol a right for someone else?
I don't think so.
As for "is a right" or "is a right" -- who are you to tell me what is right? :rolleyes: Did someone ordain you with the one truth?!?

The 'rule' being a commen vaguely metaphoric referent referring to the 'majority/typical' example/tendancy.
The vast, overwhelming majority of people do not 'gross $12 million at any point in their working career.

But your point was small businesses not succeeding, in clear evidence that they do. All ventures have risk, yet companies grow and prosper. Not all, but many. Then again, there is no right to automatically live richly.
As for people, no. But very few get stuck grossing $11,000 per year for life, either.

And so? I have no idea what you imagine an anecdote that implies inequality disproves with regards to my comments...

What the heck do you expect? I'm drawing from life experience, here. Am I to just take you at your word your rantings about inequality, while all I see in my life is opportunity?
As for your comments, I've yet to see you actually post any examples OF said inequality.

No it isnt.
Then what does? You think life is inherently safe? Go move to Zambia.

Explain to me how that is relevent...?
Your point was that the law doesn't keep society functioning. My challenge for you is to point out where any society has functioned without law.

If you don't see the relevance, I'm afraid we're done.

This from someone in a country that couldn't even elect a single leader in the last election. ROTFLMAO.
Ahem, what was that for?

The German political system, and particularly the electoral system, works completely different from the American one. The fact is that neither party managed to convince the public, and the election results reflected that.

And so far at least, the Germans seem quite happy with the way things have worked out.
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,403058,00.html

Ahem, what was that for?

The German political system, and particularly the electoral system, works completely different from the American one. The fact is that neither party managed to convince the public, and the election results reflected that.

It was to point out that the US, for whatever flaws in it's system, at least decideds on one leader. Minor parties with just about zero strength aren't going to help the situation. Never mind that the Greens are too radical for most Americans... never mind the Socialists, but I digress. Or that the Greens and Socialists are minority parties in Germany, too.

In essence, his post would amount to the same thing as me saying that all of Germany's problems would be solved if they'd just all voted for Partei Bibeltreuer Christen. :D


And so far at least, the Germans seem quite happy with the way things have worked out.
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,403058,00.html
Yes, I'm well aware of the German situation. And I shake my head it wonder of it. We'll have to look back sometime in 2010 or so to see if it worked or not.

I believe the only purpose a government should have is maintaining law and order. Everything else should be left up to the individual.
Sounds too minimal for me. I like having a military, for instance.

-snip-
would be able to decide by popular vote what economic system they wanted.
Are you a complete ideologue? Most people vote on issues, not ideologies.

There has NEVER BEEN any society that was (for lack of a better word) "Pro-homosexuality".
How about Ancient Sparta?

Vote Rebulican

The freaking supream court has been legislating from the bench under the democrates. It is not their place to do so.

I say we line up the democratic party.... and "re-educate" them....:sniper:
Yay, totalitarianism!

How about Ancient Sparta?


Do you have any proof?
There is no Spartan/Laconian pottery with explicitly homosexual motifs—as there is from Athens and Corinth and other cities. However, neither Athens nor Corinth were pro-homosexuality, either.

Also, since women in Sparta were the most free and integrated and sociallogically bachelorhood was considered a disgrace... these argue against that. Further, the Spartan "Constitution" certainly didn't spell it out.

Torture in the name of freedom (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,401899,00.html)

Okay, so I know that many of you don't think it needs repairing, which is fair enough, I suppose.

But for those who think that there is something wrong with the country, with the way the government is run, with attitudes perhaps, what do you think can be done to make it better?

What can you personally as a person do? We are good at criticising, but what can we in the real world do to make things better?

*Sigh* This isnt the late 18th century anymore. Times have changed and America has adapted to thrive in that change. We arnt a backward, isolationist, recently former colony anymore. We are the worlds most industrialized, power and the worlds only super power. America cannot be like it used to. You want America to look for its fountain of youth, but, well, the fountain of youth is all but a fairy tale. I suppose everyone would like to remain young, but aging and change is an inevitability, is it not?

Do you have any proof?
There is no Spartan/Laconian pottery with explicitly homosexual motifs—as there is from Athens and Corinth and other cities. However, neither Athens nor Corinth were pro-homosexuality, either.
You mean, like this one:
http://www.livius.org/ho-hz/homosexuality/lovers2_s.JPG
From a vase in the Lourve, Paris.

I'd say considering that the eminent fighting unit in Sparta was the Sacred Band, which consisted of 150 homosexual couples, is a good indication that Sparta was fairly comfortable with the idea of homosexuality.

You mean, like this one:
http://www.livius.org/ho-hz/homosexuality/lovers2_s.JPG
From a vase in the Lourve, Paris.

I'd say considering that the eminent fighting unit in Sparta was the Sacred Band, which consisted of 150 homosexual couples, is a good indication that Sparta was fairly comfortable with the idea of homosexuality.

Sacred Bands were from Thebes, not Sparta.

And being comfortable is one thing. Being a state that's being run as pro-homosexual is another.

True, but that's no worse that the DEMs pandering the Union vote.

I wish they would. I might consider voting for them if they did. Swing the balance in the question of labor v. capital towards labor is an important goal.

...that's the problem. At least with Bush I knew the evil I was voting for. Kerry changed positions on so many issues over time, but in 2004 (at least according to the NYT articles I was reading at the time) he was anti-death penalty. Perhaps he changed it during the campaign, but that wouldn't disuade me. I'd decided by like August that I couldn't vote for him.
I'd rather KENNEDY had run. At least I know where he stands on everything. :D

I remember him having the pro-death penalty position during the primaries, it was one of a number of reasons I didn't like him.


Right... that was over 70 years ago. In general (in my studies of history), I've decided that mankind has always been about this screwed up.

I don't think so. We have screwed up institutions, but repeatedly people have done pretty heroic and impressive things.

I hate to quote Billy Joel, but "the good old days weren't always good, tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems."

I strongly agree with the first part of that, and desperately hope that the second part is also true.

I mean that as long as you have a currency based economy there will be inequality. QED. Over the long haul, however, things balance out.
Not so far as race is concerned. There is a direct correlation between race and inequality in the US, nothing you have said undermines, much less counters this point. I never suggested that this correlation was static, or that there should not be inequality, so why you think that pointing out otherwise is relevent to my comments I can only guess.

Because it was sociallogically unacceptable.
In other words for fear of unequal treatment. Which really only proves my point regarding the history of the US.


There has NEVER BEEN any society that was (for lack of a better word) "Pro-homosexuality"

There have been societies in which no stigma was attached to homosexuality. In fact there were such societies in the Americas when the 'white folk' arrived...

Brokeback Mountain, had it been made in 1956, would have been branded a deviate film and the whole crew likely ended up in jail.
Which does nothing whatsoever to disprove that the US was built on inequality.

Human societies evolve. Revolution is an abnormality -- you just don't see people willing to die for most causes.
Which disproves that the US was built on inequality how exactly?

Then post examples to clarify your point, or don't make it. I can just as easily say that my Second Amendment Rights to keep and bear arms are constantly under siege.
I did post examples, you must have seen them since you replied to them. As for the Second Amendment Rights to bear arms, yes I would agree that they are under siege.

So what? You're not making a case with that.
Of course I am not making a point with the fact that the Second Amendment Rights you refer to are under seige because frankly it's not relevent to this particular discussion so far as I can see.

Are you suggesting that people not be allowed to protest against things they consider wrong? Or that people should not be allowed to lobby to change the law? Or that there is no other crime in the nation?
No, I am suggesting that such activities demonstrate the controversy surrounding the rights being discussed - in other words I was providing the example you ask for in your comments....as I point out above clearly you saw the example because here I am responding to your strawman strike that apparently constitutes your response to it.

Of *course* all that you wrote exists. By the same token, there are people out there telling me I can't own a machine gun, lobbying to make all guns illegal, and go out with pots and pans to scare away game during hunting season. They have shot at hunters.
And so? In what shape or form do you imagine that this disproves anything I have said in my comments. Really what did the strawman do to you that you feel such a need to keep beating up on it?

My rights are in the Bill of Rights. It is the highest law of the land. Laws can change -- if this were 1930, I couldn't have a beer. Was taking away my right to consume alcohol a right for someone else?
What on earth are you on about? If there was a law against drinking beer, then it wasnt a right so long as that law remained.

I don't think so.
As for "is a right" or "is a right" -- who are you to tell me what is right? :rolleyes: Did someone ordain you with the one truth?!?
Again what on earth are you on about. I told you that something is a right, not that it is right. Are you really unable to differentiate between 'people had a right to own slaves prior to emancipation' and 'it was right to own slaves prior to emancipation'?

But your point was small businesses not succeeding, in clear evidence that they do.
No it wasnt. I never made such a point nor do any of my arguments rely on the premise 'small business doesnt succeed' being true.

All ventures have risk, yet companies grow and prosper. Not all, but many. Then again, there is no right to automatically live richly.
As for people, no. But very few get stuck grossing $11,000 per year for life, either.
Which is neither here nor there so far as my comments are concerned. What is relevent is the correlation between for instance race and poverty.

What the heck do you expect? I'm drawing from life experience, here. Am I to just take you at your word your rantings about inequality, while all I see in my life is opportunity?
Lets say you used statistics instead - I have no idea what you imagine statistics proving inequality disproves with regards to my comments...

As for your comments, I've yet to see you actually post any examples OF said inequality.
You dont think slavery is an example of inequality, or do you not understand the difference between 'was built' and 'currently is in every way shape and form'?

Then what does? You think life is inherently safe? Go move to Zambia.
A whole bunch of things. Life isnt inherently safe whether there is law or not. More to the point, it's besides the point. The fact that some laws can be positive does not negate the fact that laws can be negative.

Your point was that the law doesn't keep society functioning.
No actually that wasnt my point at all.

My challenge for you is to point out where any society has functioned without law.
Mbuti, Dobe Ju/'hoansi.

If you don't see the relevance, I'm afraid we're done.
Why? Because you cant explain the relevence?

It was to point out that the US, for whatever flaws in it's system, at least decideds on one leader.
So does the German system. Except we don't vote for individuals (which pretty much always leads to elections based on charisma and charme rather than competence...) but on parties. It still can come out the same, but at least it forces people to pay even more attention to party politics and actual substance.
What happened this time is that no party got an absolute majority. Your party or your coalition of parties needs to have a certain percentage of the seats in the Bundestag to be able to vote in a Chancellor and rule the country. No coalition managed to do so, thus forcing the two biggest parties to rule together - which may arguably be what the German people wanted.

Minor parties with just about zero strength aren't going to help the situation. Never mind that the Greens are too radical for most Americans... never mind the Socialists, but I digress. Or that the Greens and Socialists are minority parties in Germany, too.
But unlike in the US, they do play a pretty big role. Usually they are the ones who make or break Chancellorships by either entering or refusing a coalition.
And I like how you ignored the FDP in this...they were the big winners in the last election, and I would think their platform might have been quite popular in the States.

I suppose everyone would like to remain young, but aging and change is an inevitability, is it not?
It's one thing to change to accomodate for things like environmental protection, or human rights, but it's an entirely different thing to start excusing torture as legitimate, and giving the Vice President powers he was never meant to have (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,402588,00.html), and which potentially turn the whole system upside down.

Maybe in the future the vice president will be the guy you really vote on, while the prez will just be a figure head, like the queen in Britain or the president in Germany.

Sounds too minimal for me. I like having a military, for instance.

So do I.

Maybe in the future the vice president will be the guy you really vote on, while the prez will just be a figure head, like the queen in Britain or the president in Germany.

Why the hell does Germany even have a President? :confused:

So does the German system. Except we don't vote for individuals (which pretty much always leads to elections based on charisma and charme rather than competence...) but on parties. It still can come out the same, but at least it forces people to pay even more attention to party politics and actual substance.
What happened this time is that no party got an absolute majority. Your party or your coalition of parties needs to have a certain percentage of the seats in the Bundestag to be able to vote in a Chancellor and rule the country. No coalition managed to do so, thus forcing the two biggest parties to rule together - which may arguably be what the German people wanted.
I love the German system. We, like the French, have a mix of presidential-parliamentarian. I don't know about France (though I remember Jospin was campaigning to have it changed), but lemme tell you: ours sucks.

Why the hell does Germany even have a President? :confused:
Because someone has to live in Schloss Bellevue (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Berlin-Schloss_Bellevue-Frontalansicht.jpg).

Take big money out of government. Most of our problems are created by the big lobbyists -> big money -> big votes cycle that is going on.

Unions and big businesses are paying money out the ass for beneficial legislation, while the recipients of that money use it to convince the voters that they control the legislation.

with regards to the whole sessesion thing, i think California could pull it off if they wanted. Theyve got military bases to commandeer, and can function on thier own economically. Plus, they're far enough away from the prez's opinions to have a reason to do it

What happened this time is that no party got an absolute majority. Your party or your coalition of parties needs to have a certain percentage of the seats in the Bundestag to be able to vote in a Chancellor and rule the country. No coalition managed to do so, thus forcing the two biggest parties to rule together - which may arguably be what the German people wanted.

It probably wasn't. If the Linkspartei seats had gone to the SPD, a very different political scene would have resulted. Together, the Greens, the SPD, and the Linkspartei had enough seats to form a majority coalition, and it's likely that pretty much none of those who voted for those parties were particularly eager for a CDU Chancellor.

But unlike in the US, they do play a pretty big role. Usually they are the ones who make or break Chancellorships by either entering or refusing a coalition.

Only they're right social democrats, not socialists, and are considerably to the right of the SPUSA. If organized labor were a lot stronger in the US, the Democratic Party would probably have a similar ideology.

I don't know about France (though I remember Jospin was campaigning to have it changed), but lemme tell you: ours sucks.

At least the French have presidential runoffs, allowing the full span of the political spectrum to be expressed in serious parties. We just have an annoying winner-take-all system, plus an even more annoying (if less important) Electoral College addition.

Torture in the name of freedom (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,401899,00.html)

Okay, so I know that many of you don't think it needs repairing, which is fair enough, I suppose.

But for those who think that there is something wrong with the country, with the way the government is run, with attitudes perhaps, what do you think can be done to make it better?
What can you personally as a person do? We are good at criticising, but what can we in the real world do to make things better?



1. Impeach Bush, Cheney, and Rumsy
2. Vote Democrat
3. Clean up the Supreme Court
4. Pull out of Iraq
5. Sign the Kyoto Protocol
6. Teach the Republicans the mystical, democratic, art of budget balancing
7. Stop being pompous, ethnocentric assholes
8. Fully Separate Church and State - NO Creationism, etc.
9. Shift government funding to social programmes
10. Get Rid of the Electoral College

3. Clean up the Supreme Court


How, pray tell, would you do that? The Justices are in for life. You can't get at them. Do you plan on killing them?

How, pray tell, would you do that? The Justices are in for life. You can't get at them. Do you plan on killing them?

Congress could, say, inflate the number of justices to fifty.

1. Impeach Bush, Cheney, and Rumsy
2. Vote Democrat
3. Clean up the Supreme Court
4. Pull out of Iraq
5. Sign the Kyoto Protocol
6. Teach the Republicans the mystical, democratic, art of budget balancing
7. Stop being pompous, ethnocentric assholes
8. Fully Separate Church and State - NO Creationism, etc.
9. Shift government funding to social programmes
10. Get Rid of the Electoral College

100% great ideas, but it's too late for this place. Just sit on the sideline and watch the Titanic (America) hit the iceberg (Bush, Iraq, Katrina, FEMA, "Prescription Health Plan" -- hell, just pick one).

Seriously, every dog has its day, and America's has past.

So does the German system. Except we don't vote for individuals (which pretty much always leads to elections based on charisma and charme rather than competence...) but on parties. It still can come out the same, but at least it forces people to pay even more attention to party politics and actual substance.

But you're still stuck with a general party profile. I think you'll find that as Democrats go, Carter was not very close to JFK. Likewise, you'll also find that Bush (43) is not very much like Ike.

I'm not saying that one system is better than another. All I'm saying is that the guy who made the post I responded to was talking out of his arse. :D

What happened this time is that no party got an absolute majority. Your party or your coalition of parties needs to have a certain percentage of the seats in the Bundestag to be able to vote in a Chancellor and rule the country. No coalition managed to do so, thus forcing the two biggest parties to rule together - which may arguably be what the German people wanted.

Perhaps. And I have no particular arguement with that.

But unlike in the US, they do play a pretty big role. Usually they are the ones who make or break Chancellorships by either entering or refusing a coalition.

Agreed.

And I like how you ignored the FDP in this...they were the big winners in the last election, and I would think their platform might have been quite popular in the States.

That wasn't the point of my statement, which I suspect you know. I was pointing out that the parties the person in question was fronting were *way* out of the US mainstream.

Not so far as race is concerned. There is a direct correlation between race and inequality in the US, nothing you have said undermines, much less counters this point. I never suggested that this correlation was static, or that there should not be inequality, so why you think that pointing out otherwise is relevent to my comments I can only guess.

Lovely. And I'm still waiting to hear what this correlation you speak of is.

In other words for fear of unequal treatment. Which really only proves my point regarding the history of the US.

LOL! I love that arguement. You may as well be arguing that because slavery is unacceptable today that the US was an evil imperialist power in 1597. :rolleyes:
CMON NOW! Simply put, one CANNOT put modern (ie: current) social norms on the past. It simply doesn't work. If I went back in time (say) to 1782 and asked some Hungarian Duke why my ancestors were being forced labor, I'd be flogged for my insolence and possibly beaten to death. WTF do you expect? That just because something is acceptable now that it is automatically "always ok" in the past!?!?

There have been societies in which no stigma was attached to homosexuality. In fact there were such societies in the Americas when the 'white folk' arrived...

Feel free to name a few. Really. I'm anxious to hear of ANY examples you can provide to ANY of your arguements, as I've heard exactly zero up to now.

Which does nothing whatsoever to disprove that the US was built on inequality.

And? I never claimed it wasn't! If you'll be so kind as to go back and note, I'm making a case for CULTURAL CHANGES, not that the US is some kind of one-shot all-in-one kumbaya fest...

Which disproves that the US was built on inequality how exactly?

Which proves what? You seem to have a fetish of putting my POV in an arguement I have not made.

I did post examples, you must have seen them since you replied to them. As for the Second Amendment Rights to bear arms, yes I would agree that they are under siege.

Where? I saw NO examples, only hubris.

Of course I am not making a point with the fact that the Second Amendment Rights you refer to are under seige because frankly it's not relevent to this particular discussion so far as I can see.

Oy vey! If you can't see the point of that, then I'd have a better change convincing a wall.

No, I am suggesting that such activities demonstrate the controversy surrounding the rights being discussed - in other words I was providing the example you ask for in your comments....as I point out above clearly you saw the example because here I am responding to your strawman strike that apparently constitutes your response to it.

(sigh) Same as above. Do you not agree that my example and your example are basically the same thing? If not, then we may as well be done.

And so? In what shape or form do you imagine that this disproves anything I have said in my comments. Really what did the strawman do to you that you feel such a need to keep beating up on it?

Disproves? Not at all. Just that it's the same shit, different topic.

What on earth are you on about? If there was a law against drinking beer, then it wasnt a right so long as that law remained.

The point was that the right to consume alcohol WAS NOT in the Bill of Rights. Then a law (and Amendment) was passed that made it ILLEGAL.
My point is simply that laws change and can be rewritten. However, to date, there has NEVER been an Amendment that has taken away a right of another original Amendment.

Again what on earth are you on about. I told you that something is a right, not that it is right. Are you really unable to differentiate between 'people had a right to own slaves prior to emancipation' and 'it was right to own slaves prior to emancipation'?

Did you actually read what I posted?

No it wasnt. I never made such a point nor do any of my arguments rely on the premise 'small business doesnt succeed' being true.

Oy vey again. Please re-read what I said with a more open mind.

Which is neither here nor there so far as my comments are concerned. What is relevent is the correlation between for instance race and poverty.

Right. And I'm still waiting for that correlation. You keep talking about it, yet never post any statistics. I keep talking about business, and you brush it off. :p

Lets say you used statistics instead - I have no idea what you imagine statistics proving inequality disproves with regards to my comments...

And I have no idea what you're whipping a dead horses's eyes has to do with anything, either. I keep posting that small businesses DO generally have success, and that most people do climb up the ladder out of poverty. You seem to have an opposite view, but have yet to furnish any counter examples. In fact, according to the US Census, most immigrants break out of the cycle of poverty within one or two generations. http://www.ailf.org/ipc/policy_reports_2003_SuccessOrStagnation.asp

You dont think slavery is an example of inequality, or do you not understand the difference between 'was built' and 'currently is in every way shape and form'?

I don't think you've held a rational arguement. My family came to these shores in 1970. Slavery had been over for over 100 years, and yet we have prospered despite initially not knowing the language. That you believe that slavery is stilll a factor is a joke.

A whole bunch of things. Life isnt inherently safe whether there is law or not. More to the point, it's besides the point. The fact that some laws can be positive does not negate the fact that laws can be negative.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. I ask for an example of a socity that functions without law, you balk while stating that law does not keep a society together. :headbang:


No actually that wasnt my point at all.

Really? Looks like it to me! From your post #124:

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The law is what allows you to post here and walk in public with a reasonable expectation of safety.

No it isnt.

So what is it? Does the law keep give one a reasonable expectation of safety or not?

Mbuti, Dobe Ju/'hoansi.

Responding in gibberish does not help your cause. NEON TETRAS!
(see?)
Either make an arguement or don't.

Why? Because you cant explain the relevence?

I'm getting tired of having to explain perfectly rational arguements to you. In fact, I'm done.

Seriously, every dog has its day, and America's has past.

*snore* Been hearing that for years.

Lovely. And I'm still waiting to hear what this correlation you speak of is.
As just one example; ih 1993 Puerto Rican median household income = $18,999
For same period White median household income = $33,355.

LOL! I love that arguement. You may as well be arguing that because slavery is unacceptable today that the US was an evil imperialist power in 1597. :rolleyes
I have no idea how you reached such a conclusion. The US wasnt 'built' yesterday or last year, or even ten years ago. Why when commenting on the past is it not appropriate to use evidence from the past?:confused:

CMON NOW! Simply put, one CANNOT put modern (ie: current) social norms on the past. It simply doesn't work.
Oh I see more strawman. Unequal is a numerical concept and can indeed be applied to the past.

If I went back in time (say) to 1782 and asked some Hungarian Duke why my ancestors were being forced labor, I'd be flogged for my insolence and possibly beaten to death. WTF do you expect? That just because something is acceptable now that it is automatically "always ok" in the past!?!?
None of which negates anything I have stated in my posts.

Feel free to name a few. Really. I'm anxious to hear of ANY examples you can provide to ANY of your arguements, as I've heard exactly zero up to now.
As you wish: the Yorok of northern California, The Crow of the Plains, the prairie-dwelling Miami....

And? I never claimed it wasn't! If you'll be so kind as to go back and note, I'm making a case for CULTURAL CHANGES, not that the US is some kind of one-shot all-in-one kumbaya fest...
My point was and still is that the US was built on inequality, since you apparently are now claiming that you dont disagree with this I now have no idea what point of mine you do disagree with....:confused:

Which proves what? You seem to have a fetish of putting my POV in an arguement I have not made.
Which proves that nothing you are saying proves anything contrary to my point, since you replied to my point in a manner that strongly implies disagreement, it seems reasonable to conclude that you have some disagreement with my point.
If your POV was not in disagreement with the point I had stated, then I have no idea what it is you are trying to communicate....

Where? I saw NO examples, only hubris.
Your comments leave me wondering if you even know what hubris is. I gave very clear examples of moves to circumvent the current rights women have with regards to their reproductive choices, you chose to construct some silly strawman involving the moves to have rights to bear arms curtailed rather than address the logical connection between the examples and the argument they support.

Oy vey! If you can't see the point of that, then I'd have a better change convincing a wall.
If you cant explain the logical form of your own argument, it's far more likely to stem from your own deficiency than it is from mine.

(sigh) Same as above. Do you not agree that my example and your example are basically the same thing? If not, then we may as well be done.
Do you not recognise the difference between a relevent logical connection and an irrelevent logical connection. Both the right to bear arms and the rights of women regarding their reproductive choices are under seige in the US. Only one of these rights so far as I can see is relevent to equality and inequality.

Disproves? Not at all. Just that it's the same shit, different topic.
Right, so basically you are just making conversation, somewhat irrelevent conversation, but conversation none-the-less....how interesting of you...:confused:

The point was that the right to consume alcohol WAS NOT in the Bill of Rights. Then a law (and Amendment) was passed that made it ILLEGAL.
My point is simply that laws change and can be rewritten. However, to date, there has NEVER been an Amendment that has taken away a right of another original Amendment.
Which doesnt mean anything whatsoever of relevence to any point I have made, either my primary point of supporting points.

Did you actually read what I posted?
Yes I did, I just dont get what it is you think you are on about.

Oy vey again. Please re-read what I said with a more open mind.
Please try to actually make sense, an open mind on my part doest fix an absence of logic on yours.

Right. And I'm still waiting for that correlation. You keep talking about it, yet never post any statistics. I keep talking about business, and you brush it off. :p
Because you have posted so many statistics yourself? Hardly. As for correlation, I honestly didnt realise anyone was ignorant of the correlation between race and economic status in the US, however I have provided an example at the beginning of my post. I certainly dont intend to go searching about the place more given the common knowledge of what I alledge and your absence of a single example/statistic to the contrary.

And I have no idea what you're whipping a dead horses's eyes has to do with anything, either. I keep posting that small businesses DO generally have success, and that most people do climb up the ladder out of poverty. You seem to have an opposite view, but have yet to furnish any counter examples. In fact, according to the US Census, most immigrants break out of the cycle of poverty within one or two generations. http://www.ailf.org/ipc/policy_reports_2003_SuccessOrStagnation.asp
I have not made known any view on the rate of success enjoyed by small business other than to state that most dont end up as big businesses. We know this is true because there are more small businesses than big businesses. I have not made any comment or inference regarding the rate at which people climb out of poverty. I doubt that you have any clue as to my point of view, if you did why would you keep making arguments against things I have not stated and against views I dont actually hold?
Just in case you missed it the first few times, my point is that the US was built on inequality.

I don't think you've held a rational arguement. My family came to these shores in 1970. Slavery had been over for over 100 years, and yet we have prospered despite initially not knowing the language. That you believe that slavery is stilll a factor is a joke.
Or at least it would be a joke if you had any reason to believe that I believe such a thing.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. I ask for an example of a socity that functions without law, you balk while stating that law does not keep a society together. :headbang:
I gave you examples, perhaps you'd like me to repeat them - Mbuit, Dobe Ju/'hoansi. I did not state that law does not keep a society together, although I very much doubt that there is a single society that has been kept together entirely and only by law.

Really? Looks like it to me! From your post #124
So what is it? Does the law keep give one a reasonable expectation of safety or not?
Not in and of itself. We know this because there are societies that do not have any formal legal system and yet have a low incidence of violence, on the other hand societies characterised by law can have much higher levels of violence. In some cases the law itself is what gives people reason to fear.

Responding in gibberish does not help your cause. NEON TETRAS!
(see?)
Either make an arguement or don't.
I didnt respond in gibberish, you asked for examples and I gave you two. It isnt my fault you are so utterly unfamiliar with the names of other peoples that you cant them from gibberish.

ting tired of having to explain perfectly rational arguements to you. In fact, I'm done.
Done? I have no idea what you think you've done, to me it looks like you've just argued against a whole lot of stuff I never stated for no apparent reason...please enlighten me on the point of your comments because I dont see one....:confused:

Congress could, say, inflate the number of justices to fifty.
And I bet that would go over really well with the voting public. Stacking the Supreme Court...just like FDR.

First off,bush (haha) we get all our troops back here. Then we buy back all our property (ports and stuff). Then we stop playing superman and run our own country. We start working on the ghettos and get on track to free healthcare and schools.

1. Impeach Bush, Cheney, and Rumsy
2. Vote Democrat
3. Clean up the Supreme Court
4. Pull out of Iraq
5. Sign the Kyoto Protocol
6. Teach the Republicans the mystical, democratic, art of budget balancing
7. Stop being pompous, ethnocentric assholes
8. Fully Separate Church and State - NO Creationism, etc.
9. Shift government funding to social programmes
10. Get Rid of the Electoral College

1. You can't impeach the Secretary of Defense.
2. About half of us do.
3. Huh? We've got 2 new justices on it for the first time in nearly a decade!
4. Right. Becaue that'll restore peace. :rolleyes:
5. Right. Because those nations that have no prayer of making their targets are doing so well, and because it doesn't effect China or India, where most goods are being MADE these days. :headbang:
6. Ironic, really, since neither side ever has. Really.
7. As opposed to the French? Or perhaps the Iranians?
8. Hello, Mr. Censorship. BTW, just because I say so, you can no longer use the "l" key, as it is offensive to the Church of Markreich. What? You dont like it? too bad...
9. We already spend way too much on those... like half the budget.
10. Hell no! It's the only way we have from having New York City, LA, Houston, Chicago, Atlanta, Baltimore, Philadelphia and Seattle decide the Presidency. You think it's bad now? Wait until 40 states don't ever get a say. :(

And I bet that would go over really well with the voting public. Stacking the Supreme Court...just like FDR.

Yeah, and impeachment is really viable too, isn't it? I don't think the poster was particularly concerned with pragmatism.

1. You can't impeach the Secretary of Defense.

Yes, you can.

Impeachment in the United States is an expressed power of the legislature which allows for formal charges to be brought against a high official of government for conduct committed in office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States

because it doesn't effect China or India, where most goods are being MADE these days.

The economies of China and India are far smaller than those of the United States, and that's not even taking into account their far larger populations. China and India use up far less resources and emit far less carbon dioxide per capita than the US does. It's ridiculous to expect them to meet the same percentage reduction as the US; having the same cap is a different matter.

Hello, Mr. Censorship. BTW, just because I say so, you can no longer use the "l" key, as it is offensive to the Church of Markreich. What? You dont like it? too bad...

Prohibiting the use of public institutions and public funds to propagate religion ("separation of church and state") is not equivalent to the censorship of private individuals.

The only way to fix America, and the world, is to change the voter to expect less hand-outs, and have the government focus more on law-enforcement, defense, and a few small infrastructure and environmental projects. The culture of pork-barrel spending, fueled by the voters' habit of always voting for incumbents, causes a culture of corruption, poison, and deadlock.

Yeah, and impeachment is really viable too, isn't it? I don't think the poster was particularly concerned with pragmatism.

Yes, you can.

Impeachment in the United States is an expressed power of the legislature which allows for formal charges to be brought against a high official of government for conduct committed in office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States

I stand corrected!

The economies of China and India are far smaller than those of the United States, and that's not even taking into account their far larger populations. China and India use up far less resources and emit far less carbon dioxide per capita than the US does. It's ridiculous to expect them to meet the same percentage reduction as the US; having the same cap is a different matter.

Per Capita is a joke measurement... It should be by % of planetary GDP.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html :(2005 numbers)
Earth's GDP is $59.38 trillion.
The US's is $12.37 trillion. (Or ~ 21% of Earth's GDP).
China's is $8.158 trillion. (Or ~13.8% of Earth's GDP).

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Usa/Full.html
The US produced 5,802 million metric tons, or 23% of planetary co2
China produced 3,541 million metric tons, or 14% of planetary co2.
"China also is important to any effort to curb emissions of greenhouse gases, as it is projected to experience the largest absolute growth in carbon dioxide emissions between now and the year 2025."
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/china.html

...so here we have the world's biggest economy contributing about the same amount of pollutions (ok, 2% more) as it produces.
Meanwhile, China is ALREADY producing more pollution than it accounts for on the world economy, and judging by the trade balance sheets with the US & EU, it's only going to get worse! China is at LEAST as bad as the US is right now in terms of co2 production.
And, as China becomes richer, don't you THINK their middle and upper classes are going to want air conditioning and cars, too?

WHY THE HECK should that be okay, just because they have more people? :confused:
Should we laud Chad for having such low CO2 levels, but an economy that's one step above the barter system?

And how about the TEN EU states that won't make their Kyoto goals, eh?
http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20051228-044857-1435r

Prohibiting the use of public institutions and public funds to propagate religion ("separation of church and state") is not equivalent to the censorship of private individuals.

Um, yes it is, and here is why:
* Aspect One: If you've read much about Intelligent Design, you know that they never state a specific G_d. It's never tied to a specific religion.
"Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
* Aspect Two: Creationism was ruled a religious belief by the SCOTUS back in 1987.

..and who said anything about private individuals? I expect YOU to stop using that "l" key too! :D
(Seriously: I'm all for the seperation OF church and state. I'm against the seperation of church FROM state. There is a place for G_d in the nation, as the nation is religious. That does not mean, however, that religion should tell the state what to do.)

Per Capita is a joke measurement... It should be by % of planetary GDP.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html :(2005 numbers)
Earth's GDP is $59.38 trillion.
The US's is $12.37 trillion. (Or ~ 21% of Earth's GDP).
China's is $8.158 trillion. (Or ~13.8% of Earth's GDP).

Why do you think per capita is a "joke measurement"? Are Chinese people worth one-fifth of American people? Why should each Chinese person be forced to use one-fifth the energy each American person does (assuming parity of energy use even on the national scale, which there isn't)?

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Usa/Full.html
The US produced 5,802 million metric tons, or 23% of planetary co2
China produced 3,541 million metric tons, or 14% of planetary co2.
"China also is important to any effort to curb emissions of greenhouse gases, as it is projected to experience the largest absolute growth in carbon dioxide emissions between now and the year 2025."
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/china.html

...so here we have the world's biggest economy contributing about the same amount of pollutions (ok, 2% more) as it produces.
Meanwhile, China is ALREADY producing more pollution than it accounts for on the world economy, and judging by the trade balance sheets with the US & EU, it's only going to get worse! And, as China becomes richer, don't you THINK their middle and upper classes are going to want air conditioning and cars, too?

WHY THE HECK should that be okay, just because they have more people? :confused:

If you want to bring Chinese energy use down, you should bring US energy use down to the same level. Wouldn't that be fair? The problem is that nobody serious proposes reducing US energy use that much.

When China reaches US levels of energy use, I will join you in demanding that it curb its carbon dioxide emissions.

Should we laud Chad for having such low CO2 levels, but an economy that's one step above the barter system?

If it means that the human species will be able to survive, yes.

Um, yes it is, and here is why:
* Aspect One: If you've read much about Intelligent Design, you know that they never state a specific G_d. It's never tied to a specific religion.
"Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
* Aspect Two: Creationism was ruled a religious belief by the SCOTUS back in 1987.

You don't teach the product of creative imaginations in science class, you teach science. Keep intelligent design to philosophy classes, if you want to teach it.

..and who said anything about private individuals? I expect YOU to stop using that "l" key too! :D
(Seriously: I'm all for the seperation OF church and state. I'm against the seperation of church FROM state. There is a place for G_d in the nation, as the nation is religious. That does not mean, however, that religion should tell the state what to do.)

The government should not be in the business of promoting religion, however well disguised it is in pseudophilosophical babble.

When China reaches US levels of energy use, I will join you in demanding that it curb its carbon dioxide emissions.

Well, the problem is that the bulk of growth in emissions comes from China; they are not only producing a lot of emissions but their production is growing very quickly. They also lack even the most basic of environmental protection, which is turning their country in to a dangerous wasteland in a lot of places. If anything, they need to be forced to reduce pollution to prevent their economy from collapsing, the environmental benenfits aside.

Cut the fat corruption out of the Military-Corporate machine and prosecute profiteers, so it doesn’t cost 1000 times what it should to design or build anything, while troops on the ground remain under equipped and trained. Separate the military from the corporations who are forcing defective equipment on it.

When you fight a War on Terror, use your resources to take out the terrorists and undermine the people who are supporting them. Don’t go invading unrelated countries and creating breeding grounds for terrorism. Don’t back terror sponsoring regimes just because some corporations and powerful men are really good pals with them.

Dissolve Homeland Security as a complete failure. Quit jailing civil rights dissidents and your own scientists for doing valuable university research. Dissolve FEMA as a complete failure and create a new Agency that deals specifically with disasters, instead of how FEMA deals with natural disasters as a sideshow.

Gut the CIA as a corrupt bunch of empire builders in the pockets of corporations and organized crime. Hand it over to a new FBI branch (after you clean up the mess of that group) and watch them like hawks to make sure they don’t hire the same screw ups you just fired.

Take the handcuffs off the FBI (after purging them of the empire builders and incompetent management) and tell them to take down organized crime, instead of allowing it to thrive in the US.

Go after corporations for moving their operations overseas or operating under flags of convenience to avoid paying their dues and hiring Americans. Quit allowing the selling off of America to potential enemies.

Revitalize the Public School system at the state level, instead of sabotaging it with a lack of funding and substandard textbooks offered by the state. Educating young voters is a step in the right direction.

Begin honouring your trade agreements and treaties you sign.

Electoral Reform, especially dealing with cases of outright lies and slander that disgraces your nation (see Swiftboat veterans)

Media reform. Talk shows and Reality TV have to admit to staging everything and faking everything. Being allowed to lie to the public on a regular basis without any network warnings isn’t right. People are stupid enough without their help.

And then be vigilant for the rest of the bastards out there to try to screw up things worse…

You don't repair America; you split it up into "Jesusland" & "United States of Canada, California & The Northwest".

Failing that, have a nice decade of uncivilized civil war.

You don't repair America; you split it up into "Jesusland" & "United States of Canada, California & The Northwest".

That would make international politics more... interesting.

You don't repair America; you split it up into "Jesusland" & "United States of Canada, California & The Northwest".

Failing that, have a nice decade of uncivilized civil war.
That doesn't work either. Hollywood would be the capitol and scientology the national religion.

That doesn't work either. Hollywood would be the capitol and scientology the national religion.

Washington, DC would be the capital of the United States of Canada, unless Canada wanted to keep theirs.

Washington, DC would be the capital of the United States of Canada, unless Canada wanted to keep theirs.
He didn't include Washington in his country;)

He didn't include Washington in his country;)

I was thinking of the version that was presented after the '04 election.

It's a lost cause. The American people think that the system is perfect, or at least fairly good, because of thee brainwashing that goes on in public schools and the media.

Scotch tape and Elmer's glue always gets the job fixed for me.

Looks as if Germany is in greater need of repair... :(

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2631&ncid=2631&e=93&u=/nm/20060223/ts_nm/crime_religion_germany_dc_1

Or should we just consider Germany as no more than a province of Eurabia? :rolleyes:

Looks as if Germany is in greater need of repair... :(

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2631&ncid=2631&e=93&u=/nm/20060223/ts_nm/crime_religion_germany_dc_1

Or should we just consider Germany as no more than a province of Eurabia? :rolleyes:

Are you against Germany imprisoning Holocaust deniers?

Are you against Germany imprisoning Holocaust deniers?

Is this your way of saying you don't know how to click on links and read them?
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Is this your way of saying you don't know how to click on links and read them?
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I read it.

I want to know if you are against violations of free speech rights in all cases, or merely if the victims hate Muslims.

Would you call Germany a province of Eurojudea?

I read it.

I want to know if you are against violations of free speech rights in all cases, or merely if the victims hate Muslims.

In all cases. You got a problem with that? :rolleyes:

Would you call Germany a province of Eurojudea?

Clearly not. :p

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003357.htm

Europe is definitely in need of repair. :(

In all cases. You got a problem with that?

No, I agree with that position.

Clearly not. :p

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003357.htm

Europe is definitely in need of repair. :(

Islamophobic nonsense from a paranoid bigot.

Islamophobic nonsense from a paranoid bigot.

Namecalling doesn't alter facts. Care to try again? :p

Namecalling doesn't alter facts. Care to try again? :p
I've read it too and I didn't see any fact other than the income of arabs. Then the bigot starts on a rediculous rant without any facts bacing her up

Namecalling doesn't alter facts. Care to try again? :p

I cannot argue with someone who does not present an argument. The ridiculous assertion that Europe is right now anywhere close to "Eurabia" is obviously false, and the assumption that we should all be so fearful of the "Islamization" of Europe reeks of bigotry.

In other words neither Thrice-addicted nor Soheran are numerate enough to understand the concept of demographics or well-versed enough to understand an allusion towards the subject of demographics. Sucks to be them. :p

Here's a cartoon with which they may console themselves! ^_~

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000783.html

In other words neither Thrice-addicted nor Soheran are numerate enough to understand the concept of demographics or well-versed enough to understand an allusion towards the subject of demographics. Sucks to be them. :p

Here's a cartoon with which they may console themselves! ^_~

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000783.html

I am continually impressed by your argumentation skills.

First you link to a blog post clearly intended to preach to the choir - a dire warning of a mythical Islamic threat to European demographics - then you post a cartoon.

Yet you criticize me for not offering arguments.

And no, I'm not going to translate any of this, because to be honest, I don't think anyone would actually be interested in the reasons this happened.

http://www.taz.de/pt/2006/02/24/a0077.1/text
In der Begründung sagte Richter Carsten Krumm, von der bei Ersttätern üblichen Geldstrafe werde nicht wegen des aktuellen Weltgeschehens abgewichen, sondern wegen der persönlichen Vorgeschichte des Angeklagten. Der Kaufmann aus Senden ist bereits mehrmals vorbestraft - unter anderem wegen Brandstiftung und Verstößen gegen das Sprengstoffgesetz.
!!!

I am continually impressed by your argumentation skills.

First you link to a blog post clearly intended to preach to the choir - a dire warning of a mythical Islamic threat to European demographics - then you post a cartoon.

Yet you criticize me for not offering arguments.

Actually bothering with criticism of you would require me to still have the ability to take you seriously. That died the moment you thought namecalling was a substitute for dialogue. Are you aware that the Europeans are no longer replacing themselves? Are you aware of who is replacing them? And you wonder why I was and still am inclined to laugh at you for that "Would you call Germany a province of Eurojudea?" crack? :D

Go ahead and close your eyes if you want. Your Europe will still be in need of repair. Denial will not alter that. Give me a reason to take you seriously or don't waste my time. :p

Actually bothering with criticism of you would require me to still have the ability to take you seriously. That died the moment you thought namecalling was a substitute for dialogue. Are you aware that the Europeans are no longer replacing themselves? Are you aware of who is replacing them? And you wonder why I was and still am inclined to laugh at you for that "Would you call Germany a province of Eurojudea?" crack? :D

Go ahead and close your eyes if you want. Your Europe will still be in need of repair. Denial will not alter that. Give me a reason to take you seriously or don't waste my time. :p
How about producing an actual argument instead of repeated ridicule:p

Actually bothering with criticism of you would require me to still have the ability to take you seriously. That died the moment you thought namecalling was a substitute for dialogue.

I am not taking you seriously either. You might as well reciprocate.

Are you aware that the Europeans are no longer replacing themselves?

Low natural population growth rates /= no longer replacing themselves.

Are you aware of who is replacing them?

Their children.

And you wonder why I was and still am inclined to laugh at you for that "Would you call Germany a province of Eurojudea?" crack? :D

You referred to Germany as a province of Eurabia because it was punishing someone for expressing hate towards Islam. I responded with an argument based on reductio ad absurdum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum), since Germany also punishes people expressing hate towards Judaism through Holocaust denial. Yes, I am aware that calling Germany a province of "Eurojudea" is utterly nonsensical; that was my point.

Go ahead and close your eyes if you want. Your Europe will still be in need of repair. Denial will not alter that. Give me a reason to take you seriously or don't waste my time. :p
You must have thought long and hard about how to crash this thread, hey? I already said "if you don't think the US need fixing, fair enough." So no reason for people like you to start bitching.

But that wasn't enough. You still had to go in here, and if you can't defend the US for lack of debate, why not attack a place that has absolutely nothing to do with any of this?

So yeah, let's have your wish. How would you fix Europe, when the problem is not a political one, but simply a matter of people not having as many kids? Keeping in mind that exactly the same argument about "they're gonna replace us and rule as" has already been used back in the day when the Italians came to Germany to work.

I assume we're gonna start with mass-internment camps?

But for those who think that there is something wrong with the country, with the way the government is run, with attitudes perhaps, what do you think can be done to make it better?


start over...
from scratch

Why do you think per capita is a "joke measurement"? Are Chinese people worth one-fifth of American people? Why should each Chinese person be forced to use one-fifth the energy each American person does (assuming parity of energy use even on the national scale, which there isn't)?

I'm taking people out of the equation totally: I'm saying a country should be bound to pollution according to how much wealth it creates.

Why? Simple. Any activity produces waste -- even if it's just you or me exhaling as we walk.
Let's consider...
Your arguement: The countries that happen to have the most people have the right to pollute more. Every person should be allowed X pollution.
Examples why this is a bad idea:
* We should scap all of society and return to hunter/gatherer mode. No pollution that way! Also no science, electricity, or even flush toilets.

* The US will simply start buying other countries for the resorces or population. Think it can't happen? Think again.
The US has done both in the past: war for Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Texas, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona and part of Colorado as well as Cuba and the Philippines. It bought Alaska, the bottom of Arizona & New Mexico (Gadsden Purchase), and the area of the Louisiana Purchase (which doubled the size of the country). I wouldn't be surprised if the US engineered the Quebecois from revolting to get Canada and then bought/conquested Mexico and Central America.
You don't think that other countries wouldn't do the same? Canada and Denmark are (semi-seriously) sparring over a worthless hunk of ice. Never mind the Antarctic Treaty going up in smoke. Or any one of dozens of examples.

* You're turning global economics on it's head. Now Nigeria will be able to pollute twice as much as Germany -- even if it doesn't add a tenth of the wealth to the global economy!!
How long do you think the world would last if the developed countries all hamstrung themselves? What you're talking about is doing away with Europe, Japan and the US and just handing over the planet to India and China. It would take a few generations, but it WOULD happen.

So: If China's economy hits parity with the US, fine. If Lichtenstein suddenly becomes so, fine. :)

If you want to bring Chinese energy use down, you should bring US energy use down to the same level. Wouldn't that be fair? The problem is that nobody serious proposes reducing US energy use that much.

Fair? Who the hell cares about fair? This is simple economics. Suppose you go into a store and buy the last blue coat. I go in an hour later and compain that you already have 3 and I have 1, so I should have gotten the coat. Energy is a COMMODITY. Anyone willing to pay the price for it gets it.

As for pollution, as I said last post: %planetary GDP = %max pollution.

And, BTW, the EU uses as much energy as the US. Yes, it has more people, but still less than China.

When China reaches US levels of energy use, I will join you in demanding that it curb its carbon dioxide emissions.

See you in 2011 or so. I can't believe you don't see the correlation or just don't want to believe it.

If it means that the human species will be able to survive, yes.

Wow. The sky is falling in your world, eh? :rolleyes:

You don't teach the product of creative imaginations in science class, you teach science. Keep intelligent design to philosophy classes, if you want to teach it.

Which is also fine. However, if you deny anyone the right to challenge Evolution, congratulations. You've just started a new religion -- science DEMANDS constant questioning as well as proof.

The government should not be in the business of promoting religion, however well disguised it is in pseudophilosophical babble.

And that "babble" is called free speech. The government, you'll note, DOESN'T promote religion. There is no religious requirements ANYWHERE in the US. As for psuedophilosophical, that's a valid opinion for you to hold, just as it is mine that it's also your knowledge of economics.

EDIT: PS- I note you totally ignored the fact that 10 EU countries will fail to make their Kyoto goals. :p

* You're turning global economics on it's head. Now Nigeria will be able to pollute twice as much as Germany -- even if it doesn't add a tenth of the wealth to the global economy!!
The fact is that Germany can afford the measures. Even the most ambitious estimates put the impact of Kyoto at 1% of the global economy. It's just not that big a deal.

Secondly, the carbon trading scheme allows pollution to be cut where it is the cheapest. So efficiency is still right up there. Not only that, it actually promotes research into ecologically sound methods without wasting money on that seperately, and it creates a market for economically sound behaviour. None of these things exist now.

Kyoto was always meant to be a start. Developing nations will enter it with time - but considering the technology available to them, they simply don't have the means to cut pollution until they reach a certain level of infrastructure and technology. The only way Nigeria can make gold mining less damaging to the environment is by stopping it.

The critics of Kyoto are pretty much always protectionists. And I despise that kind, because free trade is the only thing that can help the people of the third world. And the interests of our protected first world industries is what will destroy them.

I'm taking people out of the equation totally: I'm saying a country should be bound to pollution according to how much wealth it creates.

Why? Simple. Any activity produces waste -- even if it's just you or me exhaling as we walk.
Let's consider...
Your arguement: The countries that happen to have the most people have the right to pollute more. Every person should be allowed X pollution.
Examples why this is a bad idea:
* We should scap all of society and return to hunter/gatherer mode. No pollution that way! Also no science, electricity, or even flush toilets.

* The US will simply start buying other countries for the resorces or population. Think it can't happen? Think again.
The US has done both in the past: war for Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Texas, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona and part of Colorado as well as Cuba and the Philippines. It bought Alaska, the bottom of Arizona & New Mexico (Gadsden Purchase), and the area of the Louisiana Purchase (which doubled the size of the country). I wouldn't be surprised if the US engineered the Quebecois from revolting to get Canada and then bought/conquested Mexico and Central America.
You don't think that other countries wouldn't do the same? Canada and Denmark are (semi-seriously) sparring over a worthless hunk of ice. Never mind the Antarctic Treaty going up in smoke. Or any one of dozens of examples.

* You're turning global economics on it's head. Now Nigeria will be able to pollute twice as much as Germany -- even if it doesn't add a tenth of the wealth to the global economy!!
How long do you think the world would last if the developed countries all hamstrung themselves? What you're talking about is doing away with Europe, Japan and the US and just handing over the planet to India and China. It would take a few generations, but it WOULD happen.

So: If China's economy hits parity with the US, fine. If Lichtenstein suddenly becomes so, fine. :)

So it doesn't matter if a country is destroying the world, as long as it's "producing wealth"? We are probably going to have to curb growth rates eventually, if environmental devastation is to be avoided; there's no way around it. The effects of population are not magically eliminated because our GDPs are high.

The approach you are advocating:
1. Hamstrings development in poor nations by applying harsher restrictions on them than on the rich ones (and then punishes them further when their economies suffer);
2. Punishes nations that do curb growth rates in order to protect the environment;
3. Lets economically productive nations get away with destroying the environment.

Suppose you go into a store and buy the last blue coat. I go in an hour later and compain that you already have 3 and I have 1, so I should have gotten the coat. Energy is a COMMODITY. Anyone willing to pay the price for it gets it.

The capability to buy commodities is not a justification for using them. If I can pay for enough nuclear weapons to annihilate the planet, I do not think it follows that I have the right to detonate them.

And, BTW, the EU uses as much energy as the US. Yes, it has more people, but still less than China.

And the Kyoto Protocols called for reductions in EU energy use.

Wow. The sky is falling in your world, eh? :rolleyes:

I never actually advocated reducing energy use as much as you accused me of advocating. I think it would be justified if that choice was the only one that offered a chance for human survival, however.

Which is also fine. However, if you deny anyone the right to challenge Evolution, congratulations. You've just started a new religion -- science DEMANDS constant questioning as well as proof.

Intelligent design is not a scientific challenge to evolution. It's (bad) philosophy, not science, and doesn't belong in science classes.

And that "babble" is called free speech. The government, you'll note, DOESN'T promote religion. There is no religious requirements ANYWHERE in the US.

Yes, it is free speech. I have no problem with organizing rallies in support of intelligent design, or teaching university classes on the subject, or writing books about it, or whatever. I do have a problem when the government teaches unscientific, religion-based theories as science - because that is government promotion of religion. Religious requirements are not at issue; a government perfectly devoid of religious requirements could still violate separation of church and state by promoting a religion or religion in general.

EDIT: PS- I note you totally ignored the fact that 10 EU countries will fail to make their Kyoto goals.

And if their governments, in justification, raised all the arguments you are raising, I would disagree with them, too.

The fact is that Germany can afford the measures. Even the most ambitious estimates put the impact of Kyoto at 1% of the global economy. It's just not that big a deal.

1% is not some small margin. Don't tell me that if you have two identical cars that you'd pay 20.000EU for it if you can get it across the street for 19.800EU.

Secondly, the carbon trading scheme allows pollution to be cut where it is the cheapest. So efficiency is still right up there. Not only that, it actually promotes research into ecologically sound methods without wasting money on that seperately, and it creates a market for economically sound behaviour. None of these things exist now.

For "developed" countries. China and India aren't covered, remember? The US and EU have gotten rid of leaded gas, had scrubbers on factory smokestacks, etc for decades. So why allow "developing" nations to pollute all they want and have an economic advantage? Instead, why not agree that they must join the treaty at X time, or simply GIVE them incentives to be clean?
But no, none of that is in the Kyoto Protocols.

Kyoto was always meant to be a start. Developing nations will enter it with time - but considering the technology available to them, they simply don't have the means to cut pollution until they reach a certain level of infrastructure and technology. The only was Nigeria can make gold mining less damaging to the environment is by stopping it.

The EU & US are paying the bills for the Palestinians to run their country. You're saying that the World Bank or some other organization couldn't front the cash for the nations that can't afford it? (Never mind China & India!!)

The critics of Kyoto are pretty much always protectionists. And I despise that kind, because free trade is the only thing that can help the people of the third world. And the interests of our protected first world industries is what will destroy them.

Free trade is for suckers. FAIR trade is what is needed. It's no more right for the US to raise barriers against European steel than it is for the Chinese to dump shoes on the EU market. If the EU and US put the same restrictions on other nations that are put on THEM, the world would be rocked.

Free trade is for suckers. FAIR trade is what is needed. It's no more right for the US to raise barriers against European steel than it is for the Chinese to dump shoes on the EU market. If the EU and US put the same restrictions on other nations that are put on THEM, the world would be rocked.

Free trade is fair trade; whenever a country still places duties and tariffs (not to mention anti-dumping laws) on products, their trade is not free. The closest thing to free trade is NAFTA, which has been a total success and should be upheld as a target for the WTO and other organizations as an example of trade liberalization. That has resulted in real gains in living standards and employment for all nations involved, and is a good example of how to bring about economic development in Third World nations.

The only reason why we aren't pursuing free trade is because it's not politically sound; the unions bitch and complain about losing jobs while the corporations whine about having to obey laws regarding labor rights and environmental agreements. That results in the screwy trade agreements we have with countries like India and China, and protectionism is the reason why countries like India and China are so cheap in the first place.

So it doesn't matter if a country is destroying the world, as long as it's "producing wealth"? We are probably going to have to curb growth rates eventually, if environmental devastation is to be avoided; there's no way around it. The effects of population are not magically eliminated because our GDPs are high.

Destroying the world? That's funny!
Curb growth? Are you mad? Barring MAJOR upheavals (WW1, WW2, the Black Plague...) the world's GDP is always going up. Even major upheavals (and aftermaths) only tick it down in a very temporary way.
No, but the effects of population are mitigated by technology. Crop rotation in the Middle Ages. Steam Power. Electricity. Gasoline engines. Jets. Pesticides. Maybe cloning will be next. Who knows?

The approach you are advocating:
1. Hamstrings development in poor nations by applying harsher restrictions on them than on the rich ones (and then punishes them further when their economies suffer);
2. Punishes nations that do curb growth rates in order to protect the environment;
3. Lets economically productive nations get away with destroying the environment.

1. Pays for a country to get its act together, eh? Germany started from less than zero TWICE in the 20th century. Ditto Japan in 1945. Where was China 100 years ago? A broken opium-dependent economic basketcase. The US didn't even exist 300 years ago. Saudi Arabia was a wasteland in the Ottoman Empire. Don't tell me it's impossible.
2. The contrary is true! Humans are economic assets: the talent of your population aids your nation.
3. Let's the pollute AT MAX equal to what they produce. You spoke of fairness before, what is more fair than that? Besides, I much prefer the US today than in the 70s. It's MUCH cleaner. That is a major boon.

The capability to buy commodities is not a justification for using them. If I can pay for enough nuclear weapons to annihilate the planet, I do not think it follows that I have the right to detonate them.

THAT'S your best analogy? :rolleyes:
Nothing like taking the extreme marginal example to make a case, eh?
Fine: Evolution doesn't exist. No new species have evolved in the last three days. :headbang:

And the Kyoto Protocols called for reductions in EU energy use.

And they're not going to meet them, except for Great Britain. What happens? Penalties? Swapping cash on the balance sheet? Oh, big gain for the environment there! :(
I'm all for the environment. I don't waste resources BECAUSE they are valuable. I've reinsulated my house, take a train to work instead of driving, etc. But that's my choice.
By the same token, if the world's leaders really want to reduce pollution, great. But it has to be done on a saner basis than Kyoto.

I never actually advocated reducing energy use as much as you accused me of advocating. I think it would be justified if that choice was the only one that offered a chance for human survival, however.

Huh? All I did was reply to your post. Please go back and re-read it and think how someone who isn't you might construe what you wrote.

If that's your position, fine, but most of the planet won't agree with you.

Intelligent design is not a scientific challenge to evolution. It's (bad) philosophy, not science, and doesn't belong in science classes.

That's a lovely opinion you have.
Me? I say let the courts do their job.

Yes, it is free speech. I have no problem with organizing rallies in support of intelligent design, or teaching university classes on the subject, or writing books about it, or whatever. I do have a problem when the government teaches unscientific, religion-based theories as science - because that is government promotion of religion. Religious requirements are not at issue; a government perfectly devoid of religious requirements could still violate separation of church and state by promoting a religion or religion in general.

*sigh* There is nothing in ID that is any more religious than having "In God We Trust" on currency or "One Nation, Under God" in the Pledge. There is no mention of a specific God, etc.
What you're arguing is the same thing as saying that since the Federal Government has the Affirmative Action program that it is biased towards black people.

Again, let the courts do their job, just like they did with Creationism in the 80s.

And if their governments, in justification, raised all the arguments you are raising, I would disagree with them, too.

So what does that mean, exactly? That Kyoto is all that matters? That when it was written, some non-existant supreme being guided the writers' hands to form the ultimate survival plan for the planet? :rolleyes:
Come on now.

Free trade is fair trade; whenever a country still places duties and tariffs (not to mention anti-dumping laws) on products, their trade is not free. The closest thing to free trade is NAFTA, which has been a total success and should be upheld as a target for the WTO and other organizations as an example of trade liberalization. That has resulted in real gains in living standards and employment for all nations involved, and is a good example of how to bring about economic development in Third World nations.

The only reason why we aren't pursuing free trade is because it's not politically sound; the unions bitch and complain about losing jobs while the corporations whine about having to obey laws regarding labor rights and environmental agreements. That results in the screwy trade agreements we have with countries like India and China, and protectionism is the reason why countries like India and China are so cheap in the first place.

Basically, yeah.

Destroying the world? That's funny!
Curb growth? Are you mad? Barring MAJOR upheavals (WW1, WW2, the Black Plague...) the world's GDP is always going up. Even major upheavals (and aftermaths) only tick it down in a very temporary way.

I suggest you learn what "growth" means.

No, but the effects of population are mitigated by technology. Crop rotation in the Middle Ages. Steam Power. Electricity. Gasoline engines. Jets. Pesticides. Maybe cloning will be next. Who knows?

I meant "pollution," not "population."

1. Pays for a country to get its act together, eh? Germany started from less than zero TWICE in the 20th century. Ditto Japan in 1945. Where was China 100 years ago? A broken opium-dependent economic basketcase. The US didn't even exist 300 years ago. Saudi Arabia was a wasteland in the Ottoman Empire. Don't tell me it's impossible.

What's impossible? I made the quite basic point that what you are advocating will harm poor nations, in exactly the same way that regressive taxes harm poor workers.

2. The contrary is true! Humans are economic assets: the talent of your population aids your nation.

What are you talking about? The simple fact is that if a nation decreases its percentage of GDP in order to reduce its percentage of pollution, your proposal doesn't even recognize that choice as an option. I don't see what your response has to do with that point.

3. Let's the pollute AT MAX equal to what they produce. You spoke of fairness before, what is more fair than that? Besides, I much prefer the US today than in the 70s. It's MUCH cleaner. That is a major boon.

Then nations will sacrifice the environment for growth rates, which is precisely what should be avoided, especially in the case of nations that already have enough for themselves.

THAT'S your best analogy? :rolleyes:
Nothing like taking the extreme marginal example to make a case, eh?
Fine: Evolution doesn't exist. No new species have evolved in the last three days. :headbang:

You were arguing that the capability to buy a commodity (energy in this case) entitles you to the right to use it. I pointed out that if this logic is extended, absurd conclusions result. The argument is perfectly legitimate.

And they're not going to meet them, except for Great Britain. What happens? Penalties? Swapping cash on the balance sheet? Oh, big gain for the environment there! :(
I'm all for the environment. I don't waste resources BECAUSE they are valuable. I've reinsulated my house, take a train to work instead of driving, etc. But that's my choice.
By the same token, if the world's leaders really want to reduce pollution, great. But it has to be done on a saner basis than Kyoto.

I support governments abiding by the Kyoto Protocols. The fact that European nations won't is not an argument against that support.

Huh? All I did was reply to your post. Please go back and re-read it and think how someone who isn't you might construe what you wrote.

If that's your position, fine, but most of the planet won't agree with you.

I made the simple observation that a treaty about global warming should apply to the greatest violators. I never said anything that could be reasonably read to mean that Chad should indeed be lauded, except in the extreme case I suggested in my reply.

If most of planet is in favor of human extinction, I think I will have to be opposed to the sentiment of most of the planet.

That's a lovely opinion you have.
Me? I say let the courts do their job.

The courts determine what will happen, not what should happen. I do not particularly care what their opinions are, if the arguments used to justify them are bad.

*sigh* There is nothing in ID that is any more religious than having "In God We Trust" on currency or "One Nation, Under God" in the Pledge. There is no mention of a specific God, etc.

I'm against both, for what it's worth. But the point is irrelevant, because even ignoring the issue of religion, ID still isn't scientific. Keep it out of biology classes.

What you're arguing is the same thing as saying that since the Federal Government has the Affirmative Action program that it is biased towards black people.

I have absolutely no idea how you derived that from what I said.

Again, let the courts do their job, just like they did with Creationism in the 80s.

The courts are not infallible.

So what does that mean, exactly? That Kyoto is all that matters? That when it was written, some non-existant supreme being guided the writers' hands to form the ultimate survival plan for the planet? :rolleyes:
Come on now.

No, it doesn't mean anything of the sort. It means exactly what I said: that I disagree with the decisions of the European governments not to abide by the treaty just as I disagree with you.

The closest thing to free trade is NAFTA, which has been a total success and should be upheld as a target for the WTO and other organizations as an example of trade liberalization.

A "total success" for whom, exactly?

A "total success" for whom, exactly?

http://www.yaleeconomicreview.com/issues/spring2005/nafta.php

That's just a small article; there are more on the US Trade Representative's website.

George Washington actually said to stay away from political parties because they cause problems. So getting rid of them and just voting for representatives w/o all the party stuff involved would be good. And i also believe we should stop immigration for a while because before we fix immigrants problems we have to fix our own country's problem. And uh yeah how bout we keep america beautiful and plant a bush back in texas?

George Washington actually said to stay away from political parties because they cause problems. So getting rid of them and just voting for representatives w/o all the party stuff involved would be good. And i also believe we should stop immigration for a while because before we fix immigrants problems we have to fix our own country's problem. And uh yeah how bout we keep america beautiful and plant a bush back in texas?
Getting rid of political parties all together is next to impossible. The point of them is for like-minded groups to get representatives elected, so it's a natural occurence.

http://www.yaleeconomicreview.com/issues/spring2005/nafta.php

That's just a small article; there are more on the US Trade Representative's website.

Of course exports are up, and naturally the maquiladora industry is booming.

The statistics on the general welfare of the Mexican people, however, show a different story (http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_nafta01_mx).

Of course exports are up, and naturally the maquiladora industry is booming.

The statistics on the general welfare of the Mexican people, however, show a different story (http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_nafta01_mx).

That's true as well; the major problems with Mexico are its corruption and its poor education system, which have resulted in the declines in wages due to the displacement of rural workers that forced them in to low-wage urban jobs. The recession also didn't help; the bulk of wage losses occured due to it and have still not recovered. Overall, NAFTA may have been premature in its implementation in Mexico; the state simply wasn't fully prepared for the change.

Generally, Mexico needs to reform itself and we need to commit to labor standards in countries we liberalize trade with; NAFTA is by no means a perfect success, but it's a start.

I suggest you learn what "growth" means.

I meant "pollution," not "population."

1) Huh? Can you point to a prolonged period of time where the wealth of the World DIDN'T go up?
2) I have to guess what you mean? And you say I need to learn what growth means? Oh boy.

What's impossible? I made the quite basic point that what you are advocating will harm poor nations, in exactly the same way that regressive taxes harm poor workers.

I merely pointed out that countries can and do advance from poor to rich. That's all. And if you want to talk about harm, the Treaty of Versailles did that nicely.

What are you talking about? The simple fact is that if a nation decreases its percentage of GDP in order to reduce its percentage of pollution, your proposal doesn't even recognize that choice as an option. I don't see what your response has to do with that point.

Why do you assume that %GDP=%pollution? I said %GDP=% MAX pollution.
For example, the US has more than tripled in value since the 70s, yet the environment is much cleaner. Trash no longer comes up on the shore of the beaches, the air is cleaner, etc.
No sane nation would ever CUT their economy. That's only an option for an armchair economist.

Then nations will sacrifice the environment for growth rates, which is precisely what should be avoided, especially in the case of nations that already have enough for themselves.

That's something called life. Since the first human made fire, we've been polluting.

You were arguing that the capability to buy a commodity (energy in this case) entitles you to the right to use it. I pointed out that if this logic is extended, absurd conclusions result. The argument is perfectly legitimate.

Have it your way. I personally agree that buying a nuke allows you to use it.
So what has this (extreme) example gotten you? Nothing.

I support governments abiding by the Kyoto Protocols. The fact that European nations won't is not an argument against that support.

HOW THE HELL IS SOMEONE ABIDING TO SOMETHING IF THEY JUST SIGN IT AND DON'T MEET THE REQUIREMENTS???
I love this! Ok, tell you what. I'm going to sign a peace treaty with your country, but I'm still going to keep shooting at your troops and bomb your cities. :headbang:

I made the simple observation that a treaty about global warming should apply to the greatest violators. I never said anything that could be reasonably read to mean that Chad should indeed be lauded, except in the extreme case I suggested in my reply.

Excellent! You agree we need to have the Chinese and Indians included then!

If most of planet is in favor of human extinction, I think I will have to be opposed to the sentiment of most of the planet.

Most of the planet is for their own progress. If you want to be blind to that, that's your own affair.

The courts determine what will happen, not what should happen. I do not particularly care what their opinions are, if the arguments used to justify them are bad.

So you're POV is always right. Cute.

I'm against both, for what it's worth. But the point is irrelevant, because even ignoring the issue of religion, ID still isn't scientific. Keep it out of biology classes.

You're entitled to that, of course.
And Evolution is a theory, not a law. Human science has been overturned many, many times before. Am I saying I don't belive in evolution? Hell no. That's foolish. What I am saying is that it is not the Holy Grail, either. Both science and religion are the same in at least one respect: both seek the truth about life and the world around us.

I have absolutely no idea how you derived that from what I said.

Simple: your postulate is that ID should not be allowed because it's obviously the government pushing religion. By that very same logic, the AAP is pushing favoritism for black people.

The courts are not infallible.

Yeah, but they're the best we've got. Sure, it took 14 years to get rid of Prohibition, but in general the Courts do well.

No, it doesn't mean anything of the sort. It means exactly what I said: that I disagree with the decisions of the European governments not to abide by the treaty just as I disagree with you.


Decisions? More like governmental inaction. It's not like France woke up last Tuesday and said "opps, gotta put some more ozone into the air!".

The problem is that Kyoto has its heart in the right place, but its head isn't.

That's true as well; the major problems with Mexico are its corruption and its poor education system, which have resulted in the declines in wages due to the displacement of rural workers that forced them in to low-wage urban jobs. The recession also didn't help; the bulk of wage losses occured due to it and have still not recovered. Overall, NAFTA may have been premature in its implementation in Mexico; the state simply wasn't fully prepared for the change.

Generally, Mexico needs to reform itself and we need to commit to labor standards in countries we liberalize trade with; NAFTA is by no means a perfect success, but it's a start.

Mexico has been "reforming itself" for decades now - in the wrong direction - at the behest of the sort of people behind NAFTA, and to the benefit of their interests.

The problem is that the people dictating these trade deals, and the economic phenomena involved in them, are not the populations participating, but elites with their own motives. Not many people are against globalization, except for hardcore nationalists, whose objections can be ignored. Especially in the Third World, the prominent complaints are not against globalization, but against globalization on certain terms - globalization which frees capital to do as it sees fit, whatever the costs, instead of globalization tied to meeting certain social goals.

I have no inherent problem with outsourcing. Outsource all you will - as long as outsourcing is not used as a pressure to drive down real wages worldwide, to the detriment of the vast majority of the population. There's no real comparative advantage to hiring cheap laborers in one country over hiring cheap laborers in another - unless in one of those countries the cheap laborers are being obstinate, and need to be taught a lesson about the evils of forming trade unions. What's going to stop that sort of thing, while labor regulations and effective labor movements are nation-based, and capital globalizes?

And what about places like the Indian state of Kerala and the nation of Cuba, that have managed to achieve First World, or near First World, standards of food, health care, and education, yet lag far behind in terms of GDP and per capita income? Why should they open their undoubtedly inefficient systems and lose such standards so that they can increase their growth rates? What if the population would rather have free health care and low infant mortality than cell phones and computers?

I do not know if globalization on the current terms is better than no globalization at all, but I don't think that's the choice. Other options are open to us, and they should be considered. At the very least, if we're going to globalize economics, let's globalize democracy as well, to the best of our capabilities.

Ultimately they agree on all the major issues. They both hate the welfare state, they both want to be "tough on terror", neither dares to criticise the military in any serious fashion (the whole "support the troops" thing).

The real reason that America has, in effect, one party is that the Democrats have allowed Republicans to frame the terms of every issue, which makes it impossible for them to state their position without being demonized, and have let their hunger for votes drive them to the strategies that they know work - those of the Republicans.

Democrats need to stand tall, and stop trying to convince the median that they are conservative enough to be safe. If Dems are confident and self-righteous and defend their stances like they believe in them they will recapture the support of the liberal base in this country, whose indifference has robbed the country of eight years of freedom. Liberals are disenfranchised. The Dems have become a centrist party at best (at least, as far as 'electable' candidates go), and third parties stand about as much chance as Paris Hilton would in Saudi Arabia. If Dems can come to actually represent their base, the vote will come out for them.

See, in American politics, it's not substance that matters...
it's size. as measured in media attention.

we may love the Green party...but, seriously, they will never make a difference.

The country may be polarized...but the parties running aren't. They represent Right (Dems) and Far-right (Reps).

The only hope for change is putting political power back in the hands of the left. which means Dems have to moveback to where they belong, politically speaking.

And that's all of why I plan to Vote for Christopher Walken in2008 (http://www.walken2008.com/)

Incidentally, I also believe that rather than voting for the president, we should vote for our region's elector. The electoral college is a sham right now; it's just a complicated way to do virtually nothing. However, if we elect our electors (as we SHOULD, living as we do in a representative democracy) then we are electing people who are not only of our party, but whose judgement we trust to pick the person best for the country. This would, I am convinced, remedy almost everything that is sick about our election practices - no more advertising, no more Supreme Court appointments to the presidency, no more asanine spectacles.

1) Huh? Can you point to a prolonged period of time where the wealth of the World DIDN'T go up?

Curbing growth is not equivalent to curbing GDP. Growth rates are the rates at which GDP increases, and a reduction means that GDP increases more slowly, not that it does not increase at all.

2) I have to guess what you mean? And you say I need to learn what growth means? Oh boy.

No, you don't. It was my mistake, not yours.

I merely pointed out that countries can and do advance from poor to rich. That's all. And if you want to talk about harm, the Treaty of Versailles did that nicely.

Yes, they do. We agree.

Why do you assume that %GDP=%pollution? I said %GDP=% MAX pollution.
For example, the US has more than tripled in value since the 70s, yet the environment is much cleaner. Trash no longer comes up on the shore of the beaches, the air is cleaner, etc.

True, but irrelevant.

No sane nation would ever CUT their economy. That's only an option for an armchair economist.

Environmental devastation chiefly has consequences in the long term, and many of them are not of the economic sort. Environmental regulation, by decreasing productivity, likely does hurt the economy, at least in the short term, but plenty of countries have regulated it anyway.

That's something called life. Since the first human made fire, we've been polluting.

It's the rates of pollution that matter, not the fact of pollution.


HOW THE HELL IS SOMEONE ABIDING TO SOMETHING IF THEY JUST SIGN IT AND DON'T MEET THE REQUIREMENTS???

"Someone" isn't. I said governments should abide by it, not are.

Excellent! You agree we need to have the Chinese and Indians included then!

Since we disagree on how to measure violations, no.

Most of the planet is for their own progress. If you want to be blind to that, that's your own affair.

I do not doubt that.

So you're POV is always right. Cute.

My own opinions are indeed independent of those of the courts, because I do not believe in having absolute faith in any other being.

You're entitled to that, of course.
And Evolution is a theory, not a law. Human science has been overturned many, many times before. Am I saying I don't belive in evolution? Hell no. That's foolish. What I am saying is that it is not the Holy Grail, either. Both science and religion are the same in at least one respect: both seek the truth about life and the world around us.

I don't disagree with any of that.

Simple: your postulate is that ID should not be allowed because it's obviously the government pushing religion. By that very same logic, the AAP is pushing favoritism for black people.

Yes, it is, to correct a (mostly) non-governmental system of prejudice and discrimination directed against them.

Yeah, but they're the best we've got. Sure, it took 14 years to get rid of Prohibition, but in general the Courts do well.

But my opinions need not coincide with those of the Courts, especially since my views need not coincide with those of the Constitution.

Decisions? More like governmental inaction. It's not like France woke up last Tuesday and said "opps, gotta put some more ozone into the air!".

No difference. When you commit to a treaty you should abide by it, and if you choose not to, even by inaction, that is still a decision.

""My point was and still is that the US was built on inequality, since you apparently are now claiming that you dont disagree with this I now have no idea what point of mine you do disagree with.... ""


please point out a country/society that has not risen to prominence on the shoulders of the oppressed or exploited...not to mention empires.

really,what was british or french colonialism?

what about rome,egypt..mesopotania?

let alone the african countries that had arab slaves,and sold slaves to the u.s. back in the day.

i am not saying you are wrong on some of your points,just that equating the u.s.'s success as any different then the history of the world seems to smack of...?

however,we do have certain parallels with rome..ie..we are multi cultured,multi ethnic and do not have a central religion(no matter how hard the bushovites try)and it did to some..not me..cause the collapse of rome.

egypt is another example.however...they did not have the globalism that is new to the world that we live or die by.

And that's all of why I plan to Vote for Christopher Walken in2008 (http://www.walken2008.com/)

What's left-wing about that guy's platform?

So do I.
The military is a socialist institution. It is based on the same "divided we fall, united we stand" utilitarian principles as are the police, public healthcare and education.

Under your previously stated principles, we would all have to depend on our own personal (inevitably meagre) firepower to defend ourselves from attackers and invaders.

please point out a country/society that has not risen to prominence on the shoulders of the oppressed or exploited...not to mention empires.
Neither here nor there so far as my comments are concerned.
In fact if your point is that the building of nations on inequality is common, then that simply supports my point by suggesting that it's not an unlikely happenstance in general.

i am not saying you are wrong on some of your points,just that equating the u.s.'s success as any different then the history of the world seems to smack of...?
I have suggested, implied or insinuated anything about how different the US's success are or are not (to other nations/societies/etc).

Vote Democrat. :)

There really isn't much you can do, at all. Just live with it and criticize fruitlessly.

Thats not true, you could always riot for political change. Speaking of which, a bloody coup d'etat might be a good last resort - its what Canada needs, god our government is crap over here.

Anyway, the point is, make yourselves heard. I mean, if the government is going to do something stupid, let them know. Voting doesn't neccessarily make things any better (we've got Stephen Harper as our Prime Minister :headbang: I'd rather be stuck with Paul Martin!). However, voting is a step in the right direction. The people should be ready and willing to protest, riot, do whatever it takes to let the government know that the decisions their making aren't the right ones. Of course, the people should also be knowledgable in Logic and reasoning, so that they can find for what the right decisions would be.